AMENHOTEP SON OF HAPU: SELF-PRESENTATION THROUGH STATUES AND THEIR TEXTS IN PURSUIT OF SEMI-DIVINE INTERMEDIARY STATUS By ELEANOR BETH SIMMANCE A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of Master of Research (Egyptology) Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham April 2014 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract The name of Amenhotep son of Hapu is well-known to scholars. He was similarly distinguished in ancient times as one who reached extraordinary heights during life and whose memory was preserved for centuries after death. This thesis engages with the premise that an individual constructed monuments for commemoration and memorialisation, and thus that the individual was governed by this motive during their creation. Two statues of Amenhotep in particular are believed to have served as mediators between human and god, and by exploring the ways in which he presented himself on the nine contemporary statues which are currently known (all but one originating at Karnak) it is argued that he deliberately portrayed himself as a suitable intermediary, encouraging this form of remembrance. This conclusion is reached through an examination of the features and context of each statue and how they contributed to the identification as intermediary, and by an examination of the titles and epithets which appear within the texts. Finally, it is suggested that his lifetime success, intermediary status and eventual deification were products of past traditions and of New Kingdom attitudes towards religion and politics, traditions and attitudes of which he, as a learned man, was thoroughly aware. Acknowledgements The year of research of which this study is the result would not have been possible without the generous scholarship from the College of Arts and Law, University of Birmingham. Of course thanks go to my supervisor Dr Anthony Leahy for all his guidance, direction and for countless suggestions for useful resources, and to my advisor Dr Gareth Sears for reading some of the early work and providing feedback. Thanks also to Dr Martin Bommas for the initial suggestion of studying intermediaries and deified humans. In addition, thanks must go to both Dr Bommas and to Dr Troy Sagrillo for providing valuable comments on several aspects of the thesis as it neared completion. I also owe much gratitude to the organisers and attendees of the Rosetta Forum (formerly IAA Forum) for allowing me to present an early version of Chapter Three and for their useful questions. Similarly, thanks are given to the members of Birmingham Egyptology and the Birmingham Egyptology Forum, whose growing success has provided many an opportunity for discussions and debates on various topics, allowing for my own personal development and increased knowledge within the subject area. Finally, thanks go to my parents Richard and Alison and my partner Luther for proof-reading, giving suggestions for consistency and clarity through spelling, punctuation and grammar, as well as providing a great deal of support in many other ways. CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction: the intermediary in ancient Egypt 1 The varied situations in which intermediaries can be found 3 Chapter Two: Intermediary criteria, with reference to the Eighteenth Dynasty statues of Amenhotep son of Hapu 8 Comments on the dating of the statues 10 The applicability of the ‘intermediary criteria’ to statues A-I 14 Statue A (kneeling; Cairo Museum, CG 42127) 14 Statue B (cross-legged scribe; British Museum, EA 103) 15 Statue E (block; Cairo Museum, CG 583 + CG 835 [fragment]) 16 Statue F (block; Cairo Museum, JE 36498) 19 Statue G (standing; Cairo Museum, CG 551) 19 Statue H (cross-legged scribe; Esna) 20 Statue I (cross-legged scribe; Athribis) 21 Statues C and D (cross-legged scribes; Cairo Museum, JE 44862 + JE 44861) 21 Summary and further thoughts 27 Chapter Three: The titles and epithets of Amenhotep son of Hapu: pre-empting an intermediary role? 30 Titles, ‘official’ titles and epithets 32 Amenhotep and his titles 32 The significance of titles for an intermediary role 34 Scribal functions: sS and its variants 34 Markers of status: r-pa.t, r-pa.t r HD n Gb, hA.ty-a, xtm-bi.t and saH 35 Responsibilities in the religious sphere: imy-r Hm.w-nTr n @rw (#nty-Xty) and sSm(.w) Hb.w n Imn 39 Practical, administrative and military duties: imy-r kA.wt, imy-r pr and ir.ty n nsw anx.wy n bi.t 41 Interaction with others: wpw.ty, wHm.w and r s:hrr n rxy.t 45 Relationship to the King: TAw xw, mH-ib and smr 47 The epithets: themes and implications 49 Comparative material: Mentuhotep and Senenmut 51 Concluding remarks 55 Chapter Four: Amenhotep son of Hapu and intermediaries in context 58 Scribes and the scribal tradition 59 Deified individuals 63 Appeal texts 67 Religious and political attitudes of the New Kingdom 68 Summary 74 Conclusions and final considerations 75 Figures 78 Appendix One: Transliteration and translation of statues A-I 81 Appendix Two: Tables of titles and epithets 96 Titles Table One: listed by title 97 Table Two: titles listed by statue 100 Epithets Table Three: listed by epithet 104 Table Four: epithets listed by statue 110 Bibliography 114 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION: THE INTERMEDIARY IN ANCIENT EGYPT Amenhotep son of Hapu is well-known and well-studied, with a large volume of publications dedicated to him or which refer to his life and deification.1 It is accepted that he was an important administrator who became an intermediary between the god Amun and people and then was elevated to god himself in the Ptolemaic period, alongside the architect of Djoser, Imhotep. The evidence for both men has been collated by Wildung in a single volume documenting their rise.2 However, only Galán has considered and contextualised Amenhotep as an intermediary, and whilst his article contains much valid information, at four and half pages long (with three and a half of notes) it does not do justice to this phenomenon, which is closely linked to the religious and political attitudes of the New Kingdom, but also finds its place in the sphere of ‘personal religion’ in a broader chronological sense.3 An intermediary is to some extent a product of the people. They dictate and justify the need for such an individual,4 as after that monument has been created it is largely in the hands of the people using it as to whether its intermediary status is remembered and retained, or perhaps even formed in the first place. The purpose of this thesis is to argue that Amenhotep son of Hapu, and therefore potentially other creators of such monuments remembered as intermediaries, in fact had a role in the development of that status, in other words that he intended to ensure that his memory was preserved after death, as more than the ordinary 1 This thesis cannot claim to list in its bibliography every single work that refers to Amenhotep, but the main publications are included. The brief Lexikon der Ägyptologie entry (Helck 1975) is a suitable starting point and contains many references. 2 Wildung 1977a. See also Wildung 1977b, in English, which is less detailed but is less of a catalogue of evidence and also includes a section on deified pharaohs. 3 Galán 2002. These ideas will be discussed more in Chapter Four. 4 In a circular fashion, the actions and views of the people may have been dictated by the state, as Bickel (2002: 82) writes that both facets of religion (state and individual) were implemented and furthered by the elite. So, intermediaries were an idea proposed by the elite, but adopted and hence maintained by the people. Here it should be said that the term ‘state’, and similar, in terms of religious practice is used throughout this current work, not to draw parallels with modern states but purely as a means of juxtaposing and comparing religious practices prevalent within pharaonic ideology and localised or domestic practices which were not necessarily actively endorsed by the king. Of course such neat categories of religious practice did not exist – indeed, the very presence of intermediaries is but one indication that there was some overlap. 2 deceased. Limitations of space mean not all aspects of Amenhotep and his rise to intermediary and deified status can be covered. For instance, his mortuary temple is not addressed in depth, but it was certainly significant, probably being a cult centre.5 Instead, the focus will be on the surviving statuary created by him (as opposed to monuments representing him but constructed by others after his deification), which would have been among the first objects to receive particular cultic attention from the ancient Egyptians themselves and therefore made a significant contribution to his (posthumous) reputation. Their texts, in transliteration and English translation, are contained in Appendix One for reference. It is argued in Chapter Three that the titles and epithets upon these statues were carefully selected to emphasise his good character and qualities which, in combination with the general content, would recommend him as an ideal mediator between the people and the gods.