The Serapeum Project: Discussing the Origins, Landscape Choice and Building Motivation Behind the New Kingdom Sacred Bull Burial Site Using Landscape Archaeology

Department of archaeology Ancient history

The Serapeum project: Discussing the origins, landscape choice and building motivation behind the New Kingdom sacred bull burial site using landscape archaeology.

Natanya Berggren Newton

Batchelor thesis 15 credits Spring term 2021 Supervisor: Dr. Angus Graham

Abstract Newton, N. 2021. The Serapeum project: Discussing the origins, landscape choice and building motivation behind the New Kingdom sacred bull burial site using landscape archaeology. Newton, N. 2021. Serapeumprojektet: Diskuterar med hjälp av landskapsarkeologisk metod dess ursprung, val av plats och anledning till uppförande av Nya Rikets heliga begravningsplats.

Since the discovery of the Apis bull catacombs known as the Serapeum in the 1800’s by Auguste Mariette, Saqqara has become a topic of interest amongst archaeologists and Egyptologists. This in turn has prompted many new research attempts to try and better understand the function and significance of the funerary practices which took place there. The nearby town of Memphis was home to the Apis bull god who represented Ptah though in death it came to represent Osiris. This paper is an attempt to provide a new interpretation of the New Kingdom Apis bull funerary monuments placed within the Saqqara landscape from Amenhotep III’s reign through to Rameses II’s reign, with a special focus placed on the Serapeum. For this paper landscape archaeology was used to better understand the choice of location by Amenhotep III. The aim is to reveal why the Serapeum was built in the first place and by whom. It was found that whilst Amenhotep III began the burial practice, the change from individual to multiple burials occurred under Rameses II’s reign. Canopic jars as well as a dedication stela were used to determine that the shift occurred under Khaemwaset’s influence it is argued that the Serapeum was built to connect the graves to strengthen the ties between past and present kings. This connection was made as a way to promote their right to rule. Ända sedan upptäckten av Apis-katakomberna, även känd som Serapeum, år 1851 av Auguste Mariette, har Saqqara genererat stort intresse bland arkeologer och egyptologer. Detta har lett till det gjorts flertalet studier kring att försöka förstå dess funktion och betydelse kring de begravningsceremonier som där hölls. Apis var en gud gestaltad som tjur och hade sin hemvistelse i den närliggande staden Memfis Apis i döden representerade av guden Ptah, medan Apis i livet representerade guden Osiris. Denna uppsats gör ett försök att ge en nytolkning av kring Apis-tjuren och de begravningsmonument som är placerad i Saqqara-regionen, där fokus ligger på just Serapeumet under Nya riket-epoken, en tidsepok som sträcker sig från Amenhotep III till Rameses II. För att bättre förstå valet av Serapeums placering och vem som byggde det, användes landskapsarkeologi som arbetsmetod.I denna uppsats framgår det, trots att Amenhotep III började med individuella begravningsceremonier, skiftades detta till multipla begravningsceremonier i och med att Rameses II kom till makten. Vidare upptäcktes det i arbetets gång att Kanopiska kärl samt dedikationsstela användes för att fastställa att detta skifte inträffade under Khaemwaset’s inflytande och att Serapeum byggdes för att binda samman tidigare konungar med nuvarande och därmed stärka banden mellan dessa. Syftet med denna sammanbindning var så att nuvarande konungar bättre kunde hävda sin rätt att regera.

Keywords: Amenhotep III, Apis bull, landscape selection, New Kingdom, Khaemwaset, Rameses II, Saqqara, Serapeum.

Batchelor thesis in Egyptology. 15 hp. Supervisor: Angus Graham. Examiner: Professor Andreas Dorn. Reviewed and accepted 2021-08-31. © Natanya Berggren Newton Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala universitet, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden Cover image: Serapeum entrance at North Saqqara taken by Natanya Newton.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my supervisor Dr. Angus Graham for all the support I received and to Professor Andreas Dorn for the time you put into evaluating my assignment. Everyone else who contributed with much needed suggestions and translations along the way, thank you kindly.

Table of contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Problem formulation and purpose ...... 1 1.2 Previous research ...... 2 1.3 Definitions ...... 2 2 Theoretical framework and methodology ...... 2 3 Background ...... 3 3.1 Amenhotep III and the Apis bull ...... 3 3.2 Succeeding kings and the Apis burials ...... 3 3.3 Rameses II & Khaemwaset ...... 4 3.4 Memphis ...... 4 3.5 Apis bull cult and Ptah ...... 4 4 Tracing the provenance of the Serapeum ...... 6 5 The landscape as memory ...... 12 5.1 Re-use and Re-interpret ...... 12 5.2 Re-construct ...... 13 6 The Saqqara necropolis landscape ...... 14 6.1 Topography ...... 15 6.2 Water and climate ...... 15 6.3 Funerary activity in the landscape ...... 15 6.4 Short summary and Re-use Re-interpret and re-construction of the landscape ...... 17 7 The landscape as identity and social order ...... 17 8 Discussion ...... 18 9 Conclusion ...... 20 Bibliography ...... 22 Online resources: Artefacts from Louvre museum...... 24 Image credits ...... 25 Appendix ...... 27

Abbreviations

OK: Old Kingdom MK: Middle Kingdom NK: New Kingdom i.e. That is to say

1 Introduction The worship of animal gods in ancient Egypt became increasingly popular under the late 18th dynasty from the reign of Amenhotep III.1 Many animal catacombs containing the mummified remains of animals ranging from Ibis birds, cats, dogs and bulls have been discovered, revealing numerous written sources in the form of stelae, amulets and sarcophagi from these burials. Such sources help Egyptologists piece together the history of Egyptian animal cults.2 One particular animal catacomb discovered in the 1800’s at Saqqara by French archaeologist and director of the Egyptian museum at Cairo, Auguste Mariette has contributed greatly to the existing knowledge surrounding such cults. Mariette had uncovered a giant underground complex which housed the remains of the sacred Apis bull. Within the complex Mariette found numerous large stone sarcophagi, which are considerably larger than any human burial ever found. This came to be known as the Serapeum.3 Within the underground complex the names of several pharaohs have been found attached with the name of the Apis/Hep4 bull. Two kings which are of particular interest for this research paper are Amenhotep III and Rameses II. Amenhotep III was responsible for putting more focus on the Apis cult in the NK at Memphis and made the decision to bury the bull at its death in an individual tomb in north west Saqqara (see section 3.1). The burial was conducted together with his son Thutmose who was Sem priest5 of the Apis cult.6 Several kings followed this tradition after Amenhotep III, but Rameses II had more than one bull burial during his long reign. Artefacts connecting Rameses II and his son Khaemwaset who was also a Sem priest to the Apis bull can be found both within the multi chambered Serapeum as well as the individual tombs for the Apis bulls. This indicates that a shift in burial practices must have occurred during his reign. Snape7 argues that it was Thutmose and not Khaemwaset who buried the first Apis bull in the Serapeum based on a stela from the burial of Apis I found within the Serapeum. However, two problems exist with this statement; firstly, tomb I is an individual tomb from Amenhotep III’s reign and secondly items found within the Serapeum do not always have their origins from there. So how can the origins of the Serapeum be revealed based on artefacts alone? I will therefore use this thesis to explore the benefactor of the Serapeum and why it was built. My hypothesis is that the Apis bull cult which was popular at the time and had its station in nearby Memphis meant that locality of the cult was a strong factor in determining burial location choice, at least to the extent that the cult lasted in the region from Amenhotep III through to Ptolemaic times.8 1.1 Problem formulation and purpose The main purpose of this paper is to present an interpretation based on primary sources and relevant theory to find out why the Serapeum was incorporated into the NK building projects, in order to develop this train of thought more the following three questions have been posed:  Who was responsible for the Serapeum project? (actor).

1 Ikram et al., 2015, 2. 2 Dodson 2009, 5. 3 Málek 1983, 65‒72. 4 Dodson 2005, 72. 5 Sem priests represented specific gods in a cult and the position was considered an honour. The priest was in command over the temple workmen and even rations (Teeter 2011, 51). 6 Dodson 2009, 2. 7 Snape 2011, 466. 8 Van De Mieroop 2011, 311.

 Why change from a single to a multiple burial complex in the Saqqara landscape and why in that location? (landscape).  Why was the Serapeum incorporated into grand building scheme of the NK and Ramesside eras, and what role did it fulfil in Memphis and perhaps Egypt? (identity and social order). 1.2 Previous research Previous research which is used as a background for my research on this topic includes Mariette’s notes on the Serapeum, and Porter and Moss topographical bibliography of Saqqara. Museum artefacts collected by Mariette and found by others at the Serapeum are also included, at least those which are deemed to be of relevance i.e. 50 plus amulets will not be mentioned separately as they are not deemed directly relevant to the study. An excavation to the north west of the Serapeum by the Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan will also be brought up for discussion. 1.3 Definitions Landscape: According to the ‘Handbook of Landscape Archaeology’ the study of landscape involves the relationship between humans and the environment in which they live or make contact with. It looks at how they organise adapt and alter themselves according to their surroundings.9 Serapeum: The Greek10 name allotted to the bull burial chamber found at Saqqara by French archaeologist Auguste Mariette in 1850. The Serapeum is a series of underground chambers divided into two sections, titled the lesser gallery and the grand gallery. The lesser gallery contains the older burials and is not available for public viewing. Ka-house: or Ka-chapel allowed the deceased person to partake in the rituals from a cult after death. A Ka house could have its own estate like a temple to help provide for the cult. Ka-houses are attested from the 6th dynasty onwards.11

2 Theoretical framework and methodology Research is based on a landscape archaeology approach when trying to understand the landscape selection. Landscape as memory, identity and social order was used to form underlying connections which the landscape may have had with the choice selection. The reason this was deemed the best theory to use was because two of the main research questions of this paper concern landscape, building alterations and the return to an Old Kingdom necropolis. Knapp and Ashmore12 have divided landscape memory into three categories which are listed below

 re-use  re-interpret  re-construct Knapp and Ashmore mention that memory stresses the continuation of a landscape which means that the past usage of the landscape can still influence the current one, this will be discussed further below and tied into the possible reasons why the landscape was re-selected over and over again throughout history.13 Other theory which will be used is the idea of the ‘net effect’ developed by Kozloff. This is where certain environments are selected for cultic practices because they endorse a certain ideal like identity and religious connections.14

9 David & Thomas 2016, 28. 10 Brittannica Academia ʽSerapeum’ 2008. 11 Wilkinson 2005, 121. 12 Knapp & Ashmore 1999, 13–19. 13 Knapp & Ashmore 1999, 14. 14 Kozloff 2012, 104–10.

Research was conducted by accessing articles and books online15 to gather a broader understanding of my research topic. First the Saqqara and Memphis area was researched and then special focus was placed on Amenhotep III and Rameses II at Memphis and the Serapeum. Archaeology and Egyptology were two of the main fields of research used on this paper. Primary sources have been looked at, mainly those collected by Mariette which can be found mostly at the Louvre Museum. These were chosen since the items found within the Serapeum can provide a fresher approach in interpreting the location and its history better, rather than by just relying on maps or textual evidence alone. Maps were also analysed and used in conjunction with past landscape analysis to gain a better understanding of how the landscape would have looked and what features were attractive to those who used it for the bull burial. What is not included in the research method is how the Serapeum evolved after it was built, though later kings might be mentioned briefly. Theory was then applied to the above evidence to try to provide a new interpretation on the Serapeum origins and its role in the NK.

3 Background 3.1 Amenhotep III and the Apis bull Amenhotep III reigned for approximately 38 years ca. 1391–1353 BC and was the ninth king of the 18th dynasty. This was a wealthy time for Egypt both nationally and internationally and the rulers of the 18th dynasty used this new found wealth to build up their empire further.16 Amenhotep III constructed many new temples and buildings throughout Egypt and Nubia.17 He incorporated the ancient Apis cult into his reign but unlike his predecessors he decided to give the bull a burial and chose to do this at Saqqara in an individual burial chamber with a single chapel above ground.18 Amenhotep III could be the very first king in Egyptian history to have buried the bull, as evidence of earlier bull burials has not been found yet the majority of scholars seem to agree that most textual sources regarding the bull hint at it having been eaten in some kind of ritualistic manner by the kings themselves, and that the shift between eating of the bull and burying it appears to have changed with Amenhotep III.19 It is interesting to see how Amenhotep III may have altered this tradition and the following kings adapted the same custom to their bull burials. 3.2 Succeeding kings and the Apis burials After Amenhotep III the following kings Amenhotep IV (1351–1334 BC), Tutankhamun (1334–1325 BC), Horemheb (1319–1292 BC) and Seti I (1290–1280 BC) each buried their own Apis bull according to the material evidence found at Saqqara which can be seen in table 1 below. Kings Smenkare (1335– 1334 BC), Ay (1323–1319 BC) and Rameses I (1292–1290 BC) however do not have any burials attested to their names. A distance between the first three burials and Horemheb’s burial exists with approximately six metres of space between the tomb of Amenhotep III and Horemheb’s. This division of space might be due to the fact that Horemheb had no blood connections to the past kings of the 18th dynasty, he appointed Rameses I (no blood relation) to rule after him and the following bull burials are built around Horemheb’s tomb whilst the prior burials were closer to that of Amenhotep III. This burial plot arrangement is brought up for further discussion below in section 5.1.

15 Due to the current global pandemic, research material is limited to online resources which are not always easily accessed. 16 Van De Mieroop 2011, 154. 17 Van De Mieroop 2011, 186‒87. 18 Vercoutter 1982, 338. 19 Dodson 2009, 2.

3.3 Rameses II & Khaemwaset Rameses II reigned ca. 1279 –1213 BC for 67 years and was the third Pharaoh of the 19th dynasty in the NK.20 Under his reign he committed himself to building extensively throughout Egypt and in parts of Nubia just as Amenhotep III had done.21 In his time he had many children, though only one of them devoted his time to restoring Egypt’s ancient monuments and building new monuments as his father had done. Khaemwaset was Rameses II’s fourth son, he was high priest of Ptah in Memphis and in the 16th year of Rameses II reign Khaemwaset assisted in the burial of the first Apis bull of Rameses II’s reign. Khaemwaset is also known in history for his involvement of restoring or at least admiring the work of OK monuments, it appears in his lifetime he was granted a large amount of free will concerning planning of building and organisation of festivals and Memphite projects22 and might have possibly been involved in the building of the Serapeum.23 Due to his interaction with the cult and physical presence in the Memphite landscape, it would be a major discrepancy to not include his name in the contributions of the Serapeum. In all likelihood it was more Khaemwaset than Rameses II who would have been in control of the burial site but since Rameses II was king and his name was placed on stelae, funerary ornaments etc., this paper will use Rameses II name interchangeably with Khaemwaset’s. 3.4 Memphis Memphis was the capital of ancient Egypt during the OK until the capital was later moved elsewhere but it remained an active central administrative centre. The location of Memphis is ideal as it sits close to where Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were considered to be situated in ancient Egypt.24 Access to the Nile which was close by to Memphis allowed transportation to and from the area.25 In the NK the cult of the Apis bull became heavily promoted and since Memphis was the home of the Apis god who embodied Ptah the city became a place for people to come to visit to see the holy Apis bull at its temple in the city.26 The name of Memphis in Egyptian is Mennefer meaning ‘enduringly beautiful.’ This, however, changed in Late Egyptian to Hwt kA ptH meaning the ‘soul house of Ptah,’ whom by that time had reached his cultic peak. The whole city had slowly transformed into a place of honour for the god Ptah, and could very well have been the driving force behind the increase in funerary practices here during this time.27 Ptah was also said to provide the kings of Egypt with power, life and stability and it was in Memphis that some Kings of Egypt came to be crowned and receive these gifts from the god Ptah.28 3.5 Apis bull cult and Ptah The Apis bull has its origins from around dynasty one (c. 3150 BC) with a festival called the running of the Apis bull29 yet material evidence is scarce until around 1400 BC onwards making it difficult to chart its true beginnings.30 The Apis came to symbolise fertility and kingship over time,31 and like many other deities it evolved throughout the Egyptian history. In the NK the Apis was the embodiment of Ptah, then Osiris in death.

20 Van de Mieroop 2011, 214. 21 Amenhotep III (1391–1353 BC) embarked on a large scale building project throughout Egypt from the Nile valley down to parts of Nubia (Kozloff 2012, 2). 22 Kawaii 2012, 1. 23 Refer to chapter four to see artefacts connected to Khaemwaset. 24 Van de Mieroop 2011, 25. 25 Myśliwiec 2020, 24. 26 Pinch 2002, 105. 27 Berman 2001, 143. 28 Pinch 2002, 181. 29 Pinch 2002, 105. 30 Quirke 2014, 42. 31 Wilkinson 2005, 30.

Ptah himself was one of the older gods worshipped in ancient Egypt at least since the 1st dynasty. Ptah’s place of origin was in fact Memphis, which naturally made him an important god of the area.32 Since Memphis was the home of Ptah, it stands to reason that the Apis bull was kept in a temple within the city’s walls. People from all over Egypt would come to Memphis just to see the holy bull to leave offerings and ask for blessings.33 At its death in the NK from Amenhotep III’s time the bull, underwent the same mummification and burial rituals as a king would have undergone before being placed in a special bull burial to the west at Saqqara.34 Not long after the death a search for the new Apis bull calf would take place.

32 Pinch 2002, 181. 33 Dimick 1958, 185. 34 Meeks & Farvard Meeks 1996, 139‒40.

4 Tracing the provenance of the Serapeum The oldest traces of a bull burial at Saqqara date back to Amenhotep III. Snape’s35 statement about the Serapeum being built under Amenhotep III’s reign was based on one item from Amenhotep III’s bull burial being found within the Serapeum. Snape stated that the Serapeum dates back to Amenhotep III based on an image of the king and his son, Thutmose, being found within the Serapeum. However, the tomb in which Amenhotep III buried his bull in was an individual tomb located outside of the Serapeum (image 2). In fact, the following bull burials after Amenhotep III occurred in individual tombs right up until Rameses II reign. This detail prompted the need to have a closer look at the artefacts found both in the individual tombs as well as within the Serapeum to see what other information they could provide. Therefore, the burial goods from the Apis bull burials found at north west Saqqara have been summarised below in table 1 according to Porter and Moss’ 36 detailed cataloguing as well as items personally found in the Louvre’s collection from the Serapeum. When looking at the items below a complicating factor to remember is that Rameses II was known to usurp the vast majority of Amenhotep III’s buildings, deities and statues.37

Name Burial Dynas Duration of Artefacts location & number -ty reign (ca.) Amenhotep III Individual: 18th 38 4 canopic jars, 4 Louvre bricks: IM 5337, & Thutmose Apis I38 bricks. Mural39 canopic jars: N 394 1D, Alabaster vase, N 842 D, N 425, IM 4 pottery vases 6157 Louvre: 482, 455 + 484 Amenhotep IV Individual: 18th 16 4 canopic jars, Louvre: IM 5301 Apis II stela. 5305 Smenkare?40 Unknown 18th 1 None known No known burial Tutankhamun Individual: 18th 9 4 canopic jars, 3 Louvre: 1151‒4, 456, Apis III glass pendants, Flagellum, IM 5277 flagellum Ay Unknown 18th 4 None known No known burial Horemheb Individual: 18th 28 Stone block, Louvre: canopic jars: Apis IV–V depiction of IM 4224, 4425, 4227, king and gods, stone E 32765 canopic jar.

Rameses I Unknown 19th 1 None known No known burial Seti I Individual: 19th 15 Stone block with In tomb Apis VI kings name Rameses II Individual: 19th 67 2 bricks, Louvre: 3597‒8, 2886. Apis VII Pectoral of IM 3433 + E18884, Year 1641 Rameses II, canopic jars: IM 3610, canopic jars, 3616, 3618, IM 3693, goblet, stelae IM 4964 + IM 5269

35 Snape 2011, 466; Kennedy-Quigley (2008, 15) also states that the Serapeum dates back to Amenhotep III. 36 Porter & Moss 1927, 818–21. 37 Van Dijk 2000, 291. 38 Porter & Moss 1927, 818–21. 39 Musée du Louvre 2015, IM 6157. 40 Short reign, unknown if another party ruled here as well (Van de Mieroop 2011, 186). 41 Frood 2016, 69.

Khaemwaset Individual: 19th Canopic jars, Louvre: IX. Year wall mural N 518 3042

Khaemwaset Saqqara- 19th 2 registers, Louvre: E 25497 exact fragments of Vienna museum: 5081‒ location door jambs, 3, 5095‒7,43 statue at unknown statue. house of the Service des Antiquities at Saqqara44

Khaemwaset Serapeum: 19th Stela Louvre: 3747 Apis X Year unknown Rameses II Serapeum: 19th 67 Relief mural, Louvre: E 25497, N 755 Apis XIV amulets, gold A, N 759, AF 2333, IM Year 5545 face mask, 5395, E 3051 A, B, C, E canopic jars 27620, IM 3434. Merneptah Serapeum?46 19th 10 Ushabti doll47 IM 223 Apis VIII stela Merneptah IM 3476, IM 3747. with Apis bull Seti II Unknown 19th 9 None known No known burial Siptah Unknown 19th 6 None known No known burial Tausret Unknown 19th 2 None known No known burial Sethnakht Unknown 20th 2 None known No known burial Rameses III Unknown 20th 31 None known No known burial Rameses IV Unknown 20th 6 None known No known burial Rameses V Unknown 20th 4 None known No known burial Rameses VI Serapeum 20th 8 Jar with Ramses Louvre: 5414 Apis XVI VI name Rameses VII Unknown 20th 7 None known No known burial

Rameses VIII Unknown 20th 1 None known No known burial

Rameses IX Serapeum 20th 18 Jars, vase and Louvre: 442, 5418, Apis XVII amulets. 5416. Rameses X Unknown 20th 4 None known No known burial Rameses XI Unknown 20th 30 None known No known burial

Table 1: List of kings from the NK in order, those that have a bull burial have listed artefacts found within their bull tombs (individual and collective), the names attributed to the burial and where the artefacts are now located. Information unless specified comes from Porter & Moss (1927).

42 Frood 2016, 69. 43 Porter & Moss 1927, 818. 44 Porter & Moss 1927, 818–19. 45 Dodson 1999, 21. 46 An amulet with his name on it was also found in tomb XIV (Musée de Louvre: IM 3476) and has written on it priest of Ptah, though whether this is another Merenptah or the king’s son is unknown, though the stela with Merenptah son of Rameses II is fairly solid evidence. 47 Musée du Louvre 2011, Inventory number: IM 3476, text: ‘Merenptah servant of Ptah’.

By looking at table 1, the vast majority of Amenhotep III’s burial goods were in fact found within individual tomb I48 (images 1 & 2) and not from within the Serapeum.49 This makes it hard to accept the statement that Amenhotep III had a bull burial within the Serapeum based on one item from his bull tomb being found there, especially when he only had one Apis bull burial to his name. Though Snape mentions it was a stela from the Apis I burial which attests Thutmose as being responsible for the Serapeum. This stela was not found in Porter and Moss’s detailed list over items found in the Serapeum nor was it found within the individual burials. Though Berman mentioned in his chapter Overview of Amenhotep III and his reign about a stela listed as ‘unpublished’ of Thutmose assisting his father Amenhotep III with the first Apis burial.50 Since the stela remains unpublished it is hard to assess whether the source itself is credible, the only possible depiction of Thutmose found online of a possible bull burial is a broken image of the young priest with Thutmose’s name found by Auguste Mariette in the 19th century at Saqqara, next to the boy is the broken off image of a taller man quite possibly the boy’s father (image 5 in appendix)51 but as to where exactly in Saqqara this stela was found is not known. Though since the image is broken it could have easily come from tomb I and been moved from that location at a later time. The location where some of the artefacts within Saqqara have been found is problematic especially since a stela with King Teti’s name was also found within the lesser vaults. Teti was a Pharaoh of the 6th dynasty of Egypt,52 his pyramid is located to the North East of the Serapeum and obviously far outdates the earliest NK traces found in the lesser vaults. It does little to help strengthen the claims that a king buried a bull within the Serapeum based on their name being found in the vicinity. Since some of the artefacts seem to have been moved from their original location, less mobile artefacts such as the tomb itself should be sought out to determine where the item came from and not where it was found. In this case the stela from Teti and the image of Thutmose found within the Serapeum could both be traced to outside tombs in the Saqqara landscape but not to any tomb in the Serapeum.

Image 1: Mariette’s drawing of an individual tomb located outside of the Serapeum, not necessarily tomb I According to Porter & Moss four tomb chambers can be attributed to Rameses II at Saqqara. Individual tomb chambers VII and IX as well as chambers X–XIV within the Serapeum (image 2). It was found

48 Porter & Moss 1927, 780. 49 Porter & Moss 1981, 781. 50 Berman 2001, 8; Porter & Moss 1981, 780. 51 Maystre 1992, 271. 52 Musée du Louvre 2020,ʽstèle cintrée’.

9 that whilst Rameses II had one set of canopic jars to his name,53 Khaemwaset had two sets54 which were both found in the individual tombs of Rameses II and within the Serapeum, indicating at least three bull burials during Rameses II reign took place between the individual burials and the Serapeum. This suggests two things:  First that Ramses II may have been responsible for just one bull burial before handing the role down to his son Khaemwaset who performed the next two bull burials.  Second that a shift between burials from individual tombs to the Serapeum occurred under Rameses II reign. Table 1 shows that based on archaeological evidence individual bull burials in North Saqqara occurred from Amenhotep III through to Rameses II. Missing names of other rulers such as Ramses I can be explained by the fact that a short reign may not have coincided with the death of an Apis bull where a bulls life expectancy was around approximately 15 to 20 years long.55 This also shows us that there are no gaps in bull burials between Amenhotep III through to Rameses II reign. When the shift from individual graves to the Serapeum occurred the remaining bull burials from succeeding kings continued within the Serapeum showing a clear cut off and starting point where the individual burials stopped and then continued within the Serapeum (image 2). It has been suggested that Khaemwaset himself commissioned the building of the Serapeum, this is largely based on a dedication stela found within the Serapeum stating that Khaemwaset claimed responsibility of the construction of the Serapeum.56 The stela itself is difficult to locate, though a copy of the text was made and written on a statue found within a temple of Nectanabo II which Barbotin has analysed in his article.57 For a translation of some of the text from the statue see Khaemwaset’s dedication speech in the appendix. Other items from Khaemwaset include canopic jars as well as a large number of amulets with Khaemwaset’s name inscribed on them found both in the individual tombs and in the Serapeum.58 The evidence based on the known burial years seems to suggest he must have built the Serapeum before his death which Shaw59 estimates to have been around the year 55 of Rameses II reign.60 Year 55 coincides with the second known Serapeum burial in tomb chamber XIV. A large number of amulets in Khaemwaset’s name were found in this tomb along with a gold funerary mask which might indicate that Khaemwaset may not have participated in that burial, or it was dedicated to him (refer to footnote 46).61 This makes it possible that Khaemwaset managed to build the Serapeum in the 25 years between bull burial two and three of Rameses II. Though this gap of 25 years suggests another bull burial might exist, perhaps located between the burial in year 30 and that of year 55. Since Rameses II is attested as having burials in the Serapeum between X and XIV, this might suggest that the missing bull burial is in fact within the Serapeum in tomb X which is undated (see table 1) where items in Khaemwaset’s name such as canopic jars and amulets

53 Rameses II canopic was found within the Serapeum though, Inventory item: IM 3433. 54 Musée du Louvre 2020 & 2021, Inventory number: N 493 A, B, C, D & IM 3434. There are Four Canopic jars in a set, two canopic’s with names Amset, Apis and Khaemwaset indicated they come from two separate sets. 55 Van De Mieroop 2011, 312. 56 Frood 2016, 69. 57 Frood 2016, 71; Barbotin 2001, 29–55. 58 Wilkinson 2005, 125; Frood 2016, 71. 59 Van Dijk 2000, 294. 60 Excavations by Waseda University to the north of the Serapeum have uncovered written evidence of a ka house of Khaemwaset dating to year 53 of Ramses reign which shows that Khaemwaset may not have been alive for the last Apis burial of Rameses II in year 55 as Shaw had assumed. 61 Porter & Moss 1981, 784.

10 have been attested.62 According to Mariette’s notes, the chamber with which this gold mask was located in was in a ruined section of the lesser vaults were much of the ceiling had caved in over the tomb (image 2, the circular section in the lesser vaults). This damaged section had in fact ensured that the contents within it were preserved from tomb robbers. Within this tomb was supposedly found a human burial to which the golden face mask had belonged to along with other funerary ornaments. Though many scholars have since dismissed the burial as being human stating that it was in all likelihood that of an Apis bull burial due to lack of adequate proof by Mariette himself.63 Though one must ponder the likelihood of a bull burial being altered to look like that of a human, if this was the case what could it have symbolised and why was Khaemwaset’s name attached to it? Whilst on the topic of unknown burials image 2 below shows several tombs with no number in them, the collapsed area is known to have at least one tomb with Khaemwaset’s name as discussed above, meaning that any of the other undated tombs could likely have come from Rameses II reign as much as any of the other kings who also have bull burials within the Serapeum. According to Mariette up to six chambers both individual and within the Serapeum were identified as having belonged to Rameses II. Since four of these were described previously above as containing a sufficient amount of artefacts to suggest that they belonged to Rameses II, the remaining tombs however were recorded as being plundered and is therefore unclear how Rameses II’s name was attached to them as no additional details were recorded.64 Porter and Moss also contribute tombs X–XIV to Rameses II and list them as tombs I, J and K of Mariette and tomb D as assigned by Rhone.65 This will be brought up for further discussion in chapter eight. One of the artefacts which provided a solid basis for determining a rough estimate on the amount of bull burials each king had to their name was the canopic jars. In order to connect these items to the Apis bull burial, differences in burials for bulls compared to humans were looked at in table 2 below. The canopic jars found in the Serapeum and the individual tombs are significantly larger than those of a human burial. Larger canopic size can be used as proof that a burial was prepared for a creature which had larger organs than those of a human and the writing on the vessels confirm that it was the Apis bull. This makes it impossible that the jars were originally from another human burial within the Saqqara plateau. Regarding the authenticity of the canopic jars, imitation jars were created in the NK yet still fulfilled a symbolic function, if they were found empty it does not necessarily indicate a fake canopic jar as none have ever been accounted for except modern forgeries.66

Bull burial NK Human burial NK Amenhotep III: Nepthys & Apis Menkheper: Neith & Hapi Height: 94 cm Height: 33.7 cm Diameter: 37 cm67 Diameter: 15.50 cm69 Rameses II: Nepthys, Apis & Hapi Henutmehyt: Canopic jar set Height: 96 cm Height: 40.60 cm70 Diameter: 46 cm68 Table 2: In order to connect these items to the Apis bull burial differences in burials for bulls compared to humans were looked at. The canopic jars which have the Apis bulls name written on them are significantly larger than those of a human burial

62 Dodson 1999, 63–64. 63 Mariette 1857, 43. 64 Mariette 1857, 55-60. 65 Porter & Moss 1981, 784. 66 Galassi et al. 2017, 76. 67 Musée du Louvre 2021, Inventory number: N 394 1B. 68 Musée du Louvre 2020, Inventory number: N 396 B. 69 British Museum 2021, Inventory number: EA34929. 70 British Museum 2021, Inventory number: EA51813.

This chapter focused on discussing the evidence to establish the ‘who’ behind the building of the Saqqara Serapeum. With the shift between individual and collective burials during the reign of Rameses II most likely conducted by his son Khaemwaset.71 Additionally, there is no indication that Rameses II wanted to usurp Amenhotep III’s bull burial, if anything he just re-used the tradition implemented by him. Since the change from individual to collective burials occurred during Khaemwaset’s time as Sem priest this shows that Thutmose son of Amenhotep III could not have buried a bull inside of the Serapeum. Now I would like to turn the discussion to why the Apis bull burials are found in the north west part of the Saqqara necropolis in a landscape analysis.

Image 2: Individual burials, I= Amenhotep III (ca.1388–1351, 18th dynasty), II= Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (ca.1351–1334,18th dynasty)72 , III= Tutankhamun (ca.1334–1325, 18th dynasty), IV-V= Horemheb (ca.1319– 1292, 18th dynasty), VI= Seti I (ca.1290–1280, 19th dynasty), VII-IX= Rameses II (ca.1279–1213 BC, 19th dynasty).

Lesser galleries from clockwise, XVII = Rameses IV (reigned: ca. 1155–1145, 20th dynasty), XXXI = Shoshenq I (ca. 945–924, 22nd dynasty), XXXIV-XXXV = Bakenranef (ca. 722–715 24th dynasty), XXXVI = Taharqa (ca. 690–664, 25th dynasty), XXXVII = Psamtek I (ca. 664 –610, 26th dynasty), XXXIII = Shoshenq V (ca. 767–798, 22nd dynasty), XXIX = Shoshenq III (ca. 837–798, 22nd dynasty), X –XIV = Rameses II (ca. 1279–1213, 19th dynasty).

Greater vaults from right to left: XLII = Cambyses (ca. 525–522, 27th dynasty), XXXVIII = Psamtek I (ca. 664– 610, 26th dynasty), XL = Wahibre (ca. 589–570, 26th dynasty) XXXIX= Nekhtnebef II (ca. 360–343, 30th dynasty), XLIII= Darius I (ca. 522–486, 27th dynasty), XLI= Ahmose II (ca. 570–526, 26th dynasty), XLIV = Darius I (ca. 522–486, 27th dynasty), XLVI= Khababash (338–335, 31st dynasty), XLV = Darius I (ca. 522–486, 27th dynasty), LV =Ptolemy VI (ca. 180–164, Ptolemaic period).73

71 Wilkinson 2005, 185. 72 Musée du Louvre 2021. 73 Porter & Moss 1981, 784–804.

5 The landscape as memory An important aspect of landscape memory is the concept of ‘place’, a word that crops up time and time again in numerous landscape studies. According to Van Dyke & Alcock ‘places’ hold both meanings and memories which are interconnected to help create what we know as a ‘sense of place’ and by extension ‘sense of belonging’, especially when the past and present can intermingle. This allows engagement with the landscape and provides a deeper meaning beyond just existing within it.74 Taylor also sums up landscape as an integral part of identity and belonging.75 Amenhotep III buried the first Apis bull at Saqqara establishing a ‘place’ associated specifically with the burial of the Apis bull. The fact that the Apis bulls continued to be buried here after Amenhotep III time indicates that the place and memory attached to the burial practice was already established from the first burial. Since the shift between individual tombs to a multiple burial occurred under Rameses II reign this chapter will focus on how Khaemwaset re-used the location and cult, as well as re-interpreted and re-constructed the burial site in order to form the landscape to suit his own ideals. In order to find out why Amenhotep III chose this location the following chapter six will contain a landscape analysis. 5.1 Re-use and Re-interpret According to Knapp and Ashmore76 the term re-use implies continuation of a practise based on past memory. Amenhotep III re-used the Apis bull tradition but instead of just eating it as has been suggested by scholars (see 3.1) he chose to bury the bull into the ground making the memory of the bull and its burial both visible and an interactive part of the landscape. Following kings such as Amenhotep IV, Tutankhamun, Horemheb and Seti I opted to bury their Apis bulls in the same location with similar tombs standing individually in the same location (refer to table 1). Rameses II continued this tradition for his first and second bull burial but somewhere after the second burial the idea of connecting the burials more permanently must have taken form when Khaemwaset was Sem priest. Snape mentions that the Ramesside period focused heavily on the father and son connection as it was important for the continuation of kings’ lineage 77 and may have inspired the switch to a collective tomb. Though this father and son connection can also be seen in Amenhotep III’s burial and not just Rameses II. Suggesting that Rameses II/Khaemwaset re-used the same concept Amenhotep III had begun with his son. Besides the father and son connections the link to past kings was also formed and continued at least from Tutankhamun’s Apis burial onwards. A sudden shift in Apis burial direction after Amenhotep IV’s Apis burial seems to have taken place. Tutankhamun buried his grave closer to that of Amenhotep III and not directly below his predecessor Amenhotep IV (image 2). All the remaining burials switch further north after this as well, leaving the burial of Amenhotep IV on the outer edge of the Apis bull necropolis. This suggests that a chronological positioning of the Apis burial might not be the main focus here so much as whose tomb one has a bull burial close to. Amenhotep IV was known as a controversial ruler who eliminated all but one deity which was his own preferred god of worship called Aten. After his reign the process of eliminating all traces of Amenhotep IV began when succeeding kings had Amun reinstated as supreme god as well as the other gods Amenhotep IV had all but eradicated.78 Since the Apis bull signifies kingship and continuation thereof, it is perhaps best to consider that placement of a bull burial beside a worthy predecessor was equally as important as the rituals and other cultic practices around the burial itself to ensure a successful future of worthy kings. This also ties in with what the bull

74 Van Dijk & Alcock 2003, 5. 75 Taylor 2008, 1. 76 Knapp & Ashmore 1999, 14. 77 Snape 2011, 467. 78 Van De Mieroop 2011, 200.

13 represented in the NK. Before the NK the Apis bull was merely just an agent of Ptah,79 a means of communicating to the god who was not physically attached to the bull. This conjoining of the god with the bull in the NK was a brilliant move as far as ideology of the king is concerned, the connection between bull, king and power became rudimentary to kingship in such a way it was used all the way through to the Ptolemaic times.80 Another slight shift in burials occurs between the clustered tombs of Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV and Tutankhamun and the tomb cluster of Horemheb, Seti I and Rameses II. This suggests that the tombs were connected to whichever king they associated themselves with and strengthens the previous idea of why Tutankhamun buried his bull closer to that of Amenhotep III. Horemheb was not related to the kings within the 18th dynasty though Ramses I was appointed by Horemheb himself to take over his throne when he ascended thus beginning the 19th dynasty.81 Khaemwaset’s idea to change from individual to collective burials was perhaps a change that was inspired by the intimate connection between some of the earlier individual tombs. As much as Shaw82 was merely wondering about the similarities between the Serapeum layout and the tomb of Rameses II sons in the Valley of the Kings (KV5) he may have made a curious connection where one had influenced the other. The re-interpretation of the Apis burials into a collective tomb was in fact a powerful move on Khaemwaset’s behalf. If the burials were indeed united to create a powerful link between king’s it might explain why items from Amenhotep III’s bull burial were found within the Serapeum. Dwyer and Alderman mentioned the idea of ‘collective memories’ and that memorial landscapes are created via actions and displays which take place in these locations, actions which might include inclusion of past burials in the area.83 Khaemwaset’s choice to unite the burials in the landscape created a new collective memory where one king was now forever connected with the others. 5.2 Re-construct By building the Serapeum at Saqqara Rameses II was re-constructing the landscape to suite the NK rituals and burial traditions of the nearby Memphite Apis cult. By placing the burials underground this meant that more change could take place underground whilst limited change occurred above ground with only one chapel present instead of multiple. This may have been an attempt at decluttering the landscape so as to not intrude upon other sacred spaces in the landscape. The building of the Serapeum, may have also served a more practical purpose besides providing a collective burial place for the king’s bulls. Kitchen suggested it may have been an attempt to make leaving an offering easier, so that collection of offerings from visitors occurred in one location instead of multiple.84 Though Frood questions this idea because stelae had been found within the Serapeum and not above as was the case with the individual tombs, if they were placed below ground then access to the tomb must have been limiting.85 As the burial is holy, access by the general public seems improbable as it should be presumed that the burial was considered equally as holy as a temple as it housed the holy Apis-Osiris.86 This suggests that Rameses II/Khaemwaset may have wanted to limit the audience and access of the tombs, maybe as a result of how busy the necropolis was in the NK and to limit the possibility of tomb robbers.

79 Pinch 2002, 181. 80 Kessler 2002, 31. 81 Wilkinson 2005, 106–07. 82 Van Dijk 2000, 294. 83 Dwyer & Alderman 2008, 174. 84 Kitchen 1982, 162. 85 Frood 2016, 73. 86 Wilkinson 2005, 242.

Though as previously mentioned the symbolic connection of the burials seems to be the primary motive. If one was to consider the axis of the lesser galleries in conjunction to the individual burials (image 3), the older tombs all have their entrances facing east. This method was copied by succeeding kings through to Rameses II individual burials. Within the Serapeum the main walkway follows a north to west alignment to allow the burials to have the same east to west position. The tombs themselves have offset entrances i.e. none of the tombs are directly facing one another nor are they aligned in a straight line. This same pattern occurs in the individual tombs suggesting that the Serapeum was created in a way that mirrors the individual tombs alignment and direction as illustrated below in image 3. This pattern appears to be unique to the animal burials87 and was not found at KV5.

Image 3: Rameses II’s Serapeum complex follows a northern direction the same direction the individual tombs were built in after Tutankhamun’s bull burial which allows the tombs themselves to have the same east to west alignment within the complex

6 The Saqqara necropolis landscape

Image 4: Map of Saqqara with the major burials within the landscape

87 See images of Anubis catacombs in Nicholson, Ikram & Mills 2015, 6.

6.1 Topography Saqqara is part of a funerary landscape which stretches over 30 kilometres, a distance running between major burials between Dahshur, Abusir, Zawyet-El-Aryan, Giza and Abu Ruwaysh.88 The landscape extends 6 kilometres north-south and is 1.5 kilometres wide. It is located on an escarpment, making it sit higher above the surrounding areas.89 The escarpment to the east of the Saqqara plateau overlooks the town of Memphis and just beyond the town lies the river Nile.90 Directly below the escarpment was the limit of the annual inundation of the Nile in the OK. Because of the height of the plateau and that it was sitting on the edge of the limits of the inundation, this made the plateau both safe from the rising waters and gave the tombs a good vantage point to be seen over the surrounding areas. The escarpment tapers off in the north just before the Serapeum and in the south towards the outskirts of the modern town called Abusir below the Unas pyramid. To the west of the plateau are hills which are dispersed at random intervals in the landscape. Reader mentions the southern plateau has thicker sand build up which covers up any natural features in the landscape.91 To the north lies a ridge with an east to west orientation and is clearly visible.92 The northern ridge is a prominent feature in the landscape and therefore might explain the thicker concentration of burials located there. This natural ridge follows a southern route down to Sekhemkhet’s pyramid enclosure just below that of Unas’s pyramid (image 4). 6.2 Water and climate By the NK the climate became drier in the Saqqara Necropolis compared to what it was in the OK.93 This allowed more burials to resume here without water activity in the landscape getting in the way. There is no evidence that the area had any water in it by the NK, which may be why more areas within the landscape where explored compared to earlier periods. A possible wadi in the south as pointed out by Reader can be located below the pyramid of Sekhemkhet and that of Pepy I and may have been at one point connected to the Abusir wadi between Gisr El Medir (built during Khasekemwy’s reign from OK) and Sekhemkhet’s enclosure. These features were however dried up by the OK. The only water source in the area when Amenhotep III came into the area was the river Nile to the east.94 6.3 Funerary activity in the landscape Saqqara was used as the burial ground from the 1st dynasty onwards because of its high vantage point above the clasp of the Nile.95 However, after Djoser’s pyramid was built the fourth dynasty pharaohs opted to build their pyramids to the north at the Giza plateau 29 kilometres away. Though the succeeding Pharaohs returned once more to Saqqara afterwards. This indicates that the funerary landscape in Saqqara was attractive perhaps due to its recurring role as Egypt’s capital as much as for its landscape features.96 Burial activity in the landscape can be found in clusters. The vast majority of these burials are human. At north Saqqara on the Eastern ridges a large collection of tombs exists. Another ‘hotspot’ of burial activity is concentrated near the OK pyramids that spread towards the eastern escarpment which overlooks the town of Memphis. The attractiveness of the necropolis can be highlighted by the discovery of OK tombs found buried beneath NK tombs near the pyramid of Teti showing a clear location preference.97 However, as much

88 Baines & Malik 2000, 134. 89 Reader 2017, 72. 90 Reader 2017, 72. 91 Reader 2017, 72. 92 Reader 2017, 72. 93 Myśliwiec 2002, 349. 94 Myśliwiec (n.d.), 24. 95 Reader 2017, 4. 96 Van De Mieroop 2011, 55. 97 Zivie 2007, 14.

16 as this suggests that limited amount of space may have been an issue, rock cut tombs situated in the eastern cliff areas above the Serapeum were also being cut in the 18th dynasty right up until Rameses II became ruler.98 During Rameses II’s reign tombs were still being cut in the area to the north east of the Serapeum above Teti’s pyramid, meaning that tomb location was not based on lack of availability of space but based on preferred location. Especially when one looks at the South Saqqara funerary selection where only one area to date has been found which shows a cluster of elite graves from the NK.99 Studies conducted by Zivie in north Saqqara who researched the NK graves in the region, stated that the Saqqara landscape was popular for royal appointed tomb artists from the Theban necropolis to be buried under the shadow of Djoser’s pyramid.100 One artist named Thutmose is located in tomb I.19 at Saqqara.101 Thutmose had lived and worked in Thebes yet had chosen Saqqara as his final resting place.102 Since the majority of OK and NK burials occur to the east and west of the Serapeum along the escarpment and near the pyramids, the Apis bull burials appeared to be placed rather out of the way. Therefore, closeness to the OK tombs does not seem to be a plausible reason when trying to figure out its location choice. Though the remains of a building found to the west of the Serapeum (see images 7 & 8 in the appendix) just might. Field work was conducted at this site by a Japanese team from Waseda University in Tokyo. The team found that the structure appeared to be dedicated to Khaemwaset103as his ka-house,104 but may have been there earlier since foundation bricks with Amenhotep II and Thutmose III or IV cartouches have been found within the walls. This shows us that an interest in the site existed before Amenhotep III stepped into it and may have influenced the Apis bull burial location to be placed in the space that it was. Alas no further conclusions can be drawn between the two buildings besides them both having NK origins and being actively used throughout the 18th dynasty before Amenhotep III’s time and added onto in Rameses II time.105 Yet its use throughout the NK suggests it was an important feature in the landscape (see images 7 & 8 in appendix) Meanwhile at South Saqqara the OK pyramids of Pharaohs Pepi I, Merenre Pepi II and other royals can be found. Alignment and visibility of the structures in south and north Saqqara seem to be top priority and the buildings are located on peaks in the landscape much the same as the pyramids in the north section.106 As Reader mentioned the sand appears thicker here and covers any features the landscape has and might explain why even in the NK the graves of the elite and middle class remained at north Saqqara where the risk of being covered by sand remained less of a problem.107 One area just below Unas’s pyramid was a prime burial location for the elite of the NK.108 It is unclear what makes this particular area attractive for the elite to be buried. Due to the closeness to Memphis from central Saqqara it may have been seen as more practical but practicality seems to be of little importance here so much as visibility. Further south the graves and mastabas are from the OK with no more known NK clusters found there, suggesting the clusters were concentrated to the northern cemetery.

98 Zivie 2007, 14. 99 Recent excavations in the area have found up to 160 coffins dating to the NK since September 2020.Woodward 2021, ‘Business Insider’. 100 Zivie 2007, 20. 101 Thutmose was identified as a director of painters in the place of Maat (Zivie 2013, 22). 102 Zivie 2013, 22. 103 Building receipts have been found with his name written on them along with building tasks commissioned for that particular section of the structure (Yoshimura, Takamiya & Hiroyuki 1999, 37). 104 The ka house is a means of allowing a deceased person to take part in cultic rituals after death, they are attested in the Ramesside period (Wilkinson 2005, 121). 105 Yoshimura, Takamiya & Hiroyuki 1999, 35–6. 106 Magli 2009, 635. 107 Reader 2017, 72. 108 Zivie 2007, 14.

6.4 Short summary and Re-use Re-interpret and re-construction of the landscape The Saqqara plateau was re-used as a burial location during different timeframes from the OK onwards. Though it’s significance as a place of burial tapered off when the capital of Egypt was moved elsewhere and increased again in the NK around the time of Thutmose III. By burying the bull within the Saqqara funerary landscape, Amenhotep III was re-interpreting the type of burials attached to the Saqqara necropolis, instead of containing human burials it would now also hold the Apis bull god. Reader suggests that an immediate connection to the site itself explains the location choice made by Amenhotep III using the term ‘ritual landscape.’109 Because the Apis had its cult in Memphis, the landscape in which it was ritualistically attached to would make the most obvious choice for its burial. The choice of burial location within the Saqqara plateau however will be discussed further below in chapter eight. Now that the landscape has been explored it is now time to look at why the cult was altered in the NK and what the burial of the bull may have meant to the kings of the NK and beyond.

7 The landscape as identity and social order With regards to creating an identity in the landscape, the Apis cult both provided and directed a religious cause to choose and follow within the region. The Egyptian society was supported throughout history by religious beliefs that placed animal deities at the forefront of their mythology and existence.110 In fact Ikram points out that animal cults as a whole provided a sense of religious stability for the locals i.e. a cause to stand behind and support and this happened yet again under Amenhotep III.111 Kozloff prescribes a so called ‘net effect’ to this phenomena saying that certain environments are selected for cultic practices because they endorse a certain ideal like identity and religious connections.112 The Apis cult temple remained strictly within Memphis. By confining the temple or heart of the cult to Memphis this may have been an attempt to control the cult especially if it represented kingship. If the bull left Memphis it could also lose its significance, the so called magic and connection between the living worshippers and the cult could have been broken or weakened if the Apis bull was worshipped or buried anywhere else, especially since other gods resided over other towns. Not to mention the collection of offerings left to the Apis bull would have been flowing back into the temple of Ptah, these would have needed to be kept under surveillance of local priests responsible for the cult. Yet behind this animal cult was also the bull’s connection to and promotion by the king, from the moment Amenhotep III promoted the burial of the sacred bull at Saqqara he would have had a reason for doing so. The answer undoubtedly lies with the god Ptah and what he represents, as the god of building he fits in perfectly with NK building projects taking place in Egypt.113 Ptah’s connection to both royalty from the early days and building could have been seen as the perfect tool to promote the king’s ideals and infrastructure of Egypt. By preserving the bulls body through burial instead of via a ritual consumption Amenhotep III may have wanted to create yet another way to worship the bull. Both the living bull in town as Ptah was worshipped and undoubtedly bestowed with gifts and in death the Apis bull who now represented Osiris was also the receiver of offerings. The connection between Ptah and Osiris was likely formed as another way to deify the king and his connections to the gods. However, the idea that the bull provided offerings in life and in death which would have flowed back into the Egyptian empire can be partially validated in two ways. First the discovery of a building receipt

109 Reader 2017, 17. 110 Pinch 2002, 6. 111 Ikram 2015, 2. 112 Kozloff 2012, 104–10. 113 Wilkinson 2005, 192.

18 at a building site to the west of the Serapeum mentions a scribe who worked for Khaemwaset and who was in charge of the treasury of Ptah. The receipt has been translated by S. Akiyama and reads as follows: Year 53, made by the scribe Pentaure, called Kaka. He was the scribe physician of the Sem priest of Ptah, king’s son Khaemwaset, while he was the guardian in his ka-house of the west of Memphis and while he was under the direction of the overseer of the great storehouse and guardian of the treasury of Ptah.114 This receipt shows that the cult of Ptah was a source of income for the area, attracting offerings and gifts, at least enough that a storehouse and treasury was required. Not only that we also can see that Khaemwaset name has been recorded down as a benefactor of whatever proceeds this western ka-house received. If the cult was indeed a way of collecting wealth for the state, Kitchens theory that the Serapeum could have been built to make collecting of offerings easier makes sense.115 The position of this ka-house is to the west of the Serapeum (images 7 & 8), meaning that either all or some of the wealth and offerings collected from the tombs possibly flowed to the western structure and not back through to the Memphite Apis temple which would make the location of the Serapeum perfect in regards to proximity to where the wealth collected from the offerings would flow to. Though the text does mention that this is done under the direction of the overseer of the treasury of Ptah, which may help confirm that the Memphis cult was also in charge of all the Apis bull offerings whether dedicated to Osiris Apis or Ptah Apis. This would also support the notion that the cult was used to support the Egyptian economy. This particularly holds true to Egyptian society where the Pharaoh was at the top of the hierarchy and gained his wealth and power through the functioning of cults and temples in the different regions.116 In this case the local cult was run by the Memphite authorities who could use the cult and its local importance amongst the people to their advantage, as Seidlmayer puts it: they utilised their positions of power as head of the cult and relied on the moral compass of the locals to follow and adapt to the cultic ways within their society.117 The second source being the Leiden ship letters118 which are a written correspondence addressed to Khaemwaset from both his ship crew and palace officials at Pi-Ramses dated to year 52 of Rameses II reign when Khaemwaset was still alive. The letters spoke about deliveries from Memphis between Pi- Ramses and Heliopolis, and also mention Khaemwaset’s estate at Memphis indicating that Khaemwaset lived in Memphis and had contact with the capital and his father from afar.119 As for the deliveries it was mentioned food was the main cargo, and the crew varied from the Sem priest sailors to temple personnel, regiment personnel and prince of Rameses personnel from his estate.120 The exchanges between temple staff in Memphis and the Kings staff at Pi-Ramses with a cargo of food tells us that they worked together and that the cult benefitted Rameses II as much as his son Khaemwaset at least to the extent that he maintained regular communications with him.

8 Discussion In the provenance chapter it became evident that whilst Amenhotep III was responsible for burying the first Apis bull in the Saqqara necropolis he did not build the Serapeum, this was conducted under

114 Yoshimura, Takamiya & Hiroyuki 1999, 35–36. 115 Kitchen 1982, 162. 116 Van De Mieroop 2011, 39. 117 Seidlmayer 2000, 122. 118 Leiden papyrus translated by Spiegelberg mentioned in Janssen 1961, 3. 119 Janssen 1961, 1–9. 120 Meaning Khaemwaset’s estate in Memphis as he was the prince to Rameses II (Muhs 2016, 211–12).

Rameses II’s reign as the bull burials from his time are the only burials which occur both in individual burials outside of the Serapeum and later in his reign inside the Serapeum itself. All the burials after Rameses II are found in the collective chambers of the Serapeum. Though attaching Rameses II name to the Serapeum is not exactly accurate either. Through discussion of primary sources found at the Serapeum and at the individual tombs the amount of canopic jars attributed to Khaemwaset compared to Rameses II suggested that Khaemwaset was in charge of more bull burials than Rameses II was. Khaemwaset’s canopic jars found both within the Serapeum and the individual tomb suggests he was the one in charge of the burials when the shift from individual tombs to the Serapeum occurred. Khaemwaset’s role as Sem priest in the area may have given him the power to decide over the Serapeum construction. While Khaemwaset lived and worked in Memphis as Sem priest there is no documentation to suggest that Rameses II repeatedly came back to Memphis either. Khaemwaset in all likelihood took charge in the area, he lived within Memphis, worked there and is most likely even buried there, based on his ka- house being built to the north west of the Serapeum. This means his attachment to Saqqara/Memphis was far stronger than his father Rameses II.121 Regarding the amount of bull burials under Rameses II reign, the information from Porter and Moss shows at least three burials were conducted under Rameses II reign. Though since the canopic jars are not complete and the tombs themselves were plundered in antiquity this cannot be an accurate way of counting the total amount of Apis bull burials which could have occurred under Rameses II reign. Rameses II did have a long reign and if one were to pertain to the fact that bulls on average live from 15 to 20 years then Rameses II reign could definitely have up to three to four bull burials. Though relying heavily on the bull’s life expectancy of 15 to 20 years might not be the most accurate way to hypothesise about possible bull burials as was done in chapter four. Especially since we simply do not know the age of the different bulls when they died. The fact that Porter and Moss listed tombs X–XIV as belonging to Rameses II suggests that they must have some sort of evidence to back up this claim. Though since Mariette is listed as a source for the dating of these tombs the reliability of the tombs origins still remains unknown. Mariette as a source is difficult to follow up on as his notes are incredibly hard to find and lack substantial evidence. Though with this in mind it is plausible that Rameses II and Khaemwaset buried more than three to four bulls in their time and a more in depth analysis of the artefacts and tombs attached to Rameses II and Khaemwaset might just provide the answer. For Rameses II and Khaemwaset the location selection for their Apis burials must have been logical in order to continue the burials in the same area as the past ones. As for Amenhotep III’s location choice the logic behind it is not exactly clear to see based on how the landscape looks today and its evolution over time. Amenhotep III’s landscape selection could be classed as smart in regards to expansion possibilities, especially when considering how popular the landscape was at the time and expansion was still occurring throughout his reign. By selecting a wider space to work in he may have been allowing space for future bull burials especially since the average death of the bull was around 15 to 20 years. It can also be hypothesized that he wanted to create his own area yet which was still apart of the sacred mortuary landscape to separate bull burial from human. Though the Waseda University excavations showed that there is more to the western areas of the Saqqara plateau in the NK that needs to be taken into consideration. These NK buildings which predate Amenhotep III’s time are most likely an attractive feature which drew Amenhotep III to go further beyond the pyramid of Djoser.

121 Van Dijk 2000, 291.

When looking at the landscape layout it appears that limited space was not an issue in this area to constitute the building of the Serapeum. The idea that Rameses II built the tomb to avoid excessive build-up of tombs within the landscape was a nurtured idea at first by the author of this paper but is as of now not really relevant for further discussion below. Especially since most of the tombs are clustered to the north and south of the pyramids and not to the west. The location was also further away from Memphis which made little sense if the bull was connected to the town but if the bull was no longer Ptah in death perhaps the connection to the town was of little relevance it was the landscape in its entirety where the cult was that was significant. Regarding Khaemwaset’s choice to connect the bull burials, it was mentioned in the landscape chapter that by using the same land as the previous burials Rameses II and the other kings who came after Amenhotep III were keeping the memory of the Apis bull connected to the area showing that the significance of the landscape was important for the Apis bull tradition. Perhaps Khaemwaset wanted to ensure that all the succeeding bull burials would continue to be buried in the area so that the connection between bull and the ascending line of kings could not be forgotten. Or as Kitchen says it was merely a way of keeping the offerings together to make collection easier.122 Though the evidence seems to point more to the lineage hypothesis, especially when looking at where the individual tombs were placed in the landscape, Tutankhamun for example buried his bull, closer to Amenhotep III, and not below Amenhotep IV (tomb II) making the tombs go from north to south tomb I, III, II instead of I, II, III, leaving one to make the conclusion that the burials represented more than just a timeline of bull burials. Rameses II also buried his individual burials close to his father as well signifying that connection via familial ties and kingship were two significant factors in the burial of the bull with very little evidence showing that Rameses II was trying to usurp Amenhotep III as he had done with other buildings. The placements show a preferred connection to successful kings and family ties suggesting legitimacy and success were tied in with the bull’s connections to kingship. Since Khaemwaset was in charge of burying bulls after his father it either symbolises the handing down of power to the next available heir to the throne or Rameses II did not have to be physically present or have to have his name attached to the bull burial to receive the power and confirmation of right to rule that the bull provided. Perhaps by Khaemwaset burying the bull it symbolised a family inheritance of kingly power. This could at least explain why Khaemwaset’s ka-house was located at Saqqara and he has not been found buried at KV5, it also suggests that the ties to the cult went beyond just a role as Sem priest. Khaemwaset was not just another son of Rameses II he was the overseer of the holy Apis bull, symbol of kingship and power, therefore some of that power may have been expected to be handed down to him after the king had died.

9 Conclusion It was postulated in the introduction that the Apis bull cult which had its home in nearby Memphis meant that locality of the cult was a strong factor in determining burial location choice. As the bull symbolised Osiris in death this meant that it no longer represented Ptah. It was then postulated that the bull’s religious significance in life as well as death was what determined its burial location, a phenomenon which Kozloff describes as a ‘net effect.’ This means that the environment with which these cultic activities took place in, such as the transformation of the bull from Ptah to Osiris was just as essential with the bull’s identity in death as it was in life. The cult itself was heavily focused on in the NK, since the bull was a symbol for kingship it was perhaps little surprise that kings such as Amenhotep III and Rameses II employed their sons Thutmose and Khaemwaset respectively as Sem priests for the Apis cult to ensure that the bull was buried by a royal blood line. The connection of familial ties is evident before the Serapeum exists, especially when one

122 Kitchen 1982, 162.

21 looks at the sudden switch in direction of burials after Amenhotep IV the controversial king of the 18th dynasty, suggesting that the linkage between burials was connected to ideals as much as familial ties and strong kingship to ensure further prosperity for future kings of Egypt. Khaemwaset’s activity in the area as Sem priest for the Apis cult is well documented. A stela found in the lesser vaults which claims Khaemwaset was the one who built the Serapeum along with the amount of items found in his name scattered between both individual tombs and the Serapeum showed an obvious involvement in the Serapeum project. Besides this the amount of canopic jars found in Khaemwaset’s name compared to one in Rameses II’s name allows us to theorise that it was Khaemwaset and not Rameses II who changed the burial pattern from individual to collective. Otherwise one must assume that Rameses II’s name would have been written on the dedicative stela as well as the remainder of the canopic jars from Rameses II reign if he was involved in the process. This proves Snape’s statement about Thutmose being the one responsible for building the Serapeum incorrect and shows that artefacts found in situ should always be analysed with caution. The switch from individual graves to the larger complex was in all likelihood an attempt at connecting the burials to promote collective memory and the notion of lineage as stated above. Given that it was rare to bury more than two bulls in any given reign, Rameses II, four bull burials are an exception and provide both an insight into the possibility of why he/Khaemwaset chose to connect the burials as well as allow us to trace the point in history when the bulls went from being buried individually to being interred within the Serapeum. The presence of a NK construction to the north west predating Amenhotep III also indicates that the area was not as deserted as first thought. As for Khaemwaset’s choice for the Serapeum location, the choice seems to be made on proximity to the earlier tombs, as his layout shows a similar pattern of wanting to connect the tombs through time and space though not directly (offset entrances). As for Amenhotep III’s choice in the landscape selection it can be hypothesized that the previous NK activity in the area may have attracted him to this area as already mentioned. The bull cult itself seems to have been promoted for the following reasons:

 Strengthened kingship and lineage via father and son partaking in the bull ritual.  Connection to the past king’s.  Contributed to the wealth of the king and country, the idea that the bull transformed to include Ptah in life and Osiris in death may support this. Possible research area in the future is whether there are bull burials still unaccounted for. Table 2 in chapter four indicates that after Rameses II there was either no bull burial for the duration of 50 or so years from Seti II to Rameses III, though it was suddenly there again for Rameses IV through to Rameses X. In Porter and Moss there are at least two stelae from two unknown bull burials one dated to year four and another from year 14, plausible proposals for year four burials include Merneptah, Seti II or Siptah. As for year 14 Rameses III’s or Ramses XI reign would make the most sense as both reigned around 30 years. Evidence for these deductions is taken from table 1. There is a gap in research here that would be interesting to pursue.123

123 Porter & Moss 1981, 784–804.

Bibliography

Baines, J. & Malek, J. 2000. Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Abingdon.

Barbotin, C. 2001. ‘L’inscription dédicatoire de Khâemouaset au Sérapéum de Saqqara’, RdE 52, 29–55. Bausi, A., Brockmann, C. & Friedrich, M. 2018. Manuscripts and Archives: Comparative Views on Record-Keeping volume 11. Berlin/Boston. Berlin Museum, 2021. Kronprinz Thutmosis auf der Totenbahre. http://www.smb- digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=770846&vie wType=detailView. (Accessed 28 April 2021). Berman, L. M. 2001. Overview of Amenhotep III and his reign, in: O'Connor, D. B. & E. H. Cline (eds.), Amenhotep III: perspectives on his reign. University of Michigan Press, 9‒25. Britannica Academic. 2008. ‘Serapeum’ in: Britannica Academic. academic-eb- com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/levels/collegiate/article/Serapeum/65734. (Accessed 9 Maj 2021). Britannica. 2019. ‘Apis’ in: Augustyn, A. & A, Zeiden, et al. (eds.) Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apis-Egyptian-deity. (Accessed 23 May 2021). British Museum. 2021. ‘Canopic jar’. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA34929. (Accessed 18 April 2021). David, B. & Thomas, J. (eds.), 2016. Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. London & New York. Dimick, J. 1958. ‘The Embalming House of the Apis Bull’, Archaeology 11(3), 183‒89. Dodson, A. 1999. Canopic Equipment from the Serapeum of Memphis, in: Leahy, A. & W. J. Tait (eds.), Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of HS Smith, London, 59‒75. Dodson, A. 2005. Bull Cults, in: Ikram, S. (ed.), Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. Cairo, 72‒105.

Dodson, A. 2009. ‘Rituals Related to Animal Cults’, in: Dieleman, J. & W. Wendrich (eds.) UCLA, Los Angeles, ttp://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nf7d0. (Accessed 14 April 2021). Dwyer, O. J. & Alderman, D. H. 2008. ‘Memorial landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors’, GeoJournal 73(3), 165‒78. Frood, E. 2016. Role-play and Group Biography in Ramesside Stelae from the Serapeum, in: Landgráfová, R. & J. Mynářová (eds.) Rich and Great: Studies in Honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the Occasion of his 70th Feast of Thoth. Prague, 69‒83. Galassi, F. M., Habicht, M. E., Bouwman. A. & Rühli. F. J. 2017. ‘The Canopic Jar Project: Interdisciplinary Analysis of Ancient Mummified Viscera’, CIPEG Journal (1), 75‒79. Ikram, S., Massiera, M. Mathieu. B. & Rouffet. F. 2015. ‘Speculations on the Role of Animal Cults in the Economy of Ancient Egypt’, Appriv. Sauvag. Wild CENiM 11(3), 2‒13.

Janssen, J. J. 1961. Two Ancient Egyptian Ship's Logs Papyrus Leiden 1350 Verso and Papyrus Turin 2008 + 2016. Leiden, 1‒9. Kawaii, N. 2012. Khaemwaset, in: The Encyclopaedia of Ancient History, https://onlinelibrary-wiley- com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/doi/full/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15225. (Accessed 17 April 2021). Kennedy-Quigley, S. J. 2008. Illuminating the Memphite Sarapieion. Los Angeles. Kessler, D. 2002. Bull Gods, in: D.B. Redford (ed.), The Ancient Gods Speak. Oxford Kitchen, K. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II. King of Egypt. Mississauga. Knapp, A. B. & Ashmore, W. 1999. Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational, in: Ashmore W. & A. B. Knapp (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford. Kozloff, A. P. 2012. Amenhotep III: Egypt's Radiant Pharaoh. Cambridge. Magli, G. 2009. ‘Geometry and perspective in the landscape of the Saqqara pyramids’, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45886215_Geometry_and_perspective_in_the_landsc ape_of_the_Saqqara_pyramids. (Accessed 26 April 2021). Malek, J. 1983. ‘Who Was the First to Identify the Saqqara Serapeum?’ Chronique d'Egypte 58, 115– 16. Mariette, A. 1857. Le sérapéum de memphis. Paris. Markovic, N. & Ilic, M. 2018. ‘Between tradition and transformation. The Apis Cult under Cambyses II and Darius I (c. 526–486 BC)’, in: Kahlbacher, A. & Priglinger, E. (eds.), Tradition and Transformation in Ancient Egypt: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress for Young Egyptologists, Vienna, 87–103. Maystre, C. 1992. les grands prêtres de ptah de memphis. Freiburg. Meeks, D. & Farvard-Meeks, C. 1996. Daily life of the Egyptian Gods, translated by Goshgarian, G.M. Ithaca & London. Mysliwiec, K. (n.d.) ‘History and archaeology: Saqqara in Egyptian history,’ in: In the Shadow of Djosers Pyramid: Research of Polish Archaeologists in Saqqara’. Berlin, 20–52. Myśliwiec, K. 2002. The Ptolemaic Period Cemetery in West Saqqara, in: A Tribute to Excellence. Studies Offered in Honor of Gaál, E., Luft, U. & Török, L. Budapest, 349–59. Muhs, B. 2016. The ancient Egyptian economy 3000-30 BCE. Cambridge. Pinch, G. 2002. Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. New York. Porter, B. & Moss, R. L. 1981. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings/Bd. 3, Memphis 3 Abû Rawâsh to Abûṣîr, Oxford. Quirke, S. 2014. Exploring Religion in Ancient Egypt. Blackwell ancient religions series. Chichester. Reader, C. 2004. ‘On Pyramid Causeways’, JEA (90), 63–71. ——2017. ‘An Early Dynastic Ritual Landscape at North Saqqara: An Inheritance from Abydos?’, JEA 103(1), 71‒87.

Seidlmayer, S. 2000. The first intermediate (ca. 2686–2160 BC) period, in: Shaw, I. (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York, 108–36. Snape, S. 2011. Khaemwese and the Present Past. Bolton. Taylor, K. 2008. ‘Landscape and Memory: cultural landscapes, intangible values and some thoughts on Asia’. https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/139. (Accessed 02 June 2021). Van De Mieroop, M. 2011. A history of ancient Egypt. West Sussex. Van Dijk, J. 2000. The Amarna period and the later New Kingdom (c. 1550–1352 BC), in: Shaw, I. (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York, 265–307. Vercoutter, J. 1982. ‘Apis’, in: Helck, W., Otto. E. & Westendorf, W. (eds.), LÄ V (1), 346–7. Wilkinson, T. 2005. The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London. Yoshimura, S., Takamiya, I. H. & Kashiwagi, H. 1999.ʽWaseda University excavations at north Saqqara a preliminary report on the fourth to sixth seasons August 1995-September 1997’, Orient (34), 22‒48. Zivie, A. P. 2007. The Lost Tombs of Saqqara. Cairo. Zivie, A. P. 2013. La tombe de thoutmes, directeur des peintres dans la place de maât. Toulouse.

Online resources: Artefacts from Louvre museum Amenhotep III & Thutmose: Musée de Louvre. 2020. relief mural, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010011250 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. brique, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010033705 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2021.vase canope, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010008749 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Amenhotep IV: Musée de Louvre. 2020. vase canope, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010008750 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Tutankhamun: Musée de Louvre. 2020. flagellum, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010007076 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2021. vase canope, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010008754 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Horemheb: Musée de Louvre. 2019. relief mural, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010011127 (Accessed 20 April 2021).

Rameses II & Khaemwaset: Musée de Louvre. 2020. relief mural, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010026078 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. vase Canope, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010019481 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. vase Canope, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010014430 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre.2020. stèle cintrée, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010020228 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. masque de momie, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010018029 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre.2020. pectoral; pendentif, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010008832 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. stèle rectangulaire à corniche, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010026365 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. brique, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010033706 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Merneptah: Musée de Louvre. 2021. serviteur funéraire, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010012913 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. stèle rectangulaire à corniche, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010019719 (Accessed 20 April 2021) Ramses VI: Musée de Louvre. 2021. cruche, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010005899 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Ramses IX: Musée de Louvre. 2020. amulette; emblème divin, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010007788 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2020. gobelet évasé, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010005898 (Accessed 20 April 2021). Musée de Louvre. 2021. Vase, https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010016306 (Accessed 20 April 2021).

Image credits 1: Mariette-Maspero, 1975, ‘figure 1’ in Kater-Sibbes, F. Vermaseren, M. J. The Monuments of the Hellenistic-Roman Period from Egypt. (Accessed 15 April 2021). 2: The Griffith Institute, University of Oxford. Porter and Moss 1981, ‘Inset B’, 1045 (Accessed 01 May 2021).

3: The Griffith Institute, University of Oxford. Porter and Moss 1981, ‘Inset B’, 1045 (Accessed 01 May 2021). 4: Neithsabes, 2009 Carte de Memphis et de ses nécropoles’. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carte-Memphis-Necropoles_0109.jpg (Accessed 21 May 2021). 5: Musée égyptien de Berlin. (n.d.) ‘Français: Relief représentant le prince héritier, Thoutmôsis, grand prêtre de Ptah et prêtre Sem - Règne d'Amenhotep III’ (Accessed 04 May 2021).

6: Poncet, G. 2003. jarre ovoïde, in: Musée du Louvre. https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010023805 (Accessed 04 May 2021). 7 & 8: Google Maps. 2021, https://goo.gl/maps/L9z3s5wjU2EBz4uh9, picture 2021 CNES/Airbus, maxar technologies (Accessed 10 April 2021). 9: Lewandowski, H. 2014. relief mural, in: Musée du Louvre. https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010026078 (Accessed 04 May 2021).

Appendix Thutmose

Image 5 & 6: Thutmose Amenhotep’s III son, has a priestly side knot, same as Khaemwaset in image 9. The jar in his hand looks similar to a jar (IM 5295, DHwtj-msj.w ‘son of the king, Sem priest’) at the louvre found from Amenhotep III’s bull burial.

Khaemwaset’s dedication speech I erected a (st-wrt) in stone for him (Apis) in front of his temple, in order to rest in it, awakened, after performing the burial (r Htp jm.s wrS m-xt jrt smA-tA). I made a great altar of Tura limestone for him in front of the (st-wrt), inscribed with divine offerings and all the perfect rituals (xt nTr nbt nfrt) which were performed in the Opening of the Mouth, every part of his body …. (rest of column lost).124

124 Barbotin 2001, 31–36, in: Frood 2016, 71.

Waseda University’s excavation site

Images 7 & 8: The close up image is from an area in the north west which Waseda University of Japan had excavated in 1999, they found a possible temple dating back to Thutmose IV but one section was attributed to Khaemwaset and might be known as his Ka-house based on building receipts found at the area and Khaemwaset’s name found on scarab pendants located at the foundation of the building

Khaemwaset

Image 9: Khaemwaset (IM 6149) has his arm also outstretched in the same manner to Thutmose in image 5.