Provincial Cults During the Eighteenth Dynasty: a Dialectical Relationship Between Royal Patronage and Non-Royal Votive Activity

Provincial Cults during the Eighteenth Dynasty: A Dialectical Relationship between Royal Patronage and Non-Royal Votive Activity

Amber Hutchinson

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto

Provincial Cults during the Eighteenth Dynasty: A Dialectical Relationship between Royal Patronage and Non-Royal Votive Activity

Amber Hutchinson

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto

2019 Abstract

This dissertation examines the dialectical relationship between royal patronage and non- royal votive activity associated with provincial cults in Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty

(1550-1295 BC). The study focuses on the sites of Mendes, Abydos, Elkab, Elephantine, and Sai

Island, which represent a range of geographical regions from the Delta to Nubia. By analyzing architecture, material culture, pictorial evidence, and inscriptional data, this thesis incorporates an integrative approach to Egyptian history. The results of this research demonstrate that the sacred landscapes of Eighteenth Dynasty provincial towns delineated by royal cult institutions

(provincial cult temples, peripteral temples, and ka chapels) and festival processional routes enabled royal and non-royal individuals to partake in mutual interactions. Royal involvement in provincial cults solidified economic, administrative, and political ties throughout Egypt and allowed the king to benefit from perpetuating the cults of local deities by appeasing the gods that could grant him favor. A significant development in royal temple construction indicates that this activity was both influenced by local aspects of divine cults and further enriched the built environment of sacred landscapes. At the same time, non-royal individuals could display their social status and devotion to their local deities by participating in festival celebrations and by

leaving physical traces of their activity. This dissertation proves that traditionally assumed binary oppositions, or contrasts, between center and periphery, residence versus province, and state versus private religious systems can be moderated through careful analysis of the integration of

material remnants of royal and non-royal votive activity acting within specific historical and geographical settings.

iii

Acknowledgments

The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support and guidance of many individuals. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Mary-Ann Pouls

Wegner for her critical feedback, time, advice, and support throughout the proposal, writing, and editing stages of this thesis, and for providing me with the opportunity to partake in my first archaeological excavation in Egypt, which further spurred my love of Egyptology. It was a real privilege and honor for me to share of her exceptional knowledge. Second, I owe a great deal of gratitude to my thesis advisory committee members Prof. Ronald J. Leprohon and Prof. Katja

Goebs whose insightful comments, constructive criticisms, and words of encouragement helped propel the thesis to completion. I wish to thank Prof. Krzysztof Grzymski for his formative feedback and advice during the final stages. Much appreciation to my external examiner Prof.

Richard Bussmann of the University of Cologne whose own research inspired much of the theoretical framework and critical analysis of the material examined. His thought-provoking comments and positive reinforcement proved invaluable. Special thanks to Anna Sousa for her tireless efforts to ensure that all my documents were in order over the years and for her ever so friendly presence and kind words of council.

My graduate experience was further enriched by the long-lasting friendships made throughout my time at the University of Toronto. To Tracy Spurrier and Janet James who were with me to the end and shared many a laughter and tear. To my colleagues and friends at the

Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations, and especially to Christina Geisen, Silvia

Zago, Meredith Brand, Sarah Schellinger, and Nick Kraus for our many adventures together both inside and outside the classroom, and for your help with resources and providing a friendly and supportive work atmosphere. To Sana Chughtai, my roommate and friend, who was always so enthusiastic about my academic achievements and helped me see the bigger picture. To Candice iv

Gallinger and Edy Rodriguez for helping me take the occasional break from my work and for their friendships throughout the years. And finally, to my undergraduate friends Marion Warnica,

Megan Seres, Maryam Nizam, Karla Trewin, and Dana Baj-Loucks who started this post- secondary journey with me.

For my family, who has seen its share of ups and downs, I dedicate this dissertation to you. To my dad, Darryl, for always being excited about my unique field of study and for supporting whatever academic avenues I wished to pursue. To my step-mom, Barb, for lending a listening ear. To my step-brothers, Jason and Ryan, and their families. To my brother, Devin, for his witty humor and for being the first to call me “Dr. Jones.” To my sister and best friend,

Jocelyn, who will forever be my kindred spirit. Your courage and compassion inspire me every day. To my brother-in-law, Mike, and to my nephew, Kaden, and my niece, Scarlett, who are bundles of joy and love in my life. I am proud to be your aunt. To the memory of my brother,

Joel, who was always there to lend a helping hand and who bestowed words of wisdom beyond his years. I will always be grateful that I had the privilege of knowing such a kind and generous soul. Finally, to the memory of my mom, Janice, who raised me in a house full of love and support so that I could blossom and grow. I would not be where I am today without your encouragement, drive, and belief in my abilities, which propelled me to excel at anything I put hard work and determination into. This dissertation is your dream come true too and thus I dedicate it wholeheartedly to you.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Graphs ...... xii

List of Tables ...... xiii

List of Figures ...... xiv

List of Appendices ...... xviii

PART ONE: BACKGROUND ...... xix

Chapter 1 Introduction, Research Design, and Definitions ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Thesis Statement, Methodology, and Research Goals ...... 8

1.3 The Study Corpus ...... 11

1.4 Definitions...... 13

1.4.1 Royal and Non-Royal ...... 13

1.4.2 Structure and Agency ...... 14

1.4.3 State and Local Religion ...... 16

1.4.4 Votive Offerings ...... 17

Chapter 2 Review of Previous Scholarship ...... 20

2.1 Urbanism and Towns in ancient Egypt: Old Debates and Modern Approaches ...... 20

2.1.1 Investigations Prior to 1990 ...... 22

2.1.2 Modern Approaches: 1990 – Present ...... 30

2.2 Previous Investigations of the Nature and Historical Development of Provincial Cult Temples ...... 40

2.3 Temple, State, and Town during the New Kingdom ...... 49

2.3.1 Cosmologic and Economic Significance of New Kingdom Temples ...... 51

2.3.2 Expressions of Non-Royal Religious Practices and the Rise of Personal Piety ....56

2.4 Summary ...... 67

PART TWO: CASE STUDIES ...... 69

Chapter 3 Mendes (Tell el-Rubʽa) ...... 70

3.1 Historical Context and Site History ...... 70

3.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 101

3.2.1 Temple of Banebdjed ...... 101

3.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 105

3.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Mendes ...... 112

Chapter 4 Abydos ...... 114

4.1 Historical Context and Site History ...... 114

4.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 131

4.2.1 South Abydos ...... 133

4.2.1.1 Pyramid Complex of Ahmose II ...... 134

4.2.1.2 Pyramid of Queen Tetisheri ...... 137

4.2.1.3 Ahmose II’s Subterranean Tomb and Terrace Temple ...... 137

4.2.2 North Abydos: Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 140

4.2.2.1 Chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I ...... 140

4.2.2.2 Thutmosis III’s Building Program ...... 146

4.2.2.3 Temple of Thutmosis IV: Ka Chapel or Divine Temple? ...... 153

4.2.2.4 Architectural and Inscriptional Evidence for other Royal Constructions within the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 158

4.2.2.4.1 Thutmosis I ...... 158

4.2.2.4.2 Thutmosis II ...... 160

4.2.2.4.3 Hatshepsut ...... 162

4.2.2.4.4 Amenhotep III ...... 163

4.2.2.4.5 Buildings A and B ...... 164

vii

4.2.3 North Abydos: Votive Zone...... 168

4.2.3.1 Peripteral Temples of Thutmosis III ...... 169

4.2.3.2 Architectural and Inscriptional Evidence for other Royal Constructions outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 172

4.2.3.2.1 Hatshepsut ...... 172

4.2.3.2.2 Akhenaten ...... 174

4.2.3.2.3 Ay ...... 177

4.2.3.2.4 Horemheb ...... 177

4.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 178

4.3.1 South Abydos: Settlement Evidence ...... 178

4.3.2 South Abydos: Mortuary Evidence ...... 180

4.3.3 South Abydos: Non-Royal Votive Artifacts Associated with the Ahmose II Monuments ...... 182

4.3.4 North Abydos: Settlement Evidence ...... 183

4.3.5 North Abydos: Mortuary Evidence ...... 184

4.3.6 North Abydos: Non-Royal Votive Artifacts Found in the Osiris Temple Enclosure...... 187

4.3.7 North Abydos: Non-Royal Votive Artifacts Found in the Votive Zone ...... 191

4.3.8 North Abydos: Umm el-Qaʽab and Hekareshu Hill ...... 203

4.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Abydos ...... 206

Chapter 5 Elkab...... 211

5.1 Historical Context and Site History ...... 211

5.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 234

5.2.1 Main Temple Complex ...... 236

5.2.2 Peripteral Temple of Thutmosis III...... 241

5.2.3 Wadi Hilal: Peripteral Temple of Amenhotep III ...... 244

5.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 250

viii

5.3.1 Rock-Cut Tombs ...... 251

5.3.2 Rock Inscriptions ...... 254

5.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Elkab ...... 258

Chapter 6 Elephantine ...... 261

6.1 Historical Context and Site History ...... 261

6.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 289

6.2.1 Temple of Satet ...... 290

6.2.2 Temple of Khnum ...... 299

6.2.3 Peripteral Temple of Amenhotep III ...... 309

6.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 312

6.3.1 Blue Painted Pottery ...... 314

6.3.2 Rock Inscriptions ...... 319

6.3.3 Female Figurines ...... 323

6.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Elephantine ...... 334

Chapter 7 Sai Island ...... 340

7.1 Historical Context and Site History ...... 340

7.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 349

7.2.1 Temple A ...... 352

7.2.2 Building A ...... 355

7.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 357

7.3.1 Pharaonic Settlement ...... 358

7.3.2 New Kingdom Cemeteries ...... 367

7.3.3 Non-Royal Statuary ...... 371

7.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity on Sai Island ...... 372

PART THREE: SYNTHESIS ...... 377

Chapter 8 Provincial Cults in the Eighteenth Dynasty: Synthesis, Definitions, Provenience, and Parallels ...... 378

8.1 Introduction ...... 378

8.2 Comparison: Royal Patronage and Non-Royal Votive Activity at Five Sites ...... 380

8.2.1 Material Correlates of Royal Patronage ...... 380

8.2.1.1 Provincial Cult Temples ...... 383

8.2.1.2 Peripteral Temples ...... 392

8.2.1.3 Royal ka Chapels ...... 400

8.2.2 Royal Ancestors ...... 406

8.2.3 Material Correlates of Non-Royal Votive Activity ...... 420

8.2.3.1 Private Chapels ...... 421

8.2.3.2 Votive Offerings ...... 426

8.2.3.2.1 Figurines ...... 427

Humans ...... 428

8.2.3.2.1.1.1 Female ...... 428

Animals ...... 433

8.2.3.2.1.2.1 Ram ...... 433

8.2.3.2.1.2.2 Cow or Bull ...... 437

8.2.3.2.1.2.3 Vulture ...... 439

8.2.3.2.1.2.4 Cobra ...... 441

8.2.3.2.2 Vessels ...... 446

8.2.3.3 Inscribed Material ...... 456

8.2.3.3.1 Votive Stelae ...... 456

8.2.3.3.2 Statuary ...... 465

8.2.3.3.3 Rock Inscriptions ...... 474

8.2.4 Personnel ...... 483

8.3 Religious Activity, the Built Environment, and the Natural Landscape ...... 495

Chapter 9 Conclusion ...... 513

Abbreviations ...... 521

Bibliography ...... 523

Figures...... 638

Appendix A ...... 703

List of Graphs

Graph Page

Graph 6.1: Quantity of New Kingdom female figurines at Elephantine ...... 326

xii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 8.1: List of titles associated with New Kingdom stelae recovered from North Abydos during the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt from 1967-1969 ...... 462

Table 8.2: Quantity of New Kingdom rock inscriptions in the Wadi Hilal ...... 475

Table 8.3: Titles associated with New Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elkab ...... 477

xiii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1.1: Map of Egypt showing the Five Sites used as Case Studies...... 638

Figure 3.1: Site plan of Mendes showing main features and Field AL excavations ...... 639

Figure 3.2: Main temple mound of Mendes showing the location of Field AL excavations ..... 640

Figure 3.3: Old Kingdom temple and mastabas...... 641

Figure 3.4: Plan of Field AL with pottery deposits shaded ...... 642

Figure 3.5: Site plan of Mendes during the Late Period ...... 643

Figure 3.6: The temple of Banebdjed showing the Eighteenth Dynasty façade marked by letters C, D, E, and F...... 644

Figure 3.7: Redford’s reconstruction of the temple of Banebdjed in the Eighteenth Dynasty ... 645

Figure 3.8: Location of the tomb of Neferites I ...... 646

Figure 3.9: Royal activity at Mendes during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 647

Figure 4.1: Map of the main monuments of Abydos ...... 648

Figure 4.2: O’Connor’s sketch map of the Osiris Temple Enclosure from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period ...... 649

Figure 4.3: Mariette’s map of North Abydos...... 650

Figure 4.4: Garstang’s map of remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 651

Figure 4.5: General plan of the Middle Kingdom offering chapels at North Abydos ...... 652

Figure 4.6: Petrie’s plan of the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 653

Figure 4.7: Petrie’s Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure...... 654

Figure 4.8: Kemp’s reconstruction of the New Kingdom and later remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 655

Figure 4.9: Pouls Wegner’s reconstruction of the Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 656

xiv

Figure 4.10: Relief from the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I ...... 657

Figure 4.11: Relief fragment of Amenhotep I at Yale University ...... 658

Figure 4.12: Relief fragments of Thutmosis IV from the Osiris Temple Enclosure ...... 659

Figure 4.13: Early architecture beneath the Thirtieth Dynasty Osiris temple ...... 660

Figure 4.14: Relief block fragment with cartouches of Thutmosis II and Thutmosis III ...... 661

Figure 4.15: Architectural plan of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III ...... 662

Figure 4.16: Stamped mudbricks of Hatshepsut ...... 663

Figure 4.17: Amarna Period blocks ...... 664

Figure 4.18: Mud stopper seal of Horemheb ...... 665

Figure 4.19: Votive objects found associated with the “Portal” temple: ram heads and vultures ...... 665

Figure 4.20: Pottery cobras from the Workmen’s Village and North City at Amarna ...... 666

Figure 4.21: Cobra figurines from Kom Firin ...... 667

Figure 4.22: Reconstruction of the Eighteenth Dynasty royal monuments in North Abydos .... 668

Figure 4.23: Royal and non-royal votive activity at Abydos during the Eighteenth Dynasty .... 669

Figure 5.1: Topographical site map of Elkab ...... 670

Figure 5.2: Gold mining sites in the Eastern Desert ...... 671

Figure 5.3: Site plan of the Great Walls and interior walls ...... 672

Figure 5.4: Location and image of “Vulture Rock” ...... 673

Figure 5.5: Main Temple Complex: Stages of construction during the Eighteenth Dynasty ..... 674

Figure 5.6: Clarke’s early map of Elkab showing the New Kingdom temples ...... 675

Figure 5.7: Main Temple Complex: Stages of construction during the Ramesside Period ...... 676

Figure 5.8: Peripteral temple of Thutmosis III (top: the chapel as it looked during Napoleon’s visit; bottom: Quibell’s reconstruction) ...... 677

Figure 5.9: Wall scene of the barque of Nekhbet from the tomb of Setau ...... 678

Figure 5.10: Peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal ...... 679 xv

Figure 5.11: Locations of the rock inscriptions at Elkab (F, M, N, O, and W) ...... 680

Figure 5.12: Royal and non-royal votive activity at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 681

Figure 6.1: Site plan of Elephantine in the Old Kingdom ...... 682

Figure 6.2: Stages in the development of the temple of Satet ...... 683

Figure 6.3: Temple of Satet: stratigraphic profile (West to East) ...... 683

Figure 6.4: Temple of Satet: phases of development in the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties (top left: first temple of Intef II; top middle: second temple of Intef II; top right: temple of Intef III; bottom: temple of Mentuhotep) ...... 684

Figure 6.5: The sanctuary of Heqaib...... 685

Figure 6.6: The temples of Satet and Khnum during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 686

Figure 6.7: Ramesside sanctuary “Y” ...... 687

Figure 6.8: Relief blocks from the temple of Satet: a) Hatshepsut and Amun; b) Satet; c) barque procession of Satet and Anuket ...... 688

Figure 6.9: Temple of Satet during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 689

Figure 6.10: Temple of Khnum: reconstruction of Eighteenth Dynasty building phases: a) Hatshepsut; b) Thutmosis III; and c) Amenhotep II ...... 690

Figure 6.11: Two examples of blue painted pottery from Elephantine ...... 691

Figure 6.12: New Kingdom female figurines from Elephantine: 1) sandstone, no. 18554V/b-7; 2) clay, no. 6116d; 3) clay, no. 19607P/b-4; 4) faience, no. 26604Q/d-14; 5) lightly burned clay, no. 27605P/f-2; 6) faience, no. 3923; 7) clay, no. 18613A/a-5 ...... 692

Figure 6.13: House 55 ...... 692

Figure 6.14: Settlement phases BI – BXVI ...... 693

Figure 6.15: Royal and non-royal votive activity at Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 694

Figure 7.1: Map of Nubia showing the location of Sai Island and the extent of Egyptian occupation in the New Kingdom ...... 695

Figure 7.2: Site plan of Sai Island ...... 696

Figure 7.3: Temple A: distribution of foundation deposits of Thutmosis III ...... 697 xvi

Figure 7.4: Five stages of construction of temple A ...... 698

Figure 7.5: Reconstruction of temple A ...... 699

Figure 7.6: Site plan of the Pharaonic town on Sai Island ...... 700

Figure 7.7: Comparison of building A and the Governor’s residence SAF2...... 701

Figure 7.8: Human and animal figurines found in SAV1 North ...... 701

Figure 7.9: Royal and non-royal activity at Sai Island during the Eighteenth Dynasty ...... 702

xvii

List of Appendices

Appendix Page

A1. Mendes ...... 703

A2. Abydos ...... 704

A3. Elkab ...... 718

A4. Elephantine...... 721

A5. Sai Island ...... 730

xviii

PART ONE: BACKGROUND

xix

Chapter 1 Introduction, Research Design, and Definitions

1.1 Introduction

Throughout most of ancient Egyptian history, urbanism involved a network of cities and

towns situated along the Nile River, which was in theory administrated by one centralized government ruled by the king. Numerous smaller villages and settlements were also distributed along the Nile corridor and throughout the Delta. The nucleated settlement pattern consisted of larger towns surrounded by smaller villages (Hassan 1993: 552, 560-564; Bard 2008a: 166-168;

Moeller 2016: 14-26). However, there were differential settlement patterns in the Delta

compared to middle and southern Egypt. Towns were characteristically larger than farming

villages and acted as administrative nodes within their respective administrative division or

province (later termed “nome” by the ancient Greeks) (Helck 1974; Patch 1991; Bard 2008a;

Van De Mieroop 2011: 41; Moeller 2016: 17-20). Removed from the political capitals of the

state and the major administrative centers of the country, provincial town sites developed their

own unique political, economic, social, and religious histories, which are reflected in the

archaeological record and in textual and iconographical sources.

There was no one typical ancient Egyptian town and within a regional context each

provincial town had its own distinctive history (Jeffreys 2010; Criscenzo-Laycock 2015).

Provincial town sites thus offer an exceptional opportunity to examine social organization and

cultic activity at the local level. Provincial communities were first and foremost part of the

unified Egyptian state during most periods, but nevertheless retained a certain degree of

independence (Moreno García 2013a: 85-87, 91, 93-94, 109; Moeller 2016: 17-18); many

provincial centers, such as Abydos, display an unquestionable degree of royal investiture from an early date, especially in relation to their cultic institutions. As Seidlmayer points out, “towns developed through a dialectic process in the area of interaction between central organization and local communities” (1996a: 127). According to Seidlmayer, specific aspects of royal ideology were emphasized through the connections that individual rulers made with provincial cults. In

Upper and Lower Egypt, the Pharaonic state affected the lives of everyone, because the cult of the king provided an ideologically unifying foundation from at least the Early Dynastic Period onward (Baines 1995: 105; Van De Mieroop 2011: 39-41). Varying degrees of centralization had an impact on the level of independence provincial centers could attain (Seidlmayer 1996a: 115-

119; Bussmann 2011; Moreno García 2013a: 93-94; Moreno García 2013b: 1036-1041;

Bussmann 2016: 40).

Changes in the administrative structure of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty contributed to changes in the relationships of provincial centers to the state. According to

Shirley, administrative changes over the course of the Eighteenth Dynasty can be divided into four phases: a) early Eighteenth Dynasty through the reign of Thutmosis II; b) mid-Eighteenth

Dynasty from Hatshepsut through Amenhotep III; c) Amarna Period; and d) post-Amarna

Period/late Eighteenth Dynasty (2013: 522, 571). These changes were the result of shifting power structures between the king and the elite, and were connected to shifts in the location of the administrative centers of Egypt in the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Because Thebes was the base of the kings of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties

(Ryholt 1997: 151-183, 305; Bennett 2002; Grajetzki 2010: 305-312; Morenz and Popka 2010:

102-103, 106-108; Shirley 2013: 547-570), it continued to play an important role in the early

Eighteenth Dynasty and affected the administrative structure of the government. In addition,

towns connected to Thebes (Abydos to Elephantine), from which elite were appointed high

positions in the provincial and the central administration during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth

Dynasties (Franke 1985; Davies 2003: 5-6; Grajetzki 2009: 41; Shirley 2013: 556-561), remained important centers of powerful local families during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Davies

2009a; Davies 2010: 223; Shirley 2013: 575; Moreno García 2013b: 1037). For example, inscriptions in the tombs of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana and his descendants Pahery I, Heriry, and

Pahery II at Elkab attest to a close relationship between this family, the Theban administration, and the god Amun (Eichler 2000: 158-159, 271-272; Davies 2009a: 153; Shirley 2013: 581-582;

see §5.3.1). The significance of the Amun precinct at Thebes during the early Eighteenth

Dynasty, especially regarding its cults, which were central to the institution of kingship (Tobin

2001: 83-84), is reflected in the interrelationship between the civil and the religious administration in that the highest officials held titles in both realms (Eichler 2000: 211-212;

Haring 2013; Shirley 2013: 578). However, by the reign of Thutmosis II, Shirley notes, the

Amun precinct “began to develop its own administration separate from the central civil government” (2013: 578); there was a separate religious administration at Thebes.

A reorganization of the administration occurred in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty attested by the number of prominent officials connected to the Amun precinct and favored by Hatshepsut

(Shirley 2013: 582-583; Shirley 2014: 245). Two of Hatshepsut’s highest officials (Satepihu and

Ahmose-Pennekhbet) came from powerful Abydene and Elkabian families, indicating that

Hatshepsut was diligent in securing the support of provincial elite (Shirley 2014: 177-180).

According to Shirley, “Hatshepsut’s promotion of a variety of new and old elite follows a pattern seen throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty – subsequent kings also promoted or favored particular officials for one reason or another: personal connections, family ties, or even merit” (2014: 245).

Following her reign, however, Thutmosis III did not continue to promote administrators from the

Amun precinct, perhaps to restrict its power, as Shirley notes (2013: 584). Due to extensive

campaigning in the reign of Thutmosis III, officials stress their military careers rather than their

affiliation with Amun (Shirley 2013: 585-586). These changes provide evidence of the dynamic

relationship between the central administration, religious cults, and the power of elite within the

span of two reigns.

The central administration continued to develop in the reign of Amenhotep II when an official’s closeness to the king became preeminent, as expressed in titles such as “Child of the kap” (Shirley 2013: 586-589; Moreno García 2013b: 1041). Officials appointed under

Amenhotep II were commonly personal acquaintances of the king or from the king’s court, such as sons of tutors and nurses of the palace (Shirley 2013: 586-587). By Thutmosis IV’s reign, the connection between military endeavors and the status of elite diminished, but bureaucratic proficiency related to military administration, such as scribe of the army, came to the fore (Bryan

1991: 279-293; Shirley 2013: 589-591). Officials connected to Memphis, the administrative capital at this time, held high positions during the reign of Thutmosis IV, which may coincide with Thutmosis IV’s veneration of solar gods in the Memphite area (Bryan 1991: 141, 143-159,

243-244, 248, 255; Shirley 2013: 590-591). At the same time, Eichler notes that the duties of the high priests of Amun became decentralized – focused on religious matters, rather than civic or military administration (2000: 228).

Under the reign of Amenhotep III, established elite families from provincial towns were again prominent in high offices of the central administration. Examples include, Sobekmose from south of Thebes whose family was eminent in their local cult and held positions as military and treasury scribes (Helck 1958a: 403, 408, 511-512 nos. 8 and 9; Murnane 1998: 190; Shirley

2013: 593), and Khaemwast from the Delta who was overseer of the double granary and whose

father was a royal scribe and overseer of the houses of gold and silver (Helck 1958a: 389-390,

499 no. 8; Murnane 1998: 218; Shirley 2013: 593). In addition, established Memphite families

continued to hold important positions (Helck 1958a: 302-305, 442-443 no. 16; Murnane 1994b:

187-196; Murnane 1998: 194-195, 203, 213; Shirley 2013: 593-594). Generally, the identity of

the highest officials during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty was connected to their genealogical

affiliation with notable elite families (Shirley 2013: 593). Even during the reign of Akhenaten,

established officials who served under Amenhotep III retained important positions (Binder 2008:

243-244; Shirley 2013: 596-598).

In the Amarna Period, officials connected to the Amun precinct are not documented, but

in provincial towns high-status elite continued to retain local hereditary civil and religious titles

(Murnane 1995a: 47-49; Shirley 2013: 599-600, n. 245). Genealogical information about

Akhenaten’s officials is rarely known, but Akhenaten kept some of Amenhotep III’s officials in

power, which may have helped bolster his claim to the throne (see Shirley 2013: 596-600);

however, the relationship between elite officials and the king was adapted to Akhenaten’s

reforms, which tied “the identity and success of an elite…directly to the king and his favor”

(Shirley 2013: 600). The status of Akhenaten’s officials was connected to their association with

the king and the Aten.

In the aftermath of the Amarna Period, the power that certain elite officials (Ay and

Horemheb) gained under Akhenaten and Tutankhamun eventually led to their rule of the county

(Dodson 2009: 96-108, 110-134; Shirley 2013: 602-605; Shirley 2014: 245). Multiple family members from Akhmim, Thinis, and Armant held prominent positions during Tutankhamun’s reign (Kawai 2005: 335-340, 383-392, 460-472, 521-527, 589-590; Shirley 2013: 603-604).

Some of these individuals continued to serve under Ay and Horemheb (Shirley 2013: 604;

Shirley 2014: 245). With the reinstatement of temple cults, the civic and temple administration

were again staffed by individuals from notable provincial and military families (Shirley 2013:

605-606).

The foregoing discussion demonstrates that Egyptian core-periphery relations were dynamic over time. Elites could be resident in the provinces and serve the central administration from there. Auenmüller’s examination of New Kingdom provincial elite discourse indicates that

place of origin and functional duties of elites were important factors in elite self-presentation that

served as the backdrop in expressions of their personal relationship to the king (2013: 132-260;

2014: 179; 2015: 78). For example, mayors of provincial towns were often buried in local elite

necropoleis related to their place of origin or office, but some provincial mayors were buried in

the Theban necropolis due to their functional connection to Theban institutions, temples, and the

king (Auenmüller 2012: 21-25; Auenmüller 2013: 406-468; Auenmüller 2014: 179-180). In

addition, some elite tombs in the provinces belonged to administrators of the central government

that wanted to be buried in their hometown (Auenmüller 2014: 180-183). Non-elites also lived in

cities, including the regional capitals, their houses built around government buildings, including

the state temples.

Local cults were often the focus of royal interest expressed through the construction or restoration of the sacred landscape, of which cult temples were a part. Divine temples formed the core of cultic institutions at provincial sites and acted as the focal point of local communities.

Each community had its own patron deity who resided in a local shrine; from an early date, such

provincial cult temples were often surrounded by residential structures and formed the hub of the

town (Kemp 1977b: 186-196). During the New Kingdom, they provided a physical place where the god’s statue could be housed and approached by priests during rituals and where the town’s

people could participate in votive activity, especially during festivals. Cult temples were a part of

Egyptian sacred geography and were the inspiration for many material products (architecture, art, and texts) found within the culture of the provinces (Baines 1976; Finnestad 1985; Richards

1999). For the local community, votive activity conveyed non-royal personal devotion to local deities and collective identity. In the New Kingdom, individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds visited sacred areas and left physical evidence of their worship of deities – votive stelae, votive statues, votive pottery, small votive objects such as Bes amulets, model ears, and female figurines, rock inscriptions, and graffiti, for example (Pinch 1993: 83-322; Seidlmayer

2003; Kjølby 2007; Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 3-6; Waraksa 2009; Kjølby 2009; Kjølby 2012;

Seidlmayer 2013; Salvador 2016). This activity often expressed itself in subtle ways, and exploring it requires careful examination and interpretation of the archaeological record. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, a period of strong centralization, the provincial setting included the extensive political and religious programs of its ambitious rulers, who left their mark on provincial cult centers throughout Upper and Lower Egypt.

Provincial towns acted as centers of support and stability for Egypt’s political and administrative organization (Seidlmayer 1996a: 127); at the same time, state enterprise was important for the foundation of towns, especially in terms of building programs and architectural endeavors. This statement, however, does not promote the conclusion that traditional local structures were entirely replaced by state endeavors during the Eighteenth Dynasty. It was often the case that rather than being completely destroyed or replaced, earlier monuments at towns were restored and expanded upon by royal projects and thus maintained aspects of their original identity, as will be seen in the following chapters. In addition, many later constructions incorporated spolia from earlier structures, which likely had greater importance in terms of

incorporating elements of the past into renovated sacred structures.1 Only through careful

interpretation of the archaeological and inscriptional record and comparison of different

provincial sacred landscapes can the subtleties of this original and local identity be revealed.

The present work sets out to reanalyze a selection of such material and to determine the

character and extent of local votive expression at five provincial sites distributed across a wide

geographical area from Lower Egypt to Upper Nubia: Mendes, Abydos, Elkab, Elephantine, and

Sai Island. The methodology utilized centers on identifying and reexamining material evidence

of royal and non-royal votive activity in these sites during the Eighteenth Dynasty, including

archaeological, architectural, inscriptional, and iconographical data. This aim is to better

understand the role of provincial towns within their regional context and within the framework of

state organization and royal interests by examining the interaction between royal and non-royal

votive activity in association with provincial cults during the Eighteenth Dynasty, although

earlier and later materials will also be presented in order to contextualize the finds.

1.2 Thesis Statement, Methodology, and Research Goals

This thesis investigates the interaction between royal and non-royal activity associated with provincial cults during the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1295 BC)2 of ancient Egyptian history. This time period was primarily chosen based on the greater degree of preservation of temple remains compared to preceding periods and on the current state of scholarly research and

published excavation reports. The goal of this research was a reassessment of the archaeology,

1 See, for example, Björkman 1971; Murnane 1994a; Brand 2001; Gilli 2009: 89-110; and Brand 2010: 1-6. Amenemhat I incorporated hundreds of inscribed blocks from pyramid complexes at Giza and Saqqara to legitimize his rule (Goedicke 1971: 5-6).

2 The dates and chronology used in this dissertation were adopted from Shaw (2000: 479-483).

architecture, iconography, and textual data associated with sacred landscapes in the provinces

during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Part of this process involved, first, identifying and defining the

material. Evidence pertaining to royal activity at each site centered on royal building programs –

provincial cult temples, peripteral temples, and ka chapels3 – and their associated material

including an assessment of wall relief fragments, architectural elements, statue fragments,

foundation deposits, stamped bricks, seal impressions, and stelae fragments identified with

specific Eighteenth Dynasty kings. However, other elements of royal activity, such as evidence

relating to processional routes, sacred geography, and the relationship between kings and local

deities were also examined. Non-royal votive activity is divided by type and includes statue and

stelae fragments, human and animal figurines, votive pottery, rock inscriptions, and votive

chapels. This research aims to determine:

a) the nature of royal activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty;

b) the extent of architectural standardization and variation associated with Eighteenth Dynasty royal cult structures compared to preceding local and royal structures, as well as contemporary royal monuments; c) the nature of non-royal votive activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty, including identifying the types of objects donated, their functions, proveniences, and potential donors; and d) the degree of interaction between royal and non-royal votive activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

3 See definitions of each of these temple types in §8.2.1.

These aspects of votive activity might inform our understanding of the historical, social, political, religious, and economic situation during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

In order to address these issues, the material record of each site was thoroughly examined. Evidence of Eighteenth Dynasty royal activity was identified by the name and/or figure of the king on objects and architectural elements. In certain cases, the function of an item as a posthumous dedication by a later ruler was considered. Non-royal votive activity was primarily determined by provenience, usage context, comparison with parallel material in defined religious contexts and inscribed sources of a religious nature. The social identity of donors of non-royal votive material, including status, wealth, and gender was contingent upon inscribed names and titles. Determining the social identity of individuals who donated uninscribed religious material was ripe with challenges. §8.2.3.4 explores some of the methods for assessing social identity, including archaeological context, procurement, manufacture, and quality.

Each site chapter includes an extensive discussion of historical context and the socio- political conditions that influenced the development of each site. The patterns that can be observed at each site also contribute to our understanding of those social and political conditions.

A brief excavation history contextualizes the current state of research and the methodological analysis of its material culture. The development of local cults is situated within an examination of religious activity from the Early Dynastic Period through to the Ptolemaic Period. Some new maps of each site were adapted from earlier publications in Adobe Illustrator to document the location and extent of royal and non-royal votive activity and to provide an effective visual aide to observe and understand the essential components of the entire sacred landscape as a unit, and for easy site-to-site comparisons. Chapter 8 provides a synthesis and formal comparison of the

material examined in each site chapter, including definitions, parallels, and potential donors. A

more complete and detailed list of the royal and non-royal votive finds dated to the Eighteenth

Dynasty appears in the tables forming the Appendix, which includes museum or excavation

numbers when available and a list of references. The results of this research impact the scholarly understanding of royal temple development and design, and the dialectical interaction between royal and non-royal votive activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty. It interweaves religious, historical, social, and archaeological areas of ancient Egyptian studies.

1.3 The Study Corpus

Many provincial sites provide evidence for the remains of temple structures dating to

the New Kingdom. In fact, over fifteen provincial towns have temple remains dating to the

Eighteenth Dynasty, not including those located in Nubia;4 however, due to issues of

preservation and a lack of archaeological excavations and publications, many of these are not

easy to identify or reconstruct. Some are now situated in the midst of modern settlement sites of the floodplain, which makes it very difficult to conduct archaeological exploration of these areas.

Based on the current available information, the present study corpus includes a sample of five

sites which constitute the better-documented repertoire of Eighteenth Dynasty provincial cult

temples and represent a range of geographical regions extending from the Delta to Upper Egypt,

including one example from Nubia: Mendes, Abydos, Elkab, Elephantine, and Sai Island (see

Figure 1.1). This sample set was chosen in order to avoid geographical biases in the results while

the restriction to a certain time period – the Eighteenth Dynasty – is intended to focus the work,

facilitating a more productive comparative account of provincial temple cults for Egyptian state

4 For a brief summary of this material, see Wilkinson 2000: 100-215.

and society. Every effort was made to include the most representative and complete samples based primarily on the quality and extent of published research available. Older excavation reports were verified with newer publications to obtain the latest details of temple plans and descriptions. However, due to subsequent construction activity, sebakh mining, and general site disturbances, as well as the bias of early excavators preoccupied with large objects at the expense of small finds, and their inadequate recording methods, the analyzed evidence may not reflect the true scope of royal and, especially, non-royal activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty. The published material is not always entirely comprehensive or complete. This work is meant to be a foundation for further research in this area.

Both archaeological and textual sources have unique limitations and challenges in interpretation, yet greater insight can be revealed when they are combined and integrated in research. On their own, each source produces a single perspective, which often misrepresents the historic particulars of a given situation. The challenge and responsibility of the modern scholar is to provide a detailed and specific yet holistic and historically accurate description of the past that is not one-sided, but rather multifaceted. At the individual level, texts have traditionally reigned supreme in Egyptology, because the search for individual action and agency in the archaeological record often seems hopeless. Compared to the authors of texts, the archaeological record communicates agency less clearly. However, scholars today are in a much better situation to examine the lives of individuals due to advancements in archaeological interpretations and excavations. As a result, the desire to document individuals in the archaeological record has become more prominent (see §1.4.2 below). For the practice of religion, for example, votive offerings can provide particularly meaningful evidence not normally represented in the formal theology. They provide us with a basis to determine individual religious practices associated with temples.

1.4 Definitions

Several terms used in this dissertation warrant further discussion and definition of usage.

1.4.1 Royal and Non-Royal

In the present dissertation, the most general connotations of the terms royal and non-royal

are employed. The term “royal” refers to the king or queen who ruled Egypt for a specific time,

while “non-royal” refers to everyone else, including both “elites” and “non-elites.” The

traditional divide between these two spheres of identification in Egyptological literature,

however, often perpetuates notions of a strict dichotomy, when in reality the situation is more

complex and ambiguous. As Cahail notes in his recent reassessment of these terms, “the problem

lies in labeling individuals closely associated with the king, such as the queen, princes, and his

other extended family members. While these individuals were not rulers themselves, they were

associated with the Pharaoh closely enough to have had access to objects, wealth, and concepts

withheld from the rest of society” (2014: 6). Models of the structure of administration during the

Eighteenth Dynasty need to account for the fact that there was fluidity and overlap in the

bureaucracy regarding organizational branches (civil, military, religious, and so on) and the

relationship between close acquaintances of the king and powerful families (see Cruz-Uribe

1994: figs. 3.7-3.10; Shirley 2005; Shaw 2008; Shirley 2013: 572-575; Moreno García 2013a:

93-94; Moreno García 2013b: 1036-1041). As discussed above, Shirley’s research demonstrates

that each Eighteenth Dynasty king adapted the administrative structure, but retained the

traditional framework of the bureaucracy.

This thesis relies on titles of individuals as an indicator of status, wealth, and gender in

Egyptian society and related to that of access (or not) to certain prerogatives relevant in the

context of temple construction, maintenance, and use. However, as Richards notes, titles used by

scholars to discuss administrative functions may not represent a “true function with associated

access to power and wealth” and many individuals did not hold or record government titles

(2005: 23). The traditional social pyramid scheme that has been used to describe the bureaucracy

and social structure of ancient Egypt from king, to priest, to scribe, to administrator, to laborer

(see, for example, O’Connor 1983: 208), does not account for more complex interactions

between the king and his subordinates, including individuals who held a range of different titles

and the potential for private wealth (Kemp 1983: 80-85; Baines and Yoffee 1998; Richards 2005:

23; Van De Mieroop 2011: 64-66, 177-180). Furthermore, Shirley reiterates that it is often

difficult to determine the specific level of government (household, local, or central) to which a

title is associated, and that duties often overlapped (2013: 525-526, 575). Another issue arises

from the absence of textual evidence when trying to identify social status in the archaeological

record, as based on our preconditioned notions of material correlates of “royal,” “elite,” and

“non-elite.” Such distinctions of class based on modern terminology may not always be clearly

defined in the archaeological record.

1.4.2 Structure and Agency

The focus on the individual in the archaeological record has been present in

anthropological theory since the 1970s (Bourdieu 1977), and seems to be gaining more

momentum in recent years. In anthropological and sociological circles especially, a growing

body of research has become dedicated to the identification and analysis of individual agency

(Dobres and Robb [eds] 2000; Barrett 2001; Gardner [ed] 2004; Osborne and Tanner [eds] 2007;

Sztompka [ed] 2015). Well known proponents of this approach include several grand theorists who have tried to present the analytical complexity of society in a unified picture (Giddens 1984;

Alexander 1988; Bourdieu 1990; Archer 1988; Archer 1995; Mouzelis 1995; Sztompka 1991;

Ritzer and Goodman 2004). Even Egyptology, which has tended to shy away from

anthropological theory, has witnessed a greater number of scholars who have turned their

attention in this direction (Vischak 2006; Kjølby 2007; Nyord and Kjølby [eds] 2009; Kjølby

2009; Smith 2010; Kjølby 2012; Weiss 2015: 15-19; Bussmann 2016: 44-47). Rooted in the

argument between “individualism” and “holism” in the social sciences, the notion of the

“individual” can refer to the mental processes of individual persons, a physical state, a type of

behavior, action, interaction, and social relationships (Ritzer and Gindoff 2015: 11-13). The

impact of individuals on social concepts and phenomena and vice versa is integrated into the

structure-agency debate. “Structure,” in its most general formulation, refers to the macro-level of

enduring features of society, such as institutions or organizations that provide the background

against which society functions, while “agency” refers to the micro-level of human activity and

the individuals who maintain, change, or reject the structures of the society in which they are

embedded.

Early scholars of Egyptian history, however, tended to ignore the everyday actions of men and women who shaped a society, while emphasizing the power of the state and elite in controlling events. These studies have traditionally made “boundary” assumptions that limit their scope and that separate structure and agency, residence and province, royal and non-royal, core

and periphery. In Egyptology, the term “provincial” is in keeping with traditional and perhaps

outdated definitions that seek to provide distinctions between the culture of the residence and the

culture of the provinces. Ideas of this nature have in part been informed by theories about the

degree to which the state was involved in the administration of provincial towns and the degree

to which it invested in local cult institutions over time (Kemp 1989: 65-83; Assmann 1991: 16;

Kemp 2006: 111-135; Bussmann 2016: 37-40, 42-44). These early models thus focus on the

unifying aspects of sacred kingship and the cultural social cohesion of Egyptian civilization, but

what are the historical implications? The new movement embedded in the “structure” and

“agency” debate in social theory is really a search for synthesis and multidimensional positions that view society from a “bottom-up” approach at the micro-level (Ritzer and Gindoff 2015: 3-

13).

This dissertation stresses the complementarity of structure and agency, recognizing that social structure influences human actions, while individual activities can similarly influence social structure in a relationship of mutual exchange. The combination of archaeological, textual, and iconographic evidence can help us to better understand this relationship by emphasizing new interpretations. Archaeology offers a mode of exploring individuals by means of everyday material objects, providing access to a wider repertoire of social history because the illiterate populace can be incorporated in the sample studied. The general stance taken in this dissertation follows the sentiment expressed by Smith that “since, however, individuals produced the archaeological record, it should be possible to make inferences about individual behavior based upon a careful consideration of archaeological context” (2010: 173-175). The emphasis should be placed on localized social contexts.

1.4.3 State and Local Religion

Concepts of “state religion” and “local religion” are intricately tied to notions about the culture of the “residence” and “province” and the issues that these terms convey (see above).

However, they are included in the present dissertation as distinct terms to refer to the role that specific deities held at either the state or local level. Specific gods were more closely tied to the king and state during specific periods of ancient Egyptian history. The ambiguity of these terms arises chiefly because some local cults developed into national institutions as a result of the rise in importance of a particular cult center in later periods. For example, in the Middle Kingdom,

Amun was worshipped as a local god at Thebes (Arnold 1974b: 33), but by the New Kingdom he

had become a supreme god of national importance with one of the most prominent religious centers (David 2007: 107).

In this dissertation, the term “local” in the context of religion refers to the patron deities and religious practices of provincial towns. Contrarily, the term “state” in the context of religion refers to the patron deities and religious practices of the capital cities, which, in the Eighteenth

Dynasty, include Memphis, Amarna, and Thebes. However, the distinction between local and

state religion at certain New Kingdom provincial sites is not entirely apparent because increased

royal investment in specific provincial cults likely indicates that certain local deities were being

subsumed into royal ideology. In particular, the cult at Abydos was heavily centered on central

concerns since the late Old Kingdom when the local god Khentyimentiu became integrated with

Osiris, an important state god at the national level (Griffiths 1982a; Wegner 1996a: 48).

Furthermore, the cult of royal ancestors at Abydos was explicitly linked to the mythical

connection between Osiris and Horus and the establishment of divine kingship through the

succession from father to son (see §8.2.2), both of which impact the degree to which Abydos

may be considered a provincial cult center in the New Kingdom.

1.4.4 Votive Offerings

The general definition of the term “votive offering” herein follows Pinch’s use of the

phrase as a “gift to a deity” (1993: 1) but expands this characterization to include other figures of

religious devotion, such as deified individuals, as well as contexts that evoke a deity or a

sacred/supernatural element for some other purpose, such as health related rituals. For example,

the governor of Elephantine, Heqaib, was worshipped in the Middle Kingdom (Kemp 1995), the

Great Sphinx at Giza became the focus of veneration in the New Kingdom (Hassan 1953: 32-50),

and royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings were a subject of devotion (Keller 1995; see Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 3-4). Votive offerings are physical objects made for, dedicated to, and/or accompanying acts of religious worship (Baines 1991: 182-183; Pinch 1993: 339; Pinch and

Waraksa 2009: 2). Such objects include: a) representations of deities or divine images on votive stelae, textiles, and plaques, and as human and animal figurines, including sacred animal mummies; b) cult items such as ceramic vessels and model sistra; c) objects traditionally associated with human fertility such as naked female figurines and votive phalli; and d) items of personal adornment including jewelry, rings, scarabs, and amulets (Pinch 1993: 83-322, 354-

355; Stevens 2006: 27-213; Wuttmann, Coulon, and Gombert 2007; Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 5-

6). Most votive items have been associated with non-royal activity, but there could be royal votive activity as well, which is included among the evidence for royal investment in local temples. Material culture like the faience plaques inscribed with the names of Pepy I and Pepy II in the Old Kingdom temple of Satet at Elephantine (Dreyer 1986: 148-152, nos. 428-447), foundation deposits (Weinstein 1973: lxix-lxx), and perishable materials such as foodstuffs for festival occasions in New Kingdom temple contexts all represent gifts that the king could give to deities and use in ritual contexts.

The practice of dedicating votive objects was an important component of Egyptian religion. In the archaeological record, votive offerings such as human and animal figurines, plaques, amulets, strings of beads, and miniature vessels have been found as early as the Early

Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom in local provincial temples (Dreyer 1986: pls. 24-31; Kemp

2006: 111-128; Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 2, 5; Bussmann 2010: 211-430). The function of votive objects as religious artifacts is attested by their recovery from domestic shrines and funerary cults in addition to temple contexts (Pinch 1993: 218; Keller 1995; Davies 2007; Pinch and

Waraksa 2009: 3-4). Furthermore, there were changes over time in the use and placement of such

objects (see Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 2-4), which may correspond with changes in religious display and decorum (Baines 1990: 6-23; Baines and Frood 2011: 16-17). In the New Kingdom, the analysis of votive offerings associated with state-run temples provides crucial information about non-royal access to and participation in temple cults (Stevens 2006: 17-19). Votive offerings are thus highly significant in this dissertation in order to better understand the relationship between state and private religious activity.

Chapter 2 Review of Previous Scholarship

2.1 Urbanism and Towns in ancient Egypt: Old Debates and Modern Approaches

“Many general features and details of a civilization can be known only if we have an intimate knowledge of its towns and their associated finds” (Bietak 1979: 105).

The term ‘urbanism’ is not new to literature in Egyptology, yet this area of research has

received relatively little attention within the academic community focused on the study of

ancient Egypt as compared with other ancient complex societies in the Near East, such as

Mesopotamia, where the shift from village communities to urban centers has been the focus of a greater volume of scholarly research (Childe 1950; Adams 1966; Adams and Nissen 1971;

Adams 1972; Crawford 1972; Nissen 1972; Oates 1972a, 1972b; Young 1972; Nissen 1988;

Postgate 1994; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003; Cowgill 2004; Yoffee 2005; Cooper 2006;

Algaze 2008). Part of this neglect is due to consequences of circumstance, such as the difficulties involved in locating and accessing ancient settlements for archaeological investigation in Egypt.5

Most settlement sites are situated on the floodplain of the Nile and have continued to be occupied until the present day, making excavation difficult. Other ancient sites have been destroyed by changes in the course of the Nile over the centuries. In contrast, sites located in the deserts

5 See Moeller’s discussion of problems concerning the preservation of ancient Egyptian settlements (2016: 53-57).

adjacent to the floodplain, typically cemeteries and mortuary monuments, have remained more

accessible to archaeological investigation and have therefore received more attention from

archaeologists as well as antiquities collectors. Materials from such sites are generally well-

preserved, adding to the interest in desert areas that typified early archaeological strategies.

Another reason for the general lack of literature on ancient Egyptian urbanism has to do

with shifting ideologies about theoretical categories of investigation. Egyptology has tended to

concentrate on philology, art history, and political history while shying away from

anthropological research and theory. Egyptologists have frequently been engrossed by texts and

images (mainly from mortuary or religious contexts) to recreate historical accounts, a bias which

has proven problematic. Furthermore, much of the published work on ancient Egyptian cities

deals with the Greco-Roman Period (see Rathbone 1994: 136-145; Gates 2003; Mueller 2006;

Blouin 2014). These sources also rely heavily on textual data, although they take into account the available archaeological evidence.

Many early works, which argued for the non-urban character of ancient Egypt (Wilson

1960; Helck 1975; see below), did not mention archaeological material. Despite the recognition

of the importance of settlement archaeology by some early excavators working in Egypt, such as

Brunton and Caton-Thompson (1928), only fairly recently have archaeologists begun to concentrate their efforts on excavating domestic architecture and town sites (Kemp 1977b;

Bietak 1979; Bietak 1981; Wenke et al. 1988; Kemp and Garfi 1993; Seidlmayer 1996a; Adams

1998; Wegner 2001; Moeller 2003; Quirke 2005; Lehner and Wetterstrom [eds] 2007; Moeller

and Farout 2007; Lehner 2011; Bietak 2010b; Forstner-Müller 2010; Moeller 2010; Moeller

2017; Moeller and Marouard 2018);6 however, more often than not, results are not published readily. As a result, details concerning the layout and spatial organization of settlement sites, whether towns or villages, provincial capitals or cities, have been lacking. Today’s publications have come a long way to rectify this problem with increasing scholarly interest in Egyptian towns and the more ordinary aspects of Egyptian life, but gaps in knowledge continue to persist.

Recently, Moeller (2016; see discussion below) has provided a comprehensive analysis of urbanism from the Predynastic Period through the Middle Kingdom that is site specific and ripe with archaeological material. In order to review the development of approaches to the study of urbanism and of Egyptian rural life in Egyptology, the following section is divided into two phases: before and after 1990. This research provides the backdrop for subsequent sections of this chapter which delve deeper into a major component of Egyptian town life – provincial cult temples and private religion.

2.1.1 Investigations Prior to 1990

The focus on philology and history caused many early Egyptologists to believe that ancient Egypt did not leave behind stratified town sites or cities. In 1958, in a paper presented at a symposium held at the University of Chicago, John A. Wilson referred to ancient Egypt as a

“civilization without cities” (1960: 135), a phrase which has come to epitomize early scholarly opinion. Wilson’s statement was primarily based on a comparison of Egypt with Mesopotamia, where cities were essential to the formation of states. Egypt, by contrast, thus Wilson argued, did not have cities of independent activity, except during the intermediate periods (1960: 127). His idea was that Egypt had agricultural villages, but no settlement that could be termed a city in

6 For an overview of the history of settlement archaeology in Egypt, see Moeller 2016: 31-38.

accordance with modern definitions of the word. Wilson focused on the small size and impermanence of Egyptian towns and claimed that these did not develop into large cities because the system lacked a strong and cohesive centralized force: “There was no eternal city, no Rome, which could exhibit such strong polarity that it became the inevitable center of government, religion, commerce, art, and science” (1960: 135). Wilson’s contention was that Egypt was an exception to the idea that early states were urban. He argued that Egyptian capitals were largely temporary and of small size:

Memphis-Sakkarah, Abydos, and Thebes had extensive temples and cemeteries, but there is no evidence that any of them was and continued to be a large and active metropolis of commercial and intellectual life. Ancient Egypt carried on her life through dozens of moderate-sized towns and myriads of agricultural villages. It is legitimate to say that for nearly three thousand years, until the founding of Alexandria, ancient Egypt was a major civilization without a single major city (Wilson 1960: 135).

Wilson moreover relied on textual evidence for specific terms only, and such sources that seemingly demonstrated that there was nothing which resembled the “legal personality of cities”

(1960: 127), ignoring archaeological material. Thebes and Memphis were not to be considered proper cities on account of the lack of archaeological evidence for extensive settlements (Wilson

1960: 164).

Following Wilson’s line of thought, Wolfgang Helck, in 1975, published a volume on the development of Egyptian communities that disregarded any role that towns may have played.

Helck argued that the Nile provided the ancient Egyptians with accessible short-distance trade and transportation and that the geographic position of Egypt enhanced security so much that there was no need for large towns or cities:

Es war bereits eingangs darauf hingewiesen worden, daß in Ägypten die Stadt als Zentrum der Kultur nicht vorhanden war. Zwar gab es in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit im Westdelta

einige wenige Orte, die aus Fischerdörfern entstanden zum Endpunkt des Handels mit Vorderasien und wohl auch schon Anatolien und Kreta geworden waren, aber diese Orte verlieren letztlich am Ende der 3. Dynastie ihre Bedeutung (Helck 1975: 107).

According to Helck, the settlement pattern of early Egypt consisted of small dispersed dwellings

that were not enclosed and only priests and officials settled around the temples during the Old

Kingdom (1975: 108-109). Like Wilson, Helck based his theories on textual and iconographic

evidence, disregarding any reference to archaeological material and ignoring archaeological

implications.

Following Helck’s work, in 1977, the prominent Egyptologist Barry J. Kemp set out to

counter Helck’s and Wilson’s arguments by examining archaeological and inscriptional features

at the temple sites of Abydos, Edfu, and Memphis (1977a). Kemp’s inaugural work was one of the first major attempts at a systematic examination of urban settlement sites in Egypt. By documenting and recording the ceramic material associated with architectural features at various sites, Kemp proved that walled cities date back to the foundations of the Egyptian state. For example, Kemp demonstrated that a walled town existed at Abydos from at least the Second

Dynasty and discovered early town walls associated with an accumulation of domestic architecture and pot sherds from the Old Kingdom at Tell Edfu (1977a: 189-190). Likewise, in

Thebes, Kemp determined that the great temple complex was built over a stratified town (1977a:

195-196).

By demonstrating that there were walled settlements in ancient Egypt, Kemp paved the way for reevaluation of urbanism in the Egyptian context. While he recognized that the record may have varied locally and that the “mechanics of early urbanization are still barely understood” (Kemp 1977a: 198), he ultimately demonstrated that walled towns have existed in

Egypt since early times. Kemp’s insightful publication shifted the focus of scholarly research and introduced a new era of urbanism studies built on the recognition that Egypt did indeed have towns. He proved that ancient Egypt was an urbanized society and he relayed the importance of using archaeological evidence to answer research questions in Egyptology. Kemp’s work was the real turning point for studies of urbanism in ancient Egypt. Kemp’s reworked discussion of town sites in the revised edition of Anatomy of a Civilization continues to stress the importance of perimeter walls in shaping the internal layouts of Old Kingdom towns, including the alignment of buildings and streets (2006: 193-200, 203). His analysis questions modern definitions about the size of ancient settlements, since many modern towns are larger than towns in ancient Egypt.

The focus of Kemp’s chapter is on identifying and analyzing what he terms “model communities” referring to an ordered and controlled “tradition of architectural planning,” such as

Old Kingdom pyramid towns, the Middle Kingdom towns of Kahun and Thebes, and Nubian fortresses, representing state-organized life and structured society (2006: 201-241).

Just prior to Helck’s and Kemp’s early publications, however, the most notable volume that attempted to combine studies of urbanism and settlement from a variety of perspectives was

Man, Settlement and Urbanism (Ucko, Tringham, Dimbleby [eds] 1972), which contains several excellent essays by some of Egyptology’s greatest ‘urban’ specialists (Kemp 1972a: 651-656;

Kemp 1972b: 657-680; O’Connor 1972: 681-698; Smith 1972: 705-720), and is still useful today. Topics covered include the relationship between temple and town, the geography of settlement, and society and settlement in ancient Egypt. The book encompasses studies about settlement patterns in Egypt, South Africa, South America, the Aegean, and Mesopotamia. The following section provides a brief overview of the main essays on ancient Egyptian urbanism in this volume.

In his essay entitled, “Fortified Towns in Nubia,” Kemp determined the extent to which

Egyptian town planning was reflected in Egyptian forts in Nubia (1972a: 651). He discovered

that New Kingdom towns were arranged in a square with a rectangular enclosure wall encircling

a town that was uniform in plan and based around a grid system. In Kemp’s article, there is a hint

at the direction this type of urban research would later take, when he states: “Little excavation

has been conducted outside temple enclosure walls in Egypt but...one must probably envisage

extra-mural settlements spreading around and engaging in economic activities both with the

temple and with independent or semi-independent centers within themselves” (1972a: 653-654).

These temple-centered towns formed the backbone of urbanism in Egypt. In fact, Kemp’s second essay in the volume focused on this issue when he examined the economic relationship between temples and urban communities in the New Kingdom using textual and archaeological sources

(1972b). Kemp reconstructed the features of a typical New Kingdom temple economy and examined two different types of temple town sites – those sites where the temple was founded on sterile land and was the basis for the town’s establishment, and those sites where the temple was part of a larger independent community (1972b: 660-677). This work has made a valuable contribution to the field and will be discussed in more detail below.

David O’Connor disputed the prior notion that Egypt had no cities by defining

“urbanism” more broadly in order to fit Egyptian types of settlements (1972: 683). His main

argument was that the evidence for town mounds identifies urban settlements, referenced as

important centers in textual sources, even though most of these settlements have been largely

destroyed. Based on town lists and papyri, O’Connor concluded that Upper Egypt consisted of a

network of major towns, which acted in the interests of the centralized government (1972: 688).

During the Middle and New Kingdoms, nome-capitals were key centers of provincial administration and collected state taxes, but during periods of political decentralization, a greater

number of towns may have become more independent. By analyzing the distribution of plots and

settlement patterns listed in the Wilbour Papyrus, O’Connor was able to determine the relative

importance of major towns throughout Middle Egypt (1972: 690-691). Surrounding these towns,

populations clustered due to government policy and personal preference, creating a settlement

pattern that incorporated both large, nucleated towns and smaller associated towns and rural

villages. Individuals may have been drawn to towns for a number of reasons. O’Connor

suggested that one of those reasons was access to services produced by higher authorities, such

as important documentation and court judgements, as well as private commercial exchanges

(1972: 695).

Finally, the work of Harry S. Smith (1972) contributed a sociological approach by

focusing on social organization and the workforce to gain insight into the nature of Egyptian

towns and villages. Smith examined textual sources, such as legal documents, to determine the

history of town properties and the function of different living quarters (1972: 706-710). He discovered that, over time, domestic houses separated into units that were occupied by unrelated families. Within the context of urban research, Smith’s work provided a unique perspective of the usefulness of textual evidence in examining the internal social dynamics of urban society in

Egypt. His analysis of textual and pictorial data at Deir el-Medina identified individual alterations within private houses, even though the living quarters of the village were provided by the state and erected under its authority (Smith 1972: 710). The front rooms of homes, for example, were often used as shops, and houses were continuously altered, augmented, and restored. Smith is the only Egyptologist in the volume to consider urbanism in terms of the relationship between state and private endeavors.

Karl Butzer, who is best known for his book entitled, Early Hydraulic Civilization: A

Study in Cultural Ecology (1976), similarly used textual sources to create a comprehensive list of cities, towns, villages, and fortresses in ancient Egypt. His work filled a gap in research that called for a more systematic study of settlement distribution in Egypt. Using both archaeological and textual sources, Butzer compiled a list of settlement types extending south of Cairo to the

First Cataract (1976: 59). Anthropological approaches to settlement geography and spatial archaeology provided the impetus for Butzer’s research, which analyzed the economic and demographic developments of the Egyptian state. Butzer created a methodology involving three factors that need to be considered when dealing with settlement geography and settlement archaeology. These include: a) micro components represented by houses and other structures; b) meso components represented by the internal aggregation of farm complexes and agricultural villages; and c) macro components represented by the interaction of settlements in their spatial and hierarchical order (Butzer 1984: 924). Thus, he established an all-encompassing program of research for analyzing and examining settlements in his attempt to determine the function and role of Egyptian towns, a topic that is continually being reinvestigated by modern scholars.

In 1977, Kemp returned to the issue of settlement excavation once again in the article,

“The City of El-Amarna as a Source for the Study of Urban Society in Ancient Egypt” (1977b), which focused on urban development at the site of Amarna. Amarna may not have been representative of a typical Egyptian town, because it was a single-period site that was briefly occupied. However, Kemp convincingly argued that the site can be used as a contrast to the

‘normal’ shape of towns (1977b: 125). At Amarna, there was an important development in urban history in the New Kingdom – the establishment of new sites on sterile ground accompanied by the absence of a government-controlled housing layout. Kemp focused on domestic architecture and graphically compared the range of house sizes located in the North Suburb of Amarna to

houses found at Deir el-Medina and Kahun in order to determine the degree of regularity between house size and number, which is not dependent upon premediated planning (1977b:

129-130). He discovered that the greatest deviations occurred with the large house sizes. Kemp’s research provided a unique examination of city plans and the use of space that incorporated graphic plots and scientific analyses.

Unlike the cited scholars, Manfred Bietak focused on defining difficulties associated with urban archaeology in his 1979 study, “Urban Archaeology and the Town Problem” (1979: 97).

During this time, the study of urbanization and towns was increasing in popularity, but Egypt was still not well represented in scholarly discussions. Urban archaeology was beginning to become more prominent in Egyptological circles; however, the lack of archaeological excavations and unearthed townsites prevented extensive research. Based on the limited evidence available, Bietak established a set of nine defining characteristics of towns in order to locate and identify urbanism in ancient Egypt (1979: 103). By examining the available archaeological evidence for domestic architecture at several sites, including Abydos, Elkab, Edfu, Giza,

Hierakonpolis, Lahun, and Tell el-Dabʽa, Bietak discovered that little information could be gleaned from the Old Kingdom, since structures from this time period are generally buried below modern occupation levels (1979: 115). However, during the New Kingdom Period, Bietak observed that temple towns became powerful centers and were the main feature of Egyptian urbanization (1979: 131). Bietak’s research focused solely on the archaeological record in order to prove that Egypt had towns that could be defined by modern standards. His analysis brought awareness of the usefulness and benefits of urban archaeology in Egyptology and laid the groundwork for future research in this area.

2.1.2 Modern Approaches: 1990 – Present

Modern approaches to the study of urbanism and towns in ancient Egypt have generally

followed the stance laid out by Kemp in 1977a that textual and archaeological sources need to be

combined to provide an accurate and holistic picture of settlements. With the onset of more

extensive archaeological excavations and inquiries since the 1990s, there has been an increase in

the amount of material evidence readily available for study, although there are still large gaps in

our present knowledge. Nevertheless, modern studies have extended the scope of urbanism

research to include a range of settlement types and population centers. As a result, the dividing

categories about what constitutes a city, town, and village have become more integrated to

include this wider breadth of types. The goal for the present-day researcher is to examine each site in and of itself with its own set of individual and unique properties. Avoiding overgeneralizations is a very real and modern concern. The following section aims to examine some of these more recent approaches to the study of urbanism in ancient Egypt and to provide an overview of the significant literature published on this topic.

In her PhD dissertation, Diana Craig Patch (1991) investigated the origin and development of urbanism by examining changes in macro settlement systems in the Abydos-

Thinis region of Upper Egypt. By mapping and surveying data from select settlement and cemetery sites in this region from 1982-1983, Patch set out to identify regional settlement patterns that reflect local population distribution from the Predynastic Period through the Old

Kingdom. In conjunction with archaeological and inscriptional evidence from other regions,

Patch developed a model for the rise of state society and unification in Upper Egypt (1991: 358-

361). Prior to her dissertation, except for a 1958 survey,7 archaeological research focused on

examining specific town types and plans with no exploration of macro settlement patterns. Patch

analyzed shifts in population size, distribution, and integration in order to provide evidence for

the cultural evolution from pre-state to state-level society in ancient Egypt. Her research

indicated that within the Abydos-Thinis region, settlement location was chosen based on

available cultivable land and needs for funerary rituals (Patch 1991: 358). Little change was

noted in the size of regional settlements, although the functions of certain settlements were

distinct, and from the late Naqada II period into the Middle Kingdom, there was little variation in

settlement size. This study is important for identifying and tracing potential factors that

contributed to the unification of early Egypt. Patch’s discovery that regional populations were

generally low between Naqada I and late Naqada II phases (1991: 359-361) challenges theories of population competition and warfare (see Helck 1974: 49ff; Trigger 1985: 347) for the rise of the Egyptian state. Instead, Patch argues that economic and social needs likely influenced unification in Upper Egypt (1991: 361). Her research is a significant contribution to the successful use of archaeology as a means of studying urbanism and illustrates the potential of

regional studies for examining social, economic, and political processes.

In 1993 Fekri Hassan examined various aspects of ancient Egyptian towns, including

their development, size, and hierarchy, as well as their relationship to agricultural productivity,

transportation, and social interaction to develop a model of urbanization. Hassan attempted to

establish a set of characteristics that could be used to identify different types of settlements.

Towns were distinguished from villages not only by their larger size, but also by the

7 A Predynastic site survey was conducted in Upper Egypt by Kaiser (1961) and Butzer (1961).

“concentration of managerial, religious, military, commercial or ‘industrial’ activities” (Hassan

1993: 551). Nomes and nome capitals, on the other hand, acted as places of trade and administration and were seats of religious and political power. They collected annual taxes and controlled the rural labor force. Hassan postulated that towns may have emerged as centers for the redistribution of resources, as centers for religious activity, and as places of fortification and defense (1993: 552).8 According to Hassan, towns that functioned as the residence of the head of

state or king developed into the first capital cities, which maintained power by controlling large

amounts of food and tribute (1993: 555-557).9 Hassan examined quantitative aspects of cities,

towns, and villages, such as the number and size of settlements, and estimated the number of

villages to be approximately 1400 in Upper Egypt during the Pharaonic Period (1993: 560-564).

He approached urban settlements as a social phenomenon and argued that the basic structure of towns was shaped by associations between agriculture, transportation, kingship, and government.

Hassan’s research sheds light on the structural differences between towns and cities in order to

understand urbanization, but his classifications are restricted to Pharaonic Egypt.

In the same book in which Hassan’s article was published, O’Connor examined Egyptian

urbanism within the context of urban developments in other parts of northeast Africa. According

to O’Connor, the functions of cities and towns dictated settlement patterns and these patterns

helped define the changing nature of urbanism (1993: 571). During the 1990s, urban archaeology

witnessed new developments in excavation techniques, including excavating below the water

8 Also see Hassan 2001a: 269-271.

9 In a later publication, Hassan asserts that large regional capitals were “linked to the capitals of smaller administrative districts” (2001a: 268). For example, the domain of Thebes as a capital city, in reality, was comprised of the town of Western Thebes and of smaller villages.

table, which granted O’Connor access to a wider range of sample sites for his research. The

major concern during the time of O’Connor’s publication was the debate surrounding whether or

not ancient Egyptian society was “self-regulating” and could produce towns independent of the

government (see O’Connor 1993: 579). There were both government founded temple centers and

independent towns, such as market centers and fortified settlements, the functions of which could

change based on historical events.10 For instance, O’Connor notes that a free market process may have led to the development of independent towns during decentralized periods (1993: 578).

In addition, towns with no known governmental or temple function may have formed due to agricultural and animal-raising activities (O’Connor 1993: 579). The debate is further complicated by the fact that even within a government-established town, certain neighborhoods

could be economically self-sustaining, which Kemp has observed at Amarna (1972b: 673), or

part of their activities could be independent (Cooney 2007: 171-173).11

While modern research recognizes the existence of towns and urbanism in ancient Egypt, scholars continue to disagree on the forms this urbanism may take, and the degree and role of the government in shaping settlement patterns. Hassan and O’Connor both focused on settlement patterns, size, population, function, and the internal complexities of individual towns (cult areas vs. residential areas, crafts, administration, and economy). The social and economic organization of towns has become an important area of study. Yet the question remains how far texts and archaeology can take us, and what limitations exist for research; this continues to be debated among scholars. O’Connor argues that scholars must also consider how the absence of evidence

10 For more information about marketplaces in ancient Egypt, see Muhs 2016: 46-47, 52, 86, 130-131, 246-247.

11 For example, Deir el-Medina craftsmen, who were state-employed artisans, could gain additional income in the private sector.

influences understandings and interpretations of villages and towns in ancient Egypt, and that it

is important to be aware of the different types of information that archaeological and textual

evidence provide (1993: 585). It is clear from these studies that definitions of Egyptian urbanism

must remain relatively flexible and include a more holistic approach that considers universally

shared attributes alongside variations.

Ian Shaw (1998) attempted to combine these efforts by exploring the archaeological

evidence at three major city-sites (Thebes, Memphis, and Amarna) to determine if they could be

used to assess typical processes of urbanization. Focusing specifically on urbanism in the New

Kingdom, Shaw’s main concern was whether or not the processes of urbanization at Amarna

were typical or anomalous for this time period. By comparing artifact assemblages12 as representative of various social and economic activities, he discovered that there was a strong degree of similarity between the diversity of activities at Amarna and Memphis, while the site of

Malqata in western Thebes displayed a specialized corpus of activities (Shaw 1998: 1058). The

problem with this study is that only three small excavation areas at each of the sites provide the

artifact samples, which makes comparisons difficult and creates somewhat patchy results.

Sample size is an issue, especially at Kom Rabiʽa and Site J, which have yielded low frequencies

of total artifacts compared to Amarna.13 It is not clear to what extent the excavated areas

represent their larger communities or are typical of New Kingdom urban sites as a whole.

Malqata had a very specialized function as a ceremonial site associated with the sed-festival, and

12 Shaw grouped artifacts into 26 different activity types, such as gaming, hunting, metalworking, and painting, and compared the percentages of types between specific locations (Site J at Malqata, Kom Rabiʽa, and Gate Street 8 & 9, West Street 3 at Amarna) within each of the main areas (1998: 1056-1059).

13 Compare 520 artifacts from Kom Rabiʽa and 1274 artifacts from Site J with 6116 artifacts from Amarna (Shaw 1998: 1057).

therefore it may not be representative of other settlements in the Theban region. Shaw’s study does, however, represent one of the first attempts to compare different urban settlements based solely on archaeological and artifactual material.

Continuing the view that urban studies must incorporate a multiplicity of settlement types, Kathryn A. Bard notes that within the set framework of the socio-political and economic organization of the pharaonic state, different types of Egyptian settlements functioned (2008a:

168). Bard demonstrates that early towns grew within the bureaucratic system of the state, but rural communities of farmers existed outside towns and cities (2008a: 166), although most of these communities are not archaeologically visible today. State-founded towns, however, provide some of the best-preserved settlement evidence in Egypt, especially during the Old, Middle, and

New Kingdoms (Bard 2008a: 181). The most accessible example is the village of workmen at

Deir el-Medina during the New Kingdom, but even there the evidence for urban life must be considered within the context of the function of the town itself.

More recently, in 2010, the Austrian Academy of Sciences hosted a symposium on settlement archaeology focusing on settlements and their structures (Bietak, Czerny, and

Forstner-Müller [eds] 2010). This workshop was the second in the series, following one held in

1993, which concentrated on houses and palaces (Bietak [ed] 1996) during a time when settlement archaeology was beginning to be regarded as a viable subset of Egyptian archaeology, besides the traditional research in sacred and funerary spheres. The symposium illustrated that settlements must be viewed within their ancient geographical setting and within their broader historical context. It explored the application of theoretical approaches drawn from the field of social anthropology to the context of ancient Egypt, including the idea that the size and types of buildings located in a town could provide evidence of the social rank of inhabitants, and that the

intensity of use could signify the social development of a town (Bietak, Czerny, and Forstner-

Müller [eds] 2010: 11).

Of the more notable papers published in the volume, Bietak’s essay on houses and social structure at the site of Tell el-Dabʽa (Avaris), attempts to determine the development of the settlement and the social hierarchy of structures at the site. Within the town center he notes differences in social rank through an examination of house size and layout (Bietak 2010: 17-19).

Bietak questions whether or not Tell el-Dabʽa, as a capital city of the Second Intermediate

Period, can be used as a model for the study of urban development in Egypt, but ends with the caution that there are “not enough samples of Egyptian settlements to know what is typical for

Egypt” (2010: 25). The main problem with any type of urban study of ancient Egypt seems to be the issue of sample size and the amount of surviving material that can be used for comparisons, which is a typical restraint for many archaeological studies. As Bietak notes, however, there are typical patterns at Tell el-Dabʽa that can be compared to other settlements in Egypt, such as uniform houses and orthogonal town planning (2010: 25). Following Bietak’s example, each of the subsequent articles in the volume focuses on site-specific evidence. Besides the essays dealing with the remains at Tell el-Dabʽa, there are papers discussing urbanism at Lahun,

Karnak, Giza, Elephantine, and Amarna among others. Most of the research focuses on the sequence of urban stages at each site, the structure and hierarchy of houses, and on generally connecting the broader significance of town elements together. The volume provides an excellent synopsis of current settlement research in Egypt.

Since his 1977b article, Kemp has conducted a significant amount of research on

Amarna, and has further supported his conclusion that individual agency played a major role in the construction of houses by the inhabitants of the city. His recent volume, The City of

Akhenaten and Nefertiti (2013) details more than three decades of excavation and scholarship, and provides insight into urban demographics and everyday life, such as communal feasting and the display of material wealth. Unlike planned Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom settlements,

Amarna developed in an organic manner and was shaped by decision-making at the individual level (Kemp 2006: 217, 243; Kemp 2013: 161-168). In addition, the alignment of certain buildings, such as the North Riverside Palace, and the routes of certain roads were primarily dictated by natural topography (Kemp 2013: 158, 161). In the Main City and North Suburb, the houses display variation in size and layout, which reflects a socio-economic gradient (Kemp

2006: 217; Kemp 2013: 164-166). Kemp’s examination of house layout at Amarna is an important investigation of the impact of small-scale local decisions and collective interaction on architectural development.

The release of Stephen Snape’s The Complete Cities of Ancient Egypt (2014) provides a comprehensive overview of the study of urbanism in Egyptology. Snape’s analysis of the intellectual development of the field examines the limitations and challenges of early research, the primary focus of which was monumental architecture, colossal royal sculpture, and elite tomb paintings (Snape 2014: 7-17). In the past, the lives of non-royal individuals were mainly understood through images and texts in private elite tombs, rather than through material recovered from settlement sites. Throughout the volume Snape explores complicated issues, such as the definition of an Egyptian city (2014: 21-22), the origins of urbanism and state formation

(2014: 23-26), and population size in ancient societies (2014: 37-41) by providing the historical and theoretical background for each topic, which situates the reader in the appropriate context.

Furthermore, Snape includes detailed descriptions of the administrative, economic, and judicial components of cities and towns (2014: 60-63, 94-99, 111-113). His gazetteer of settlement types includes royal initiatives (Amarna) (Snape 2014: 155-163), workers’ towns (Kahun and Deir el-

Medina) (Snape 2014: 28-29, 64-68, 74-86), military fortresses (Buhen) (Snape 2014: 50-52), and organic developments (Coptos and Hermopolis Magna) (Snape 2014: 28-29, 152-154, 164-

165).

The recent publication of Nadine Moeller’s The Archaeology of Urbanism in Ancient

Egypt: From the Predynastic Period to the End of the Middle Kingdom (2016) contextualizes

Egyptian settlements in specific historical-political circumstances. As one of the specialists of

Egyptian urbanism, Moeller provides detailed scientific discussions of the origins of urban society in Egypt through the development of towns from the Old Kingdom to the end of the

Middle Kingdom. She identifies three main types of urban settlements in Egypt based on their principal role and function – a) ritual and religious towns and cities; b) administrative centers; and c) trading centers – and rightly dismisses population density and settlement size as effective markers of urbanism, because these criteria are affected by topography (Moeller 2016: 379-380).

Her focus on archaeological evidence includes not only architectural data, such as construction material, size, and layout of houses and residential structures, but also incorporates ceramic and faunal analyses, providing a comprehensive assessment. The images, maps, and plans included in the publication are effective visual aids that complement the written text.

The publications mentioned above have laid the groundwork for future studies by making it explicit that any full study of ancient Egyptian history and culture should incorporate all types of available evidence. There needs to be a combination of textual and archaeological analyses to produce the most accurate rendering of history. Once it had been established that ancient Egypt had towns in the modern sense of the term, more recent research has focused on explaining and analyzing the nature and culture of those towns (as per the 2010 and 2016 volumes discussed above). These studies launched a developing interest in urbanism among Egyptologists. There is

great potential for town sites to enhance and contribute to our knowledge of ancient Egyptian society, but the complexity of the sites still poses many challenges for archaeologists. Part of the problem is that, in most cases, we are lacking complete pictures of towns. The goal of future work is to understand ancient Egyptian society through the combination of both archaeology and texts (Baines 1988; Smith 2010: 173-175). This area of research holds great promise. Both sources have their limitations, and neither can give a complete picture of life in the past, but privileging one over the other leaves us with a narrow view of the ancient Egyptians.

This review of urbanism in ancient Egypt is significant to the present research because it situates the history of towns within shifting interests in Egyptology, which shaped our understanding of towns and their function in Egyptian society. The increased importance of excavating town sites and all their essential components prompted discussions surrounding the role of central planning on urban growth and the layout of towns, both of which impacted the design of local cultic landscapes. The relationship between towns and temples was dynamic over time and changed based on the degree of state involvement and the economic, social, and political roles of temples. According to Bussmann, towns and temples co-evolved from the Early

Dynastic Period to the New Kingdom because temples became the primary medium of royal display in the early Middle Kingdom and because local cults became the focus of royal involvement in the late Old Kingdom due to their economic importance (2014: 333). Urbanism in terms of the size, function, internal organization, location, and hierarchies of settlements was a driving force in the development of local temples; at the same time, local temples and their associated ritual programs, including the kinds of sacred landscapes that the present study explores, could impact settlement patterns and thus shape urban Egypt.

2.2 Previous Investigations of the Nature and Historical Development of Provincial Cult Temples

With the growing interest in ancient urbanism, scholarship in Egyptology began to

emphasize studies of the town and all its constituent components. This shift in research resulted

in more intensive archaeological excavations at provincial town sites, although there is still much

work to be conducted. Due to these efforts, a greater range of material evidence has been

recovered from ancient Egyptian towns, especially those that contain settlement remains.

Provincial town sites such as Elephantine and Tell el-Dabʽa are exemplary for their systematic

excavations and wealth of material data. These sites provide insight into the daily lives of

Egyptians and offer a unique opportunity to examine social, religious, political, and economic

organization at the local level. Most provincial towns contained a combination of architectural

features, which could include domestic structures, administrative buildings, palaces, workshops

and production areas, offering chapels, tombs, and cult temples. Cult temples were often

dedicated to a specific deity, who was the patron divinity of the town.

Analyses of the architectural development of cult temples in the provinces are complex

and problematic. Temples located at Upper Egyptian sites, especially Thebes, have generally

been more thoroughly examined than temples located in Lower and Middle Egypt due to issues

of preservation. In addition, many early temples are not accessible, having suffered from reuse

and time, which, as Quirke notes, obscures our idea of “the ancient range of types” of Egyptian

temples (1992: 76). The question whether provincial cult temples were standardized, and at what

time, has spurred significant debate among scholars. This is especially the case in the Early

Dynastic (3000-2686 BC) and Old Kingdom (2686-2160 BC) periods when it is decidedly difficult to determine the nature and function of the small mudbrick buildings that preceded their later counterparts (Kemp 1977a). Two prominent scholars, Kemp and O’Connor, have proposed

two contrasting theories about the development of local temples, and subsequent scholars have generally chosen to side with one of these theories.

Kemp developed an evolutionary perspective of four main temple types dating from the

Predynastic Period (5300-3000 BC) through the Late Period (664-332 BC), with a peak reached at the height of the New Kingdom (1550-1069 BC), when the mature and “typical” temple design was established (1989: 66; 2006: 113). Based on the architectural layout and material evidence of early cult structures at the sites of Abydos, Hierakonpolis, Tell Ibrahim Awad,

Coptos, Elephantine, and Medamud, Kemp suggests that early cult structures reflect a high degree of variability and display non-traditional architectural features compared to later temples at provincial sites (1989: 65-83; 1995: 41; 2006: 116-135). A striking feature of these early cult structures is the extensive use of mudbrick in their construction. Beneath the stone temple of the

Eighteenth Dynasty at Medamud, for instance, a rectangular wall of mudbrick foundations enclosed a grove of trees, two oval structures, and two rectangular brick pedestals covered with ash (Robichon and Varille 1940: vi, viii, 4, 15-20; Kemp 2006: 133-134). Kemp argues that this complex of features represents the “preformal” temple at the site, which was “made with little reference to court traditions” (2006: 134). Based on Redfield’s anthropological theory about the great and little traditions of ruling elites and ordinary people (1960: 40-59), Kemp suggests that certain Early Dynastic provincial centers, and especially provincial temples, were untouched by kingship or at least had a very low level of royal patronage (1989: 65-83; 1995: 41-45; 2006:

111-135). Both Kemp and Assmann imagine the great tradition of ruling elites eventually

overpowering the preformal local traditions (Kemp 1989: 65-83; Assmann 1991:16; Kemp 2006:

111-135).14 This idea is expressed by Kemp when he states:

In the provinces, the great transformation was a matter of fitful court patronage applied to a scene that was changing only very slowly from the patterns of late prehistoric times. In local religion – in art as well as in architecture – old parochial traditions, more diverse, more informal, more intuitive and personal, and generally, to our own eyes, far less sophisticated, continued to remain strong. One by one they became subject to court initiatives and these replaced local diversity with uniformity in the style that we are most familiar with from Egypt (1989: 65).

The evolutionary perspective that Kemp assumes, whereby the early local “preformal” temples

and religion are replaced by uniform Pharaonic “mature formal” temples and religion in the New

Kingdom (1989: 66), does not account for more complex relationships between state and local

developments. In addition, assigning a fixed date to the appearance of a uniform court style in

the provinces is problematic.

According to Kemp, early preformal provincial cult temples can be distinguished from later formal temples by their small size and relatively simple plan. Kemp argues that the court developed a “formal” style of cultural expression that did not reach the provinces until the

Middle Kingdom, when Pharaonic Egypt became a country of one culture (1989: 83). The main issue with Kemp’s theory is that most of the early cult structures lay beneath later temple remains and were often partially dismantled, and are thus difficult to assess with full certainty.

This is especially apparent at Coptos, where no early standing architecture has been encountered under the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic temples (Petrie 1896: 13-19), although blocks from

14 For a recent detailed discussion of the uses of the terms “great tradition” and “little tradition” in Egyptology and anthropology, see Bussmann 2016.

earlier structures were reused in later constructions. However, a range of statues, including the

torsos of three colossal limestone figures (which Petrie has dated to a period earlier than the Old

Kingdom) seem to indicate an early local tradition at the site, and possibly provide evidence that

an early formal temple existed here (Petrie 1989: 7-8). It is not clear, therefore, that the early temple at Coptos was “never developed to be particularly large” as Kemp suggests (2006: 129).

Baines argues that “significant temples or temple complexes could have been widespread in late

predynastic times” (1997: 220). He refers to the Min statues at Coptos but seems to agree with

Kemp that the temple itself may not have been very large and may still have been constructed

out of mudbrick with the colossal statues forming its largest element in stone, perhaps because

colossal representation was significant to the god Min. However, colossal divine statues are not

commonly found among archaeological remains from this period, to the effect that Baines’

suggestion derives from incomplete data.

Contributing to this discussion is Seidlmayer, who lends support to Kemp’s idea when he argues that the simple, mudbrick temple of Satet at Elephantine was the main temple at this site during the Old Kingdom and was left alone by the state until the Middle Kingdom (1996a:

116). Seidlmayer argues that the temple of Satet does not display characteristic features of elite

Old Kingdom culture, such as monumentality, although it was the main temple of the town. In

addition, the layout of the temple precinct and its relationship to other elements of the built

environment suggest that access to the temple of Satet was blocked off by monumental

fortification walls dated to the First Dynasty that were presumably constructed by the state,15

15 Seidlmayer argues that a number of factors indicate that the fortress at Elephantine was planned by the state, although this cannot be proven with certainty. These factors include the fact that the fortress did not surround the early settlement or temple as a means of protection and the fact that there are no architectural precursors to such monumental architecture at the site (1996a: 112).

which leads Seidlmayer to argue that the temple of Satet was not built nor maintained by the

state in this period (1996a: 115-117). However, royal objects dating to the Sixth Dynasty were

found inside the temple of Satet, including votive plaques of Pepy I and Pepy II, attesting to

royal investment at that time (Dreyer 1986: 148-152, nos. 428-447, no. 455, no. 435; Bussmann

2006: 29; Bussmann 2007: 19; Bussmann 2013: 21). This debate complicates our understanding

of the relationship between state and local endeavors at provincial sites in this early period,

particularly regarding the control of religious activities, access to sacred space, and the extent to

which the king was involved in the formation of early cult structures.

Kemp’s view has been challenged by O’Connor, who suggests that early provincial cult

temples were considerably large-scale and formal, and were sustained by continuous cult

involvement (1992: 84). O’Connor argues that the early cult structures built at Hierakonpolis and

Abydos, which Kemp identifies as “early formal temples,” are in fact royal ka chapels (Hwt-kA) dedicated to the cult of the king, and that the main cult temples at these sites have not yet been located and excavated (1992: 96). Supporting O’Connor’s claim are both Brovarski, who has determined, based on independent textual evidence, that the early cult structures at North Abydos were in fact ka chapels (1994b), and Arnold, who has discovered that some reused stone columns

(granite palm capital columns, granite papyrus bundle columns, and Hathor capital columns) found in temples of Ramesses II and kings of the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period in the Fayum and Delta are from in situ Old and Middle Kingdom stone temples, and not from

Memphite pyramid temples (1996: 47-54).16 Such evidence may support the notion that large-

16 For example, the height of the reused columns found in the Fayum and Delta is generally greater than those found in Memphite pyramid temples and there is no evidence that Hathor capital columns were used in Old and Middle Kingdom Memphite pyramid temples (Arnold 1996: 48-49). Arnold also dismisses the hypothesis that the reused

scale formal cult temples existed in early Egypt. Furthermore, as Quirke notes, the scale of

Middle Kingdom “national” temples is difficult to determine based on the existing evidence

(1997: 38). Many Middle Kingdom temples are known only by scattered stone elements reused

in secondary contexts (see below).

In his PhD dissertation (2010) and subsequent articles (2011; 2013; 2016), Bussmann

challenges models that focus on the unifying aspects of sacred kingship for the “cultural and social cohesion of Egyptian civilization” (2011: 748-749), as well as the historical implications

of Kemp’s theory. His research forms part of a growing trend to examine the culture and society

of Egypt in a local setting,17 as he assesses the degree of local variation in early temples based

on architecture and votive material. Bussmann argues that early provincial temples were small in

size and had individual layouts, while votive objects associated with temples of the early periods

seem to have been produced regionally according to stylistic analysis and quantitative

distribution of types (2011: 749). The exception is Hierakonpolis, where ivory votives are large

and similar to each other, and seem to reflect royal designs. Based on these ivories, Bussmann

suggests that a standardized high culture existed at Hierakonpolis that does not appear at other

sites in the early periods, which indicates the site’s important role in the development of early

kingship (2011: 757-758). In line with Marriott (1955: 171-222), who studied similar phenomena

in Hindu India, Bussmann argues for a mutual exchange relationship where the traditions of the

columns were removed from other temples in the Memphite region and shipped to the Delta during periods of reconstruction.

17 See, for example, Kemp 1995: 39-41; Grajetzki 2006; and Stevens 2006.

residence and the provinces depend upon each other and can model one another (2011: 759).

This may explain the reason why some early towns display more regional variation than others.18

Less is known about the nature of provincial cult temples in the Middle Kingdom

(2055-1650 BC). This is primarily due to the lack of archaeological data: many surviving architectural fragments of Middle Kingdom cult temples were found reused in later structures, which obscures our understanding of provincial cult temples during this time (Seidlmayer 1996a:

117; Arnold 1996: 39-46; Wilkinson 2000: 22-23).19 Despite the scarcity of architectural information, several temple block fragments and architectural elements recovered from sites throughout Egypt contain the cartouches of Pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom,20 and a few temples have been preserved in isolated desert sites (Badawy 1966: 68-69). Senwosret I is known to have constructed temples from the Delta to Nubia (Wilkinson 2000: 23; Hirsch 2004:

27-67, map 2). Stone became a common building material of the Middle Kingdom, although a number of royal buildings continued to be primarily constructed out of mudbrick (Spencer 1979:

18 Bussmann argues that locally specific votives occur at Abydos, represented by a series of five large baboons that are only found there and at Elephantine by two series of faience baboons (2011: 752-753).

19 Badawy lists six cult temples of the Middle Kingdom. These include a temple at Medinet Madi (Fayum), the temple of Thoth at Hermopolis, the jubilee chapel of Senwosret I at Karnak (a peripteral temple), the Mirgissa Nubia fortress temple, Medamud temple, and the temple of Montu at Tod. Badawy argues that the scarcity of information on Middle Kingdom cult temples is probably due to destruction by the Hyksos and constant rebuilding in later periods (1966: 68). The mortuary temple of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II at Deir el-Bahri represents one of the best- preserved Middle Kingdom temples (Arnold 1974a; Wilkinson 2000: 23). Recently, excavations at Kom Ombo have revealed epigraphic evidence that an earlier Middle Kingdom temple existed there (see the Austrian Academy of Sciences website: https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/research/settlement-archaeology-and-urbanism/kom-ombo-city- and-hinterland/).

20 At Heliopolis, for example, a single obelisk containing the name of Senwosret I is all that remains of the Middle Kingdom temple there (Wilkinson 2000: 23). In addition, Hirsch (2004) has compiled the evidence related to temple building programs of Twelfth Dynasty kings throughout Egypt and Nubia, including architectural elements, relief decoration, statues, and stelae.

62-63). The lack of foundations and in situ architecture makes it difficult to interpret the

development and function of Middle Kingdom provincial cult temples. As Quirke notes,

monolithic stone elements recovered from sites may belong to either royal cult complexes or to

divine temples (1997: 38). Hirsch suggests that divine temples of the Twelfth Dynasty had all the important elements of later temples, including at least one enclosed cult chamber, a pillared hall, and often ancillary rooms which functioned as magazines or treasuries, although the divisions of the rooms, room number, and room size varied (2004: 162). However, Hirsch also notes that certain temples contained unique features, such as freestanding altars at Medamud and

Elephantine, a water basin at Elephantine, and enclosure walls at Elephantine and Elkab (2004:

162), which provides evidence of local peculiarities.

At the Middle Kingdom town of Kahun, documents indicate the existence of a local temple dedicated to the god Sopdu, which had its own priesthood separate from the royal mortuary temple of Senwosret II at the site (Kemp 1972b: 662; Griffith 1989). At Tell el-Dabʽa, excavations have uncovered a small Egyptian temple dating from the late Middle Kingdom, which contains three sanctuaries with outside walls made of whitewashed mudbrick (Bietak

1994). In the Middle Kingdom fortress at Buhen, a series of early shrines display increasing formality (Kemp 1995: 41). More recently, Bommas has argued that Middle Kingdom cult temples have the same tripartite layout as New Kingdom temple plans, determining that this architectural plan is similar to structures found in settlements (2005a). By analyzing the architectural layout and orientation of the cult temple at Medamud (which probably dates to the reign of Senwosret III), Bommas demonstrates the similarity between temples and residential houses of the Middle Kingdom. He argues that houses served as prototypes for Middle Kingdom temple designs, as the temple was in effect the god’s dwelling, and that houses and temples have the same three-stepped room sequence, which progresses from more open public areas to closed

private spaces (2005a: 31-32). His discussion has interesting implications for our understanding of the development of Middle Kingdom cult temples and the connection between the private sector and the realm of the king.

For the New Kingdom, scholars generally agree that provincial cult temples evolved from Early Dynastic shrines and reflect a higher degree of state-sponsored activity with little variability in temple design (Badawy 1968: 176; Kemp 2006: 248). During this period, the presence of elaborate tripartite stone structures, consisting of a pylon, columned hall, and sanctuary becomes widespread throughout Egypt at both provincial and royal city sites (Badawy

1968: 176; Arnold 1992: 23-25; Wilkinson 2000: 24-25). This standard plan was also used for royal mortuary temples, which gained importance during the New Kingdom, particularly at

Thebes (Haeny 1994; Haeny 1997: 86-87; Leblanc 1997: 49; Wilkinson 2000: 24; Chudzik

2016). Termed “Mansions of Millions of Years,” the latter served as temples for the cult of the king (Ullmann 2002) and are generally distinguished from divine temples, although this traditional division has been questioned by some (e.g. Haeny 1997). Mortuary temples exemplify the extent to which the state was involved in temple construction, but this type of temple is much better represented in the archaeological record because royal mortuary temples were usually constructed in the desert rather than in the floodplain where towns and their associated cult temples were situated.

Apart from Egyptian cult temples in Nubia, which have been shown to reflect site- specific features and spatial configurations representative of particular aspects of the god celebrated within the temple (despite state attempts at standardization, Rocheleau 2005), the degree of variability of non-mortuary temples in provincial sites in Egypt during the New

Kingdom has yet to be extensively examined. Seidlmayer has noted a change at Elephantine in

the late Old Kingdom (Fifth and Sixth Dynasties), where evidence suggests that the site began to display a higher degree of state-sponsored activity in association with the local cult (Seidlmayer

1996a). However, this development at Elephantine may or may not reflect developments at other sites. According to Seidlmayer, there needs to be a stronger consideration of historical context for royal building activities in local temples of the Third Millennium BC, which he sees as reflecting changing strategies by central administration for the colonization of provincial Egypt in this period. Kemp argues that state-sponsored activity in the provinces continued to increase in the Middle and New Kingdoms (2006). In Greco-Roman Egypt, state involvement with provincial cult temples lasted through even the toughest times of strife and decline (Bowman

1992; Baines 1997; Finnestad 1997).

2.3 Temple, State, and Town during the New Kingdom

“With regards to ancient Egypt, ‘state’ and ‘religion’ are anachronistic concepts. They cannot be distinguished and confronted to one another. The political system of pharaonic kingship is a kind of religion quite in the same way as Egyptian religion is a form of political organization” (Assmann 1989: 56).

In Egyptology, for the most part, provincial history is still poorly understood and extremely patchy. Few excavated settlement sites exist for any period and traditional scholarly attention has primarily focused on Memphis and Thebes, especially in the New Kingdom.

Temples are a major component of both provincial and royal city sites, but as Redford noted in

1979, “too often temples are investigated only by epigraphers bent on studying the reliefs, and any archaeology they may engage in is designed only to ‘clear the debris’ from the court in order to better see the inscriptions” (1979: 13). Temples have been extensively examined for their reliefs and images (Beaux 1990; Leblanc 1997; Lurson 2007; Larkin 2008; Gundlach and

Rochholz [eds] 2009; Karlshausen 2009), architectural design and layout (Badawy 1954-1968;

Smith 1968; Brinks 1979; Haeny 1979; Arnold 1991; Arnold 1992; Arnold 1999; Arnold 2003;

Bommas 2003; Preys 2007; Meyer-Dietrich 2009), including the function of rooms (Arnold

1962; Bietak 1994; Haring and Klug [eds] 2007), for what they relate about kingship, religious rites, and festivals (Fairman 1954; Björkman 1971; David 1981; Bell 1985; Haring 1995;

Gundlach 1998; Bartel 2002; Warburton 2010; David 2016), and even as significant works of art

(Baines 1997). The function of the temple as a cosmogram (Baines 1979; Finnestad 1985;

O’Connor 1993; Richards 1999) and as a center of economic activity (Kemp 1972b; Janssen

1979; Bleiberg 1988; Spalinger 1991; O’Connor 1995; Haring 1997; Haring 2007; Muhs 2016:

42-44, 82-83, 123-125, 198-199, 241-243) has received much attention. Many studies have been devoted to determining the architectural development of temples over time, as examined in §2.2

above. With some exceptions (Kemp 1972b; Seidlmayer 1996a; Richards 1999: 91-95; Pouls

Wegner 2002; Pouls Wegner 2011), rarely have scholars focused on the temple as a part of, or

situated within the context of, the urban and sacred landscape of the local town as a whole.

Much is known about the large stone temples generated by the state, especially those located in royal city sites, such as the temples of Karnak, Luxor, and Amarna, but the usually smaller, isolated temples of the provinces, particularly those located in the Delta, have not been examined as readily. As Haeny has cautioned, “it is dangerous and mis-leading to make generalizations about New Kingdom architecture based solely on Thebes and Nubia” (1979: 85).

The following sections present a brief overview of some of the traditional scholarly research on

New Kingdom temples, as well as examine the rise of personal piety and individual action during the New Kingdom. These subjects provide crucial background information about the role of New

Kingdom temples and the current state of research into New Kingdom non-royal religious

activity, which informs subsequent discussions about the nature of royal and non-royal votive

activity in the provinces.

2.3.1 Cosmologic and Economic Significance of New Kingdom Temples

Functioning as dwellings for deities, temples had a practical significance in the

cosmological worldview of the ancient Egyptians. Finnestad (1985) and Richards (1999) have

both demonstrated that state temples were themselves sacred landscapes which expressed the

sacred geography of Egyptian ideology in architectural form. This cosmological geography

included, “the sun and its circuit; the eastern and western horizons and the role they played in that daily journey, symbolizing the gates between this world and the next; the primeval mound and its emergence from the waters of the first inundation; the river itself; and finally the desert, as the embodiment of the chaos which must be held off from the ordered world” (Richards 1999:

88). The Egyptian temple not only acted as a habitation or “House of the God” where the performance of cultic ritual was carried out, but also, fully explicit by the Greco-Roman Period, operated as an iconographic image or symbol of the cosmos (Finnestad 1985: 7-16). The sacred topography of the universe is expressed in the temple of Edfu, for instance, by the use of papyrus plants, lilies, and sacred boats in the decoration on the base of walls (representing the inundation, uncultivated land, and a body of marshy water), the darkness of the inner chapels (representing the center of the dark watery chaos), the ceiling decorated like the night sky, and lists of names in the temple, which “designate it as the first place of the cosmos” (Finnestad 1985: 10-13).

Furthermore, the pylon with its two towers at the entrance of temples represented the point at which the deity appeared, reflecting the iconography of the sun appearing between the mountains of the horizon (Shubert 1981: 159-164). Textual sources indicate that there was a mythological element to the existence of the temple as a sacred world of the gods (Reymond 1969), and temple reliefs have been shown to articulate the architectural symbolism of the temple (Baines 1976:

10). Decoration on both interior and exterior walls demonstrates an ordering of elements that reflect the maintenance of an ordered world, as well as an ordered social hierarchy (Baines 1976:

11-14). O’Connor argues that royal cities had a cosmological role: the temples received and passed on cosmic power, while “the palaces of the city...mediated that power organizing it so that it branched out along the appropriate channels into the social and natural worlds” (1993:

582).

Temples acted as elaborate cult structures at royal city sites, such as Memphis, Thebes, and Amarna during the New Kingdom and their associated festivals were an essential component of the ritual landscape of these ceremonial centers (Richards 1999; Kemp 2006; Brand 2007;

Ullmann 2007). The significance of this relationship is perhaps best exemplified at Thebes, where festival routes have been shown to form a processional perimeter extending from the east bank to the west bank, and from the north to the south (Cabrol 2001: 9-59; Kemp 2006: 264-275;

Darnell 2010: 7-8).21 In fact, Quirke notes that New Kingdom temples seem particularly designed for festivals, which were incorporated into temple architecture (1992: 76). Locality was another important factor in the worship of Egyptian gods, and as such each site had a distinct connection with the specific deity worshipped there. According to Quirke, there was an ancestral or mythical connection with the history of the land: “The notion of ‘gods of provinces’ and ‘gods of towns’ formed a crucial binding medium in Egyptian society” (1992: 70). Some local deities had national significance during the New Kingdom, such as Amun at Thebes, while others were centered in one locality. Quirke expresses this dichotomy in the Egyptian pantheon as two separate forces at work in Egyptian communities: 1) the need for a distinct local worship for local communities and 2) the need for a common culture that encompasses all Egyptians (1992:

21 Rummel also recently discussed this topic at the Yale University conference, Ritual Landscape and Performance (September 23-24, 2016) in a paper entitled “Landscape, Tombs, and Sanctuaries: The Interaction of Architecture and Topography in Western Thebes” (proceedings in preparation).

75). Temples played a role in solidifying local worship for communities. As places where both worship of the gods and their cultic ritual were carried out, temples not only had a cosmological significance that reflected the Egyptian worldview and myth of creation, but were also important political and economic institutions (O’Connor 1983; Wilkinson 2000: 6-9, 50-51, 76-85).

The important role of temples for the redistributive parts of the Egyptian economy in the

New Kingdom has been extensively examined (Kemp 1972b; Janssen 1979; Bleiberg 1988;

O’Connor 1995; Haring 1997; Warburton 1997; Kemp 2006: 248-260, 304-308; Muhs 2016:

123-125). Like temples in later Mesopotamia, which controlled sizeable areas of land (Postgate

1972; Robertson 1995), textual evidence indicates that temples in New Kingdom Egypt provided for a large portion of the state’s economic revenues through land ownership (Katary 1983; Muhs

2016: 123), and were regularly inspected by the king’s representatives (Spalinger 1991).

Temples also received tribute and bounty from war and foreign campaigns (Redford 1976: 123;

Janssen 1979: 508-509; Muhs 2016: 124, 131-133). Kemp suggests that the redistributive aspect of temple offerings during the New Kingdom was a reciprocal relationship between temple, state, and town (1972b). He argues that temples “were potent sources of economic activity” that not only employed laborers and active traders, but were also involved in manufacturing goods, and were often the reason behind the establishment of surrounding settlements (Kemp 1972b:

661).

In depicting the relationship between temples and town, Kemp discusses two scenarios: one in which the temple was built on virgin ground with the settlement arising around it (best exemplified by the royal mortuary temples, such as those at the sites of Lahun and Medinet

Habu), and the other in which the population surrounding the temple had additional independent sources of revenue (as at Amarna) (1972b: 661-671). In both situations, Kemp suggests that

temple land was farmed on a share-cropping basis where many different types of personnel could gain access through leasing. At Medinet Habu, for example, inhabitants appear to have cultivated their own plots of temple land (Kemp 1972b: 666). The presence and distribution of grain silos at

Amarna seems to further indicate that private individuals supplemented stipends received from the state through privately-owned land, which created self-sustaining suburbs (Kemp 1972b:

670-672). In addition to the payment of staff, Kemp argues that temple surplus was stored and traded at a profit, and that temples paid a tax on grain to the state, while the state also donated gifts to temples, creating an exchange of wealth. In this sense, Kemp perceives temples to be, in the main, separate entities from the crown, although they could at times act as one branch

(1972b: 659).

In contrast to Kemp’s view, Janssen argues that New Kingdom temples were a specialized branch of the government, which had their own function and were still at the disposal of Pharaoh (1979: 509). Surplus produce collected by the government and subsequently

redistributed on a nationwide scale had for its base a local subsistence economy of independent

producers, but without a real market economy. Unlike Kemp, Janssen believes that temples did

not pay taxes, because the state and temple were of one power (1979: 509). By redefining the

relationship between temples and the state, Janssen questions a number of assumptions

concerning the power of temples in the New Kingdom. He demonstrates that the description of

land donations to temples during the reign of Ramesses III in the Great Harris Papyrus may not

indicate state poverty, because temples were a branch of government organization, and temple

revenues paid staff and workmen (Janssen 1979: 511-512).

Concerning the other major text often used by scholars when discussing temple

economy, the Wilbour Papyrus, Janssen disputes its validity as a source of land ownership

distribution, especially with regard to Text A, which deals primarily with temple domains (1979:

510). Although Janssen’s theory is speculative, he presents an interesting case for questioning

the “ratio of temple land to other landed properties” (1979: 511). Text A suggests that temples

owned more land than the crown, but this notion probably exaggerates the portion of temple land

versus state land. Adding to the discussion are investigations of the term bAkwt, used to denote

commodities meant for the temple (see Bleiberg 1988: 157; Haring 1997: 99-100). BAkwt seems

to be a specific type of product meant for temples, or the gods, which could be donated by a

geographical area, a group of professionals, and possibly foreign princes.22 Among the various uses for these commodities, such as temple building materials and furnishings, bAkwt seems to have been a source of provision for the army and everyday people through redistribution

(Bleiberg 1988: 161-163). New Kingdom temples constituted a major source of revenue for the redistributive economy by dominating the land holdings upon which this economy was based.

Muhs’ work suggests that New Kingdom temples varied substantially in terms of how much agency they had over the management of endowments and revenues (2016: 123). Muhs argues that older mortuary temples were “economically autonomous,” while other temples were managed by the king or linked to a larger institution (2016: 123-124). For example, the estate of

Amun consisted of the temples of Amun-Re, Mut, and Khonsu as well as royal mortuary temples west of Thebes, in addition to some temples in Nubia. Several temples associated with the domain of Amun were dependent branches that paid taxes to the temple of Amun, as recorded in

Papyrus Baldwin and Papyrus Amiens (see Muhs 2016: 124-125). In addition, the decree of

Nubkheperre Intef VII (Cairo JE 30770), which was set up in the temple of Min in Coptos,

22 The administration of foreign bAkwt was a major responsibility of the king (Bleiberg 1988: 159-161; Haring 1997: 132).

indicates that some of the items within that temple were the responsibility of the Treasury of

Amun (Goebs 2003: 34-35). Textual sources, such as Papyrus BM 10401 and Papyrus Cairo A-

E, indicate that the king could exact commodities from provincial cult temples and the temple of

Amun alike during the Twentieth Dynasty (Muhs 2016: 125).

The economic role of New Kingdom temples is an important component of the

relationship between the state and the provinces. The degree to which New Kingdom kings relied

on provincial temples as sources of economic revenue impacted the maintenance and longevity

of local cults. Furthermore, the fact that some New Kingdom provincial temples were

economically linked to larger state temples provides evidence of the interconnectedness of

residence and province and has important implications for the autonomous nature of provincial

temple cults at this time.

2.3.2 Expressions of Non-Royal Religious Practices and the Rise of Personal Piety

The examination of the non-royal sphere of ancient Egyptian religion and society, and the daily life of everyday people has gained headway in recent years. New research goals aim to understand the individual acting within the framework of the state (see, for example, Stevens

2006; Kjølby 2007; Kjølby 2009; Kjølby 2012). Since the discovery of Deir el-Medina – with its

wealth of information about daily life and daily practices, as well as letters, biographies, and

texts of individuals23 – research into popular religion and the private sphere of ancient Egyptian society has dramatically increased (see Stevens 2006; Luiselli 2011; Weiss 2015; Bussmann

23 This material includes grave goods, personal objects, and ostraca, papyri, and stelae that document legal accounts, love songs, medical treatments, delivery records, personal letters, and biographies of the workmen (see a collection of some representative texts in McDowell 1999; also see Frood 2007: 219-232).

2017). The material evidence recovered from Deir el-Medina demonstrates an influx of

individual religious activities during the New Kingdom that can be characterized by a “new and

more personal conception of deity, of gods intervening in life and history” (Assmann 1989: 69).

First coined as “persönliche Frömmigkeit” by Erman in 1911 and later reinstated by Breasted in

1912 based on a group of stelae from Deir el-Medina, this movement came to be regarded as the

“age of personal piety” in Egyptological literature (see Breasted 1912: 344-370; Sadek 1987: 2;

Ausec 2010: 1-6, 8-22; Luiselli 2008: 1-2; Luiselli 2011; Weiss 2015: 1-11; Bussmann 2017: 73-

77). Previously thought to be a typical expression of the Ramesside Age (Morenz 1975: 109;

Brunner 1982: 951; Assmann 1984: 22, 198, 258-282; Quirke 1992: 138), it has been argued that

the movement extends back to the Middle Kingdom and First Intermediate Period (Baines 1987:

82, 88-97; Baines 1991: 146; Kessler 1998; Backes 2001; Bickel 2002: 66-67; Dunand and

Zivie-Coche 2004: 110-111; Luiselli 2007). Terminology associated with personal piety has been

traced to the reigns of Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III, and Amenhotep II (Assmann 1984; Assmann

1989: 69, 71; Assmann 2002: 230).24 Significant to this movement is a new idea of divine intention, which becomes increasingly prominent during the New Kingdom with the rise in the use of oracles. Oracles used during temple celebrations enabled even lower-class individuals to

have a more personal relationship with the gods (Blackman 1925; Blackman 1926; Ĉerný 1979:

74-75; Assmann 1989: 71-75; Baines 1991: 170). Textual sources describe gods as personally

favoring individuals and acting on their behalf (Assmann 1989: 69; Assmann 2002: 243). Private

religion provided a direct and immediate benefit to the individual, while state religion was

motivated by the maintaining of maat and official religious conduct. Assmann notes that there

24 Based on her translations of autobiographies, Lichtheim argues that in the First Intermediate Period, the sense of personal relation to the gods first appears as individual praise of local deities for life’s successes, and in the Middle Kingdom, an early form of personal piety is represented by the stelae at Abydos (1988: 134).

appears to be a religious shift from the social sphere and the maintaining of maat to acting

according to the will of the gods in a direct relationship with deities as the main protectors in

place of the king (1989: 72-73; 2002: 239-243). Even in places associated with institutionalized

religion, evidence indicates that non-elites had access to a variety of practices. A number of

sources help to reconstruct non-elite religious actions. These include temple inscriptions, private

letters, ostraca, tomb representations and biographical texts, and the presence of non-royal

statues and votive objects in temple and settlement sites (Teeter 1993: 28).

In the great state temples, such as the temple of Amun at Karnak, everyday people could enter the hypostyle hall (Griffin 2007) and exterior private chapels (Kitchen 1993: 298) to address the gods and their intermediaries directly, including respected deceased members of the community.25 Relief decoration on exterior temple walls was intended to be viewed by the

public (Grimal 1992: 274). Higher status individuals could also act on another’s behalf in

approaching the deity (Wente 1990: 219 no. 355). Votive items in the form of small statuettes or

figurines dedicated to the gods were commonly left at temples as objects of personal devotion

(discussed further below; Pinch 1993: 160-264; Stevens 2006: 79-131; Pinch and Waraksa 2009:

4-7; Waraksa 2009: 20-42, 166-175). While the cult of Amun and his priesthood assumed greater

importance in the New Kingdom, lower class individuals encountered more ways to connect with

the gods on a personal level. Their involvement in temple ritual during the New Kingdom, for

example, is attested by the presence of non-royal statues in the outer courts, which ensured the

25 The temple of Amun at Karnak had two exterior chapels where members of the general populace could pray (Teeter 1993: 31). The exterior west wall of Medinet Habu was a place for hearing prayers (The Epigraphic Survey 1934: pl. 181A) and the Eastern High Gate has a relief of Ptah who hears prayer (Nims 1956: 79; The Epigraphic Survey 1970: pl. 608). However, Ausec’s recent reexamination of Theban monuments associated with the religious needs of the general populace, including Thutmosis III’s and Ramesses II’s Eastern Temples at Karnak and the Eastern High Gate of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, suggests that these structures did not play a role in popular piety and instead focused on kingship and the sed-festival (2010: 45-77, 90-93).

eternal well-being of individuals represented and provided closeness to the offerings and

activities of the temple in a way that distributed the personhood and agency of the statue owner

(Kjølby 2007; Kjølby 2009; Kjølby 2012). Informal worship also occurred outside official state

religion. Defined as a set of beliefs and practices outside state-run official temple cults, this

“popular religion” pervaded Ramesside culture, but can be traced back to earlier periods (see

Ĉerný 1979: 68; Pinch 1983; Sadek 1987: 2; Baines 1987: 79, 89, 95-98; Assmann 1989: 69;

Baines 1991: 184; Friedman 1994; Meskell 1998: 231-232; Ockinga 2001: 44; Meskell 2002:

110-121; Stevens 2006: 6-8, 17, 271-284, 297-317; Spence 2007; Gahlin 2007; Stevens 2009;

Weiss 2009; Ausec 2010: 8-9; Luiselli 2011: 29, 36-41; Baines and Frood 2011: 7; Weiss 2015:

1-11, 19, 179-186; Marini 2015: 77-79).

Concentrating on the material and textual evidence that attests to personal worship in homes, minor shrines, and cult places, Sadek assessed the social status of individuals who performed non-royal ritual and worship during the New Kingdom. His research demonstrates that popular religious practices were not only conducted by low status individuals, but also that it was typical for people of the middle class and even elite officials to be involved in religious activities separate from the state-run program (Sadek 1987: 2, 293). Personal worship could occur at several different places: homes, minor shrines, cult places, tombs, and the outer fringes of great official temples (Sadek 1987: 2), and was not completely restricted to private localities.

Evidence for popular religion prior to the New Kingdom is less clear (see Stevens 2009: 1-5, 8,

12-16); however, Sadek demonstrates that popular cults can be traced back to the Old Kingdom

(1987: 7). The strongest evidence derives from the Middle Kingdom stelae recovered along the processional route at North Abydos, which demonstrate the piety of individuals from a range of socio-economic levels (Leprohon 1978; Ward 1982; Sadek 1987: 7; Baines 2009: 12-15).

A greater quantity of evidence for personal piety, especially in textual sources, however, has been preserved from the New Kingdom. For example, at Qantir there are cults and shrines separate from the great official temples (Sadek 1987:12). But other sites, such as Memphis, Giza,

Abusir, Amarna, Abydos, and Thebes also show traces of popular religion, the material evidence of which often included votive stelae, modest chapels, ear stelae, and votive gifts, such as small figurines and vessels for offering (Sadek 1987: 11-39; Pinch 1993: 81-321; Giddy 1999: 13-343;

Stevens 2006: 27-194; Stevens 2009; Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 3-6; Toye-Dubs 2016). Sadek’s research, however, mostly focuses on royal city sites and the workmen’s village at Deir el-

Medina with little attention to provincial centers. His investigation relies heavily on textual sources, although he does try to include some types of material evidence. At Deir el-Medina, for instance, Sadek identifies traces of popular cults by the appearance of secluded bed-chambers

(altars), niches in house walls for stelae, chapels, ancestor busts, and offering tables, in addition to the stelae (1987: 76-77). By far most of the evidence used to support the idea of popular worship derives from literary sources. At Deir el-Medina, for example, there is textual evidence for groups of men taking a leave from work for the celebration of their own feasts and rites

(Sadek 1987: 81, 184-185 [O.CGC 25, OG 37], 187 [ODM 209], 190 [O.Turin 57165], 193,

195).

While the New Kingdom has often been portrayed as the period of large-scale non-royal religious activity, Sadek demonstrates that there is evidence throughout almost all the major periods, “for religious activity beyond the secluded temple rituals” (1987: 294), but he views these two main areas of religion – personal and official, or private and state – as complementary elements that could sometimes overlap. In addition, Gahlin defines private religion as taking place “in the household, at shrines, by the graveside, in the outer, more accessible parts of temple buildings, or other locations with or without a perceived sacred value” (2007: 325). She suggests

that private religion functioned in addition to state religion to ensure harmony and maat within ancient Egyptian society (Gahlin 2007: 325, 337).26 The problem with this type of research is

that it is restricted by the nature of the evidence that has survived, which is substantially less for

non-royal religion, and the finds that have been found are often difficult to interpret. However,

non-royal religious artifacts, such as votive offerings,27 which include animal and human figurines, model beds, stelae, and amulets have been identified as ritual objects of non-royal individuals associated with household and fertility cults (Gahlin 2007: 331; Pinch and Waraksa

2009: 2-6; Stevens 2009: 7-9). In addition, animal mummies were a major votive industry dedicated as offerings at shrines of deities in the New Kingdom and especially in the Late to

Roman Periods (Ikram 2005: 9-14; Redford and Redford 2005; Von den Driesch et al. 2005:

238; Ray 2011: 271-273; Bleiberg 2013: 75-90; Price 2015: 21-22; Atherton-Woolham and

McKnight 2015: 23-24). The popularity of animal cults was tied to public accessibility and the rise of personal piety (Davies and Smith 1997: 122-123; Ikram 2005: 7). These finds supplement the textual evidence for popular worship discussed above. More recent comprehensive studies of the archaeological remains associated with popular religion indicate that it was a widespread phenomenon (Pinch 1993: 81-322; Giddy 1999: 9-11, 13-49, 265-276; Stevens 2006: 6-8, 29-

254; Bussmann 2017: 77-81).

During the Eighteenth Dynasty, votive offerings associated with the goddess Hathor have been found in fairly large numbers, especially at Deir el-Bahri. By examining sites with large quantities of Second Intermediate Period or New Kingdom offerings to Hathor (Deir el-Bahri,

26 For example, private rituals were concerned with maintaining order at the individual, household, and community level, such as curing or preventing illness, loss, or disaster (Gahlin 2007: 337).

27 Defined in §1.4.4.

Faras, Mirgissa, Serabit el-Khadim, Timna, and Gebel Zeit), Pinch discovered that “votive

objects were dedicated to the goddess in the sanctuaries of state-run temples, in popular shrines

within the precincts of state-run temples, and in ‘community shrines.’ In all these types of sacred

buildings, the offerings seem to have been kept in or near the sanctuary for very long periods,

rather than being regularly cleared out” (1993: 79). Although it is not clear how the offerings

were originally displayed inside temples, Pinch argues that votive objects were not meant to be

placed in the open courts and suggests that few were personal possessions (1993: 337, 340). By

examining their manufacture and distribution, she suggests that the votive items were mass

produced and made by temples in state workshops, but could be bought individually (Pinch

1993: 332). Aside from Mirgissa, however, Pinch restricts her study to state temple sites with

Hathor offerings (although she argues this is due to the large quantities found at the sites). Pinch

claims that votive objects reinforce the idea of the cohesiveness of the Egyptian state’s involvement in “every facet of life” (1993: 358). However, this evidence does not necessarily mean that the two spheres were mutually exclusive - that personal piety was not tolerated by the

state - as attested by the existence of facilities for popular religion within state temples, such as a

shrine or chapel, which non-elite individuals could access (see above).

The complex relationship between state and private religion is attested by the fact that

some New Kingdom votive offerings mimic cult objects found in state temples, while others

derive directly from private religion (Pinch 1993: 358). Pinch believes that the state controlled

popular religion during the New Kingdom, but the characteristics of the deity involved in

worship could also be a factor in the relationship between state and private religion. As Pinch

demonstrates, for example, Hathor was a prominent deity of state cults and folk religion, an

aspect which most likely affected the distribution of her votive offerings (1993: 359). Because

votive offerings to Hathor appear to decline at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Pinch suggests

that this period represents a transitional stage between corporate religion and personal piety in

that the relationship between individual and deity was still more formal and impersonal than in

the Ramesside Period, and that some temples could have served as state temples as well as

community shrines (1993: 350). Traditionally, non-royal involvement in cult temples during the

New Kingdom seems to have largely occurred through votive offerings deposited outside the

enclosure walls of temples and festival processions. Bussmann argues that personal devotion to

deities developed in this way because local populations were excluded from temple cults when

kingship and the state monopolized access to temples (2017: 78-79). He views personal piety as an expression of the loss of access to the divine (Bussmann 2017: 82-84).

Stevens’ work (2003; 2006) on the material evidence for non-royal religion at Amarna delves further into the methodological and analytical issues involved in identifying and defining non-royal religion in ancient society. Her research has important implications for the analysis of

non-royal religious material examined in the five case studies of this dissertation. In her

examination of objects, architectural emplacements, and buildings associated with non-royal

worship at Amarna, Stevens analyzes the material evidence of religion “in its guise, for instance,

as an agent of social interaction, as a shaping force on urban space and how it was experienced,

and as a background non-performance element of everyday routine and conduct” (2006: 1).

Using Amarna as a type site for non-royal religion in the Eighteenth Dynasty is not without its

concerns, mainly due to the specialized circumstances surrounding Akhenaten’s decision to build

a new royal capital city at Amarna. Stevens discovered that the cult of the royal family and Aten,

as figures of the official state religion, permeated into the non-royal realm at the site, identified

by wall painting fragments, shrines in certain houses, and stelae depicting the royal family and

Aten (2006: 6). This permeation may have occurred at Amarna due to the nature of its new

theology, which means that Amarna may signify special circumstances that differ from other

contemporary sites in Egypt. Nevertheless, the quantity and variety of non-royal religious material recovered from Amarna provides important parallels for the material examined at

Mendes, Abydos, Elkab, Elephantine, and Sai Island.

At Amarna, it may have been the case that state religion reached the homes of everyday individuals on a grander scale because of the restrictive nature of Akhenaten’s religious reforms, which advocated that its citizens must achieve immortality through the royal family alone.

Whether or not this infusion of royal ideology into the non-royal religious sphere was readily and heartily accepted by the Amarna inhabitants is open to debate. The archaeology of the

Workmen’s Village at Amarna reveals that people continued to worship traditional deities in their homes and local chapels (Petrie 1894: pl. 17; Ikram 1989; Bomann 1991: 74; Stevens 2006:

7). For example, in the main residential area, a stela dedicated to Khnum, Anuket, and Satet was found in a traditional mudbrick shrine with stone vessels, glazed jewelry, and a figurine (Kemp

1995: 30). State religion normally focused on official temple complexes, but as Amarna demonstrates, it is not clear how restrictive the divide between state and private religion was in terms of who did the worshipping and where it took place. For example, Stevens notes that stelae depicting the royal family and the Aten belong to the “official cult,” but their occurrence within residential areas of the site suggests that they were “items of personal religious consumption” that may reflect either state or private religion, or both (2006: 17). This example obscures modern definitions of state and private religion.

According to Stevens, the motivation behind non-royal religious practice derived from life experiences, such as notions of fertility and family, rather than the more abstract motivations of state religion, such as maintaining maat (2006: 18). But, even in this, Stevens notes that there is a large degree of overlap in the worship of state and private deities. For example, fertility

deities such as Bes, who are generally representative of the non-royal religious sphere, appear in

official contexts (Stevens 2006: 18). Stevens convincingly argues in favor of a spectrum of

religious realms with state and private religion acting as end points, although the ancient

Egyptians themselves may have never considered this distinction (2006: 20-21). Determining

secular versus religious uses of objects in the archaeological record has many challenges,

especially when some objects have multiple functions. For example, animal and human figurines

could have functioned as toys, sculptors’ guides, and votive objects (Giddy 1991: 13; Pinch

1993: 160-234; Quirke 1998; Stevens 2006: 79). Stevens’ research provides an important foundation for the exploration of religious practices in the non-royal realm.

The focus of Stevens’ research is domestic examples of private religion. Some larger

houses, such as the High Priest of the Aten, Panehesy’s, contained domestic altars in the shape of

miniature chapels, although his altar is unique in that it is the only decorated stone altar at the

site (Stevens 2006: 219-221). Generally, household altars at Amarna were mudbrick and were attached to an interior wall of the house, which often parallel state constructions at the site, as well as domestic altars at other sites including Askut, Deir el-Medina, Kom Rabiʽa, Lisht,

Malqata, Medinet Habu, and Tell el-Dabʽa (Stevens 2006: 222, 233-234). However, she also provides a few examples of non-royal activity that occurred at structures established and maintained by the state. Stevens suggests that a possible location for physical displays of public worship at Amarna was at temple enclosure walls, and at the Small Aten temple there may be evidence of plinths for stelae or statues as foci of non-royal worship built into the exterior of the

First Pylon (2006: 249). Similarly, the Maru Aten might have a possible shrine in its Southern

Enclosure and the large open courts of the Great Aten Temple and Small Aten Temple may have served as places for public worship during festivals (Stevens 2006: 249).

In the Great Aten Temple, Stevens argues that non-royal worship may have taken place at

the field of offering tables, but again there is no absolute proof of this (2006: 249). At Amarna,

public worship may have moved away from the main state temples, while the House of the

King’s Statue (Building R43.2) may have been a center for private cult (Kemp 1989, 285).

Stevens notes that the House of the King’s Statue has a ceramic assemblage similar to the main

chapel at the Workmen’s Village (2006: 250). It seems significant that in the Central City, an

area monopolized by state endeavors, small-scale private emplacements28 have been found,

possibly suggesting greater public accessibility to the cult in these areas (Stevens 2006: 250).

The state may also have been involved in supporting smaller local shrines used for public

worship at Amarna, which were independent of the major state temples, but were still established

and maintained by the state (Stevens 2006: 251).29 Assessing non-royal religious life in a

meaningful way is subject to the types of sources available, each with its own biases and

strengths. In historical studies, there has always been a notion of the dichotomy between the

public and private realms. In ancient Egypt, this dichotomy extends to the distinction between

the residence (the realm of the state and king) and local (private and individual) spheres.

The following site chapters build on Pinch’s and Stevens’ research into New Kingdom

private religion to determine if there are any major similarities or differences in the material

record of non-royal votive activity across sites and especially those recovered from capital cities

28 Stevens defines this architectural feature as resembling an altar. For example, in building complex R43.1B (the residence of an official associated with state cult complexes) a rectangular brick dais or platform with a brick column on either side was a central feature of a small room, which has been interpreted as a shrine (Traunecker 1988: 89-92; Stevens 2006: 250).

29 Stevens does not explain who would have been venerated in these small public shrines at Amarna but compares them to shrines dedicated to the worship of Hathor at Faras, Serabit el-Khadim, and Deir el-Medina, as well as to the chapel of the Great Sphinx at Giza, and the shrine of Sekhmet at Abusir (2006: 251).

versus provincial towns. This thesis uses Stevens’ analysis of public and private realms of

religious worship as a methodological basis for looking at other New Kingdom sites and their

relationship to state activities.

2.4 Summary

Thebes has traditionally been the primary focus of scholarship dealing with non-royal

religious activity during the New Kingdom, especially due to the material recovered from the site

of Deir el-Medina, which has provided much of the evidence for personal piety in the Ramesside

Era. But, as Bussmann notes, written material from Deir el-Medina likely disproportionately

overrepresents ideas and practices that probably occurred elsewhere in Egypt (2017: 80-81).

Stevens’ research at Amarna demonstrates the useful application of examining archaeological

evidence for non-royal religious activity at other sites, but Amarna was also a capital city and

religious center at the time. In the New Kingdom, non-royal religious activity in and around

temples became more prominent, as clearly indicated by the material evidence, which exhibits

important developments in personal piety and the characteristics of certain deities.30 Although personal devotion to deities was not a new phenomenon, it is undeniable that temples became the focus of a greater degree of social concern and individual action during the New Kingdom

(Baines 1991: 180). Religious belief and practice were converged by activities around the temple and discussions among non-royals. Everyday people had a connection to both formal and informal worship. There was a diversity of locations and practices for individualized expression.

30 For example, the god Ptah became a “listening god,” as demonstrated at the Eastern High Gate at Medinet Habu (The Epigraphic Survey 1970: pl. 608).

The present study aims to contribute to the analysis of the nature of non-royal votive activity in the New Kingdom, and of the interrelationship between royal and non-royal religious practices at provincial sites. By focusing on multiple site-specific components of religious activity that encompass royal, elite, and non-elite realms, a thorough and complex understanding of the role of state endeavors and non-royal enterprises in the development of provincial cults is achieved. This study is therefore significant for enhancing our understanding of town sites within the broader framework of questions of urbanism and the function of temples and role of religious activity within towns.

PART TWO: CASE STUDIES

Chapter 3 Mendes (Tell el-Rubʽa)

3.1 Historical Context and Site History

For most of its history, Mendes was an important provincial capital and cultural

landscape of the Delta. Located 100 km north of Cairo between the modern towns of es-

Simbillâwein and Mansurah in the eastern central Delta, beside what was in antiquity the

Mendesian branch of the Nile, the site of Mendes was the capital of the Sixteenth Nome of

Lower Egypt. The ancient site now comprises two tells, Timai el-Amdid and Tell el-Rubʽa separated by a watercourse (Wilson 1982: 1; Redford 1993: 4; Arnold 2003: 148; Redford

2010a: 18).31 The south tell, Timai el-Amdid (Thmuis), contains remains from the Ptolemaic and

Roman periods, while the north tell, Tell el-Rubʽa (Mendes), has produced Pharaonic material

(Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen, Ochsenschlager 1980: 23-26; Blouin 2014: 71-81). The level of preservation of the town is among the best in the Delta due to the site’s location away from modern villages, although the sebakhin and violence during the Persian Period damaged many of

the monuments at the site (Redford and Redford 2005: 191).

Remains from the Prehistoric Period through the Ptolemaic Period have been found in a

variety of areas across the site, but no continuous stratigraphic or ceramic sequence has been

established at Mendes. Most of the ruins visible at the site today date to the Late Period. In the

northwest quadrant of Tell el-Rubʽa, the temple precinct, fragments of ram sarcophagi, the

31 From the Saite Period through to the Roman Period, the Mendesian branch of the Nile ran along the eastern edge of Mendes, but the course the river took in earlier periods remains uncertain (see discussion in Redford 2009: n. 3; Redford 2010a: 107, fig. 7.5).

remains of Old Kingdom tombs, and the remains of domestic structures can be seen on the surface of the site, while the southern portion contains exposed mudbrick architecture from the industrial and residential area of the Late Period town (Wilson 1982: 2; see Figure 3.1).

Descriptions of Mendes are encountered in the writings of explorers from the early

Eighteenth Century onwards.32 Mariette was the first scholar to conduct systematic excavations

in 1860, and a short while later, Naville excavated in the area of the naos court of Amasis (see

Naville 1892-1893: 1-5; Naville 1894: 15-21; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 14-15). The

first American to record elements that he observed on the surface of Mendes was Bothmer in

1955, who described the granite naoi of Amasis, as well as blocks inscribed with the name of

Ramesses II (1955: 7-8). Major systematic excavations of the site were directed by Bothmer,

Hansen, and Wilson between 1963 and 1980 in a joint expedition between the Institute of Fine

Arts at New York University and the Brooklyn Museum (Hansen 1965: 31-37; Hansen 1967: 5-

16; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976; Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen, and Ochsenschlager 1980;

Wilson 1982; Adams 2009: 125; Redford 2010a: preface).33 These excavations focused on the

Late Period temple complex, but they also unearthed Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period

levels at the site. Recently, from 1990 until the present day, a joint team from the University of

Washington, the University of Illinois, and the University of Toronto replaced in 2000 by

Pennsylvania State University has continued excavations at Mendes, mainly focusing on the site

of the royal necropolis (Field AL) and the temple precinct (Redford et al. 1988: 49-79; Redford

1991; Redford 1993; Redford 1994a; Redford 1994b: fig. 1; Wenke and Brewer 1994: 265-285;

32 For the names, dates, and descriptions of early visitors to Mendes, see De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 21-170.

33 For a complete list of the New York University publications, see Adams 2009: n. 14.

Redford 1995; Redford 1996b; Redford 1999; Redford 2001; Redford 2004b: 24-34; Redford

2010a; see Figure 3.1).34

Archaeological material recovered from Mendes demonstrates longevity of occupation,

but few specifics are known about the early habitation of the site. In the early 1900s, flint tools

and pottery were discovered, but the levels corresponding to this phase of activity at the site have

yet to be exposed or explored systematically (Scharff 1930: 133; Langsdorff and Schott 1930:

135; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 146-147, 172). Wenke and Brewer’s excavations in the

1990s revealed transitional layers between the Buto-Maadi and Naqada II cultures at Mendes and ceramic material found in various locations of the site point to a Buto-Maadi occupation (Brewer and Wenke 1992: 191-197; Friedman 1992: 199-205; Wenke 1999: 602).

Recent excavations in Field AJ North (west of the temple of Banebdjed) from 1999 onwards uncovered a stratigraphic sequence from the Early Dynastic Period through the First

Intermediate Period (Adams 2007; Adams 2009: 123, fig. 3). The earliest building phase dates to

Naqada IIIB-C1 in unit AJ-A ext. located on the western slope of the temple complex (Adams

2009: 126, tab. 1, fig. 3). Within this excavation unit, eight major building phases (VIII-I) were

traced from Naqada III through the First Intermediate Period based on architecture, ceramics,

and inscriptional evidence (Adams 2009: 127-197, tab. 2). The earliest architectural levels

(Phase VIII and VII) dated to Naqada IIIB-C1 consisted of mudbrick walls, hearths, and pits indicative of domestic space and cooking areas (Adams 2009: 130-133). During the following

Phase VI (Naqada IIIC1-IIIC2/First Dynasty), the area was revamped with a new purpose

(Adams 2009: tab. 2). The buildings were characterized by circular mudbrick walls and from

34 For the rest of this chapter, this team is abbreviated to the Pennsylvania State University expedition.

them, the excavators recovered several fragments from a large clay sealing of King Hor-aha,35 as

well as official sealings dated to the reign of King Den found in Phase VI buildings at the site,

which indicate that Mendes had contact with the residence at this early date (Redford 2008;

Adams 2009: 132, 198, fig. 17; Redford 2010a: 19). The clay sealings point to administrative activity and a bureaucratic environment in the Delta during its early history.36

Levels dating to the Third Millennium BC tell a different story. During the Third through

Sixth Dynasties, Mendes was a prosperous town (Redford et al. 1988: 49; Adams 2009: 199).

Building phases for these dynasties are extensive, with up to five superimposed settlement levels

indicating a long length of use (Redford 2010a: 19-21, fig. 3.1). The exposed mudbrick walls are

well built and the high volume of Old Kingdom domestic pottery vessels associated with these

structures points to a period of prosperity (Redford 2010a: 19-21). Walls and parts of buildings

dating from the Old Kingdom to the First Intermediate Period were unearthed beneath the

platform that supported the granite naoi of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty temple dedicated to

Banebdjed on Tell el-Rubʽa, and in areas surrounding the temple (Hansen 1967: 11; Wilson

1982: 2-3, pl. IIc; Redford 1996a: 679-681; Redford 2010a: 24; see Figure 3.2). The remains

below the naos court comprise private houses and burials of the Old Kingdom, as well as burials

of the First Intermediate Period (Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen, Ochsenschlager 1980: viii; Redford

1996a: 679-681).

35 Shaw assigns Hor-aha as the first king of the First Dynasty (2000: 480). Hor-aha’s tomb is in Cemetery B at Umm el-Qaʽab (Petrie 1901: pls. X-XI; Bard 2000: 70-71).

36 For more information, see Martin-Pardey 1976; Kanawati 1977; Kanawati 1980; Moreno García 2013; Moreno García 2015.

Inscriptional and iconographic evidence indicates that a triad of deities was worshipped at

Mendes, which includes the ram-god Banebdjed, the fish-goddess Hat-Mehyet, and Horus the

Child, but Banebdjed appears more prominently in the archaeological record (De Meulenaere

and MacKay 1976: 178; Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen, and Ochsenschlager 1980; De Meulenaere

1980: 44; Redford 1994b: 49; Redford and Redford 2005: 164; Zivie-Coche 2009). Banebdjed’s

cult at Mendes can be traced back to the Third Millennium BC37 and he dominated the city as

Lord of the Abiding Place (nb Ddt)38 (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 172; Redford et al.

1988: 49-51; Redford and Redford 2005: 164-165; Redford 2010a: 29-35). Scholars have equated the emblem of the township of Mendes represented by a schilby-fish on a standard with the goddess Hat-Mehyet, who is often depicted as a woman with a fish on her head and occasionally as a fish (Engelbach 1924: 161-165; Gamer-Wallert 1970: 98-101; Meeks 1973:

209-216; Helck 1974: 191-194; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 178; Gamer-Wallert 1977:

1042-1043; Leitz 2002c: 17-18; Redford 2010a: 14, fig. 2.5). De Meulenaere and MacKay

(1976: 178) and Gamer-Wallert (1977: 1042) suggest that the goddess was originally worshipped as the principle deity of Mendes and was later overshadowed by the cult of Banebdjed, but the goddess is mentioned less often in texts and is harder to trace historically (Zibelius-Chen 1978:

278-279).

37 Redford attributes an ivory label found in the tomb of King Djer at Abydos (see Petrie 1901: 49, pl. V no. 1) as an early attestation of the town of Mendes and its god, Banebdjed (2010a: 215). See below for further evidence related to the cult of Banebdjed in the Third Millennium BC.

38 Translated by Redford 2010a: 28-29, 214. Djedet (Ddt) as the name for Mendes is listed as one of the sacred towns of the Delta in the Pyramid Texts (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 172; Allen 2005: 44 – W 165, 166 – P 483; Redford 2010a: 34).

The temple of Banebdjed was the main cult institution at Mendes and archaeological

evidence suggests that the monument existed from at least the Old Kingdom onwards (Redford

1996a; Redford 1999; Redford and Redford 2005: 164). No shrines have been unearthed for Hat-

Mehyet, but during the Ramesside Period votive stelae depicting rows of fish and burials of fish

in pottery vessels may indicate that the goddess once had a sanctuary (Mumford 1997: 1-3;

Brewer 2001: 535; Hummel 2009: 79-80, 83; Redford 2010a: 86-89; discussed further below). In

the Late Period, sacred rams were buried at the site in sarcophagi placed in a hypogeum, a

structure separate from the main temple of Banebdjed (Redford and Redford 2005). The ritual

landscape of Mendes was clearly dominated by monuments dedicated to the ram-god.

The main sanctuary at Mendes, the House of the Ram, Lord of Djedet, is marked at the

site today by a mound of ruins and a large granite naos built by Amasis during the Twenty-Sixth

Dynasty.39 The temple was surrounded by a large mudbrick enclosure wall running northwest, part of which was cleared in 1978 (Allen and Wilson 1979: 143; Redford 2009: 1). Excavations from 1992 to 1995 in the area designated Field AL by the Pennsylvania State University expedition revealed three walls constituting the enclosure wall of the temple (see Figure 3.1).

The excavators dated each temenos to a different time period based on ceramic and stratigraphic evidence: a) T1, outer wall dated to the Ptolemaic Period; b) T2, middle wall dated to the Late

Period (reign of Nectanebo I); and c) T3, inner wall dated to the Third Intermediate Period

(Redford 2004a: 5-23).40 No evidence for a Ramesside or earlier enclosure wall has yet been

39 Since at least 1730, the temple lay in a state of ruin with one naos and fragmentary remains of walls, pylons, and architectural blocks visible on the surface (Redford 2009: 24).

40 Ceramic material unearthed in association with each temenos wall provided a select range of dates, which Redford narrowed to a specific time period. For instance, ceramics found with T3 covered the New Kingdom through to the Saite Period, but the presence of Iron II Cypriot ware in the T2 foundation trench suggest a Third

found (Redford 2004a: 7). The temenos walls are useful for providing dates of potential phases

of construction of the main temple, but their creation caused a series of disturbances in the area,

sometimes cutting through earlier stratigraphic layers, creating a mixed context of material remains.41

The chronological development of the temple is complicated by multiple building phases

and pillaging of the preserved remains, especially those preceding the reign of Amasis. In the

central part of the temple (thought to be the oldest unit), a trench, likely dug during

reconstruction of the temple in the reign of Amasis, approximately 40 m wide and 2.5 m deep

destroyed much of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom levels of the temple (Redford 1999;

Redford 2009: 7). Similarly, Ramesside foundation trenches cut through earlier strata (Redford

2009: 6).

The question of the date and nature of the earliest sanctuary dedicated to Banebdjed

remains unanswered. In textual sources, the cult of the ram-god of the town is mentioned as early

as 3000 BC, but archaeological evidence is lacking (Redford et al. 1988: 49-51; Redford 1991: 1;

Redford 1994a: 3; Redford 1996: 679; Redford and Redford 2005: 165-167; Redford 2010a: 36).

Manetho attributed the establishment of the cult of the ram at Mendes to a king of the Second

Dynasty (Waddell 1940: 36-37), and the cult of the Ram of Djedet is attested at Memphis in the

Third and Fourth Dynasties (Petrie 1910: pl. XXI; Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981: 223), but not until the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties does the title “Priest of the ba of ‘Anpet [Mendes]” appear

Intermediate Period date as the terminus ante quem for the final abandonment of T3 (Redford 2004a: 7; Hummel and Shubert 2004: 135-184).

41 For example, the landfill area between walls T1 and T2 had a broad mix of ceramics dating from the New Kingdom through to the Hellenistic period, including imported vessels (Hummel and Shubert 2004: 135).

alongside the names of high officials (Junker 1929: 149, 151; Junker 1934: 189; De Meulenaere

and MacKay 1976: 3, 172, 178; Strudwick 1985: 316; Redford et al. 1988: 49; Redford 2010a:

40-41). However, personal names recovered on artifacts outside Mendes from at least the Second

Dynasty were compounded with the ram determinative (Kaplony 1963: 98 no. 406; Redford

2010a: 215). The cult seems to have further developed in the Sixth Dynasty, when King Tety

bears the epithet “Beloved of Banebdjed” (Mariette 1880: 573 no. 1464; De Meulenaere and

MacKay 1976: 172). Names and titles of priests at Mendes have been found on cylinder seals,

false doors, stelae, and offering tables dated to the Sixth Dynasty (Hansen 1967: 16; Soghor

1967: 24-25; Redford 2010a: 28; discussed below). Some of the titles found associated with

burials and objects belonged to priestesses of Hathor and Neith (Hansen 1967: 16; Soghor 1967:

26-29).

Alongside the textual evidence relating to the cult institutions of the site, excavations in

1996 and 1998-2001, however, have unearthed archaeological evidence that sheds light on the

early cult. Five excavation units dug north of the naos court of Amasis revealed a large mudbrick

platform (see Figure 3.3) beneath the sand foundations of the New Kingdom temple, which has

been interpreted as part of an early sanctuary constructed at Mendes during the Old Kingdom

(Redford 1996a; Redford 1999; Redford and Redford 2005: 164; Adams 2009: 157-158, fig. 32;

Redford 2010a: 37-40).42 Although no remains were found atop the platform, its position beneath the Late Period temple suggests a continuity of temple building in this area of the site

(Redford and Redford 2005: 164).

42 This interpretation is relatively recent. The earlier excavations by New York University unearthed part of the platform but failed to identify its significance (Hansen 1964: 7).

According to Redford, the Old Kingdom temple would have replaced an earlier Third

Millennium BC shrine made of brick and reeds (2010a: 23, figs. 3.7a-d), but no archaeological evidence of this structure has survived. The Old Kingdom platform was built almost 3 m (5.7 cubits43) in height with an east-west width of approximately 41 m (78 cubits) (the same width

was maintained by the Late Period temple), and was made of large, sun-dried mudbricks

(Redford 2009: 7; Redford 2010a: 38-39). The north-south length of the platform is not known,

however, due to obstruction by the deep foundations of the naos court of Amasis, but Redford

suggests that it once occupied the same amount of space as the later court (2010a: 38). A semi-

circular terraced court abutted the northern face of the platform, but its purpose remains

unknown (Redford 1999; Adams 2009: 158). Adams calculated a more accurate date of the

construction of the platform based on the stratigraphy of the construction fill of a deposition of

dense ceramics (Dense Sherd Layer) and brick debris attributed to the creation of the platform,

and dated to the late Second/early Third Dynasty (2009: 158-159). Interestingly, this date

corresponds with Manetho’s mention of the cult of the ram at Mendes in the Second Dynasty, as

Adams points out, but it remains unclear to what extent the king sponsored the early cult (2009:

159).44 Royal endowments were not a prominent aspect of provincial cult temples until the Sixth

Dynasty, although royal names dating from the Early Dynastic Period are attested in the temple

precinct at Hierakonpolis (Bussmann 2007: 17; Bussmann 2013: 21-22, 25, 29-31).45

43 For more information about the cubit in ancient Egypt, see Arnold 1991: 10-11, 251-252.

44 Adams argues that local cult temples in the Early Dynastic Period and early Old Kingdom did not receive “any significant endowments from the royal authority” (2009: 200).

45 Bussmann has demonstrated that royal participation in early local temples varied and “needs to be considered individually for each site” (2013: 33).

The platform may have supported an early shrine to the ram-god of Mendes, Banebdjed

(Redford and Redford 2005: 164). Redford suggests that it would have been a simple structure of mudbrick with stone elements, such as door jambs, lintels, and columns (2010a: 40). Occupation levels (Phase IV/late Second to Fourth Dynasty and Phase III/Fourth to Sixth Dynasty) contemporary with the platform contain building remains, clay-lined pits, basins, hearths, ash refuse deposits, and a dense deposit of discarded beer jars (Adams 2009: 159-163, tab. 2, fig.

42). Adams suggests that these items were part of a bread and beer production facility associated with the Old Kingdom temple due to their close proximity immediately west of the platform in

Field AJ North (2009: 159-163). The production of bread and beer could be used for divine offerings for the gods, as well as provisions for the population living at Mendes. This evidence may indicate increasing centralization of the state or a new economic organization in the provinces at this time (see Adams 2009: 199-200).

During the Fifth Dynasty, mortuary activity became extensive on Tell el-Rubʽa as indicated by the mortuary remains located to the east of the Old Kingdom platform, which eventually extended north around the temple (Hansen 1966: 191; Adams 2009: 200, fig. 3). The

New York University expedition unearthed three mastabas tentatively dated to the Fifth or Sixth

Dynasty east of Field AJ North and a number of Sixth Dynasty mastabas north of Field AJ North

(Hansen 1967: 11-14; see Figure 3.3). Although the mastabas were robbed in antiquity, funerary equipment found associated with them includes traces of a wooden coffin (mastaba of Aha-pu- ba), copper razors, copper mirrors, pottery vessels, and decorated and inscribed limestone fragments from false door niches (Hansen 1967: 13-15). One burial chamber contained part of a skeleton with a necklace made out of gold wire and frit beads (Hansen 1967: 15).

The mastabas form part of a large cemetery, parts of which were later covered over by

the temple of Banebdjed (Hansen 1967: 13). The burials are contemporary with the Old

Kingdom platform and the food production facilities excavated in Phase III (Fourth to Sixth

Dynasty). Undated fragmentary superstructures, shafts, and graves with bodies wrapped in reed

matting containing no burial goods were found scattered around the mastabas; however, objects

recovered from mixed debris throughout the cemetery area comprise a range of dates from the

Old Kingdom through the Middle Kingdom attesting to the potential length of use of the

cemetery. These items include, a cylinder seal with the Horus name of Unas, a miniature basin

and ewer, as well as miniature copper tools dated to the Sixth Dynasty, and statue and offering

table fragments dated to the Middle Kingdom (Hansen 1967: 14-15). Coinciding with this

activity, the food production area west of the temple was “drastically reduced in size,” while the cemetery continued to expand around and in front of the temple for the priests of the local community and civil officers from the residence (Redford 2010a: 28).

Titles of high dignitaries buried in the cemetery at this time include, “Overseer of

Priests,” and “Chief Lector Priest,” as well as civil administrators, such as “King’s Agent” and

“Overseer of Messengers” (Redford 2010a: 28).46 One of the earliest mastabas with inscriptional

evidence that attests to the development of the local priesthood belonged to Aha-pu-ba (aHa-pw-

BA) tentatively dated to the Fifth Dynasty, whose titles include imy-r Hm-nTr BA Ddt “Overseer of

Priests of the Ram-god of Mendes,” a title that his son Nefer-shu-ba (nfr-Swt-BA) retained

(Hansen 1967: 12; Soghor 1967: 24).47 The owner of a Sixth Dynasty mastaba located northwest

46 Unfortunately, Redford does not include transliterations or citations for these titles.

47 The small mastaba of Nefer-shu-ba was built west of the temple of Banebdjed and included an inscribed limestone false door (Hansen 1967: 11-14; Soghor 1967: 24; Redford 2010a: 28-33, figs. 3.15a-3.15b).

of the temple of Banebdjed, Ishtef-Tety (iSt.f-tty) was the “Sealbearer of the (current) King,48

Unique Friend, and General of the Army” (Hansen 1965: 35; Hansen 1967: 13; Redford 2010a:

28).49 Many of the owners of the large mastabas located northwest of the temple have names

compounded with the royal names Tety and Pepy, perhaps suggesting that kings appointed these

officials in Mendes (Hansen 1966: 191; Soghor 1967: 26; Redford 2010a: 28).50 In most provinces of this time, priestly authority was often the same as civil authority, so that individuals could hold both titles (Kanawati 1992: 26-27). Yet, these titles do not seem to include a direct reference to the temple itself, the physical dwelling of the god and what it was called in the Old

Kingdom, but rather refer directly to the ram-god. The temple institution of the cult of Banebdjed at this time remains a mystery.

At the end of the Sixth Dynasty, mudbrick mastabas and vault-shaped tombs constructed between mastabas containing interments of multiple individuals and poorly equipped began to occur throughout the area (Mumford 1996; Redford 1999-2000: 18; Adams 2009: 202; Redford

2010a: 29, fig. 3.13). The cemetery remained in use until the early First Intermediate Period

(Redford 2010a: 32). By the Sixth Dynasty, royal decrees excavated from Coptos attest to the

power of local nomarchs and to the establishment of endowed estates, staff, and administration at

local cult centers (Hayes 1946). Adams argues that there was a shift from locally produced

48 See Quirke 1986: 123.

49 According to Hansen, the titles of Ishtef-Tety were painted on the inside of his mastaba, but he does not provide an image of the inscription (1965: 35).

50 Other examples include the burial chamber of Set-net-Pepy (st-nt-Ppy) (Hansen 1967: 13-14; Soghor 1967: 26- 27) and the tomb of Pepy-Ima (Ppy-imA), although his tomb has not been securely dated (Hansen 1967: 14-15; Willems 1988: 246, n. 23; Silverman 1996: 137-141; Redford 2010a: 28). Geisen’s analysis of basilophoric personal names dating to the Old Kingdom suggests that names compounded with the royal names Pepy and Tety could indicate occupational relationships to these kings (2017: 229).

economic revenue (the bread and beer facilities in Phase IV and early Phase III) to outsourcing

from the central residence (the architecture in Field AJ North and South and the bread and beer

facilities in late Phase III) based on the development of the provincial cemetery in the Fifth

Dynasty marking the power and wealth of provincial authorities (2009: 202).51 According to

Adams, “the transfer of local economic jurisdiction from the central authority to the provincial

temples lead very quickly to a rise in influence of local cults and the ability for the local

priesthoods to develop provincial cemeteries” (2009: 201). However, the relative numbers of

“rich” and “poor” burials from the Fifth Dynasty to the end of the Sixth Dynasty are difficult to

ascertain due to the disturbed nature of many of the burials and due to the fact that the entirety of

the cemetery has not been excavated and parts were destroyed by later temple phases.

At the end of the Old Kingdom and leading into the beginning of the First Intermediate

Period, destruction and abandonment of the excavated areas of the site is apparent by the

collapse of buildings, ash fill, and a mass burial of approximately 35 individuals within the semi-

circular courtyard abutting the platform (Adams 2009: 177-178; Redford 1999; Redford 2010a:

46-50). Following this period of destruction, burials were arbitrarily placed near the temple and

in some cases, they superimposed earlier tombs (Mumford 1996: 2; Adams 2009: 204).

Excavations in this area, however, have revealed a continuity of occupation after the destruction

layers, which marked a revival of the site when a new temenos wall was built for the temple and

other building activities occurred during the First Intermediate Period (Adams 2009: 205;

Redford 2010a: 19-21).52

51 Also see Baer 1974; Strudwick 1985; Kanawati 1992: 23-35.

52 The New York University expedition unearthed a large complex building east of the naos court of Amasis that contained a broad room with two column bases, which they tentatively dated to the First Intermediate Period

The Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period are represented relatively well at the site, but there is scarce evidence to paint a picture of life in the town during the Middle Kingdom and

Second Intermediate Period. No royal artifacts from the Middle Kingdom or Second

Intermediate Period have been recovered on site, although a statue of Amenemhat I found at Tell el-Dabʽa, now in the Cairo Museum (JE 60520), retains the title “Beloved of Banebdjed” indicating that Twelfth Dynasty kings were aware of and honored the sacred cult at Mendes

(Gauthier 1934: 43-53; Habachi 1954: 452-453; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 172;

Redford 2010a: 60-61). However, it remains unclear if this evidence indicates that the cult of

Mendes was royally sponsored during the Middle Kingdom, which may be likely considering it was a period of strengthened central administration throughout the country (Kemp 1989: 65-83;

Kemp 2006: 111-135). A non-royal statue of Ip-wer (Cairo JE 36274) and a sarcophagus of

Semekh-sen (Cairo JE 40302) found at the site have also been dated to the Middle Kingdom (De

Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 172, 196, no. 39, 213, no. 162). Additionally, an offering table with an inscription that includes an offering formula and the phrase Hwt-nTr n BA-nb-Ddt “Temple of Banebdjed” belonged to a steward of divine offerings from the Twelfth Dynasty attesting to elite activity and the existence of a temple dedicated to Banebdjed during the Middle Kingdom

(Soghor 1967: 29-31, fig. 10; Redford et al. 1988: 51).

Redford suggests that the occurrence of the cult of Mendes in the Coffin Texts appears to provide evidence of continued occupation of Mendes through the Middle Kingdom (1992: 49-51;

1994b: 1-2; 1996a: 679). The Coffin Texts, however, are partially derived from the Pyramid

Texts (see Allen 1986: 1, 24-25; Hoffmeier 1996: 48-49, 54; Silverman 1996: 132, 140-141;

(Hansen 1967: 10-11, pl. III). Adams has compared the structure to similar buildings found at Bubastis, Saqqara, and Lahun and suggests the function of an elite house (2009: 205-206, fig. 61).

Goebs 2004; Baines 2004; Mathieu 2004; Allen 2005: 1; Allen 2006; Morales 2013: 13-14, 44,

139-143; Scalf 2015: 204-208; Morales 2017: 20-21, 116-117, 174-177), so the reference to the cult of Mendes could refer to earlier time periods and the connection between references in the

Coffin Texts and the occupational history of the site is not firmly established. To complicate matters further, domestic occupational strata from this period have not been discovered at the site

(Redford 2010a: 58).53 West of the area of ram sarcophagi, beneath fill dating to the Third

Intermediate Period, however, excavators may have discovered pottery from the Middle

Kingdom, which has yet to be analyzed (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 16-17). Based on the

recovered material remains described above (non-royal statues, sarcophagi, and offering tables),

there may have been a Middle Kingdom cemetery on the site, which could provide indirect

evidence of local occupation.

There is archaeological evidence that a Middle Kingdom temple existed, but in contrast

to the Old Kingdom, the types of positions and the size of its associated priesthood is unknown, since few names and titles dated to the Middle Kingdom have survived (Redford et al. 1988: 51).

Between the Old Kingdom platform and the level of sand associated with the foundation for the

New Kingdom temple, a separate building phase (cut away by the New Kingdom temple) may

provide evidence of the Middle Kingdom temple at the site, but the results are not conclusive

(Redford 1999; Redford 2000; Redford and Redford 2005: fig. 7.1). According to Redford,

artifacts and architecture dated to the early Middle Kingdom likely represent remains from a

contemporary temple levelled during the construction of the New Kingdom temple. Abutting the

southern edge of the naos court built by Amasis, excavations revealed the remains of part of a

53 Occupation levels of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom were not found during excavations below the foundations of the naos court of the temple (Wilson 1982: 3).

Middle Kingdom wall (Redford 2010a: 62-63, fig. 5.1). In addition, pottery of early Twelfth

Dynasty date was found in small chambers situated just outside the wall, which may represent storage rooms associated with the Middle Kingdom temple (Redford 2010a: 62-63, fig. 5.1).

There are unexcavated levels of the site that might yield additional Middle Kingdom material

(Adams 2009: 206).

The only hint at Second Intermediate Period activity at Mendes stems from four sherds of

Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware found in later strata (Field OB) during the University of Toronto excavations in 1992, but these have not yet been published (Redford 1996a: 682). The site may well have been abandoned when Avaris became the capital of the Hyksos in the Delta (Bietak

1996; Ryholt 1997; Booth 2005; Mourad 2015). Redford suggests that Mendes “lay within the

Hyksos ambit of political control” (1996a: 682) during the late Second Intermediate Period based on a passage in the Second Stela of Kamose that refers to the geographical range of Hyksos dominion (see Redford 1996a: 681-682; Redford 1997b: 22, figs. 1.1-1.3). Yet, although Mendes is well within the vicinity of trade routes between the Delta and the Levant, it does not appear to have been a subject of foreign attention compared to other sites along the eastern Delta branch of the Nile, such as Tell el-Dabʽa, Tell el-Habwa I, Tell el-Maskhuta, and Tell el-Yahudiya (Bietak

1991: 29, fig. 1; O’Connor 1997b: 48, 62; Holladay 1997; Holladay 2001; Redford 2010a: 62;

Mourad 2015: 125, 129-130). According to Mourad’s research, Memphite kings’ loss of control over elite in the Delta during the Thirteenth Dynasty corresponds with “a demonstrable freedom of expressing ethnicity and status” at Tell el-Dabʽa, referring to the combined Egyptian and

Levantine elements at the site (Mourad 2015: 216).54 Increasing Levantine architecture and

54 Mourad suggests that the fact that the Mayor’s Residence at Tell Basta was abandoned, an official’s statue at Tell el-Dabʽa was intentionally destroyed, and that elite individuals of Tell el-Dabʽa, Tell el-Habwa I, and Tell Basta

material culture at Tell el-Dabʽa during the second half of the Thirteenth Dynasty may reflect the

emergence of an independent dynasty in the Delta (Mourad 2015: 128-129). The political

stability of Tell el-Dabʽa in the Fifteenth Dynasty is attested by settlement expansion, increased population, and the establishment of “new local industries and places of worship” (Mourad 2015:

216). Dodson suggests that with the rise in Hyksos power, some of the elite Egyptian families moved southward to establish the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes (1987: 44). With the increase in power and wealth, the establishment of major cult institutions at Avaris,55 and the southward

movement of Egyptian governance and administration (Dodson 1987: 44; O’Connor 1997b: 56-

62), the local cult institution at Mendes may not have had sufficient economic resources to

continue operation during the Second Intermediate Period.

Domestic occupation levels and mortuary remains from the New Kingdom have likewise

remained enigmatic. Construction activity has been identified for the Eighteenth Dynasty, and

especially for the Nineteenth Dynasty, within the temple precinct but not elsewhere at the site.

New Kingdom pottery found in destruction debris associated with the temenos walls of the temple has yielded both domestic and votive types identifying potential occupation levels of this period (Hummel and Shubert 2004: 135-150); however, the pottery derives from mixed contexts and no New Kingdom domestic buildings have yet been unearthed. Larger quantities of pottery in this area of the site date to the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period (Hummel and

Shubert 1994: 14-15; Hummel and Shubert 2004: 145-150).

were not buried in Memphis during the Thirteenth Dynasty could indicate that elite Levantines were rising to power at these sites (2015: 127, 216).

55 These include a Canaanite temple (Temple III) constructed in 1720-1700 BC, as well as other temples, some built in Egyptian style, which continued to function at Avaris until the end of Hyksos occupation (Bietak 1996; Bietak 1997: 105-108; O’Connor 1997b: 56).

Excavations in the royal necropolis area (Field AL) from 1993 to 1995 revealed

additional strata of late New Kingdom (Twentieth Dynasty) pottery assemblages (storage jars,

cooking pots, beer jars, bowls, and so on) (Hummel 2009: 65-67). Most of the corpus represents

whole vessels that were damaged by later activity but were originally placed in orderly

superimposed rows in two separate locations in disturbed levels in the cemetery (see Figure 3.4).

One group was found in the ruins of a brick-lined circular structure, while another was found in

an excavation trench (Hummel 2009: 65-66). A deposit of whole and restorable vessels was

found to the south but was cut through by the construction of the tomb of King Neferites I.56

Many of the pots were crushed beyond restoration. Some of this pottery was associated with

ritual offerings. Narrow jars (decanters), beer jars, cylindrical jars, and fish-shaped jars were

used in ritual contexts at the site (Hummel 2009: 69, 72-72, 79-80, 83-84). However, the

contents of the vessels have rarely survived. One decanter contained ash and cereal grains, while

others had black tar-like substances perhaps representing preservatives (Hummel 2009: 69).

Other jars contained tightly coiled roots, which Hummel has associated with a nutritious, liquid

food (2009: 84). Furthermore, fish-shaped jars, pottery that contained fish bones, and fish stelae

unearthed in this area of the site may hint at local religious practice associated with the local fish

goddess Hat-Mehyet, Foremost of Inundation, during the late New Kingdom (Redford 2004c:

32-33; Hummel 2009: 83-84; Redford 2010a: 86-89; discussed further below). The fish bones

belong to schilby-fish, a species that is associated with the goddess, who was consort to the ram-

god Banebdjed at Mendes (Mumford 1997: 1-3; Brewer 2001: 535; Redford and Redford 2005:

194; Mittelmann 2005; Zivie-Coche 2009; Redford 2010a: 86-89).

56 During the Twenty-Ninth Dynasty, the general Neferites had taken control of Mendes and became the first king to rule directly from the town (Lloyd 2000: 385-386; Redford 2010a: 146-147). His tomb is discussed below.

Royal patronage is attested at the temple of Banebdjed for the Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Dynasties, but the data is not substantial. The only direct evidence of royal patronage during the

Eighteenth Dynasty is a series of mudbricks stamped with the cartouche of Thutmosis III and a

disturbed foundation deposit (Weinstein 1973: 195-196; Redford 2010a: 71, 80; Redford 2010b:

274, figs. 3-5). A door jamb with the name of Horemheb, now in the Cairo Museum (JE 32012),

also came from Mendes, but its exact provenience is unknown (De Meulenaere and MacKay

1976: 193, no. 17). Based on this evidence, Redford suggests that Horemheb restored a gate in

the temple (2010a: 77). At other Delta sites, such as Buto, Thutmosis III was an avid temple

builder,57 and Amenhotep III is known to have refurbished temples at Athribis and Bubastis,

demonstrating that Delta sites were far from ignored by Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaohs (Redford

1983; Arnold 1992; Laskowski 2006: 183-237; Redford 2010a: 68-74); therefore, the lack of inscriptional evidence from Mendes is curious. The existing evidence may not reflect the true scope of royal investment in the local cult of Mendes during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

From the Nineteenth Dynasty, cartouches of Ramesses II and Merneptah have been found on architectural elements and foundation deposits associated with the temple of Banebdjed, indicating that royal interest in the cult of the ram-god of Mendes continued throughout the New

Kingdom, despite the lack of New Kingdom evidence in other areas of the site. One of the blocks with broken cartouches of Ramesses II and Merneptah was found lying 10 m inside an area designated as the gate or entranceway associated with the first pylon of the Ramesside temple, while another block with the sole cartouche of Merneptah was found near the pylon’s east side

(Redford 2009: 2; Redford 2010a: 78-79, fig. 6.9). All that remains of the first pylon, however, is

57 Thutmosis III restored the temple at Buto and set up statuary, a calendar of festivals, and a triumphal stela (Redford 1983; Von der Way 1997; Wilkinson 2000: 18-19; Redford 2010a: 68-71).

approximately 34 disarticulated block fragments and its foundation trench filled with sand

(Redford 2009: 2, fig. 1; Redford 2010a: 78; Redford 2010b: 271). A diorite block with the

cartouche of Ramesses II was found adjacent to an in situ block associated with a second pylon,

and part of a granite door jamb with the name of Merneptah may have once belonged to the gate

of this pylon (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 191 no. 3, pl. 8e; Redford 2009: 6, pl. 27;

Redford 2010a: 80).

Two foundation deposits (deposit A and deposit B) belonging to Merneptah were found

adjacent to the northern edge of the east and west ends of a foundation trench associated with the

second pylon. The deposits were shallow pits that each contained 10-15 faience model offerings

(haunch of beef, bull’s head, goose), 10-20 pottery vessels (jars, saucers, plates), and a limestone

block with the cartouche of Merneptah (Redford 2009: 6, 40-42, pls. 5-6; Redford 2010a: 80;

figs. 6.14-6.17). Deposit B (west) also contained the head and haunch of an animal (Redford

2009: 42). The contents of the deposits are typical for the Nineteenth Dynasty (Weinstein 1973:

225-251); however, Redford has commented on their unique location (2009: 6, 40). Unlike typical foundation deposits of the New Kingdom, Merneptah’s deposits were placed in shallow oval pits with little covering, abutting the northern face of the second pylon, rather than in deep foundational sand under the pylon (Weinstein 1973: 418; Redford 2009: 6, 40; Redford 2010a:

80). Redford suggests that the unique placement of Merneptah’s deposits may indicate that the king finished renovations of the temple begun by his predecessor Ramesses II, and hence the second pylon was already in place by the time Merneptah left his deposits (2009: 6-7; 2010a:

80). The foundation deposits of Merneptah, however, do suggest a new construction during his reign, rather than just a refurbishment. This activity could have comprised an addition or extension of the temple proper, rather than an entire rebuilding of the temple itself. In this regard, the location of Merneptah’s deposits is not as anomalous as Redford suggests.

Statue bases (Cairo JE 36325 and Cairo JE 36326) of Ramesses II and Merneptah

recovered from the site were likely originally placed within the temple (De Meulenaere and

MacKay 1976: 193, nos. 18-19). In addition, a statue of the Vizier Paser, who worked under

Ramesses II, was recovered from Mendes. In his inscription, Paser venerates Amunrasonther,

Re-Horakhty, Thoth, and Maat, which indicates that guest deities were likely worshipped in the temple during the New Kingdom (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: pl. 17 no. 41; Donohue

1988: 108; Redford 2010a: 85).

The fact that Nineteenth Dynasty kings invested in Delta cults is not surprising considering that their line of succession may have originated in the Delta (Cruz-Uribe 1978;

Murnane 1995b: 185-217; Van Dijk 2000: 294) and that the capital of Egypt was moved to Pi-

Ramesses, as Redford notes (2010a: 77). Eighteenth Dynasty and Ramesside kings, however, conducted active building programs throughout Egypt, which greatly expanded and refurbished the monuments of their predecessors, in addition to establishing structures of their own. After the reign of Merneptah, few remains have been recovered from the end of the New Kingdom at

Mendes. A sandstone stela fragment found in destruction debris from the tomb of Neferites I in

Field AL contained the cartouche of Ramesses VI (Hummel 2009: 84; Redford 2010a: 92, fig.

6.25). Although Redford has not yet published the stela,58 he notes that there are cartouches of

the king and that part of the text records “dedications to the cults of the region,” but direct

references to Banebdjed and Hat-Mehyet are missing (2010a: 92). Nowhere else is Ramesses

VI’s patronage attested at the site, but his stela fragment was recovered alongside the schilby-

fish votive stelae and pottery mentioned above. Was Ramesses VI investing in the local cult of

58 The New Kingdom and Late Period remains are to be published in a forthcoming article in JARCE (see Redford 2004c: 33 n. 14).

Hat-Mehyet in this area of the site, which contains a high number of non-royal votives that

appear to have been offered outside of state sponsored activity (i.e. the temple of Banebdjed)?59

If so, this evidence complicates the picture of royal versus non-royal areas of cultic activity at

Mendes, by blurring the lines between socio-economic spheres of religious devotion. The fact

that the stela is made of sandstone may provide evidence of the extent to which the king invested

in Mendes. Sandstone is predominant in southern Egypt and Nubia with the most important

quarry located at Gebel es-Silsila (Hassan 2001b). The appearance of sandstone at a Delta site

suggests that the stela travelled a great distance, which would require time and effort. It is of

note, however, that the temple of Banebdjed received a high degree of devotion under the

Ramesside kings.

The Third Intermediate Period and Saite Period represent a time of increased activity at

Mendes. Political changes in the aftermath of the reign of Ramesses XI and increasing foreign presence in Egypt from the Ramesside Period onwards, altered the administrative and cultural environment of the Delta (Davies and Schofield [eds] 1995; Kitchen 1996; Oren 2000; Redford

2010a: 96-100).60 The appointed ruler of northern Egypt, who became the founder of the

Twenty-First Dynasty, Nysubanebdjed, probably hailed from Mendes, as his name indicates,

likely attesting to the political prominence of the town (Redford 2010a: 100-103). During this

period, tribal enclaves of Libya - the Meshwesh and the Labu - continued to migrate and settle in

the Delta and Faiyum (Leahy 1985; Kitchen 1996; Redford 2010a: 103). The location of Mendes

59 See discussion below in §3.3.

60 During the reign of Merneptah, a coalition of tribes from Libya, Asia Minor, and the Aegean began to migrate into Egypt through Syria and Lebanon, and via the Mediterranean Sea (Manassa 2003: 2-3, 77-90, 94-107).

in the northeastern Delta close to the Mediterranean Sea, meant that a large influx of migrants

from eastern Libya reached Mendes relatively quickly.

Numerous statues recovered from the site date to the Third Intermediate Period and

memorials were set up by the family of Hornakht, Libyan clansmen who took the title “Great

Chief of the Me” as leaders of the local community of the Meshwesh at Mendes (Daressy 1909:

126; Redford 2004d: 35; Redford 2010a: 106, 219-220). Mendes became the residence of a number of local Chiefdoms of the Me at this time (Wilson 1982: 2). The town is mentioned in several Third Intermediate Period inscriptions, and Third Intermediate Period ceramic sherds have been unearthed south of the temple, associated with the inner enclosure wall in Field AL, and surrounding the sarcophagus of Neferites I, as well as in an ancient “landfill” in the vicinity of an earlier temenos wall in the temenos enclosure area (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 14-15;

Redford 1994b: 3; Kitchen 1996: 345, 366, 392-393, 402; Redford 2004d: 35; Hummel and

Shubert 2004: 135-184).

Burials occurred through most of the area of the northwest enclosure during the Third

Intermediate Period and Saite Period until Neferites I constructed his tomb during the Twenty-

Ninth Dynasty, suggesting significant occupation of Mendes at this time (Redford 2004c: 33;

Lang 2004: 185-196; Redford and Redford 2005: 191). During the Twenty-Second Dynasty,

Sheshonq III added relief scenes to the temple of Banebdjed (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: pl. 9 no. 4, 191 no. 4, 193 no. 20; Redford 2010a: 106). Further royal investment in the temple of

Banebdjed during the Third Intermediate Period has not yet been recovered. Excavations of a mound located east of the temple by the Pennsylvania State University expedition unearthed a large mudbrick building used for habitation as well as food production and storage attested by ovens, hearths, and domestic pottery (Redford 2010a: 107-108). The pottery associated with the

structure dates from the Twenty-Second Dynasty through the Saite Period and consists of storage jars, conical drinking cups, and bowls (Redford 2010a: 108). A displaced door jamb was discovered on top of the mound with an image of the torso of a Libyan chief wearing a feather on his head (Redford 2010a: 108, fig. 7.9). Redford suggests that the door jamb of Nysubanebdjed recovered from Mendes may have originated from the same structure, which Redford has interpreted as a palace belonging to the Chiefs of the Me (2010a: 106-110, figs. 7.8-7.10).

Inscriptions of Nysubanebdjed and Hornakht II on one of the reveals associated with a gate in the area describe how the sanctuary at Mendes had been damaged and how Nysubanebdjed and

Hornakht acted to enlarge and embellish it, suggesting that the Chiefs of the Me invested in the temple of Banebdjed (Daressy 1909: 126; Redford 2010a: 108-110). Throughout the Third

Intermediate Period to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, Delta chiefs continued to maintain a line of succession in the north through their Libyan heritage and they performed their own political duties (Kitchen 1996: 287-361; Redford 2010a: 114-122).

During the Late Period, the cult of Banebdjed became the identifying characteristic of

Mendes. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty Pharaoh Amasis refurbished the temple and added a naos court that once contained four massive granite naoi as shrines dedicated to four aspects of the ram-god (Soghor 1967: 16, 25, 30, fig. 10; Hansen 1967: 5-8; Bothmer 1988; Arnold 1999: 81-

82; Redford 2009: 14-22; Redford 2010a: 124, 157). However, other than the naos court and temenos wall, nothing remains of the superstructure of the temple to attest to its complete design.

One still-standing granite naos belongs to Shu, and fragments of three other naoi in the vicinity belong to Geb, Osiris, and Re (Hansen 1965: 34; Hansen 1967: 6).61 Each naos once rested on a

61 For reconstructions of the naoi with their inscriptions, see Soghor 1967: 16-23.

base of limestone blocks several courses thick (Hansen 1967: 6; Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen,

Ochsenschlager 1980: 23). The limestone blocks were further supported by a large limestone platform, under which foundation deposits were discovered at each of its four corners (Hansen

1999: 599-600). Each deposit contained the skull and haunch of a cow, miniature vessels, and model plaques, some of which contained the nomen and prenomen of Amasis (Hansen 1967: 8-

9; Weinstein 1973: 336-337).

Redford proposes that the Late Period temple conformed to the layout of a processional temple, the standard ceremonial temple of New Kingdom Egypt (2010a: 124). Through scattered architectural fragments and stratigraphic information, Redford was able to reconstruct the ground plan of the central part of the temple dated from the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty to the Twenty-Ninth

Dynasty (2009: 7-14; fig. 1). Although the blocks that formed the walls of the temple had been dismantled to the foundations in antiquity, their removal left holes filled with limestone chips and debris in the foundation sand that marked a rectilinear pattern and the presence of side rooms

(Redford 2009: 7). Redford suggests that one of these rooms contained the barque shrine of the temple and that granite blocks found in the area may have once belonged to “granite piers to the left and right of the front of the barque shrine” (2009: 12). However, no decorative elements have been recovered to determine the original location of the barque shrine of the Late Period temple, or to determine if earlier phases of the temple incorporated one. Inscriptional evidence which may support the reconstruction of a barque shrine for Banebdjed at Mendes occurs in the temple of Edfu where the barque of Banebdjed is mentioned (Chassinat 1984: 334; Redford

2009: 12, n. 22). A mammisi was likely associated with the temple at this time, as suggested by fragmentary limestone and granite blocks exposed on a mound lying north-northwest of the temple, which included a Hathor capital (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 113; Redford

2010a: 124-126, fig. 9.2). Fragments of decorated limestone and incised quartzite recovered from

the destruction debris of the central portion of the temple attest to activity during the Late Period

(Saite Period through the Thirtieth Dynasty), and include kheker-friezes, ceiling stars, cartouches

of Hakoris, part of an offering scene, and a text of Nectanebo I (De Meulenaere and MacKay

1976: 195, no. 34, pl. 8b,c,d; Redford 2009: 12-14; Redford 2010b: 271). No foundation deposits

have been found in this area of the temple, but recovered ceramic material yields forms dated

from the Saite Period onwards (Redford 2009: 13).

Statue inscriptions contain information about the priests and cults of Mendes during the

Late Period (De Meulenaere 2001: 33-42). In other areas of the site, archaeological material attests to a thriving community. Excavations south of the enclosure wall of the temple of Amasis unearthed a square depression that was once an artificial water basin lined with mudbrick in existence from at least the Saite Period to the late Ptolemaic Period, although the earliest date of its construction remains unknown (Redford 1991: 4; Redford 2010a: 171-172, fig. 11.41). On the east side of the basin, a series of buildings were erected upon a large ridge made of artificial fill, but their purpose is unidentified (Wilson 1982; Redford 2010a: 172). At the northern corner of the basin, a narrow gap had been filled in and covered with a mudbrick platform. On top of this platform, a structure, called the House of Amulets based on hundreds of faience amulets recovered from the building, was constructed during the Ptolemaic Period (Wilson 1982;

Redford 1991: 4; Redford 2010a: 172).62 Most of the excavated material documented in this area

of the site consists of debris of mixed Third Intermediate Period and Twenty-Sixth Dynasty remains (Wilson 1982). In addition, subterranean storage chambers dated to the Late Period and diagnostic pottery from the Ptolemaic Period, Late Period, Third Intermediate Period, and New

62 The building was roughly dated based on a reused Samian amphora found in its floor (Redford 2010a: 172, fig. 11.42).

Kingdom were discovered during excavations (Wilson 1982: 18-21). The small finds include

Late Period types of faience amulets, scarabs, figurines, ceramic vessels, and molds for amulets,

which point to an industrial area of the site involved with faience production (Wilson 1982: 30-

34; Redford 1991: 4; Redford 1993: 4). Ten ram figurines with sun discs or plumed crests on top

of the head appear to be unique to Mendes and may represent votive offerings to Banebdjed

during the Late Period (Wilson 1982: 34-35, pl. XXXIII). Similar figurines have not been

unearthed in earlier strata of the site, but the evidence appears to point to local production at

Mendes during the Late Period.

A cemetery dated to the late Saite Period through the Thirtieth Dynasty existed east of the

temple and contained the remains of high officials of Mendes. The sarcophagus and shabtis of

Nysubanebdjed were found on the surface of the cemetery and Neferites I used this area for his

tomb (Redford 1993: 4; Redford 1994a: 3; Redford 1994b: 7-8; Redford 2004b: 24-29, 33, 35;

Redford 2010a: 167-168, 176-177). Fragments of relief in the vicinity have led Redford to interpret this area as the royal necropolis of the Twenty-Ninth and Thirtieth Dynasties where a number of royal tomb chapels were once set up (1994b: 5-7). A cache of Late Period statues with inscriptions belonging to high dignitaries surrounded Neferites I’s sarcophagus and may have once been placed within the enclosure of the temple of Banebdjed (Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen,

Ochsenschlager 1980: viii; Redford 2004b: 29; Redford 2004c: 33; Redford 2010a: 177-178).

During the Twenty-Ninth Dynasty, Mendes became the temporary capital of Egypt under

Neferites I (Wilson 1982: 2; Lloyd 2000: 385-386; Redford 2010a: 146-147, 179-188). The site

featured three harbors (great eastern, small northwestern, and artificial basin), which allowed

international trade with the Mediterranean and Upper Egypt to flourish (Redford 1994a: 3;

Redford 2010a: 173; see Figure 3.5). Wine jars from Greece and storage jars from Phoenicia

have been recovered in large quantities in this area of the site (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 14;

Redford 2010a: 150). The ceramic evidence for imported pottery indicates that Mendes had contact with foreign locations at least as early as the Bronze Age/New Kingdom (Hummel and

Shubert 1994: 14). Other examples include Koan, Thasian, and Chian amphorae from the eastern

Mediterranean and Syria/Palestine, as well as Cypriot vessels and Canaanite wares (Hummel and

Shubert 1994: 14). Nectanebo I (founder of the Thirtieth Dynasty) erected a stela and shrine in the northwest portion of the town north of the small harbor. These artifacts have yet to be published (see Redford 1993: 4; Redford 2010a: 150, 225), but their existence demonstrates that royal patronage extended beyond the domain of the sacred precinct of Banebdjed during the Late

Period.

North of the great eastern harbor another cult structure was discovered on the high ridge, named Kom el-Adhem, but its function remains unknown (Lovell 1994: fig. 1; Redford 2010a:

151). Pottery from the mound spans the Late Period through the Roman Period and the area was used for human and sacred animal burials (Lovell 1994: 30-34). Several piles of burned bones and horns of rams were found in the middle of the mortuary remains (Lovell 1994: 30).

Meanwhile, storage rooms and offices seem to have occupied areas to the south (Redford 2010a:

151). The findings all attest to a thriving, multifunctional town with intensive construction activity during the Late Period.

Fragments of granite sarcophagi found strewn in two locations northwest of the central approach to the temple mound, and southwest of the Ptolemaic temenos wall of the temple were made for the interment of sacred rams at Mendes (Hansen 1965: 32; De Meulenaere and

MacKay 1976: 17, pl. 1b; Holz, Stieglitz, Hansen, and Ochsenschlager 1980: 24; Redford and

Redford 2005: 170-171). The southwest group was excavated by the Pennsylvania State

University expedition, which uncovered the remains of a monumental stone structure (Mansion of the Rams) resting on domestic levels of the late Old Kingdom, and a mudbrick ram hypogeum

with vaulted chambers oriented towards the Nile (Redford et al. 1988: 54; Redford and Redford

2005: 172-184, fig. 7.6; Redford 2010a: 157-161).63 The construction of the monument was a

relatively late endeavor during the First Millennium BC (around the time of Apries in 575 BC)

and it remained in use until the time of Alexander the Great (Redford 2004b; Redford and

Redford 2005: 190-194).64 The sarcophagi originally placed in the ram hypogeum were built

with notches to contain the horns of the deceased rams (Redford and Redford 2005: 184-187).

Roman amphorae found in the vaults of the cemetery suggest a reuse of the area during this

period (Redford et al. 1988; Redford 1994b; Hummel-Shubert 1994; Rodrigo 2009: 57-58). The

cemetery used to bury the sacred rams of Khnum at Elephantine was constructed at a similar

time (Delange and Jaritz 2013: 75-156; see §6.1).65

The date of the northwestern ram cemetery at Mendes is less secure, but evidence points to the Ptolemaic Period until the Christian Era (Redford and Redford 2005: 191-194). The sarcophagi may have originally been associated with a monumental structure that was once fronted by a pylon. Pits found in its floor were large enough to contain the sarcophagi (Redford

2010a: 166). Because no notches for horns were found in these sarcophagi to match the group of sarcophagi in the southwest, Redford suggests that they may have contained female sheep

63 No Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom occupation has been found in the vicinity (Redford and Redford 2005: 188).

64 The titulary of Apries was discovered on an architectural fragment from the site (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 193 no. 22).

65 For the similarity of ram cults at Mendes, Herakleopolis, and Elephantine, see Vernus 1978: 297 and Mokhtar 1991: 253-254.

(Mansion of the Ewes) in contrast to the sarcophagi from the southwest structure, which

according to this view contained the remains of rams (2010a: 166). In both necropolis areas,

however, no intact burials of rams have been recovered and hence the gender distinction is

hypothetical at present. Jewelry, including faience beads and other cultic objects, found in these

areas may have once adorned the bodies of the ram mummies (Redford and Redford 2005: 187-

188, 194). Elsewhere at the site, on Kom el-Adhem, the remains of sacred animals date to the

Greco-Roman Period (Lovell 1994: 30-34).

According to Redford’s understanding of the site’s history, little is known about the period between the destruction of the city by the Persians in 343 BC66 and new renovations under Ptolemy II. Areas surrounding the temple near the tomb of Neferites I and the ram hypogeum appear to have been abandoned during this time; yet, a diorite kneeling statue of

Philip Arrhidaeus was recovered from debris fill in the southern portion of the temple, indicating that the temple may have continued to function as a sacred center despite the neglect witnessed in other areas of Mendes (Redford 2009: 19-20). Ptolemy II refurbished Mendes and created a new temenos wall (T1) for the temple precinct, but no architecture from the central part of the temple points to a Ptolemaic date (Redford 2004a: 23; Redford 2004c: 34). Ptolemaic pottery and block fragments with Ptolemaic inscriptions have been recovered from the site, but not in numerous quantities (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 13; Redford 2010a: 196). Additionally, a sphinx with the prenomen of Ptolemy II was discovered in the northwest entry into the naos court of Amasis, but not in its original context (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: pl. 1, 13;

66 Artaxerxes III attacked the Delta causing much destruction to Mendes. Buildings were set afire and destroyed and material objects were smashed, resulting in the mounds of mixed debris apparent at the site today (Redford 1993: 4; Redford 2010a: 184-187).

Redford 2009: 13, n. 27; Redford 2010a: 196). In the so-called Mendes Stela of Ptolemy II (CG

22181), Ptolemy not only recorded his visit to Mendes, but also named several shrines at the site, albeit only the temple of Banebdjed, the mansion of the sacred rams, and some of the watery tracts have been securely identified (Sethe 1904: 38 line 4, 46 line 9; De Meulenaere and

MacKay 1976: 173-177, pl. 1a; Redford 2013: 273; Blouin 2014: 77-79). The last royal activity documented at the site is attributed to Ptolemy VI, who contributed decorations to the temple of

Banebdjed (Redford 2010a: 199).

By the reign of Cleopatra VII, the harbors had become dry and Romans later used them to bury their dead (Redford 2010a: 202). At this point, the settlement had already moved to the southern mound, Thmuis (Langsdorff and Schott 1930; Ochsenschlager 1967; Ochsenschlager

1971; Redford 1991: 1; Redford 1993: 4; Lovell 1994: 20). The temple of Banebdjed, however, continued to function as a sacred cult institution. One of the last known priests of Mendes held office under Augustus (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: pl. 27, no. 78, 23; Redford 2009: 23;

Redford 2010a: 202). Statues of high Roman officials were erected in the temple and their inscriptions indicate that these officials continued to use the same honored priestly titles as in preceding periods (Redford 2010a: 202). The Roman Period represents the last days of the cult of

Banebdjed, however, when a century later the temple precinct was used as a legion camp and garrison for soldiers (Redford and Redford 2005: 191-194; Redford 2009: 23; Redford 2010a:

205-207). The date of the final destruction of the temple of Banebdjed is unknown, but by the early Eighteenth Century, travelers saw the same diminished temple seen at the site today

(Redford 2009: 24; Redford 2010a: 229). During the Christian Era, the Mansion of the Rams suffered destruction at the hands of the monks who inhabited its walls (Redford 2010a: 207). By the time of the Islamic Conquest in 641 BC, Mendes was left uninhabited (Redford 2010a: 209).

100

3.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Mendes was host to frequent patronage by kings throughout Egyptian history and was the home of certain great leaders and kings during later periods. Material evidence attesting to the activities of kings during Mendes’ early history is less substantial than in later periods, yet continual interest in the town is apparent. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, royal patronage is exhibited solely through work on the temple by one king, Thutmosis III. However, the door jamb of Horemheb may provide indirect evidence of work under his reign (see above). At least, this is what the preserved evidence recovered from the site attests to so far. Based on the quantity and variety of evidence, the review of royal patronage presented above suggests that significant royal patronage occurred at Mendes during the Late Period and Ptolemaic Period. Yet, the extent of royal investment in earlier periods is often obscured by later remains. This is particularly true regarding the temple of Banebdjed where later building activity obstructed and demolished most of the early remains, especially those dating to the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. Thus, the existing evidence may not accurately represent the degree of royal investment at Mendes during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

3.2.1 Temple of Banebdjed

Evidence of the New Kingdom temple dedicated to Banebdjed mostly derives from inscribed artifacts and disarticulated blocks belonging to the Ramesside Period (discussed above). Royal construction activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty is, however, attested by mudbricks stamped with the cartouche of Thutmosis III. During the 2003, 2004, and 2007 seasons of excavations undertaken by the Pennsylvania State University expedition, a mudbrick façade dated to the reign of Thutmosis III once fronted the Eighteenth Dynasty temple (Redford

2009: fig. 1; Redford 2010a: 71, 80, fig. 6.18b; Redford 2010b: 274, figs. 3-5; see Figure 3.6).

The mudbricks of the façade were found at the bottom of the foundation trench of the second

101

pylon associated with the Ramesside temple laid out in lateral stacks reaching over a meter in height (Redford 2010a: 71-80, fig. 6.18a; Redford 2010b: 274, figs. 3-5). The foundation trench of the second pylon cut through visible stratified layers fronting the earlier Middle and New

Kingdom temples, the details of which are to be published in a forthcoming report (see Redford

2004c: 33; Redford 2009: 6, n. 11; Redford 2010a: 225). Redford suggests that the bricks were dislodged and reassembled in this way during the Ramesside Period as an act of piety towards the Thutmoside construction (2010a: 80). Therefore, the layout of the Eighteenth Dynasty bricks may not reflect their original arrangement. If the bricks represent a feature that fronted the

Eighteenth Dynasty temple as Redford argues, their location at the second pylon of the

Ramesside temple demonstrates that the temple covered 125 m (238 cubits) north to south (see

Redford 2010a: 71).

A disturbed foundation deposit attributed to Thutmosis III that was found approximately

40 m north of the site of the Old Kingdom temple during excavations in the 1960s does suggest that Thutmosis III expanded the earlier temple. The deposit was found in a cut in the mudbrick foundation walls located north of the naos court of Amasis and contained miniature model tools, pottery vessels (jars, saucers, and a bread mold), and the skull and haunch of a bovid (Hansen

1967: 9, pl. IX, fig. 9). Although no inscribed artifacts were recovered from the deposit,

Weinstein argues that the pottery is so similar to vessels recovered from foundation deposits belonging to Thutmosis III at other sites that it is likely that this deposit dates close to his reign

(1973: 195-196). The excavators who discovered the deposit thought that it might be a reburial from a different location in the temple or that it might indicate that the New Kingdom temple was expanded to the north, which seems to be an acceptable theory based on the location of the mudbrick façade excavated by Redford (see Hansen 1967: 9; Redford 2010a: 71). The foundation deposit affirms that Thutmosis III built a new temple under his reign.

102

The mudbrick façade confirms that the Eighteenth Dynasty temple used mudbrick in its

construction. The temple likely also contained limestone elements, although none have been

found (see Badawy 1968: 176-200). In addition to a central aperture, which Redford has

identified as the original location of a gate in the façade, four other apertures measuring 3.9 m

(7.4 cubits) in width were found to pierce the façade at symmetrical intervals on its left and right

sides (see Redford 2009: fig. 1; Redford 2010a: 71, 80, fig. 6.4; Redford 2010b: 274). Redford

explains that “each [aperture] showed a gravel foundation at the point of entry, presumably to

support a granite threshold, and a square ‘slot’ in the brickwork above for a door post.

Immediately inside the door semicircular indentations marked the reveals on both sides, perhaps

to receive engaged columns” (2010a: 71). These four openings in the mudbrick façade represent

a unique configuration that is not attested in other temples dated to the reign of Thutmosis III.

Redford associates the four apertures with the theological principle of the ram-god with four

faces (2010a: 71). His reconstruction of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple incorporates the four apertures in the mudbrick façade as four separate axes leading to a sanctuary area with four naoi

(see Figure 3.7). However, as Redford indicates, the internal layout of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Mendes cannot be confirmed based on the lack of archaeological and architectural material recovered (2010a: fig. 6.7).

It seems significant that the Late Period temple built by Amasis contained a naos court with four naoi dedicated to four different deities (Re, Osiris, Geb, and Shu) associated with four manifestations of the soul of the ram-god (Kessler 1989: 157; Derchain 1999: 22; Leitz 2002a:

684-685; Bothmer 2004). Thus, there may be a connection between the royal architectural constructions of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty regarding specific attributes of the ram-god. According to Redford (2005: 166-167; 2009: 7), at least as early as the

New Kingdom the ram-god of Mendes acquired new qualities related to royal legitimacy, the

103

totality of the cosmos as four rams, and oracular pronouncements combined with the gods Re

and Osiris, in addition to its early associations with sexual potency (also see De Meulenaere and

Mackay 1976: 1-3; Hornung 1999: 77). The characteristics of Banebdjed and his cult are difficult to trace historically, but his association with Osiris and Re is attested in the Coffin Texts, affirming that different manifestations of Banebdjed were attributed to the god before the New

Kingdom (Faulkner 1973-1978: CT I, 249, CT IV, 95, CT VI, 74-75, CT VI 292, CT VI, 404,

CT VII, 38; Redford 2010a: 36, 58-59). However, there is currently not enough evidence to ascertain if the pre-New Kingdom temples dedicated to Banebdjed contained features related to the quadripartite component of the ram-god.

The New Kingdom temple was constructed directly above the site of the Old Kingdom platform, suggesting a continuity of temple building in a localized area, but the architectural design of the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom temples cannot be confirmed.

In addition, Redford’s connection between the four apertures of the mudbrick façade of

Thutmosis III and the four characteristics of the ram-god remains speculative due to the lack of accompanying inscriptional evidence. Other than the naos court of Amasis with its four separate naoi belonging to Re, Osiris, Shu, and Geb, there are no other known architectural elements from the site that display these features. However, an inscription on the back pillar of a statue of a nobleman named Basa dated to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty recovered from debris of the tomb of

Neferites I identifies Banebdjed with the gods Re, Osiris, Shu, and Geb and describes the ram- god as “four faces on a single neck,” confirming that Banebdjed’s association with these gods was well established by the Saite Period (Burchardt 1910: 111-115; Wild 1960; Bothmer 2004:

434-435; Redford 2010a: 177-178). The mudbrick façade of Thutmosis III represents a unique aspect of the Eighteenth Dynasty cult temple at Mendes that is not observed in Thutmosis III’s temples located elsewhere, suggesting that its function is site specific. If the function of the

104

façade does relate to specific traits of Banebdjed then the façade may provide evidence that

Eighteenth Dynasty cult temples built in the provinces, or at least those attributed to Thutmosis

III, incorporated features tied directly to the theology of the patron deities worshipped at each

provincial town.

3.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Lower class post-New Kingdom burials have been unearthed in the rubble built up over the slope of the inner temenos wall (T3) surrounding the temple precinct, and along its western

edge (Redford 2004a: 5; Lang 2004: 185-196; Hummel and Shubert 2004: 142). The presence of

New Kingdom elite and non-elite burials at Mendes, however, remains enigmatic. The same is

true for New Kingdom domestic architecture and artifacts. No Eighteenth Dynasty houses have

been excavated at the site, but these may yet be found in unexplored areas. The domestic and

votive pottery recovered from debris associated with the temple precinct attests to New Kingdom

activity associated with the temple even though no New Kingdom occupation areas provide

information about the living quarters of the local community (Hummel and Shubert 2004: 135-

150). In the Late Period royal necropolis area (Field AL) additional pottery assemblages of

common domestic forms were dated to the late New Kingdom, but again no architectural

remains were unearthed (Hummel 2009: 65-67; see above). Questions regarding where the

inhabitants of the Eighteenth Dynasty lived and were buried remain unanswerable until further

excavation and publication.

Few surviving objects indicate the nature of non-royal religious involvement in the cult

of Banebdjed during the Eighteenth Dynasty. A headless kneeling statue fragment of Ibaba

(Louvre E. 25429), who was a high official and a Hm-nTr tpy n BA-nb-Ddt “First Prophet of

Banebdjed,” during the reign of Ay, provides evidence of a thriving priesthood of the temple of

105

Banebdjed at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Helck 1961a: 970 no. 140; Vandier 1968: 89,

93, pl. XV-XVI; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 196 no. 40; Redford 2010a: 76). The original placement of the statue is unknown, but from the New Kingdom onwards elite statues in temples acted as intermediaries between temple visitors and deities and were generally set up in the outer courts (Baines 1987: 90; Pinch 1993: 333-335; Kjølby 2007; Kjølby 2009: 35-36).

Helck lists the names and titles of several individuals associated with the cult of Banebdjed

during the New Kingdom, but only one of them can be securely dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty:

a festival leader of the ram of Mendes, who was a general under Horemheb (1961a: 970 no. 140).

There is evidence that the priesthood of Banebdjed continued to serve the ram-god throughout the New Kingdom (Helck 1961a: 970 no. 140). Other finds pertaining to non-royal religious activity, especially non-elite, during the Eighteenth Dynasty are lacking.

Post-New Kingdom ceramic remains attest to ceramic production at Mendes. Some local imitations or copies of imported vessel types occur at the site, indicating local manufacture

(Hummel and Shubert 2004: 135). Several types of pottery were used in ritual contexts at

Mendes, which may provide evidence of local offerings (Hummel 2009: 69, 72-72, 79-80, 83-

84). Fragments of New Kingdom (Ramesside) and Third Intermediate Period decorated pottery with checkerboard patterns, flowers, grape clusters, Bes figures, and human figures with raised hands have been found within the inner temenos wall, east of the sarcophagus of Neferites I, and interpreted as offering vessels for the local Mendes deities, Banebdjed and Hat-Mehyet (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 16; Hummel and Shubert 2004: 140, 181 pl. S). The checkerboard pattern is a unique decoration on Egyptian pottery and may thus indicate a type of local pottery used for ceremonial purposes specific to Mendes (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 16, fig. 5; Hummel and

Shubert 2004: 140).

106

Supporting evidence for local production activity at Mendes is attested by faunal remains

of cattle. Brewer discovered that cattle were likely processed, disarticulated, consumed, and

disposed on site, rather than being exported elsewhere in Egypt, such as to the central

government as a form of taxation (2004: 206). Cattle that reached adulthood (i.e. in their

“prime”), which provided the ideal cuts for offerings and human consumption, made up a

significant portion of faunal remains at the site, suggesting that inhabitants used their own

livestock for local ceremonial and consumption purposes that were not restricted to one

depositional context (Brewer 2004: 205-206). These remains may have been associated with the

local feast of Banebdjed and hence provide indirect evidence of feasting associated with the

god’s cult institution. At present, there is no clear information about specific rituals associated

with ram worship at Mendes. Perhaps a special ram was selected to represent the god in a similar

manner to Apis-bull worship at Memphis (Jones 1990; Marković 2015; Marković 2016).

Ptolemaic and Roman sources claim that the ram enjoyed feast days, but besides the potential evidence of a barque shrine in the temple of Banebdjed (see Redford 2009: 7-12) there is no in situ inscriptional or archaeological evidence for festivals at the site (Redford 2010a: 126-127).67

However, in the Coffin Texts, a wab-priest claims to have read the festival-book of the ram of

Mendes as one of his duties (Faulkner 1973-1978: CT IV, 95; Redford et al. 1988: 51; Redford

2010a: 36), and in the Book of the Dead a “Reader of the Ritual-book” and other festivals at

Mendes are mentioned (Allen 1974: Spell 1 S4, 7, T1, Spell 19 S2, Spell 128a S1, Spell 183c S2;

Redford et al. 1988: 51). As the capital of its Nome, perhaps Mendes retained a stronger degree of autonomy from the central government compared to surrounding smaller populations in the

67 For a detailed discussion of the festival procession of Banebdjed presented in the stela of Ptolemy II at Mendes, see §8.3.

107

Delta. The local production of cattle at the site may suggest that Mendes internally supported

economic activities related to cattle consumption and ceremonial activities, such as feasting and

ritual offerings associated with the temple of Banebdjed. The data presented, while not specific

to the Eighteenth Dynasty, provides evidence of a history of local production and economic

revenue that supported religious activities at Mendes and that may have operated partly

independent of the central residence.68

During the Twentieth Dynasty, an area of non-royal votive activity existed outside the temple precinct. Hundreds of pottery vessels (beer jars, water jugs, wine cups, and cylindrical storage jars) found on the eastern slope of the mound of Tell el-Rubʽa in the vicinity of the royal necropolis (Field AL) dated to the late New Kingdom (mostly Twentieth Dynasty) contained the remains of schilby-fish (Mumford 1997: 1-3; De Rodrigo 2000; Brewer 2001: 535; Hummel

2009: 79-80, 83; Redford 2010a: 86-89). One specimen was wrapped in linen, suggesting treatment similar to that known for other votive animal burials, perhaps as Redford has hypothesized, further indicating reverence for that fish species (2010a: 86). As discussed above, the schilby-fish is sacred to the goddess Hat-Mehyet. Unusual fish-shaped jars were also found in Field AL (squares ALM and ALN). Similar vessels are known from only one other site in

Egypt: Qantir (Aston 1999: 43; Hummel 2009: 83). In the Mendes context, in the fill around the vessels, fragments of bread molds suggest that bread was offered to the goddess along with the fish bones and liquids (Hummel 2009: 84).

68 The relationship between state and private enterprise is complex and controversial. Market stalls may or may not have been associated with temples and the private collection and distribution of materials may have been outsourced by a larger central establishment, such as a temple (Bleiberg 2007: 178-180). In the New Kingdom, there were censuses of cattle to collect taxes or levies for the central government (Muhs 2016: 109), but it is not clear to what extent this applied to every town/region.

108

In addition to the mass burial of schilby-fish, more than twenty votive stelae were once set up in the area, the remains of which have been found recycled in the walls of the Twenty-

Ninth Dynasty tomb of Neferites I located on the lower half of the same slope (Redford 2004c:

32-33, pl. XXXIX; Redford and Redford 2005: 194-196; Hummel 2009: 83; Redford 2010a: 89; see Figure 3.8). Another fragment of a fish stela was found in the destruction debris of the foundation trench of the second pylon of the temple of Banebdjed (Redford 2010b: 271). On the stelae, multiple representations of schilby-fish were arranged in rows and columns, and depictions of rams sometimes occurred in upper rows on the same stelae (Redford 2004c: 32, pl.

XXIX; Redford and Redford 2005: 194-195, figs. 7.19-7.20; Redford 2010a: 89). No texts were carved on the stelae. Redford has assigned this area of Mendes as sacred, with the pot burials and stelae acting as votive offerings to the local goddess (2010a: 89-92). No shrine to Hat-Mehyet has been unearthed at the site to date and the lack of textual information makes it difficult to determine who left the offerings.

Redford has suggested that the arrangement of fish in rows and columns covering the stelae without text is reminiscent of the so-called ear stelae typical of the New Kingdom and found all over Egypt (see Redford 2004c: 32; Pinch 1993: 250-253; Toye-Dubs 2016: 1, 4-26,

38-41). Ear stelae were dedicated by everyday individuals attempting to approach deities directly

(without going to a temple or using priests as middle men), so that the gods could hear their prayers (Hassan 1953: 41; Sadek 1987: 11-39; Pinch 1993: 259; Toye-Dubs 2016: 52-55, 60).69

They have been interpreted as a form of sympathetic magic (Petrie 1909: 7; Scharff 1934: 49), and often, like the multiple fish portrayed on the fish stelae at Mendes, display multiple ears to

69 Morgan has questioned the religious and magical symbolism of ear stelae and argues that the ears represented do not belong to deities (2004: 49-50). Recently, Toye-Dubs has dismissed this idea (2016: 53-55, 59-60).

109

render increased effectiveness through repetition (Blok 1928: 135; Pinch 1993: 250-253; Koenig

1994: 119; Toye-Dubs 2016: 55, 60). Unlike the fish stelae at Mendes, however, inscriptions on

the ear stelae often name deities and contain epithets referring to “hearing

prayers/requests/supplications” (Pinch 1993: 251; Toye-Dubs 2016: 60-92). According to Pinch, these texts affirm that “ear stelae were dedicated in the hope or anticipation that prayers would be heard, rather than as thank-offerings” (1993: 252). The increasingly widespread presence of ear stelae in the New Kingdom has been interpreted as part of the phenomenon termed the “the age of personal piety” since they seem to have been set up in places (temples, shrines) where everyday Egyptians now had access (Baines 1987: 88-97; Assmann 1989: 69; Baines 1991: 184;

Pinch 1993: 249-253).70 However, Toye-Dubs suggests that ear stelae derive from personal

desires of the private realm, rather than structural changes in state religion, since the majority

date to the Eighteenth Dynasty before the expansion of personal piety in the Ramesside Period

(2016: 110-111). The fish stelae do occur within the same date range as the ear stelae (mid-

Eighteenth Dynasty to Late Period) and likely indicate an area of private religious devotion at

Mendes aimed at invoking a divine quality, but their function may have been the praise of the

goddess rather than an invocation for the purpose of soliciting help.

The disturbed context due to the construction of the tomb of Neferites I into the slope of

fish votives and partly over the destroyed temenos wall of the late New Kingdom (T3) makes it

difficult to determine the original placement of these artifacts, but they seem to derive from an

area located outside the New Kingdom temple precinct of Banebdjed (Redford 2010a: 89). Most

of the vessels that contained schilby-fish bones were made of local Nile silt and were of poor

70 Personal piety is discussed in §2.3.2.

110

quality (Hummel 2009: 85). According to Hummel, they may have been mass produced at the

site and sold to devotees during a festival of the goddess (2009: 85). The mound that the votive

pottery and stelae originate stood above the margin of an ancient harbor and water was likely

directly correlated with the physical aspect of the goddess as a fish (Redford 2010a: 86, 89).

Perhaps this explains why devotion occurred in the goddess’ natural habitat, rather than within

the temple precinct of Banebdjed. Redford has suggested that Hat-Mehyet may have had her own shrine or temple erected in this area of the site (2004: 32).

Personal votive practice at Mendes in the Twentieth Dynasty may correlate with increasing state control of the local temple. Bussmann suggests that “personal piety is a result of the gradual exclusion of people from access to the temples” (2017: 86). During the Ramesside

Period, state monitoring of divine temples throughout Egypt may have affected how people expressed their interaction with deities (Bussmann 2017: 86). According to Bussmann, the exclusion of local individuals from temples relates to the deposition of votive objects outside temple walls and to the abundance of religious objects (clay figurines, amulets, and ancestor busts, for example) found in New Kingdom domestic contexts (2017: 84-86). The non-royal votives dedicated to Hat-Mehyet at Mendes may thus indicate that access to the temple of

Banebdjed was becoming more restrictive, so that alternative means of worship were expressed outside the temple precinct at that time. However, the stela of Ramesses VI found in the same

location may be indicative of a sacred area that was royally sponsored (Redford 2010a: 92, fig.

6.25). The increase in temple construction and in monuments that express the personal

relationship between kings and deities in the Ramesside Period demonstrates that a different

pattern of piety was also occurring at the royal level (Baines and Frood 2011: 14-15). But who

was the main innovator? Baines and Frood suggest that the emergence of pious texts by

Ramesside kings may have developed from the non-royal literary manifestations of piety

111

observed from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty onward (2011: 16-17). Their research presents a complex relationship between royal and non-royal developments of personal piety that appear broadly parallel. A similar pattern is observed at Mendes where both royal and non-royal worship of Hat-Mehyet occurred in the Twentieth Dynasty.

3.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Mendes

Eighteenth Dynasty material recovered from Mendes is not substantial mainly due to destruction activity associated with post-New Kingdom constructions. Therefore, the preserved remains may not accurately reflect the degree of royal patronage of Eighteenth Dynasty kings and the relationship between royal and non-royal religious activity at the site. Thutmosis III certainly contributed to the temple of Banebdjed, the main cult institution at Mendes, as attested by the mudbrick façade stamped with his cartouche (see §3.2.1 above; see Figure 3.9). If the foundation deposit can be accurately assigned to Thutmosis III, which seems likely, it suggests that Thutmosis III began a new construction and did not just refurbish the temple proper. He chose to build his temple at the site of the Old Kingdom temple, and potentially the Middle

Kingdom temple as well, reflecting continuity of temple building in this site. While no direct evidence has been recovered to identify the builder of the Old Kingdom temple or to confirm that it was dedicated to Banebdjed, titles of Old Kingdom priests of Banebdjed recovered from mortuary remains at Mendes suggest a cult of this deity there at this early time (see §3.1).

Non-royal evidence attests to a thriving priesthood associated with the temple of

Banebdjed during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but little else. Only the statue fragment of Ibaba, not found in situ, provides inscriptional evidence that the priests of the Eighteenth Dynasty cult of

Banebdjed held high-ranking positions. To date, no Eighteenth Dynasty mortuary or settlement remains have been recovered from Mendes, which limits the scope of this study. The extent of

112

non-royal religious activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty cannot be determined based on the preserved remains excavated so far. However, during the late New Kingdom (Twentieth

Dynasty), the corpus of votive pottery with fish bones and fish stelae located in Field AL east of the temple of Banebdjed attests to significant non-royal religious activity associated with veneration of the goddess Hat-Mehyet. It seems that the goddess was more accessible to the public than the ram-god in his temple. The stela of Ramesses VI found in the same area suggests that royal investment in the cult of Hat-Mehyet also occurred at this time. These finds represent a unique aspect of religious worship at Mendes that is not seen again before or after the Twentieth

Dynasty.

During the preceding Nineteenth Dynasty and continuing into the Third Intermediate

Period, royal activity focused solely on the temple of Banebdjed. During the Late Period, however, the location of the votives of Hat-Mehyet become the subject of royal investment when

Neferites I constructed his tomb over the earlier remains perhaps to partake in a ritually potent area. Though the evidence may not be a true representation of historical events, the significance of the non-royal votives dated to the Twentieth Dynasty may coincide with developments noticed elsewhere in Egypt, which indicate an influx of private religious activity and a more personal conception of deities during the late New Kingdom (see §2.3.2).

113

Chapter 4 Abydos

4.1 Historical Context and Site History

The site of Abydos lies in a bay of cliffs at the edge of the low desert on the west bank of

the Nile River in northern Upper Egypt, approximately 500 km south of Cairo in the modern

province of Sohag. The entire area spreads over a large geographical region extending over 8 sq.

km and has been divided by modern scholars into two main areas: North and South Abydos

(O’Connor 2009: 23). The site has a complex history spanning from the Paleolithic to modern

times. Based upon the direction of the Nile at this location, the local orientation of monuments

does not correspond to the true cardinal directional system, but to a relative directional system.

Local north at Abydos does not equate to true north but is rather roughly equivalent to true

northwest.71

For most of its history, Abydos was a provincial cult center that had a distinct character within the context of Egyptian history. As the burial place of the kings of the earliest dynasties

(Dreyer et al. 1990; Dreyer 1992; Dreyer 1993), and as the local cult center of the god Osiris-

Khentyimentiu, the site had strong associations with the foundation of Egyptian kingship72 and the symbolic transformation of the king in the afterlife. Although there is no real evidence that the king actually resided at Abydos, beyond royal visits, royal interest in the site is attested since

71 For more information regarding local directions versus true compass directions in ancient Egypt, see Cahail 2014: 4-6.

72 According to Wilkinson, Abydos was one of four centers of early kingship (1999: 40-41). Also see Kemp, in which This/Abydos is one of three proto-kingdoms of Upper Egypt (2006: 89-92, figs. 22-23).

114

the early periods.73 The site was an attractive location for multiple building activities that were a

part of the political and religious programs of many rulers (see Figure 4.1). Cult temples, which

were constructed and refurbished, formed the core of this royal focus across the site. Kings from

the late Old Kingdom through the Greco-Roman Period were invested in establishing or

maintaining cult structures at Abydos. Today, the modern landscape is dominated by such

buildings, many of which continue to appear as impressive monuments of the built environment.

The major cult structure at Abydos that was the subject of longstanding devotion by both

royal and non-royal patrons was the temple dedicated to the cult of Osiris-Khentyimentiu in

North Abydos, which forms the primary focus of this chapter. The temple was demarcated by a

massive mudbrick enclosure wall, which lies at the edge of cultivation near the modern town of

Beni Mansour. Archaeological evidence from Petrie’s 1901-1903 excavations inside the precinct

of the Osiris Temple Enclosure has provided evidence for cultic activity at the site from the

Predynastic Period to the Late Period and has demonstrated that a complex sequence of buildings

from the Old Kingdom through the New Kingdom existed in the central and local northern part

of the site (see Petrie 1902; Petrie 1903; see Figure 4.2). Additional investigations of the local

cult at Abydos have examined the emergence of Osiris and his cult, which can be traced back to

the Fifth Dynasty in textual sources (Griffiths 1980; Wegner 1996a: 9-45).

Scholars debate the nature of the phases of architecture within the enclosure. Inscriptional

evidence, however, convincingly suggests that the royal structures which date to the end of Old

73 Early attestations of royal investment at the site, in addition to the tombs of the early kings, include royal enclosures from the time of King Djer onwards (O’Connor 1989; O’Connor 1992; O’Connor 2009: 159-181; Bestock 2009), as well as architecture attributed to early temples in North Abydos (Petrie 1903: 7ff, 23-29, pls. L, LI).

115

Kingdom in this portion of the site, and likely some structures of the Middle and New Kingdoms as well, are individual royal ka chapels dedicated to the cult of the deceased king (O’Connor

1992: 88-90; Brovarski 1994a; Brovarski 1994b; Wegner 1996a: 135; Pouls Wegner 2002: 222-

224).74 The ka chapels were likely associated with the main temple of Osiris-Khentyimentiu, which has not yet been positively identified for any time period. Some scholars suggest that it may have been located under the large Late Period temple of Nectanebo I of the Thirtieth

Dynasty in the local southwestern quadrant of the Osiris Temple Enclosure (O’Connor 1992: 89-

90; Wegner 1996a: 98, 113-118; Pouls Wegner 2002: 175; Marlar 2007a; Marlar 2009: 43-44).75

This debate is hampered by the fact that the architectural morphology of structures within the enclosure is difficult to interpret due to the complicated stratigraphy of the site and the fragmentary nature of the remains. Bussmann argues that the earliest cultic buildings at many provincial sites, such as the early remains located within the Osiris Temple Enclosure at Abydos, remained relatively untouched by royal agency until the late Old Kingdom, after which structures became significantly more formalized during a Middle Kingdom expansion (2011: 747ff, 760).76

74 Inscriptional evidence associated with the Eleventh Dynasty structure of Sankhkare Mentuhotep III and the New Kingdom structure of Ramesses I refers to these buildings as ka chapels (Petrie 1903: 13, 33, pl. XXIII no. 5; Brovarski 1994b: 19; Wegner 1996a: 338). Surviving blocks from a structure built by Nebhetepre Mentuhotep II also point to this function (Petrie 1903: pl. XXV; Brovarski 1994b: 19). This type of evidence has not been found associated with the other Middle and New Kingdom structures within the enclosure; however, based on architectural layout and function, it seems likely that some of these also represent ka chapels (Brovarski 1994b, 19; Harvey 1998: 95; Pouls Wegner 2002: 222-224).

75 This debate is discussed further in §2.2 of the present dissertation. Note that Kemp disagrees with the idea that the main temple has not yet been located (1968: 138-155; 1995: 41-46) and Petrie interpreted his finds as elements of the main Osiris-Khentyimentiu temple (1903: 5-22). Based on attributes of architectural remains and scene types on decorated blocks found during her 2002-2004 investigation of the Late Period and earlier structures located in the eastern half of the enclosure, Marlar argues that she uncovered the remains of the main divine temple of Osiris (2009:43-44, 235-239). Her evidence is compelling, although very little in situ architecture remains for both phases of the structure and the majority of the decorated blocks upon which she bases her argument were found in a displaced context.

76 Bussmann’s theory is explained further in §2.2.

116

Expanding on Kemp’s theory about the formal tradition of provincial cult temples (1989: 66;

2006: 113; see §2.2), Bussmann observes that early cult temples display architectural non- conformity with individual layouts that vary locally, and that the quantitative preference for specific types of votives associated with early temples point to local variation (2011: 750-758;

2016: 37-40). At Abydos, there are certain types of votives that only occur there (Bussmann

2011: 753). Based on a study conducted by Griffiths (1982a),77 Wegner has noted that the

assimilation of the local god Khentyimentiu by Osiris in the late Old Kingdom represents “a

dynamic interplay between the local Abydene cultic structure and a developing state funerary

religion which was conceptually and symbolically linked with that site” (1996a: 48). Before this time, however, the veneration of the local god Khentyimentiu was likely separate from the developing state religion. As noted above, this process correlates with both the architecture of the early temple and the nature of its votive objects, which point to local variation.

Further evidence from the early Old Kingdom settlement at the site supports this notion of local development. In 1991, the Abydos Settlement Site Project under the field direction of

Adams uncovered zones of early residential and industrial activity inside the Osiris Temple

Enclosure that point to independent local production at the site in the late Old Kingdom and First

Intermediate Period (see Adams 1998; Adams 2005). Stone and bone tools as well as ceramic material from the settlement were locally made. In addition, a faience production area manufactured beads and amulets for local use indicating that the social, political, economic, and religious parameters of early Abydos were regionally oriented. At this time, the interaction

77 Griffiths argues that the interaction between state and local religion was pivotal in the evolution of Abydos as a religious center. In the late Old Kingdom, the veneration of the local god Khentyimentiu becomes integrated with the state cult of Osiris. Thus, already in the early periods there is an interaction between a local cult and a state funerary cult at Abydos.

117

between state and local religion, represented by the assimilation of Osiris and Khentyimentiu,

was vital in the evolution of Abydos as a major religious center in subsequent periods.

Although not much of the Osiris temple precinct remains today, besides the massive

enclosure wall, two limestone gateways, and mounds of debris,78 Petrie uncovered the remains of four small mudbrick buildings dating to the Old Kingdom there. These were located within an enclosure wall with stone elements and inscriptional data. Three of the structures’ owners are not identified, but one building was likely associated with Pepy II (Kemp 1968: 150; O’Connor

1999: 111). The ivory statuette of Khufu found in one of the buildings may not be contemporary

(Petrie 1903: 15, 30; Petrie 1938: 86; Kemp 1968: 152). Two free-standing stelae issued by

Neferirkare of the Fifth Dynasty and Tety of the Sixth Dynasty attest to royal patronage inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Petrie 1903: 10, 31, 41-42, pls. XIV, XVII, XVIII; Kemp 1968:

150-151, fig. 3). Further patronage during the Sixth Dynasty is attested by a stela and cartouche of Pepy I, faience tablets and alabaster vases naming Pepy I and Pepy II, as well as the base of a stela naming statues of Pepy II, two royal mothers, and the vizier Djau (Petrie 1903: 11-12, 31-

32, 42-42, pls. XIX, XXI, LIII, XLVII 4). Petrie believed he had reached the archaic level of the

Osiris temple; however, when Kemp reexamined and attempted to clarify Petrie’s work, he

speculated that Petrie dated some of the mudbrick walls too early and suggests that the early

temple was located beneath building H of the Sixth Dynasty (1968: 149, 153, fig. 3). Prior to

Petrie’s excavations, maps created in the late 1800s by Mariette (1880a: pl. 65; see Figure 4.3)

and Garstang (1901: pl. XXXVII; see Figure 4.4) show features of ancient remains largely

78 Marlar provides an excellent overview of the current physical environment of the Osiris Temple Enclosure, which will not be repeated here (2009: 9-16).

118

missing today. Aside from the production of these maps, the work of early excavators within the

enclosure was relatively cursory and not well recorded.

Archaeological and inscriptional data, including foundation deposits, provide evidence

for increased royal building activity associated with the Osiris Temple Enclosure from the

Eleventh to Thirteenth Dynasties. The following kings are attested: Eleventh Dynasty:

Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, Sankhkare Mentuhotep III; Twelfth Dynasty: Senwosret I, Senwosret

III, Amenemhat III; Thirteenth Dynasty: Neferhotep I, Khuiqer, and Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV.

Wegner has examined the fragmentary architectural, relief, and statuary elements as well as

foundation deposits associated with the aforementioned Middle Kingdom rulers at the site

(1996a: 73-86, 102-108) and Marlar provides an overview of the finds from Petrie’s excavations

(2009: 22-26). Wegner’s analysis sheds light on the function of these Middle Kingdom rulers’

building programs, but he does not discuss the stratigraphy or internal layout of the structures in

depth and archaeological evidence is scarce. Textual evidence, however, suggests that the built

environment of the enclosure during the Middle Kingdom consisted of a series of institutional

buildings that varied in size and complexity.79 Inscriptional evidence identifies the ka chapel of

Sankhkare Mentuhotep III confirming that Middle Kingdom royal ka chapels were built within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Petrie 1903: 33; Weinstein 1973: 63; Brovarski 1994b: 19; Wegner

1996a: 338; O’Connor 1999: 111). The recent discovery of a limestone maHat chapel belonging to

Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II near the enclosure of the Temple of Sety I in Middle Abydos

(Damarany 2014; Wegner 2015) demonstrates that Middle Kingdom royal patronage extended

79 Wegner notes that evidence from non-royal stelae distinguish different types of royal cult buildings associated with the main Osiris-Khenyimentiu temple. These texts describe structures as Hwwt-nTr nyt n-sw-bit “Temples of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt” and as prw nw nHH “Temple-establishments of Eternity,” which may indicate that distinct royal monuments existed within the enclosure (1996a: 99; 2007: 16).

119

beyond the main Osiris temple precinct. These structures attest to an increased state-level desire

to associate royal cults with the local deity at Abydos (Wegner 1996a: 80-83), a desire that

manifests itself at many provincial sites during this period (Franke 1994: 118-127).

Royal patronage at Abydos during the Middle Kingdom is indicated further by a series of

royal mortuary complexes located in South Abydos. The largest and best preserved of these is

the complex of Senwosret III, which has been the subject of systematic excavation by the

University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York University

Expedition under the direction of Wegner since 1994 (see Wegner 1996a: 140ff; Wegner 2007).

Senwosret III established a mortuary temple, tomb, and planned settlement that shares

similarities with Old and Middle Kingdom pyramid towns and expresses an increasing emphasis

on the relationship between the king and the local god at the site (Wegner 1996a: 318-331;

Wegner 2007: 5-9, 19-21, 392-393, 399-403; Wegner 2010c: 123; Wegner 2014). The decorative

program of the cult building highlights the god Osiris in both textual and visual representation,

along with the daily mortuary cult of the deceased king (Wegner 1996a: 283-307; Wegner 2007:

9, 152-167, 184-186). Epithets associated with the name of Senwosret III demonstrate his

relationship with the god: mry Wsir-xnty-imntiw nb AbDw di anx “Beloved of Osiris-

Khentyimentiu, Lord of Abydos” and mry WpwAwt nb tA-Dsr anx Dt nHH “Beloved of Wepwawet,

Lord of the Necropolis” (Wegner 1996a: 293; Wegner 2007: 188-195).80 However, “mry

80 These epithets have been found on two quartzite statue fragments of Senwosret III found in the forecourt of his mortuary temple at South Abydos and on calcite statue fragments found scattered in the debris of the rear part of the Central Block of the mortuary temple (Wegner 2007: 187-203).

120

god/goddess N” is a common royal epithet that could be used in any cult place,81 and is thus not

a unique representation of the king’s relationship to the local Abydene deities.

Wegner has shown that there was an association between the Senwosret III mortuary

temple and the royal ka chapels in North Abydos, all of which likely acted as satellite institutions

to the main temple of Osiris-Khentyimentiu (1996a: 177, 305, 337-339; 2007: 228, 402); there was likely a ritual link between the two sites. In fact, stamp seals found at the site demonstrate that the mortuary cult of Senwosret III received regular offerings from the main temple of Osiris-

Khentyimentiu (Wegner 2007: 228, n. 34, 317, 324-325). According to Wegner, it is probable that a royal statue procession involving a portable statue and royal barque would have passed from Senwosret III’s temple sanctuary to the Osiris temple precinct in North Abydos (1996a:

296-298; 2007: 402). Further support for the ritual connection between the Osiris Temple

Enclosure and royal monuments located along the desert edge occurs in the maHat chapel of

Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II where text and relief suggest that a canal for sacred barque processions linked the chapel to the main Osiris temple (Wegner 2015: 6-7). The rise in state involvement in provincial cult centers in the Middle Kingdom provided a means of expressing the relationship between the king and local gods, thus cementing the ties between local institutions and the state.

Royal investment did not diminish the continuation of local developments during the

Middle Kingdom. Archaeological evidence for non-royal agency is attested by mudbrick offering chapels discovered by the then University of Pennsylvania-Yale University Expedition to

81 For example, the titulary of Thutmosis III from the Sinai contains the phrase “Beloved of Hathor, Mistress of Turquoise” (Gardiner and Peet 1917: 196).

121

Abydos in the Votive Zone82 adjacent to the Osiris Temple Enclosure under the direction of

O’Connor in 1967-1979. Excavations revealed a complex series of vaulted mudbrick offering

chapels of varying sizes preserved under the floor of the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II

(O’Connor 1985: 163ff; see Figure 4.5). The main architectural features of the chapels indicate that they served as monuments for private offering rituals associated with the cult of Osiris and

demonstrate that non-royal individuals identified with Osiris and his mortuary connection to death and regeneration. The architectural features, as well as the distribution pattern and the motivation for the chapels’ construction, have been examined in detail elsewhere (Simpson

1974; O’Connor 1979: 46-49; O’Connor 1985: 168ff; Yamamoto 2009: 35-50). Their main architectural form was similar to contemporary tomb chapels, except for the fact that they contained no actual burials or subterranean burial chambers (O’Connor 1985: 164-166; Richards

2005: 275-282). Simpson has observed that private chapels are non-royal counterparts to great royal cenotaphs, such as the complex of Senwosret III (1974: 3). However, Wegner believes that

Senwosret III was buried in his tomb at Abydos, thus indicating that the complex of Senwosret

III is not a cenotaph (1999: 119; 2007: 7-9). Furthermore, recent archaeological discoveries made by Wegner demonstrate that royal tombs of the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties at

South Abydos were actual tombs, not cenotaphs, as attested by the human remains found in association with them (see Wegner and Cahail 2015; Hill, Rosado, and Wegner 2017; Wegner

82 O’Connor first referred to the area of private activity along the processional route adjacent the Osiris Temple Enclosure as the “Transitional Zone” (1985: 262). During excavations of the Thutmosis III chapel, Pouls Wegner initially designated the site as the “Cultic Zone” to better reflect activities in the area (2002: 9-10), but later uses the term “Votive Zone” (2012: 178) based on Janet Richards assessment of Middle Kingdom ritual activity in the area (2005: 39). Kei Yamamoto prefers the toponym “Terrace of the Great God” derived from Middle Kingdom stelae found in the area, due to its “neutrality” and to prevent the confusion of meaning that occurs with the other terms (2009: 13). This expression, however, is not used after the Eighteenth Dynasty and has a limited geographical boundary, as Yamamoto notes (2009: 13). For this reason, the term Votive Zone will be employed throughout the following dissertation.

122

2017a; Wegner 2018). Accompanying a number of chapels were in situ inscribed artifacts

(Simpson 1974; O’Connor 1985: 170; Simpson 1995), suggesting a likely original location for the inscribed Middle Kingdom artifacts found in early excavations in North Abydos (Mariette

1880a), many of which are now preserved in museums and private collections (Pouls Wegner

2002: 10).

Analyses of textual data from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties demonstrate that non- royal individuals erected these monuments in order to participate in the offerings and rituals associated with the cult of Osiris (Satzinger 1969; Simpson 1974: 13ff; Leprohon 1978; Quirke

1991; Simpson 1995; Doxey 1998). Further analyses of the titles associated with the stelae owners during this time indicate that individuals from a range of socio-economic levels participated in the construction activity in the area adjacent to the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(Leprohon 1978; Ward 1982; Fischer 1997). Mortuary material in the North Cemetery supports this socio-economic variability and provides evidence for a range of levels that fall into the broad

category of middle class, which seems to have had independent sources of wealth separate from

the central government (Richards 1992; Richards 2005). The cemetery remains indicate shared

use of the landscape by both elites and non-elites. In South Abydos, the planned town settlement

associated with Senwosret III’s mortuary complex may provide additional evidence for socio-

economic diversity attested by small and large house sizes (Wegner 1996a: 184ff; Wegner 1998;

Wegner 2001a; Wegner 2006c: 31-36; Wegner 2007: 19; Wegner 2010c: 135-136).83 Deposits

of seal impressions excavated in and around the mortuary temple of Senwosret III and in two

83 The houses appear to have been arranged according to size with a large mayoral residence (building A) located in the southwest corner of the town, east of which were blocks of large elite residences juxtaposed by small houses extending to the north (Wegner 1998; Wegner 2001a; Wegner 2004; Wegner 2006c: 31-36; Wegner 2007: 19). Presently, no medium sized houses have been excavated.

123

brick buildings associated with the mayoral residence (building A) of the town of Wah-Sut indicate close ties with the central state system, as well as local operations (Wegner 1996a: 187;

Wegner 2001b: 77-106; Wegner 2006c: 31-36; Wegner 2007: 299-361; Wegner 2010c: 137-

13).84 According to Wegner, the administrative function of the mayoral residence included

managing commodities, overseeing activities of the mortuary temple of Senwosret III, and

interacting with officials and the central government in a formalized hierarchical system (2007:

326-331; 2010c: 137-139).

The rise in the construction and use of private chapels seems to have been associated with

the formalization of the Abydos formula during the Middle Kingdom, which attests to the close

relationship between the expanding Osiris cult and a growing personal piety towards the god

(Lichtheim 1988: 55-59, 129; Wegner 1996a: 62-69). The architectural, archaeological, and

inscriptional data indicate that Abydos was a destination for pilgrims and the center of significant

royal investment during the Middle Kingdom. The connection to Osiris became increasingly

important at the royal level because Osiris had ties to kingship (Otto 1966; Griffiths 1980), and

at the non-royal level because he was associated with the afterlife (Wegner 1996a: 96).

In the periods following the Twelfth Dynasty, significant royal building activity

continued at Abydos. Recent excavations at South Abydos under the field direction of Wegner

have provided evidence for a group of royal tombs belonging to the Thirteenth Dynasty and

Second Intermediate Period adjacent to the tomb enclosure of Senwosret III (McCormack 2012;

Wegner and Cahail 2015; McCormack 2015; Hill, Rosado, and Wegner 2017; McCormack 2017;

84 The seal impressions include local institutional stamp seals of the arryt “Administrative Gatehouse,” as well as extra-local seals of xtmty-bity “Royal Sealbearers” and royal name seals (Wegner 2007: 299-326, 335, 343-351; Wegner 2010c: 137).

124

Wegner 2017a; Wegner 2018). Two tombs, S9 and S10, have been attributed to Neferhotep I and

Sobekhotep IV, respectively, while an adjacent tomb belonged to Woseribre Seneb-Kay, an individual who may be part of a short-lived local Abydos dynasty contemporary with the

Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties (Franke 1988; Ryholt 1997: 164; McCormack 2006; Wegner and Cahail 2015; Hill, Rosado, and Wegner 2017; McCormack 2017; Wegner 2017a; Wegner

2018). Skeletal remains of several individuals and architectural evidence for other tombs found in the area may point to royal mortuary activity undertaken by multiple rulers of the Second

Intermediate Period (Hill, Rosado, and Wegner 2017; Wegner 2017a: 481-482).

At North Abydos, little remains of the religious investment of the kings of the Second

Intermediate Period. Petrie discovered column pieces naming Nubkheperre Intef VII of the

Seventeenth Dynasty reused within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, as well as fragments of a stela depicting Nubkheperre Intef VII and his son Nakht (1902: 28, 41-42, pl. LVII; 1903: 28, 35, 41, pls. XXXII, LV, LVI). The stela inscription mentions a Hwt In-it.f m AbDw “Temple of Intef in

Abydos” in the second line of the horizontal text, which may refer to a building belonging to this king within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Petrie 1902: 28). This combined evidence likely attests to a cult structure or restoration work under this king, who is known to have reinstated several temples in Upper Egypt and who built a small chapel at Coptos (Petrie 1896: pl. 8; Bourriau

2000: 204).

At the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, there was a resurgence of royal interest. The founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Ahmose II85 (1550-1525 BC) constructed an impressive

85 For the Roman numeral II, see recent evidence of an earlier king Senakhtenre Ahmose I of the Seventeenth Dynasty, who ruled just prior to Seqenenre Tao (Biston-Moulin 2012; Leprohon 2013: 87, 91, 95 n. 12).

125

pyramid complex with subsidiary structures at South Abydos (Harvey 1998) and was venerated

after death in a temple constructed within the Osiris Temple Enclosure in North Abydos (Petrie

1903: 18; Kemp 1968: 143; Pouls Wegner 2002: 221-231). Harvey has noted the conceptual link

between the Ahmose II complex in South Abydos and the Osiris precinct in North Abydos

through the replication of essential features of the built environment, including a temple complex

at the edge of the cultivation and through a similar relief program that aimed to connect the king

to Osiris (1998: 373ff). Following Ahmose II’s reign, archaeological, architectural, and

inscriptional evidence indicates that a number of royal construction activities associated with the

main Osiris-Khentyimentiu temple took place during the Eighteenth Dynasty under the following

kings: Amenhotep I, Thutmosis I, Thutmosis III, Thutmosis IV, and Amenhotep III, and may also include evidence for Thutmosis II, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, and Horemheb.86 The archaeological and stratigraphic data that informs the architectural morphology of the cult buildings within the enclosure is difficult to analyze, however, and is complicated due to a number of factors. The site displays multiperiod activity with superimposed structures, a high- water table, which hindered Petrie’s excavations (1903: 1-4), and fragmentary remains that are often difficult to interpret. There is strong evidence for the construction of monuments under

Amenhotep I and Thutmosis III during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but physical remains for other kings is limited. Likewise, there is a lack of inscriptional data, especially when compared to the preceding period. The textual evidence that has survived, however, indicates that the state continued to be involved in providing offerings for the cult of Osiris in the New Kingdom.87

86 The evidence related to each of these Eighteenth Dynasty kings will be discussed in §4.2.2 and §4.2.3.

87 Petrie uncovered fragments belonging to an offering list of Thutmosis III within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, which were reconstructed by Griffith (1903: 44-45). Pouls Wegner suggests that the text shows that the Osiris

126

As discussed above, some of the Eighteenth Dynasty remains that Petrie exposed within

the Osiris Temple Enclosure appear to derive from royal ka chapels that express continuity with

the Middle Kingdom royal buildings (Pouls Wegner 2002: 170-263). These ka chapels exhibit similar themes as the prior examples, such as expressing the relationship between Osiris and the king.88 During the Eighteenth Dynasty, royal investment in the Osiris cult in North Abydos also

extended into surrounding areas beyond the confines of the main enclosure. Adjacent to the main

mudbrick wall, a peripteral temple of Thutmosis III was discovered in its original context by a

team from the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York

University Expedition to Abydos in 1996-1997 under the direction of Pouls Wegner (2002). The

discovery of a royal monument in this mainly private construction zone is a significant display of

the extent of the royal building program at Abydos during the Eighteenth Dynasty. The only

other royal monuments found in this location of the site are the Early Dynastic royal funerary

enclosures (Bestock 2008; Knoblauch and Bestock 2009; O’Connor 2009: 171; Bestock 2009;

Bestock 2011: 139-142, 144; Bestock 2012: 35-79; Bestock 2015). The peripteral temple of

Thutmosis III is an example of the state-level prerogative of increasing investment in the local

cult of Osiris-Khentyimentiu during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

The kings of the following Ramesside Period continued this tradition with a peak of royal

monumental construction stretching from the Osiris Temple Enclosure in North Abydos to the

impressive Temple of Sety I in Middle Abydos. Within the Osiris Temple Enclosure,

excavations have revealed evidence for the involvement of Ramesside kings in monumental

temple at Abydos was of equal significance to the temple of Karnak in terms of the investment of royal offerings (2002: 144-161). See further discussion below.

88 More details about the relief program of the Eighteenth Dynasty royal buildings are discussed below.

127

building projects, although no architecture remains in situ. This evidence includes Ramesses I,

Sety I, Ramesses II, Ramesses III, and Ramesses IV (Petrie 1903: 19; Pouls Wegner 2002: 96).89

The “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II was a prominent component of the New Kingdom ritual

landscape in the area adjacent to the main temple enclosure (Silverman 1989), while another

large temple of Ramesses II was built in the vicinity of the Temple of Sety I and the Osireion in

Middle Abydos (Iskander and Goelet 2015). Middle Abydos was also the location of a chapel

erected by Sety I in veneration of his father Ramesses I (Winlock 1921; Winlock 1937; Wegner

2007: 169). The Temple of Sety I in Middle Abydos represents a significant monument at the

site, which continues the tradition of royal mortuary temple building in the Ramesside Period.

As in the preceding Middle Kingdom, non-royal individuals in the New Kingdom

continued to exercise their own personal agency in connection with the local cult, although the evidence is more fragmentary. Even though no non-royal architecture dated to the Eighteenth

Dynasty has yet been excavated at the site, inscriptional and artifactual data recovered from surface survey and excavation by the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of

Fine Arts, New York University Expedition to the Votive Zone in 1996 provide indirect evidence for the existence of private cultic monuments of this date (Pouls Wegner 2002: 114).

Evidence suggests that private building activity in the form of individual offering chapels

continued into the New Kingdom. The discovery of a Ramesside offering chapel in the southern part of the Votive Zone indicates that private agency continued to be expressed in the

89 Reused blocks name Sety I (Petrie 1903: 19, 35-36, pl. XXXVI no. 1). Ramesses III is attested in the Harris Papyrus, which describes bequests to the temple of Osiris in Abydos (Erichsen 1933: 65-66; Grandet 1994: 57, 1-58, 6). Ramesses IV is attested by plaques discovered by Petrie in foundation deposits associated with an extensive sand bed (Petrie 1903: 19). Petrie, however, attributed the structure to Ramesses III, but Kemp redated it to Ramesses IV (1968: 146). Additionally, a monumental stela was erected at Abydos with a hymn to Osiris under Ramesses IV (Mariette 1880a: pls. 34-35; Korostovtsev 1947; Kitchen 1983a: 17-20).

128

construction of offering chapels in the Votive Zone area (Pouls Wegner 2002: 114). Non-royal activity in the Eighteenth Dynasty is further attested by the presence of votive dishes associated with the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III in the Votive Zone (Pouls Wegner 2002: 371-414). A complex interaction existed between state and private activity at Abydos throughout its history and the Eighteenth Dynasty was no exception. The New Kingdom evidence at the site, including architectural features, inscribed material, and archaeological data, thus points to an enduring wealth of material for both royal and non-royal activity.

Pouls Wegner, in the course of her excavations and research at Abydos, noted “the significant role which private agency played in the development of the built environment of the site” (2002: 7). The sacred landscape of Abydos was influenced by both state ideology and individual agency. The present chapter attempts to clarify this relationship by examining the cult institutions at Abydos in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Aside from the mortuary evidence for non- royal individuals in the cemeteries of Abydos during the New Kingdom, non-royal cultic activity at the site has hardly been examined.

During subsequent periods, royal investment seems to have lessened, although this view could be skewed due to the erosion of later architectural phases. Within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure, a granite stela (Cairo JE 66285) that may have been inscribed for Psusennes II, describes the transport of a statue of Nimlot (late Twenty-First Dynasty) to Abydos (Mariette

1880b: 463, no. 1225; Blackman 1941: 83-95; Kemp 1975: 36; Leahy 1990: 163-164; O’Connor

2009: 126-128; Leahy 2009: 425-426; Jansen-Winkeln 2017: 30-33). In addition, two inscribed limestone fragments (Cairo JE 91272 and Cairo JE 91259) found in debris overlying the “Portal”

Temple of Ramesses II may belong to a stela commissioned by Shoshenq I (Leahy 2009: 426-

429). The stelae attest to continued royal investment in the Osiris precinct during the Third

129

Intermediate Period. Leahy notes that Abydos continued to be an important political and

religious site at this time, even though monumental cult activity seems to have ceased (1990:

166-167). Votive pottery that includes the names of Smendes, Psusennes II, Shoshenq I and

Osorkon was found at Umm el-Qaʽab and attests to royal dedications from the Twenty-First to

Twenty-Second Dynasties (Effland 2006: 139). At the same time, non-royal burials encroached on structures all over North Abydos and connected non-royal individuals to the eternity of the

Osiris cult (see Leahy 1990: 159-160, 175; Patch 2007; Pouls Wegner 2007; Pouls Wegner 2012:

181; James 2018: 318-320).

There is evidence that the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty kings Wahibre Haaibre (Apries) and

Amasis built over the Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure. Plaques inscribed with the names of these kings were found on top of pits containing foundation deposits of Thutmosis III (Petrie 1902: 32, pl. LXX nos. 6-9; Petrie 1903: 19-20; Weinstein 1973: 333-

334, 338; Kemp 1968: 146). According to Petrie, additional plaques of Apries found in the same area were originally part of the main foundation deposit associated with the Twenty-Sixth

Dynasty building (1902: 32).

In the Late Period, royal activity is evidenced by the remains of a Thirtieth Dynasty structure identified in a mound of limestone debris within the Osiris Temple Enclosure. Petrie found a partial cartouche of Nectanebo I, although he did not record any architecture in the area

(1902: 32-33, pl. LXX nos. 12-14). Petrie’s dating of the structure remained a matter of debate until the recent systematic excavations conducted in 2002-2004 by Marlar substantiated Petrie’s findings. Marlar uncovered in situ brick and stone architecture and decorated blocks from the

Late Period (2009: 103-107, 131-141), as well as an earlier structure, which she dates to the early

New Kingdom (2007a: 1257-1258; 2009: 169-197). Recovered relief fragments included the

130

names of Nectanebo I and Nectanebo II, corroborating Petrie’s dating of the remains (Marlar

2009: 153-156, figs. 73-74).

The annual processional festival of Osiris seems to have not continued into the Ptolemaic

Period when the area surrounding the Kom es-Sultan may have been used for administration and

a fort under Ptolemy V (O’Connor 2009: 135; Kraemer 2013).

4.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Royal interest in the Osiris-Khentyimentiu cult during the Eighteenth Dynasty indicates a

significant level of state investment at Abydos. This section examines the existing

archaeological, architectural, and inscriptional data that identify the building programs of

specific Eighteenth Dynasty rulers located in South Abydos and in North Abydos within the

Osiris Temple Enclosure and the area immediately adjacent the enclosure known as the Votive

Zone. The aim of this section is to define the nature and extent of royal activity associated with

the main temple dedicated to Osiris-Khentyimentiu. The material excavated by Petrie in the

course of his 1901-1903 excavations inside the enclosure area provides the bulk of the

archaeological and inscriptional record examined in this section (see Figure 4.6). Petrie’s site

reports represent the first real attempt at a systematic excavation program in North Abydos,90

although there are some challenges to interpreting his material. Petrie published descriptions and

site plans of the individual construction phases of the structures within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure from the First Dynasty to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (see Figure 4.7), but these are

difficult to correlate and superimpose; often the same features do not exist on more than one

90 North Abydos was visited by a number of scholars and Egyptologists since the 1800s. Most of their work at the site, however, was concerned with acquiring valuable objects for museum collections and was unsystematic. See Pouls Wegner for a review of the early archaeological activity associated with North Abydos (2002: 10-25).

131

plan. Due to the rapid publishing rate of Petrie’s site reports, they often provide preliminary

conclusions without in-depth analysis, which can make it difficult to interpret his findings.

Subsequent examinations of the temple area by Kemp (1968) and Pouls Wegner (2002)

provide further information for analysis and discussion, from which the present work builds.

Additionally, Marlar provides an overview of the architectural remains found by Petrie within

the Osiris Temple Enclosure, although she does not include much inscriptional material or

evidence from other areas of Abydos (2009: 20-35). Other examinations within the Osiris

Temple Enclosure include the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts,

New York University Expedition excavations in the Kom es-Sultan in 1967-1979 and the

Abydos Settlement Site Project in 1991 under the field direction of Adams, who uncovered

zones of Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period houses and industrial workshops in the

Kom es-Sultan (see Adams 1992; Adams 1998; Adams 1999; Adams 2001; Adams 2005;

discussed above). However, it is not clear if these domestic components of the early town were

located inside the Old Kingdom temple enclosure wall.

Following Petrie’s excavations of the Osiris Temple precinct, the temple remains were

largely ignored by scholars until Kemp reanalyzed the temple stratigraphy in 1968. In addition to

Petrie’s published excavation reports, Kemp had access to Petrie’s unpublished notebooks and

photographs, which provided new evidence about the temple site (see Kemp 1968: 138). Based on Petrie’s work and on-site comparison, Kemp created new plans of the temples and redated many earlier structures to the Eighteenth Dynasty (see Figure 4.8). Kemp cleared up a number of questions, but he made several assumptions based on the stratigraphy of the temples and the material recovered from foundation deposits in the published records. Kemp notes that he had trouble trying to superimpose Petrie’s temple plans and he believed that the fragmentary remains

132

belonging to Eighteenth Dynasty kings represented the actual temple of Osiris-Khentyimentiu

(1968: 139, 141-145). In her reanalysis of Petrie’s and Kemp’s investigations, Pouls Wegner provides an alternate interpretation of the architectural remains inside the Osiris Temple

Enclosure. For example, she argues that Kemp’s redating of the original construction of buildings A and B to the Eighteenth Dynasty is inaccurate based on the archaeological evidence

(Pouls Wegner 2002: 186-220; see Figure 4.9).91 Petrie had originally dated these buildings to

the Middle Kingdom (1903: 14-16). In order to reconstruct the spatial and functional relationship

between structures within the enclosure, Pouls Wegner extensively examined the dating,

orientation, and architectural layout of the Eighteenth Dynasty cult institutions in North Abydos

(2002: 176-263). Information deriving from these three main sources, in addition to other

published records, provides the basis for the following discussion, which examines the

archaeological, architectural, iconographical, and inscriptional evidence associated with royal

patronage at the site during the Eighteenth Dynasty. This discussion mainly focuses on the

material found in and around the Osiris Temple Enclosure, but begins with an overview of royal

investment in South Abydos to establish the relationship between royal activity and the Osiris

cult at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

4.2.1 South Abydos

A series of monuments was constructed in the early Eighteenth Dynasty by King Ahmose

II to the south of the main center of the ancient town of Abydos. This area is referred to as South

Abydos and was a significant location for royal cult buildings during the Middle and New

Kingdoms. Mudbricks stamped with the phrase “Nebpehtyre, Beloved of Osiris” have been

91 See §4.2.2.4.4 in this chapter.

133

found associated with all the cult structures of the Ahmose II complex in South Abydos and

attest to the king’s veneration of the god (Harvey 1998: 106, 430, 437; Harvey 2003: 20; Harvey

2006: 21; O’Connor 2009: 109). The monuments constructed by Ahmose II demonstrate the

king’s posthumous association with Osiris and honor the female members of his family. They

also symbolically aligned Ahmose II’s reign with the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, such as

Senwosret III, who constructed an impressive funerary complex at South Abydos (Wegner

1996a; Wegner 2007: 42-43; O’Connor 2009: 109-110; Cahail 2014: 301-302; see above).

Further ties have been observed between Ahmose II’s pyramid and the pyramid of Nubkheperre

Intef VII at Thebes (Polz and Seiler 2003; Harvey 2004: 3; Cahail 2014: 303). The buildings that

comprised Ahmose II’s funerary complex include a pyramid and pyramid temple, subsidiary

temples (one possibly dedicated to Ahmose-Nefertary), the “Ahmose Town,” a small cemetery

next to the pyramid, a temple dedicated to his grandmother Queen Tetisheri, and a subterranean

tomb surmounted by a terrace temple.

4.2.1.1 Pyramid Complex of Ahmose II

The significance of the pyramid complex of Ahmose II in South Abydos and its connection to the chapel built by Amenhotep I in honor of his father Ahmose II in North Abydos has been briefly discussed above. As founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Ahmose II was the first ruler to embark on an extensive building program in the provinces during the New Kingdom. His pyramid complex in South Abydos presents an impressive picture of the socio-economic wealth

and power of the New Kingdom (Harvey 1994; Harvey 1998; Harvey 2001; O’Connor 2009:

105-110). Depictions found associated with the pyramid temple portray the military prowess of

the king and display his divine connection to Osiris (Harvey 1998: 302ff, 437, 442-446; Harvey

134

2001: 52-55).92 According to Harvey, the entire Ahmose II complex in South Abydos can be

viewed as a symbolic representation of the landscape of the Osiris myth, represented by a

mountain, cave, and sacred grove (1998: 433-434).93 The physical world expressed or recreated

ideological concepts associated with the cult of Osiris. Themes concerning the relationship

between the king and Osiris continue into the later periods and connect with preceding royal

structures at the site. Harvey suggests that a festival procession may have linked the Ahmose II complex in South Abydos with the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I in North Abydos by way of an oracle of the deified Ahmose II (1998: 95, 121 n. 356, 446-447).94 A relief fragment

recovered from the Ahmose II pyramid temple area in 2002 depicting a king standing in front of

part of a ship may provide pictorial evidence of a processional barque, but the name of the king

is missing (Harvey 2003: 24, fig. 9).

Mace was the first archaeologist to systematically identify and investigate the pyramid

and pyramid temple of Ahmose II in 1899-1900 (see Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902).95 Since

1993, the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York

University Expedition to Abydos under the field direction of Harvey, has undertaken intensive investigations of the Ahmose II monuments and identified additional structures (Harvey 1994;

92 Limestone relief fragments uncovered during the 1993 excavations under the field direction of Harvey depict a battle against Asiatics and form the earliest depiction of horse and chariot warfare in Egypt (see Harvey 1998: 302- 372). The walls and features of the Ahmose II complex were also stamped with the king’s name and the epithet “Beloved of Osiris,” which linked his cult to the cult of the main temple of Abydos in the north (Harvey 1998: 437).

93 Harvey’s idea stems from the concept of the Osiris Grave presented by Junker (1913).

94 A stela dated to the reign of Ramesses II (Cairo JE 43649) references a barque procession and an oracle of Ahmose II at Abydos (Legrain 1917: 161-171; Clère 1968: 45-49; Harvey 1998: 121; Harvey 2003: 18; O’Connor 2009: 108).

95 For a detailed overview of Mace’s work, see Harvey 1998: 137-142.

135

Harvey 1998; Harvey 2003; Harvey 2004; Harvey 2006). The sandy mound identified as the

pyramid of Ahmose II is located close to the edge of modern cultivation and consists of a loose

core of sand and stone debris, but its original height was comparable to small pyramids of the

Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom (Harvey 1998: 376-401; O’Connor 2009: 107). The

associated pyramid temple of Ahmose II was built of mudbrick and limestone but was razed in

antiquity. Harvey’s architectural reconstruction of the temple includes a mudbrick pylon and

open colonnaded court with surrounding mudbrick structures that may have been magazines and

priests’ residences (1998: 401-414; also see O’Connor 2009: fig. 56). Thousands of decorated

and inscribed limestone block fragments originally belonging to the pyramid temple consist of

relief scenes of the royal mortuary cult, including offering table scenes, and Ahmose’s battle

triumph over an Asiatic enemy (Harvey 1998: 314-372; Harvey 2003: 19-21; O’Connor 2009:

108-109). Harvey notes that much of the focus of the relief program of the pyramid temple, however, was the on the king rather than the gods (1998: 420-421).

Located near the pyramid temple of Ahmose II, bricks stamped with the name of

Ahmose-Nefertary may attest to a subsidiary temple built for her (Harvey 1998: 426; Harvey

2003: 21-25; Harvey 2004: 3-6). In 1993, a brick enclosure wall excavated southeast of the

pyramid temple of Ahmose II, identified a new building (temple A) with brick stamps of

Ahmose-Nefertary and Ahmose II (Harvey 2003: 21-23). Continued excavation of this structure

in 2002 recovered New Kingdom votive pottery and pyramid casing blocks, which may derive

from Ahmose II’s pyramid or an undiscovered pyramid (Harvey 2003: 22). During the same

season, additional excavations unearthed a previously unknown mudbrick enclosure to the east

of Ahmose II’s pyramid temple containing a building (temple B) constructed with bricks

stamped with the name and titles of Ahmose-Nefertary (Harvey 2003: 22). Fragments of

limestone relief blocks, votive stelae, and statues were found in the vicinity and attest to the

136

cultic function of the structure (Harvey 2003: 22-23). Two other buildings located in 2002

(temple C and temple D) to the east of the pyramid temple of Ahmose II have not been fully

examined but provide promising evidence for subsidiary structures related to administrative

activities (Harvey 2003: 23, fig. 2).

4.2.1.2 Pyramid of Queen Tetisheri

Currelly discovered the shrine dedicated to Ahmose II’s grandmother, Queen Tetisheri, in

1902 (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 35-38, 43-44). Built of mudbrick to the southwest of

Ahmose II’s pyramid temple, the monument was dedicated by Ahmose II and Ahmose-Nefertary as a memorial in honor of Queen Tetisheri (Harvey 1998: 106, 425; Harvey 2006: 20-21). A stela

(CG 34002) recovered from the main chamber of the structure provides textual evidence of the function of the monument, which was called a mr Hwt, demonstrating the existence of both a pyramid and an enclosure (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 35-38, 43-44, pls. LI-LII;

Harvey 1998: 107-108, 425-426; Harvey 2003: 17, 24; Harvey 2006: 20-21). The structure was originally a mudbrick pyramid with a limestone pyramidion and was meant to be a supplementary monument to the royal mortuary cult of Ahmose II (Harvey 1998: 425-427;

Harvey 2006: 20-23). Ritual activity in front of the pyramid is attested by over 300 ceramic vessels as well as the remains of ash and charcoal, which provide evidence of burnt offerings

(Harvey 2006: 21). In addition to the main shrine, Harvey unearthed evidence of an enclosure wall containing bricks stamped with “Nebpehtyre, Beloved of Osiris” and additional structures of unknown function (1998: 425; 2003: 24; 2004: 3-6; 2006: 21).

4.2.1.3 Ahmose II’s Subterranean Tomb and Terrace Temple

At the base of the gebel in South Abydos, a subterranean rock-cut tomb was built for

Ahmose II (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 29-32; Harvey 1998: 102-103). The layout of

137

the tomb shares certain similarities with the tomb of Senwosret III at South Abydos, including

twin side-chambers flanking the entrance passage, a central transition chamber, and a

southwestern curving passage leading to the probable burial chamber (Harvey 1998: 427-428;

Wegner 2009: 153-154; Cahail 2014: 304-309, fig. 6.2). Harvey comments on the function of the

tomb of Ahmose II as an example of an “Osiris Tomb” symbolic of the Duat (1998: 428-429),96

while Cahail notes its conceptual link with solar rejuvenation and the union of Re-Osiris via the

dead king (2014: 307-308).

The farthest monument from the pyramid of Ahmose II was a terraced cult structure built

at the base of the high cliffs. First discovered by Currelly, only two long terraced foundations

have survived (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 32-34). The lower terrace wall was

constructed of mudbrick, while the upper terrace wall was constructed of rough limestone

(Harvey 1998: 430; Harvey 1999: 120). At the southeastern end of the terraces, a series of rooms

and mudbrick passages were found, but their function is unknown (Harvey 1998: 431-432).

Although no inscribed or decorated block fragments were found associated with the structure,

excavations uncovered model wooden boats and paddles, wood sticks, and miniature stone and

ceramic vessels along the upper terrace (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 34; Harvey 1998:

430-431; Harvey 1999: 120). Weinstein does not think these objects derive from foundation

deposits (1973: 89-92), and Harvey associates them with ceremonial activity for the mortuary cult of the king (1998: 431).97

96 Other scholars have also noted this connection (see Eigner 1984: 137, 163-183; Arnold 1994: 183). On the concept of the “Osiris Tomb,” see Junker 1913.

97 Harvey compares the objects to similar finds discovered in the tomb of Tutankhamun (1998: n. 965).

138

The significance of the Ahmose II complex in South Abydos lies in its strong connection

to the Osiris cult and to the activities of royal predecessors in the function, design, and placement

of his monuments.98 As the first ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Ahmose II inaugurated an era

of impressive royal construction activity at Abydos at the onset of the New Kingdom. Yet,

subsequent Eighteenth Dynasty kings did not continue to build monuments at South Abydos; nor

did they complete as many different structures, nor on such a grand scale as the pyramid

complex of Ahmose II. They chose instead to construct monuments in North Abydos in

proximity to the main processional route leading from the Osiris Temple to Umm el-Qaʽab.

Harvey notes that Ahmose II’s funerary complex in South Abydos “was intended to establish and maintain the divinity of the ruler rather than [symbolically resonating] with private chapels that enable the individual to associate with Osiris on a different level” (1998: 439). The royal ka chapels built within the Osiris Temple Enclosure by later Eighteenth Dynasty rulers also perpetuated the divinity of the king, but through the ka of kingship itself (discussed below). As

Harvey demonstrates, the stela of Queen Tetisheri clearly distinguishes her mr Hwt (pyramid and enclosure) at South Abydos from her is (tomb) at Thebes and her maHat chapel (offering chapel)

at Abydos (1998: 439). Although Tetisheri’s maHat chapel remains to be uncovered at Abydos, the functional differences between these structures implied by the terminology suggests that the royal monuments excavated at South Abydos fulfilled a specific role that likely differed from other royal structures built at the site. However, the complexity of this issue is compounded by the function of royal mortuary temples (Mansions of Millions of Years) at Thebes, which included worship of the ka of the deceased king as Amun-Re and the union of the king with the

98 For more on this topic, see Harvey 1998: 433-435; Harvey 2004: 3, Wegner 2007: 42-43, O’Connor 2009: 110, and Cahail 2014: 301-309.

139

living royal ka (Bell 1985; Haeny 1994: 101-106; Haeny 1997: 124; Bell 1997; Harvey 1998:

440-442; Ullmann 2002: 668-670). Moreover, the cult structure dedicated to Ramesses I located

near the northeast corner of the enclosure of the temple of Sety I at Abydos is identified in

separate texts as a Hwt-kA (ka Chapel) and as a Hwt nt HH m rnpwt (Mansion of Millions of

Years), further blurring the distinction between the two types of monuments (Franke 1994: 126;

El-Khatib 1993: 97-73; Kitchen 1993: 110, 16-114; Harvey 1998: 444-445; Wegner 2007: 169).

4.2.2 North Abydos: Osiris Temple Enclosure

In North Abydos, royal activity in the Eighteenth Dynasty concentrated on the Osiris

Temple Enclosure and its immediate environs. As discussed above, the nature of the evidence

provides an incomplete portrayal of royal investment in the main Osiris temple. An

understanding of this activity is reliant upon fragmentary architectural elements, limited relief

decoration, and complicated stratigraphy associated with architectural remains and foundation

deposits. At least two structures have been attributed to Eighteenth Dynasty kings: the chapel of

Ahmose II and Amenhotep I, and a cult building of Thutmosis III. There is architectural

evidence for two additional buildings, but the kings who commissioned their construction have

not been identified. Finally, fragmentary blocks excavated beneath the Thirtieth Dynasty temple

remains in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure suggest that another cult structure

belonged to Thutmosis IV (see §4.2.2.3 below).

4.2.2.1 Chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I

Within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, the monument built by Amenhotep I in honor of his father Ahmose II provides the best preserved and earliest attestation of a royal cult building of the Eighteenth Dynasty in this area of site. Designated as building “C” by Kemp in his reconstruction of the New Kingdom temple remains (1968: 143, fig. 1), the structure can be

140

dated to the reign of Amenhotep I based on inscribed and decorated block fragments (discussed

below) that were recovered during Petrie’s excavations from 1901-1902 (1902: 29-30, pl. LVII).

Built entirely of limestone, building C seems to have remained in use over a long period of time

(Pouls Wegner 2002: 221).99 The architectural plan of the structure has been examined in detail

by Kemp (1968: 140-146) and Pouls Wegner (2002: 221-240), and is also mentioned by Marlar

(2009: 27-29).

Building C is the only Eighteenth Dynasty structure in the interior of the Osiris Temple

Enclosure with largely intact standing remains. Part of its walls have survived up to

approximately 61 to 76.25 cm (1.2 to 1.5 cubits) high, which help to establish its layout (Kemp

1968: 143). The preserved walls represent the rear portion of the structure, which consisted of a

complex of small rooms and a central small columned courtyard with six pillars. This series of rooms was fronted by a transverse columned hall that may have originally contained 16-18

square pillars, but only six were found in situ (Petrie 1903: 18, pl. LVII; Kemp 1968: 143, fig. 1;

Harvey 1998: 93; Pouls Wegner 2002: 225-226; Marlar 2009: 28).100 The area in front of the transverse columned hall is difficult to analyze, because mudbricks from a separate foundation obstruct it. Kemp suggested that foundation deposits excavated by Petrie (nos. 94, 95, 97, 103,

112, 113, and 115) to the local north of building C represented a northern extension of the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I (1968: 143). Petrie dated the foundation deposits to the

Eighteenth Dynasty and further identified deposits nos. 94, 97, and 103 as belonging to

99 During excavation, Petrie found no evidence for later structures overtop building C, although he notes some repair work done to the columns in later periods (1903: 18-19). Pouls Wegner agrees that the building was probably in use for a long time (2002: 221-222).

100 Petrie mentions the pillars but does not say how many he found (1903: 18).

141

Thutmosis III (1903: 18-21, pl. LVII). However, none of these deposits contained inscribed

material. Deposit no. 95 contained copper chisels and pottery, which both Petrie and Kemp have

assigned to the early Eighteenth Dynasty (see Petrie 1903: 20, pl. LXII; Kemp 1968: 143).

Furthermore, Petrie only provided a sketch of the finds from certain foundation deposits, which makes analysis difficult (1903: pls. LXII-LXIII). The contents of deposits nos. 112, 113, and 115

are not illustrated or discussed (Petrie 1903: pl. LVII). According to Petrie’s field notebook,

which was examined by Kemp (1968: 143), deposit no. 94 contained bones and pots. Based on

Petrie’s sketches of the pottery recovered from the deposits, Kemp notes their similarity to

pottery found in foundation deposits associated with the terrace temple of Ahmose II at South

Abydos. However, Petrie’s drawings of the pottery provide few identifying features and are

highly schematic. Weinstein suggests that the pottery from deposits nos. 94, 95, 97, and 103

predates the reign of Thutmosis III and does not match pottery found in deposits definitively

ascribed to Thutmosis III based on inscriptional evidence (1973: 175). No architectural features

have been recovered north of the transverse columned hall of building C and Pouls Wegner has

convincingly demonstrated that the foundation deposits located in this area cannot be dated with

any certainty (2002: 228-231).101

Building C was oriented to the local north-south with an entrance on the local north side

(Petrie 1903: 18; Kemp 1968: 143; Pouls Wegner 2002: 225). It was built over a structure dated

to the Sixth Dynasty (Kemp 1968: 149; Petrie 1903: 18). Harvey has argued that the architectural

design of building C is similar to other known royal ka chapels, but with a unique feature: a solid

stone platform reaching approximately 3 ft (1.7 cubits) in height with a vertical groove was

101 According to Pouls Wegner, the elevation, depth, and square shape of deposit no. 95 suggest that it does not date to the Eighteenth Dynasty (2002: 230-231).

142

discovered against the rear wall in the course of Petrie’s excavations (Petrie’s room D; see Petrie

1903: 18; Harvey 1998: 93). Petrie first suggested that the platform was meant for a processional

barque (1903: 18). In her reanalysis of the New Kingdom remains within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure, Pouls Wegner has subsequently theorized that Petrie’s assessment is correct based on

iconographic and architectural evidence from other New Kingdom temples (2002: 228);102

however, the exact function of the vertical groove is still not entirely clear, and it does not have

any known parallels.

Several inscribed limestone block fragments associated with building C were recovered

in the course of Petrie’s excavations (see Petrie 1902: 29-30, frontispiece, pls. LXII-LXIV; Petrie

1903: 18, pl. XXXII no. 8; Porter and Moss 1937: 42). None of these block fragments were found in situ, however, and their exact provenience at the site is not clear. The blocks primarily

depict Amenhotep I, identified by a cartouche directly in front of his head, venerating Osiris.

Osiris is shown wearing the white crown, a long-curved beard, a mummiform robe, and a cloth

around his neck, and his outstretched hands hold the crook, flail, and was-scepter (see Figure

4.10). Harvey interprets the reliefs as “depicting Amenhotep I making offerings to his deified

father Ahmose and to Osiris-Khentyamentiu” (1998: 92). He interprets the relief program of the

chapel as centering on the royal ka (Harvey 1998: 93). The only figure that is undoubtedly

identified as Ahmose II by the accompanying inscription occurs on one block fragment (see

Petrie 1902: pl. LXII), but the person in front of the king is missing so it is not clear if that figure

was Osiris or Amenhotep I. Furthermore, Winnerman’s recent analysis of the relief program

102 Pouls Wegner compares the building C platform to the benches associated with the hall of barques in the temple of Sety I in South Abydos, and iconographic images from the temple of Ramesses II in Middle Abydos and the Luxor Temple (2002: 226-228).

143

from this building questions the divinity of Ahmose II as Osiris or as a royal ka (2018: 72-73).

He suggests that the different epithets identified with Amenhotep I and Ahmose II may relate to

the fact that Amenhotep I was the reigning king who possessed the royal ka, while Ahmose II

was deceased and thus no longer possessed the royal ka, but he cannot validate this evidence

(2018: 72). Winnerman examined two other block fragments (see Petrie 1902: pl. LXIII) that

contain texts referring to “Foremost of living kas” and “The Royal ka,” which demonstrate that

specific figures in the relief program of the chapel were ka spirits, but unfortunately the figures

cannot be identified (2018: 70-71). Thus, the exact nature of the relationship between

Amenhotep I and Ahmose II cannot be determined based on the fragmentary evidence. The

surviving relief program does not depict Amenhotep I venerating Ahmose II. However, the

inclusion of Ahmose II in a structure built by Amenhotep I provides evidence of royal ancestor

worship in addition to highlighting the connection between Osiris and Amenhotep I. The

preceding Middle Kingdom relief program associated with the royal structures built in the

interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure contain similar themes (Wegner 1996a: 73-86). Wegner suggests that the decorative program associated with royal monuments dated to the Middle

Kingdom and Eighteenth Dynasty within the Osiris Temple Enclosure identifies several of the structures as ka chapels (1996a: 74-85).103 Harvey suggests a similar function for building C

(1998: 92-95). In addition, Pouls Wegner has pointed out the similarity between the relief

program of building C and the relief programs of the Ramesside temples in Middle Abydos,

103 For the Eleventh to Thirteenth Dynasties, Wegner has convincingly demonstrated that the relief blocks and inscribed material associated with Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, Sankhkare Mentuhotep III, Senwosret I, Senwosret III, and Sobekhotep IV derive from ka chapels (1996a: 74-86, 102-106, 108). He also identifies the New Kingdom structures of Ahmose II/Amenhotep I and Thutmosis III as ka chapels (Wegner 1996a: 342).

144

suggesting that they shared a similar function (2002: 223). However, the fragmentary nature of

the evidence makes it difficult to determine the precise function of the chapel.

Block fragments found reused in the foundations of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty temple within the Osiris Temple Enclosure probably derive from building C (Ayrton, Currelly, and

Weigall 1904: 51, pl. XXI no. 1; Porter and Moss 1937: 42). They are made of white limestone and depict a figure of Osiris in front of a table of offerings. Another block fragment preserves the figure of Amenhotep I wearing royal regalia and likely came from this structure, since it was found in the temple area (Petrie 1903: pl. XXXII no. 8). The fragment is now at Yale University

(Yale Art Gallery no. 1937.214) and closer examination has shown that it preserves the head, torso, and outstretched arms of the king (Scott 1986: 83-84, no. 41; see Figure 4.11). The king wears the khat-headdress104 with a uraeus and a broad collar in raised relief (Scott 1986: 83). He

adores a divine image to the left, of which only the hands remain (Scott 1986: 83). Hieroglyphs

to the left of the broken cartouche of the king’s name contain the phrase nb irt-xt which has been

traditionally translated as “Lord of Action” and as “Lord of Ritual” (Scott 1986: 83; Routledge

2001: 163). In her analysis of the title, Routledge determines that it likely refers to the general

job performing duties of the king since it occurs in a variety of contexts including royal, cultic,

funerary, and military, and is not restricted to sacred activities (2001: 184-214). The relief

fragment at Yale is similar to another relief from Abydos excavated by Petrie, which clearly

shows the cartouche of Amenhotep I as Dsr-kA-ra (1902: frontispiece lower relief). The king also

104 For a description of the khat-headdress and its representational evidence, see Eaton-Krauss 1977: 23-39. It appears in royal iconography as early the Fourth Dynasty and had a complementary relationship with the nemes- headdress in royal depictions (Eaton-Krauss 1977: 25-26; Goebs 1995: 159, n. 43). According to Goebs’ research, the nemes has solar/day connotations, while the khat has lunar/night connotations and may possess the same symbolism as the White Crown (2008: 139, 154, 189).

145

bears the title nb irt-xt to the right of the full cartouche, but in this piece the king wears the white

crown and a broad collar (Petrie 1902: frontispiece lower relief, pl. LXII top).

Based on the surviving epigraphic evidence, the function of building C was associated

with Amenhotep I’s worship of Osiris and likely included ancestor worship of Ahmose II.

However, as Harvey points out, the relative prominence of each of these components of the relief

program is not clear because the ratio of scenes dedicated to Ahmose II compared to scenes

dedicated to Osiris cannot be determined (1998: 94). There is evidence that building C was still

standing during the late Eighteenth Dynasty and that it was never replaced or built over by later

rulers (Kemp 1968: 145; Harvey 1998: 93-94). It was left standing in its original state for quite some time.

4.2.2.2 Thutmosis III’s Building Program

Evidence for at least one cult structure built during the reign of Thutmosis III within the

Osiris Temple Enclosure is attested by block fragments and foundation deposits. Petrie attributed

a temple to Thutmosis III based on the scant remains of mudbrick foundation walls in addition to

the foundation deposits, but architectural remains associated with the temple are difficult to

discern at the site today (1903: 18-21, pl. LVII). Petrie believed that foundation deposits nos. 84,

89, 116, 83, and 88 marked the southern wall, while foundation deposits nos. 90, 104, 85, and

100 marked the northern wall (1903: 18-21, pl. LVII). However, none of the foundation deposits

can be assigned with any certainty to a specific architectural feature. Only foundation deposits

nos. 98, 101, and 102 contained objects inscribed with the name of Thutmosis III (Petrie 1903:

21, 35, pl. LXIII).

Based on Petrie’s excavations, Weinstein lists 15 deposits belonging to the temple of

Thutmosis III at Abydos (nos. 82-85, 89-90, 98, 101-102, 104-105, 107-109, and 116), but not

146

all of these contained the same objects (1973: 176-177). Petrie’s illustrations of the contents of

the deposits makes it extremely difficult to identify the artifacts, especially the types of pottery

included (1903: pls. LXII-LXIII). Weinstein identifies dishes, jars, bottles, saucers, and bowls, as

well as bronze model tools, alabaster vases, and sandstone grinders (1973: 176-177). Kemp

contests the dating of several of the foundation deposits ascribed to Thutmosis III. He argues that deposits nos. 94, 95, 97, 103, 112, 113, and 115 belong to his building E instead (Kemp 1968:

143), although the date of building E is not confirmed.105 By analyzing the elevations,

distribution, and contents of the foundation deposits attributed to the cult structure of Thutmosis

III, Pouls Wegner suggests that certain clusters of deposits with similar artifact assemblages

correspond to specific areas of the temple with related functions (2002: 250-255). For instance,

the grouping of foundation deposits that contained bovine remains and animal bones may be

associated with the sanctuaries of the chapel, a place in which offerings were made (Pouls

Wegner 2002: 251). Alternatively, Petrie believed that the foundation deposits were placed

horizontally along the internal cross-walls of the temple and created his plan of the structure based on this (1903: 18, pl. LVII). However, according to Weinstein’s study of foundation deposits in ancient Egypt, deposits associated with temples generally occur at the four corners of

the entire temple, at the corners of the hypostyle hall and courts, at the corners of the sanctuary,

along the main axis, beneath pylons, columns, statues, and obelisks, as well as at other important

locations (1973: lxix). Thus, in contrast to Petrie’s assumption, it seems likely that the

foundation deposits associated with the cult building of Thutmosis III were similarly positioned

in these locations.

105 See further discussion in Pouls Wegner 2002: 256, 259-260.

147

Petrie believed the main entrance to Thutmosis III’s structure was in the middle of the

eastern wall of the complex (1903: 18). Kemp, on the other hand, argues for a north-south axis

(1968: 144), but this has been debated by Pouls Wegner who assigns a local east-west orientation based on her assessment of the foundation deposits (2002: 241, 251; see above). In addition to the foundation deposits that Petrie believed marked the north and south walls of the temple (see above), Petrie thought that the temple’s northeast corner reached the edge of the main east-west causeway that bisected the Osiris Temple Enclosure.106 Petrie further believed that the west wall

of the temple reached building A (marked by the bricks designated B on his plan of the site; see

Petrie 1903: 18, pl. LVII). Based on Petrie’s assessment, Pouls Wegner calculated the

dimensions of the temple to be 66.37 x 40.10 m (126.42 x 76.38 cubits) (2002: 244). Petrie’s

plan, however, would place the temple of Thutmosis III beyond the architectural limits of the

chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I and building A to the local North of the chapel. The

chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I was certainly still standing during Thutmosis III’s reign

and building A remained in use during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty so that Thutmosis III’s

structure must not have overlapped these buildings.107 According to Kemp, the west wall of the

temple did not extend as far as Petrie proposed. Kemp suggests that foundation deposits nos. 101

and 88 mark the westernmost extension (1968: 143-145), so that the temple was not constructed beyond the east walls of buildings B and C (see Petrie 1903: pl. LVII; Pouls Wegner 2002: fig.

106 The central causeway of the enclosure extended from a stone pylon in the east wall of the main enclosure through to the stone-lined portal in the western wall of the enclosure towards the “Portal” Temple and beyond. Petrie believed it provided a route from the town and cultivated fields of Abydos to the cemetery at Umm el-Qaʽab (1903: 18). The line of the causeway can be seen in Mariette’s map of the site (1880a: pl. 65) and in Garstang’s map (1901: 23, pl. XXXVII). Garstang discusses how the causeway extends from the eastern to western gate and “stands clear of the annual waters” (1901: 23). Pouls Wegner argues that the causeway “comprised a major route through the site during the 18th Dynasty” (2002: 179).

107 See §4.2.2.4.4.

148

35). Pouls Wegner’s analysis of the contents of the deposits suggests that the sanctuary of

Thutmosis III’s temple and thus the rear wall was located at deposits nos. 94, 103, and 97 (2002:

251-252, 256). Her assessment extends the temple to the local west beyond Kemp’s limits for the western wall, but well before Petrie’s delineation of the western extent of the structure. Thus, the dimensions of the cult building of Thutmosis III based on Pouls Wegner’s assessment measure approximately 40 x 34 m (76.2 x 64.8 cubits).

Both Kemp’s and Pouls Wegner’s reconstructions of the western extent of the cult building of Thutmosis III are more reasonable than Petrie’s based on the architectural limits provided by the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I and building A; however, based on

Petrie’s plan of the New Kingdom remains, if the line of the west wall marked by deposits nos.

94, 103, and 97 is extended to the local south as far as the southernmost deposit no. 83 along the southern wall, then the rear wall of Thutmosis III’s structure would cut through the easternmost portions of the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I (see Petrie 1903: pl. LVII). Or, if it did not, then the rear portion of the cult building of Thutmosis III would have a somewhat skewed shape unless it incorporated the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I into its plan. Perhaps, as

Kemp (1968: 143) and Weinstein (1973: 175-178) suggest, deposits nos. 94, 103, 97 predate the reign of Thutmosis III. However, deposit no. 88 contained animal bones like deposits nos. 94,

103, and 97 suggesting a functional link between these deposits. In addition, deposit no. 103 was at the same elevation level as deposit no. 84, suggesting an architectural link between the front and rear of the temple as Pouls Wegner’s research demonstrates (2002: 250-252). The complicated stratigraphy of the Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure likely reflects limitations of space in an area of dense accumulation of construction activity over a long period of time.

149

Based on the distribution of the foundation deposits and the remaining indications of

walls, the cult building of Thutmosis III appears to have been roughly square in plan with a

tripartite configuration consisting of two transverse columned halls and a rear sanctuary (Petrie

1903: 18-20; Pouls Wegner 2002: 257, 261-262, fig. 35). Thutmosis III appears to have extended

the western wall of the Senwosret I enclosure where inscribed granite door jambs associated with

a major stone-paved gateway were found in the wall (Petrie 1903: 17, pl. LVII; Kemp 1968: 144;

Pouls Wegner 2002: 179). According to Pouls Wegner, the pylon gateway of Thutmosis III may

have remained in use into the Late Period (2002: 180). A drainage system in use between the

Twelfth and Twentieth Dynasties ran along the central causeway of the temple complex, which

had an in situ group of two stones as part of the pavement of the gateway of Thutmosis III confirming the drains association with the date of the gateway (Kemp 1968: 142; Pouls Wegner

2002: 182-183). As Pouls Wegner notes, the interesting feature of the channel is that it “provides

indirect archaeological evidence for the existence of either a larger enclosure or another structure

located to the local west of the thick mudbrick pylon of Thutmosis III” based on changes in the

direction of the channel in relation to the cult building of Thutmosis III (2002: 185). This evidence suggests that the Eighteenth Dynasty cult structures and associated features located within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, especially the cult building of Thutmosis III, encompassed a large area.

The fragmentary inscriptional evidence deriving from the cult building of Thutmosis III includes traces of the king’s name and accounts of his bequests to the local cult. This material derives from secondary contexts as well as from intact foundation deposits. The items include carved limestone block fragments found reused in later structures and inscribed artifacts, such as alabaster vessels and sandstone grinders recovered from three foundation deposits (Petrie 1903:

21, pls. LXII-LXIII, XXXI; Porter and Moss 1937: 42). The inscribed alabaster and bronze

150

objects from the foundation deposits name Thutmosis III as “Beloved of Osiris” (Weinstein

1973: 177). Unlike the Middle Kingdom alabaster plaque from an unidentified foundation

deposit of Sankhkare Mentuhotep III in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure, which

identifies his monument as a Hwt-kA (ka chapel), the inscribed foundation deposits belonging to

Thutmosis III do not provide the name of his structure. More research is needed to determine if there are any consistent and discernable differences between the types of artifacts and the content of the inscribed material recovered from foundation deposits associated with royal ka chapels compared to other types of royal monuments, such as divine temples.

Relief decoration on block fragments recovered from Petrie’s excavations within the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure depict the deceased Thutmosis III as Osiris, while the accompanying text presents the relationship between the king and god (see Petrie 1902: 30, pls.

LXI, LXIV; Petrie 1903: 17, 35, pl. XXXIII; Porter and Moss 1937: 42). One block fragment depicts a seated mummiform figure of the king as Osiris holding the flail (Petrie 1903: pl.

XXXIII). Wegner notes that the theme of this relief is in keeping with the decorative program of ka chapels identified in the Eleventh to Thirteenth Dynasties (1996a: 85). Another carved and painted relief block now in the Bolton Museum contains part of a jubilee titulary of Thutmosis

III commonly found on monuments related to the king’s sed-festivals (BOLMG 1902.53.5;

Petrie 1902: 30, pl. LXI no. 1; Hutchinson 2011: 159, no. 163). The block fragments belonging to Thutmosis III are not as numerous, nor as detailed as the relief recovered from the chapel of

Ahmose II and Amenhotep I, but clearly depict the postmortem transformation of the king. Pouls

Wegner has commented on the similarities between the relief programs of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom structures located within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (2002: 243). Based on the themes presented in their decorative programs, the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom royal cult buildings located in the Osiris Temple Enclosure may be functionally related.

151

The most complete inscriptional evidence belonging to Thutmosis III derives from fragments of a tabular offering list, which Petrie recovered from the interior of the Osiris Temple

Enclosure (see Petrie 1903: 44-45, pl. XXXIV; Sethe 1906-1927: 203-207; Pouls Wegner 2002:

144-161, fig. 15, app. B). The text is badly damaged, and the exact provenience of the fragments is not known, but the list provides evidence for the types of commodities included in Thutmosis

III’s royal bequest for the cult of Osiris (Petrie 1903: 35; Porter and Moss 1937: 42). Pouls

Wegner has analyzed the record of offerings given to Osiris in the offering list and concludes that the god received a wealth of material, comparable in quality and quantity, to the offerings that Thutmosis III gave to Amun of Karnak (2002: 144-155). The offering list suggests that

Thutmosis III invested in the cult of Osiris at Abydos to the same extent he did in the cult of

Amun at Karnak. The main difference was not in the abundance of offerings, but rather in the types of offerings dedicated to each cult, which reflected the specific attributes and functions of each god.108 The offering list is also highly significant because the quantity and quality of the commodities included suggest the presence of an impressive monument at the site, probably the main temple of Osiris.109 It is difficult to determine, however, if the list derives from a divine temple of Thutmosis III located inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure, or from some other royal cult building, such as a subsidiary ka chapel located close to the main temple.

Pouls Wegner convincingly demonstrates that the content of the offering list refers to a major temple institution, but it is not clear if the list was actually carved on the walls of that

108 See Pouls Wegner for a detailed description of the types of offerings offered to both temples (2002: 148-151).

109 The offering list does not specifically mention the name of the cult building to which the offerings were given, but the offerings “take the form of daily offerings, offerings for the god’s festivals, and temple equipment” (Pouls Wegner 2002: 146).

152

structure (2002: 157-161). The provenience of the inscribed fragments recorded by Petrie places

the offering list in the part of the building identified as the rear or sanctuary area of the cult

building of Thutmosis III (see Petrie 1903: 35; Pouls Wegner 2002: 159-160). Pouls Wegner

notes that this position of the offering list is comparable to those found in “mortuary offering

chambers” (2002: 160). If the offering list originally came from the structure identified by the

foundation deposits of Thutmosis III, this would suggest that the function of that structure was a

divine temple for the cult of Osiris, perhaps even a part of the main Osiris temple (see Pouls

Wegner 2002: 160-161). However, this observation is complicated by the fact that the relief

program of Thutmosis III discussed above portrays the deceased king as an Osiris in keeping

with the themes expressed in the earlier ka chapels at the site, and the fact that the ka chapels of

Pepy II and Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II also contained offering lists (Petrie 1903: 42-43, pls. XX,

XXIV; Wegner 1996a: 78). Even if the west wall of the cult building of Thutmosis III did not extend beyond foundation deposits nos. 88 and 100 as Kemp suggests (1968: 143), the size of the cult building of Thutmosis III is still quite a bit larger than the chapel of Ahmose II and

Amenhotep I, perhaps suggesting that it should be identified as a temple that also incorporated the king’s royal ka cult. In a similar manner, Wegner has identified the mortuary temple of

Senwosret III at South Abydos with both contemporary pyramid temples and royal ka chapels

(1996a: 339-340), and inscriptional material associated with the cult building of Ramesses I in

Middle Abydos identifies it as both a Hwt-kA (ka Chapel) and a Hwt nt HH m rnpwt (Mansion of

Millions of Years) (El-Khatib 1993: 97-73; Kitchen 1993: 110, 16-114; Franke 1994: 126;

Harvey 1998: 444-445).

4.2.2.3 Temple of Thutmosis IV: Ka Chapel or Divine Temple?

There are several pieces of evidence pertaining to construction activity under Thutmosis

IV, although much is in a fragmentary state. Mariette recovered royal statue fragments identified

153

as this king during his excavations in North Abydos (1880b: nos. 348, 349, 350), as well as a

non-royal stela that mentions a temple of Thutmosis IV at Abydos (1880b: no. 1060). The stela

belongs to Neferhat (Cairo 34022), who was overseer of construction, chief of the workmen of

the temple of Thutmosis IV at Abydos (see Mariette 1880a: pl. XLVII; Mariette 1880b: no.

1060; Helck 1957: 1611-1612 no. 533; Helck 1961b: 176-177 no. 533). The text is not very long,

but mentions Abydos and contains the prenomen and nomen of Thutmosis IV:110 nsw-bity nb tAwy nb ir-xt Mn-xprw-Ra sA-Ra n Xt.f mri.f nb n xAst nbt DHwty-msw-xa-xaw mry Nwt di anx Ddt

“King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Action, Mn-xprw-Ra, Son of

Re of his body, whom he loves, Lord of all Foreign Lands, DHwty-msw-xa-xaw, Beloved of Nut,

given life forever” (Helck 1957: 1612 lines 10-11). The inscription occurs on a round-topped

limestone stela (90 cm or 1.7 cubits in height) dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, which depicts

Neferhat praising Osiris, Isis, and Min in the upper register (Hall 1925: 13, pls. XLIII, XLIV).

However, Thutmosis IV is not depicted on the stela. The passage at the end of the inscription

explains that Neferhat was the chief of construction of a royal temple in Abydos, but

interestingly does not directly name the king for whom the temple was built: rdit iAw n Nwt sn tA

n nbt pt in Hry kAt n tA Hwt pr-aA anxw wDAw snbw m AbDw Nfr-Hat “giving praise to Nut and

kissing the earth for the Mistress of Heaven by the Chief of Construction of the temple of

Pharaoh l. p. h. in Abydos, Neferhat” (Helck 1957: 1612, lines 15-16).111 Was Neferhat ordered

to do this work by Thutmosis IV? Helck translates the Hwt “Temple” as a Totentempels

“Mortuary Temple” (1961b: 177), but the inscription does not provide enough information about

110 For Thutmosis IV’s full titulary, see Leprohon 2013: 101-102.

111 Also translated in Helck 1961b: 177.

154

the function of the temple, nor whether this temple would have been located inside or outside the

Osiris Temple Enclosure.

Mariette had previously identified a small structure, which he labeled “petit temple ruiné”

located to the local south of the Osiris Temple Enclosure, which consisted of mudbrick walls and

column fragments, as belonging to Thutmosis IV (1869: 4-5, pl. I).112 His date was based on a

large block inscribed with the name of Thutmosis IV, but its location is now unknown (1869: 4-

5, no. 2). During her 1996-1997 excavations at North Abydos, Pouls Wegner examined the

structure and noted its relationship to the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III discovered in the

Votive Zone (2002: 362-363). In fact, stamped bricks with the prenomen of Thutmosis III were

found associated with the foundation of the structure, thus assigning it a new date (Pouls Wegner

2002: 362; see below).

Marlar discovered several New Kingdom decorated block fragments and architectural

elements reused in the Late Period temple remains and within the back-fill dump during her excavations of the Thirtieth Dynasty temple located within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (2009:

192-197, 210-215, 230, figs. 71-72, 106, 108-115). The material includes foundation and core blocks, wall blocks, paving stones, column bases, and fragments of a life-sized Osiride statue

(Marlar 2009: 192-195). Approximately twelve fragments depict the name and titles of

Thutmosis IV (Marlar 2007a: 1258; Marlar 2009: 215-217, figs. 109, 115; see Figure 4.12).

Additional fragments contain portions of the body and face of Thutmosis IV, and several others include the heb-sed sign referring to the king’s sed-festival (Marlar 2009: 217-223, figs. 110-

112). Most of the relief images are highly fragmentary and do not provide enough information to

112 Also see Porter and Moss 1937: 70 and Bryan 1991: 164-165.

155

determine complete scenes, except for fragment OTP 5655, which depicts Thutmosis IV offering

nw-jars to the seated mummiform figure of Osiris (Marlar 2009: 223-226, fig. 113D). The fact

that no other New Kingdom Pharaoh is mentioned on the block fragments combined with the

relatively large quantity of fragments naming Thutmosis IV does seem to suggest that a

substantial monument was built under Thutmosis IV within the Osiris Temple Enclosure. As

Marlar points out, however, not all the portraiture displayed on the New Kingdom block

fragments can be definitively ascribed to Thutmosis IV (2009: 220-221).

The displaced context of the block fragments makes it difficult to determine the location

and architectural layout of the cult building they once decorated. The fragments were unearthed

in the southeast corner of the area delineated as the rear of the Late Period temple (Marlar’s Area

4; see Marlar 2007a: 1257-1258; Marlar 2009: 49-50, 192-197, fig. 19). Marlar argues that the block fragments “were relocated there from the area of the in situ architecture” (2009: 230). This in situ architecture was revealed when Marlar excavated the area beneath the Thirtieth Dynasty temple from 2002-2004 (2007a: 1256-1257; 2009: 169-197; see Figure 4.13). An extensive foundation consisting of a deep sand bed and mudbrick retaining walls was exposed in the area of the Late Period temple remains (Marlar 2009: 169-171, fig. 79). The sand is a different color

than the Late Period temple foundation and the mudbricks from the retaining wall are

comparable in size to bricks associated with the cult building of Thutmosis III located within the

Osiris Temple Enclosure, as well as bricks associated with the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III

located in the Votive Zone (Petrie 1903: 50-52; Pouls Wegner 2002: 270; Marlar 2009: 173).

Within the sand bed, a foundation of in situ limestone blocks containing indications of wall courses provides evidence of a building dating earlier than the Late Period temple (Marlar 2009:

173-177). Parts of the low courses of walls that do exist consist of limestone and sandstone blocks (Marlar 2009: 178). Marlar notes that at least three blocks contained distinctive

156

herringbone pattern quarry lines, a pattern which “can be specifically dated to early New

Kingdom” (2009: 178). Existing wall courses, setting lines, mortar impressions, and paving

stones indicate that the internal layout of the rear section of the building may consist of five

rooms and four corridors (Marlar 2009: 182-192, fig. 88). Based on the potential location of

these rooms close to the sanctuary, Marlar argues that the early temple had the same layout and

orientation as the Late Period temple (2009: 202).113 She also compares the early temple to the

Nineteenth Dynasty temple of Khonsu located in the precinct of the Temple of Karnak and

suggests a similar tripartite layout based on the similarity of their side chambers (2009: 207, fig.

105). The evidence remains speculative, however, since not enough in situ architecture exists to

reconstruct the internal layout of Thutmosis IV’s building and no in situ wall scenes can help determine the purpose of the side rooms.

The function of the cult structure of Thutmosis IV is difficult to determine based on the surviving decorative program. As Marlar points out, the scenes of offering, which depict

Thutmosis IV and Osiris, are common in both ka chapels and divine temples (2009: 234-235).

However, she argues that the relief decoration on the New Kingdom block fragments recovered from the vicinity of the Late Period temple are missing several images commonly found in ka chapels (Marlar 2009: 236). These missing relief themes include large piles of offerings or long offering lists and images of the royal ka or the deceased king as Osiris (Marlar 2009: 236). In addition, Marlar argues that the partial image of an anthropomorphized goddess on block fragment OTP 8044, possibly related to the cult structure of Thutmosis IV, is in accordance with the decorative program of the Late Period temple, which also contained images of goddesses; she

113 The Late Period temple is oriented northeast to southeast (local east-west) with the entrance on the northeast side oriented towards the Nile River (Marlar 2009: 131).

157

suggests that both the Late Period and New Kingdom monuments were divine temples rather

than ka chapels (Marlar 2009: 230-232, 237-239, fig. 114, A).

Because of the fragmentary nature and insubstantial quantity of the New Kingdom block fragments recovered from the Thutmosis IV structure, Marlar’s argument based on the absence of certain decorative elements common to ka chapels is highly speculative. Furthermore, as

Marlar herself points out, Petrie discovered a potential image of a goddess dating to the reign of

Sankhkare Mentuhotep III within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (see Petrie 1903: 16, pl. XXV;

Marlar 2009: 238-239). As previously mentioned, the cult structure of Sankhkare Mentuhotep III has been positively identified as a ka chapel based on inscriptional evidence (Brovarski 1994b:

19; Wegner 1996a: 338; O’Connor 1999: 111). Therefore, the existing evidence is not conclusive enough to discount the function of the Thutmosis IV structure as a ka chapel.

4.2.2.4 Architectural and Inscriptional Evidence for other Royal Constructions within the Osiris Temple Enclosure 4.2.2.4.1 Thutmosis I

Inscriptional evidence attests to the renewal and refurbishment of the Osiris-

Khentyimentiu Temple by Thutmosis I and indicates the king’s investment in the Osiris cult. A

fragmentary stela (Cairo 34007) discovered by Mariette during his 1857 explorations of the site

describes Thutmosis I’s erection of a monument for Osiris in North Abydos (see Mariette 1880a:

31; Mariette 1880b: no. 1048; Breasted 1906: §91-98, 38-40; Lacau 1909: 34007; Sethe 1906-

1927: 94-103; translated in Sethe 1914: 94-103; Hofmann 2004: 132-140). This inscriptional data, however, cannot be easily correlated with any physical remains within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure. It is not clear if Thutmosis I’s construction was associated with the main temple of

Osiris or with the subsidiary ka chapels characteristic of the Eighteenth Dynasty royal monuments visible at the site.

158

The main text of the stela focuses on the great deeds that the king performed for Osiris,

expressing the motivation as follows: [iri.n Hm.i nn n] it.i Wsir n-aAt-n mrr.i sw r nTrw nbw n mrwt [mn rn.i rwD mnw.i m pr it.i Wsir xnty-imntiw nb AbDw nHH Hna Dt] “[My Majesty did this for] my father Osiris, because I love him more than all the gods, in order that [my name remains, and my monuments endure in the house of my father Osiris, Foremost of Westerners, Lord of

Abydos, forever and ever]” (Sethe 1906-1927: 100 lines 2-7).114 Pouls Wegner argues that the

use of the word pr throughout the text, rather than Hwt or Hwt-nTr, might suggest that the building

attributed to Thutmosis I was a subsidiary structure at the site (2002: 139). An analysis of the

specific features of the temple mentioned in the text, such as the NSmt-barque and sacred lake, however, may support the conclusion that the stela refers to the main Osiris temple, not a royal ka chapel (Pouls Wegner 2002: 143; Hofmann 2004: 135, 137). The text also mentions the establishment of a cult statue of Osiris and the creation of a portable barque shrine, in addition to several other activities that the king commanded his chief treasurer to carry out (Sethe 1906-

1927: 97 line 12, 98 line 2; Breasted 1906: §92-95, 38-39; Hofmann 2004: 135, 137-138). One

such activity was to provide offerings for the temple, such as musical instruments with

ceremonial functions, dishes, and food offerings: [xrp.n.i n.f wDH…] [aSAw] sxmw sSSwt mniwt

sHtpiw tniw “[I brought for him many offering tables], sxm-sistra, sSSt-sistra, mniwt-necklaces, censers, and tniw-vessels” (Sethe 1906-1927: 98 lines 6-7).115 It is unfortunate that no

identifiable remains of this structure survive; however, the inscription provides evidence that a

114 Also translated in Hofmann 2004: 135.

115 Also translated in Hofmann 2004: 135.

159

substantial structure with furnishings and equipment was planned under the reign of Thutmosis

I.116

4.2.2.4.2 Thutmosis II

Thutmosis II’s cartouche and titles occur on a large sandstone lintel (Berlin Museum

15980) found by Petrie during his excavations within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Petrie 1902:

43-44, pls. LXI, LXIV; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; see Figure 4.14). Thutmosis II’s name and

titles occur on the right side of the lintel, while Thutmosis III’s name and titles occur on the left

side in a complimentary arrangement. There is substantial archaeological evidence, including

block fragments and foundation deposits, that Thutmosis III constructed a cult structure

dedicated to Osiris within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (see above); so far, no indications, other

than this lintel, provide evidence of Thutmosis II’s activity at the site.

The presence of Thutmosis II’s cartouche alongside Thutmosis III’s on the lintel

fragment may be explained by ancestor veneration by Thutmosis III rather than the direct

involvement of Thutmosis II in the Osiris cult at Abydos. The emulation of royal ancestors was a significant component of royal patronage during the New Kingdom (Redford 1967: 50-56;

Björkman 1971: 43-48, 54; Murnane 1977; see discussion in §8.2.2). The same argument has been made to explain the occurrence of Thutmosis II’s name in the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of

Khnum at Elephantine. Bommas notes that the names of Thutmosis I and Thutmosis II in the decorative program of the Temple of Khnum were likely added posthumously under the reigns of

Hatshepsut or Thutmosis III (2000a: 56-59, 100-109). Similarly, in her examination of the

116 Thutmosis I may have constructed a pyramid at Abydos (see Sethe 1906-1927: 100 line 16; Hofmann 2004: 135-136).

160

Thutmosis III temple at Deir el-Bahri, Dolinska noted scenes honoring Thutmosis I and

Thutmosis II in one of the southernmost rooms (1994: 35). Each king had his own section of the

wall and had his own offering table in order to participate in the offering cult of Thutmosis III

(Dolinska 1994: 35). Furthermore, at Karnak, royal ancestors appear prominently in monuments

built by Thutmosis III (Björkman 1971: 77ff; Blyth 2006: 70-73; see further discussion in

§8.2.2). There is additional evidence that Thutmosis III emulated royal ancestors at Abydos.

Within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, Thutmosis III extended the western wall of an enclosure built by Senwosret I and set up a statue of Senwosret III (Petrie 1903: 17, 34, 43, pls. XXVIII,

LVII; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Kemp 1968: 144; Pouls Wegner 2002: 179).

A history of ancestor veneration is apparent at Abydos before and after the reign of

Thutmosis III. At South Abydos, depictions of Amenemhat III occur in the internal decorative

program of the mortuary temple of Senwosret III and his name has been found on impressions of

scarab and cylinder seals at the site (Wegner 1996a: 259; Wegner 2007: 37, 43, 167-169, 313-

314). Wegner suggests that Amenemhat III may have been worshipped as a subsidiary statue cult

in the mortuary temple of Senwosret III and argues that there many have been a coregency

between Senwosret III and Amenemhat III (1996a: 257-260, 416; 1996b: 267-279; 2007: 19, 36-

39).117 At North Abydos, Amenhotep I included his father Ahmose II in the relief program of his cult structure within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Petrie 1902: pl. LXII; see above). Harvey has

noted evidence for a potential coregency between Ahmose II and Amenhotep I (1998: 33-35).118

Furthermore, during the Nineteenth Dynasty, Sety I venerated his father Ramesses I by erecting a

117 The coregency between Senwosret III and Amenemhat III has been previously discussed by Murnane (1977: 9- 13, 228-229) and Leprohon (1980: 302-303).

118 Also see Murnane 1977: 114-115, 230.

161

chapel at Middle Abydos in his name (Winlock 1921; Winlock 1937; Wegner 2007: 169).

According to Wegner, the relationship between kings and their fathers or sons depicted in

monuments at Abydos can be viewed as a symbolic reflection of the mythical connection

between Osiris and his son Horus (1996b: 278). Osiris was symbolically related to eternity in the

afterlife and to the establishment of divine kingship through the succession of his son, Horus.

Pouls Wegner suggests that the lintel of Thutmosis II and Thutmosis III from North Abydos may

indicate a coregency between Thutmosis II and Thutmosis III (2002: 125). However, Murnane’s evidence for a potential coregency between the kings is inconclusive and he suggests that the

Abydos lintel may be commemorative (1977: 116-117, 230-231). On the other hand, Thutmosis

III’s focus on venerating his royal ancestors at multiple sites may attest to the political climate of his reign and the disruption to the lineage of royal male successors caused by the reign of

Hatshepsut (Redford 1967: 73ff; Redford 1975: 544; Redford 1986: 168ff; Pouls Wegner 2002:

125-126). Thutmosis III may have needed to commit extra effort to establish himself in the royal succession.119

4.2.2.4.3 Hatshepsut

Two objects recovered from the Osiris Temple Enclosure provide evidence of

Hatshepsut’s building activities. The first is a bronze model adze blade in Boston (MFA

64.2259) inscribed with the phrase: nTrt nfrt MAat-kA-Ra mrit Wsir xnty-imntiw imy Hwt.f nt AbDw

“The Good Goddess, Maatkare, Beloved of Osiris, Foremost of Westerners who is in his temple of Abydos.” The blade is 17.5 cm (0.3 cubits) in length and is broken in half (Weinstein 1973:

149-150, fig. 14). The artifact was acquired from a private collection, so its provenience at the

119 Pouls Wegner suggests that Thutmosis III emulated the great construction activities of Senwosret III to connect him to the lineage of royal ancestors (2002: 91-92).

162

site is unknown, but Weinstein includes the blade in his research on foundation deposits and

suggests that it derived from the Osiris temple complex (1973: 149). The object likely belonged

to a foundation deposit of Hatshepsut suggesting that she built a new structure within or near the

Osiris Temple Enclosure.

The second object is an alabaster ointment jar, which Mariette found during his excavations at Abydos (1880b: no. 1467). Mariette labels the jar as coming from the Kom es-

Sultan. It is inscribed with the phrase: nTr nfr MAat-kA-Ra anx.ti mry Wsir xnty-imntiw “The Good

God, Maatkare, may she live, Beloved of Osiris, Foremost of Westerners” and likely also originally belonged to a foundation deposit (see Weinstein 1973: n. 154). A similar alabaster ointment jar with an identical inscription was found near the temple of Sety I (Mariette’s

“Nécropole du Sud”) outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Mariette 1880b: no. 1468). Weinstein suggests that the jar belonged to a foundation deposit (1973: n. 154) and perhaps both jars came from foundation deposits belonging to the same building.

4.2.2.4.4 Amenhotep III

Amenhotep III may have added a forecourt on the local eastern side of the cult building

of Thutmosis III located inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure and/or may have constructed an

additional cult building in North Abydos (Kemp 1968: 144; Pouls Wegner 2002: 255-256).

Petrie discovered four foundation deposits belonging to Amenhotep III to the local east of the

foundation deposits associated with Thutmosis III’s structure, three of which he recorded on his

plan of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple remains (1903: 18-19, pl. LVII). However, only the

contents of deposit no. 70, which contained a green glazed plaque inscribed with the cartouche of

Amenhotep III and a limestone stand are described (Petrie 1902: 31, pl. LXI; Petrie 1903: 20, pl.

LXII; Porter and Moss 1937: 42). The foundation deposits attest to a new construction under the

163

reign of Amenhotep III, which could have been added as an extension to the cult building of

Thutmosis III.

Petrie recovered five adjoining limestone fragments of a relief scene belonging to

Amenhotep III in a late paving south of the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I, which are now in the Bolten Museum (BOLMG 1902.53.7; see Petrie 1903; 18-19; Hutchinson 2011: 136, no. 137). The relief depicts the upper part of the head of Osiris on the right side and the upper part of the head of Amenhotep III wearing a sashed-circlet and atef-crown on the left side. An inscription to the right of Amenhotep III’s head refers to his sed-festival, while the remains of a sekhem-scepter indicate the king’s role in the presentation of offerings. The theme of the king offering to Osiris fits well with the decorative program of the other Eighteenth Dynasty royal cult buildings erected at North Abydos. Additionally, a small piece of wood with a partially preserved throne name of Amenhotep III was uncovered in a disturbed context near the Thirtieth

Dynasty temple inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure at Abydos (Marlar 2007a: 1258).120 No further details about this piece have been published by the excavator. The evidence does not provide enough information to determine if Amenhotep III’s structure was a subsidiary ka chapel, or an extension to the front of the cult building of Thutmosis III.

4.2.2.4.5 Buildings A and B

Two buildings (A and B) within the Osiris Temple Enclosure may have been in use during the Eighteenth Dynasty, although it cannot be determined to which kings they are attributed. Departing from Petrie’s original date of the Eleventh Dynasty (1903: 15, pl. LV),

Kemp relabeled Petrie’s building D “building A” and assigned it to the early Eighteenth Dynasty

120 Marlar notes that modern excavation tools were interspersed among the finds (2007a: 1258).

164

(1968: 140ff, fig. 1).121 In contrast, Pouls Wegner argues that building A remained in use

throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty but was constructed earlier (2002: 186-195). She

convincingly demonstrates that there were in fact three pavement levels associated with

construction phases of building A and that it was the third pavement which overlaid columns of

Nubkheperre Intef VII of the Seventeenth Dynasty, not the original pavement associated with the first construction phase of the building, as Kemp argued (see Kemp 1968: 141; Pouls Wegner

2002: 190-191). The third pavement also contained reused red sandstone slabs originally belonging to a cult building of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II (Pouls Wegner 2002: 191). In her analysis of the architecture and stratigraphy of the pavement levels associated with building A,

Pouls Wegner notes that the third pavement, which represents the uppermost level, reached the same elevation as the pavement associated with the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I

(2002: 191). The combined evidence suggests that the third pavement, which represents the last

construction phase of building A, post-dates the Seventeenth Dynasty. The last phase of

construction may represent a reutilization of an earlier building attested by the first two

pavements, or an entirely new structure that may have related to other Eighteenth Dynasty structures at the site, such as Amenhotep I or Thutmosis III, as Pouls Wegner notes (2002: 196,

202-203). The stratigraphic evidence does seem to suggest that building A had a long period of use; however, it is difficult to spatially reconstruct the individual phases of construction based on

Petrie’s published plans.

121 Kemp’s redating of building A is based on his analysis of the stratigraphy of the archaeological deposits underneath a pavement associated with the first phase of construction and his observations of an unpublished fieldnote of Petrie’s, which identify broken columns of Nebukheperre Intef VI (Seventh Dynasty) under the pavement associated with the structure (1968: 140-142).

165

According to Petrie’s plan, building A was a square structure defined by a mudbrick wall

and interior areas of stone pavement that was built over the remains of an earlier monument of

Pepy I, but its orientation is not certain (1903: 16). As stated above, building A was likely still

standing during the reign of Thutmosis III, who also constructed a roughly square cult building

within the Osiris Temple Enclosure. Petrie thought that the earlier Sixth Dynasty building was a

“processional temple” that functioned differently from other temples (1903: 11), but it was likely

a ka chapel (see O’Connor 1992: 89-90; Brovarski 1994b: 15-17). Kemp believes that building A

retained the same orientation as the Sixth Dynasty monument – local north-south (1968: 142) –

but this is difficult to determine.122 Based on the architectural layout, potential orientation, and continuity of building phases in the same location, it seems likely that building A was also a ka chapel. If its original construction predates the Seventeenth Dynasty, perhaps building A once belonged to a Middle Kingdom king. Limestone block fragments and an alabaster plaque inscribed with the name of Sankhkare Mentuhotep III were found in this area of the site (Petrie

1903: 15-16, pl. XXV; Wegner 1996a: 82-83). The tablet derives from a foundation deposit of

Sankhkare Mentuhotep III, providing evidence of a new monument under his reign. However, the function of building A during the Eighteenth Dynasty is not clear. There are no associated

Eighteenth Dynasty artifacts or foundation deposits.

A mudbrick enclosure labelled building B by Kemp (1968: 140, fig. 1)was originally dated to the Eleventh or Twelfth Dynasty by Petrie (1903: pls. LV-LVI). Building B adjoins the local east wall of building A and thus the two structures may be contemporary in date (Petrie

1903: 213). However, Pouls Wegner points out that the foundation walls of building B have a

122 Pouls Wegner discusses the problems with Kemp’s evidence (2002: 211-212).

166

higher elevation than building A, which may indicate that building B postdates building A (2002:

213-214). Kemp dates the construction of both buildings A and B to the reign of Ahmose II at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty and he suggests that building B was an element of building A that was never completed (1968: 143, n. 1). Both Kemp and Pouls Wegner note that the transverse columned hall of the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I (building C) was built over the remains of the southern portion of building B, so that the destruction of building B must predate the reign of Amenhotep I (Kemp 1968: 143; Pouls Wegner 2002: 218, n. 124). In addition, the unattached walls of building B were preserved at a lower elevation than the walls of building A, suggesting that they are not part of the same monument (see Pouls Wegner 214, n.

111).

A review of the archaeological evidence presented thus far demonstrates that building B was constructed sometime after building A, which was likely built during the Eleventh Dynasty.

In addition, the southern part of building B predates building C, which was built during the reign of Amenhotep I. This evidence suggests that building B was erected between the Eleventh to

Eighteenth Dynasties, although its exact construction date cannot be determined. In addition, it is not clear how long the northern part of building B remained in use. Pouls Wegner suggests that building B could have undergone multiple phases of use, which changed its architectural plan over time (2002: 219). An Eighteenth Dynasty foundation deposit located under one of the stones in pavement F, which lies immediately east of building A, indicates that this area of the site remained in use during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Petrie 1903: 17; Pouls Wegner 2002: 218).

No inscriptional evidence attests to the builder of pavement F. However, as Pouls Wegner points out, the elevation of pavement F is lower than the elevation of the second and third pavements of building A, suggesting that it was originally constructed during the Eleventh or Twelfth Dynasty

(2002: 233).

167

The orientation or the location of the main entrance of building B cannot be determined.

Based on the configuration of the remaining internal walls of the structure, Pouls Wegner

suggests that the internal layout consisted of northern chambers grouped around a central hall,

possibly in alignment with the preceding Sixth Dynasty cult structures (2002: 219-220). The

southern part of the building appears to have been largely destroyed, but the northern section

provides better architectural information. Although the function of building B is difficult to

determine based on the available archaeological material, the rear chambers could represent

sanctuaries, as Pouls Wegner suggests (2002: 220). If both buildings A and B were originally

constructed as royal ka chapels during the Middle Kingdom, it is likely that they retained the

same function during their later use in the Eighteenth Dynasty, but this remains speculation.

4.2.3 North Abydos: Votive Zone

In the Votive Zone adjacent to the Osiris Temple Enclosure, the University of

Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York University Expedition from

1996-1997 under the direction of Pouls Wegner uncovered inscriptional and archaeological

evidence for significant state-level activity under the reign of Thutmosis III (2002: 264ff). The

team unearthed a previously unexcavated cult building of Thutmosis III that was the focus of periodic offering activity until its destruction in the Greco-Roman Period (Pouls Wegner 2002:

266, fig. 59).123 Stamped mudbricks and relief fragments with Thutmosis III’s name confirm

who commissioned the structure and demonstrate the relationship between the king and Osiris

123 Excavations revealed an inscription of Ramesses IV, a limestone fragment of a statue inscribed with the names of Sety I, traces of a stamp with the names of a Ptolemaic king and queen, as well as Ptolemaic coins (Pouls Wegner 2002: 318, 330-334, 342).

168

(Pouls Wegner 2002: 265-266).124 The base and additional fragments of a colossal mummiform

statue of Thutmosis III and fragmentary evidence for a second such statue further identify the

king with Osiris.125 Enough mudbrick and stone fragments exist to allow a reconstruction of its

architectural layout. In addition, the highly denuded remains of a second temple of the same

reign were identified opposite the Votive Zone, at the local eastern edge of the Middle Cemetery.

4.2.3.1 Peripteral Temples of Thutmosis III

The excavated peripteral temple of Thutmosis III was contained within an enclosure wall

of sun dried mudbrick and had a pylon as its entrance on the east side (Pouls Wegner 2002: 268,

283; see Figure 4.15). There was a stela emplacement niche in the west face of the pylon,

although no trace of a stela was recovered from that context (Pouls Wegner 2002: 283-285). A

corridor that was paved with mudbricks and possibly plastered ran in between the enclosure wall

and the main chapel building and contained a possible mudbrick magazine for storage near its

south side (Pouls Wegner 2002: 281-282). Pouls Wegner suggests that the east pylon may have

had a western parallel, providing an entrance to the corridor from the west (2002: 188-290).

Inside the eastern pylon was a paved forecourt where two trees would have originally flanked the

central axis of the structure during the early Ptolemaic Period.126 The white limestone main

124 The epithet “Menkheperre, Beloved of Osiris” stamped on the bricks demonstrates Thutmosis III’s relationship to Osiris (Pouls Wegner 2002: 274, figs. 47, 49). The epithet is used by Ahmose II in his pyramid complex in South Abydos (Harvey 1998: 192ff) and is found in non-royal contexts of the Middle Kingdom, as Pouls Wegner notes (2002: 274-276; Doxey 1998: 83-87). The question of whether this epithet was adopted into the royal realm as a means of administrative control over construction projects of the state (Pouls Wegner 2002: 276), or as a simple religious sign of devotion is a matter of debate.

125 The base was found in the transverse column hall, while fragments of grano-diorite were found inside the chapel (Pouls Wegner 2002: 313-314, 317, fig. 66 top, fig. 67 top).

126 Parts of the trunk and root system of the trees were found in situ and most likely had a religious significance, but they were not added to the chapel until the early Ptolemaic Period (Pouls Wegner 2002: 295).

169

chapel had an east-west axis and an east entrance. The entrance led to a small transverse

columned hall with two enclosed sanctuaries at the rear (Pouls Wegner 2002: 303). The two

sanctuaries flanked a central passageway in a somewhat unorthodox layout (Pouls Wegner 2002:

303-304; see below). Evidence of columns and the colossal statues of the king mentioned above

were discovered in the transverse entrance hall (Pouls Wegner 2002: 306). Originally, the main

cult structure was roofed with a painted ceiling (Pouls Wegner 2002: 338-340).

Pouls Wegner has commented on the unique architectural plan of Thutmosis III’s cult

structure in that it does not seem to conform to traditional temple layouts. Most notable is that

the entrance to the two rear sanctuaries is opposite the entrance into the temple itself, which

differs from other New Kingdom cult buildings (Pouls Wegner 2002: 348). As Pouls Wegner

notes, this unique architectural feature may relate to the specialized function of the temple in the

context of the sacred environment of Abydos, which was shaped by the festival procession of the

cult of Osiris (2002: 348-349).127 She compares the plan of the building to other royal cult

buildings at Abydos, such as the ka chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I, as well as to non- royal structures, such as the non-royal maHat offering chapels of the Middle Kingdom (Pouls

Wegner 2002: 350-353). Although no inscriptional evidence identifies the function of Thutmosis

III’s peripteral temple, its architectural similarity to both royal and non-royal monuments at

Abydos suggests that there was a close connection between the design and function of the royal

and non-royal monuments (Pouls Wegner 2002: 353). Pouls Wegner notes that the structure most

closely resembles a barque shrine (2002: 304-305). In fact, a painted relief block fragment from the structure depicts priests carrying a sacred barque (Pouls Wegner 1997-1998: 57; O’Connor

127 The orientation of the entrance and sanctuaries would have allowed visitors to face both the direction of Umm el-Qaʽab and the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Pouls Wegner 2002: 348).

170

2009: 117, fig. 62). The architectural layout of Thutmosis III’s building resembles Type I

peripteral temples defined by Badawy (1968: 284-285).128

On the opposite side of the main processional valley leading to Umm el-Qaʽab exist highly denuded remains of a parallel cult structure of Thutmosis III (Pouls Wegner 2002: 267).

The monument is in poor condition with only the mudbrick foundation remaining, but stamped bricks with the name of Thutmosis III were associated with the building (Pouls Wegner 2002:

361-362). Pouls Wegner suggests that the two peripteral temples of Thutmosis III worked together to physically mediate between the state cult institutions within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure and the non-royal offering chapels and burials at the periphery (2002: 264, 363-365).

She argues that they were used to control sacred space around the main cult temple of Osiris and

to mark boundaries where non-royal construction and ritual activity could take place (Pouls

Wegner 2002: 370). This policy may have been an extension of a state mandate that controlled

the use and development of the sacred landscape of North Abydos during the Thirteenth Dynasty

as evidenced by the boundary stela of Neferhotep I, which was usurped from an earlier king

(Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 63-64, 84, pl. XXIX; Leahy 1989: 46-49; Pouls Wegner

2002: 366, 370, app. A; Simpson 2003: 339-344). However, recent investigations of the sacred

lake originally associated with the main Osiris temple precinct appear to indicate that the two

peripteral temples of Thutmosis III flanked either side of the lake at the entrance of the

processional valley.129 Rather than demarcating non-royal activity, the peripteral temples of

128 See further discussion in §8.2.1.2. 129 Investigations of the sacred lake known now as the Malih began in 2014 by a team from the University of Pennsylvania expedition to Abydos, including the director of the project Dr. Josef Wegner and graduate student Paul Verhelst. The results of this work have been posted in a Penn Museum blog by Verhelst (2014) and were presented at the international conference of the Czech Institute of Egyptology entitled “Profane Landscapes, Sacred Spaces” held at Charles University in Prague, June 26-27, 2014 by Wegner and Verhelst “Lost Landscapes of Abydos: the

171

Thutmosis III may have been built to partake in the cult of Osiris on an unprecedented level and

to be closely associated with water-borne components of sacred barque rituals. Cahail suggests

that the structures had a dual role as barque stations for the sacred image of Osiris and as

memorial chapels for the cult of the king (2014: 313).

4.2.3.2 Architectural and Inscriptional Evidence for other Royal Constructions outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure

4.2.3.2.1 Hatshepsut

Stamped mudbricks with the names of Hatshepsut were found in the “Portal” Temple

debris during the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York

University Expedition to Abydos in 1967-1979. Two mudbricks were stamped with the

prenomen of Hatshepsut, MAat-kA-Ra in a cartouche (Simpson 1995: 80, SBS 6), while another

was stamped with her Horus name Wsrt-kAw (Simpson 1995: 80, SBS 7; see Figure 4.16).130

This inscriptional evidence is intriguing since architectural elements belonging to Hatshepsut

have not yet been found at North Abydos; yet, the stamped bricks seem to suggest that

Hatshepsut constructed a monument there. Stamped bricks are a common feature of many royal

monuments at Abydos during the early Eighteenth Dynasty.131 Pouls Wegner suggests that the

use of stamped bricks to mark royal monuments “reflects the administrative organization and

Malih and the Sacred Lake of Osiris.” Verhelst also presented his findings at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt which took place in Houston, TX, April 24-26, 2015 “The Malih: Evidence Supporting the Location of the Sacred Lake of Osiris at Abydos.” Leahy includes a depiction of the lake as two bodies of water in his sketch-map of Abydos (1989: fig. 2).

130 For the meaning of the names and titles of Hatshepsut, see Robins 1999 and Leprohon 2013: 98, 199.

131 In the enclosure wall of the Thutmosis III peripteral temple in the Votive Zone, one out of every six to seven bricks had a stamp impression of the prenomen of the king in a cartouche (Pouls Wegner 2002: 274-275). Stamped bricks also occur in the monuments of Ahmose II at South Abydos (Harvey 1998: 106, 430, 437; Harvey 2003: 20; Harvey 2006: 21).

172

control exercised over large-scale construction projects, particularly in a site such as Abydos in

which a number of state projects may have been under construction simultaneously, along with a

large number of private building projects” (2002: 275). Stamped bricks may have had a symbolic

purpose aimed at enabling the king to perpetually participate in the cult associated with his or her

structure through the presence of his or her name (Harvey 1998: 192, n. 482; Pouls Wegner

2002: 276). Thus, it seems unlikely that stamped bricks bearing the name of Hatshepsut would

be found in North Abydos unless there once stood a monumental construction commissioned

during her reign.

Recent evidence may add to this discussion. In the summer of 2011, archaeological

fieldwork in the Votive Zone commenced with a team from the University of Toronto under the

direction of Pouls Wegner. To the local north of the previously discovered northern peripteral

temple of Thutmosis III, a monumental mud-plastered and whitewashed mudbrick structure

dated to the later New Kingdom was discovered (Pouls Wegner 2012: 181). In the central area of

the northernmost longitudinal chamber of the building, a royal wooden statue was recovered

from mixed debris. The statue was carved from a single piece of wood and exhibits features

datable to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Pouls Wegner 2012: 183-184, figs. 9-10). Iconographic elements, such as the nemes-headdress and short triangular kilt identify the figure as a king. The statue is in very poor condition, however, so it is difficult to determine which king is depicted, although Pouls Wegner suggests that the portions of the waist could indicate that it represents the female ruler Hatshepsut (2012: 184, fig. 10). The evidence is inconclusive, but the statue does seem to be a representation of Hatshepsut.132 No royal names have been preserved on the

132 Personal communication with Pouls Wegner. She is currently working on an article specifically dealing with the statue.

173

sculpture or found associated with it, yet the significance of the find, if it does represent

Hatshepsut, is tremendous. The function of the monumental building is not yet known and

requires further study, but architectural evidence suggests that it was a state-initiated structure

(Pouls Wegner 2012: 181).

The stamped bricks and statue, along with the material that likely originated from foundation deposits (see §4.2.2.4.3 above) provides substantial evidence of Hatshepsut’s building activities at North Abydos. Hatshepsut probably constructed a monument associated with the complex of Eighteenth Dynasty royal buildings built within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure.

4.2.3.2.2 Akhenaten

There may be indirect evidence for the construction of a cult structure in the reign of

Akhenaten in North Abydos. Fieldwork by the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University at the

“Portal” Temple of Ramesses II in the 1960s recovered 26 talatat blocks dated to the Amarna

period (Silverman 1989: 273ff; Simpson 1995: 76-77; Wegner 2017c: 97-99, see Figure 4.17).

Since the discovery, scholars have debated whether the blocks originated at Abydos or were

brought there from elsewhere. After initial excavations, O’Connor believed that the talatat

provided proof that a monument of Akhenaten once existed at Abydos and that the blocks were

later reused by Ramesses II in his “Portal” Temple (1969: 34). Kemp seems to have hinted at the

same possibility (1975: 32). Redford, on the other hand, believed that it was unlikely that

Akhenaten built a temple at Abydos (1973: 83, n. 19). Six of the blocks were inscribed and have

been examined by Silverman, who noted that “the form of the epithets of the Aten is not typical

of those that occur at Amarna” (1989: 273). The epithets are not attested at Thebes either

(Silverman 1989: 273). This investigation led Silverman to agree with O’Connor and Kemp that

174

the inscribed material originated from the site of Abydos itself, and he further dated its

construction to the early years of Akhenaten’s reign (1989: 275). Silverman also noted that two

of the blocks mentioned the name of a previously unattested building that was perhaps a small

shrine (1989: 275). Simpson has subsequently argued that the blocks could have been brought

from Amarna (1995: 76).

In the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure, Petrie uncovered a limestone block

fragment which could be dated to the Amarna Period (1903: 37, pl. XXXIX upper left). The

relief depicts part of a boat decorated with a row of figures with arms raised in adoration.

According to Cooney, the decoration is clearly from the Amarna Period, although he states that it

is rare to see reliefs that depict boat scenes at Abydos (1965: 85). He compares the Abydos block

fragment to a similar boat relief from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (63.260 [51] and

64.521[51a]) and suggests that the Abydos block was transported directly from Amarna (Cooney

1965: 82-85). Over one thousand Amarna blocks occur at the site of Hermopolis Magna in the pylon of Ramesses II (Cooney 1965: 2, 85; Roeder 1969). These blocks were likely transported to the site from the dismantled temples of Akhenaten, which were located across the river. At

Akhmim, El-Masry found decorated limestone blocks reused in the foundations of statues in the temple of Ramesses II that have distinctive Amarna Period decoration (2002: 391-397). Because the blocks fit together, El-Masry argues that they came from a structure originally constructed at, or near Akhmim, rather than being brought to the site from another location (2002: 397).

Based on this evidence, it seems likely that there could have been a cult structure dedicated by Akhenaten at North Abydos, blocks of which were similarly later reused by

Ramesses II in his “Portal” Temple. Recently, however, Wegner has demonstrated that the building – He-builds-the-Horizon-of-the-Aten – named on two talatat block fragments from the

175

“Portal” Temple (Silverman’s unattested structure; see above) also occurs on unprovenienced lintel fragments depicting Akhenaten as a recumbent sphinx (Hannover 1964.3; Boston 64.1944; and a fragment in the Koutoulakis collection) and was a large Aten cult complex that likely contained a Sunshade (2017c: 97-98). Wegner suggests that this monument was a major precinct at Amarna and was thus not located at Abydos (2017c: 98).133 However, the structure has not yet

been identified in the archaeological record. Wegner further suggests that the relief scene on

block fragment NK 44 from Abydos (see Simpson 1995: 77, fig. 138), which depicts a pillared

court with statues of Akhenaten and a woman wearing a Hathor headdress represents the He-

builds-the-Horizon-of-the-Aten, a large cult complex that contained a Sunshade potentially

dedicated to Akhenaten or Queen Tiye (2017c: 98). According to Wegner, Sunshade chapels

were constructed in other parts of Egypt including Memphis, Heliopolis, and the Delta (2017c:

99-103, 148-149).

While the evidence is inconclusive at present, the fact that there are indications that many

Eighteenth Dynasty kings built at North Abydos, that much still needs to be excavated at the site, and that there is complicated stratigraphy and poor preservation of the remains within the Osiris

Temple Enclosure, all support the theory that Akhenaten might have built a structure here, even if no in situ architecture remains today. The quantity of Amarna period blocks recovered from

Abydos and the unusual epithets associated with the Aten, suggest that a structure dedicated to the Aten was built at North Abydos. Perhaps Akhenaten wanted to establish the Aten as a prominent god associated with the foundations of early kingship. Pouls Wegner has documented further Amarna period activity at the site attested by the deliberate defacement of the name of the

133 Wegner deduces that He-builds-the-Horizon-of-the-Aten was destroyed in antiquity and its architectural elements dispersed to other locations (2017c: 98-99).

176

god Amun on Eighteenth Dynasty stelae from Abydos (2002: 119, n. 229). Until more evidence

is uncovered, the debate surrounding whether or not Akhenaten constructed a monument at

Abydos is hypothetical.

4.2.3.2.3 Ay

Although no architectural remains have been discovered so far, there is textual evidence

that Ay constructed a cult structure (Hwt) at Abydos (Helck 1958b: 2112 no. 824; Helck 1961a:

950). A “Temple of Kheperkheperure-irimaat in Abydos” is known from the stela of

Amenemopet (Louvre C56), who was a chief sculptor (Pierret 1978: 44-47). Ay is known to

have constructed and augmented royal monuments elsewhere in Egypt. Examples include a rock-

cut temple at el-Salamuni, a temple of Min in Akhmim, a memorial temple north of Medinet

Habu, reconstruction of the Temple of Nebkheperure at Karnak, and restoration work on the

Luxor Temple, as well as installing a granite lion for Amenhotep III’s Soleb temple and

dedicating a stela in the mortuary temple of Sahure at Abusir, among other works (Dodson 2009:

103-104). Like other royal building programs at Abydos, the lack of architectural evidence for

Ay could be due to incomplete exploration of the site.

4.2.3.2.4 Horemheb

One limestone block fragment excavated outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure depicts a

large-scale relief of Horemheb. Horemheb is portrayed wearing a false beard and presenting a

naos shrine in his right hand with a cartouche of “Horemheb, Beloved of Amun” in the upper

right corner (Simpson 1995: 61, 63 fig. 102, NK 9). Block fragments can be reused from other

sites, so this alone may not prove the existence of a temple constructed by Horemheb at North

Abydos. However, a seal impression with the name of Horemheb was recovered from the

“Portal” Temple of Ramesses II from overlying debris (O’Connor 1967: 16). The sealing is 12.3

177

x 12.3 x 5.6 cm (0.2 x 0.2 x 0.1 cubits) and is inscribed with the king’s prenomen Dsr-xprw-Ra stp-n-Ra (Simpson 1995: 80, SBS 8; see Figure 4.18).134

A group statue of Horemheb and the Abydene Triad was recovered from Abydos in 1925 and now rests in the Cairo Museum (JE 49536). The statue is made of limestone and depicts the four figures in a seated position with Horus embracing the king (Eaton-Krauss 1984: 501-503).

Horemheb’s prenomen appears in a cartouche as part of an inscription carved on the back of the statue between Horus and Horemheb (Eaton-Krauss 1984: 503, fig. 1). The exact findspot of the statue at Abydos is unknown, but the combined evidence presented here suggests that Horemheb either augmented or constructed a cult structure at Abydos. The block fragment indicates that

Horemheb did not just erect monuments in a temple, such as the statue, but in fact added architectural elements.

4.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty 4.3.1 South Abydos: Settlement Evidence

The location of the settlement of the local non-royal populations at South Abydos that were buried in the Ahmose Cemetery or the Temple Cemetery is not confirmed archaeologically.

During his excavations, Currelly identified what he called the “Town of Ahmose” represented by three large domestic mudbrick structures (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 37, pl. LIII).

Finds associated with the town include scarabs and seals, human and animal figurines, ostraca, tools, bronze needles, bone awls, fragments of stelae, and New Kingdom pottery (Ayrton,

Currelly, and Weigall 1904: pls. LVII-LX; Harvey 1998: 113-114). Currelly posited that the

134 For Horemheb’s full titulary, see Leprohon 2013: 107.

178

position of the town was midway between the Ahmose II pyramid complex and the mortuary

temple of Senwosret III (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: pl. LXI). However, based upon his

excavations at Wah-Sut and upon reexamination of Currelly’s evidence, Wegner has

demonstrated that Currelly’s New Kingdom buildings belong to the Middle Kingdom town of

Wah-Sut (2001a: 304-308; 2007: 31-32).

Surface survey and trenching conducted by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization in

1966 uncovered an area of New Kingdom features and artifacts, such as silos, mudbrick pits, and

New Kingdom ceramics west of the Ahmose II pyramid (Harvey 1998: 112, 115-117; Cahail

2014: 336-337).135 This area was later reexamined by Harvey in 1993, who collected surface

finds dating from the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty through to the early Nineteenth

Dynasty (see Harvey 1998: 117). Harvey believed that the settlement areas excavated by

Currelly and the Egyptian Antiquities Organization “form a single unit, and probably represent

the ‘worker’s community’ or ‘pyramid town’ of the Ahmose cult” (1998: 117-118). This town

was considered to be a separate entity from the Middle Kingdom town at South Abydos.

However, Wegner has shown that the toponym Wah-Sut may extend into the early Eighteenth

Dynasty and suggests that the New Kingdom settlement probably overlapped the same terrain as

the Middle Kingdom town attached to the mortuary complex of Senwosret III (2007: 31-32, n.

83). Cahail convincingly proposes that individuals who worked for the cult of Ahmose II during

the Eighteenth Dynasty may have lived in houses built atop the ruins of Wah-Sut (2014: 340-341,

135 The Egyptian Antiquities Organization work was never published, but information about their finds was recorded by Dorothy Eady (see Harvey 1998: 116).

179

530).136 Unfortunately, no New Kingdom domestic architecture in the area has survived. At

present, the New Kingdom settlement associated with the Ahmose II complex in South Abydos

remains largely undefined.

4.3.2 South Abydos: Mortuary Evidence

Currelly discovered a small New Kingdom cemetery south of the pyramid of Ahmose II

(Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 35). The cemetery comprised approximately fifteen tombs.

Funerary artifacts provide evidence of the interred individuals, such as the shabti of a priest of

the cult of Ahmose II, Pairy, a small uninscribed statue of a seated man (ROM B3738), and a

bronze dagger with the cartouche of Ahmose II in gold (ROM 910.97.2) (see Randall-MacIver

and Mace 1902: pl. L nos. 3 and 7; Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 35; Needler 1962;

Harvey 1998: 104-105, app. 1 no. 2, fig. 12). These artifacts suggest that the cemetery was for officials and priests attached to the cult of Ahmose II, who were likely high-status individuals.137

However, Currelly did not record information about the architecture of the tombs and the area is

now covered by a modern Islamic cemetery. Recent objects found in the area – a stone door jamb

of an Overseer of Sealers named Jema-ib, and a stone shabti of a Priest of Montu named Iimeru –

suggest that additional tombs have yet to be explored (Cahail 2014: 346-347, 531, figs. 6.6-6.7).

136 Although there is no direct proof that the town of Wah-sut was reinhabited during the New Kingdom, Cahail notes that “the houses of the late Middle Kingdom do contain circumstantial indications of prolonged occupation, including a secondary floor surface, and diagnostically New Kingdom ceramics, though none of these appeared to be in their original contexts” (2014: 532-533).

137 If the bronze dagger did indeed come from this cemetery, it represents a high-status item, which Harvey suggests could have been a royal gift (1998: 105). Its exact provenience is unknown, however, since Currelly purchased the dagger in Abydos from a dealer who claimed it originated from a tomb near the Ahmose II monuments (1954: 54).

180

Recent excavations (2012-2014) in and around the mortuary complex of Senwosret III

have shed further light on the mortuary practices of non-royal individuals living at South Abydos

during the New Kingdom (Cahail 2014). Three seasons of fieldwork uncovered six subterranean

vaulted mudbrick tombs in the area termed the “Temple Cemetery,” which were looted in ancient times (Wegner 2007: 293; Cahail 2014: 350, 359-399, fig. 7.4).138 Cahail suggests that

the cemetery may represent individuals from a town associated with an unidentified royal

institution or from the “Ahmose Town” (2014: 363). The earliest objects recovered from the

cemetery date to the reigns of Tutankhamun and Horemheb and extend through to the reign of

Ramesses II (Cahail 2014: n. 1342, 414). Although no post-Amarna royal monuments have been found at South Abydos,139 the cult of Ahmose II, including a festival procession, existed through

to the Ramesside Period, as the stela of Ramesses II attests (Legrain 1917: 161-179; Harvey

1998: 121; discussed above). According to Cahail, Ahmose II’s processional route through South

Abydos likely remained close to the edge of cultivation, thereby passing in front of the Temple

Cemetery (2014: 420). If this route is correct, which seems likely, the orientation of the late

Eighteenth Dynasty to early Ramesside tombs facing the processional way may suggest that the

procession of the deified Ahmose II increased in importance in the aftermath of the Amarna

Period, as Cahail theorizes (2014: 420).

Inscriptional evidence from a sarcophagus found in Tomb TC.20 identifies the owner as

the scribe Horemheb (Cahail 2014: 438-466). A collection of shabtis from Tomb TC.20 also

138 Magnetometic survey has revealed approximately 20 mudbrick structures that likely represent more tombs in the area (Wegner 2007: 293; Cahail 2014: 360, 534).

139 There may be indirect evidence for late Eighteenth Dynasty royal constructions at North Abydos, but this theory remains speculative (see above).

181

belonged to an Overseer of the Stable, Ramesu (Cahail 2014: 469-470, 474). Unfortunately, no

other names and titles associated with the excavated tombs have survived. Based on architectural

layout and artifact assemblages, Cahail proposes that the tombs of the Temple Cemetery

belonged to a middle-class status group, except for Tomb TC.20, which belonged to higher status

individuals (2014: 516, 533-542). It is not clear if the Temple Cemetery is an expansion of the

Ahmose Cemetery found in the desert south of Ahmose II’s pyramid or a separate satellite burial

(Cahail 2014: 531).

4.3.3 South Abydos: Non-Royal Votive Artifacts Associated with the Ahmose II Monuments

In South Abydos, deposits of votive pottery attest to non-royal ritual activity at the pyramid temple of Ahmose II, temple A (probably dedicated to Ahmose-Nefertary), and the pyramid of Queen Tetisheri. The main types of votive pottery span the New Kingdom and attest to a long period of worship (Budka 2006a: 87-88; Budka 2013c: 196). Examples of votive pottery recovered include beer jars, drop pots, bowls, dishes, storage jars, flowerpots, Nun bowls, incense burners, bread molds, and pot stands (Harvey 1998: 464, fig. 11; Budka 2006a: 88, 113, figs. 2-14; Budka 2016d: 88).140 In 2010, a large deposit of votive pottery discovered southwest

of temple A included feminoform vessels, some with preserved breasts and linear decoration

(Budka 2016d: 88-89, fig. 2). Other types of vessels recovered near temple A include faience

bowls with references to Hathor and carinated bowls with Hathor head appliqués (Budka 2016d:

91). Budka suggests that these bowls were dedicated to the local cult of Ahmose-Nefertary who was associated with Hathor (Budka 2016d: 91). In addition, large quantities of blue painted pottery were found at temple A and around the pyramid temple of Ahmose II, which Budka

140 See further discussion in §8.2.3.2.2.

182

suggests may have been locally produced (2006a: 113, n. 177; 2013c: 196). Certain figural pieces of blue painted pottery found in South Abydos, such as Bes vessel fragments and animal appliqués, seem to have been especially used during festival processions (Budka 2013c: 198). In front of the pyramid of Queen Tetisheri, a large deposit of votive pottery attests to ritual activity associated with her cult. Incense bowls and burners, some with remains of ash and charcoal attest to burnt offerings made to worship Tetisheri (Harvey 2006: 21; see above).

Model wooden boats and oars, small wood sticks, as well as miniature stone and ceramic vessels, and faience Nun bowls recovered from the upper terrace of Ahmose II’s terrace temple suggest that non-royal votive activity occurred at this structure (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall

1904: 34, pl. XLVIII no. 15; Harvey 1998: 430-431, 464; Harvey 1999: 120; Budka 2006a: 113).

As discussed above, however, the precise function of these objects and the function of the terrace temple in general require further exploration. Harvey suggests that the artifacts could represent foundation deposit material from the terrace temple or mortuary cult material (1998: 431, n.

965). Rituals associated with the potential symbolic function of the terrace temple as the staircase or terrace of Osiris may have had a funerary aspect (see Harvey 1998: 431-435).

4.3.4 North Abydos: Settlement Evidence

Currently, no New Kingdom town associated with the main Osiris temple precinct has

been excavated in North Abydos. The Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period town

excavated near the Late Period temple of Osiris within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (discussed

above), may have continued to function as the residence of the temple site from the Middle

Kingdom until the Roman Period, although architectural remains of these settlements have not

183

survived.141 The encroaching modern village of Beni Mansur hinders further excavation in the

cultivated areas of the site, where settlement remains may be buried (see O’Connor 2009: 82,

110).

Another intriguing point is that there are far fewer New Kingdom burials in the Middle

and North Cemeteries close to the Osiris Temple Enclosure compared to preceding periods (see

below). O’Connor suggests that there may have been a population shift during the Nineteenth

Dynasty and that a large unexcavated mudbrick enclosure south of the temple of Sety I in Middle

Abydos may represent part of an enclosed settlement associated with that temple (2009: 29, fig.

3). Like the town of Wah-Sut associated with the mortuary temple of Senwosret III in Middle

Abydos and the “Ahmose Town” associated with the pyramid complex of Ahmose II at South

Abydos, the construction of new royal complexes in the Ramesside Period may have been

accompanied by new settlements.

4.3.5 North Abydos: Mortuary Evidence

New Kingdom burials continued in the North and Middle Cemeteries in North Abydos

(Porter and Moss 1937: 38; Kemp 1975).142 Several excavators worked in the area between the

late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, each assigning his own alphabetic letter to

designate his excavation and often more than one excavator used the same letter. As such, the

141 O’Connor suggests that scattered archaeological remains in this area of the site, such as “a dense bed of sherds,” represent “a substantial town mound, with significant strata of the Middle, maybe New Kingdoms, as well as of the Third Intermediate and later periods, into Roman times” (2009: 79-80).

142 Richards provides an excellent overview of the pre-New Kingdom non-royal mortuary landscape at Abydos (2005: 133-136).

184

history of excavation of the cemeteries in North Abydos is quite complicated.143 Eighteenth

Dynasty remains have been recovered from Peet’s Cemeteries A, B, D, E, M, R, S, T, and W,

although his sketch map of these areas is imprecise (Peet and Loat 1913; Peet 1914: xiv, fig. 1;

Porter and Moss 1937: 61-64, 71, 76-77; Richards 2005: 144-149).144 Amélineau’s Cemetery 7,

Frankfurt’s North and South Cemeteries, Garstang’s Cemetery E, Randall-MacIver and Mace’s

Cemetery D, Ayrton and Loat’s Cemetery F, and Petrie’s Cemetery G also contained Eighteenth

Dynasty mortuary remains (Amélineau 1896-1898: 27-32, 46-49, 2; Randall-MacIver and Mace

1902: 63-65, pl. XXIII; Petrie 1902: 34-40; Garstang 1907; Ayrton and Loat 1908: 2-5; Garstang

1909; Frankfurt 1928; Porter and Moss 1937: 64-77; Richards 1992: 176-199; Pouls Wegner

2002: 21-23). In addition, Mariette’s excavations of the “Nécropole du Nord,” which produced

Eighteenth Dynasty material encompassed part of the southeastern North Cemetery (Mariette

1880a: 42-44, 50; Porter and Moss 1937: 56-61; Richards 1992: 176; Pouls Wegner 2002: 16-17;

Richards 2005: 138). However, identifying the precise location of each excavation area is difficult due to the lack of geographical data provided by the excavators.

The Eighteenth Dynasty tombs were constructed from mudbrick, contain a shallow shaft which leads to a vaulted chamber, and likely had superstructures (Ayrton and Loat 1908: 4; Peet and Loat 1913: 29; Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 70; Cahail 2014: 344-345). According to

Richards, New Kingdom mortuary activity in the North Cemetery indicates a widespread distribution, especially toward the local south, and many Middle Kingdom burials were reused at

143 For a comprehensive analysis of the chronology and location of work in the North Cemetery, see Kemp 1975 and Snape 1986.

144 For a brief overview of the locations of each of Peet’s cemeteries, see Richards 1992: 185 and Richards 2005: 144-149.

185

this time (1992: 219-220; 2005: 131). Several Eighteenth Dynasty and later burials were intrusive to the earlier remains (Peet and Loat 1913: 18; Peet 1914: fig. 8; Garstang 1907;

Richards 2005: 142, 145). Eighteenth Dynasty material recovered from the cemetery excavations include stelae, statue fragments, and stone architectural elements, such as door jambs and lintels, as well as a few pieces of funerary equipment, such as palettes, wood fragments, ceramics, beads, scarabs, and jewelry (Mariette 1880a: pls. 47-49; Mariette 1880b: nos. 140, 374, 408,

1118, 1428; Garstang 1901: 16, 35-36, pl. XXII; Petrie 1902: 35, 48, pl. LXXI; Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 70-76; Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: 50-51, pls. XVII, XIX nos. 3,4;

Ayrton and Loat 1908: 4; Peet and Loat 1913: 33, pl. XI; Peet 1914: 83, pl. XXIV no. 6; Weigall

1924: 226; Frankfurt 1928: 243, pl. XXIII; Porter and Moss 1937: 58-76). Tombs identified with

Eighteenth Dynasty individuals include: a) the tomb of Sitepihu, who was Mayor and Overseer of Priests in Thinis dated to the reign of Hatshepsut from Randall-MacIver and Mace’s Cemetery

D (Tomb 9; Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 65, 71-72, 84-87, 94-95, pls. XIV, XXII bottom,

XXXI bottom right, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV no. 6, XXXVII bottom middle, XXXIX, XL nos.

9, 11, XLVII bottom right, XLIX upper left; Hays 1959: 113); b) the tomb of Neb from Petrie’s

Cemetery G (Petrie 1902: 70); and c) tombs from Peet’s Cemetery T (Peet 1914: 128-129; pls.

XV, XVI lower, XVII upper right).

Inscriptional material from the cemetery excavations provides potential information about the Eighteenth Dynasty individuals who may have been buried in North Abydos. Names and titles associated with stelae, statue, and architectural fragments attest to the various occupations of individuals who participated in the mortuary landscape of North Abydos and provides evidence of their socio-economic status. The range of positions includes Scribes,

Priests, a Vizier, a Charioteer, a Fanbearer on the Right of the King, a Chief of the Measuring-

Office of the King’s Wife, an Overseer of Granary in Thinis, a Festival Leader of Osiris, and a

186

Lieutenant of the Great Guard of the Neferu-Aten (Mariette 1880a: pl. 48; Mariette 1880b: nos.

408, 1118, 1428; Amélineau 1896-1898: 52; Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 64, 71-72, 85-88,

94-96, pls. XIV, XXXIII, XXXIX; Petrie 1902: 35, 48, pl. LXXI; Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall

1904: 50-51, pl. XIX; Frankfurt 1928: 243, pl. XXXIII nos. 2, 3; Porter and Moss 1937: 58, 67,

69-70). This inscriptional evidence, however, excludes individuals of the population who did not hold or record administrative titles.145 In addition, some of the inscriptional artifacts recovered

by Mariette may have originally belonged to non-royal maHat chapels in the Votive Zone, since

his “Nécropole du Nord” encompassed both areas (see above).

4.3.6 North Abydos: Non-Royal Votive Artifacts Found in the Osiris Temple Enclosure

Inscriptional material recovered during early excavations demonstrates that several men

and women with different priestly titles were associated with the Osiris cult institution at Abydos

in the New Kingdom, the majority of whom probably had direct access to the main Osiris

temple.146 Within the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure, Mariette recovered two stelae

(Cairo 34017; Cairo 34018) dedicated to Nebwawy (Nb-wAwy), who was imy-r pr n Wsir

“Overseer of the pr of Osiris” in the reign of Thutmosis III (see Mariette 1880a: pl. XXXIIIb,

1880b: 377, 381-382; Lacau 1909: 36-37, pl. XI; Pouls Wegner 2002: 161-169; Frood 2003: 61-

63).147 Nebwawy’s title indicates that he held a high administrative position associated with the

145 An excellent discussion of the elite bias inherent in recorded titles documented in mortuary evidence is provided by Richards (2005: 23).

146 See Varille 1930-1935; Kemp 1975: 33; Kitchen 1980: 447ff; Kitchen 1983b: 427ff; Kitchen 1983a: 98ff; Pouls Wegner 2002: 129.

147 A third stela of unknown provenience in the British Museum (EA 1199) also belongs to Nebwawy and may have come from Abydos (Frood 2003: 60-61).

187

local cult institution of Osiris. Based on Spencer’s examination of terms associated with

Egyptian temples (1984: 15-16), Pouls Wegner suggests that the use of the term pr in

Nebwawy’s title provides evidence of the high administrative position the temple of Osiris held

in the New Kingdom, a position on par with the temple of Amun in Thebes (2002: 163). The

stelae of Nebwawy establish the status of the temple of Osiris as a major cult center during the

Eighteenth Dynasty.

Mariette found the stelae inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure in a displaced context,148

which makes it difficult to determine their original location. Frood suggests that they may have

been placed in an above ground feature associated with Nebwawy’s tomb (2003: 61-62).

However, as Frood notes, the function of the Kom es-Sultan as a necropolis in the New Kingdom

is not clear (2003: 62). Nebwawy’s stelae could have been set up in an offering chapel located

near or within the Osiris temple proper, or they may have been erected within the main temple

precinct. Pouls Wegner suggests that the stelae’s location “in close proximity to the Osiris

temple itself, can be interpreted as a reflection of the high socio-economic status which

[Nebwawy] held within the temple institution” (2002: 162). Frood also comments on

Nebwawy’s high-status and his intimate connection with Osiris and ancient Abydene traditions

(2003: 62).

Another significant interpretation of the stelae of Nebwawy has to do with his title Hm-nTr

n Hqt “Prophet of Heket,” which occurs on Cairo 34017. Evidence pertaining to a local cult of the

goddess Heket at Abydos has been thoroughly discussed by Pouls Wegner, who suggests that

148 Mariette states that the stelae were found in a chamber in the northern enclosure of the Kom es-Sultan (1880b: 377, 381-382).

188

Heket was worshipped in a subsidiary building within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (2002: 162,

164-166).149 As Pouls Wegner notes, the image of a Hathor-headed sistrum on the stela of

Nebwawy is likely a symbolic representation of “the owner’s devotion to a goddess” (2002:

164). The most well-known examples of votive offerings to goddesses in New Kingdom temples occur in Pinch’s study of offerings dedicated to Hathor (1993). In addition to female figurines and other votive artifacts, votive stelae are commonly found in temple precincts associated with

Hathor (Pinch 1993: 83-101). If a cult of Heket was established in a subsidiary structure located outside the core of the main Osiris temple, perhaps this building was more easily accessible to non-royal individuals for erecting private monuments.

Two black granite kneeling statues of non-royal individuals dated to the Eighteenth

Dynasty were documented by Mariette (1880b: 40-41, nos. 372-373). They were recovered from debris of the Kom es-Sultan in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure. The owner of statue no. 372 contains a cartouche of Amenhotep II, confirming its date. The titles of the individual indicate that he was a priest, overseer, and scribe (Mariette 1880b: 40-41, no. 372). The date of the second statue (Cairo 728) is New Kingdom, but the exact dynasty is unknown.150 The owner

is identified as Iwny, a sS nsw “Royal Scribe” (Mariette 1880b: 41, no. 373). Both statues represent elite individuals, who could have erected stelae in the forecourt of the main Osiris temple. Non-royal kneeling statues are a common votive offering in divine temples (Russmann

149 For example, the stela of Amenemhet (BM 567) dated to the Twelfth Dynasty lists Heket as an Abydene deity (Simpson 1974: pl. 22; Lichtheim 1988: 114 line 1; Pouls Wegner 2002: 166). The temple of Sety I at Abydos also contained a shrine dedicated to Heket (Calverley and Broome 1938: pl. 14).

150 See discussion in §8.2.3.3.2.

189

2001: 138). Other examples of Eighteenth Dynasty statues are listed in Porter and Moss, but their

precise provenience is unknown (1937: 94).

During her excavations of the Late Period temple remains within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure, Marlar found a limestone plaque and two clay female figurine fragments that likely represent non-royal votive activity at the site. The plaque (OTP 3956) depicts a man and woman engaged in sexual intercourse and Marlar suggests that the plaque itself may represent a bed

(2007b: 113-116, fig. 4). As a representation of the cycle of life, Marlar assigns the object a votive function associated with fertility and sexual potency in keeping with traditional scholarly

interpretations of phallus and female figurines (2007b: 116). In the same general location as the

plaque, two clay female figurines depicting a naked woman lying on a bed were found. As

Marlar notes (2007b: 116), both figurines belong to Pinch’s Type 6b category of female figurines

and date from the late Eighteenth Dynasty to the Ramesside Period (see Pinch 1993: 207-209).

Marlar suggests that both types of objects (the plaque and female figurines) may be temple

votives dedicated to Isis and Osiris due to the deities’ association with fertility and “sexually

creative power” (2007b: 117). However, they were found in secondary contexts disturbed by

sebakhin at the southwestern edge of the temple precinct (Marlar 2007b: 118). In the Old

Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, this area of the site contained domestic structures

belonging to the early town (Adams 1998; Adams 2005; see above). Although New Kingdom

domestic buildings associated with the Osiris Temple Enclosure have not yet been found, Marlar

suggests that the plaque and female figurines could have originated from either a domestic cult

context or the temple proper (2007b: 118).

190

4.3.7 North Abydos: Non-Royal Votive Artifacts Found in the Votive Zone

Like the preceding Middle Kingdom, archaeological and inscriptional evidence indicates

that non-royal votive activity located in the Votive Zone adjacent the Osiris Temple Enclosure

continued into the New Kingdom. Architectural remains dating to the New Kingdom are scarce,

however, especially when compared to the quantity of Middle Kingdom offering chapels, though

this could be due to a lack of preservation and archaeological investigation. During her 1996-

1997 excavations in the North Abydos Votive Zone, Pouls Wegner discovered an exposed

Ramesside offering chapel that incorporated stamped mudbricks naming the owner but no further

information about the chapel has been published (2002: 53 n. 121, 116). Pouls Wegner believes,

however, that the structure provides evidence that the construction of private offering chapels

occurred through to the end of the New Kingdom (2002: 53-54).

In 2011, further excavations in the Votive Zone by a team from the University of Toronto uncovered a Middle Kingdom offering chapel located near the Thutmosis III temple indicating a wider extent of non-royal building activity in this area of the site than previously thought (Pouls

Wegner 2012: 180-181). The Middle Kingdom chapel was left standing during the New

Kingdom and has evidence of use into the Late Period, which provides further proof of the extensive timeframe of non-royal votive activity at North Abydos. This private activity seems to have occurred alongside the state operated main Osiris temple area and the peripteral temple of

Thutmosis III in the Votive Zone, suggesting its durability. Non-royal votive activity appears to

have persisted in the Votive Zone during the New Kingdom despite potential state attempts at

demarcating the religious boundary.151

151 As discussed above, two periptertal temples of Thutmosis III located in the Votive Zone may have been built to mediate the use of non-royal activity in this area of the site during the New Kingdom (see Pouls Wegner 2002: 370).

191

Inscriptional evidence relating to the construction of non-royal monuments in North

Abydos is not as abundant as in the preceding Middle Kingdom period but helps to shed light on the nature of non-royal activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Mariette recovered a significant proportion of inscribed stone stelae from the area he designated as the “Nécropole du Nord” adjacent the Osiris Temple Enclosure (1880b). Some of these stelae were likely associated with tombs from the North Cemetery (Richards 1992: 219ff; see discussion above), while others could have come from New Kingdom examples of private offering chapels. Most of the inscribed artifacts recovered from Mariette’s excavations, however, relate to activity during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties, not the New Kingdom. This bias in date may be due to the selective area where Mariette excavated, rather than being an accurate reflection of New Kingdom activity, as Pouls Wegner notes (2002: 132-133). Fragments of limestone stelae that exhibit both raised and sunk relief, and have private names and titles inscribed on them, which were recovered from the southern portion of the Votive Zone, suggest that non-royal votive activity took place during the New Kingdom (Lacau 1909; Lacau 1926).152 Because no mortuary artifacts of New Kingdom date were discovered in the same area, Pouls Wegner argues that the stelae fragments derive from offering chapels (2002: 48). Additionally, stelae fragments and other stone elements discovered from surface survey in 1996 in the northern part of the Votive

Zone provide indirect evidence for the existence of private offering chapels in this area of the site

(Pouls Wegner 2002: 48-49).

Indirect evidence that New Kingdom private offering chapels were constructed in North

Abydos derives from a stela (Cairo 34003) dated to the reign of Amenhotep I discovered at Dra

152 See a more detailed discussion of the votive stelae from North Abydos in §8.2.3.3.1.

192

Abu el-Naga (Sethe 1906-1927: 45-49 no. 14; Lacau 1909: 7-9, pl. IV; Russo 2006: 235-236).

Although the exact provenience of the stela is unknown, it may have once been set up outside the

tomb of its donor, the Overseer Kares (K3rs), a high official (Russo 2006: 235-236).153 Details

of the text have been discussed in length by Harvey (1998: 25) and Pouls Wegner (2002: 135-

138). The rewards that Kares receives in return for his loyal service to Queen Ahhotep,154

include the construction of a maHat offering chapel in North Abydos (Sethe 1906-1927: 46 lines

3-4; translated in Sethe 1914: 46; Pouls Wegner 2002: 135-136; Russo 2006: 236). The chapel is said to be constructed at the r rwd n nTr aA nb AbDw “Stairway/Terrace of the Great God, Lord of

Abydos,” which scholars have identified as either representing the Votive Zone (Simpson 1974:

1, 11, 13) or the Osiris temple complex (Lichtheim 1988: 131), based on its frequent occurrence on Middle Kingdom non-royal stela from Abydos (Pouls Wegner 2002: 136). However, as Pouls

Wegner points out, this term for the Votive Zone is not used in other New Kingdom texts (2002:

136, n. 24).

The content of the inscription on the stela of Kares has been questioned by Russo (2006:

236-237), because of its similarity to two Middle Kingdom texts: a) the stela of the vizier

Mentuhotep (Cairo 20539); and b) the stela of Sehetepibre (Cairo 20538). The epithets and expressions used to praise Kares are identical to those found on the stela of Mentuhotep, which was recovered from the Votive Zone at North Abydos (Russo 2006: 237). Russo argues that

Kares was an important member of the royal family and that due to this connection he desired to emulate the qualities of previous high officials by copying their models (2006: 237). She

153 Kares held several titles indicative of his high-status and position (see Pouls Wegner 2002: 135, n. 20).

154 This Queen is likely the mother of Ahmose II (Troy 1979; Eaton-Krauss 1990: 195-205; Harvey 1998: 20-27; Roth 1999: 361-377; Pouls Wegner 2002: 135, n. 21).

193

believes that Kares saw the stela of Mentuhotep at Abydos and was inspired to erect a monument there himself (2006: 238). The usage of and knowledge of such commemorative stelae at Abydos is demonstrated by the stela of Sehetepibre (late Twelfth Dynasty), which also partly borrowed text from the earlier stela of Mentuhotep (Leprohon 2009). Leprohon’s analysis of the stela of

Sehetepibre indicates that Sehetepibre did not reproduce the content of the stela of Mentuhotep verbatim, but omitted certain passages, added others, and wrote some words differently (2009:

278-280, 286-290). In a similar manner, Kares only copied clustered parts of Mentuhotep’s stela.

All three stelae refer to the construction of a maHat. However, these have not been archaeologically identified. Russo assumes that Kares did construct a maHat offering chapel at

Abydos, since she speculates on its possible features (2006: 238-240). However, no other details regarding the architectural layout of the chapel are included in the text and it cannot be determined exactly where the chapel was constructed along the processional route based on the inscription. Pouls Wegner notes the significance of the fact that this construction project is mentioned in Kares’ tomb, which indicates that it was an important operation connected to his official status (2002: 137).

Based on the early date of the monument in the reign of Amenhotep I, the stela of Kares provides potential evidence that private offering chapels were constructed at North Abydos up to at least the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. There is no architectural proof that private offering chapels continued to be built throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty, however, and in fact the stela only provides evidence that Kares requested the construction of an offering chapel.

Two groups of votive objects found in the Votive Zone attest to non-royal votive activity through the New Kingdom and later periods. The objects were discovered in overlying debris atop the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II during the 1967 season of excavations by the University

194

of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York University expedition

(O’Connor 1967: 14). The first group of artifacts consists of 50 sherds of reddish brown ware bowls with painted decoration and inscriptions in black or white ink on the interior surface

(O’Connor 1967: 14-16). They were recovered from a mixed context of artifacts dating from the

Middle Kingdom to Late Period.

Upon discovery, O’Connor ascribed the objects a votive function (1967: 16-18) and later associated them with local ritual activity associated with the “Portal” Temple during the Third

Intermediate Period (2009: 125). Kemp dates the bowls to the New Kingdom but does not provide any reasoning for this date (1995: 50, n. 3). Eaton includes the bowls in her dissertation on processional equipment in the temple of Sety I at Abydos. She associates the bowls and their white decoration with specific rituals described in the Book of the Dead chapters 133 and 134, which require bowls decorated with specific images of deities to be placed in barques (Eaton

2004: 359, 369, figs. VI.3-6). This ritual could be performed in tombs and in divine temples

(Eaton 2004: 367). The bowls found at the “Portal” Temple do contain images of Osiris and his

Ennead, including Osiris-Khentyimentiu and Osiris-Wennefer, as well as Sokar, Thoth, Amun-

Re, and Re-Horakhty, and several examples depict the deities on barques (O’Connor 1967: 16;

Eaton 2004: 370-372, 388-389, figs. VI.8-VI.9, VI.20-26; O’Connor 2009: 125). In her dissertation, Eaton clarifies that O’Connor thinks that the sherd fragments date from the reign of

Ramesses IV to the Third Intermediate Period based on the paleography of the scripts painted on the fragments (2004: 360, n. 53). However, as Eaton points out, many of the fragments do not contain texts (2004: 360).

Further examples of these bowl types occur in the British Museum (Eaton 2004: 360) and the Leiden Museum (Raven 1996: 694), but they do not have secure proveniences. A similar

195

decorated bowl was recovered from a tomb at Saqqara dated to the Saite Period (Bresciani,

Pernigotti, and Silvis 1977: 74-75, pl. XXVII; Eaton 2004: 360, n. 57, fig. VI.8). To further complicate the dating of these objects, Eaton explains that, “although no bowls dating earlier than the Twentieth Dynasty have been found, the texts calling for such bowls to be used date from as early as the Eighteenth Dynasty” (2004: 361). This evidence suggests that votive bowls of this type could have been produced from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards, although there is no archaeological proof that the bowls from the Ramesside context at North Abydos had earlier precursors. Eaton points out that the rituals associated with the bowls required the use of a new bowl each time, which suggests that many bowls could have been discarded immediately after use or were recycled for other purposes, thus obscuring their presence in the archaeological record (2004: 360-361).

The second group of votive objects recovered from the “Portal” Temple debris consists of a group of hand-modelled unfired clay animal figurines, including ram heads, vultures, cobras, and crocodiles (O’Connor 1967: 14-16, fig. 17; O’Connor 1969: 38; O’Connor 1985: 168, no.

19; see Figure 4.19). Ram heads formed the largest quantity of figurines recovered, with approximately 30 samples, followed closely by cobras (10 samples), and vultures (5 samples)

(O’Connor 1967: 16). O’Connor believes that the figurines are a by-product of Late Period votive activity at the “Portal” Temple (2009: 125, fig. 67). Like the pottery bowls mentioned above, Kemp believes that the animal figurines could date to the New Kingdom (1995: 50, n. 3).

Similar unfired clay figurines of ram heads and vultures exist in the British Museum (rams: EA

35842-3, 35845-6, 61663-91; vultures: EA 35838-41, 35844, 61691, 61901-18) and Leiden

Museum (AT 1\06a-b), all of which were acquired from Anastasi’s collection of artifacts from

196

Abydos in the early 1800s, but their exact provenience at the site is unknown (Leemans 1867:

pls. XXIII no. 305, XXIV no. 350, XXV nos. 470, 492, 500, L-LII).155

Although the ram heads from Abydos have no exact parallels, ram figurines have been

found elsewhere in Egypt. At least six ram heads were recovered from excavations in the main

city at Amarna, which include limestone and unfired clay examples (Stevens 2006: 110).

Specimens have also been recovered from Middle Kingdom tombs at Lisht (Hayes 1959: 224)

and are included among objects found in the Temple of Obelisks at Byblos dated from the

Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period (Dunand 1958: 755). This evidence suggests

that ram figurines can be used in a variety of contexts ranging from settlements, tombs, and

temples. Quirke suggests that the ram heads from Abydos could represent the god Amun and

may have been used in rituals related to the god (1992: 8, fig. 2). The ram is a well-known

symbol for Amun (Kessler 1989: 182-192; Pamminger 1992).156 No parallel vulture figurines

have been recovered from other sites, but vultures are associated with protection and the

goddesses Nekhbet and Mut (O’Connor 1967: 18; Heerma van Voss 1980: 367; Te Velde 1980:

246; Quirke 1992: 8, fig. 2; Leitz 2002b: 301-303).157

Cobra figurines represent one of the most common types of animal figurines recovered

from various contexts at sites throughout Egypt. Ten were recovered from the “Portal” Temple

and, like the ram heads and vultures, others occur in the British Museum (EA2002-3). Forty-six

155 Further details about these objects are provided in §8.2.3.2.1.2.

156 The processional routes leading to Amun’s main temple at Karnak were flanked by ram-headed sphinxes or recumbent rams (Cabrol 2001: 380-405; Zivie-Coche 2015).

157 See discussion in §8.2.3.2.1.2.3.

197

fired clay cobra whole figurines were discovered at Kom Rabiʽa associated with the domestic

area, although none were found in their original context (Giddy 1999: 13-28, 100-103). Giddy suggests that the cobra figurines were once set up in small household shrines or niches at the site and constituted common items of domestic religion from the early Eighteenth Dynasty to the

Third Intermediate Period (1999: 13-17). They were found in New Kingdom and post-New

Kingdom stratigraphic levels of the settlement. Cobra figurines were also recovered from settlement contexts at Amarna. Approximately 126 complete figures were unearthed in the

Workmen’s Village and the North City (Szpakowska 2003: 114; Stevens 2006: 100-103, fig.

II.3.20). Largely hand-modelled and made of unbaked Nile silt clay, the Amarna cobras are usually represented rearing upwards, and some have traces of paint used to highlight physical attributes and clay appliqué meant to represent a pot stand or altar (Stevens 2006: 100; see Figure

4.20). Several limestone examples of cobra figurines appear at Amarna (Stevens 2006: 100). One stone example was also found at Kom Rabiʽa (Giddy 1999: 13-28). At Beth Shan and Kamid el-

Loz in Syria-Palestine, similar clay cobra figurines have been found associated with settlement and temple contexts of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties (Rowe 1940: 36-7, 50, 56, 65-6,

87-9; James and McGovern 1993: I, 5, 171-2; II figs. 83-85; Morris 2005: 425).

Between 2003 and 2007, 50 fragments of hand-modelled fired and unfired clay cobra figurines were recovered from several areas located near the Ramesside temple at Kom Firin

(Spencer 2008: 64; see Figure 4.21). Many cobra figurines were retrieved from pottery baskets post dig season, but the majority were found in debris from late New Kingdom and early Third

Intermediate Period domestic structures built to the north and west of the temple (Spencer 2008:

64). Others came from deposits north of the temple courtyard, a corridor west of the Ramesside temple sanctuaries, outside the temple’s eastern boundary wall, and within the northern gateway of the entire enclosure complex, among others (see Spencer 2008: 64). Only one fragment,

198

however, was recovered from the temple proper, but Spencer suggests the deposits north of the temple could have originated from the main temple (2008: 64). Spencer notes a number of locations where similar cobra figurines have been found, such as at Zawyet Umm el-Rakhman and in a late Eighteenth Dynasty burial at Saqqara (2008: 65-66). At Sais, parallel cobra figurines were recovered from a Ramesside house (Wilson 2002: 6; Wilson 2006). Szpakowska includes a map of the locations of excavated clay cobra figurines for reference (2003: fig. 1). The evidence indicates that cobra figurines have been found in domestic, temple, and tomb contexts and appear to range in date from the New Kingdom through to the Third Intermediate Period

(Giddy 1991: 307-315; Wilson 2002: 6; Szpakowska 2003: 119; Wilson 2006; Stevens 2006:

100; Spencer 2008: 65-66). The only other known example of a cobra figurine from Abydos was found in Tomb 8158 in the North Cemetery (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 91, pl. LI; see

§8.2.3.2.1.2.4).

Since many clay animal figurines have been found at several settlement sites ranging from the Second Intermediate Period to the Third Intermediate Period, Spencer favors a domestic function for the objects as items of household ritual, suggesting that those found in temple contexts likely relate to later occupation phases and not the temple proper (2008: 67). Giddy attributes a similar function to the use of cobra figurines in domestic religion (1999: 13-17; see above). Szpakowska has conducted the most extensive examination of cobra figurines found at sites in Egypt and the Levant. She has analyzed approximately 725 fragments of clay cobras

(2013: 32). While most of the cobras display the characteristic rearing form, individual features, such as decorative style and color vary (Szpakowska 2013: 32-33). Szpakowska notes their

158 The excavators have dated this tomb to the Eighteenth Dynasty.

199

location at a number of Ramesside settlements, including fortified complexes and sites along the

Mediterranean into the Levant, and suggests that they had a crucial function in Egyptian ritual to

ward off demons and to counteract hostile enemies (2013: 32-34). Within settlements, such as

Amarna, cobra figurines have been found associated with other domestic objects such as needles,

basket rings, and spindle whorls, but they have also been found associated with temples, tombs,

and even with the quarry near the Workmen’s Village at Amarna (Szpakowska 2013: 35-36).

Szpakowska argues that cobra figurines are associated with personal religion and individual

affliction rather than formal worship in temples (2013: 37). Yet, as demonstrated above,

examples of cobras have been found near temples, including the ones from Abydos. Szpakowska

has also not determined if the cobra figurines were utilized by elites or non-elites, men or women

(2013: 34). However, answering such questions requires secure archaeological contexts and/or associated inscriptions.

Cobra figurines could have had multiple functions. Giddy even notes their use as possible children’s toys (1999: 310). The ancient Egyptians were fluid and adaptable with their cultural and religious understandings. For example, the association between goddesses and the rearing cobra in iconographic and textual material has been noted by several scholars (Tomashevich

1993; Lesko 1999; Szpakowska 2003: 114; Evans 2013; Szpakowska 2013: 40). Symbolically, cobra figurines seem to have been commonly associated with fiery protection from dangerous creatures and disorder, which explains their use in crowns as the uraeus on the king’s forehead and in spells spitting fire against enemies (Szpakowska 2003: 121ff; Szpakowska 2013: 39-41).

Further information derives specifically from the site of Abydos, where some of the small cobra figurines recovered during excavations at the “Portal” Temple and now located in museum collections discussed above, bore inscriptions. One inscription examined by Szpakowska refers

200

to “raising the face” against the god Seth, enemy of Osiris (2013: 42), which is a fitting

incantation for Abydos as the cult center of Osiris. In this context, the cobra figurines act as

powerful protectors of sacred space.159 This may explain the local expression of the Abydene cobras, which Szpakowska notes “are in many ways different from those that were fired” and found at other sites (2013: 42). At Abydos, the cobra figurines are small (max. 10 cm or 0.2

cubits in height) and made of unfired dark silt clay, some with visible straw temper (Szpakowska

2013: 41-42). Szpakowska suggests they represent a “local manifestation” of cobra figurines

(2013: 42), which is in keeping with Bussmann’s observation that locally specific votive

figurines are apparent at Abydos during the Early Dynastic Period (2011: 752-753). The ram and

vulture figurines recovered with the cobra figurines are also anomalous types. The subject of

votive offerings will be enhanced by proper publications of the material, although modern

systematic excavations are providing more information. The problem is that many of the early

finds are yet unpublished. At Abydos, votive material attests to local variation and non-royal

religious activity associated with the cult of Osiris from the Early Dynastic Period through to the

Late Period.

Further evidence for non-royal agency in the Eighteenth Dynasty appears in association

with the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III located at the periphery of the Osiris Temple

Enclosure. In the corridor next to the central hall where the northern colossal statue of Thutmosis

III was found, ritual activity took place in the form of ceramic offering deposits (Pouls Wegner

2002: 341). The deposits consisted of a high percentage of open vessels (58.13%), a major

portion of which comprised votive dishes (Pouls Wegner 2002: 373). These small, unrestricted

159 For their use as temple protectors see, Raven 2012: 117-118.

201

dishes would have held offerings, including incense.160 Bread molds and bread trays were found

along with the votive dishes (Pouls Wegner 2002: 376, 410; Pouls Wegner 2011: 369), including

bread among the items being offered at the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III.

According to Pouls Wegner, unlike other New Kingdom urban sites, the high quantity of

votive dishes at the temple indicates the scale of non-royal activity in North Abydos during the

Eighteenth Dynasty (2002: 413-414). The votive dishes are coarse and rapidly produced

suggesting the regularity of private offerings (Pouls Wegner 2002: 390; Pouls Wegner 2011:

374). As Pouls Wegner notes, the vessels commonly occur in superstructures above tombs in

funerary contexts pointing at the cultic function of the dishes (2011: 374). When compared with

New Kingdom ceramic assemblages from the settlement, cemeteries, and temple of Hatshepsut

and Thutmosis III at Buhen, and from New Kingdom tombs at Fadras, the distribution and

quantity of votive dishes at Abydos represent their cultic nature and indicate that many

individuals participated in activity involving votive dishes at the peripteral temple of Thutmosis

III (Pouls Wegner 2002: 377-391; Pouls Wegner 2011: 389). Contemporary Egyptian sites do

not appear to have high concentrations of votive dishes,161 although this is likely due to biased

evidence.162 Pouls Wegner argues that non-royal individuals from a range of socio-economic

levels would have brought offerings to the Thutmosis III temple during annual festivals to

160 Traces of burned resin were found on some of the votive dishes, as well as signs of burning (Pouls Wegner 2002: 381; Pouls Wegner 2011: 374).

161 At Buhen, votive dishes are extremely rare (Pouls Wegner 2011: 378), but most of the site has not been excavated. Offering deposits found in the forecourt of temples at Tell el-Dabʽa mainly consisted of animal bones and ceramics used in daily life, such as bowls, jars, and drinking cups with only a small number of miniature or cultic vessels (Müller 1998: 793).

162 Because votive dishes are mainly associated with structures above ground, Pouls Wegner comments that excavators may not have noted their presence above tombs in cemeteries (2011: 390).

202

participate in the cult of Osiris in a purpose similar to the non-royal Middle Kingdom offering

chapels at the site (2011: 389). The votive dishes would have been a typical means of carrying

and presenting offerings. These offerings point to the religious function of the temple of

Thutmosis III and to the variability of associated non-royal activity.163

4.3.8 North Abydos: Umm el-Qaʽab and Hekareshu Hill

Non-royal activity associated with the procession of Osiris extended to the site of Umm

el-Qaʽab during the Eighteenth Dynasty. From the Middle Kingdom onward, Umm el-Qaʽab was

believed to be the final resting place of Osiris. During the annual festival of Khoiak, a statue of

Osiris was transported from its seat in the main temple of Osiris through the shallow wadi to

Osiris’s tomb and back again, reenacting the myth of Osiris (Eaton 2006: 77-78; Leprohon 2007:

261-269, 272-273). The location of the burial of Osiris in Umm el-Qaʽab was called pqr on the

Twelfth Dynasty stela of Ikhernofret, which is one of the most important pieces of evidence for

Osiris’ Khoiak Festival (Berlin 1204; Mariette 1880a: pls. 24-26; Lavier 1989: 289-295;

Lichtheim 1973: 123-125; Simpson 1974: pl. 1; Leprohon 2007: 262-263). The actual tomb of

Osiris was likely considered to be the Early Dynastic tomb of Djer based on the location of a life-size statue, known as the “Osiris bier” discovered within it (Amélineau 1899: 109-115, pl. II-

IV; Leahy 1977).

Based on the discovery of blue painted pottery in the area, Petrie originally believed that

Umm el-Qaʽab was a focus of popular religious activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty (1900: 7;

163 According to Pouls Wegner, the entire ceramic corpus associated with the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III includes a range of forms, many of which parallel pottery found at Buhen and Fadrus, but the absence of votive dishes and bread molds at these sites indicates that Abydos had a greater variability of ceramics and thus a greater variability of activity associated with its cult (2011: 390-391).

203

1901: 8). Leahy suggests that this cult-related activity could have occurred prior to the New

Kingdom (1989: 55). More recent excavations at Umm el-Qaʽab suggest that blue painted pottery comprised a large proportion of votive pottery associated with Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Dynasty activity at the site (Budka 2013c: 199).164 An Eighteenth Dynasty deposit of shabti figurines near the entrance of the tomb of Den at Umm el-Qaʽab, however, attests to the significance of the site in the local processional cycle of the New Kingdom (Pumpenmeier

1998b: 76-78). East of the tomb of Djer, two pits of votive offerings including wood and faience shabtis, and wood and copper shrines belonging to Kenamun, a Great Steward of the King in the reign of Amenhotep II attest to the socio-economic status of non-royal individuals who left offerings at Umm el-Qaʽab (Peet 1914: 116, pl. XXIX; Porter and Moss 1937: 80; Teeter 2003:

43-44; O’Connor 2009: 114). Recently, work conducted at Umm el-Qaʽab as part of the German

Archaeological Institute’s Osiris Cult Project has provided evidence for cultic activity at the tomb of Djer. Beer jars and votive pottery such as feminoform vessels along with inscribed vessels dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty, which attest to non-royal votive activity associated with the supposed tomb of Osiris, were recovered from this area (Effland, Budka, and Effland

2010; Budka 2016d: 90).

Recent fieldwork conducted by the German Archaeological Institute at Hekareshu Hill in the early 1990s has provided additional evidence for non-royal votive activity associated with the cult of Osiris during the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Located east of Cemetery

U, the site was first discovered by Amélineau and then later investigated by Petrie who found several shabtis with bronze models of baskets and hoes (1900: 32-33). The discovery led Petrie

164 See §8.2.3.2.2.

204

to believe that Hekareshu Hill was a site of veneration in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1900: 32-33).

The German Archaeological Institute’s excavations further revealed an assemblage of beer jars and other forms of offering vessels datable to the early New Kingdom, as well as a number of shabti figurine fragments and bronze shabti tools (hoes and baskets), decorated limestone fragments, a statuette, a small stela, and the remains of a brick building (Pumpenmeier 1996: 47-

48; Pumpenmeier 1998a: 123-137). O’Connor proposes that the brick building could represent the remains of a barque shrine (2009: 114). The dominant shabti type found at the site was made of baked Nile clay covered with white paint and an inscription in yellow dated to the Ramesside

Period (Pumpenmeier 1998a: 126). White paint, especially in bands, has been associated with linen bandages (Raven 1978-1979: 282, 285; Budka 2016d: 90). According to Budka, two examples of Eighteenth Dynasty feminoform vessels recovered from Hekareshu Hill may be linked to Isis and Nephthys or the mummified Osiris (2016d: 90). One of the vessels has painted decoration in red bands, which Budka associates with bandages of deities, mummification, or apotropaic rituals (2016d: 90-91).

The recovered finds provide evidence of the significance of the site in the local procession of Osiris. Except for a royal offering plaque of Senwosret I, many objects excavated at Hekareshu Hill belonged to non-royal individuals of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty

(Pumpenmeier 1998a: 136). Hekareshu Hill appears to have been a place for ritual that was accessible to the general public based on the votive nature of the objects and based on the fact that activities at the hill were separate from activities occurring at the royal cemetery and the tomb of Djer (Pumpenmeier 1998a: 136-137). Hekareshu Hill appears to have been a unique location for praising Osiris in connection with the annual procession. Based on the evidence presented in this section, substantial non-royal votive activity seems to have been occurring at

Abydos in various locations across the entire sacred landscape.

205

4.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Abydos

The Eighteenth Dynasty royal monuments located at South Abydos and at North Abydos attest to significant royal patronage at the site. At South Abydos, the various components of

Ahmose II’s building program demonstrate remarkable architectural achievements under his reign, which cemented ties between kingship and Osiris. Although individual architectural layouts are difficult to assess within the Osiris Temple Enclosure at North Abydos based on the nature of early publications and the amount of preserved remains, each royal building displays monumental architecture and relief decoration that reveal the significant extent to which

Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty invested in the cult of Osiris.

The archaeological material within the Osiris Temple Enclosure provides direct evidence for five cult structures in use during the New Kingdom: two significant royal constructions attributed to Amenhotep I and Thutmosis III, buildings A and B, and the remains of Thutmosis

IV found beneath the Thirtieth Dynasty temple (see Figure 4.22). Fragmentary inscriptional data suggests that many more royal buildings must have once existed in the area, perhaps both inside and outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure, although this evidence cannot be corroborated with any in situ finds. The stela of Thutmosis I, for example, indicates the existence of a sacred lake as well as a barque with portable barque shrine, statues, offerings, and subsidiary shrines for other deities associated with the Osiris cult institution during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Pouls Wegner

2002: 138-134).

Determining the architectural variability of the Eighteenth Dynasty monuments located in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure compared to royal structures at other sites is hampered by the remains available for investigation. However, the fragments of relief decoration found associated with the Eighteenth Dynasty royal cult structures suggest that they maintained

206

similar themes and motifs as other royal monuments at Abydos, and are in keeping with ka

chapels devoted to the cult of the king. This is certainly true of the chapel of Ahmose II and

Amenhotep I and the cult building of Thutmosis III. Buildings A and B are more difficult to analyze. As discussed above, it seems likely that both structures had a period of use in the

Eighteenth Dynasty with some new building elements added (for example, the construction of the third pavement level in building A), but their initial construction was in the preceding Middle

Kingdom period. The interior architecture of these structures remains unresolved.

The Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure appear to be

functionally related to each other, and to both earlier and contemporary royal monuments. They

are concerned with expressing the relationship between Osiris and the king, as well as the

transformation of the deceased king into Osiris. However, unique features associated with the

royal architecture have been noticed. The solid stone platform located within the chapel of

Ahmose II and Amenhotep I, for instance, appears to have been a unique aspect of this structure.

Although, if the platform does represent a feature associated with a sacred barque, this would not

be an uncommon feature of New Kingdom temples.165 Local variability is also attested by the

unique plan of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III located in the Votive Zone, which exhibits

some parallels with other known temples of this king, but more closely resembles private

offering chapels of the Middle Kingdom (Pouls Wegner 2002: 325, 332, 348, 350-353). Rather

than conforming to a standardized architectural plan, Thutmosis III seems to have borrowed

ideas from the non-royal sphere in the construction of his peripteral temple.

165 See discussion in §4.2.2.1 above.

207

Local variability associated with the royal monuments located in Middle Abydos during the Ramesside Period has been observed by Eaton in her examination of ritual objects depicted in barque scenes in the temple of Sety I. Eaton notes the uniqueness of the ritual scenes in the temple of Sety I compared to material at other temple sites, namely Thebes. At Abydos, depictions of sacred barques and processional images display more variety and complexity

(Eaton 2004: 236-243). Iconographic differences between images of Amun-Re’s barques at

Abydos and at Thebes reflect regional variation in temple practices (Eaton 2004: 252-253). This is reflected in both the architecture of the Sety temple and the organization of ritual (Eaton 2004:

252-253). Eaton suggests that the difference between Abydos and Thebes is due to emphasis placed on different aspects of kingship, in that Abydos was more concerned with the veneration of royal ancestors than the royal ka of the king, which may have been due to the nature of the deities worshipped at each site (2004: 2, 453-454). Based on these observations, Eaton argues that “there is not a national unity in religious practices” in New Kingdom Egypt (2004: 454); distinct regional differences are manifest in temple ritual.

Regional variability is also apparent in non-royal votive activity at Abydos.

Reconstructing the religious practices of non-royal individuals at Abydos is not without difficulties. Any analysis of the evidence is hindered by a number of factors, including the fact that the majority of inscriptional material derives from secondary depositional contexts, and the fact that the original location of many votive finds has been lost due to the unsystematic nature of early excavations and the fragmentary nature of the physical remains at the site. For the most part, votive material derives from displaced contexts at Abydos. The inscriptional evidence attests to continued non-royal investment in the Osiris cult in the form of votive offerings and cult chapels during the New Kingdom, which occurred alongside state-level worship. Offering chapels were a substantial component of non-royal religious activity associated with the main

208

temple at Abydos, which does not appear to have occurred on the same magnitude at other

sites.166 But finding Eighteenth Dynasty examples of private offerings chapels is difficult.

Votive objects in the form of unfired clay figurines have been recovered from Early Dynastic

and Late Period deposits at Abydos. Bussmann has noted the regional variability of Early

Dynastic votives associated with the Osiris Temple Enclosure, which attests to the potential local

administration of the early cult temple at the site (2011: 753). This is more difficult to determine

in the New Kingdom and later periods. The hand-modelled cobras recovered from the “Portal”

Temple, however, do appear to have distinctly Abydene characteristics. They are smaller in

height and display unique characteristics not attested elsewhere (Szpakowska 2013: 41-42).

Furthermore, the ram heads, vultures, and erotic plaque represent votive offerings that are so far

exclusive to Abydos.

Non-royal agency continued to play a role in the development of the local cult institution

at Abydos during the Eighteenth Dynasty and throughout the history of the site (see Figure 4.23).

As Seidlmayer has argued, local temples were the “organization and ideological nuclei of the

local indigenous communities” regardless of the state’s involvement (1996a: 119). Although

there appears to be less non-royal votive activity compared to the Middle Kingdom, this research

shows that such activity did continue into the New Kingdom despite the increasing royal

investment in the cult of Osiris. The material excavated at Hekareshu Hill provides evidence that

166 At Deir el-Medina there is evidence for private chapels devoted to royal ancestors and a variety of deities (Bomann 1991: 51-53, 73-74), although it has been argued that they may have been facilitated by the state (Valbelle 1985: 267, 271, 318-335; Pinch 1993: 45). Twenty-four private votive chapels were excavated at the Workmen’s Village at Amarna (Stevens 2006: 251-253; Bomann 1991). But, these chapels are generally not found associated with the main temples of the sites as at Abydos. It must be cautioned, however, that in situ examples of offering chapels at Abydos occur during the Middle Kingdom with less evidence available for the New Kingdom. Bussmann has argued that the development of private chapels associated with domestic contexts in the New Kingdom resulted from increased exclusion from temple cult (2017: 84).

209

non-royal activity may have extended across a wider geographical area of the site during the

New Kingdom. Every individual had a part to play in the development of the religious landscape at Abydos. Kings and non-royals alike participated in the Osiris cult and the manifestations of their religious acts created very different material displays. Part of the king’s duty, as an aspect of his divine birth right, was to provide a residence for the god. On the other hand, public access to the divine was not as confined to conventions of decorum and space, and could be expressed with more liberty when it came to communication with the gods.

210

Chapter 5 Elkab

5.1 Historical Context and Site History

The historical significance of Elkab stems from its longevity and from the types of

activities that shaped its socio-economic, political, and religious environment. Elkab was once

the ancient town of Nekheb, the capital of the Third Nome of Upper Egypt sacred to the vulture

goddess Nekhbet, and the eastern counterpart of Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) (Dodson 1996: 60;

Hendrickx 1999: 289; Limme 2008: 16). Situated at the mouth of the Wadi Hilal, approximately

80 km south of Luxor on the East Bank of the Nile, Elkab is an extensive site that includes

prehistoric settlements and pharaonic cult institutions (Vandersleyen 1971; Hendrickx and

Huyge 1989: pl. II; Limme, Hendrickx, and Huyge 1997: 3; Hendrickx 1999: 189; Rowland,

Maříková-Vlčková, Hendrickx, Herbich, Claes, and Huyge 2009; Hendrickx et al. 2016; Claes

and Huyge 2016).167 The town is situated in a large valley dominated by surrounding hills of

Nubian sandstone (see Figure 5.1). From an early period, Elkab was settled by inhabitants who took advantage of the passage between the Nile and the escarpment for travel and transportation, for the control of land and river routes, and for access to gold that was mined in the eastern desert during pharaonic times (Hendrickx 1994: 10; Darnell 2002; Brown 2008; Klemm and

Klemm 2013: 51-339; Brown 2017: 176, fig. 4; see Figure 5.2).

The first systematic excavation of Elkab was conducted by Quibell at the end of the

Nineteenth Century; however, the earliest recorded information about the site dates to the

167 For the topographical survey and large-scale mapping of the site from 1967 onwards, see Depuydt 1989.

211

Eighteenth Century.168 In the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, Elkab was excavated by

several British archaeologists including Green, Sayce, Tylor, and Clarke (see Derchain 1971: 1-

3; Hendrickx and Huyge 1989; Dodson 1996: 62). Subsequently, a Belgian team began

excavations at Elkab in 1937 and the concession remains in their hands today.169 Early

excavations by Vermeersch within the interior of the Great Walls revealed the prehistoric section

of the site known as “Elkabian,” an epipalaeolithic industry dated to 7000 BC (1969: 227-241;

1976: 509-513; 1978). In addition, ceramic material provides evidence for the presence of earlier

Naqada cultural phases at the site and a predynastic Naqada III cemetery represented by simple,

shallow, pit graves with burial goods, such as vessels, cosmetic palettes, and necklaces was also

found within the Great Walls (Hendrickx 1994; Hendrickx 1999: 289; Limme 2008: 18; Claes et

al. 2014).

Most of the physical remains at Elkab lie in ruins. The built environment of the site is

dominated by three mudbrick walls: a) the Great Walls of the Thirtieth Dynasty;170 b) the

Temple Enclosure; and c) the Double Walls (Clarke 1921; Spencer 1979: 65-75; De Meulenaere

1986; Depuydt 1989: 34; Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: no. 35; Hendrickx 1999: 291; Kemp et al.

168 In 1741, Perry was the first explorer to visit the town of Elkab and describe what he saw there (Vanlathem 2009: 178). Several individuals followed Perry’s footsteps (see Vanlathem 2009: 178-180). Saint-Genis, a member of Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt in 1799, wrote the first major description of Elkab and included illustrations of the monuments (Saint-Genis 1821: 346; Hendrickx 1999: 289; Vanlathem 2009: 178); however, there are clear inaccuracies in the site map provided by the Description de l’Égypte (1809: pl. 66), which shows incorrect positions of the Great Walls and the Temple Enclosure (Saint-Genis 1821: 346). For the history of early exploration of Elkab, see Derchain 1971: 1-3.

169 For a review of the history of exploration and excavation at the site, see Limme 2008: 16-17. Between 1967 and 1985, twelve excavation campaigns were conducted by the Belgian team both within the ancient town and in the desert hinterland of Elkab (Huyge and Limme 2012: 46-51).

170 In some places, the Great Walls are preserved to a height of 11 m (21 cubits) and encompass an area approximately 530 x 600 m (1010 x 1143 cubits) (Hendrickx 1999: 291). For a description of the architectural construction of the Great Walls, see Spencer 1979: 75.

212

2004; Limme 2008: 16; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010; see Figure 5.3).171 Recent

radiocarbon analysis of all three walls confirms their dates of construction (Hendrickx, Huyge,

and Newton 2010: 145, tab. 1). The Great Walls constitute a massive enclosure wall that

surrounds the entire residential area and sacred precinct of the Thirtieth Dynasty and later, built

over earlier cemetery remains (Quibell 1898: 3-7; Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: nos. 26, 31-34;

Hendrickx 1994; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 153, 156). Originally, the Great Walls were interpreted as a military stronghold, but recent investigations have argued against this notion based on the lack of characteristics identifiable with other fortifications in Upper Egypt

(De Meulenaere 1986: 208-209; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 154). Textual evidence

suggests that the Great Walls were built under Nectanebo I or II to be used as a defense against

the Persians, but it is not clear if this function was maintained in later periods (Hendrickx 1999:

291). Rather, Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton suggest that the Great Walls should be viewed as

parts of a large temple enclosure in keeping with religious architectural traditions of the Late

Period (2010: 155). However, a vast amount of space within the Great Walls does not appear to

have been used for residential or religious activities. The surface area encompassed by the main

temple complex represents only a small portion of the total space enclosed within the Great

Walls (see Figure 5.3). Furthermore, there are earlier textual references to a rampart of Elkab

used for defensive purposes in the Second Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, which may

be a precursor of the Great Walls.172

171 Clarke is accredited with the first examination and the original naming of these three sets of enclosure walls (Clarke 1921; Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: nos. 14, 17). His terminology continues to be used today. A modern analysis of the construction and history of all three walls is provided in a recent publication (Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010).

172 See discussions of the “Stobart Stela” and the tomb of Sobeknakht below.

213

The temples located within the Great Walls are themselves surrounded by a separate enclosure wall (named the Temple Enclosure) situated in the southeastern area delineated by the

Great Walls (Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 147-153). The western corner of the Temple

Enclosure is missing today. Radiocarbon analysis confirms that the walls of the Temple

Enclosure date from the First Persian period to the reign of Nectanebo II, a time when the temples were reconstructed (Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 159). A smaller enclosure wall located within the Temple Enclosure has not been examined, but it surrounds the two main temples and could represent an earlier enclosure wall (Clarke 1921: 63-64; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 158).

Both the Great Walls and the Temple Enclosure may have had a protective function

(Kemp 2004: 275; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 155). Large temple enclosures could serve as defensive strongholds in times of unrest. For example, the Osiris Temple Enclosure at

Abydos functioned as a refuge for local inhabitants and was besieged in the Roman Period

(Kemp 1975: 39). But, they also demarcated different areas of activity. The Temple Enclosure separated sacred and secular areas. No other features were found within the Temple Enclosure other than the temples and the sacred lake (Capart 1940: pl. 7-8; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton

2010: 158). The Great Walls provided further differentiation from the outer world. According to

Spence, who has examined the non-defensive purposes of royal walling projects, enclosures within enclosures heightened the “sense of sanctity of the interior” (2004: 266). The Great Walls, based on their scale and complexity, would have added to the feeling of separation between outer and inner space at Elkab, which was further enhanced by the Temple Enclosure located within its interior. The size and amount of labor required for the construction of the Great Walls and the

Temple Enclosure under the reign of Nectanebo I in the Thirtieth Dynasty indicates that the central government played an important role in shaping the built environment of Elkab during

214

this period.173 The Great Walls may have primarily served a political-symbolic function to display the importance of the king and to emphasize social differentiation (Spence 2004: 266,

270-271), but they also attest to a degree of reverence for the deeds of past kings, as noted by

Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton (2010: 157).

The curved Double Walls located within the interior of the Great Walls likely represent an Old Kingdom town wall, although the presence of Old Kingdom buildings within the walls is not confirmed (Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010: 163). Surface potsherds and flint tools dated to the Old Kingdom have been found in the region, but the context is disturbed due to sebakh mining (Hendrickx 1999: 290). Beneath the main temple complex of Nekhbet within the

Great Walls and at the northwestern corner of the Temple Enclosure (see Figure 5.3), excavations between 1937 and 1955 revealed the remains of early Old Kingdom storage units appearing as circular mudbrick constructions (Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2009: 1-3). Human and animal bones, stone axes, stone vessels, Meidum bowls, beer jars, palettes, grinding implements, and seal impressions were found associated with the circular constructions (Hendrickx and

Eyckerman 2009: 2-3, 14-17; Huyge and Limme 2012: 56). The mention of granaries in some of the seal impression inscriptions seems to point to the likely function of the circular structures

(Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2009: 14-15). They may have been subsequently reused as refuse pits after their functional life.174 A total of 69 seal impressions dated from the end of the Second

Dynasty to the beginning of the Third Dynasty were recovered from the site and now reside in

173 For a discussion of the conformity of enclosure walls at Upper Egyptian sites being suggestive of central organization and planning, see Moeller 2004: 265.

174 The later function of the granaries as refuse pits has been used to account for the variety and chronological range of objects found associated with the granaries during excavations (Hendrickx 2009: 14-17).

215

the storerooms of the Egyptian Department of the Musée Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brussels.

The inscriptions regularly mention the title sHD Nxb “Inspector of Elkab” and various personal names or titles that have been found on seal impressions at other Upper Egyptian sites, such as

Abydos and Elephantine (see Regulski 2009: 31-48). Regulski argues that the widespread occurrence of the same names and titles at a variety of Upper Egyptian sites is evidence that these individuals were involved with the administrative or religious functions of Upper Egyptian sites, acting as representatives of the central administration (2009: 31). Hendrickx and

Eyckerman argue that the large storage capacity of the granaries was not for private purposes

(2009: 2-4), and yet the seal impressions were made locally and reflect the autonomy of the local administration (Regulski 2009: 46-48).

During excavations in 1955, the granaries were discovered to be distributed over a large building or a number of courtyards and small rooms (Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2009: 4-12, fig.

2). The presence of the granaries beneath the main temple complex indicates that the temples were built on early occupation layers covered by a thick layer of sand and not on early Old

Kingdom temple foundations (Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2009: 2). These silos were likely originally part of the Old Kingdom settlement located within the Double Walls. However, a series of granaries arranged in this way would not be characteristic of a simple settlement layout, in which inhabitants were storing their own grain for household use. In 2009, a geophysical survey of the area bordered by the Double Walls provided further evidence for the presence of early Old Kingdom settlement remains (Rowland et al. 2009). Due to the lack of temple remains for this period, it remains unclear if the granaries could have served as storage units as part of

Old Kingdom temple facilities. Other visible features of the site include temple foundations, cemeteries, and rock-cut tombs (Limme 2008: 17-18).

216

Within the Great Walls, early excavations, especially those of Capart and Gilbert before

and after World War II, concentrated on the remains of two partially demolished temples: a) the

temple of Nekhbet; and b) the temple of Thoth (Limme 2008: 17; discussed below).175 Both

structures are visible at the site today, but only the foundations are preserved.176 Later work

conducted by the Committee for Belgian Excavations in Egypt under the direction of De

Meulenaere and Limme exposed sections of the dromos, foundations, and decorated blocks of

the temple of Nekhbet (see Limme 2008: 17-18). The most recent excavations at the site (since

the 1980s) have concentrated on the desert landscape north and northeast of the Great Walls of

Elkab at the mouth of the Wadi Hilal (Limme 2008: 19). A large sandstone hill located at the

entrance to the Wadi contains rock-cut tombs dated from the Second Dynasty to the Twentieth

Dynasty (discussed in detail below), while several additional free-standing rocks in the area are

decorated with petroglyphs and hieroglyphs (Huyge 1984a; Vandekerckhove and Müller-

Wollerman 2001a; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman 2001b; Huyge 2002: 196-206;

Limme 2008: 19, fig. 14; Judd 2009: 37-38).

Many of the rock drawings along the Wadi Hilal have been stylistically dated to Naqada I

and Naqada II, but there are examples of illustrations spanning all periods of pharaonic Egypt

(Huyge 1998: 1377-1378; Hendrickx 1999: 25). In the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods,

175 During the two decades following the death of Capart in 1947, only three brief excavation campaigns were organized at Elkab until the creation of the Committee for Belgian Excavations in Egypt in 1966 (Huyge and Limme 2012: 46-48).

176 Blocks of the temples were reused in modern constructions in the area, but during Napoleon’s expedition (1798- 1799), columns and architraves were still standing in their original location (Description de l’Égypte 1809: pl. 66, fig. 3). Also see Clarke 1922: 16-40; Capart 1940: 34-90; Capart 1954: 79-82, pls. 7-12, 36-37; Vanlathem 1987: 34, no.2; Van Siclen III 1999: 415-417; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010. For a modern photograph of the present remains of the temple foundations, see Limme 2008: 33, fig.5.

217

several rock images bear reference to royal ideology and have been interpreted as forms of local

elite expression glorifying royal power (Huyge 2002: 203-204).177 Evidence of royal names at

the site first occurs in two rock inscriptions containing a carved serekh with the name of Qaʽa of

the First Dynasty (Huyge 1984b: 5-9). However, the presence of royal names need not indicate royal activity per se, since rock inscriptions were usually carved by officials who may have traveled to the site on state business (as at Aswan; see Seidlmayer 2003: 442; Seidlmayer 2013:

205-207). This would also be true of cylinder seals, which probably belonged to administrators.

In the Wadi Hilal, the cartouche of Khufu has been preserved in a rock inscription, while the name Menkaure was found on a cylinder seal in a Middle Kingdom grave (Quibell 1898: 20, pl. XX no. 28; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman 2001a: 15). The name of King Userkaf of the Fifth Dynasty also appears on a copper cylinder seal from the site, but the majority of cartouches carved in the rock inscriptions belong to the Sixth Dynasty with a high frequency of the names of King Pepy I and Merenre I (Quibell 1898: 20, pl. XX no. 30; Clarke 1922: 19;

Huyge 1984a: figs. 1 and 2; Huyge and Limme 2012: 49, fig. 5). Such evidence may point to royal interest, but not necessarily the presence of the king at the site. However, recent investigations during the 2015 campaign of the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab directed by Huyge recovered a statue fragment of King Sahure of the Fifth Dynasty (see Huyge

2017: 41-43).178 The statue fragment was found in the space between the Double Walls of

Elkab, providing evidence of a royal presence at the ancient town during this dynasty. Huyge

177 Huyge notes several boat drawings with parallels on royal objects, as well as wild animals representing “bestial allegories of kingship” (2002: 201).

178 The press release and photographs of this discovery can be found on the following website: http://www.kmkg- mrah.be/press.

218

suggests that the statue may attest to a royal ka chapel179 that was part of an Old Kingdom sanctuary beneath the Late Period temple of Nekhbet (2017: 41-43).

From the late Old Kingdom through to the New Kingdom, rock drawings at Elkab are largely concerned with funerary affairs, the pilgrimage of the soul, and personal devotion (Huyge

2002: 204; Judd 2009: 87-100; Lankester 2013: 108-121). The inscriptions and graffiti (in hieroglyphs and hieratic) on the desert rocks commonly represent the names and titles of travelers passing through Elkab, but also provide information about the residents of the settlement of the site, especially priests attached to the cults of Nekhbet and other local deities in the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms (Huyge 1984a: 231; Limme, Hendrickx, and Huyge 1997:

5; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman 2001a; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman

2001b; Limme 2008: 19-20). The Old Kingdom sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Nekhbet has not been found, although a number of scholars believe that it may have been located at the site of the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal (Sayce 1899: 111-114; Hendrickx

1999: 290; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman 2001a: 337).180 In 1899, Sayce recorded his

discovery of fragments of offering tables, stone dishes, and Old Kingdom pottery in this area of

the site (1899: 108). Later investigations by Quibell in 1896 and Hendrickx and Huyge in 1986

confirmed that scatters of pottery in the area attest to Old Kingdom activity (see Quibell 1898:

179 For more information about royal ka chapels, see discussion in §8.2.1.3.

180 Sayce was the first scholar to put forth this idea: “Immediately beyond the graffiti once stood a temple, apparently of wood, which must have been swept away by a sudden flood together with the projecting cliff of marl on which it stood, leaving behind it only its inscribed libation-tables and dishes of stone, which were discovered three years ago. At the same time that these were found, what we may call the wine-cellar of the temple was also excavated in the still uninjured part of the cliff. Here nearly two hundred earthenware jars of the Old Empire type were disinterred which had been hidden in underground recesses, and their necks closed with clay stoppers. A few earthenware dishes, also of the Old Empire type, were found along with them. For many centuries the spot remained deserted and without a temple, and no more inscriptions were engraved on the rocks. Then Amenophis III of the XVIIIth dynasty built a new temple on the cliff above the site of the old one” (1899: 111-114).

219

16; Limme, Hendrickx, and Huyge 1997: 5). In addition to the priestly titles mentioned in the

Old Kingdom rock inscriptions in the Wadi Hilal and the Old Kingdom pottery remains, an

inscription in the temple of Amenhotep III may provide further evidence that the Pharaoh built a

stone monument “anew” (i.e. in place of an older structure) (Tylor 1898: pl. VI).181 The

inscription provides indirect evidence of the existence of an earlier structure at that site.

Furthermore, a graffito on “Vulture Rock”182 east of the temple of Amenhotep III depicts an

archaic shrine, which might attest to the antiquity of the temple site (Darnell 1995: n. 236; see

Figure 5.4); however, no preserved remains of Old Kingdom religious structures exist at Elkab.

Based on the presence of granite blocks with the name of King Khasekhemwy,

Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman have suggested that an Old Kingdom temple may have

been located on the eastern edge of the Old Kingdom town located within the Double Walls and

argue that the material used to build Old Kingdom structures was not meant to last (2001a: 336-

337). Yet, the remains of Old Kingdom sanctuaries have been found at other sites in Upper

Egypt, such as the temple of Satet at Elephantine, further obscuring the issue of early

architectural preservation at Elkab (Dreyer 1986). Amenhotep III could have completely rebuilt

an Old Kingdom sanctuary in the Wadi Hilal in stone, which may explain the priests’ efforts to

immortalize their names on the nearby rocks by commemorating acts of priestly service, but the

evidence remains inconclusive. Nevertheless, the rock inscriptions indicate that the priesthood at

Elkab was a structured institution at the end of the Old Kingdom comprised of higher and lower

181 See discussion in Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman 2001a: 337.

182 “Vulture Rock” is a natural rock formation of Nubian sandstone located in the Wadi Hilal that was carved with 350 rock drawings and hundreds of Old Kingdom inscriptions (Sayce 1899; Huyge 2002: 196; Limme 2008: 35, fig. 10).

220

status titles (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollerman 2001a: 338). Some of the individuals

named in the rock inscriptions and graffiti of the Sixth Dynasty are also attested in the necropolis

of Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs (Limme, Hendrickx, and Huyge 1997: 3-5). For example,

Sawika, the owner of a Sixth Dynasty rock-cut tomb at Elkab is believed to be the same individual who left his name on rock graffiti in the Wadi Hilal (Limme, Hendrickx, and Huyge

1997: 3; see below). The evidence may suggest that some of the tombs and rock inscriptions belonged to the same individuals.

The earliest mortuary remains at Elkab date to Naqada III and derive from a cemetery located within the town walls, but during the Second Dynasty small tombs began to be constructed on the lower slope of the large rock outcrop located north of the Great Walls (Limme

2008: 24-25). In the 1980s and 1990s, excavations north of the Great Walls uncovered decorated and undecorated rock-cut tombs, which provide significant information about the local inhabitants of Elkab (see Figure 5.1). The priests of the local cult held an elevated social position within the local context at Elkab. Evidence of this social hierarchy stems back to at least the

Third Dynasty at the site. Funeral equipment in the Third Dynasty mastaba of the Overseer of

Priests, Kamen, located just outside the north wall of the town enclosure, for example, included a costly diorite bowl inscribed with the name of King Snefru, while seal impressions dating to the

Second and Third Dynasties excavated beneath the main temple precinct record titles that attest to the economic importance of the early temple at Elkab (Quibell 1898: 4; Porter and Moss 1937:

175; Van De Walle 1940; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2009: 14-15; Regulski 2009: 31-48).

Seidlmayer argues that the titles of the Old Kingdom priesthood and the royal gift in Kamen’s mastaba provide evidence of ties to the central administration at this early date (1996: 118).

221

During the Sixth Dynasty, tombs continued to be constructed at the main rock-cut tomb

necropolis. Although fifteen Sixth Dynasty tombs have been excavated, most were looted in

antiquity and contained few objects, but one decorated tomb belonging to Sawika identifies the

owner as an imy-r Hmw-nTr “Overseer of Priests” (Limme, Hendrickx, and Huyge 1997: 3-4;

Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b: 100-101, 287-288; Limme 2008: 20). Sawika’s

title suggests that many of the Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs were constructed for priests of the

Sixth Dynasty who belonged to the early cult of Nekhbet. According to the excavators, stylistic

and iconographic analysis of Sawika’s tomb decoration suggests continuity with classic

Memphite funerary decoration, rather than a unique “provincial” style (Limme, Hendrickx, and

Huyge 1997: 3-4). In addition, a bronze mirror recovered from an undecorated and intact burial

chamber in tomb BE 7 identifies the owner as Irtenakhty (Irt-n-Axty),183 a Hmt-nTrt Hwt-Hr

“Priestess of Hathor” who was also an rxt nsw “Acquaintance of the King,”184 which reiterates

the connection between the Old Kingdom priesthood of Elkab and the royal residence (Limme,

Hendrickx, and Huyge 1997: 3-4; Limme 2008: 21, fig. 22).

Evidence for Middle Kingdom royal monuments at Elkab is very fragmentary and

enigmatic, but inscribed material recovered from the vicinity of the main temple complex

situated within the Great Walls attests to Middle Kingdom royal patronage.185 Early

183 Limme notes that her name is not known from other sources, but a masculine version exists (Irw-n-Axty) (2008: 21, n. 43).

184 The masculine version of this title (rx nsw) appears formalized at least as early as the Fourth Dynasty and attests to a close relationship with the king (Moreno García 2013a: 95, 100). For its function in the Middle Kingdom, see Grajetzki 2013: 241-243.

185 For a list of kings’ names who likely contributed to the construction of the temples, see Vandersleyen 1971: 31- 32.

222

investigations of the site unearthed a fragment of a door post and the lower left corner of a lintel

of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, indicative of a small shrine built during his reign, as well as block

and statue fragments of Senwosret I (Porter and Moss 1937: 174; Capart 1938: 625; Capart 1940:

22, nos. 1-2, pl. 30a-b; Habachi 1963: pl. 40; Van Siclen III 1999: 415; Hirsch 2004: 37). The

“Stobart Stela” recovered from Elkab (exact provenience unknown) is dated to the 44th regnal

year of Amenemhat III and provides a textual source for Amenemhat III’s restoration of a

rampart (snbt) built by Senwosret II at the site (Stobart 1855: pl. 1; Quibell 1898: 13; Legrain

1905: 106-11; Porter and Moss 1937: 190; Hirsch 2004: 112). The fact that the word snbt is

used, rather than the word for wall (inb), suggests a defensive structure (see Erman and Grapow

1971: 94-95, 161; Faulkner 2002: 23, 231), but no archaeological evidence of this nature has

been recovered. In the stela, Amenemhat III is named as mry Nxbt “Beloved of Nekhbet”

suggesting that the Middle Kingdom temple was in fact dedicated to Nekhbet (Bolshakoy 2008:

26). In 1891, a Middle Kingdom sphinx was found amidst the temple ruins that may be

stylistically dated to the reign of Amenemhat III and may therefore further attest to the work of

this ruler in the main temple complex at Elkab (Porter and Moss 1937: 174; Fay 1996: 67, no.

41; Hirsch 2004: 113).

The fragmentary artifactual and inscriptional evidence is not substantial enough to inform

about the location, design, or orientation of the Middle Kingdom temple at Elkab. The only

secure evidence for a pre-New Kingdom structure at the site is fourteen limestone block

fragments belonging to a building of Sobekhotep III of the Thirteenth Dynasty (Van Siclen III

1999: 415; Eder 2002: 8-55; Limme 2008: 34, fig. 7). The blocks were originally discovered by

Capart and Derchain in the courtyard between the second and third pylon of the Late Period

temple and derive from a chapel for the sed-festival of Sobekhotep III and for the worship of

Nekhbet (Capart 1938: 625-626; De Meulenaere 1975: 1226; Hendrickx 1999: 290; Eder 2002:

223

8-15, 55, 205). Relief decoration on the block fragments depict the king offering to and embracing the goddess (Eder 2002: 10-12, 204-206). In addition, block fragments nos. 9-10 show part of the sacred barque of Nekhbet, which contained a falcon-headed aegis on its prow and stern (Eder 2002: 13, 207-208, 261-262). Even though the barque is not shown in procession being carried by priests, this evidence may highlight the fact that a barque procession of Nekhbet existed at Elkab from at least the Thirteenth Dynasty and perhaps earlier. The block fragments confirm that Nekhbet was the focus of worship in the main temple complex of Elkab during the

Thirteenth Dynasty and that part of this worship included a barque ritual. During the late

Thirteenth Dynasty, further work on the chapel was conducted by Neferhotep III (Capart 1938:

625; Eder 2002: 55).

During the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom, a large cemetery with several vaulted tombs was constructed along the eastern portion of the Great Walls, but it was only partially excavated and was plundered in antiquity (Hendrickx 1999: 290; Huyge and

Limme 2012: 49). North of the Great Walls, decorated tombs of the Second Intermediate Period provide important information about the internal chronology and political significance of Elkab during this period.186 The Second Intermediate Period tombs are simple in plan and contain a small exterior courtyard leading to a single chambered tomb chapel with a vaulted ceiling

(Davies 2009a: 139-140). The tombs of Renseneb and Sobeknakht II (Sixteenth Dynasty) carved into the southern face of the main sandstone cliff at Elkab contain long genealogical texts, which reflect family lineages over several generations (Porter and Moss 1937: 184-185; Bennett 2002:

186 Since 2001, the British Museum has been investigating, recording, conserving, and documenting the pharaonic rock-cut tombs at Elkab under the direction of Davies and O’Connell (see Davies and O’Connell 2009; Davies and O’Connell 2010; Davies and O’Connell 2011; Davies and O’Connell 2012; Davies and O’Connell 2015).

224

133-; Limme 2008: 37, fig. 14; Davies 2010: 223-225; Shirley 2013: 557-558; Davies 2016: 71,

figs. 1-2). In fact, Renseneb’s tomb (no. 64) appears to have functioned as a large family

sepulcher (Davies 2010: 225). Within the tomb of Sobeknakht II (no. 66), who was a hereditary

governor of Elkab during the Sixteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties,187 a hieroglyphic inscription

documents the military defenses of Elkab188 and Sobeknakht’s victory over an attack on Thebes

by Kush and its allies (Tylor 1896; Porter and Moss 1937: 184-185; Davies 2003a: 6; Shirley

2013: 558). Sobeknakht’s emphasis on protecting the Theban dynasty reiterates the political

importance of Elkab during the Second Intermediate Period and highlights the influence of the

governors of Elkab at the Theban royal court (see Shirley 2013: 559-560). The text also includes

a description of the construction of a new barque for the goddess Nekhbet in her temple further

highlighting royal patronage of the cult of Nekhbet during the Second Intermediate Period

(Davies 2003a: 6). As more tombs continue to be discovered, the upper section of the main rock-

cut tomb necropolis at Elkab seems to represent a series of “related tombs belonging to

governors of Elkab, predominantly of the late Thirteenth Dynasty/Second Intermediate Period,

their extended families, officials, and associates” (Davies 2016: 75-76).

Elkab was the birthplace of the nobles who participated in the retaking of Egypt from the

Hyksos. The rock-cut tomb necropolis at Elkab provides significant information about the transition from the Second Intermediate Period to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The

187 Sobeknakht’s titles include: iri-pat HAty-a xtmty-bity smr waty imy-r Hmw-nTr “Member of the Elite and Foremost of Action, Mayor, Royal Treasurer, Sole Companion, and Overseer of Priests” (see Davies 2010: 229). According to the Cairo Juridical Stela (JE 52453) from Karnak, Sobeknakht II inherited the governorship of Elkab from his father Sobeknakht I, who was sold the position from Kebsi (Lacau 1949; Beckerath 1964: 182; Ryholt 1997: 233-235; Bennett 2002: 124-126, 133-141; Davies 2010: 224; Shirley 2013: 557-558).

188 Davies notes that the newly discovered biographical text found on the right thickness of the central doorway of Sobeknakht’s tomb mentions a “rampart of Nekheb,” but he does not provide the hieroglyphs or transliteration of this translation (2003a: 6). This passage may be an early reference to a protective wall at Elkab.

225

tombs of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana and Ahmose Pennekhbet include unique military chronicles

about the expulsion of the Hyksos (Porter and Moss 1937: 177-184; Hendrickx 1999: 290;

Davies 2009a: 145, fig. 2; Davies and O’Connell 2010: 103-104; Davies and O’Connell 2011: 2-

3; Davies and O’Connell 2012: 52-53). These written accounts indicate that an important

provincial family held the town of Elkab during the Second Intermediate Period and gave

support to Theban royals in their struggle against the Hyksos. The significance of this fact on the

site itself is that patronage of the local cult institution may have been linked to this support for

the military initiative of the Seventeenth Dynasty.189 The temple block fragments of Sobekhotep

III and the rock-cut tombs discussed above provide evidence of a flourishing of activity at Elkab

during the Second Intermediate Period. Both royal figures and elite individuals were active

members of the community.

The Eighteenth Dynasty rock-cut tombs testify to prominent families working at Elkab

for generations (Davies 2010: 223). The well-known tomb of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana, dated to the

reign of Thutmosis III, is an example of elite tombs found at the site during this period, with a

simple plan that included a small exterior courtyard, central doorway, and single tomb chapel

with a vertical burial shaft and chamber below (Davies 2009a: 139-140).190 According to

Davies, the inscriptions in Ahmose Son-of-Ibana’s tomb and in the tombs of his relatives (Pahery

I, Heriry, and Pahery II) attest to strong Theban connections. For example, Pahery I, Heriry, and

189 In fact, Davies observes that the central government and its administration had a strong foothold in Elkab during the Second Intermediate Period, since the town was “an important center of political and military support for the Theban kings” of the Seventeenth Dynasty (2003a: 6).

190 For a discussion of the function of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana’s tomb as an expression of his identity and the identity of his family, see Davies 2009a: 145-146.

226

Pahery II share the title sS qdwt n Imn “Scribe of Forms of Amun”191 (see Eichler 2000: 158-159,

271-272 nos. 213, 307 no. 441; Davies 2009a: 153). According to Eichler, this title appears often in the temple administration of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but its presence at Elkab presents an interesting case of provincial relatives employed in the administration of Amun temples (2000:

158-159). Eichler further suggests that children of high-ranking provincial officials were trained at the royal residence, although this is speculation (2000: 159). In addition, Eighteenth Dynasty rock inscriptions at Sehel, Sabo, and Gebel Docha belong to the “Draftsman” Neb from Elkab

(Nekhen), who may have been commissioned by the “Residence” to decorate the New Kingdom temple of Soleb (see Rondot 2013: 42-43). There is also a close relationship between the decorative program of the tomb of Pahery I and the tomb of Wensu at Thebes, and Pahery I was a tutor of the king’s son Wadjmose, who may have been a son of Thutmosis III (Maniche 1988:

85-86; Roehrig 1990: 84-85; Hartwig 2004: 13; Davies 2009a: 153-154, n. 37, 40). This strong

Theban connection appears to have provided the family with an elite and privileged status at

Elkab.

In the New Kingdom, royal patronage is attested by several temples, but few remnants of the buildings exist at the site today. Within the Great Walls of Elkab, the main temple complex consisted of two major temples: a) temple of Amenhotep I (the eastern temple dedicated to

Nekhbet), and b) temple of Amenhotep II (the western temple dedicated to Thoth) (see Figure

191 The translation of this title is provided by Davies (see 2009a: 153). The meaning of this title is somewhat ambiguous since it can refer to a scribe, painter, decorator, and draftsman (Laboury 2013a: 34). According to Laboury, the usual designation is that of draftsman, which could involve sculpture or engravings (2013a: 32, 34).

227

5.5).192 The temples were constructed with parallel axes and the same basic architectural layout

(Clarke 1922: 24; Capart 1937a: 132; Dodson 1996: 62; Van Siclen III 1999: 416). Most of the

information about the Eighteenth Dynasty temples within the Great Walls derives from blocks

reused in later temple constructions, since the temples were altered and expanded in subsequent

periods. The temple built by Amenhotep I was augmented during the reigns of Hatshepsut and

Thutmosis III and was later restored during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (Clarke 1922: 28; Capart

1937a: 141-143; Van Siclen III 1999: 415).193 According to Clarke, the cartouche of Thutmosis

II was found on reused blocks in the foundations of the hypostyle hall (1922: 37),194 but it is

unclear if this king contributed to constructions of the temple or simply added his name to the

inscriptional program. Similarly, decoration appears to have been added to the temple under

Amenhotep III, whose cartouche was found at the site (Porter and Moss 1973: 174; Derchain

1970: 25). The temple of Amenhotep I was the main temple dedicated to the goddess Nekhbet

during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Van Siclen III 1987: 135; Vanlathem 2009: 177). The second

temple constructed by Amenhotep II was later altered and restored by Ramesses II, at which time

it was dedicated to Thoth (Quibell 1898: 16-17; Clarke 1922: 26; Capart 1938: 627; Van Siclen

III 1999: 417; Hendrickx 1999: 291; Limme 2008: 17; Vanlathem 2009: 177).195

192 This designation of the temples is from Van Siclen III’s analysis of the temple remains (1999: 415). Clarke originally designated the temples as the temple of Thutmosis III (Van Siclen III’s temple of Amenhotep I) and the temple of Amenhotep II (Clarke 1922; Porter and Moss 1937: 173-174). See Figure 5.6.

193 For a description of the temple during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, see Clarke 1922: 30-31.

194 Capart also mentions a lintel and reused blocks belonging to Thutmosis II (1938: 627).

195 Ramesses II is accredited with the construction of new western columns in the hypostyle court of Amenhotep II’s temple, as well as a number of other alterations (see Clarke 1922: 30).

228

A reused block fragment found in the foundations of the main temple of Nekhbet was

carved with three Ramesside inscriptions: a) one text recounts the inventory of all the temples of

Upper Egypt by the Hry sAwtyw-sSw “Chief of the Record-Keepers of the King,” Penpato, under

Ramesses III; b) the second text is by a Vizier, Neferrenpet, who proclaims the jubilee of

Ramesses II in Upper Egypt; and c) the third text commemorates Sety I’s order to his Vizier

Nebamon (Porter and Moss 1937: 174; Grandet 1990: 95-99, pls. 5-6). Among the temple ruins,

Capart also found a lion statue belonging to Sety I (1937a: 136-137; 1937b: 6). In the same foundation wall mentioned above, a nearby block contains the cartouches of Ramesses VI

(Grandet 1990: 99). During the Twenty-Sixth and Thirtieth Dynasties, blocks from the New

Kingdom temples were used to rebuild the temple of Nekhbet (Hendrickx 1999: 291). The foundations of four additional small-scale temples are located near the two main temples but are difficult to date and to interpret (Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: pl. II). One building may have been a mammisi but the rest remain enigmatic without further evidence (Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: pl. II no. 6; Hendrickx 1999: 291).

Outside the Great Walls, Thutmosis III constructed a separate small peripteral temple for the divine barque of Nekhbet (see Figure 5.6). The temple was destroyed in 1828 but was still visible at the time of Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt (Hendrickx 1999: 290; discussed further below). Further northeast, in the desert landscape of the Wadi Hilal, Amenhotep III built another small peripteral temple dedicated to Nekhbet and Hathor, the remains of which are visible at

Elkab today (Hendrickx 1999: 290; Richter 2010: 163; see Figure 5.6). The interior decoration of this small temple of Amenhotep III points to its function as a way station for processional barques (Richter 2010: 164; discussed further below).

229

During the Ramesside Period, the official Setau, a Viceroy of Kush under Ramesses II built a small temple dedicated to Thoth, Nekhbet, and the deified Ramesses II in the Wadi Hilal, known as the “el-Hammam” (Clarke 1922: 18; Derchain 1971: 5, 69; Drenkhahn 1975;

Hendrickx 1999: 291; Richter 2010: 164-165; Huyge and Limme 2012: 49).196 This single- roomed temple faced the desert and its interior walls were decorated (Derchain 1971: 69; Richter

2010: 164-165). Derchain has interpreted the building as a medium connecting Elkab and Nubia, perhaps in association with desert mines (1971: 7). Decoration and inscriptions on the interior walls of the “el-Hammam” temple recount mythic celebrations centered on DHwty Hry-ib rA-int

“Thoth, Who Resides in the Valley Entrance” and two goddesses: Nxbt nbt Nxn “Nekhbet, Lady of Nekhen,” and the nbt pA w Hry “Lady of the Upper District” (Derchain 1971: 12; Richter 2010:

165). Setau is also accredited with the construction of a Ramesside rock-cut temple in the Wadi

Hilal, but it was transformed into a hemispeos during the Ptolemaic Period (Derchain 1971: 5-6;

Richter 2010: 165-166). The “el-Hammam” temple and the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal were also restored and expanded during the Ptolemaic Period (Hendrickx 1999:

291).

Evidence of royal and non-royal activity at Elkab during the Third Intermediate Period is not extensive yet attests to cultural continuity at the site. On the hillside of the main rock-cut tomb necropolis located north of the Great Walls, two burials of the Twenty-First Dynasty were found in a pit located at the top of the hill associated with the Third Dynasty mastaba (Burnet

1997; Huyge 2003: 29). Third Intermediate Period skeletons of juveniles and a decayed coffin lid, along with early New Kingdom vessels suggest that the burial reused an earlier one or was

196 This same Setau built a decorated tomb within the main rock-cut tomb necropolis of Elkab and the hemispeos in the Wadi Hilal (see Kruchten and Delvaux 2010; Richter 2010: 164, n. 71).

230

damaged during looting (Huyge 2003: 29-30). In addition, a small obelisk dated to the Twenty-

First Dynasty was recovered from the main temple precinct with the titulary of an unidentified

king, and the name and representation of Nekhbet on one side as T nt pA w Hry “She of the Higher

Territory (Upper District),” an epithet also found on the Ramesside “el-Hammam” temple and on

a Ptolemaic doorway at the site (Quaegebeur 1989: 125-129). No other Third Intermediate

Period remains have been recovered from the temple of Nekhbet, but the obelisk suggests that

royal patronage of the cult of Nekhbet continued during this period.

During the Late Period, the largest and most impressive royal constructions visible at the

site today were built at Elkab. Nectanebo I and Nectanebo II (Thirtieth Dynasty) were active at

the site, constructing the massive enclosure wall that delineates the town of Elkab (the Great

Walls), as well as several temples. A new larger temple dedicated to Nekhbet was constructed

over the earlier remains located within the Great Walls during the Twenty-Sixth and Thirtieth

Dynasties (Van Siclen III 1999: 417). At the time of Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt, the temples of Nekhbet and Thoth were partially standing with upright columns and architraves (Limme

2008: 33, fig. 6). Today, only the temple foundations remain (Limme 2008: 33, fig. 5). The temple retained the basic layout of its predecessors, including a pylon, hypostyle hall, and three rear sanctuaries, but a second pylon and court were added, in addition to new chambers (Clarke

1922: 30-31). Block fragments with the cartouche of Nectanebo were recovered in the vicinity of the main temple complex, while cartouches of Darius and Akoris occur on a portico built against the south wall of the hypostyle hall of the restored temple of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (Clarke

1922: 27; Capart 1937a: 139; Capart 1937b: 8-9; Capart 1938: 624; Capart 1940: pls. 7-8).

Darius is known to have built or restored temples at Sais, Hibis, Busiris, and Saqqara (Lloyd

2000: 383-384). His cartouche at Elkab may indicate that he revered Nekhbet by restoring her

temple (Lloyd 2000: 384).

231

At the same time that the main temples were restored, Nectanebo I or II constructed a new Temple Enclosure contemporary with the Great Walls (Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton

2010: 159; see discussion above). West of the temples, the corner of a large mudbrick wall discovered during excavations by Gilbert in 1955 with a slightly different orientation than the temples, could provide evidence for the remains of an earlier temple enclosure wall perhaps dated to the New Kingdom (see Hendrickx, Huyge and Newton 2010: 159). Within the Late

Period Temple Enclosure, the remains of other mudbrick walls have been examined, but their function and purpose are enigmatic (Spencer 197: 75; Hendrickx, Huyge, and Newton 2010:

158). Over the centuries, even the Late Period temples and enclosure walls have suffered much damage, so that only a fraction of their magnificence can be viewed at the site today.

Nevertheless, the royal constructions of the Late Period attest to the strength of economic resources and management skills of the central administration of Egypt during this time.

During both the Ptolemaic and Greco-Roman Periods, the rock-cut tombs in the necropolis were reused as repositories of animal mummies, especially large vultures and crocodiles associated with the deities Nekhbet and Sobek (Gautier and Hendrickx 1999;

Hendrickx 1999: 291-292; Gautier 2003). The animal mummies acted as offerings for the local deities of Elkab. In the Wadi Hilal, Ptolemaic kings built a new rock-cut temple known as the

Hemispeos for the goddess Khesemtet on the site of the earlier Ramesside rock-cut temple

(Clarke 1922: 18; Porter and Moss 1937: 187; Hendrickx 1999: 291; Richter 2010: 165; Huyge and Limme 2012: 49).197 Depictions and inscriptions in this Ptolemaic Hemispeos indicate that

Khesemtet was worshipped as Hathor, Tefnut, and Nekhbet in their roles as the left and right

197 A number of cartouches throughout the monument name Ptolemy VIII, Cleopatra III, Ptolemy IX, and Ptolemy X (see Derchain 1971: 8-9).

232

eyes of Re (Derchain 1971: 37; Richter 2010: 166).198 Richter has noted the connections

between the Ptolemaic Hemispeos and the “el-Hammam” temple and their association with the

Myth of the Wandering Goddess and Nekhbet in her form as Hathor-Tefnut (2010: 164-165,

167; see below). Both monuments acted as way stations for celebrating the return of the goddess

in her processional barque, a ritual that was enhanced by the natural landscape of the desert and

rock formations of the Wadi Hilal. Next to the Ptolemaic Hemispeos, a small Coptic monastery

attests to continued use of the area (Clarke 1922: 18; Hendrickx 1999: 292). From the Fourth

Century BC until the end of the Second Century AD, a large Greco-Roman settlement developed

along the Temple Enclosure within the Great Walls and yielded a variety of material, including

mudbrick walls of village houses, bronze coins, pottery, and demotic and Greek ostraca

(Hendrickx 1999: 291; Limme 2008: 18; Huyge and Limme 2012: 47). Close to the Nile, a

Roman fort reused blocks from the main temple precinct (Clarke 1921: pl. X; Hendrickx 1999:

292). Few remains are known after the Roman Period and there was no Islamic settlement at the site (Hendrickx 1999: 292).

The archaeological and inscriptional evidence from Elkab point to three main characteristics of the site: a) the persistence of human occupation from the Paleolithic to the

Greco-Roman Period; b) the patronage of a number of Pharaohs to the divinities of Elkab, especially Nekhbet, which manifested in the construction of temples dedicated to the goddess from the Eleventh Dynasty to the Ptolemaic Period; and c) the exceptional concentration of information about the lives of officials from the Second Intermediate Period and the early

Eighteenth Dynasty derived from the rock-cut tombs. The history of Elkab emphasizes its

198 The sanctuary contains friezes of Hathor-heads and Hathor-headed columns, while inscriptions throughout the monument mention all three goddesses in reference to the myth (Richter 2010: 166-167).

233

political and religious function from the Old Kingdom through to the Ptolemaic Period. The site

attracted royal attention from an early period likely due to Nekhbet’s association with kingship

and her important role in in royal ideology. Nekhbet was adopted as a royal tutelary deity as one

of the Nebty “Two Ladies” names as early as the mid-First Dynasty (Leprohon 2013: 8, 13-15),

and she appears in vulture form on royal headdresses and on the White Crown of Upper Egypt as

a protective goddess (Heerma van Voss 1980: 367; Leitz 2002b: 301). During the Old Kingdom,

rock inscriptions and rock-cut tombs emphasized the cultic duties of their owners. In the New

Kingdom, religious titles are combined with accounts of military deeds enacted on behalf of the

king (discussed below). Officials accentuated their ties to Thebes and the royal court, while

maintaining autonomy and social standing for themselves and their family at the local level.

5.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty

The focus of royal activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty at Elkab was the construction

of sacred complexes. As at other provincial sites of this period, Pharaohs of the Eighteenth

Dynasty concentrated their efforts on establishing their religious (and thus their socio-political and economic) presence through the built environment at Elkab. As the traditional residence of the goddess Nekhbet, the cultic function of Elkab was intricately tied to the mythical characteristics of the goddesses’ role as protectress of divine kingship (Heerma van Voss 1980:

366-367; Troy 1986: 116-119; Leitz 2002b: 301-302; Leprohon 2013: 13-15).199 Thus royal

participation in the cult of Nekhbet ensured the king’s protection, legitimacy, and power.

Excavations by Quibell and Clarke revealed material from the temple area, but the majority of

199 See further discussion about the importance of Nekhbet and kingship in §8.2.3.2.1.2.3

234

the work on the temples took place under the direction of the Belgian Egyptologist Jean Capart

in the 1930s (see Capart 1940; Hendrickx 1999: 291).

Early publications about Elkab refer to the activities of Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaohs primarily based on inscribed material, such as stone blocks discovered reused in the later temple complex (Clarke 1922: 17-24); yet, much work remains to be conducted in reconstructing the various building programs of Eighteenth Dynasty kings. The Eighteenth Dynasty temples at

Elkab have been discussed in detail by few authors.200 Otherwise, the temples and their

associated finds are briefly mentioned in sources that give general overviews of the development

of the town but are not the focus of discussion.201 In situ royal finds dated to this period are

limited and most of the remains are fragmentary. Much evidence derives from temple

foundations and reused stone block fragments. Visible remains on the surface of Elkab today

mainly reflect changes made during the Late Period. In keeping with activities at other provincial

sites during the same time period, Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaohs chose to construct their religious

monuments on the site of previous Middle Kingdom structures.

As discussed above, the evidence for Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period royal monuments at the site is very fragmentary, but inscribed material has been recovered from the vicinity of the main temple complex situated within the Great Walls of Elkab, which attests to royal activity during these periods. Stone statue fragments and stone block fragments (such as those from the barque shrine of Sobekhotep III) demonstrate the type, scale, and quality of royal building programs during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period at Elkab (Porter

200 Only two major works discuss the temples in detail: Clarke 1922 and Van Siclen III 1999.

201 For example, see Limme 2008.

235

and Moss 1937: 174-175; Eder 2002). At the site of the Middle Kingdom temple remains within the Great Walls, kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty constructed a temple complex dedicated to

Nekhbet, distinguished in the present work as the main temple complex of Elkab. This complex was the primary cult institution at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but individual Pharaohs also constructed religious monuments in the surrounding desert areas (the peripteral temple of

Thutmosis III and the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III) to fully participate in the festival landscape of the site and to ensure their participation and presence in the local cult institution

(see Figure 5.4).

5.2.1 Main Temple Complex

The main temple complex at Elkab, which consists of multiple building phases from the

Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, and Late Period was constructed in the southern portion of the site close to the Nile river (see Figures 5.1-5.2). The earliest detailed description of the main temple complex is found in the Description de l’Égypte, but, as stated above, the accuracy of the site plans included in the volume is questionable. According to Green’s account of the site in the

Nineteenth Century, the temples were elevated on a sand mound that was deemed sacred sometime during the early pharaonic period, but no physical evidence has been found associated with the complex until the Middle Kingdom (see Clarke 1922: 21).

Amenhotep I is accredited with the construction of the first New Kingdom monument.

However, no in situ remains of this structure presently exist (Van Siclen III 1999: 415). Reused stone block fragments with decoration in raised relief show scenes of Amenhotep I worshipping before the goddess, Nekhbet, which likely indicate that a monument dedicated to Nekhbet was constructed under his reign (Clarke 1922: 37; Porter and Moss 1937: 173; Capart 1940: pl. 25;

Van Siclen III 1999: 415). However, Amenhotep I could have been presented in relief as a

236

dedication by one of his successors. Based on the recovered block fragments, one scholar

suggests that the temple of Amenhotep I was a modest building that contained one large room

with columns and three small chambers at the rear (Van Siclen III 1999: 415, fig. 39.1; see

Figure 5.5).

Temple foundations and parts of walls provide evidence of an extension of the temple

during the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III when a large rectangular columned court was

added to Amenhotep I’s temple (Clarke 1922: 27-38; Capart 1937a: 141-142; Porter and Moss

1937: 173-174; Van Siclen III 1999: 415). The names and images of Hatshepsut were hacked out in antiquity, but she is accredited with the construction of the walls and gates of the court of the temple, while Thutmosis III contributed decoration to the architraves under his sole reign.

Several inscribed architectural elements within the temple were carved with Thutmosis III’s sole titulary (Laskowski 2001). In addition, fragments of a small red granite obelisk202 and naos203 of

Thutmosis III as well as block fragments with his cartouche were recovered from the site (Clarke

1922: 28, 32; Porter and Moss 1937: 173; Van Siclen III 1987: 135; Van Siclen III 1999: 415-

416). At several sites in Egypt, the architectural programs of Thutmosis III worked to diminish

those of Hatshepsut by deliberately reengraving or hacking out her decorative and inscriptional

elements (Valbelle 2014). Thutmosis III’s presence in the archaeological record at Elkab appears

more prominent than Hatshepsut’s due to this same reason. Inscriptional evidence found in the

202 The lower part of the obelisk of Thutmosis III is located in the Musée Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brussels, while the upper portion resides in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow (see Van Siclen III 1987: 135). The inscription on the restored obelisk has been translated by Van Siclen III as: “The Horus Mighty-Bull-Appearing-In- Thebes, the good god, lord of the Two Lands, Menkheperre, beloved of Nekhbet, the white one of Nekhen, lady of Nekheb, living forever” (1987: 135). Clarke mentions that in the foundations of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty temple of Nekhbet there are polygonal drums of the Eighteenth Dynasty and a number of large stones with inscriptions of Thutmosis III (1922: 28).

203 Now in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.

237

vicinity of the main temple complex bolsters Thutmosis III’s connection with the local goddess

as “Beloved of Nekhbet” becomes associated with his titulary at the site.204 The phrase “[royal name] beloved of [name of deity]” is commonly associated with Eighteenth Dynasty rulers’ names at a variety of sites to identify the king with the patron deity. For example, at South

Abydos thousands of bricks are stamped with “Ahmose, beloved of Osiris” (Harvey 1998: 190-

209; see further discussion in §4.2.1). According to Wildung, the phrase was used to express and solidify the divinity of the king (1977: 26-27).

Van Siclen III suggests that Amenhotep III added a pylon to the temple attested by three large pieces of granite found at the site (1999: 416). Porter and Moss list cartouches of

Amenhotep III from the temple area but do not give an exact provenience (1937: 174). It is difficult to determine if Amenhotep III only added his name to the temple or conducted restoration work. The temple begun by Amenhotep I and later restored by Hatshepsut and

Thutmosis III was further augmented during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (see Clarke 1922: 28).

West of the temple complex of Amenhotep I, Amenhotep II built a parallel temple with

the same axis and design (Clarke 1922: 24; Der Manuelian 1987: 257-258; Dodson 1996: 62;

Van Siclen III 1999: 416; see Figure 5.5). Clarke noted a ruined pylon of Amenhotep II that was

cased in stone in front of a small rectangular building during his excavations of the site (1922:

25-26). Four foundation deposits with the cartouche of Amenhotep II and the name of Nekhbet

were unearthed at the northern and southern walls beneath the reconstructed temple of Ramesses

II, which contained small cups and dishes, glass beads, faience ears and eyes, and a faience

female figurine (Quibell 1898: 16-17, 20, pls. I, XXI; Weinstein 1973: 206; Van Siclen III 1999:

204 See for example the inscription on the obelisk fragment presented in n. 202.

238

416; Toye-Dubs 2016: 24, 44). However, there is no information about whether the deposits

were intact or disturbed. Lesko attributes these items to the worship of the “motherly” aspect of

Nekhbet (1999: 68). The presence of the faience female figurine, of which similar types have

been recovered in temple precincts at other sites, especially those dedicated to goddesses, seems

to coincide with Lesko’s assessment (see Pinch 1993: 206, 231-232; Kopp 2005: fig. 28;

Waraksa 2009). Toye-Dubs notes that faience ears are not commonly found in foundation

deposits and suggests that they may have been deposited at the entrance to the temple of

Thutmosis III and later mixed in with the Amenhotep II foundation deposit material (2016: 44).

The ears may thus represent non-royal votives dedicated within the Nekhbet temple precinct

during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but this is difficult to determine based on archaeological context.

A vase with an inscription referring to Nekhbet as one “who listens to prayers” found by Capart

under the pavement of the sanctuaries of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Nekhbet may be

connected to the function of the ears, but again the original deposition of the object is not clear

(see Capart 1938: 635; Toye-Dubs 2016: 24). A statue fragment of the head and torso of

Amenhotep II now in the Musée Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brussels (E.7703) was excavated

by Capart and Gilbert (see Capart 1940: pl. 46; Tefnin 1988: 36-37; Limme 2008: 17).

Clark’s examination of the temple of Amenhotep II provides information about its

architectural design (1922: 26). The entrance of the temple contained a forecourt and porch,

which led to a hypostyle hall in similar design to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty temple, which later replaced it. Van Siclen III’s reconstruction also places an open court with pillars at the entrance to Amenhotep II’s temple with its east wall adjoining the wall of the court of the temple built by

Thutmosis III (1999: 416). The problem with both assessments is that the hypostyle hall was badly ruined even at the time of Clarke’s investigation making it difficult to determine what the original structure really looked like. In addition, changes made by Ramesses II were considerable

239

and may not reflect the original architectural plan of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple (Clarke

1922: 26). During Ramesses II’s reconstructions of the temple of Amenhotep II, the hypostyle hall contained six columns with two rectangular pillars and a doorway which led to the rear chambers and sanctuaries (Clarke 1922: 26). Within the sanctuaries, cartouches of Amenhotep II and a barque scene of the goddess Nekhbet were discovered on the walls (Clarke 1922: 26; Van

Siclen III 1999: 416); yet, the function of this temple during the Eighteenth Dynasty is unclear considering that the main temple dedicated to Nekhbet lays adjacent and parallel this one. The image of the barque scene may indicate that the temple of Amenhotep II was a barque chapel for

Nekhbet. Van Siclen III suggests that the temple was constructed for Nekhbet’s consort (1999:

416). The latter theory seems more likely, since during the Ramesside Period the temple was dedicated to Thoth, and although the barque shrine of Nekhbet may have been worshipped in one of the three rear sanctuaries, it seems unlikely, based on the size and complexity of the temple and what is known about Eighteenth Dynasty barque chapels, that the temple of Amenhotep II was solely dedicated to Nekhbet’s barque (Hendrickx 1999: 291; Limme 2008: 17; Vanlathem

2009: 177). As Van Siclen III notes, Amenhotep II built a temple for Isis as consort of Horus at

Buhen, so the structure at Elkab would be in keeping with Amenhotep II’s overall building program in Egypt (1999: n. 2).

After the reign of Amenhotep II, no major work was conducted on the temples by subsequent Eighteenth Dynasty kings. In the Nineteenth Dynasty, Ramesses II reconstructed the temple of Amenhotep II by making it more rectangular and by adding a pylon and courtyard at its southern end (Clarke 1922: 24; Van Siclen 1999: 417, fig. 39.2; see Figure 5.7). Cartouches of Ramesses II have been found on the doorway of the hypostyle hall and on pillars of the porch

(Clarke 1922: 25). Ramesses II’s second phase of reconstruction consisted of the erection of a pylon in front of the main temple of Nekhbet built by Amenhotep I (Van Siclen 1999: 417, fig.

240

39.2). The final phase of construction of the main temple complex occurred during the Late

Period when kings of the Thirtieth Dynasty built a new larger temple to Nekhbet, as well as the

Temple Enclosure wall (Van Siclen III 1999: 417; see above). No other New Kingdom

monuments have been discovered within the Great Walls of Elkab. A sacred lake marked by a

deep depression in the ground once existed east of the temple complex and would have been

used for sacred water rites and processional rituals (see Figure 5.6); but, although scholars have

identified two building phases associated with the lake, they suggest that it was not constructed

until the Thirtieth Dynasty (Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: pl. II; Hendrickx 1999: 291). In the

vicinity of the sacred lake, a large covered stairway was excavated in 1968, but contained no

inscriptions to aid in identifying the owner or the function of the structure (Hendrickx 1999:

291).

5.2.2 Peripteral Temple of Thutmosis III

Northwest of the Great Walls of Elkab and slightly west of the main rock-cut tomb necropolis, Thutmosis III built a separate monument as a barque chapel for Nekhbet. At the time of Napoleon’s expedition, the chapel was fairly well preserved with the colonnade still standing until it was completely destroyed in the Nineteenth Century (Clarke 1922: 17; Capart 1940: 35,

pl. 37; Vanlathem 1987: 30; Dodson 1996: 62). Thus, much information about the peripteral

temple of Thutmosis III at Elkab comes from early explorer and traveler reports, including those

of Borchardt and Champollion.205

According to the plan sections and drawings at the time of Napoleon’s expedition, the chapel was a modest one-roomed building surrounded by a colonnade of square pillars and had

205 For a list of these sources, see Vanlatham 1987.

241

one entrance (see Figure 5.8). Quibell found several foundation deposits associated with the temple and created a reconstructed plan, which shows the same architectural layout presented in the Description de l’Égypte (1989: pl. XXXVI). According to Quibell, each of the temple’s four corners and side walls contained a deposit (eight in total) (1989: 16, 20-21, pls. XXI, XXVI).

The contents consisted of model pottery vessels, alabaster saucers and ovals, sandstone grinders and grindstones, bronze tools, faience beads, and wood knots (Quibell 1898: 20-21; Weinstein

1973: 193-194). The alabaster vessels, grinders, and grindstones were inscribed with the prenomen of Thutmosis III and “Beloved of Nekheb” (Weinstein 1973: 194). Early accounts of the temple of Thutmosis III describe elaborately decorated wall scenes with hieroglyphs and figures on both the interior and exterior walls (Vanlathem 1987: 32). Except for Hamilton’s account in 1801, which describes images of Isis and Osiris in the chapel, many explorers did not describe the relief program of the temple in detail (Vanlathem 1987: 32); however, Hamilton’s description indicates that multiple deities were worshipped in the temple alongside the goddess

Nekhbet. In addition, cartouches of Amenhotep II in the temple have been referenced in discussions about a possible coregency between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II (see Porter and

Moss 1937: 176; Redford 1965: 116; Murnane 1977: 57; Der Manuelian 1987: 257-258).

The architectural design of the temple of Thutmosis III places it in Badawy’s Type II peripteral temple category (1986: 288). However, early accounts of the temple do not describe a stairway leading to a raised platform and the temple only had one entrance. According to

Badawy, Type II peripteral temples characteristically contain two doorways and at least one stairway (1968: 284-286). The function of the temple of Thutmosis III was probably connected to the festival procession of Nekhbet at Elkab as a resting place for her divine barque. No images of this barque have been published or described for the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III, but there is evidence from other monuments at the site. As mentioned above, two block fragments

242

from the chapel of Sobekhotep III, for example, depict part of the sacred barque of Nekhbet in a

relief scene (Eder 2002: 13, 55, 207-208, 261-262). In the rock-cut tomb of Setau dated to the

Nineteenth Dynasty, a depiction of Nekhbet’s barque shrine accompanies an inscription

mentioning her festival procession (Gardiner 1910; Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: pl. 27; see

Figure 5.9). However, as discussed below, the scene in Setau’s tomb likely refers to the usual

divine visits to the royal residence as part of the sed-festival. The image depicts Ramesses III’s

reception of the sacred barque of Nekhbet at the royal residence in Pi-Ramesses, suggesting that

the barque of Nekhbet may have travelled great distances along the Nile, but this evidence does

not provide details about the events of the main procession of Nekhbet’s barque at Elkab

(Gardiner 1910; Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: pl. 27).

Images of boats appear as early as 3300 BC in the eastern desert of Elkab,206 in Early

Dynastic and Old Kingdom rock drawings in the Wadi Hilal, as well as in graffiti from the

peripteral temple of Amenhotep III constructed in the Wadi Hilal (see below), attesting to the

ritual emphasis placed on boats and perhaps boat processions at Elkab from an early period

(Porter and Moss 1937: 190; Derchain 1971: pl. 25c; Huyge 2002: 201; Judd 2009: 37-38, 87-88,

91-93, 112; Lankester 2013: 75-77, 82, 105, 109-126, map 5.2). However, to date, there is no

textual evidence that provides details about the procession of Nekhbet at Elkab for any period.

The block fragments from the chapel of Sobekhotep III, mentioned above, depict part of the

sacred barque of Nekhbet, but too much of the scene has been lost to determine the associated

ritual. The location of the Old to New Kingdom rock drawings and inscriptions in the Wadi

206 In July 2018, the Elkab Desert Survey Project – a joint mission of Yale University and the Musée Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire Brussels – discovered ancient rock art near Bir Umm Tineidba including depictions of animals and long lines of boats. See press release at: https://news.yale.edu/2018/07/24/ancient-egyptian-graffiti-burial-sites- discovered-yale-archaeologists.

243

Hilal, as well as the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic temples in that area, seem to suggest that the

procession of Nekhbet may have travelled to the desert from the main temple complex located

within the Great Walls and back again. The peripteral temple of Thutmosis III, however, resides

in an area separate from both the main temple complex and the desert temples, but is close to the

main rock-cut tomb necropolis. Was the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III the first stop in the

journey of the sacred barque shrine of Nekhbet on its way into the desert landscape of the Wadi

Hilal? In the vicinity of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III, no inscribed rocks have been

documented in the published records of the site, nor any other finds that establish the reason why

this location was chosen for Thutmosis III’s monument. North of the temple, the New Kingdom

rock-cut tombs of the high officials of Elkab were carved into the rocky outcrop, but there is no

clear connection between these two types of activity. Was Thutmosis III reinforcing his political

status by placing his monument close to the tombs of nobles who held autonomous high-status

positions at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty? Perhaps the primary function of the peripteral

temple of Thutmosis III was a religious one marked by a yet unidentified sacred significance of

the landscape of Elkab in this region. Further investigation of this area of the site is warranted.

5.2.3 Wadi Hilal: Peripteral Temple of Amenhotep III

One of Amenhotep III’s earliest monuments was constructed at Elkab at the mouth of the

Wadi Hilal, at a location furthest east from the main temple complex within the Great Walls (see

Figure 5.6). Quibell describes the hours it took for him to reach the temple on foot (1898: 16).

The exterior of the chapel was undecorated, but the interior provides a rich corpus of decoration and inscriptions, a rare find for peripteral temples. Not surprisingly, Amenhotep III appears in several scenes making offerings to the gods worshipped in the temple, but unique are the depictions of Thutmosis IV, who often appears alongside Amenhotep III in the interior decoration (Porter and Moss 1937: 188-189; Bryan 1992: 80). The incorporation of Thutmosis

244

IV in the relief and inscriptions of the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III has led scholars to

suggest that Thutmosis IV initiated construction of the temple, which was completed and

decorated by Amenhotep III, or that the monument was built in commemoration of Thutmosis IV

(Bryan 1992: 80; Dodson 1996: 60; Johnson 1998: 78; Richter 2010: 163). As discussed above,

the temple may have replaced an earlier Old Kingdom sanctuary attesting to the ritual

significance of the location. The architectural design of the temple follows the basic layout of

contemporary barque chapels or peripteral temples in Egypt and decoration in the interior points

to its function as a way station (Badawy 1968: 284-286; see Figure 5.10). Scenes of Amenhotep

III offering to the barque of Nekhbet, as well as images of the barques of other deities including

Re, Amun-Re, and Re-Horakhty occur on the interior walls of the chapel (Tylor 1898: pl. 14;

Richter 2010: 164). These depictions may suggest that more than one deity was the protagonist of a festival procession at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

The sandstone temple was small in size and contained one chamber, which may have been used to house a barque shrine as it rested on its processional journey (Quibell 1898: 16;

Bryan 1992: 79, fig. IV.3; Richter 2010: 163). The peripteral temple of Amenhotep III contained

a front and rear entrance but is missing a surrounding ambulatory. During the Ptolemaic Period,

the temple was fronted by a forecourt (Richter 2010: 163). The plan of the temple does not

strictly correspond to Type I or Type II peripteral temples according to Badawy’s classification,

but the fact that it contains one central room and has a front and rear entrance connected by an

internal ambulatory suggests that the temple of Amenhotep III better resembles monuments

listed as Type II peripteral temples (see Badawy 1986: 289, 291). Bryan has compared the

architectural layout and relief images of the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III to Thutmoside

shrines at Karnak. The style and proportions of Amenhotep III in his peripteral temple at Elkab

suggest a close relationship to Thutmoside figures (Bryan 1992: 80-81). The close relationship

245

between Amenhotep III and the work of his predecessors, the Thutmosides, seems to indicate

that the temple at Elkab was decorated by Amenhotep III early in his reign (Bryan 1992: 82;

Johnson 1998: 78).

The peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal was dedicated to the goddesses

Nekhbet and Hathor as demonstrated by both architectural and decorative elements. On the rear

interior wall of the structure, scenes portray Amenhotep III offering to Nekhbet, who is referred

to as mwt.f Nxbt “his mother, Nekhbet” in the accompanying inscription (Tylor 1898: pls. III, V;

Richter 2010: n. 68). The temple also contained four Hathor-headed columns, as well as friezes of Hathor heads along the top portion of the interior walls (Bryan 1992: 79-82; Dodson 1996-

1997: 60-63; Johnson 1998: 78; Richter 2010: 164). Bryan has noted that the Hathor-headed columns may have been a later alteration by Amenhotep III, since their decorative style is different from those on the friezes (1992: 82). Allusions to Hathor’s manifestation in the region as nbt r-int “Lady of the Valley Entrance” appear in the temple and connect the goddess to

Nekhbet in this desert region (Derchain 1971: 42; Gessler-Löhr 1983: 408; Richter 2010: 164).

Richter links the syncretism of the goddesses Nekhbet-Hathor-Tefnut in the peripteral temple of

Amenhotep III to the Myth of the Wandering Goddess apparent in other structures at the site

(2010: 164, 167).

During the Ptolemaic Period, the Myth of the Wandering Goddess was celebrated in a great festival that honored the return of the daughter of the sun god Re (his Eye personified as the lioness goddess Tefnut) from the Nubian desert (Junker 1911; Richter 2010: 155-156, 164).

The myth or festival appears in over 20 Ptolemaic Period temples throughout Egypt (Richter

2010: 155). Allusions to the myth at Elkab occur in two major royal temples located in the Wadi

Hilal (the Ramesside “el-Hammam” temple and the Ptolemaic Hemispeos), suggesting that the

246

events of the myth were celebrated at Elkab since at least the Ramesside Period (Richter 2010:

164-167). In the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III, there is no direct reference to the myth, but

Richter argues that Hathoric imagery alluding to Hathor’s manifestation as a cow or lion and the epithet nbt r-int “Lady of the Valley Entrance” in the temple, as well as the temple’s proximity to two other monuments that do reference the myth, indicate that the peripteral temple of

Amenhotep III participated “in celebrations that welcomed the Distant Goddess” (2010: 164). In addition, Bryan has noted the connection between the depictions of solar barques in the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III and “Amenhotep III’s increasing emphasis on the sun gods”

(1992: 80), which may also highlight Nekhbet’s solar connections and her potential role as the daughter of Re through her syncretism with Hathor-Tefnut.

The geographical setting of the Wadi Hilal at Elkab provides an ideal environment to reenact the ritual drama of the Myth of the Wandering Goddess, since Nubian sandstone cliffs outline the entrance to the valley. The celebration of the return of the goddess in the myth included the possession of a divine barque along the Nile to see the rich countryside of Egypt

(Richter 2010: 156-157). Richter suggests that ritual enactments of the myth were performed in the Wadi Hilal, because during torrential rainstorms the desert valley would be inundated with water providing the perfect setting for water rites involving divine barques (2010: 163). A similar explanation has not yet been made for the location of the temple of Thutmosis III, which lies closer to the cultivation. As already discussed, further evidence for ritual activity in the Wadi

Hilal is attested by images of boats in early rock carvings, and inscriptional evidence for the myth in the Ramesside “el-Hammam” temple and the Ptolemaic Hemispeos. In his examination of the distribution of Predynastic boat petroglyphs in the central eastern desert, Lankester has noted clustering near well-watered areas and side wadis, suggesting that “predynastic people gathered at rock pools…and sites with groundwater…where, after rainfall, pools and mini-lakes

247

would have formed from run-off from the steep wadi sides” (2013: 106). His analysis connects

images of boats in rock-art to areas of water. A natural formation, named “Vulture Rock,”

located in the Wadi Hilal, further associates the vulture goddess Nekhbet with the desert

landscape (see Figure 5.4). The sanctity of Vulture Rock is attested by a graffito that depicts an

archaic shrine (Sayce 1899; Darnell 1995: n. 236; Limme 2008: fig. 10).

New Kingdom rock-cut tombs at Elkab substantiate the desert evidence. In the

Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana, an offering formula on the east wall is given in order to “see the appearance of this goddess (Nekhbet) in her festival” (Davies 2009a: 143-

144). In addition, the rock-cut tomb of Setau, a high priest of Nekhbet during the Twentieth

Dynasty, provides a relief depiction of the sacred barque shrine of the statue cult of Nekhbet

(Limme 2008: 50, fig. 43; Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: 11). The image is partially damaged, but the prow of the boat and part of the shrine mounted by an image of the goddess is visible (see

Figure 5.9). The relief includes an image of part of a second boat that is tied to the barque shrine of Nekhbet representing a flotilla on the Nile for a divine journey. Inscriptional evidence in the tomb of Setau includes a hymn to Nekhbet and a royal request for the transportation of the sacred barque of Nekhbet to the royal residence at Pi-Ramesses for the celebration of Ramesses III’s sed-festival (Gardiner 1910: 7-14; Porter and Moss 1937: 181; Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: 11,

26, 113-119, pl. 26-27, 73; Huyge and Limme 2012: 58). Another scene in Setau’s tomb depicts

Ramesses III’s reception of the barque of Nekhbet (Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: 113). Due to

Nekhbet’s connection with kingship (see above), the goddess is an ideal deity to preside over a royal festival and to renew the relationship between Ramesses III and the gods, especially because she appears in her vulture form on royal crowns (Leitz 2002b: 301). The presence of her statue at the sed-festival of Ramesses III in Pi-Ramesses may have been necessary to reanimate kingship through ritual. Furthermore, an Old Kingdom temple relief from Herakleopolis portrays

248

an unidentified king receiving the barque of Nekhbet at the sed-festival, suggesting that Nekhbet was an important component of this royal ritual since at least the Old Kingdom (Wegner 2017b).

Perhaps Nekhbet’s local festival at Elkab evoked a similar kind of royal affirmation

during the Eighteenth Dynasty as the goddess travelled in her sacred barque from the main

temple complex to the peripteral temples of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III and back again.

Nekhbet’s titles include nbt Nxn “Lady of Nekhen” and nbt pA w Hry “Lady of the Upper

District” during the New Kingdom, indicating that the goddess’ domain extended over both the

town of Elkab and the desert cliffs to the east (Richter 2010: 165).207 It follows that her ritual

celebrations would involve both aspects of the natural landscape at Elkab. The function of

Amenhotep III’s building program at Elkab seems to primarily stem from a desire to associate

himself with the sacred landscape of the Wadi Hilal and the goddess Nekhbet in her desert form.

Amenhotep III’s motivation may also derive from a veneration of the past, if his chapel was

indeed constructed over an Old Kingdom sanctuary. What is significant is that the peripteral

temple of Amenhotep III provides evidence that the festival procession of Nekhbet, of which

very little is known, may have reached this location of the site during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Based on the inscription in Ahmose Son-of-Ibana’s tomb, the festival of Nekhbet during

the Eighteenth Dynasty involved a “going forth upon earth” and the “appearance” of the

goddess, which likely indicates that a statue of Nekhbet was paraded out of the temple (Davies

2009a: 144). Indirect evidence that Nekhbet’s festival involved a barque procession is provided

207 Epithets of Nekhbet as the goddess of the pA w Hry “Higher Territory (Upper District)” have been found on a Ramesside obelisk recovered from the main temple complex, from the Ramesside “el-Hammam” temple, and from the doorway of the Ptolemaic Hemispeos (Quaegebeur 1989: 121-133). Quaegebeur states that this title refers to agricultural territory or to a desert plateau and was specifically connected with Nekhbet in her local setting at Elkab (1989: 127-128).

249

by the depiction of the goddess’ sacred barque on block fragments nos. 9-10 from Sobekhotep

III’s chapel (Eder 2002: 13, 207-208, 261-262). In addition, the biographical text in the tomb of

Sobeknakht of the Seventeenth Dynasty refers to making “a barque anew” in the temple of

Nekhbet (Davies 2003a: 6), suggesting that Nekhbet’s sacred barque was an important

component of her cult prior to the New Kingdom. Van Siclen III mentions a depiction of a

barque of Nekhbet in the temple of Amenhotep II (1999: 416), and this section discusses

evidence for rituals related to Nekhbet in her desert environment during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

5.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Archaeological and inscriptional evidence for non-royal activity at Elkab during the New

Kingdom derives from two main sources: a) rock-cut tombs, and b) rock inscriptions. Other than a few fragments of non-royal elite statues found in the vicinity of the main temple complex (see

§8.2.3.3.2),208 no substantial non-royal cultic objects, such as figurines, have yet been found at

the site in the Eighteenth Dynasty (Clarke 1922: 26). Fragments of statues have been recovered

from the area of the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III located in the Wadi Hilal, such as that of

Huy, Viceroy of Kush during the Eighteenth Dynasty mixed with statue, stelae, and artifact

(offering table) fragments from other periods (Porter and Moss 1937: 189). No New Kingdom settlement has yet been identified at Elkab, leaving any evidence of domestic religion enigmatic, particularly for middle and lower class inhabitants of the site, of which there is almost entirely no data.

208 Near the pylon of Amenhotep II, part of a black granite statue (British Museum EA1194) belonging to the Overseer of Works in the temple of Nekhbet, Maya (Twentieth Dynasty) was discovered (Clarke 1922: 26; Porter and Moss 1937: 173; De Meulenaere 1988: 207-210). In the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Budapest, a block statue belonging to a certain Thutmose, who was sA nsw tpy n Nxbt “First King’s Son of Nekhbet,” dates to the early New Kingdom and likely originated from Elkab (see Nagy 1983). For other Eighteenth Dynasty statues potentially from the temple of Nekhbet, see below.

250

Non-royal activity in general is not significantly represented in the published record of

Elkab. The rock-cut tombs and rock inscriptions do provide a rich corpus of social and

genealogical information about elite individuals during the Eighteenth Dynasty, which presents a

detailed picture of official and administrative life at Elkab during this time. Most of the non-

royal evidence at Elkab refers to individuals that had relatively elevated positions in society.

According to data extrapolated from rock-cut tombs and rock inscriptions, it is apparent that the

elite status of individuals was directly related to the local cult institutions, because temples were

powerful economic units in which various kings invested during the New Kingdom (Janssen

1979). In the Eighteenth Dynasty, the temples at Elkab were the focus of significant royal

investment, which in turn sponsored elite activities associated with the temples; however, despite

their reliance on royal income, the rock-cut tombs and rock inscriptions demonstrate that officials held a high degree of autonomy at Elkab.

5.3.1 Rock-Cut Tombs

The main cluster of rock-cut tombs dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty belong to one

extended family covering several generations of men acting in an official capacity or holding

prominent titles. The series of tombs were built on the southern face of a large sandstone hill at

Elkab, outside the Great Walls enclosing the town (Limme 2008: 20, fig. 14; Davies 2014: fig.

16.1; see Figures 5.1 and 5.6). Currently, five tombs are dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, whose

owners all held important titles: a) Ahmose-Pennekhbet (no. 2) “Treasurer” (imy-r xtmt);209 b)

Pahery (no. 3) “Mayor of Elkab” (HAty-a n Nxb); c) Ahmose Son-of-Ibana (no. 5) “Head of

209 Ahmose-Pennekhbet’s other titles include it-nTr mry-nTr “God’s Father Beloved of the God,” wHmw-nsw tpy “First Royal Herald,” and tutor to Queen Hatshepsut’s daughter Nefrure, attesting to his elite status in the royal court, while his brother, Amenhotep-Hapu was a senior priest in the temple of Nekhbet and a sA nsw tpy n Nxbt “First King’s Son of Nekhbet” (Davies 2014: 381-384; see below).

251

Sailors” (Hry-Xnt); d) Ipusoneb (no. 6) “Soldier of his Majesty” (waw n Hm.f); and e) Renni (no.

7) “Mayor, Overseer of Priests” (HAty-a, imy-r Hmw-nTr) (Tylor and Griffith 1894; Tylor 1895;

Tylor 1900; Porter and Moss 1937: 176-184; Limme 2008: 20; Davies 2009a; Davies and

O’Connell 2010: 103-104; Davies and O’Connell 2011: 2-3; Davies and O’Connell 2012: 52-53;

Diamond 2012; Davies 2014: 387).

In the tomb of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana, the decorative program was largely concerned with the presentation of family members and their relationships, establishing the social identity of the owner. This idea is expressed by Davies, who has extensively documented the inscriptions and decoration in Ahmose Son-of-Ibana’s tomb (2009a: 141, 151-152). The autobiography of

Ahmose Son-of-Ibana covers a large portion of the east and south walls of the interior of his tomb and describes Ahmose’s early life in the army, and military career under kings Ahmose II,

Amenhotep I, and Thutmosis I (Lichtheim 1976: 11-15; Davies 2009a: 144-145). Davies notes that “[the autobiography’s] prominence and extent signal its exceptional importance – as an expression of identity and achievement fundamental to the well-being and continuity of the family and associated community” (2009a: 145-146). The focus on the social and political importance of the deeds of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana for himself and for his family reflects the intricate relationship between elite individuals in the provinces and the central administration.

Officials residing at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty cemented their ties to the state by proclaiming acts of service to the residence in their tombs, but also exhibited a large degree of autonomy and social standing in the town of Elkab itself considering that Ahmose Son-of-Ibana and his family held prominent positions at the site for several generations.210

210 A stela in the tomb chapel of Ipusoneb indicates that their entire family had a history serving as waw n Hm.f “Soldier of his Majesty” (Davies and O’Connell 2010: 103).

252

This family of high officials at Elkab was concerned with its social ranking and its ties to

the central administration and local religious institution. Three of Ahmose’s family members, for example, Pahery I, Heriry and Pahery II, held the title sS qdwt n Imn “Scribe of Forms of Amun”

in Ahmose Son-of-Ibana’s tomb reiterating the family’s close ties to Thebes and the royal court,

as Davies has noted (2009a: 153-154; see discussion above). In the tomb of Ahmose-Pennekhbet

(southeast of Pahery), his brother Amenhotep-Hapu is recorded with the title sA nsw tpy n Nxbt

“First King’s Son of Nekhbet,” an office transferred to the senior males of Ahmose-Pennekhbet’s family with close ties to the Theban royal court (István 1983: 7-8; Davies 2014: 387).211 Davies

suggests that the office was connected to “leading the processional cult of the goddess Nekhbet”

(2014: 387), which may provide indirect evidence for a procession of Nekhbet in the Eighteenth

Dynasty. If Davies’ interpretation is correct, the title may indicate that local high officials at

Elkab were in charge of the process. Two fragmentary seated statues of Ahmose-Pennekhbet

(Musée du Louvre C.49 and National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh NMS 1948.486) may

have once stood in the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Nekhbet (Porter and Moss 1937: 177, 191;

Davies 2014: 401-407). According to Davies, the provenience of the Edinburgh statue fragment seems to have been the temple ruins within the Great Walls (2014: n. 84). Even though the

Louvre statue fragment is unprovenienced, Davies argues that it does not represent a typical tomb statue of the period (2014: ns. 10, 84).

The titles and autobiographical inscriptions in the Eighteenth Dynasty rock-cut tombs demonstrate that high officials at Elkab were emphasizing loyal service to the king. However,

211 Davies states that this title “was probably instituted at Elkab in the early Eighteenth Dynasty as part of a program of regional patronage by the new Theban regime, evidenced also in a series of endowed statue-cults, the existence of which is recorded elsewhere in the tomb” (2014: 387).

253

they also appear to have held a high degree of autonomy in their roles with several generations of

families maintaining monopoly over these positions at Elkab. This tendency toward autonomous

local elite power has been observed by Moreno García, who has traced family authority in the

provinces during the Old Kingdom where “strategies of power [were] pursued by a provincial

elite family at both the local and palatial level” (2013: 1035). Similarly, from the end of the

Middle Kingdom to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Moreno García (2013: 1037) has

observed that local dominant families at Elkab continued to maintain a monopoly over their

respective provinces, but also established ties with the Theban kings, which inscribed material,

such as the Cairo Juridical Stela of Karnak proves (see Lacau 1949; Beckerath 1964: 182; Ryholt

1997: 233-235; Bennett 2002: 124-126). The integration of these two spheres of activity (local

autonomy and central power) by elite officials during the New Kingdom was essential for

stability and supported both local and royal authority (Shirley 2010; Moreno García 2013: 1037-

1039). The Inscriptions in the rock-cut tombs at Elkab shed light on this connection between provincial elites and central authority, and on the institutions of the temple of Nekhbet itself during the Eighteenth Dynasty, including reference to royal statue cults and titles related to the priesthood of Nekhbet, such as Hmw-nTr nw Nxbt “Priests of Nekhbet,” Hnky “Offering-Priest,” and sA nsw tpy n Nxbt “First King’s Son of Nekhbet,” among others (see Davies 2014: 396).

5.3.2 Rock Inscriptions

Rock inscriptions dated to the Sixth Dynasty at Elkab provide abundant information

about the personnel of the temple of Nekhbet and the dominant families that utilized the local

temple as their source of power for an extended period (Vandekerckhove and Müller-

Wollermann 2001a: 18-20; Moreno García 2005: 104; Müller-Wollermann 2005: 264). Most of

the inscriptions derive from freestanding sandstone rocks located in the Wadi Hilal, as well as

near the Ptolemaic Hemispeos and the rock-cut tomb necropolis (Vandekerckhove and Müller-

254

Wollermann 2001a: 20; Müller-Wollermann 2005: 264; see Figure 5.11). Names and titles included in the rock inscriptions at Elkab inform about the ruling elites of the town and the individuals who were attached to the local temple during specific dynasties (Vandekerckhove

and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 338-347).

Rock inscriptions dated to the New Kingdom are few (Vandekerckhove and Müller-

Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1; Müller-Wollermann 2005: 264; see Table 8.2). Several names and

titles dated to the New Kingdom have been included in Vandekerckhove and Müller-

Wollermann’s publication of rock inscriptions at Elkab (2001a; 2001b), but no further analysis

has been conducted. The repository of personal names securely dated to the New Kingdom that

are included in the volume include a variety of religious and administrative titles that shed light

on elite roles and social hierarchy at Elkab. The titles include: Hm-ntr tpy “First Prophet;” 212 wab

“wab-Priest” and wab n Nxbt “wab-Priest of Nekhbet;” 213 wbA nsw “Cupbearer of the King;” 214

TA “Carrier;” 215 sS “Scribe;”216 and Xry-Hbt tpy n Nxbt “First Lector Priest of Nekhbet.”217

Among the rock inscriptions positioned at location “O” are a number of carved New Kingdom

212 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 35 no. M 11.

213 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 67 no. N 69, 160 nos. O 29-O 30, 228 no. O 191, 278 nos. W 2-W 3, 279 no. W 5-W 6.

214 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 133 no. N 240.

215 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 159 no. O 27.

216 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 159 no. O 27, 163 no. O 35

217 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 229 no. O 193. For more information about the New Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elkab, see §8.2.3.3.3.

255

rock stelae depicting offering scenes (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1).218

The stelae include images of individuals (usually a man and a woman) adoring and making

offerings to the goddess Nekhbet, who is seated before them on her throne (Vandekerckhove and

Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 161-163).

The rock inscriptions and stelae from Elkab provide significant insight into the inhabitants of the town, who left these lasting marks on the landscape. The names and titles give details about some of the important offices held at Elkab, as well as demonstrate the social hierarchy of elite individuals at the site. Titles associated with the priesthood range from the high-status position of the Hm-ntr tpy to the lower status wab priests. There is not enough New

Kingdom evidence to determine genealogies of names and titles from the rock inscriptions.

However, it was common practice in most periods of Egyptian history that priestly titles were hereditary and passed down to offspring for several generations, a trend which is apparent at

Elkab during the Old Kingdom (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 345).219 Most

of the titles from the rock inscriptions dated to the New Kingdom at Elkab belong to the

priesthood and not the secular realm of civic administration. According to Vandekerckhove and

Müller-Wollermann, official powers were limited to the management of the local temple and had

little to do with the actual administration of the district:

Der Titulatur zufolge hatten die Priester von Elkab nichts mit der eigentlichen Gauverwaltugn zu tun. Ihre Amtsbefugnisse beschränkten sich auf die Leitung der lokalen Tempel. Offenbar spielte Elkab im Alten Reich hauptsächlich eine religiöse und

218 Nos. O 22, O 23, O 25, O 32, O 33, O 35. For a transliteration and translation of the stelae inscriptions, see Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann: 2001a: 161-163.

219 The rock-cut tombs dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty also indicate that elite families retained the same titles for several generations.

256

keine politische Rolle und stand, gerade wegen der gewichtigen Bedeutung von Nxbt für das Königtum, in enger Verbindung mit dem regierenden König (2001a: 346).

Due to the connection between Nekhbet and kingship, Elkab played an important religious role

since the Early Dynastic Period.220 For the New Kingdom, information deriving from both the

rock inscriptions and the rock-cut tombs at Elkab, points to the continued prominence of

religious titles, but elites also appear to have held a political function within the town. Owners of

the rock-cut tombs, for example, held prominent secular positions imy-r xtmt “Treasurer,”221

wHmw-nsw tpy “First Royal Herald,”222 and HAty-a “Mayor.”223 As discussed above, these titles

were passed down through several family generations.

No analysis has yet been conducted on the topographical locations of the rock

inscriptions at Elkab, like what has been accomplished at Elephantine (Seidlmayer 2003;

Seidlmayer 2008; Seidlmayer 2013; see §6.3.2). New Kingdom rock inscriptions occur at the

apex of the Wadi Hilal situated on free standing rocks located near the Eighteenth Dynasty

peripteral temple of Amenhotep III, the Ramesside “el-Hamman” temple, and the Ptolemaic

Hemispeos. Only two rocks with inscriptions occur closer to cultivated areas: a) Location “F”

occurs at the main rock-cut tomb necropolis near the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III; and b)

Location “W” occurs on an eastern outcrop at the entrance to the Wadi (Vandekerckhove and

Müller-Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1; see Figure 5.11). Are these locations associated with specific

220 As mentioned above, in the titulary of Egyptian kings, Nekhbet is one of the goddesses who protected the king as part of the Two Ladies name as far back as the mid-First Dynasty (Leprohon 2013: 13-15). She often appears as a protecting vulture hovering over the king in depictions (see Baines 1995: 127).

221 Tomb of Ahmose-Pennekhbet (Davies and O’Connell 2010: 103-104; Davies and O’Connell 2011: 2-3; Davies and O’Connell 2012: 52-53; Davies 2014: 381-384).

222 Tomb of Ahmose-Pennekhbet.

223 Pahery and Renni both held this title (Porter and Moss 1937: 177, 183).

257

functions of the natural and sacred landscape? At Elephantine, for instance, New Kingdom rock

inscriptions are positioned along and face the festival processional route of the local deities of

that site (see Seidlmayer 2013). At Elkab, the route of the local procession of Nekhbet has not been mapped due to the lack of evidence. Yet, the position of the two peripteral temples at the

site: a) the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III close to the Great Walls of Elkab; and b) the

peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal, seems to suggest that the barque shrine of

Nekhbet would have reached these two areas, which both contained rock inscriptions in their

vicinity. Perhaps the more remote areas of Elkab were more easily accessible to non-royal inhabitants, where personal acts of devotion were less restricted than in the vicinity of the main temple complex during the New Kingdom. According to Herzberg’s topographical study of rock inscriptions of New Kingdom officials in the region of Aswan, the inscriptions were always found clustered at religiously-charged points in the landscape (2014). Herzberg suggests that rock inscriptions were an integral part of non-royal cultic participation in local shrines with a function similar to non-royal votive stelae and statues found in main temple precincts (2014:

137-154).

5.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Elkab

The examination of royal and non-royal activity via the archaeological and inscriptional

record at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty demonstrates a number of points: a) there was

active royal engagement in the local cult institution, which was physically manifested through

royal building programs and the refurbishment of temples (main temple complex and two

peripteral temples); b) there was a social hierarchy of officials; c) high officials had ties to

Thebes but were autonomous governors of Elkab; and d) royal and non-royal activity was centered on the cult of Nekhbet and her festival procession. Within the Great Walls, there is evidence that non-royal elite statues were placed in the main temple complex during the New

258

Kingdom, but due to their displaced and fragmentary condition, the extent of this activity

remains unknown (Clarke 1922: 26; Helck 1961a: 938 no. 24; Porter and Moss 1937: 173-174;

De Meulenaere 1988; see above).224 During the Eighteenth Dynasty, the bulk of activity within the Great Walls appears to have been conducted by Pharaohs, who constructed and expanded the main cult temples dedicated to Nekhbet (see Figure 5.12). Other types of material culture that may represent non-royal votive activity at the main temple complex have not yet been recovered

or published. Royal investment in the local cult at Elkab also occurred in the surrounding desert

landscape (peripteral temples of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III) in association with the

festival procession of Nekhbet’s sacred barque and mythology connected to the goddess (Myth of the Wandering Goddess). Non-royal objects dating to the Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Dynasties, including statue and stelae fragments, were found near the peripteral temple of

Amenhotep III and may indicate that this area of the site was more accessible to the public,

especially during festival processions and ritual enactments (Lacau 1909: 79-80, pl. XXVII;

Borchardt 1930: 137; Porter and Moss 1937: 174, 189-191). However, like the non-royal

material recovered from the main temple complex, these artifacts represent votive activity

conducted by elite officials.

Middle and lower class individuals are not well represented in the published

archaeological record of Elkab. Even though officials of Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty

held high-status autonomous positions for several generations, as attested by rock-cut tomb

inscriptions, their physical mark on the landscape of Elkab seems to have been more restricted to

periphery areas of the site, such as the rock-cut tomb necropolis and the Wadi Hilal. Titles

224 See detailed discussion of the statues in §8.2.3.3.2.

259

indicate that elites at Elkab worked in the local temples and had close ties to the central

administration. The archaeological data suggests that some officials placed statues within the

main temple complex, a common practice of elites during the New Kingdom to display authority

and to partake in the offering cult of local deities (Russmann 2001: 138; Kjølby 2007; Kjølby

2009; Kjølby 2012; Mougenot 2012; Simmance 2016). Elite votive statues and stelae associated

with royal temples in the Wadi Hilal may have been strategically placed to partake in the festival

procession of Nekhbet and to portray social status and identity in a more public forum. It is likely

that non-elite individuals participated in the festival celebrations at Elkab, but they are thus far

underrepresented in the archaeological and inscriptional evidence recovered from the site. Two

anonymous New Kingdom stelae found near the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi

Hilal, for example, may belong to individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, but

this cannot be proven.225 However, evidence of festival processions from other contexts

indicates that non-elite individuals were a major component (El-Rabi’l 1977: 13-21; Leprohon

1978; Ward 1982; Fischer 1997; Meyer 1998: 135-136; Eaton-Krauss 2006; Waitkus 2008: 224-

235; Darnell 2010: 2, 8-9).

225 The stelae are unnamed but depict images of Nekhbet attesting to their votive function (Porter and Moss 1937: 189).

260

Chapter 6 Elephantine

6.1 Historical Context and Site History

Located downstream of the First Cataract at the southern border between Upper Egypt

and Lower Nubia, the island of Elephantine was a site of strategic importance since the Early

Dynastic Period (Kaiser 1999a: 335-340). Systematic excavations begun in 1969 by members of

the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) and the Swiss Institute for Architectural and

Archaeological Research of Ancient Egypt have provided crucial information on the historical

development of the site from the Predynastic Period through Late Antiquity.226 Unlike many

archaeological sites in Egypt, rising groundwater has not affected the earliest layers of

occupation, there is an absence of modern buildings constructed over many important parts of

the ancient urban area, and the island is located at a high elevation.227 These characteristics

provide ideal conditions for extensive excavation. The antiquity of Elephantine is attested by its

complex historical record. The earliest remains consist of a small mound located on the eastern

side of the island dated to the Fourth Millennium BC (Kaiser 1999a: 335; Ziermann 2003: 12-15,

fig. 1; Raue 2008a: 2; see Figure 6.1).228 The mound represents the earliest town settlement with occupation layers from at least as far back as the Middle Naqada Period (Von Pilgrim 1997: 16;

226 The preliminary results of each season of excavation appear regularly in the journal Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo (MDAIK) beginning with volume 26 published in 1970. For a comprehensive review of early explorations at the site, see Bommas 2000a: 26-40.

227 The Aswan Museum at the southern end of the island prevents investigations in that area, but other parts of the site have remained relatively untouched by modern constructions.

228 For an early map of the area of Elephantine and Aswan, see Porter and Moss 1937: 222. For a general site plan of the main features from the First to Sixth Dynasties, see Ziermann 2004: 40, fig. 6.

261

Kaiser 2000: 164). Recent excavations have revealed an extensive necropolis of the Late Naqada

Period to the Early Dynastic Period associated with the early settlement (Raue and Jeuthe 2005:

19).

Scholars have debated the identity of the early inhabitants on the island, but there is

evidence for both Egyptian and Nubian cultural elements at the site (El-Dissouky 1969: 60; Raue

1999: 173-89; Raue 2002: 20-24; Raue 2008a: 2-5; Raue 2013: 149; Naser 2013: 137).229 From an early period, Elephantine acted as a trade center between northern and southern Egypt and between Egypt and Nubia (Gundlach 1961: 32-38; Kadish 1966: 33; Fischer 1968: 69; El-

Dissouky 1969: 64-65; Kaiser 2000: 165). Granite was especially highly valued and was shipped from Elephantine to other parts of Egypt (Seidlmayer 1996a: 111). The pharaonic name of the town, Abu (Abw), which translates to “ivory” or “elephant,” may hint at the function of

Elephantine in the trade relations between Egypt and Nubia (El-Dissouky 1969: 1-22; Kaiser

2000: 164-165).230 As the southern border of Egypt, Elephantine’s geographical situation shaped

its political setting and economic importance; it was an early location for trade in luxury items

between Egypt and Nubia and for overall access to areas south of Egypt. The strategic

significance of the site evoked state interest in the town from an early date. The construction of a

fortress on the highest point of the eastern island’s shore may provide evidence for non-local

229 Raue notes that ceramic assemblages from a range of contexts at Elephantine (temple of Satet, surrounding settlement, early necropolis) frequently consist of both Egyptian and Nubian vessel types (2008a: 3).

230 There are many theories about the origins of the meaning of the Egyptian name Abw as Elephantine. Scholars have argued that the name derives from the elephant shape of the island (Wiedemann 1890: 118), from granite rocks in the shape of an elephant on the island (Platt 1908: 206-207), from the sites function as a trade center for ivory since the early periods (Save-Söderbergh 1941: 5; Kaiser 1999a: 335), and from the possibility that elephants once existed on the island (Gardiner 1947: 4). The name of Elephantine could thus indicate that ivory was an abundant commodity on the island used as a trade item.

262

military involvement at Elephantine already in the First Dynasty.231 The fortress was roughly

square in plan and consisted of double walls with rounded and polygonal towers located at the

corners and in the middle of the fortification wall (Ziermann 1993b: fig. 2; Seidlmayer 1996a:

112; Ziermann 1998: 347-350; Ziermann 2003: 46-67, 70, 76-79). The walls and towers were reinforced twice in separate building phases and a gateway was later built in its southern wall

(Ziermann 1998: 347-350).232 Shortly after the initial construction of the fortress, a mudbrick

wall was constructed around the entire settlement area creating a fortified city in the First

Dynasty (Ziermann 1993b: 141; Seidlmayer 1996a: 113; Kaiser 1999a: 335). With continued expansion of the settlement in the Second Dynasty, the town grew to include administrative buildings, residences, and industrial areas, and the fortification walls were extended to encompass the entire east island (Ziermann 1993a: 100-127; Kaiser 1999a: 336; Kaiser 2000:

165).

Elephantine was served by several temples dating from the Early Dynastic Period through to the Ptolemaic Period. The earliest religious structure excavated at the site was a small mudbrick structure associated with the town of the Early Dynastic Period around 3200 BC (see

Dreyer 1975; Dreyer 1976; Dreyer 1977; Kaiser 1977; Wells 1985: 255; Dreyer 1986; Kaiser

1999a: 335). The temple began as a small shrine set up in a natural niche among three large granite boulders (Wells 1985: 255; Dreyer 1986: 18, fig. 1; Dreyer 1988: 140; Kaiser 1999a:

231 Kaiser argues that the garrison which manned the fortress had its origins from outside Elephantine (1988: 156; 2000: 165). However, there is no explicit evidence to prove the validity of Kaiser’s argument. Only a small part of the interior of the fortress was uncovered in the north-west corner of the structure (Ziermann 1993b: fig. 1; Ziermann 1995: 105ff).

232 For further in-depth details about the various phases of the fortress and the early historical development of the town of Elephantine see publications by Ziermann (1993a; 1998; 2003). Ziermann argues that the architectural remains at Elephantine and Ayn Asil show that these fortifications should be considered the forerunners of the fortresses of the Middle Kingdom (1998: 355-359).

263

335; Kaiser 2000: 164).233 In later structures the goddess Satet, who took the form of an

antelope, was worshipped here, but it remains to be determined if this was the case in earlier periods due to the lack of preserved remains with the name of Satet associated with the early temple (Wells 1985: 258; Dreyer 1986: 11-22).234 Although the name of the goddess does not

frequently occur in association with the structure until the Middle Kingdom (see n. 234), for ease

of reference, it will be referred to as the temple of Satet throughout this dissertation.

Excavations have revealed several stratigraphic layers associated with the early temple.

The earliest temple phases, VIII and VII, are oriented towards the north, while succeeding layer

VI is oriented towards the west (Dreyer 1986: 11-19, fig. 7). Layers V to I, dated to the period

between kings Pepy I and Intef II, followed the western orientation of layer VI and had a

rectangular shaped sanctuary (Dreyer 1986: 18-22; Bussmann 2007: 18). The early shrine

appears to have functioned independent of the state and was largely ignored by kings of the early

periods (Seidlmayer 1996a: 115). Few royal objects dating prior to the Sixth Dynasty were found

in the temple. Except for a faience figurine tentatively interpreted as a representation of King

Djer (Dreyer 1986: 101-102, no. 28) and a votive-plaque of King Niuserre of the Fifth Dynasty

233 The development of the temple of Satet has been extensively examined by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) and the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research of Ancient Egypt (see Kaiser 1971; Kaiser 1973; Kaiser 1975; Dreyer 1975; Kaiser 1976; Dreyer 1976; Kaiser 1977; Dreyer 1977; Kaiser 1980a; Kaiser 1980b; Dreyer 1982; Dreyer 1984b; Kaiser 1986; Dreyer 1986; Kaiser 1988; Dreyer 1988; Kaiser 1993a; Kaiser 1999b; Kaiser 1999c).

234 In the Middle and New Kingdoms, the figure and name of Satet frequently occurs on architectural elements associated with the temple providing explicit evidence for the worship of Satet from at least the Middle Kingdom onwards (Kaiser 1980b: 256-261; Wells 1985: 257-258; Kaiser 1988: 155; Kaiser 1993a: 146; Kaiser 1999b: 91). One piece of inscriptional evidence from the granite naos dedicated to the temple by Pepy I suggests that the goddess Satet was known to be associated with the shrine during the Sixth Dynasty (Ziegler 1990: 50-53; Seidlmayer 1996a: 115; see below).

264

(Dreyer 1986: 148, no. 426), royal objects uncovered within the temple mainly date from the

Sixth Dynasty onwards (Dreyer 1986: 148-152; discussed below).

A large deposit of votive offerings associated with the Early Dynastic phase of the temple

found in and under walls and scattered on the floors attests instead to significant non-royal

activity (Dreyer 1986: 18, 99-117, 122-138, pls. 24-38; Bussmann 2010: 218-237; Bussmann

2011: 750-753, 758). The votive objects consist of animal and human figurines that were made

from a variety of materials, such as ivory, travertine, limestone, other hard stones, semi-precious

stones, and clay, with the largest quantity being made of faience (Dreyer 1986: pls. 11-39;

Bussmann 2010: 218-237). Approximately 115 anthropomorphic faience figurines were

recovered from the early shrine, with two specific types of baboons having no other parallels

(Bussmann 2011: 752-753). The human and animal shapes of many votive objects have been

iconographically connected with the contents of Old and Middle Kingdom tombs of lower class

citizens in Qua el-Kebir and in the island cemetery of Elephantine (Seidlmayer 2001b: 240-252;

Dubiel 2004: 174; Dubiel 2008: 29-50, 118-120, 128-134, 206, pls. XVII-XVIII; Bussmann

2013: 22-23). According to Bussmann, the early temple of Satet appears to have been deeply

embedded in a locally entrenched social and administrative network, based on the high volume

of low cost faience votive figurines and natural stone pebbles and the lack of royal objects in the

stratigraphic record, a situation that changed in later periods (2013: 21-22). Compared to other

early provincial cult temples, such as Hierakonpolis and Abydos, the architecture and votive

material of the temple of Satet may represent a more local non-elite endeavor (Bussmann 2013:

23, 33).235 In addition, Early Dynastic seals and seal impressions found near the temple of Satet

235 The architecture of the temple has been compared to early houses on Elephantine and the temple was not surrounded by a large enclosure wall like the temple precincts at Abydos and Hierakonpolis (Bussmann 2013: 33).

265

seem to confirm the local administrative setting of the temple (see Pätznick 2005: 203-207;

Bussmann 2013: 33-34). Bussmann notes that most of the inscriptions include titles related to local administration rather than the royal residence (2013: 33).

During the Third Dynasty, the island of Elephantine witnessed new developments, especially on the west island. A large complex with a small step pyramid was established here, which acted as a symbol of state governance and the presence of the king (Dreyer 1980: 276-

280, pls. 86-70; Seidlmayer 1982a: 299-306; Seidlmayer 1996a: 119-124; Seidlmayer 1996b:

195-214; Kaiser 1999a: 336; Kaiser 2000: 166). The pyramid was constructed out of unworked blocks into three steps situated on top of a square granite platform. Most of the architecture remains in good condition, expect for the north face, which is completely ruined. Less is known of the building complex located north of the pyramid, although Seidlmayer has interpreted one long rectangular room associated with the complex as having an economic function (1982a: 300-

306, fig. 12-3, pl. 65a; 1996a: 120). Even though the exact function of the small step pyramid at

Elephantine is uncertain, according to Seidlmayer it was likely connected to an official cult centered on kingship (1996a: 122-124). This interpretation is based on the presence of similar pyramids located at other provincial sites during the same time period, including one at Seila where royal objects were found associated with the monument (see Leclant and Clerc 1988: 336, pl. 32).236 The step pyramid at Elephantine appears to represent the first architectural monument

of the royal cult at the site. Sealing material (seal impressions for sealing bullae or jar stoppers)

of the Third to Fourth Dynasties found in secure, stratified archaeological contexts in the town

presents a clear indication of the extent of central administration on the island during this time.

236 For further information about small step pyramids, see Dreyer 1980; Dreyer and Kaiser 1980; Dreyer and Swelim 1982; Ćwiek 1998.

266

There is a higher number of official seals compared to seals of the local administration in this corpus (Pätznick 2001: 137-151; Pätznick 2005: 199-203; Bussmann 2013: 33). Several fragments of seal impressions, for example, are from an administrative seal of King Sneferu of the Fourth Dynasty (Engel 2006: 216-217). The entire complex on the west island was later replaced by industrial workshops. The town cemetery in this area grew significantly in scale during the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties (Kaiser 1999a: 336-337; Raue 2008a: 5). By the end of the

Old Kingdom, the town site had expanded beyond the confines of the earliest fortifications and the low-lying area between the northern and southern parts of the island was prepared for habitation (Von Pilgrim 1996: 28-40; Von Pilgrim 1997: 16-17).

The early cult structure of Satet, which had already been altered and enlarged in the Third

Dynasty, was repeatedly rebuilt throughout the Old Kingdom (Wells 1985: 255; Dreyer 1986:

18-22; Dreyer 1988: 139-141; see Figure 6.2).237 During the Sixth Dynasty, it essentially remained a modest mudbrick building, but the sanctuary became square in shape and was demarcated by an enclosed forecourt with an altar (Wells 1985: 255; Dreyer 1986: fig. 4;

Bussmann 2006: 27-29; Bussmann 2007: 17-19). Although the chronological relationship of the stratigraphic layers makes dating the various phases of Old Kingdom construction difficult, there was clearly a reorganization of the temple during this period (Bussmann 2007: 18-19). As mentioned previously, layers VIII to I represent different phases of reconstruction of the wall of the Third Millennium sanctuary, the top layers of which served as the foundation of a stone temple built during the reign of Intef II in the Eleventh Dynasty (Dreyer 1986: 18-22, fig. 7;

Kaiser 1993a; see Figure 6.3). VIII and VII are the oldest layers, followed by VI, which

237 By the Third Dynasty, alterations to the temple of Satet included the construction of an enclosed forecourt and enlargement of the shrine (Dreyer 1977: 68-83; Wells 1985: 255).

267

coincides with a new orientation of the temple (Bussmann 2007: 17). The subsequent layer V is

poorly preserved, but a faience plaque inscribed with the name of Pepy I found beneath the wall

of the sanctuary of layer V assigns this level of temple construction to the Sixth Dynasty (Dreyer

1986: 150, no. 435; Bussmann 2007: 18). Several other votive plaques of Pepy I and Pepy II

were recovered from between different wall levels and within the layers of the court of the

sanctuary, some of which mention sed-festivals (Dreyer 1986: 148-152, nos. 428-447), as well as a stone vessel in the shape of an ape inscribed with the name of Pepy I (Dreyer 1986: 152, no.

455), which was likely a gift given by the residence to an important provincial official.238

The temple of Satet served as the main cult temple of Elephantine throughout the Old

Kingdom. The most important royal object discovered in the Old Kingdom temple of Satet was a granite naos donated by Pepy I and reinscribed by Merenre (Louvre E 12660), which was found in debris near the Late Period temple (Ziegler 1990: 50-53; Bussmann 2006: 29; Bussmann

2007: 19; Bussmann 2013: 21). The inscriptions on both sides of the naos name Pepy I followed by the epithet “Beloved of Satet” (Bussmann 2006: 29; Bussmann 2007: 17). A reconstruction of the Satet temple by the German Archaeological Institute places the naos within the rear sanctuary where a statue of Satet probably resided in the niche of the naos (Ziegler 1990: 52). An alternate theory proposes that the naos belonged to the cult of the royal ka of Pepy I and contained a statue of the king rather than the goddess (Franke 1994: 121). Bussmann supports the latter theory based on the lack of an excavated ka chapel of Pepy I at Elephantine (2006: 30;

2007: 19). Since ka chapels were a regular feature of Pepy I’s building program at many

238 For more information on this idea, see discussion and references in Seidlmayer 1996a: 115 and Bussmann 2007: 17.

268

provincial sites, it seems likely that the naos held the same function as a ka house for the cult of

the royal ka within the temple proper, as Bussmann suggests (2007: 19).239

In his reconstruction of the Old Kingdom temple of Satet, Bussmann interprets the deposits in the area labeled “bank” by the original excavators in the early layers of the temple as a mudbrick foundation and the likely original location of Pepy I’s naos (2007: 17-19, fig. 2;

2013: 22, fig. 1). The later temple of Intef III had a royal cult chapel constructed in the same location (see Kaiser 1993a: 148-151, fig. 7; Bussmann 2007: 19). These remains provide tangible evidence for the explicit connection between architectural traditions of different time periods.

The function of the naos of Pepy I as an installation of the royal cult correlates with the inscriptional data from the faience tablets of Pepy I and Pepy II, which document sed-festivals

rather than referencing the goddess Satet. Two rock inscriptions carved on the southernmost

granite rock of the sanctuary record royal visits to the temple made by Merenre and Pepy II en

route to a military expedition and do not contain the epithet “Beloved of Satet” (Dreyer 1976:

78-80). Taken together, the combined royal objects of the Sixth Dynasty attest to royal

investment in the local cult structure of Satet; that interest, however, appears to have focused on

the establishment of the cult of the king rather than worship of Satet herself, since the royal

objects emphasize royal affairs, such as the sed-festivals and a military expedition.240

Evidence for royal engagement with the site of Elephantine in the Old Kingdom was not

restricted to the sanctuary area itself. In the southeastern portion of the island, the remains of a

239 See Habachi 1957a: 11-36; O’Connor 1992; Hellum 2011: 4-5.

240 For further discussion on the relationship between the royal residence and the provinces in the Old Kingdom, see Bussmann 2007: 18-20; Bussmann 2010: 7-9; Bussmann 2011: 747-750; Bussmann 2013: 21, 33-34; Bussmann 2016: 42-47.

269

large building labeled House 2 contained a wooden door jamb inscribed with the cartouche of the

royal name Pepy (Junge 1976: 98-107). The structure appears to have been built at the beginning

of the Sixth Dynasty and was state-owned (Franke 1994: 118; Raue 2014: 1; Dorn 2015: 33-37).

It contained wood relief panels, wood chests, wood shrines, wood statuettes, and alabaster

objects in the northwest corner that derived from non-royal shrines or ka chapels and were used

in festival processions honoring deceased local officials (Dorn 2005: 134; Raue 2014: 1-3; Dorn

2015: 42-54, 125-258). This area of the site thus appears to have served a cultic function during

the Old Kingdom. Several kings’ names have been found carved on rocks in various locations

around the island, although these were likely inscribed by high officials. For instance, the names

of Unas, Pepy I, and Pepy II are inscribed on boulders along traffic routes (El-Dissouky 1969:

100; Seidlmayer 1999: 43; Kaiser 2000: 166). During the Sixth Dynasty, the significance of

Elephantine as a base for expeditions and trade grew (El-Dissouky 1969: 102). Rock inscriptions of officials have been found located at the northern tip of the Old Kingdom town and at the base of the town wall, where they were carved in close proximity to important roads with busy traffic

(Seidlmayer 2003: 444). Both the royal and elite rock inscriptions were placed in locations where passersby could view them as they travelled to and from the Old Kingdom settlement

(Seidlmayer 2003: 444).

The rock-cut tombs at Qubbet el-Hawa on the west bank of the Nile opposite the northern end of the island, which date from the Sixth Dynasty onwards, provide papyri and inscriptions on the walls of tombs that indicate the various names, titles, and roles of the Elephantine administrators in the Old Kingdom, many of which were connected to work in the quarries or military campaigns (El-Dissouky 1969: 102-166). The importance of Elephantine in the later Old

Kingdom attracted both royal and official investment primarily due to its geographically strategic position, which increased the site’s political prominence and economic affluence. As stated

270

above, royal interest in the cult of the provincial goddess Satet at this time appears to have been connected to the political and economic importance of the site, rather than to pious worship on behalf of the goddess herself.

In the First Intermediate Period, Theban rulers exhibited a renewed interest in the temple of Satet, which is attested by the building activity from this period (Eder 2000: 5-7; see Figure

6.4). According to Kaiser’s reconstruction of the Eleventh Dynasty temple, Intef II and Intef III followed the original plan of the early sanctuary, but added stone lintels, architraves, columns, and door jambs (Kaiser 1975: 46; Kaiser 1993a: 145-151, fig. 7; Kaiser 1999b: 90-94). However, the material evidence is very fragmentary, consisting of approximately 250 large blocks and several smaller fragments found in the foundations of the Twelfth Dynasty, Eighteenth Dynasty, and Ptolemaic Period temples (Kaiser 1993a: 145). Less than half of the recovered fragments bear inscriptions or figurative decoration, and approximately 40 block fragments contain the names of Intef II, Intef III, Mentuhotep II, and Mentuhotep III (Kaiser 1993a: 145).

Based on approximately 20 inscribed block fragments of Intef II and Intef III, as well as inferences made about the dimensions and attributes of uninscribed blocks, Kaiser has identified six different phases of building in the structure located within the precinct of the Eleventh

Dynasty (1975: 46-47; 1993a: 145-148). According to Kaiser, under Intef II the sanctuary underwent two phases of construction activity: a) the first phase consisted of two small cult buildings (A and B) located against the three rock boulders with the larger of the two being dedicated to the goddess Satet, and the second for Khnum (1993a: 146, fig. 5); b) the second phase saw a much larger cult chapel (C) for Satet in the alcove (niche) of the three boulders, while the smaller Khnum chapel (D) was now moved to the southeast corner of the courtyard

(1993a: 147-150, fig. 6). Under the reign of Intef III, the entire precinct included three cult

271

buildings, E (Satet), F (Khnum), and G (unknown). Buildings E and F remained in the same

location as their preceding counter structures, while a new cult building G was added adjacent

building F (Kaiser 1993a: fig. 7; Ziermann 2004: 43, fig. 9). Kaiser interpreted building G as a

potential ka house for the royal cult of Intef III based on the fact that cult buildings for Satet and

Khnum already existed for the same time period, the fact that G has a more elaborate

construction with an attached columned porch, and the fact that the inscription of the preserved

column was inscribed with the name of the king (1993a: 146). As stated above, Kaiser’s reconstruction of the Eleventh Dynasty temple is based on fragmentary stone elements, such as lintels, door jambs, architraves, and columns inscribed with the name of Intef II and Intef III. A stone architrave of Intef II mentions Khnum but does not explicitly connect a cult building to the god (Morenz 2004: 108-109; see below). However, an inscription on a right door jamb of Intef II found at Elephantine contains the king’s name followed by the epithet mry Xnmw “Beloved of

Khnum” and claims that the king made it as a monument to his father Khnum (ir.n.f m mnw.f n it.f Xnmw) (Morenz 2004: 114-116). Morenz suggests that a statue of Khnum or Khnum and the king could have stood in the shrine at this time (2004: 113-114). There is little textual data that connects Kaiser’s Eleventh Dynasty temple phases to the deities Satet and Khnum, but the evidence likely indicates that the god Khnum began to be worshipped in the temple of Satet during the reign of Intef II (Kaiser and Raue 2009: 9).241

The new Eleventh Dynasty constructions coincided with a change in access to the cult

structures by means of direct access via the courtyard rather than one room leading to the next

(Kaiser 1993a: 151). The series of early Eleventh Dynasty structures as Kaiser has reconstructed

241 Kaiser suggests that the worship of Khnum in the temple of Satet may extend as far back as the Sixth Dynasty (1993a: 150, n. 48).

272

them would provide evidence for the worship of Khnum as a minor cult alongside the cult of

Satet in the courtyard area, which already seems to have had special significance by the late

Sixth Dynasty based on the finding of a pedestal in situ in this area of the chapel (Kaiser 1993a:

150; Kaiser 1997a: 159-161).242 A recent analysis of stone monuments belonging to Intef II

discovered in the area of the temple of Satet presents an interpretation of the ideological

foundation behind the construction of the temple of Satet in the Eleventh Dynasty (Morenz

2004). As Morenz points out, inscriptions found on a stone architrave fragment and fragments of

door jambs at Elephantine proclaim the legitimacy and divine sanction of Intef II’s rule (2004:

107-118). In the inscription on the stone architrave, Khnum upholds the kingship of Intef II,

thereby affirming the religious and political viability of Theban kingship as part of the Theban

revival following the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the events of the First Intermediate

Period (Morenz 2004: 111-112). The geographical location of Elephantine, approximately 220

km south of Thebes, makes the significance of Theban royal investment at the site more marked

and indicates the strategic importance of Elephantine. Rulers of the Eleventh Dynasty chose to

build monuments that focused on the divine legitimacy of the king by means of hieroglyphic text

and monumental representation associated with the sacred region of Satet and Khnum.243

The following king, Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, fundamentally transformed the early

Satet temples by constructing an entirely new monument at a higher elevation (Kaiser 1988: 152,

242 Kaiser suggests that the worship of Khnum in the Satet temple during the Eleventh Dynasty was likely the continuation of a tradition begun in the Old Kingdom where there may be evidence for a naos dedicated to Khnum during a redesign of the temple at the beginning of the Sixth Dynasty by Pepy I (1993b: 150).

243 Rulers of the Eleventh Dynasty arose out of a small local beginning at Thebes and thus may have striven to flaunt the newly installed Theban kingship before the populace at provincial sites throughout Egypt and perhaps even before local gods as a form of both self-indoctrination and propaganda, as Morenz suggests (2004: 107-108).

273

fig. 6; Kaiser 1993a: 151-152, fig. 8; Kaiser 1999b: 91-93, figs. 8-9; Kaiser 2000: 166). The only in situ components of this stage of construction include a series of pillar bases, parts of the northwest perimeter wall, and the staircase connecting to the Khnum temple area (Kaiser 1993a:

151-152). At this stage, the temple exceeded the boundary of the three original granite boulders, so that the earlier structures were filled in and a new columned court that included a basin of water was constructed as an extension (Kaiser 1993a: 151-152, fig. 8; Ziermann 2004: 45, fig.

11). Kaiser suggests that the water basin is the predecessor of the Nile flood facility found in the temple of Senwosret I (1993a: 152; see below). A supplementary temple district may have surrounded the temple at this time, as indicated by the remains of brick walls on the north and west sides of the sanctuary (Ziermann 2004: 45). Under Sankhkare Mentuhotep III, the temple was furnished with finely carved reliefs (Mond and Myers 1940: pl. 88 top left). The god Khnum appears at least once in these reliefs suggesting that Khnum and Satet continued to be worshipped in the same structure (Kaiser and Raue 2009: 9). The limestone blocks are smaller than those of Mentuhotep II, which may point to a cult space of smaller dimensions (Kaiser

1993b: 152). It remains uncertain if the building of Mentuhotep III replaced the core temple of

Mentuhotep II or was an additional building.

These royal endeavors were later eclipsed by the unprecedented scale of the stone monument dedicated to Satet under Senwosret I, which has been primarily studied by Kaiser

(Habachi 1975: 27ff; Kaiser 1988: 152-157, fig. 7). Evidence deriving from the New Kingdom enclosure wall and parts of the foundation of the Ptolemaic temple of Satet includes approximately 150 limestone blocks and fragments, encompassing 25% of the original building materials from this structure (Kaiser 1988: 153-154). Kaiser’s reconstruction of the Twelfth

Dynasty temple, however, is based on limited archaeological data, including preserved remains of column bases on the north side of the sanctuary and reused architectural elements found in the

274

foundation of the Ptolemaic temple (1988: 153-154). The walls were built in double-wall

construction and the relief decoration points in the direction of which types of blocks should be

placed directly against each other and the sequence of scenes in the reconstruction of the temple

(Kaiser 1988: 154-155). These scenes depict the king in the presence of deities, such as offering

before Satet, as well as participating in the sed-festival, pointing to a more personal connection

with the local divinities, in addition to promoting the legitimization of kingship (Kaiser 1988:

155). Senwosret I thus combined elements from earlier royal activity, which focused on the cult

of the king, with elements of the local cult. By continuing this feature of royal involvement at the

site, Senwosret I cemented the tie between kingship and the local cult at Elephantine. As Wegner

has noted, state “regeneration” during the Middle Kingdom involved a process of “look[ing]

conspicuously backwards to the Old Kingdom and Early Dynastic Periods as providing a

civilizational template to be emulated (2010c: 20).” During the Middle Kingdom, traditional

models of kingship and political power were upheld and redefined to form a connection between

central government and local communities (Wegner 2010c: 132-135).

The overall floor plan of the temple of Senwosret I follows the arrangement of the interior sanctuary of the earlier buildings with the addition of an elongated vestibule (Kaiser

1988: 155). The column bases provide evidence for a courtyard connected to the northwest side of the temenos of the temple of Satet, which functioned as a place for public rituals associated with a festival of the Nile flood in a manner similar to the temple of Mentuhotep II (Kaiser 1988:

154-155; Von Pilgrim 1997: 17). Von Pilgrim describes the use of water in the temple as follows: “the waters were directed into a basin inside the temple area and entered the courtyard through a stone channel. They were then collected in a large pit or sunken basin, which was probably destroyed during later alterations. Serving as a kind of overflow, a smaller channel led off to the west and ran out into the street beside the courtyard entrance” (1997: 17). Relief

275

fragments recovered from the building reveal scenes associated with liquid offerings, such as a

depiction of a priest running with libations, accompanied by an inscription translated as “coming

of the Nile” (Seidlmayer 2006a: 226, fig. 3). Stone channels for directing liquids and water tanks

also occur in other Middle Kingdom temples, including the mortuary temple of Senwosret III at

Abydos (Wegner 2007: 93-96, 108-110, 127-130, 137-141), at Lahun (Petrie 1891: 6-7, pl. XIV), at Buhen (Emery, Smith, and Millard 1979: 48, pl. 16), and the temple of Senwosret III at

Medamud (Robichon and Varille 1940: fig. 2). Investigations have revealed that some of the block fragments depicting the liquid offerings derive from a barque shrine, which must have been positioned in the temple to connect with the basin system (Kaiser 1988: 157). An important fragmentary building inscription of Senwosret I from Elephantine provides textual support for the construction of the new temple of Satet during his reign.244 The building was constructed

exclusively for the worship of Satet, Anuket, and the Nile with no direct reference to Khnum

(Kaiser 1997a: 159; Eder 2000: 7; Kaiser and Raue 2009: 9). Rulers of the Middle Kingdom took

an active role in providing for the temple of Satet. The temple was a medium for the ideological display of the king’s presence and legitimacy in the worship of the local deities of Elephantine with Satet acting as mother of the king (Seidlmayer 2006a: 226).

Kaiser suggests that Khnum’s absence from Senwosret I’s temple of Satet may indicate that a separate sanctuary for Khnum existed during his reign, potentially at the site of the later

New Kingdom temple dedicated to the god (1997a: 159). At approximately the same time that

Khnum appears to have been excluded from the new temple of Satet built under Senwosret I (see

244 The building inscription of Senwosret I has been studied in detail by Schenkel 1975: 109-125 and Helck 1978: 69-78. Additional comments on the translation of specific words and phrases in the text has been conducted by Simpson (1981).

276

above), an independent sanctuary for Khnum may have arisen south of the temple of Satet in an area previously occupied by domestic structures (Kaiser 1993b: 152, fig. 9; Kaiser 2000: 166;

Raue 2008a: 2). The new sanctuary for Khnum was most likely located beneath or in the same area as the Late Period temple of Khnum, which is still visible at the site, although no in situ architectural components dating to the Middle Kingdom have come to light in excavations of this area (Kaiser 1993b: 152; Von Pilgrim 2002: 184-192). Kaiser believes in the existence of a separate Middle Kingdom and Thirteenth Dynasty Khnum temple based on the following evidence: a) limestone fragments found in the area of the foundation pits of the New Kingdom

Temple of Khnum;245 b) a limestone fragment with the cartouche of Sobekhotep III found by

Habachi in the sanctuary of Heqaib; c) a decorated limestone block with an epithet of Khnum in sunk relief; d) a limestone fragment with a representation of a ram god embracing another figure; e-f) two limestone blocks with sunk relief that do not match any of the known limestone structures of Satet; and g) the corner of a limestone block with the cartouche of Sobekhotep III in raised relief.246

In Eder’s examination of material associated with the Middle Kingdom temple of Khnum at Elephantine, no direct evidence proves royal activity during the Twelfth Dynasty, since only names of kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty were recovered on block fragments (2000: 8).

However, statue fragments of Khnum unearthed from deposits found in the sanctuary of Heqaib, appear to have once belonged to a Middle Kingdom Khnum temple dated between Senwosret III

245 Kaiser argues that limestone is exclusively used as a building material for temples dated to the Middle Kingdom at Elephantine and that the type and content of the fragments is different from limestone blocks used in the construction of the Satet temple under Mentuhotep III and Senwosret I (1997a: 159).

246 See Kaiser 1997a: 159-160.

277

and Amenemhat III (Eder 2000: 8). Eder argues that the recovered blocks associated with a

Twelfth Dynasty temple dedicated to Khnum indicate that the initial temple was poorly or

incompletely decorated (2000: 10). More extensive decoration did not occur until the reigns of

Sobekhotep III and Sobekhotep VI (Eder 2000: 10-23). One block fragment, possibly belonging to Sobekhotep VI depicts a barque shrine with an inscription mentioning Khnum, which may point to the existence of such a structure within the Thirteenth Dynasty Khnum temple precinct

(Eder 2000: 20-24, fig. 10).

During the 38th season of excavations at Elephantine by the German Institute of

Archaeology and the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research on Ancient

Egypt in 2008 to 2009, approximately 75 block fragments from the Middle Kingdom temple of

Khnum were found in various proveniences, including houses north of the temple, the courtyard,

and areas south of the temple, which shed further light on the Middle Kingdom temple (Kaiser

and Raue 2009: 10, n. 20). Three fragments with the cartouche of Senwosret I may support the

construction of the Middle Kingdom temple of Khnum during his reign (Kaiser and Raue 2009:

10-11). Two of these fragments were found reused in a New Kingdom house and once belonged

to a sandstone gate of Senwosret I (Kaiser and Raue 2009: 11). Other blocks contained ritual scenes (Kaiser and Raue 2009: 11). The evidence for Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasty temples dedicated to Khnum is fragmentary at best, deriving from displaced contexts, so that no far-

reaching conclusions can be made about this structure. Kaiser, however, interprets the material as

proof of an unknown modest in scale limestone building that may represent a Middle Kingdom

sanctuary of Khnum built separate from the temple of Satet (1997a: 160-161); yet, the close

relationship between the two temple complexes is attested by a sandstone staircase and channel

that seems to have connected the two temple precincts (Kaiser 1993b: 152-153; Bommas 1997:

139 fig. 10, 141 fig. 11, 144-145; Eder 2000: 17; Kaiser and Raue 2009: 11).

278

Although the early history of Khnum as a local god of Elephantine is not clear, his title

on the Eleventh Dynasty right door jamb of Intef II indicates that he was xnty qbH “Foremost of

the Cataract Region” and hence a guardian of the Nile in Elephantine from this point onwards

(Morenz 2004: 113-114). Khnum’s relationship to Satet is not recorded in these inscriptions, but

during the New Kingdom, Khnum was the consort of Satet and together with their child Anuket,

these three deities became the Triad of Elephantine (Otto 1975: 950). Only partially uncovered

during excavations, the staircase is located on the western side of the temple of Khnum with a

width of 1.70 m (3.2 cubits), a measurement which correlates to Eder’s reconstruction of a

monumental doorway of Sobekhotep III belonging to the Khnum temple (2000: 12-19, figs. 8-9).

While the archaeological evidence is limited, inscriptional data, such as texts of Sarenput I and

Sarenput II, as well as titles of officials and priests of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties

found in a variety of contexts, indicates increasing devotion to the cult of Khnum at this time,

which parallels the royal construction activity focused on the veneration of Khnum (Kaiser

1997a: 161; Eder 2000: 25). The cumulative result of both royal and elite activity and political

influence associated with the cult of Khnum indicates that Khnum began to attract more attention

during the Middle Kingdom. However, his cult appears to have remained second to the cult of

Satet. Kaiser and Raue have calculated that the core building of the Middle Kingdom temple of

Khnum was 60-70 sq. m based on the dimensions of the temple of Khnum during the reign of

Hatshepsut which equate to a ratio of 2:3 in proportion to the temple of Satet (2009: n. 19).

During the Eleventh Dynasty, a third sanctuary of special type was already standing slightly northwest of the temple of Satet. Uncovered by Habachi in 1932 and again in 1946, the sanctuary of Heqaib represents a significant find attesting to non-royal elite cultic activity at

Elephantine (see Habachi 1956; Habachi 1985; Franke 1994). The structure was originally

erected as a sacred cult place for the worship of an esteemed local governor and official of

279

Elephantine, Heqaib, who probably lived during the Old Kingdom and became venerated after

his death (El-Dissouky 1969: 155-161; Habachi 1985: 21-23; Kaiser 2000: 166-167; Raue 2014:

2). Raue suggests that Heqaib was originally worshipped in an earlier cult chapel located in

House 2 of the Sixth Dynasty at Elephantine (2008c: 76; 2014: 1-2, fig. 1). Wood artifacts from

House 2 included decorated door panels, caskets, and a statuette among other objects inscribed

with the names of expedition leaders Sabni, Sobekhotep, Mekhu, and Heqaib (Raue 2014: 2-4;

Dorn 2015: 51-55). Raue believes that this evidence may point to the existence of non-royal

sanctuaries or ka chapels for Old Kingdom officials within the settlement of Elephantine where

festivals and festival processions celebrated the ka of the deceased (2014: 1-3). The later sanctuary of Heqaib located northwest of the temple of Satet began as a modest chapel that was later renovated and renewed in the Twelfth Dynasty alongside the growth in importance of the site and its local cult institutions (Habachi 1985: 61; Franke 1994: 118; Kaiser 2000: 167; Raue

2014: 1).247 During this time, Habachi believes that the sanctuary acted as a sacred place for the nomarchs or governors of the area with only a few distinguished elite individuals allowed to participate in the cult (1985: 61; also see Kaiser 1999a: 337). These nobles erected private

statues and stelae within the confines of the structure.248

247 The renewal of the sanctuary was likely conducted during the reign of Senwosret I based on an inscription in which Sarenput I (who was governor of Elephantine during the reign of Senwosret I) claims to have replaced the original layout of the early sanctuary on behalf of Senwosret I (Haeny 1985: 140, 165). However, an earlier lintel was found within the sanctuary with an inscription by Intef III, who claims to have rebuilt the monument (Leprohon 1983: 103-104; Habachi 1985: 160; Raue 2014: 5). The fact that a king of the Eleventh Dynasty extols his own participation in a non-royal cult is significant and may attest to the high-status Heqaib’s cult achieved or to Elephantine’s political and economic importance to the state, which resulted in Intef III’s desire to establish himself as a prominent figure in all aspects of the local culture.

248 The shrines and inscriptions of various officials are described and analyzed in Habachi 1985: 24-108. The content of most inscriptions, however, mainly focuses on perpetuating eternal life, rather than expressing pious feelings towards Heqaib (Franke 1994). Many of the same names and titles of officials occur in the rock-cut tombs of Qubbet el-Hawa (Porter and Moss 1937: 232-233; Kaiser 1999a: 337)

280

Over time, the sanctuary was transformed by a series of alterations shaped by the

continuous addition of individual shrines (Haeny 1985: 140-151; see Figure 6.5). In the

Thirteenth Dynasty, several individuals with no relationship to the priesthood or administration began to contribute monuments haphazardly throughout the structure, indicating that the sanctuary was now accessible to individuals from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds

(Habachi 1985: 61; Raue 2014: 12). Additionally, a Thirteenth Dynasty inscription found in the sanctuary containing the epithet “who hears prayers” added after Heqaib’s name provides an early example of the role of Heqaib as an intermediary for access to the divine (Habachi 1985:

78-79).249 This process anticipates the emphasis on personal communication with divine beings

that became more widespread in the New Kingdom (see Sadek 1987: 2; Pinch 1993: 250-253;

Baines and Frood 2011: 1-5; Weiss 2015: 1-11; Bussmann 2017: 73-77).

In the course of excavations, over 50 statues, 26 stelae, 12 shrines, and a number of

offering tables were discovered in the building (Habachi 1985: 24-108).250 This material attests

to the local prominence of this non-royal shrine during the Middle Kingdom.251 The shrine

produced mainly formal statues and reliefs of senior officials rather than items defined as

personal votives, such as figurines and vessels made for and dedicated to the worship of a deity

249 Another early example of a non-royal deceased individual being deified occurs in the Sixth Dynasty tomb of Bia at Saqqara (Fischer 1965).

250 Most of these monuments were dedicated by non-royal individuals; however, a number of royal objects, including statues of Intef II, Senwosret III, Amenemhat III, and Neferhotep I were also recovered within the sanctuary (Habachi 1985: 109-116, 165). Yet, these monuments were not discovered in secure contexts and may derive from the surrounding temples of Satet or Khnum (Habachi 1985: 109; Franke 1994: 60-61, 65; Morenz 2005: 117; Raue 2014: 12).

251 For important information regarding connections between art, religion, politics, ancestors and the living, and the king and elite extrapolated from the material remains dated to the Middle Kingdom from Heqaib’s shrine, see Franke 1994.

281

or deified individual (Pinch 1993: 339). Kemp explains that this is true for most shrines dated

between the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom (1995: 46). However, the monuments in

Heqaib’s sanctuary attest to a high degree of non-royal agency by elite members of Elephantine

in association with a non-royal structure that is unprecedented for this time period. The sanctuary

of Heqaib demonstrates significant non-royal cultic activity, including ancestor worship, and the

importance of the local administration during the Middle Kingdom.252 It appears to have grown

organically into a structure with no architectural resemblance to any known ka chapels of kings

or other individuals at that time.253 However, the function of the sanctuary seems to have been

similar to ka chapels in that the cult of deceased individuals was worshipped by means of statues

(see Franke 1994: 119-127; Arnold 1994: 82, 118; Ziermann 2001: 311). Under Sarenput I (reign

of Senwosret I), the sanctuary contained a tripartite plan with a pillared hall (Franke 1994: 10-29,

119, 210-214; Von Pilgrim 1997: 18; Von Pilgrim 2006b: 416-417; Raue 2014: 6). In addition, a

separate building (House 50) found opposite the sanctuary of Heqaib was built by a Hm-nTr n

Xnmw “Priest of Khnum” Sobekemsaf in the late Thirteenth Dynasty as his sole ka chapel, which

represents a different tradition than the shrines dedicated in the sanctuary of Heqaib (Budka

2006b; Von Pilgrim 1996: 149-158). Overall, the evidence indicates that the main cult of Heqaib

flourished during the Middle Kingdom with worship of the local governor extending from the

end of the Sixth Dynasty through to the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty (Habachi 1985: 160).

252 For further information about a festival procession involving the statue of Heqaib, feasts, and ancestor worship in the Middle Kingdom sanctuary of Heqaib, see Franke 1994: 127-131.

253 For further information about royal ka chapels, see §8.2.1.3. At North Abydos, the non-royal structures found under the “Portal” temple represent the best documented examples of non-royal votive cult chapels of the Middle Kingdom (O’Connor 1985).

282

Under Senwosret I, Elephantine was no longer the southernmost border of Egypt. Due to extensive campaigning, the political boundary of Egypt was extended to the Second Cataract with subjugation of Lower Nubia (Kemp 1983: 130-136; Kaiser 1999a: 337; Kaiser 2000: 166;

Callender 2000: 161; Bard 2008b: 192).254 Trade with the south became the main function of the town as its administration and economy grew (see Smither 1945: 4, 9). The site developed into a sacred Egyptian town with two main temples and their associated administrative institutions constituting prominent positions on the landscape. In the Middle Kingdom, Elephantine acted as a base for campaigns into Nubia and as a control point for the verification and sealing of products (El-Dissouky 1969: 89). Rock inscriptions of the Middle Kingdom and Second

Intermediate Period depict royal names, such as Intef II, Amenemhat I, and Neferhotep I, in addition to non-royal names and titles (Seidlmayer 1999: 42-43). These inscriptions were widely distributed in areas related to traffic routes (Seidlmayer 1999: 42-43; Seidlmayer 2003: 444-

445). Middle Kingdom rock inscriptions attest to both royal and non-royal activity at the site connected with trade routes and military expeditions. It was also during the Middle Kingdom that the east and west islands joined after the depression between the two locations became silted up (Von Pilgrim 2010: 257). This change in the natural landscape of Elephantine enabled an expansion of the domestic quarters situated to the north and south of the area delineated by the temple of Khnum during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (Von Pilgrim

1996: 40-62, 75-112, 115-182; Von Pilgrim 1997: 16-18; Von Pilgrim 2010: 257).255 The

254 Senwosret I is known to have sent expeditions to Nubia at least twice during his reign and he set up a victory stela and fort at Buhen in Lower Nubia, which became the new southern border of Egypt (Kemp 1983: 130-131; Callender 2000: 161).

255 Investigations of the Middle Kingdom through New Kingdom settlements began in 1986 (Von Pilgrim 1997: 16).

283

settlement consisted of several superimposed building strata with complex phases of house and

street constructions. Most houses were three-roomed structures with larger houses containing courts (Von Pilgrim 1997: 17). Some houses had remains of staircases indicating a second story

(Von Pilgrim 1997: 17). Rooms in the house appear to have been multifunctional and used for a variety of activities (Von Pilgrim 1996: 184-228).

Given that throughout most of the Middle Kingdom, Elephantine was not the southern boundary of Egypt, even the reign of Sobekhotep IV in the Thirteenth Dynasty saw a continuation of Egypt’s control over Nubia (Callender 2000: 172; Bourriau 2000: 206).

However, during the Second Intermediate Period, scholars suggest that Elephantine was the focus of occasional Nubian incursions and was ruled independently (Bourriau 2000: 206). There is evidence that the sanctuary of Heqaib was gradually abandoned during the Second

Intermediate Period (Habachi 1977: 1120-1122), and during the late Second Intermediate Period there was no royal patronage associated with the temples of Khnum and Satet (Polz 2007: 90-91;

Kaiser and Raue 2009: 12). Bourriau suggests that this event coincides with the rise in power of the King of Kush (2000: 207). Yet, there is still evidence that trade occurred between Kerma and

Thebes during the Second Intermediate Period (Kemp 1983: 167-169),256 and perhaps

Elephantine acted as a bridge between the two cultures at this time.257

256 Kerma culture burials have been found in Thebes and elsewhere in Egypt (see Kemp 1983: 168; Bourriau 2000: 209-110).

257 For more information about the relationship between Egypt and Kush during the Second Intermediate Period, see Davies 2003b: 54 and Davies 2005: 55.

284

During the Eighteenth Dynasty, commerce and trade were still important features of

Elephantine and royal investment in the town cult flourished (see Figure 6.6).258 Hatshepsut and

Thutmosis III constructed new temples to Satet and Khnum, superimposed over the foundations

of those predecessors. In the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties, the temple of

Khnum was extensively enlarged, eclipsing the temple of Satet on the landscape. Originally, a peripteral temple of Amenhotep III was situated along the processional route to the harbor but

was destroyed by the Ottoman government in 1822 (Kaiser 1999a: 337). Throughout the New

Kingdom, temples and their associated institutions occupied almost one-third of the town area at

Elephantine. Today, the southern portion of the island is dominated by the ruins of the Late

Period temple of Khnum. Continuous royal development at the site during the New Kingdom is

apparent from the construction of a way station built by Ramesses II northwest of the main town,

and by inscriptional material of Ramesside kings found during excavations of the Satet and

Khnum temples (Kaiser 1997: 179; Kaiser 2000: 167; Arnold 2014a: 9). Since the early periods,

the sacred buildings were surrounded by an organically evolving settlement. New Kingdom

remains are scarce and often fragmentary, but they point to spacious habitations south and

northwest of the temple of Khnum (Von Pilgrim 1990: 198, 203; Krekeler 1993: 170-181;

Krekeler 1996: 109; Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim 2007: 365). For example, House 61 dated to

the Ramesside Period was a large mansion with paved and painted rooms, a staircase to an upper

story, and a courtyard with two granaries (Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim 2007: 365). Area II,

southwest of the Middle Kingdom sanctuary of Heqaib, is the only continuous stratigraphic

sequence that preserves New Kingdom levels of the settlement (Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim

258 The evidence for royal and non-royal activity at the site during the Eighteenth Dynasty is analyzed in the following sections of this chapter, so less detail is provided here.

285

2007: 365). Private rock inscriptions of the New Kingdom attest to the types of individuals and

dignitaries who travelled to Elephantine at this time and may have resided in the settlement, most

of whom came from Thebes (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-445). This inscriptional data will be further

discussed below.

In the town northwest of the temple of Khnum, a non-royal sanctuary (“Y”) dated to the

Twenty-First Dynasty contained an entrance pylon and forecourt, a pronaos, magazine rooms,

and a naos with an altar made of four reused Ramesside stelae (Nebe 1990: 224-231; Krekeler

1990a: 210-211; Krekeler 1993: 170-172, fig. 14; Aston 1999: 24, 46-67; see Figure 6.7). Most

of the stelae were dedicated to the Triad of Elephantine, but one stela of Qenen and Nebnakht

mentions two groups of gods: a) Khnum, Anuket, and Werethekau; and b) Amun, Satet, and

Meretseger, showing that a multiplicity of gods was worshipped at Elephantine during the New

Kingdom and that Amun (perhaps a Theban influence) was worshipped in both non-royal and

royal constructions (Nebe 1990: 227-231).259 A series of connected buildings (X, BA, BC, and

BD) surrounded sanctuary “Y” and contained Ramesside pottery (Aston 1999: 24), as well as a number of other finds, including jewelry, clay objects, and tools (Krekeler 1993: 170-174, tab.

1). House X, which borders the outer wall of sanctuary “Y” even contained a reused lintel with the cartouche of Ramesses III installed as a pedestal (Krekeler 1990a: 211-212, n. 78).

According to the excavator, House X developed in two stages from a large-scale building with

halls and a decorated interior to a renovated small-scale building with domestic and ritual uses

(Krekeler 1990a: 211-212; Krekeler 1993: 172). Based on architectural features and the inventory of finds, Krekeler has suggested that buildings BA, BC, and BD fulfilled economic

259 Amun was also worshipped in the temple of Satet during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Kaiser 1975: 51).

286

functions of the temple of Khnum (1993: 174). In buildings BC and BD, the greatest percentage

(35% and 38%) of finds fall under the category jewelry, while in House X, tools make up 47% of

the finds (Krekeler 1993: 174, tab. 1). In contrast, sanctuary “Y” contained the greatest number

of total finds (97), but tools made up only 4% of its assemblage (Krekeler 1993: 174, tab. 1). The

differences in quantity of specific types of objects between the archaeological assemblages of the

buildings point to different functions, at least where clear discrepancies can be observed.

The settlement northwest of the temple of Khnum lasted until the Roman Period but

witnessed a period of abandonment in the Third Intermediate Period (Krekeler 1996: 109). Stelae

provide indications of kings of the Third Intermediate Period and Twenty-Fifth Dynasty at the

site (Kaiser 1999a: 338). Recent excavations have revealed stamped bricks of king Menkheperre-

Ini of the Third Intermediate Period (Raue 2008b: 13-15). Otherwise, not much is known about

royal activity at Elephantine during that time. Temple construction, however, resumed in the

Twenty-Sixth Dynasty when the temple of Khnum acquired a Nilometer and the temple of Satet

received a colonnade under Amasis (Jaritz and Bietak 1977: 49; Jaritz 1982: 324-328; Jaritz

1984: 187-191; Jaritz 1989: 201-203). The Twenty-Fifth to Twenty-Sixth Dynasties also saw a new living quarter built on top of the earlier settlement with mainly single-story houses (Krekeler

1996: 109). The entire area west of the temples received a new enclosure wall that expanded the temple district during the reign of Psamtik II (Von Pilgrim 2005: 41; Von Pilgrim 2010: 260).

Aramean and Jewish colonies and a temple of Yahweh occupied much of the town in the Persian

Period (Bezalel 1968; Bezalel 1996; Krekeler 1996: 111; Kaiser 1999a: 339).

During the Late Period, Nectanebo I added to the New Kingdom temple of Khnum, while

Nectanebo II began to build a new monument, but only completed the sanctuary and a small

forecourt (Niederberger 1990: 190-192, fig. 1; Niederberger 1999; Von Pilgrim 2010: 260-262).

287

Economic and administrative buildings continued to occupy the northwest areas but existed for a

limited duration of time (Von Pilgrim 2010: 262). The urban structure of the site at this time

consisted of zones of activity with cult and royal centers located in the east and subordinate or

supplementary residences located in the west (Von Pilgrim 2010: 262). Ptolemy VI and VIII

added to the construction of Nectanebo II’s temple of Khnum, but it was not until the reign of the

Roman emperor Augustus that the monument was completed by the addition of a large river

terrace (Jaritz 1980: 9, 40, 62; Kaiser 1997b: 180; Von Pilgrim 2001: 36, 48-51). Ptolemy VI also began a new temple complex dedicated to Satet with a river terrace and Nilometer (Jaritz

1980: 49; Kaiser 1999a: 339-340; Von Pilgrim 2001: 52-53; Delange and Jaritz 2013: 75-77, 90-

93).

The temple district and settlement continued to expand in the Ptolemaic and Roman

periods and worship of the god Khnum continued to thrive on the island (Von Pilgrim 2014: 12).

On the north side of the temple of Khnum, a cemetery was dedicated to sacred mummified rams

(Delange and Jaritz 2013: 75-116), while on the south side, a recent discovery provides evidence

for a building used as a ram stable (Arnold 2014b: 13-14). During the Roman Period,

Elephantine flourished as a temple town. Two temples with terraces, a staircase and sanctuary at

the harbor, and two other temples covered an extensive portion of the island (Spencer 1979: 81;

Jaritz 1980: 10, fig. 1; Rodziewicz 1997: 191-192; Kaiser 1999a: 339-340). During the Fifth and

Sixth Centuries AD, the temple of Khnum began to be dismantled and the stone was used to

build houses in the area (Arnold 2008: 7-9). In the courtyard of the temple of Khnum, a small

church dated to the early Sixth Century suggests that the site continued to have religious

significance in the Early Medieval Period (Kaiser 1999a: 341).

288

6.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Following the building activity of their predecessors, kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty invested in the local cults of Elephantine primarily through the reconstruction of its temples. The

Middle Kingdom antecedents established a phase of intense royal activity that reshaped the landscape of Elephantine. This period represented a crucial point in the development of cult temples that influenced future work at the site. Royal activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty continued the building traditions of the Middle Kingdom, maintaining the basic structure of earlier temples while augmenting these with additions and extensions. Royal investment, in addition to architectural achievements, included relief decoration, statues, and inscriptions.

Unlike royal engagement in the Old Kingdom, which appears to have been concerned with establishing a royal presence at the site through a separate state complex that included a small step pyramid and accompanying administrative buildings with minimal activity associated with the local temple,260 Eighteenth Dynasty rulers engaged in developing the existing cult structures in order to reinforce their ties to the local deities, and to establish their connection with the activities of royal predecessors.

Interpreting the evidence for royal activity in the Eighteenth Dynasty is fraught with difficulties mainly due to the nature of the preserved remains. For the temple phases of the

Eighteenth Dynasty, data derives from hundreds of fragmentary decorated and undecorated blocks and architectural elements, such as column fragments, which were found in secondary contexts, reused in the Late Period temples and in the Ptolemaic-Roman foundations. Further difficulties arise in trying to determine exactly where individual items were recovered based on

260 Evidence in the temple of Satet during the Old Kingdom, as discussed above, demonstrates that royal activity was associated with the local cult only as a means of establishing the cultic presence of the king.

289

information provided in the publications. Reconstructions provided by a number of scholars, have identified at least three separate royal cult structures of the Eighteenth Dynasty: a) temple of Satet; b) temple of Khnum; and c) peripteral temple of Amenhotep III (see Kaiser 1980a;

Kaiser 1980b; Wells 1991; Kaiser 1995; Kaiser 1997b; Kaiser 1999c; Bommas 1999; Bommas

2000a; Von Pilgrim 2001; Bernhauer 2002; Bommas 2003; Bommas 2005b; Von Pilgrim 2005;

Von Pilgrim 2006a). For the first two monuments (temple of Satet and temple of Khnum), the complexity of royal activity is apparent in the single time frame of the Eighteenth Dynasty. More than one Eighteenth Dynasty king contributed to the monuments of Satet and Khnum; it is often difficult to ascribe building phases and architectural elements to specific kings and to determine the chronological sequence of building developments. The peripteral temple of Amenhotep III was destroyed in 1822 and the only surviving details are obtained from detailed plans and drawings published in Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt (Description de l’Égypte 1809: pls. 34-

38; Badawy 1986: 290-291; Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 75; Johnson 1998: 78-79). In the following section, the evidence for these three monuments is analyzed and discussed in order to understand the extent of royal patronage at the site during the Eighteenth Dynasty. This information is then compared to non-royal votive activity in an attempt to better define the nature of the interaction between royal and non-royal religious activity at Elephantine.

6.2.1 Temple of Satet

A discussion of the architectural development, archaeological stratigraphy, decorative elements, archaeological artifacts, and the significance of the temple of Satet from the Early

Dynastic Period through the Middle Kingdom has been provided in the previous section. The archaeological remains from these earlier periods demonstrate the constantly changing design of the temple of Satet and the extent of royal activity associated with the temple in the Old and

Middle Kingdoms. In the Old Kingdom, royal investment remained focused on the cult of the

290

king with little attention to the cult of the local deity, which transformed in the Eleventh Dynasty

to renewed interest in both the cult of Satet and the cult of Khnum, who each had chapels

constructed in the sacred precinct during the reigns of Intef II and Intef III (Kaiser 1993a: 145-

151, fig. 7; Kaiser 1999b: 90-94; Kaiser and Raue 2009: 9).

On the same location as the previous temples, a new building dating to the early

Eighteenth Dynasty was constructed over the earlier remains in the reign of Hatshepsut (Kaiser

1980a: 250-254; Kaiser 1980b: 254-264; Wells 1985: 286; Kaiser 1999c: 97-100; Seidlmayer

2006a: 225; Arnold 2010: 7, fig. 6). In his early work, Kaiser concluded that the core of the

Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Satet acted as a canopy temple with pillars on all four sides (1971:

195-196; 1973: 159, 162, fig. 1). His reconstruction was based on over 350 fragments of blocks

found during excavations from 1906 to 1908 (see Kaiser 1971: 195). Decoration on the block

fragments contained the names of Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, and Sety I, and depictions of

Hatshepsut, as well as representations of Satet, Anuket, Khnum, and Amun (Kaiser 1971: 196;

see Figure 6.8). One recovered block depicts a Nile procession, including images of a barque

shrine of Anuket (Kaiser 1971: 196, pl. XLVIII; Seidlmayer 2006a: 228).261 Today, more than

500 blocks have been recovered and used to reassemble the temple of Satet on the modern island

of Elephantine (Arnold 2010: 7-14; Arnold 2011: 9-11).

Scholars describe changes over time to the temple of Satet as a sequence of evolutionary

stages leading from a small informal sanctuary (First and Second Dynasties) to a large formal

stone structure (Ptolemaic and Roman Periods; see Figure 6.2).262 As Bussmann has

261 The festival of Anuket is discussed further below.

262 For the historical development of the temple of Satet, see Kaiser 1977: 65, fig. 1.

291

demonstrated, however, interpreting the stratigraphic record of the Satet temple, especially for the early periods, is difficult (2007: 19). Dating individual phases of the temple depends on correctly associating archaeological objects with their corresponding layer. For the New

Kingdom, archaeological evidence for the layout of the Satet temple derives from a stone foundation layer that included a descending shaft and sand pit (Dreyer 1986: fig. 7; see Figure

6.3), foundation pits (Dreyer 1975: 53, figs. 3-4), and fragments of reused sandstone blocks

(Kaiser 1971: 196). In the western and central parts, the foundation consisted of two to three layers of large granite blocks mixed with Nile mud and limestone fragments, while the eastern half consisted of five to six thick plates of sandstone (Dreyer 1975: 51-52). The limestone likely derives from material used in the construction of the Middle Kingdom temple, foundations of which remain under the western section of the New Kingdom layer (Dreyer 1986: fig. 7). The

New Kingdom building itself consisted of fragmentary remains from earlier structures (Kaiser

1975: 50-51; Wells 1985: 256). The stone foundation covered the earlier shrines to a level overlying the top of the three original boulders, an elevation about 2 m higher than the Middle

Kingdom temple (Kaiser 1973: 159-160; Kaiser 1975: 50; Dreyer 1986: 12, 23). From the reign of Mentuhotep II onwards, temples no longer adhered to the confines of the three boulders.

Based on Kaiser’s reconstruction, the main temple built under the reign of Hatshepsut consisted of a wide transverse entrance hall that contained two pillars with Hathor capitals (see

Kaiser 1977: 65, fig. 1; Kaiser 1980b: 263; Bernhauer 2002: fig. 5; see Figure 6.9). The location of the hall at the entrance of the New Kingdom temple follows the tradition of the early mudbrick courtyard of the Old Kingdom (Kaiser 1977: 6, fig. 1). The hall led to two long parallel chambers, both acting as chapels: the north chapel belonged to Amun, while the south belonged to Satet (Kaiser 1975: 51). From the chapel of Satet, a doorway at the far end of the north wall remained the only accessible entrance to the main central sanctuary and antechamber positioned

292

between the two chapels (Kaiser 1973: 160; Kaiser 1980b: fig. 5). The sanctuary of the

Eighteenth Dynasty temple was built above the rock niche in the same general location as the

earlier shrine, expressing continuity with preceding structures (Kaiser 1977: 66). The final

transverse room, which may have been a storage chamber, occupied the full length of the rear of

the chapel (Kaiser 1975: 51). One entrance to the main building existed on the northernmost

eastern corner of the structure, rather than being located in line with the central axis, in keeping

with the general layout of earlier buildings (Kaiser 1977: 65, fig. 1; Kaiser 1980b: 263, fig. 5).

The core building was surrounded on all four sides by an ambulatory with square pillars,

not columns, which is one of the earliest New Kingdom examples of this feature (Haeny 2001:

100). The dimensions of the individual rooms and the construction of the temple walls have been

recently reexamined and reconstructed (Arnold 2010: 7-14, fig. 6). Recent investigations have

also revealed evidence of screen walls that would have been placed between the pillars of the

ambulatory to protect the space from public view (Arnold 2010: 13). The area of the Middle

Kingdom pool was replaced by a garden in the Eighteenth Dynasty where water entered through

a channel from the west side of the temple during festivals (Arnold 2010: 13-14).

A number of architectural features of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Satet are unique and attest to regional variation. First, within the main temple, the remains of the two sandstone

Hathor pillars represent the earliest attestation of a curled wig, open-folded papyrus umbel, and frontally faced HH-hieroglyph in a naos entrance (Bernhauer 2002: 87-88). The frontally faced

HH-hieroglyph appears to be a unique feature specific to Elephantine. It is attested at no other site, but at Elephantine it appears on the Hathor pillars of the Satet temple and on a sistrophorous statue of Nehy dated to the reign of Thutmosis III that was found next to the temple of Satet

(Bernhauer 2002: 86-87). Second, the indirect access to the central area of the temple is a

293

peculiar feature. Generally, the main sanctuary in New Kingdom temples was accessible via a

doorway located in line with the central axis of the temple.263 In the temple of Satet the

arrangement of the sanctuary requires that one must walk through the south chapel of Satet, turn

and enter the central chambers by facing the front again. A similar circulation pattern occurs in the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III at North Abydos where the two rear side chambers are entered from the back (see Pouls Wegner 2002: 500, fig. 44). Pouls Wegner believes that this design was created so that the chambers faced both the Osiris Temple Enclosure and Umm el-

Qaʽab in connection with the festival processional route at North Abydos (2002: 348). The

reasons for this circulation pattern in the temple of Satet at Elephantine are not entirely apparent

but may have to do with facing toward the Nile where water rites associated with a river barque

procession could have taken place and facing toward the area where the three original boulders

would be positioned under the New Kingdom temple. This theory remains hypothetical at

present. Third, the off-axis entrance is not a common feature of New Kingdom temples and thus

seems to be a local development deriving from the orientation of the Early Dynastic shrine

(Kaiser 1977: 65, fig. 1). This positioning of the entrance reflects a deference to the past, which

is clearly a feature of the building history of this structure. Fourth, the sanctuary contained a

stone shaft which extended 4 m down through the stratigraphic layers of earlier temples (Dreyer

1986: fig. 7). This feature also represents a deliberate connection with the earlier cult place. The

shaft was fitted into the northwest corner of the main rock niche area and was constructed at the

same time as the Eighteenth Dynasty foundation as indicated by the direct joining of the

foundation blocks to the exposed shaft sides (Dreyer 1975: 52-53, figs. 3-4). It was made of

263 See for example Badawy 1986: 180-181, 189-371 and Arnold 1992: 20-25, 29-32.

294

reused sandstone blocks laid out in eight or nine irregular layers with a carefully executed interior (Dreyer 1975: 52).

Beneath the shaft, a sand pit was cut approximately 1.20 m (2.3 cubits) into the earlier stratigraphy (Dreyer 1975: 52). A number of small finds were excavated in association with the shaft and sand pit. The finds include various small faience beads, a necklace of blue-grey glass beads, a necklace of thin blue faience flakes, a small gold earring in the shape of a winged scarab with a sun disk, in addition to an animal skeleton, several small vessels, model vessels, and ceramic sherds found on the floor of the sand pit (Dreyer 1975: 52-54; Dreyer 1986: 23). Dreyer specifies that the gold scarab is of a common New Kingdom type and that the pottery sherds can be dated to the Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom (1975: 54). Without further descriptions or photographs of these objects, besides their mention in Dreyer’s publications, additional analyses and interpretations of the finds cannot be conducted at present. However, in

Weinstein’s examination of foundation deposits of the Eighteenth Dynasty from the reigns of

Hatshepsut to Amenhotep III, common objects found in deposits of this time include pottery vessels, model tools, alabaster jars, beads, and food offerings, as well as amulets, scarabs and scaraboids, and votive objects (1973: 93), perhaps suggesting a connection between the shaft deposit of the temple of Satet and foundation deposits associated with monuments of the early

Eighteenth Dynasty.264 Although it must be kept in mind that the deposit of offerings found in the sand pit at the bottom of the shaft is not a typical location for a temple foundation deposit, in the New Kingdom, foundation deposits occur beneath obelisks and statues in temples (Weinstein

1973: 102). For example, foundation deposits were found beneath obelisks belonging to

264 Although no model tools were found in the Satet temple deposit, the range of finds resembles those found in typical Eighteenth Dynasty foundation deposits.

295

Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III (Weinstein 1973: 102). Foundation deposits of the New Kingdom

also commonly contain votive or amuletic objects, as a new feature of this time period

(Weinstein 1973: 99). Such objects may also be present in the Satet temple sand pit deposit.

The decorative program of the Satet temple, based on relief fragments found on reused

sandstone blocks, attests to at least three Eighteenth Dynasty kings: Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III,

and Amenhotep II (Kaiser 1975: 196; Kaiser 1999c: 99-103). The scenes generally portray the

Pharaoh engaging with the triad of Elephantine: Khnum, Satet, and Anuket, as well as with

Amun (Kaiser 1975: 196).265 For example, one block depicts Thutmosis III between Satet and

Khnum in the act of receiving Khnum’s favor (Kaiser 2000: 165, fig. 178). Since the earliest

Pharaoh depicted on the fragments associated with the Eighteenth Dynasty temple is Hatshepsut,

scholars have determined that she began the construction of the temple, which was later

completed during the reign of Thutmosis III (Kaiser 1975: 50; Wells 1985: 256; Seidlmayer

2006a: 225; Von Pilgrim 2010: 260). There are examples of both sunk and raised relief, as well

as traces of paint remaining on a few pieces (Kaiser 1971: 196). For example, a block fragment

now in the Louvre (B64) from the temple of Satet depicts Hatshepsut being protected by a

female goddess, who places her hand on Hatshepsut’s shoulder (Andreu, Rutschowscaya, and

Ziegler 1997: 112-113, no. 47).266 The image is in raised relief and traces of paint remain.

265 According to Kaiser, Satet and Anuket appear in the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Satet decoration in equal quantity, suggesting that they may have each had their own chapel (1999c: 102). Khnum and Amun may have also had their own chapels in the temple, but it is not clear what proportion of images are dedicated to these gods (Kaiser 1971: 196).

266 The fragment appears in the Louvre’s online collection: https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/bas-reliefs- temple-satet-elephantine.

296

Another large depiction shows a celebration of Anuket, who was the second great

goddess of the Aswan region. The relief depicts Anuket in a sacred barque during a festival

procession (Kaiser 1971: 196, pl. XLVIII). Additional evidence deriving from the Elephantine

stela of Amenhotep II (Bommas 2000a: 249-266), a rock inscription at Ras Sehel (Habachi

1957b: 20), in depictions from the Satet temple (Kaiser 1971: 196; Seidlmayer 2006a: 229, fig.

4), and in private rock inscriptions of the New Kingdom (Seidlmayer 2003: 443) indicates that

the festival of Anuket was an important event in the region of Aswan for both royal267 and non- royal268 individuals during the New Kingdom. The festival involved a river procession during

the month of Shemu when an image of the goddess was carried in a barque shrine to the harbor in order to participate in water rites (Valbelle 1975: 123-134; Valbelle 1981: 121-126; Seidlmayer

1999: 42; Seidlmayer 2006a: 228-229).

Like most New Kingdom festivals, the procession of Anuket was a public affair that involved a range of participants.269 Although there is no explicit indication that the festival of

Anuket was centered on a sacred action in the temple,270 the depiction of the procession on

blocks within the temple of Satet suggests that the temple was connected to the festival.

267 Amenhotep II claims to have extended the celebrations from three to four days, meanwhile royal edicts under Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III guaranteed regular cleaning of the cataract channel at Sehel possibly in connection with the festival. See discussion in Seidlmayer 2006a: 228.

268 In addition to private rock inscriptions, such as the inscription of Humen (Seidlmayer 2003: 442-443) and depictions of non-royal processional followers in the temple of Satet (Kaiser 1971: 196; Seidlmayer 2006a: 229), a non-royal stela dated to the Middle Kingdom at Elephantine mentions the divine barque of Anuket (Franke 2001: 15-34), which demonstrates that the festival of Anuket may have been an active event dating back to the Middle Kingdom.

269 Epigraphic evidence indicates that the parade of the procession was accompanied by musicians (Kaiser 1971: 196) and troops (Seidlmayer 2006a: 228).

270 No shrine dedicated to Anuket was found in the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Satet and the decorated reliefs only point to a barque shrine of the goddess used in festival processions.

297

Evidence for a sacred chapel dedicated exclusively to Anuket has not been found on Elephantine.

Pictorial data indicates that Anuket was worshipped alongside Satet and Khnum in the temple of

Satet, but only chapels dedicated to Satet and Amun have been discovered within the temple

(Kaiser 1971: 196; see above). There is no doubt that the temple of Satet was involved in the

festival of Anuket, but did her sacred barque originate from within the temple or was the temple

of Satet merely a resting place along the processional route? No clear indications exist from

within the temple itself. The architecture and general layout of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of

Satet resembles contemporary peripteral temples at other sites, which fall under Badawy’s Type I

classification (1986: 284-286).271 Type I peripteral temples, however, are considered to be a

separate group from Type II peripteral temples, which were thought to act as temporary resting

stations for divine barques during festival celebrations (Badawy 1986: 284). It is uncertain to

what extent this function applied to Type I peripteral temples as well. Most of the Type I

peripteral temples in Badawy’s study date from the early Eighteenth Dynasty, especially from

the reigns of Hatshepsut to Amenhotep II. Badawy describes the layout and architectural features

of the Type I peripteral temples, but his comparison neglects to analyze the function of these

temples in their specific historical and geographical contexts. Other than his statement that Type

I peripteral temples were “dedicated to the cult of a deity” (Badawy 1986: 284), Badawy’s

271 Type I peripteral temples are described as chapels with multiple rooms surrounded by a columned portico that were dedicated to the cult of a deity (Badawy 1986: 284). Examples of Type I structures include temples at Wadi Halfa West, Deir el-Medina, and Amada (Badawy 1986: 285-287). Out of these examples, the temple of Satet most closely resembles the temple at Wadi Halfa West located in the northeast corner of the Middle Kingdom fortress of Buhen (Badawy 1986: 285, fig. 158). The temple was constructed under the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III with the original building of the same general plan as the temple of Satet with transverse vestibules at the front and rear situated between three lateral chambers (Badawy 1986, fig. 158). It was not until the reign of Thutmosis III that pillars lined three sides of the temple, and a columned court and enclosure wall were added to temple (Badawy 1969: 285). Prior to Thutmosis III’s additions, the core building of the chapel at Buhen closely resembles the temple of Satet, except for the unique features, such as an off-axis entrance, that belong only to the temple of Satet. The similarity between these two monuments has also been noted by Haeny (2001: 100-106, figs. 15-16), who extends Borchardt’s (1938) earlier research on Egyptian temples with ambulatories, by comparing them to Greek examples.

298

research lacks any definite indication of the function of these temples, including the types of

activities carried out within them. Additional work is needed to fully understand the function of

peripteral temples in their local setting.

6.2.2 Temple of Khnum

Fragments of building blocks with the cartouches of Thutmosis I to Thutmosis III had

been known to exist under the foundations of the better-preserved temple of Khnum dating to the

reign of Nectanebo II (Thirtieth Dynasty) since the German and Swiss Institutes began

excavating on the island, but it was not until the 1990s that a more thorough examination of the

New Kingdom material occurred (Niederberger 1990: 193; Kaiser 1995: 150-160; Bommas

1999: 110-118). In similar fashion to the temple of Satet, the later temples of Khnum constructed during the Thirtieth Dynasty, Ptolemaic Period, and Roman Period reemployed New Kingdom

building material in their foundations and courtyards. The material includes sandstone fragments

of pillars, architraves, columns, lintels, and decorated relief (Kaiser 1995: 150; Bommas 2000a:

48-50). The epigraphic material indicates that the Khnum temple was decorated by a number of

kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty from Hatshepsut through Thutmosis IV (Junge 1987: 22-39;

Bommas 2004: 7; Von Pilgrim 2004: 6-7; Bommas 2005b: 47-51; Bommas 2008: 10-11).

Amenhotep II contributed an impressive amount of building work to the temple but left

surprisingly little decoration. In his festival court, only a few of the columns and architraves

were inscribed with the name of Amenhotep II, while the outer walls were left undecorated (Von

Pilgrim 2005: 38-39, fig. 7). Von Pilgrim suggests that because of the large size of the court, it is

not surprising that most of its decoration was not completed under Amenhotep II’s reign (2005:

38). Even though the outer walls are not inscribed, as discussed below, there is textual evidence

that Amenhotep II constructed a court and pylon at Elephantine.

299

Limited blocks contain only the birth name of rulers and thus can only be ascribed to a

general range of dates, such as to the reigns of Thutmosis III or IV (Junge 1987: 22-24). One

block fragment in particular suggests that alterations to the structure were made under different

kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty.272 In addition, three block fragments made of Nubian sandstone with unique decoration depicting Thutmosis IV smiting an enemy in sunk relief on one side, and worshipping Khnum in raised relief on the other were found in the area of the Khnum temple precinct (Bommas 2008: 10). Bommas suggests that the blocks might belong to a separate chapel located within the temple, because the temple built by Hatshepsut was

constructed out of sandstone from Gebel es-Silsila (2008: 10). The decorative program of the

Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum was not completed until later times (Von Pilgrim 2004: 7).

For instance, only the north gallery of the festival court of Amenhotep II was decorated during

his reign (Bommas 2004: 7-8).

Based on the recovered fragments and on comparisons with the contemporary temple of

Satet, various scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original layout of the Eighteenth

Dynasty temple of Khnum (see Kaiser 1995: 147ff; Grallert 1999; Bommas 1999; Bommas

2000a; Bommas 2003; Bommas 2005b; Von Pilgrim 2001; Von Pilgrim 2002; Von Pilgrim

2005; Von Pilgrim 2006a).273 Just as with the temple of Satet, assigning the block fragments to

an original position within the temple of Khnum is difficult due to the disturbed nature of the

272 The block depicts the head of Khnum facing the head of a Pharaoh, but the top of the Pharaoh’s head is placed higher than that of Khnum’s, which is an unusual feature of New Kingdom relief, and there is evidence that Thutmosis II’s name was carved over the name of another Pharaoh (Niederberger 1990: 193, pl. 39a). Niederberger suggests that the fragment was originally carved under Hatshepsut, the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum, and later altered (1990: 193). On another block from the temple of Khnum, the cartouches of Hatshepsut were changed to Thutmosis III (Porter and Moss 1937: 244).

273 Bommas focuses on attributing different building elements to specific kings, while Von Pilgrim analyzes the construction history of the temple.

300

archaeological data. At the time of Bommas’ original analysis, 90 architectural fragments were

attributed to the main temple, but only 68 of those could be assigned to a specific section of the

building (2000a: 48). Continuous excavations in the precinct of the temple of Khnum have

revealed a number of additional decorated and undecorated fragments.274 In 1998, the

archaeological articulation of foundation trenches belonging to the Eighteenth Dynasty enabled a

greater understanding of the layout of the general ground plan of the temple (Von Pilgrim 2006a:

6). Until recently, however, most of the evidence derived from displaced material found in

secondary contexts. During excavations in 2011-2012, several reused New Kingdom polygonal

column drums were found preserved in the courtyard foundations of the Roman temple (Arnold

2012: 11-13). The columns derive from different phases of temple construction under

Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, Ramesses II, and Ramesses IV. Statue fragments of

Thutmosis II were also recovered in earlier excavations (Dreyer 1984a: 489-499; Jaritz 1984:

186, pls. 58a, 61a). Another statue fragment of a head that may once have been part of a statue of

Akhenaten originally displayed in the temple of Khnum currently resides in the magazine room of the Elephantine Island Museum (Junge 1991: 192-194). Statue and stelae fragments, however, have not been found in large quantities at the site (Bommas 2000a: 1-5, 249-273). Further information about the architectural layout and economic significance of the temple of Khnum derives from inscriptional evidence from the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties.275

274 In 2004, another 106 block fragments were reported during the 33rd season of excavations on the island totalling 374 in all (Bommas 2004: 7-8). In 2005-2006, 55 more blocks were recovered (Von Pilgrim 2006a: 5). The number of recovered blocks continued to increase almost yearly until in the 43rd season (2013-2014) over 500 fragments were inventoried (Arnold 2014a: 8).

275 These primary sources include the famous Elephantine stela of Amenhotep II, a military inspection of facilities from the time of Sety I, the so-called Elephantine Scandal of Ramesses V, and the Turin Indictment Papyrus, which describes the machinations of a wab-priest and ship captain from the reign of Ramesses III until Ramesses V (see further details and a list of bibliographic references in Bommas 2000: 22-24).

301

The new Eighteenth Dynasty temple dedicated to Khnum was constructed on a high

plateau south of the temple of Satet and eventually overshadowed other cult buildings at the site

(Von Pilgrim 2010: 260, fig. 2; Von Pilgrim 2005: 38-42). The evidence described above allows

for the understanding of some features of the temple. The subsequent Late Period building phase

associated with the temple preserved the Eighteenth Dynasty orientation and central axis (Von

Pilgrim 2001: 42). The general plan of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple structure can be

ascertained from foundation trenches and pits that mark the location of a pylon and a court of

columns (Von Pilgrim 2001: 40-43, fig. 6). The foundation was likely a solid platform of

reemployed blocks resting on a thick bed of sand, but no foundation elements besides trenches and pits have been found (Von Pilgrim 2001: 43). There is evidence for several construction phases during the Eighteenth Dynasty, which can be divided into three main stages: a) a core building of modest size constructed by Hatshepsut; b) additions to the architectural layout and decoration made by Thutmosis III; and c) constructions under Amenhotep II (Von Pilgrim 2001:

37; Von Pilgrim 2002: 187, fig. 9; Bommas 2000a: 47, 289-299; see Figure 6.10). The core of the structure during the reign of Hatshepsut was smaller than the contemporary temple of Satet

(Von Pilgrim 2002: 187-188),276 suggesting that the cult of Satet remained preeminent in the

early Eighteenth Dynasty. Hatshepsut’s building contained a columned portico that was not fully

completed until the reign of Thutmosis III. Evidence for the portico derives from column

fragments, several of which were inscribed with the names of Thutmosis II and Thutmosis III

(Bommas 2000a: 50-55, 63). Bommas has suggested that Thutmosis II constructed his own portico before the Middle Kingdom temple was destroyed by Hatshepsut, but the name of

276 Compare the dimensions of the core building of the temple of Satet: 15.90 x 9.52 m, or 30.29 x 18.13 cubits (Kaiser 1980b: 262) to the core building of the temple of Khnum: 12.60 x 7.90 m, or 24 x 15.05 cubits (Von Pilgrim 2002: 187).

302

Thutmosis II could have been added by Hatshepsut in commemoration of her husband and step- brother, or by Thutmosis III in memory of his predecessor (1999: 115; 2000a: 135, 289-290).277

Under Thutmosis III, the main building was enlarged by the addition of columns to the front court creating a peripteros or a colonnaded courtyard, and the erection of a sandstone pylon in front of the court (Bommas 2000a: 47, 79; Von Pilgrim 2001: 44). The pylon was built in the same measurements as Thutmosis III’s Sixth Pylon at Karnak (Bommas 2000a: 63),278 perhaps indicative of an architectural standard in Thutmosis III’s building program.279 Relief decoration attributed to Thutmosis III’s pylon, showing the king smiting enemies, also closely resembles the decoration of the Seventh Pylon at Karnak (Arnold 2014a: 8-9). Decoration on two niches flanking the entrance gate depict Nekhbet and Wadjet embracing Thutmosis III (northern niche), as well as Satet and Anuket embracing the king (southern niche) (Arnold 2014a: 9). Both Kaiser and Von Pilgrim note a change in attitude towards the local deities Satet and Khnum during the reign of Thutmosis III in that Thutmosis III seems to have concentrated his building efforts on the temple of Khnum without building much at the temple of Satet (Kaiser 1995: 164; Von

Pilgrim 2001: 44).

277 Bommas debates for and against the role of Thutmosis II in contributing to the construction of the Eighteenth Dynasty Khnum temple, sometimes arguing that Thutmosis II built a certain feature (2000a: 56, 58, 62-63), while also arguing that the decoration occurred under subsequent rulers (see for instance his argument that block C246 was decorated under Hatshepsut or Thutmosis III after Thutmosis II’s death, because Thutmosis II holds a was-scepter, a signifier of deceased kings; Bommas 2000a: 56-57). More recent excavations have discovered sandstone blocks decorated with the name of Thutmosis II belonging to a gate that was likely built by Hatshepsut (Arnold 2014a: 9).

278 Bommas’ reconstruction of the length of Thutmosis III’s pylon for the temple of Khnum is 16 m (30.5 cubits) (2000a: 63). The Sixth Pylon at Karnak measures 15.7 m (29.9 cubits) in length and 12.5 m (23.8 cubits) in height (Carlotti 1995: 85).

279 Laskowski divides Thutmosis III’s building program outside of Thebes into three phases: a) additions to the temples begun by Hatshepsut; b) program in adherence with Akh Menu and beginning to dishonor Hatshepsut; and c) increasing investment in provincial temples, especially in Upper Egypt and Nubia (2006: 212-215).

303

Following Thutmosis III’s reign, Amenhotep II added a second colonnaded festival

courtyard to the front of the core cult building and decorated some of the inner parts of the

temple (Van Siclen III 1990: 188-194; Bommas 2000a: 175-220, 297; Von Pilgrim 2001: 44-45).

The Elephantine stela of Amenhotep II describes foundation rites associated with a newly added festival court and sandstone pylon (Breasted 1962: §798; Cummings 1982: 24-28; Der

Manuelian 1987: 47; Bommas 2000a: 47, 141, 249-266; Von Pilgrim 2001: 37-38; Von Pilgrim

2005: 38); however, there is no archaeological evidence of a pylon under the sole rule of

Amenhotep II at the site. Thutmosis III erected a pylon at the back of the festival court and perhaps Amenhotep II finished this construction (Von Pilgrim 2001: 45; Laskowski 2006: 225).

The festival court of Amenhotep II connected directly to the main temple and conformed to the width of the pylons constructed during the reign of Thutmosis III (Bommas 2000a: 63).

According to Von Pilgrim, the decoration of the pylon began in the reign of Thutmosis IV, since the king’s cartouche was found on a block originally used as a header in the first pylon (2004: 7).

Thutmosis IV also decorated two column drums and two architraves that were originally part of the southern section of the festival court added by Amenhotep II (Bommas 2000a: 298; Bommas

2004: 7).

With regard to the external layout of the temple of Khnum, Borchardt tried to compare it to the temple of Amada based on the fact that the stelae of Amenhotep II found at Elephantine and at Amada contain nearly identical inscriptions (1983: 32ff). He considered both to be planned as peripteral temples, but their internal layout is difficult to compare due to the lack of information about the internal room structure of the temple of Khnum at Elephantine.280 Based

280 For a plan of the temple at Amada, see Badawy 1986: fig. 160.

304

on decorated pillar fragments and building fragments, Bommas reconstructed five internal rooms

in the temple, but none of this material was found in situ at the site: a) Room A – transverse hall

of appearance with pillars; b) Room B – barque shrine; c) Room C – long chamber; d) Room D –

long chamber; e) Room E – rear transverse chamber (2000a: 80-121, fig. 9). The layout of each room is based on the calculated position and arrangement of decorated blocks in the temple and on comparisons with the temples of Buhen and the temple of Satet at Elephantine (Bommas

2000a: 103-109, fig. 17). Evidence that the temple of Khnum contained a barque shrine (Room

B) is based on five block fragments and supplemented by evidence from the Elephantine stela of

Amenhotep II (Bommas 2000a: 95-97, figs. 12-13). The cartouche of Thutmosis I figures prominently in the decorative material associated with the barque shrine, indicating that the room was likely decorated and built during the reign of Hatshepsut in commemoration of Thutmosis I

(Bommas 2000a: 100-109, figs. 15, 17). Bommas designates Room B as a central long room in the temple of Khnum, which is surrounded by long Rooms C and D on either side, entered via the first transverse hall (2000a: fig. 9). Unlike Room B, however, very few decorated fragments could be assigned to Rooms C and D, although Bommas thinks they were similar to Rooms J, L, and R of the temple of Amada (2000a: 110). No king’s name has been found associated with the block fragments of Rooms C and D so a date of construction cannot be assigned, and the limited fragments do not provide any information about the function of these two rooms (Bommas

2000a: 111). No building fragments have been identified with Room E, but based on the temples of Buhen and Amada, Bommas designates it as a transverse long chamber at the rear of the

Khnum temple (2000a: 111-112). Recent investigations have shed further light on the interior of the temple. Double sided decorated block fragments from the foundations of the Ptolemaic pronaos have revealed that the back of the temple consisted of a broad sanctuary with cult statues, while the north wall of the temple was another sanctuary decorated with ritual scenes of

305

daily temple cult (Arnold 2013: 14); other areas of the temple interior, such as the position of the

barque sanctuary remain unclear (Arnold 2013: 14).

East of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum, a raised monumental platform was

constructed, which exhibits evidence for ritual activity in the form of divine oracles during

public festivals (see Jaritz 1970: 94; Kaiser 1970: 113-114, fig. 5; Jaritz 1980: 7, 14, 40, fig. 24;

Jaritz 1982: 321; Bommas 2000a: 227-231; Jaritz 2005: 341-400; Seidlmayer 2012: 219, fig. 1).

The platform was constructed in a U shape extending outward from the forecourt of Amenhotep

II towards the Nile, and was built of large sandstone blocks, representing the only in situ

architecture associated with the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum (Bommas 2000a: 228-

229; Jaritz 2005: 341-345; Von Pilgrim 2005: 39).281 It is slightly sloped and is oriented perpendicular to the shore line (Jaritz 2005: 341-400). Ceramic finds dated to the reign of

Thutmosis III recovered from the construction area of the platform, confirm the platform’s affiliation with the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum (Jaritz 1982: 323-324; Bommas 2000a:

229).

Late Ramesside graffiti inscribed on the platform provide a terminus ante quem for the date of the platform’s construction (Bommas 2000a: 228). The east wall has a smooth face and the westward part of the wall was covered over, but the north face was carved with six hieroglyphic inscriptions during the Ramesside Period (Seidlmayer 2012: 220-224). Two inscriptions provide direct evidence for oracular consultations involving ritual specialists: a) a scorpion conjurer, Penrenut, from the temple of Maat at Thebes, who had a role in the settlement

281 For a description of the construction techniques used to place the blocks of the platform, see Jaritz 1982: 321- 323.

306

of disputes and acted as a ritual testifier; and b) the wab-priest Pacharu, son of a mayor of

Elephantine, to whom an oracular decision is refereed (Seidlmayer 2012: 221-224).282 There is no inscriptional evidence associated with the Eighteenth Dynasty on the platform, so it is difficult to determine if the platform had a similar function during this time. Bommas interprets the platform as a “monumental altar” that follows similar examples found at Karnak, Deir el-

Bahri, and Gurnah (2000a: 230-232). In this function, the platform would have served as place of ritual activity in an open area located outside the main temple of Khnum and would have thus been more accessible to the public.

As stated above, the Ramesside inscriptions indicate the platform’s use as a stage for oracles in that period. Based on epigraphic evidence, oracles in the New Kingdom were performed during public festivals by the presence of the deity in the form a statue, usually placed within a divine barque shrine (Blackman 1925: 253; Blackman 1926: 183, 185; Kees 1960;

Baines 1987: 88-93; Kruchten 2001). At Elephantine, the platform may have acted as a stopping place where the divine barque of the god would have been physically presented before a public audience.283 The position of the platform before the entrance to the main temple and overlooking the Nile is an ideal location for public viewing of a river procession. Evidence for a procession of

Khnum at Elephantine can be found on the Dream Stela (Cairo JE 48863) dated to reign of

Tanutamun (Twenty-Fifth Dynasty) at a time when the Khnum temple was still in use (Bommas

282 The inscriptional evidence associated with the platform of the temple of Khnum is further discussed in §6.3.2.

283 Bommas and Seidlmayer both argue that the platform’s role was a place for the public display of ritual activities, including the presentation of the divine barque (Bommas 2000a: 230) and oracular procedures (Seidlmayer 2012: 224).

307

2000a: 227).284 Bommas suggests that a procession of Khnum at Elephantine most likely

involved the presentation of his divine barque at the platform of the Khnum temple (2000a: 228).

Specific details of the festival, however, are unknown so far and one can only surmise what the

procession entailed based on evidence of New Kingdom processions from other sites (see

discussion below). At Elephantine, the evidence for a procession of Khnum is limited. The

Dream Stela dates to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and although it is likely that a similar festival

occurred in the preceding New Kingdom, there is not a lot of information about it. However, a

rock inscription of a quarry worker at Elephantine during the New Kingdom refers to a

processional festival of Khnum (Seidlmayer 2003: 443). In addition, inscriptions on two obelisks

found at Elephantine that were erected and decorated by Amenhotep II bear an inscription, which

states that the obelisks were constructed for the altar of Re in the favor of Khnum-Re.285 This evidence led Bommas to believe that the platform was intended as an open sun altar with an altar for Re situated near the center of the platform, flanked by two obelisks (2000a: fig. 30).

Recent excavations at Elephantine carried out by the German Archaeological Institute in

Cairo and the Swiss Institute for Egyptian Building Archaeology indicate that the Khnum temple precinct included a number of subsidiary structures attached to the main temple. Reused block fragments recovered from the temple of Khnum built during the reign of Nectanebo II have revealed evidence of a barque station belonging to Hatshepsut (Arnold 2016: 31-32). Relief decoration associated with the barque station demonstrates that it was constructed early in her

284 See Bommas for the transliteration and translation of this stela (2000a: 227-228).

285 See transliteration and translation in Bommas 2000a: 232-233. For more information about obelisks of Amenhotep II and Thutmosis IV at Elephantine, see Engelbach 1923: 163-164, figs. 1-2; Porter and Moss 1937: 244; Selim 1991: 123.

308

reign because there are depictions of Hatshepsut as a woman. Hatshepsut is also depicted

offering to the barque of Khnum, which provides further evidence that the cult of Khnum

involved a barque procession (Arnold 2016: 31-32). Additional recently excavated block fragments may belong to a separate monument built by Thutmosis I, who is shown presenting offerings to Khnum-Re and Anuket (Arnold 2016: 32-34). These findings suggest that the

precinct of the temple of Khnum comprised an array of structures dedicated to the cult of the god

during the Eighteenth Dynasty, similar to the range of buildings associated with the temple of

Amun at Karnak, which also included barque stations and separate monuments built by

individual kings (see Blyth 2006: 33-142).

6.2.3 Peripteral Temple of Amenhotep III

Amenhotep III constructed a small temple north of the Satet temple along a processional

road in connection with the festival of the Nile flood (Kaiser 2000: 167). The building was in

excellent condition at the time of Napoleon’s expedition in 1799 but was destroyed under

Ottoman rule in 1822 (Description de l’Égypte 1809: pls. 34-38; Porter and Moss 1937: 227-230;

Badawy 1986: 290-291; Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 75; Johnson 1998: 78-79). Labelled Temple du

Sud, the small temple of Amenhotep III acted as a way station or resting place for the divine

barque of deities during festival processions. Ramesses II constructed a similar temple, Temple

du Nord, which was also destroyed in antiquity (Kaiser 1997: 179; Kaiser 2000: 167). Kozloff

and Bryan date the monument to early in Amenhotep’s reign (1992: 75). Johnson, however,

dates the structure to later in his reign based on iconographic details of the relief depicted by

Napoleon’s artists, which conform to Amenhotep’s fourth-decade relief style signified by deeper

carvings, solar and funerary iconography, and a more youthful appearance of the king (1998: 79,

84-85). The monument consisted of a square-columned court that surrounded a barque chapel

and rear sanctuary (Badawy 1986: 289, fig. 161, no. 3; Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 75). It was built

309

on a raised platform that faced east and was approached by double staircases at the front and rear

entrances with two papyrus columns framing the entrances (Badawy 1986: 288-290; Johnson

1998: 78-79). Cartouches of Amenhotep III and a depiction of the king receiving life from the

gods appear in the gallery of pillars (Porter and Moss 1937: 228). On the exterior of the

sanctuary, decorations show Amenhotep III before Khnum, Anuket, Amun-Re, and Horus

(Porter and Moss 1937: 228). Within the interior of the temple, Amenhotep III is depicted with

Queen Tiye before the barque shrine of Khnum (Porter and Moss 1937: 228). A text of Sety I

and cartouches of Ramesses II inscribed on the structure indicate that the building remained in

use through at least the Ramesside Period (Porter and Moss 1937: 228).

Amenhotep III’s temple fits into Badawy’s Type II peripteral temple classification (1968:

284). These types of temples commonly acted as way stations for the sacred barque during festivals (see Badawy 1968: 284; Arnold 1992: 37-38). Many of these known types of shrines date specifically to the Eighteenth Dynasty with several examples known at Thebes (Bell 1997:

151, n. 69; Haeny 2001: 95-105; Bryan 2005: 181-183); however, there are examples of Middle

Kingdom precursors286 and similar types from the Ptolemaic Period (Badawy 1986: 284),

indicating that Type II chapels were not isolated constructions of the New Kingdom, only that

more have been discovered for this period. Depictions of peripteral temples are rare, but a few

examples exist in the New Kingdom.287 They appear as small modest structures fronted by

286 Badawy refers to the White Chapel of Senwosret I at Karnak (see Lacau and Chevrier 1977; Blyth 2006: 15; Gundlach 2010.

287 Small columned structures appear in the tombs at Amarna and have been identified as similar buildings (Badawy 1986: 284), although these examples belong to non-royal individuals. A sketch on an Eighteenth Dynasty ostracon presents a depiction of a six-pillared chapel with a rear and front entranceway (Badawy 1986: 282, fig. 157). Another example is depicted in the tomb of Ipuy during the Nineteenth Dynasty (Badawy 1986: 281, fig. 156; 283, pl. 36).

310

columns and often surrounded by trees (Badawy 1986: pl. 36). Barque stations acted as resting places for the statue of the deity when it travelled outside of the temple during festival processions. During the procession, the image of the god was enclosed inside a portable shine placed on a sacred barque, which could be carried over land or transported by water.

The most well-known festival of this type dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty is the Festival of Opet celebrated at Thebes.288 Once a year, statues of the Theban Triad – Amun, Mut, and

Khonsu – were escorted in a sacred barque from the temple of Amun in Karnak to the temple of

Luxor. During the procession, the barque shrine would stop at specially constructed way stations

along the festival route (Bell 1997: 161; Cabrol 2001: 491-564; Waitkus 2008: 224-227).289

Details of the festival are known primarily from relief depictions (see Murnane 1981: 577-578;

Epigraphic Survey 1994; Meyer 1998: 135-136; Burgos et al. 2006; Waitkus 2008: 224-235,

238-254). The earliest attestation of the Opet Festival dates to the reign of Hatshepsut with

images of the procession depicted in the Red Chapel at Karnak (Lacau and Chevrier 1977-1979:

154-169; Burgos et al. 2006: 46-53; Troy 2006: 140-141; Waitkus 2008: 224-227; Darnell 2010:

1-2, fig. 1).290 Unfortunately, there is no explicit textual material that explains the significance of

the Opet festival, or details the events of the procession, other than songs preserved in the

colonnade hall of Tutankhamen at Luxor (Meyer 1998; Darnell 2010: 2).

288 Also see Murnane 1981; Bell 1985; Kruchten 1991; The Epigraphic Survey 1994; Pamminger 1996; Bell 1997; Meyer 1998; Cabrol 1999; Burgos et al. 2006; Darnell 2010; Meyer-Dietrich 2010.

289 At least six barque chapels are attested in depictions from the time of Hatshepsut (Cabrol 2001: 528-541; Konrad 2006: 134, no. 927; Waitkus 2008: 226-227). In the archaeological record, however, only one of these chapels has been identified in south Karnak (Darnell 2010: 3).

290 For a discussion of possible earlier indications of the festival from the Middle Kingdom, see Darnell 2010: 4.

311

Under Amenhotep III, who refurbished the Luxor Temple, the Opet Festival was at the height of its development (Konrad 2006: 132-137; Darnell 2010: 4). During his reign, the barque of the king was a prominent addition, which accompanied the barques of the gods in the festival

(Bell 1985: 260-263; Epigraphic Survey 1994: 29, pl. 80; Darnell 2010: 4). The presence of the barque of the king, as well as scenes in the temple of Luxor indicate that the Opet Festival at this time became a ritual of transformation of the king into a royal ka, in addition to a celebration of the renewal of the ka force of Amun (Bell 1985; Darnell 2010: 4-6). The festival thus involved a renewal of kingship that reconfirmed royal rule. At Elephantine, it is possible that Amenhotep III built his peripteral temple not only to participate in festival events for the deities of the island,291 but also to reaffirm his royal presence and reconfirm his transformation into a royal ka. Without further evidence, it is hard to determine what multiple functions the peripteral temple of

Amenhotep III could have held.

6.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty

The existing corpus of published data representing what could be classified as non-royal votive activity at the site of Elephantine during the New Kingdom, and more specifically dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty, is not extensive. Identifying clear instances where non-royal individuals left a material record of their cultic activities acting outside the realm of the state is fraught with challenges. Non-royal activity in Egypt can be categorized into three main realms: cultic, domestic, and funerary. Identical material correlates, however, often span all three areas, so that the boundaries defining what objects should be considered representative of each cultural sphere are flexible rather than fixed. For example, certain types of artifacts, such as amulets, can

291 As stated above, a barque shrine of Khnum was depicted within Amenhotep III’s peripteral temple, perhaps indicating that the structure was involved in a specific procession of Khnum.

312

occur in votive, domestic, and funerary contexts. At Elephantine, evidence suggests that most such non-royal activity occurred in the residential quarters during the Middle and New

Kingdoms.292 A complex sequence of houses grew organically nestled against the main cult institutions of Khnum and Satet, attesting to extensive non-royal domestic activity at

Elephantine. Funerary activity, on the other hand, is almost absent from the site. No cemeteries of the New Kingdom have been found, most likely because they are now located under the modern Nubian village (Von Pilgrim 2010: 257).

Administrative buildings and workshops were concentrated northwest of the temple where domestic construction activity extended to the central street and beyond (Von Pilgrim

2010: 260). In this area, units of buildings were continuously rebuilt until the Late Period, presenting a complicated stratigraphic sequence (Von Pilgrim 2010: 260). Storage facilities, workshops, and industrial buildings surrounded the temple of Khnum on all sides in this western section with more residential buildings extending further out towards the area of the Third

Dynasty step pyramid complex in the northwest (Von Pilgrim 1990: 198; Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1; Von Pilgrim 2010: 260, fig. 2). In the precinct of the Late Period temple of Khnum, three

New Kingdom granaries associated with a large temple estate were excavated (Von Pilgrim

2014: 12-13). No common enclosure wall surrounded the residential areas, but the industrial area located close to the temple of Khnum was separated from domestic dwellings located further northwest by the main central street (Von Pilgrim 2010: 260, fig. 2). In the house group located south of the Khnum temple (designated HGS by the excavators), New Kingdom remains

292 Investigations have uncovered an unbroken sequence of house units dating from the Middle Kingdom to Third Intermediate Period (Von Pilgrim 1988: 163-169; Von Pilgrim 1990: 196-203; Von Pilgrim 1996: 40-62, 75-112, 115-182; Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim 2007: 365).

313

comprised a small number of priests’ houses that contained granaries (Von Pilgrim 2010: 260).

On the northern edge of the southern house group, walls dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty were found north of a boundary wall (M100), which seems to have existed from at least the Second

Intermediate Period (Von Pilgrim 1988: 167). 293 Overall, three architectural layers (6-9) have been distinguished for the early Eighteenth Dynasty, although the remains are fragmentary (Von

Pilgrim 1988: 167).294 A large number of house walls in this area were found stamped with the

throne name of Thutmosis III, which Von Pilgrim interprets as subsidiary buildings of the

Khnum temple extension built under Thutmosis III likely for temple staff (1988: 169; 1996:

71).295 Within the settlement area, two groups of objects spanning the Eighteenth Dynasty have

been excavated that can be deemed material correlates of non-royal votive activity: blue painted

pottery and female figurines. The following section provides a synthesis and analysis of these

published finds, as well as a discussion of non-royal rock inscriptions, as evidence of non-royal

votive activity at Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

6.3.1 Blue Painted Pottery

In Aston’s 1999 publication on ceramic material dated from the late New Kingdom to the

early Ptolemaic Period at Elephantine, only a few sherds of blue painted pottery are mentioned

(see Aston 1999: 19-21). In the course of recent excavations between 2002 and 2010, however,

333 fragmentary vessels have been identified, ranging in date from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty

293 See, for example, Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1.

294 Many early Eighteenth Dynasty layers belonging to the southern house group have been damaged by later domestic activity and by expansions of the Khnum temple (Von Pilgrim 1996: 62-71).

295 See, for instance, the brick stamp inscription of Thutmosis III found in House 26, which contains the throne name of Thutmosis III followed by the epithet “Beloved of Khnum” (Von Pilgrim 1996: 66-71, figs. 16 and 19). House 26 is also discussed in §6.3.1.

314

to the Twentieth Dynasty (Budka 2013c: 189; Budka 2015g: 131-132). Fragments were recovered from dump layers in Area XIV close to the town enclosure (Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig.

1; Von Pilgrim 2008b: 9-10), from surface finds and sebakh, and in individual houses in the vicinity of the temple of Khnum (Budka 2008a: 108; Budka 2008b: 11-12; Budka 2013c: 190; see Figure 6.11). Based on material excavated at a number of Egyptian sites, Hope noted the range of contexts in which blue painted pottery could appear: urban, cultic, and funerary (1982:

88; 1987: 97-122; 1989; 2001: 26-27, 43-44).296 Blue painted pottery is an easily recognizable

ceramic ware in Egypt, most well-known from the late Eighteenth Dynasty to the Ramesside

Period in a variety of designs and shapes, and concentrated at a number of sites, including

Qantir, Amarna, Malqata, Deir el-Medina, Saqqara, Gurob, Abydos, and now Elephantine

(Budka 2008a: 106-107; Budka 2015g: 131).

In a waste layer over Houses 26 and 36 in the domestic quarters south of the temple of

Khnum, several pieces of an amphora (Exc.-No. 16101G-08) were recovered (Budka 2008a: 108, figs. 12a-b, 14; Budka 2013c: 194-195; Budka 2015g: 135-140). House 26 and House 36 are located next to each other in the north quadrant of the south house group (HGS) adjacent the temple of Khnum (Von Pilgrim 1996: 67-71, fig. 16). Both houses were built next to the demarcation wall (M100) close to house complex 20/21, which has been identified as a residence for temple staff when restructuring of the town occurred at the beginning of the Eighteenth

Dynasty (Von Pilgrim 1996: 62-62, 71, fig. 16). In addition to sherds of blue painted pottery,

House 26 contained a number of polychrome decorated pottery fragments and a brick stamp

296 Originally it was thought to have been associated with royal residences as “palace pottery,” but recent excavations have shown that blue painted pottery has a broad geographical distribution and a high degree of variability (Hope 1989: 16, 58; Budka 2013c: 188; Budka 2015g: 131). It is found in chapels and temples, tombs, palaces, elite households, and workmen’s villages (Budka 2013c: 207).

315

impression with the throne name of Thutmosis III (Von Pilgrim 1996: 71, fig. 19). Budka

suggests that the amphora likely derived from a storeroom associated with the temple of Khnum

and may have once stood in a niche (2015g: 135). Budka’s reconstruction of the vessel, an

example of the so-called “victory vase,” indicates that it once had an ibex-headed appliqué and

two two-dimensional figures of bound prisoners (2008a: 108-112, fig. 14; 2013c: 194; 2015g:

135-138). Parallels of this type of vase occur as metal vessels depicted in tribute scenes on the

walls of tombs and temples and may have been used for foreign trade (Bourriau 1981: 39, no. 57;

Budka 2005: 90-115; Budka 2008a: 112-114, fig. 15; Budka 2013c: 194; Budka 2015g: 139, fig.

5). The elaborateness of the decorative detail and appliqué on the amphora suggest that it was an

item of prestige most likely associated with an elite (or royal) context (Bourriau 1981: 31-39;

Bourriau 1987; Budka 2008a: 119, n. 247; Budka 2015g: 139-140). Budka suggests that the

vessel was brought to Elephantine from Thebes and donated in the temple of Khnum by a high

official, perhaps a viceroy, during the early Nineteenth Dynasty (2008: 115; 2015g: 139-140).

Most of the blue painted pottery from Elephantine dates to the Ramesside Period, with

two sherds dating from the reigns of Amenhotep II to Thutmosis IV, and a small sample (11

sherds) from the reign of Amenhotep III to the late Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka 2008a: 119, 131-

132, tab. III; Budka 2013c: 202; Budka 2015g: 132, 138). The Eighteenth Dynasty pottery is

mainly comprised of closed forms, especially funnel-necked jars, which occur in stratigraphic level nine at the site (Budka 2008a: 126-127). Most are exclusively Nile B2 fabric with hanging lotus leaf decoration (Budka 2008a: 126-127, tabs. I, II, and III). As indicated in Budka’s table

III, most of the late Eighteenth Dynasty/Ramesside Period blue painted pottery was found on the surface or recovered from sebakh (2008a: 131-132).

316

The function of the blue painted pottery at Elephantine spans an array of activities,

ranging from storage vessels to votive offerings (Budka 2013c: 195). Since the remains of such

vessels mainly derive from displaced contexts in spoil heaps near the temple of Khnum, Budka

associates the blue painted pottery with a cultic context, rather than a domestic one (Budka

2008a: 119, 131; Budka 2013c: 201; Budka 2015g: 141). They could be used as gifts for the

gods or kings in temples, or as foreign trade items (Budka 2008a: 119; Budka 2008b: 11).

Specifically, the pottery seems to have been associated with temple festival cults and the barque

procession at Elephantine, coinciding with the sacred function of the site during the New

Kingdom, as attested by other elements of the built environment, such as the peripteral temples

of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II, and private rock inscriptions (Budka 2013c: 202; Budka

2015g: 142). The combined evidence of provincial cult temples, peripteral temples, rock

inscriptions (discussed below), and blue painted pottery, all of which served a cultic function at

Elephantine during the New Kingdom, points to an increased religious element of the site that is

more widespread than in previous periods.

Blue painted pottery has been found in religious contexts at other sites, such as at South

Abydos (Budka 2006a: 100, 105-108; Budka 2008a: 131) and it has been argued that the floral

decoration of the pottery derived from real flower garlands used during festivals (Bourriau 1981:

79; Hope 1982: 88; Hope 1989; Hope 2001: 50; Mohamed 2004: 202; Budka 2008a: 119). The

pictorial and archaeological evidence connects blue painted pottery with temple festivals. If most

blue painted pottery was produced in state-run facilities, the question remains whether the pottery at Elephantine was produced locally (like at Qantir) or was imported from another city

center, perhaps Thebes. Hope has suggested a Theban manufacture for blue painted pottery

overall (1987: 116). Budka argues that the blue painted pottery at Elephantine could have arrived at the site by the same group of Theban individuals who left rock inscriptions, which could have

317

enhanced the sense that blue painted pottery was an exotic import to be used on special occasions

(2008a: 119-120; 2008b: 11; 2015g: 142-144).

Rock inscriptions and evidence from the domestic quarters demonstrate that a significant

contingent of Thebans visited and likely temporarily or permanently resided at Elephantine

during the New Kingdom (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-445; Budka 2008a: 119-120; Budka and Von

Pilgrim 2008: 88-97). Many of these individuals were high officials, priests, policemen, and even viceroys of Nubia (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443). Seidlmayer proposes that the presence of priests from Theban temples in the rock inscriptions at Hassawanarti (discussed in more detail below) indicates close contacts between the administrations of the temples in Thebes and Elephantine

(2003: 441-442). If this group of Theban officials and priests came to Elephantine to participate in or to supervise the temple cult on a regular basis, including participating in the festival processions, then it seems likely that the blue painted pottery, as votive and festival pottery, could have been imported from Thebes.297 More research needs to be conducted to determine the

extent that blue painted pottery represents local varieties at Elephantine.298 For now, evidence

seems to be pointing towards the likelihood that blue painted pottery was a commodity of elite

votive activity at Elephantine starting during the late Eighteenth Dynasty, which was associated

with the temples and festivals of the site. However, a range of individuals of varied socio-

economic backgrounds were usually involved in temple festival processions, and these

297 For the close relationship between the cults at Elephantine and at Thebes, see Spiegelberg 1918: 64-67; Nebe 1990: 231; Bommas 1995a: 3-4; Seidlmayer 2003: 441-445.

298 Budka has commented on the similarity of the ornamental vessels at Elephantine with a special style of decoration known at Qantir, Saqqara, and Thebes in Ramessside contexts; although Budka states that the Elephantine pottery “resemble[s]” these forms, she does not indicate that they match exactly, and therefore, there is room to study the degree of variability of the forms at Elephantine and to look at the pottery from a local perspective (2013c: 191-192). Also see discussion below about the presence of kilns found at Elephantine.

318

individuals could have been involved with organizing and distributing blue painted pottery on

some level. More research about the creation and organization of public religious festivals and

access to festival commodities, especially in provincial towns, may shed light on this complex

issue.

6.3.2 Rock Inscriptions

Rock inscriptions at Elephantine give prosopographic details about the inhabitants of the

island during the New Kingdom and provide evidence of non-royal votive activity. Detailed

catalogues of rock inscriptions in the Aswan area can be found in early publications, but many of

these do not record the topographical locations of the texts and exhibit shortcomings such as the

omission of parts of inscriptions.299 Recent research has concentrated on rectifying the problems of early publications by providing a more comprehensive documentation and analysis of the data

(Seidlmayer 1999; Seidlmayer 2001a; Seidlmayer 2003; Seidlmayer 2006b; Seidlmayer 2012;

Seidlmayer 2013). Rock inscriptions were recorded from the entire island and the texts were documented in their original geographical locations (Seidlmayer 1999: 41; Seidlmayer 2003:

440).

In the New Kingdom, rock inscriptions occur in tight clusters in two well-defined places: a) at Hassawanarti; and b) in front of the temple of Khnum (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443, fig. 1).

Hassawanarti is a small rocky outcrop that protrudes out from the eastern portion of Elephantine island, forming a small bay (Seidlmayer 2003: fig. 1). Seidlmayer has commented on the important ritual function that Hassawanarti, situated in the area of the ancient harbor of

299 For detailed references to early publications of rock inscriptions from the Aswan region, see Porter and Moss 1937: 226, 245-256. Also see text and footnotes in Seidlmayer 2013: 205-206.

319

Elephantine, held during the New Kingdom (1999: 42; 2003: 443). The location of Hassawanarti was ideal not only as a node in traffic routes, but also as a place for the public viewing of water rites during festival processions when statues of the gods would have been loaded onto river barques (Seidlmayer 1999: 42; Seidlmayer 2003: 443). The ritual function of Hassawanarti is supported by evidence from the rock inscriptions themselves. For instance, the inscription of

Humen, an individual who worked in the quarries of Aswan, states that “he came to Elephantine to witness a processional festival of Khnum and Anuket” (Seidlmayer 2003: 443). Here, more than 80 inscriptions were documented, most of which belonged to Ramesside officials and kings

(Habachi 1979; Seidlmayer 1999: 41; Seidlmayer 2003: 441-442). Accompanying the hieroglyphs are depictions of individuals and their families and scenes of adoration toward the

Triad of Elephantine, Amun, and sometimes Mut and Khonsu (Seidlmayer 2003: 442;

Seidlmayer 2012: 221).

The titles of the individuals provide important socio-economic information about the people carving rock inscriptions at Elephantine. Almost all of the inscriptions represent elites, who held a variety of high-status positions, but a few lower ranking individuals, including soldiers, standard bearers, and servants are mentioned (Seidlmayer 1999: 42; Seidlmayer 2003:

441-443; Seidlmayer 2012: 221; see §8.2.3.3.3). Most of the names and titles indicate that the inhabitants were of non-local origin, and Seidlmayer’s research has shown that they came mainly from Thebes. For example, Amen Wepwawetmes, who is shown adoring Sety I, was a high priest of Thebes (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-442). Names and titles of local administrators of the temples of Elephantine occur in small numbers in this context in the Twentieth Dynasty only

(Seidlmayer 2003: 442).

320

The second group of rock inscriptions located on boulders and carved on the northern

face of the monumental platform in front of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum, further

confirms the ritual focus of New Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elephantine. As noted above, the

raised platform and altar served as a stage for the public display of the image of the god and for

the performance of divine oracles (Jaritz 1980: 40; Seidlmayer 2003: 443; Seidlmayer 2012:

219-225). Oracles of Khnum are attested from the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period at Elephantine (Peet 1924: 116-127; Gardiner 1948: 74.10, 75.3; Seidlmayer 1982b: 329-334;

Wente 1990: 199; Seidlmayer 2012: 221). In front of the monumental platform of the temple of

Khnum, inscriptions were carved on the sides of boulders facing the altar in direct view of the place where the god would appear during festival celebrations (Seidlmayer 2003: 443-444).

Inscriptions dating to the Ramesside Period were also found on the north wall of the platform itself, including: a) Penrenut, a Scorpion Conjuror from the temple of Maat in Thebes; and b)

Pacharu, a wab-priest, son of the Mayor of Elephantine, Penanuket (Junge 1987: 40-41 nos.

4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2; Seidlmayer 2012: 221-224, fig. 3). Both texts testify to the performance of

oracles on the platform. Seidlmayer envisions the foot of the platform as a gathering place where

Elephantine functionaries could settle disputes under the guidance of a specialist (2012: 224).

New Kingdom non-royal rock inscriptions thus appear to have had a cultic function in

connection with areas where public worship and public participation in the divine festival could

occur. Interestingly, the rock inscriptions appear to cluster at either end of the processional road

(see below).

While the exact details of the festivals of Elephantine remain elusive, inscriptional

evidence indicates the existence of feasts and festivals of Khnum, Satet, and Anuket, celebrated

either separately or with the Triad of Elephantine, as well as festivals for the Nile flood, and the

cult of Amun (Kaiser 1971: 196; Valbelle 1981: 121-126; Jaritz 1989; Seidlmayer 1999: 42; El-

321

Sabban 2000: 31-37; Bommas 2000a: 21-22; Seidlmayer 2003: 443, n. 17). All that is known of the festivals, however, is that they included barque shrines and processions. Extrapolating from evidence of the Opet Festival at Thebes (see above), it could be surmised that the festivals at

Elephantine proceeded in a similar fashion with the image of the deity in his or her barque shrine

leaving the sanctuary in the temple of Khnum, proceeding east to the temple of Satet, stopping to

rest at Amenhotep III’s (and later Rameses II’s)300 barque shrine, and finally heading toward the harbor to be loaded onto a river barge circling back to the temple of Khnum via the river.301 This

is only hypothetical, yet the location of the New Kingdom rock inscriptions clearly departs from

the location of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom inscriptions, which were widely distributed in

areas along important roads where busy traffic occurred and near the entrance to the main

settlement (Seidlmayer 2003: 444-445). The majority of Middle Kingdom inscriptions were

made by members of the military in connection with the protection of trade routes (Seidlmayer

2012: 221).

Like the blue painted pottery excavated at the site, the New Kingdom rock inscriptions

were mainly carved from the reign of Amenhotep III to the Twentieth Dynasty (Seidlmayer

2003: 441-443; Budka 2013c: 202), perhaps indicating a correlation between the inscriptions and the pottery. The influx of high-ranking Thebans into Elephantine starting in the Eighteenth

Dynasty may have altered the ritual landscape of the site. Seidlmayer observes that “the great festivals created an opportunity to display the integration of the town of Elephantine within the larger framework of the state” (1999: 42). Is this why Theban individuals needed to document

300 See Kaiser 1997: 179; Kaiser 2000: 167.

301 For an image of what the processional route may have looked like, see Jaritz 1980: 10, fig. 1.

322

their participation in the local festivals at Elephantine? Perhaps with increased investment in the temples of Elephantine by the Pharaohs of the New Kingdom, state officials, priests, and administrators accompanied their rulers in order to participate in the religious cults at

Elephantine. As Seidlmayer has noted, a rock inscription dated to the reign of Thutmosis IV at

Hassawanarti lists 45 individuals that include royal nurses and children of the nursery, along with royal scribes and administrators, all of whom may have visited Elephantine alongside their king (2003: 442). The New Kingdom rock inscriptions enabled elite individuals to display their social status and allowed them to leave a permanent expression of their identity at Elephantine in association with the processional route. In a similar manner, Salvador has recently observed that clusters of non-royal graffiti at Karnak were linked to sacred and social events, such as divine processions, and were deliberate acts of elite self-presentation and memorialization (2016: 113,

116-117). Although it is likely that high-status elite officials erected statues and stelae within the main temple precincts at Elephantine, rock inscriptions seem to have allowed the participation of a wider demographic of elites. Graffiti were likely cheaper alternatives of monumental display

(Frood 2010: 105; Salvador 2016: 117). The setting of the rock inscriptions at Elephantine may have also been more accessible and enabled a more permanent expression of elite identity in the

New Kingdom than at Thebes.

6.3.3 Female Figurines

The last category of non-royal activity to be assessed at Elephantine is represented by a small group of female figurines found in the settlements of the Middle Kingdom and New

Kingdom. The finds include: a) 24 clay figurines depicting naked females, dated from the

Thirteenth Dynasty to the Nineteenth Dynasty; b) 7 limestone figurines dated from the

Thirteenth to early/mid-Eighteenth Dynasty; c) 90 blue faience figurines dated primarily from the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty; d) 61 fragments of fired clay figurines depicting women

323

lying on a bed dated from the late Eighteenth Dynasty to the Twenty-First Dynasty; and e) 6

fragments of baked clay figurines depicting females with oblong bodies dated to the Eighteenth

Dynasty. A summary of the figurines was published by Kopp (2005: 85-90). However, recent

excavations have produced more figurines in Area XIV. Budka provides their quantity and type

but these have not been published (2016d: 92). Kopp’s publication provides descriptions of each

group of female figurines listed above with some parallels and includes a drawing of one or two

representative figurines from each group (2005: 85-90, figs. 27-28; see Figure 6.12). What remains vague from Kopp’s publication is the original context of the figurines within the settlements at Elephantine. Information on the archaeological provenience of the figurines is

only provided in the description heading accompanying individual pieces that have been drawn,

but there is no indication if there were topographical clusters of groups or where certain types

were commonly found. For figurines found in specific houses, there is no way of knowing if they

came from a primary context in a particular room of the house, or from a secondary context as

discarded depositional material. Based on the individual drawings and the brief description of

features provided by Kopp, the figurines can be compared to Pinch’s preliminary typology

(1993: 198-234). Pinch’s typology was created to classify votive figurines dedicated in shrines to

Hathor dated from the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom and is the standard typology for

figurines of this period. It should be noted, however, that Pinch’s study of female figurines gives

only general proveniences at each site, such as houses, burials, and temples with no specific

primary locales provided, as observed by Waraksa (2009: 16-18).

In the New Kingdom, female figurines have been found in a range of contexts from

households to burials to temples (Pinch 1993: 221; Stevens 2006: 88). As small, portable votive

objects, female figurines can transcend these three contexts relatively easily. Their association

with human fertility and rebirth in the afterlife allows them to perform a range of functions,

324

including charms in the home, offerings to the dead, and votives in the temple (Pinch 1993: 222;

Stevens 2006: 88). As such, they have been found in domestic contexts at Deir el-Medina

(Bruyère 1939: 137-139, figs. 58-59; Backhouse 2013: 22-23), Kom Rabiʽa (Giddy 1999: 28-

42),302 Deir el-Ballas (Lacovara 1990: 7), Hierakonpolis (Adams 1974: 14, pls. 7-8), South

Abydos (Ayrton et al. 1904: 38), Amarna (Stevens 2006: 87), and Elephantine (Kopp 2005: 82-

90), and in tomb contexts at Abusir el-Meleq (Scharff 1926: 95, pl. 71), Aniba (Steindorff 1937:

85-86, pl. 46), Deir el-Ballas (Lacovara 1990: 9), Deir el-Medina (Backhouse 2013: 23), and

Zawiyet el-Aryan (Dunham 1978: 53-55, pl. 40). A greater quantity of female figurines,

however, has been recovered from temple sites in the New Kingdom, often associated with

shrines dedicated to Hathor, including Deir el-Bahri, Faras, and Gebel Zeit (Pinch 1993: 221-

234),303 as well as shrines dedicated to other goddesses, such as the Mut Temple Precinct in

Thebes (Waraksa 2009).

302 At Kom Rabiʽa there is a clear clustering of female figurines of the mid-Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties in specific areas of the settlement, although many of these have come from secondary contexts under floors, in ash deposits, accumulations of mudbrick rubble, and general debris (Giddy 1999: 28-31).

303 Out of the 321 fragments of female figurines found in temple contexts in Pinch’s study, 305 of them came from Hathor shrines (1993: 222).

325

Graph 6.1: Quantity of New Kingdom Female Figurines at Elephantine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Clay Limestone Baked Clay on Baked Clay Faience Bed Oblong

Graph 6.1 illustrates the relative quantities of each type of figurine from Elephantine. The first group (a), naked clay female figurines dated from the Thirteenth Dynasty to the Nineteenth

Dynasty, corresponds to Pinch’s Types 3 and 2 (Pinch 1993: 199-203; Kopp 2005: figs. 28.3 no.

19607P/b-4 and 28.2 no. 6116d). Figurine no. 19607P/b-4 (Type 3) was found in House 55 and dates from the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Kopp 2005: 85-86, fig. 28.3; see Figure

6.13).304 The lower half of the figurine is missing so nothing can be said of the body below the breasts; however, the torso and head are well preserved. The figurine has a flattened head, beaked nose, slits for eyes and eyebrows, and a fringe hairstyle. According to Pinch, Type 3 female figurines have been found in burials and domestic sites and occur as votive offerings at

Deir el-Bahri, Faras, and Gebel Zeit (1993: 202: 228-229, list 3). The general date of this type ranges from the Middle Kingdom to the early Eighteenth Dynasty (Pinch 1993: 203). Pinch

304 For further information about House 55, see Von Pilgrim 1996: 125, fig. 46; Von Pilgrim 1999: 118-120.

326

distinguished between the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom examples based on the stature of

the figures (earlier ones are taller; 1993: 203). The bottom half of the Elephantine fragment is

missing, so this cannot be determined; however, it was found in the New Kingdom stratigraphic

layer of House 55 (Von Pilgrim 1999: 118-119). Located in settlement phase B VIII, south of the

Heqaib sanctuary, House 55 dates from the Seventeenth Dynasty to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty

(Von Pilgrim 1996: 125, fig. 46; Von Pilgrim 1999: 118; Budka 2018a: 148). Excavations have not yet provided enough detail to determine the exact function and spatial characteristics of

House 55. However, it was integrated into an area connected with economic structures for the temple of Khnum (Von Pilgrim 1999: 119). The ruins of the house were likely used as a dump area for material that accumulated during the redesign of the temple district by Amenhotep II

(Von Pilgrim 1999: 120; Von Pilgrim 2015: 10-12, figs. 7-8; Von Pilgrim 2016: 22-25).

A similar fragment (no. 6116d) was found in the south house group (HGS) of the site and belongs to Pinch’s Type 2 female figurine category (1993: 199-201).305 Only the torso and head

remain. It has a beaked nose, slits for eyes, and small pointed breasts (Kopp 2005: fig. 28.2). The

most distinguishing characteristic is the hairstyle, which is held back by a fillet and hangs in

three slender plaits at the back of the head. Many examples of this type are found in Second

Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom burials, in domestic contexts at Badari and Coptos, as

well as in the sacred precinct at Gebel Zeit (Pinch 1993: 200, 227-228, list 2). Kopp suggests that

the fragment from Elephantine is of New Kingdom date (2005: 86, fig. 28). There is a group of

New Kingdom houses in the south house group (HGS) close to the temple of Khnum, so perhaps

the figurine originated from that area, but this cannot be determined for certain (Von Pilgrim

305 For the location of the south house group (HGS), see Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1.

327

1996: 62-68; see Figure 6.14). At the time of Pinch’s publication, she did not find any definitive

New Kingdom examples of Type 2 figurines (1993: 201).

For the second group (b), limestone female figurines, Kopp only provides images of examples from the Thirteenth Dynasty, so these will not be discussed here (2005: fig. 27). The third group (c), blue faience female figurines, comprises the largest number of female figurine fragments (90) recovered from Elephantine (Kopp 2005: 88-89). Kopp provides two examples from this group. Faience female figurine no. 26604Q/d-14 was found in layer B VIII and is dated to the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Kopp 2005: fig. 28.4).306 B VIII is located south of the

Heqaib sanctuary between the temple of Khnum and the temple of Satet (Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1; Von Pilgrim 1999: 118). Faience female figurine no. 3923, on the other hand, is dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty and was found in the southern area of the Satet temple precinct (Kopp

2005: fig. 28.6). Both figurines most closely resemble Pinch’s Type 5 female figurine category, which consists of faience female figurines with elongated bodies, slim wastes, flat stomachs and chests, arms hanging at the sides, worn faces, and a long straight wig (1993: 205-207). Type 5 female figurines are rare from domestic contexts with almost all surviving types deriving from temples (Pinch 1993: 206). They have been found among votive offerings at Dendera, in foundation deposits at Coptos and Elkab, and they figure prominently at Deir el-Bahri (see Petrie

1896: pl. XV; Quibell 1898: 16-17, pl. XXI; Pinch 1993: 206). Pinch classifies Type 5 female figurines explicitly as votive offerings of the New Kingdom (roughly dating from the reigns of

Hatshepsut to Amenhotep II) occurring in both community shrines and state-run temples (1993:

206, 231-232). At Elephantine, the faience female figurines dated to the New Kingdom seem to

306 For a map of Elephantine showing the location of B VIII, see Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1.

328

conform to this assessment. The exact findspots of the rest of the excavated faience female figurines at Elephantine have not been provided in Kopp’s publication. However, based on

Pinch’s analysis it seems probable that they also represent votive offerings at Elephantine. Since this group (c) was found in the greatest quantity (90 specimens), it can be argued that a large contingent of the female figurines found at Elephantine during the New Kingdom (from an early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty date) were associated with votive activity.

For the final two groups (d and e) of baked clay female figurines, figurine no. 18613A/a-

5 (group d) corresponds to Pinch’s Type 6b or Type 6c category (1993: 207-209), while figurine no. 27605P/f-2 (group e) is difficult to determine based on the provided image (Kopp 2005: figs.

28.7 and 28.5). Female figurine no. 18613A/a-5, which was found in layer B II, House 61, is a naked female lying on a bed (Kopp 2005: fig. 28.7).307 Sixty-one fragments of females lying on beds were found at Elephantine (Kopp 2005: 89; Budka 2016d: 92). Twenty-nine of these were found in Area XIV, which also produced duck bowls, painted wares, cooking pots, feminoform vessels, and Nun bowls (Budka 2016d: 92). Budka associates these items with New Kingdom domestic life and rituals related to human health and well-being, regeneration and rebirth (2016d:

97-98). Kopp categorizes groups d and e into Pinch’s Type 6c, which represents females with children (2005: 89, n. 289; see Pinch 1993: 209). The image provided by Kopp, however, does not include a child, but the bottom half of the piece is missing (2005: fig. 28.7). Children often appear at the foot of the bed, as Kopp notes (2005: 89). Pinch’s Type 6b and Type 6c are very similar. Both groups consist of naked female figurines attached to model beds or slabs and are made of pottery or limestone (Pinch 1993: 207-209). Often the woman is depicted lying on her

307 For the location of B II see Von Pilgrim 1990: 197, fig. 2; Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1.

329

back in the center of the bed with elongated arms at her sides, wearing jewelry and long heavy wigs (Pinch 1993: 207-209). The distinguishing feature between the two groups is the presence of a child (Type 6c).

Both Type 6b and Type 6c are more commonly associated with domestic and funerary contexts, appearing in temple contexts only in refuse areas (Pinch 1993: 208-209, 232-233 list

6). Pinch suggests that the ones found in temple refuse likely originated from houses in the temple area (1993: 208). This holds true for the Elephantine female figurine no. 18613A/a-5, which was found in House 61 in the Khnum temple area (Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1; Kopp

2005: fig. 28.7). Kopp has dated the object to the Twentieth/Twenty-First Dynasty (2005: fig.

28.7). Meanwhile Pinch gives a production date for these figurine types in the late Eighteenth

Dynasty (1993: 208-209). House 61, dated to the Ramesside Period, belonged to Hori, a high official from Thebes. The structure was a large mansion with paved and painted rooms, a staircase to an upper story, and a courtyard with two granaries (Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim

2007: 365).

Female figurine no. 27605P/f-2 was found in settlement layer B VIII in House 55 and is dated from the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Kopp 2005: fig. 28.5). The image of this figurine depicts a very oblong fragmented female with a rectangular head and only the pelvic girdle discernable. The four figurines of this type provided by Kopp all belong to the same early

Eighteenth Dynasty date with parallel examples occurring in other settlement sites, such as Deir el-Medina (2005: 89, n. 291). Two more female figurines with oblong bodies were found in Area

XIV, a dump located close to the town enclosure (Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1; Budka 2016d:

92).

330

Pinch associates the female figurines primarily with fertility – “to promote and protect

fertility in daily life” - concerned with the production and rearing of children rather than pure

sexuality (1993: 225). Most Egyptological literature on female figurines follows this standard

interpretation of their function (Stevens 2006: 85-89; Teeter 2009: 14-19). Kemp on the other

hand, suggests that female figurines served as “votive currency” of the goddess that were of

temporary use. His interpretation of their function is based on the distribution of female figurines

recovered from Amarna (Kemp 1995: 28-31). Waraksa supports Kemp’s argument in her

analysis of female figurines recovered from the Mut Temple Precinct, which were mainly found

in secondary refuse deposits and display evidence for deliberate breakage during magical, health

related rituals (2009: 75-76).

At Elephantine, the female figurines derive from both domestic and cultic contexts.

Groups (d) and (e) likely represent votive objects from the settlement, while group (c) is specific

to temple contexts. Group (a) female figurines could have come from either context, since no.

19607P/b-4 was found in House 55, which, as examined above, was likely used as a dump area

for material that accumulated during the redesign of the temple district, make it difficult to

discern if the figurine originated in the house or in one of the surrounding temples (Von Pilgrim

1999: 120). Female figurines of this type (Type 3) have been found in domestic and funerary sites, and also occur as votive offerings in temples according to Pinch (1993: 202: 228-229, list

3). In a domestic context, the female figurines represent non-royal votive activity in the context of household (personal) religion.308 The blue faience female figurines (group c) found at

Elephantine, conversely, appear to have been explicitly associated with temple contexts, which

308 Nude female figurines are commonly attributed as non-royal objects of everyday life (Baines 1991: 182; Pinch 1993: 225; Robins 2000: 12, 114; Dornan 2002: 26).

331

agrees with Pinch’s analysis of her analogous Type 5 female figurines (1993: 205-207). At Deir

el-Bahri, over 70 Type 5 female figurines were found in temple contexts (Pinch 1993: 232). At

Elephantine, 90 blue faience figurines have been excavated, the majority of which date from the

early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Kopp 2005: 88).

Pinch notes that most of the blue faience figurines date to the reigns of Hatshepsut,

Thutmosis III, and Amenhotep II (1993: 206-207). All three of these kings contributed to the temples of Satet and Khnum at Elephantine. Because female figurines are more commonly associated with female goddesses (Stevens 2006: 88), it could be argued that all the blue faience female figurines from Elephantine were originally associated with the temple of Satet. As noted above, at Coptos and Elkab, Pinch’s Type 5 female figurines have been found in Eighteenth

Dynasty temple foundation deposits (see Petrie 1896: pl. XV; Quibell 1898: 16-17, pl. XXI;

Pinch 1993: 225). Pinch argues that this context demonstrates an official form of recognition of

the fertility aspect of different goddesses in the New Kingdom and that “votive faience was

likely mass produced for shrines under direct royal patronage” (1993: 225, 360). Type 5 female

figurines thus appear to be a standardized commodity that follows the traditions of official

Egyptian art (Pinch 1993: 225). They represent a departure from earlier Middle Kingdom and

Second Intermediate Period female figurines, which are more common in household shrines

(Pinch 1993: 360). Pinch argues that Type 5 female figurines were integrated with and

influenced by state religion (1993: 225, 360). As items of popular worship, they could be

dedicated by individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds (Pinch 1993: 222-224), but at Elephantine there is no explicit indication of where these items were left in the temple or what parts of the temple were accessible to activities of non-royal devotion, since none of the faience female figurines have been found in their original context. The Type 5 female figurines found at Deir el-Bahri were associated with shrines dedicated to Hathor (Pinch 1993: 206). In the

332

Elephantine temple of Satet, the entrance forecourt contained two pillars with Hathor capitals

(Bernhauer 2002: 87-88), perhaps suggesting a connection between this area of the temple and

the faience figurines. Individuals could have dedicated the figurines in the forecourt of the

temple of Satet.

In terms of the place of manufacture, the Elephantine faience figurines may have been

locally produced or brought to the site from elsewhere. At Serabit el-Khadim, the votive faience was made locally, while other sites may have imported objects from a central workshop in

Thebes, as Pinch notes (1993: 330-331). Pinch suggests that votive faience was relatively easy to produce locally and could be manufactured in a small temple workshop with a kiln and kept in stock by the priesthood (1993: 331). Middle Kingdom pottery kilns at Elephantine that could have served such a function were discovered in an industrial area at the eastern edge of the island, and situated between the modern Annex and Old Museum, but no artifacts other than pottery were found in association with the kilns (see Kopp 2010: 5-6, fig. 5; Kopp 2012: 5-7, fig.

6). Pottery kilns have also been found outside the walled Old Kingdom town at Elephantine,

within a larger industrial area, and in the settlement of the Roman Period (Seidlmayer 1982a:

296-299; Von Pilgrim 2014: 12). While there is evidence for economic and administrative buildings surrounding the temple of Khnum, no New Kingdom kilns have yet been excavated in this or other parts of the site (Von Pilgrim 2014: 11). It is also possible that the figurines were brought to Elephantine from another place. As indicated above, there was a close connection between Thebes and Elephantine during the New Kingdom. It has already been demonstrated that Thebans likely brought votive blue painted pottery with them to the site during regular visits

(Budka 2008b: 11; Budka 2015g: 142-144). These travelers could have brought other votive objects with them along with objects of daily use.

333

In considering the evidence relating to non-royal votive activity from the site, some

questions remain. There is an apparent chronological discrepancy between the blue painted

pottery, rock inscriptions, and faience female figurines. Most of the blue painted pottery and rock inscriptions date from the late Eighteenth Dynasty to the Ramesside Period, while the faience figurines appear in the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty. This is not to say that Thebans were not residing at the site during the early New Kingdom, but the difference in dates does seem significant and may suggest a different type of votive activity was occurring at the site during the early New Kingdom with the influx of Thebans not occurring until the late New Kingdom. The available data suggests that the faience female figurines were not brought to the site by the

Theban individuals who commemorated their visits to Elephantine with inscriptions carved on rocks located at the termini of the processional route through the site and who may also have brought blue painted pottery vessels to the site for use in those festival celebrations. The faience figurines could have been made at Elephantine using a standardized mold or could have been manufactured elsewhere in Egypt but travelled easily due to their portability. Their location of production, however, does not restrict their use at the site as votive items associated with temple cults.

6.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity at Elephantine

The sacred landscape of Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty reflects the types of

royal and non-royal religious activities carried out at the site (see Figure 6.15). Hatshepsut was

the first Pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty who left a lasting impression through the

construction of two royal monuments: the temple of Satet and the temple of Khnum. From an

early date, the cult of Satet was a focus of devotion by the local community, as demonstrated by

votive offerings in her temple during the Third Millennium BC (Dreyer 1986: 18; Seidlmayer

334

2006a: 225-226; Bussmann 2011: 752-753). With the Eleventh Dynasty, the local cult entered into the custody of the state. Inscriptions found on a stone architrave fragment, and fragments of door jambs at Elephantine express strategies to proclaim the legitimacy and divine sanction of

Eleventh Dynasty kings (Morenz 2004: 107-118). Unlike previous periods, the association between the king and the goddess Satet is explicitly expressed in wall temple decoration from the

Eleventh Dynasty onwards (Seidlmayer 2006a: 226).

In the Twelfth Dynasty temple, the cult of the goddess appears to have been connected with a celebration of the Nile flood. Decorated relief scenes from the temple of Satet built under

Senwosret I depict a group of priests performing water rites along with scenes of animal sacrifice

(Kaiser 1986: fig. 4). Part of a long inscription of the Middle Kingdom temple, although fragmentary, is dedicated to the worship of the Nile (Seidlmayer 2006a: 227). Seidlmayer has suggested that the connection between the Nile and the goddess Satet is the integration of Satet in the natural world (2006a: 227). The local goddess is connected to a natural phenomenon, which shapes her identity in the blessing of the flood waters (Seidlmayer 2006a: 227). The importance of a Nile cult and its association with the goddess Satet is further attested by the presence of large stone water basins and connecting channels associated with the Satet temples of Mentuhotep II and Senwosret I (Seidlmayer 2006a: 227).

In the Eighteenth Dynasty, Hatshepsut continues the monumental building program of her predecessors on the island by revamping the temple of Satet. When compared to the earliest sanctuary of Satet, Hatshepsut’s construction appears to be a far cry from the original cult building in terms of size and complexity. Yet, as examined above, Hatshepsut’s construction contains unique features that divert from a cohesive standardized architectural plan of New

Kingdom royal cult temples. While the temple conforms to the basic design of a typical

335

peripteral temple (Type I) found at a few other sites (see Kaiser 1980b: 262-264; Arnold 2003:

12), specific aspects of the temple architecture, including the foundation shaft and the indirect

access to the central sanctuary, are embedded in the local architectural tradition of the temple of

Satet. Situated in its local setting, the temple of Satet during the Eighteenth Dynasty is

architecturally connected to the earliest development of the sanctuary and hence it is connected

not only to a contemporary state-level building program, but also to the original local cult

structure. The temple of Khnum, on the other hand, has a building history that extends only as far

back as the Middle Kingdom and appears to have been a state-initiated construction from the beginning. Not much is known about the Middle Kingdom architecture of the temple of Khnum, but in the Eighteenth Dynasty, especially during the reign of Thutmosis III, the temple more closely conforms to the typical New Kingdom temple design with pylons, columned court, and inner sanctuary. The construction of the pylons themselves is a clear distinguishing factor from the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Satet, which did not gain any such monumental feature under

Thutmosis III. The temple of Satet is thus more embedded in the history of the local cult of

Elephantine. The third royal monument, the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III, may have been built at the site of an earlier local sanctuary and was constructed for the purpose of participation in the island festivals.

A similar connection to festival processions is discernible with non-royal votive activity during the New Kingdom. Both blue painted pottery and rock inscriptions were mainly elite forms of activity associated with festivals. The blue painted pottery was a votive commodity likely stored in temple facilities and used for offerings during festival processions. Based on the

336

recovered location of many of the fragments, the blue painted pottery appears to have derived

from the temple of Khnum, rather than the temple of Satet.309

The rock inscriptions, the majority of which belonged to elite individuals, are also more

closely connected with the temple of Khnum. Inscriptions occur on rocks located in front of the

monumental platform at the entrance of the temple of Khnum and at the harbor site,

Hassawanarti. As Seidlmayer has noted, both locations are in ideal positions for participation in

festival processions and activities of public religious display, such as oracular proceedings

(2003: 441-443; 2012: 219-225). The rock inscriptions clearly portray elite strategies to

participate in the local festivals and to establish the place of those elites in public rituals, which

also effectively displays their status in relation to the gods, to the king, and to each other. The social setting of rock inscriptions at Elephantine enables elite identity and agency to be expressed more concretely and more permanently than perhaps was permissible at capital cities, such as

Thebes and Memphis during the New Kingdom.

The same cannot be said for the faience female figurines recovered from the site. These objects were not explicitly linked to festival occasions or public display. They represent a corpus of votive offerings that could be placed within the temple at any time by devout individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. Although the exact proveniences for the bulk of the faience female figurines have not been provided in the publications, those for which this information is available seem to be exclusively associated with the temple of Satet (Kopp 2005:

309 As mentioned previously, blue painted pottery fragments were recovered from dump layers in Area XIV close to the town enclosure, from surface finds and sebakh, and in individual houses in the vicinity of the Khnum temple (Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1; Von Pilgrim 2008b: 9-10; Budka 2008a: 108; Budka 2008b: 11-12; Budka 2013c: 190).

337

85-90). It is not surprising to find female figurines associated with a shrine dedicated to a

goddess, since many New Kingdom examples come from shrines associated with Hathor and

Mut (Pinch 1993: 221-234; Waraksa 2009). This is probably the reason why they do not appear

in the temple of Khnum. According to Waraksa, spells which call for the use of female figurines

in health-related rituals indicate that the figurines are meant to embody specific goddesses in

these contexts (2009: 131-154, 169). Adams has noted that “ritual provides the forum for both

the expression of cultural identities and the articulation of social strategies” (2004: 26). Because

of the uncertain provenience of the finds, however, it is difficult to determine what information

these objects can tell us about the social strategies of non-royal individuals in the cultic

landscape of Elephantine.

The built environment of Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty reveals an

impressive royal presence, which affected the ritual landscape of the site through the

construction of temples and through festival activities. Elephantine also became a pilgrimage site

for Theban elites. How much did these changes affect the daily personal religious activities of

the locals? It may have been the case that non-royal individuals (excluding priests and

priestesses) performed cultic rituals associated with the main temples only during yearly

festivals, along with the Theban contingents. The presence of the faience female figurines,

however, may indicate that this was not always the case. Although there is no explicit textual evidence linking female figurines to festival processions at the site, it is likely that the figurines were used during such events and were dedicated by elite and/or non-elite members of the community. Other types of non-elite votive objects are not prominent at the site during the

Eighteenth Dynasty. In the Ramesside Period, sanctuary “Y,” with its associated private votive stelae provides evidence of non-elite votive activity in the context of a built structure (Nebe

1990: 224-231; Krekeler 1990a: 210-211; Krekeler 1993: 170-174, fig. 14; Aston 1999: 24, 46-

338

67). No such structure from the early New Kingdom has yet been excavated. In the early

Eighteenth Dynasty, votive activity may have taken place in locations given significance by means of their relationship to the processional routes through the site, rather than demarcated by built constructions.

339

Chapter 7 Sai Island

7.1 Historical Context and Site History

Egypt’s “reconquest of Nubia”310 at the onset of the Eighteenth Dynasty brought with it a proliferation of building projects at several Nubian sites in Lower and Upper Nubia (Smith 1976:

8-9; Peden 2001: 56; Morris 2005: 68-69; Spalinger 2005: 46; Spalinger 2006: 345; Bonnet and

Valbelle 2010: 361; Bonnet 2012). The campaigns of Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III extended

Egyptian occupation of Nubia as far south as the Fourth Cataract (Leclant 1978: 67-71; Säve-

Söderbergh 1987: 36; Smith 1995: fig. 6.1; Gohary 1998: 4, 10-12; Valbelle 2004: 94-95; Török

2009: 165; Zibelius-Chen 2013: 138).311 One aspect of the expansion of the Egyptian-Nubian border was that New Kingdom Pharaohs constructed new monuments from the First Cataract to the Fourth Cataract, establishing an extensive Egyptian presence in Nubia. The Second Cataract fortresses built by Middle Kingdom kings were restored, renewed, and enlarged during the New

310 Many scholars have used this term to describe Egyptian activity in Nubia during the New Kingdom (see Smith 1995; Lacovara 1997; Smith 2003; Valbelle 2004; Davies 2005; Spalinger 2005: 46; Spalinger 2006; Valbelle 2006; Török 2009: 157-169). However, as Budka has pointed out, the nature and exact details of Egyptian campaigns in the south are not “firmly established” (2011: 23). The use of the term “conquest” when referring to Egyptian activity in Nubia implies subjugation and a hostile takeover and neglects to address complex entanglements between the two cultures. Also see Budka 2015f: 75-80.

311 Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III (who made a copy of the original) left commemorative rock inscriptions at Kurgus, which marked the southern frontier of the Egyptian empire somewhat beyond the Fourth Cataract (see Leclant 1978: 68; Davies 2001: 46-52; Valbelle 2004: 94-97; Gabolde 2012: 117). Royal stelae at both Tombos and Kurgus also refer to the activities of Thutmosis I in Upper Nubia (Davies 1998: 26-29; Davies 2001: 47-50; Klug 2002: 71-78, 504-506; Budka 2005: 108-109; Davies 2009: 21; Valbelle 2014a: 107; Budka 2015f: 64). However, no archaeological remains dated to this king have been found at Tombos or at Gebel Barkal, but by the time of Thutmosis I’s reign an Egyptian presence had already been established in Upper Nubia (Morkot 2013: 947; Valbelle 2014a: 107).

340

Kingdom, transforming them into urban towns,312 while at the same time new Egyptian fortified towns and cult temples were constructed in Nubia (Kemp 1972a; Leclant 1978: 68, 70-71; Hein

1991: 76; Gohary 1998: 10; Valbelle 2004: 96; Morris 2005: 5; Graves 2011: 63).313

Thutmosis III was particularly active in commissioning the construction of temples in

Nubia.314 Archaeological remains at several Nubian sites attest to his royal patronage (Porter and

Moss 1952; Leclant 1978: 70; Cline and O’Connor 2006). Scholars have suggested that royal

construction projects aimed at establishing or restoring cult institutions in Nubia during the

Eighteenth Dynasty may have been the state’s attempt to acculturate the Nubian populace once

the Egyptians had militarily secured Nubia under its control, as a symbol of the political

expansion of the Pharaoh and of the realm of Egypt, replete with the notions of maat inherent in that (Leclant 1978: 71; Hein 1991: 76). These interpretations claim that the motivation of this phase of pharaonic activity in Nubia was to establish Egyptian cultural unity; however, as the focus of excavations shift from the funerary sphere to domestic settlement sites,315 our

understanding of the relationship between Egyptians and Nubians during the New Kingdom

312 These fortresses include Buhen, Kuban, and Aniba (Leclant 1978: 68; Valbelle 2004: 96).

313 Kemp classified these settlements as Nubian temple towns with fortifications, enclosure walls, and a monumental temple within a settlement area (1972a). The new fortified towns include Sai Island and Dokki Gel (Valbelle 2004: 96).

314 Examples include temples at Semna (Porter and Moss 1952: 145-149; Dunham and Janssen 1960; Wilkinson 2000: 230; Laskowski 2006: 213-214), Buhen (Porter and Moss 1952: 131-138; Caminos 1974; Wilkinson 2000: 229; Laskowski 2006: 214), Gebel Dosha (Porter and Moss 1952: 167; Wilkinson 2000: 231), Gebel Barkal (Wilkinson 2000: 232; Laskowski 2006: 214; Kendall et al. 2017), Ellesiya (Porter and Moss 1952: 90-91; Curto 1970; Wilkinson 2000: 242; Laskowski 2006: 214), and Amada (Gauthier 1913; Porter and Moss 1952: 65-73; Arnold 1992: 82; Wilkinson 2000: 221; Rocheleau 2005: 70; Laskowski 2006: 221-225).

315 Only recently has there been a revival of archaeological exploration of Nubian temple towns in the New Kingdom with more focus on settlement data. This has occurred for example, at Amara West (Spencer 2010; Spencer 2014a; Spencer 2014b), at Sesebi (Spence and Rose 2009; Spence et al. 2011), and on Sai Island (Devauchelle and Doyen 2009; Budka 2011a; Doyen 2014).

341

becomes more nuanced and is able to take into account the complex cultural entanglement

between these regions (Smith 2003; Buzon 2008; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 167-168; Smith and Buzon 2014; Budka 2018a: 149). Recent excavations on Sai Island (see Figure 7.1) point to the existence of distinct and blended cultural identities between royal and elite Egyptian activities and the activities of the local Nubian population, rather than strict “Egyptianization” or acculturation.

On Sai Island, one of the largest islands of the Nile in Upper Nubia, Egyptian occupation and royal activity can be traced to the very foundations of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Located between the Second and Third Cataracts, Sai Island was an attractive location as a main outpost for trade in Upper Nubia and held a strategic position between Lower and Upper Nubia

(Vercoutter 1986; Geus 2004: 114; Doyen 2009; Budka 2011a: 23; see Figure 7.1). The large size of the island, its location, and its suitability for agricultural activity as a result of the fertile alluvium along the river banks, provided ideal conditions for settlement (Geus 2000). A high hill,

Gebel Adu, provides views of all the shores of the island, creating an excellent vantage point for settlers (Doyen 2014: 369).

Egyptian artifacts such as fragmentary pottery vessels from as far back as the Early

Dynastic Period and early Old Kingdom have been found at the site, indicating an Egyptian presence at that time (Geus 2004: 114). Excavations on Sai Island have revealed phases of occupation ranging from the Prehistoric Period through to the Islamic (Ottoman) Period, including various Nubian cultures, as well as Egyptian (Vercoutter 1958; Vercoutter 1973; Azim

1975; Geus 1995; Goossens, De Dapper, and De Paepe 1997; Hesse 1997; Geus 1998; Geus

2000; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 168-171; Garcea 2014). However, multiperiod and dense occupation of the site has created complicated stratigraphy. During the Middle Kingdom,

342

remains of a possible temporary camp (SAV2) with undulating walls excavated in 1969 and

1971 suggest that the site may have served as an important Egyptian outpost at that time, but the date of the camp is not firmly established (Hesse 1981; Vercoutter 1986: 11-12; Miellé 2012).

Middle Kingdom documents naming the island Shaât seem to indicate that Sai Island was known

to the Twelfth Dynasty kings Senwosret I and Senwosret III (Geus 2004: 114; Minault-Gout

2007: 275-276, n. 4). However, there is no archaeological or architectural evidence that Middle

Kingdom kings conducted activity at the site (Budka 2014c: 61-65). When the Kerma kingdom

of Kush became a significant political player during the Second Intermediate Period as an

opponent of the Theban Seventeenth Dynasty, the site likely hosted a community of Kerma

culture Nubians (Geus 1996: 1166; O’Connor 1997: 63; Bonnet and Valbelle 2010: 361; Budka

2011a: 23).316

With the formation of the unified Eighteenth Dynasty in Egypt, Sai Island became the

focus of Egyptian attention in the reign of Ahmose II. Ahmose II is attributed with several

campaigns into Nubia, but the exact locations of his activities are uncertain, including his

presence on Sai Island (Morris 2005: 70-71; Davies 2005: 51; Török 2009: 183; Gabolde 2012:

117-118; Davies 2014: 9-10). Evidence for activity under the reign of Ahmose II at the site is

fragmentary and controversial.

Two block fragments (S.408 and S.410) were found east of temple A, and fragments of a

sandstone statue of the king (Khartoum SNM 3828 [head] and SNM 63/4/4 [torso and throne])

were found near the southeastern gate of the town (Porter and Moss 1952: 165; Vercoutter 1956:

316 A settlement of this date has not been found on the island (Budka 2011a: 23; Azim and Carlotti 2012), but there are extensive cemeteries dated to the Kerma Classique (SKC) and Kerma Récent (SAC4) periods (Gratien 1985; Gratien 1986; Morris 2005: 81; Doyen 2009: 17; Miellé 2014: 391).

343

78; Vercoutter 1973: 26-27; Davies 2004: 103, fig. 79; Minault-Gout 2007: 278, 280-281, fig.

1b; Gabolde 2012: 118-124, fig. 1). Minault-Gout attributes the block fragments to Ahmose II

(2007: 281), but a recent examination by Gabolde suggests that the evidence is inconclusive

(2012: 121-123). Both fragments do not contain a complete cartouche of Ahmose II. Block S.408

contains a partial depiction of a figure wearing the atef-crown. Minault-Gout believes that the figure represents the portrait of Ahmose II (2007: 281). However, based on the placement of the figure in relation to the accompanying inscription, Gabolde argues that the person depicted would be deified and suggests that the figure could be the deified Ahmose II or a deity (2012:

122-123). A cartouche on block fragment S.410 had been originally identified as the prenomen of Ahmose II, Nebpehtyre (Minault-Gout 2007: 281). However, only two signs survive. Gabolde suggests that the cartouche may be Nebpehtyre, but argues that its position as the second cartouche following an unidentified cartouche in front of a figure of a king goes against the correct order of Ahmose II’s names (2012: 121-122).317 He believes that the unidentified

cartouche could belong to Amenhotep I, who might have been facing Ahmose II in the act of

posthumous veneration. Like the figure on S.408, the preserved figure on S.410 wears an atef-

crown (Minault Gout 2007: 281; Gabolde 2012: 122). As Gabolde notes, the atef-crown has

Osirian connotations, suggesting that the figure may be deified (see Strauss 1979: 814; Goebs

2008: 43, 50 n. 70, 62-68; 113; Gabolde 2012: 122).318 To add to Gabolde’s discussion, Goebs has demonstrated that the atef-crown appears among the insignia of the deceased in the Coffin

Texts and in the Book of the Dead (2008: 81, 106), which might further suggest that the figures

on block fragments S.408 and S.410 represent deceased individuals. Similarly, Gabolde

317 The second cartouche should be Ahmose II’s son of Re (Birth) name (see Leprohon 2013: 10-19, 95-96).

318 Goebs lists the atef-crown as an important part of Osiris’ insignia (2008: 62-68, 113).

344

convincingly demonstrates that the statue fragments belonging to Ahmose II, which depict the

king in sed-festival attire, could represent a posthumous veneration of the king (2012: 120).319

Some scholars suggest that the block and statue fragments provide evidence that Ahmose

II constructed the New Kingdom temple (temple A) on the island, but no in situ building

elements for this king have yet been found. As demonstrated above, a closer examination of the

finds suggests that Amenhotep I dedicated the statue and building elements posthumously in

honor of his father (Lindbald 1984: 21; Davies 2005: 49-56; Minault-Gout 2007: 280-282, 286-

289, tab. 1; Gabolde 2012: 118-126). Budka suggests that that the statues of Ahmose II and

Amenhotep I could have been set up in a ka chapel, perhaps outside a fortification (2015f: 77-

78). Given the evidence, it seems unlikely that Ahmose II founded the New Kingdom temple on

Sai Island, but the initial occupation of the island at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty

may have predated the establishment of the temple (Budka 2011a: 24). Ahmose II could have

founded the town and been commemorated there posthumously by his son Amenhotep I. Due to

the fragmentary epigraphical and archaeological evidence, no exact date for the initial

occupation of the site in the Eighteenth Dynasty has been confirmed, but recent investigations

may rectify this problem in the near future (see Budka 2011a: 24). Many of the most powerful

kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty are attested at the site via epigraphical sources, including

Ahmose II, Amenhotep I, Thutmosis I, Hatshepsut, Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, and

Amenhotep III (Porter and Moss 1952: 164-165; Minault-Gout 2007: tab. 1; Gabolde 2012: 118-

137); however, it is often impossible to determine if there are corresponding architectural and

archaeological features attributed to some of these Pharaohs.

319 Gabolde provides evidence of other royal statues in sed-festival costume that are known to be dedicated posthumously by successors (2012: 120).

345

Evidence for activity under Ramesside kings is not substantial, but a stela of Sety I was found in the fortress and describes a campaign against Irem (Hein 1991: 59). Ramesses II is named on artifacts dated to the Ramesside Period, but most of these derive from non-royal monuments at the site, such as a pillar fragment of Setau, a stela fragment of Rajj, and door jambs of Hornakht (Vercoutter 1958: 156-157; Fouquet 1975: 135; Hein 1991: 59). A granite stela found in a secondary context may belong to Ramesses II, but not much of its inscription has survived (Hein 1991: 59). Ramesses III is named on a rectangular faience plaque belonging to a

Viceroy of Kush, Ramessesnakht, but this item was likely given as a gift by the king

(Auenmüller 2018: 243). Ramesses IX’s name is only attested in inscriptional evidence belonging to non-royal monuments, including a lintel belonging to a idnw n KAS Wsr-mAat-Ra-nxt

“Deputy of Kush, Usermaatrenakht” (Minault-Gout 1979: 41; Hein 1991: 59-60; Auenmüller

2018: 247, tab. 2). Yet again, it is difficult to determine the extent of Ramesside building activity at the site based on these finds.

Archaeological remains on Sai Island attest to a prominent New Kingdom occupation of the site. Egyptian activity includes a fortified pharaonic town, which is divided into different sectors (discussed below), a sandstone temple (temple A), two cemeteries, and sandstone quarries, as well as fragmentary artifacts scattered over the site (Vercoutter 1956: 74-75;

Minault-Gout and Thill 1974; Gratien 1985; Vercoutter 1986: 13-14; Minault-Gout 1997; Geus

1998; Geus 2002; Geus 2004: 114-115; Geus 2006; Minault-Gout 2007: 276; Devauchelle and

Doyen 2009: 175; Budka 2011a: 23-24; Geus 2012; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013; Budka 2013a;

Budka 2014a; Doyen 2014; Miellé 2014; see Figure 7.2). During the Ramesside Period, inscriptional and mortuary evidence attests to the presence of Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty officials at Sai Island (Vercoutter 1972: 201-298; Minault-Gout 1979: 41; Minault-Gout and

Thill 2012: 35, 414; Budka 2015a: 47-48; Auenmüller 2018: 243, 246-247). For example,

346

sandstone architectural fragments and a pyramidion inscribed with the name of Hornakht, idnw n

KAS “Deputy of Kush,” under the reign of Ramesses II were found in cemetery SAC5 and

provide evidence that high officials of the Nineteenth Dynasty were buried at Sai Island (Budka

2015a: 48-50; Auenmüller 2018: tab. 1). Hornakht’s name also occurs on door jambs and a lintel

fragment found in the town/fort and in the modern villages on Sai Island (Fouquet 1975: 135-

137; Geus 2012: 170, fig. 21; Budka 2015a: 49; Auenmüller 2018: 246, tab. 2). Budka suggests

that one pair of the door jambs originally derived from Hornakht’s residence in the town

indicating that Hornakht may have lived and died on Sai Island (2015a: 49; 2017i: 18).

Furthermore, shabtis with the names and titles of high-ranking officials from the Nineteenth

Dynasty were recovered from tomb 2 in SAC5 (Minault-Gout 1979: 33-41; Minault-Gout and

Thill 2012: 414; Auenmüller 2018: 242-243, tab. 1). One of these, the letter scribe Haremhab, may have overseen correspondence between Sai Island, Egypt, and other Pharaonic towns in

Nubia (see Auenmüller 2018: 243).

Post New Kingdom reoccupation of Sai Island by the Napatans, Meroitics, X-Group people, Christian Nubians, and the Turks is attested by finds in the town and by cemetery remains (Vercoutter 1958: 144-169; Geus 1994; Geus 1999; 29; Rilly 2008: 139-177; Doyen

2014: 369). Built over the southern quarter of the pharaonic town wall, the last remaining architectural feature constructed on Sai Island was an Ottoman fort in use from the Sixteenth to

Nineteenth Centuries AD.320

Several early explorers and travelers visited the site of Sai Island and reported what they saw, as well as recorded important historical data (Budge 1907: 461-464; Breasted 1908: 98-100;

320 A comprehensive synthesis of the history of Sai Island can be found in Gratien 1986: 7-17.

347

Fairman 1939: 142). Vercoutter and Azim were the first individuals to systematically explore Sai

Island from the 1950s to the 1970s within the fortified town of the New Kingdom in the southern

area of the pharaonic settlement labelled SAV1 (Vercoutter 1958; Vercoutter 1973; Azim 1975).

Geus directed excavations from 1993 to 2004, primarily focusing on the geoarchaeology and

geomorphology of the island (see Geus 1995; Geus 1998; Geus 2000; Geus 2003; Geus 2006;

Geus 2012).

New fieldwork was resumed at the site by the Sai Island Archaeological Mission (SIAM)

of l’Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille 3, directed by Devauchelle, from 2008 to 2012

(Devauchelle and Doyen 2009; Doyen 2009; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 171-181; Doyen

2014; Budka 2015a: 42). This team dug for five seasons near the northern enclosure wall in an

area labelled SAV1 North, revealing mudbrick domestic structures. Finally in 2013, Budka

continued focused work at the site as part of her project, AcrossBorders, funded by the European

Research Council (see Budka 2012; Budka 2013a; Budka 2014a; Budka 2015a; Budka 2016a;

Budka 2017a; Budka 2017g).321 Select excavations from 2013 to the present have revealed

significant new data to add to the knowledge of pharaonic and local activity on Sai Island and to

confirm the dates of New Kingdom occupation in different areas of the settlement; however,

approximately two thirds of the New Kingdom town remain unexcavated, so that a full

documentation of the site is far from complete.

321 The AcrossBorders Project “aims to provide new insights on the lifestyle and the living conditions in New Kingdom Nubia” through fieldwork and multilayered research, and to see if the settlement of Sai Island is an Egyptian microcosm (Budka 2015a: 40).

348

7.2 Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Identifying features and building projects initiated by Eighteenth Dynasty kings is complicated due to the continuous occupation of Sai Island and the mixed context of the site’s archaeological layers. Many of the objects inscribed with names of kings were published by

Vercoutter (1956; 1970; 1973) after his initial excavations and have been referenced in Porter and Moss (1952: 164-165), but only recently have attempts been made to fully document and analyze the material (see Minault-Gout 2007: tab. 1; Gabolde 2012). Recent studies have reassessed the chronology of royal patronage on Sai Island based on inscriptional material: statues, stelae, and block fragments. Most of the inscribed fragments were found in areas around temple A and in various locations within the interior of the fortified town wall in displaced contexts making interpretations difficult (Minault-Gout 2007: tab. 1). However, block fragments, statues, and stelae are all part of the common repertoire of objects associated with cult institutions. The items provide invaluable information about royal activity on Sai Island during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

As discussed above, the material remains attributed to Ahmose II are likely posthumous dedications provided by his son, Amenhotep I. Amenhotep I had a sandstone statue made for himself (Khartoum SNM 63/4/5), similar to the one commissioned for Ahmose II, depicting the king in a sed-festival cloak and wearing the white crown in a style that shows archaizing and continuity with Middle Kingdom works (Davies 2004; Minault-Gout 2007: 282; Gabolde 2012:

118-120, 129, fig. 2). The inscription on the statue gives Amenhotep I’s titles, as well as those of the god Amun-Re as Lord of Nubia (Minault-Gout 2007: 282). Gabolde suggests that

Amenhotep I’s statue and the statue of Ahmose II (discussed above) may have been positioned in a chapel annexed to temple A for the cult of the king and for royal ancestor worship similar to the situation at Karnak where Amenhotep I set up cult statues in perimeter chapels (2012: 129).

349

A much-worn stela (S.3) with the titulary of Amenhotep I was found in the fortress of the town

in 1937 and may have been set up to proclaim the king’s control over the territory of Sai Island

(see Vercoutter 1956: 75; Vercoutter 1973: 27, 37 no. 105, pl. X; Zibelius-Chen 1984: 353;

Minault-Gout 2007: 278, 282; Gabolde 2012: 127-128). Finally, cartouches of Amenhotep I’s

throne name and birth name frame a cartouche of Thutmosis III’s throne name on lintel

fragments S.412 and S.413 found in the foundations of temple A (Minault-Gout 2007: 279, 283,

fig. 2e; Gabolde 2012: 129; Winnerman 2018: 209-210). Gabolde suggests that Thutmosis III

may have been honoring Amenhotep I by placing Amenhotep I’s name in the temple built by

Thutmosis III and that Thutmosis III may have replaced an earlier temple of Amenhotep I’s on

Sai Island (2012: 129). To date there is no architectural or archaeological evidence to confirm the

existence of a temple built by Amenhotep I.

The majority of royal artifacts belong to Thutmosis III, who appears to have been the most active Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaoh on Sai Island. Over ten relief and architectural fragments and one statue fragment (S.90) have been attributed to this king, as well as foundation deposits and seal impressions (Vercoutter 1958: 164; Vercoutter 1970: 27-29; Vercoutter 1973:

19-21, 164; Minault-Gout 2007: 283-284, tab. 1; Gabolde 2012: 136-137; Budka 2015a: 45).

While statuary and blocks with relief or inscriptions could be associated with either new building

activity or the embellishment of existing structures, the foundation deposits would include new

building initiatives. Limited remains attest to activity by Thutmosis III’s immediate

predecessors, Thutmosis I and Hatshepsut: a) Thutmosis I: stela and rock inscription322

322 Breasted noted the rock inscription in 1908, but it has never been seen since and is not found today (1908: 100; Spalinger 2006: 349).

350

(Breasted 1908: 100; Minault-Gout 2007: 282; Gabolde 2012: 131-133); b) Hatshepsut: statue323 and seal impressions324 (Minault-Gout 2007: 282; Budka 2015a: 45).325

The quantity of evidence attested for Ahmose II, Amenhotep I, Thutmosis III,

Amenhotep II, and Amenhotep III on Sai Island, in comparison to other Eighteenth Dynasty

Pharaohs, is in keeping with other Egyptian sites,326 such as Abydos where monuments constructed by Amenhotep I and Thutmosis III make up a large component of the royal building program located within the Osiris Temple Enclosure during the Eighteenth Dynasty. No remains dated to the reigns of Thutmosis II or Thutmosis IV have been found on Sai Island. However, certain relief blocks are problematic in terms of assigning them to specific kings. For example, block fragment S.779 found reemployed in the paving of temple A was interpreted by Vercoutter as a reinvestment of Amenhotep II (1958: 164, pl. XLVId), but Minault-Gout has ascribed the object to Thutmosis III (2007: 283-284). Archaeological remains excavated on Sai Island

323 An incomplete sandstone statue (Khartoum Museum SNM 443) with an inscription found south of the fortress has been attributed to Hatshepsut by some scholars (Minault-Gout 2007: 280-282). However, Gabolde suggests that it might actually represent Queen Merytamun (2012: 125-126). Gabolde based his analysis on the similarities between the statue of the queen and the statues of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I recovered from Sai Island, such as the arrangement of the columns of the inscription on the throne, the type of stone used, and the base pedestal (2012: 125-126). However, when Gabolde reexamined the statue, he could not decipher any trace of the name that had once been inscribed in the cartouche, thus rendering his hypothesis inconclusive (2012: 126).

324 A set of seal impressions was found in a subterranean storage feature (feature 15) in the central courtyard of building A located north of temple A that contains the names of Amenhotep I, Hatshepsut, and Thutmosis III (Budka 2015a: 45). With approximately twenty seals attributed to Hatshepsut, this is the first substantial evidence that she may have had a prominent role at the site. See further discussion below.

325 Although Hatshepsut may have had a greater role in Nubia than previously thought (Valbelle 2006).

326 Additional examples include, Buto (Redford 1983; Von der Way 1997; Wilkinson 2000: 18-19; Redford 2010a: 68-71); Mendes (Redford 2010a: 80; Redford 2001b: 274), Bubastis (Habachi 1957a; Naville 1891; Wilkinson 2000: 22, 26), Akhmim (Porter and Moss 1937: 17; El-Masry 1998: 759-765; Wilkinson 2000: 142); Gurob (Petrie 1891: 15-20; Brunton and Engelbach 1927; Porter and Moss 1934: 112-113), Coptos (Petrie 1896; Porter and Moss 1937: 123-126; Wilkinson 2000: 242), Elkab (Van Siclen III 1999; Wilkinson 2000: 202), and Elephantine (Kaiser 1995; Kaiser 1999c; Bommas 2000a; Bommas 2004).

351

provide evidence for two royal structures dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty: a) temple A; and b) building A, which are likely the original sources of the displaced royal block, statue, and stelae fragments.

7.2.1 Temple A

Located north of the main southern portion of the pharaonic town (SAV1) along the eastern enclosure wall, a small sandstone temple with several building phases dated to the

Eighteenth Dynasty was first explored by Vercoutter (1958; 1970; 1973), and later Azim and

Carlotti (2012). All that remains of the sanctuary are parts of the pavement and partial walls; otherwise, the temple lies in ruins today (Thill 1997: 105; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 12).

Seven foundation deposits found under the walls and corners of the temple attest to

Thutmosis III’s construction of temple A (Vercoutter 1970; Vercoutter 1973: 14-19, pls. II and

III; Weinstein 1973: 324; Vercoutter 1974: 30; Thill 1997; fig. 1; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 12,

39, 45; see Figure 7.3). The deposits contained homogeneous material, including model grinders and grindstones, model pottery vessels, brick molds, bronze model tools, clay model hoes, carnelian beads, and one or two faience plaques with the cartouche of Thutmosis III (Weinstein

1973: 325; Thill 1997: 107-108).327 Weinstein notes the contents’ similarity to a deposit at

Aniba dated to the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (1973: 325-326). A separate deposit (no. 1) was found north of the pavement of the front room of temple A, 11 m (21 cubits) away from the other seven deposits and contained hundreds of miniature vases, some forms of which were not found in the other deposits (Thill 1997: 106-109, fig. 1). Because deposit no. 1 is not directly

327 The contents of the deposits can now be found in various museum collections around the world, including Khartoum and the Louvre (Thill 1997: fig. 1).

352

associated with a wall or corner of the temple, it may represent a different type of deposit. While

the majority of the inscribed objects recovered from foundation deposits nos. 2-8 contain the

name Mn-xpr-Ra (Thutmosis III), the name Mni, Mny, or Mny-Ra often occurs alongside

Thutmosis III’s name, as well as the name of the god to whom the temple was dedicated, Imn or

Imn-Ra (Thill 1997: 112-114, fig. 3).328 Unlike other parts of the temple where Amun’s name

was hacked out during the Amarna period (Vercoutter 1974: 32; Rocheleau 2008: 59), the

foundation deposits provide concrete evidence that temple A was dedicated to the god.

Architectural fragments bearing the names of Amenhotep I, Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II,

and Amenhotep III were recovered from the foundation pavement of temple A, between the

fortress and temple A, and from the fortress itself,329 suggesting that the temple underwent two

main construction phases, either both built under Thutmosis III – one in brick and one in stone -

or the first one was initiated by Thutmosis III and completed or rebuilt by Amenhotep II with

further additions made by Amenhotep III (Thill 1997: 114; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 12-14, 45-

47, pl. XVIb). Azim and Carlotti propose five construction phases for temple A, which include

activity by Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, and Amenhotep III (2012: 45-47; see Figure 7.4). In an inscription carved on a pillar (S.1) found within the fortress, Viceroy Nehy claims to have rebuilt a temple in stone for Amun in year 25 of Thutmosis III’s reign (Porter and Moss 1952: 165;

Vercoutter 1956: 74-75; Thill 1997: 114; Geus 2004: 115; Valbelle 2006: 45; Azim and Carlotti

2012: 46; Doyen 2014; Thill 2016: pl. II; Auenmüller 2018: 245). The text gives an exact date for potential pharaonic building activity on Sai Island, but the information is difficult to correlate

328 Minault-Gout argues that the names Mni, Mny, or Mny-Ra are an alliteration of the name Amun as a “hypocoristic” of Menkheperre (2006-2007: 283; also see Vercoutter 1990: 1025-1032).

329 For a list of the objects attributed to each king, see Minault-Gout 2007: tab. 1; Gabolde 2012; and Appendix A5.

353

with the archaeological data to confirm the development of temple A. Minault-Gout believes that

the inscription signifies a reconstruction of an earlier temple possibly built under Ahmose

II/Amenhotep I (2007: 276, 286). However, as Vercoutter points out (1986: 13), early occupation

remains unearthed beneath and around temple A consist of small huts and storage facilities,

which pre-date the reign of Thutmosis III (also see Azim and Carlotti 2012: 34-36). Associated pottery dated to the Kerma Classique period and comparison with similar structures at the Kerma village of Gism el-Arba indicates that no pre-New Kingdom sanctuary existed in this area of the site (Gratien 1995: 55-65; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 35).

If there was a Kerma culture occupation of Sai Island during the late Second Intermediate

Period, this might explain why Ahmose II founded a new Egyptian town at the site at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Ahmose II’s foundation could have been commemorated by Amenhotep I through more permanent and monumental construction there. More recently, excavations in SAV1 East, adjacent to temple A, have yielded a similar horizon for the structures found in that area, narrowing the date of occupation layers surrounding temple A to the early

Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka 2014c: 61-62). However, Budka argues that Kerma vessels found with associated Egyptian material in this area of the site do not pre-date the early Eighteenth

Dynasty (2013b: 10; 2014c: 61-62).330 This does not mean that Kerma occupation did not occur elsewhere on Sai Island (see O’Connor 1997b: 63). Azim and Carlotti suggest that a Kerma culture settlement may have once existed on the banks of the Nile, but disappeared due to water erosion and flooding (2012: 35). In addition, as mentioned in note 316 above, cemeteries dated to the Kerma Classique and Kerma Récent periods on Sai Island provide indirect evidence that a

330 Budka observes a similar situation at SAV1 North and suggests that there is no Pre-New Kingdom presence in the New Kingdom town (2016c: 59).

354

community of Kerma Nubians lived on the island during the Seventeenth Dynasty (Gratien 1985;

Gratien 1986; Morris 2005: 81; Doyen 2009: 17; Miellé 2014: 391). Kerma pottery has also been

recovered from a storage pit in SAV1 dated to the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, which Miellé has

interpreted as an “intrusive sample” that may have derived from an earlier Kerma settlement in

the area and could have been reused by the Egyptian inhabitants (2014: 391).

The architectural design of temple A consists of three parallel rooms oriented east-west

and a transverse chamber oriented west with the main axis perpendicular to the Nile river

(Vercoutter 1956: 66-82; Vercoutter 1958: 144-168; Vercoutter 1973: 9-38; Vercoutter 1974: 28-

36; Thill 1997: 105; Arnold 2003: 9; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 36-43; see Figure 7.5). The

portions closest to the east facing the river were destroyed during the Late Period and contained

mixed post-New Kingdom remains (Thill 1997: 105). Rocheleau has classified temple A in her

Group B.1 Regular Type, which is a multiroom temple with basic plan and a complex triple

sanctuary (2008: 69). These types of Nubian temples are generally small and contain a court,

vestibule, and sanctuary. The layout of temple A is comparable to New Kingdom temples at

Kumma and Semna, as Azim and Carlotti have pointed out (2012: 44, pl. XVIa), but in temple

A, the sanctuary is complex; the southern chamber is divided into two sections and a small

hallway leads to a transverse chamber at the rear that extends through the middle sanctuary room

(Rocheleau 2008: 69). Rocheleau has suggested that Egyptian temples built in Nubia during the

New Kingdom served as prototypes for later Napatan and Meroitic temples (2008: 83).

7.2.2 Building A

Excavations conducted by the AcrossBorders Project in 2013 and 2014 north of temple A at the eastern edge of the pharaonic town (SAV1 East) revealed a second large mudbrick structure dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka 2013a: 80-81; Budka 2013b: 8; Budka 2014c:

355

62-63; Budka 2015a: 43, pl. 1; Budka 2017i: 17; see Figure 7.6). Labelled building A, the

monument is oriented along the main north-south road of the town and was built on terraces, although only scarce traces of the walls of the building and its rooms exist today (Budka 2015a:

43; Budka 2017i: 17). Building A contained a main central courtyard and adjacent lateral rooms.

Budka has noted building A’s similarity to the governor’s residence (SAF2) in the southern

portion of the New Kingdom town (SAV1) (2013a: 85, fig. 12; 2014a: 31; 2015a: 43; 2017i: 17).

The southern wall has nearly disappeared, but within the court of building A, three circular pits,

as well as the overall design of the building is very similar to SAF2 (Budka 2013b: 8-10; Budka

2015a: 43; see Figure 7.7). An undisturbed foundation trench belonging to building A contained

pottery sherds dated to the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka 2013a: 84; Budka 2013b: 8; Budka

2015a: 43), providing a terminus post quem date for the building’s foundation. This date is

contemporary with the reoccupation of Sai Island during the reign of Thutmosis III. Several

building phases associated with building A attest to its long period of use during the New

Kingdom likely until the reign of Amenhotep III (Budka 2013a: 84; Budka 2015a: 45, tab. 1).

In 2013 and 2014, the AcrossBorders Project unearthed a subterranean feature (feature

15) in the central courtyard of building A that was lined with red bricks and contained ash

deposits of charcoal, burnt animal bones, and ceramics, suggesting that the feature was used for

food production (Budka 2015a: 44, pls. 3-4). As previously mentioned, more than 200 seal

impressions were found in feature 15, which included scarab seals on clay sealings with the royal

names of Amenhotep I, Hatshepsut, and Thutmosis III (Budka 2015a: 45). The assemblage also

included a seal impression of the Viceroy Nehy (SAV1E 2326) and floral designs attributed to

the Second Intermediate Period (Budka 2015a: 45; Budka 2015c: 5-7; Budka 2016a: 5;

Auenmüller 2018: 246). The seals have not been extensively published yet to provide detailed

information about the administration of the town during these periods, but Budka notes that

356

“several institutions and titles are named” (2015d: 10). Budka suggests that the seal impressions were “used to seal boxes containing diverse material” (2015a: 45), but does not specify what this material includes. Based on the evidence deriving from this feature, Budka has argued that building A functioned as a storage and distribution facility with an administrative function perhaps connected with temple A as a state operated monument (2014a: 28-37; 2015a: 45; 2017i:

17). The most well-preserved remains of building A exist in the northeast corner of SAV1 East

where three layers of in situ brick were excavated from the foundations of its walls. The

discovery of building A helps support the idea that Sai Island had an important role within the

Egyptian administration in Upper Nubia during the Eighteenth Dynasty (see Budka 2013a: 78-

87).

7.3 Non-Royal Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Three categories of evidence provide information about the activities of the non-royal

inhabitants of Sai Island during the Eighteenth Dynasty: a) pharaonic settlement, b) New

Kingdom cemeteries; and c) statuary. The goal of analyzing the excavated and published

material from the New Kingdom settlement and cemeteries is to investigate the social

interconnections and power hierarchies specifically associated with the major cult institution

during the Eighteenth Dynasty. To date, no in situ evidence connected with temple A attests to

non-royal votive activity, but a complex multiperiod pharaonic settlement surrounding the

temple provides significant information about non-royal activity on the island. Egyptian

occupation and administration changed the shape of the site in the New Kingdom. Although

Egyptians had earlier contact with the inhabitants of Sai Island based on the presence of

357

Egyptian artifacts in Kerma period tombs (see Gratien 2002: 220-224), there is no concrete

evidence that an Egyptian population lived on Sai Island prior to the Eighteenth Dynasty.331

7.3.1 Pharaonic Settlement

The pharaonic town located within the fortified enclosure wall has been excavated in four

main sectors: SAV1, SAV1 North, SAV1 East, and SAV1 West (see Figure 7.6). The town has multiple periods of occupation and a complex development. Six levels of occupation from the

Pharaonic Period until the Islamic Period were recorded by Azim during excavations of the southern part of the town (SAV1) from the 1950s to the 1970s (see Azim 1975: 93-95). In this area of the site, excavators noted separate quarters laid out on a grid-pattern with aligned streets and divided sections accordingly: 1) temple A; 2) SAF5 (magazines and silos); 3) H1-H5

(houses); 4) SAF2 (palatial residence); 5) SAF3; and 6) SAF4 (fortifications and entrance gate).332 The settlement was orthogonally planned in a south-north direction and the layout is

similar to other New Kingdom towns at Buhen, Amara West, and Sesebi (Kemp 1972a: 651-653;

Azim 1975: 98, pl. 4; Doyen 2009, pl. 9; Fuchs 2009: 72-79; Graves 2011: 55, 61-63; Doyen

2014: 369; Budka 2017i: 16).

Social stratification within the town is attested by variations in house size. Small houses

(H1, H2, and H3) are quite homogeneous in size, measuring roughly 10 x 8 m (19 x 15.2 cubits)

331 As explained in §7.1, the date of the possible Middle Kingdom camp (SAV2) located outside the northern enclosure wall of the pharaonic town is not firmly established (Vercoutter 1986: 11-12; Miellé 2012).

332 For an overview of the different quarters of the southern portion of the pharaonic town, see Azim 1975 and Adenstedt 2013: 20-23.

358

in area,333 and layout, consisting of four rooms and an entrance corridor, while large houses (H4

and H5) are similar in plan, but are larger in size (for example, H4 is roughly 28 x 13 m or 53.3 x

24.8 cubits in area) containing evidence of courtyards and potential second stories (Azim 1975:

118-120, pl. IV; Minault-Gout 2007: 276; Adenstedt 2013: 21-22). Of the large residential

mudbrick building, SAF2, only the central part of the original layout is preserved to give any

indication of its function, but excavations have revealed a large central hall with in situ column

bases, and parts of a preserved floor (Azim 1975; Adenstedt 2013: 22). The function of SAF2 is

not firmly established, since no inscriptional or artifactual material has been found associated

with the structure to indicate its purpose. However, its size and complexity reveal a social

hierarchy when compared to the architecture of surrounding buildings; its similarity to building

A located in SAV1 East may suggest that SAF2 had an administrative function (Adenstedt 2013:

22; Budka 2013b: 8-9).334 The houses and building SAF2 appear to have been occupied for a

short period of time due to the restricted number of building phases associated with them (Azim

1975; Geus 2000; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 168-171; Adenstedt 2013: 22-23; Garcea 2014).

Inscribed material recovered from SAV1 includes door jambs and lintels belonging to Nehy, the

Eighteenth Dynasty official who likely temporarily lived in the town and erected monuments for

public display (Auenmüller 2018: 245-246). Other Eighteenth Dynasty elite identified by inscribed objects found in the New Kingdom cemetery SAC5 were probably long-term residents of the town.

333 This measurement is based on the plan of the town provided by Azim (1975: pl. IV). Adenstadt provides the brick measurements of the small houses (33 x 17 x 9 cm or 0.63 x 0.32 x 0.17 cubits) (2013: 22).

334 Auenmüller suggests that SAF2 was the main seat of power for either viceroys of Nubia or deputies of Kush and mayors of Sai Island (2018: 243).

359

Several domestic mudbrick structures containing storage facilities and ovens were

unearthed during five seasons of fieldwork conducted by the Sai Island Archaeological Mission

(SIAM) between 2008 and 2012 in the northern section of the town (SAV1 North) (Devauchelle and Doyen 2009; Doyen 2009; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 171-181; Doyen 2014: 367, 372).

The stratigraphy of the area is complicated by superimposed structures and reuses of material in different building phases (Budka 2011a: 24; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 171-182, fig. 2;

Doyen 2014: 369). Several occupation layers (Levels 2-5) have been identified with the

Eighteenth Dynasty, but only a few of these had associated archaeological deposits such as pottery to aid diachronic analyses (Budka 2011a: 24; Doyen 2017: 23). The earliest stratigraphic phase (Level 5) dates to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, prior to the reign of Thutmosis III, suggesting that Egyptians either inhabited or had consistent contact with the island during the reign of Ahmose II (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 171-172, 181-182; Budka 2017f: 128-130).

Abundant evidence for architectural remains at SAV1 North does not occur until Level 3.

Preserved mudbrick buildings unearthed in Level 3 attest to typical Egyptian tripartite houses characteristic of other settlement sites in Nubia during this time period (Budka and Doyen 2012-

2013: 175-177, 182, fig. 6; Doyen 2017: 23),335 but there is not the same diversity of house size

that occurs in the southern part of the town (SAV1) (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 198; Budka

2017i: 16). SAV1 North has thus far yielded only small sized structures ranging from 23-30 sq.

m (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 175-177, 198; Doyen 2017: 23). Furthermore, Budka notes

that other structures at SAV1 North do not conform in size or layout to typical buildings found in

Egyptian settlements or to the tripartite houses at SAV1 North suggesting local variation (2017i:

335 For example, at Uronarti (Bietak 1996: 38-39, fig. 16) and Buhen Block C (Emery, Smith, and Millard 1979: pl. 23).

360

16-17). The Level 3 stratigraphic phase coincides with the construction of the enclosure wall and

temple A (Azim 1975: 120; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 178-179; Doyen 2017: 23, 29).336

Ceramic analysis has confirmed that Level 3 of SAV1 North can be dated from the reign of

Hatshepsut/Thutmosis III until at least the reign of Amenhotep III (Budka 2011a: 24; Budka and

Doyen 2012-2013: 182; Budka 2016c: 55-59; Doyen 2017: 23-118; Budka 2017f: 134-135,

150).337 While earlier architectural elements have not been readily identified at the site, the stratigraphic layers of Levels 4 and 5 and their associated ceramics do indicate activity predating

Thutmosis III’s remodeling of the site, which would correlate with the textual data which names early Eighteenth Dynasty kings associated with Sai Island (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 181-

182; Doyen 2014: 373-374; Budka 2016c: 59; Budka 2017f: 128-134).

Most of the ceramic deposits derive from mixed assemblages, however, and could not be

assigned to specific buildings in Level 3 (Budka 2011a: 25-29; Budka 2016c: 49; Budka 2017f:

119, 134).338 Budka dated approximately 75% of the total corpus of ceramic material of SAV1

North to the New Kingdom, but ceramics dated from the Seventeenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth

Dynasties have been recovered from the area, although no buildings have been assigned to these

dates (see Budka 2011a: 24-29, tabs. 1, 3; Budka 2016c: 59). The ceramics from SAV1 North

consisted of imported Egyptian fabrics, as well as locally made Egyptian and Nubian wares

pointing to extensive trade networks between Egypt and Nubia (Budka 2011a: 25-26, 31; Budka

336 There is no evidence for an early mudbrick temple below temple A (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 181).

337 Budka notes that so far, no ceramics dated after Amenhotep III have been found in Level 3 (2011a: 29, tab. 3). Meanwhile, the subsequent Level 2 provides evidence for small quantities of Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty pottery (Budka 2011a: 29, tab. 3). Based on this ceramic sequence, there appears to have been a break at the site during the Amarna Period.

338 Only building unit N12 had enough data for detailed study (see Budka 2017f: 119, 140-150).

361

and Doyen 2012-2013: 184-188, 194-196; Miellé 2014: 388-390; Budka 2015a: 50; Budka

2017f: 120-126). Budka has also noted that decorated “luxury” 339 ceramics, including bichrome

and blue painted wares diagnostic to the Eighteenth Dynasty, appear in greater quantity at Sai

Island during the reign of Thutmosis III, coinciding with his remodeling of the island that

included the establishment of temple A (2011: 31; 2016c: 61-62; 2017f: 151). At Egyptian sites,

blue painted pottery is well known for its association with festival processions and cultic

contexts (Budka 2013c), as discussed in length in the preceding chapter on Elephantine. The increase in decorated wares during the reign of Thutmosis III could thus be indicative of an increase in state sponsored ritual activity on Sai Island when the cult of the Egyptian temple was

established.

The material remains from SAV1 North are dominated by Egyptian artifacts, but like the ceramics, detailed contextual analyses of these objects are complicated by mixed assemblages, lack of stratigraphic details, and previous documentation issues (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013:

182; Budka 2015a: 50; Budka 2017g: 157). A total of 2405 objects have been recorded for SAV1

North so far, mainly deriving from Level 2 (post New Kingdom date) from disturbed contexts

(Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 182-183, tab. 1; Budka 2014c: 65; Budka 2017g: 157, fig. 84).

The material that can be safely dated to the New Kingdom includes: a) figurines and statuettes,

representing human and animal forms; b) beads, amulets, and scarabs; c) household ceramics,

clay furniture, ovens, mud stoppers, and uninscribed seals; d) stone tools and instruments; e)

non-ceramic vessels; and f) models, games, and unidentified objects (Budka and Doyen 2012-

2013: 183-188; Doyen 2016; Budka 2017g: 158-166).

339 See Doyen 2014: 374.

362

Fifteen naked female figurines were recovered from SAV1 North and have been

compared to finds from Egyptian and Nubian sites, such as Elephantine and Amara West (Budka

and Doyen 2012-2013: 183; Doyen 2016: 134-148). The types include 11 low-fired or unfired clay cylinders representing female bodies (SAV1N nos. 0326, 0589, 0625, 0664, 1217, 1324,

2240, 2306, 2186, 2189, and 2209), some with incised indications of the breasts and pubic region, 2 rhomboidal clay figurine fragments (SAV1N nos. 1573 and 2300), one with an incised

T-shape on its lower half, 1 clay female head with five perforations in the crown (SAV1N/2206),

and 1 naked clay female figurine lying on a bed (SAV1N/0613) (Doyen 2016: 134-146; Budka

2017g: 158).

Two of the cylinder-shaped female figurines (SAVIN nos. 2186 and 2189) have incised

patterns that resemble Nubian style decoration, according to Doyen (2016: 141, 146, figs. 9-10).

Examples of similar shaped female figurines derive from domestic contexts at Amarna, Edfu,

Elephantine, Quban, Uronarti, Askut, and Amara West (Emery and Kirwan 1935: 52-53, fig. 33;

Smith 2003: 131-133; Kopp 2005: 86, 89, n. 291; Stevens 2006: 89-91, figs. II.3.10-II.3.11;

Moeller 2010: 96, 98 fig. 11; Doyen 2016: 146-147). Doyen has compared the female head found at SAV1 North (no. 2206) to Pinch’s Type 3 category of female figurines dated to the early Eighteenth Dynasty (Pinch 1993: 207-208; Doyen 2016: 147). Finally, SAV1N/0613 resembles Pinch’s Type 6b female figurines (Pinch 1993: 207-209; Doyen 2016: 147; Budka

2017g: 158; see Figure 7.8a). Other examples from domestic contexts occur at Memphis,

Amarna, Deir el-Medina, Elephantine, and Quban (Emery and Kirwan 1935: 52-53, fig. 32;

Pinch 1983: 405-414; Pinch 1993: 207-209; Robins 1993: 75-76; Giddy 1999: 31, pls. 8-12;

Meskell 2002: 73-74; Kopp 2005: 86, 89; Stevens 2006: 85-89, fig. II.3.7; Budka and Doyen

2012-2013: 183-184; Doyen 2016: 147). Pinch suggests that this type of female figurine is more commonly associated with domestic and funerary contexts, appearing in temple contexts only in

363

refuse areas (1993: 208-209, 232-233, list 6). The Type 6b female figurines found in temple refuse likely originated from houses located in areas surrounding the temple (Pinch 1993: 208).

However, as discussed in §4.3.6, two clay fragments of naked females attached to beds were found in the Osiris temple precinct at North Abydos in the same area that a limestone plaque

(OTP 3956) depicting the sexual union of a man and woman was recovered (Marlar 2007b: 113-

114, 116-117, figs. 4-5). Marlar suggests that these objects functioned as fertility votives and may have been associated with a chapel dedicated to Isis within or near the Osiris temple, but unfortunately, she cannot provide a precise dating based on the stratigraphic context of the finds,340 nor on physical attributes (2007b: 117-118). Three clay figurines depicting a naked female lying on a bed were found in the Mut temple precinct (Waraksa 2009: 25-30). However, two of these were found in pottery dumps outside the outer enclosure wall, while the third was found in an industrial or habitation area south of the precinct (Waraksa 2009: 27-29, 75-76). The archaeological context of the female figurines from the Mut temple precinct may support Pinch’s assessment of these objects but, as Waraksa notes, this context likely represents the location of their disposal after they were used within the temple precinct (2009: 171-172).

The archaeological provenience of the female figurines from Sai Island comprises domestic units excavated in SAV1 North.341 The figurines were collected from different occupation levels from secondary contexts. Nine of them were found in Level 2, which dates from the late Eighteenth Dynasty to Ramesside Period, three from Level 3, which dates from the reign of Thutmosis III to the late Eighteenth Dynasty, two from Level 1, which is post-New

340 The plaque and female figurines were found near the southwestern edge of the remains of the Late Period temple in secondary contexts disturbed by sebakh digging (Marlar 2007b: 112-113, 116, fig. 3).

341 No parallels have yet been recovered from other areas of the site (see Doyen 2016: 147-148).

364

Kingdom, and one from the earliest occupation (Level 5) at the beginning of the Eighteenth

Dynasty (Doyen 2016: 150-152, fig. 16; Budka 2017g: 158). The spatial distribution of the findspots shows the greatest clustering of female figurines in and around building N12 and the complex of structures located south of N12 (see Doyen 2016: 150-151, fig. 16).342 Budka suggests that the female figurines from SAV1 North date from the early to mid-Eighteenth

Dynasty, except for the naked woman lying on a bed (SAV1N/0613), which appears to belong to the late Eighteenth Dynasty or Ramesside Period (2017g: 158).

Small hand-modelled low-fired clay animal figurines have been recovered from SAV1

North but are not published in detail (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 184; Budka 2017g: 159; see

Figure 7.8b). Similar figurines are common at sites in Egypt, such as Memphis, Amarna, and

Abydos (O’Connor 1967: 14-16; Giddy 1999: 13-28, 100-103; Stevens 2006: 61, 110). Small ram figurines from SAVI North (e.g. SAV1N 2221) may have been associated with rituals related to worship of the god Amun (Stevens 2006: 61; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 184;

Budka 2017g: 159). In Nubia, especially, the ram aspect of Amun was favored in the Eighteenth

Dynasty (Kessler 1989: 184-187; Kormysheva 2004: 111-114, 125; Rocheleau 2005: 21-36;

Stevens 2006: 61; Rocheleau 2008: 57-60; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013; Budka 2017g: 159).

Figurines of cows or bulls (e.g. SAV1N 588) might also attest to a Nubian tradition at the site

(Budka 2017g: 159). Unfortunately, no domestic shrines have been discovered at SAV1 North, although the female figurines, animal figurines, faience Nun bowls, feminoform vessels and specific types of ceramic vessels, such as duck bowls, footed bowls, and decorated wares could function in the realm of non-royal religious practices at the site as items associated with fertility,

342 For a detailed discussion of the architecture of building N12, see Doyen 2017: 65-88.

365

health and well-being, and regeneration (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 200-201; Doyen 2014:

374, pl. 6-7; Doyen 2016: 153; Budka 2016d: 92-97; Tschorn 2017: 444; Budka 2017g: 169).343

In fact, Doyen suggests that the cylinder-shaped naked female figurines were used in magical rituals of protection and were deliberately broken, since all of their heads are missing (2016:

154).

Generally, a similar repertoire of artifacts has been found in other excavated areas of the pharaonic settlement, including SAV1 East (location of building A) and SAV1 West (Doyen

2014: 374; Budka 2014b: 14, fig. 10; Budka 2014c: 65-68; Budka 2017a: 15-16; Budka 2017b;

Tschorn 2017: 437-441; Budka 2018b: 297). Although the number of finds (4826) recovered from these two areas of the site is higher than SAV1 North, fewer pieces have been registered and published (Budka 2014c: 65; Budka 2017a: 15-16). The objects include beads, weights, stone tools, faience objects, clay figurines, and pottery, among others (Budka 2014c: 65-67;

Budka 2017a: 15-16; Budka 2018b: 297). In SAV1 West located along the western enclosure wall, excavations by the AcrossBorders Project in 2014 revealed the remains of several in situ

New Kingdom mudbrick buildings, including a rectangular cellar (feature 115) and oven room

(feature 111), domestic architecture similar to SAV1 North, but with a later breadth of activity spanning from the reign of Thutmosis III to Ramesses II (Budka 2014b: 9-10; Budka 2014c: 64-

65; Budka 2015a: 45-46, fig. 2; Budka 2017i: 18). Even though the New Kingdom settlement on

Sai Island was planned as a royal foundation, Budka argues that the site reflects local variation in both architecture and material culture (2017i: 14, 17, 19). This diversity is reflected at the micro- level within each excavated quadrant of the settlement.

343 Non-ceramic vessels as items associated with non-royal votive activity are discussed further in §8.2.3.2.2.

366

7.3.2 New Kingdom Cemeteries

The archaeological and inscriptional evidence deriving from New Kingdom burials on

Sai Island can be corroborated with finds from the settlement to better understand the identity

and the activities of the inhabitants of the pharaonic town. South of the pharaonic town, two

cemeteries (SAC1 and SAC5) were excavated that revealed funerary equipment, pottery, and

inscriptional material dated to the New Kingdom (Vercoutter 1973; Minault-Gout 1997; Gratien

2002; Geus 2004: 115; Thill 2006-2007; Minault-Gout 2007; Thill 2007; Gabolde 2012;

Minault-Gout and Thill 2012; Budka 2017a). Some of the individuals buried in these cemeteries appear to have been Egyptians or Egyptianized Nubians (Minault-Gout 1997: 102-103; Minault-

Gout 2012).

Located on a terrace overlooking the east bank of the Nile, the pharaonic cemetery

(SAC5) was explored in 1955-1957 and in 1969 with excavations resuming in 1972-1975 and in

1981 (Minault-Gout and Thill 1974; Minault-Gout and Thill 1975; Minault-Gout 1976; Minault-

Gout 1997: 99). SAC5 was then later reexamined and resurveyed by Minault-Gout and Thill in

1996 and 1997 as part of the campaigns carried out by the l’Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille 3

and the Département de Géographie de l’Université de Gand on the island;344 no new graves

were found, but the discovery of new superstructures increased the total unearthed to thirteen

(Minault-Gout 1997; Geus 2003: 67-68). The most recent excavations of SAC5 were conducted

from 2015 to 2017 by the AcrossBorders Project, which has provided further information about

the burials of officials during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, as well as surface

344 A detailed description of the 1996 and 1997 campaigns has been published by Geus (1998).

367

material dating from the late Eighteenth Dynasty, Ramesside, Pre-Napatan, and Napatan periods

(Budka 2015a: 46-50; Budka 2015e; Budka 2016b; Budka 2017a: 9-15).

Consisting of approximately 26 known tombs, many of the graves provide evidence of

small brick pyramid superstructures,345 as well as decorated vaulted chapels and courtyards

(Minault-Gout and Thill 1974: 77; Minault-Gout 1997: 99-100; Budka 2015a: 48-50;

Auenmüller 2018: 241). The tombs commonly contained at least one, or sometimes several, subterranean chambers accessed by a shaft in the chapel floor (Minault-Gout 1997: 100, fig. 2).

Several tombs contained multiple skeletal remains and were pillaged in antiquity (Minault-Gout

and Thill 1974: 84-85; Minault-Gout 1997: 100).346 Personal names found on shabtis and heart

scarabs generally refer to only one or two individuals with no clear family ties, suggesting that

the multiple burials may not have originally been communal family burials (Minault-Gout and

Thill 1974: 84-85). Reused material from the Eighteenth Dynasty through to Group X has been excavated from the cemetery and the prominent reuse of material in secondary contexts may have resulted from ancient looting (Minault-Gout and Thill 1974: 78, 84). Burial elements, such as masks and inlaid eyes, indicate the presence of earlier sarcophagi in some burials, attesting to the history of disturbances and reuse of these tombs (Minault-Gout 1997: 101). Funerary equipment recovered from SAC5 includes, canopic jars, kohl and ointment vases, stone, terracotta, and faience shabtis, as well as toiletry items (mirrors, kohl cases, tweezers, razors and votive palettes), arrowheads, flint and bronze blades, scarabs, amulets, jewelry, beads made of various materials, and ceramics of classic New Kingdom types (Minault-Gout and Thill 1974:

345 See discussion of Hornakht’s pyramidion above.

346 Tomb 3 in SAC 5, for example, contained approximately 21 skeletons, although the bones were generally very disturbed, shattered, and/or scattered in many cases (Minault-Gout 1974: 84).

368

86-94; Minault-Gout 1997: 101-102; Budka 2017a). The tombs are similar in typology to

Eighteenth Dynasty tombs at Thebes, although decorated chapels are rarer in Upper Nubia

(Minault-Gout 1997: 103).

The archaeological material recovered from the burials on Sai Island has parallels with

New Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period material from Egypt, with much of the ceramic

material dated to the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties (Minault Gout 1997: 103). Personal

names and titles found on objects such as shabtis and heart scarabs indicate that the individuals

buried in the tombs of the pharaonic cemetery held administrative and priestly Egyptian titles,

and the high quality of their grave goods correlates with their elite status (Minault-Gout 1997:

102-103; Minault-Gout 2012; Budka 2015a: 48-50; Budka 2017a: 11; Auenmüller 2018: tab. 1).

Tomb 5, for example, contained funerary objects inscribed with the names and titles of a local

family of HAty-a “Mayors” posted at Sai Island during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Auenmüller

2018: 241-242). Inscriptional evidence from tomb 2 and tomb 8 attests to four local priests who were likely attached to the cult of temple A from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty to early Nineteenth

Dynasty (Thill 2017: 207-209; Auenmüller 2018: 242). In addition, a female songstress (Smayt) is named on a faience vase recovered from tomb 5 (Auenmüller 2018: 241-242).

The exact dates of use of the tombs and the chronology of the elite buried in them are often difficult to pin-point to a specific reign in the New Kingdom. So far, recovered funerary stelae have been too damaged to provide valuable information about dates or other aspects of the individuals who were buried in the New Kingdom necropolis (Minault-Gout and Thill 1974: 94).

Funerary equipment from the tombs has yielded the names of Intef,347 Thutmosis III, and

347 Referring to one of the Second Intermediate Period kings (see Minault-Gout 1997: 102).

369

Ramesses III, and the occurrences of these royal names are suggestive of the length of duration of the cemetery, although the mixed context of the finds makes exact dating uncertain (Minault-

Gout and Thill 1974: 89, 94, fig. 4; Minault-Gout 1997: 102-103; Auenmüller 2018: 243). Closer analyses of funerary figurines from certain tombs have narrowed the time frame in specific cases, but the majority of the finds have yet to be fully examined. For example, a stone shabti from tomb 1 in SAC5 has been dated to the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty (reigns of

Amenhotep II-Thutmosis IV) and has been compared to four shabtis found at other sites in

Nubia, all deriving from the same Egyptian workshop and intended for a class of individuals belonging to official administration (Minault-Gout 2012: 190, 196, figs. 1-2). More recently, the excavation of new chambers in tomb 26 in SAC5 has preserved the titles of Khnummose, who was a nbw “Gold Worker” and a Hry nbw “Master of Gold Workers” on a stone shabti and on faience vessels attesting to the potential function of the town in storing and/or trading Nubian gold (Budka 2017a: 11; Budka 2017c: 107-130; Budka 2017d; Budka 2017e; Budka 2017-2018;

Auenmüller 2018: 243). The ceramics found with Khnummose’s funerary equipment date to the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka 2017a: 11). The Egyptian names and titles of some of the tomb owners as well as the large proportion of Egyptian artifacts (as compared with contemporary

Nubian material) found in these tombs indicate the presence of Egyptians at the site.

The New Kingdom cemetery SAC5 was actively used from the Eighteenth Dynasty to the

Twentieth Dynasty during the main period of Egyptian occupation of the island, and it is possible that many Egyptians lived at the site from birth to death (Minault-Gout 1997; Auenmüller 2018:

243). Similar finds have been unearthed from cemeteries at other sites in Nubia, such as Aniba and Toshka, suggesting that officials in Nubia had access to high quality funerary equipment, perhaps originating from workshops in Egypt (Steindorff 1937: 79, 200; Simpson 1963: 14-15, pl. VIIa-c; Minault-Gout 2012: 196, 199). These funerary remains, however, provide an elite-

370

biased view of pharaonic culture on Sai Island during the New Kingdom. The pharaonic settlement on Sai Island, examined above, offers better chances to examine the activities of individuals belonging to a range of social classes, and unlike sites along the Nile Valley in

Egypt, the town is better preserved, since no modern villages rest atop the remains. Furthermore, based on the house styles found in SAV1 and SAV1 North, that evidence suggests a largely

Egyptian population inhabited the site (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 176, 198).

7.3.3 Non-Royal Statuary

Eight New Kingdom statues belonging to non-royal individuals were recovered from Sai

Island during various investigations of the site. Thill provides a description of these objects, including details about provenience, appearance, and inscriptions where possible, but an in-depth analysis is anticipated in a forthcoming publication (2012: 285). Auenmüller includes statue fragments belonging to Eighteenth Dynasty officials Nehy and Usersatet among his assessment of the prosopography of the Pharaonic town (2018: tab. 2). The proveniences of the statues include excavations of the Ottoman fortress and the statue cache excavated by Arkell in 1939 in a pit south of the fortress (Thill 2012: 286-288; Davies 2017; Auenmüller 2018: 246, tab. 2).

However, some statues derive from the inspectorate magazine of Sai Island indicating that their specific provenience is unknown (Thill 2012: 286-288). Where the statue owner’s titles have survived, they attest to elite individuals who likely worked for the king. Examples include six statues of the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet, who worked under Amenhotep II, an unnamed statue of a r-pat HAty-a “Member of the Elite and Foremost of Action,” and a block statue of the Viceroy

Nehy (S.734), who lived during the reign of Thutmosis III and whose name appears on a lintel fragment (S.417) and door jamb (S.119) recovered from temple A as well as on lintels and door jambs recovered from the town (Vercoutter 1956: 72 no. 10, 74-75; Helck 1961a: 933;

371

Vercoutter 1973: 18-19; Vercoutter 1986: 13; Minault-Gout 2007: 279; Doyen 2009: 17; Davies

2009b: 24; Thill 2012: 285-288; Budka 2015f: 72-73; Auenmüller 2018: 245-246, tab. 2).

Non-royal statues of high officials are found in New Kingdom Egyptian temples and allowed elite individuals to symbolically participate in the daily offerings of local cults (Baines

1987: 90; Pinch 1993: 333-335; Stevens 2006: 121; Kjølby 2007; Kjølby 2009; Kjølby 2012).

Many of the elite statues recovered from Sai Island may have originally been placed in temple A or in a chapel near the main temple to act as intermediaries between temple visitors and deities worshipped in the temple, and to ensure the individual’s eternal participation in local cult activities (Baines 1987: 90; Pinch 1993: 333-335; Budka 2015f: 72-73; Auenmüller 2018: 245-

246). Due to the lack of non-royal inscriptional material unearthed at the site, the statues provide an important glimpse of elite participation in the administration and cult institution of Sai Island.

Auenmüller suggests that the quantity of inscribed pieces belonging to Usersatet demonstrates

Usersatet’s “personal attachment” to Sai Island and its temple (2018: 246).

7.4 The Intersection of Royal and Non-Royal Activity on Sai Island

The settlement and funerary remains from Sai Island indicate that Egyptians primarily

inhabited the island from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty to the Twentieth Dynasty. Although there

is evidence for early Eighteenth Dynasty activity in certain areas of the site (SAV1 North for

example), the high quantity of building remains and material culture dated to the reign of

Thutmosis III indicate that his reign marked a high point of Egyptian activity at the site during

the New Kingdom.

In the settlement area SAV1 North, the earliest evidence of activity (Level 5) dates to the

beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 172; Budka 2017f: 128-

372

130). The first appearance of preserved architectural remains in Level 3 at SAV1 North attests to the presence of Egyptian tripartite houses (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 176, 198; Budka 2017i:

16; Doyen 2017: 23). According to Budka and Doyen, the artifact assemblage recovered from

SAV1 North is representative of a typical Egyptian settlement (see Budka and Doyen 2012-

2013: 183; Budka 2017g: 169-170). Most of the pottery from SAV1 North is imported Egyptian

Nile clay and Egyptian styles (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 188; Budka 2015a: 50; Budka

2017f: 120-126). However, unlike typical Egyptian settlements such as Elephantine, the pottery corpus from SAV1 North includes Nubian wares and Upper Nubian fabrics for Egyptian vessel types (Budka 2011a: 25-29; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 188-189, 198; Budka 2014c: 68-69;

D’Ercole et al. 2017: 28-29; Budka 2017f: 120-126). As Budka and Doyen note, more research is needed to determine if the appearance of Nubian fabrics and wares represent cultural identity or

“local fashion” at the site whereby local products were incorporated into the material culture of the inhabiting Egyptians (2012-2013: 189, 198, 200-201).348 Budka and Doyen suggest that the

ceramics from SAV1 North attest to “a complex mixing of life styles, resulting in a great variability and also in hybrid forms that have both Egyptian and Nubian features” (2012-2013:

198). The same mixing is observed in the small find assemblage from Sai Island. For example,

two female figurines have Nubian decoration with Egyptian stylistic features (2016: 141, 146,

figs. 9-10; Budka 2017g: 158). However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which local

Nubians inhabited Sai Island during the Eighteenth Dynasty, since the funerary equipment

recovered from the New Kingdom cemetery on the island points to Egyptian habitation (Minault-

Gout and Thill 2012; Budka 2017a: 9-15). As mentioned above, Kerma pottery and pottery made in Nile silt with Nubian decoration from the Kerma Moyen period was found in a storage pit with

348 Also see Budka 2014c: 68.

373

Egyptian pottery dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Miellé 2014: 387). Miellé suggests that the

Nubian decoration could have been produced by Nubian artisans working on Sai Island during

the New Kingdom (2014: 389-391). The question of the cultural identity of the occupants of Sai

Island during the New Kingdom requires further examination (see Budka 2014c: 69-70; Budka

2017g: 170; Budka 2018a: 149-150). During the early Eighteenth Dynasty, Budka notes that the material culture is primarily Egyptian, but with a Kerma presence that becomes harder to detect during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty (2014c: 70-71).

Excavations at SAV1 West have revealed a similar occupation phase from the early

Eighteenth Dynasty to the late Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka 2017a: 7, 16). SAV1 East, on the other hand, more closely parallels SAV1, the southern part of the town with large magazines and cellars (Budka 2016a: 4-5; Budka 2017a: 17). In all four settlement areas (SAV1, SAV1 North,

SAV1 East, and SAV1 West), there is evidence of Egyptian activity as early as the reign of

Ahmose II, who may have founded the Egyptian settlement at the site (see discussion above).

Not until the Eighteenth Dynasty does inscriptional and archaeological evidence bear the names

of Pharaohs.

Thutmosis III is attributed with two major building projects on Sai Island, temple A and

building A, which are the largest monumental structures discovered on the site to date.

Foundation deposits indicate that Amun was the main deity worshipped in temple A (Thill

1997), yet no concrete evidence exists to determine the types of rituals that took place in the

temple or it if had an associated festival procession, which involved movement across the

landscape. Objects associated with domestic and cultic contexts have been unearthed among the settlement remains, including figurines and votive pottery dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty

(Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 182-183, tab. 1; Doyen 2016; Budka 2016d: 92-97; Budka

374

2017g). These objects could have been used for worship in the home or at the temple. No shrines have been found associated with the houses in the settlement, except for a possible small sanctuary located in SAF5 (Adenstedt 2016: 35-44), and the artifacts have been found scattered throughout the site, commonly in disturbed contexts (Budka 2014c: 65; Budka 2017g: 157), making their association with specific places of worship difficult to discern.

The cemetery remains indicate that a large contingent of elite officials with administrative and priestly titles inhabited the island in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, most probably Egyptians who carried out the work of the state administration and performed priestly duties in the temple institution. The fact that the officials were buried on the island suggests that perhaps many of the officials lived on Sai Island permanently and were born there.

The range of house sizes in the pharaonic town, especially in SAV1, attest to individuals from a range of socio-economic levels living on the island during the Eighteenth Dynasty; however, reconstructing the lives of non-elite inhabitants of the site during this time is difficult and contingent upon the excavated material remains. At Sai Island, the excavated finds give an indication of different types of activities performed at the site, such as food preparation, pottery production, and non-royal religious practices common to other sites in Egypt. Elements of

Egyptian and Nubian styles appear in the archaeological record of Sai Island from the domestic to religious domains (Budka 2011a: 25-26; Budka 2015a: 50; Budka 2017g: 169-170). The local aspects of the site during the Eighteenth Dynasty reflect the unique history of Sai Island.

The recent surge in settlement archaeology on Sai Island has supplemented and enhanced the inscriptional and funerary data providing new insights into the lives of the inhabitants of an

Egyptian town in Upper Nubia. Corresponding with increased royal activity at the site during the

Eighteenth Dynasty, including the establishment of a temple, evidence points to a proliferation of

375

non-royal Egyptian activity (see Figure 7.9). However, the only direct evidence linking non-

royal activity to temple A is the lintel fragment (S.417) and door jamb (S.119) of Nehy, who

supervised the construction of a new temple under Thutmosis III. It may also be likely that some

of the non-royal statues of elite officials recovered from the site were originally placed in the

temple (see discussion above) as well as two stela of officials (S.1100 and SNM 33224)

recovered from the town (see Gabolde 2012: 130-135; Rondot 2017; Auenmüller 2018: 243,

246). The interrelationship between state and elite ritual activity at the site during the Eighteenth

Dynasty was connected to the establishment of the Egyptian temple on Sai Island. The effect of the formation of the state temple and its administration on non-elite individuals may be reflected

in the presence of figurines and votive pottery dated to the same period, which may represent

votive activity associated with the temple cult.

376

PART THREE: SYNTHESIS

377

Chapter 8 Provincial Cults in the Eighteenth Dynasty: Synthesis, Definitions, Provenience, and Parallels

8.1 Introduction

Archaeological approaches that examine religious conduct in ancient Egypt are limited

by the preserved remains visible on the surface of the landscape and recovered from excavation.

The process involves not only locating, but also identifying monuments and artifacts that can be

interpreted as religious or cultic based on defining characteristics that denote a religious function.

By investigating the way in which a monument or object was used in a specific location

associated with religious activity at a site, and by examining the relationship between the built

environment and natural features of the landscape, royal and non-royal religious activity can be

identified and interpreted.

During the Eighteenth Dynasty, the religious activities of Pharaohs in the provinces

primarily centered upon the construction and/or refurbishment of temples, which could include

provincial cult temples, peripteral temples or way stations, and royal ka chapels. However, determining the chronological history of such building enterprises and the archaeological impact of each king is often hampered by the disturbed context of many of the remains. Much of the examined material is problematic in that it derives from secondary contexts, often in the form of building elements that have been reused in later royal structures. These elements include: block fragments, architectural elements (lintels, architraves, pillars, door jambs, and so on), statues, foundation deposits, seal impressions, and stelae. Similarly, little preserved non-royal religious material has been identified because often early excavators did not pay much attention to such material, focusing instead on the monumental remains. Yet, the depositional findspots and

378

characteristics of the material allow inferences about the general locations and activity of non- royal religious activity. The religious activities of local inhabitants in provincial towns during the

Eighteenth Dynasty are attested in the archaeological record by several types of artifactual remains including stelae, offering tables, human and animal figurines, statues, vessels, and rock inscriptions, as well as by constructions comprising offering chapels.

The following chapter defines, synthesizes, and analyzes the material record of royal and non-royal religious activity identified at the five sites investigated in this dissertation. The religious material recovered from Mendes, Abydos, Elkab, Elephantine, and Sai Island provides significant information about the cultic environment of provincial towns, the interplay between the residence and local communities, and the relationship between artificial and natural landscapes during the Eighteenth Dynasty. This investigation contributes to ongoing scholarly discussions about the extent of control exerted by the state in the provinces during a time when government authority was highly centralized and regimented.349 In Egyptology, studies have tended to emphasize the binary opposition between the state and local communities represented by the dichotomy of royal versus non-royal spheres of activity (see Kemp 1989: 65-83; Kemp

2006: 111-135; Assmann 1991: 16-31; Trigger 2003: 542-543; Bussmann 2016: 43, 46). Rarely has research focused on the intersection of these two spheres within specific historical and

349 As discussed in §2.2, this debate stems from anthropological notions of “great tradition” and “little tradition” in Egyptology and from research that focused on the status of Third Millennium temples (see Bussmann 2016: 37-44). Kemp’s division of “preformal” and “formal” temples outlined in his 1989 theory (1989: 65-83; 2006: 111-135) implies that all temples from the Middle Kingdom and later were “formal,” as Bussmann notes (2016: 38), and thus Kemp’s theory assumes that kings exerted a significant amount of control in the provinces from that point onwards. The ramifications of this perspective are that local variation, historical context, and individual agency regarding behaviour towards traditions are often overlooked (see Bussmann 2016: 38-41).

379

geographical contexts.350 The present dissertation aims to develop a more nuanced perspective

by examining the dialectical interaction between state initiatives and non-royal endeavors

associated with religious activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

8.2 Comparison: Royal Patronage and Non-Royal Votive Activity at Five Sites 8.2.1 Material Correlates of Royal Patronage

At each of the five sites examined in this dissertation, royal patronage is primarily

identified through the existence of monuments and associated material. Three different types of

royal religious structures occur at provincial town sites during the Eighteenth Dynasty: a)

provincial cult temples; b) peripteral temples; and c) royal ka chapels. Specific characteristics

classify each of these temple types into distinct categories; yet, the definitions of each must

remain fluid enough to incorporate site specific anomalies. Provincial cult temples were the

primary religious monuments in a town and generally have a long history of use extending back

to the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods in most towns. The term “provincial” is in keeping

with traditional definitions that distinguish between the culture of the residence and the culture of

the provinces (Kemp 1989: 65-83; O’Connor 1992; Seidlmayer 1996a; Wilkinson 2000: 303-

320). Throughout most of the Eighteenth Dynasty, royal residences were located at both the

administrative capital and the religious centers of Thebes and Memphis as well as at known

residential palaces, such as Deir el-Ballas and Malqata (Smith 1981: 286-292; Lacovara 1997: 4-

7, 24-28, 38-41, 68-70, 74-75; Shirley 2013: 571, 576-596). Among the changes wrought during

350 Some notable exceptions include Seidlmayer’s emphasis on historical context in his examination of royal engagement at Elephantine (1996a: 115-119), and Bussmann’s analysis of the micro-history of individual sites in his comparison of non-royal votive assemblages associated with early shrines (2010; 2011; 2016: 38, 40).

380

the Amarna Period, was the relocation of the royal residence and central administration to Tell el-Amarna (Lacovara 1997: 70-71; Kemp 2013: 122-153; Shirley 2013: 571, 596-601). As examined in §1.1, the relationship between central and provincial administration was complex and mutable throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Provincial cult temples are generally rooted in local religious traditions dedicated to the primary deity worshipped at a site – a local temple of a local community (Bussmann 2007;

Bussmann 2010: 11-12; Bussmann 2016: 38-39), but over time their function could incorporate the veneration of multiple deities. In some cases, the catchment area from which they drew worshippers widened to include individuals from other sites. The investigation of divine temples in the provinces arose due to discoveries of unique, small, mudbrick temples dated to the Third

Millennium BC, such as the temple of Satet at Elephantine in 1970 and early temples at Tell

Ibrahim Awad in 1990, which demonstrated the importance of local and provincial traditions

(Dreyer 1986; O’Connor 1992; Eigner 2003; Bussmann 2006; Bussmann 2007; Eigner 2007;

Van Haarlem 2009; Bietak 2010; Bussmann 2010; Bussmann 2011; Bussmann 2013). From an administrative perspective, Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom provincial cult temples have been the focus of research aimed at determining the relation between temple property, priests, and local elites (Moreno García 2006; Bussmann 2010: 3-6). In later periods, however, the functional definition of provincial cult temples becomes somewhat altered as many local temples become appropriated by the king and administered by the residence.351 The term “provincial cult temple” is still useful in the present dissertation to distinguish between temples constructed in provincial

351 Generally, from the Middle Kingdom onwards, certain provincial temples become connected to the state and some of them start to function as “Residential” temples (Kemp 2006: 111-135; Bussmann 2010: 11). However, as Bussmann notes (2016: 38), there are examples where this was not the case, such as the Second Intermediate Period shrine at Gebel Zeit (see Pinch 1993: 71-77).

381

town sites and temples constructed in the capital cities, which in the Eighteenth Dynasty includes

Memphis, Amarna, and Thebes.352 This definition raises important questions about identifying differences between divine temples built in the provinces and those built in the residences.

Another component of this discussion pertains to the status of the deities venerated in local temples in terms of their relationship to the royal court during the Eighteenth Dynasty. For instance, the notion of a local temple dedicated to a local deity needs to consider the fact that the very act of temple construction activity by kings in the provinces may indicate that local deities were becoming more important state deities at this time, further blurring the distinction between local communities, the king, and the veneration of deities. At present, this analysis is beyond the scope of this study and is contingent on being able to determine which deities were venerated at a given site on the basis of the local material culture, which is a complicated and difficult task given that much associated material, especially at the non-royal level, is uninscribed.

During the Eighteenth Dynasty, almost every provincial town was affected by royal temple construction activity. Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III, in particular, extended their reach from the Delta to Nubia with extensive building programs that would set the standard for later kings, especially in the Ramesside and Late Periods. The reasons why royal interest in local cults occurred during the Eighteenth Dynasty stem from a complex web of motives, including individual,353 and collective desires rooted in the political, socio-economic, and religious milieu

352 Bussmann includes temples built at Thebes during the Eleventh Dynasty as part of his provincial temple study (2011: 11, 69-76), which reiterates the point that any definition of “provincial cult temple” must take into account chronological and historical developments.

353 Most of the towns that show evidence of royal patronage under the reign of Thutmose III, for example, also produced evidence of building activity in the Middle Kingdom, especially in the reigns of Senwosret I and Senwosret III. It has been argued that the Middle Kingdom state deliberately built monuments in the provinces as a means of binding local religious institutions to the state, for both economic and social interests (Wegner 1996a: 86- 94). The New Kingdom state likely had similar intentions.

382

of the New Kingdom. Not only did the prosperity of the time lend to the quantity and quality of

available material resources and labor used for major construction works of stone throughout the

country, but also the stability of the residence under powerful leadership and administration

ensured the “complacency” of surrounding communities in the periphery (O’Connor 1983: 183-

242; Kemp 2006: 247-301). Yet, despite the overall sense of political unity and economic

interdependence of residence and province during the Eighteenth Dynasty, a closer examination

of site-specific evidence demonstrates that many local traditions continued to influence the religious activities of both royals and non-royals in provincial towns.

8.2.1.1 Provincial Cult Temples

Most provincial towns during the Eighteenth Dynasty had a major cult temple that was a

center for religious, economic, and administrative activity. This temple was dedicated to the

primary deity/deities worshipped at a site, generally had a long history of development and use,

and was the focal point for a number of activities, including festival processions. According to

Kemp’s evolutionary theory of temple development, the New Kingdom represents the emergence

of standardized temple construction with the establishment of the mature and typical temple

design (1989: 66; 2006: 113).354 Kemp’s criteria for identifying the mature formal temple is based on three characteristics: a) scale; b) architectural plan; and c) building material. The distinguishing features of a mature formal temple are its large size, complex tripartite plan, and construction entirely of stone (Kemp 1989: 66; 2006: 113). A closer examination of temples built in the provinces during the New Kingdom, however, proves that the reality is more complicated.

Four of the five sites examined in this dissertation provide architectural evidence of a provincial

354 For further information about Kemp’s theory and alternate explanations, see §2.2.

383

cult temple built during the Eighteenth Dynasty: Mendes, Elkab, Elephantine, and Sai Island.

Thus far, there are no intact standing remains of a provincial cult temple at Abydos; rather, the

Eighteenth Dynasty royal monuments at that site consist of a pyramid, pyramid temple, tomb,

and terrace temple at South Abydos, and ka chapels355 and peripteral temples at North Abydos.

However, as discussed in §4.2.2, textual evidence attests to the existence of a major provincial

cult temple during the Eighteenth Dynasty. The following discussion presents a synthesis of the

excavated provincial cult temples at each site in geographical order from North to South.

Little architectural and inscriptional material has been recovered from the Eighteenth

Dynasty temple dedicated to the local ram god Banebdjed at Mendes. Most of the stratigraphic layers underlying the Late Period temple were destroyed during rebuilding. Yet, beneath the central court, one significant feature revealed during excavations directed by Redford in the early

2000s attests to a unique architectural design in the Eighteenth Dynasty: the mudbrick façade of

Thutmosis III that once fronted the New Kingdom temple of Banebdjed (see Redford 2009: 72-

72, figs. 1, 6.4, and 6.5; Redford 2010a: 71, 80; Redford 2010b: 274). As discussed in §3.2.1, the façade is unique in having four apertures, two on either side of a central gate, acting as entryways into the main temple. In Redford’s reconstruction of the temple of Banebdjed in the

Eighteenth Dynasty, the four apertures may have led to four naoi within the inner precinct of the temple representing characteristics of the ram god Banebdjed as having “four faces” (2010a: 71, fig. 6.7). The four faces of Banebdjed symbolized the ram’s four manifestations as the soul of

355 Several scholars suggest that the Eighteenth Dynasty royal buildings located in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure functioned as ka chapels (see Wegner 1996a: 74-85, 342; Harvey 1998: 93-95, Pouls Wegner 2002: 261, O’Connor 2009: 111-113). For the most part, this characterization is valid, except for some ambiguity associated with the cult building of Thutmosis III (see discussion in §4.2.2.2 and below). However, because there are elements in Thutmosis III’s structure that relate to earlier and contemporary ka chapels, the monument has been placed in §8.2.1.3 below, which focuses on royal ka chapels.

384

Re, Osiris, Shu, and Geb (Kessler 1989: 157; Derchain 1999: 22; Leitz 2002a: 684-685). The court later added to the temple by Amasis continued the same tradition, containing four large granite naoi with inscriptions that confirm the naoi belonged to each of the four gods mentioned above (Soghor 1967: 16-23; Bothmer 1988; Arnold 1999: 81-82; Arnold 2003: 148; Redford

2010a: 124, 157). Although the cult of Banebdjed has been traced back to the Third Millennium

BC, it is not known how early his association with the four souls manifested, nor if this

manifestation began as a local characteristic associated with his early cult at the site (De

Meulenaere and MacKay 1976; De Meulenaere 1982: 209-216; Redford et al. [eds] 1988: 49-51;

Redford and Redford 2005: 164-165; Redford 2010a: 134). All that remains of the Old Kingdom

temple of Banebdjed at Mendes is a mudbrick platform (Redford 1996a; Redford 1999; Redford

and Redford 2005: 164; Adams 2009: 157-158, fig. 32). Yet, Thutmosis III decided to

incorporate a unique feature in his temple design at Mendes dedicated to a specific aspect of the local deity, which impacted future designs of the temple.356 Thutmosis III did not simply follow

a standardized temple plan, as Kemp’s theory might suggest.

Within the Great Enclosure Walls at Elkab, the material evidence for the main temple

precinct dedicated to Nekhbet is very fragmentary and the temples within the precinct lie in ruin

today; but, inscribed material attests to royal activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty and permits

a potential reconstruction of the temple’s architectural plan. Two major provincial cult temples were constructed in juxtaposition during the Eighteenth Dynasty with the same axis and layout

(Clarke 1922: 24; Dodson 1996: 62; Van Siclen III 1999: 416). The eastern temple dedicated to

356 During the rebuilding of the temple of Banebdjed in the Late Period, Amasis retained the concept of the four aspects of the ram-god by adding a court with four naoi (Bothmer 1988; Arnold 2003: 148; Arnold 1999: 81-82; Arnold 2003: 148; Redford 2010: 124, 157).

385

the local deity of Elkab, the vulture goddess Nekhbet, was first built by Amenhotep I and

comprised a small building with a simple pillared transverse hall and rear tripartite sanctuary

(Van Siclen III 1999: 415, fig. 39.1).357 At this early stage, the temple resembles Badawy’s Type

I peripteral temple, rather than the large standardized mature formal temple described in Kemp’s

theory. It was not until Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III restored and augmented the structure begun

by Amenhotep I that the temple of Nekhbet grew in size and complexity with the addition of a

columned hall (Clarke 1922: 28; Van Siclen III 1999: 415). Finally, a pylon was potentially

added under Amenhotep III (Van Siclen 1999: fig. 39.1).

A similar situation is observed for Amenhotep II’s western temple dedicated to Thoth.

According to Van Siclen III’s reconstruction, this subsidiary temple contained a small columned

forecourt, a transverse hall, and a tripartite sanctuary (1999: 417), and was not restored again

until the reign of Ramesses II (see Quibell 1898: 16-17; Clarke 1922: 26; Hendrickx 1999: 291;

Limme 2008: 17; Vanlathem 2009: 177). The evidence from the construction program of

provincial cult temples at Elkab suggests that variability should be included among discussions

of New Kingdom temple buildings. Site specific cases, such as Elkab and Elephantine,

demonstrate that the construction of provincial cult temples in the Eighteenth Dynasty was a

complex process that involved multiple building phases under different rulers to arrive at the

fully formed temple Kemp considers typical of the New Kingdom.

At Elephantine, the temple of Satet has a long history of development beginning with a

small mudbrick building associated with the town of the Early Dynastic Period, set up in a

357 No remains of a structure of Amenhotep I were found in situ, but Amenhotep I appears in relief depictions worshipping Nekhbet on blocks recovered from the area (Capart 1940: pl. 25; Van Siclen III 1999: 415); however, these scenes could have also been added by a successor. See discussion in §5.2.1.

386

natural niche among three large boulders (Kaiser 1977: 65, fig. 1). The shrine was the site of

local worship over a long span of time and for the most part was not the subject of royal interest

until the Sixth Dynasty when objects inscribed with royal names were placed within the structure

(see §6.1). During the Eighteenth Dynasty, at the same location as the early temple sequence and directly overlying the early sanctuary, a new building was constructed during the reign of

Hatshepsut (see Kaiser 1980a: 250-254; Kaiser 1980b: 254-264; Wells 1985: 286; Kaiser 1999c:

97-100; Seidlmayer 2006: 225; Arnold 2011: 7, fig. 6). The new temple dedicated to Satet has a

unique architectural plan that combines elements of both peripteral temples and traditional cult

temples, and incorporates the local development of the early shrine as well as maintaining direct

physical communication with the early sanctuary. All four sides of the temple of Satet built by

Hatshepsut are surrounded by a columned ambulatory, which is a common feature of peripteral

temples not usually associated with independent cult temple structures (Kaiser 1971: 195-196;

Kaiser 1973: 159, 162, fig. 1; Badawy 1986: 284-292). Additionally, the entrance to the temple

consists of an asymmetrical court that follows the early mudbrick courtyard of the Old Kingdom

temple of Satet. The off-axis court is not a common feature of New Kingdom temples and seems

to be a local development deriving from the orientation of the Early Dynastic shrine (Kaiser

1977: 65, fig. 1). The stone foundations of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple completely covered

the earlier shrines, and yet a unique element was included to connect the new temple with the

original sanctuary. A descending shaft fitted into the northwest corner of the main rock niche

area and was extended 4 m (7.62 cubits) down through the stratigraphic layers of the earlier

temples (Dreyer 1975: 52-53, figs. 3-4; Dreyer 1986: fig. 7). The building program of Eighteenth

Dynasty kings at Elephantine appears to be associated with the particular local architectural and

cultic traditions of the local Satet temple.

387

In contrast, the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum at Elephantine does not have the

same history of use as the temple of Satet. The earliest recovered evidence of an independent

sanctuary dedicated to Khnum dates to the Middle Kingdom, although Khnum was worshipped

at Elephantine from an early date (Kaiser 1993: 152, fig. 9; Kaiser 2000: 166; Eder 2000: 24;

Leitz 2002d: 25-28; Raue 2008: 2). Like the main temple complex at Elkab, the first New

Kingdom temple constructed by Hatshepsut overlying the remains of the earlier Middle

Kingdom temple of Khnum was a small one-roomed structure that was augmented by later kings

(Junge 1987: 22-39; Von Pilgrim 2001: 37; Bommas 2004: 7; Von Pilgrim 2004: 6-7; Bommas

2005: 47-51; Bommas 2010: 352-353; Arnold 2012: 12-13). In fact, Hatshepsut’s temple to

Khnum was smaller in size than her temple to Satet (Von Pilgrim 2002: 184-190). The full architectural intention Hatshepsut had with regards to the temple of Khnum is difficult to determine, because certain features, such as the columned portico, were not completed until the reign of Thutmosis III (Bommas 2000a: 63). The available evidence, however, suggests that like the temple of Satet, the temple of Khnum built under Hatshepsut began as a small peripteral temple.

Thutmosis III enlarged the main building by adding columns to the forecourt and erecting a sandstone pylon (Bommas 2000a: 47, 79; Von Pilgrim 2001: 44). These actions increased the size and complexity of the temple of Khnum and created a more typical architectural plan of the

New Kingdom, compared to the temple of Satet, which was mostly ignored by Thutmosis III

(Kaiser 1995: 164; Von Pilgrim 2001: 44). Amenhotep II is credited with the addition of a second colonnaded festival courtyard added to the front of the main building, as well as interior decoration (Van Siclen III 1990: 188-194; Bommas 2000a: 175-220, 297; Von Pilgrim 2001: 44-

45). The seemingly ideological shift of importance from Satet to Khnum during the reign of

Thutmosis III may relate to the increasing significance of the god Khnum with regard to his role

388

as a creator god and as the head of the triad formed with the goddesses Satet and Anuket at

Elephantine (Otto 1975: 950-951; Leitz 2002d: 26). Khnum’s role as the father of the triad and

as the ba of Geb and Osiris358 linked him to notions of the divine family of which the king was

meant to be the earthly manifestation.

Thutmosis III continued his impressive building program into Nubia where temples

dedicated to Amun were constructed at a number of sites (Laskowski 2006: 212-225; Rocheleau

2008: 11, 18). On Sai Island, along the eastern enclosure wall, the small sandstone temple

(temple A) consists of several building phases dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Vercoutter 1958;

Vercoutter 1970; Vercoutter 1973: 14-19, pls. II and III; Thill 1997: 105; Rocheleau 2008: 59;

Azim and Carlotti 2012: 12). The temple lies in ruins today, but the remaining features indicate that the architectural plan of the structure is similar to that of New Kingdom temples at Kumma and Semna, but in temple A, the tripartite sanctuary is complex (Rocheleau 2008: 69; Azim and

Carlotti 2012: 44, pl. XVIa). Only the south room leads to a small rear transverse chamber that

extends through to the back of the central room; the south chamber is further divided into two

sections, creating a multipart arrangement (Vercoutter 1956: 66-82; Vercoutter 1958: 144-168;

Vercoutter 1973: 9-38; Vercoutter 1974: 28-36; Thill 1997: 105; Arnold 2003: 9; Rocheleau

2008: 69; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 36-43).

Egyptian temples dedicated to Amun in Nubia present another case where Kemp’s

evolutionary theory of temple development does not neatly align with the reality of variability in

358 Khnum was worshipped as the ba of Geb at Herwer (exact location unknown) near el-Ashmunein and as the ba of Osiris at Shashotep (modern Shubt) near Asyut in the Middle Kingdom (Sauneron 1964: 33ff; Otto 1975: 951- 953; Gomaà 1986: 249-251, 313-315).

389

temple construction. Many of the Amun temples dated to the New Kingdom in Nubia are

generally small monuments with a court, vestibule, and sanctuary indicating that certain spatial

configurations were preferred, but variability has been noted with specific architectural features

and layouts that reflect changes in cultic practices, particular aspects of local deities, and the

preferences of specific rulers (Rocheleau 2005: 193-196, 204-207, 211-215). Unfortunately, the

entrance court and pylon of temple A has not been preserved and the recovered block fragments

are likewise in poor condition, depicting parts of figures and inscriptions; this evidence identifies

the kings and deities associated with the temple or with older ruined royal buildings, but provides

little information about the function of the temple (Vercoutter 1974: 17; Minault-Gout 2007:

280-289). In the inscription on pillar S.1 recovered from the site, Thutmosis III orders the rebuilding in stone of a destroyed brick building. Minault-Gout suggests that Thutmosis III replaced an older building and incorporated the blocks of early Eighteenth Dynasty rulers in its foundations and pavement (2007: 287-288). The ruined temple may have been founded by

Amenhotep I in honor of Ahmose II (Minault-Gout 2007: 286). Although architectural remains

of an earlier temple have not been preserved in the archaeological record, an early Eighteenth

Dynasty brick temple would challenge Kemp’s assumptions about New Kingdom provincial cult

temples being built out of stone. The figures of Amun preserved on architectural fragments from

the temple have been erased likely due to activity during the Amarna Period. On pillar S.1,

however, the preserved silhouette and plume feathers of the god suggest that Amun was

worshipped in human form on Sai Island, which is atypical of most Nubian temples and,

according to Rocheleau, may reflect a non-local origin (2005: 25, 31-36).

Although there is an increasing use of stone in the construction of provincial cult temples during the Eighteenth Dynasty, mudbrick elements continued to be incorporated in their architectural design. One example is the mudbrick façade attached to the front of the Eighteenth

390

Dynasty temple of Thutmosis III dedicated to Banebdjed at Mendes (Redford 2009: 72-72, figs.

1, 6.4, and 6.5; Redford 2010a: 71, 80; Redford 2010b: 274). Kemp’s other two criteria, scale

and architectural plan, are not shown to be definitive features common to all provincial cult

temples constructed during the Eighteenth Dynasty. The present examination of royal remains from four provincial towns, Mendes, Elkab, Elephantine, and Sai Island indicates variability and complexity in terms of scale and architectural plan. Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaohs built some provincial cult temples with unique features that seem to reflect the specific local cultic history of each town. Additionally, these royal provincial cult temples were often constructed in locations that contained either an early local shrine and/or were the focus of Old Kingdom and

Middle Kingdom royal patronage in commemoration of their divine and royal heritage.359

Furthermore, Kemp’s theory seemingly does not take into consideration the separate category of

peripteral temples discussed in the following section, which were an important component of the

ritual landscape of provincial towns during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Thus, Kemp’s model of

temple development needs to be modified to include variability and local idiosyncrasies by

considering the historical context of each site. On the one hand, there are changes over time in

the degree of royal investment in provincial communities and local shrines (see Bussmann 2016:

38-40), but Kemp’s terminology and criteria for addressing this issue are problematic. His

analysis needs to review additional types of evidence including votive material and temple

economy.

359 Discussed further in §8.2.2.

391

8.2.1.2 Peripteral Temples

Peripteral temples were initially identified by Badawy as small temples or chapels associated with larger cult temples. Badawy distinguished two types. Type I peripteral temples, which date from the early Eighteenth Dynasty (especially the reigns of Hatshepsut to Amenhotep

II), are small structures with an ambulatory and multiple rooms that were “dedicated to the cult of a deity” (Badawy 1986: 284-288). Examples of Type I structures include temples at Wadi

Halfa West, Deir el-Medina, and Amada (Badawy 1986: 285-287). The architectural design of

Type II peripteral temples is similar to Type I, but characteristically displays an open plan with two doorways along the longitudinal axis, at least one stairway leading up to a platform, and a surrounding pillared ambulatory. Examples of Type II peripteral temples occur at Elkab, Medinet

Habu, Karnak, Mada, Kuban, and Elephantine (Badawy 1986: 284, 288-292). Badawy defines

Type II peripteral temples as having a different function than Type I peripteral temples. Type II peripteral temples acted as temporary resting places for divine barques during festival processions, but Badawy does not specify to what extent this function applied to Type I peripteral temples, nor does he establish a clear distinction between the two types that is readily identifiable in the archaeological record (1986: 284). Badawy’s descriptions of the layout and architectural features of the two types of peripteral temples provide a basis for identification, but his comparison neglects to analyze the function of these temples in their specific historical and geographical contexts. Badawy’s research lacks any definite indication of a distinct function between the two types, including the types of activities carried out within them.

392

Of the five sites examined in this dissertation, three contain what can be classified as

peripteral temples: Abydos, Elkab, and Elephantine. At Abydos, the excavated temple360 built by

Thutmosis III in the Votive Zone resembles a peripteral temple in plan and functions as a

multiroomed small cult structure contained within an enclosure wall (Pouls Wegner 2002: 281-

340).361 Evidence indicates that the temple once incorporated a pylon, a magazine room, a columned hall, and two sanctuaries, as well as statues and stelae of the king.362 Block fragments

with both painted and carved relief recovered at the site indicate that the temple was originally

beautifully decorated. An analysis of the internal relief program has not yet been published,

however, and, except for painted cavetto cornices and a band of hieroglyphic text carved in sunk

relief, the exterior walls were left undecorated (Pouls Wegner 2002: 319-322). The inscriptional

material deriving from the exterior and interior relief fragments, as well as from stamped

mudbricks and column fragments, emphasizes the king’s close relationship to the local god,

Osiris Khentyimentiu. There is indirect evidence that one column fragment (NA96 2490.13) may

have been part of a dedication formula (Pouls Wegner 2002: 274-280, 311, 322 n. 113).

The location of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III in the low desert area of the Votive

Zone is positioned at the entrance to the processional route of North Abydos that leads to Umm

el-Qaʽab and Osiris’ tomb (Pouls Wegner 2002: 302, 363-365; O’Connor 2009: 116). Pouls

Wegner has noted the architectural similarity of the central corridor of the monument with

360 As discussed in §4.2.3.1, the highly denuded remains of a second temple of the same reign were identified opposite the Votive Zone, at the local eastern edge of the Middle Cemetery.

361 The exterior dimensions of the enclosure wall measure 17.82 x 27.82 m (34 x 53 cubits), while the limestone core is only 9.04 x 15.18 m (17 x 28 cubits) (Pouls Wegner 2002: 268, 299).

362 A niche emplacement located in the western face of the mudbrick entrance pylon of the temple of Thumosis III, likely once contained a stone stela dedicated by the king (Pouls Wegner 2002: 284-286).

393

structures designated as barque shrines in other contexts and to Badawy’s peripteral temples

(2002: 304-305). However, there is no rear entrance to the temple of Thutmosis III, no stairway

leading to a platform, and no ambulatory, which define typical Type II peripteral temples located

along processional routes (Badawy 1968: 285-292). In keeping with Pouls Wegner’s assessment

(2002: 306), the temple of Thutmosis III in North Abydos appears to more closely resemble

Type I peripteral temples. According to Badawy’s definition, Type I peripteral temples were

dedicated to the cult of a local deity, but there is no mention of their function as resting places for

portable barques. Reliefs associated with the cult building of Thutmosis III, however, include

ritual scenes of Thutmosis III and Osiris, offering scenes of food and flowers, and an image of

priests carrying a shrine or barque sledge (Pouls Wegner 1997-1998: 57; O’Connor 2009: 116-

117, fig. 62). The relief program, architectural design, and location of the temple links Thutmosis

III to the cult of Osiris and to the god’s annual festival procession ensuring that the king was the

focus of ritual offerings and was a participant in the local festival of Osiris. One of the functions

of the temple may have been to house the sacred barque of Osiris during the annual procession.

Recent investigations of the sacred lake associated with the main Osiris temple suggest that the

two temples of Thutmosis III flanked either side of the lake at the entrance to the processional

route and were directly tied to water-borne components of the Osiris procession possibly acting as way stations for Osiris’ sacred barque (Wegner and Verhelst 2014; Verhelst 2014; Verhelst

2015).

Information regarding the layout and design of the small peripteral temple built by

Thutmosis III northwest of the Great Walls of Elkab is solely reliant on drawings and descriptions from early explorers and traveler reports, such as Napoleon’s expedition, because the monument was destroyed in the Nineteenth Century (Clarke 1922: 17; Capart 1940: 35, pl.

37; Vanlathem 1987: 30; Dodson 1996: 62). According to these accounts, the temple of

394

Thutmosis III was a small one-roomed building surrounded on all sides by a colonnade of square

pillars. The architectural design of the temple corresponds to Badawy’s Type II peripteral temple

category, except that it featured a shrine that is closed at the rear. There was only one entrance

with a possible stairway leading up to it (Denon 1802: pl. LXXV; Quibell 1898: pl. XXXVI).

Early accounts of the temple describe elaborately decorated wall scenes, but only Hamilton’s

account indicates that Osiris and Isis were portrayed in the temple alongside the goddess

Nekhbet (see Vanlathem 1987: 32). The architectural and inscriptional evidence provided by early historical records indicate that the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III at Elkab functioned as a place of worship for the local goddess of Elkab, as well as for deities tied to kingship (Osiris and Isis), but they do not confirm whether or not the temple acted as a resting place for a divine barque.

The temple lies west of the main rock-cut tomb necropolis, which contains the tombs of several significant individuals from the Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth

Dynasty who supported the Theban royals during the expulsion of the Hyksos (see §5.3.1). No other royal or religious monument exists in this area. The only other clue derives from non-royal rock inscriptions dated to the New Kingdom, which also occur in the area of the Eighteenth

Dynasty rock-cut tombs and contain administrative and religious titles.363 Why did Thutmosis III

build his small temple in this location away from the main temple dedicated to Nekhbet?

Although several monuments allude to a festival procession of the divine barque of Nekhbet, the

exact route of the procession remains poorly understood.364 Based on the location of the main

363 Point F designated by Green. See Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1. For further discussion see §5.3.2.

364 See discussion in §5.2.2 and §5.2.3.

395

temple complex dedicated to Nekhbet near the Nile, as well as the location of the desert temples

in the Wadi Hilal and the locations of non-royal rock inscriptions with titles of priests and

graffito from various periods, it is possible that the barque of Nekhbet left the main temple of

Nekhbet and travelled through the Wadi Hilal until it reached the limits of the desert at the

Nubian sandstone cliffs and back again.365 Other known festival processions, such as the

processional route of Osiris at Abydos followed a similar path from the main temple complex to

the base of the desert cliffs (O’Connor 2009: 90-91). In her examination of the Myth of the

Wandering Goddess alluded to in the temple of Amenhotep III located in the Wadi Hilal, Richter

suggests that the Wadi Hilal provided the ideal setting for water rites, because the desert valley

would be inundated with water during torrential rainstorms (2010: 163). Richter does not,

however, indicate how many times a year the Wadi was flooded, nor if it was a regular

occurrence. Besides the Nile, the only other body of water was the artificial sacred lake built in

the main temple complex area, but scholars suggest it was not constructed until the Thirtieth

Dynasty (Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: pl. II; Hendrickx 1999: 291). Without further evidence, it

is difficult to determine the route of the procession of Nekhbet during the New Kingdom.

Pictorial and textual evidence from the tomb of Setau dated to the Twentieth Dynasty indicate

that the barque of Nekhbet may have travelled long distances along the Nile.366 The location of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III closer to the Nile river perhaps indicates that the temple

365 Graffito on the temple of Amenhotep III and on rocks in the area depict images of boats from at least the Old Kingdom (Green 1903a: 215-216; Green 1903b: 371; Porter and Moss 1937: 190d; Derchain 1971: pl. 25c; Huyge 1984a; Aufrère, Golvin, and Goyon 1991: 51; Huyge 2002: 201; Lankester 2013: 75-77, 110, map 5.2).

366 A scene in the tomb of Setau depicts Ramesses III’s reception of the barque of Nekhbet at the royal residence in Pi-Ramesses (Gardiner 1910; Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: pl. 27).

396

was positioned to receive the sacred barque of Nekhbet during festival processions involving the

Nile.

The second peripteral temple at Elkab was completed by Amenhotep III at the mouth of

the Wadi Hilal.367 Its small size and architectural layout places it in the category of peripteral temples, yet Badawy does not include it in either of his types. The temple of Amenhotep III was constructed out of sandstone and was approximately 15 m (28.6 cubits) long (Bryan 1992: 79).

As it stands today, a columned forecourt (built during the Ptolemaic Period) fronts a one-roomed

sanctuary that had a front and a rear entrance but is missing a surrounding colonnade (Richter

2010: 163-164). Four Hathor-headed columns were positioned in the central corridor of the

sanctuary and appear to have been added during alterations made to the temple a second time

under Amenhotep III (Bryan 1992: 79-82; Dodson 1996-1997: 60-63; Johnson 1998: 78).

The exterior of the temple was undecorated, but the interior contains depictions and inscriptions of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III in scenes of offering (Tylor 1898: pls. III,V;

Porter and Moss 1937: 188-189; Richter 2010: n. 68). Nekhbet’s sacred barque is depicted as an

object of worship on the walls of the interior of the temple of Amenhotep III alongside the

barques of other deities, including Re, Amun-Re, and Re-Horakhty (Tylor 1898: pl. 14; Bryan

1992: 79-81; Richter 2010: 164, fig. 8). Richter claims that flood waters would have surrounded the temple of Amenhotep III during ancient times providing an ideal setting for barque shrines

(2010: 163, n. 61). The numerous depictions of divine barques in the interior of the temple of

Amenhotep III, as well as its location far in the desert of the Wadi Hilal at the site of potential

367 Kozloff and Bryan argue that the temple may have originally been constructed by Thutmosis IV or was built very early in the reign of Amenhotep III, because the design and proportions of figures in the relief program have Thutmoside features (1992: 80-81).

397

Old Kingdom activity involving boats,368 suggests that the temple of Amenhotep III primarily functioned as a way station to house barque shrines during festivals and is unique in containing images of barques of multiple deities. Yet, the architectural design of the temple of Amenhotep

III does not strictly correspond to Type I or Type II peripteral temples as defined by Badawy.

The fact that the temple contains one central room and has a front and rear entrance connected by an internal ambulatory, places it more closely in the category of Type II peripteral temples, yet none of Badawy’s examples from other sites contain columns within the main shrine (1986: 289,

291). The temple of Amenhotep III may represent a unique architectural design associated with the local aspect of the dual role of the barque of the goddess Nekhbet traveling along the Nile and returning from the desert.

Unfortunately, the other small peripteral temple that Amenhotep III built north of the temple of Satet on Elephantine, like the temple of Thutmosis III at Elkab, was destroyed in antiquity and was only recorded during Napoleon’s expedition in 1800 (Description de l’Égypte

1809: pls. 34-38; Porter and Moss 1937: 227-230; Badawy 1986: 290-291; Kozloff and Bryan

1992: 75; Johnson 1998: 78-79). The architectural design of the temple consisted of a square- pillared peristyle surrounding a small sanctuary (Badawy 1986: 288-290, fig. 161 no. 3; Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 75). According to Borchardt’s reconstruction, the peripteral temple of

Amenhotep III was built on a raised platform with axial stairways leading to central entrances on either side of the main chapel (1938: n. 25, pl. 21). Both interior and exterior decoration depicted

Amenhotep III before the god Khnum, the principal god worshipped in the temple, although

368 As mentioned in the previous paragraph, a graffito of boats dated to the Old Kingdom was found on a hill near the temple of Amenhotep III (Green 1903a: 215-216; Green 1903b: 371; Porter and Moss 1937: 190d).

398

other deities were also present, including Anuket, Amun-Re, and Horus (Porter and Moss 1937:

228).

The function of the temple of Amenhotep III as a way station for the divine barque is apparent not only based on the layout of the temple, which corresponds to Badawy’s Type II

peripteral temple classification (1968: 284, 288-290), but also due to a depiction of Amenhotep

III and Queen Tiye before the barque shrine of Khnum within the temple’s interior (Porter and

Moss 1937: 228). The recent discovery of a barque chapel of Hatshepsut located within the

Khnum temple precinct provides further pictorial evidence of a barque procession of Khnum on

its walls and pillars (Arnold 2016: 31-32).369 Only fragments of the chapel remain reused in the

temple of Khnum built by Nectanebo II, but Arnold’s reconstruction suggests that its

architectural plan was similar to peripteral temples with a central chamber surrounded by an

ambulatory with square pillars (2016: 31). Block fragments from a separate temple of Thutmosis

I (completed by Thutmosis II) depict the king presenting offerings to Khnum-Re and Anuket, but

the architectural design and function of the temple is unknown (Arnold 2016: 32-34).370

Evidence for a festival of Khnum at Elephantine during the New Kingdom is limited to these

fragmentary depictions of his barque and to a single rock inscription of a quarry worker that

refers to a procession of Khnum (Seidlmayer 2003: 443). During the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, the

Dream Stela of Tanutamun (JE 48863) discovered at Gebel Barkal provides further evidence for a procession of Khnum at Elephantine, but the exact route through the landscape has not been

369 Hatshepsut is shown offering to the barque of Khnum, while parts of scenes preserved on different fragments from the chapel depict an offering ritual (Arnold 2016: 31-32).

370 Arnold suggests that the building might have served the “rejuvenation of the king” and may have been primarily dedicated to Khnum-Re (2016: 34).

399

recorded (Bommas 2000a: 227-228).371 It is likely that the divine barque of Khnum travelled

from the main temple of Khnum and its associated barque chapels to the harbor at Hassawanarti, passing by and possibly resting at the temple of Amenhotep III along the way.

Egyptian peripteral temples with front and rear entrances were designed for processional movement through the structure with a central repository for the sacred barque. They acted within a larger ritual landscape often directly associated with processional routes involving larger temple complexes. Due to their specialized function with respect to processional landscapes, the existence and geographical locations of such peripteral temples provide vital clues to the movement of ritual participants across the landscape in ancient times as well as indications of the functional relationships that linked elements of these sites’ environments.

8.2.1.3 Royal ka Chapels

As offering places for everyday and festive priestly services, ka chapels are well known

in mortuary contexts throughout Egypt where they appear as a tomb-chapel or cult chamber

associated with a tomb (Bolshakov 2001). By the Sixth Dynasty, ka chapels began to appear

separate from tombs in the precincts of provincial temples allowing individuals to symbolically

participate in temple rituals and to regenerate their own cults (Brovarski 1994b; Bussmann 2007:

16-17). Royal ka chapels (Hwt-kA) built for the cult of the king occur in provincial towns since at

least the Sixth Dynasty372 in order to strengthen royal presence and authority, to associate the

371 After ascending the throne, Tanutamun records his progression north from Nubia, stopping along the way to participate in festival processions of the god Khnum at Elephantine, and in festivals at Thebes (Bommas 2000a: 227- 228).

372 As Muhs notes, cults of the royal ka in the provinces during the Third and Fourth Dynasties may be represented by small step pyramids (2016: 43, 51).

400

king with local deities, and perhaps even to link the cults of local divinities to the royal economy

(Franke 1994: 118-127; Wegner 1996a: 80, 341-347; O’Connor 1999: 110; Bussmann 2007: 16-

17; Papazian 2008: 77-79; Muhs 2016: 43-44, 51). They were commonly independent structures set up near the main divine temple to partake in the reversion of offerings and usually contained at least one statue of the ruler who was the focus of the cult (Kaplony 1978: 284; Brovarski

1994b: 16-18; Wegner 1996a: 341-346; O’Connor 2009: 81). Examples include the ka chapels of

Pepy I and Tety at Bubastis (Habachi 1957a: 14-18, figs. 2-3; El-Sawi 1979: 75-76, figs. 164-

167), the ka chapel of Pepy I at Coptos (Strudwick 2005: 105-106), and the ka chapels of Pepy II and Sankhkare Mentuhotep III at North Abydos (Petrie 1903: Brovarski 1994b: 16-19; Wegner

1996a: 82-84; see below). Ka chapels thus played a vital role in the development of provincial cults. Each person had a ka (the vital essence of life) that was both individual and imbued with the generational power of each family line (Bell 1996a: 56-57; Bell 1996b: 30-31). Royal ka chapels enabled the king’s ka and the ka of kingship itself to be revitalized through offerings and rituals. During the New Kingdom, information about ka chapels is less extensive in both written sources and archaeological data from Egypt.373 This lack of evidence may indicate that the worship of the king in provincial sites during the New Kingdom may have taken place in contexts other than ka chapels or may have simply lost its relevance due to the overall integration of temple cult with kingship. The following section examines the potential evidence for New

Kingdom royal ka chapels attached to a major temple at Abydos.

In the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure at North Abydos, Petrie excavated a series of royal structures dating from the Old Kingdom through to the New Kingdom (1903: 11, pl.

373 Brovarski notes that the term Hwt-kA in reference to temple structures is rarely used in the New Kingdom (1994b: 19-20), which makes positive identification difficult.

401

LIII, XLVII 4). Three Old Kingdom royal ka chapels were identified by inscriptional evidence

found within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, although these cannot be easily correlated with the

four mudbrick buildings excavated in the same area, because none of the objects were found in

situ (Brovarski 1994b: 16-18).374 The four buildings (labelled H, J, K, and L by Kemp) were

small mudbrick structures with courts and multiple chambers (see Kemp 1968: 149-150, fig. 3).

Brovarski suggests that three of the buildings should be identified with the three Old Kingdom royal ka chapels mentioned in the textual evidence or that one building may have “served as a ka-chapel for all three sovereigns” (1994b: 18). During the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth

Dynasties, inscriptional evidence and relief decoration identifies the continuation of royal ka

chapels in the same location (Wegner 1996a: 73-86, 102-108; Wegner 2007: 226-228).375 Kings

of the Eighteenth Dynasty continued the tradition by superimposing their own monuments

(probably ka chapels) atop the earlier royal ka chapels. Unfortunately, unlike the situation for the

Old and Middle Kingdoms, there is no inscriptional evidence that confirms that any of the

Eighteenth Dynasty royal monuments are in fact ka chapels; yet, their position in the same

location as generations of royal ka chapels, their unique architectural plan (many were small to

medium square-shaped structures that appear to have been built as separate entities), and their

decorative program points to their probable function as royal ka chapels (O’Connor 1992: 88-90;

Brovarski 1994a: 99-121; Brovarski 1994b: 19; Wegner 1996a: 135; Harvey 1998: 95; Pouls

Wegner 2002: 222-224).

374 The ka chapels belonged to Pepy I, Merenre, and Pepy II.

375 The monument of Sankhkare Mentuhotep III built within the Osiris Temple Enclosure was specifically labelled as a ka chapel (Brovarski 1994b: 19; Wegner 1996a: 338). Wegner has further determined that the structures built by Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, Senwosret I, Senwosret III, and Sobekhotep IV were also ka chapels (1996a: 74-84, 102- 105, 108).

402

The earliest Eighteenth Dynasty monument (building C) built by Amenhotep I in honor

of his father Ahmose II within the Osiris Temple Enclosure measures 422.90 sq. m, contained a

limestone colonnaded courtyard, a columned hall, and a rear sanctuary, and was oriented to the

local north-south (Petrie 1902: 29-30, pl. LVII; Petrie 1903: 18, pl. LVII; Kemp 1968: 143, fig.

1; Wegner 2002: 221-231; Pouls Wegner 2002: 225-226; Marlar 2009: 28). It was built directly

over a Sixth Dynasty chapel and is the only Eighteenth Dynasty complex within the Osiris

Temple Enclosure with a preserved ground plan (Kemp 1968: 143, 149; Petrie 1903: 18). Harvey

has noted the structure’s similarity to other known ka chapels (1998: 93). As discussed in

§4.2.2.1, most of the relief scenes recovered from the chapel depict Amenhotep I venerating

Osiris, who is identified as Foremost of Westerners or Lord of Abydos (Petrie 1902: 29-30,

frontispiece, pls. LXII-LXIV; Petrie 1903: 18, pl. XXXII no. 8; Porter and Moss 1937: 42;

Harvey 1998: 92-95). Winnerman’s recent analysis of the relief program associated with the

chapel questions the divine nature of Ahmose II and demonstrates that although a royal ka is

identified in the inscriptional material, to which king this epithet belonged cannot be determined

(2018: 70-73). This evidence thus complicates the conclusion that the building functioned as a ka

chapel for the deceased Ahmose II. Alternatively, the ka cult of the reigning king Amenhotep I may have been the focus of rituals associated with the chapel.

Another major cult structure (building D) adjacent to the chapel of Ahmose II and

Amenhotep I in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure is dated to the reign of Thutmosis III

(Petrie 1903: 18-21; pl. LVII; Kemp 1968: 144; Pouls Wegner 2002: 248). Like Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom royal ka chapels excavated within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, the temple of Thutmosis III is roughly square in plan, a feature that seems to be common to royal ka chapels at Abydos, but it is much larger than the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I (Petrie 1903: 18-

20; O’Connor 1999: 111; Pouls Wegner 2002: 261-262). Surviving wall features and the location

403

of foundation deposits indicate that the temple was approximately 40 x 34 m (76.2 x 64.8 cubits),

had two transverse columned halls, and a rear sanctuary (Pouls Wegner 2002: 257, 262, fig. 35).

No inscriptional material concretely identifies the temple as a royal ka chapel. Fragments of relief blocks recovered from Petrie’s excavations within the interior of the Osiris Temple

Enclosure depict the postmortem transformation of Thutmosis III as Osiris, a theme that commonly appears in the relief programs of preceding royal structures at Abydos, hinting at a similar function (Petrie 1902: 30, pls. LXI, LXIV; Petrie 1903: 17, 35, pl. XXXIII; Porter and

Moss 1937: 42; Wegner 1996a: 84-85). Furthermore, the block fragment (BOLMG 1902.53.5) that contains part of a jubilee titulary of the king, which commonly appears on monuments connected to Thutmosis III’s sed-festivals, reiterates the function of building D for the cult of the king (Petrie 1902: 30, pl. LXI, 1; Hutchinson 2011: 159, no. 163). O’Connor comments on the fact that Thutmosis III’s temple was oriented local east-west indicating that Thutmosis III’s temple was an “independent structure” from the preceding chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep

I, which was oriented local north-south (2009: 112). However, if the offering list of Thutmosis

III belongs to this structure (see §4.2.2.2), it may provide evidence that it was in fact a temple that incorporated the cult of the king. The data is complex but provides compelling evidence that regardless of its true function, the cult building of Thutmosis III associated the cult of Osiris with the cult of the king.

The two unidentified buildings discovered within the Osiris Temple Enclosure may represent royal ka chapels of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Building A is a small square mudbrick structure that was built over the remains of the royal ka chapel of Pepy I (Petrie 1903: 16, pl.

LIII; Kemp 1968: 140ff, fig. 1; Pouls Wegner 2002: 186). The date of construction of building A is uncertain, but evidence deriving from the stratigraphic layers of three stone pavements found in the interior of the structure demonstrates that the building remained in use through several

404

construction phases, including one during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Pouls Wegner 2002: 186-

195). Building B shares a common wall with building A and is also a modest mudbrick structure

(Petrie 1903: pl. LV; Kemp 1960: 143, n. 1; Pouls Wegner 2002: 213-219). A reconstruction of the internal layout of building B, based on surviving internal walls, suggests that there was a central hall surrounded by several chambers in its northern section (Pouls Wegner 2002: 219-

220). The southern part of building B is largely destroyed and cannot provide much information about the remaining architectural layout, and no inscriptional material has been recovered from either building; however, the layout of the surviving walls and their position directly above the

Old Kingdom royal ka chapels, suggests that a similar function may be ascribed to buildings A and B within the Osiris Temple Enclosure.

As discussed in §4.2.2.3, the architectural and inscriptional remains pertaining to the cult building of Thutmosis IV located beneath the area of Thirtieth Dynasty temple within the Osiris

Temple Enclosure are not substantial. The inscriptional evidence belonging to Thutmosis IV does not name his monument and Marlar’s hypothesis that the structure cannot be a ka chapel remains speculative (see Marlar 2009: 234-235). If the cult building of Thutmosis IV is not a ka chapel, but a divine temple, then its presence would lend further support to the proposition that the main cluster of Eighteenth Dynasty temples at North Abydos are royal ka chapels surrounding the main temple of Osiris. On the other hand, if the cult building of Thutmosis IV functioned instead as a ka chapel, then the existence and location of the provincial cult temple of

Osiris remains enigmatic.

Comparing Thutmosis IV’s decorative program to the relief fragments depicting Ahmose

II, Amenhotep I, and Thutmosis III discovered within the Osiris Temple Enclosure does indicate some differences. Thutmosis III is identified as a deceased Osiris figure in mummiform (Petrie

405

1902: 29-30, frontispiece, pls. LXI-LXIV; Petrie 1903: 17-18, 35, pl. XXXII no. 8; Porter and

Moss 1937: 42; Wegner 1996a: 84-85; Harvey 1998: 92-93). Marlar argues that the absence of images of the deceased Thutmosis IV as Osiris is not in keeping with the decorative program of

royal ka chapels at Abydos (2009: 236). However, on the recovered relief fragments from the

chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I, there are no depictions of Amenhotep I or Ahmose II as a

deceased Osiris. Rather, Amenhotep I is presented as the figure who conducts the offerings. The

quantity of recovered relief fragments from all Eighteenth Dynasty monuments located within

the Osiris Temple Enclosure is not substantial enough to derive conclusions based on the absence

of scenes. The royal monuments constructed by Eighteenth Dynasty kings at Abydos may have

included ka chapels in addition to a provincial cult temple located within the Osiris Temple

Enclosure. Other royal patronage at the site includes peripteral temples of Thutmosis III located

in the Votive Zone and Middle Cemetery, and a pyramid temple complex of Ahmose II located

in South Abydos. The cultic landscape of Abydos provides a rich data set of royal building

activity with varying functions.

8.2.2 Royal Ancestors

A significant component of royal patronage during the New Kingdom was the emulation

of royal predecessors. The sites chosen for New Kingdom royal building programs and

investments in local cults were often those in which previous rulers, particularly of the Middle

Kingdom, had constructed monuments. Frequently the form and function of New Kingdom royal

patronage closely mimicked the activities of predecessors, especially regarding the specific

location New Kingdom rulers chose to build their religious monuments at a site, as well as the

content of the decorative programs of their temples.

406

According to Björkman, kings venerated royal ancestors by making monuments and

artifacts, such as statues and ceramics in their name, as well as restoring previously established

places of royal investment (1971: 43-48, 54). The practice of royal ancestor worship acted to legitimize the power of current kings and to provide continuity with prestigious predecessors.

For example, lists of kings and their deeds recorded in temples from an early period were the focus of rituals meant to cement the link to their past (Redford 1986). The importance of emphasizing the royal lineage and divine origins of kings helped to preserve kingship and authority (Bell 1996a: 56; Fairman 1958: 94-104; David 1981: 83). Textual evidence, such as

dedication texts from monuments of Eighteenth Dynasty kings, attest to the philosophy that the

achievements of royal predecessors should be preserved and protected (Björkman 1971: 16-21).

According to Björkman, kings referred to the past as “the ideal norm which has to be repeated,”

the first ideal creation, and as great achievements that “the present king claims to surpass” (1971:

29). As Winnerman notes, “the study of kings directly interacting with their predecessors (or

coregents) reveals the Pharaohs’ own methods of constructing, negotiating, and displaying their

own divinity and that of their ancestors” (2018: 6). Bell believed that all Pharaohs were

incarnations of the royal ka and shared a divine ancestry (1985: 258, 280; 1996a: 56-57).

However, Winnerman has recently shown that a more nuanced account of the ka of the king is

warranted and that royal divinity cannot be reduced to the notion of a single royal ka (2018: 23-

36, 180-184, 329-342).

The phenomenon of royal ancestor worship by kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty has been

noticed throughout Egypt and occurs in both royal cities and provincial towns. The New

Kingdom temples at Thebes provide ample evidence for the veneration of royal predecessors. A

review of the evidence for royal ancestor worship by Eighteenth Dynasty kings at Thebes

provides a basis for comparison with the royal activity examined at Mendes, Abydos, Elkab,

407

Elephantine, and Sai Island. Although Thebes as a capital city may represent a special case of

ancestor veneration, the types of royal ancestor worship that occurred there provide information

about which Eighteenth Dynasty kings partook in this activity and establish a set of criteria that

may be used to examine the potential evidence for royal ancestor worship at provincial sites.

Evidence from the reign of Ahmose II is vague, but Winnerman’s analysis of a stela376

from Deir el-Bahri suggests that Ahmose II was interested in the cult of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep

II located there (2018: 68-69). Amenhotep I venerated royal ancestors at Thebes by potentially

constructing a mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri to associate himself with Nebhepetre

Mentuhotep II (Winlock 1924; Schmitz 1978: 94-95; Winnerman 2018: 77-79) and by imitating

the barque shrine of Senwosret I at Karnak (Graindorge and Martinez 1989: 47; Moore 1994;

Graindorge 2002: 84; Blyth 2006: 38-39; Ullmann 2007: 11-12; Winnerman 2018: 82-84). As

Winnerman notes, royal veneration of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II is likely connected to

Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II’s role in reunifying Egypt after the events of the First Intermediate

Period (2018: 79). Amenhotep I’s limestone copy of Senwosret I’s White Chapel at Karnak was reproduced with almost identical dimensions, style, and decoration (Björkman 1971: 58-60).

Amenhotep I also added a large court in front of Senwosret I’s main temple at Karnak, which retained the style of Middle Kingdom decoration (Graindorge and Martinez 1989: 38; Blyth

2006: 34). Amenhotep I’s successor, Thutmosis I is known to have reused several blocks with cartouches of Ahmose II originally belonging to a small shrine of Ahmose II in his Treasury at

North Karnak, as well as the name of Senwosret I in some of the leaves of the sacred iSd-tree depicted in its interior decoration (Jacquet-Gordon 1988: 90-92, 214-217, pls. LXIV-LXV; Blyth

376 For the stela, see Edwards 1965.

408

2006: 43-46; Laboury 2013: 14-15, fig. 11; Winnerman 2018: 91-92). In addition, both

Thutmosis I and Amenhotep I appear in the relief decoration of the alabaster barque chapel at

Karnak (Chevrier 1947: 165-169, pls. 124-126; Letellier and Larché 2013: 106-108, pls. 230-

237; Winnerman 2018: 86-91). Senwosret I may have been so revered by New Kingdom kings at

Karnak, because he was the founder of the Middle Kingdom temple there and was a prolific

temple builder throughout Egypt (Blyth 2006: 10, 38; Laboury 2013: 14). By honoring the

memory of Senwosret I at Karnak, Amenhotep I and Thutmosis I would have been legitimizing

their claim to the throne by linking themselves as official successors or “sons” of a renowned

royal ancestor.377

During the reign of Hatshepsut, the importance of royal ancestors is demonstrated in her

iconography and inscriptions. In her role as a ruling queen, Hatshepsut emulated the iconography

of Queen Nefrusobek of the Twelfth Dynasty (Troy 1986: 139-143; Laboury 2013: 20; Laboury

2014: 84-87). She also used the early Thutmoside style in artistic depictions, which imitated the

style of Senwosret I (Laboury 2013: 15-22). Furthermore, Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahri

connected her to the building program of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, contained rooms dedicated to royal ancestors, such as Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III, and supported her rightful claim to the

throne via the coronation inscription, in which Thutmosis I designates Hatshepsut as his

successor (Naville 1898: 5-9; pls. LX-LXIV; Naville 1906: 6, pl. CXXIX; Witkowski 1989: 436-

437; Winnerman 2018: 138-158). Obelisks erected by Hatshepsut at Karnak contain the name of

377 Inscriptions on a block recovered near the obelisk of Thutmosis I at Karnak have been interpreted as the phrase “Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I), Beloved of his Father, Kheperkare (Senwosret I)” (Petrie 1896: 67; Gauthier 1912: 215 [vi] and n. 2; Blyth 2006: 46). In reality, Thutmosis I was not the son of Amenhotep I, but a military commander who “inherited” the throne (Blyth 2006: 39). By symbolically connecting himself to Senwosret I on his monuments, Thutmosis I may have been trying to bolster his claim to the throne.

409

Thutmosis I, Thutmosis II, and Thutmosis III (Winnerman 2018: 167-172). She was responsible for transforming the Middle Kingdom Beautiful Feast of the Valley into a commemoration of both royal and non-royal ancestors (Björkman 1971: 43; Bell 1997). During the festival of the fertility god Amun-Min-Kamutef, statues of deceased kings were paraded in procession (Bell

1997). The veneration of royal ancestors, however, appears to be a secondary component of

Hatshepsut’s building program in Thebes, which emphasized her veneration of Amun-Re.378

There was a shift in focus from royal to divine hereditary kingship, which may explain one reason why Hatshepsut dismantled the monuments of some her royal predecessors at Karnak.379

The purpose of this change of focus compared to Hatshepsut’s predecessors, Amenhotep I and

Thutmosis I, may have been a political one to distinguish herself from her step-son and heir

Thutmosis III, who was of the same royal bloodline and who could thus claim the same

hereditary descent. A divine hereditary connection took precedence over a royal one.

Thutmosis III’s return to royal ancestor worship with renewed vigor may have been, in

part, a political reaction against Hatshepsut. There is evidence that Hatshepsut’s names and

figures were hacked out on monuments across Egypt and were often replaced by the names of

Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III during the sole reign of Thutmosis III; although, scholars have

pointed out that this occurred relatively late in his reign and was not performed consistently

(Nims 1966; Björkman 1971: 74-79, 88; Blyth 2006: 68; Laboury 2006: 265-267; Winnerman

2018: 112-113, 186). Royal ancestors appear prominently in Thutmosis III’s monuments at

Karnak (Björkman 1971: 77ff). The festival hall called the Akh-Menu constructed at the eastern

378 For a review of Hatshepsut’s treatment of monuments of predecessors at Karnak, see Björkman 1971: 64-72.

379 Hatshepsut is accredited with dismantling much of Amenhotep I’s and Senwosret I’s buildings at Karnak (Nims 1955: 113; Blyth 2006: 52).

410

end of Karnak may have been modelled after the Middle Kingdom temple built by Senwosret I

due to similarities in architectural layout, and in light of the fact that chambers within the Akh-

Menu show scenes of royal ancestors (Porter and Moss 1929: 40-42; Björkman 1971: 84-90;

Blyth 2006: 70-73; Laskowski 2006: 192-195; Winnerman 2018: 188-196). Depictions in the

Akh-Menu include those showing royal statues being transported to and from Karnak and the

temple of Mut, processions with royal statues, the king before royal funerary chapels at Buto,

and the king offering to 61 royal ancestors in a room named the Chamber of Ancestors (Blyth

2006: 73; Winnerman 2018: 189).380 Scholarly studies of the Chamber of Ancestors have focused on the organization of the kings, which are not arranged in strict chronological order

(Wildung 1974; Redford 1986a: 29-34; Grimal 2010; Delange 2015: 56, 104-106; Winnerman

2018: 189-190). Maspero (1902: 189) and Wildung (1974: 46-47) have suggested that the kings listed there all had a cult at Karnak and were thus worshipped by Thutmosis III because of their previous activities at Thebes. Inscriptional evidence accompanying the figures of kings demonstrates that the Akh-Menu was built for both living and deceased divine kings, but

Winnerman has suggested that the historical aspect of the structure took precedence over divine kingship (2018: 195-196).

Further evidence of Thutmosis III’s dedication to royal ancestors occurs in central

Karnak where small chambers constructed off the northern and southern courts at the Sixth Pylon were dedicated to royal ancestors, such as Amenhotep I, and on the southern outer wall of

Hatshepsut’s offering chambers near the southern court where Thutmosis III reproduced an original scene of Senwosret I’s (Lacau 1954; Björkman 1971: 77, 93; Gabolde 1998: 40-43;

380 There may have been an earlier chapel dedicated to royal ancestors built in the reign of Senwosret I at Karnak (Lorand 2013).

411

Blyth 2006: 81, 83; Winnerman 2018: 196-202). Several royal statues belonging to Thutmosis

III’s predecessors at Karnak were carved with renewal texts under Thutmosis III (Winnerman

2018: 202-203). Inscriptional evidence from the reign of Thutmosis III additionally supports the profound reverence Thutmosis III had for his royal ancestors. A dedication text from the Akh-

Menu emphasizes royal ancestor veneration: “My Majesty commanded that the names of his fathers should be established and their offering bread provided, and that their images should be formed each in its own form and great offerings instituted anew” (Sethe 1906-1927: 607;

Björkman 1971: 41). The same degree of veneration at Thebes is not noticeable for Thutmosis

III’s son and heir, Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II did complete the Wadjet Hall (the main court of

the temple of Karnak between the Fourth and Fifth Pylons) begun by Thutmosis I and reworked

by Thutmosis III, and decorated blocks before Thutmosis III’s Akh-Menu and coronation chapel,

adding his name to the monuments, but Amenhotep II did not add images or names of royal

predecessors in his buildings at Karnak (Björkman 1971: 97-99; Blyth 2006: 40, 97-98).

However, in the temple of Kumma in Lower Nubia, Amenhotep II is depicted in relief decoration offering before Senwosret III (Caminos 1998: 39-42, 59-61, pls. 33-34, 47;

Winnerman 2018: 227-230) and the Giza stela of Amenhotep II honors Khufu and Khafre for building the pyramids (Hassan 1937; Klug 2002: 223-234; Winnerman 2018: 230-231).

During the reign of Thutmosis IV and subsequent kings, monuments were embellished, extended, and adapted at Karnak, but these acts may have been more pursuant of self- glorification rather than ancestor veneration (Björkman 1971: 100-102; Blyth 2006: 99-112, 119-

412

142; Winnerman 2018: 239-249).381 Amenhotep III, for example, demolished and replaced many of the monuments of his predecessors within the temple precinct at Karnak and at Luxor to make

way for his own glorified constructions, perhaps to stress his own divinity, and while Amenhotep

IV/Akhenaten made additions to Amenhotep III’s monuments, most of his work departed from

tradition as attested by the thousands of talatat blocks found scattered throughout Karnak (see

Björkman 1971: 103-117; Redford 1973; Redford 1980: 22; Redford 1984: 63, 127; Gohary

1992: 167-168; Redford 1994c: 487-491; O’Connor 1995b: 276-277; Blyth 2006: 105-118, 120-

126; Winnerman 2018: 252-261, 287, 303-306). Bickel has argued that the added figure of

Amenhotep III in Amenhotep III’s temple at Kom el-Hetan, Thebes during the reign of

Akhenaten represents ancestor worship (1997: 90). In another scene from a private tomb at

Thebes (TT 192) Amenhotep IV is shown offering to Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye

(Winnerman 2018: 306-307). Moreover, at Amarna, Akhenaten and Amenhotep III are depicted in juxtaposed scenes in the tomb of Huy (Davies 1905: 15-16, pl. XVIII; Winnerman 2018: 312-

315) and a relief fragment382 indicates that Akhenaten venerated the memory of his grandfather,

Thutmosis IV (Wilkinson 1843: 73; Bryan 1991: 161-164; Winnerman 2018: 319-320).

References to Amenhotep II383 and Thutmosis I384 at the site have been used as evidence for

ancestor cults of these kings (Bryan 1991: 1662-164) but Winnerman has demonstrated their

ambiguous nature (2018: 320-321). The evidence associated with the reign of Akhenaten

381 Scholars have suggested that the reign of Thutmosis IV marks an increase in extolling the divinity of the king, the role of the king as intermediator, and the relationship between the king and the gods (Bryan 1991: 165, 180; Bryan 2004: 51-52; Winnerman 2018: 239).

382 The fragment is now missing but mentions an estate of Thutmosis IV in Akhetaten (see Winnerman 2018: 319).

383 His name occurs in an inscription in the tomb of Any at Amarna (Davies 1908: 9, pl. IX).

384 Jar sealings of this king have been found at the site (Pendlebury 1951: pls. LXXXI no. 14, XXII no. 10).

413

suggests that he was highly selective in his choice of ancestors to whom veneration was due, confining his attention to his father Amenhotep III and perhaps also to his grandfather Thutmosis

IV. However, Winnerman has noted that the relationship between Akhenaten and Amenhotep III in the tomb of Huya at Amarna does not emphasize patrilineal descent but represents equal officeholders (2018: 316).

During the reign of Tutankhamun, the importance of establishing a connection with ancient royal ancestors arose again. A sandstone stela recovered from Karnak depicts

Tutankhamun before Amun, Mut, and Senwosret I (Blyth 2006: 128). Senwosret I was a prominent figure of veneration at Karnak for many Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaohs. The evidence for royal ancestor worship at Thebes demonstrates that each Eighteenth Dynasty king chose unique ways of expressing his relationship to previous rulers that were likely motivated by political aspirations. However, there are common indicators of royal ancestor worship at Thebes including constructing monuments in the same location as predecessors, imitating specific architectural designs, styles, and decoration, embellishing and extending monuments, reusing temple blocks, and including the name and/or figure of a previous king in temple decoration.

These criteria can be compared to royal activity at the five provincial sites.

In the provinces, royal activity at Abydos during the Eighteenth Dynasty provides a significant example of the worship of royal ancestors and the emulation of their activities. As discussed previously, Amenhotep I constructed a monument dedicated to his father, Ahmose II, within the Osiris Temple Enclosure. Although it is impossible to identify the figure facing

Ahmose II in the block fragment depicting the king (Petrie 1902: pl. LXII; Winnerman 2018:

71), the presence of both Ahmose II and Amenhotep I in the relief program suggests ancestor worship of Ahmose II. Kemp suggests that an oracle of the deified Ahmose II may have occurred

414

at the structure (1968: 143). In addition, Harvey proposes that there may have been a link between the Ahmose II complex in South Abydos and the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I in North Abydos by means of a procession of an oracle represented by a statue of Ahmose II

(1998: 95, 446-447). Amenhotep I’s emulation of his father Ahmose II in the chapel at North

Abydos may be a symbolic reflection of the mythical connection between Osiris and his son

Horus, which has also been observed for the presence of Amenemhat III in the relief program of the temple of Senwosret III at South Abydos (Wegner 1996a: 259; Wegner 1996b; Wegner 2007:

159-169). Osiris’ importance to the establishment of divine kingship through the succession of his son Horus seems to have been a prominent component of the royal cult structures at Abydos, the cult center of Osiris. In addition, the pyramid complex of Ahmose II in South Abydos was built in close proximity to the mortuary complex of Senwosret III thereby connecting Ahmose

II’s monuments to the activities of a great ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty in order to establish his royal authority and royal lineage (Otto 1966: 45-46; Pouls Wegner 2002: 91-92).385

Similar to his building program at Karnak, Thutmosis III seems to have been particularly concerned with emulating royal ancestors via his monuments at Abydos. Within the Osiris

Temple Enclosure, Thutmosis III extended the western wall of an enclosure built by Senwosret I and set up a colossal statue of Senwosret III at the west face of his granite pylon (Petrie 1903: 17,

34, 43, pls. XXVIII, LVII; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Kemp 1968: 144; Pouls Wegner 2002:

179). Pouls Wegner has noted the conceptual link between New Kingdom royal structures and

Middle Kingdom royal structures within the Osiris Temple Enclosure at North Abydos and

385 Otto has suggested that the purpose of the building program of Ahmose II in South Abydos was to legitimize royal power through the cult of Osiris and through the cult of royal ancestors in the aftermath of the Second Intermediate Period (1966: 45-46).

415

suggests that Thutmosis III, in particular, deliberately emulated the building activities of royal

predecessors, especially Senwosret I and Senwosret III (2002: 99-100, 122-127). Senwosret III undertook an impressive building program at South Abydos during the Middle Kingdom, including a mortuary temple and associated town, that expresses his dedicated devotion to

Abydos and Osiris on an unprecedented scale (Wegner 1996a; Pouls Wegner 2002: 122-123;

Wegner 2007). Thutmosis III devotes a similar amount of investment to the cult of Osiris attested by three cult monuments in North Abydos and seems to have concentrated his building efforts on aligning himself with venerable kings of the Middle Kingdom who constructed monuments at

Abydos. The location of Thutmosis III’s temple within the Osiris Temple Enclosure adjacent to

the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I additionally linked Thutmosis III with the great

founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Ahmose II. His efforts may have been tied to the political

climate of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the disruption to the lineage of royal successors caused by

the reign of Hatshepsut (Redford 1967: 73ff; Redford 1975: 544; Redford 1986: 168ff; Pouls

Wegner 2002: 125-126).

The continuity of royal ancestor worship at Abydos during the New Kingdom is observed more explicitly in the Ramesside Period by relief scenes in the west end of the Temple of Sety I that depict part of the Ritual of Royal Ancestors (David 1981: 83-97; Eaton 2013: 52-53; David

2016). In the chapel of Ramesses I at Abydos, both Ramesses I and Sety I are depicted presenting offerings to Osiris, and Sety I is depicted offering to the deceased Ramesses I

(Winlock 1921; Winlock 1937; Wegner 2007: 169). Furthermore, an inscription on the door jamb of the chapel explains that Sety I built the monument in honor of his father Ramesses I

(Winlock 1921; Winlock 1937; Wegner 2007: 169). According to Wegner, the veneration of ancestors in many royal cult buildings at Abydos, “may have been presentation of the religious associations between Osiris, deceased elder king and royal successor. The dual veneration of

416

Osiris by king and his successor is then paralleled by the presentation of offerings to the

deceased Osirid king by his living successor” (2007: 169). Wegner has observed that the ka chapels dated to the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom at Abydos represent the royal successor: “(a) as dedicator of the cult building, (b) in scenes involving veneration both by living and deceased king of Osiris; and (c) as main officiant in the offering cult of the elder king”

(2007: 169). For example, the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I in North Abydos has scenes in which Ahmose II and Amenhotep I appear in juxtaposition.

The act of securing a direct link with earlier kings for the stability of the line of succession potentially occurs at Mendes, Elkab, and Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty through the placement of royal monuments. Information about the series of temples beneath the

Late Period temple of Banebdjed at Mendes is very fragmentary, but the New Kingdom remains unearthed directly above the site of a Middle Kingdom and Old Kingdom sanctuary provide evidence of a continuity of royal patronage (Redford 1999; Redford 2000; Redford and Redford

2005: fig. 7.1; Redford 2009: 2; Redford 2010a: 62-63, figs. 5.1-5.2).386 Similarly, within the

Great Walls at Elkab evidence of Middle Kingdom royal monuments is rare but the names of

several rulers, including Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, Senwosret I, Amenemhat III, and Senwosret

II have been recovered from the site (Stobart 1855: pl. 1; Quibell 1898: 13; Legrain 1905: 106-

11; Capart 1940: 22, nos. 1-2, pl. 30 a-b; Van Siclen III 1999: 415; Porter and Moss 1937: 174,

190; Hirsch 2004: tab. 5). The exact location, design, and orientation of the Middle Kingdom

royal structures within the Great Walls cannot be determined based on the available evidence.

Therefore, these criteria cannot be compared to the New Kingdom structures at the site. Yet, it

386 Currently, there is no evidence about which kings contributed to the Middle Kingdom and Old Kingdom temples at Mendes.

417

seems significant that Eighteenth Dynasty rulers chose to construct two major temples in the

same area.

The peripteral temple of Amenhotep III built in the Wadi Hilal at Elkab provides

evidence for the veneration of Thutmosis IV. Thutmosis IV is depicted in two relief scenes on either side of the interior entrance wall (Porter and Moss 1937: 188-189). He is positioned behind Amenhotep III and identical inscriptions between the kings in both scenes claim that

Amenhotep III completed the monument of his father (Tylor 1989: pls. VIII, X). As examined in

§5.2.3, scholars have suggested that Thutmosis IV built the temple, which was later decorated by

Amenhotep III, or that Amenhotep III was the sole builder who constructed the monument in honor of Thutmosis IV and no earlier temple belonging to Thutmosis IV actually existed at the site (Bryan 1991: 196; Bryan 1992: 80; Dodson 1996: 60; Johnson 1998: 78; Richter 2010: 163).

In either case, the references to Thutmosis IV in the temple’s relief program and inscriptions attest to Amenhotep III’s efforts to connect his building program to that of his predecessor.

At Elephantine, royal patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty continued the building traditions established during the Middle Kingdom by augmenting the temples dedicated to Satet and Khnum. Furthermore, as discussed previously, Eighteenth Dynasty royal activity, especially at the temple of Satet, was concerned with establishing a historical lineage with the earliest cult structure of the local deity (Dreyer 1975: 52-53; Kaiser 1977: 65; Dreyer 1986: fig. 7). Evidence for royal ancestor worship in the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Khnum is apparent in the relief program of the temple. The names of Thutmosis I and Thutmosis II were likely added posthumously under the reigns of Hatshepsut or Thutmosis III in commemoration of their predecessors (Bommas 2000a: 56-59, 100-109).

418

From Sai Island, lintels (fragments S.412 and S.413) found in the pavement of the north

chamber of temple A contain the cartouches of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep I (Vercoutter

1970: 27-28; Vercoutter 1973: 15, pl. III; Minault-Gout 2007: 279, 283; Gabolde 2012: 129;

Winnerman 2018: 209-210). In Minault-Gout’s description of the fragments, she notes that

underneath S.412 were small faience objects including a plaque inscribed with the name of

Amun and a scarab beetle (2007: 283). Because the lintel was found in the foundation of temple

A, these objects likely represent scattered finds originating from the temple’s foundation deposits

(see §7.2.1). The presence of Amenhotep I’s name juxtaposed with Thutmosis III’s probably attests to Thutmosis III’s veneration of Amenhotep I due to Amenhotep I’s role in securing the island under Egyptian control (Zibelius-Chen 1984: 353; Minault-Gout 2007: 278, 282; Gabolde

2012: 127-128; see §7.2). There is no conclusive evidence that Amenhotep I constructed an earlier temple at the site.

Royal ancestor worship in temples throughout Egypt would have invoked a prestigious social memory as part of the collective doctrine of kingship. Throughout Egyptian history, periods of state reformation have been tied to models that emulate or reconstruct the past as a template for stability and civilization (Wilson 1956; Parkinson 1991; Kemp 2006: 241-244;

Wegner 2010c: 120). Immediately following the intermediate periods of central decline, the

Middle and New Kingdoms revivified political and economic unity by engaging with the past

(Wegner 2010c: 132-133). Middle Kingdom rulers looked to the activities of the Early Dynastic

Period and Old Kingdom, while New Kingdom kings strove to recreate the great feats of Middle

Kingdom predecessors. The evidence presented above indicates that royal ancestor worship was a motivating factor behind royal activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty, especially at the site of Abydos.

419

8.2.3 Material Correlates of Non-Royal Votive Activity

The corpus of material remains that attest to non-royal votive activity in the provinces

during the Eighteenth Dynasty includes stationary architectural and inscriptional features as well

as portable objects that functioned as components of religious ritual. Scholars commonly

categorize non-royal religious activity into separate spheres, such as domestic religion (confined

to the household environment) and fertility religion (restricted to reproduction) (Stevens 2003:

143; Stevens 2006: 21); yet the physical objects assigned to each category often belong to more

than one grouping. Functional definitions of non-royal religious material are further blurred due

to the displaced context of their procurement. Where textual and epigraphic sources are lacking

or provide an elite biased view of a site,387 however, archaeological evidence of non-royal

religion proves invaluable (Bussmann 2016: 45-46).

The increased focus on domestic settlements and household archaeology has improved analyses of non-royal religious activity in ancient Egypt but has confined that activity to the household. The current investigation aims to expand this perspective by examining non-royal votive activity associated with Eighteenth Dynasty royal cult institutions in the provinces in order to determine the degree of interaction between royal and non-royal religious activity.

Previous research has concentrated on small finds, such as figurines, recovered from Early

Dynastic provincial cult temples (Dreyer 1986: 18, 99-117, 122-138, pls. 24-38; Bussmann 2010:

211-430; Bussmann 2011). The structure of non-royal religious activity associated with provincial cult temples during the Eighteenth Dynasty and its effects on the religious landscape

387 Textual and epigraphic sources of religion are often limited to literate or semi-literate members of society, generally of higher socio-economic status (Baines 1990: 6-10; Baines 1991: 183; Pinch 1993: 326, 345; Wegner 2010c: 119-120).

420

in the provinces remains poorly understood. This is in part due to misconceptions that state and

private religion are dichotomous as well as definitions that assign non-royal religion to spaces

beyond temples or limit it to association with a specific socio-economic status (Gunn 1916;

Mercer 1949: 367; Baines 1984: 46; Stevens 2006: 17-18).

The five sites examined in the present dissertation provide an opportunity to examine non-royal religious activity in the provinces in specific historical and geographical settings. The identification of material remnants of non-royal votive activity at each site was determined based on a number of factors, including the findspot and usage context, the occurrence of parallel material in defined religious contexts at other sites or in other time periods, the incorporation of elements of potential religious significance, and connection with textual or epigraphic sources of a religious nature.388 The material is divided into three sections: a) private chapels; b) votive

offerings; and c) inscribed material.

8.2.3.1 Private Chapels

Non-royal buildings dedicated to the cult of local deities exist in the archaeological

record at a limited number of sites during the Eighteenth Dynasty. The most well-known

examples occur at the Workmen’s Village at Amarna. Twenty-four private votive chapels were

excavated east of the village wall (Kemp 1989: 304; Bomann 1991; Kemp 1995: 29-30; Stevens

2006: 251-253). Their architectural design generally consists of a forecourt, an outer and inner columned hall, a pronaos, and a sanctuary (Stevens 2006: 251). Many chapels had associated garden plots and T-shaped basins as well as low interior benches lining the walls of certain

388 This list is based on Renfrew’s archaeological indicators of cult as well as previous studies of non-royal religious material in Egypt (see Renfrew 1985; Sadek 1988; Pinch 1993; Renfrew 1994: 51; Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 390-32; Stevens 2006: 29-248; Weiss 2015: 117-177).

421

rooms (Bomann 1991: 19, 61; Stevens 2006: 251). The function of the chapels appears to have

been associated with ancestor cults in addition to worship of a range of deities, and they may

have belonged to individual families (Bomann 1991: 10-11, 31-36, 57-79; Kemp 1995: 30;

Stevens 2006: 252). However, there is limited inscriptional material to aid in the understanding of the function of the chapels.389 One chapel (561) provides evidence of baking and animal

slaughter suggesting a range of activities (Bomann 1991: 59). Potential public shrines have also

been identified within the Main City at Amarna, some of which contained evidence of altars,

niches, and emplacements, although no associated inscriptional material confirms the function of

these buildings.390 Bomann has compared the private chapels at Amarna to similar chapels at

Deir el-Medina dated to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, which also served ancestor

cults and the veneration of a range of deities (1991: 51-53, 73-74). Further evidence of private shrines with possible communal functions occur at Mirgissa, Deir el-Ballas, and Zaqiyet Umm el-Rakham (Bomann 1991: 84; Pinch 1993: 41-48, 350; Kemp 1995: 27-28, 32; Lacovara 1997:

51; Snape 2002; Stevens 2006: 253).

Of the five sites examined in the present dissertation, only Abydos provides indirect evidence for the existence of private chapels during the New Kingdom. Inscribed stone stelae recovered from Mariette’s investigations in North Abydos as well as from the southern and northern portions of the Votive Zone, may have originally derived from New Kingdom private offering chapels located adjacent the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Mariette 1880b; Simpson 1995:

57, 64-65, 68-73, 75, 102-105; Pouls Wegner 2002: 48-49). The recovered stelae fragments

389 A small quantity of painted plaster was recovered in and around the Amarna chapels with fragmentary images and hieroglyphs (Stevens 2006: 251-252).

390 See discussion of specific examples in Stevens 2006: 252-253.

422

contain the names and titles of non-royal individuals and occur in both sunk and raised relief. As

O’Connor notes, maHat offering chapels typical of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos are

uncommon in textual references in the New Kingdom, but the inscriptional evidence discussed

above, which includes depictions of Osiris, could have originated from New Kingdom cult

chapels (2009: 116). Fragments of Middle Kingdom stelae were also recovered in these areas,

but only one was found in situ in a chapel niche excavated in the Votive Zone.391 Several other

chapels dated to the Middle Kingdom, however, contained empty wall niches, which likely

originally held commemorative stelae (Yamamoto 2009: 38-39). No Eighteenth Dynasty chapels

have yet been excavated at the site, but the discovery of a possible Ramesside chapel seems to

indicate that the construction of private chapels with emplacements for stelae may have

continued into the New Kingdom in the Votive Zone (Pouls Wegner 2002: 53 n. 121, 116).

As discussed in §4.3.7, the stela of Kares provides further indirect evidence that

Eighteenth Dynasty private chapels may have been constructed in North Abydos. Kares received

the construction of an offering chapel in North Abydos as a gift in return for his loyal service to

Queen Ahhotep (Sethe 1906-1927: 46 lines 3-4; Sethe 1914: 46; Roth 1977-1978: 31-40; Troy

1979; Eaton-Krauss 1990: 195-200; Harvey 1998: 25; Roth 1999: 361-377; Pouls Wegner 2002:

135-138). No architectural information about the design of the chapel is included in the text, perhaps indicating that a standardized plan was commonly used. The Middle Kingdom private mudbrick chapels revealed beneath the inner court and sanctuary of the Portal Temple of

Ramesses II in the Votive Zone are classified into two types (Type i and Type iii) with a basic design consisting of roughly square solid mudbrick structures that were likely vaulted (O’Connor

391 Stela of M(ek)etankhu from chapel E7-4 (O’Connor 1969: 33 top left; Simpson 1974; O’Connor 1985: 170; Simpson 1995: 36 C 5, 39, fig. 61, pls. 6B, 7A, 7B; Yamamoto 2009: 47-48).

423

1985; Yamamoto 2009: 35-39, 44). Type iii chapels additionally contain a simple single chamber

with wall niches for commemorative stelae (Yamamoto 2009: 38-39). It is possible that New

Kingdom private chapels had a similar architectural layout.

An interesting component of the stela of Kares is the fact that Kares’ offering chapel at

Abydos was issued by royal command as a royal favor (Pouls Wegner 2002: 136). Does this

evidence indicate that non-royal individuals required royal permission to construct monuments in

the Votive Zone? The Middle Kingdom chapels exposed in the strata underlying the “Portal”

Temple formed a dense accumulation of small sized chapels presumably belonging to lower

status individuals surrounding larger sized chapels belonging to higher status individuals, which

rapidly developed in a somewhat haphazard manner (Simpson 1974; O’Connor 1985; Simpson

1995).392 The distribution of the Middle Kingdom private chapels in this area suggests a lack of

organized state control during construction. The chapels were not systematically arranged in a

grid pattern common to contemporary state mandated projects, such as the non-royal houses built

at Kahun (O’Connor 1997; Kóthay 2002; Quirke 2005; Szpakowska 2008). This archaeological

evidence would thus seem to suggest a lack of state involvement in the construction of the

Middle Kingdom chapels. More likely, it was the elite owners of the larger chapels who received

permission to build in the Votive Zone and were able in turn to extend their patronage to the associated individuals who built smaller chapels abutting these. The nucleated groups could represent kin groups or social affiliations, or even professional relationships. However, the

boundary stela of Neferhotep I (Cairo JE 35256) recovered from the North Cemetery

392 Titles associated with stelae owners from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties indicate that individuals from a range of socio-economic levels participated in the construction activity of non-royal monuments in the Votive Zone (Leprohon 1978; Ward 1982; Fischer 1997).

424

demonstrates that the Egyptian state controlled the boundaries of non-royal construction activity

in North Abydos during the Middle Kingdom and perhaps even earlier,393 although the chapels

are not specifically referenced (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 63-64, 84, pl. XXIX; Leahy

1989: 41-60; Pouls Wegner 2002: 109-110). The stela of Neferhotep I describes four boundary

stelae set up to the south and to the north of the sacred land; however, the other three stelae have

not been found and the lack of information about the area designated as sacred space makes it

difficult to determine its physical representation on the landscape (Leahy 1989: 43, 50-52; Pouls

Wegner 2002: 421).394 The Votive Zone may or may not have been included within the limits of

the sacred boundary.395

According to Bussmann, the construction of private offering chapels at various sites in

the New Kingdom may have provided a means for individuals to satisfy their religious needs

during a time in which there was increasing royal control over temples in central cities (2017:

84). Private chapels at Amarna, Deir el-Medina, and Deir el-Ballas were built next to residential quarters, which may indicate that domestic contexts were increasingly incorporating non-royal religious practices (Bussmann 2017: 84). Similarly, at Abydos restricted access to the Osiris temple precinct may account for the construction of private chapels in the Votive Zone. As

Bussmann notes, the exclusion of non-royal involvement in New Kingdom temple contexts may

393 Leahy notes that Neferhotep I usurped this stela from an earlier king (1989: 46-49).

394 Leahy has attempted to determine where the four stelae would have originally been set up and what area of the landscape represents the sacred space mentioned in the Stela of Neferhotep I. He arrived at four potential configurations assuming that the Stela of Neferhotep I was found at the site of its original position (Leahy 1989: 50- 52, fig. 2).

395 See Leahy 1989: 53, fig. 2.

425

have caused shifts in the distribution patterns of non-royal religious activity observed at sites

throughout Egypt.

8.2.3.2 Votive Offerings

The data discussed in this section pertains to material remnants of non-royal votive

offerings396 identified at the five case studies. The identification of uninscribed non-royal votive objects is based on archaeological context as well as parallel material from previous studies at contemporary sites that have distinguished various types of non-royal votive offerings in the archaeological record.397 The methods for analyzing the non-royal votive evidence include

examination of the material properties, textual references, archaeological context, and associated

practices that can be linked to its deposition. As much information as possible is provided for

groups of objects recovered from each site, such as descriptions of physical characteristics,

potential functions, and symbolic imagery.

Based on the published records, three out of five sites examined in the present

dissertation produced uninscribed votive material dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty: Abydos,

Elephantine, and Sai Island. Two major categories of votive objects have been recovered from all

three sites: a) figurines (human and animal) and b) vessels.398 The number of examples retrieved

from the published excavation reports for each site probably does not represent a high quantity of

material and there are likely other unpublished examples that exist in storerooms or have been

396 Defined in §1.4.4.

397 In particular, the works of Pinch (1993), Giddy (1999), and Stevens (2003; 2006) have provided useful categories for comparison.

398 Stelae, offering tables, and statues are also considered votive offerings (Stevens 2006: 121-152, 195-196), but have been included in the following section under the heading “inscribed material.”

426

lost due to the methods employed in early excavations. However, the types, materials, and

distribution of votive offerings documented at Abydos, Elephantine, and Sai Island demonstrate

the nature of non-royal religious activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty and

shed light on how this activity functioned at a time when royal patronage was a dominant factor

in shaping the religious landscape.

8.2.3.2.1 Figurines

Human and animal figurines have often been underrepresented in early excavation

reports at sites throughout Egypt. Their small size, portability, and often fragmentary condition

has contributed to issues of misidentification. Few detailed studies have concentrated on

analyzing these objects. However, shifts in research paradigms and a greater focus on excavating

settlement sites has increased awareness of the importance of small finds.399 The majority of figurines recovered from sites across Egypt are small in size (approximately 6-15 cm or 0.1-0.29 cubits in height) and made of fired or unfired clay, although there are examples in other materials, such as limestone, ivory, wood, and faience. Most clay figurines are hand-modelled or manufactured in molds and portray a variety of subjects including animals, such as bovids, birds, cobras, dogs, fish, baboons, gazelles, and felines, and human females and males (Giddy 1991:

13-15; Stevens 2006: 79-120; Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 5-6). Their recovery from secondary or disturbed archaeological contexts at many sites has often made it difficult to determine use.

Figurines have been recovered from domestic, funerary, and religious contexts that cover the spectrum of Egyptian history and they potentially served a range of functions, including utilization as ritual and votive objects, toys, and sculptors’ guides (Giddy 1991: 13; Pinch 1993:

399 Notable publications include: Pinch 1993; Giddy 1999; Szpakowska 2003; Stevens 2003; Stevens 2006; Spencer 2008.

427

160-234; Quirke 1998; Stevens 2006: 79; Waraksa 2009: 124-175; Weiss 2015: 138-153).

Recent research has focused on the apotropaic function of human and animal figurines and their

use in healing rites and the prevention of various ailments, which often involved ritual breakage

of the objects (Waraksa 2008; Waraksa 2009: 166-169; Budin 2011: 131; Doyen 2016: 155-156;

Geisen 2018: 23-24). None of the figurines recovered from Abydos, Elephantine, and Sai Island

were found in situ, yet their findspots and characteristics indicate a ritual component that attests

to non-royal religious activity.

Humans 8.2.3.2.1.1.1 Female

Female figurines were part of the repertoire of non-royal religious artifacts excavated from three sites examined in the present dissertation: Abydos, Elephantine, and Sai Island.

Within the Osiris Temple Enclosure, two clay fragments representing a naked woman lying on a bed were found in Ops. 5W and 5N during Marlar’s excavations of the Late Period temple ruins

(Marlar 2007b: 116-117, figs. 3, 5). The figurines belong to Pinch’s Type 6b dated from the late

Eighteenth Dynasty to the Ramesside Period (1993: 207-209). Although similar female figurines are common in domestic and funerary contexts (Pinch 1983: 405-414; Pinch 1993: 207-209;

Giddy 1999: 31, pls. 8-12; Stevens 2006: 85-89, fig. II.3.7; Weiss 2015: 138; Doyen 2016: 147),

examples have been recovered from the Mut temple precinct (Waraksa 2009: 25-30). Marlar

classifies the female figurines from the Osiris Temple Enclosure as fertility votives, representing

a category of small finds dedicated to fertility gods and goddesses (2007b: 116-117). They were

found in the same location as a rectangular, limestone plaque (OTP 3956) depicting a man and

woman engaged in sexual intercourse (Marlar 2007b: 112-114, figs. 1, 4). Because the cycle of

life and rebirth is a central theme of the Osiris myth, Marlar suggests that these votive offerings

could have been “dedicated to Osiris, Isis or both, within the temple” (2007b: 117). Female

428

figurines associated with temples of gods are rare, however, and may thus have been associated

with a “co-templar” goddess according to Pinch (1993: 221).

Alternatively, the female figurines and plaque may originate from the surrounding town

site at North Abydos, because similar female figurines were uncovered during excavations of the

town (see Marlar 2007b: 117). In fact, Marlar notes that “it is currently impossible to tell whether

the OTP plaque originated from a domestic context or was dedicated in the temple itself”

(2007b: 118). However, in either context, the female figurines could act as votive offerings.

In the settlement remains of the Middle and New Kingdoms and in dump Area XIV at

Elephantine, approximately 188 female figurines dating from the Thirteenth to Twenty-First

Dynasties were recovered during excavations (Kopp 2005: 85-90, figs. 27-28; Budka 2016d: 92).

Just under half (48%) are made of blue faience (90 examples) and mainly date from the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty. Other types of female figurines recovered from Elephantine are made of fired clay and limestone, and range in date. Five categories distinguish the female figurines at

Elephantine based on material and style, which have been compared to Pinch’s typology of female figurines recovered from New Kingdom sites dedicated to Hathor: a) clay figurines depicting naked females with a flattened head, beaked nose, slits for eyes and eyebrows, and a fringe hairstyle; b) limestone female figurines; c) blue faience female figurines with elongated

bodies, slim waists, flat stomachs and chests, and a long straight wig; d) clay figurines depicting

women lying on a bed; and e) clay figurines depicting females with oblong bodies.400

400 See detailed discussion of the comparison in §6.3.3. Also see Pinch 1993: 198-209.

429

None of the female figurines recovered from Elephantine were found in secure contexts;

however, their proveniences reveal important information about their potential use at the site.

Examples from the clay female figurine groups all derive from domestic structures surrounding

the temple of Khnum and the sanctuary of Heqaib, including the south house group, House 55,

House 61, and Area XIV (Von Pilgrim 1990: fig. 2; Kopp 2005: 85-90, fig. 28; Von Pilgrim

2008a: 6-7; Budka 2016d: 92). House 55 (early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty) was integrated into

an area connected with economic structures north of the temple of Khnum and its ruins may

represent a dump area for material accumulated during the redesign of the temple precinct during

the reign of Amenhotep II (Von Pilgrim 1999: 119; Von Pilgrim 2015: 10-12, figs. 7-8; Von

Pilgrim 2016: 22-25). House 61 dates to the Ramesside Period and belonged to a high official

from Thebes, Hori (Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim 2007: 365). Although not all of the exact

findspots of the faience figurines are published, faience figurine no. 26604Q/d-14 was found in settlement layer B VIII located south of the Heqaib sanctuary and dated to the early to mid-

Eighteenth Dynasty, while faience figurine no. 3923 was found in the southern area of the Satet

temple precinct (Von Pilgrim 1996: fig. 1; Von Pilgrim 1999: 118; Kopp 2005: fig. 28).

Female figurines of similar date and style to the ones recovered from Elephantine have

been found in domestic, funerary, and temple contexts throughout Egypt.401 Their small size,

portability, and association with human fertility, creative energy, protection, physical vitality,

health, conception, childbirth, childrearing, and rebirth in the afterlife enabled them to function

401 In domestic contexts at Deir el-Medina (Bruyère 1939: 137-139, figs. 58-59; Backhouse 2013: 22-23; Weiss 2015: 138-146), Kom Rabiʽa (Giddy 1999: 28-42), Deir el-Ballas (Lacovara 1990: 7), Hierkonpolis (Adams 1974: 14, pls. 7-8), South Abydos (Ayrton, Currelly, Weigall 1904: 38), and Amarna (Stevens 2006: 85-89, 92-93); in tomb contexts at Abusir el-Meleq (Scharff 1926: 95, pl. 71), Aniba (Steindorff 1937: 85-86, pl. 46), Deir el-Ballas (Lacovara 1990: 9), Deir el-Medina (Backhouse 2013: 23), and Zawiyet el-Aryan (Dunham 1978: 53-55, pl. 40); and in temple contexts dedicated to Hathor at Deir el-Bahri, Faras, and Gebel Zeit (Pinch 1993: 221-234), as well as shrines dedicated to other goddesses, such as the Mut Temple Precinct in Thebes (Waraksa 2009).

430

in all three contexts as votive offerings (Pinch 1993: 211-225; Robins 1996: 30; Roth 2000: 187-

201; Stevens 2006: 88; Szpakowska 2008: 56; Stevens 2009: 7-9; Marlar 2007b: 116-117;

Waraksa 2008; Waraksa 2009: 168; Teeter 2010: 27; Budin 2011: 131; Doyen 2016: 153-156).

According to Pinch, however, one type of female figurine, in particular, mainly derives from temple contexts and is very rare in domestic spheres during the New Kingdom: faience female figurines (1993: 205-207, Type 5). Faience female figurines have been found in temple precincts at Dendera, Coptos, Elkab, Deir el-Bahri, and Mirgissa (Petrie 1896: pl. XV; Quibell 1898: 16-

17, pl. XXI; Karlin 1970: 350, fig. 45; Pinch 1993: 45- 206, 231-232). Other examples from

Faras and Gebel Zeit likely also originate from temples (Leclant and Clerc 1985, fig. 62; Pinch

1993: 39-40, 74-76, 206, pl. 50). The evidence from Elephantine is in keeping with Pinch’s assessment. While some of the clay female figurines may have originally derived from the temple areas (the material from House 55 may represent refuse from the temple of Khnum), the majority were found within the settlement. Faience female figurines, on the other hand, appear to have been explicitly connected to temple contexts, specifically the temple of Satet. The temple of

Satet was not only the main structure dedicated to the primary goddess of Elephantine, but also may have been associated with the worship of other Egyptian goddesses, including Hathor, whose depiction appears as capitals on two pillars in the entrance forecourt (Bernhauer 2002: 87-

88). Many faience female figurines and other types of faience votives have been found at Deir el-

Bahri associated with shrines dedicated to Hathor suggesting a strong link between faience female figurines and Eighteenth Dynasty temples dedicated to goddesses (Pinch 1993: 206;

Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 4). However, clay female figurines have also been found in New

Kingdom temple contexts (Pinch 1993: 202-209; Marlar 2007b: 116-117; Waraksa 2009: 20-42,

45-46, 67; Teeter 2010: 6-11, 13-14, 20-21, 23, 25-26), demonstrating that temple votives were by no means restricted to faience objects. Based on magico-medical spells in P. Turin 54003 and

431

P. Leiden I 348, which link clay female figurines to Isis and Selqet, Waraksa suggests that clay

female figurines embody goddesses during a certain component of a ritual act (2008: 3; 2009:

131-154, 169). The same might be true for the faience female figurines unearthed near the

temple of Satet at Elephantine.

The small finds from Sai Island have not been fully analyzed or published, but fifteen female figurines were found in New Kingdom and post-New Kingdom secondary contexts in

SAV1 North (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 182-183; Doyen 2016; Budka 2016d: 96; Budka

2017g: 157). Types include simple hand-modelled low fired or unfired clay cylinders representing female bodies dated to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, a clay female head with perforations in its crown dated to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, clay rhomboidal figurine fragments representing female bodies dated to the early to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, and a mold made clay naked female lying on a bed dated to the late Eighteenth Dynasty or Ramesside period

(Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 183-184, fig. 11; Doyen 2016: 134-152; Budka 2017g: 158).402

The excavators suggest that the female figurines from Sai Island were most likely associated

with local household fertility cults, having been found in domestic contexts at the site with other

items that commonly function in the realm of non-royal religious practices, including animal figurines, faience Nun bowls, footed bowls, feminoform vases, and decorated pottery (Budka and

Doyen 2012-2013: 200-201; Doyen 2014: 374, pl. 6-7; Doyen 2016: 153; Budka 2016d: 92-96;

Tschorn 2017: 436-437; Budka 2017g: 169).403 According to Pinch’s assessment, figurines

depicting women lying on beds are most commonly associated with domestic and funerary

402 For further discussion of these figurines and their parallels, see §7.3.1.

403 Many of these items are included in Stevens’ study of private religion at Amarna (2006: 85-89, 98-110, 168- 172, 177-180).

432

contexts, appearing in temple contexts only in refuse areas likely originating from houses in the

area (see Pinch 1993: 208-209, 232-233). At both Sai Island and Elephantine, figurines depicting

women lying on beds appear to have been primarily associated with settlement contexts during

the New Kingdom, representing the private household realm of religious activity, rather than

temple ritual. However, at Abydos, similar female figurines may derive from a temple or

domestic context.

Animals 8.2.3.2.1.2.1 Ram

Ram heads form the largest quantity of figurines recovered from Abydos, with 30

samples deriving from overlying debris atop the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II (O’Connor

1967: 14-16; O’Connor 1969: 28-39; Kemp 1995: 50, n. 3). Approximately 28 similar examples exist in the British Museum (EA 35842-3, 35845-6, 61663-91) and five more can be found in the

National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden (AT 106a-b) (Leemans 1867: pls. XXIII no. 305,

XXIV no. 350, XXV nos. 470, 492, 500, L-LII). The ram figurines recovered from Abydos were all hand-modelled from unbaked clay and small in size. Example EA 61671 from the British

Museum has a height measuring 6.33 cm (0.12 cubits) and a width measuring 6.07 cm (0.11 cubits).404 The figurines represent the head and shoulders of a ram with horns curling around

under the eyes.

The ram figurines excavated from the “Portal” Temple at Abydos were not found in situ;

yet, their recovery from a temple context adjacent the Osiris Temple Enclosure in an area well

404 For more information see the British Museum website: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=132893&partId= 1&searchText=ram+figurines&page=1.

433

known for both non-royal and royal religious activity of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom

is significant. The debate surrounding the date of the ram figurines from Abydos is discussed in

§4.3.7, which suggests a potential range from the New Kingdom to the Late Period. Parallel

examples were found in association with the procella of the Temple of Obelisks at Byblos, which

has been dated from the Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period (Dunand 1958: 755).

Ram figurines have also been found in funerary and domestic areas, such as Middle Kingdom

tombs at Lisht and the New Kingdom settlement at Amarna (Hayes 1959: 224; Stevens 2006:

110).405 Hand-modelled fired clay animal figurines of quadrupeds were recovered in disturbed

contexts during excavations of the Ramesside temple, gateway, enclosure wall, and domestic

structures at Kom Firin, but no ram heads were found (Spencer 2008: 66-67). At Kom Rabiʽa,

hand-modelled fired and unfired clay figurines of quadrupeds, bovines, donkeys, felines, ducks

or geese, baboons, and a giraffe were prominent in mid-late Eighteenth Dynasty and Ramesside

contexts; the site produced 27 examples of such animal figurines (Giddy 1999: 307-315). Fired

and unfired clay animal figurines are common in settlement sites of the Second Intermediate

Period through the Late Period within Egypt as well as in areas under Egyptian influence.406 In

settlement contexts, animal figurines may have been used in household cults or as toys (Giddy

1999: 310; Spencer 2008: 67; Weiss 2015: 146-153). In the Memphite tomb of Horemheb,

405 Limestone and mud ram busts were collected in the main city at Amarna, some with traces of paint (Stevens 2006: 110).

406 Examples include the housing and granary areas of the late Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom at Tell Heboua (Abd el-Maksoud 1998: 267, fig. 49), the Third Intermediate Period settlement at el-Ashmunein (Spencer 1993: 39-40, pls. 37-39), the Egyptian garrison of the Late Bronze Age at Beth Shan (James and McGovern 1993: 174-175), at Askut (Smith 2003: 142-133, 135, fig. 5.32), in late New Kingdom/Third Intermediate Period levels at Mendes (Redford 2004: 130-131, figs. 83-84), and at Tell Edfu (Michalowski 1938: 119-120, pl. 38).

434

Schneider suggests that clay animal figurine fragments of calves or dogs may have been

associated with New Kingdom activities involving ritual breakage (1996: 61, pls. 44, 81).

The portability of figurines allowed for their transportation and use in different sites,

including areas associated with processional rituals. Their findspots confirm that they were

utilized in such loci. The symbolism of the ram figurines may also be connected to their function

as votive offerings in such contexts. Deities such as Amun, Khnum, and Heryshef had

manifestations as a ram and worship of rams was widespread throughout Egypt (Mokhtar 1991;

Quirke 1992: 8, fig. 2). All three deities are creator gods (Moktar 1991: 254). The ram was

associated with fertility, as well as power, might, and dignity, and appears as a motif in other

types of Egyptian objects, including amulets, weights, and ointment containers (Hayes 1959:

180, 403; Behrens 1986: 1243; Doll 1982: 61-62; Mokhtar 1991; Stevens 2006: 61).407

The ram figurines at Abydos were amongst some 600 objects removed from debris

overlying the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II. Inscribed material from this deposit includes the

names of Senwosret, Amenemhat III, Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III, and Horemheb, as well as a

large quantity of fragments of non-royal funerary stelae and inscribed statues (O’Connor 1967:

14-16). Coffin fragments and shabtis found in the same context indicate that the material

overlying the “Portal” Temple consists of mixed debris and may represent a spoil heap left by

plunderers of the North Cemetery or a deposit of material left by early excavations (O’Connor

1967: 14-16). Tombs dated to the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties were excavated with the Middle Kingdom offering chapels in the inner court of the “Portal” Temple and near the

407 Epithets associated with ram gods include the expressions Hr-Sfy “The One with the Magnificent Face” and aA- Sfyt “Great of Appearance” likely referring to the physical qualities of the animal (Mokhtar 1991: 253).

435

enclosure wall (Simpson 1995: figs. 2-3; O’Connor 2009: 121-128). This highly disturbed context makes it difficult to determine the original context of the ram figurines, since they could have derived from tombs or temples in the area. In either case, however, the figurines likely acted as votive offerings.

On Sai Island, small, poorly fired clay hand-modelled ram figurines (e.g. SAV1N 221)

have been recovered from settlement area SAV1 North dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Budka

and Doyen 2012-2013: 184; Budka 2017g: 159). In Nubia, the ram aspect of Amun was

especially favored in the New Kingdom, perhaps indicating that the function of the ram figurines on Sai Island was related to worship of the god Amun (Kessler 1989: 184-187; Kormysheva

2004: 111-114, 125; Rocheleau 2005: 21-36; Stevens 2006: 61; Rocheleau 2008: 57-60; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013; Budka 2017g: 159). The figurines derive from secondary contexts in the northern settlement area located north of temple A, which was dedicated to the god Amun.

Kormysheva notes that the figure of a ram or a figure with ram features representing Amun appears in Nubia on stelae and rock art during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but not in official temple reliefs, suggesting that the ram-headed form of Amun was not initially adopted in official religious contexts “but nevertheless remained a popular manifestation of the god” (2004: 111).

Her research suggests that the ram figurines on Sai Island were not donated by the temple clergy but belonged to popular cults. To date, no domestic shrines have been discovered on Sai Island.

However, other objects of non-royal religious significance were excavated in the same context, including female figurines, faience Nun bowls, feminoform vessels, ceramic duck bowls, footed bowls, and decorated wares, all of which could function in the private realm as items associated with fertility and regeneration (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 200-201; Doyen 2014: 374, pl. 6-

7; Budka 2014b: 14, fig. 10; Budka 2014c: 65-68; Budka 2016d: 92-96; Tschorn 2017: 444;

Budka 2017g: 169).

436

These combined items were probably a part of continuous religious activities in the New

Kingdom settlement on Sai Island at the household level. Their association with temple A is

difficult to ascertain, since none were found near the temple remains, but the depiction of Amun

as a ram seems significant to the function of the figurines. Quirke has suggested that ram and vulture figurines were related to New Kingdom cults of Amun and Mut, whose primary place of worship was Thebes (1992: 8, fig. 2). Egyptians residing in Nubia during the New Kingdom

seem to have been particularly linked to Theban religious traditions as attested by numerous

temples dedicated to Amun (Kormysheva 2004: 109-110; Rocheleau 2005: 68-147; Rocheleau

2008: 10-56). Kendall has demonstrated that the prominent Nubian site, Gebel Barkal, was even

considered to be a “southern manifestation” of Karnak from at least the reign of Thutmosis III

(2002: 4).408

8.2.3.2.1.2.2 Cow or Bull

Clay figurines representing cows or bulls (e.g. SAV1N 588, see Figure 7.8b) excavated

from the New Kingdom stratigraphic levels of SAV1 North may be indicative of the Nubian presence on Sai Island. Representations of cattle figure prominently in Nubian tradition (Emery and Kirwan 1935: fig. 33; Steindorff 1935: pl. 73; Smith 2003: 132, fig. 5.32; Budka and Doyen

2012-2013: 184; Budka 2017g: 159). Figurines of cows or bulls have been recovered from

assemblages of Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom sites in Nubia (Emery and Kirwan 1935:

fig. 33; Peterson 1967: 12, abb. 27; Wegner 1995: 156; Smith 2003: 132, fig. 5.32; Chaix and

Queyrat 2003). According to Gratien, along with other animal figurines such as rams and sheep,

cows and bulls are “the expression of a symbolic herd” (1999: 12). At Gism el-Arba located

408 See further discussion in Kormysheva 2004: 110.

437

south of Kerma, clay cow or bull figurines with incised decoration excavated from Eighteenth

Dynasty settlement levels have been interpreted as toys or game pieces, cult objects, or counting

tools (Chaix and Queyrat 2003: 64-66, fig. 3). Throughout Egyptian history, bulls have a long association with kingship and certain male deities, such as Ptah and Re, while cow symbolism is more commonly associated with female deities, such as Hathor, Nut, and Isis (Hornung and

Staehelin 1976: 133; Störk 1984: 261; Pinch 1993: 172-183; Kessler 2001: 209-213; Pischikova

2008: 190-192; Mastropaolo 2013: 5-8). However, it can be difficult to distinguish between cow and bull figurine fragments in the archaeological record,409 and this uncertainty contributes to

problems in understanding their meaning and function.

From the Predynastic Period through to the Middle Kingdom, cow and bull figurines and

amulets occur primarily in funerary and votive deposits (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 41,

pl. IX; Needler 1984: 362-365; Stevens 2006: 99). In the New Kingdom, some cow or bull

figurines may occur among the remains of fragmentary animal figurines recovered from fill

overlying a chapel of the tomb of Horemheb at Saqqara (Schneider 1996: 61-62, pls. 44, 81). In

addition, a clay head of a cow or bull was unearthed from a tomb dating from the Seventeenth

Dynasty to early Eighteenth Dynasty at Thebes (Smith 1992: 208). Cattle imagery is commonly

found on votive offerings at New Kingdom shrines dedicated to Hathor, but fired and unfired

clay cow figurines most often take the form of a standing cow with a solar disk on its head in

these contexts (Pinch 1993: 160-174). Pinch identifies these examples as divine cows (1993:

409 Egyptian cattle species had horns on both bulls and cows (Smith 1969: 307-314; Mastropaolo 2013: 4-5), so that this iconographic distinction is not always useful for identifying which sex is being represented. In addition, horns are often broken off due to their fragility (see Chaix and Queyrat 2003: 63). Some clay animal heads may have actually been gazelle or ibex heads (see Hope 1991: 49; Stevens 2006: 98, 110). In certain examples where the body of the animal is preserved, the presence of udders, or a tourniquet or penis case indicates a cow or bull (Chaix and Queyrat 2003: 63-64).

438

163). The published image of one bull or cow figurine fragment (SAV1N 588) from Sai Island

does not contain this feature (see Figure 7.8b). Some faience cow figurines from Deir el-Bahri

contained the name of Hathor (Pinch 1993: 161-162), which positively identifies those figurines

with the goddess. Beneath the foundations of the temple of Thutmosis III at Coptos, Petrie

recovered a fragmentary faience cow or bull figure indicating the potential use of such objects in

temple contexts (1896: 14). At Amarna, figurines of cows or bulls (none with solar disks) made

of fired or unfired clay have been excavated in the North Suburb, Main City, and Workmen’s

Village, suggesting that cattle figurines may have been more common in domestic settlements of

the New Kingdom than previously thought (Stevens 2006: 98-99, 110).410 Another example of a

potential cow or bull figurine with horns and a sun disc was excavated in the so-called “Town of

Ahmose” at South Abydos (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904: pl. LVIII no. 15). These figurines may have been associated with community shrines or household altars in domestic contexts. The clay cow or bull figurines from Sai Island may originate from similar contexts, although no domestic shrines have yet been excavated at SAV1 North.

8.2.3.2.1.2.3 Vulture

In the same deposit as the ram figurines overlying the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II in

North Abydos, approximately 5 vulture figurines were recovered (O’Connor 1967: 16).

Although the quantity of vulture figurines excavated at Abydos is well below the number of ram

heads, approximately 20 unfired clay vulture figurines are registered in the British Museum

(EA35838-41, 35844, 61691, 61901-18) and several more are in the National Museum of

410 Pinch observes that New Kingdom clay cow figurines are “particularly rare” in the archaeological record (1993: 163); however, many clay figurines likely became mixed in pottery baskets during excavations, especially because some of them were originally attached to vessels (Stevens 2006: 99).

439

Antiquities in Leiden, suggesting that vulture figurines may have been as numerous as ram

figurines at the site.411 The vulture figurines are hand-modelled from unfired clay and depict the entire body of a vulture with folded wings standing upon a low base; as such, they sit higher than the ram heads. For example, EA61915 in the British Museum has a height of 7.69 cm (0.15 cubits) and a width of 3.56 cm (0.07 cubits).412 Unlike the ram figurines which have parallels at

Amarna, however, no vulture figurines have been published at other sites dating to the New

Kingdom, although bird, duck/geese, and cobra figurines are common at Kom Rabiʽa, Amarna,

and Mendes (Giddy 1999: 307-315; Redford 2004: 130-131, figs. 83-84; Stevens 2006: 98).

In the New Kingdom, vultures were primarily associated with the cults of Nekhbet, Mut,

and Renenutet (O’Connor 1967: 18; Heerma van Voss 1980: 367; Te Velde 1980: 246; Quirke

1992: 8, fig. 2). From an early date, vultures were figures of protection associated with the

goddess Nekhbet (Heerma van Voss 1980: 367; Leitz 2002b: 301). Nekhbet was often depicted

as a vulture in divine iconography (Leitz 2002b: 301) and was adopted as one of the royal

tutelary deities in the mid-First Dynasty (Leprohon 2013: 8, 13-15). Her identification with royal

headdresses and the White Crown of Upper Egypt connected her to the king as a symbolic

mother figure (Heerma van Voss 1980: 367; Leitz 2002b: 301). In royal religion, Nekhbet

appears in temple relief with outstretched wings offering external protection. In royal jewelry,

she appears in vulture form in pendants from the tomb of Tutankhamun for example (Edwards

1976: 146). Although Mut was rarely depicted as a vulture, her name contained the hieroglyphic

411Some examples can be found online: http://www.rmo.nl/collectie/zoeken?object=AT+106b.

412http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=132986&part Id=1&object=19593&page=1.

440

sign of the vulture and she often wore a headdress in the shape of a vulture413 (Te Velde 1997:

457-459; Te Velde 2008: 242; Luiselli 2015: 126). Te Velde explains that “Mut was linked with the vulture because the vulture was the symbol of motherhood and femininity” (2008: 245). Mut was the great and primeval mother and queen of the gods in Thebes (Te Velde 1980: 246-247;

Te Velde 1997: 458). Like Nekhbet, she could wear royal crowns and acted as the mother of the king (Te Velde 1997: 459, 461; Luiselli 2015: 122-127).

Both goddesses had major temples dedicated to them during the New Kingdom (Nekhbet at Elkab; Mut at Karnak) and participated in festival processions. Textual references, such as the

Letopolite festival from the Ptolemaic temple ritual sA-pr “Protection of the House” refer to the protective properties of the great vulture goddess of Elkab, Nekhbet (Ritner 1990: 31). There is evidence that Mut had a temple oracle and was worshipped by non-royal individuals by means of votive figurines and amulets, although the figurines representing Mut in this context were anthropomorphic and represented human females (Waraksa 2009: 20-38). The Abydos vulture figurines seem to represent a specialized form of votive deposit that was likely connected to veneration of a female deity and the ritual properties of protection. Their recovery from the debris of the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II, like the ram figurines discussed above, indicates that they could have originated from a tomb or temple context in North Abydos.

8.2.3.2.1.2.4 Cobra

Ten unbaked mud cobra figurines were excavated in the deposit overlying the “Portal”

Temple of Ramesses II (O’Connor 1967: 16). Cobra figurines represent one of the most common

413 From the Old Kingdom onwards, the vulture headdress was one of the insignia of a queen and it is worn by many goddesses (Te Velde 2008: 245).

441

types of animal figurines recovered from sites throughout Egypt. Many examples were initially misidentified, however, due to their inclusion with pottery sherds during excavations (Giddy

1991: 16; Spencer 2008: 64). As a result, many more sites likely contain clay animal figurines that may come to light with careful processing of ceramic remains.

No images are provided for the cobras from Abydos, but O’Connor comments that some featured hieroglyphic texts written on the front in white ink (1967: 16). Like the ram and vulture figurines recovered from Abydos, the cobra figurines are small and made of unfired clay

(O’Connor 1967: 16). From Anastasi’s collection in 1839, two unfired cobra figurines made their way into the collection of the British Museum (EA2002-3), one bearing a painted inscription

(EA2002). During Randall-MacIver and Mace’s excavations of Cemetery D in the North

Cemetery at Abydos, Tomb 8 dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty by the excavators, yielded what the authors described as a “broken pottery uraeus” along with another fragment of a pottery figurine suggesting that cobra figurines may have been part of the repertoire of non-royal burials of the Eighteenth Dynasty at Abydos (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 91, pl. LI). Parallel examples occur at Saqqara in a tomb dated to the late Eighteenth Dynasty (Sowada et al. 1999:

13, pls. 6, 35). Furthermore, some New Kingdom royal tombs contained cobras made of wood

(Bruyère 1930a: 217-218; Edwards 1976: 148, no. 37).

Cobra figurines have been recovered from settlement contexts, such as the Workmen’s

Village and North City at Amarna. Approximately 126 hand-modelled clay cobra fragments were examined at Amarna, which generally take the shape of a rearing snake with a flaring hood, attached to a base (Szpakowska 2003: 114; Stevens 2006: 100-103, fig. II.3.20). Some of the cobra figurines may have broken off pottery bowls, examples of which were also recovered from

442

the site, and thus were not all free-standing figurines (Stevens 2006: 175-176).414 Other examples had clay appliqués, which Stevens interprets as pot stands or altars, but she does not discuss the significance of these features (2006: 100, fig. II.3.20). She does, however, note that cobra figurines with clay appliqués of small uraei projecting from the front of the hood may parallel a Nineteenth Dynasty stela from Thebes (UC 14439), which portrays a cobra goddess with two smaller cobras in front (Stevens 2006: 100, 103). More research is warranted to determine the symbolism and function of cobra figurines with clay appliqués. In addition, traces of paint of various colors were used to highlight physical attributes on some the cobra figurines excavated from Amarna (Stevens 2006: 100). Limestone or chalkstone coiled snake figurines were less common at Amarna but have been found in domestic and religious areas of the site

(Stevens 2006: 100, fig. II.3.21). In the New Kingdom and post-New Kingdom settlement levels at Kom Rabiʽa, 45 fired clay cobra figurine fragments and one limestone fragment were found widely distributed across the site in secondary contexts (Giddy 1991: 13). All the fired clay cobras were hand-modelled and range in height from 7-10 cm (0.13-0.19 cubits) (Giddy 1991:

14-15). Six examples contain traces of painted decoration with one example (EES 924)

potentially bearing a hieratic inscription on the upper chest that can no longer be discerned

(Giddy 1991: 14).

From the excavations of the Ramesside temple at Kom Firin, 50 fragments of hand- modelled fired and unfired clay cobra figurines were identified, but again many were discovered in pottery baskets post dig season (Spencer 2008: 64). Examples recovered from the site derive from a variety of contexts, including corridors west of the Ramesside temple’s sanctuaries,

414 Intact excavated examples from Amarna include a three-dimensional cobra attached to the center of the interior base of a wavy-rimmed dish (Stevens 2006: 175).

443

deposits south of the temple’s rear wall, and around the northern gateway of the temple, with the

majority deriving from the late New Kingdom or early Third Intermediate Period domestic

structures built north and west of the temple (Spencer 2008: 64). Only one cobra figurine was

found within the temple, but Spencer suggests that the area north of the temple could represent

the remains of spoil from the temple interior (2008: 64). Alternatively, these figurines could have

been moved out of the sanctuary and dumped just outside of the temple enclosure during ancient

“cleaning” activity, as at Deir el-Bahri (Pinch 1993: 7, 13-25). One example of unfired clay

contained traces of red and white paint perhaps suggesting that paint was more common on

unfired examples like the figurines found at Amarna (Spencer 2008: 64). At Sais, parallel

examples of cobra figurines were found in a large Ramesside house (Wilson 2002: 6; Wilson

2006). Examples also occur at Qantir along with cobra bowls (Aston 1996: 402-403). Outside of

Egypt, similar cobra figurines have been found in temple and residential contexts at Beth Shan

and Kamid el-Loz in Syria, and in the way-station at Haruba (Oren 1980: 31, no. 8; Echt 1982:

37-52, pls. 9-12; James and McGovern 1993: 171-172; Morris 2005: 425).415

As discussed above, securely provenienced cobra figurines have been found in New

Kingdom tombs at Abydos and Saqqara. Although examples from settlements and temple

complexes have not been found in situ, they do occur in these contexts from the Eighteenth

Dynasty through to the Late Period, often alongside other types of figurines, including ducks,

rams, vultures, and human females and males (O’Connor 1967: 16; Giddy 1991: 307-315;

Szpakowska 2003: 119).

415 See Szpakowska for a map of the locations of excavated clay cobra figurines (2003: fig. 1).

444

The use of cobra figurines in magical rituals is attested in spells (most of which date to

the New Kingdom) used to ward off negative adversaries such as nightmares, poison, and

demons (Borghouts 1979: 51-55, no. 84; Ritner 1993: 224; Szpakowska 2003: 120-121). Cobras are described in many magical passages as using fiery spit to ward off dangers (Ritner 1990: 31,

34; Szpakowska 2003: 121-122). As agents of protection, cobra figurines could be used by individuals in all three archaeological spheres – domestic, funerary, and religious – as items of personal magico-religious significance. Because certain deities took the form of a snake, the cobra figurines have also been identified with specific goddesses, such as Meretseger, Renenutet,

Wadjet, and gods, such as Nehebu-Kau and Mehen, and may have been left in places intended for their worship (Giddy 1991: 18-19; Szpakowska 2003: 119; Spencer 2008: 66). Since the

Early Dynastic Period, the rearing cobra as uraeus was a symbol associated with royalty as protective guardians visibly occurring on royal headdresses and even being worn by deities

(Ritner 1990: 32, 34-35; Stevens 2006: 51). The vulture and cobra act together to protect the king. The emblem of the rearing cobra seems to have extended to the non-royal sphere during the

New Kingdom and the same phenomenon may be understood for the vulture figurines, which appear to have no earlier parallels.

Spells that demonstrate the use of clay figurines may help to shed light on their function, including specific locations where rituals involving clay figurines were performed. A Ramesside text from Thebes suggests that cobra figurines should be placed in each corner of every room of a house for protection from supernatural adversaries:

“four [ura]ei made of pure […] clay with flames in their mouths. One is placed in [each] corner [of every room/of any bedroom] in which there is a man or woman […] sleeping with a man [or woman?]” (Ritner 1990: 25-26).

445

Spencer suggests that the cobra figurines mentioned in a passage from magical papyrus P. Turin

1993 (Nineteenth Dynasty), may have been placed in a “sacredly charged area,” such as a processional route (2008: 66):

Isis kneaded Ra’s spit with earth…“and fashioned it into a noble serpent and gave it a pointed shape. It did not move though it had come to life in her presence. She left it at a cross-roads where the great god passed along in order to let his heart dwell in his Two Lands” (Borghouts 1978: 51-55, no. 84).

During processions, such as the great Khoiak festival at Abydos during the Middle and New

Kingdoms, gods would have passed along specific routes from the main temple of the god to subsidiary structures, and back again (Eaton 2006: 75-78, fig. 1; Leprohon 2007: 261-269).

Perhaps cobra figurines (and other figurines) were ritually placed by non-royal individuals along the processional route of Osiris at Abydos, as their discovery in the Votive Zone may suggest.

8.2.3.2.2 Vessels

Ceramic vessels used as votive objects have been recovered from funerary, religious, and domestic contexts throughout Egypt. As receptacles, the main function of votive pottery is the containment of perishable and non-perishable materials used in offerings and rituals; however, votive pottery could have a multiplicity of functions in different contexts as well as secondary uses (Tawfix 1979; Tawfix 1988; Radwan 1985; Dils 1993: 111-123; Allen 1998). Votive vessels can occur in domestic, funerary, industrial, and religious spheres. In the Priests’ Quarter at Karnak, for example, cups commonly used as incense burners in cultic and funerary contexts served domestic functions (Masson 2013: 147-151).416 Additionally, archaeological context may not always indicate use, since domestic and religious pottery can be “mixed together in the same

416 The majority of cups did not show traces of fire or burning on the interior surface and they were found in House VII with other items of domestic function (Masson 2013: 148, 150).

446

context” and the same types of vessels can be used differently in the same contexts (Masson

2013: 153).417 In Stevens’ analysis of vessels used within the non-royal religious sphere at

Amarna, offering stands are included as one of the main types of ritual pottery used in the private

realm. Several examples were excavated within private chapels in the Workmen’s Village

(Stevens 2006: 191-192). In ritual scenes at Amarna and on Amarna-period talatat from other

sites, offering stands are shown holding gifts, such as incense bowls, floral bouquets, and food,

often in association with private shrines (Davies 1903: pl. XXXIII; Traunecker 1988: 85, figs. 1-

2; Stevens 2006: 191). Similar offering stands have been recovered from tombs and private

chapels at Deir el-Medina (Nagel 1938: 109-113, 176-181).

In the present research, votive pottery comprising a range of types dated to the Eighteenth

Dynasty has been recovered from three sites: Abydos, Elephantine, and Sai Island. Votive

pottery dated to the New Kingdom occurs at three main locations at Abydos: a) South Abydos;

b) North Abydos; and c) Umm el-Qaʽab. In South Abydos, the main deposits of votive pottery

derive from areas located near the pyramid temple of Ahmose II, from temple A, and from the

pyramid of Tetisheri. Material recovered from temple A (probably dedicated to Ahmose-

Nefertary and/or Ahmose II) covers the span of the New Kingdom and attests to the long use of

votive pottery within the temple (Budka 2006a: 87-88; Budka 2013c: 196). The main types

include: beer jars, bowls, dishes, storage jars, pot stands, flowerpots, incense burners, and bread

molds (Budka 2006a: 88-92, figs. 2-14; Budka 2016d: 88).418 Beer jars were also excavated

417 In the Heit el-Ghurab and the Khentkawes settlements at Giza the same flat plates were used as serving dishes in Heit el-Ghurab and as votive pottery for rituals in Khentkawes Town (Wodzińska 2013: 181).

418 For descriptions of the votive function of each of these types of wares, see Budka 2006a: 88-113. For example, bread molds, which produce conically shaped bread are commonly found in religious contexts during the New Kingdom (Kemp 2006: 174; Masson 2013: 144).

447

from operation 20 (a production zone) located east of the pyramid complex of Ahmose II and from Hekareshu Hill in North Abydos (Pumpenmeier 1998a: fig. 24; Budka 2006a: 88-89, fig.

2). A variety of types of votive dishes were found in temple A, some with traces of resin identifying them as incense bowls (Budka 2006a: 88-91). Similar examples were found at

Hekareshu Hill (Pumpenmeier 1998a: 134, fig. 27). Incense burners (tall pedestal bowls) from temple A were also found at the terrace temple in South Abydos and attest to ritual activity in these locations (Ayrton, Currelly, Weigall 1904: pl. XLVII, 105; Budka 2006a: 91).

A large quantity of pottery sherds from temple A dates to the mid-late Eighteenth

Dynasty (Thutmoside period), including black rim ware and blue painted pottery (Budka 2006a:

95-100, 105ff). Large quantities of blue painted pottery in a variety of forms (plates, dishes, bowls, beakers, lids, jars) were found at temple A with some additional sherds deriving from areas around the eastern outer wall of the pyramid temple of Ahmose II as well as in industrial areas attached to the pyramid complex (Budka 2006a: 105-108; Budka 2013c: 196). Budka suggests that the blue painted pottery from South Abydos may have been locally produced

(2006a: 113). East of the temples an area of burning possibly represents kilns or furnaces dated to the Ramesside Period (Harvey 2004: 4-5; Budka 2006a: 113 n. 177). Fragments of pottery ovens were also collected with the pottery sherds excavated near the entrance of temple A

(Budka 2006a: 114). In addition, Budka notes that blue painted pottery made from marl clay of the kind produced in Thebes is rare at Abydos (2006a: 113 n. 176).

Parallels of the votive pottery from the Ahmose II pyramid complex of the Eighteenth

Dynasty occur at Elephantine in the New Kingdom settlement areas and within the sanctuary of the temple of Khnum, but are rarer (Seiler 1997: fig. 21, 4; Aston 1999: 15, 50-51; Budka 2005:

105-107, fig. 33.5; Budka 2006a: 88). At both sites, a large portion of the blue painted pottery is

448

Ramesside in date, suggesting a proliferation of this type of votive vessel throughout Egypt

during that time (Budka 2005: 105-107; Budka 2006a: 113-114). In situ ovens similar to the ones at South Abydos were found in the Ramesside levels of the settlement located next to the New

Kingdom temple of Khnum at Elephantine (Aston 1999: fig. 4; Budka 2005: figs. 40.7-9; Budka

2006a: 114). Earlier uses of the ovens at South Abydos and Elephantine are not known at this time, but it is possible that they were constructed before the Ramesside Period (Budka 2006a:

114).

The votive pottery recovered from the Ahmose II pyramid complex clearly represents cultic material associated with New Kingdom temples in South Abydos, but the question of the manufacture and donors of these vessels remains unanswered. Certain figural pieces of blue painted pottery found in South Abydos, such as Bes vessel fragments and animal appliqués, seem to have been especially used during festival processions (Budka 2013c: 198). Several blue painted Bes vessels found at Umm el-Qaʽab could have been left as part of the festival procession associated with the cult of Osiris during the New Kingdom (Engel 1997: 710-712, fig.

338; Engel 2017: 528-530, 552). Blue painted pottery is generally considered to be associated with elites (see Hope 1989: 16, 58, 88; Hope 1997: 261, n. 59). In a later publication, however,

Budka warns against linking blue painted pottery with “a comfortable lifestyle or high status”

(2013c: 207). As further evidence for local pottery production areas, such as the kilns at South

Abydos, becomes available, it may prove that votive pottery, including blue painted pottery was more accessible to a range of local individuals than previously thought.

A large offering deposit of two to three layers of pottery, including drop pots, beer jars, pot stands, incense bowls, and incense burners attests to votive activity in front of the Tetisheri pyramid complex (later reign of Ahmose II) in South Abydos (Budka 2006a: 108-112). A similar

449

pottery corpus also occurs at Hekareshu Hill and Cemetery U near Umm el-Qaʽab where intense

ritual activity is attested by heaps of votive pottery deposits (Pumpenmeier 1998a: 136-137). At

Hekareshu Hill, Budka has associated feminoform vessels found there with the mummified

Osiris or Isis and Nephthys (2016d: 90). Similar vessels were recovered from temple A in South

Abydos. Budka suggests that these bowls together with carinated bowls with applications in the shape of the head of Hathor found at temple A may have been associated with the cult of

Ahmose-Nefertary at South Abydos (2006a: 113; 2016d: 88-91). In addition, faience Nun bowls excavated at the terrace temple and throughout the Ahmose II pyramid complex have been connected to regeneration (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall 1904, pl. XLVIII, no. 15; Strauss 1974;

Hope 1991: 26; Budka 2006a: 113; Budka 2016d: 91; see below).

At Umm el-Qaʽab, a large deposit of votive pottery vessels was associated with the supposed tomb of Osiris (tomb of Djer) since the late Middle Kingdom (Effland 2006: 131-150;

O’Connor 2009: 89-91; Effland, Budka, and Effland 2010: 19-91; Budka 2010: 35-69). Over 700 fragments belong to blue painted pottery dated to the late Eighteenth (post Amarna) and

Nineteenth Dynasties (Budka 2013c: 199). Like the material from South Abydos, most of the blue painted pottery from Umm el-Qaʽab dates to the Ramesside Period, a time when major temples were being constructed in North Abydos, including the temples of Sety I and Ramesses

II (Budka 2013c: 199-200). Budka has noted the potential connections between blue painted pottery, temple cults, and festival processions at Abydos during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Dynasties (2013c: 201-202).

Major cult activity was carried out at South Abydos at structures dedicated to the cult of

Osiris and the royal family, especially Ahmose-Nefertary, and at Umm el-Qaʽab where

Hekareshu Hill and the tomb of Djer were the focus of ritual offerings of votive pottery. Another

450

deposit of votive pottery was discovered during Pouls Wegner’s excavations of the peripteral

temple of Thutmosis III in the Votive Zone in North Abydos. In the corridor adjacent to the

transverse hall, a deposit of incense dishes, bread molds, and bread trays were offered at the

chapel potentially during festivals (Pouls Wegner 2002: 341, 373, 410; Pouls Wegner 2011: 369,

374). The portability and mass production of the large quantity of incense dishes may indicate

that individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds dedicated the offerings.419 In

addition, the bowls with painted decoration and inscriptions recovered from the “Portal” Temple

of Ramesses II likely had a votive function associated with temple or funerary rituals, but

unfortunately these cannot be precisely dated (O’Connor 1967: 14-16; Eaton 2004: 359-369; see

§4.3.7).

At Elephantine, approximately 333420 sherds of blue painted pottery dated from the mid-

Eighteenth Dynasty through to the Twentieth Dynasty were recovered from Area XIV (southern

dump), within some individual houses in the New Kingdom settlement, and from surface level

and sebakh (Budka 2008a: 108; Budka 2010: 353-354; Budka 2013c: 189-190; Budka 2015g:

132).421 The pottery represents a range of forms with a range of uses, including storage, feasting,

and ritual activities and may have originally derived from storerooms associated with the temple

of Khnum (Budka 2008a: 119, 131; Budka 2013c: 194-195; Budka 2015g: 135, 141-142). Most

of the corpus dates primarily to the Nineteenth Dynasty, but a small amount dates to the reigns of

419 For more on this topic see Pouls Wegner 2011: 374, 389.

420 Excavations from 2002 to 2008 unearthed 75 vessel fragments, which grew to 164 fragments in 2009 reaching the total number of 333 in 2010 (Budka 2013c: 189; Budka 2015g: 132). Subsequent excavations will likely reveal more pieces.

421 For a full discussion of the findspots of blue painted pottery at Elephantine, see §6.3.1.

451

Amenhotep II-Thutmosis IV and to Amenhotep III-late Eighteenth Dynasty, corresponding with

other religious activities at the site, including the construction of temples and the carving of rock

inscriptions (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-445; Budka 2008a: 119-120; Budka and Von Pilgrim 2008:

88-97; Budka 2013c: 202; Budka 2015g: 132, 142).

Rock inscriptions and evidence from the New Kingdom settlement at Elephantine

indicate that a large contingent of Thebans resided in or visited Elephantine during this time

(Seidlmayer 2003: 441-445; Budka 2008a: 119-120; Budka and Von Pilgrim 2008: 88-97).

Seidlmayer proposes that the presence of priests from Theban temples in the rock inscriptions at

Hassawanarti indicates close contacts between the administrations of the temples in Thebes and

Elephantine (2003: 441-442). Following this evidence, Budka argues that the blue painted

pottery at Elephantine could have arrived at the site by the same group of Theban individuals

who left rock inscriptions (2008a: 119-120; 2010: 353). She suggests that most of the decorated

wares from Elephantine, including blue painted pottery, were produced at Thebes during the

New Kingdom (Budka 2015g: 139-144). However, certain examples, such as the “Victory

Vase,” may represent local adaptations (Budka 2015g: 144). The rock inscriptions document the involvement of high priests, residence members and staff, viceroys of Nubia, and soldiers in the festival activities of New Kingdom Elephantine (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443). Herzberg suggests

that rock inscriptions functioned like non-royal votive stelae and statues (2014: 137-154).

Graffiti-writing as a votive activity performed by temple staff during the Eighteenth and

Nineteenth Dynasties has also been observed in the court of the Seventh Pylon at Karnak and linked to the annual festival processional route (Salvador 2016: 112-120).

Other types of votive pottery recovered from New Kingdom settlement levels at

Elephantine appear to be associated with daily life activities. Feminoform vessels, blue painted

452

vessels with faces of Bes or Hathor, and Hathoric bowls were found in domestic contexts along

with cooking pots, dishes, bowls, and beer jars (Budka 2005: 95-108; Budka 2008a: 127; Von

Pilgrim 2008b; Von Pilgrim 2011: 202-205; Budka 2015g; Budka 2016d: 91-92). Budka

associates these vessels with apotropaic rituals concerning health, rebirth, fecundity, childbirth,

and sexuality and views them as integral parts of domestic life in the New Kingdom (2016d: 97).

Isolated finds of blue painted pottery were found on Sai Island in SAV1 North (Budka

2011a: 31; Budka 2016c: 59; Budka 2017f: 134, 151). Budka suggests that blue painted pottery in Upper Nubia may have been given special value as luxury ware because of its high-quality of execution and rarity (2011a: 31). Examples were found in Level 3 along with monochrome painted ware dated to the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty, some of which have exact parallels in Doukki Gel (Kerma) and in Elephantine indicating that they may have come from a single workshop (Ruffieux 2009; Budka 2010; Budka 2011a: 31; Budka 2016c: 59; Budka

2017f: 134). Blue painted pottery and bichrome pottery appear in greater quantity after the reign of Thutmosis III on Sai Island, suggesting that Level 3 continued until at least the reign of

Amenhotep III (Budka 2011a: 31; Budka 2016c: 59; Budka 2017f: 134-135, 151).

Included in the list of objects recovered from displaced layers in settlement area SAV1

North were 74 fragments of faience Nun bowls (also called marsh bowls) found in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty levels at the site (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 186-187, figs. 16-17;

Budka 2016d: 96; Budka 2017g: 164-165, fig. 91; Tschorn 2017: 437). Additional fragments of

Nun bowls were found in SAV1 East (13), SAV1 West (25), and SAV1 (15), in total comprising

127 pieces found at the site (Tschorn 2017: 437, tab. 1). Parallel examples have been excavated in domestic contexts at Memphis and from domestic and religious areas at Amarna (Giddy 1999:

267; Stevens 2006: 178-180). They have been found at shrines dedicated to Hathor at Deir el-

453

Bahri, Faras, Serabit el-Khadim, Dendera, and Abusir (Pinch 1993: 308-315). Fragments of Nun

bowls were also unearthed in the terrace temple in South Abydos (Ayrton, Currelly, and Weigall

1904: 15-16). Furthermore, examples have been recovered from non-royal tombs in both Egypt

and Nubia dated from the late Middle Kingdom to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Garstang

1901: fig. 140, pl. 12; Brunton and Engelbach 1927: pl. 23; Bourriau 1988: 128-129; Williams

1992: 131).422 Nun bowls have thus been found in domestic, funerary, and religious contexts in

Egypt and Nubia, although Pinch noted that they appear to be more abundant in temple contexts

(1993: 311).

The term Nun bowl was coined by Strauss who argues that the decorative motifs

occurring on the bowls, including fish, birds, lotus plants, papyrus plants, and Hathor heads

symbolize the Nun and the birth of Re from the lotus and the Nun (1974: 70-73). Pinch suggests

that they represent the life-giving waters of inundation (1993: 313). In both cases, Nun bowls

acted as symbols of regeneration, rebirth, fertility, and transformation. In temple contexts, Nun

bowls may have been used as votive offerings due to their decoration and may have held

offerings (Millard 1982: 141; Pinch 1993: 314). They seem to have been particularly associated

with offerings dedicated to Hathor (Pinch 1993: 308-312). In funerary contexts, Nun bowls may

have held liquid libations, such as water, wine, milk, fats or oils (Pinch 1993: 314-315). The

contexts from which Nun bowls have been excavated places them in the realm of private

religious activity (Pinch 1993: 312; Stevens 2006: 178-180). Priests and priestesses may have

offered them in temple rites, or individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds may

have used them as offerings in household cults, in temples, and in tombs. In addition, Nun bowls

422 For further examples of Nun bowls from tombs, see Pinch 1993: 311.

454

with cartouches of queens or princesses may have been royal gifts or used for royal offerings

(Pinch 1993: 309-315).423 On Sai Island, Tschorn has recently argued that the Nun bowls likely represent cult objects used to protect magazines and production areas, rather than as items of household cults due to the large numbers procured from SAF 5 (magazine area) in SAV1 and from multiphase building structures used for food production and storage in SAV1 North (2017:

437, 441-444). Their recovery from the western boundary wall (SAV1 West) also demonstrates that Nun bowls may have served multiple functions. Tschorn suggests an association with libation rituals in this context (2017: 444).

Along with Nun bowls, bichrome, and blue painted pottery, a small number of vessels typically associated with religious activity as votive offerings were excavated in SAV1 North: duck bowls, footed bowls, pot stands, incense bowls, feminoform, and Hathor vessels (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 200; Doyen 2014: 374; Budka 2016d: 92-96).424 Other types of ceramics,

such as beer jars, bread plates, bread molds, bread trays, and flower pots can serve a variety of

functions depending on context and may be used as votive pottery, but on Sai Island many of

these types appear to have had a utilitarian use (Budka 2011b: 30; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013:

190; Budka 2016d: 94).425 As mentioned previously, no domestic shrines have been excavated at

SAV1 North, although there is a possible small sanctuary located at SAF5 in SAV1, but other

423 A large Nun bowl with the cartouches of Ahmose-Nefertary was found in a private burial at Abydos (Petrie 1925: 13; Strauss 1974: fig. 18).

424 For parallel examples and further explanations of these vessels, see Pinch 1993: 150; Stevens 2006: 169-173; Seiler 2006; Wodzińska 2010: 59. The footed bowls and pot stands are included as non-royal religious items because they contained a gypsum-coating, a surface treatment found in ritual settings in temples and tombs in Egypt (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 201).

425 A large corpus of these vessels was found in silo N17 in SAV1 North with a clear domestic function (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 191-193).

455

Nubian sites, such as Askut and Mirgissa contained private religious monuments (Smith 2003:

124-133; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 200).

8.2.3.3 Inscribed Material

Inscribed material identified with non-royal votive activity in the provinces during the

Eighteenth Dynasty is present at three out of five sites included in this dissertation: Abydos,

Elkab, and Elephantine. Items included in the following section may have served a variety of

roles in religious contexts as cult objects intended for worship, or serving as foci of ritual, or as

votive offerings. Inscriptional material attests to the types of individuals involved in non-royal

votive activity in the provinces during the Eighteenth Dynasty, including details about duties,

gender, and socio-economic status, and offers information about potential locations of non-royal

votive activity that can help to determine the layout of the non-royal ritual landscape of each site.

Unlike other types of votive material, inscriptional data provides specific details regarding the

identity of the donors who commissioned the object when personal names and titles are included.

Types of inscribed material with a private religious function include: votive stelae, statuary,

offering tables, and rock inscriptions.

8.2.3.3.1 Votive Stelae

Stelae possessed a range of functions in different contexts. They occur in funerary

contexts as tombstones, are used to mark geographical boundaries and territories, serve as royal

promulgations, act as royal and non-royal commemorations, and are used as votive objects to worship deities (Hermann 1940; Simpson 1974; Hodjash and Berlev 1982; Dreyer 1991;

Murnane and Van Siclen III 1993; Hölz 2001; Simpson 2003). In the context of architectural remains with a religious function, stelae placed in temples and chapels acted as cult objects intended for worship or as votive offerings set up to enact worship of a deity (Pinch 1993: 83-

456

101; Stevens 2006: 133; Weiss 2015: 154-157). Votive stelae guarantee their owners’ continual

participation in religious events without their having to be physically present (Leprohon 1978:

36). In the present dissertation, votive stelae provide crucial information about the social status,

gender, and ritual involvement of non-royal individuals at three sites: Abydos, Elephantine, and

Sai Island. Following Stewart, votive stelae are defined as objects “dedicated to deities by private individuals in the hope of benefits in this life or the hereafter” (1976: ix). Votive stelae generally portray an image of the deity being worshipped as well as the donor and may or may not include an inscription (Pinch 1993: 83, 98).

Mariette recovered several fragments of inscribed stone stelae from North Abydos that provide evidence of non-royal activity in the Votive Zone during the New Kingdom. While the quantity of fragments is not as numerous as in the Middle Kingdom, a significant proportion was found in the “Nécropole du Nord” (51 Eighteenth Dynasty; 30 Nineteenth Dynasty; 19

Twentieth Dynasty) and in the “Nécropole du Center” (19 Eighteenth Dynasty; 25 Twentieth

Dynasty), which include areas located adjacent to and within the Osiris Temple precinct in North

Abydos (Mariette 1880b: 373-461; Pouls Wegner 2002: 115, tab. 2.1). Mariette’s inscriptional material derives from displaced contexts and it is likely that some of the fragments originate from burials in the North Cemetery rather than from offering chapels in the Votive Zone. A few stelae of non-royal individuals may have been set up within the Osiris Temple precinct in

association with the cult structures located there.426

426 This idea is suggested for those stelae found in the Kom es-Sultan (Mariette 1880b: nos. 1047-1049, 1056- 1058). See the discussion of the stelae of Nebwawy below.

457

Most of the objects that Mariette recovered from the site now reside in the Egyptian

Museum in Cairo (Lacau 1909; Lacau 1926). The stelae that Mariette found in North Abydos are

commonly made of limestone, have rounded tops, and are generally small in height

(approximately 30-60 cm or 0.57-1.14 cubits). Many contain two or three registers of images and

texts. The upper register often depicts Osiris (or another deity) seated on a throne on the left in

front of a heaping offering table while being adored by the stela owner on the right.427

Meanwhile, the lower registers predominantly show the stela owner’s family members.

Several more stelae fragments dated to the New Kingdom were recovered during the

Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt from 1967-1969. Excavations in the debris of the

“Portal” Temple of Ramesses II revealed a number of inscribed elements datable to the period from the Old Kingdom through to the Third Intermediate Period (Simpson 1995: 1). Twenty- eight stela fragments from the Pennsylvania-Yale excavations have been dated to the New

Kingdom. This number, however, cannot be assigned with absolute certainty, since some of the artifacts may belong to later periods.428 Even more difficult is assigning the fragments to a

specific dynasty in the New Kingdom.429 For this reason, the New Kingdom material is included in its entirety in this section.

427 See examples in Lacau 1909: 105-112, pls. XXXV-XXXVIII and Lacau 1926: 113-146, 153-187, 191-192, 203- 212, 231-232, pls. XXXVIII-XIV, XLVIII-LXIV, LXIX. Also see Mariette 1880b: nos. 1062-1064, 1067, 1166, 1199.

428 This issue is addressed by Simpson when he published the material (1995: 55).

429 Stela fragment NK 2 is identified as potentially dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, but the exact dates of the rest of the New Kingdom stelae are not specified (Simpson 1995: 57).

458

Like the material recovered by Mariette, the stela fragments excavated by the

Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition are generally small, have rounded tops (based on the preserved

fragments of upper sections), and are made of limestone.430 Ten stela fragments contain the

figure of the god Osiris, who is often seated on the left side of the upper register facing a heaping

offering table.431 The stela owner is situated on the right side facing Osiris providing offerings or

adoration to the god. In preserved instances, hieroglyphic texts accompany the scene, which

identify Osiris with his names and titles, provide the offering formula, and give the name and

titles of the stela owner. In one example (NK 4), Hathor stands behind Osiris (Simpson 1995: 57-

59). Four stela fragments contain a falcon-headed god in place of Osiris.432 One stela (NK 34)

has a text identifying the deity as Horus, son of Isis (Simpson 1995: 73). In other instances (from

North Abydos but recovered in early excavations and now in museum collections), this deity is identified as Min-Horus (see Franke 1985: 176; Leahy 1989: 53; Quirke 2000: 234-237; Olette-

Pelletier 2017). In another stela fragment (NK 20), two falcon-headed deities are identified as

Osiris and Horus accompanied by a female figure identified as Isis (Simpson 1995: 68). Perhaps

the unidentified falcon-headed deities also represent either Osiris or Horus. However, the triad of

Abydos was not the only group of gods worshipped in non-royal stelae recovered from the

Votive Zone. In stela fragment NK 5, the Theban triad, Amun-Re, Mut, and Khonsu are adored,

while another fragment (NK 35) contains an image of a serpent-headed deity (Simpson 1995: 59-

430 One fragment (NK 24) was made of red and gray granite, but the author doubts whether it is in fact a stela (Simpson 1995: 69). Another stela fragment (NK 34) is described as made of a “hard brown stone” (Simpson: 1995: 73). The rest are limestone.

431 NK 2, NK 4, NK 10, NK 11, NK 15, NK 18, NK 19, NK 22, NK 23, NK 33 (Simpson 1995: 57-59, 61-65, 67- 69).

432 NK 12, NK 14, NK 27, NK 34 (Simpson 1995: 64-65, 69-71, 73).

459

60, 73). Furthermore, the fragmentary stela of Thutmosis I (Cairo 34007) discovered by Mariette at the temple of Osiris provides supporting evidence that other deities including Khnum, Thoth,

Horus, and Wepwawet were likely worshipped in Eighteenth Dynasty monuments at the site

(Mariette 1880b: no. 1048; Lacau 1909: 13-15, no. 34007; Pouls Wegner 2002: 143-144;

Hoffmann 2004: 135).

The content of the New Kingdom stela fragments from North Abydos identify the objects

as votive, whereby the stela owner seeks for himself (and his family) an eternal association with

Osiris and/or the Abydene triad. Their proveniences in North Abydos in the area termed the

“Nécropole du Nord” by Mariette (the area abutting the western enclosure wall of the Osiris

Temple Enclosure) and in the debris of the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II coincide with the

location of Middle Kingdom non-royal votive activity known to be associated with the rituals

and processions of Abydos (O’Connor 1967; Simpson 1974: 11; Leahy 1989: fig. 2; Simpson

1995).433 Some Middle Kingdom stelae of similar content were found in situ within the remains

of private offering chapels found in layers beneath the “Portal” Temple, demonstrating their

cultic function (O’Connor 1969: 33 top left; Simpson 1995: 33, 36-39, pls. 6b-7b). It is possible

that a portion of the stela fragments from the “Nécropole du Nord” dated to the New Kingdom

were originally positioned in similar structures built during the New Kingdom, although none

have yet been excavated.

433 Many Middle Kingdom stelae inscriptions found in North Abydos state that offering chapels were made to partake in the offerings and rituals associated with the cult of Osiris. For example, the stela owner in CG 20099 claims, “I have made an offering-chapel at the terrace of the great god, lord of life, foremost of Abydos, in the midst of my fathers who created [me?], the nobles of the first occasion, so that [I] may receive offerings in the presence of the great god, and that I may inhale incense…” (Simpson 1974: 10-11). Another states, “I made this offering chapel, it being made effective, its place being made excellent, …then I will be in the company of the god, so that [it or I] will be effective and mighty at the terrace of the lord of Abydos” (Simpson 1974: 11, CG 20539).

460

In addition to providing information about their function in the cult of Osiris, the stelae

provide a rich source of data about the dedicants who participated in non-royal religious activity

at Abydos during the New Kingdom. Similar to the Middle Kingdom, the diversity of titles

associated with the stelae owners and their family members in the New Kingdom indicate that

individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds dedicated stelae in North Abydos (see

Table 8.1).434 The titles include high-ranking and low-ranking priests, high-ranking royal

officials, such as royal scribes, royal cupbearers, and administrative overseers, as well as military

officials, and general scribes (Simpson 1995: 57, 64-65, 68-73, 75, 102-105; Pouls Wegner 2002:

161-169).435 Many of the wives of the stelae owners also held prominent titles, including

“Mistress of the House” and “Chantress” (Simpson 1995: 57, 68, 101-104, figs. 95, 115, pl. 13;

Onstine 2005: 82-83, 99, 101-102, 111, 119-125, 129-130, 134, 138-140). During the Eighteenth

Dynasty, chantresses were part of an elite social class belonging to families of the highest

officials, but during the Nineteenth Dynasty, the title becomes common among members of the

wealthy middle class (Onstine 2005: 27-31, 76-77). Onstine notes that the quantity of stelae

naming chantresses at Abydos indicates the status these women had: “Those dedicated by the

women who served in the cult of Osiris are especially interesting because it indicates that it was

the woman’s position in the local cult that was the key factor in the placement of the tomb or

stela” (2005: 83).

434 The Middle Kingdom material provides evidence of socio-economic variability, including a middle class (El- Rabi’l 1977: 13-21; Leprohon 1978; Ward 1982; Fischer 1997)

435 A comprehensive analysis of all the titles associated with owners of the stelae recovered by Mariette in North Abydos is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

461

Table 8.1: List of titles associated with New Kingdom stelae recovered from North Abydos during the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt from 1967-1969

Title (transliteration) Title (translation) Object Number References a) Titles Associated with Male Figures Xry-Hbt Hry-tp imy pr- Chief Lector Priest NK 2 Martin 1989: 172; mDAt who is in the Simpson 1995: 57, Library 103, fig. 95, pl. 13 sS ann nsw n xft-Hr Scribe of the NK 2 Ward 1982: no. 1361; Royal Tablet of Simpson 1995: 57, the Court 103, fig. 95, pl. 13 sS nsw Royal Scribe NK 2 Simpson 1995: 57, 103, fig. 95, pl. 13 sS Scribe NK 2 Simpson 1995: 57, 103, fig. 95, pl. 13 wab Wab-priest NK 11 Simpson 1995: 64, 101, fig. 104, pl. 16b sDm Servitor NK 15 Simpson 1995: 65, 102, figs. 108-109 [imy-r] Snwty [Overseer of] the NK 21 Simpson 1995: 68, Double Granary 102, fig. 115 sS Hwt-nTr n… Scribe of the NK 23 Simpson 1995: 69, temple of… 105 fig. 117, pl. 19a wbA nsw Royal Cupbearer NK 25 Simpson 1995: 69, 105, fig. 119, pl. 19c sDm-aS Servant NK 27 Simpson 1995: 69-71, 105; Taylor 2001: 222 imy-r pr-HD Overseer of the NK 30 Simpson 1995: 71, Treasury fig. 124 rx nsw King’s NK 31 Simpson 1995: 71-73, Acquaintance 103, fig. 125, pl. 20a; Taylor 2001: 137 sS Hry xtm Scribe responsible NK 31 Ward 1982: nos. for the Seal 1415-1420; Simpson 1995: 71-73, 103, fig. 125, pl. 20a sS pr-HD Scribe of the NK 33 Simpson 1995: 73, Treasury fig. 127, pl. 21; Taylor 2001: 210 sSm Hb n Wsir Festival Leader of NK 33 Frankfort 1928: 244, Osiris fig. 5; Simpson 1995: 73, fig. 127, pl. 21; Taylor 2001: 219

462

iry at n Imn Keeper of the NK 37 Simpson 1995: 75, Storehouse of 105, fig. 131, pl. 22d Amun b) Titles Associated with Female Figures nbt pr Lady of the House NK 2, NK 5, NK 7, Simpson 1995: 57, 59 NK 10, NK 21 101, 103-104, figs. 95, 98, 100, pls. 13-16 Smayt n Imn Chantress of NK 2, NK 5, NK 7 Simpson 1995: 57, 59, Amun 61, 101-104, figs. 95, 98, 100, 115, pls. 13- 15; Onstine 2005: 134

Further evidence of comparable socio-economic diversity has been observed in the North

Cemetery (Richards 1992; Richards 2005).436 In addition to providing information about the

social status of non-royal individuals during the New Kingdom, the titles from the votive stelae

of North Abydos attest to the continuity of the Osiris cult and the role of the king in the

administration of the local cult. One detailed analysis has been conducted by Pouls Wegner on

the stelae of Nebwawy (CG 34017/Mariette no. 1056, reign of Thutmosis III; CG 34018/Mariette

no. 1049, reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II) found within the Osiris Temple Enclosure,

who held the titles of imy-r pr n Wsir “Overseer of the Estate of Osiris,” Hm-nTr tpy n Wsir “First

Prophet of Osiris,” as well as sAw pr nw it.f “Protector of the Estate of his [King’s] father

[Osiris],” all high offices within the administration and priesthood of the Osiris temple (2002:

161-169). In his capacity as “Protector of the Estate of his [King’s] father [Osiris]” (CG 34018),

Nebwawy oversaw the preparation of cult furniture for the king and received royal rewards for

performing his duties (Pouls Wegner 2002: 168-169). In Frood’s analysis of a third stela

belonging to Nebwawy (EA 1199), Nebwawy’s roles center on the king and on performing

436 Mortuary remains of the Middle Kingdom in the North Cemetery attest to socio-economic variability and the existence of a middle class (Richards 1992; Richards 2005).

463

action on behalf of the king, but Nebwawy also presents his own priestly life and ritual functions,

which emphasize his personal relationship to Osiris (2003: 73-75). Frood proposes that EA 1199

marks a transition between Middle Kingdom Abydene texts (e.g. stela of Mentuhotep), which

focus on the intermediary role of the king in non-royal actions involving the divine, and

Ramesside Abydene texts (e.g. stela of Wenennefer), in which priests interact directly with

deities (2003: 73-75).

During recent excavations in the vicinity of the temple of Khnum, a private offering stela

dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty was recovered from Elephantine. The intact round-top sandstone

stela measures 40 cm (0.76 cubits) in height and displays a scene of offering, but the owner has

yet to be identified.437 Two more inscribed sandstone fragments of Ramesside date found in the

precinct of the temple of Khnum likely represent non-royal stelae fragments (Junge 1987: 47-

48). Only parts of the figures are identifiable. In the courtyard of the Elephantine museum, a

votive stela praises Khnum and Anuket, but the names and titles of the owner are not preserved

(Junge 1987: 47 no. 4.1.6.2). Additionally, in the foundations of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple

of Satet, a sandstone ear stela depicting the triad of Elephantine - Khnum, Satet, and Anuket -

was recovered. Junge includes the stela among miscellaneous objects dating to the Ramesside

period (1987: 47, no. 4.1.6.1). The inscriptional evidence for non-royal votive stelae and graffiti

(discussed above) seem to point to an increase in non-royal religious activity at Elephantine

during the Ramesside Period. Less evidence has been found for the Eighteenth Dynasty.

437 The object has been written about in press releases. See for example the Luxor Times Magazine: http://luxortimesmagazine.blogspot.ca/2016/04/swiss-archaeologists-discover-new.html.

464

On Sai Island, stelae belonging to Eighteenth Dynasty elite officials were likely set up in

temple A. Recently, Rondot (2017) was able to assemble three stela fragments (S.1100) from the

site and surrounding areas belonging to Inebny/Amenemnekhu, who was Viceroy of Kush under

the joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III. Another stela recovered from Gebel Abri

belongs to Nehy, Viceroy of Kush under Thutmosis III. Auenmüller suggests that the stela was

originally installed in temple A (2018: 245, tab. 2). Finally, a third stela (SNM 33224) belonging

to the Viceroy Usersatet, who was in office during the reign of Amenhotep II was found in the

statue cache on Sai Island (Davies 2017: no. 10). Auenmüller suggests that it was also set up in

temple A along with statues belonging to the same official (2018: 246; see §8.2.3.3.2 below).

These stelae all belonged to Viceroys suggesting that Eighteenth Dynasty non-royal activity

associated with temple A was restricted to high-status elites.

8.2.3.3.2 Statuary

Statues of non-royal individuals often served as recipients of ritual and as votive objects in religious contexts (Simpson 1974: 2-3; Stevens 2006: 121). Like votive stelae, statues could act as substitutes for individuals who wished to eternally participate in temple offerings, rituals, and festival processions (Kjølby 2007; Kjølby 2009). Statues of non-royal individuals have been excavated within temple precincts at many sites throughout Egypt. From the New Kingdom onwards, such statues in temples acted as intermediaries between temple visitors and deities in exchange for offerings (Baines 1987: 90; Pinch 1993: 333-335). Statues used in ritual contexts have also been found at domestic sites. Ancestor busts excavated at Deir el-Medina, in particular, appear to have been a part of non-royal ancestor cults (Bothmer 1987: 29; Friedman 1994: 114-

115). New Kingdom statue remains recovered from all five sites presented in this dissertation are an important source of information regarding non-royal participants in local cults.

465

Non-royal inscriptional evidence dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty is rare at Mendes, but the few surviving objects indicate that elite individuals participated in the cult of the ram god

Banebdjed during the New Kingdom (De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 173; Redford 2010a:

85). Only one Eighteenth Dynasty statue fragment, now in the Louvre (no. E,25429), belongs to an official from Mendes, named Ibaba (Helck 1961a: 970 no. 140; Vandier 1968: 89, pl. XV-

XVI; Redford 2010a: 76); however, the exact provenience of the statue is unknown (Vandier

1968: 94). The headless statue depicts a kneeling Ibaba, who holds an offering table before him

(Vandier 1968: 89). The inscription that runs along the base and back pillar of the statue indicates that Ibaba was appointed as the Hm-nTr tpy n BA-nb-Ddt “First Prophet of Banebdjed”

(Helck 1961a: 970 no. 140; Vandier 1968: 93; Redford 2010a: 76). A cartouche of Ay inscribed on the right shoulder of the statue dates it to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Vandier 1968:

89). The statue of Ibaba, as well as statues of other officials, were likely set up in the New

Kingdom temple of Banebdjed to participate in the daily offering cult (Vandier 1968: 89;

Redford 2010a: 67-68). So far, evidence recovered during excavations at Mendes has proven that a New Kingdom temple dedicated to Banebdjed existed in the reign of Thutmosis III, but the architectural layout of the monument is difficult to determine based on the preserved remains

(Redford 2009; Redford 2010a). The statue of Ibaba, however, demonstrates that the cult of

Banebdjed at Mendes continued through to the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty under the reign of

Ay.

In addition to the statue of Ibaba, Helck lists the names and titles of several individuals associated with the cult of Banebdjed during the New Kingdom, including: a) a festival leader of the ram of Mendes and a general under the reign of Horemheb, StXi; b) a scribe of the Ram, Lord of Mendes Nxt-Min; and c) a prophet of the Ram of Mendes, the shield-barer Hri from the

Twentieth Dynasty (1961a: 970 no. 140). Under the reign of Ramesses II, the vizier Paser

466

invoked offerings from the deities Amunrasonthere, Re-Horakhty, Thoth, and Maat in an

inscription on his black granite statue recovered from Tell el-Rubʽa (De Meulenaere and

MacKay 1976: pl. 17 no. 41; Redford 2010a: 80). The surviving inscriptional evidence from

Mendes, while not plentiful, attests to a well-organized clergy of temple personnel associated

with the cult of Banebdjed in the New Kingdom.

At North Abydos, Mariette includes two statues of non-royal individuals among his

material recovered from the Eighteenth Dynasty. Both were found inside the Osiris Temple

Enclosure in debris of the Kom es-Sultan and are made of black granite (Mariette 1880b: 40-41, nos. 372-373). Statue no. 372 represents a kneeling priest with a cartouche of Amenhotep II on his shoulder (Mariette 1880b: 40-41). Invocations to Osiris and Anubis are located on the base and on the back of the statue as well as the name and titles of the figure, which indicate that he was a Hm-nTr priest, overseer, and scribe. The second statue, no. 373 (Cairo 728) is dated to the same time period and also depicts a kneeling male figure holding a sistrum, who is identified as

Iwny, a sS nsw “Royal Scribe” (Mariette 1880b: 41). Borchardt dates the statue to the late New

Kingdom (1930: 62-63, pl. 135), but Vandier assigns it to the Eighteenth Dynasty (1958: 465-

466). The provenience of the statues within the Kom es-Sultan likely indicates that they were originally associated with one of the Eighteenth Dynasty cult structures located within the Osiris

Temple Enclosure and may have functioned as intermediary statues. Kneeling statues were one of the most common types of sculpture used in temples by non-royal individuals (Russmann

2001: 138).

From the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Abydos, three fragments of statues were recovered from the debris associated with the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II. The lower portion of a black granite seated statue represents a high official, named Iamu, who served during the

467

reign of Amenhotep II (Simpson 1995: 55-57, pls. 11c-12b, NK 1). Inscriptions on the back of the seat, sides, and lap of the statue present the offering formula as well as give the titles and name of the owner. Iamu was a r-pat HAty-a “Member of the Elite and Foremost of Action, and

Mayor,” the irty nsw “Eyes of the King,” and an idnw n mSa mi qd.f “Adjutant of the Army in its

Entirety” (Simpson 1995: 101). Iamu is not known from other sources (Simpson 1995: 55-57).

The date of the statue fragment indicates that it derives from a structure predating the “Portal”

Temple and may thus attest to an earlier temple in the area, or a private offering chapel built in the Votive Zone during the Eighteenth Dynasty. On the other hand, the statue fragment may originally derive from an Eighteenth Dynasty monument located within the Osiris Temple precinct that directly abuts the “Portal” Temple.

One limestone statue fragment of a man with the hand of his wife on his right shoulder dates to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Simpson 1995: 65-67, fig. 110, pls. 17c-17d, NK 16).

Cartouches of Nebmaatre and Amen[hotep?] appear on the right breast and upper arm of the man, while the back pillar contains the offering formula. A second limestone statue dated to the

New Kingdom is poorly preserved (Simpson 1995: 67, NK 17). The figure wears a braided wig and two-strand necklace, but not enough of the inscription survives to identify the figure. The prenomen, Nebmaatre, on the first statue identifies Amenhotep III, who is known to have added a forecourt to the front of the temple of Thutmosis III within the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Petrie

1902: 31, pl. LXI; Petrie 1903: 20, pl. LXII; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Pouls Wegner 2002:

255-256). A foundation deposit and five limestone relief fragments belonging to the king were excavated by Petrie (1902: 31, pl. LXI; 1903: 18-20, pl. LXII).

The question arises as to where these statues were originally placed. Offering chapels of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties often contained statuary as part of the votive material used

468

for eternal participation in the local cult of Osiris (Simpson 1974: 2-3). The New Kingdom statues may have derived from similar monuments located adjacent to the Osiris Temple

Enclosure. There is evidence that a non-royal Ramesside offering chapel was built in the Votive

Zone and indirect inscriptional evidence for one of Eighteenth Dynasty date (see §4.3.7). The accumulation of archaeological debris in the area, however, indicates that a tomb or a royal monument are equally likely contexts for the original location of the statues, but they could also belong to the repertoire of non-royal religious activity associated with the rituals and festival procession of Osiris at North Abydos.

Few New Kingdom statues were recovered from excavations at Elkab. Clarke donated the lower part of a black granite seated statue of Maya to the British Museum (see Clarke 1922:

26; Helck 1961a: 938 no. 24; Porter and Moss 1937: 173; De Meulenaere 1988).438 The statue fragment was found near the pylon of Amenhotep III in the main temple complex of Nekhbet

(temple of Amenhotep I) and contains an inscription naming Maya as a priest of Montu and an

“Overseer of the Works in the temple of Nekhbet” (Clarke 1922: 26). Maya was a high official during the New Kingdom and is also known from a statue from the temple of Tod and a statue in the Luxor Museum (De Meulenaere 1988). Porter and Moss date the statue of Maya from the

Eighteenth to the Twentieth Dynasties (1937: 173), while the British Museum prefers a

Twentieth Dynasty date. De Meulenaere suggests that Maya worked during the reign of

Ramesses II (1988: 207-210). Given these variable dates, the statue may have originated from the forecourt of the Ramesside temple, which was later built behind the pylon of Amenhotep III,

438 British Museum EA 1194: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?asSetyd=1060941001&obj ectId=122805&partId=1.

469

rather than from the Eighteenth Dynasty temple (Clarke 1922: 26; Van Siclen III 1999). The

lower part of an inscribed basalt kneeling statue mentioning a priest of Sobek and Nekhbet was

found among the temple remains but is unnamed and undated (Porter and Moss 1937: 174). The proveniences of these two statues indicates that statues of elite individuals associated with the temple of Nekhbet were placed within the main temple precinct at Elkab to participate in the local cult.

A number of inscribed stone elements, including statue fragments, were found near the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal at Elkab. A fragment of a sandstone statue of Huy, Viceroy of Kush, dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty is included in Porter and Moss (1937:

189). In the same location, the lower part of a statue of another Viceroy of Kush, Setau (CG 885) was discovered (Borchardt 1930: 137; Porter and Moss 1937: 189). Porter and Moss date the statue to the Eighteenth Dynasty (1937: 189), but the Viceroy Setau is known to have built the

“el-Hammam” temple in the Wadi Hilal during the reign of Ramesses II (Clarke 1922: 18;

Derchain 1971: 5, 69; Drenkhahn 1975; Hendrickx 1999: 291; Richter 2010: 164-165; Huyge

and Limme 2012: 49). An official with the same name, whose title is “Overseer of the Magazine

Room of Amun,” also dedicated a stela (CG 34046) of unknown provenience at Elkab (Lacau

1909: 79-80, pl. XXVII; Porter and Moss 1937: 191). The fact that the god Amun is mentioned in the stela may provide further evidence that multiple gods were worshipped at Elkab and that there may have been a religious connection to Thebes.

Other non-royal objects found near the temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal include a block statue of Thutmose, “Steward in the Southern City,” as well as two unnamed stelae: one dated to the Nineteenth Dynasty with an image of Nekhbet and the ram’s head of

Amun, and another (Berlin Museum 1054) of unknown date depicting Nekhbet in vulture form

470

(Porter and Moss 1937: 189). The evidence demonstrates that the Wadi Hilal and the vicinity of

the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III was a location of royal and non-royal religious

significance. A greater quantity of statue and stelae fragments of high officials of the New

Kingdom have been recovered from this area than from the main temple precinct of Nekhbet.

The Wadi Hilal may have been more accessible to the public, especially during festival

processions. Supporting evidence derives from rock inscriptions, which attest to the non-royal

religious significance of the Wadi Hilal since the Old Kingdom (Huyge 1984a; Vandekerckhove

and Müller-Wollermann 2001a; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b; Huyge 2002;

Müller-Wollermann 2005; Judd 2009: 37-38; Lankester 2013: 109-111; see §8.2.3.3.3).

Several unprovenienced Eighteenth Dynasty statues from Elkab occur in museum

collections. The lower portion of a block statue in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Budapest

belongs to the sA nsw tpy n Nxbt “First King’s Son of Nekhbet” Thutmose, the grandfather of

Ahmose-Pennekhbet, whose rock cut tomb exists at Elkab (Nagy 1983).439 The name Thutmose

“First King’s Son of Nekheb” also appears on a votive stela of unknown provenience from Elkab

(Porter and Moss 1937: 191). In the Turin Museum, the lower portion of a granite statue belongs

to Renni, mayor and overseer of prophets of Nekhbet during the early Eighteenth Dynasty, but

its provenience at Elkab is unknown (Porter and Moss 1937: 190-191). Finally, a grey granite

statue base of Ahmose-Pennekhbet is mentioned in Porter and Moss, but no details of its

provenience at Elkab are provided (1937: 191). The tombs of both Renni and Ahmose-

439 The title sA nsw tpy n Nxbt “First King’s son of Nekhbet” is carried by fathers and sons of this family at Elkab, but the specific duties of the title are unknown. According to István, the title may be connected to military personnel and may be tied to the myth of Horus and jubilee ceremonies in temples; the title does not appear after the reign of Amenhotep II (see István 1983: 7-8). Davies suggests that the office is connected to Thebes and refers to individuals in charge of the processional cult of Nekhbet at Elkab (2014: 387).

471

Pennekhbet were discovered among the rock cut tombs of New Kingdom officials at Elkab

(Tylor 1990; Davies 2014: 381-409). The statues could have come from these tombs or from the

temple precinct.

Eighteenth Dynasty non-royal statues from Elephantine are few and fragmentary but

provide interesting information about non-royal religious activity at the site. The torso of a black

granite block statue with traces of hands (Cairo F 4028) is recorded amongst the unprovenienced

finds from Elephantine (Junge 1987: 21 no. 3.1.7.2, pl. 20d). An inscription on the front provides

an offering formula in five columns dedicated to Amun and Mut by a man named DHwty

“Djhuty,” the likely owner of TT 110 in Thebes dated to the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis

III (Davies 1932: 279ff; Bednarski 2013; Shirley and Schenck 2017). The statue fragment was found in the floor of House T22A located in the courtyard of the temple of Khnum suggesting that the statue of Djhuty may have been originally set up in the Eighteenth Dynasty temple of

Khnum (Junge 1987: 21). The dedication of the statue to Amun and Mut and the presence of a

tomb in Thebes, suggest that the statue belonged to a Theban official who may have resided at

Elephantine for a time or visited the area in order to participate in the local cult as discussed

earlier. A Theban presence at Elephantine is further supported by rock inscriptions and blue

painted pottery found at the site.440 A sistrophoric votive statue of the Viceroy of Kush, Nehy

(Cairo JE 39749), who served under Thutmosis III was found in 1907 next to the Ptolemaic

temple of Satet, which contains an inscription that mentions Satet and Anuket (Weinstein 1978:

41; Bernhauer 2002: 86). Nehy is also known from inscriptions found on monuments at Sai

Island (Geus 2004: 115; Valbelle 2006: 45; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 46; Thill 2012: 288; Doyen

440 See discussion in §6.3.1 and §6.3.2.

472

2014; Budka 2015a: 45; Budka 2016a: 5; Thill 2016: pl. II; see below) and in the southern temple at Buhen (Weinstein 1978: 40). His statue was likely originally placed in the temple of

Satet of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Non-royal statuary from Sai Island has been published by Thill and awaits final analysis in a forthcoming publication about the New Kingdom temple at the site (2012: 285). Eight statues in her collection date to the New Kingdom and derive from various contexts. A statue fragment of a male now in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lille (2152) was found during excavations of the fortress but no inscription survives (Thill 2012: 285). Three statues were found in the statue cache excavated by Arkell in 1939. The objects include a kneeling granite statue of a Viceroy (Eighteenth Dynasty), who held the titles sA nsw imy-r xAswt rsywt r-pat HAty-a

[xtmty]-bity, “King’s son, Overseer of the South Countries, Member of the Elite and Foremost of

Action, Mayor, and Sealbearer of the King of Lower Egypt,” a kneeling granite statue of the

Viceroy Usersatet dated to the reign of Amenhotep II, and an unnamed and untitled granite statue fragment (Vercoutter 1956: 71-73 nos. 9-11; Davies 2009b: 24-26; Thill 2012: 285-286). A painted sandstone double statue of a man and woman is in the Khartoum Museum (Arkell 1950:

34; Thill 2012: 286), and another unnamed statue fragment with the titles r-pat HAty-a “Member of the Elite and Foremost of Action, and Mayor” is in the Wadi Halfa Museum, but may have also came from the cache (Vercoutter 1956: 79 no. 26; Thill 2012: 286). Recently, Davies has pieced together a total of five statue fragments from the statue cache belonging to Usersatet

(2017: nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 14) and Auenmüller has identified another possible piece (2018: tab. 2).

Davies suggests that the statues from the cache represent a clearance (or multiple clearances) of temple A during the Eighteenth Dynasty (2009b: 24). The identified statues indicate that

Usersatet was particularly invested in the local temple cult at Sai Island.

473

In the magazine of Sai Island, a double statue of unknown provenience with highly

eroded inscriptions on the front of each figure may have originally been placed beside a

sanctuary or chapel (Thill 2012: 286-287).441 A block statue (S.734) found in the Ottoman fort

dates to the reign of Thutmosis III and belongs to the Viceroy Nehy (Vercoutter 1973: 19-21, pl.

IV; Minault-Gout 2007: 279; Thill 2012: 288; Auenmüller 2018: 245, tab. 2). The statue was

found in the masonry of the north wall of the Ottoman fort and features the cartouche of

Thutmosis III (Vercoutter 1973: 19-21 pl. IV; Thill 2012: 288, pl. VII). All the non-royal statues recovered from Sai Island thus far appear to belong to elite individuals and may have originally derived from temple A. Kneeling statues, block statues, and pair statues represent a common repertoire of non-royal statuary found in New Kingdom Egyptian temples that were erected in order to allow their dedicators to participate in the daily offerings of local cults (Baines 1987: 90;

Pinch 1993: 333-335; Stevens 2006: 121).

8.2.3.3.3 Rock Inscriptions

Rock inscriptions identified as material correlates of non-royal votive activity occur at

two sites: Elkab and Elephantine. The inscriptions provide information about the personnel

associated with the cult temples as well as their degree of involvement in temple activities,

including festival processions. Such rock inscriptions, like graffiti (Salvador 2016), acknowledge

the sanctity of a locality and can provide information about transitory events that took place in

association with ancient performances and rituals.

441 Thill argues that the statue may represent a pair with another similar statue mentioned by Vercoutter (2012: 286- 287).

474

Rock inscriptions dated to the New Kingdom at Elkab are not numerous and are found

scattered on various rocks in the Wadi Hilal, which contains an abundance of rock inscriptions

dated from the Sixth Dynasty onwards (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 18-20;

Moreno García 2005: 104; Müller-Wollermann 2005: 264).442 The greatest quantity of New

Kingdom rock inscriptions occurs at the apex of the Wadi Hilal at location O near the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III (see Table 8.2). New Kingdom rock inscriptions have also been identified at locations F, M, N, and W, but overall numbers are fewer than in the Old Kingdom

(Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 20; Müller-Wollermann 2005: 264).443

Table 8.2: Quantity of New Kingdom rock inscriptions in the Wadi Hilal

Location (Rock) Quantity and Identification Number References F 5 (F 7, F 8, F 12; F 9, F 13) Vandekerckhove and Müller- Wollermann 2001a: 29-31 M 2 (M 11, M 12) Vandekerckhove and Müller- Wollermann 2001a: 35-36 N 3 (N 69, N 75, N 240) Vandekerckhove and Müller- Wollermann 2001a: 67, 69, 133 O 18 (O 27, O 30, O 157, O 160, O 187, Vandekerckhove and Müller- O 191, O 193, O 199, O 229, O 267a Wollermann 2001a: 156-159, and O 267b; O 22, O 23, O 25, O 29, 160-163, 216-218, 227-229, O 32, O 33, O 35 - rock carved stelae) 231, 242, 256-258 W 6 (W 1, W 2, W 3, W 4, W 5, W 6) Vandekerckhove and Müller- Wollermann 2001a: 277-279

442 The quantity of rock inscriptions assigned to specific time periods is complicated due to the fact that Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann could not assign dates to some of the inscriptions, while others have been labelled as either Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom suggesting a range of dates.

443 Compare, for example, location O, which contains 247 texts from the Old Kingdom and only 18 from the New Kingdom (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 20). For the locations of rock inscriptions at Elkab see Green’s original map in Depuydt 1989: back insert, and an updated site plan in Vandekerckhove and Müller- Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1.

475

The first location, designated F in Green’s map of Elkab, comprises the area of the New

Kingdom rock cut tombs situated on an outcrop at the mouth of the Wadi Hilal north of the main

temple precinct of Nekhbet. In this location, five rock inscriptions were dated to the New

Kingdom, two of which were assigned to the Ramesside Period (Vandekerckhove and Müller-

Wollermann 2001a: 29-31; see Table 8.2). Almost all of these inscriptions represent a single

name of an individual. One inscription, F7, dated to the Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom, is a

title, nby “Goldsmith” (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 29). Locations M, N, and O lie closer to the desert cliffs of the Wadi Hilal in an area well represented by New

Kingdom and post-New Kingdom royal monuments, including the “el-Hamman” temple of

Ramesses II and the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III.444 In all three locations, many of the

personal names are preceded by at least one title identifying the individuals as officials and

priests, including Hm-nTr, wab, and Xry-Hbt priests (see Table 8.3). Two administrative titles directly reference the king: wbA nsw “Royal Cupbearer” (N 240) and sS aw (?) nsw “Scribe of

Royal Documents (?)” (O 33) (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 161-162, 133,

320).

Location W lies in the southern portion of the Wadi Hilal in an area known as the Borg el-Hamam, a pillar like outcrop of stone.445 The east and west faces of the Borg el-Hamam contain a combination of Predynastic and Old Kingdom rock art and inscriptions pertaining to solar symbolism, animal and boat motifs, and caravan marks, as well as the few New Kingdom

444 See map in Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1

445 3D modeling and epigraphic recording of the rock inscriptions of the Borg el-Hamam has been undertaken by Yale University as part of the Elkab Desert Survey Project (EDSP) directed by Darnell: http://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/current-expeditions/elkab-desert-survey-project-edsp.

476

ones. The six New Kingdom inscriptions identified at W all contain a priestly title, either Hm-nTr or wab (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 277-279).

Table 8.3: Titles associated with New Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elkab

Title (transliteration) Title (translation) Provenience References nby Goldsmith F 7 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 29, 322 Hm-nTr tpy Hr Nxn First Prophet of M 11 Vandekerckhove and Horus of Müller-Wollermann Hierakonpolis 2001a: 35, 325 sS qdwt Outline M 12 Bogoslovsky 1980: 89- Draftsman 116; Vandekerckhove and Müller- Wollermann 2001a: 35-36, 329; Taylor 2001: 217; Laboury 2013: 28-35 wab Wab-priest N 69, O 191, O Vandekerckhove and 199, W 2, W 3, W 6 Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 67, 228-229, 231, 278-279, 320 wab n Nxbt Wab-priest of W 5 Vandekerckhove and Nekhbet Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 279, 320 Xry-Hbt Lector Priest W 6 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 279, 326 Xry-Hbt tpy n Nxbt First Lector Priest O 193 Vandekerckhove and of Nekhbet Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 229, 326 wbA nsw Royal Cupbearer N 240 Helck: 1958: 269-276; Schulman 1976: 123; Geßler-Löhr 1989: 27- 34; Geßler-Löhr 1990: 53-73; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 133, 320 sS Scribe O 27, O 35, O 187 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 159, 163, 227, 328

477

TA Carrier O 27 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 159, 333 Xrd n kAp Child of the Inner O 23 Vandekerckhove and Palace Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 156-157, 327; Taylor 2001: 190; Grajetzki 2013: 237. Hry-pDt Troop O 25 Vandekerckhove and Commander Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 157-158, 325; Taylor 2001: 159 r-pat Member of the O 33 Vandekerckhove and Elite and Müller-Wollermann Foremost of 2001a: 161-162, 320 Action SS aw (?)446 nsw Scribe of Royal O 33 Vandekerckhove and Documents (?) Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 161-162, 328 HAty-a Mayor O 33 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 161-162, 322 imy-r ab m Smaw mHw Overseer of the O 33 Vandekerckhove and Horned Cattle in Müller-Wollermann Upper and Lower 2001a: 161-162, 314 Egypt TAw-mDAt Engraver/Sculptor O 157 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 216-217, 333; Taylor 2001: 234 xrp kAt nbt Head of all Work O 35 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 163, 326 imy st-a Service O 160 Vandekerckhove and Provider/Acolyte Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 218, 320; Taylor 2001: 61 sr Official O 187 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 227

446 This is Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann’s suggestion, since part of the hieroglyphic signs are missing (2001a: 162).

478

sA n Hm-nTr Son of Priest O 187 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 227 Hm-nTr Priest F 13, W 1, W 4 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 31, 277-278, 323 itx Brewer O 229 Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 242

The New Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elkab attest to non-royal activity by elite members of society, who worked as priests and administrators and by non-elite professions such as Brewer, Engraver, and Service Provider. The data demonstrates a continuity with non-royal activity of the Old Kingdom, although there are far fewer inscriptions, which may seem surprising due to the magnitude of religious monuments built during the New Kingdom.

However, there is potential evidence that an Old Kingdom shrine once existed in the Wadi Hilal near the site of the later peripteral temple of Amenhotep III (Quibell 1898: 16). Archaeological material of Greco-Roman date discovered behind and in front of the peripteral temple of

Amenhotep III suggests that the Wadi Hilal was a location of cultic significance throughout

Egyptian history.447

The New Kingdom rock inscriptions attest to a structured hierarchy of priests from “First

Prophet” or “Servant of the God” (Hm nTr) to the lower-ranking “Pure Priests” (wab). The category of wab priests does not occur in the Old Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elkab, which may suggest that the tasks assigned to wab priests were included among the duties of the Hm-nTr

447 See further information from the Elkab Desert Survey Project website: http://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/current-expeditions/elkab-desert-survey-project/ii-area-vulture-rock-and- amenhotep-iii.

479

priests during the Old Kingdom (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 340).

According to Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann, titles of priests from Elkab in the Old

Kingdom lack ties to secular administration, indicating that secular power and the local temples were under separate administration (2001a: 345). The priests of Elkab seem to have had limited authority that was strictly associated with temple management during the Old Kingdom

(Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 345-346). Similarly, none of the New

Kingdom rock inscriptions containing titles of priests also contain secular titles; however, inscriptions from the Eighteenth Dynasty rock-cut tombs at Elkab indicate that their owners held religious titles along with titles associated with secular power. In the tomb of Ahmose-

Pennekhbet, for example, his brother Amenhotep-Hapu held the title sA nsw tpy n Nxbt “First

King’s Son of Nekhbet,” an office connected to the Theban court and to the local goddess of

Elkab (Davies 2014: 387, 396). Renni was also a HAty-a imy-r Hmw-nTr “Mayor and Overseer of

Priests” (Porter and Moss 1937: 176-184). The rock-cut tombs represent one extended family that maintained prominent secular and religious positions at Elkab over several generations.

Members of the family exhibited local autonomy at Elkab and kept their ties to central administration (Moreno García 2013b: 1037). Moreno García calls this mechanism “horizontal integration,” a social strategy whereby local officials maintained their local power and upheld their relationship with the king and central court as well as “powerful families in other provinces” (2013b: 1037-1038). In effect, it appears that their close connection to the royal residence ensured that powerful local families could “rule” their province independently, because they were ultimately supporting the unity and stability of the country (Moreno García 2013b:

1037-1038).

Rock inscriptions at Elephantine give prosopographic details about the individuals present on the island during the New Kingdom and attest to non-royal cultic activity associated

480

with temple festivals. As examined in §6.3.2, they occur in two main locations: a) Hassawanarti; and b) temple of Khnum (Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443, fig. 1). More than 80 New Kingdom rock inscriptions were recorded at Hassawanarti, which often include the owner’s names and titles accompanied by images of the individual and his family venerating the Triad of Elephantine as well as Amun, Mut, and Khonsu (Habachi 1979; Seidlmayer 1999: 41; Seidlmayer 2003: 441-

442, fig. 1; Seidlmayer 2012: 221). The largest inscription at Hassawanarti depicts a group of 45 officials from the court of Thutmosis IV, including royal nurses, royal scribes, children of the nursery, military personnel, and chief servants (Seidlmayer 1999: 41-42; Seidlmayer 2003: 442).

The corpus of titles that occur in the rock inscriptions at Hassawanarti includes a range of high- status positions, such as royal scribes, royal nurses, high priests, chief craftsmen, supervisors of works in the quarries, and viceroys, but low-status positions occur as well, such as policemen, soldiers, standard bearers, and servants (Seidlmayer 1999: 42; Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443;

Seidlmayer 2012: 221). It is significant that many names and titles of high-ranking individuals documented in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty rock inscriptions at Hassawanarti are of non-local origin and include members of the central administration (Kings, Viceroys of Nubia, and Theban priests) suggesting that a large contingent of foreign elite were present at

Elephantine either permanently or temporarily during the New Kingdom (Seidlmayer 1999: 42;

Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443). A small number of names and titles of administrators of the local temples and mayors of Elephantine occur in this corpus, restricted in date to the Twentieth

Dynasty, but local officials are attested at smaller sanctuaries in the Aswan region, such as at

Sehel (Seidlmayer 2003: 442). Seidlmayer suggests that this pattern represents some sort of state supervision or monitoring of the temples at Elephantine during the early New Kingdom (2003:

442).

481

According to Seidlmayer, the rock inscriptions at Hassawanarti are located in an area that

may have once been the ancient harbor of Elephantine connected to public viewings of water

rites during festival processions (1999: 42; 2003: 443).448 Supporting evidence derives from the

rock inscription of Humen at Hassawanarti, which indicates that Humen’s presence at

Elephantine was directly related to the festival procession of Khnum and Anuket (Seidlmayer

1999: 42; Seidlmayer 2003: 443). Temple festivals at Elephantine seem to have provided

occasions for royal, elite, and non-elite individuals to interact and jointly participate in local

religious activities during the New Kingdom.

Rock inscriptions located in front of the monumental platform and altar of the temple of

Khnum provide further evidence of the ritual function of New Kingdom rock inscriptions at

Elephantine (see §6.3.2). The inscriptions are carved on inner areas of large boulders directly

facing the altar and on the north wall of the platform attached to the temple (Seidlmayer 2003:

443-444; Seidlmayer 2012: 219-225). Scholars have theorized that the platform and altar of the

temple of Khnum served as a stage for the public display of the divine images of the local gods

and for the performance of oracles during festival celebrations (Jaritz 1980: 40; Seidlmayer

2003: 443; Seidlmayer 2012: 219-225). At both Hassawanarti and the platform of the temple of

Khnum, rock inscriptions document royal and non-royal participation in the cult of the local temple by a range of individuals of different socio-economic statuses during the New Kingdom.

The activity occurred in areas of public display where the rock inscriptions and rock art could act as permanent physical substitutes for an individual’s involvement in local festivals, similar to the function of private offering chapels and stelae located in the Votive Zone at North Abydos, and

448 On the shore opposite Hassawanarti, a monumental staircase from the Roman Period served a ritual function during festivals of the Nile attesting to the significance of the area (Jaritz 1989).

482

act as a continual reminder of the owner’s socio-economic status in relation to the king and to each other.

8.2.4 Personnel

Identifying the non-royal individuals who participated in religious activity at each site is

primarily gleaned through inscribed material. The names and titles of owners associated with

inscribed religious material, such as votive stelae, statues, and rock inscriptions, provides crucial

information about the social position of donors. At each of the five sites examined in this

dissertation, inscribed material demonstrates that individuals (both inhabitants and visitors) from

the upper echelons of society partook in the local cults by erecting votive stelae and/or statues,

and/or by carving rock inscriptions. The votive stelae from Abydos and the rock inscriptions

from Elkab and Elephantine further indicate that individuals from lower socio-economic

backgrounds also participated in those cults.

The donors of uninscribed religious material, such as figurines and votive pottery, may potentially be determined by spatial clusters in specific contexts; for example, objects found in houses of known individuals.449 In unidentified houses, the scale and complexity of the house

may indicate the socio-economic status of the owner to whom objects may have belonged

(Crocker 1984; Shortland 2000: 75-77; Stevens 2006: 306-307). Spatial analysis of the findspots

of portable objects, however, must consider deposition and removal processes from original

contexts (Stevens 2006: 307). Moeller emphasizes this problem when she discusses room

function: “…it is important to be aware of the fact that items found on the floors of houses

449 Religious items, including votive pottery and offering stelae found at the estates of Panehesy at Amarna likely belong to his personal religious repertoire (Stevens 2006: 306).

483

during excavations are not always reliable indicators of room use. They could have been left

behind after the abandonment of the structure and might not provide an accurate picture of

activities being carried out specifically in the space where these were found, especially if they

are movable objects” (2016: 347).

In terms of deposits of uninscribed religious objects, the quality of material may or may

not relate to socio-economic status. Spatial analysis at Amarna that links the distribution of

religious material with house size, for example, seems to indicate a correlation between high

quality items and high socio-economic groups (Stevens 2006: 307, tab. III.4.1). Quality is an

inherently subjective attribute, but the Amarna data may be one aspect of the broader issue of

how the quality of an object may indicate socio-economic status. This type of analysis, however,

makes a number of assumptions about who had access to high quality items. As Stevens notes,

items may have been produced by non-elite artisans who retained some of their creations for

themselves or distributed them to non-elite “associates” (2006: 306).450 Pinch additionally

considers the high cost to donors who wished to set up votive material in state-run temples

versus local community shrines, especially on a permanent basis (1993: 326-327). Inscriptions,

archaeological context, procurement, manufacture, and quality are all factors that can contribute

to the identification of the donors of non-royal religious material.

Identifying the potential donors of fired and unfired clay human and animal figurines is a

difficult task. Because clay is a plentiful and easily accessible material, clay figurines could have

been produced and used by anyone. Most are either hand-modelled or made in molds (Pinch

450 Further support for this idea stems from Deir el-Medina where craftsmen accepted private commissions for the creation of certain objects (Janssen 1975: 510-511, 542-543).

484

1993: 236-332; Stevens 2006: 79-120; Waraksa 2009: 45-66; Teeter 2010: 18-19). However, there must be caution against equating clay figurines with individuals from lower socio- economic levels based solely on simplicity of production, cheap material, and lack of inscriptions. As Kemp (1995: 28) and Teeter (2010: 18) point out, the value of clay figurines lay not in their quick manufacture and low-cost, but in their portability and “transactional potential” for venerating deities. In addition, Pinch provides specific examples of clay figurines belonging to wealthy owners (1993: 224).451 Another difficulty in interpreting clay figurines in the

archaeological record stems from their limited period of use and the fact that ritual breakage and

subsequent disposal seems to have been an important component of their function (see Kemp

1995: 31; Waraksa 2009: 71-76, 167-168; Geisen 2018: 23). Unlike votive stelae and rock

inscriptions, clay figurines were likely not meant to be permanent components of religious cults.

In the Mut precinct at Thebes, Waraksa believes that elite priests could have acquired

clay female figurines from a local workshop and performed rituals with them (2009: 171-175).

Rites using the figurines for healing could have been carried out by temple priests on behalf of

temple staff or members of the general public (Waraksa 2009: 172-173). Pinch has also

suggested that female figurines were deposited in shrines dedicated to Hathor after being used in

magical rites (1993: 354). According to Pinch, elites and non-elites could have deposited votives at temples, “when travelling, during major festivals, to renew a annual ‘contract’ with their particular deity, and at times of personal crisis” (1993: 355). Thus, uninscribed votive objects could potentially be donated by a variety of individuals.

451 Also see Geisen 2018: 23-28.

485

The archaeological context of the clay female figurines recovered from the interior of the

Osiris Temple Enclosure at North Abydos does not provide enough information to determine

who acquired or used the objects (Marlar 2007b: 116-118). Other non-royal religious material

recovered from the Osiris temple precinct belongs to individuals of high-status. The two keeling

statue fragments found in the debris of the Kom es-Sultan (discussed above), belong to a Hm-ntr priest (no. 372) and sS nsw “Royal Scribe” (no. 373), suggesting that activity within the main temple precinct of Osiris was restricted to high-status individuals, although none were found in situ (Mariette 1880b: 40-41). Likewise, the stelae of Nebwawy which likely originated from within the Osiris Temple Enclosure indicate that he held prominent positions within the temple administration and priesthood (Pouls Wegner 2002: 161-162; Frood 2003: 59-75; see §8.2.3.3.1).

The commemoration of Nebwawy in stelae found within the Osiris temple precinct further supports the idea that the use of space within the Osiris Temple Enclosure for non-royal religious activities may have been restricted to high-status individuals.

The archaeological context of the ram, vulture, and cobra clay figurines recovered from the debris of the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II in North Abydos similarly does not provide much information about their donors. In domestic contexts, such as the settlement at Amarna, similar figurines occur across house strata with different ground-floor areas suggesting that donors from a range of socio-economic positions had access to the objects for personal use

(Stevens 2006: 309, tab. III. 4.1.). However, a greater percentage of large houses contained animal figurines, indicating that most large households at Amarna had access to the figurines.

For example, 6 out of 9 (67%) houses with a ground floor area measuring 350-399 sq. m contained animal figurines, while only 19 out of 170 (11%) houses with a ground floor area measuring 50-99 sq. m contained animal figurines (Stevens 2006: 309, tab. III.4.1.). The Amarna data suggests that animal figurines found at that site may have belonged to high-status

486

individuals. In the North Cemetery (Cemetery D) at Abydos, two pottery figurine fragments

were found in Tomb 8 dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, along with other small finds (Randall

MacIver and Mace 1902: 91). This evidence could provide potential information about the types

of individuals who owned clay figurines at Abydos. Unfortunately, however, the tomb owner’s

names and titles have not been identified.

Elsewhere in the Votive Zone, the large deposit of incense dishes at the peripteral temple

of Thutmosis III provides evidence for non-royal religious activity by individuals from a range of

socio-economic levels due to its location in an area that is known to have involved individuals with an array of titles (Pouls Wegner 2002: 408). Inscriptions from stelae, statues, and offering table fragments from the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom found in the Votive Zone includes the names and titles of individuals who held a variety of different administrative and religious positions (Mariette 1880b: 373-461; Simpson 1995: 55-73; Pouls Wegner 2002: 115, tab. 2.1).

Participation in the religious festivities of the Votive Zone during the Eighteenth Dynasty

involved a variety of elite and non-elite individuals. The participants in the New Kingdom cultic

activity at Umm el-Qaʽab and Hekareshu Hill who made donations of votive objects at those sites likely represent a similar population, although the only known name associated with

Eighteenth Dynasty votive offerings located in pits near the tomb of Den belonged to an official named Kenamun (Peet 1914: 116, pl. XXIX; Porter and Moss 1937: 80; Pumpenmeier 1998b:

76-78; Teeter 2003: 43-44; O’Connor 2009: 114). O’Connor suggests that Hekareshu Hill was a checkpoint for the majority of individuals involved in the procession of Osiris, who were not allowed to continue into the more restricted sections of Umm el-Qaʽab (2009: 114).

The donors of the uninscribed female figurines from Elephantine are likewise unknown.

None of the female figurines were found in secure contexts, but spatial analysis has identified the

487

potential status of donors. Two examples (no. 19607P/b-4 and no. 27605P/f-2) were found in

House 55 built during the Seventeenth Dynasty but in use until the reign of Thutmosis III and

located south of the Heqaib sanctuary in the town north of the temple of Khnum (Von Pilgrim

1999: 118-119; Kopp 2005a: figs. 28.3, 28.5; Von Pilgrim 2015: 10-12, figs. 7-8; Von Pilgrim

2016: 22-25, figs. 25-26; Budka 2018a: 148). The owner and function of House 55 remains unknown, but it was integrated into an area associated with economic structures of the temple of

Khnum and may contain material displaced during renovation of the temple (Von Pilgrim 1999:

119-120). House 55 contains a vaulted cellar and preserved traces of paint on its back wall depict sailing ships and a simple barque (Von Pilgrim 2015: 10-12). Scholars have suggested that the building was a workshop, possibly connected with supplying expeditions (Budka 2018a: 148).

During the reign of Amenhotep II, the ruins of the house were filled with debris including limestone and sandstone block fragments likely deriving from the temple of Khnum precinct

(Von Pilgrim 2015: 10-12). The exact provenience of the female figurines in House 55 is not clear from the published report. They may belong to the use phase of the building, or to the subsequent phase in which materials from the adjacent temple were deposited.

Another clay figurine fragment of a naked female (no. 6116d) was found in the south house group located adjacent to the Khnum temple precinct (Kopp 2005a: fig. 28.2). At the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, a new restructuring of this settlement area south of the

Khnum temple consisted of a broad wall which divided the landscape into two areas of building development (Von Pilgrim 1996: 62-63). Six houses in this area belong to Eighteenth Dynasty levels, two of which have been identified as a residence for temple staff, suggesting a potential

488

elite association with the female figurine (Von Pilgrim 1996: 66-71, fig. 16).452 Finally, example

no. 18613A/a-5 (naked female lying on a bed) was found in House 61, which belongs to a

Ramesside high official from Thebes, Hori, thus potentially associating the female figurine with

a high-status individual (Kopp 2005: fig. 28.7; Von Pilgrim and Von Pilgrim 2007: 365).

As discussed previously, the female figurines made of faience appear to have been more closely associated with temple activity at Elephantine. Even though the findspots of only two examples are provided in Kopp’s publication, faience female figurines of the same type (Type 5) have been catalogued by Pinch at both community shrines and state-run temples during the New

Kingdom (1993: 205-207, 231-232). Almost all surviving examples identified by Pinch derive

from temple contexts, such as Deir el-Bahri (1993: 206). The donors of the faience female

figurines, however, are difficult to determine. The presence of Type 5 faience female figurines in

the foundation deposits of Amenhotep II at Elkab (Quibell 1898: 16-17, 29, pl. XXI; Lesko

1999: 68) and in a foundation deposit of Thutmosis III at Coptos (Petrie 1896: pl. XV) attest to a

royal connection. Other contexts may provide potential evidence of the socio-economic status of

individuals who had access to faience female figurines. Several examples of Type 5 female

figurines were excavated from burials at Zawiyet el-Aryan dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, but only one of these was made of faience (Dunham 1978: 53-55, pl. 40; Pinch 1993: 206, 231). In domestic contexts, Pinch (1993: 231) has identified one Type 5 female figurine at Deir el-

Medina (Bruyère 1939: pl. XLIV second row, right), one Type 5 faience female figurine at

Amarna (Peet and Woolley 1923: 73), and one Type 5 faience female figurine at Kom Rabiʽa

(Jeffreys and Malek 1988: 19). Another potential Type 5 faience female figurine (EES 3088)

452 Houses 20 and 21, in which a stamp impression of the cartouche of Thutmosis III was unearthed (Von Pilgrim 1996: 68-71, figs. 17-19).

489

from Kom Rabiʽa occurs in Giddy’s volume, but only the mid-thigh region is preserved (Giddy

1999: 30, 42, pls. 12, 81). There is one blue faience figure (obj. 26-7/319) possibly representing a woman identified in Stevens’ study of private religion at Amarna (2006: 87), but its type is unknown. Stevens notes that further examples of Type 5 female figurines from Amarna are likely (2006: 85).453 The archaeological contexts of the Type 5 female figurines recovered from

the aforementioned New Kingdom domestic and burials sites do not provide useful information about their owners. Without further information, identifying the socio-economic status of

individuals who used faience female figurines at Elephantine is problematic. The examples from

royal foundation deposits at Elkab and Coptos could suggest that they were mainly used by high-

status individuals, but this remains speculation.

The process of manufacture and distribution of the faience votive figurines may shed

further light on who had access to these items. Workshops may have been attached to local

temples or items may have been brought from other communities (Pinch 1993: 332). Pinch

suggests that faience votives in both state and local productions were likely kept and distributed

by the priesthood, which could include a range of local “artisan-priests” who donated votives at

shrines “on behalf of themselves or others” (1993: 330). At Elephantine, several kilns dated to

the Middle Kingdom were excavated in area XXXVI near the old Museum buildings at the

northeastern limit of the ancient town attesting to local production of pottery (Bommas 1995:

147ff; Kopp 2010: 5-6; Seidlmayer et al. 2017: 197-226). Pottery and faience may have been

fired in the same kilns, but only pottery has been found associated with the Middle Kingdom

453 Stevens cites Borchardt and Ricke’s publication on the residential houses at Amarna, which includes fired clay female figurines among objects recovered from individual houses (see Borchardt and Ricke 1980: 176 no. 846, 217 no. 900).

490

kilns at Elephantine (Kopp 2007: 5-6; Nicholson 2010). In addition, ovens (some with furnace

installations) occur frequently in houses dated to the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate

Period at Elephantine. Ash deposits associated with the ovens contained fragments of bread

vessels suggesting that households produced their own bread on site (Von Pilgrim 1996: 209-

211). Evidence of other types of production associated with the ovens has not yet been found.

During the early Eighteenth Dynasty, House 100 appears to have served as a bakery since quern

emplacements and small working compartments were found in its courtyard, while ash deposits

were found east of the house (Von Pilgrim 2008a: 6-7). Whether state imports or local

productions, the question of who had control of the manufacture of small votives remains

unanswered.

Blue painted pottery and rock inscriptions provide further information about who

conducted votive activity at Elephantine. Budka argues that the blue painted pottery recovered

from the site may have been brought by the same group of Theban officials who carved rock

inscriptions at Hassawanarti and at the platform of the temple of Khnum during the New

Kingdom (2008a: 119-120; 2015g: 139, 141-145). The high quality of certain pieces of blue

painted pottery at Elephantine, such as an amphora fragment with elaborate decorative detail and

appliqué,454 has led to its association with elite religious contexts and state workshops (Bourriau

1981: 31-39; Bourriau 1987; Hope 1987: 116; Budka 2008: 119, n. 247; Budka 2010: 353;

Budka 2013c: 193-194; Budka 2015g: 135-140). The rock inscriptions at Elephantine, however, attest to the participation of high-ranking and low-ranking individuals in the religious festivals of the New Kingdom, of which blue painted pottery is a major component (Bourriau 1981: 79;

454 Budka suggests that a high official brought the vessel from Thebes and donated it to the temple of Khnum at Elephantine during the New Kingdom (2015g: 139-140).

491

Hope 1982: 88; Hope 1989; Seidlmayer 1999: 42; Hope 2001; Seidlmayer 2003: 441-443;

Mohamed 2004: 202; Budka 2008: 119; Seidlmayer 2012: 221; Budka 2013: 202). The connection between female figurines and festivals has not been firmly established. Did the same group of individuals who participated in the festivals at Elephantine and who are connected to rock inscriptions and blue painted pottery, also donate female figurines at the temple? If Waraksa is correct that priests enacted rituals on clay female figurines at temples on behalf of other individuals (see §8.2.3.2.1.1.1 above), then it seems likely that these rituals were not restricted to special days or festival events and thus occurred at the bequest of a variety of individuals as issues arose.

Evidence for the socio-economic status of the inhabitants of the New Kingdom settlement on Sai Island is limited. Walls and features excavated in each of the settlement zones (SAV1,

SAV1 North, and SAV1 West) have thus far revealed a number of domestic structures, but inscriptional evidence pertaining to their owners is lacking (Doyen 2009: 18; Doyen 2014: 369-

374, fig. 2). The southern settlement of Sai Island (SAV1) consists of different quarters organized spatially: a) eastern palatial quarter with a large columned hall and mudbrick paving; b) central domestic quarter (cluster of 5 houses); and c) western quarter with several storage rooms and silos (Doyen 2014: 369). Social stratification within SAV1 is attested by variations in house size. Small homogenous houses contrast with large varied houses, some with evidence of courtyards and second stories (Azim 1975: 93-95; Geus 2004: 115; Minault-Gout 2007: 276;

Adenstedt 2013: 21-22). In SAV1 North, the same degree of variation is not present. A number of small buildings, some containing storage pits, silos, and ovens, point to food storage and production (Doyen 2009: 18; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 198; Doyen 2014: 369-374, fig. 2;

Budka 2017i: 16). The inscribed material recovered from domestic contexts on Sai Island is not

492

numerous and the objects identified with certainty belong to five viceroys of the Eighteenth and

Nineteenth Dynasties (Auenmüller 2018: 243-247, tab. 2).

Votive objects, such as fragments of Nun bowls, feminoform vessels, decorated wares, and female and animal figurines were found in the debris of the settlement remains of SAV1

North along with a variety of household pottery (cooking pots, spinning bowls, dishes, bread plates) and tools (grinding implements, stone polishers, and so forth) indicating that non-royal religious activity was practiced alongside domestic activity by the local community (Doyen

2014: 374; Doyen 2016: 134-146; Budka 2016d: 92-96; Tschorn 2017: 441-444; Budka 2017g:

158-159). The settlement of the Eighteenth Dynasty likely consisted of a variety of individuals who performed different tasks within the town, but correlating specific donors with the votive objects cannot be carried out due to the displaced context of the finds and due to the lack of inscriptional material associated with domestic architecture. In addition, no features identified as household altars have been excavated within the settlement on Sai Island to date, although altars were a common feature of many New Kingdom houses.455 Similar votive objects were recovered from SAV1 East and SAV1 West (Budka 2018b: 297). Domestic structures excavated in SAV1

West are like those in SAV1 North, including evidence of cellars and ovens (Budka 2014b: 9-10;

Budka 2015a: 45-46, fig. 2). Analyses of pottery made from local clay recovered from Sai indicate that local ceramic production occurred on the island (Miellé 2014: 390; Budka 2018b:

298). However, Tschorn suggests that the faience Nun bowls were imported from Egypt (2017:

445). There is no evidence of faience molds or faience production areas at the site and locally

455 Evidence for domestic altars dated to the New Kingdom have been observed at Amarna (Stevens 2006: 219- 234); at Deir el-Medina (Bruyère 1939: 55-64; Friedman 1994: 97; Weiss 2009; Weiss 2015: 56-61); at Medinet Habu (Hölscher 1939: 68-69); at Malkata (Lacovara 1997: 49; Tytus 1903: 15) and at Lisht (Mace 1921: 12, fig. 2).

493

produced Nun bowls have not been identified (Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 188; Tschorn 2017:

445; Budka 2018b: 297). Budka suggests that direct imports from Egypt appear in the archaeological record of Sai Island primarily during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, which may

reflect a greater degree of Egyptianization at this time (2018b: 298).

Further information about the socio-economic status of the inhabitants of Sai Island

during the Eighteenth Dynasty derives from mortuary remains, which identify potential donors

of the non-royal material recovered from the settlement. In the Pharaonic cemetery (SAC5),

approximately 26 tombs provide evidence of elite individuals who likely lived in the town.

Names and titles found on shabtis and heart scarabs, as well as the quality of burial items

recovered from the Pharaonic cemetery, attest to Hm-nTr priests, a wab priest, scribes, HAty-a, and

a master of gold workers who were a part of the administration and clergy of Sai Island during

the Eighteenth Dynasty (Minault-Gout and Thill 1974: 84-85; Minault-Gout 1997: 101-103;

Minault-Gout 2012; Budka 2015a: 48-50; Budka 2017a: 11; Budka 2017c: 107-130; Budka

2017d; Budka 2017e; Auenmüller 2018: 241-243, tab 1). The burial remains so far analyzed from Sai Island, however, do not provide information about the non-elite inhabitants of the New

Kingdom settlement. Examination of the human skeletal material from the cemeteries would shed further light on the identities of the inhabitants.

At both Mendes and Elkab, New Kingdom settlements have not been excavated. At

Mendes, New Kingdom pottery found in debris associated with the temenos wall of the temple of

Banebdjed has yielded domestic and votive types, but no contemporary domestic buildings have yet been unearthed (Hummel and Shubert 2004: 135-150; Redford 2010a: 67-94). The only evidence of non-royal religious patronage associated with the temple of Banebdjed from the

Eighteenth Dynasty derives from the statue of Ibaba, which was likely donated to the temple

494

(Helck 1961a: 970 no. 140; Vandier 1968: 89, pl. XV-XVI; Redford 2010a: 76). Not until the

Ramesside period does evidence of non-royal worship occur outside the temple precinct.

However, the donors of the pottery vessels with preserved remains of schilby-fish and votive stelae dedicated to Hat-Mehyet remain enigmatic (Redford 2010a: 86-92). Likewise, at Elkab, no domestic buildings of the New Kingdom have been excavated. However, statue fragments, rock inscriptions, and rock-cut tombs chiefly attest to elite participation in the cult of Nekhbet during the Eighteenth Dynasty at both the main temple precinct and the Wadi Hilal (Clarke 1922: 26;

Porter and Moss 1937: 189; Lichtheim 1976: 11-15; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann

2001a; Davies 2009a).

8.3 Religious Activity, the Built Environment, and the Natural Landscape

A significant component of both royal and non-royal religious activity in the provinces

during the Eighteenth Dynasty is the reflexive relationship between people and landscape. The

preexisting built environment and the landscape of a town impacted the nature and location of

royal and non-royal religious activity and that activity in turn continued to shape the social and physical development of a town. Many Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaohs, for instance, built religious monuments in areas of established religious significance, often reconstructing or augmenting structures built by preceding kings. This pattern is observed for many provincial cult temples. At

Mendes, Abydos, Elkab, and Elephantine, royal patronage of local deities primarily occurred at locations where Early Dynastic, Old Kingdom, and/or Middle Kingdom shrines to local deities previously existed. Not only did Eighteenth Dynasty kings venerate royal ancestors at many sites by continuing to reconstruct and expand religious monuments built by royal predecessors, but also Eighteenth Dynasty kings aimed to connect to the local religious traditions of towns by implementing unique temple features related to local aspects of provincial deities and early

495

community shrines.456 However, there was differential patronage of provincial cults457 and not

all received equal patronage in every period (see Bussmann 2016: 38-40; Bussmann 2017: 81). A

possible interpretation of this pattern derives from Seidlmayer’s analysis of Elephantine in the

Third Millennium BC, which demonstrates that specific aspects of royal ideology were

emphasized through connections that individual rulers made with provincial cults (1996a: 115-

119). Attributes of particular gods resonated with aspects of kingship or royal ideology that

specific rulers wanted to emphasize through patronage of these particular provincial cults. For

example, in the Early Dynastic Period during the process of state formation kings built shrines to deities connected to the ideological foundations of divine kingship (Seidlmayer 1996a: 116-117).

Seidlmayer’s research emphasizes the relevance of historical context and the importance of the

social setting of local temples.

A similar pattern may be observed for royal patronage of provincial cults during the

Eighteenth Dynasty. Cults of deities associated with royal ideology may have received greater

royal attention in specific periods, perhaps reflecting aspects of the connection between the ruler

and the gods that individual kings wished to emphasize. In the New Kingdom, this patronage

included the construction and/or refurbishment of provincial cult temples and often the addition

of royal peripteral temples. The location and architectural design of peripteral temples was

intrinsically linked to festival processional routes, which became a major feature of temple ritual

and religious conduct for both royal and non-royal individuals during the New Kingdom.

Although peripteral temples were not an invention of the New Kingdom (antecedents include the

456 See §8.2.1 above.

457 For example, the New Kingdom temple at Mirgissa remained a small local shrine with relatively little royal patronage (Karlin 1970; Pinch 1993: 41-48; Bussmann 2017: 81).

496

White Chapel of Senwosret I at Karnak), they became a prevalent form of royal agency in many provincial towns during the Eighteenth Dynasty and were situated in locations where previous royal structures were rare or nonexistent (Badawy 1968: 284).458 New Kingdom peripteral temples were especially designed for the ritual landscape of the New Kingdom.

Festival processional routes were a major component of Eighteenth Dynasty religious activity at Abydos at both the royal and the non-royal level. Although the festival procession of

Osiris in North Abydos was in existence well before the New Kingdom, the Eighteenth Dynasty brought a new dimension to the interaction between royal and non-royal religious activity.

Thutmosis III built two peripteral temples in the Votive Zone at the entrance to the processional route, an area previously used primarily by non-royal individuals to participate in the cult of

Osiris (Pouls Wegner 2002: 264ff; O’Connor 2009: 116).459 The Eighteenth Dynasty appears to represent a new program of royal building projects within the Votive Zone. Stamped bricks found in the ruins of the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II and a royal wooden statue found inside a ruined Ramesside building unearthed outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure suggest that

458 At Abydos, the peripteral temples of Thutmosis III are located in the Votive Zone where no previous royal monument has yet been unearthed, except for the Early Dynastic funerary enclosures (Shunet el Zebib) far to the northwest (O’Connor 2009: 25-26, fig. 53). At Elkab, Thutmosis III built a peripteral temple northwest and outside the temple precinct of Nekhbet on virgin ground, while Amenhotep III constructed his peripteral temple in the Wadi Hilal, which acted as a catalyst for the construction of later royal monuments in this area (Clarke 1922: 17; Capart 1940: 35, pl. 37; Vanlatham 1987: 30; Tylor 1898; Bryan 1992: 79; Dodson 1996: 62; Richter 2010: 163-164). Amenhotep III built another peripteral temple northwest of the temple of Satet at Elephantine in an unused area (Porter and Moss 1937: 227-230; Badawy 1986: 290-291; Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 75; Johnson 1998: 78-79).

459 During the Middle Kingdom, only private offering chapels and their associated material were unearthed in the Votive Zone (Simpson 1974; O’Connor 1979: 46-49; O’Connor 1985: 168ff; Yamamoto 2009: 35-50). The names of kings Senwosret and Amenemhet III were found among the debris recovered from the fill overlying the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II (O’Connor 1967: 16). However, due to the displaced context of the finds, there is no concrete evidence that these artifacts derive from Middle Kingdom royal structures built in the Votive Zone. However, two of the royal stelae dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty demarcating the area sacred to Wepwawet may have been located in the vicinity of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III, suggesting that royal monuments may have preceded the peripteral temples of Thutmosis III at the site (see Leahy 1989: 50-54, fig. 2).

497

Hatshepsut may have also built a monument in the Votive Zone, but at present this remains

speculation (Simpson 1995: 80; Pouls Wegner 2012: 183-184, figs. 9-10). Finally, stone blocks

used in structures built by Akhenaten found in the debris of the “Portal” Temple may indicate

that Akhenaten contributed another royal building to the area (Petrie 1903: pl. 39, upper left;

Silverman 1989: 269-277; Simpson 1995: 74-77, NK 41-47; Wegner 2017c: 97-99).

The unique architectural layout of the best preserved and excavated peripteral temple of

Thutmosis III in the Votive Zone attests to its specialized function in the festival procession of

the cult of Osiris (Pouls Wegner 2002: 348-349). The temple shares similarities with the design

of peripteral temples used as resting places for sacred barques, but also contains unique features,

such as a stela emplacement niche and fragments of colossal Osirid statues of the king, which

were likely the focus of non-royal devotional activity (Badawy 1968: 282-292; Pouls Wegner

2002: 283-285, 306, 340-342).460 The votive dishes excavated in association with the structure

demonstrate that a significant component of ritual activity carried out at the temple was likely

conducted by non-royal individuals (Pouls Wegner 2002: 342, 374-382, 390-414; Pouls Wegner

2011).461 Non-royal individuals had direct access to a royal monument in order to participate in

the local cult by presenting offerings to the king personified as Osiris. Unfortunately, many of

the Eighteenth Dynasty peripteral temples at other sites were destroyed in antiquity, making it

460 Pouls Wegner suggests that the deposits of resinous material and carbonized organic remains excavated in the columned court (immediately in front of the northern Osirid statue), which likely represent offerings of incense, may have been the result of non-royal votive activity (2002: 340-342). However, this activity appears to have taken place after the Ramesside Period (Pouls Wegner 2002: 340).

461 Pouls Wegner suggests that the variability of the pottery types associated with the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III may reflect “the socio-economic diversity of the community represented there” (2002: 413).

498

difficult to determine if similar non-royal activity was associated with them; so far, no evidence of this nature has yet been revealed.

Rather than being built to demarcate and control the expansion of New Kingdom non- royal building activity in the Votive Zone, as Pouls Wegner originally suggested for the peripteral temples of Thutmosis III (2002: 264, 363-366, 370), the new building program of

Eighteenth Dynasty kings in the Votive Zone appears directly tied to participation in the annual festival procession of Osiris on an unprecedented scale.462 The two temples of Thutmosis III,

especially, seem to be directly linked to the sacred lake of the main Osiris temple where

ceremonies involving the barque of Osiris would have occurred (Wegner and Verhelst 2014;

Verhelst 2014; Verhelst 2015). The ritual landscape of the Votive Zone was transformed during

the Eighteenth Dynasty to incorporate the intersection of royal and non-royal religious activity.

Although royal construction activity occurred after the Eighteenth Dynasty in this area,

Ramesside structures had “different relationships to the landscape” as noted by O’Connor: “The

Ramesses temple (begun by Sety) lines up with the enclosed area containing royal chapels

adjacent to the Osiris temple, and was probably directly linked to them by a street” (2009: 117).

The impact of the New Kingdom royal monuments on the landscape of North Abydos continued

into later periods. Many of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty buildings were left in place

and continued to be used for cultic rituals and offerings into the Third Intermediate Period, Late

Period, and Ptolemaic Period (O’Connor 2009: 124-129). The axial relationship between the

temple of Osiris and Osiris’ tomb defined by the annual festival procession determined the

462 In 2011, excavations by a team from the University of Toronto directed by Pouls Wegner uncovered a Middle Kingdom offering chapel located near the Thutmosis III temple located in the Votive Zone, suggesting that offering chapels were geographically more widespread than previously thought (see Pouls Wegner 2012: 180-181).

499

placement of royal and non-royal religious activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but

Eighteenth Dynasty activity in turn impacted the development and preserved the sacred nature of the processional valley.

Further changes of non-royal religious activity at North Abydos during the Eighteenth

Dynasty reshaped the physical landscape of Umm el-Qaʽab. During the Middle Kingdom, Umm el-Qaʽab was identified with the mythical region Peker in which Osiris’ tomb lay, a major focal point of the festival procession of Osiris; yet, the region remained a natural desert landscape during this time (O’Connor 2009: 91). During the Eighteenth Dynasty, however, deposits of votive pottery, shabtis, bronze models, and other items attest to ritual activity at the tombs of

Djer, Den, and Qaʽa in Umm el-Qaʽab, and at Hekareshu Hill (Petrie 1900: 32-33; Pumpenmeier

1996: 47-48; Pumpenmeier 1998a: 76-78, 123-137; Effland, Budka, and Effland 2010).

Additional manipulation of the desert landscape may be evidenced by remains of a brick building at Hekareshu Hill (Pumpenmeier 1996: 47-48; Pumpenmeier 1998a: 123-137; O’Connor 2009:

114).463 New Kingdom Egyptians thus sought to shape this area of the sacred landscape to suit their personal ritual agenda. Hekareshu Hill remained an area of veneration into the Twenty-Fifth

Dynasty, while the tomb of Osiris in Umm el-Qaʽab was in use until the Thirtieth Dynasty

(O’Connor 2009: 114, 131-133). The desert hinterland itself, and especially the high cliff plateau behind Umm el-Qaʽab, remained untouched by human activity and was personified as a protective goddess identified as “She who Hides her Lord” at least as early as the Ramesside

463 According to O’Connor, the building may have contained a ramp and functioned similar to other periptertal temples used as barque stations along processional routes (2009: 114).

500

Period (O’Connor 2009: 130-131).464 Most recently, Pouls Wegner has been exploring the connection between the natural landscape of Abydos and the personification of the goddess Nut and elements of the Duat acting as symbols of postmortem transformation in the geography of

Abydos.465 The personification of Nut on the earth may have contributed to the orientation and placement of monuments at North Abydos at least during the Ramesside Period.466 The natural

Abydene landscape is thus rich with religious symbolism that contributed to the built environment of the site and connected to it by means of ritual.

Just as the landscape and built environment of Abydos represents a physical manifestation of the myth of Osiris linked by ritual and festival processions, so too does the landscape of Elkab provide the ideal geographical environment to commemorate the goddess

Nekhbet. Nekhbet was the focus of much royal activity at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

In the main temple precinct located close to the Nile at the mouth of the Wadi Hilal, at least one major temple was dedicated to Nekhbet under the reign of Amenhotep I and was expanded by

Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, but there is evidence that other royal buildings were built in the

464 An article on the topic entitled “She-Who-Hides-Her-Lord: The Secret Mountain Hapetnebes, Her Falcons, and the ‘Sacred District’ at Abydos” is currently in preparation by Kraemer. A conference presentation on the same topic was delivered by Kraemer at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt in Chicago, IL April 25th, 2011. Kraemer identified a rock formation on the mountain south of Abydos as one of two falcons who protected the sacred mountain and the deceased Osiris as written on a decree issued under Nectanebo II. The rock formation was the focus of cultic activity from the late Old Kingdom into the Late Period. O’Connor has noted the similarities of the term to Late Period coffins, which contained a falcon at each corner of a wooden sarcophagus protecting the deceased (2009: 130-131).

465 Pouls Wegner presented this research at the conference, Ritual Landscape and Performance, hosted by Yale University from September 23-24, 2016. Her paper was entitled, “Reading Abydos as the Landscape of Postmortem Transformation” and will be published in the conference proceedings (in preparation). This idea is also dealt with in Pouls Wegner’s forthcoming article in the British Museum volume, Abydos: The Sacred Land at the Western Horizon. I. Regulski (ed), in press.

466 Pouls Wegner suggests that the unusual orientation of the baboons depicted in the “Portal” Temple of Ramesses II face west to salute the sun/Osiris emerging from the Duat/Nut.

501

vicinity of the main temple that could have been barque stations or smaller chapels dedicated to

the goddess (Clarke 1922: pl. Va, b, e, and d; Hendrickx 1999: 291).467 Relief blocks depict

Amenhotep I adoring Nekhbet, emphasizing the king’s relationship to the local deity (Capart

1940: pl. 25; Van Siclen III 1999: 416).

Adjacent to and sharing the west wall of the expanded temple of Thutmosis III, the

temple constructed by Amenhotep II paralleled the first temple in architectural plan, but likely

had a different function (Capart 1940: pl. 7-8; Van Siclen III 1999: fig. 39.1). In the reign of

Ramesses II, the temple was dedicated to Nekhbet’s consort Thoth and to the god Sobek, but it

remains uncertain if this was case in the Eighteenth Dynasty (De Meulenaere 1969; Hendrickx

1999: 291; Limme 2008: 17; Vanlathem 2009: 177).468 An image of the barque of Nekhbet in

the temple of Amenhotep II (Van Siclen III 1999: 416) suggests that the sanctuary may have

housed the goddess’ physical barque and thus would have been intimately linked to Nekhbet’s

festival procession. An undated causeway connected the temple of Nekhbet to a quay on the Nile

providing evidence of potential water rites associated with the cult of Nekhbet (Vandersleyen

1970: 27-30; Hendrickx 1999: 291). As discussed previously, the date of the sacred lake located

north of the main temple precinct cannot be determined based on the lack of inscriptions or

467 The foundations of four small temples exist near the two main Eighteenth Dynasty temples but are of unknown function and date; Capart and Hendrickx suggest that one of the buildings may have been a mammisi (Capart 1940: 35; Hendrickx 1999: 291).

468 There are depictions of Ramesses II performing a ritual run before Nekhbet and Sobek. Additionally, the lower part of a kneeling statue found near the Nag Hilal belonged to a New Kingdom prophet of Sobek. Nekhbet and Sobek continued to be worshipped as the local pantheon during post-pharaonic temple building phases, and Sobek may have even had his own cult building (De Meulenaere 1969: 13-19). The Ramesside structure built in the Wadi Hilal, named the “el-Hammam,” was also dedicated to Thoth, among other gods and goddesses (Derchain 1971: 12; Hendrickx 1999: 291; Richter 2010: 165).

502

stratigraphic connection,469 but water rites on sacred lakes were an important component of festival rituals during the New Kingdom.470

The festival procession of Nekhbet connected royal and non-royal activity at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Like the Old Kingdom rock inscriptions carved in the Wadi

Hilal, most of the documented New Kingdom rock inscriptions (see Table 8.3) belong to clergy and administrators of the temple and settlement of Elkab, including priests of the goddess

Nekhbet (Hendrickx 1999: 290; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001a: 29-31, 35-36,

67, 69, 133, 156-258). The rock inscriptions attest to the existence of non-royal individuals directly involved with the main cult of Nekhbet, who manipulated natural features of the desert landscape to permanently partake in the rituals that took place at the site and to display social identity in that setting. The inscriptions are not simply the graffiti of travelers or miners, which are commonly found in the Eastern Desert from Elkab to the Wadi Allaqi.471 Factors contributing to this non-royal religious activity in the Wadi Hilal include previous ritual activity in the area, such as the Old Kingdom non-royal rock inscriptions, which established the site as an

469 De Meulenaere suggests that the sacred lake was constructed at the same time as the restorations of the temples during the Late Period (1970: 30-32). The original construction of the lake could conceivably be earlier.

470 Most information about New Kingdom festival processions derives from inscriptions and depictions of the Festival of Opet recorded at Karnak beginning during the reign of Hatshepsut (Lacau and Chevrier 1977: 158; Meyer 1998: 135-136; Waitkus 2008: 224-235; Darnell 2010: 1-2). During the Opet festival, the sacred barque of Amun was carried to and from specific temples using both land and water routes (Blyth 2006: 60-62; Darnell 2010: 4).

471 Rock inscriptions in the Eastern Desert during the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom are primarily due to state-sponsored expeditions traveling to various mines in the region. Marina Wilding Brown has discussed this topic at a number of conferences, including: a) the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Providence, RI April 28th, 2012 “Agents of Construction: the territoriality of ancient Egyptian rock inscriptions and modern functional parallels;” b) the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Chicago, IL, April 1st, 2011 “Duties of the Viceroy: Eastern Desert Inscriptions and the New Kingdom Nubian Desert Administration;” and c) the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Seattle, WA, April 26th, 2008 “Gold Mining in the Eastern Desert of Nubia: Mining Labor and Policy in the Middle Kingdom.”

503

area of historical religious significance, and New Kingdom components of the cult of Nekhbet,

which were bound by the annual festival procession.

The reflexive relationship between the built environment and physical landscape of the

Wadi Hilal during the New Kingdom stems from the mythology of Nekhbet in her form as a

desert goddess. As discussed in §5.2.3, Richter has demonstrated the association between

Nekhbet and the Myth of the Wandering Goddess, which is attested as early as the Old Kingdom

and became a major festival at Elkab during the Ptolemaic Period (2010: 155-163). The

peripteral temple of Amenhotep III, the Ramesside “el-Hammam” temple, the Ptolemaic

Hemispeos in the Wadi Hilal, as well as the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty temple of Nekhbet located

near the Nile, all allude to the myth and suggest that it was a significant component of the cult of

Nekhbet since at least the New Kingdom (Richter 2010: 162-163). The geographical

environment of the Wadi Hilal provides the ideal setting to reenact the myth and to be the cause

of both royal and non-royal activity at the site due to the symbolic significance of the landscape.

This activity in turn further established the Wadi Hilal as a place of religious importance that

displays continual manipulation of the physical environment until the Ptolemaic Period.

The built environment of Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty was intricately tied to the

myth, which involved a procession of divine barques on sacred lakes and the return of the

goddess from the Nubian desert according to accounts written during the Ptolemaic Period

(Richter 2010: 155). As discussed above, the main temple precinct of Nekhbet at the mouth of the Wadi Hilal had direct access to the Nile as a main water source for water ceremonies, as well as likely incorporating a sacred lake (Hendrickx 1999: 291). On occasion, the wadi itself was a source of water during rainy seasons when torrential downpours created a water channel east of the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III and in front of the Ptolemaic Hemispeos (Clarke 1922: 3;

504

Tylor 1989: 16; Richter 2010: 163, fig. 5). Richter has compared the shape of the water channel

in the Wadi Hilal to the Isheru lake associated with the temple of Mut at Karnak (2010: 163, fig.

3). A lost inscription from the Ptolemaic Hemispeos supports Richter’s idea that a similar lake

once existed at Elkab at least during the Ptolemaic Period.472 No remains of an artificial lake

have been unearthed in the Wadi Hilal, which suggests that the Egyptians associated specific

natural features with elements of divine cosmology. Further support for the sacred associations

between the physical landscape of the Wadi Hilal and the cult of Nekhbet is the projecting rock formation in the shape of a vulture, known as Vulture Rock, which has been an object of veneration as far back as the Predynastic Period, according to carved depictions of boats,

animals, anthropomorphic figures, and early cult buildings (Huyge 1984; Huyge 2002: 196-205;

Richter 2010: 163). Manipulation of the natural landscape by kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty

aimed to partake in the established local sacred significance of the desert valley in connection

with the festival procession of Nekhbet on an unparalleled scale.473

The connection between festival routes and royal and non-royal religious activity during

the New Kingdom commonly takes precedence over other types of movement across the

landscape, including expedition, mining, and traffic routes, as indicated at Elkab. The New

Kingdom rock inscriptions at Elephantine also represent a clear departure from Old Kingdom

472 Richter cites a passage recorded by Lepsius from the hemispeos, which states: “Nekhbet, Mut the Great, Lady of the Isheru of Nekheb, daughter of Ra…” (2010: n. 63); however, no earlier attestations of the term have been found at the site.

473 The block fragments of Sobekhotep III found within the main temple precinct of Nekhbet attest to at least one pre-New Kingdom barque chapel associated with the festival procession of Nekhbet (De Meulenaere 1972: 1226; Van Siclen III 1999: 415; Hendrickx 1999: 290; Eder 2002: 8-55; Limme 2008: fig. 7); however, the architectural layout of the structure remains uncertain. In addition, the location of the barque chapel near the main temple of Nekhbet and the absence of more widespread Middle Kingdom temples, especially in the Wadi Hilal, may indicate that the route of the festival procession did not cover as great a geographical area as in the New Kingdom and later periods, or that royal patronage was confined to the main temple precinct during the Middle Kingdom.

505

and Middle Kingdom rock inscriptions, which were widely distributed in areas along important

roads where busy traffic occurred and near the entrance to the main settlement (Seidlmayer 2003:

444-445). Furthermore, most of the Middle Kingdom rock inscriptions were carved by members

of the military in connection with the protection of trade routes (Seidlmayer 2012: 221). During

the New Kingdom, however, rock inscriptions were mainly carved by high officials with

positions in the administration and clergy of Elephantine and Thebes, and cluster in two

locations associated with the temple festival celebrations: a) Hassawanarti, an outcrop

overlooking the harbor where water rites were performed; and b) the platform of the temple of

Khnum where oracles occurred (Seidlmayer 1999: 42; Seidlmayer 2003: 443-444; Seidlmayer

2012: 221-224). As discussed above, the inscriptions indicate that their purpose was to ensure participation in the festival processions of Khnum and Anuket (Seidlmayer 1999: 42; Seidlmayer

2003: 443).474

Sherds of blue painted pottery recovered from dump layers close to the town enclosure,

surface finds and sebakh, and in individual houses located in the south house group adjacent the

temple of Khnum were particularly associated with the temple cult and barque processions of

Elephantine, and attest to an increased religious element of the site that is more widespread than

in earlier periods (Von Pilgrim 1996: 67-71, fig. 16; Budka 2008: 108; Budka 2010: 353-354;

Budka 2013: 190-195). The blue painted pottery at Elephantine is specifically connected to a cultic context rather than a domestic one (Budka 2008: 119, 131; Budka 2013: 201). A similar observation is made for the large quantity of faience female figurines (Type 5) of early to mid-

474 For further information about New Kingdom festival processions at Elephantine, see §6.2.1, §6.2.2 and §6.3.2.

506

Eighteenth Dynasty date that were recovered from the site (Kopp 2005: 85-90, figs. 27-28; Pinch

1993: 205-207).

A greater investment in the temple cult and festival celebrations of Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty is also observed at the royal level. The temple of Khnum became a large processional temple with a festival courtyard, barque shrine, and monumental platform with an altar used for oracular pronouncements during public festivals (Jaritz 1970: 94; Kaiser 1970:

113-114, Fig. 5; Jaritz 1980: 7, 14, 40; Jaritz 1982: 321; Cummings 1982: 24-28; Der Manuelian

1987: 47; Bommas 2000a: 80-121, 175-232, 297, figs. 12-13; Von Pilgrim 2001: 37-38, 44-45;

Von Pilgrim 2005: 38; Jaritz 2005: 341-400; Seidlmayer 2012: 219, fig. 1). The recent discovery of the small barque station built by Hatshepsut, and a potential earlier one built by Thutmosis I or

II by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute for Egyptian Building

Archaeology in the Khnum temple precinct (Arnold 2016: 30-34) attests to a significant degree of royal devotion at the site. Both buildings were originally located west of the main temple of

Khnum of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Blocks associated with the former structure depict Hatshepsut worshipping a processional barque of Khnum identified by an accompanying inscription (Arnold

2016: 31-32). Arnold suggests that the barque temple of Hatshepsut was originally attached to the western enclosure wall of the temple of Khnum and housed the barque of Khnum during the god’s festival procession (2016: 32).

Amenhotep III constructed a peripteral temple north of the temple of Satet along the processional road as a resting place for the barque of Khnum (Porter and Moss 1937: 227-230;

Badawy 1986: 290-291; Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 75; Johnson 1998: 78-79; Kaiser 2000: 167).

Ramesses II constructed a similar chapel during his reign, but no earlier peripteral temples exist on the island (Kaiser 1997: 179; Kaiser 2000: 167). The evidence attests to both royal and non-

507

royal participation in the New Kingdom festivals in the same spatial arena. According to Arnold,

the barque of Khnum first progressed westward toward the back of the temple of Khnum where

the barque station of Hatshepsut stood, then proceeded north to the landing stage near where

Amenhotep III constructed his barque station, possibly along the main street of the town (2016:

32). The landing stage was located in the area now occupied by a monumental Roman staircase

and faces the outcrop Hassawanarti, the location of many non-royal New Kingdom rock

inscriptions (Jaritz 1977: fig. 11; Arnold 2016: 32).475 The new built environment of Eighteenth

Dynasty Elephantine, particularly the establishment of the processional route, enabled the

intersection of royal and non-royal religious activity on an unprecedented scale. In turn, that

activity continued to shape the religious landscape of Elephantine throughout the New

Kingdom.476

To date, no information regarding festival processions has been uncovered at Mendes or

Sai Island. Both sites exhibit prominent royal patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but the

denuded remains of the main temples at Mendes and Sai Island have not yielded significant

information regarding temple rituals during this time. During the Ramesside Period, the temple

of Banebdjed at Mendes was built as a processional temple and likely contained a barque shrine,

but as the excavator notes, it is difficult to determine if the Ramesside temple maintained the

original design of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple (Redford 2010a: 78, 124). Helck includes the

475 The landing stage for water rites seems to have been located north of the temple of Khnum, because the elevation of the island was closer to the Nile at this point (Arnold 2016: 32).

476 This activity is clearly demonstrated by the peripteral temple of Ramesses II, proliferation in the use of blue painted pottery, and an increase of rock inscriptions associated with the festival procession of Nekhbet during the Ramesside Period (Kaiser 1997: 179; Kaiser 2000: 167; Budka 2008: 119, 131-132, tab. III; Seidlmayer 2012: 221- 224; Budka 2013: 202).

508

name of a festival leader of the ram of Mendes, StXi, under the reign of Horemheb, attesting to cultic activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but no further details about the festival are provided (1961a: 970 no. 140). The fifth day of the first month of harvest is designated as

Banebdjed’s feast day according to the Cairo Calendar of Lucky and Unlucky Days (probably dated to the Middle Kingdom), indicating that temple rituals at Mendes likely involved the ram- god’s feast days as well as ceremonies involving the care and adornment of a live ram chosen as the embodiment of the god described in post-New Kingdom accounts (Redford 2010a: 126-128).

Three harbors have been excavated at Mendes that could have been associated with water

processions, but no cult installations have been unearthed at any of them (Redford 2010a: 173-

176). An artificial water-basin possibly dating to the reign of Amasis was discovered south of the

great temenos of the temple of Banebdjed, but its designation as a sacred lake is disputed

(Redford 2010a: 171-172). Further excavation in the south and southeast areas of the site is

desirable in order to better understand the relationship between the temple of Banebdjed and

surrounding structures.

The most significant evidence for the festival procession of Banebdjed derives from a

large stela of Ptolemy II found at Mendes, known as the Great Mendes Stela, which mentions the

barque of Banebdjed and Ptolemy’s involvement in controlling the movement of the barque to

specific locations as was traditionally done by previous kings (Sethe 1904: 28-54 no. 13; Roeder

1959: 168-188; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976: 173-177; Clarysse 2007; Redford 2010a:

194). Most of the locations involved the use of water routes (Redford 2010a: 194-196). The

importance of watery environments for Egyptian rituals and the significance of the Delta in this

509

regard has been recently discussed by Baines.477 Correlating the toponyms written in the

Ptolemaic stela with specific features of the natural and built environment of Mendes, however,

is a difficult task and only a few toponyms have been identified so far (Redford 2010a: 195-196;

Redford 2013).478 The route of Ptolemy’s travels begins with water sites, moves to the main temple, then finally leads across another body of water to the Mansion of the Rams (Redford

2010a: 194-196). Other cult buildings associated with the temple of Banebdjed constructed during the reign of Amasis may also be included in the stela. One of the toponyms has recently been identified as temple T, the mausoleum of ram mothers constructed by Amasis north of the first pylon of the temple of Banebdjed (Redford 2013: 173-274). Amasis appears to have built a

number of auxiliary buildings in the vicinity of the main temple as supplementary cult structures,

which have been observed via satellite imaging (Redford 2013: 274). The Great Mendes stela of

Ptolemy II suggests that earlier processional routes of the barque of Banebdjed may have

followed a similar trajectory and involved several elements of both the built environment and the

physical landscape unified by local ritual.

The ritual landscape of Sai Island was not formed until the Eighteenth Dynasty when

Thutmosis III built the small temple dedicated to Amun-Re (temple A) located along the eastern enclosure wall of the site (Vercoutter 1958; Vercoutter 1970; Vercoutter 1973; Thill 1997: 105;

477 Baines presented a talk on the subject entitled, “Watery Landscapes and Performances Within Them” at the Yale University conference Ritual Landscape and Performance held from September 23-24, 2016. A publication of the conference proceedings is forthcoming.

478 Redford suggests that the “Water of the Anchorage” mentioned in the stela of Ptolemy II represents the outer harbor, while the “Great Canal” is the Mendesian branch of the Nile or perhaps the Butic canal (2010a: 195). In addition, the main temple of Banebdjed, the hypogeum of the sacred rams, and the mausoleum of the mothers of the rams have been identified as stopping places along Ptolemy’s route (Redford 2013: 273).

510

Rocheleau 2008: 59; Azim and Carlotti 2012: 12).479 Although previous occupation of the island existed since the Prehistoric Period, Egyptian occupation at the beginning of the Eighteenth

Dynasty changed the landscape into a developed Pharaonic temple town, including a fortified settlement, temple, administrative buildings, two cemeteries, and quarries (Vercoutter 1958;

Vercoutter 1973; Azim 1975; Geus 1995; Goossens, De Dapper, and De Paepe 1997; Hesse

1997; Geus 1998; Geus 2000; Budka 2011a: 24; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 168-171; Garcea

2014). The temple as well as votive objects found scattered throughout debris from the settlement attest to cultic activity in the town during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Temple A continued to be the focus of royal patronage until the reign of Amenhotep III

(Azim and Carlotti 2012: 12-14, 45-47, pl. XVIb). The main axis of the temple was built perpendicular to the Nile, but portions built closest to the east facing the river were destroyed during the Late Period, so that the architectural details of the front court and entrance to the temple are unknown (Thill 1997: 105). No evidence of a sacred lake or clear harbor location has yet been found on Sai Island, but two thirds of the town have not been excavated, especially the areas north and northwest of temple A (Budka 2012; Budka 2013; Budka 2014a; Budka 2015a;

Budka 2018b: 293-294). Water basins as sources of purification attached to temples have been found at other sites in Nubia, such as the Meroitic temples at Doukki Gel and Meroe (Rocheleau

2005: 197-198; Török 1997: 120; Török 2002: 29-30). Epigraphic evidence recovered from temple A names Amun as the god to whom the cult was dedicated but does not provide further information about ceremonies associated with the temple or god (Vercoutter 1974: 32; Thill

479 Eight foundation deposits were found under the walls and corners of the temple with inscribed objects naming Thutmosis III (Vercoutter 1970: 29-31; Vercoutter 1973: 14-18, pl. II-III; Vercoutter 1990: 1025-1032; Thill 1997; Rocheleau 2008: 59).

511

1997: 114, fig. 2; Rocheleau 2008: 59). Block fragment S.64 recovered from the temple area

depicts a king and Queen Ahmose-Nefertary following in procession (Minault-Gout 2007: 281).

Berg suggests that the scene represents a statue procession, but the rest of the scene is missing

(1987: 5).

The association between Nubia and the origin of the sacred waters of the Nile was

probably one of the reasons why Egyptian kings set up temples dedicated to Egyptian gods in

Nubia (Loeben 1995: 154; Török 2002: 10-13). Hein has suggested that Egyptian rock temples in

New Kingdom Nubia functioned as river stations in a cult procession along the Nubian Nile, thus

transforming the Nubian landscape into a cohesive sacred environment (1991: 129ff; 1994: 131-

135). In the temple of Amun, Bull of Nubia at Sanam, fragments of relief depicting a river procession dated to the Kushite period indicate that barque processions of Amun did occur in

Nubia (Török 1997: 304-306, 314, 319; Török 2002: 35-39; Rocheleau 2005: 30). Further evidence occurs at Kawa where the remains of a Twenty-Fifth Dynasty barque shrine east of the

Amun temple precinct and an inscription in the hypostyle hall of temple T, which mentions a barque procession of Amun of Kawa, indicate that processional routes were a prominent component of the sacred landscape of Nubian towns (Macadam 1955: 53; Török 2002: 25-26).

At Wad ban Naqa, three barque stands were found in side chapels of the southeast temple, and at

Gebel Barkal a barque repository B 504C has been compared to the Hall of Offerings in the

temple of Luxor (Török 2002: 31-33). Although much of the surviving information relating to

processional rituals derives from post-New Kingdom evidence in Nubia, the layout of Kushite

cult precincts could have been adapted from earlier Egyptian models for their own needs,

transforming them to suit their purposes. The relationship between the built environment and

natural landscape combined the ideological conceptualization of cosmology with geography in

Egypt and Nubia.

512

Chapter 9 Conclusion

Royal investment in provincial cults during the Eighteenth Dynasty was the product of a number

of factors. Politically, the reunification of the country after the events of the Second Intermediate

Period coincided with a proliferation of royal building programs in provincial towns throughout

Egypt and Nubia. The founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Ahmose II, initiated the construction

of a major royal cult complex in South Abydos that was conceptually linked to the building

program of Senwosret III and identified the deceased king with Osiris. Amenhotep I continued

the tradition of ancestor veneration by constructing a temple dedicated to the deified Ahmose II

in North Abydos. Block fragments at Elkab and artifacts from Sai Island suggest that Amenhotep

I played an active role in establishing royal cult institutions in provincial towns in Egypt and

Nubia at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.480

Evidence of royal investment by Thutmosis I and Thutmosis II is elusive at most

Eighteenth Dynasty provincial sites, often limited to incomplete data provided by fragments of

wall relief blocks, architectural parts, stelae, and statues. This kind of evidence occurs at North

Abydos, Elephantine (temple of Khnum), Elkab, and Sai Island. Several scholars suggest that

evidence for Thutmosis I and Thutmosis II in cult institutions in the provinces is due to

veneration by their successors rather than building programs carried out under the reigns of these kings (Bommas 2000a: 56, 58, 62-63).481

480 See Appendix A3 and A5.

481 Recent evidence recovered from Elephantine, however, suggests that Thutmosis I built a separate cult structure within the Khnum temple precinct (Arnold 2016: 30-32).

513

The time of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III appears to be a watershed for increased state

involvement in ritual landscapes in provincial areas. Hatshepsut was particularly active at

Elephantine, where she is accredited with the construction of the first Eighteenth Dynasty

temples dedicated to Satet and to Khnum as well as a barque shrine in the Khnum temple

precinct. As noted in §6.2.2, compared to the temple of Khnum, the temple of Satet was the preeminent cult structure at Elephantine in terms of size and architectural layout during the reign of Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut may have been specifically invested in cults of goddesses. She

contributed to the construction of the temple of Nekhbet at Elkab, and indirect evidence indicates

that she may have played a role in the cult institutions of North Abydos and Sai Island,

suggesting that Hatshepsut may have been even more active in the provinces than previously

thought. Politically, Hatshepsut may have had added incentives for identifying herself with royal

predecessors in order to ensure the stability of her succession. She was also active in reshaping

the Theban landscape through formalization of processional routes associated with the Opet

festival and the Beautiful Feast of the Valley (Cabrol 2001: 774; Blyth 2006: 53ff).

At all five sites analyzed in this dissertation, the most extensive royal building activity

was conducted by Thutmosis III. Foundation deposits unearthed at Mendes, North Abydos,

Elkab, and Sai Island provide concrete evidence for Thutmosis III’s investment in local

provincial cults.482 At Elephantine, numerous block fragments and architectural elements,

including architraves, pillars, column drums, and an obelisk fragment attest to Thutmosis III’s

involvement in the construction of the temples of Satet and Khnum. Thutmosis III appears to have been most active in the temple of Khnum, perhaps due to the god’s association with

482 See Appendix A1, A2, A3, and A5.

514

creation as the “father” of mankind and as the ba of Geb and Osiris linking Khnum to the

concept of divine kingship (Sauneron 1964: 33ff; Otto 1975: 951-953; O’Rourke 2001: 231-

232).

In the ensuing periods, foundation deposits of Amenhotep II attest to his commission of a

second major Eighteenth Dynasty temple in the precinct of Nekhbet at Elkab and architectural

elements excavated at Elephantine and Sai Island suggest that Amenhotep II played a role in

their local cults. Thutmosis IV’s activities have been less well documented in the provinces, but

reused block fragments attest to his investment in the temple of Khnum at Elephantine.

Furthermore, relief decoration depicting Thutmosis IV and the proportions of figures with

Thutmoside features in the peripteral temple of Amenhotep III at Elkab suggest that Thutmosis

IV may have been the original builder of that structure (Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 80-81).

Substantial block fragments with the figure and royal titulary of Thutmosis IV recently

excavated in the vicinity of the Late Period temple of Osiris in North Abydos suggest that a

major Eighteenth Dynasty temple or addition to an existing temple structure was constructed by

Thutmosis IV in the interior of the Osiris Temple Enclosure (Marlar 2007: 1257-1258; Marlar

2009: 193, 215-234, figs. 106, 109, 110B, 111, 112, 113, 115). Thutmosis IV’s successor,

Amenhotep III, built extensively in the provinces, second only to Thutmosis III, often expanding

earlier Eighteenth Dynasty temples by adding a large forecourt.483 In addition, both Thutmosis

III and Amenhotep III were the most active builders of peripteral temples located outside of the

483 This activity occurred at North Abydos where Amenhotep III added a forecourt to the temple of Thutmosis III and at Elkab where he constructed a pylon in front of the temple Nekhbet (Petrie 1902: 31, pl. LXI nos. 3-4; Petrie 1903: 18; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Van Siclen III 1999: fig. 39.1; Pouls Wegner 2002: fig. 35).

515

main temple precinct in provincial towns.484 The activities of the succeeding rulers are scarce in

the provinces, although Akhenaten may have been active at select sites early in his reign.485

Individual motivations behind selecting the location and architectural design of cult

temples in the provinces may have been specific to each king. However, common themes

prevalent across sites reflect a broader program aimed at connecting Eighteenth Dynasty kings to

local deities and their cults, as well as to the activities of royal ancestors.486 Like the Middle

Kingdom pattern of royal investment throughout Egypt, royal patronage expressed through the

building program of Eighteenth Dynasty kings linked local cult institutions to the centralized

Egyptian state. Undoubtedly, economic and administrative ties between the state and provincial

towns were solidified by royal investment in provincial cult temples. However, specific

architectural features of Eighteenth Dynasty provincial cult temples may be explicitly connected

to local aspects of divine cults, such as the vertical shaft built into the foundations of the

Eighteenth Dynasty temple of Satet, representing a significant development of temple

construction that was both influenced by and further enriched the built environment of sacred

landscapes in the provinces. The addition of Eighteenth Dynasty peripteral temples at many

provincial sites further solidified the king’s involvement in local festival processions on an

unprecedented scale.

484 Thutmosis III constructed periptertal temples at North Abydos and Elkab, while Amenhotep III constructed peripteral temples at Elkab and Elephantine.

485 Amarna period statue fragments and seal impressions were recovered at Elephantine while talatat blocks were excavated among the debris recovered from the Portal Temple of Ramesses II (Petrie 1903: pl. 39, upper left; Silverman 1989: 269-277; Junge 1991: 192-194; Simpson 1995: 74-77, NK 41-47; Budka 2005: 106-108; Wegner 2017c: 97-99).

486 See §8.2.2 above. Also see Redford 1986: 103ff.

516

At each of the five sites discussed in this dissertation, symbolic associations between the

attributes and myths of local gods and the kingship are strongly highlighted – Mendes:

Banebdjed, fertility god and father of the king in his personifications as Re and Osiris (Kessler

1989: 154-157; Derchain 1999: 22; Leitz 2002a: 684-685); Abydos: Osiris, father of kingship

and post-mortem transformation (Griffiths 1980; Griffiths 1982b: 623-633; Griffiths 2001: 616-

618); Elkab: Nekhbet, tutelary goddess, protector of kingship (Heerma van Voss 1980: 366-367;

Leprohon 2013: 8, 13-15); Elephantine: Khnum, creator god who fashions the future king and

controls annual inundation (Badawi 1937; Otto 1975: 950-954; Bickel 1991; O’Rourke 2001:

231-232); and Sai Island: Amun, supreme creator, lord of the gods, and father of the king

(Wainwright 1934; Otto 1966; Tobin 2001: 82-84). Individual Eighteenth Dynasty rulers may

have been emphasizing their connection to these particular provincial cults because the attributes

of particular gods at these sites resonated with aspects of royal ideology and divine kingship that

specific rulers wanted to emphasize.

Beyond the level of household religion, non-royal activity associated with Eighteenth

Dynasty cult institutions is intimately linked to festival processions. Evidence consisting of private offerings chapels, small finds including human and animal figurines, votive pottery, statues, votive stelae, and rock inscriptions attests to non-royal religious activity along processional routes for the barque shrines of local deities at Abydos, Elkab, and Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty. At all three sites, the interaction between royal religious activity and non-royal religious activity conducted by individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds occurs predominantly in physical spaces located outside main temple precincts.

Non-royal investment is noted within provincial cult temple complexes but is restricted to items belonging to the upper echelons of Egyptian society, including intermediary statues and votive stelae. One notable exception is the group of faience female figurines recovered from the area of

517

the temple of Satet at Elephantine, which may suggest that temples dedicated to goddesses provided a more accessible forum for popular cults during the Eighteenth Dynasty.487 The deposit of votive dishes unearthed at the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III located in the Votive

Zone at North Abydos indicates that this theory extends to other types of temples located outside main temple precincts. Peripteral temples are by definition associated with processions, which may suggest that the general populace only had access to these temples during festivals.

However, the possibility that votive objects were brought to and used in peripteral temples during other types of rituals cannot be ruled out.488 Festival processional routes and sacred landscapes offer the ideal setting in which to examine the interaction between royal and non- royal religious activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Although the donors of uninscribed votive offerings are difficult to identify, inscriptional material recovered from processional routes and from images of processions in tombs demonstrates that festivals involved participants from a range of socio-economic backgrounds who actively engaged in cult activity associated with state-run institutions (Bell 1997: 135; Meyer 1998: 135-136; Cabrol 2001: 720-727; Cruz-

487 This idea has been advocated by Pinch based on the large quantities of small votive objects found at shrines dedicated to Hathor during the New Kingdom (see Pinch 1993: 79, 329; Pinch and Waraksa 2009: 4). Female figurines were also recovered from the temple of Mut at Karnak and Waraksa has associated them with magical spells calling for the clay image of a goddess (2009: 169). Furthermore, Marlar suggests a connection between clay female figurines found within the Osiris Temple Enclosure and a cult installation dedicated to Isis (2007b: 117). Female figurines in temple contexts associated with male deities are rare and may have been dedicated to co-templar goddesses in these contexts (see Pinch 1993: 221). However, Marlar suggests that other types of ‘erotic’ votive objects, such as phalli and the Osiris Temple Enclosure plaque depicting a man and woman engaged in sexual intercourse, may have been common offerings in temples associated with fertility gods like Osiris and Min (2007b: 116, 118). Considering this evidence, the above statement may need to be amended to include temples dedicated to fertility goddesses and gods during the New Kingdom. This hypothesis remains speculative, however, and must take into consideration the quantity and range of small finds dedicated in divine temples during the Eighteenth Dynasty including, for example, ear stelae (see Pinch 1993: 248-253; Toye-Dubs 2016). Perhaps it was the case that certain deities (male and female), based on their specific attributes, were considered more “approachable” or lent themselves to more “popular” worship. Further research is warranted.

488 Pouls Wegner suggests that the votive dishes associated with the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III could have been “brought to the temple and placed before altars or statue emplacements either as part of the daily offering ritual or on special occasions such as festival days” (2002: 390).

518

Uribe 2002; Eaton-Krauss 2006; Brand 2007: 64-65; Waitkus 2008: 224-235; Darnell 2010: 2, 8-

9; Bussmann 2016: 45; Cruz-Uribe 2016: 10-44; Salvador 2016: 117-120).489

During the Eighteenth Dynasty, royal religious activity represented by provincial cult temples, peripteral temples, and ka chapels often intersected and intertwined with non-royal religious activity occurring in the same physical space. The sacred landscapes of provincial towns demarcated by cult institutions, festival processional routes, previous religious activity, and sacred geography allowed royal and non-royal individuals to partake in mutual interactions.

Royal involvement in provincial cults ensured economic, administrative, and political advantages throughout Egypt and allowed the king to benefit from perpetuating the cults of local deities by appeasing the gods that could grant him favor. At the same time, non-royal participants could display their social status in relation to the king and to each other as well as promote devotion to their local deities in the public arena provided by festival celebrations. Shifting patterns of activity at each of the five sites may relate to core-periphery relationships and the relations between elites and the state. The historical context of each site provides important information about changing administrative strategies for establishing political, economic, and administrative control over provincial Egypt.

This study proves that traditionally assumed binary oppositions, or contrasts, between center and periphery, residence versus province, and state versus private religious systems can be moderated through careful analysis of the integration of material remnants of royal and non-royal

489 Some of the country’s major temples may, however, have remained inaccessible to all but the top of the social hierarchy. Cf. Salvador’s recent suggestion that the southern processional way at Karnak was not accessible to the wider population during the New Kingdom but restricted to elite and sub-elite individuals living and working in the temple of Amun (2016: 119-120).

519

votive activity acting within specific historical and geographical settings. This approach has

demonstrated clearly that commonalities and synthesis between royal and private spheres occur

through the manipulation of the built environment and natural landscape by both royal and non-

royal individuals, as well as in their combined participation in local cult institutions attested by

festival processions during the Eighteenth Dynasty. This thesis also contributes to our

understanding of central versus local religious milieus, in which royal and non-royal activities

played out in different forms and to different degrees. As noted by other scholars,490 transcendence of theories on formal dualisms between social constructs, such as state versus periphery, can be easily achieved when considering the entire cultural system: material culture, pictorial, inscriptional, historical, and geographical data provide a comprehensive perspective of the complex relationship between royal and non-royal religious activity in the provinces.

490 Bussmann has approached this topic by examining architecture, inscriptions, and votive assemblages associated with Early Dynastic provincial temples (see Bussmann 2010: 9-10; Bussmann 2013: 21; Bussmann 2016: 38-39, 42- 47).

520

Abbreviations

AAAS Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes

AJA American Journal of Archaeology

ANM Archéologie du Nil Moyen

ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte

ATPN Akhenaten Temple Project Newsletter

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar

BIFAO Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale

BMMA Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

BSAB Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire

BSFE Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie

CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal

CCE Cahier de la céramique égyptienne

CdE Chronique d’Égypte

CRIPEL Cahier de recherches de l’institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille

EA Egyptian Archaeology, the Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society

ENIM Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne

GM Göttinger Miszellen

JAEA The Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture

JAEI Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections

521

JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions

JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JEH Journal of Egyptian History

JIIA Journal of Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Archaeology

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology

JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo

NARCE Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt

NEA Near Eastern Archaeology

OG Orientalia Gandensia

PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology

RAIN Royal Anthropological Institute Newsletter

RdE Revue d’Égyptologie

RT Recueil de traveaux relatifs à la philology et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes

SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur

SDAIK Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abt. Kairo

SPAW Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde

522

Bibliography

Abd el-Maksoud, M. 1998 Tell Heboua (1981-1991). Enquête archéologique sur la Deuxième Période Intermédiaire et le Nouvel Empire a l’éxtremité orientale du Delta. Paris: Ministère des Affaires Etrangères; Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Adams, B. 1974 Ancient Hierakonpolis. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Adams, E. 2004 “Power and Ritual in Neopalatial Crete: a Regional Comparison.” World Archaeology 36(1): 26-42.

Adams, M. D. 1992 “Community and Societal Organization in Early Historic Egypt: Introductory Report on 1991–92 Fieldwork Conducted at the Abydos Settlement Site.” NARCE 158/159: 1–10.

1998 “The Abydos Settlement Site Project: Investigation of a Major Provincial Town in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995. C. J. Eyre (ed). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters: 19-30.

2001 “Digging in the Ancient Town of Abydos.” Archaeology 54(4): 55.

1999 “Abydos, North.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 106-109.

2005 Community and Society in the First Intermediate Period: An Archaeological Investigation of the Abydos Settlement Site. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

Adams, M. J. 2007 “The Early Dynastic through Old Kingdom Stratification at Tell er-Rub’a, Mendes.” PhD Dissertation: Pennsylvania State University.

2009 “Chapter 5. An Interim Report on the Naqada III – First Intermediate Period Stratification at Mendes 1999-2005.” In Delta Reports I. Research in Lower Egypt. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 121-206.

523

Adams, R. M. 1966 The Evolution of Urban Society. New Brunswick and London: Aldine Transactions.

1972 “Patterns of urbanization in early southern Mesopotamia.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 735-749.

Adams, R. M. and H. J. Nissen 1971 The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Adenstedt, I. 2013 “5. The Architectural Survey in the New Kingdom Town.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwork 2013 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). J. Budka (ed): 20-23. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-2013.pdf.

2016 Reconstructing Pharaonic Architecture in Nubia. The Case Study of SAV1, Sai Island. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science Press.

Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and G. M. Schwartz 2003 The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16, 000-300 B.C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, J. C. 1988 “The New Theoretical Movement.” In Handbook of Sociology. N. J. Smelseer (ed). Newbury Park: Sage: 77-102.

Algaze, G. 2008 Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of the Urban Landscape. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Allen, J. P. 1986 “The Pyramid Texts of Queens Jpwt and Wdbt-n.(j).” JARCE 23: 1-25.

2005 The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

2006 The Egyptian Coffin Texts. Volume 8: Middle Kingdom Copies of Pyramid Texts. Chicago: Oriental Instiute of the University of Chicago.

Allen, S. J. 1998 “Queen’s Ware: Royal Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. C. J. Eyre (ed). Leuven: Peeters: 39-48.

524

Allen, S. J. and K. L. Wilson 1979 “Excavations at Mendes 1976-79.” In L’egyptologie en 1979: axes prioritaires de recherches. vol. 1. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique: 139-151.

Allen, T. G. 1974 The Book of the Dead or Going Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as Expressed in Their Own Terms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Amélineau, E. 1896-1898 Les Nouvelles Fouilles d’Abydos. 4 vols. Angers: A. Burdin.

1988 Le Tombeau d’Osiris. Paris: E. Leroux.

Andreu, G., M. H. Rutschowscaya, and C. Ziegler 1997 Ancient Egypt at the Louvre. Paris: Hachette.

Archer, M. 1988 Culture and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1995 Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arkell, A. J. 1950 “Varia Sudanica.” JEA 36: 34.

Arnold, D. 1962 Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in ägyptischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 2. Berlin: Bruno Hessling.

1974a Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari I: Architektur und Deutung. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1974b Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari II: Die Wandreliefs des Sanktuares. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1991 Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

1992 Die Tempel Ägyptens: Götterwohnungen, Kultstätten, Baudenkmäler. Zürich: Artemis & Winkler.

1994 Lexikon der ägyptischen Baukunst. Zürich: Artemis & Winkler.

525

1996 “Hypostyle Halls of the Old and Middle Kingdom?” In Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson. vol. 1. P. der Manuelian (ed). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts: 39-54.

1997 “Royal Cult Complexes of the Old and Middle Kingdom.” In Temples of Ancient Egypt. B. Schafer (ed). Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 31-85.

1999 Temples of the Last Pharaohs. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

2003 The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture. London and New York: I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.

Arnold, F. 2008 “3. The Khnum Temple Precinct in the Ptolemaic-Roman Period (pl. IV).” In Report on the 37th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 7-9. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele37_rep_en.pdf.

2010 “2. The Satet Temple of the New Kingdom: Architectural Documentation (Figs. 6-8).” In Report on the 39th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. P. Kopp et al: 7-14. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele39_rep_en.pdf.

2011 “2. The Foundation of the New Kingdom Satet Temple (Fig. 10)”. In Report on the 40th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. P. Kopp et al. 9-11. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele40_rep_en.pdf.

2012 “6. Khnum Temple of the New Kingdom.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2011 to spring 2012. F. Arnold et al: 11-13. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele41_rep_en.pdf.

2013 “5. The Khnum Temple of the New Kingdom.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from Autumn 2012 to Spring 2013. F. Arnold et al: 13-14. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele42_rep_en.pdf.

2014a “4. The Khnum Temple of the New Kingdom.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from Autumn 2013 to Spring 2014. F. Arnold et al: 8-10. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele43_rep_en.pdf.

526

2014b “6. The Stable of the Sacred Ram.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from Autumn 2013 to Spring 2014. F. Arnold et al: 13-14. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele43_rep_en.pdf.

2016 “4. The Khnum Temple of the New Kingdom.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2015 to summer 2016. S. J. Seidlmayer et al: 30-34. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

Amélineau, E. 1988 Le Tombeau d’Osiris. Paris: E. Leroux.

Assmann, J. 1984 Ägypten: Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

1989 “State and Religion in the New Kingdom.” In Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt. Yale Egyptological Studies 3. W. K. Simpson (ed). New Haven: Yale University Press: 55-88.

1991 Stein und Zeit. Mensch und Gesellschaft im alten Ägypten. München: Fink Wilhelm GmbH and Company KG.

2001 The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

2002 The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Aston, D. A. 1996 Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (twelfth-seventh centuries B.C.): Tentative Footsteps in a Forbidding Terrain. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.

1999 Elephantine XIX. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Atherton-Woolham, S. and L. McKnight 2015 “2.2 Animals as Votive Offerings in ancient Egypt.” In Gifts for the Gods: Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies and the British. L. McKnight and S. Atherton- Woolham (eds). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press: 23-24.

Auenmüller, J. 2012 “Individuum – Gruppe – Gesellschaft – Raum: Raumsoziologische Perspektivierungen einiger (provinzieller) HA.tj-a-Bürgermeister des Neuen

527

Reiches.” In Sozialisationen: Individuum – Gruppe – Gesellschaft: Beiträge des ersten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA), 3. Bis 5.12.2010. G. Neunert, K. Gabler, and A. Verbovsek (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 17-32.

2013 Die Territorialität der Ägyptischen Elite(n) des Neuen Reiches: Eine Studie zu Raum und räumlichen Relationen im textlichen Diskurs, anhand prosopografischer Daten und im archäologischen Record. PhD Dissertation: Freien Universität Berlin.

2014 “The Location of New Kingdom Elite Tombs: Space, Place and Significance.” Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 18: 171-193.

2015 “Gefolgschaft und Nähe: räumliche Relationen zwischen König und Elite im elitären Diskurs des Neuen Reiches.” In Text: Wissen – Wirkung – Wahrnehmung: Beiträge des vierten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Ägyptologie (MAJA 4) 29.11. bis 1.12.2013. G. Neunert, H. Simon, A. Verbovsek, and K. Gabler (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 75-88.

2018 “New Kingdom Towns in Upper Nubia: Sai, Soleb and Amara West in Prosopographical Perspective.” In From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Individual Households and Cities in Ancient Egypt and Nubia. J. Budka and J. Auenmüller (eds). Leiden: Sidestone: 239-260.

Aufrère, S. H., J-C. Golvin, and J-C. Goyon 1991 L’Egypte Restituée I: Sites et temples du Haute Égypte. Paris: Editions Errance.

Ausec, C. L. 2010 Gods Who Hear Prayers: Popular Piety or Kingship in Three Theban Monuments of New Kingdom Egypt. PhD Dissertation: University of California Berkeley.

Ayrton, E. R., C. T. Currelly, and A. E. P. Weigall 1904 Abydos III. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Ayrton, E. R. and L. Loat 1908 “Excavations at Abydos.” Archaeological Report (Egypt Exploration Fund) 1908- 1909: 2-5. Azim, M. 1975 “Quatre campagnes de fouilles sur la Forteresse de Saï, 1970-1973. 1ère Partie: l’installation pharaonique.” CRIPEL 3: 91-125.

Azim, M. and J-F. Carlotti 2012 “Le temple A de l’ȋle de Saï et ses abords.” CRIPEL 29: 11-65.

Backes, B. 2001 “Piété personnelle au Moyen Empire? À propos de la stele de Nebpou (Ny Carlsberg AEIN 1540).” Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie Genève 24: 5-9.

528

Backhouse, J. 2013 “Female Figurines from Deir el-Medina: A Review of Evidence for their Iconography and Function.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2012: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium, University of Birmingham 2012. C. Graves et al. (eds). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 22-40.

Badawi, A. M. 1937 Der Gott Chnum. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.

Badawy, A. 1954 A History of Egyptian Architecture: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Old Kingdom. vol. 1. Cairo: Imprimerie Urwand Fils.

1966 A History of Egyptian Architecture: The First Intermediate Period, The Middle Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period. vol 2. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1968 A History of Egyptian Architecture: The Empire (The New Kingdom) From the Eighteenth Dynasty to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. vol. 3. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Baer, K. 1974 Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom: The Structure of the Egyptian Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baines, J. 1976 “Temple Symbolism.” RAIN 15: 10-15.

1984 “Interpretations of Religion: logic, discourse, rationality.” GM 76: 25-54.

1987 “Practical Religion and Piety.” JEA 73: 79-98.

1988 “12. Literacy, Social Organization, and the Archaeological Record: The Case of Early Egypt.” In State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization. B. Bender, J. Gledhill, and M. T. Larsen (eds). London and Boston: Unwin Hyman: 192-209.

1990 “Restricted knowledge, hierarchy, and decorum: Modern perceptions and ancient institutions.” JARCE 27: 1-23.

1991 “Society, Morality, and Religious Practice.” In Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. B. E. Shafer (ed). Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 123-200.

1995 “Origins of Egyptian Kingship.” In Ancient Egyptian Kingship. D. O’Connor and D. P. Silverman (eds). Leiden, New York, and Köln: E. J. Brill: 95-156.

529

1997 “Temples as Symbols, Guarantors, and Participants in Egyptian Civilization.” In The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research. S. Quirke (ed). London: British Museum Press: 216-241.

2004 “Modelling Sources, Processes and Locations of Early Mortuary Texts.” In D’un monde à l’autre: Textes des Pyramides & Textes des Sarcophages. S. Bickel and B. Mathieu (eds). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 15-42.

2009 “The Stelae of Amenisonbe from Abydos and Middle Kingdom display of Personal Religion.” In Sitting beside Lepsius: Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute. D. Magee, J. Bourriau, and S. Quirke (eds). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies: 1-22.

2016 “Watery Landscapes and Performances Within Them.” Paper presented at the Yale Egyptology conference Ritual Landscape and Performance. Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations, Yale University, September 23-24. Proceedings forthcoming.

Baines, J. and E. Frood 2011 “Piety, Change and Display in the New Kingdom.” In Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen. M. Collier and S. Snape (eds). Bolton: Rutherford Press Ltd: 1-17.

Baines, J. and N. Yoffee 1998 “Chapter 1. Order, Legitimacy and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.” In Archaic States. G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press: 199-260.

Bard, K. 2000 “4. The Emergence of the Egyptian State (c.3200-2686 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. I. Shaw (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 61-88.

2008a “Royal Cities and Cult Centers, Administrative Towns, and Workmen’s Settlements in Ancient Egypt.” In The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World. J. Marcus and J. Sabloff (eds). Santa Fe: School of Advanced Research Press: 167-185.

2008b An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Barrett, J. C. 2001 “Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record.” In Archaeological Theory Today. I. Hodder (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 141-164.

530

Bartel, H.-G. 2002 “Funktionale Aspekte des Täglichen Rituals im Tempel Sethos’ I. in Abydos.” In 5. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Würzburg, 23.-26. September 1999. H. Beinlich, J. Hallof, H. Hussy, and C. von Pfeil (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 1- 16.

Beaux, N. 1990 Le cabinet de curiosités de Thoumosis III: plantes et animaux du “Jardin botanique” de Karnak. Orientalia Lovaniensis Analecta 36. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek.

Beckerath, J. von 1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.

Bednarski, A. 2013 “ARCE’s Excavation of the Tomb of Djehuty (TT 110).” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 203: cover.

Begelsbacher-Fischer, B. L. 1981 Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des Alten Reiches: im Spiegel der Privatgäber der IV. and V. Dynastie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Behrens, P. 1986 “Widder.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 6. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 1243-1245.

Bell, L. 1985 “Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka.” JNES 44(4): 251-294.

1996a “Ancestor Worship and Divine Kingship in the Ancient Nile Valley.” In Egypt in Africa. T. Celenko (ed). Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art: 56-58.

1996b “The Meaning of the Term Ka in the Instructions of Ptahhotep.” In Program & Abstracts. Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egyp, St. Louis, April 12-14t. New York: American Research Center in Egypt: 30-31.

1997 “The New Kingdom ‘Divine’ Temple: The Example of Luxor.” In Temples of Ancient Egypt. B. E. Shafer (ed). Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press: 127-184.

Bennett, C. 2002 “A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty.” JARCE 39: 123-155.

Berg, D. A. 1987 “Early 18th Dynasty Expansion into Nubia.” JSSEA 17: 1-14.

531

Bernhauer, E. 2002 “Details zur Rekonstruktion der Hathorpfeiler vom Satet-Tempel auf der Insel Elephantine.” MDAIK 58: 85-88.

Bestock, L. 2008 “The Early Dynastic Funerary Enclosures of Abydos.” Archéo-Nil 18: 42-59.

2009 The Development of royal funerary Cult at Abydos: two funerary enclosures from the reign of Aha. Menes 6. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

2011 “The First Kings of Egypt: The Abydos Evidence.” In Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. E. Teeter (ed). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 137-144.

2012 “Brown University Abydos Project: Preliminary Report on the First Two Seasons.” JARCE 48: 35-79.

2015 “Continuity and Change in an Ancient Landscape: The Brown University Abydos Project.” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 205: 7-9.

Beylage, P. 2002 Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit: Teil 1: Transkription und Übersetzung der Texte. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bezalel, P. 1968 Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1996 The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Leiden and New York: Brill.

Bickel, S. 1991 “L’iconographie du dieu Khnoum.” BIFAO 91: 55-67.

2002 “Aspects et fonctions de la deification d’Amenhotep III.” BIFAO 102: 63-90.

Bietak, M. 1979 “Urban Archaeology and the ‘Town Problem’ in Ancient Egypt.” In Egyptology and the Social Sciences: Five Studies. K. R. Weeks (ed). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 97-144.

1981 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the eastern Nile Delta. London: Oxford University Press.

1991 “Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age.” BASOR 281: 27-72.

532

1994 “Kleine Ägyptische Tempel und Wohnhäuser des Späten Mittleren Reiches: Zur Genese eines beliebten Raumkonzeptes von Tempeln des Neuen Reiches.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant. vol. 1. C. Berger, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal (eds). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 413-435.

1996 Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabca. London: British Museum Press.

1997 “4. The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el-Dabca).” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. E. D. Oren (ed). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum: 87-139.

2010a “The Early Bronze Age III temple at Tell Ibrahim Awad and its relevance to the Egyptian Old Kingdom.” In Perspectives on ancient Egypt: studies in honor of Edward Brovarski. Z. A. Hawass, P. der Manuelian, and R. B. Hussein (eds). Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l'Égypte: 65-77.

2010b “Houses, Palaces and Development of Social Structure in Avaris.” In Cities and Urbanism in ancient Egypt: papers from a workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. M. Bietak, E. Czerny, and I. Forstner-Müller (eds). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 11-68.

Bietak, M. (ed) 1996 Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Bietak, M., E. Czerny, and I. Forstner-Müller (eds) 2010 Cities and urbanism in ancient Egypt: papers from a workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Binder, S. 2008 The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt. Oxford: Aris & Phillips.

Bingen, J. and W. Clarysse 1989 Elkab III. Les ostraca grecs. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

Biston-Moulin, S. 2012 “Le roi Sénakht-en-Rê Ahmès de la XVIIe dynastie.” ENIM 5: 61-72.

Björkman, G. 1971 Kings at Karnak: A Study of the Treatment of the Monuments of Royal Predecessors in the early New Kingdom. Sweden: Uppsala Universitet.

Blackman, A. M. 1925 “Oracles in Ancient Egypt.” JEA 11: 249-255.

533

1926 “Oracles in Ancient Egypt II.” JEA 12: 176-185.

1941 “The Stela of Shoshenk, Great Chief of the Meshwesh.” JEA 27: 85-95.

Bleiberg, E. 1988 “The Redistributive Economy in New Kingdom Egypt: An Examination of BAkw(t).” JARCE 25: 157-168.

2007 “Chapter Thirteen: State and Private Enterprise.” In The Egyptian World. T. Wilkinson (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 175-184.

2013 “Animal Mummies: The Souls of the Gods.” In Soulful Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. E. Bleiberg, Y. Barbash, and L. Bruno (eds). Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum in association with D Giles Ltd: 63-105.

Blok, H. P. 1928 “Remarques sur quelques stèles dites ‘à oreilles.” Kêmi 1: 123-135.

Blouin, K. 2014 Triangular Landscapes: Environment, Society, and the State in the Nile Delta under Roman Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blyth, E. 2006 Karnak. Evolution of a Temple. London and New York: Routledge.

Bogoslovsky, E. S. 1980 “Hundred Egyptian Draughtsmen.” ZÄS 107: 89-116.

Bolshakov, A. O. 2001 “Ka-Chapel.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 2. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 217-219.

2008 “Mut or Not? On the Meaning of a Vulture Sign on the Hermitage Statue of Amenemhat III.” In Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini. S. H. D’Auria (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 23-31.

Bomann, A. H. 1991 The Private Chapel in Ancient Egypt: A Study of the chapels in the Workmen’s Village at el Amarna with special reference to Deir el Medina and other sites. London and New York: Kegan Paul International.

Bommas, M. 1995a “Ramessidische Graffiti aus Elephantine.” MDAIK 51: 1-9.

534

1995b “VI. Nordostadt: Seidlungsbebauung der 1. Zwischenzeit und des Mittleren Reiches nordwestlich des Inselmuseums.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 21./22. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 51: 141-147.

1997 “IV. Untersuchungen im Bereich der Verbindungstreppe zwischen den Tempeln des Chnum und der Satet.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 23./24. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiswer et al. MDAIK 53: 138-150.

1999 “IX. Zum Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 55: 110-118.

2000a Der Tempel des Chnum der 18. Dyn. auf Elephantine. PhD Dissertation: University of Heidelberg.

2000b “Der Tornamen von Elephantine.” GM 174: 15-16.

2003 “Neues zum Chnumtempel von Elephantine.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 98: 5-15.

2004 “IV. Khnum Temple: The Decoration of the Temple of the Eighteenth Dynasty.” In Report on the 33rd Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 7. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele33_rep_en.pdf.

2005a “Der Tempel Sesostris’ III. von Medamud als Sinnbild des ägyptischen Kosmos.” Maat 2: 30-35.

2005b “VI. Der Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches: Dekoration.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 31./32. Grabungsbereicht.” G. Dreyer et. al. MDAIK 61: 44-51.

2008 “5. Temple of Khnum: Decoration of the New Kingdom.” In Report on the 37th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 10-11. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele37_rep_en.pdf.

Bonnet, C. 2012 “Les grands monuments égyptiens et nubiens du début de la XVIII dynastie sur le site de Doukki Gel (Kerma).” BIFAO 112: 57-75.

Bonnet, C. and D. Valbelle 2010 “The classical Kerma Period and the Beginning of the New Kingdom.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects. M. Marée (ed). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers: 359-365.

535

Booth, C. 2005 The Hyksos Period in Egypt. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications.

Borchardt, L. 1930 Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten. vol. 3. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei.

1938 Ägyptische Tempel mit Umgang. Cairo: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers.

Borchardt, L. and H. Ricke, 1980 Die Wohnhäuser in Tell el-Amarna. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

Borghouts, J. F. 1978 Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Bothmer, B. V. 1955 “Delta Sites III.” NARCE 18: 4-9.

1987 “Egyptian Antiquities.” In Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis. E. S. Hall (ed). Mainz and New York: Philipp von Zabern: 1-97.

1988 “The Great Naos at Mendes and its Sculpture.” In The Archaeology of the Nile Delta Egypt: Problems and Priorities. E. C. M. van den Brink (ed). Amsterdam: Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt: 205-209.

Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Studies in Anthropology 16. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

1990 The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourriau, J. 1981 Umm el-Gaʽab: Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

1987 “Pottery Figure Vases of the New Kingdom.” CCE 1: 81-96.

1988 Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

2000 “Chapter 8: The Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. I. Shaw (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 185- 217.

Bowman, A. 1992 “Public Buildings in Roman Egypt.” JRA 5: 495-503.

536

Brand, P. 2001 “Repairs ancient and modern in the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 180: 1-6.

2007 “Veils, Votives, and Marginalia: The Use of Sacred Space at Karnak and Luxor.” In Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes. P. F. Dorman and B. M. Bryan (eds). Chicago: Oriental Institute: 51-83.

2010 “Reuse and Restoration.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-15. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002311q4.

Breasted, J. H. 1897 “Excavations of the Egyptian Research Account at El Kab.” The Biblical World 9(3): 219-220.

1906 Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1908 “Second Preliminary Report of the Egyptian Expedition.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 25: 1-110.

1912 The Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.

1962 Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. vol. 2. New York: Russell & Russell.

Bresciani, E., S. Pernigotti, and M. Silvas 1977 La Tomba di Ciennehebu, Capo della Flotta del Re. Pisa: Giardini.

Brewer, D 2001 “Fish.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 1. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 532-535.

2004 “10. Faunal Remains.” In Excavations at Mendes 1: The Royal Necropolis. D. B. Redford (ed). Leiden: Brill: 202-210.

Brewer, D. I. and R. I. Wenke 1992 “Transitional Late Predynastic – Early Dynastic Occupations at Mendes: A Preliminary Report.” In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th – 3rd Millenium B. C. E. C. M. van den Brink (ed). Tel Aviv: E. C. M. van den Brink: 191-197.

Brinks, J. 1979 Die Entwicklung der Königlichen Grabanlagen des Alten Reiches: Eine

537

strukturelle und historische Analyse altägyptischer Architektur. HÄB 10. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Brovarski, E. 1994a “Abydos in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, Part I.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant. vol. 1. C. Berger, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal (eds). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 99-121.

1994b “Abydos in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, Part II.” In For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer. D. P. Silverman (ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 15-44.

Brown, M. W. 2008 “Gold Mining in the Eastern Desert of Nubia: Mining Labor and Policy in the Middle Kingdom.” In Abstracts: The 59th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Seattle, WA, April 25-27. San Antonio: ARCE US Office.

2011 “The Duties of the Viceroy: Eastern Desert Inscriptions and the New Kingdom Nubian Desert Administration.” In Abstracts: The 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Chicago, IL, April 1-3. San Antonio: ARCE US Office.

2012 “Agents of Construction: The Territoriality of ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions and Modern Functional Parallels.” In Abstracts: the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Providence, RI, April 27-29. San Antonio: ARCE US Office.

2017 “Agents of Construction: Ancient Egyptian Rock Inscriptions as Tools of Site Formation and Modern Functional Parallels.” JEH 10(2): 153-211.

Brunner, H. 1982 “Persönliche Frömmigkeit.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 4. W. Helck and E. Otto (eds). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz: 951-963.

Brunton, G. and G. Caton-Thompson 1928 The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains Near Badari. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Brunton, G. and R. Engelbach 1927 Gurob. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt; B. Quartich.

Bruyère, B. 1939 Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1934-1935) III. Le village, les décharges publiques, la station de repos du col de la Vallée des Rois. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

538

Bryan, B. 1990 “Private Relief Sculpture outside Thebes and its Relationship to Theban Relief Sculpture.” In The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis: Papers presented at the International Symposium, held at the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, 20-21 November 1987. L. M. Berman (ed). Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press: 65-80.

1991 The Reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

1992 “Chapter IV: Designing the Cosmos: Temples and Temple Decoration.” In Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. A. P. Kozloff and B. M. Bryan (eds). Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art; Bloomington: Indiana University Press: 73-124.

2004 “Antecedents to Amenhotep III.” In Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign. D. O’Connor and E. H. Cline (eds). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 27-62.

2005 “The Temple of Mut: New Evidence on Hatshepsut’s Building Activity.” In Hatshepsut: from Queen to Pharaoh. C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, and C. A. Keller (eds). New York and New Haven: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press: 181-183.

Budge, E. A. W. 1907 The Egyptian Sudan. Its History and Monuments. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.

Budin, S. L. 2011 Images of Woman and Child from the Bronze Age: Reconsidering Fertility, Maternity, and Gender in the Ancient World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Budka, J. 2005 “XII. Zur Keramik des Neuen Reiches – erste Beobachtungen anhand des Materials aus der Oststraße B II.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 31./32. Grabungsbericht.” G. Dreyer et al. MDAIK 61: 90-116.

2006a “The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002-2004: The New Kingdom Pottery.” Ägypten und Levante 16: 83-120.

2006b “Die Inschrift eines Türgewändes im Hwt-kA des Chnumpriesters Sobekemzaf auf Elephantine.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. vol. 1. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 75-80.

539

2008a “VIII. Weihgefäβe und Festkeramik des Neuen Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 33./34./35. Grabungsbericht.” Dreyer et al. MDAIK 64: 106-132.

2008b “6. The New Kingdom-Pottery from Elephantine (Pl. VI).” In Report on the 37th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 10-11. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele37_rep_en.pdf.

2010 “V. Die Keramik des Osiriskults: Erste Beobachtungen zu Formen, Datierung und Funktion.” In “Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht.” U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland. MDAIK 66: 35-69.

2011a “The early New Kingdom at Sai Island: Preliminary results based on the pottery analysis (4th Season 2010).” Sudan & Nubia 15: 23-33.

2011b “Neues zur Siedlung des Neuen Reiches von Saï Island: Splitter einer pharaonischen Lebenswelt im Sudan.” Isched. Journal des AegyptenForum Berlin e.V. (2): 29-39.

2012 “Neue Arbeiten in der Siedlung des Neuen Reiches auf Sai Island (Nordsudan).” Sokar 24: 54-63.

2013a “Die 18. Dynastie auf Sai Island (Nordsudan) – neue Puzzlesteine als Ergebnisse der Feldkampagne 2013.” Sokar 26: 78-87.

2013b “2. Excavations at SAVIE, Fieldwork Report.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwork 2013 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). J. Budka et al.: 3-10. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-2013.pdf.

2013c “Festival Pottery from New Kingdom Egypt: Three Case Studies.” In Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in Their Archaeological Context. Proceedings of a Conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th-July 25th, 2009. B. Bader and M. F. Ownby (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies: 185-213.

2014a “Neues zur Tempelstadt der 18. Dynastie auf Sai Island (Nordsudan) – Ergebnisse der Feldkampagne 2014.” Sokar 28: 28-37.

2014b “4. Processing finds and pottery from the New Kingdom town.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwork 2014 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2014 Season Report. J. Budka et al: 14-15. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-Report-2014.pdf .

540

2014c “The New Kingdom in Nubia: New Results from Current Excavations on Sai Island.” Egitto e Vicino Oriente 37: 55-87.

2015a “The Pharaonic town on Sai Island and its Role in the Urban Landscape of New Kingdom Kush.” Sudan & Nubia 19: 40-53.

2015b “Between Thebes and Elephantine: Busy Lives of Egyptian Officials.” In From the Delta to the Cataract: Studies Dedicated to Mohamed el-Bialy. A. Jiménez- Serrano and C. Von Pilgrim (eds). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 12-23.

2015c “2. Excavations at SAV1 East, fieldwork report.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwordk 2015 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2015 Season Report. J. Budka et al: 4-7. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-Report-Sai-2015.pdf.

2015d “4. Processing finds and pottery from the New Kingdom town.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwordk 2015 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2015 Season Report. J. Budka et al: 9-12. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-Report-Sai-2015.pdf.

2015e “8. Excavation in the cemetery SAC5, areas 1 and 2.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwordk 2015 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2015 Season Report. J. Budka et al: 14-18. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-Report-Sai-2015.pdf.

2015f “The Egyptian “re-conquest of Nubia” in the New Kingdom – some thoughts on the legitimization of Pharaonic Power in the South.” In Royal versus Divine Authority: Acquisition, Legitmization, and Renewal of Power. 7th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, Prague, June 26-28, 2013. F. Coppens, J. Janák, and H. Vymazalová (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 63-81.

2015g “Festival Pottery of the New Kingdom: The Case of Elephantine.” In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists: University of the Aegean, Rhodes. 22-29 May 2008. vol. 1. P. Kousoulis and N. Lazaridis (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 131-145.

2016a “2. Excavations at SAVIE, fieldwork report.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwork 2016 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2016 Season Report. J. Budka et al: 4-6. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/publications/reports/acrossbordersreport-sai-2016/

2016b “5. Excavation in the cemetery SAC5, areas 2 and 3.” In AcrossBorders Fieldwork 2016 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2016 Season Report. J.

541

Budka et al: 8-12. Published online: http://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/publications/reports/acrossbordersreport-sai-2016/

2016c “The New Kingdom town on Sai Island – establishing the date of its foundation: potential and limits of ceramic studies.” CRIPEL 30 (2013-2015): 45-63.

2016d “Vessels of Life: New Evidence for Creative Aspects in Material Remains from Domestic Sites.” In Vienna 2 – ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th-18th of May, 2012. B. Bader, C. M. Knoblauch, and E. C. Köhler (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 85-102.

2017a AcrossBorders’ Fieldwork 2017 on Sai Island (North Province, Sudan). 2017 Season Report. Published online: https://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/AcrossBorders-Fieldwork-Report-Sai-2017.pdf

2017b “The Egyptian Town on Sai Island.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Day for Nubian Studies. E. Fantusati and M. Baldi (eds). Roma: Scienze et lettere: 45-60.

2017c “Pyramid Cemetery SAC5, Sai Island, Northern Sudan: An Update Based on Fieldwork from 2015-2017.” Ägypten und Levante 27: 107-130.

2017d “Das Grab eines Goldschmiedemeisters auf Sai in Obernubien.” Sokar 35: 52-63.

2017e “The 18th Dynasty on Sai Island: New Data from Excavations in the Town Area and Cemetery SAC5.” Sudan & Nubia 21: 71-81.

2017f “III. Pottery from SAV1 North.” In AcrossBorders I: The New Kingdom Town of Sai Island, Sector SAV1 North. J. Budka (ed). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: 119-156.

2017g “IV. Selected finds from SAV1 North.” In AcrossBorders I: The New Kingdom Town of Sai Island, Sector SAV1 North. J. Budka (ed). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: 157-170.

2017h “Life in the New Kingdom Town of Sai Island: Some New Perspectives.” In Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived Experience, Pharaonic Control and Indigenous Traditions. N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 429- 447.

2017i “Crossing Borders: Settlement Archaeology in Egypt and Sudan.” Near Eastern Archaeology 80(1): 14-21.

542

2017-2018 “The Tomb of a Master of Gold-Workers on Sai Island.” Ancient Egypt: The History, People and Culture of the Nile Valley 105(18/3): 14-20.

2018a “Pots & People: Ceramics from Sai Island and Elephantine.” In From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Individual Households and Cities in Ancient Egypt and Nubia. J. Budka and J. Auenmüller (eds). Leiden: Sidestone: 147-170.

2018b “The Fortified Pharaonic Town on Sai Island: New Results from Current Fieldwork (2013-2014).” In Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for Nubian Studies, Neuchâtel, 1st-6th September 2014. M. Honegger (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 293-300.

Budka, J. and F. Doyen 2012-2013 “Life in New Kingdom towns in Upper Nubia – New evidence from recent excavations on Sai Island.” Ägypten und Levante 22/23: 167-208.

Budka, J. and B. Von Pilgrim 2008 “V. Bauteile des Wohnsitzes einer thebanischen Beamtenfamilie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 33./34./35. Grabungsbericht.” Dreyer et al. MDAIK 64: 88-97.

Burchardt, M. 1910 “Ein saitischer Statuensockel in Stockholm.” ZÄS 47: 111-115.

Burgos, F., F. Larché, and N. Grimal 2006 La chapelle rouge: Le sanctuarie de barque d’Hatschepsout, vol 1: Fac-similés et photographies des scenes. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations.

Burnet, A. 1997 “Elkab, richesses d’un sanctuaire.” Archéologia 338: 44-51.

Bussmann, R. 2006 “Der Kult im frühen Satet-Tempel von Elephantine.” In Archäologie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands. J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds). Vienna: Phoibos Verlag: 25-36.

2007 “Pepi I and the Temple of Satet at Elephantine.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2005: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge, 6-8 January 2005. R. Mairs and A. Stevenson (eds). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 22-37.

2010 Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

543

2011 “Local Traditions in Early Egyptian Temples.” In Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the state: predynastic and early dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July-1st August 2008. R. F. Friedman and P. N. Fiske (eds). Leuven: Peters: 747-762.

2013 “The Social Setting of the Temple of Satet in the Third Millennium BC.” In The First Cataract of the Nile. One Region-Diverse Perspectives. D. Raue, S. J. Seidlmayer, and P. Speiser (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter: 21-34.

2014 “Urbanism and Temple Religion in Egypt: A Comment on Hierakonpolis.” JEA 100: 311-337.

2016 “Great and Little Traditions in Egyptology.” In 10. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: ägyptische Tempel zwischen Normierung und Individualität. München, 29.-31. August 2014. M. Ullmann (ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 37- 48.

2017 “Personal Piety: An Archaeological Response.” In Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1500 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th- 20th September 2014 at UCL, London. G. Miniaci, M. Betrò, and S. Quirke (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Bristol: Peeters: 71-91.

Butzer, K. W. 1961 “Archäologische Fundstellen Ober- und Mittelägyptens in ihrer geologischen Landschaft.” MDAIK 17: 54-68.

1976 Early Hydraulic Civilization: A Study in Cultural Ecology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

1984 “Siedlungsgeographie.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 5. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 924-933.

Buzon, M. R. 2008 “A Bioarchaeological Perspective on Egyptian Colonialism in the New Kingdom.” JEA 94: 165-182.

Cabrol, A. 1999 “Les boeufs gras de la fête d’Opet: Remarques complémentaires sur des animaux d’exception.” CRIPEL 20: 15-27.

2001 Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes. Leuven: Peeters.

544

Cahail, K. M. 2014 In the Shadow of Osiris: Non-Royal Mortuary Landscapes at South Abydos during the Late Middle and New Kingdoms. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania. Callender, G. 2000 “Chapter 7. The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c. 2055-1650 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. I. Shaw (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 148-183.

Calverley, A. M. and M. F. Broome 1938 The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos III. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Caminos, R. A. 1974 The New Kingdom Temples of Buhen. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

1998 Semna-Kumma II: The Temple of Kumma. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Capart, J. 1937a “Les fouilles d’El Kab.” CdE 12(24): 132-146.

1937b “Rapport sommaire sur les fouilles de la foundation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth à El-Kab” ASAE 37: 3-15.

1938 “Deuxième rapport sommaire sur les fouilles de la foundation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth à El-Kab (janvier à Mars 1938).” ASAE 38: 623-640.

1940 Fouilles de El-Kab: Documents. vol. 1. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

1946 Fouilles en Égypte: El Kab: impressions et souvenirs. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

1954 Fouilles de El-Kab: Documents. vol. 3. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

Carlotti, J-F. 1995 “Contribution à l’étude métrologique de quelques monuments du temple d’Amon- Rê à Karnak.” Cahiers de Karnak 10: 65-125.

Ĉerný, J. 1979 Ancient Egyptian Religion. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Chaix, L. and Queyrat, I. 2003 “Les figurines animals dans la culture de Kerma.” Anthropozoologica 38: 61-67.

545

Chassinat, É. 1984 Le Temple d’Edfou I. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Chevrier, H. 1947 “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1947-1948).” ASAE 47: 161-183.

Childe, V. G. 1950 “The Urban Revolution.” Town Planning Review 21(1): 3-17.

Chudzik, P. 2016 “A Unique Royal Mortuary Temple and Exceptional Private Complexes: The Architecture of the Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II Monument Reflected in the Funerary Structures of High Officials at Thebes.” In 10. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: ägyptische Tempel zwischen Normierung und Individualität München, 29.-31. August 2014. M. Ullmann (ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 71- 80.

Claes, W. and D. Huyge 2016 “Finds from Elkab: Revealing the Origins of the Settlement.” EA 49: 38-42.

Claes, W., S. Hendrickx, A. Devillers, E. Hart, K. Kindermann, M. De Dapper, S. Ikram, G. Storms, C. Swerts, and D. Huyge 2014 “From the early Old Kingdom to the Badarian: Preliminary Report on the 2012 Excavation Campaign in the Settlement Area of Elkab.” In The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th Millennium BC. A. Mączyńska (ed). Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum: 73-93.

Clarke, S. 1921 “El-Kâb and the Great Wall.” JEA 7: 54-79.

1922 “El-Kâb and its Temples.” JEA 8: 16-40.

Clarysse, W. 2007 “A Royal Journey in the Delta in 257 B.C. and the Date of the Mendes Stela.” CdE 82: 201-206.

Cline, E. H. and D. O’Connor (eds) 2006 Thutmose III: A New Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Cooney, J. D. 1965 Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American Collections. Zabern: Mainz am Rhein.

546

Cooney, K. M. 2007 “Chapter Twelve: Labour.” In The Egyptian World. T. Wilkinson (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 160-174.

Cooper, L. 2006 Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. New York: Routledge.

Cowgill, G. L. 2004 “Origins and Development of Urbanism: Archaeological Perspectives.” Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 525-549.

Crawford, H. E. W. 1972 “Stimuli Towards urbanization in south Mesopotamia.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 761-762.

Criscenzo-Laycock, G. 2015 “The Nome: Naturally Occurring Local Unit, or Artificial Device of the State? A Case Study of the Fourteenth Upper Egyptian Nome.” In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists: University of the Aegean, Rhodes. 22-29 May 2008. P. Kousoulis and N. Lazaridis (eds): 639-647.

Crocker, P. T. 1985 “Status symbols in the architecture of El-‘Amarna.” JEA 71: 52-65.

Cruz-Uribe, E. 1978 “The Father of Ramses I: OI 11456.” JNES 37(3): 237-244.

1994 “A Model for the Political Structure of Ancient Egypt.” In For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer. D. P. Silverman (ed). Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 45-53.

2002 “The Death of Demotic at Philae, a Study in Pilgrimage and Politics.” In A Tribute to Excellence: Studies Offered in Honor of Ernő Gaál, Ulrich Luft, László Török. T. A. Bács (ed). Budapest: Chaire d’Égyptologie, Univ. Eötvös Loránd de Budapest: 163-184.

2016 The Demotic Graffiti form the Temple of Isis on Philae Island. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.

Cummings, S. B. 1982 Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. vol. 1. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

547

Currelly, C. T. 1954 I Brought the Ages Home. Toronto: Ryerson Press.

Curto, S. 1970 Il tempio dei Ellesija. Torino: Pozzo Gros Monti.

Ćwiek, A. 1998 “Date and function of the so-called Minor Step Pyramids.” GM 162: 39-52.

Damarany, A. 2014 “A mahat chapel of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II at Abydos.” Ancient Egypt: the History, People, and Culture of the Nile Valley 85(15/1): 11.

Daninos, P. 1887 “Relatifs aux fouilles de San.” RT 9: 19.

Daressy, G. 1909 “Inscriptions historiques mendésiennes.” RT 35: 124-129.

1917 “Statues de Menaes.” ASAE 17: 21-24.

Darnell, J. C. 1995 “Hathor Returns to Medamud.” SAK 22: 47-94.

2002 “The Narrow Doors of the Desert: ancient Egyptian Roads in the Theban Western Desert.” In Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place. B. David and M. Wilson (eds). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press: 104-121.

2010 “Opet Festival.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-15. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0025n765.

David, R. 1981 A Guide to Religious Ritual at Abydos. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd.

2007 “Chapter Eight: The Temple Priesthood.” In The Egyptian World. T. Wilkinson (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 105-117.

2016 Temple Ritual at Abydos. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.

Davies, N. de G. 1903 The Rock Tombs of El Amarna I: The Tomb of Merya. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1905 The Rock Tombs of El Amarna III: The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

548

1908 The Rock Tombs of El Amarna V: Smaller Tombs and Boundary Stelae. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1932 “Teḥuti: Owner of Tomb 110 at Thebes.” In Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith. S. R. K. Glanville (ed). London: Egypt Exploration Society: 279-290.

Davies, S. 2007 “Bronzes from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara.” In Gifts for the Gods: Images from Egyptian Temples. M. Hill and D. Schorsch (eds). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press: 174-187.

Davies, S. and H. Smith 1997 “Sacred Animal Temples at Saqqara.” In The Temple in Ancient Egypt. S. Quirke (ed). London: British Museum Press: 112-131.

Davies, V. W. 1998 “New fieldwork at Kurgus. The Pharaonic inscriptions.” Sudan & Nubia 2: 26-30.

2001 “Kurgus 2000: The Egyptian Inscription.” Sudan & Nubia 5: 46-58.

2003a “Sobekhnakht of Elkab and the Coming of Kush.” EA 23: 3-6.

2003b “Kush in Egypt: A New Historical Inscrtiption.” Sudan & Nubia 7: 52-54.

2004 “Cat. 76, Statue of Amenhotep I.” In Sudan. Ancient Treasures: An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum. D. A. Welsby and J. R. Anderson (eds). London: The British Museum Press: 102-103.

2005 “Egypt and Nubia. Conflict with the Kingdom of Kush.” In Hatshepsut: from Queen to Pharaoh. C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, C. A. Keller (eds). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art: 49-56.

2009a “The tomb of Ahmose Son-of-Ibana at Elkab: Documenting the family and other observations.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 139-176.

2009b “The British Museum epigraphic survey at Tombos: The Stela of Usersatet and Hekaemsasen.” Sudan & Nubia 13: 21-30.

2010 “Renseneb and Sobeknakht of Elkab: The Genealogical Data.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects. M. Marée (ed). Leuven: Peeters: 223-240.

549

2014 “A View from Elkab: the Tomb and Statues of Ahmose-Pennekhbet.” In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut: papers from the Theban Workshop 2010. J. M. Galán, B. M. Bryan, and P. F. Dorman (eds). Chicago: Oriental Institute: 381-409.

2016 “The Tomb of a Governor of Elkab of the Second Intermediate Period.” In The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1550 BC): Contributions on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and Written Sources. vol. 2. G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds). London: Golden House Publications: 71-83.

2017 “A Statue-Cache from Sai: Putting the Pieces Together.” In Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived Experience, Pharaonic Control and Indigenous Traditions. N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 65-105.

Davies, W. V. and E. R. O'Connell 2009 “British Museum Expedition to Elkab and Hagr Edfu, 2009.” British Museum Studies in ancient Egypt and Sudan 14: 51-72.

2010 “British Museum Expedition to Elkab and Hagr Edfu, 2010.” British Museum Studies in ancient Egypt and Sudan 16: 101-132.

2011 “The British Musseum Expedidtin to Elkab and Hagr Edfu, 2011.” British Museum Studies in ancient Egypt and Sudan 17: 1-29.

2012 British Museum Expedition to Elkab and Hagr Edfu, 2012.” British Museum Studies in ancient Egypt and Sudan 19: 51-85.

2015 “The British Museum Expedition to Elkab and Hagr Edfu 2013.” British Museum Studies in ancient Egypt and Sudan 22: 1-34.

Davies, W. V. and L. Schofield (eds) 1995 Egypt, the Levant and the Aegean: Interconnections in the Second Millennium B.C. London: British Museum Press.

Delange, É 2015 Monuments égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. Paris: Louvre éditions and Éditions Khéops.

Delange, É. and H. Jaritz 2013 Elephantine XXV: Der Widderfriedhof des Chnumtempels. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

De Meulenaere, H. 1965 “De Stele van Mendes.” OG 2: 53-65.

550

1969 “Sébek à Elkab.” CdE 44: 13-21

1970 “Le lac sacré.” In “Elkab 1966-1969.” F. Depuydt et al. CdE 45: 30-32.

1975 “Elkab.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 1. W. Helck and E. Otto (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 1225-1227.

1980 “Mendes.” Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 4. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 43-45.

1986 “Un général du Delta, gouverneur de la Haute Egypte.” CdE 61: 203-210.

1988 “Deux personnages d’Elkab.” CdE 63(126): 207-212.

2001 “Sculptures mendésiennes de Basse Époque.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch- Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 35-36: 33-42.

De Meulenaere, H. and P. MacKay 1976 Mendes II. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Denon, V. 1802 Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Égypte, pendant les campagnes du général Bonaparte. 3 vols. London: Peltier.

Depuydt, F. 1989 Elkab IV. Topographie. Fasc. 1. Archaeological-topographical surveying of Elkab and surroundings. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

D’Ercole, G., J. Budka, J. H. Sterba, E. A. A. Garcea, and D. Mader 2017 “The Successful ‘recipe’ for a long-lasting Tradition: Nubian Ceramic Assemblages from Sai Island (northern Sudan) from Prehistory to the New Kingdom.” Antiquity 91: 24-42.

De Rodrigo, A. M. 1998 “On the Origin of Basket-Handled Jars from Mendes.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995. C. J. Eyre (ed). Leuven: 965-74.

2000 “Fish-shaped jars from Mendes.” Bulletin De Liaison Du Groupe International d’Étude de la Céramique Égyptienne 21: 7-12

2004 “Basket-Handled Jars, their origin and function.” In Delta Reports I. Research in Lower Egypt. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 211-220.

551

Derchain, P. 1969 “Die Tempel von Wady Hellal bei Elkab.” In XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 21. Bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg: Vorträge. vol. 1. W. Voigt (ed). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

1970 “Les temples.” In “Elkab 1966-1969.” F. Depuydt et al. CdE 45: 25-27.

1971 Elkab I. Les monuments religieux à l’entrée de l’Ouady Hellal. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

1999 “Mendès et les femmes.” Enchoria 25: 20-23.

Der Manuelian, P. 1987 Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag.

Description de l’Égypte, Antiquités: Mémoires. 1809 Vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale.

Devauchelle, D. and F. Doyen 2009 “Retour à l’ȋle de Saï (Soudan, 2006-2009).” BSFE 175: 29-49.

Diamond, K.-A. 2012 “The Placement of the Sacred District Scene in the Rectangular Tombs at Elkab.” JARCE 48: 97-110.

Dils, P. 1993 “Wine for pouring and purification in ancient Egypt.” In Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991. J. Quaegebeur (ed). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriënalistiek: 107- 123.

Dobres, M-A. and J. E. Robb (eds) 2000 Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Dodson, A. 1987 “The Tombs of the Kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty in the Memphite Necropolis.” ZÄS 114: 36-45.

1996-1997 “El Kab: City of the Vulture-Goddess.” KMT 7(4): 60-68.

2009 Amarna Sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian counter-reformation. Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press.

552

Doll, S. K. 1982 “33. Animal Weights.” In Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom 1558-1085 B.C. E. Brovarski, S. K. Doll, and R. E. Freed (eds). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts: 61-62.

Donadoni, S 1969 “Un Frammento di Statua di Personagio Mendesio a Roma.” MDAIK 24: 100- 104.

Donohue, V. A. 1988 “The Vizier Paser.” JEA 74: 103-123.

Dorman, P. F. 2002 Faces in Clay: Technique, Imagery, and Allusion in a Corpus of Ceramic Sculpture from Ancient Egypt. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Dorn, A. 2005 “Les objets d’un dépôt de sanctuaire (Hwt-kA) à Eléphantine et leur utilisation rituelle.” In Des Néferkaré aux Montouhotep: Travaux archéologiques en cours sur la fin de la VIie dynastie et la première période intermédiaire. L. Pantalacci and C. Berger-El-Nagger (eds). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée: 129-143.

2015 Kisten und Schreine im Festzug: Hinweise auf postume Kulte für hohe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Doxey, D. 1998 Egyptian non-royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom: A Social and Historical Analysis. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill.

Doyen, F. 2009 “The New Kingdom Town on Sai Island (Northern Sudan).” Sudan & Nubia 13: 17-20.

2014 “Sai Island New Kingdom Town (Northern Sudan): 3rd and 4th Seasons (2009- 2010).” In The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies. J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers: 367-375.

2016 “Du trait élémentaire à la perception vitale: quelques figurines féminines de la ville pharaonique de Saï.” CRIPEL 30 (2013-2015): 133-157.

2017 “II. The Architecture of SAV1 North.” In AcrossBorders I: The New Kingdom Town of Sai Island, Sector SAV1 North. J. Budka (ed). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: 23-118.

553

Drenkhahn, R. 1975 “Eine Privatstiftung des Vizekonigs Setau in Elkab.” SAK 3: 43-48.

Dreyer, G. 1975 “II. Satettempel: Felsnische.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Fünfter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 31: 51-58.

1976 “II. Satettempel: Felsnische.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Sechster Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 32: 75-87.

1977 “II. Satettempel: Die ältere Entwicklung.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Siebter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 33: 68-83.

1980 “VII. Nordweststadt: Stufenpyramide.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Achter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 36: 276-280.

1982 “II. Wirtschafts- und Wohnbauten des frühen Satettempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Neunter/Zehnter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 38: 276-284.

1984a “Eine Statue Thutmosis II. aus Elephantine.” SAK 11: 489-499.

1984b “II. Satettempel: Wirschafts- und Wohnbauten der Frühzeit und des frühen Alten Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Elfter/Zwölfter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 40: 172-175.

1986 Elephantine VIII: Der Tempel der Satet: die Funde der Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1988 “II. Satettempel und Befestigungsanlagen der Frühzeit und des frühen Alten Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 15./16. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 44: 139-141.

1990 “Um el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 3./4. Vorbericht.” MDAIK 46: 53-90.

1991 “Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos.” MDAIK 47: 93-104.

1992 “Recent Discoveries at Abydos Cemetery U.” In The Nile Delta in Transition, 4th- 3rd Millennium B. C. E. C. M. van der Brink (ed). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: 293-299.

1993 “Um el-Qa’ab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 5./6. Vorbericht.” MDAIK 49: 23-62.

554

Dreyer, G. and W. Kaiser 1980 “Zu den kleinen Stufenpyramiden Ober- und Mittelägyptens.” SAK 11: 43-59.

Dryer, G. and N. Swelim 1982 “Die kleine Stufenpyramide von Abydos-Süd (Sinki) Grabungsberict.” MDAIK 38: 83-93. Dubiel, U. 2004 “Anthropomorphe Amulette in den Gräbern der Region von Qau el-Kebir (Mittelägypten).” Altorientalische Forschungen 31(1): 156-188.

2008 Amulette, Siegel und Perlen. Studien zu Typologie und Tragesitte im Alten und Mittleren Reich. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Dunand, M. 1958 Fouilles de Byblos II: Text. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Dunand, F. and C. Zivie-Coche 2004 Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Dunham, D. 1978 Zawiyet el-Aryan: The Cemeteries Adjacent to the Layer Pyramid. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.

Dunham, D. and J. M. A. Janssen 1960 Second Cataract Forts: Excavated by George Andrew Reisner. 2 vols. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.

Eaton, K. J. 2004 The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos. PhD Dissertation: New York University.

2006 “The Festivals of Osiris and Sokar in the Month of Khoiak: The Evidence from Nineteenth Dynasty Royal Monuments at Abydos.” SAK 35: 75-101.

2013 Ancient Egyptian Temple Ritual: Performance, Pattern, and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Eaton-Krauss, M. 1977 “The ‘Khat’ Headdress to the End of the Amarna Period.” SAK 5: 21-39.

1984 “JE 49536: Horemhab and the Abydene Triad.” SAK 11: 501-508.

1990 “The Coffins of Queen Ahhotep, Consort of Sequeni-en-Re and Mother of Ahmose.” CdE 65: 195-200.

555

Echt, R. 1982 “Die Schlangenfiguren aus Kamid el-Loz und verwandte Kleinplastiken in Syrien und Palästine.” In Kamid el-Loz 1971-74. R. Hachmann (ed). Bonn: Habelt: 37- 52.

Eder, C. 2000 “Einige Bemerkungen zum Chnum-Tempel des Mittleres Reiches auf Elephantine.” GM 178: 5-29.

2002 Elkab VII. Die Barkenkapelle des Königs Sobekhotep III in Elkab: Beiträge zur Bautätigkeit der 13. und 17. Dynastie an den Göttertempeln Ägyptens. Brussels and Turnhout: Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire and Brepols Publishers.

Edwards, I. E. S. 1965 “Lord Differin’s Excavations at Deir el-Bahari and the Clandeboye Collection.” JEA 51: 24-25.

1976 Tutankhamun: His Tomb and its Treasures. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Effland, U. 2006 “Funde aus dem Mittleren Reich bis zur Mamlukenzeit aus Umm el-Qaab.” MDAIK 62: 131-150.

Effland, U., J. Budka, and A. Effland 2010 “Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht.” MDAIK 66: 19-91.

Eichler, S. S. 2000 Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” in der 18. Dynastie. Hamburg: H. Buske.

Eigner, D. 1984 Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der thebanischen Nekropole. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2003 “Tell Ibrahim Awad: A Sequence of Temple Buildings from Dynasty 0 to the Middle Kingdom.” In Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century: proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000. vol. 1. Z. Hawass and L. Pinch Brock (eds). Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press: 162-170.

2007 “Design, Space and Function: The Old Kingdom temple of Tell Ibrahim Awad.” In 6. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume. Leiden, 4.-7. September 2002. B. J. J. Haring and A. Klug (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 83-103.

556

El-Dissouky, K. T. 1969 Elephantine in the Old Kingdom. PhD Dissertation: University of Chicago.

El-Khatib, A. 1993 “A Recently Discovered Offeringn Slab from the Reign of Seti I.” GM 133: 67- 73.

El-Masry, Y. 1998 “Seven Seasons of Excavation at Akhmim.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995. Leuven: Peeters: 749-765.

2002 “New Evidence for Building Activity of Akhenaten in Akhmim.” MDAIK 58: 391-398.

El-Rabi’l, A-M. 1977 “Families abydéniennes du Moyen Empire.” CdE 52(103): 13-21.

El-Sabban, S. 2000 Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

El-Sawi, A. 1979 Excavations at Tell Basta: Report of Seasons 1967-1971 and Catalogue of Finds. Prague: Charles Univrsity.

El Shazly, Y. M. 2014 “Representations of Sequences of Royal Ancestors in Deir el-Medina Tombs.” In Deir el-Medina Studies: Helsinki, June 24-26, 2009 proceedings. J. Toivari- Viitala, T. Vartiainen, and S. Uvanto (eds). Vantaa: Multiprint: 65-86.

2015 Royal Ancestor Worship in Deir el-Medina during the New Kingdom. Wallasey: Abercromby Press.

Emery, W. B. and L. P. Kirwan 1935 The Excavations and Survey between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan, 1929-1931. 2 vols. Cairo: Government Press.

Emery, W. B., H. S. Smith, and A. Millard 1979 The Fortress of Buhen. The archaeological report. EEF Excavation Memoir 49. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Engel, E-M. 1997 Das Grab des Qaʽa in Umm el-Qaʽab: Architektur und Inventar, I-III. PhD Dissertation: Göttingen University.

557

2006 “VIII. Seal Impressions of the Old Kingdom (fig. 5-6).” In Report on the 35th season of excavation and restoration on the island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al. (eds): 14-16. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

2017 Umm el-Qaab VI: Das Grab des Qaʽa: Architektur und Inventar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Engelbach, R. 1923 “Small obelisk of Amenhotep II from Aswan.” ASAE 23: 163-164.

1924 “Notes on the Fish of Mendes.” ASAE 24: 161-168.

Epigraphic Survey, The 1934 Medinet Habu III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1970 Medinet Habu VIII. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1994 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple I: The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Erichsen, W. 1933 Papyrus Harris I. Hieroglyphische Transkription. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca V. Bruxelles: Édition de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

Erman, A. 1911 “Denksteine aus der thebanischen Gräberstadt.” SPAW 49: 1086-1110.

Erman, A. and H. Grapow 1971 Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache: Im Auftrage der Deutschen Akademien. 6 vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Evans, L. 2013 “The goddess Renenutet: Why did a cobra symbolise abundance?” GM 238: 41- 50.

Fairman, H. W. 1939 “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at ‘Amarah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 1939-9.” JEA 25(2): 139-144.

1954 “Worship and Festivals in an Egyptian Temple.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 37: 165-203.

558

1958 “The Kingship Rituals of Egypt.” In Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and Israel. S. H. Hooke (ed). Oxford: Clarendon Press: 74-104.

Faulkner, R. O. 1973-1978 The ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. 3 vols. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

2002 A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute (Reprint).

Fay, B. 1996 The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Fazzini, R. 1996 “A statue of a high priest Menkheperreseneb in the Brooklyn Museum.” In Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson. vol. 1. P. Der Manuelian (ed). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts: 209-225.

Finnestad, R. B. 1985 Image of the World and Symbol of the Creator: On the Cosmological and Iconological Values of the Temple of Edfu. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1997 “Temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods: Ancient Traditions in New Contexts.” In Temples of Ancient Egypt. B. E. Shafer (ed). Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 185-237.

Fischer , H. G. 1965 “BiA and the Deified Vizier MHw.” JARCE 4: 49-53.

1968 Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C., down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt. New York: J. J. Augustin.

1997 Egyptian Titles of the Middle Kingdom: A Supplement to Wm. WaÉs Index. 2nd ed, revised and augmented. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Forstner-Müller, I. 2010 “Settlement Patterns at Avaris: A Study on Two Cases.” In Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt. M. Bietak, E. Czerny, and I. Forstner-Müller (eds). Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 103-121.

Fouquet, A. 1975 “Deux hauts foctionnaires des Nouvel Empire en Haute-Nubie.” CRIPEL 3: 127- 140.

559

Franke, D. 1985 “An Important Family from Abydos of the Seventeenth Dynasty.” JEA 71: 175- 176.

1988 “Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches. Teil II: Die sogenannte Zweite Zwischenzeit Altägyptens.” Orientalia 57: 245-274.

1994 Das Heiligtum des Heqaib auf Elephantine: Geschichte eines Provinzheiligtums im Mittleren Reich. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.

2001 “Drei neue Stelen des Mittleren Reiches von Elephantine.” MDAIK 45: 15-34.

Frankfort, H. 1928 “The Cemeteries of Abydos: Work of the Season 1925-26.” JEA 14(3/4): 235- 245.

Friedman, F. D. 1994 “Aspects of Domestic Life and Religion.” In Pharaoh’s Workers: The Villagers of Deir el Medina. L. H. Lesko (ed). Ithaca: 95-117.

Friedman, R. 1992 “The Early Dynastic and Transitional Pottery of Mendes: The 1990 Season.” In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th – 3rd Millennium B. C. E. C. M. van den Brink (ed). Tel Aviv: E. C. M. van den Brink: 179-206.

Frood, E. 2003 “Ritual Function and Priestly Narrative: The Stelae of the High Priest of Osiris, Nebwawy.” JEA 89: 59-81.

2007 Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

2010 “Horkhebi’s Decree and the Development of Priestly Inscriptional Practices in Karnak.” In Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference, Prague, September 1-4, 2009. L. Bareš, F. Coppens, K. Smoláriková (eds). Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology: 103-128.

Fuchs, D. 2009 Ägyptische Residenzen und Tempel – Eine Modellstudie. Mphil Thesis: University of Vienna.

Gabolde, L. 1998 Le ‘Grand Château d’Amon’ de Sésostris Ier à Karnak. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.

560

2012 “Réexamen des jalons de la presence de la XVIII dynastie naissante à Saï.” CRIPEL 29: 115-137.

Gahlin, L. 2007 “Private Religion.” In The Egyptian World. T. Wilkinson (ed). New York: Routledge: 325-339.

Gamer-Wallert, I. 1970 Fische und Fischkulte im alten Ägypten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1977 “Hatmehit.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 2. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 1042-1043.

Garcea, E. A. A. 2014 “The Evolution from Large Social Units with Loose Networks into Small Social Units with Tight Networks from the Khartoum Variant to the Abkan and the Pre- Kerma at Sai Island.” In The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies. J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby (eds). Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters Publishers 235-242.

Gardiner, A. H. 1910 “The goddess Nekhbet at the Jubilee Festival of Ramsesses III.” ZÄS 48: 47-51.

1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1948 Ramesside Administrative Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gardiner, A. H. and T. E. Peet, 1917 The Inscriptions of Sinai I. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Gardner, A. (ed) 2004 Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human. London and Portland: UCL Press.

Garstang, J. 1901 El-Aràbah: a Cemetery of the Middle Kingdom; survey of the Old Kingdom Temenos; graffiti from the Temple of Sety. London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd.

1907 Burial Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. London: A. Constable and Co.

1909 “Excavations at Abydos.” Liverpool Annals 2: 125.

Gates, C. 2003 Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome. London: Routledge.

561

Gauthier, H. 1912 Le Livre des Rois D’Égypte. vol. 2. MIFAO 18. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

1913 Le temple d’Amada. Cairo. Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

1934 “Une nouvelle statue d’Amenemhet Ier.” Mélanges Maspero I (MIFAO 66). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 43-53.

Gautier, A. 2003 “Animal mummies and remains from the necropolis of Elkab (Upper Egypt).” Archaeofauna 14: 139-170.

Gautier, A. and S. Hendrickx 1999 “Vultures and other animal remains from a tomb in the Elkab necropolis, Upper Egypt: an exercise in salvage archaeology.” In Historia animalium ex ossibus. Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch. C. Becker et al. (eds). Rahden (Westf.): Verlag Marie Leidorf: 161-178.

Geisen, C. 2017 “Expression of Loyalty to the King – A Socio-cultural Analysis of Basilophoric Personal Names dating to the Old and Middle Kingdoms.” In Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists. Florence Egyptian Museum, Florence, 23-30 August 2015. G. Rosati and M. C. Guidotti (eds). Oxford: Archaeopress: 228-232.

2018 A Commemoration Ritual for Senwosret I: P. BM EA 10610.1-5/P. Ramesseum B (Ramesseum Dramatic Papyrus). New Haven: Yale Egyptological Institute.

Geßler-Löhr, B. 1983 Die heiligen Seen ägyptischer Tempel. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung sakraler Baukunst im alten Ägypten. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

1989 “Bemerkungen zu einigen wbAw niswt der Nach-Amarnazeit.” GM 112: 27-34.

1990 “Zur Datierung einiger königlicher Truchsesse unter Amenophis III.” In Festschrift Jürgen von Beckerath: Zum 70. Geburtstag am 19. Februar 1990. B. Schmitz and A. Eggebrecht (eds). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg: 53-73.

Geus, F. 1994 “L’ȋle de Saï à travers l’histoire du Soudan.” Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 196: 22- 27.

1995 “Saï 1993-1995.” ANM 7: 79-98.

562

1996 “Les nouvelles fouilles de l’ȋle de Saï.” Compes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 140(4): 1165-1195.

1998 “Saï 1996-1997.” ANM 8: 85-98.

1999 “Meroitic Cemeteries in Sai Island.” In Recent Research in Kushite Histroy and Archaeology. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for Meroitic Studies. D. A. Welsby (ed). London: The British Museum: 29-34.

2000 “Geomorphology and Prehistory of Sai Island (Nubia): Report on a Current Research Project.” In Recent Research into the Stone Age of Northeastern Africa. L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper, and M. Kobusiewicz (eds). Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum: 119-128.

2002 “Saï 1998-1999.” ANM 9: 95-134.

2003 “Two seasons in Saï Island (1996-1997).” Kush 18: 61-79.

2004 “Sai.” In Sudan. Ancient Treasures: An Exhibition of recent discoveries from the Sudan National Museum. D. A. Welsby and J. R. Anderson (eds). London: The British Museum Press: 114-116.

2006 “Saï 2000-2002.” ANM 10: 87-134.

2012 “Sai 2003-2004.” CRIPEL 29: 151-172.

Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society: An Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddy, L. 1999 The Survey of Memphis II. Kom Rabiʽa: The New Kingdom and Post-New Kingdom Objects. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Gilli, B. 2009 “The Past in the Present: The Reuse of Ancient Material in the 12th Dynasty.” Aegyptus 89: 89-110.

Goebs, K. 1995 “Untersuchungen zu Funktion und Symbolgehalt des nms.” ZÄS 122: 154-181.

2003 “xftj nTr as Euphemism: The Case of the Antef Decree.” JEA 89: 27-37.

2004 “The Cannibal Spell: Continuity and Change in the Pyramid Text and Coffin Text Versions.” In D’un monde à l’autre: Textes des Pyramides & Textes des

563

Sarcophages. S. Bickel and B. Mathieu (eds). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 143-173.

2008 Crowns in Egyptian Funerary Literature: Royalty, Rebirth, and Destruction. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Goedicke, H. 1971 Re-used Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Gohary, J. 1992 Akhenaten’s sed-festival at Karnak. London and New York: Kegan Paul International.

1998 Guide to the Nubian Monuments on Lake Nasser. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

Gomaà, F. 1986 Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches I. Oberägypten und das Fayyūm. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Goossens, R., M. De Dapper, and P. De Paepe 1997 “SAIGAIS: a geo-archaeological information system for the island of Sai (Nubia- Sudan).” CRIPEL 17(2): 13-20.

Graindorge, C. 2002 “Der Tempel des Amun-Re von Karnak zu Beginn der 18. Dynastie.” In 5. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Würzburg, 23.-26. September 1999. H. Beinlich, J. Hallof, H. Hussy, and C. von Pfeil (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 83-90.

Graindorge, C. and Martinez, P. 1989 “Karnak avant Karnak: les constructions d’Aménophis Ier et les première liturgies amoniennes.” BSFE 115: 36-55.

Grajetzki, W. 2006 The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: History, Archaeology, and Society. London: Duckworth.

2009 Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. London: Duckworth.

2010 “Notes on Administration in the Second Intermediate Period.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects. M. Marée (ed). Leuven and Walpole: Peeters: 305-312.

564

2013 “Setting a State Anew: The Central Administration from the End of the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration. J. C. Moreno García (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 215-258.

Grallert, S. 1999 “Der thutmosidische Chnumtempel auf Elephantine: zur Evidenz von Bauinschriften bei archäologischen Rekonstrucktionen.” GM 171: 93-102.

Grandet, P. 1990 “Un texte historique de Ramsès III à el-Kâb (et autres textes ramessides).” RdE 41: 95-99.

1994 Papyrus Harris I: BM 9999. Bibliothèque d’Étude, t. 109. vol. 2. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Gratien, B. 1985 “La nécropole SAC 4 de l’ile de Saï: l’occupation Kerma.” In Mélanges offerts à Jean Vercoutter. F. Geus and F. Thill (eds). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 93-105.

1986 Saï I. La nécropole Kerma. Paris: Presses du CNRS.

1995 “Gism el-Arba, un habitat Kerma. Les niveaux tardifs.” CRIPEL 17(2): 55-65.

1999 “Some Rural Settlements at Gism el-Arba in the Northern Dongola Reach.” Sudan & Nubia 3: 10-12.

Green, F. W. 1903a “Notes on an Inscription at el-Kab.” PSBA 25: 215-216.

1903b “Preshitoric Drawings at El-Kab.” PSBA 25: 371.

Graves, C. 2011 Egyptian imperialism in Nubia c. 2009-1191 BC. MPhil Thesis: University of Birmingham. Published online: http://etheses, bham.ac.uk/1389. Griffith, F. Ll. 1903 “Chapter V. The Inscriptions.” In Abydos II. W. M. F. Petrie. London: Egypt Exploration Fund: 41-46.

1989 Hieratic papyri from Kahun and Gurob (principally of the Middle Kingdom). London. B. Quaritch.

Griffin, K. 2007 “A Reinterpretation of the Use and Function of the Rekhyt Rebus in New Kingdom Temples.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2006. M. Cannata (ed).

565

Oxford: Oxbow Books: 66-84.

Griffiths, J. G. 1980 The Origins of Osiris and his Cult. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

1982a “Motivation in Early Egyptian Syncretism.” In Studies in Egyptian Religion: Dedicated to Professor Jan Zandee. M. Heerma van Voss, D. J. Hoens, G. Mussies, D. van der Plas, and H. Te Velde (eds). Leiden: E. J. Brill: 43-55.

1982b “Osiris.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 4. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 623-633.

2001 “Osiris.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 2. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 615-619.

Grimal, N. 1992 A History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

2010 “Les ancêstres de Karnak.” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 154 (1): 343-370.

Gundlach, R. 1961 “Zur Rolle Sarenputs I., Gaufürsten von Elephantine, als königlichem Beauftragten für nubische Erzeugnisse.” ZÄS 86: 32-38.

1998 “Tempelfeste und Etappen der Königsherrschaft in der 18. Dynastie.” In 4. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Köln 10.-12. Oktober 1996: Feste im Tempel. R. Gundlack and M. Rochholz (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 55-75.

2010 “Die Chapelle Blanche und das Tempelbauprogramm Sesostris’ I. in Theban.” In 8. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between Temples, Warschau, 22.-25. September 2008. M. Dolińska and H. Beinlich (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 81-109.

Gundlach, R. and M. Rochholz (eds) 1994 Ägyptische Tempel – Struktur, Funktion und Programm. HÄB 37. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Gunn, B. 1916 “The Religion of the Poor in Ancient Egypt.” JEA 3: 81-94.

Habachi, L. 1954 “Khata’na-Qantir: Importance.” ASAE 52: 452-453.

1956 “Hekaib: the deified governor of Elephantine.” Archaeology 9(1): 8-15.

566

1957a Tell Basta. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

1957b “The Graffiti and Work of the Viceroys of Kush in the Region of Aswan.” Kush 5: 13-36. 1963 “King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep: His Monuments, Place History, Deification and Unusual Representations in Form of Gods.” MDAIK 19: 16-52.

1975 “Building Activities of Senwosret I in the Area South of Thebes.” MDAIK 31: 27-38.

1977 “Heqaib.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 2. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 1120-1122.

1979 “Rock-inscriptions from the reign of Ramesses II on and around Elephantine Island.” In Festschrift Elmar Edel: 12. März 1979. M. Görg and E. Pusch (eds). Bamberg: M. Görg: 227-237.

1985 Elephantine IV: The Sanctuary of Heqaib. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Haeny, G. 1971 “I. Untersuchungen im Chnumtempel der 30. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Zweiter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 27: 182- 184.

1979 “New Kingdom Architecture.” In Egyptology and the Social Sciences: Five Studies. K. R. Weeks (ed). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 85-94.

1985 “The Architectural History of Heqaib’s Sanctuary.” In Elephantine IV: The Sanctuary of Heqaib. L. Habachi. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern: 140-157.

1994 “Zur Funktion der ‘Häuser für Millionen Jahre.” In Ägyptische Tempel: Struktur, Funktion und Programm. Akten der Ägyptologischen Tempeltagungen in Gosen 1990 und in Mainz 1992. R. Gundlach and M. Rochholz (eds). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg: 101-106.

1997 “New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years.’” In Temples of Ancient Egypt. B. E. Shafer (ed). Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 86- 126.

2001 “Peripteraltempel in Ägypten – Tempel mit Umgang.” In Archaische Greichische Tempel und Altägypten. Internationales Kolloquium am 28. November 1997 am Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wien. M. Bietak (ed). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 89-106.

567

Hall, H. R. 1925 Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part VII. London: British Museum.

Hansen, D. P. 1964 “Mendes 1964.” NARCE 53: 5-8.

1965 “Mendes 1964.” JARCE 4: 31-37.

1966 “Excavations at Mendes in Egypt, 1965.” In “Sixty-Seventh General Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. Abstracts.” AJA 70(2): 182-198.

1967 “Mendes 1965 and 1966, I. The Excavations at Tell el Rubʽa.” JARCE 6: 5-16.

1999 “Mendes, Dynastic Evidence.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 599-600.

Haring, B. J. 1995 “Die Opferprozessionsszenen in Medinet Habu und Abydos.” In 3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Hamburg, 1.-5. Juni 1994: Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration. D. Kurth (ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 73-89.

1997 Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

2007 “Ramesside Temples and the Economic Interests of the State: Crossroads of the Sacred and the Profane.” In Das Heilige und die Ware: Zum Spannungsfeld von Relligion und Ökonomie. M. Fitzenreiter (ed). London: Golden House Publications: 165-170.

2013 “The Rising Power of the House of Amun in the New Kingdom.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration. J. C. Moreno García (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 607-637.

Haring, B. J. and A. Klug (eds) 2007 Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume. Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen, 3.1. B. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hartwig, M. K. 2004 Tomb Painting and Identity in ancient Thebes, 1419-1372. Turnhout, Brussels, and Brepols: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

568

Harvey, S. 1994 “Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos.” EA 4: 3-5.

1998 The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos. 2 vols. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

1999 “Abydos, South: Early 18th Dynasty Monuments.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 119-120.

2001 “Tribute to a Conquering King.” Archaeology 54(4): 52-55.

2003 “Abydos.” Oriental Institute 2002-2003 Annual Report: 15-25.

2004 “New Evidence at Abydos for Ahmose’s funerary cult.” EA 24: 3-6.

2006 “The Last Egyptian Queen’s Pyramid: New Discoveries at Abydos, Egypt.” Oriental Institute News and Notes 188: 20-23.

Hassan, F. A. 1993 “Town and Village in Ancient Egypt: Ecology, Society and Urbanization.” In The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals, and Towns. B. Anday, A. Okpoko, T. Shaw, and P. Sinclair (eds). London and New York: Routledge: 551-569. 2001a “Cities.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 1. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 268-273.

2001b “Natural Resources.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 2. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 501-504.

Hassan, S. 1937 “The Great Limestone Stela of Amenhotep II.” ASAE 37: 129-134.

1953 The Great Sphinx and its Secrets, Excavations at Giza 1936-1937. vol. 8. Cairo: Faculty of Arts of the Egyptian University.

Hayes, W. C. 1946 “Royal decrees from the temple of Min at Coptos.” JEA 32: 3-23.

1959 The Scepter of Egypt. vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hein, I. 1991 Die ramessidische Bautätigkeit in Nubien. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.

1994 “Überlegungen zur Lage der Felstempel Ramses’ II in Nubien.” In Ägyptische Tempel: Struktur, Funktion und Programm. R. Gundlach and M. Rochholz (eds). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg: 131-135.

569

Helck, H. W. 1957 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Abteilung IV. Heft 19. Historische Inschriften Thutmosis IV. und Biographische Inschriften Seiner Zeitgenossen. Berlin: Adakemie-Verlag.

1958a Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs: Gebundene Ausgabe. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

1958b Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Abteilung IV. Heft 22. Inschriften der Könige von Amenophis III. Bis Haremheb und ihrer Zeitgenossen. Berlin: Adakemie-Verlag.

1961a Materialen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches. vol. 2. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.

1961b Urkunden der 18. Dynastie: Übersetzung zu den Heften 17-22. Berlin: Adakemie- Verlag.

1974 Die altagyptische Gaue. Beihefte zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, Nr. 5. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

1975 Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Alten Ägypten im 3. Und 2. Jahrtausend vor Chr. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

1978 “Die Weihinschrift Sesostris' I. am Satet-Tempel von Elephantine.” MDAIK 34: 69-78.

Hellum, J. 2011 “Pepi I: a Case Study of Royal Religious Devotion in the Old Kingdom.” In ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings. A. Mackay (ed). New Zealand: University of Auckland. Published online: www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Author.pdf.

Hendrickx, S. 1992 “Status Report on the Excavation of the Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Elkab.” VI Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Atti. vol. 1. Turin: International Association of Egyptologists: 255-257.

1994 Elkab V: The Naqada III Cemetery. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

1998 “Habitations de potiers à Elkab à l’époque romaine.” In Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur. W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, and H. Willems (eds). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies: 1353-1376.

570

1999 “Elkab.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 289-293.

Hendrickx, S. and M. Eyckerman 2009 “The 1955 excavation of an early Old Kingdom storage site at Elkab.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 1-30.

Hendrickx, S. and D. Huyge 1989 Elkab IV. Topographie. Fasc. 2. Inventaire des sites archéologiques. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

Hendrickx, S., D. Huyge, and C. Newton 2010 “The Walls of Elkab.” In Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: Papers from a workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. M. Bietak, E. Czerny, and I. Forstner-Müller (eds). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 145-169.

Hendrickx, S., W. Claes, A. Devillers, G. Storms, C. Swerts, and S. Vereecken 2016 “The Pottery from the late Early Dynastic and early Old Kingdom Settlement Elkab (excavation season 2010.” In Vienna 2 – ancient Egyptian Cermaics in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th-18th of May, 2012. B. Bader, C. Knoblauch, and E. C. Köhler (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 259-276.

Heerma van Voss, M. 1980 “Nechbet.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 4. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 366-367.

Hermann, A. 1940 Die Stelen der Thebanischen Felsgräber der 18. Dynastie. Agyptologische Forschungen, 11. Hamburg and New York: J. J. Augustin.

Herzberg, A. 2014 “Felsinschriften und -bilder als Medium der Selbstrepräsentation lokaler Amtsträger des Neuen Reiches: ein Befund aus der Aswâner Region.” In Bild: Ästhetik – Medium – Kommunikation, Beiträge des dritten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Ägyptologie (MAJA), 7. Bis 9.12.2012. G. Neunert, A. Verbovsek, and K. Gabler (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 137-154. Hesse, A. 1981 “L’enclos SAV2 de l’ȋle de Saï (Soudan).” CRIPEL 6: 7-67.

1997 “Le Néolithique de l’ȋle de Saï.” Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 6: 78-81.

571

Hill, J. A., M. A. Rosado, and J. Wegner 2017 “The Abydos Dynasty: An Osteoarchaeological Examination of Human Remains from the SIP Royal Cemetery.” In Proceedngs of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence Egyptian Museum, Florence, 23-30 August 2015. G. Rosati and M. C. Guidotti (eds). Oxford: Archeopress: 276-282.

Hirsch, E. 2004 Kultpolitik und Tempelbauprogramme der 12. Dynastie: Untersuchungen zu den Göttertempeln im Alten Ägypten. Berlin: Achet.

Hodjash, S. and O. Berlev 1982 The Egyptian Re`liefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers.

Hoffmeier, J. K. 1996 “Are there Regionally-based Theological Differences in the Coffin Texts?” In The World of the Coffin Texts: Proceedings of the Symposium held on the Occasion of the 100th Birthday of Adriaan de Buck, Leiden, December 17-19, 1992. H. Willems (ed). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 45-54.

Hofmann, B. 2004 Die Königsnovelle: Strukturanalyse am Enizelwerk. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Holladay, J. S., Jr. 1997 “7. The Eastern Nile Delta During the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. E. D. Oren (ed). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum: 183-252.

2001 “Yahudiyya, Tell el-.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 3. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 527-529.

Hölscher, U. 1939 The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty: The Excavation of Medinet Habu II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holz, R. K., D. Stieglitz, D. P. Hansen, and E. Ochsenschlager 1980 Mendes I. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Hölzl, R. 2001 “Stelae.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 3. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 319-324.

Hope, C. A. 1982 “Blue-Painted Pottery.” In Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom. E. Brovarski, S. K. Doll, and R. E. Freed (eds). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts: 88-100.

572

1987 “Innovation in the Decoration of Ceramics in the Mid-18th Dynasty.” CCE 1: 97- 122.

1989 Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom: Three Studies. Burwood: Victoria College Press.

1991 “Blue Painted and Polychrome Decorated Pottery from Amarna: A Preliminary Corpus.” CCE 2: 17-92.

1997 “Some Memphite Blue Painted Pottery of the mid-18th Dynasty.” In Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in honour of Martha Rhoades Bell. vol. 2. J. Phillips (ed). San Antonio: Van Siclen Books: 249-286.

2001 Egyptian Pottery. Aylesbury: Shire Publications.

Hornung, E. 1999 The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hornung, E. and E. Staehelin 1976 Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Hummel, R. 2009 “Chapter 4. Late New Kingdom Ceramics at Mendes.” In Delta Reports I. Research in Lower Egypt. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 65-86.

Hummel, R. and Shubert, S. B. 1994 “Preliminary Report on the Ceramics from the 1992 Season at Mendes.” JSSEA 21/22: 13-19.

2004 “7. Ceramic Analysis.” In Excavations at Mendes I: The Royal Necropolis. D. B. Redford (ed). Leiden: Brill: 135-184.

Hutchinson, A. 2011 “Temple Relief of Amenhotep III;” “Relief of Thutmose III from Abydos.” In Quest for Immortality – The Bolton Collection. C. Routledge (curator). Taipei: Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Museum: 136, 159.

Huyge, D. 1984a “Rock Drawings at the Mouth of the Wadi Hellal, Elkab (Upper Egypt).” In Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa. L. Krzyżaniak and M. Kobusiewicz (eds). Poznań: Polish Academy of Sciences; Poznań Archaeological Museum: 231-234.

573

1984b “Horus Qa-a in the Elkab area, Upper Egypt.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 15: 5-9.

1998 “Art on the Decline? Egyptian Rock Drawings from the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods.” In Egyptian Religion: the Last Thousand Years. Part II. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur. W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, and H. Willems (eds). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies: 1377-1392.

2002 “Cosmology, Ideology, and Personal Religious Practice in Ancient Egyptian Rock Art.” In Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the Deserts. R. Friedman (ed). London: The British Museum Press: 192-206.

2003 “An Enigmatic Third Dynasty Mastaba at Elkab.” EA 22: 29.

2017 “King Sahure in Elkab.” EA 50: 41-43.

Huyge, D. and L. Limme 2012 “Elkab après Capart: du campement préhistorique à la ville gréco-romaine.” In Ceci n'est pas une pyramide…:Un siècle de recherche archéologique belge en Égypte. B. Laurent, M-C. Bruwier, W. Claes, and I. De Strooper (eds): Leuven and Paris: Peeters: 46-61.

Ikram, S. 2005 “1. Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies.” In Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in ancient Egypt. S. Ikram (ed). Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press: 1-15.

Iskander, S. and O. Goelet 2015 The Temple of Ramesses II in Abydos: Volume 1 – Wall Scenes. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.

Jacquet-Gordon, H. 1988 Karnak-Nord VI. Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier: La Décoration. 2 vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

James, F. W. and McGovern, P. E. 1993 The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. vol. 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

James, J. 2018 Embodied Persons in the North Abydos Votive Zone during the Third Intermediate – Late Period (1069-332BCE): Constructing Social Identities with Osteology and Mortuary Behaviour. PhD Dissertation: University of Toronto.

574

Janssen, J. J. 1975 Commodity Prices from the Ramesside Period: An Economic Study of the Village of Necropolis Workmen at Thebes. Leiden: Brill.

1979 “The Role of the Temple in the Egyptian Economy during the New Kingdom.” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. vol. 2. E. Lipinski (ed). Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek: 505-515.

1980 “Absence from Work by the Necropolis Workmen of Thebes.” SAK 8: 127-152.

Janssen, J. and A. Mekhitarian. 1951 “Mission épigraphique à El Kab (janvier-mars 1950).” ASAE 51: 313-316.

Jansen-Winkeln, K. 2017 “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Dritten Zwischenzeit.” JEH 10(1): 23-42.

Jaritz, H. 1970 “I. Der Vorbereich des Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Erster Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 26: 90-99.

1977 “V. Anlandekai.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Siebter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 33: 91-95.

1980 Elephantine III: Die Terrassen vor den Tempeln des Chnum und der Satet: Architektur und Deutung. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1982 “IV. Untersuchungen im Bereich des späten Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Neunter/Zehnter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 38: 306-329.

1984 “V. Untersuchungen im Bereich des Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Elfter/Zwölfter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 40: 184- 191.

1986 “On Three Towns in the Upper Thebaid.” CRIPEL 8: 37-42.

1988 “VI. Untersuchungen im Bereich des späten Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 15./16. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 44: 157-162.

1989 “Nilkultstätten auf Elephantine.” In Akten des Vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen Kongresses München 1985. vol. 2. S. Schoske (ed). Hamburg: H. Buske: 199-209.

2005 “Die Tribünen vor ägyptischen Tempeln der 18. Dynastie bis zur Römerzeit. Ein Deutugnsversuch zur Funktion.” In Structure and Significance: Thoughts on

575

Ancient Egyptian Architecture. P. Jánosi (ed). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 341-400.

Jaritz, H. and M. Bietak 1977 “Zweierlei Pegeleichungen zum Messen der Nilfluthöhen im Alten Ägypten: Untersuchung zum neuentdeckten Nilometer des Chnum-Tempels von Elephantine (Strabon, XVII. I. 48).” MDAIK 33: 47-62.

Jeffreys, D. 2010 “Regionality, Cultural and Cultic Landscapes.” In Egyptian Archaeology. W. Wendrich (ed). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell: 102-118.

Jeffreys, D. G. and J. Malek 1988 “Memphis 1986, 1987.” JEA 74: 15-29.

Jenni, H. 1998 Elephantine XVII: die Dekoration des Chnumtempels auf Elephantine durch Nektanebos II.Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo 90. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Johnson, W. R. 1998 “Chapter 3. Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning.” In Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign. D. O’Connor and E. H. Cline (eds). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 63-94.

Jones, M. 1990 “The Temple of Apis in Memphis.” JEA 76: 141-147.

Judd, T. 2009 Rock Art of the Eastern Desert of Egypt: Content, Comparisons, Dating and Significance. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Junge, F. 1976 “VI. Holzrelief der 6. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Sechster Grabungsbericht.” Kaiser et al. MDAIK 32: 98-107.

1987 Elephantine XI: Funde und Bauteile, 1.-7. Kampagne, 1969-1976. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1991 “Ein Bruchstück vom Kopf einer Achenaten-Statue aus Elephantine.” MDAIK 47: 191-194.

Junker, H. 1911 Der Auszug der Hathor-Tefnut aus Nubien. SPAW. Berlin: Adademie der Wissenschaften.

1913 Das Götterdekret über das Abaton. Vienna: Alfred Hölder.

576

1929 Giza I. Bericht über die von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Vienna: Leipzig Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.

1934 Giza II. Bericht über die von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Vienna: Leipzig Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.

Kadish, G. E. 1966 “Old Kingdom Egyptian Activity in Nubia: Some Reconsiderations.” JEA 52: 23- 33.

Kaiser, W. 1961 “Bericht über eine archäologisch-geologische Felduntersuchung in Ober- und Mittelägypten.” MDAIK 17: 1-53.

1970 “IV. Die älteren Tempel von Chnum und Satet.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Erster Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 26: 109- 118.

1971 “V. Zu den älteren Tempeln der Satet.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Zweiter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 27: 195- 196.

1973 “I. Satettempel und Zwischenbereich zum Chnumtempel.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Dritter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 28: 158-164.

1975 “I. Satettempel: Gesamtbereich.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Fünfter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 31: 40-50.

1976 “I. Satettempel: Gesamtbereich.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Sechster Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 32: 68-75.

1977 “I. Satettempel: Gesamtbefund und geplante Dokumentation ausgewahlter Entwicklungsphasen.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Siebter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 33: 64-68.

1980a “III. Satettempel: Wiedererrichtung des Heiligtums der 18. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Achter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 36: 250-254.

1980b “IV. Statettempel: Architektur und Reliefdekor des Tempels der 18. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Achter Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 36: 254-264.

577

1986 “III. Satettempel: Neubau Sesostris’ I.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 13./14. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 43: 84-88.

1988 “V. Zur Rekonstruktion des Satettempels der 12. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 15./16. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 44: 152-157. 1993a “IV. Die Entwicklung des Satettempels in der 11. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 19./20. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 49: 145-151.

1993b “V. Zu den Anfängen des Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 19./20. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 49: 152-153.

1995 “VII. Zum Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 21./22. Gragungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 51: 147-164.

1997a “VI. Zum Chnumtempel des Mittleren Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 23./24. Gragunbsbereicht.” Kaiser et al. MDAIK 53: 159-161.

1997b “IX. Bautätigkeit der Spätzeit an den Tempeln des Neuen Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 23./24. Gragunbsbereicht.” Kaiser et al. MDAIK 53: 173-182.

1999a “Elephantine.” In The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 335-342.

1999b “V. Zu den Erneuerungen des Satettempels in der 11. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 55: 90-94.

1999c “VII. Zum Satettempel des Neuen Reiches und der Spätzeit.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 55: 97-108.

1999d “VIII. Zum Chumtempel des Mittleren Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 55: 108-110.

2000 “Elephantine – Südliche Grenzstadt des pharaonishcen Ägypten.” In Archäeologische Entdeckungen: Die Forschungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts im 20. Jahrhundert. 2000. W. Kaiser et al. (eds). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern: 163-168.

578

Kaiser, W. and D. Raue 2009 “4. Temple of Khnum: Fragments of the Middle Kingdom (Pl. V-VI).” In Report on the 38th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 9-12. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/en/daik_ele38_rep_en.pdf.

Kanawati, N. 1977 The Egyptian Administration in the Old Kingdom: Evidence on its Economic Decline. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

1980 Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

1992 Akhmim in the Old Kingdom I: Chronology and Administration. Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptology.

Kaplony, P. 1963 Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit. vol. 3. Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

1978 “Ka-Haus.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 3. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 284-287.

Karlin, C. 1970 “Chapitre IV: Le Sanctuaire d’Hathor.” In Mirgissa I. J. Vercoutter et al. Paris: La direction générale des relations culturelles, scientifiques et techniques: 307-362.

Karlshausen, C. 2009 L’Iconographie de la Barque Processionnelle Divine en Égypte au Nouvel Empire. Leuven and Paris: Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies.

Katary, S. 1983 “Cultivator, Scribe, Stablemaster, Soldier: The Late-Egyptian Miscellanies in Light of P. Wilbour.” Ancient World 6: 71-86. Kawai, N. 2005 Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun. PhD Dissertation: The Johns Hopkins University.

Kees, H. 1960 “Wêbpriester der 18. Dynastie im Trägerdienst bei Prozessionen.” ZÄS 85: 45-56.

Keller, C. A. 1995 “Private Votives in Royal Cemeteries: The Case of KV 9.” Varia Aegyptiaca 10(2-3): 139-156.

Kemp, B. J. 1968 “The Osiris Temple at Abydos.” MDAIK 23:138-155.

579

1972a “Fortified Towns in Nubia.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 651-656.

1972b “Temple and Town in Ancient Egypt.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 659-667.

1975 “Abydos.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 1. W. Helck and E. Otto (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 28-41.

1977a “The Early Development of Towns in Egypt.” Antiquity 51: 185-200.

1977b “The City of El-Amarna as a Source for the Study of Urban Society in Ancient Egypt.” World Archaeology 9(2): 123-139.

1983 “Chapter 2: Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686-1552 BC.” In Ancient Egypt: A Social History. B. G. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, and A. B. Lloyd (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 71-182.

1989 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge.

1995 “How Religious were the Ancient Egyptians?” CAJ 5(1): 25-54.

2004 “The First Millennium BC: Temple Enclosure or Urban Citadel?” In “Egypt’s Invisible Walls.” B. J. Kemp et al. CAJ 14(2): 271-276.

2006 Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.

2013 The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Amarna and its People. London: Thames & Hudson.

Kemp, B. J. and S. Garfi 1993 A Survey of the Ancient City of el-Amarna. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Kemp, B. J. (ed) 1984 Amarna Reports. 5 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Kendall, T. 2002 Napatan Temples: A Case Study from Gebel Barkal: The Mythological Nubian Origin of Egyptian Kingship and the Formation of the Napatan State. Conference Publication.

580

Kendall, T., El-H. A. Mohamed, H. Wilson, J. Haynes, and D. Klotz 2017 “Jebel Barkal in the New Kingdom: An Emerging Picture.” In Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived Experience, Pharaonic Control and Indigenous Traditions. N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 159-192.

Kessler, D. 1989 Die Heiligen Tiere und der König I: Beiträge zu Organisation, Kult und Theologie der spätzeitlichen Tierfriedhöfe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1998 “Dissidentenliteratur oder kultischer Hintergrund? Teil 1: Überlegungen zum Tura-Hymnus und zum Hymnus in TT 139.” SAK 25: 161-188.

2001 “Bull Gods.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 1. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 209-213.

Kitchen, K. A. 1969 Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. vol. 6. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell Ltd.

1970 Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. vol. 5. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell Ltd.

1978 Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. vol. 3. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell Ltd.

1993 Ramesside inscriptions: Translated and Annotated. vol. 1. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

1996 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Kjølby, A. 2007 “Decision-making Processes: A Cognitive Study of Private Statues in New Kingdom Temples.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. vol. 1. J.-Cl. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters: 991-1000. 2009 “Material agency, Attribution and Experience of Agency in Ancient Egypt: The Case of New Kingdom Private Temple Statues.” In Being in Ancient Egypt: Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition. Proceedings of the seminar held in Copenhagen, Sept. 29-30, 2006. R. Nyord and A. Kjølby (eds). Bar International Series 2009. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2009: 31-46.

2012 “Decision-making and Structuration: A Study of the Minds Behind Private Statues in New Kingdom Egyptian Temples.” In Excavating the Mind: Cross-

581

sections through Culture, Cognition, and Materiality. N. Johannsen, M. Jessen, and H. J. Jensen (eds). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press: 233-254.

Klemm, R. and D. Klemm 2013 Gold and Gold Mining in Ancient Egypt and Nubia: Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts. New York: Springer.

Klug, A. 2002 Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III. Turnhout: Brepols.

Knoblauch, C. M. and L. Bestock 2009 “Four Thousand Years in Abydos: A Preliminary Report on the Architecture and Cermaics of the 2004-05 Excavation in the North Cemetery, West.” MDAIK 65: 211-252.

Koenig, Y. 1994 Magie et magiciens dans l’Égypte ancienne. Paris: Pygmalion.

Konrad, K. 2006 Architektur und Theologie: Pharaonische Tempelterminologie unter Berücksichtigung königsideologischer Aspekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kopp, P. 2005a “XI. Zu den Kleinfunden: Wibliche Figurinen.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 31./32. Grabungsbericht.” G. Dreyer et al. MDAIK 61: 82-90.

2005b “VI. Small finds from the settlement of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.” In Report on the 34th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 17. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/en/daik_ele34_rep_en.pdf.

2010 “1. Excavations Conducted in the Garden Area of the Elephantine Island Museum (Area XXVI).” In Report on the 39th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. P. Kopp et al: 4-6. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele39_rep_en.pdf.

2012 “3. Excavations in the Garden Area of the Elephantine Island Museum.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from Autumn 2011 to Spring 2012. F. Arnold et al: 4-8. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele41_rep_en.pdf.

Kormysheva, E. 2004 “On the Origin and Evolution of the Amun Cult in Nubia.” In Nubian Studies 1998: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian

582

Studies, August 21-26, 1998, Boston, Massachusetts. T. Kendall (ed). Boston: Northeastern University: 109-133.

Korostovtsev, M. 1947 “Stèle de Ramsès IV.” BIFAO 45: 155-173.

Kóthay, K. A. 2002 “Houses and Households at Kahun: Bureaucratic and Domestic Aspects of Social Organization during the Middle Kingdom.” In Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga: ‘le lotus qui sort de terre.’ H. Győry (ed). Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux- Arts: 349-368.

Kozloff, A., P. and B. M. Bryan 1992 Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art; Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kraemer, B. 2011 “She-Who-Hides-Her-Lord and Her Guardian Falcons: Some Religious Symbolism in the Landscape at Abydos.” In Abstracts: The 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Chicago, IL, April 1-3. San Antonio: ARCE US Office.

2013 “Abydos circa 199 BCE: A Temple’s Administrative Center and a Seige during the First Theban Revolt.” 64th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Krekeler, A. 1990a “IV. Stadtgebiet nordwestlich des späten Chnumtempels: späteres Neues Reich bis Spätantike.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 17./18. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 46: 209-224.

1990b “IX. Restaurierung und Wiederaufbau.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 17./18. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 46: 244-248.

1993 “VIII. Stadtgebiet nordwestlich des späten Chnumtempels: spätes Neues Reich bis Spätantike.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 19./20. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 49: 170-181.

1996 “Stadtgrabung am Westkom von Elephantine/Wohnbauten des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.” In Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. M. Bietak (ed). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 107-115.

Kruchten, J-M. 1991 “L’année ou la fête d’Opet n’eut pas lieu en Paophi.” JEA 77: 182-184.

583

2001 “Oracles.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 2. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 609-612.

Kruchten, J-M., and L. Delvaux 2010 Elkab VIII. La tombe de Sétaou. Turnhout: Brepols.

Kucharek, A. 2000 “Die frühe Persönliche Frömmigkeit im Fest: Über ein Lied in Gebel es-Silsilah.” GM 176: 77-80.

Laboury, D. 2006 “Royal Portrait and Ideology: Evolution and Signification of the Statuary of Thutmose III.” In Thutmose III: A New Biography. E. H. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 260-291.

2013a “L’artiste Égyptien, ce grand méconnu de l’Égyptologie.” In L’art du contour le dessin dans l’Égypte ancienne. G. Andreu-Lanoë (ed). Paris: Somogy éditions d’art: 28-35.

2013b “Citations et usages de l’art du Moyen Empire à l’époque thoutmoside.” In Vergangenheit und Zukunft: Studien zum historischen Bewusstsein in her Thutmosidenzeit. S. Bickel (ed). Basel: Schwabe: 11-28.

2014 “How and Why Did Hatshepsut Invent the Image of Her Royal Power?” In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut. J. M. Galán, B. M. Bryan and P. F. Dorman. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 49-91.

Lacau, P. 1909 Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: Stèles du Nouvel Empire. vol. 1, fasc 1. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

1926 Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: Stèles du Nouvel Empire. vol. 1, fasc 2. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

1949 Une stèle juridique de Karnak. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

1954 “Deux magasins à encens du temple de Karnak.” ASAE 52: 185-198.

Lacau, P. and Chevrier, H. 1977 Une Chapelle d’Hatchepsout à Karnak. vol. 1. Cairo: Le service des antiquités de l’Égypte avec la collaboration de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Lacovara, P 1990 Deir el Ballas: Preliminary Report on the Deri el-Ballas Expedition 1980-1986. ARCE Reports 12. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

584

1997 The New Kingdom Royal City. London and New York: Kegan Paul International.

Langsdorff, A. and S. Schott 1930 “Der Tell von Thmuis.” MDAIK 1: 135-136.

Lankester, F. 2013 Desert Boats: Predynastic and Pharaonic Era Rock-Art in Egypt’s Central Eastern Desert. Distribution, dating and interpretation. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Larkin, D. W. 2008 “Making Egyptian Temple Decoration Fit the Available Space.” In Egypt and Beyond: Essays presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University, June 2005. S. E. Thompson and P. der Manuelian (eds). Charlestown: Sawyer Printers.

Laskowski, P. 2001 “A note on the building activity of Thutmosis III in Elkab.” In Proceedings of the First Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists: Egypt 1999: perspectives of research, Warsaw 7-9 June 1999. J. Popielska-Grzybowska (ed). Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University: 81-84.

2006 “Monumental Architecture and the Royal Building Program of Thutmose III.” In Thutmose III: A New Biography. E. H. Cline and D. O’ Connor (eds). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 183-237.

Lavier, M.-C. 1989 “Les mystères d’Osiris à Abydos d’après les stèles du Moyen Empire et du Nouvel Empire.” In Akten des Vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen Kongress München 1985. vol. 3. S. Schoske (ed). Hamburg: H. Buske: 289-295.

Leahy, A. 1977 “The Osiris Bier Reconsidered.” Orientalia 46: 424-434.

1985 “The Libyan Period in Egypt: An Essay in Interpretation.” Libyan Studies 16: 51- 65.

1989 “A Protective Measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty.” JEA 75: 41-60.

1990 “Abydos in the Libyan Period.” In Libya and Egypt, c. 1300-750 B.C. A. Leahy (ed). London: SOAS Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Society for Libyan Studies: 155-200.

2009 “Dating stelae of the Libyan period from Abydos.” In The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007. G. P. F. Broekman, R.

585

J. Demarée and O. E. Kaper (eds). Leiden and Leuven: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten and Peeters: 417-440.

Leblanc, C. 1997 “Quelques reflexions sur le programme iconographique et la function des temples de ‘millions d’années’.” In The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research. S. Quirke (ed). London: British Museum Press: 49-56.

Leclant, J. 1965 Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne. 2 vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

1978 “5. Egypt in Nubia during the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms.” In Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan, Essays. S. Wenig (ed). Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum: 62-73.

Leclant, J. and G. Clerc 1985 “Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1983-1984.” Orientalia 54(3): 337- 415.

1988 “Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1986-1987.” Orientalia 57(3): 307- 404.

Leemans, C. 1867 Aegyptische Monumenten van het Nederlandsche Museum van Oudheden te Leyden. Leiden: Brill.

Legrain, G. 1905 “The King Samou or Seshemou and the Enclosures of El-Kab.” PSBA 27: 106- 111.

1917 “Un Miracle d’Ahmes I à Abydos sous le règne de Ramsès II.” ASAE 16: 161- 179.

Lehner, M. 2011 Giza Plateau Mapping Project Season 2009 Preliminary Report. Boston: AERA.

Lehner, M. and W. Wetterstrom (eds) 2007 Giza Reports 1: Project History, Survey, Ceramics and Main Street and Gallery III. Boston: Operations.

Leitz, C. 2002a Lexikon der Ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. vol. 2. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies.

586

2002b Lexikon der Ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. vol. 4. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies.

2002c Lexikon der Ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. vol. 5. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies.

2002d Lexikon der Ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. vol. 5. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies.

Leprohon, R. J. 1978 “The Personnel of the Middle Kingdom Funerary Stelae.” JARCE 15: 33-38.

1980 The Reign of Amenemhat III. PhD Dissertation: University of Toronto.

1983 “Intef III and Amenemhat III at Elephantine.” In Egyptological Miscellanies: A Tribute to Professor Ronald J. Williams. J. K. Hoffmeier and E. S. Meltzer (eds). Chicago: Ares Publishers: 103-107.

2007 “Chapter 13. Ritual Drama in Ancient Egypt.” In The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama. E. Csapo and M. C. Miller (eds). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press: 259-292.

2009 “The Stela of Sehetepibre (CG 20538): Borrowings and Innovation.” In Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt. D. P. Silverman, W. K. Simpson, J. Wegner (eds). New Haven: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: 277-293.

2013 The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Lesko, B. S. 1999 The Great Goddesses of Egypt. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Letellier, B. and F. Larché 2013 La cour à portique de Thoutmosis IV. 3 vols. Paris: Éditions Soleb.

Lichtheim, M. 1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume II: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1988 Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and

587

an Anthology. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.

Lilyquist, C. L. 1967 “Inscriptions from Tell el-Ruba’.” JARCE 6: 16-32.

Limme, L. 2000 “L’Elkab de l’Ancien Empire.” BSFE 149: 14-31.

2008 “Elkab, 1937-2007: seventy years of Belgian archaeological research.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 9: 15-50.

Limme, L., S. Hendrickx and D. Huyge. 1997 “Elkab: Excavations in the Old Kingdom Rock Necropolis.” EA 11: 3-6.

Lindblad, I. 1984 Royal Sculpture of the Early Eighteenth Dynasty in Egypt. Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet. Lloyd, A. B. 2000 “13. The Late Period (664-332 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. I. Shaw (ed). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press: 369-394.

Loeben, C. E. 1995 “Symmetrie, Diagonale und Chiasmus als Dekorprinzipien im Bildprogramm des Groβen Tempels von Abu Simbel: Beobachtungen und vorlaufige Ergebnisse.” In 3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Hamburg, 1.-5. Juni 1994: Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration. D. Kurth (ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 143-162.

Lorand, D. 2013 “Une ‘Chapelle des Ancêtres à Karnak sous Sésostris 1er?” Cahiers de Karnak 14: 447-466.

Lovell, N, C. 1994 “The 1992 Excavations at Kom el-Adhem, Mendes.” JSSEA 21/22: 20-36.

Luiselli, M. M. 2007 “Religion und Literatur: Überlegungen zur Funktion der ‘persönlichen Frömmigkeit’ in der Literatur des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches.” SAK 36: 157- 182.

2008 “Personal Piety (Modern Theories related to).” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-9. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000s3mss.

588

2011 Die Suche nach Gottesnähe: Untersuchungen zur Persönlichen Frömmikeit in Ägypten von der ersten Zwischenzeit bis zum Ende des neuen Reichs. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

2015 “Early Mut(s): On the Origins of the Theban Goddess Mut and her Cult.” RdE 66: 111-132.

Lurson, B. 1995 “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Egyptian Temples.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. vol. 1. J. M. Sasson (ed). New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons: 319-329.

2007 “Des relations spatiales dans la conception du décor des temples de l’époque Pharaonique.” In 6. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume. Leiden, 4.-7. September 2002. B. J. J. Haring and A. Klug (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 187-204.

Macadam, M. F. L. 1955 The Temples of Kawa II: History and Archaeology of the Site. London: Griffith Institute.

Mace, A.C. 1921 “The Egyptian Expedition 1920-1921. I: Excavations at Lisht.” BMMA 16: 5-19.

Manassa, C. 2003 The Great Karnak Inscription of Merenptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century BC. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, Yale University.

Manniche, L. 1988 Lost Tombs: A Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monuments in the Theban Necropolis. London and New York: KPI.

Mariette, A. 1869 Abydos: description des fouilles exécutés sur l’emplacement de cette ville. vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

1880a Abydos: description des fouilles exécutés sur l’emplacement de cette ville. vol. 2. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

1880b Catalogue générale des monuments d’Abydos découverts pendants les fouilles de cette ville. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Marini, P. 2015 “Renenutet: Worship and Piety at Thebes in the New Kingdom.” JIIA 2: 73-84.

589

Marković, N. 2015 “The Cult of the Sacred Bull Apis: History of Study.” In A History of Research into Ancient Egyptian Culture Conducted in Southeast Europe. M. Tomorad (ed). Oxford: Archaeopress: 135-144.

2016 “A Look Through his Window: The Sanctuary of the Divine Apis Bull at Memphis.” JAEA 1: 57-70.

Marlar, M. 2007a “Excavations of the Temple of Osiris at Abydos reported on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Museum-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York University Expedition to Abydos.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists: Grenoble, 6-12 Septembre 2004. vol. 2. J-C. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 1251-1259.

2007b “Sex as a votive offering at the Osiris temple.” In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor. vol. 2. Z. A. Hawass and J. E. Richards (eds). Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Egypte: 111-120.

2009 The Osiris Temple at Abydos: An Archaeological Investigation of the Architecture and Decorative Elements of Two Temple Plans. PhD Dissertation: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University.

Marriott, M. 1955 “Little Communities in an Indigenous Civilization.” In Village India: Studies in the Little Community. M. Marriott (ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 171-222.

Martin, G. T. 1989 The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, commander-in-chief of Tut’ankamun I: the Reliefs, inscriptions, and commentary. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Martin-Pardey, E. 1976 Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Provinzialverwaltung bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Maspero, M. G. 1902 “Notes sur les objets recueillis sous la pyramide d’Ounas.” ASAE 3: 185-190.

Masson, A. 2013 “Domestic and Cultic Vessels from the Priests’ Quarter in Karnak: The Fine Line between the Profane and the Sacred.” In Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. B. Bader and M. F. Ownby (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Uitgeverij Peeters: 141-164.

590

Mastropaolo, S. 2013 Lexique animalier égyptien: Les caprins, les ovins et les bovins. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Mathieu, B. 2004 “La distinction entre Textes des Pyramides et Textes des Sarcophages est-elle légitime?” In D’un monde à l’autre: Textes des Pyramides & Textes des Sarcophages. S. Bickel and B. Mathieu (eds). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 247-262.

McCormack, D. 2006 “Borrowed Legacy: Royal Tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos.” Expedition 48(2): 23-26.

2008 Dynasty XIII Kingship in Ancient Egypt: A Study of Political Power and Administration through an Investigation of the Royal Tombs of the Late Middle Kingdom. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

2010 “The Significance of Royal Funerary Architecture in the Study of Thirteenth Dynasty Kingship.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties, Current Research, Future Prospects. M. Marée (ed). Leuven: Peeters: 69-84.

2012 “The 2011 Season of the South Abydos Mastabas Project.” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 200: 31-33.

2015 “2014 Season of the South Abydos Mastabas Project.” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 206: 22-27.

2017 “The 13th Dynasty at Abydos: A Royal Tomb and its Context.” In Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence Egyptian Museum, Florence 23-30 August 2015. G. Rosati and M. C. Guidotti (eds). Oxford: Archeopress: 399-404.

McDowell, A. G. 1999 Village Life in Ancient Egypt: Laundry Lists and Love Songs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meeks, D. 1973 “Le poison de Mendès.” RdE 25: 209-216.

Mercer, S. A. B. 1949 The Religion of Ancient Egypt. London: Luzac.

591

Meskell, L. 1998 “An Archaeology of Social Relations in an Egyptian Village.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(3): 209-243.

1999 Archaeologies of Social Life. Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

2001 “Archaeologies of Identity.” In Archaeological Theory Today. I. Hodder (ed). Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden: Blackwell Publishers: 187-213.

2002 Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Meyer, C. 1982 Senenmut: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung. Hamburg: Borg.

Meyer, S. 1998 “Festlieder zum Auszug Gottes.” In 4. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Köln, 10.- 12. Oktober 1996: Feste im Tempel. R. Gundlach and M. Rochholz (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 135-142.

Meyer-Dietrich, E. 2009 “Der Tempel als Körper: das Verhältnis zwischen architektonischer und religiöser Praxis. In 7. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Structuring Religion. Leuven, 28. September – 1. Oktober 2005. R. Preys (ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 173-189.

2010 “Die Opetprozession – mehr als nur eine rituelle Verbindung von Karnak mit Luxor: die Verwendung von Schall zur Erzeugung eines symbolischen Raumes bei der Opetprozession.” In 8. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between Temples, Warschau, 22.-25. September 2008. M. Dolińska and H. Beinlich (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 123-136.

Michalowski, K. and J. S. F. Garnot 1938 Fouilles franco-polonaises. Rapports: Tell Edfou. vol. 2. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Miellé, L. 2012 “La céramique pharaonique de la ville fortifiée (SAV1N) de l’ȋle de Saï.” CRIPEL 29: 173-187.

2014 “Nubian traditions on the ceramics found in the Pharaonic town on Sai Island.” In The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies. J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers: 387-392.

592

Millard, A. J. 1979 “Part III. The finds.” In The Fortress of Buhen: The Archaeological Report. W. B. Emery, H. S. Smith, and A. Millard. London: Egypt Exploration Society: 109- 188.

1982 “Bowls.” In Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom 1558- 1085 B.C. E. Brovarski, S. K. Doll, and R. E. Freed (eds). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts: 141-142.

Minault-Gout, A. 1976 “Saï 1974-1975: tombes pharaoniques.” CRIPEL 4: 87-103.

1979 “Deux fonctionnaires de la XIXe dynastie en poste au Soudan (Saï – inventaire 1126, 1147-1150 et 1153.” In Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron 1927- 1976. I: Égypt pharaonique. J. Vercoutter (ed). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 33-41.

1997 “La nécropole pharaonique de Saï.” CRIPEL 17(2): 99-104.

2007 “Les installations du début du Nouvel Empire à Sai: un état de la question.” In Mélanges offerts à Francis Geus: Egypte-Soudan (CRIPEL 26). B. Gratien (ed). Villeneuve d’Ascq: Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille: 275-293.

2012 “La figurine funéraire Saï inv. S. 964 (SNM 23424) et un groupe de quatre chaouabtis de la XVIII dynastie de même type.” CRIPEL 29: 189-200.

Minault-Gout, A. and F. Thill 1974 “Tombes du Nouvel Empire à Saï (SA.C.5).” CRIPEL 2: 77-102.

1975 “La tombe 14 de la nécropole du Nouvel Empire à Saï.” CRIPEL 3: 69-90.

2012 Saï II. Le cimetière des tombes hypogées du Nouvel Empire (SAC5). vol. 1. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Moeller, N. 2003 “Tell Edfu at the End of the Third Millennium BC.” EA 23: 7-9.

2004 “Evidence for Urban Walling in the Third Millennium BC.” In “Egypt’s Invisible Walls.” B. J. Kemp et al. CAJ 14(2): 261-265,

2010 “Tell Edfu: Preliminary Report on Seasons 2005-2009.” JARCE 46: 81-111.

2016 The Archaeology of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: From the Predynastic Period to the End of the Middle Kingdom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

593

2017 “The Foundation and Purpose of the Settlement at Lahun during the Middle Kingdom: A New Evaluation.” In Essays for the Library of Seshat: Studies Presented to Janet H. Johnson on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. R. K. Ritner (ed). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 183-203.

Moeller, N. and D. Farout 2007 “Tell Edfu: Uncovering a Provincial Capital.” EA 31: 14-17.

Moeller, N. and G. Marouard 2018 “The Development of Two early Urban Centres in Upper Egypt during the 3rd Millennium BC.” In From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Individual Households and Cities in Ancient Egypt and Nubia. J. Budka and J. Auenmüller (eds). Leiden: Sidestone: 29-58.

Mohamed, Z. S. 2004 Festvorbereitungen. Die administrativen und okonomischen Grundlagen altagyptischer Feste, OBO 202. Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Mokhtar, G. 1991 “Similarity between the ram gods of Ihnasya and Elephantine.” MDAIK 47: 253- 254.

Mond, R. and O. H. Myers 1940 Temples of Armant: A preliminary Survey. EES 43. London. Egypt Exploration Society.

Moore, T. 1994 The Good God Amenhotep I: The Deified King as a Focus of Popular Religion during the Egyptian New Kingdom. PhD Dissertation: University of California Berkeley.

Morales, A. J. 2013 The Transmission of the Pyramid Texts into the Middle Kingdom: Philological Aspects of a Continuous Tradition in Egyptian Mortuary Literature. 2 vols. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

2017 The Transmission of the Pyramid Texts of Nut: Analysis of their Distribution and Role in the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Moreno García, J. C. 2005 “Deux families de potentats provinciaux et les assises de leur pouvoir: Elkab et el- Hawawish sous la Vie dynastie.” RdE 56: 95-128.

2006 “Les temples provinciaux et leur rôle dans l’agriculture institutionelle de l’Ancien et du Moyen Empire.” In L’agriculture institutionnelle en Egypte ancienne: état de la question et perspectives interdisciplinaires (CRIPEL 25). J. C. Moreno

594

García (ed). Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex: Université Charrles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3: 93- 124.

2010 “Oracles, Ancestor Cults and Letters to the Dead: Involvement of the Dead in the Public and Family Affairs in Pharaonic Egypt.” In Perception of the Invisible: Religion, Historical Semantics and the Role of Perceptive Verbs. A. Storch (ed). Cologne: Rüdige Köppe: 143-146.

2013a “The Territorial Administration of the Kingdom in the 3rd Millennium.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration. J. C. Moreno García (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 85-150.

2013b “The ‘Other’ Administration: Patronage, Factions, and Informal Networks of Power in Ancient Egypt.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration. J. C. Moreno García (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 1029-1065.

2015 “Administration, Power and Ideology in Egypt, from the Old Kingdom to the Middle Kingdom.” In Egitto splendore millenario: La collezione di Leiden a Bologna, Skira, Bologna. P. Giovetti and D. Picchi (eds): 90-96.

Morenz, L. D. 2004 “Der von Gott begnadete Herrscher. Eine sakro-politische Verkündigung des Chnum für Inj-jt=f-aA, monumentalisiert auf einem Sakralbau in Elephantine.” MDAIK 60: 107-118.

2005 “Die doppelte Benutzung von Genealogie im Rahmen der Legitimiserungsstrategie für Menthuhotep (II.) als gesamtägyptischer Herrscher.” In Genealogie: Realität und Fiktion von Identität. M. Fitzenreiter (ed). London: Golden House: 109-123.

Morenz, L. D. and L. Popka 2010 “Chapter 6: The Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom.” In A Companion to Ancient Egypt. vol. 1. A. B. Lloyd (ed). Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell: 101-119.

Morenz, S. 1975 “Die Heraufkunft des Transzendenten Gottes in Ägypten.” Reprint in Religion und Geschichte des alten Ägypten: gesammelte Aufsätze. E. Blumenthal and S. Herrmann (eds). Köln: Böhlau: 77-119.

Morgan, E. E. 2004 Untersuchungen zu den Ohrenstelen aus Deir el Medine. Ägypten und Altes Testament 61. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

595

Morkot, R. 2013 “From conquered to conquerer: the organization of Nubia in the New Kingdom and the Kushite administration of Egypt.” In J. C. Moreno García (eds). The Administration of Egypt. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 911-963.

Morris, E. F. 2005 The Architecture of Imperialism. Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom. Leiden and Boston: E. J. Brill.

Mougenot, F. 2012 “Au plus près des offrandes: des statues de particuliers dans le grenier du dieu au Nouvel Empire.” RdE 63: 201-207.

Mourad, A-L. 2015 Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the early Second Intermediate Period. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing.

Mouzelis, N. 1995 Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong? London and New York: Routledge.

Mueller, K. 2006 Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley: Peeters.

Muhs, B. 2016 The Ancient Egyptian Economy 3000-30 BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, V. 1998 “Offering Deposits at Tell El-Dabca.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995. C. J. Eyre (ed). Leuven: Peeters: 793-803.

Müller-Wollermann, R. 2005 “Die Felsinschriften des Alten Reiches aus Elkab.” In Texte und Denkmäler des ägyptischen Alten Reiches. S. J. Seidlmayer (ed). Berlin: Achet, Dr. Norbert Dürring: 263-274.

Mumford, G 1996 “A First Intermediate Period Cemetery and Late Old Kingdom Mastaba Field at Mendes.” ATPN 1996(2): 3-4.

1997 “A Late New Kingdom Ceramic Assemblage at Mendes.” ATPN 1997(1): 1-3.

596

Müntel, S. 1995 “II. Älteste Baustrukturen im Inneren der frühzeitlichen Festung.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 21./22. Gragungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 51: 103-109.

Murnane, W. J. 1977 Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

1981 “Opetfest.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 4. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 574-579.

1994a “Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory: New Light on the ancients‘ “uses of the past” from the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.” KMT 5(3): 15-24, 88.

1994b “Too Many High Priests? Once Again the Ptahmoses of Ancient Memphis.” In For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer. D. P. Silverman (ed). Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 187-196.

1995a Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

1995b “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution.” In Ancient Egyptian Kingship. D. O’Connor and D. P. Silverman (eds). Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill: 185-217.

1998 “Chapter 6. The Organization of Government under Amenhotep III.” In Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign. D. O’Connor and E. H. Cline (eds). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 173-221.

Murnane, W. J. and C. C. Van Siclen III 1993 The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. London and New York: Kegan Paul International.

Mysliwiec, K. 1976 Le portrait royal dans le bas-reliefs du Nouvel Empire. Warsaw: PWN-Éditions Scientifiques de Pologne.

Nagel, G. 1983 La Céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el Médineh. vol. 1. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Nagy, I. 1983 “Statue-bloc de Thotmès premier fils royal de Nekhbet.” Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 60-61: 3-8.

597

Näser, C. 2013 “Structures and Realities of Egyptian-Nubian Interactions from the Late Old Kingdom to the Early New Kingdom.” SDAIK 36: 135-148.

Naville, E. 1891 Bubastis (1887-1889). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner.

1892-1893 “Professor Naville’s work of the winter 1892.” Archaeological Report of the EEF, 1892-1893: 1-5.

1894 Ahnas el-Medineh (Heracleopolis Magna). London: Egypt Exploration Society.

1898 The Temple of Deir El Bahari, Part III: End of Northern Half and Southern Half of the Middle Platform. London: The Egypt Exploration Fund.

1906 The Temple of Deir El Bahari, Part V: The Upper Court and Sanctuary. London: The Egypt Exploration Fund.

Nebe, I. 1990 “V. Die Stelen des Heiligtums Y.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 17./18. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 46: 224-231.

Needler, W. 1962 “A Dagger of Ahmose I.” Archaeology 15: 172-175.

1984 Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum.

Nelson, H. H. 1949 “Certain reliefs at Karnak and Medinet Habu and the Ritual of Amenophis I.” JNES 8(3): 201-232; 8(4) 310-345.

Nicholson, P. T. 2010 “Kilns and Firing Structures.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. W. Wendrich (ed). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-10. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0025sr24.

Niederberger, W. 1990 “II. Untersuchungen im Bereich des späten Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 17./18. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 46: 189-193.

1999 Elephantine XX: der Chnumtempel Nektanebos' II. Architektur und baugeschichtliche Einordnung. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutsches

598

Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo 96. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Nissen, H. J. 1972 “The City Wall of Uruk.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 793-798.

1988 The Early History of the ancient Near East, 9000-2000 B. C. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nims, C. F. 1955 “Places about Thebes.” JNES 14: 110-123.

1956 “Popular Religion in Ancient Egyptian Temples.” In Proceedings of the Twenty- Third International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 21st-28th August, 1954. D. Sinor (ed). London: The Royal Asiatic Society: 79-80.

1966 “The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut.” ZÄS 93: 97-100.

Nyord, R. and A. Kjølby (eds) 2009 Being in ancient Egypt: Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition: proceedings of the seminar held in Copenhagen, September 29-30, 2006. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Oates, D. 1972a “The development of Assyrian towns and cities.” In. Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 799-804.

1972b “Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Mesopotamia.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 299-310.

Ochsenschlager, E. L. 1967 “Mendes 1965 and 1966. III. The Excavations at Tell Timai.” JARCE 6: 32-51.

1971 “Excavations of the Graeco-Roman City Thmuis in the Nile Delta.” AAAS 21: 185-191.

Ockinga, B. 2001 “Piety.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 3. D. B. Redford (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 44-47.

O’Connor, D. 1967 “Abydos: A preliminary report of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition, 1967.” Expedition 10(1): 10-23.

599

1969 “Abydos and the University Museum: 1898-1969.” Expedition 12(1): 28-39.

1972 “The Geography of Settlement in Ancient Egypt.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 681-698.

1979 “Abydos: The University Museum-Yale University Expedition.” Expedition 21(2): 46-49.

1983 “3. New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552-664 BC.” In Ancient Egypt: A Social History. B. G. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, D. O’ Connor and A. B. Lloyd (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 183-278.

1985 “The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. vol. 2. P. Posener-Kriéger (ed). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 161–177.

1989 “New funerary enclosures (Talbezirke) of the Early Dynastic Period at Abydos.” JARCE 26: 51-86.

1992 “The Status of Early Egyptian Temples: An Alternative Theory.” In The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Hoffman 1944-1990. R. Friedman and B. Adams (eds). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 83-98.

1993 “34. Urbanism in Bronze Age Egypt and Northeast Africa.” In The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals, and Towns. T. Shaw et al. (eds). London and New York: Routledge: 570-586.

1995a “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Egyptian Temples.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. vol. 1. J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman, and K. S. Rubinson (eds). New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons: 319-329.

1995b “Beloved of Maat, the Horizon of Re: The Royal Palace in New Kingdom Egypt.” In Ancient Egyptian Kingship. D. O’Connor and D. Silverman (eds). Leiden: E. J. Brill: 263-300.

1997a “The elite Houses of Kahun.” In Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. vol. 2. J. Phillips (ed). San Antonio: Van Siclen Books: 389-400.

1997b “2. The Hyksos Period in Egypt.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. E. D. Oren (ed). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum: 45-67.

600

1999 “Abydos, North, ka chapels and cenotaphs.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 110-113.

2009 Abydos: Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Olette-Pelletier, J.-G. 2017 “Sur la réunion de deux fragments d’une stele de la fin du Moyen Empire (Bodmer 20 et Rouen AEg. 348).” RdE 67: 55-76.

Onstine, S. L. 2005 The role of the chantress (Šmcyt) in ancient Egypt. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Op De Beeck, L. 2009 “Early Old Kingdom pottery from excavations to the north of the great enclosure wall at Elkab.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 49-74.

Oren, E. D. 1980 “Egyptian Sites in the Time of the New Kingdom in Advance of the Sinai.” Qadmoniot 13: 26-33.

Oren, E. D. (ed) 2000 The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

O’Rourke, P. F. 2001 “Khnum.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 2. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 231-232.

Osborne, R. and J. Tanner (eds) 2007 Art’s Agency and Art History. Malden: Blackwell.

Otto, E. 1966 Osiris und Amun: Kult und heilige Stätten. Munich: Hirmer.

1975 “Chnum.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 1. W. Helck and E. Otto (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 950-954.

Pamminger, P. 1992 “Amun und Luxor: der Widder und das Kultbild.” Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 5: 93-140.

1996 “Amenophis III. und die Götter von Luxor.” Antike Welt 27(6): 433-443.

601

Papazian, H. 2008 “Perspectives on the Cult of Pharaoh during the Third Millennium B.C.: A Chronological Overview.” In Chronlogy and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The Third Millennium B.C.). H. Vymazalová, M. Bárta, and H. Altenmüller (eds). Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology Charles University: 61-80.

Parkinson, R. 1991 Voices from Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Middle Kingdom Writings. London: British Museum Press.

Patch, D. C. 1991 The Origin and Early Development of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: A Regional Study. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

2007 “Third Intermediate Period Burials of Young Children at Abydos.” In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David. B. O’ Connor. vol. 2. Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds). Cairo: The Supreme Council of Egyptian Antiquities: 237-256.

Pätznick, J-P. 1995 “XI. Zu den Siegelabrollungen der Frühzeit und des frühen Alten Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 21./22. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 51: 179-184.

2001 “La ville d' Éléphantine et son matériel sigillaire: enquête sur un artefact archéologique.” In Le sceau et l'administration dans la Vallée du Nil: Villeneuve d'Ascq, 7-8 juillet 2000. B. Gratien (ed). Villeneuve-d'Ascq: Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille III: 137-151. 2005 Die Siegelabrollungen und Rollsiegel der Stadt Elephantine im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr: Spurensicherung eines archäologischen Artefaktes. BAR International Series 1339. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Peden, A. J. 2001 The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt. Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c. 3100- 332 B.C.). Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: E. J. Brill.

Peet, T. E. 1914 The Cemeteries of Abydos II. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1924 “A Historical Document of Ramesside Age.” JEA 10: 116-127.

Peet, T. E. and W. Loat 1913 The Cemeteries of Abydos III. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

602

Peet, T. E. and C. L. Woolley, 1923 The City of Akhenaten I: Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at El-ʽAmarneh. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Pendlebury, J. D. S. 1951 The City of Akhenaten III. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Peterson, B. 1967 “Archäologische Funde aus Sesebi (Sudla) in Nord-Sudan.” Orientalia Suecana 16: 3-15.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1891 Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. London: Nutt.

1894 Tell el-Amarna. London: Methuen.

1896 Koptos. London: B. Quaritch.

1900 The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1901 The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties II. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. 1902 Abydos I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1903 Abydos II. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1909 Memphis I. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

1910 Meidum and Memphis III. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1925 Tombs of the Courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

1938 Egyptian Architecture. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Pierret, P. 1978 Recueil d’inscriptions inédites du Musée Egyptien du Louvre. Hildesheim: Olms.

Pinch, G. 1983 “Childbirth and Female Figurines at Deir el-Medina and el-‘Amarna.” Orientalia 52: 405-414.

1993 Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum.

603

Pinch, G. and Waraksa, E. A. 2009 “Votive Practices.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-9. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nfbgg

Pischikova, E. 2008 “‘Cow Statues’ in Private Tombs of Dynasty 26.” In Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini. S. H. D’Auria (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 190- 197.

Platt, A. F. R. 1908 “The Origin of the Name of the Island of Elephantine.” PSBA 30: 206-207.

Polz, D. 2007 Der Beginn des Neuen Reichs: Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.

Polz, D. and A. Seiler 2003 Die Pyramidenlage des Königs Nubcheperre. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Porter, B. and R. L. B. Moss 1929 Topographical Bibliography of ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings II: Theban Temples. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1934 Topographical Bibliography of ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings IV: Lower and Middle Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1937 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings V: Upper Egypt: Sites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1952 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. VII: Nubia, the Deserts, and Outside Egypt. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum.

Postgate, J. N. 1972 “The Role of the Temple in the Mesopotamian Secular Community.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 811-825.

1994 Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London and New York: Routledge.

Pouls Wegner, M-A. 1997-1998 “A Newly Discovered Temple of Thutmose III at Abydos.” KMT 8(4): 48- 59.

604

2002 The Cult of Osiris at Abydos: an Archaeological Investigation of the Development of an Ancient Egyptian Sacred Center during the Eighteenth Dynasty. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

2007 “A Third Intermediate Period Burial ‘Ad Sanctos’ at Abydos.” In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’ Connor. vol. 2. Z. A. Hawass and J. Richards (eds). Cairo: Publications du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de L’Égypt.

2011 “New Kingdom Ceramics Associated with the Cult Chapel of Thutmose III at Abydos: Preliminary Analysis and Interpretations.” CCE 9: 367-414.

2012 “New Fieldwork at Abydos: The Toronto Votive Zone Project.” NEA 75(3): 178- 184.

2016 “Reading Abydos as the Landscape of Postmortem Transformation.” Paper presented at the Yale Egyptology conference Ritual Landscape and Performance. Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations, Yale University, September 23-24. Proceedings forthcoming.

2019 “Birth and Rebirth in the Abydos Landscape.” In Abydos: The Sacred Land at the Western Horizon. I. Regulski (ed). Leuven: Peeters. In Press.

Preys, R. 2007 “Espaces de circulation et portes d’accès: architecture et décoration du temple.” In 6. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume. Leiden, 4.-7. September 2002. B. J. J. Haring and A. Klug (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 205-212.

Price, C. 2015 “2.1 Votive Practice in ancient Egypt.” In Gifts for the Gods: Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies and the British. L. McKnight and S. Atherton-Woolham (eds). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press: 21-22.

Pumpenmeier, F. 1996 “II. Heqareschu-Hügel.” In “Umm el-Qa’ab Nachuntersuchungen im früzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 7./8. Vorbericht.” G. Dreyer et al. MDAIK 52: 47-48.

1998a “II. Heqareschu-Hügel.” In “Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 9./10. Vorbericht.” G. Dreyer et al. MDAIK 54: 123-137.

1998b Ein Gunstgabe von Seiten des Königs: Ein extrasepulkrales Schabtidepot Qen- Amuns in Abydos. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 19. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.

605

Quaegebeur, J. 1989 “Le petit obélisque d'Elkab et la Dame du terroir d'en haut.” CdE 64: 121-133.

1992 “The Demotic and Greek Ostraca from Elkab.” In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo 2-9 September 1989, I. A. H. S. El- Mosalamy (ed). Cairo: Ain Shams University: 671-685.

Quibell, J. E. 1897 “The Egyptian Research Account at El Kab.” The Biblical World 9(5): 380-381.

1898 El Kab. London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd.

Quirke, S. 1986 “The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom.” RdE 37: 107-130.

1991 “’Townsmen’ in the Middle Kingdom: On the term s n niwt in the Lahun Temple Accounts.” ZÄS 118: 141-149.

1992 Ancient Egyptian Religion. London: British Museum Press.

1997 “Gods in the Temple of the King: Anubis at Lahun.” In The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research. S. Quirke (eds). London: British Museum Press: 24-48.

1998 “Figures of Clay: Toys or Ritual Objects.” In Lahun Studies. S. Quirke (ed). Reigate: SIA: 141-151.

2000 “Six Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in University College Dublin.” RdE 51: 223-251.

2005 Lahun: A Town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the History of its Landscape. London: Golden House Publications.

Radwan, A. 1985 “The anx-vessel and its ritual function.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. vol. 2. P. Posener-Kriéger (ed). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 211- 217.

Randall-MacIver, D. and A. Mace 1902 El Amrah and Abydos. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Rathbone, D. W. 1994 “Settlement and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt.” In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists: Copenhagen, 23-29 August, 1992. A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed). Odense: Museum Tusculanum Press: 136-145.

606

Raue, D. 1999 “XVIII. Ägyptische und nubische Keramik der 1.-4. Dynastie.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 55: 174-190.

2002 “Nubians on Elephantine Island.” Sudan & Nubia 6: 20-24.

2008a “Who was who in Elephantine of the Third Millennium BC?” British Museum in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 9: 1-14.

2008b “7. Third Intermediate Period: King Ini on Elephantine (Pl. VII).” In Report on the 37th Season of Excavation and Restortation on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 13-15. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele37_rep_en.pdf.

2008c “Untersuchungen in der Stadt des 3. Jahrtausends.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 33./34./35 Grabungsbereicht.” G. Dreyer et al. MDAIK 64: 68-78.

2013 “Centre and Periphery: Elephantine and its Surroundings in the Third Millennium BC.” SDAIK 36: 149-155.

Raue, D. and C. Jeuthe 2005 “II. Untersuchungen im Stadtgebiet südlich des Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 31./32. Grabungsbereicht.” G. Dreyer et. al. MDAIK 61: 18-31.

Raven, M. J. 1996 “[Review of] P. Eschweiler, Bildzauber.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 53: 692-697.

2012 Egyptian Magic: The Quest for Thoth’s Book of Secrets. Cairo: American University of Cairo Press.

Ray, J. D. 2011 Texts from the Baboon and Falcon Galleries: Demotic, Hieroglyphic and Greek Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Redfield, R. 1960 The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Redford, D. B. 1965 “The Coregency of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.” JEA 51: 107-122.

607

1967 History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty: Seven Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

1973 “Studies on Akhenaten at Thebes I.” JARCE 10: 77-94.

1976 “Chapter 9: The Palace of Akhenaten in the Karnak Talatat.” In The Akhenaten Temple Project I: Initial Discoveries. R. W. Smith and D. B. Redford (eds). Warminster: Aris & Phillips: 122-136.

1979 “The Historiography of Ancient Egypt.” In Egyptology and the Social Sciences: Five Studies. K. R. Weeks (ed). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 3-20.

1980 “The sun-disc in Akhenaten’s program: its Worship and antecedents.” JARCE 17: 21-38.

1983 “Notes on the History of Ancient Buto.” BES 5: 67-102.

1984 Akhenaten: The Heretic King. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1986a Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga: Benben Publications.

1986b “Thutmosis III.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 6. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harassowitz: 540-548.

1991 “The 1991 Preliminary Field Season at Tell er-Rubʽa (Mendes).” NARCE 155: 1- 4.

1993 “The 1992 Excavations at Mendes, Lower Egypt.” Bulletin of the Canadian Mediterranean Institute 13(2): 4.

1994a “Excavations at Mendes.” Bulletin of the Canadian Mediterranean Institute 14(2): 3.

1994b “Interim Report on the Second Campaign of Excavations at Mendes (1992).” JSSEA 21-22: 1-12.

1994c “East Karnak and the sed-festival of Akhenaten.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant. vol. 1. C. Berger, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal (eds). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale: 485-492.

1995 “The Fifth Season of Excavation at Mendes.” ATPN 1995(4): 1-3.

1996a “Mendes & Environs in the Middle Kingdom.” In Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson. vol. 2. P. der Manuelian (ed). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts: 697- 682.

1996b “The Sixth Season of Excavations at Mendes.” ATPN 1996(3): 1-3.

608

1996c “Five years of Excavation at Mendes.” ATPN 1996(2): 1-3.

1997a “Report on the 7th season of excavations at Mendes (Tel er-Rubʽa).” ATPN 1997(4): 1-4.

1997b “1. Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. E. D. Oren (ed). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum: 1-44.

1999 “The Ninth Campaign at Mendes (summer 1999).” ATPN 1999(3): 1-3.

1999-2000 “Report on the 9th Season of Excavation at Tell el-Ruba/Mendes.” ASAE 75: 17-24.

2000 “Report on the Mendes excavations 2000 (10th season).” ATPN 2000(3): 1-3.

2001 “Report on the 11th Season of Excavations at Tel er-Rub’a (Mendes).” ATPN 2001(3): 1-3.

2004a “1. The Temenos Walls.” In Excavations at Mendes 1: The Royal Necropolis. D. B. Redford (ed). Leiden: Brill: 5-23.

2004b “2. The Sarcophagus and its Installation.” In Excavations at Mendes 1: The Royal Necropolis. D. B. Redford (ed). Leiden: Brill: 24-29.

2004c “3. The Relief-Decoration of Nepherites’ Tomb and Related Epigraphy.” In Excavations at Mendes 1: The Royal Necropolis. D. B. Redford (ed). Leiden: Brill: 30-34.

2004d “4. The Third Intermediate & Saite Periods.” In Excavations at Mendes 1: The Royal Necropolis. D. B. Redford (ed). Leiden: Brill: 35-36.

2005 “Mendes: city of the ram-god.” EA 26: 8-12.

2008 “Some Old Kingdom Sealings from Mendes I.” In Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini. S. H. D’ Auria (ed). Boston: Brill: 198-203.

2009 “An Interim Report on the Temple of the Ram-god at Mendes.” In Delta Reports I. Research in Lower Egypt. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 1-55.

2010a City of the Ram-Man. The Story of Ancient Mendes. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

2010b “The Second Pylon of the Temple of Ba-Neb-Djed at Mendes.” In Offerings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Medley in Honor of Jack A. Josephson. S. H. D’ Auria (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 271-275.

609

2013 “Remarks on some toponyms associated with Tel-er-Rub'a in light of recent excavations.” In Archaeological research in the Valley of the Kings and ancient Thebes: papers presented in honor of Richard H. Wilkinson. P. P. Creasman (ed). Tucson: University of Arizona Egyptian Expedition: 273-275.

Redford, D. B., G. Mumford, S. Redford, S. Shubert, and R. Hummel 1988 “Three Seasons in Egypt III: The First Season of Excavations at Mendes (1991).” JSSEA 18: 49-79.

Redford, S. and D. B. Redford 2005 “The Cult and Necropolis of the Sacred Ram at Mendes.” In Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. S. Ikram (ed). Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press: 164-198.

Regulski, I. 2009 “Early Dynastic seal impressions from the settlement site at Elkab.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 31-48.

Renfrew, C. 1985 The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: Thames and Hudson; Athens: British School of Archaeology.

1994 “The Archaeology of Religion.” In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 47-54.

Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn 1996 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. 2nd edition. London: Thames & Hudson.

Reymond, E. A. E. 1969 The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Richards, J. 1992 Mortuary Variability and Social Differentiation in Middle Kingdom Egypt. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

1999 “4. Conceptual Landscapes in the Egyptian Nile Valley.” In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds). Oxford and Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd: 83-100.

2005 Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Landscape of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

610

Richter, B. A. 2010 “On the Heels of the Wandering Goddess: The Myth and the Festival at the Temples of the Wadi el-Hallel and Dendera.” In Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between Temples. M. Dolińska and H. Beinlich (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 155-186.

Rilly, C. 2008 “Les textes méroïtiques de l’ȋle de Saï.” Kush 19: 139-177.

Ritner, R, K. 1990 “O. Gardiner 363: A Spell against Night Terrors.” JARCE 27: 25-41.

1993 The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Ritzer, G. and P. Gindoff 2015 “Chapter One. Agency-Structure, Micro-Macro, Individualism-Holism- Relationism: A Metatheoretical Explanation of Theoretical Convergence between the United States and Europe.” In Agency and Structure: Reorienting Social Theory. P. Sztompka (ed). Oxfordshire and New York: Routledge: 3-23.

Ritzer, G. and D. J. Goodman (eds) 2000 Modern Sociological Theory (6th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Robertson, J. F. 1995 “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Mesopotamian Temples.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. vol. 1. J. M. Sasson (ed). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons: 443-454.

Robichon, C. and A. Varille 1940 Description sommaire du temple primitif de Médamoud. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Robins, G. 1993 Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

1996 “Dress, Undress, and the Representations of Fertility and Potency in New Kingdom Egyptian Art.” In Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy. N. B. Kampen (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 27-40.

1997 The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1999 “The Names of Hatshepsut as King.” JEA 85: 103-112.

611

Rocheleau, C. 2005 Amun Temples in Nubia: A Comparative Study of New Kingdom, Napatan, and Meroitic Temples (Egypt, Sudan). PhD Dissertation: University of Toronto.

2008 Amun Temples in Nubia: A Typological Study of New Kingdom, Napatan, and Meroitic Temples. BAR International Series 1850. Michigan: University of Michigan.

Rodziewicz, M. 1997 “XI. Remains of Early Roman Industries.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 23./24. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 53: 191-193.

Roeder, G. 1959 Die ägyptische Religion in Texten und Bildern I. Die ägyptische Götterwelt. Zürich: Artemis-Verlag.

1969 Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Roehrig, C. H. 1990 The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal Nurse (mn’t nswt), Royal Tutor (mn’ nswt), and Foster brother/sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sni snt mn’ n nb tAwy). PhD Dissertation: University of California Berkeley.

Rondot, V. 2013 “Le long voyage du dessinateur Neb depuis Elkab jusqu’à Sabo en Nubie soudanaise.” In L’art du contour le dessin dans l’Égypte ancienne. G. Andreu- Lanoë (ed). Paris: Somogy éditions d’art: 28-35.

2017 “Le vice-roi de Kouch Imenemnekhou à Saï.” In Du Sinaï au Soudan. Itinéraire d’une égyptologue (Mélanges offerts à Dominique Valbelle). Paris: Boccard: 225- 228.

Roth, A. M. 1977-1978 “Ahhotep I and Ahhotep II.” Serapis 4: 31-40.

1999 “The Ahhotep Coffins: The Evolution of an Egyptological Reconstruction.” In Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente. E. Teeter and J. A. Larson (eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 361-377.

2000 “Father Earth, Mother Sky: Ancient Egyptian Beliefs about Conception and Fertility.” In Reading the Body: Representation and Remains in the Archaeological Record. A. E. Rautman (ed). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 187-201.

Rowe, A. 1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan I: The Temples and Cult Objects. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

612

Rowland, J., P. Maříková-Vlčková, S. Hendrickx, T. Herbich, W. Claes, and D. Huyge 2009 “Old Kingdom settlement remains at Elkab (Upper Egypt): preliminary report on the 2009 field season.” Bulletin des Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire 80: 21-50.

Ruffieux, P. 2009 “Poteries découvertes dans un temple égyptien de la XVIIIe dynastie à Doukki Gel (Kerma).” Genava 57: 121-134.

Russmann, E. R. (ed) 2001 Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum. London: British Museum Press; New York: American Federation of Arts.

Russo, B. 2006 “La stele di Kares (CGC 34003): semplice copia o volute ripresa della grande stele di Mentuhotep (CGC 20539)?” In Imagines et iura personarum: l’uomo nell’Egitto antico: per I novant’anni di Sergio Donadoni; atti del IX Convegno Internazionale di Egittologia e Papirologia, Palermo, 10-13 Novembre 2004. P. Minà (ed). Palermo: Università di Palermo: 235-241.

Ryholt, K. S. B. 1997 The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800- 1550 B.C. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Sadek, A. I. 1979 “Glimpses of Popular Religion in New Kingdom Egypt 1: Mourning for Amenhophis I at Deir el-Medina.” GM 36: 51-56.

1987 Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Saint-Genis 1821 “Description des ruines d’El-Kâb ou Elethyia.” In Description de l’Egypte. Tome premier. Antiquités – Descriptions. Paris: Imprimerie impériale: 341-356.

Salvador, C. 2016 “Graffiti and Sacred Space: New Kingdom Expressions of Individuality in the Court of the Seventh Pylon at Karnak.” In 10. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: ägyptische Tempel zwischen Normierung und Individualität. München, 29.-31. August 2014. M. Ullmann (ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 111-128.

Satzinger, H. 1969 “Die Abydos stele des Ipwy aus dem Mittleren Reich.” MDAIK 25: 121-130.

Sauneron, S. 1964 “Villes et legends d’Égypte.” BIFAO 62: 33-57.

Sayce, A. 1899 “Some Old Empire Inscriptions from El-Kab.” PSBA 21: 111-114.

613

Sayce, A. H. and Clarke, E. 1905 “Report on Certain Excavations Made at El-Kab During the Years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904.” ASAE 6: 264-271.

Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1941 Ägypten und Nubien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte altägyptischer Aussenpolitik. Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri.

Säve-Söderbergh, T. (ed) 1987 Temples and Tombs of Ancient Nubia: The International Rescue Campaign at Abu Simbel, Philae and Other Sites. London: Thames and Hudson.

Scalf, F. 2015 “From the Beginning to the End: How to Generate and Transmit Funerary Texts in Ancient Egypt.” JANER 15(2): 202-223.

Schäfer, H. 1904 Die Mysterien des Osiris in Abydos unter König Sesostris III: Nach dem Denkstein des Oberschatzmeisters I-Cher-Nofret im Berliner Museum. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Scharff, A. 1926 Die archäologischen Ergebnisse des vorgeschichtlichen Gräberfeldes von Abusir el-Meleq. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

1930 “Ein Besuch von Mendes.” MDAIK 1: 130-134.

1934 “Ein Denkstein des Vezirs Rahotep aus der 19. Dynastie.” ZÄS 70: 47-51.

Schenkel, W. 1975 “Die Bauinschrift Sesostris’I. im Satet-Tempel von Elephantine.” MDAIK 31: 109-125.

Schmitz, F-J. 1978 Amenophis I: Versuch einer Darstellung der Regierungszeit eines ägyptischen Herrschers der frühen 18. Dynastie. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Schneider, H. D. 1996 The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-In-Chief of Tut’ankhamun II: A Catalogue of the Finds. London: Egypt Exploration Society; Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.

Schulman, A. R. 1976 “The Royal Butler Ramessesemperre.” JARCE 13: 117-130.

614

Scott, G. D. 1986 Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale. New England: Yale University Art Gallery.

Seidlmayer, S. J. 1982a “III. Nekropole, Keramikwerkstatt und königliche Anlage in der Nordweststadt.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Neunter/Zehnter Grabungsbericht.” Kaiser et al. MDAIK 38: 284-306.

1982b “V. Stele Osorkons II. und Votivstatuette des Amun.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Neunter/Zehnter Grabungsbericht.” Kaiser et al. MDAIK 38: 329- 337.

1996a “Town and State in the Early Old Kingdom: A View from Elephantine.” In Aspects of Early Egypt. J. Spencer (ed). London: British Museum Press: 108-127.

1996b “Die Staatliche Anlage der 3. Dyn. in der Nordweststadt von Elephantine: Archäologische und historische Probleme.” In Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. M. Bietak (ed). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 195-214.

1999 “New Rock Inscriptions at Elephantine.” EA 14: 41-43.

2001a “’Dreiβig Jahre lieβ ich gehen…’ Bemerkungen zu zwei Jubiläumsinschriften der Aswaner Region.” MDAIK 57: 247-256.

2001b “Ikonographie des Todes.” In Social Aspects of Funerary culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden University 6-7 June 1996, OlA 103. H. Willems (ed). Leuven, Paris, Sterling: Uitgeverij Peeters and Dep. Oosterse Studies: 205-252.

2003 “New Rock Inscriptions on Elephantine Island.” In Egyptology at the Dawn of the twenty-first century: proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo 2000. vol. 1. Z. Hawass (ed). Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press: 440-447.

2006a “Landschaft und Religion – Die Region von Aswan.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 1: 223-235.

2006b “XIII. Rock Inscriptions (Pls VI-VII).” In Report on the 35th season of excavation and restoration on the island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al. (eds): 20-21. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

2012 “Die Inschriften auf der Nordseite der Tribüne vor dem Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches auf Elephantine.” MDAIK 68: 219-236.

615

2013 “Rock Inscriptions in the Area of Aswan: From Epigraphy to Landscape Archaeology.” In The First Cataract of the Nile: one region – diverse perspectives. D. Raue, S. J. Seidlmayer, and P. Speiser (eds). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter: 205-210.

Seidlmayer, S. J., F. Arnold, J. Drauschke, P. Kopp, C. von Pilgrim, and S. Wefers 2017 “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 39./40./41. Grabungsbericht.” MDAIK 72: 197-226.

Seiler, A. 1997 “VIII. Zur Datierung der Stadtmauer A2 und B des Neuen Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 23./24. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser. et al. MDAIK 53: 165-173.

2006 “’Erhebe dich, vater!..., deine Milch dir, die in den Brüsten deiner Mutter Isis ist.’ Zu Form und Funktion einer Gruppe anthropomorpher Gefäße aus der Nekropole in Dra’ Abu el-Naga/Theben.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. vol. 1. E. Czerny et al.(eds). Leuven: Peeters: 317-327.

Selim, A-K. 1991 Les obélisques égyptiens: histoire et archáologie. 2e partie: Les inscriptions des obélisques royaux égyptiens. SASAE 26(2). Cairo: Les Imprimeries Gouvernementales.

Sethe, K. 1904 Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-römischen Zeit. Heft I. Historisch- Biographische Urkunden aus den Zeiten der Makedonischen Könige und der beiden Ersten Ptolemäer. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

1906-1927 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV. Heft 1-16. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

1910 Die altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums. vol. 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

1914 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie I. Übersetzungen. Heft 1-4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Shaw, G. 2008 Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Shaw, I. 1998 “Egyptian Patterns of Urbanism: A Comparison of Three New Kingdom Settlement Sites.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September, 1995. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. C. J. Eyre (ed). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters: 1049-1060.

616

Shaw, I. (ed) 2000 The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shirley, J. J. 2005 The Culture of Officialdom: An Examination of the Acquisition of Offices during the mid-18th Dynasty. PhD Dissertation: The Johns Hopkins University.

2010 “Viceroys, Viziers and the Amun Precinct: The Power of Heredity and Strategic Marriage in the Early 18th Dynasty.” JEH 3(1): 73-113.

2013 “Crisis and Restructuring of the State: From the Second Intermediate Period to the Advent of the Ramesses.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration. J. C. Moreno García (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 521-606.

2014 “The Power of the Elite: The Officials of Hatshepsut’s Regency and Coregency.” In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut. J. M. Galán, B. M. Bryan, and P. F. Dorman (eds). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 173-245.

Shirley, J. J. and W. Schenck 2017 “TT 110: Epigraphy and Research Field School: Training Egyptian Antiquities Officials in Recording and Investigative Methodologies.” Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 210: 4-15.

Shortland, A. J. 2000 Vitreous Material at Amarna: The Production of Glass and Faience in 18th Dynasty Egypt. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Shubert, S. 1981 “Studies on the Egyptian Pylon.” JSSEA 11(3): 135-164.

Silverman, D. P. 1989 “The so-called Portal Temple of Ramesses II at Abydos.” In Akten des Vierten Internazionalen Ägyptologen Kongresses München 1985. vol. 2. S. Schonske (ed). Hamburg: Buske: 269-277.

1996 “Coffin Texts from Bersheh, Kom el Hisn, and Mendes.” In The World of the Coffin Texts: Proceedings of the Symposium held on the Occasion of the 100th Birthday of Adriaan de Buck, Leiden, December 17-19, 1992. H. Willems (ed). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 129-141.

Simmance, E. B. 2016 “The Authority behind Statues and the Authority of Statues: Sistrophores and Intermediaries.” In Proceedings of the Second Birmnigham Egyptology Symposium, University of Birmingham, 20th February 2015. S. R. W. Gregory (ed). Birmingham: Department of Classics and Ancient History, The University of Birmingham: 47-66.

617

Simpson, W. K. 1963 Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. New Haven: The Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University.

1974 The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University.

1981 “Textual Note on the Elephantine Building Text of Sesostris I and the Zizinia Fragment from the tomb of Horemheb.” GM 45: 69-70.

1995 Inscribed Material from the Pennsylvania-Yale excavations at Abydos. New Haven and Philadelphia: Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University and University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

2003 The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. 3rd Edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Smith, E. B. 1968 Egyptian Architecture as Cultural Expression. New York: American Life Foundation & Study Institute.

Smith, H. S. 1969 “Animal Domestication and Animal Cults in Dynastic Egypt.” In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby (eds). London: Aldine Transaction: 307-314.

1972 “Society and Settlement in ancient Egypt.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 705-720.

1976 The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Smith, S. T. 1992 “Intact tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom burial system.” MDAIK 48: 193-231.

1995 Askut in Nubia: The economics and ideology of Egyptian imperialism in the second millennium B.C. London and New York: Kegan Paul International.

2003 Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire. London and New York: Routledge.

2010 “A Portion of Life Solidified: Understanding Ancient Egypt through the Integration of Archaeology and History.” JEH 3(1): 159-189.

618

Smith, S. T. and M. Buzon 2014 “Colonial Entanglements: ‘Egyptianization’ in Egypt’s Nubian Empire and the Nubian Dynasty.” In The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies. J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby (eds). Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters Publishers: 431-442.

Smith, W. S. 1981 The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Rev. with additions by W. K. Simpson. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Smither, P. C. 1945 “The Semnah Despatches.” JEA 31: 3-10.

Snape, S. 1986 Mortuary Assemblages from Abydos. PhD Dissertation: University of Liverpool.

2002 “Aspects of foreign trade in the Ramesside Period.” Paper presented to Egyptological Society of Victoria, Melbourne, August 10.

2014 The Complete Cities of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.

Soghor, C. L. 1967 “Mendes 1965 and 1966, II. Inscriptions from Tell el Rubʽa.” JARCE 6: 16-32.

Sourouzian, H. 1981 “L’apparition du pylône.” BIFAO 18: 141-151.

Sowada, K., T. Callaghan, and P. Bentley 1999 The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara IV: Minor Burials and Other Material. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Spalinger, A. J. 1991 “Some Revisions of Temple Endowments in the New Kingdom.” JARCE 28: 21- 39.

2005 War in Ancient Egypt. The New Kingdom. Malden and Oxford: Wiley.

2006 “Covetous Eyes South: The Background to Egypt’s Domination over Nubia by the Reign of Thutmose III.” In Thutmose III: A New Biography. E. H. Cline and D. O’ Connor (eds). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 344-369.

Spence, K. 2004 “Royal Walling Projects in the Second Millennium BC: Beyond an Interpretation of Defence.” In “Egypt’s Invisible Walls.” B. J. Kemp et al. CAJ 14(2): 265-271.

619

2007 “A Contextual Approach to ancient Egyptian Domestic Cult: The Case of the “lustration slabs” at el-Amarna.” In Cult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology. D. Barrowclough and C. Malone (eds). Oxford: Oxbow: 285-292.

Spence, K. and P. J. Rose 2009 “Fieldwork at Sesebi, 2009.” Sudan & Nubia 13: 38-46.

Spence, K., P. J. Rose, R. Bradshaw, P. Collet, A. Hassan, J. MacGinnis, A. Masson, and W. P. van Pelt 2011 “Sesebi 2011.” Sudan & Nubia 15: 34-39.

Spencer, A. J. 1979 Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

1993 Excavations at el-Ashmunein, III: The Town. London: British Museum Publications.

Spencer, N. 2008 Kom Firin I: The Ramesside Temple and the Site Survey. London: British Museum Press.

2010 “Nubian architecture in an Egyptian town?” Sudan & Nubia 14: 15-24.

2014a “Creating and re-shaping Egypt in Kush: Responses at Amara West.” JAEI 6(1): 42-61.

2014b “Amara West: House and Neighbourhood in Egyptian Nubia.” In Household Studies in Complex Societies: (micor) archaeological and textual approaches. M. Müller (ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 169-209.

Spencer, P. 1984 The Egyptian Temple: A Lexicographical Study. London: Kegan Paul International.

Spiegelberg, W. 1918 “Ein Heiligtum des Gottes Chnum von Elephantine in der thebanischen Totenstadt.” ZÄS 54: 64-67.

Steindorff, G. 1935 Aniba I. Glückstadt: Augustin.

1937 Aniba II. Service des antiquités, Mission aréologique de Nubie 1929-34. Glückstadt: Augustin.

620

Stevens, A. 2003 “The Material Evidence for Domestic Religion at Amarna and Preliminary Remarks on its Interpretation.” JEA 89: 143-168.

2006 Private Religion at Amarna: The Material Evidence. BAR International Series 1587. Oxford: Archaeopress.

2009 “Domestic Religious Practices.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-31. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nf63v.

Stewart, H. M. 1976 Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection I: The New Kingdom. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Stobart, H. 1855 Egyptian Antiquities Collected on Voyage made in Upper Egypt in Years 1854 and 1855. Berlin: Värsch & Happe. Strauss, E-C. 1974 Die Nunschale: eine Gefäßgruppe des Neuen Reiches. MÄS 30. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag.

Strauss, C. 1979 “Kronen.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 3. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 811-816.

Strudwick, N. 1985 The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest Titles and their Holders. London: KPI.

2005 Texts from the Pyramid Age. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Swelim, N. 1982 “Additional Views Concerning the Monument Called Sinki.” MDAIK 38: 94-95.

Szpakowska, K. 2003 “Playing with Fire: Initial observations on the religious uses of clay cobras from Amarna.” JARCE 40: 113-122.

2008 Daily Life in Ancient Egypt: Recreating Lahun. Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Wiley-Blackwell.

2013 “Striking Cobra Spitting Fire.” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 14: 27-46.

621

Sztompka, P. 1991 Society in Action: The Theory of Social Becoming. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; Cambridge: Polity Press.

(ed) 2015 Agency and Structure: Reorienting Social Theory. Oxfordshire and New York: Routledge.

Tawfix, S. 1979 “Aton Studies 5. Cult Objects on blocks from the Aton Temple(s) at Thebes.” MDAIK 35: 335-344.

1988 “Aton studies 7. Did any daily cult ritual exist in Aton Temples at Thebes? An attempt to trace it.” MDAIK 44: 275-281.

Taylor, J. A. 2001 An Index of Male Non-Royal Egyptian Titles, Epithets & Phrases of the 18th Dynasty. London: Museum Bookshop Publications.

Teeter, E. 1993 “Popular Religion in ancient Egypt.” KMT 4(2): 28-37.

2003 Ancient Egypt: Treasures from the Collection of the Oriental Institute University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

2010 Baked Clay Figurines and Votive Beds from Medinet Habu. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Tefnin, R. 1988 Statues et Statuettes de l’Ancienne Égypte. Brussels: Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire.

Te Velde, H. 1980 “Mut.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 4. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 246-248.

1997 “Mut and Other Ancient Egyptian Goddesses.” In Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. vol. 2. J. Phillips (ed). San Antonio: Van Siclen Books: 455-462.

2008 “The Goddess Mut and the Vulture.” In Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini. S. H. D’Auria (ed). Leiden and Boston: Brill: 242-245.

Thill, F. 1997 “Les premiers dépôts de foundation de Saï.” CRIPEL 17(2): 105-117.

622

2007 “Les reoccupations ‘(pré)napatéenes’ dans le cimetière ègyptien 8B5/SAC5 de Saï.” In Mélanges offerts à Francis Geus (CRIPEL 26). B. Gratien (ed). Villeneuve d’Ascq: Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille: 353-369.

2012 “Statuaire privée égyptienne de Saï.” CRIPEL 29: 253-295.

2016 “Saï et Aniba: deux centres administratifs du vice-roi Nehy sous Thoutmosis III.” CRIPEL 30 (2013-2015): 263-301.

Tobin, V. 2001 “Amun and Amun-Re.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. vol. 1. D. B. Redford (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 82-85.

Török, L. 1997 The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization. Leiden and New York: Brill.

2002 The Image of the Ordered World in Ancient Nubian Art: The Construction of the Kushite Mind, 800 BC – 300 AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

2009 Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC – 500 AD. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Toye-Dubs, N. 2016 De l’oreille à l’écoute: Etude des documents votifs de l’écoute: Nouvel éclairage sur le développement de la piété personnelle en Egypte ancienne. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Trampier, J. 2005-2006 “Reconstructing the Desert and Sown Landscape of Abydos.” JARCE 42: 73-80.

Traunecker, C. 1988 “Les maisons du domaine d’Aton à Karnak.” CRIPEL 10: 73-93.

Trigger, B. 1985 “The Evolution of Pre-Industrial Cities: A Multilinear Perspective.” In Melanges Offerts d Jean Vercoutter. F. Geus and F. Thill (eds). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations: 343-353.

2003 Understanding early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Troy, L. 1979 “Ahhotep – A Source Evaluation.” GM 35: 81-91.

623

1986 Patterns of Queenship in ancient Egyptian Myth and History. Uppsala: Universitatis Upsaliensis.

2006 “Religion and cult during the time of Thutmose III.” In Thutmose III: A new biography. E. H. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 123-182.

Tschorn, S. 2017 “Nun-Schalen aus der Stadt des Neuen Reiches auf der Insel Sai.” Ägypten und Levante 27: 431-446.

Tylor, J. J. 1895 Wall Drawings and Monuments of El Kab: The Tomb of Paheri. London: B. Quaritch.

1896 Wall Drawings and Monuments of El Kab: The Tomb of Sebeknekht. London: B. Quartich.

1898 Wall Drawings and Monuments of El Kab: The Temple of Amenhetep III. London: B. Quaritch.

1900 Wall drawings and monuments of El Kab: The tomb of Renni. London: B. Quaritch.

Tytus, R. de P. 1903 A Preliminary Report on the Re-excavation of the Palace of Amenhetep III. New York: Winthrop Press.

Ubertini, C. 2005 Elephantine XXXIV: Restitution architecturale à partir des blocs et fragments épars d'époque ptolémaïque et romaine. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Ullmann, M. 2002 König für die Ewigkeit – Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren: eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz in Kommission.

2007 “Thebes: Origins of a Ritual Landscape.” In Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes. P. F. Dorman and B. M. Bryan (eds). Chicago: Oriental Institute: 3-25.

Valbelle, D. 1975 “Témoignages du Nouvel Empire sur les cultes de Satis et d'Anoukis à Eléphantine et à Deir el-Médineh.” BIFAO 75: 123-145.

1981 Satis et Anoukis. SDAIK 8. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

624

2004 “Egyptians on the Middle Nile.” In Sudan. Ancient Treasures: An Exhibition of recent discoveries from the Sudan National Museum. D. A. Welsby and J. R. Anderson (eds). London: The British Museum Press: 92-99.

2006 “Hatchepsut en Nubie.” BSFE 167: 33-50.

2014a “International relations between Kerma and Egypt.” In The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress for Nubian Studies. J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers: 103-109.

2014b “The Part of Hatshepsut in Some Architectural Programs of Early Eighteenth Dynasty.” In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut. J. M. Galán, B. M. Bryan, and P. F. Dorman (eds). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 437-441.

Van De Mieroop, M. 2011 A History of Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Van De Walle, B. 1940 “Figurines d’envoûtement portant des textes de proscription.” Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire 12(4): 74-80.

Vandersleyen, C. 1963 “L’identité d’Ahmes Sapair.” SAK 10: 311-323.

1970 “Les dromos des temples.” In “Elkab 1966-1969.” F. Depuydt et al. CdE 45: 27-30.

1971 “Les fouilles belges d’Elkab (Haute Égypte). Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 4: 25-38.

Vandekerckhove, H., and R. Müller-Wollermann 2001a Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilâl. vol. I. Texte. Turnhout: Brepols and Brussels: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire.

2001b Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilâl. vol. II. Tafeln. Turnhout: Brepols and Brussels: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire.

Vandier, J. 1958 Manuel d’Archéologie Égyptienne. Vol. III. Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard et Cie.

1968 “La statue d’un grand prêtre de Mendes.” JEA 54: 89-94.

625

Van Dijk, J. 2000 “10. The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom (c.1352-1069 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. I. Shaw (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 272-313.

Van Haarlem, W. M. 2009 Temple Deposits at Tell Ibrahim Awad. Amsterdam: No Publisher.

Vanlathem, M-P. 1987 “Le temple périptère de Thoutmosis III à Elkab.” CdE 62: 30-37.

2009 “Historique des deux temples d’Elkab.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 177-186.

Van Siclen III, C. C. 1987 “An obelisk of Thutmosis III from El Kab restored.” Varia Aegyptiaca 3(2): 135.

1990 “Remarks on the Tuthmoside Temple of Khnum at Elephantine.” Varia Aegyptiaca 6(3): 188-194.

1999 “New Kingdom Temples at Elkab.” In Gold of Praise: Studies on ancient Egypt in Honor of E. F. Wente. E. Teeter and J. A. Larson (eds). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 415-417.

Varille, A. 1930-1935 “La Stèle Égyptienne no. 1175 du Musée de Toulouse.” Kêmi 3: 39-43.

1968 Inscriptions concernant l’architecte Amenhotep, fils de hapou. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Vercoutter, J. 1956 “New Egyptian Inscriptions from the Sudan.” Kush 4: 66-82.

1958 “Excavations at Sai 1955-7, a Preliminary Report.” Kush 6: 144-169.

1970 “Nouvelles fouilles de Saï (Soudan nilotique).” BSFE 58: 1-31.

1972 “L’ȋle de Saï.” Archéologie 50: 63-70.

1973 “La XVIIIe Dynastie à Saï et en Haute-Nubie.” CRIPEL 1: 7-38.

1974 “Saï 1972-1973.” CRIPEL 2: 11-26.

626

1986 “Préface: L’archéologie de l’ȋle de Saï.” In Saï I. La nécropole kerma. B. Gratien (ed). Paris: Presses du CNRS: 7-17.

1990 “À propos des mni = Ménès.” In Studies in Egyptology presented to Miriam Lichtheim. vol. 2. S. Israelit-Groll (ed). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University: 1025-1032.

Verhelst, P. 2014 Lidar Scans and Sacred Lakes: A Report from the 2014 Summer Season at Abydos – Part 2. Penn Museum blog. August 28. Published online: https://www.penn.museum/blog/research/lidar-scans-and-sacred-lakes-a-report- from-the-2014-summer-season-at-abydos-part-2/.

2015 “The Malih: Evidence Supporting the Location of the Sacred Lake of Osiris at Abydos.” Abstract Booklet: The 66th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, April 24-26. San Antonio: ARCE US Office.

Vermeersch, P. M. 1969 “Een epipaleolitische industrie te Elkab (Opper Egypte).” BSAB 80: 227-241.

1970 “L’Elkabien. Une nouvelle industrie epipaleolithique a Elkab en Haute Egypte, sa stratigraphic, sa typologie.” CdE 45: 45-68.

1976 “Trois nouveaux sites épipaléolithiques à Elkab (Haute-Égypte).” l’Anthropologie 80: 509-513.

1978 Elkab II. L’Elkabien, épipaléolithique de la Vallée du Nil égyptien. Brussels and Leuven: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth and Universitaire Pers Leuven.

Vernus, P. 1978 Athribis, textes et documents relatifs à la géographie, aux cultes, et à l’histoire d’une ville du delta égyptien à l’époque pharaonique. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Vischak, D. 2006 “Agency in Old Kingdom Elite Tomb Programs: Traditions, Locations, and Variable Meanings.” In Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation. M. Fitzenreiter and M. Herb (eds). London: Golden House Publications: 255-276.

Von den Driesch, A., D. Kessler, F. Steinmann, V. Berteaux, and J. Peters 2005 “Mummified, Deified and Buried at Hermopolis Magna – the Sacred Birds from Tuna el-Gebel, Middle Egypt.” Ägypten und Levante 15: 203-244.

Von der Way, T. 1997 Tell el-Fara’in—Buto. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

627

Von Pilgrim, C. 1988 “VII. Bebauungsgebiet südlich des späten Chnumtempels.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 15./16. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 44: 163-169.

1990 “III. Stadtgebiet nordöstlich des späten Chnumtempels: Mittleres bis Neues Reich.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 17./18. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 46: 196-203.

1996 Elephantine XVIII: Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1997 “The Town Site on the Island of Elephantine.” EA 10: 16-18.

1999 “X. Die Wirtschaftsbezirke des Chnumtempels im Neuen Reich und der Spätzeit.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 55: 118-124.

2001 “Stratigraphie d’un temple: le temple de Khnoum à Éléphantine du Nouvel Empire à la Période Ptolémaique.” BSFE 151: 35-53.

2002 “V. Der Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 28./29./30. Grabungsbericht.” G. Dreyer et al. MDAIK 58: 184-192.

2004 “III. Khnum Temple: the Temple of the Eighteenth Dynasty (pl. VI).” In Report on the 33rd Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 6-7. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

2005 “V. Der Chnumtempel des Neuen Reiches: Grabungsbefund und Architektur.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 31./32. Grabungsbereicht.” G. Dreyer et. al. MDAIK 61: 38-44.

2006a “III. Temple of Khnum in the New Kingdom and the Late Period (Pl. III-IV).” In Report on the 35th season of excavation and restoration on the island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al. (eds): 5-6. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

2006b “Zur Entwicklung der Verehrungsstätten des Heqaib in Elephantine.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. vol. 1. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 403-418.

2008a “2. Area II: Domestic Quarters of the New Kingdom (Pl. III).” In Report on the 37th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 6-7. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele37_rep_en.pdf.

628

2008b “4. Area XIV: Town Enclosure (Pl. V).” In Report on the 37th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine. D. Raue et al: 9-10. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele37_rep_en.pdf.

2010 “Elephantine – (Festungs-)Stadt am Ersten Katarakt.” In Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: papers from a workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. M. Bietak, E. Czerny, and I. Forstner-Müller (eds). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 257-270.

2011 “III. Untersuchungen zur Stadtbefestigung: Die Stadtmauer des Mittleren Reiches.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. 36./37./38. Grabungsbericht.” D. Raue et al. MDAIK 67: 202-205.

2012 “7. Cultic Equipment of the Temple of Khnum.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2011 to spring 2012. F. Arnold et al: 13. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele41_rep_en.pdf.

2014 “5. The Khnum Temple Precinct in the Late Period.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from Autumn 2013 to Spring 2014. F. Arnold et al: 11-13. Published online: http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/daik_ele43_rep_en.pdf.

2015 “3. Excavation of House 55.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2014 to spring 2015. S. J. Seidlmayer et al: 10-12. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

2016 “3. Excavations of the Swiss Institute on Elephantine.” In Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2015 to summer 2016. S. J. Seidlmayer et al: 22-30. Published online: https://fallback.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/25953.

Von Pilgrim, C. and B. Von Pilgrim 2007 “II. Area II: Domestic Quarters of the New Kingdom (Pl. II).” In “Report on the 36th Season of Excavation and Restoration on the Island of Elephantine.” D. Raue et al. ASAE 83: 365.

Waddell, W. G. 1940 Manetho. London: Heinemann.

Wainwright, G. A. 1934 “Some Aspects of Amun.” JEA 20: 139-153.

629

Waitkus, W. 2008 Untersuchungen zu Kult und Funktion des Luxortempels. Gladbeck: PeWe- Verlag.

Waraksa, E. A. 2008 “Female Figurines (Pharaonic Period).” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. W. Wendrich (ed). Los Angeles: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California: 1-6. Published online: http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000s3mm6.

2009 Female Figurines from the Mut Precinct: Context and Ritual Function. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 240. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Warburton, D. A. 1997 State and Economy in Ancient Egypt: Fiscal Vocabulary of the New Kingdom. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 151. Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

2010 “The Significance of Shared Aspects of the Daily Temple Rituals.” In 8. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between Temples, Warschau, 22.-25. September 2008. M. Dolińska and H. Beinlich (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 205-211. Ward, W. 1982 Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom with a Glossary of Words and Phrases Used. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

Warmenbol, E. and S. Hendrickx 2009 “Une tombe intacte du début de la 18ème dynastie: Elkab, BE 18.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 75-125. Wegner, J. 1995 “Regional control in Middle Kingdom Lower Nubia: The function and history of the site of Areika.” JARCE 32: 127-160.

1996a The Mortuary Complex of Senwosret III: A study of Middle Kingdom State Activity and the Cult of Osiris at Abydos. PhD Dissertation: The University of Pennsylvania.

1996b “The Nature and Chronology of the Senwosret III-Amenemhat III Regnal Succession: Some Considerations based on New Evidence from the Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos.” JNES 55: 4: 249-279.

630

1998 “Excavations at the Town of Enduring-are-the-places-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru- in-Abydos: A Preliminary Report on the 1994 and 1997 Seasons.” JARCE 35: 1- 44.

1999 “Abydos, South: Mortuary Complex of Senusret III.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 117-119.

2000 “A Hundred Years at South Abydos: Reconstructing the Temple of Pharaoh Senwosret III.” Expedition 42(2): 9-18.

2001a “The Town of Wah-Sut at South Abydos: 1999 Excavations.” MDAIK 57: 281- 308.

2001b “Institutions and Officials at South Abydos: An Overview of the Sigillographic Evidence.” CRIPEL 22: 77-106.

2004 “Social and Historical Implications of Sealings of the King’s Daughter Renisneb and Other Women from the Town of Wah-Sut.” In Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds). Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press: 221-240.

2006a “The Archaeology of South Abydos: Egypt’s Late Middle Kingdom in Microcosm.” Expedition 48(2): 6-11.

2006b “Beneath the Mountain-of-Anubis: Ancient Egypt’s First Hidden Royal Tomb.” Expedition 48(2): 15-22.

2006c “Echoes of Power: The Mayor’s House of Ancient Wah-Sut.” Expedition 48(2): 31-36.

2007 The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. New Haven and Philadelphia: Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Institute of Fine Arts Expedition to Abydos.

2009 “The Tomb of Senwosret III at Abydos: Considerations on the Origins and Development of the Royal Amduat-Tomb.” In Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt. D. P. Silverman, W. K. Simpson, and J. Wegner (eds). New Haven: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: 103-169.

2010a “External Connections of the Community of Wah-Sut During the Late Middle Kingdom.” Perspectives on Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honor of Edward

631

Brovarski. Z. Hawass, P. der Manuelian, and R. B. Hussein (eds). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

2010b “A Group of Miniature Royal Sarcophagi from South Abydos.” In Millions of Jubilees: Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman. vol. 2. Z. Hawass and J. H. Wegner. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 351-377.

2010c “Chapter 7. Tradition and Innovation: The Middle Kingdom.” In Egyptian Archaeology. W. Wendrich (ed). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell: 119-142.

2014 “Le complexe funéraire de Sésostris III à Abydos.” In Sésostris III: pharaon de légende. F. Morfoisse and A-L. Guillemette (eds). Gand: Snoeck: 108-113.

2015 “A New Temple: The mahat of Nebhepetre at Abydos.” EA 46: 3-7.

2017a “Raise Yourself Up: Mortuary Imagery in the Tomb of Woseribre Seneb-Kay.” In Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-15000 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th-20th September 2014 at UCL, London. G. Miniaci, M. Betrò, and S. Quirke (eds). Leuven: Peeters: 479-511.

2017b “The Barque of Wenut-Shemau at the Sed-festival: An Old Kingdom Temple Relief from Herakleopolis.” JARCE 53: 139-180.

2017c The Sunshade Chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

2018 “Woseribre Seneb-Kay: A Newly Identified Upper Egyptian King of the Second Intermediate Period.” In The Hyksos ruler Khyan and the early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4-5, 2014. I. Forstner-Müller and N. Moeller (eds). Vienna: Holzhausen: 287-305.

Wegner, J. and M. A. Abu el-Yazid 2006 “The Mountain-of-Anubis: Necropolis Seal of the Senwosret III Tomb at Abydos.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. vol. 1. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds). Leuven and Paris: Uitgeverij Peeters: 419-435.

Wegner, J. and K. Cahail 2015 “Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?” JARCE 51: 123-164.

632

Wegner, J., V. Smith, and S. Rossel 2000 “The Organization of the Temple of Nfr-KA of Senwosret III at Abydos.” Ägypten und Levante 10: 83-125.

Wegner, J. and P. Verhelst 2014 “Lost Landscapes of Abydos: the Malih and the Sacred Lake of Osiris.” In Profane Landscapes, Sacred Places List of Abstracts: Prague June 26-27: 13-14. Published online: http://ceguold.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/Landscape,%20Prague%202014,%20abstracts.pdf.

Weigall, A. 1924 Ancient Egyptian Works of Art. London: T. F. Unwin.

Weinstein, J. M. 1973 Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.

1978 “A New Shawabti of the Viceroy Neḥy.” JARCE 15: 39-42.

Weiss, L. 2009 “Personal Religious Practice: House Altars at Deir el-Medina.” JEA 95: 193-208.

2015 Religious Practice at Deir el Medina. Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het Nabije Osten.

Wells, R. A. 1985 “Sothis and the Satet Temple of Elephantine: A Direct Connection.” SAK 12: 255- 302.

1991 “Sothis and the Satet Temple on Elephantine: An Egyptian ‘Stonehenge’?” In Akten des Vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen Kongresses München 1985. vol. 4. S. Schoske (ed). Hamburg: Helmut Buske: 105-115.

Wenke, R. J. 1999 “Mendes, Predynastic and Early Dynastic.” In Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. K. A. Bard (ed). London and New York: Routledge: 601-603.

Wenke, R. J. and D. J. Brewer 1994 “The Archaic-Old Kingdom Delta: the Evidence from Mendes and Kom el-Hisn.” In Haus und Palast im alten Aegypten. M. Bietak (ed). Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: 265-285.

Wenke, R. J., P. E. Buck, H. A. Hamroush, M. Kobusiewicz, K. Kroeper, and R. W. Redding 1988 “Kom el-Hisn: Excavations of an Old Kingdom Settlement in the Egyptian Delta.” JARCE 25: 5-34.

633

Wente, E. 1990 Letters from Ancient Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Wiedemann, A. 1890 Herodots zweites Buch mit sachlichen Erlaüterungen. Milan: Cisalpino- Goliardica.

Wild, H. 1960 “Statue d’un noble mendésien du règne de Psamétik Ier aux musées de Palerme et du Caire.” BIFAO 60: 43-67.

Wildung, D. 1974 “Aufbau und Zweckbestimmung der Königsliste von Karnak.” GM 9: 41-48.

1977 Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt. New York: New York University Press.

Wilkinson, J. G. 1843 Modern Egypt and Thebes Being a Description of Egypt Including the Information Required for Travellers in That Country. vol. 2. London: John Murray.

Wilkinson, R. H. 2000 The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.

Wilkinson, T. 1999 Early Dynastic Egypt. London and New York: Routledge.

Willems, H. 1988 Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and Conceptual Development of Middle Kingdom Standard Class Coffins. Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux.

Williams, B. 1992 New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S, and W at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Wilson, J. A. 1956 The Culture of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1960 “Civilization without Cities.” In City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, December 4-7, 1958. C. H. Kraeling and R. McCormick Adams (eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 124-164.

Wilson, K. L. 1982 Cities of the Delta II. Mendes. Preliminary Report on the 1979 and 1980 Seasons. Malibu: Undena Publications.

634

Wilson, P. 2002 “Sais (Sa El-Hagar), 2001-02.” In “Fieldwork, 2001-02: Sais, Delta Survey, Memphis, Tell el Amarna.” P. Wilson et al. JEA 88: 2-6.

2006 “Sais Report, 2006.” Published online: www.dur.ac.uk/penelope.wilson/3k2006.html.

Winlock, H. E. 1921 Bas-Reliefs from the Temple of Ramses I at Abydos. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

1924 “The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes.” BMMA 19 (2): 14-16.

1937 The Temple of Ramses I at Abydos. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Winnerman, J. 2018 Rethinking the Royal Ka. PhD Dissertation: University of Chicago.

Witkowski, M. G. 1989 “Le rôle et les fonctions des chapelles d’Anubis dans le complexe funéraire de la reine Hatshepsout à Deir el Bahari.” In Akten des vierten internationalen ägyptologischen Kongresses, München 1985. S. Schoske (ed). Hamburg: Helmut Buske: 431-440.

Wodzińska, A. 2010 A Manual of Egyptian Pottery. Volume 3: Second Intermediate Period – Late Period. Boston: Ancient Egypt Research Associates.

2013 “Domestic and Votive Pottery from Giza: A View from Heit el-Ghurab Settlement and Khentkawes Town.” In Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. B. Bader and M. F. Ownby (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Uitgeverij Peeters: 165-184.

Wuttmann, M., L. Coulon, and F. Gombert 2007 “An Assemblage of Bronze Statuettes in a Cult Context: The Temple of ‘Ayn Manâwir. In Gifts for the Gods: Images from Egyptian Temples. M. Hill and D. Schorsch. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press.

Yamamoto, K. 2009 Middle Kingdom Pottery at Abydos. PhD Dissertation: University of Toronto.

Yoffee, N. 2005 “The Meaning of Cities in the Earliest Civilizations.” In Myth of the Archaic State. Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. N. Yoffee (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

635

Young, T. C. jr. 1972 “Population densities and early Mesopotamia urbanism.” In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds). London: Duckworth: 827-842.

Zibelius-Chen, K. 1978 Aegyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

1984 “Sai.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. vol. 5. W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 353-354.

1996 “Das nachkoloniale Nubien: politische Fragen der Entstehung des kuschitischen Reiches.” In Der Sudan in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. R. Gundlach, M. Kropp, and A. Leibundgut (eds). Frankfurt am Main: Lang: 195-217.

2013 “Nubien wird ägyptische Kolonie.” In Die Kulturen Nubiens – ein afrikanisches Vermächtnis. S. Wenig and K. Zibelius-Chen (eds). Dettelbach: J. H. Röll: 135- 155.

Ziegler, C. 1990 Catalogue des stèles, peintures et relilefs égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire et de la Première Période Intermédiaire vers 2686-2040 avant J.-C. Paris: Éditions de la réunion des musées nationaux.

Ziermann, M. 1993a Elephantine XVI: Befestigungsanlagen und Stadtentwicklung in der Frühzeit und im frühen Alten Reich. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1993b “II. Siedlungsbebauung innerhalb der frühdynastischen Festung.” In “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 19./20. Grabungsbericht.” W. Kaiser et al. MDAIK 49: 136-141.

1998 “Bemerkungen zu den Befestigungen des Alten Reiches in Ayn Asil und in Elephantine.” MDAIK 54: 341-359.

2003 Elephantine XXVIII: Die Baustrukturen der älteren Stadt (Frühzeit und Altes Reich). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

2004 “Macht und Architektur: Zwei altägyptische Tempel und ihre städtebauliche Rolle bis zur Wende zum 2. Jt. v. Chr.” In Macht der Architektur – Architektur der Macht. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 30. Oktober bis 2. November 2002 veranstaltet vom Architektur-Referat des DAI. E. L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt (eds). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern: 34-47.

636

Zivie-Coche, C. 2009 “Hatmehyt, le Tilapia, le Lotus et le Ba de Mendès.” In Elkab and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. W. Claes, H. De Meulenaere, and S. Hendrickx (eds). Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan: 545-557.

2015 “Sphinx.” In Apprivoiser le sauvage/Taming the Wild. M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, and F. Rouffet (eds). Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3: 321-329.

637

Figures

Figure 1.1: Map of Egypt showing the Five Sites used as Case Studies

(adapted from Auenmüller 2012: fig. 1)

638

Figure 3.1: Site plan of Mendes showing main features and Field AL excavations

(after Redford 2004: fig. 1)

639

Figure 3.2: Main temple mound of Mendes showing the location of Field AJ excavations

(after Adams 2009: fig. 3)

640

Figure 3.3: Old Kingdom temple and mastabas

A – mastaba of Ishtef-Tety E – mastaba of Nefer-shu-ba B – mastaba of Set-net-Pepy F – Old Kingdom temple C – mastaba of Pepy-yema G – Bastion D – unknown H – mastaba of Aha-pu-ba

(after Redford 2010a: 29, fig. 3.13)

641

Figure 3.4: Plan of Field AL with pottery deposits shaded

(after Hummel 2009: 66)

642

Figure 3.5: Site plan of Mendes during the Late Period

A – Butic Canal I – The “palace” of the Great Chiefs of the B – Mendesian branch of the Nile Me C – Northwest Harbor J – Temple of Banebdjed D – Great Eastern Harbor K – Mansion of the Rams E – Inner Harbor L – Mammisi F – Unidentified Structure (temple) M – Putative Hypogeum for Sacred Ewes G – Kom el-Adhem N – Unidentified building H – Tomb of Neferites I P – Small shrine of Nectanebo I

(after Redford 2010a: 149, fig. 11.4)

643

Figure 3.6: The temple of Banebdjed showing the Eighteenth Dynasty façade marked by letters C, D, E, and F

(adapted from Redford 2010a: 72, fig. 6.4)

644

Figure 3.7: Redford’s reconstruction of the temple of Banebdjed in the Eighteenth Dynasty

(after Redford 2010a: 74, fig. 6.7)

645

Figure 3.8: Location of the tomb of Neferites I

(after Redford 2010a: 169, fig. 11.30)

646

Figure 3.9: Royal activity at Mendes during the Eighteenth Dynasty

Temple of Banebdjed

Legend:

Royal Activity (mudbrick facade N of Thutmosis III)

- - - Late Period temple

0 100 m

(adapted from Redford 2004: fig. 1 and Redford 2010a: fig. 6.4; superimposed temple not to scale) 647

Figure 4.1: Map of the main monuments of Abydos

(after O’Connor 2009: 25, fig. 3)

648

Figure 4.2: O’Connor’s sketch map of the Osiris Temple Enclosure from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period

1 - Temple of Ahmose 4 - Temple of Ramesses IV 2 - Temple of Amenhotep I 5 - Temple of Amasis 3 - Temple of Thutmosis III 6 - Temple of Thirtieth Dynasty

(after O’Connor 1985: 165, fig. 1)

649

Figure 4.3: Mariette’s map of North Abydos

(after Mariette 1969: pl. 65)

650

Figure 4.4: Garstang’s map of remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(after Garstang 1901: pl. XXXVII)

651

Figure 4.5: General plan of the Middle Kingdom offering chapels at North Abydos

(after O’Connor 1985: 169, fig. 2)

652

Figure 4.6: Petrie’s plan of the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(after Petrie 1903: pl. XLIX)

653

Figure 4.7: Petrie’s Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(after Petrie 1903: pl. LVII)

654

Figure 4.8: Kemp’s reconstruction of the New Kingdom and later remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(after Kemp 1968: fig. 1)

655

Figure 4.9: Pouls Wegner’s reconstruction of the Eighteenth Dynasty remains within the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(after Pouls Wegner 2002: 459, fig. 35)

656

Figure 4.10: Relief from the chapel of Ahmose II and Amenhotep I

(after Petrie 1902: pl. LXII)

657

Figure 4.11: Relief fragment of Amenhotep I at Yale University

(after Scott 1986: 84)

658

Figure 4.12: Relief fragments of Thutmosis IV from the Osiris Temple Enclosure

(after Marlar 2009: 348, fig. 109)

659

Figure 4.13: Early architecture beneath the Thirtieth Dynasty Osiris temple

(after Marlar 2009: 342, fig. 103)

660

Figure 4.14: Relief block fragment with cartouches of Thutmosis II and Thutmosis III

a) Schematic drawing (after Petrie 1902: pl. LXIV)

b) Photograph of the block during excavations (after Petrie 1902: pl. LXI no.2)

661

Figure 4.15: Architectural plan of the peripteral temple of Thutmosis III

(after Pouls Wegner 2002: 483, fig. 59)

662

Figure 4.16: Stamped mudbricks of Hatshepsut

a) (after Simpson 1995: 80, fig. 147) b) (after Simpson 1995: 80, fig. 148)

663

Figure 4.17: Amarna Period blocks

a) Head of a royal figure (after Simpson 1995: 77, fig. 139)

b) Inscriptions (after Simpson 1995: 77, fig. 137)

664

Figure 4.18: Mud stopper seal of Horemheb

(after Simpson 1995: 80, fig. 149)

Figure 4.19: Votive objects found associated with the “Portal” temple: ram heads and vultures

(after O’Connor 1967: 17)

665

Figure 4.20: Pottery cobras from the Workmens’ Village and North City at Amarna

(after Stevens 2006: 101, fig. II.3.20)

666

Figure 4.21: Cobra figurines from Kom Firin

(after Spencer 2008: 155, fig. 48)

667

Figure 4.22: Reconstruction of the Eighteenth Dynasty royal monuments in North Abydos

(adapted from Pouls Wegner 2002: 459, fig. 45 and Marlar 2009: 344, fig. 105)

668

Figure 4.23: Royal and non-royal votive activity at Abydos during the Eighteenth Dynasty

(adapted from O’Connor 2009: 25, fig. 3)

669

Figure 5.1: Topographical site map of Elkab

(after Depuydt 1989: 28, fig. 11)

670

Figure 5.2: Gold mining sites in the Eastern Desert

(after Klemm and Klemm 2013: fig. 5.1)

671

Figure 5.3: Site plan of the Great Walls and interior walls

Great

Double Temple

(adapted from Hendrickx and Huyge 1989: pl. II)

672

Figure 5.4: Location and Image of “Vulture Rock”

(adapted from Vandersleyen 1971: fig. 2)

(after Limme 2008: fig. 10)

673

Figure 5.5: Main Temple Complex: Stages of construction during the Eighteenth Dynasty

a) Temple of Amenhotep I

b) Temple of Amenhotep II

(adapted from Van Siclen III 1999: 416, fig. 39.1)

674

Figure 5.6: Clarke’s Early Map of the Site showing the New Kingdom Temples

(after Porter and Moss 1937: 172)

675

Figure 5.7: Main Temple Complex: Stages of construction during the Ramesside Period

(after Van Siclen III 1999: 417, fig. 39.2)

676

Figure 5.8: Peripteral temple of Thutmosis III (top: the chapel as it looked during Napoleon’s visit; bottom: Quibell’s reconstruction)

(after Denon 1802: pl. lxxv)

(after Quibell 1989: pl. xxvi)

677

Figure 5.9: Wall scene of the barque of Nekhbet from the tomb of Setau

(after Kruchten and Delvaux 2010: pl. 27)

(after Limme 2008: fig. 43)

678

Figure 5.10: Peripteral temple of Amenhotep III in the Wadi Hilal

(after Tylor 1898: pl. XVI)

679

Figure 5.11: Locations of the rock inscriptions at Elkab (F, M, N, O, and W)

(after Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1)

680

Figure 5.12: Royal and non-royal votive activity at Elkab during the Eighteenth Dynasty

(adapted from Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001b: pl. 1)

681

Figure 6.1: Site plan of Elephantine in the Old Kingdom

(after Seidlmayer 1996a: 109, fig. 1)

682

Figure 6.2: Stages in the development of the temple of Satet

(after Wells 1985: 257, fig. 2)

Figure 6.3: Temple of Satet: stratigraphic profile (West to East)

(after Dreyer 1986: fig. 7)

683

(after Bussmann 2010: figs. 2.4-2.7)

684

Figure 6.5: The sanctuary of Heqaib

(adapted from Habachi 1985: fig. 8 and Krekeler 1990: 245, fig. 18)

685

Figure 6.6: The temples of Satet and Khnum during the early Eighteenth Dynasty

Temple of Satet

Temple of Khnum

(adapted from Kaiser 1995: 163, fig. 26)

686

Figure 6.7: Ramesside sanctuary “Y”

(after Aston 1999: 47, fig. 5)

687

Figure 6.8: Relief blocks from the temple of Satet: a) Hatshepsut and Amun; b) Satet; c) barque procession of Satet and Anuket

(after Kaiser 1971: pl. XLVIII)

688

Figure 6.9: Temple of Satet during the Eighteenth Dynasty

(after Kaiser 1973: 162, fig. 1)

689

Figure 6.10: Temple of Khnum: Reconstruction of Eighteenth Dynasty construction phases: a) Hatshepsut; b) Thutmosis III; and c) Amenhotep II

(after Von Pilgrim 2002: 187, fig. 9)

690

Figure 6.11: Two examples of blue painted pottery from Elephantine

(after Budka 2008a: 110, fig. 12c) (Reconstruction; after Budka 2008a: 111, fig. 14)

(after Budka 2008a: 109, fig. 12b)

691

Figure 6.12: New Kingdom female figurines from Elephantine: 1) sandstone, no. 18554V/b-7; 2) ceramic, no. 6116d; 3) ceramic, no. 19607P/b-4; 4) faience, no. 26604Q/d-14; 5) lightly burned clay, no. 27605P/f-2; 6) faience, no. 3923; 7) clay, no. 18613A/a-5

(after Kopp 2005: 86, fig. 28)

Figure 6.13: House 55

(after Von Pilgrim 1999: 119, fig. 16)

692

Figure 6.14: Settlement phases BI - BXVI

(after Von Pilgrim 1996: 17, fig. 1)

693

Figure 6.15: Royal and non-royal votive activity at Elephantine during the Eighteenth Dynasty

(adapted from von Pilgrim 2010: 259, fig. 2)

694

Figure 7.1: Map of Nubia showing the location of Sai island and the extent of Egyptian occupation in the New Kingdom

(adapted from Säve-Söderbergh 1987: fig. 6)

695

Figure 7.2: Site plan of Sai Island

(after Miellé 2014: fig. 1)

696

Figure 7.3: Temple A: distribution of foundation deposits of temple A

(after Thill 1997: fig. 1)

697

Figure 7.4: Five stages of construction of temple A

(after Azim and Carlotti 2012: 65)

698

Figure 7.5: Reconstruction of temple A

(after Rochelau 2008: fig. 9)

699

Figure 7.6: Site plan of the Pharaonic town on Sai Island

(adapted from Budka 2015a: 42, fig. 1)

700

Figure 7.7: Comparison of building A and the Governor’s residence SAF2

a) building A b) SAF2

(after Budka 2013a: fig. 11)

Figure 7.8: Human and animal figurines found in SAV1 North

b) Animal figurine of a bull or cow (SAV1N a) Naked female lying on a bed 588) and beads

(after Doyen 2014: pl. 6) (after Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: fig. 12)

701

Figure 7.9: Royal and non-royal activity on Sai Island during the Eighteenth Dynasty

(adapted from Budka 2015a: 42, fig. 1)

702

Appendix A

1. Mendes

Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

Thutmosis III stamped bricks unknown mudbrick façade at Redford the bottom of the 2009: fig. 1; foundation trench of Redford the second pylon of 2010a: 71, the Ramesside 80, fig. 6; temple of Redford Banebdjed 2010b: 274, figs. 3-5

foundation 1 north of the north Hansen 1967: deposit wall of the naos 9, pl. IXU, court of Amasis fig. 9; Weinstein 1973: 195- 196; Redford 2010a: 71

Horemheb door jamb 1 (Cairo JE Timai el-Amdid De 32012) Meulenaere and MacKay Mendes II 1976: 193, no. 17

Non-Royal Votive Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty Object Group Type/Owner Quantity/Object Provenience References Number statue kneeling/Ibaba 1 (Louvre E. unknown Vandier 25429) 1968; De Meulenaere and MacKay

703

1976: 196, no. 40; Redford 2010a: 76

2. Abydos

Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty

a) South Abydos Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

Ahmose II block fragments unknown; narrative pyramid temple Harvey 1998: style and battle of Ahmose II 153, 227-228, scenes 243, 245-246, n. 556, figs. 41A, 75

pillar fragments over 80 pyramid temple Randall- of Ahmose II MacIver and Mace 1902: pl. XXXII; Mysliwiec 1976: pl. II, fig. 3; Harvey 1994: 262; Harvey 1998: 153, 227-228, 249-251, fig. 22

architrave ~8 (ATP 2075, pyramid temple Harvey 1998: fragments ATP 001, ATP of Ahmose II 227-228, 252- 3124, ATP 2894, 254, tab. 1 ATP 1620, ATP 1903, ATP 2628, ATP 1877) lintel 1 (ATP 975) pyramid temple Harvey 1998: of Ahmose II 259-260, fig. 45D

704

stamped bricks thousands pyramid temple Randall- of Ahmose II; MacIver and pyramid of Mace 1902: Tetisheri; tomb 75-76, pl. and terrace XXXII center temple of left; Harvey Ahmose II 1998: 151-152, 191-195, figs. 13, 34

stelae fragments 4 (Cairo CG 34002, southwest of the Ayrton, ATP 4180, ATP Ahmose II Currelly and 401, ATP 1417) pyramid; Weigall 1904: pl. LII; Breasted 1906: 33-37; Sethe 1914: 14-16; Brunner 1965: pl. 14; Harvey 1998: 106-110, 253, figs. 14, 42; Beylage 2002: 1-9, 559-562

Ahmose- block fragments 2 pyramid temple Harvey 1998: Nefertary of Ahmose II 152, 244, 260: fig. 54B-C

stamped bricks unknown temple A and Harvey 1998: temple C 34, 192, 198, 202-203, fig. 34; Harvey 2004: 4-5

stelae fragments 3 (ATP 2917, ATP debris from Harvey 1998: (?)491 3055, ATP 3352) subsidiary 218, n. 514, structure at the fig. 43 foot of the

491 The queens depicted in the stelae cannot be positively identified, but Harvey suggests that they may represent Ahmose-Nefertary (1998: 218, n. 514).

705

Ahmose II pyramid and main temple area

Ahmose II and statue 1 (Cairo CG interior of the Ayrton, Amenhotep I 39376) pyramid of Currelly and Tetisheri Weigall 1904: pl. L no. 4; Harvey 1998: 106, fig. 12

Amenhotep I block fragments 116 fragments of pyramid temple Harvey 1998: offering table of Ahmose II 154, 228-229, scenes 235, 238, 241- 242, 247 294, fig. 74 post-Amarna stela 1 (Manchester pyramid temple Randall- Period king492 Museum 2938) of Ahmose II MacIver and Mace 1902: 76, pl. XXXII, upper left; Mysliwiec 1976: pl. XIII, figs. 26-27; Harvey 1998: 141, fig. 16

b) North Abydos

Inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

492 Harvey suggests a date in the late Eighteenth Dynasty (reign of Tutankhamun or Ay) (1998: 141 n. 399).

706

Ahmose II and block fragments ~17 (1 in the Yale Reused in Petrie 1902: Amenhotep I Art Gallery no. Twenty-Sixth 29-30, 1937.214) Dynasty frontispiece, foundations; pls. LXII- found in the LXIV; Petrie vicinity of the 1903: 18, pl. chapel of XXXII no.8; Amenhotep I Ayrton, Currelly, Weigall 1904: 51 pl. XXI, no.1; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Scott 1986: 83

pillar fragments 6 found in situ in Petrie 1903: the chapel of 18, pl. LVII; Ahmose II and Kemp 1968: Amenhotep I 143, fig. 1; Harvey 1998: 93; Pouls Wegner 2002: 225-226

Thutmosis I stela fragment 1 (Cairo CG discovered by Mariette 34007) Mariette in 1857 1880a: 31; within the Osiris Mariette Temple 1880b: no. Enclosure 1048; Lacau 1909: 34007; Sethe 1906- 1927: 94-103 no. 39; Sethe 1914: 94-103; Pouls Wegner 2002: 138-144; Klug 2002: 59- 64; Hofmann 2004: 132-140

707

Thutmosis II lintel 1 (Berlin Museum Petrie’s Petrie 1902: and Thutmosis 15980) excavations 43-44, pls. LXI III within the Osiris no. 2 and Temple LXIV; Porter Enclosure and Moss 1937: 42

Hatshepsut bronze model 1 (Boston MFA Horace L. Weinstein adze blade 64.2259) Mayer 1973: 149-151, Collection fig. 14

alabaster 1 Kom es-Sultan Mariette ointment jar 1880b: no. 1468; Weinstein 1973: n. 154

Thutmosis III foundation ~15493 Petrie’s Petrie 1902: deposits excavations 30; Petrie within the Osiris 1903: 18-21, Temple pls. XXXII, Enclosure LVII, LXII- LXIII; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Weinstein 1937: 176-178; Pouls Wegner 2002: 252-253, fig. 34

block fragments ~9 (1 in Bolton Petrie’s Petrie 1902: BOLMG excavations 30, pl. LXI no. 1902.53.5) within the Osiris 1, pl. LXIV; Temple Petrie 1903: Enclosure 17, 35, pl. XXXIII; Porter and Moss

493 This number is according to Weinstein’s analysis of the contents of the deposits. Petrie assigned more (see Petrie 1903: 18-21, 35, pls. XXXII, LVII, LXII-LXIII). Only deposits nos. 98, 101, and 102 contained objects inscribed with the name of Thutmosis III.

708

1937: 42; Hutchinson 2011: 159 no. 163

offering list 1 Petrie’s Petrie 1903: excavations 44-45, pl. within the Osiris XXXIV; Sethe Temple 1906-1927: Enclosure 203-207 no. 75; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Pouls Wegner 2002: 144-166, app. B

Thutmosis III or statue fragments 3 Mariette’s Mariette Thutmosis IV excavations 1880b: 31, nos. inside the Osiris 348, 349, 350 Temple Enclosure

Thutmosis IV block fragments 28 destruction Marlar 2007: debris near in 1257-1258; Royal Titulary: situ architecture Marlar 2009: OTP 9346, OTP beneath the Late 193, 215-234, 5028, OTP 5648, Period temple figs. 106, 109, OTP 6013, OTP 110B, 111, 5655 (3), OTP 112, 113, 115 7938, OTP 9509, OTP 5676, OTP 9982, OTP 9346, OTP 4439

Royal Figures: OTP 5655 (3) , OTP 55270, OTP 5298, OTP 7174, OTP 5628 (heads); OTP 0001, OTP 4906 (feet); OTP 5616, OTP 9345,

709

OTP 5655, OTP 9345 (torso); OTP 4162 (hand)

Doorway: OTP 5051

column bases 3 destruction Marlar 2009: debris near in 194, figs. 97 situ architecture and 99 beneath the Late Period temple

Amenhotep III foundation 4 (no. 70; 3 forecourt of the Petrie 1902: deposits unnumbered) temple of 31, pl. LXI Thutmosis III nos. 3-4; Petrie 1903: 18, 20, pls. LVII, LXII no. 70; Porter and Moss 1937: 42; Weinstein 1973: 214-215

block fragment 1 (Bolton BOLMG paving south of Petrie 1903: 1902.53.7) the chapel of 18-19; Ahmose II and Hutchinson Amenhotep I 2011: 136 no. 137.

piece of wood 1 Marlar’s Marlar 2007a: excavations of 1258 the Late Period temple

Outside the Osiris Temple Enclosure Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

710

Hatshepsut stamped bricks 3 “Portal” Temple Simpson of Ramesses II 1995: 80 SBS 6, SBS 7, figs. 147-148

statue fragment 1 Votive Zone: Pouls northernmost Wegner longitudinal 2012: 183- chamber of 184, figs. 9, monumental 10 structure found in 2011

alabaster ointment 1 Mariette’s Mariette jar “Nécropole du 1880b: no. Sud” 1467; Weinstein 1973: no. 154

Thutmosis III stamped bricks numerous Votive Zone: in Pouls situ in the Wegner enclosure wall of 2002: 265- the peripteral 266, 274- temple of 280, 361- Thutmosis III 362, figs. 47, 49

block fragments numerous (over Votive Zone: Pouls 10,000) 1996-1997 Wegner excavations in the 2002: 265- area of the 266, 319- columned hall and 329, 344- sanctuaries of the 347, figs. 69- peripteral temple 79, 82, 83 of Thutmosis III; upper some found in situ

statues 3 Votive Zone: Pouls transverse Wegner columned hall of 2002: 313- the peripteral 317, figs. 61, 66 top, 67 top

711

temple of Thutmosis III

column fragments numerous (1 base Votive Zone Pouls in situ; 14 with (transverse Wegner inscriptions) entrance hall of 2002: 306- the peripteral 313, figs. 61- temple of 65, 42 Thutmosis III, and associated debris from the columned hall and forecourt)

Akhenaten block fragments 26 talatat “Portal” Temple Silverman of Ramesses II 1989: 269- 277; Simpson 1995: 74-77, NK 41-47; Wegner 2017c: 97-99

Horemheb block fragment 1 (uncatalogued “Portal” Temple Simpson 69.5) of Ramesses II 1995: 61-63, fig. 102, NK 9.

statue 1 (Cairo JE 49536) Eaton-Krauss 1984: 501- 502

seal impression 1 (UM 69-29-934; “Portal” Temple O’Connor Expedition of Ramesses II 1967: 16; 67.616) Simpson 1995: 80, SBS 8, fig. 149.

712

Non-Royal Votive Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty Object Type/Owner Quantity/Object Provenience References Group Number stelae limestone round-top 70 (Mariette’s Votive Zone: Mariette excavations); ~28 “Nécropole du 1880b: 373- (Pennsylvania- Nord” and 461; Lacau Yale Expedition to “Nécropole du 1909: 105- Egypt from 1967- Centre;” “Portal” 112; Lacau 1969) temple of 1926: 113- Ramesses II 146, 153-187, 191-192, 203-212, 231-232; Simpson 1995: 57-59, 61-65, 67-69; Pouls Wegner 2002: 115, tab. 2.1

Nebwawy 3 (Cairo CG within the Osiris Mariette 34017, Cairo CG Temple Enclosure 1880b: nos. 34018, British 1049, 1056; Museum EA 1199) Pouls Wegner 2002: 161- 169; Frood 2003 statues black granite 1 Kom es-Sultan Mariette kneeling/unidentified 1880b: 40, owner no. 372; Vandier 1958: 465- 466

black granite 1 (Cairo 728) Kom es-Sultan Mariette kneeling/Iwny 1880b: 41, no. 373;

713

black granite 1 “Portal” Temple Simpson seated/Iamu of Ramesses II 1995: 55-57, pls. 11c-12b, NK 1

limestone couple/ 1 “Portal” Temple Simpson unidentified owner of Ramesses II 1995: 65-67, fig. 110, pls. 17c-17d, NK 16 human clay figurine of a 2 Marlar’s Marlar figurines naked woman lying excavations of the 2007b: 116- on a bed Late Period 117, figs. 3, 5 temple (Ops. 5W and 5N) animal ram 30 (uncatalogued); “Portal” Temple Leemans figurines 29 (British of Ramesses II; 1867: pls. Museum EA Anastasi’s XXIIII no. 35842-3, 35845-6, Abydos collection 305, XXIV 61663-91); 5 no. 350, (Leiden AT 106a- XXV nos. b) 470, 492, 500, L-LII; O’Connor 1967: 16, fig. 17; O’Connor 1969: 38; O’Connor 1985: 168, no. 19; Kemp 1995: 50, n. 3

vulture 5 (uncatalogued); “Portal” Temple O’Connor 20 (British of Ramesses II; 1967: 16, fig. Museum EA Anastasi’s 17; O’Connor 35838-41, 35844, Abydos collection 1969: 38; 61691, 61901-18); O’Connor several (Leiden 1985: 168 no. Museum) 19

714

cobra 10 (uncatalogued); “Portal” Temple O’Connor 2 (British Museum of Ramesses II; 1967: 16, fig. EA 2002-3) Anastasi’s 17; O’Connor Abydos collection 1969: 38; O’Connor 1985: 168, no. 19; Szpakowska 2013: 41-42 plaque man and woman 1 (OTP 3956) Marlar’s Marlar engaged in sexual excavations of the 2007b: 112- intercourse Late Period 114, figs. 1, 4 temple vessels bread molds 11 (Votive Zone); North Abydos: Pouls unknown (South southeastern Wegner Abydos) quadrant of the 2002: 375- peripteral temple 376 n. 10, of Thutmosis III tab. 6.2, fig. (Op 1) 100; Budka 2007: 88 South Abydos: Operation 20 east of the pyramid complex of Ahmose II (Op 20); temple A

bread trays 33 southeastern Pouls quadrant of the Wegner peripteral temple 2002: 375, of Thutmosis III tab. 6.2, fig. (Op 1) 100

beer jars 66 (Votive Zone); North Abydos: Pumpenmeier unknown southeastern 1996: 47-48; (Hekareshu Hill quadrant of the Pumpenmeier and South peripteral temple 1998a: 123- Abydos) of Thutmosis III 137; Pouls (Op 1); Wegner Hekareshu Hill 2002: 375, tab. 6.2;

715

South Abydos: Budka 2006a: temple A, 88, 112 fig. pyramid of 2; Effland, Tetisheri Budka, and Effland 2010 flower pots 17 (Votive Zone); North Abydos: Pouls unknown (South southeastern Wegner Abydos) quadrant of the 2002: 377, peripteral temple tab. 6.2, fig. of Thutmosis III 103; Budka (Op 1) 2006a: 88, fig. 7 South Abydos: east of the pyramid complex of Ahmose II (Op 20) incense dishes 51 (Votive Zone); North Abydos: Pouls unknown (South southeastern Wegner Abydos) quadrant of the 2002: 377, peripteral temple tab. 6.2; of Thutmosis III Budka 2006a: (Op 1); 88, 91,112 Hekareshu Hill fig. 3; Pumpenmeier South Abydos: 1998a: 134 temple A; nos. 156-157, pyramid of fig. 27 Tetisheri; pyramid temple of Ahmose II incense burners 4 (Votive Zone); North Abydos: Ayrton, unknown (South southeastern Currelly, Abydos) quadrant of the Weigall peripteral temple 1904: pl. of Thutmosis III XLVII no. (Op 1); 105; Hekareshu Hill Pumpenmeier 1998a: 136- South Abydos: 137; Pouls temple A; terrace

716

temple; pyramid Wegner of Tetisheri; 2002: tab. pyramid temple 6.2; Budka of Ahmose II 2006a: 88, 91, 112, fig. 3; Harvey 2006: 21 blue painted pottery numerous Umm el-Qaʽab; Petrie 1900: South Abydos: 7; Petrie temple A; area 1901: 8; around eastern Budka 2006a: wall of the 99-100, 113; pyramid temple Budka 2013c: of Ahmose II; 196, 198 temple C black rim ware unknown South Abydos: Budka 2006a: temple A 98-99, figs. 10 pot stands 6 (Votive Zone); North Abydos: Pouls unknown (South southeastern Wegner Abydos) quadrant of the 2002: tab. peripteral temple 6.2; Budka of Thutmosis III 2006a: 88 (Op 1)

South Abydos: temple A drop pots numerous pyramid of Currelly Tetisheri 1904: 36, pl. LI; Budka 2006a: 109- 112, figs. 19- 20 feminoform several North Abydos: Budka 2006a: Hekareshu Hill; 113; Budka tomb of Djer 2016d: 88-91

717

South Abydos: temple A; trench 13

Hathoric bowls 4 South Abydos: Budka town surface 2016d: 91

Nun bowls unknown South Abydos: Ayrton, terrace temple Currelly and and pyramid Weigall complex and 1904, pl. town of Ahmose XLVIII no. II 15; Harvey 1998: 464, fig. 11

3. Elkab

Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty a) Main Temple Complex Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience Select Number References Amenhotep I block fragments unknown reused in the Late Clarke 1922: Period temple of 37; Capart Nekhbet 1937a: 141; Porter and Moss 1937: 173; Capart 1940: pl. 25; Van Siclen III 1999: 415 Thutmosis II block fragments unknown reused in the Late Clarke 1922: Period temple of 37; Porter and Nekhbet Moss 1937: 174; Capart 1938: 627 Hatshepsut block fragments unknown temple area Sethe 1906- 1927: 287-288 no. 90E; Porter and Moss 1937: 174

718

Thutmosis III obelisk 1 (lower part in entrance courtyard Clarke 1922: the Musée of the Late Period 28; Van Siclen Royaux d’Art temple of Nekhbet III 1987: 135 et d’Histoire; upper part in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts) naos 1 (Fitzwilliam before the outer Clarke 1922: Museum) pylon of the Late 32, pl. VI; Period temple of Porter and Nekhbet Moss 1937: 173; Van Siclen III 1987: 135 block fragments unknown foundations of the Clarke 1922: Late Period temple 37; Porter and of Nekhbet Moss 1937: 173-174; Capart 1938: 626 architrave unknown Late Period temple Sethe 1906- fragments of Nekhbet 1927: 829 no. 230; Porter and Moss 1937: 174; Laskowski 2001 Amenhotep II foundation 4 beneath the Quibell 1898: deposits northern and 16-17, 20, pls. southern walls of I no. 8, XXI the temple of nos. 17-24; Ramesses II Weinstein 1973: 206; Van Siclen III 1999: 416; Toye-Dubs 2016: 24, 44 pylon 1 west of the Late Clarke 1922: Period temple of 24; Dodson Nekhbet 1996: 62; Van Siclen III 1999: 416 block fragments unknown (e.g. reused in the Late Clarke 1922: Burton MSS Period temple of 26; Porter and 25647, 4 verso; Nekhbet Moss 1937: 174; Van

719

Burton MSS Siclen III 25648, 7 verso) 1999: 416 statue fragment 1 (Musée unknown Capart 1940: Royaux d’Art pl. 46 (A); et d’Histoire E. Tefnin 1988: 7703) 36-37, no. 9; Limme 2008: 17 Amenhotep III block fragments unknown unknown Porter and Moss 1937: 174; Van Siclen III 1999: 416

b) Peripteral Temple of Thutmosis III Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number Thutmosis III foundation 8 (?)494 one under each Quibell 1898: deposits corner of the 16, 20-21, pls. temple, plus one XXI nos. 1-16, along the side XXVI; walls Weinstein 1973: 193-194

c) Peripteral Temple of Amenhotep III Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number Thutmosis IV relief decoration unknown interior walls of Porter and Moss the temple 1937: 188-189 Amenhotep III relief decoration unknown interior walls of Tylor 1989: pls. the temple III, V; Richter 2010: n. 68 columns 4 (Hathor interior room Bryan 1992: 79- capitals) 82; Dodson 1996-1997: 60- 63; Johnson 1998: 78

494 Weinstein questions if there were eight foundation deposits in total, because Quibell does not show a deposit in the front right corner of his temple plan (1973: 193).

720

Non-Royal Votive Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty Object Group Type/Owner Quantity/Object Provenience References Number stelae Thutmose 1 unknown Porter and Moss 1937: 191 statues sandstone/Huy 1 near the Porter and Moss peripteral temple 1937: 189 of Amenhotep III block/Thutmose 1 near the Porter and Moss peripteral temple 1937: 189 of Amenhotep III block/Thutmose 1 (Musée des unknown Nagy 1983 Beaux-Arts in Budapest) granite/Renni 1 (Turin unknown Porter and Moss Museum) 1937: 191 granite/Ahmose- 1 unknown Porter and Moss Pennekhbet 1937: 191 rock inscriptions names and titles 34495 Wadi Hilal: Vandekerckhove of a range of locations F, M, and Müller- individuals (see N, O, and W Wollermann Table 8.3) 2001a: 29-31, 35-36, 67, 69, 133, 156-159, 160-163, 216- 218, 227-229, 231, 242, 256- 258, 277-279

4. Elephantine

Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty a) Temple of Satet Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

495 These are dated to the New Kingdom in Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann, but not to a specific dynasty.

721

Hatshepsut block fragments numerous reused in the Kaiser 1971: foundations of 195; Andreu, the Ptolemaic Rutschowscaya, temple and Ziegler 1997: 112-113, no. 47

square Hathor 2 main temple Bernhauer 2002 pillars area

Thutmosis III block fragments numerous reused in later Kaiser 1971: foundations 195-196; Kaiser 1975: 196; Kaiser 1999c: 99-103; Kaiser 2000: 165, fig. 178

Amenhotep II block fragment 1 unknown Kaiser 1971: 196

b) Temple of Khnum Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

Thutmosis I lintel 1 (C 678) reused in the Bommas 2004: foundations of 7 the Late Period temple block fragments 5 (C 250, C 251, barque shrine: Bommas 2000a: C 45, C 79, C southwest 95-109, figs. 12, 249) corner chamber 13 obelisk fragment 1 Porter and Moss 1937: 244 Thutmosis II statues 2 (8 adjoining base of a seated Dreyer 1984a: pieces; Island statue found in 489-499; Jaritz Museum no. the sanctuary of 1984: 186, pls. 1086; Inv. No. the church in the 58a, 61a 1091) courtyard of the Khnum temple;

722

two pieces of the throne from the temple area; two fragments of the right leg found north of the court while the head was found south of the roman terrace block fragments 2 (C 364, C 246) reused in the Niederberger foundations of 1990: 193, pl. the Late Period 39a; Bommas temple of 2000a: 56-57, Khnum 69; Arnold 2014: 9, fig. 8 column 6 (C 129, C 174, foundations of Bommas 2000a: fragments C 177, C 283, C the courtyard of 50-55, fig. 5; 290, C 304) the early Roman Arnold 2012: Period 12, fig. 11 Hatshepsut block fragments numerous reused in the Porter and Moss Late Period 1937: 244; temple Junge 1987: 22- 39; Niederberger 1990: 193, pl. 39a; Kaiser 1995: 150-160; Bommas 2000a: 112; Bommas 2004: 7; von Pilgrim 2004: 6- 7; Bommas 2005: 47-51; Bommas 2010: 10-11, 352-353 lintel 1 (C 333) unknown Bommas 2000a: 120 Hatshepsut and pillar fragments 4 (C 42, C 253, C reused in the Bommas 2000a: Thutmosis III 254, C 368) foundations of 87-88

723

the Late Period temple Thutmosis III block fragments numerous reused in the Junge 1987: 22- foundations of 24; Bommas the Ptolemaic 2000a: 70, 112; pronaos Bommas 2004: 7; Arnold 2014: 13-14, fig. 18 door jamb 1 (C 1) temple area Bommas 2000a: 49, 119, fig. 4 gateway 3 (C 90, C 91, C area of the Bommas 2000a: fragments 93) northeastern 126-129, fig. 10 doorway of the Roman temple court lintels 3 (C 16, C 23, C temple area Bommas 2000a: 396) 120 column drums 12 foundations of Bommas 2000a: the courtyard of 50-55; Arnold the early Roman 2012: 12, fig. 11 Period pillar fragments unknown temple area Bommas 2000a: 87-88; Arnold 2014: 10

architrave 3 (C 30, C 40, C temple area Bommas 2000a: fragments 67) 74-79 obelisk fragment 1 unknown Breasted 1901: 59 pylon fragments 33, but only 11 in front of the Bommas 2000a: inscribed with the court of the 47, 79, 141, king’s name (C temple 163; Von 97, C 133, C 239, Pilgrim 2001: C 258, C 261, C 44; Arnold 262, C 264, C 2014a: 8-9, fig. 266, C 268, C 7 273, C 337) stamped brick 1 House 26 Von Pilgrim 1996a: 71, fig. 19; Bommas

724

2000a: 238-240, fig. 31 Amenhotep II block fragments unknown (1 in northern gallery Porter and Moss Berlin Museum of the festival 1937: 244; Van 20736) court of the Siclen III 1990: Eighteenth 188-194; Dynasty temple Bommas 2004: 7-8 column drums 26 foundations of Bommas 2000a: the courtyard of 196; von the early Roman Pilgrim 2005: Period 38, Fig. 7; Arnold 2012: 12-13, fig. 11; Arnold 2014: 10 architrave 5 (C 60, C 63/64, foundations of Bommas 2000a: fragments C 274, C 275 C the courtyard of 177-178, fig. 17 380) the early Roman Period doorway 3 (C 54, C 165, C temple area Bommas 2000a: fragments 376) 132-134 obelisk 2 (CG 17015/C C 370 was Engelbach 1923: fragments 370, C 386496) found in a 163-164, figs. 1- Nubian house; C 2; Porter and 386 was found Moss 1937: 244; in Aswan Bommas 2000a: 222 stela 1 (broken into unknown Breasted 1962: several §798; fragments: Cummings Vienna ÄS 5909 1982: 24-28; upper part, lines Der Manuelian 1-13; Cairo CG 1987: 47; 34019 lower part) Bommas 2000a: 22-24, 47, 141, 249-266; Von Pilgrim 2001: 37-38; Von

496 Now in the Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon (see Bommas 2000a: n. 12).

725

Pilgrim 2005: 38 statue fragment 1 first campaign Jaritz 1984: 186 of the basin of the temple of Khnum Nilometer Thutmosis IV block fragments 3 (C 834, C 840, reused in the Junge 1987: 22- C 841) southern and 24; Von Pilgrim southeastern 2008: 208; foundation wall Bommas 2010: of the Ptolemaic 352 pronaos architrave 3 (C 61, C 62, C southern gallery Bommas 2000a: fragments 383) of the festival 129-130, 177- court of 179; Bommas Amenhotep II 2004a: 7 block designed as 1 unknown Von Pilgrim a header for first 2004: 7 pylon stelae fragments 3 (C 344, C 352, found in 1996 in Bommas 2000a: C 353) the urban area 267, figs. 32-34 west of the Satet temple obelisk fragment 1 (Cairo CG unknown Porter and Moss 17016/C 371) 1937: 244; Bommas 2000a: 223 Amenhotep III block fragment 1 (C 59) unknown Bommas 2000a: 235, fig. 31 Amarna Period statue fragment 1 (Island west side of the Junge 1991: kings Museum no. sanctuary of 192-194 1354) Heqaib facing the temple of Khnum seal impression 1 found associated Budka 2005: possibly of with a ceramic 106-108 Smenkhkare jug

726

c) Additional Structures within the Temple of Khnum Precinct497 Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

Thutmosis I block fragments numerous recent Arnold 2016: excavations of 32-34 the Late Period temple of Khnum Thutmosis II architrave at least 2 reused in the Arnold 2016: 33 fragments foundations of the Late Period temple of Khnum square pillars at least 2 reused in the Arnold 2016: 33 foundations of the Late Period temple of Khnum block fragments 9 reused in the Arnold 2016: 33 foundations of the Late Period temple of Khnum Hatshepsut block fragments numerous recent Arnold 2016: excavations of 31-32 the Late Period temple of Khnum

d) Peripteral Temple of Amenhotep III Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number Amenhotep III block fragments unknown exterior walls; Porter and Moss gallery of 1962: 228

497 Most of these objects likely derive from barque stations attached to the main temple of Khnum.

727

pillars; interior walls columns 2 entrance of the Badawy 1986: 288- temple 290; Johnson 1998: 78-79

Non-Royal Votive Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty Object Group Type/Owner Quantity/Object Provenience References Number stela sandstone round- 1 recent Luxor Times top/owner excavations Magazine498 unidentified near the temple of Khnum statues black granite 1 (Cairo F floor of House Junge 1987: 21 no. block/Djhuty 4028) T22A located in 3.1.7.2, pl. 20d the courtyard of the temple of Khnum

sistrophoric/Nehy 1 (Cairo JE found in 1907 Weinstein 1978: 39749) next to the 41; Bernhauer Ptolemaic 2002: 86 temple of Satet human figurines clay figurines 24 House 55; south Kopp 2005: 85-86, depicting naked house group fig. 28.3 females (HGS)

blue faience 90 settlement area Kopp 2005: 88-89, naked females B VIII; southern fig. 28.6 area of the Satet temple

498 http://luxortimesmagazine.blogspot.ca/2016/04/swiss-archaeologists-discover-new.html.

728

clay figurine of a 61 House 61; Area Kopp 2005: 89, fig. naked woman XIV 28.7; Budka 2016: lying on a bed 92

clay females with 6 settlement area Kopp 2005: 89, n. oblong bodies, B VIII; House 291, fig. 28.5; rectangular head, 55; Area XIV Budka 2016: 92 and pelvic girdle vessels blue painted 75 Area XIV Budka 2008a: 108- pottery (dump layer); 119, 131-132, tabs. Area BII; I-III, figs. 12a-b, surface finds 14, 15; Budka and sebakh; 2013c: 190-195; individual Budka 2015g: 131 houses in the vicinity of the Khnum temple

mono-, bi-, and unknown Area II; Area III Von Pilgrim 1996: polychrome south; Area 71; Budka 2010: decorated pottery XIV; House 26 11-12, pl. VIa-b; Budka 2012: 25, fig. 14.5

flower pots unknown Area XIV Budka 2005: 98- 99; Budka 2012: 25

beer jars unknown Area XIV Budka 2005: 95, 102-103 108, fig. 3; Budka 2012: 25

incense bowls unknown Area XIV Budka 2012: 25

pot stands unknown Area XIV Budka 2012: 25

feminoform 15499 settlement Budka 2016: 91- levels 8-10; 92, fig. 4 Area XIV

Nun bowls 2 Area XIV Budka 2016: 92

499 Some of these are Ramesside in date (see Budka 2016: 92).

729

rock Names, titles, and unknown (80 Hassawanarti; Seidlmayer 1999; inscriptions depictions of documented at in front of the Seidlmayer 2001a; various Hassawanarti temple of Seidlmayer 2003: individuals and from the Khnum 441-443; their families Eighteenth to Seidlmayer 2008; Twentieth Seidlmayer 2012; Dynasties) Seidlmayer 2013

5. Sai Island

Royal Patronage during the Eighteenth Dynasty Royal Figure Monument Type Quantity/Object Provenience References Number

Ahmose II block fragments 2 (S.410, square B1 east of Vercoutter 1973: S.408) temple A 12, 27, pl. I; Berg 1987: 5

statue fragments 2 (SNM 3828; southeastern gate Porter and Moss SNM 63/4/4) of town 1952: 165; Vercoutter 1956: 78; Vercoutter 1973: 26-27; Lindblad 1984: 20, pl. 7a-d; Minault-Gout 2007: 278, 280- 281, fig. 1b

Ahmose- block fragments 2 (S.64, S.631) inside the Vercoutter 1956: Nefertary Ottoman fortress 77 no. 19; (S.64 was found Vercoutter 1973: in the northwest 12, pl. I corner of the fort)

Amenhotep I statue fragment 1 (SNM 63/4/5) head and lower Vercoutter 1956: part found during 78-79; Vercouter a survey of the 1958: 159-160; island in 1953; Vandersleyen torso from the 1971: 73;

730

northern Ottoman Schmitz 1978: wall 133-134; Lindblad 1984: 27-28, pls. 7a-b and 12c-d; Klug 2002: 55-56; Davies 2004: 102-103

stelae 3 (S.3, S.50, inside the Porter and Moss S.62) Ottoman fortress 1952: 165; (western sector Vercoutter 1956: and north wall) 75-77; Vercoutter 1973: 27, pl. X; Klug 2002: 57-58

seal impressions unknown feature 15 Budka 2015a: 45

Thutmosis I stela 1 (S.63) inside the Vercoutter 1956: Ottoman fortress 78; Vercoutter (north wall) 1973: 28-29

rock inscription 1 unknown (saw by Breasted 1908: Breasted in 1907) 100; Porter and Moss 1952: 165; Vercoutter 1973: 28, pl. X

Hatshepsut statue 1 (SNM 443) statue cache Porter and Moss 1952: 165; Minault-Gout 2007: 278

seal impressions ~20 feature 15 Budka 2015a: 45 (subterranean storage room in the central courtyard of building A)

731

Thutmosis III foundation 7 or 8 temple A: pits Vercoutter 1970: deposits around the 29-31; sanctuary Vercoutter 1973: 14-18, pl. II-III; Vercoutter 1990: 1025-1032; Thill 1997

lintels and door 9 (S.412, S.413, temple A: Vercoutter 1970: posts S.414, S.415, pavement/paving, 27-29; S.416, S.417, except S.12 is Vercoutter 1973: S.119, S.779, from the Ottoman 15-19, pls. III- S.12) fortress IV; Vercoutter 1958: 164, pl. XLVId

pillars 3 (S.1, S.123, inside the fortress Porter and Moss S.124) 1952: 165; Vercoutter 1956: 74-75; Vercoutter 1973: 18-19, 23, pl. VIII; Vercoutter 1958: 156, pl. XLVIa

architrave 1 (S.2) Ottoman fortress Vercoutter 1956: 76; Vercoutter 1973: 16, pl. V

seated lion statue 1 (S.90) Ottoman fortress, Vercoutter 1958: between bastion 157, pl. XLVIb; and tower Minault-Gout 2007: 284

seal impressions unknown feature 15 Budka 2015a: 45

Amenhotep II door post or 1 (S.87) Ottoman fortress, Vercoutter 1956: pillar fragment along the north 78; Vercoutter wall, base of 1973: 21, pl. VII tower

732

block fragments 5 (S.573, S.575, between the north Vercoutter 1956: S.576, S.777, wall of the 77-78; S.48) Ottoman fortress Vercoutter 1973: and temple A 21-22, 36: pl. VII-VIII

Amenhotep III pillar 1 (S.1) in situ in the Porter and Moss Ottoman fortress 1952: 165; reemployed Vercoutter 1956: from Thutmosis 74, fig. 4; III Vercoutter 1973: 23, pl. VIII

statue fragments 3 (S.585, inside the Porter and Moss S.775) Ottoman fortress 1952: 165; and boundary wall Vercoutter 1956: 79-80; Vercoutter 1973: 23-24, pl. IX

wall fragment or 1 (S.44) Ottoman fortress Vercoutter 1956: stela (north enclosure 81; Helck 1958b: wall) 1959 no. 739; Vercoutter 1973: 23

Non-Royal Votive Activity during the Eighteenth Dynasty Object Group Type/Owner Quantity/Object Provenience References Number stelae Inebny/Amenemnekhu 1 (S.1100) Sai Island and Rondot 2017; environs Auenmüller 2018: 243, tab. 2

Nehy 1 Gebel Abri Auenmüller 2018: 245, tab. 2

Usersatet 1 (SNM 33224) statue cache Davies 2017: no. 10);

733

Auenmüller 2018: 246, tab. 2 statues block/Nehy 1 (S.734) Ottoman Vercoutter fortress (north 1973: 19-21, wall) pl. IV; Thill 2012: 288; Auenmüller 2018: 245, tab. 2

granite/unidentified 1 statue cache Vercoutter Viceroy 1956: 71-72, no. 9, pl. VIII; Thill 2012: 285

granite 1 statue cache Vercoutter kneeling/Usersatet 1956: 72 no. 10; Davies 2009b: 24-26; Thill 2012: 285

Usersatet 6 (SNM 33130, statue cache Davies 2017: SNM 33225, nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, SNM 34947, 7, 14; SNM 36537) Auenmüller 2018: 246, tab. 2

granite/unidentified 1 statue cache Vercoutter owner 1956: 73, no. 11; Thill 2012: 26

sandstone double 1 Khartoum Arkell 1950: statue of an Museum 34; Thill 2012: unidentified man and 286 woman

unidentified 1 Wadi Halfa Vercoutter Museum 1956: 79 no.

734

26; Thill 2012: 286 pillar Nehy 1 (S.1) town/fort Minault-Gout (originally 2007: fig. 3; from temple A) Auenmüller 2018: tab. 2 lintel Nehy 1 (S.417) temple A Vercoutter 1973: 19, pl. IV; Minault- Gout 2007: 279; Thill 2016: 274-276, fig. 7; Auenmüller 2018: tab. 2 door jamb Nehy 1 (S.119) temple A Vercoutter 1958: 164, pl. XLVId; Minault-Gout 2007: 279; Thill 2016: 285; Auenmüller 2018: tab. 2 human clay cylinders 11 (SAV1N nos. SAV1 North Doyen 2016: figurines representing female 0326, 0589, 134-142, figs. bodies 0625, 0664, 1-11 1217, 1324, 2240, 2306, 2186, 2189, 2209)

clay rhomboidal 2 (SAV1N nos. SAV1 North Doyen 2016: figurines representing 1573, 2300) 142-143, figs. females 12-13

clay head representing 1 SAV1 North Doyen 2016: a female (SAV1N/2206) 144, fig. 14

735

clay figurine 1 SAV1 North Doyen 2014: representing a naked (SAV1N/0613) 374, pl. 6; woman lying on a bed Doyen 2016: 144-145, fig. 15; Budka 2017g: 158 animal ram unknown SAV1 North Budka and figurines Doyen 2012- 2013: 184; Budka 2017g: 159

cow or bull unknown SAV1 North, Budka and level 1 Doyen 2012- 2013: 184, fig. 12.1, tab. 2; Budka 2017g: 159 vessels Nun bowls 127 SAV1 North Budka and levels 1-3; Doyen 2012- SAV1 West; 2013: 187, SAV1 East; figs. 16-17, SAV1 tab. 2; Budka 2014b: 14, fig. 10; Tschorn 2017: 437, tab. 1

duck bowls unknown SAV1 North Budka and Doyen 2012- 2013: 200

footed bowls unknown SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 28-29; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 201

incense bowls unknown SAV1 North Doyen 2014: 374

736

feminoform 3 (SAV1N N/C SAV1 North Budka and 685; SAV1N Doyen 2012- N/C 621.4) 2013: 200 n. 232; Doyen 2014: 374; Budka 2016d: 92-96, figs. 5-6 blue painted pottery unknown SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 30; Budka 2017f: 134, 151 mono- and bichrome unknown SAV1 North Budka 2011a: painted wares 29-30; Budka 2017f: 134, 151 beer jars numerous SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 28-29; Budka 2017f: 128, 135, 154-155 flower pots unknown SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 28; Budka 2017f: 135, 155 drop pots numerous SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 27-28; Budka 2017f: 130, 153, 155 bread molds numerous SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 29; Budka and Doyen 2012- 2013: 188; Budka 2017f: 137, 140, 154 bread plates numerous SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 28-29; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013:

737

188; Budka 2017f: 137, 154 bread trays numerous SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 29; Budka and Doyen 2012- 2013: 188, 190-191; Budka 2017f: 137 pot stands numerous SAV1 North Budka 2011a: 28-29; Budka and Doyen 2012-2013: 190, 201; Doyen 2014: 374; Budka 2017f: 137, 140, 149, 155- 156

738