sign in sign up
<<
Home , 21st century BC, Amenirdis II, Assyrian lion weights, Dynasty of Isin, Great Royal Wife, Gungunum

King’s Daughter, ’s Wife: The Princess as High Priestess in (, ca. 2300-1100 BCE) and Egypt (Thebes, ca. 1550-525 BCE)

Lloyd D. Graham

Abstract

The practice of a king appointing his daughter as the High Priestess and consort of an important male deity arose independently in the and Egypt. In Mesopotamia, the prime example of such an appointee was the EN-priestess of Nanna (EPN), spouse of the moon-god Nanna/ at Ur; in Egypt, its most important embodiment was the God’s Wife of (GWA), consort of the creator-god Amun(- Re) at Thebes. Both institutions operated – with interruptions and periods of uncertainty – for about a (Ur, ca. 2288-1104 BCE; Thebes, ca. 1552-525 BCE). The office of EPN began strongly, with a peak period that lasted ca. 525 years, whereas the GWA’s heyday came at the end of its trajectory and lasted only half as long (ca. 265 years). In both cases, the incumbents were powerful royal figures who served as spiritual and economic leaders of their communities. The cultic roles of the EPN and GWA were similar, and the “god’s wife” role of both has attracted similar academic controversies over their sexual, marital and maternal status. This paper, which provides the first systematic comparison of the two institutions, focuses on comparing the two offices in their respective periods of peak strength. The analysis reveals that the High Priestesses were typically political appointments made in turbulent times, often to help the king secure control over a remote region and/or rival institution. As spiritual leaders, the incumbents were often instrumental in integrating distinct cultural or ethnic groups within their respective countries, thereby promoting the royal agenda of national unity. Despite social and political uncertainties, many of the High Priestesses managed long incumbencies (EPN typically 30-40 yrs, GWA 40-65 yrs), their tenures thereby spanning multiple kings and often dynasties as well (e.g., Enanatuma of served long into the succeeding ’s traditional enemy, ). Both offices were collaborative institutions in which the incumbent was potentially assisted by a novice/heiress and perhaps also a retiree; for the GWAs in particular, the resulting “college” often required long-term collaboration between women of different ethnicities (possibly 25+ years for the Libyan/Nubian changeover, and probably 2-15 years for the Nubian/Saite one). For both type of High Priestess, the long incumbencies and the collaborative nature of their institutions combined to provide stability and continuity in their respective countries.

Introduction

At the genetic level, the ancient Egyptians were closely related to the inhabitants of the Near East.1 Connections between the two regions date back to prehistoric times and include economic migration, trade by land and sea, diplomatic exchanges and forced relocations arising from war.2 Given this shared heritage and interconnected history, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that certain religious and cultural motifs seem to transcend the traditional boundary between Egypt and the Ancient Near East.3 For example, the search for a murdered god by his sister-consort, and consequent resurrection/reappearance of the former, is shared by both the Osiris myth-cycle of ancient Egypt4 and the Canaanite Baal Cycle.5 In both Egypt and Mesopotamia, the animation of an effigy and activation of its senses is accomplish- ed by a complex multi-step ritual that is focused on a ceremonial Opening of the Mouth.6 The foundation rituals of Egypt and Mesopotamia also have many

1 elements in common.7 The Egyptian motif of the winged sun-disc as an emblem of royalty and divinity (Horus Behdety)8 has parallels in the royal/divine winged disc used in Syrian and Hittite iconography of the early 2nd millennium9 (or earlier)10 and its successors in neo-Assyrian11 and Achaemenid Persian12 imagery. Likewise, the protective shen-ring of Egyptian iconography (of which the is an elongated form) has significant visual overlap with the “rod and ring” symbol that symbolises kingship in Mesopotamia.13,14 Attention has been drawn to these intriguing parallels and, as the source references attest, the regional counterparts have been subjected to at least some level of comparative evaluation.15

Beyond these instances, however, there is another overlap, a shared pattern in the nexus of the royal and the divine in Egypt and Mesopotamia that – despite its importance to both the religious and political domains – has largely gone unremarked, and certainly has not been subjected to direct comparison.16 The institution I have in mind is the appointment of the king’s daughter to the position of High Priestess and consort of an important male deity – in Egypt, as God’s Wife of Amun (GWA), consort of the creator-god Amun at Thebes; in , as EN- priestess of Nanna (EPN), spouse of the moon-god Nanna at Ur.

Although sharing many features, these institutions arose independently in the two regions. A comparison of the origins of each office is presented in Table 1,17 while the two deities – Nanna (Fig. 1) and Amun (Fig. 2) – are compared in Table 2. Each institution lasted for about a millennium, albeit with interruptions and periods of uncertainty;18 in Ur, the office of EPN operated ca. 2288-1104 BCE, while in Thebes, that of the GWA lasted ca. 1552-525 BCE (Fig. 3). In addition, the EPN at Ur enjoyed a belated revival some 500 or more years after the position had become extinct (Fig. 3). Both institutions were terminated by the arrival of Persian rule in their respective region (Babylonia, 539 BCE; Egypt, 525 BCE). As all historical dates/ in this paper are BCE, the era designator will be omitted from this point onward.

It is convenient to divide the trajectory of each office into an Early and a Late phase (Fig. 3); the Early phase for each institution is defined and compared with its counterpart in Table 3, with the Late phase (together with any belated revivals) being presented similarly in Table 4. The changing fortunes of each institution over time (i.e., its diachronic trajectory) are the subject of Table 5, which identifies times of strength, weakness and interruption for the two institutions. Conversely, the characteristic features and practices of the two offices (as manifested in either phase, without any requirement for synchronicity) are collated and compared in Table 6.

The contents of the Tables the stage and provide the ingredients for the final – and potentially most meaningful – comparison between the cognate institutions in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Mesopotamian institution started in strength but then declined in power (Fig. 3), a trajectory consistent with a marked decrease in female professional agency after the Ur III period.19 In contrast, the Egyptian institution began modestly and worked up to a powerful finale (Fig. 3). Accordingly, it is only by juxtaposing the features of these analogous offices in their respective peak periods that the most salient insights can be obtained.

2 TABLES 1-6 Abbreviations: Akk, Akkadian; Brit. Mus., ; C25th, 25th BCE, etc.; dau., daughter; Dyn, Dynasty; ED, Early Dynastic; EPN, EN-priestess of Nanna; esp., especially; FIP, First Intermediate Period; GWA, God’s Wife of Amun; HPA, High of Amun; incl., including; LP, Late Period; MK, Middle Kingdom; NK, New Kingdom; OB, Old Babylonian; OK, Old Kingdom; poss., possibly; prob., probably; Sum, Sumerian; TIP, Third Intermediate Period.

Table 1. Origins of position

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt Precursor(s) The High Priestess of Nanna at God’s Wife (deity unspecified) was Ur had co-opted the masculine/ a Middle Kingdom title held by two archaic title EN (= Lord) ca. 2288 non-royal women.30 or soon after.20 An aristocratic woman of the First Two ED reliefs from the Ur Intermediate Period was a God’s GIPAR show (EN?-)priestesses,21 Wife of the ithyphallic god Min.31 while the GIPAR itself may date to ED.22

Woolley’s suggestion that the women in the ED Royal Cemetery were sacrificed “wives of Nanna” and their retinues no longer attracts support.23

A proto- EPN at Ur may have been Ninmetabarri, dau. of Anbu, 1st king of Mari (C25th-23rd?) in the Sumerian King-List.24 The title ZIRRU for such a position has ED precursors.25

An EPN-like office at Ur seems to predate Sargon (ca. 2288)26 to the ED,27 although some trace the EPN’s start to Sargon28 or to his grandson Naram-Sin.29 Instigating king / / ca. 2288 I / ca. 1552 Date Founder of... New Kingdom & Dyn 18 King’s origin (northern Babylonia) Thebes (southern Egypt) Cult city Ur (southern Babylonia) Thebes (southern Egypt) First appointee Birth-name unknown (Semitic) Ahmose- Position in royal Daughter of Sargon I Daughter of Queen Ahhotep. house Sister or half-sister to .32 Chief Royal Wife to Ahmose I. Titles in cult EN-priest/ess of Nanna (EPN).33 God’s Wife of Amun (GWA). ZIRRU of Nanna. 34 2nd Priest of Amun.36 Spouse (DAM) of Nanna. 35 Insertion into Appointed by king Position purchased and endowed by priesthood Ahmose I (see Decree below). Without this endowment, the GWA would (fictively, at least) be a nmH.t, i.e. a pauper/orphan.37 Thone-name/ Enheduana (Sumerian) None or not known prenomen Decree The “Donation Stele of Ahmose”38 was an im.yt pr.w deed, more economic and administrative than religious. Endowed GWA as

3 perpetual office, independent of future rulers, to be passed on by non-hereditary succession, e.g. to an heiress who too was first declared a notional nmH.t (orphan).39 Foundat- ion of office was endorsed by an oracle of Amun.40 Motivations of king Continue a tradition of some ED kings.41

Control over the city of Ur,42 Bolster cult of Amun(-Re), Egypt’s countering power of local ruler supreme god since MK, to gain (LUGAL) and establishing a loyal better control over newly-unified power-base in the south.43 country.46

Connect pan-Babylonian cultic system to royal family to legitimate rule over whole country.44

Royal access to temple assets.45 Royal access to temple assets.

Table 2. Deity

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt Name Nanna (Sumerian).47 Amun(-Re) Suen/Sin (Akkadian).48 Gender Male Male Centre of cult Temple of Nanna at Ur, the of and at EKISHNUGAL,49 mother-house of Thebes.57 Karnak = Great Temple of all moon-temples.50 Amun(-Re).

Temples (also called EKISHNUGAL) at , . In Ur III & Isin period, subsidiary temple at Urum51 and for Nanna of Karzida at Ga’esh (near Ur).52

Also, from at least C14th, cult centre for Sin at , prob. est. by merchants from Ur.53 Sin “had become early on the guarantor of royal political power in northern Mesopotamia.”54 Harran temple attested in Mari Archive (Isin/ Larsa-OB period).55 This became prominent in Neo-Babylonian era; mother of was a priestess there.56 Role Moon-god, in Sargonic times a Creator, supreme god since MK/Dyn (incl. relationships) son of sky-god An,58 in Ur III- 12, unseen and everywhere.65 OB times the eldest son of 59 Since MK, and esp. from NK, linked . His cult channelled the with (Re-)Atum, the creator god of moon’s regenerative power to the Heliopolitan .66 earth for human and agricultural 60 fertility, esp. of cattle & sheep.

Nanna was very popular in OB times, but was never the supreme

4 god.61 (Head of pantheon was By Dyn 21, de facto ruler of Egypt; Enlil of Nippur, who crowned the Theban oracles of Amun set kings of ; Naram-Sin’s government policy.67

dau. Tutanapshum was first appointee as Enlil’s EN- 62 priestess). Nanna was father to the most prominent goddess, /Ishtar.63

Nanna/Sin was guarantor of the political order, esp. royal 64 The king was considered to be the power. son of Amun(-Re).68 Astronomical identity Lunar. Solar (from NK on, when Amun takes on all properties of Re). 70

Father of /Shamash, the sun- Father of Khonsu, the moon-god.71 god.69 Iconography of deity Anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphic.

Associated with , lion-dragon Occasionally ram-headed.73 & gazelle.72 Divine spouse (= “Great Lady”), a Mut (= “Mother”).75 passive and supportive goddess.74 Iconography of Anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphic.

spouse Associated with water-birds Sometimes lioness (& thence cat);79 (UBI-birds);76 prob. ZIRRU = hen hieroglyph = vulture, hence wears (esp. of waterfowl, vulture headdress.80 duck/goose/swan).77 The GWA was the earthly embodi- The EPN was the earthly ment or representative of Mut, embodi-ment or representative of Amun’s divine wife.81 Ningal, Nanna’s divine wife.78

Table 3. Early phase

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt Time-period Akkadian to Old Babylonian, New Kingdom (Dyn 18-20), 2230-1730. 1552-1070. Pedigree Usually daughter of current king; Great Royal Wife, who often was sometimes daughter of the herself the daughter of a previous king and/or sister of the king/queen.83 current king (e.g. Enanedu).

One non-royal EPN known (not at Ur) in Akkadian period.82 Basic title(s) EN- (or Entu-)priest/ess of God’s Wife of Amun (GWA). Nanna/ Suen (EPN). 2nd Priest of Amun.87 ZIRRU84 of Nanna/Suen (esp. pre- Ur III).85 Spouse (DAM) of the god Nanna/ Suen.86 Additional possible [God’s Wife (DAM) of Nanna/ Divine Adoratrice. title(s) Suen, if not a basic/implicit title] God’s Hand. These titles were often held by people other than the GWA.88 Position in temple First. There was no Second, under High Priest of Amun hierarchy of Nanna senior to the EPN. (HPA, 1st Priest of Amun).90

5 In Ur III, second only to king in social, political & religious spheres.89 Perception by A symbol of the Sumerian populace community as a whole (see Tenure section below).91

Economic manager responsible for ensuring prosperity of the community.92 See notes at † and § (left). Better-known Enheduana [1st] (ca. 2288 on), Dyn 18:103 incumbents dau. Sargon I (Akkad).95 Ahmose-Nefertari. Enmenana, dau. Naram-Sin and her daughter † The position of an (Akkad).96 . EPN in Barbara Enanepada, dau. Ur-baba/Ur-Bau 97 ... these 3 women used GWA as Weadock’s sequence ( II, pre-Ur III) their preferred sole title.104 of putative Enmahgalana, dau. Amar-Suen incumbents is given in (ca. 2040, late Ur III).98 Dyn 19:105 [ ].93 Enanatuma [10th], dau. Ishme- Chief Royal Wives of Ramses I, Dagan, Isin dyn (1955-1937).99 , Ramses II & Seti II: Satre, § It has even been Enmegalana, poss. dau. of , Nefertari-Merymut & speculated that Sarai/ , mid-Larsa dyn; Tausret, resp-ectively.106

Sarah, wife of the dead by ca. 1902.100 Dyn 20: 107 biblical patriarch Enshakiag-Nanna (ca. 1872 on), Isis, dau. Ramses VI. Abram/, was dau. Sumu-el, mid-Larsa dyn.101 an EPN or similar.94 Enanedu [13th] (ca. 1828 on), sister of Warad-Sin & Rim-Sin I, end of Larsa dyn.102 Notable decrees Kudur-Mabuk, father of Donation Stele (Dyn 18) of Enanedu, the last named EPN, Ahmose, recovered from 3rd pylon ordered her copper mortuary at Karnak (see Table 1, Decree, statue to be overlaid with gold.108 above).

Enanedu recorded on a clay cone Decree of Ramses VI (Dyn 20), who her restoration of the GIPAR and installed his daughter Isis as GWA how she cleansed and secured the and Divine Adoratrice.112 burial site of her predecessors, with room for future burials (Table 6, Mortuary cult);109 also a stone tablet recording her restorations and cultic embellishments.110 One of her inscriptions was found and translated by Nabonidus (555- 539), who revived the cult.111 Additional/special Continued access to temple Continued access to temple assets, motivations assets, which by Isin/Larsa which were vast.

period includ-ed large estates and Ramses VI (Dyn 20) was a weak produced cloth on a commercial 113 king who ruled from Piramesse in scale. The estates were so the Delta (north) and needed to complex that freelance strengthen his control over the contractors were needed to 114 powerful priesthood at Thebes manage them. (south).115

6 Table 4. Late phase

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt Time-period Old Babylonian to post-Kassite, TIP & Late Period (Dyn 21-26), 1730-1104. 1070-525. Pedigree Most not princesses, probably Daughter of king/queen. However, non-royal.116 often were not elevated to GWA until the later reign of their brothers.117 Basic title(s) EN- (or Entu-)priest/ess of God’s Wife of Amun (GWA). Nanna/Sin (EPN). 2nd Priest of Amun.118 Additional possible [Spouse (DAM) of the god Divine Adoratrice. title(s) Nanna/ Sin, if not a God’s Hand. basic/implicit title] Both titles first combined with GWA by Maatkare (Dyn 21).119 Amenirdis I (Dyn 25) used them, plus 2 more:120 One who is united with the god.121 [Daughter of Osiris].122

King’s wife (factual? honorific? erroneous?).123

High Priest of Amun (HPA).124 Position in temple First, as in Early phase. Second, as in Early phase. hierarchy First, when her powers eclipsed HPA (Dyn 25-26) or when GWA was also HPA (Ankhnesneferibre, Dyn 26); see Table 5, Height of power.

Overall, “the highest-ranking priestess in .”125 Better-known Daughter of of Shepenwepet I, dau. Osorkon III incumbents Babylon, 1125-1104 (2nd Dyn (Libyan, Dyn 23-24, C8th).128,129 Isin) may have held role.127 Amenirdis I,* dau. Kashta (Nubian, Dyn 25, late C8th).130 * Amenirdis I was the Shepenwepet II, dau. (Nubian, inspiration for the Dyn 25, late C8th-early C7th).131 Egyptian princess Nitocris I, dau. Psamtek I (Saite, Amneris in Verdi’s Dyn 26, late C7th-early C6th).132 opera, Aida.126 Ankhnesneferibre, dau. Psamtek II (Saite, Dyn 26, C6th).133 Notable decrees Stela/relief of Nebuchadnezzar I The “Adoption Stele of Nitocris,”136 (1125-1104, 2nd Dyn Isin) made by her father Psamtek I, was depicted the High Priestess of (like the Donation Stele of Ahmose) Nanna/Sin at Ur and listed her an im.yt-pr.w deed.137 It respected accoutrements.134 Its discovery the rights of the incumbent by Nabonidus (555-539) at the (Shepenwepet II) and her heiress end of the Neo-Babylonian era (Amenirdis II), but ensured the enabled him to revive the cult at eventual transfer of the GWA Ur.135 position and its assets to Nitocris, witnessed and dated both in Sais and in Thebes. Despite his deference, Amenirdis II does seem to have been bypassed as GWA.138

Ankhnesneferibre’s stele presents her adoption (9 years previously) & recent investiture in religious & ritual terms, with a parochial Theban focus.139

7 Additional/special HPA vacancy ca. 754-704 increased motivations power of Amenirdis I (ca. 740- 700).140

Restrain powerful priesthood of Thebes in politically turbulent times.141

Consolidate rule of “foreign” kings (Libyan & Nubian, Dyn 23-25)142 and the southern power of those ruling from the Delta, who were initially Assyrian vassals (Saites, Dyn 26).143

Matriarchal tendencies & familial power-sharing of Libyans and Nubians,144 traditionalism/piety of Kushite and Saite dynasties (Dyn 25-26).145

Table 5. Wax & wane

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt Height of power Early phase, esp. Ur III (= 4 Late phase. Specifically: EPNs at Ur).146 Also:

a) Literature/propaganda of a) Shepenwepet I (Dyn 23-24) Enheduana, first named author in considered by some as de facto ruler history (composer of the of .151

Sumerian Temple Hymns, Adoration of Inanna, etc.)147

b) Reconstruction of GIPAR by b) Dyn 25-26, when GWA eclipsed Enanedu, poss. as local deputy the power of the High Priest of for her father.148 Her seal had the Amun.152 Peaked with Shepenwepet authority of royal dynastic II, who rivalled Mentuemhat (mayor seal.149 She is the only non- of Thebes) as de facto ruler of Upper reigning royal to be lauded in a Egypt;153 or with Saite GWAs.154 praise-hymn.150 Hiatuses Early phase Early phase

GIPAR destroyed by Elamites at During 2nd half of Dyn 18 (post- fall of Ur III (ca. 2003), rebuilt Hatshepsut, perhaps a rejection of by Enanatuma (ca. 1955- her rule).171 1937).155

No named incumbents after Enanedu (still alive ca. 1796).156 Power shifted to the “convent of nuns” at Sippar (=second wives to Shamash) to which the OB kings sent their daughters,157 and to the multiple priestesses of .158 Still, placed a stele in the Temple of Ningal.159

Likely hiatus after damage to Ur by Samsuiluna (1749-1712),160 when the GIPAR may have been destroyed,161 and subsequent depopulation of Ur.162 Rebuilt

8 soon after by another OB king, and decayed slowly.163 Largely abandoned in C17-16th because had shifted to west;164 city mainly ruins by 1400.165 th C14-11 , head of Gulf retreated

south, terminating Ur’s life as a Late phase port.166 Fully-titled GWAs after Isis (Dyn Late phase 20) include Maatkare (I)

Status uncertain until Kassite Mutemhat172 (Dyn 21), Shepenwepet king Kurigalzu (1332-1308) I (Dyn 23) and her successors (to restored the temenos, enlarging Dyn 26).173 the GIPAR and relocating the Despite continuous occupancy of Ningal temple.167 position, by year 26 of Psamtek I The EN-priestess at Ur “certainly (i.e., 638) the estate of the GWA had existed through Kassite times and allegedly “fallen into ruin,” from beyond.”168 Her role is “attested which “all men seize things as their as late as the post-Kassite period hearts dictate.”174 It was rebuilt for [i.e., after 1155], suggesting that Nitocris by her first High Steward, at least the office was perpetuated Ibi.175 whenever possible.”169 Ur lapsed into obscurity in C12th, reviving somewhat in C8-7th.170 Belated survival / Yes. No. revival? Pious Neo-Assyrian governor of Appointment of princess Ur, Sinbalatsu-iqbi, found the inconsistent with customs of Persian GIPAR in ruins ca. 660. He rebuilt rule.184 over it to a new plan;176 ditto for 177 Descent from a Nubian GWA was Kurigalzu’s Ningal temple. important to Nubian king Aspelta, 3 Excavation of the GIPAR site has generations after Nubian withdrawal revealed a Neo-Assyrian building from Egypt.185 (ca. 650) with two tombs of women in copper coffins, Aspects of the GWA’s office may presumed to be EPNs.178 have lingered into the Persian period 186 nd (Dyn 27); possibly a (non-royal) The 2 Neo-Babylonian king, priestess sexually consecrated to Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562), Amun at Thebes.187 renovated and rebuilt in the temenos.179 The office of GWA was not restored in the religious revivals of Dyn 30 or Cult revived by Nabonidus, the the Ptolemaic era.188 last Neo-Babylonian king (555- 539), an arch-traditionalist who Some Ptolemaic priestesses of excavated inscriptions of Amun reprised the title Nebuchadnezzar I and Enanedu Adoratrice.189 Titles and epithets of and restored the Temple of the Ptolemaic queens of Egypt seem Nanna (by then, Sin) at Ur.180 In to be borrowed from the titularies of response to a lunar eclipse in 554, the GWAs.190 At , one he installed his daughter as the Ptolemaic queen is describ-ed as a EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna at Ur.181 Divine Adoratrice.191

He remodelled the old GIPAR, restored the Ningal temple, and built a palatial residence (poss. a new GIPAR) outside the temenos in the north of the city.182

Revival ended with Persian rule. After defeating Nabonidus, the Persian king Cyrus criticised him for elevating Sin over Marduk

9 and for appointing his dau. as Appointment of princess as GWA EPN.183 ended with Persian rule, as described above.

Table 6. Traditions (either phase)

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt Pedigree Dau. of king in Early phase, Great Royal Wife (herself often a prob. giving way to non-royals in royal dau.) in Early phase, giving Late phase. way to dau. of current king in Late phase. Alternative fates Abroad – diplomatic marriage of Early phase: Domestic – Egyptian princess to foreign ruler. princesses were not married off to foreign rulers.

Late phase: Abroad or domestic – former policy overturned in Dyn 21.192 Parallel institutions Akkadian era: EN-priestesses of “Wife of Min” known in OK/FIP.195 Enlil, Shamash, Utu, Mes-sanga- Some MK-LP use of “God’s Wife” Unug at other cities.193 without deity being named.196 Local 197 Ur III & Isin/Larsa: Also find theogamous priestesses known, e.g. TIP/LP: God’s Wife of EN-priestesses of & 198 Nigublaga, and subsidiary EPNs Neferhotep at Hutsekhem and of at Karzida/ Ga’esh & Urum.194 Heryshaf at Heracleopolis (the latter incl. a Saite princess).199 Divine Adoratrices of other male creator deities (e.g. Atum) may have sexual function.200

Otherwise, GWA “without direct parallel in other religious hierarchies in Egypt,”201 or in .202 Selection rituals Usually just royal pronouncement.

Divination.203 In early phase, the An oracle was used to confirm the ZIRRU was “chosen by means of appointment of Ahmose-Nefertari, (omens taken from the entrails the first GWA.208 204 of) a goat” and her selection An oracle was used to confirm the could provide the next year- appointment of Ramses VI’s dau. name, as done for Enmahgalana 205 Isis, perhaps a reflection of his lack (ca. 2043). Liver extispicy of political power.209 was the usual selection method (ca. 2000),206 incl. in the Neo- Upon adoption, Ankhnesneferibre’s Babylonian revival (554).207 titles (incl. HPA) were confirmed by oracle of Amun.210 Training & After ritual purification, installation undertook novitiate (prob. oral training by current incumbent).211 Novitiate between selection and enthronement could last several years.212

EPN at Ur was probably Late phase: Investiture rites similar installed similarly to EPN at to those for a .214 GWA Karzida, who underwent an installed by visiting Temple of investiture celebration (7 days of Amun followed by large procession procession, entry to temples of of the priesthood. Initiation rituals various deities with sacrifices), were performed by “the scribe of the then an enthronement ceremony divine book and great wab- of (throne-name conferred 4 times, this temple,” with purification by

10 given paraphernalia, entered Horus & Thoth, then coronation of GIPAR).213 candidate as she kneels before

Amun. Then tying of amulets and bestowing of regalia, incl. 2- feathered crown. Also formulation of a new titulary, with her name now appearing in a cartouche.215 Residence The GIPAR in the temenos at Ur, GWA palace recently identified at associated with the EKISHNUGAL Naga Malgata, North Karnak,216 (Temple of Nanna). supp-lanting palace in Medinet Habu.217 Deity focused upon Ningal, whose temple was in the Late phase: Amun-Re in GIPAR (Early phase) or beside it iconography; also Osiris, as many (Late phase). See, however, the GWAs built Osirian chapels.220 Postscript added in 2019 at the Medinet Habu, site of the GWA end of this paper. memorial chapels, is focused on

Amun(-Re) and Osiris (main text, Residence...).221 Nanna’s shrine and courtyard/ temple were elsewhere in the Most GWA throne-names temenos.218 incorporate Mut,222 but otherwise she is largely supplanted in GWA-

Ningal’s cult and temple were sponsored scenes by the GWA herself.223 integrated with that of Nanna and were overseen by the EPN, Mut was important independent of her earthly embodiment or Amun(-Re); she had her own representative.219 priesthood and temple at Karnak.224 Also, consort of state god of Nubia.225

GWA could embody Hathor226 or Tefnut,227 sometimes Isis.228 Like Mut, these could be God’s Hand.229

Concurrency Only one EPN at Ur (the main Only one GWA at any one time.231 temple) at any one time. The GWA and her staff were located However, the EPN at Ur was at Thebes, and no other temple of supplemented by EPNs at other Amun in Egypt had a GWA.

sites (e.g. Amar-Suen named Hatshepsut did not hold the title of years for the installations of EPN GWA concurrently with her dau. at Ur and elsewhere, incl. one for 230 Neferure; it was passed to latter once Nanna of Karzida at Ga’esh). Hatshepsut had become king.232 These too were “wives of Nanna.” Cultic roles Lived in relative isolation from (for sacred marriage, outside world.233 Ritual ablutions Ritual ablutions before entering see next section) before entering sanctuary.234 sanctuary.242 Pre-ritual, bathed in sacred lake.243

Sang holy songs, esp. the ASILA Entertained & honoured via (jubilation).235 Presided over music (esp. sistrum); by pouring rituals, which were performed by libations & burning incense; by assistants.236 Banqueted with consecrating food offerings; by deity,237 prepared daily food/beer presenting Maat (justice/order/ offerings to god; provisioned the truth).244 cult and donated precious items.238

Accompanied divine images in Accompanied the God’s Fathers processions, e.g. New Year trip (mid-ranking male priests) in of Nanna’s statue to .239 processions & liturgies.245

11 With king, accompanied Nanna’s Partnered with king in provisioning, statue biannually to Karzida for protecting & rejuvenating gods.246

AKITI festival.240

Interceded with the god on Officiated at other Rites of Royal & behalf of the king.241 Divine Dominion.247 Identified with Isis in some rites.248

Built, repaired and maintained Built temples & dedicated shrines.249

temples and chapels. Commiss- Shepenwepet II (Dyn 25) is only ioned statues of king and deity. non-king shown publicly performing “Driving of the Four Calves” and “Striking of the Meret-Chests.”250 She also seems to have celebrated a sed festival (see Iconography section), perhaps at her investiture.251 Sacred marriage Mirrors the archaic concept of Does not mirror sacred marriage of sacred marriage between king of king to goddess in Sumerian and goddess Inanna.252 sense.258 However, in Early phase,

Earlier scholars believed the king the union between the king and played the part of Nanna in queen, identifi-ed with Amun(-Re) sacred marriage rite with EPN; and /Mut respectively, represented the marriage of these e.g. Ur-Namma’s royal line was 259 secured via the EPN in Nippur, deities. (The Early phase practice who gave birth to .253 of Great Royal Wife = GWA formalised the queen as Mut.) Her son, the next king, was the “son of Amun(-Re).”260 More recent opinions see a symbolic (i.e. non-sexual) act in Some propose sexual stimulation of which the EPN lay down to Amun by GWA, e.g. in her capacity music on a sacred bed in as God’s Hand,261 but overall there is Nanna’s bed-chamber within the no good evidence for sexual GIPAR, the AGRUN (room C28),254 rituals.262 The sound of the sistrum which was decorated with hay & may evoke the sexual union of flowers.255 Amun and his consort, but certainly

It is likely that the sacred does not implic-ate the musician in the sex act.263 marriage described by Herodotus [Hdt. I 181.5-182.1] (C5th) is Koch has recently re-envisaged the actually a memory of the union Dyn 23-26 GWAs as daughters of EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna (dau. 264 of Nabonidus, C6th) with Sin at rather than spouses of Amun. 256 Ur. Herodotus links this directly with practice of Egyptian GWA-like priestess Herodotus links sacred marriage of (see opposite column).257 GWA-like priestess directly with practice of an EPN-like priestess in Babylonia (see opposite column).265 Celibacy & Older literature says celibate and Many early GWAs were Royal procreation childless,266 though intercourse Wives, and thus were not celibate & conception via king possible and often had children.273 However, in sacred marriage rite.267 Much it is no longer thought that the king current literature perpetuates the was required to marry the GWA to 274 belief in the unmarried, childless legitimate his rule and succession.

or even virginal “spouse of the Much modern literature perpetuates deity,” while conceding human 268 269 the belief that Ramses VI (Dyn 20) failings. Stol cites as stipulated that his daughter Isis evidence the myth of Atrahasis remain unmarried, and that (in which children are declared subsequent GWAs followed suit.275 taboo to EN-priestesses), the Rationale is that it prevented these

12 clandestine nature of Sargon’s princesses from engendering rival birth to an EN-priestess in dynasties in Thebes.276 270 legend, law codes from Ur III, and traditions from OB onwards Celibacy of Late phase GWAs (while conceding that late texts accepted by Leahy277 but contested seem to acknowl-edge marriage). by Teeter, who argues inter alia that

Amenirdis II was married and had a Other recent literature says High child.278 Manassa and too Priestesses were not celibate and contest celibacy.279 Bryan says that children are attested in all husbands are conceivable and can periods;271 e.g., the seal of explain lack of evidence.280 272 Enanatuma’s son is known. Ayad maintains that the powerful GWAs of Dyn 23-26 were indeed single and seemingly childless, although perhaps not ritually precluded from sexual relations.281 285 Assistant/deputy & Probably had a key assistant (of Heiress as main cultic assistant, in key staff same gender) called a LAGAR.282 Dyn 26 also Sms.wt (Followers).286

Below that fall three other senior Senior cult singers were titled ranks; then 5 types of performat- Chantress of the Interior of Amun; ive actors; 2 kinds of cantor/ three D26 heiresses were Great musician; and female votaries.283 Chantress of the Interior.287 Many Chantresses were buried at Medinet Habu, some in close association with 288 GWA memorial chapels.

Seal(ing)s of an estate Administrators of the estate of the supervisor, hairdresser & two GWA, headed by the High Steward scribes in Enheduana’s staff have of the God’s Wife/Adoratrice,289 been found .284 includ-ed a “Scribe of counting grain” and an “Overseer of cattle.”290 Power Incumbents had “weak legal Religious authority; successors authority but strong personal and reportedly greeted with joy by mystical spiritual influence.”291 populace.298 Known via local excursions.292

Considered masculine from Ur [For masculinisation, see Represent- III-OB, poss. reflecting power;293 ation..., below.] see Representation..., below.

Their blessing probably needed Dyn 23-26, political power, poss. as for appointment of local ruler.294 de facto (co-)rulers of Upper Egypt.299 Head of temple household, a major institution in the local Second to HPA (or in Dyn 25-26, his economy.295 Scale illustrated by equal/superior) as head of temple a receipt naming Enmenana.296 assets, which were vast. Under Ramses II (Dyn 19), there were over A claim that Enanedu acted as a 300 money-lender seems 50,000 priests of Amun at Thebes. unfounded.297 Nitocris I commanded daily tribute of 190 kg bread, cereals, herbs & milk from the priests, plus monthly tribute of cattle and additional foods.301 Tenure, succession, A new EPN may have been Many modern authors perpetuate the and response to new appointed after a set term, or belief that Ramses VI (Dyn 20) king or dynasty replaced at a certain age.302 stipulated that his daughter Isis and

No formal “adoption” of heiress; subsequent GWAs had to adopt the daughter of each subsequent king as incumbent seems to have retired 310 after a new appointment,303 their heiress. Rationale is that it becoming emerita.304 Retirees prevented these princesses aiding rival claimants to the throne. 311

13

remained in the GIPAR as their Others deny that it predates Dyn 22 tombs are there (see Table 6, and point to the Nitocris Adoption Mortuary cult). Stele (Dyn 26) as formalising king’s “So important and sacred was dau. & adoption pattern.312

the dignity of these priestesses at These adoptions were motivated by Ur that they were often able to secular rather than cultic concerns.313 retain their office undisturbed by They were bureaucratic devices dynastic changes in the civil 305 relating to inheritance of the office government.” A documented and its assets, and unrelated to exception was Enheduana, celibacy or biological ousted (temporarily) by Lugal- 314 306 motherhood. Ane’s rebellion. Isis (Dyn 20) reigned for 25-50 yrs.315 Yoyotte estimated ave. 50 yr tenure for GWAs of Dyn 21-23.316

In Dyn 25-26, the daughter of a new king was usually adopted as heiress by the incumbent GWA. Tenures Many EPNs served at Ur for 307 were long (25-68 yrs) and often long periods (30-40 years), crossed dynastic boundaries.317 providing a unifying link through 308 Collaboration/delegation was times of disunity. E.g. common, with dynastic overlaps that Enanatuma (of Isin) served long required many years of co-operation after Gungunum (of Isin’s between different ethnicities.318 enemy, Larsa) had conquered Ur.309 Only ever one GWA at a time, but she and her heiress(es) were probably regarded as a single “college.”319 Thone- Yes (Sumerian). Yes, from Maatkare (Dyn 21) on. name/prenomen All names commence with EN-. That of Shepenwepet I refers to Most do not refer to Nanna or to Amun and evokes Hatshepsut’s.320

Ningal, his divine spouse. Most other names incorporate Mut, the divine wife of Amun. Representation and Enheduana, the first certain EPN Cartouche from at least Dyn 20,326 self-presentation in at Ur, was a cultural pioneer who regal status of a king by Dyn 26.327 text (incl. gender styled herself as such, wrote in Late phase GWAs used feminised issues) the first person under own name, versions of the king’s titulary and asserted herself before the (female equivalents of Son of Re, gods.321 Master of the Two Lands, Master of Religious ruler & builder, Appear-ances/Crowns, Horus, interceding with god for king.322 etc.)328

Filiation term DUMU suggests Donation Stele of Ahmose (Dyn 18) “son” of the king, although may stipulated that the office of GWA just be archaism (= son or dau. in will pass “from son to son Old Sumerian).323 Gender forever;”329 this reflects the male- considered masculine from Ur oriented legal terms of the im.yt pr.w III-OB period, e.g. Enanedu is deed. A phrase in the Adoption Stele “son” of Kudur-Mabuk and of Nitocris may hint at a notional “brother” of Warad-Sin (Larsa, r. male filiation between successive 1834-23);324 “maleness” prob. a GWAs.330 The death of Nitocris is reflection of the role’s power.325 recorded using phraseology for king.331 Iconography Depicted in reliefs and Depicted in reliefs and statuary.339 332 statuary. Almost all images are Early phase attire: Often dressed as a from Early phase. MK priestess. Short close-fitting wig with thin fillet tied at back of head, ends trailing; sheath dress.340

14 All crowned (AGA-crown head- Late phase attire:341 Often dressed as dress, esp. circlet), most a Dyn 18 queen and impersonating enthroned.333 Mut. Crowned by modius with Sw.ty

Flounced/pleated woollen robe = 2 tall feathers (sometimes also (an attribute of divinity),334 with solar disc between horns); vulture cap or crown (for usually covering both shoulders; 342 long loose hair.335 Mut/Nekhbet, Isis, Hathor); poss. uraeus. Long lappet or short curly May appear taller than less wig; if unwigged, hair gathered close important persons.336 to skull by fillet or ribbon (often with bonnet too). Broad collar; sometimes shawl. Dress is either long, loose and multi-layered with sash, or else a tight sheath.

Use of motifs otherwise restricted to king or deity.337 In Late phase, use of motifs otherwise restricted to king, as follows. Shepenwepet I (Dyn 23) is crowned and suckled by a goddess.343 Dyn 23-26 GWAs present Maat to Amun.344 In Dyn 25, Amenirdis I founded a temple and received sed symbols, Shepenwepet II had proffering sphinxes345 and seems to have celebrated a sed and other king-only rites (see Cultic roles above).346 Shepenwepet II publicly portrayed the divine May be depicted frontally, a pose marriage, showing (separately) normally reserved for Amenirdis I and herself in embrace goddesses.338 with Amun.347 Deceased Amenirdis I shown deified.348 In Dyn 23-26, GWA closer to gods than king is.349 Building program Enanatuma did extensive (re-) Yes, from Dyn 23-26.352 Residence building in ruined GIPAR;350 built in N Karnak;353 chapels to Osiris chapels to Utu and Dagan “for (high-lighting relationship to the the life of” the king.351 king) in N & E Karnak;354 GWA funerary chapels in Medinet Habu.355 Enanedu reconstructed the GIPAR (Table 3, Notable decrees). Mortuary cult Yes.356 The dead EPNs lived on Yes. Prob. Ahmose-nefertari (Dyn in statues, housed in mortuary 18).362 Definitely Dyn 23-26, with chapels; offerings were made mortuary chapels at Medinet there and/or at graves.357 Habu,363 which probably housed cult

By Ur III, the outdoor cemetery statues and would have received offerings.364 had become vaults under the GIPAR’s residential quarters. GWA played role of dutiful “eldest Exposed again by late Larsa dyn, son” by officiating in funerary cult the graveyard was restored and of predecessor; this also legitimated re-enclosed by Enanedu.358 their succession.365

Food offerings in Isin/Larsa per- iod continue older tradition.359

360 Not usually deified after death, although Enanatuma and Not usually deified after death, Enmegalana seemingly were.361 although Amenirdis I was shown thus.366 Politicization May date to ED with Ninmeta- barri, dau. of king of Mari.367

15 Began for sure with Enheduana, Began with Isis, dau. of Ramses VI dau. Sargon, who saw herself as (Dyn 20), a king who ruled from the spiritual leader of the Akkadian Delta and needed to strengthen royal empire and promoted her father’s control over Thebes.374 deity (Ishtar, primary goddess of 368 Full exploitation with Shepenwepet I Akkad) as a universal deity (Dyn 23), who had her own superior to her own spouse governing administration and whom Nanna, the moon deity and city- 369 some scholars consider to have been god of Ur. She wrote hymns de facto ruler of Upper Egypt.375 that helped to syncretise Inanna (Sum.) with Ishtar (Akk.) and Shepenwepet II rivalled that drew together temples from Mentuemhat, mayor of Thebes, as de 35 different Babylonian cities, facto ruler of Upper Egypt.376 unifying the pantheon.370 Her poems also express political/legal outrage at challenges to the empire that her father had initiated.371

Enheduana’s writings remained a tool for unity into OB times.372

Sargon/Enheduana’s unity- through- program was echoed 1700 yrs later by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus and his daughter.373

Accordingly, the Early phase of the EPN at Ur, especially some 525 years within the Akkadian through Isin/Larsa periods, must be contrasted with the Late phase of the GWA at Thebes, especially a 265-year span encompassing the TIP/Late Period Dynasties 23-26.377 It is this comparison, and the attendant discussion, that forms the main text of the paper.378 Despite the many differences in religious belief between late 3rd- to early 2nd-millennium Mesopotamia and early- to mid- Egypt – most conspicuously in the importance attached to the afterlife and the understanding of what it entailed379 – we shall see that the supreme female high priestly offices share some interesting and unexpected similarities.

The Office of High Priestess

At the start of the respective peak periods, the High Priestess in each country was the daughter of the current king. In Mesopotamia, the institution of EPN actually

16

Fig. 1. Nanna. King Ur-Namma (founder of the Ur III dynasty) makes a libation before the seated figure of the Sumerian moon-god Nanna (Akkadian Sin), who wears the horned crown of divinity and holds the “rod and ring” combination that symbolises kingship.380 Detail from the Stele of Ur-Namma, University of Pennsylvania Museum of and Anthropology, object B16676.14. Photo of restoration predating 1901, Public Domain.381 The unrestored fragment can be seen online.382

began with the installation of Enheduana – daughter of Sargon, the founder of the Akkadian Empire – at Ur (Table 1; Fig. 4). In Egypt, the GWA’s period of peak strength began in Dynasty 23 – a period of Libyan rule in the Third Intermediate Period – with the appointment of Shepenwepet I, daughter of king Osorkon III (r. 777-749), in 754 (Table 4). She was following in the footsteps of Karomama Meritmut (Fig. 5), a God’s Wife/Divine Adoratrice (= Karomama G) who was possibly a half-sister of her great-grandfather, Nimlot C.383 Osorkon III ruled from Thebes and controlled the country as far as Leontopolis in the Delta.384 His son Takelot served as High Priest of Amun (HPA) up to the time of his accession to the throne as his father’s co-regent and eventual successor (Takelot III, r. 763-744).385

In both cases, the initial appointments appear to have been politically motivated and to have been intended to exert royal control over a rival institution and/or a remote region. It was useful for Sargon, who ruled from Akkad in northern Babylonia, to have his daughter Enheduana acting on his behalf in a key city of Sumer, countering the power of the ruler of Ur and establishing a loyal power- base in the south (Table 1, Motivations of king).386 Equally, it seems likely that the

17

Fig. 2. Amun. Gold-plated silver figure of the Egyptian supreme god Amun(-Re), Dynasty 26. The figure’s divine beard shows that he is a god, and his headdress identifies him as Amun. British Museum EA60006.387 Photo © Trustees of the British Museum, reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.388

18

Fig. 3. Synoptic timeline. Chronology for the EN-priestess of Nanna (EPN) at Ur and the God’s Wife of Amun (GWA) in Egypt. The thickness of the salmon-coloured bars reflects the perceived strength of the office of EPN at Ur and/or the functionality of its home, the GIPAR; that of the blue bars reflects the perceived strength of the office of GWA. Dashed lines indicate uncertainty. The vertical scale is necessarily subjective; note that some thinner segments may have had a non-princess as priestess or even no incumbent. The millennium-long window during which each office was considered operational (EPN ca. 2288-1104, GWA ca. 1552-525) is indicated by a dashed horizontal grey bracket; the notional division of each window into an Early phase and a Late phase (Tables 3 & 4, respectively) is shown in green, with the boundary marked by a triangle. The period of peak strength for each office (EPN ca. 2288-1796, GWA ca. 754-525) is indicated by a solid horizontal magenta-coloured bracket. Abbreviations: TIP, Third Intermediate Period; Neo-Ass., Neo-Assyrian period; Neo- Bab., Neo-Babylonian period.

appointment of Shepenwepet as GWA in the year when her brother relinquished the role of HPA was motivated by a desire to maintain royal influence over the senior priesthood of Amun;389 the manoeuvre probably shared the same motivation as the appointment of her predecessor, Isis, by Ramses VI at the end of the New Kingdom (Table 3, Additional/special motivations). Accordingly, one may consider the position of High Priestess as “an offshoot of kingship on the local level.”390 The EPNs and GWAs themselves appear to have done so, inasmuch as they habitually co-opted iconography, rituals and epithets that were otherwise reserved for the king (Table 6, Representation... and Iconography). Indeed, as Betsy Bryan has pointed out, the separateness and independence of the office of GWA – together with its unusual succession process (Table 6, Tenure...) – constitute a female equivalent to the description of kingship found in the Teaching for King , an Egyptian literary text set in the First Intermediate Period:

The kingship is an excellent office; It has no son, it has no brother, who can make its monuments endure, Though each man ennobles his successor, And each man acts on behalf of him who preceded him, In hope that his action may be affirmed by another who comes after him.391,392

19

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Votive disc of Enheduana. (a) Alabaster relief, found in the GIPAR, depicting (on its obverse, shown here) the EPN Enheduana officiating in a ritual.393 (b) Close-up of Enheduana (2nd figure from left). University of Pennsylvania Museum of Arch- aeology and Anthropology, object B16665. Photo courtesy of Penn Museum, available via the Ur Online database,394 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

From these considerations, it should come as no surprise to find that both types of priestess were routinely shown crowned: the EPN wearing the circlet of the AGA- crown (Figs. 4b & 6), the GWA wearing the vulture head-dress (Fig. 7; an emblem of queenship), the twin-plumed crown of Amun(-Re) (Fig. 8) and, at times, the kingly uraeus (Table 6, Iconography). In addition, depictions of the EPN usually show her enthroned (Fig. 6). Shepenwepet II is likewise shown enthroned in a scene at North Karnak;395 this GWA seems to have celebrated a sed-festival and other rites that were ordinarily the exclusive preserve of the king (Table 6, Cultic roles and Iconography).

It is significant that the deities to which the two High Priestesses were consecrated – Nanna/Sin, a lunar deity, and Amun(-Re), a solar one – were closely linked with kingship. It is well known that, from the New Kingdom onward, the king of Egypt was considered to be the son of Amun, who in turn had taken on all the properties of the sun-god, Re (Table 2, Role & Astronomical identity). It is perhaps less widely appreciated that, in Mesopotamia, Nanna/Sin was not just a god of fertility but was also the guarantor of the political order, and especially of royal power (Table 2, Role). As Tamara Green has observed, from Ur III to the Neo-Babylonian period,

20

Fig. 5. Karomama Meritmut, Divine Adoratrice of . 396 Museum N500. It has been described as “an exceptional piece of work, known by everybody, used to illustrate many developments about Egyptian civilization.”397 In the academic literature, Karomama (Dynasty 22) is often treated as a full GWA.398 Her tomb was discovered in 2014. 399 Photograph by Miguel Hermoso Cuesta, available via Wikimedia Commons,400 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

21

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Unidentified EPN, Ur III period.401 Louvre Museum AO 23995. Images © 2007 Photo RMN / Franck Raux, online via the Louvre, reproduced by permission.402

“everywhere we find close ties between the institution of kingship and ‘Father Nanna, lord of the shining crown,’ whose crescent shape was transformed into a mitre, the symbol of the royal crown.”403 Some differences in how the EPN and GWA engaged with Nanna and Amun(-Re), and identified with their divine consorts Ningal and Mut, respectively, are explored below in the section titled Cult and Ritual.

22

Fig. 7. A Nubian GWA. “Sandstone relief of a divine consort,” probably the GWA Amenirdis I or Shepenwepet II. Fitzwilliam Museum E.GA.4542.1943, © The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.404 Image reproduced here under licence.405

23

Fig. 8. Amenirdis I. Detail of wall scene from a GWA mortuary chapel, Medinet Habu. Photo by Neithsabes, derivative work (colour correction) by JMCC1, available via Wikimedia Commons,406 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

24 Subsequent to the appointment of Enheduana, a newly-nominated EPN was usually the daughter of the current king, although at times – as, for example, with Enanedu – she could be the sister of the current king (Table 3, Pedigree; Fig. 9). Likewise, after the appointment of Shepenwepet I, the daughter of each new Egyptian king (with a few exceptions)407 was designated as heiress to the incumbent GWA (Table 4, Pedigree; Fig. 10), although she was often not elevated to GWA until the subsequent reign of one of her brothers.408 The details of succession in Egypt and Mesopotamia will be discussed later in the sections titled Succession and Survival. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that each office continued to operate as an extension and outpost of kingship. This is especially clear in the case of Egypt (Table 4, Additional/special motivations). Accordingly, some time around 740, the first Nubian king of Egypt – Kashta – is believed to have installed his daughter Amenirdis (Fig. 8) as heiress to Shepenwepet I.409 Since this achievement legitimized the Nubian takeover of Thebes, it constituted for Kashta “the key moment in the process of the extension of Kushite power over Egyptian territories.”410 Equally, the designation of Nitocris as heiress to the position of GWA bolstered the southern power of the Saite dynasty (Dynasty 26), kings of Libyan descent411 who ruled from the Delta and whose state had begun as Assyrian vassalship. In Mesopotamia, the value of the EN-priestess as

... a useful and powerful political tool was not lost on the Ur III and Isin kings. These expanded the use of this institution even further, creating additional priestesses. During these particular periods, there existed three separate en priestesses of Nanna (at Ur, Karzida/Gaesh, and Urum respectively), as well as those of Enlil, Enki and Ningublaga.412

More needs to be said about the political dimension of the EPN and GWA than is appropriate for this introductory section. Accordingly, the theme will be reprised below in the section titled Power and Prosperity, which deals more fully with the role of the High Priestess as a spiritual and economic leader of her community.

The expansion of the number of EPNs in the Ur III period set up an enduring point of contrast between the office of EPN and that of GWA, insofar as, at any time thereafter, the EPN at Ur was likely to have counterparts at secondary temples elsewhere in Babylonia (Table 6, Concurrency). In contrast, the GWA at Thebes was invariably the only such office-bearer in Egypt. We should, however, be aware

Fig. 9 (next page). Genealogy of the EPNs during the peak period of the office (Akkad to Larsa dynasties). EPNs are indicated in salmon-coloured capitals. Queens’ names are given in black italics. Kings and the date-spans for their reigns are from van de Mieroop.413 All dates should be regarded as approximate. For the proposed termini to Enheduana’s reign, see ahead to her entry in Table 8 and footnotes thereto. Relationship data for comes from Hallo & Simpson414 and Emelianov.415

25

26

Fig. 10. Genealogy of the GWAs during the peak period of the office (Dynasties 23-26). Heiresses/adoptees are indicated in blue type; those that took office as GWA are shown in capitals. Queens’ names are given in black italics.416 Date-spans in black are from Ayad and Kitchen;417 those for kings give their reigns, while those for GWAs typically cover the year of their adoption as heiress to the presumed year of retirement or death, whichever is the sooner. Date-spans in brown are from Dodson;418 for GWA candidates, date of adoption as heiress in regular type, term as GWA (excluding retirement, if any) in bold type. GWA date- spans in grey (using the same format) are from Koch (2012 & 2014).419 The tree follows the traditional filiation for Shabaqo () and Shebitqo (Shabataka), as set forth by Ayad (2009a), whereas Dodson has Shebitqo as a son of Shabaqo;420 new considerations even favour reversing the order of their reigns.421 HPA, High Priest of Amun, date from Dodson.422 Pre-Dynasty 26 dates are approximate.

27 that – both in Mesopotamia and in Egypt – additional princesses were sometimes installed as High Priestesses of other gods at other cities. Thus, as well as installing his daughter Enmenana as EPN at Ur, Sargon’s grandson Naram-Sin “expanded this policy by placing several of his daughters as high priestesses of prominent cults in other Babylonian cities, a clear attempt to gain a solid foothold throughout the region.”423 For example, he appointed his daughter Tutanapshum as EN-priestess of Enlil.424 Similarly, in Dynasty 26 of Egypt, Merytnebes – a daughter of Psamtek II, and thus a sister of the GWA Ankhnesneferibre – served as a God’s Wife of Heryshaf at Heracleopolis (Table 6, Concurrency).425 Like the more important office of GWA, the position at Heracleopolis was occupied by just one woman at a time, and the incumbent enjoyed the use of an estate.

Besides the presence of subordinate EPNs at secondary temples, another point of distinction between the EPN at Ur and the GWA is that the former was the head of the priesthood of Nanna and answerable only to the king, whereas the latter was the Second Priest of Amun in an institution led by the High Priest of Amun (HPA), who traditionally was male. However, the powers of the GWA increased over the course of Dynasties 25-26 to the extent that they eclipsed those of the HPA. Indeed, late in Dynasty 26, the title of HPA was absorbed by the office of GWA (Table 4, Position...). This topic too will be reprised in greater detail in the section titled Power and Prosperity.

Finally, we must consider the most unusual characteristic shared by the EPN and GWA: the designation of these High Priestesses as “wives of the god.” This defining feature of the two offices is the subject of the next section.

Spouse or Servant?

The Egyptian term Hm.t nTr embodies an important ambiguity, insofar as Hm.t can mean either “female servant” or “woman/wife.” In the context of Hm.t nTr n(.t) Imn.w (God’s Wife of Amun), conclusive support for the latter meaning is provided by the hieroglyphic orthography, which distinguishes between the two categories: , the form of Hm.t nTr observed in inscriptions,426 denotes the wife of a god, whereas the other writing of Hm.t nTr, , would signify a female servant of the deity.427 In addition, we have depictions of some late GWAs, such as the Dynasty 25 incumbents Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II (Fig. 7), embracing Amun in manner wholly unbefitting a servant. However, the identical phonology does beg the question of whether the matrimonial dimension of this priestly office might not be a later extension to an originally prosaic role; after all, Hm.t nTr ( ) is just the

female counterpart of Hm nTr ( , “servant of the god”), the well-known title usually translated as “priest “or “prophet.”428 The complementary term Hm nTr.t is poorly attested; at Dendera, a type of priest in the cult of Hathor who participated in ritual processions is so titled,429 but he is clearly nothing more than “le serviteur de la déesse.”430 The inverse term h(A)y nTr.t (“husband of the goddess”) does not seem to be attested at all.

As we shall see, similar complexities attend the Mesopotamian situation. Enheduana titled herself “the ZIRRU of Nanna and the DAM (spouse) of Nanna” (Fig. 11).431 Enanepada called herself “the EN-priestess of Nanna, the ZIRRU of Nanna and the

28

Fig. 11. Detail of the surviving inscription on the reverse of Enheduana’s disc (for obverse, see Fig. 4), with mark-up. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, object B16665. Base photo courtesy of Penn Museum, available via the Ur Online database,432 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Mark-up (black-on- white symbols, grey transliteration & translation) shows matches of inscribed glyphs to those in a standard Sumerian sign-list;433 DIRI-compounds are deconstructed in dark red text.434 The complete inscription survives in an Old Babylonian copy.435

[DA]M of Nanna;”436 and Enanatuma referred to herself as “the ZIRRU of Nanna and EN-priestess of Nanna in Ur.”437 While admitting that the etymology of ZIRRU is unknown, Piotr Steinkeller contends that the components of this DIRI- compound438 specify “faithful woman of Nanna,” an epithet that he considers more appropriate to a servant rather than a spouse.439 He believes that, in the southern Babylonian tradition, the High Priest of a goddess such as Inanna or was a male consort (EN or šennu) of the deity, whereas the High Priestesses of male deities (EREŠ-DINGIR, MUNUS-ZI, ZIRRU, etc.) were merely attendants or companions of the god.440 In contrast, the northern Babylonian tradition provided male deities with female consorts in the form of DAM.DINGIR priestesses.441 Steinkeller proposes that the southern (Sumerian) and northern (Semitic) traditions converged to create the EN-priestess who was a god’s wife, and that the first holder of such an office in southern Babylonia was Enheduana.442 As the daughter of an Akkadian king serving a male god in a Sumerian temple, she certainly combined the requisite credentials for such an innovation. If Enheduana was indeed the first EPN, then any Early Dynastic representations of High Priestesses of Nanna at Ur must be interpreted as ZIRRUs (attendants) rather than as EN-priestesses (consorts).443

29 In (sometimes heated) opposition to Steinkeller, Joan Westenholz argues that there is no evidence from the Early Dynastic period for the religious male EN (i.e., the consort of a goddess) as a Southern Babylonian tradition.444 She contends that the concept of the High Priestess as a “god’s wife” was in fact an indigenous Sumerian tradition, supported by evidence from the Early Dynastic period (Table 1, Precurs- ors); accordingly, she does not see Semitic input in the concept of EN-priestess.445

The progression in the titulary of the EPN from the Akkadian to Old Babylonian periods has been examined independently by Westenholz and Steinkeller;446 from their analyses, it is clear that the title EN progressively gains in importance, subsumes the wifely function, and eventually replaces the other titles. Accordingly, during the Larsa dynasty, the titulary of both Enmegalana447 and Enanedu448 is simply “EN-priestess of Nanna” (Fig. 12). That the latter still considered herself the spouse of Nanna is evident from her coy self-description as the “ornament of the AGRUN,” or sacred bedroom.449

Gender Issues

As the wife of an important male deity and “ornament of the sacred bedroom,” one might expect an emphasis on the femininity of both types of High Priestess. Yet – paradoxically – inscriptions written by EPNs indicate that “these women sometimes assume a masculine gender,”450 and the GWAs too were sometimes treated as if they were male.

In archaic Mesopotamia, the Sumerian term EN designated the ruler of a city, and since EN-ship “constituted a normative form of kingship in archaic Babylonia,” the term originally applied exclusively to males.451 In its later use as a title for the top priestly office, by which time the king had become known as the LUGAL or ,452 the term EN was gender-neutral.453 Despite this ambiguity, it seems that the early scholars who translated the Sumerian inscriptions from Ur assumed that many of the EPNs mentioned therein were male; accordingly, we read of “En-anni-pada, priest of Nannar, son of Ur-Bau;”454 and are told that “for the life of Ur- [...] his father, the en-nirgal-anna, the priest of Nannar, his beloved [son], has dedicated (this);”455 in the same vein, we later encounter “Enannatum, the priest beloved of Nannar, priest of Nannar in Ur, son of Ishme-Dagan.”456 That the translators genuinely took these EPNs to be men is suggested by not just by the gender of translated terms (e.g., “priest,” “son,” “his”) and of interpolated ones (e.g., “[son]” for Enirgalana) but by editorial comments such as the footnote “Eginabtum-ku is a sacred store-house [...] built by Enannatum son of Ishme-Dagan.”457

Much of the responsibility for such early misattributions of gender may be attributed to the use of the Sumerian filiation term DUMU, which (in the absence of the female qualifier MUNUS) came to mean “son” but which originally – in the archaic period – could refer equally to either a son or a daughter.458 Enheduana styled herself the DUMU of Sargon, and was so called by members of her staff. By this she may not have intended to be seen as masculine, although the surprising absence of EMESAL – a women’s dialect of Sumerian used in literary compositions459 – from her writings460 could hint that she did wish to adopt a male

30 (a)

(b)

Fig. 12. Dedicatory cone of Enanedu. (a) Whole inscription on inscribed head of fired clay cone. (b) Detail of first two lines (top of left column, line nos. in green), with transcript (yellow background);461 mark-up as for Fig. 11.462 British Museum 130729.463 Photo © Trustees of the British Museum, reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.464

31 persona. She was, after all, a devotee of her father’s patron goddess, Inanna/Ishtar (Table 6, Politicization), “a female deity to whom male power and dominance were also attributed;” indeed, in one of her hymns, Enheduana was moved to exclaim that the power “to turn [...] a woman into a man are yours, Inanna.”465 Mary Wakeman notes Enheduana’s personal identification with the gender-fluid Inanna when, speaking of the priestess’s successful return to the GIPAR after a period of exile, she mentions “her claim to have been restored by (or even as) Inanna.”466

Whether or not Enheduana wished to project a male persona, her later successors appear to have interpreted her use of DUMU in precisely this way.467 From the Ur III to Isin/Larsa periods, retention of the unqualified term DUMU for the filiation of EPNs does seem to have acquired masculine connotations; for example, Enanedu not only calls herself the DUMU of her father, Kudur-Mabuk, but the ŠEŠ – brother! – of her sibling, king Warad-Sin. In an independent inscription she again describes herself as ŠEŠ rather than NIN (sister) to Warad-Sin.468 It would seem, therefore, that a tradition that may have begun as a linguistic archaism developed a life and meaning of its own, with the EPNs being seen as notionally masculine. In the patriarchal world of the Ancient Near East, it is easy to imagine such “maleness” being construed as a reflection of the power and prestige of their position.469

As seen above in the section titled Spouse or Servant?, the title Hm.t nTr (God’s Wife) is unambiguously feminine and its bearers were all women. Despite this, the foundation charter of the office of GWA – the Donation Stele of Ahmose (Dynasty 18) – decrees as follows:

[I have given] the office of the second priest of Amun to the god’s wife, great royal wife, she united to the beauty of the white crown, Ahmose-Nofretari, may she live! [It] was done for her in an imyt-per, from son to son, heir to heir [without allowing a challenge] against it by anyone forever and ever.” [...]

Then the majesty of this god said: [this appears to be an oracle coming from the portable bark of Amun] ‘I am her protector. A challenge to her shall not occur forever by any king who shall arise in the following of future generations. But only the god’s wife Nefertary. It belongs to her from son to son forever and ever in accordance with her office of god’s wife.’470

The reference to the office of God’s Wife being passed “from son to son” presumably reflects the male-oriented legal terms of the im.yt pr.w deed, which was the standard means of transferring property outside the usual lines of inheritance.471 Accordingly, each new GWA played the role of dutiful “eldest son” by establishing and maintaining the mortuary cult for her successor,472 since in so doing she actually legitimated her own succession.473 The inscriptions of Shepenwepet I (Dynasty 23-24) mention only her biological mother, perhaps because – at the time of her appointment – there was no incumbent GWA to adopt her. 474 Karomama Meritmut (Fig. 5) was probably no longer alive,475 and in any case formal adoption may not have become the norm until later;476 some scholars think it began only when Amenirdis I adopted Shepenwepet II as her heiress,477 although Cairo Museum statue CG 42198 identifies the same Amenirdis with the phrase “her mother being the Divine Adoratrice Shepenwepet, justified,”478 and inscriptions on the mortuary chapel of Shepenwepet II do likewise.479 In Dynasty 26, the Adoption Stele of Nitocris renewed the covenant; it too was an im.yt pr.w deed (Table 4, Notable decrees).

32

Although this stele refrains from referring to the God’s Wives and their heiresses as “sons,” Amenirdis II is referred to obliquely as an heir (masc.) in “his seat.”480 The stele also uses a phrase that Betsy Bryan construes as suggesting a notional sonship between successive GWAs (Table 6, Representation...).481 Accordingly, she writes that “Nitocris may be understood to be now claiming a male-type filiation from Amenirdis II, who likewise claims it from Shepenwepet II.”482

Hatshepsut served both as a GWA and a king, and to facilitate the latter role she ultimately assumed a male identity. However, it seems that she relinquished the position of GWA – which had actually provided her favourite title – in favour of her daughter when she ascended the throne as co-regent to Thutmose III (Table 3, Better-known incumbents; Table 6, Concurrency). However, the Late phase GWAs managed to combine elements of the two roles by co-opting kingly rituals for their own purposes; in so doing, they naturally projected a more masculine persona. Their investiture involved “accession and coronation rites similar to those for a pharaoh”483 (for details, see Table 6, Training and installation), and by Dynasty 26 the GWAs enjoyed “regal status practically indistinguishable from that of the pharaoh”484 (Table 6, Representation...). The Nubian GWA Shepenwepet II is the only non-king (and the only non-male besides Hatshepsut)485 to have been publicly shown performing the rituals known as the Driving of the Four Calves (shown ahead in Fig. 22) and the Striking of the Meret-Chests (Table 6, Cultic roles); in undertaking the former, “Shepenwepet assumes the role of the ultimate good son, who not only buried his father, but faithfully protected his tomb.”486 It seems that Shepenwepet even held a sed-festival (Table 6, Cultic roles and Iconography),487 normally a jubilee reserved strictly for the king. The death of Nitocris is recorded using phraseology that appears to equate her with the pharaoh, and explicitly states that “her daughter [...] did for her everything which is done for every beneficent king”488 (Table 6, Representation...).

In the sacerdotal domain, we should note that the title “High Priest of Amun” was left in its masculine form, Hm nTr tp.y n(.y) Imn.w, when it was conferred upon Ankhnesneferibre in 585.489 Perhaps the intention was to emphasise that she was not merely the “High Priestess of Amun” (and thus potentially still Second Priest of Amun under a male HPA, as was traditional for the GWA) but in fact the head of the entire priesthood. Either way, the practice adds to the gender distortion already noted.

The (presumably inadvertent) masculinisation of the GWA that arose from the legal terminology of its charter documents as well as the appropriation of male-only royal rituals and masculine priestly titles was counteracted head-on by further appropriations. In addition to wearing crowns of femininity and queenship,490 the GWA adopted feminized forms of kingly titles. From at least Dynasty 20, her prenomen had appeared in a cartouche (Table 6, Representation...), but from Dynasty 22 onward she was styling herself Daughter of Re, Mistress of the Two Lands and Mistress of Appearances/ Crowns.491 In Dynasty 25, Shepenwepet II frequently presented herself as the “Female Horus”492 or even the “Female Re.”493 An unambiguously feminine persona was presumably essential for someone who dared to portray herself in public imagery as being sexually intimate with Amun

33 (Table 6, Iconography). Moreover, “Female Horus” presented her as the female counterpart of the reigning king,494 a counterpoise that – in Kushite thinking – was essential for legitimate rule.495 These provocative titles were nevertheless retained by Shepenwepet’s Saite successors.496

Residence and Remembrance

The temenos of Ur refers to the raised sacred precinct of that city, which was surrounded by a wall (Fig. 13). In its north-western corner stood the , which was surrounded by its own walled enclosure, the resulting courtyard being called the ETEMENNIGURU.497 Within this, immediately to the north-west of the ziggurat, stood the Shrine of Nanna.498 Attached to the outside of the north-eastern wall of the ETEMENNIGURU was another enclosure containing the Court of Nanna (Fig. 13).499 The complex of sacred buildings within the temenos, including the ziggurat, formed the EKISHNUGAL or Temple of Nanna (Fig. 13).500

The GIPAR (EGIPAR, GIPARU, GIGPARKU) was the residence of the EPN; it was located within the temenos, south-east of the ziggurat enclosure wall (Table 6, Residence; Figs. 13 & 14). As with the ziggurat, the four corners of what survives of the GIPAR are oriented to the cardinal points of the compass.501 Originally the term may have meant a storehouse, in allusion to the fructifying role of the sacred marriage between Nanna and the EN-priestess (Table 6, Sacred marriage).502 The site was discovered and excavated in 1924-5 by the joint British Museum/Univers- ity of Pennsylvania team led by Sir .503 While it is likely that the EPN’s residence (section A, Fig. 13) and the Temple of Ningal (section C, Fig. 13) were originally separate,504 the Ur III GIPAR incorporated the Temple of Ningal in its south-eastern half.* Areas C7 and C27 formed the temple’s courtyard and shrine, respectively, the latter housing the cult statue (Fig. 15).505 Adjacent to room C27 was the AGRUN or sacred bedroom, a small room (C28) containing a large bed dais/bench/platform.506 Following the fall of Ur in ca. 2003, Enanatuma of Isin rebuilt the GIPAR to the Ur III plan (Fig. 16; see ahead to Survival). After the peak period of the EPN had passed (Table 5, Hiatuses), renovations by the Kassite king Kurigalzu replaced the original Ningal temple with a new one (Fig. 17) on the inside face of the south-eastern wall of the ziggurat enclosure or ETEMENNIGURU, whereupon the old temple area was absorbed into the residential footprint of the GIPAR.507 By the end of the Neo-Babylonian period, the GIPAR had been relocated north-east and had fused with the EDUBLALMAH (Fig. 13).508

It is likely that the cemetery of the EPNs was originally outdoors and was later built over with living areas B18-B26 of the larger Ur III-Isin/Larsa GIPAR (Fig. 13), the tombs remaining accessible in corbel-vaulted crypts.509 By the end of the Larsa dynasty, the buildings over the tomb complex had apparently collapsed and the tombs were once again outdoors.510 Enanedu re-enclosed this “place of the Hall- that-brings-bitterness”511 and secured additional burial space for future burials (Table 6, Building program and Mortuary cult),512 perhaps by extending the existing crypts further toward the centre of the GIPAR to include the area under rooms B14-B17.513 The mortuary chapels for deceased EPNs were probably in the

* See, however, the Postscript added in 2019 at the end of this paper.

34

Fig. 13. Temenos of Ur in the Ur III-Isin/Larsa period. The GIPAR – residence of the EPN – is highlighted in green. Leonard Woolley’s map (from Ur Excavations 6, Pl. 53), online courtesy of Penn Museum, 514 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Some Sumerian names have undergone revision since Woolley’s time, so for Dungi read Shulgi; for Bur-Sin, Amar-Sin; Nannar, Nanna; Gig-par-ku, GIPAR. Apart from the green overlay, coloured elements are additions to the original image by the present author.515 An artist’s reconstruction of the temenos from this period can be viewed online.516 As a pop-culture aside, we might note that Woolley’s discoveries at Ur provided the backdrop for Agatha Christie’s detective novel Murder in Mesopotamia,517 featuring Hercule Poirot, which was televised in 2001/2;518 Christie herself went on to marry Woolley’s assistant, who later became Prof. Sir Max Mallowan.519

35

Fig. 14. Present-day view from the ziggurat of Ur, looking south-east over the temenos. In the middle distance, the excavated remains of the EHURSAG are just left of centre in photo; slightly nearer the ziggurat, at far right of photo, is what remains of the north-eastern portion of the Temple of Ningal within the Ur III-Isin/Larsa GIPAR. In foreground at far left of photo stands the stump of the EDUBLALMAH, the Place of Judgement, which granted access through the enclosure wall of the temenos to the sacred precinct within. Photograph by Aziz1005, available via Wikimedia Commons,520 reproduced here under licence CC BY 3.0.

36 (a) (b)

Fig. 15. The Temple of Ningal.* (a) Ground-plan of section C of the Ur III-Isin/Larsa GIPAR, rotated 90° clockwise relative to orientation shown in Fig. 13. After the 1926 original reproduced by Weadock.521 The red asterisk marks the position of the viewer for the next panel. (b) Recreation of the Temple of Ningal in the GIPAR of the Ur III-Isin/Larsa period; view from the position of the red asterisk in the previous panel, looking through the courtyard (C7) into the shrine (C27, within which stands the cult statue). After a 1927 line-drawing by Algernon Stuart (“Algy”) Whitburn;522 the colour scheme is purely conjectural.

* See, however, the Postscript added in 2019 at the end of this paper.

37

(a)

(b)

Fig. 16. Brick bearing inscription of Enanatuma. (a) Entire brick, (b) close- up of inscription. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Museum No. 84-26-14. Photos courtesy of Penn Museum,523 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

38

(a)

(b)

Fig. 17. Brick bearing inscription of Kurigalzu. (a) Entire brick, (b) close- up of inscription. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Museum No. B16477. Photos courtesy of Penn Museum,524 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

39 Temple of Ningal;525 they housed elaborate cult statues, through which the EPNs were believed to live on (Table 3, Notable decrees; Table 6, Mortuary cult). Food offerings and libations were made to deceased EPNs by GUDU-priests in the relevant mortuary chapel526 and/or at their graves,527 probably daily, plus monthly (at the New Moon and Full Moon festivals) and on other holidays.528

In Egypt, the Late phase GWAs were until recently thought to have lived and been buried in the mortuary temple complex of Ramses III at Medinet Habu (Table 6, Residence). This compound (Fig. 18) is located on the west bank of the at Thebes, across the river from the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak and the associated Temple of Mut in south Karnak. By the late New Kingdom, the fortified complex of Medinet Habu had become the main administrative centre for the western part of Thebes.529 It contained a palace that had originally been designed to provide temporary accommodation for the king but had later been remodelled as the residence of a succession of priestly governors; it was therefore presumed that the final occupants of this palace were the GWAs of Dynasties 23-26.530 While these GWAs and/or their staff may have made some use of the palace at Medinet Habu, a “Residential Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices” has recently been identified at North Karnak, in the area of the modern village of Naga Malgata (Fig. 19).

The residential quarter at Naga Malgata seems with some certainty to have contained the primary domicile of the Saite GWAs, Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre, and probably those of their Nubian predecessors as well, allowing it to be seen as an important “dynastic residence.”531 Specifically, the ruins of very large building associated with Ankhnesneferibre that were discovered in 1924 (gazetted as a Temple of Osiris Pameres,532 but since mostly destroyed) had a similar

Fig. 18 Map of Medinet Habu – location of mortuary chapels for GWAs of Dynasties 24- 26. Also marked (blue square) is the Governor’s Palace, which until recently was thought to be the residence of the GWAs. Mortuary chapels with extant superstructures are shown in black, while the ground-plans of former buildings in the chapel complex are shown in grey. The complex is shown enlarged at right,533 numbered in blue and dedicated as follows. 1. Possibly Shepenwepet I.534 2. Amenirdis I. 3. Nitocris I. 4. Shepenwepet II. 5. Mehet- nusekhet, biological mother of Amenirdis I. To the north-west (and adjacent to 5), possibly a mud-brick out-house for the storage of cult items or the purification of priests.535

40

Fig. 19 Map of North Karnak – location of the GWA residential quarter and the GWA- sponsored Osirian chapels.536 RQDA, “Residential Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices” for the Saite (and probably Nubian) GWAs at North Karnak, modern Naga Malgata. The ground- plan of the residence/palace of Ankhnesneferibre is shown enlarged at left.537 Osirian chapels built and/or extended by GWAs of Dynasties 24-26 are numbered in blue and were dedicated as follows. 1: Osiris, who Perpetually Gives Life (Wsir pA Dd anx), Dynasties 25-26 (depicting Taharqo, Amenirdis I/II, Shepenwepet II; Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre). 538 2: Osiris- Onnophris, Lord of Offerings (Wsir-Wnnfr nb DfA.w), Dynasty 26 (depicting Amasis and Ankhnesneferibre).539 3: Osiris, Lord of Life/He Who Answers the Distressed (Wsir nb anx / pA wSb iAd), Dynasty D25 (depicting Taharqo, Shepenwepet II and Amenirdis I).540 4: Osiris- Onnophris in the Persea Tree (Wsir-Wnnfr Hry-ib pA iSd), Dynasty 25 (depicting Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II).541 5: Osiris, Ruler of Eternity (Wsir HqA Dt), Dynasty 24-25 (depicting Osorkon III, Takelot III, Shepenwepet I; Shebitqo and Amenirdis I).542 Blue asterisks (*) mark other Osirian chapels built by/for the GWAs of Dynasties 25-26.543

configuration and size to the house (pr.w) that was built for Nitocris by her first High Steward, Ibi, as described in his statue inscription (Table 5, Hiatuses).544 The inscription suggests that there was a traditional design for the GWA’s equivalent of the EPN’s GIPAR (Fig. 19, enlargement box), so Ankhnesneferibre may either have rebuilt the palace of Nitocris in situ or built herself a new one to the same design close by, at the site excavated in 1924.545 Ibi specifies that the “house” and its

41 associated temples (probably chapels) were embellished with gold, silver and jewels and adorned with gem-inlaid silver statues of Psamtek and Nitocris, so clearly this precinct was in fact a palace complex. The nearby ruins of a columned building associated with Nitocris are likely to be the remains of her wabet (from Egyptian wab.t, “pure place”), since Ibi also mentions building such a structure for her near her residence.546 The precinct included the Harem of Amun, in which lived the “recluses” and female musicians that formed part of the GWA’s staff; indeed, the “Harem of the [Divine] Adoratrice” remained a toponym at the site into Ptolemaic times.547

The GWAs also built and dedicated chapels to Osiris in North and East Karnak (Figs. 19 & 20).548 Their northern location means that the chapels are not far from the “residential quarter of the Divine Adoratrices” just discussed, which of course was in North Karnak. In these Osirian chapels, the sponsoring GWA is typically portrayed serving and being blessed by the gods alongside the cognate king. Her predecessor is also commemorated in the visual program. In Ur, too, some EPNs built chapels (Table 6, Building program); those of which we know were built to honour gods other than Nanna or Ningal and were “dedicated for the life of” the reigning king. As attested by several clay cone/nail fragments, Enanatuma built a chapel (the EHILI, the Charming House or House of Luxuriance, described as a “shining storehouse”) to the sun-god Utu, son of Nanna, and dedicated it for the life of king Gungunum and possibly for her own life as well.549 The EHILI has not been discovered in the archaeological record, so its location is unknown; it may simply have been an annex within the Temple of Nanna or Temple of Ningal.550 Similarly attested at Ur is another shining storehouse named the E-ESHMEDAGALA (House: Shrine of the Broad MEs), which Enanatuma also built for the god Dagan551 and dedicated for the life of the same king.552 Interestingly, Enanatuma’s chapels at Ur – like the Osirian GWA chapels at Karnak – are dedicated to male gods other than the consort of the High Priestess and pointedly link their sponsor with the current king. The dedication of these chapels at Ur will be revisited in the section titled Survival. In the meantime, let us return our attention to Thebes.

As mentioned above, it has long been thought that the Late phase GWAs were buried at Medinet Habu, since this is where their mortuary chapels were and where many Chantresses of Amun associated with those GWAs were interred.553 The Small Temple554 at Medinet Habu (Fig. 18) was the site of the mound of creation that contained the primordial deities, and was therefore visited every ten days by the cult statue of Amun that resided in the Great Temple at Karnak.555 The mound also contained a tomb of Osiris, with whom Amun(-Re) was identified in his nightly journey as the sun-god.556 In the words of Gay Robins, “the link between Amun and Medinet Habu, and the potential for regeneration residing in the mound, made the site an ideal burial place for the god’s wives of Amun, where they would participate in the regular renewal of their god and so achieve rebirth for themselves.”557 The mortuary chapels of some of these GWAs still stand in the forecourt of Ramses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Table 6, Mortuary cult); they are located close to the main gate in the south-eastern enclosure wall, facing the Small Temple and its

42

Fig. 20. Chapel of Osiris, Lord of Life/He Who Answers the Distressed (Wsir nb anx / pA wSb iAd). Chapel at North Karnak (Fig. 19, no. 3), dedicated by Shepenwepet II and Taharqo. In symmetrically opposed scenes on the chapel’s exterior, the God’s Wife (right half) mirrors the king (left half) in attitude and activity.558 The right half of the lintel shows (from left to right) Shepenwepet II presenting milk to Ptah and then Amenirdis I being embraced by Hathor. 559 The right hand door-jamb shows Shepenwepet II being embraced by Isis. 560 Photograph by Neithsabes, alias Sebi, available via Wikimedia Commons;561 public domain.

43 important cult sites (Figs. 18 & 21-24).562 However, it now seems likely that these chapels did not contain the actual tombs. For Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre, these are now attributed to Deir el Medina (pits 2005 and 2003, respectively),563 which is located midway between Medinet Habu and the Ramesseum. The tombs of their Nubian predecessors have not yet been located; they may even have been buried in their homeland.564

The mortuary chapels at Medinet Habu were Hw.wt- (“precincts of the ka”), most likely miniature temples intended to house the cult statues of deceased GWAs.565 The nested tent-shrine and courtyard structure of the chapel of Amenirdis I (Figs. 18, 22-23) would have supported a processional circuit, possibly for her cult statue,566 the route being adorned with extracts from the Opening of the Mouth ritual, Solar Hymns and .567 Carola Koch posits the chapel as conceptually and chronologically intermediate between a Temple of Millions of Years and the solar courtyard of the Graeco-Roman wabet.568 The decoration of the funerary chapels revives the traditional scene (abandoned in the Third Intermediate Period) in which the deceased is shown seated before a laden offering-table, witnessing priests performing the funerary ritual on their behalf. The GWAs are typically shown “in the archaising costume of a mid Eighteenth Dynasty queen”569 (Figs. 7-8 & 22; Table 6, Iconography). In keeping with the new view of these structures as a temples rather than tombs, the crypts lack access shafts/stairs570 and the visual programs of the superstructures involve both the deceased GWAs and their living successors and benefactors.571

In overview, then, it seems that both the EPNs and GWAs lived in palaces very near the temples that were the focus of their ritual activities (Table 6, Residence). The GWAs built and extended free-standing chapels (mainly dedicated to Osiris) between the main temple and their residential quarter; the EPNs seem to have focused their building activities on their residence, the GIPAR (Table 6, Building program), but at least one EPN built and dedicated chapels with characteristics analogous to those built by the GWAs. The EPNs were buried adjacent to or within the GIPAR, while the GWAs were seemingly interred on the opposite bank of the Nile to their palace at North Karnak, consistent with the Egyptian custom of burial in the west, or – for non-Egyptian incumbents – were perhaps repatriated to their homeland. Deceased EPNs and GWAs were both believed to live on in statues, which were enshrined in the local area and were the subject of regular offerings and rituals.

Cult and Ritual

The EPN and GWA had similar cultic roles (Table 6, Cultic roles). After ritual ablutions to purify themselves, they entered the sanctuary; there they entertained and honoured the god(s) in ritual, music and song, and offered food, drink and precious goods to the cult statues. They accompanied cult statues, the senior priests and sometimes the king in ritual processions. They interceded with the gods on behalf of the king and with the king on behalf of the gods (e.g., for GWA, Fig. 20).

44

Fig. 21. Facades of the GWA mortuary chapels at Medinet Habu. At left is the chapel of Amenirdis I.572 Photograph by Rémih, available via Wikimedia Commons,573 reproduced here under licence CC-BY-SA-3.0.

They built, maintained and dedicated temples and shrines, commissioning statues. They provided for the temple personnel.

One cultic difference between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian situation is that the focus of the EPN was upon Ningal, the goddess whom she embodied or represented, rather than on Nanna himself (Table 6, Deity focused upon). In the heyday of the office, the Temple of Ningal lay beside or within the GIPAR, the EPN’s residence (described in the previous section; Figs. 13 & 15), and served as the focus of her ritual activities.* In Egypt, the reverse situation seems to have obtained. Although most GWA throne-names incorporate Mut (Table 6, Throne-name/prenomen), the ritual activities of the GWA seem to have been focused upon Amun(-Re). For example, reliefs thought to have adorned the GWA’s residential palace at Naga Malgata are “mostly centred on the God’s Wife and her relation to Amun and the Heliopolitan gods,”574 and Amun(-Re) was the principal deity worshipped at Medinet Habu,575 where the GWAs built their memorial chapels. Mut was largely supplanted in GWA-sponsored iconography by the GWA herself (Table 6, Deity

* See, however, the Postscript added in 2019 at the end of this paper.

45

Fig. 22. Courtyard of mortuary chapel of Amenirdis I at Medinet Habu, south wall (i.e., outer façade of sanctuary). At top far left, Shepenwepet II is shown Driving the Four Calves before Osiris, Re-Horakhty and a deified Amenirdis I.576 At bottom left, Shepenwepet II offers a hekenou jar to Re-Horakhty, Isis and a deified Amenirdis I.577 Within the first doorway (centre of photo) appears another in quick succession, as the structure consists of one tent-shrine nested within another (see ground-plan in Fig. 23a).578 Photograph by Olaf Tausch, available via Wikimedia Commons,579 reproduced here under licence CC BY 3.0.

focused upon and Iconography), although the equivalence of the two is clouded (or at least softened) by inscriptions that describe the GWA as the daughter of Amun or Mut,580 or as “one beloved of Mut.”581 The former conundrum can be explained by recalling that the GWA’s title of God’s Hand comes from the Heliopolitan tradition, and refers to the hand that (Re-)Atum used to masturbate in order to bring forth the rest of the Ennead (Table 2, Role);582 as prime mover, the God’s Hand is considered to be simultaneously the consort, mother and daughter of the creator-god.583 Consistent with this are attestations from the Third Intermediate Period onwards that describe Mut as the daughter or mother of Amun(-Re), rather than as his consort.584 Viewed in this light, the unexpected filiations of the GWA become less problematic,585 although Carolla Koch has recently argued for a genuine father-

46

Fig. 23. Ambulatory of mortuary chapel of Amenirdis I at Medinet Habu. (a) Ground- plan of the chapel, showing its four-columned courtyard and nested tent-shrine structure.586 The ambulatory is the enclosed space surrounding the inner tent-shrine; the red asterisk within it indicates the presumed position of the photographer, whose northeast-facing view is presented in panel b. (b) View within the ambulatory, presumed to be the north-eastern perspective from the position of the red asterisk in panel a. Photograph by Neithsabes, available via Wikimedia Commons,587 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

daughter (rather than spousal) relationship between Amun and the GWA (Table 6, Sacred marriage).588 The interplay between the priesthoods of Amun and Mut, which is also complex, is addressed later in this section.

As the earthly representative of Ningal and Mut, respectively, both the EPN and GWA had an association with birds. Ningal is linked with UBI-birds, seemingly water-fowl such as ducks, geese and swans. Accordingly, a statue from the Ur GIPAR of a woman seated on a throne flanked by geese may depict Ningal or her earthly representative, the EPN.589 The Egyptian goddess Mut is represented in text by the vulture hieroglyph (meaning “mother”) and in costume by the vulture

47

Fig. 24. View into GWA mortuary chapel complex at Medinet Habu from the north. The façade of the chapel of Amenirdis I is at far left; the doorways to the chapels of Nitocris I and Shepenwepet II are visible at the rear left and centre, respectively, of the internal courtyard.590 To the right of Shepenwepet’s chapel is what remains of the chapel of Mehetnusekhet, the biological mother of Nitocris;591 the superstructure is largely missing. Photograph by Olaf Tausch, available via Wikimedia Commons,592 reproduced here under licence CC BY 3.0.

headdress, the symbol of divine motherhood (Fig. 7),593 although in iconography her main association is with the lioness.594 The passivity of Ningal, who does not have a role independent of her husband Nanna, contrasts with Mut’s role as the great mother and fierce protector of the Egyptian king and his land,595 and this difference is reflected in the animal associations of the two goddesses. Mut, whose savagery is derived from her role as a destructive “Eye of Re,”596 enjoyed considerable independence from Amun, having her own large temple in Thebes (the Isheru, south of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak)597 and chapels throughout Egypt. These were staffed by her own priesthood, who celebrated her rituals and festivals.598 The precise relationship between the priesthood of Mut and the GWA, the representative of Mut on earth, is not entirely clear; a selection of evidence from the Ramesside to Late Periods will be collated in the next paragraph.

In Dynasty 20, an ode to Mut in the precinct of Mut at Karnak provided a theological basis for the office of GWA and praised Isis, the GWA appointed by

48 Ramses VI.599 In the same dynasty, the titles of Amenemope (TT148) reveal substantial overlap between the priesthoods of Amun and Mut, since this individual – like his father before him – was a Third Priest of Amun and the “High Priest of Mut in Isheru.”600 A Dynasty 22 decree of Osorkon suggests that the Temple of Mut in Isheru was (financially, at least) a subsidiary unit of the Temple of Amun at Karnak.601 In Dynasties 22-23, Nespaneferhor I and his son II served as “scribe of the temple of Mut, the great one, the lady of Isheru” while also holding the title “chief scribe of the altar of the estate of Amun.”602 In addition, a First Priest of Amun in Karnak named Neseramun was head of that precinct’s scribes and leader of its instructors, as well as “overseer of the temple scribes of Mut, the great, the lady of Isheru” and “leader of the scribes of the temple treasury” for the temple of Mut.603 During Dynasties 25-26, several Theban officials again held titles in both temples. For example, Ankhefenkhonsu, who held priestly titles related to Amun of Karnak was also “overseer of the shenu of Mut, the great one, the mistress of Isheru;” Djedkhonsu-iwefankh was both a scribe of the Temple of Amun and “lesonis priest of Mut, lady of the sky/Isheru;” and Ankhefenkhons IV, the “overseer of the seal of Mut, the great one, lady of Isheru” was also a senior priest of Amun in Karnak.604 In Dynasty 26, Neskhonsuwennekh – a signatory to the Saite Oracle Papyrus – is both “scribe of the sacred books of the house/temple of Mut” and “overseer of the house of Amun for the first phyle.”605 Likewise Hor, the Third Priest of Amun at Karnak, was also “a scribe of Mut, the great lady of Isheru.” Dual roles of this kind continued until at least Dynasty 30.606 Overall, since it is clear that “Mut’s staff was heavily involved with the Amun precinct” at Karnak, Elaine Sullivan deduces that the Temple of Mut at Isheru was largely “subsumed under the umbrella category of ‘the temple of Amun.’”607 Accordingly, for the Late Period, the GWA was probably the supreme female officiant at the Isheru.608 One GWA – Nitocris I – did in fact build a chapel there.609

Just as the Temple of Mut in Thebes was a essentially a component of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak, so too was the Temple of Ningal a component of the Temple of Nanna in Ur. As mentioned above, the Temple of Ningal lay within the GIPAR, the residence of the EPN, while the other components of the Temple of Nanna were distributed elsewhere around the temenos (Fig. 13). Thus, in both instances, the temple and priesthood of the goddess were incorporated within the larger institution dedicated to her divine husband. The GWA appears to have been the head of the priesthood of Mut and Second Priest of Amun (Table 4, Basic titles) until the time of Harkhebi, the last male High Priest of Amun (HPA) (Fig. 10), after which time the GWA seems also to have become the de facto leader of the priesthood of Amun. In Dynasty 26, the GWA or her heiress was recognised formally as the HPA; the political dimension of this transition is considered in more detail in the next section. In Mesopotamia, the EPN seems always to have been the head of both the priesthood of Nanna and the priesthood of Ningal. The other noteworthy difference – as discussed at the start of this section – is the EPN’s cultic emphasis on the goddess, as opposed to the GWA’s focus on the god.

Both the EPNs and GWAs were commemorated by way of mortuary cults (Table 6, Mortuary cult). Neither type of priestess was usually deified after death, although

49 there were a few exceptions: of the EPNs, Enanatuma and Enmegalana appear in a list of “the gods of the various shrines of the Ningal temple;”610 among the GWAs, a deified Amenirdis I appears in scenes adorning her funerary chapel at Medinet Habu (Table 6, Mortuary cult; Fig. 22).

Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage

Similar academic controversies have attended the sexual, marital and maternal status of both the EPN and the GWA (Table 6, Celibacy & procreation). In Egypt, it is self-evident that early GWAs of the New Kingdom could be married and have children, since many were in fact wives of the king (Table 3, Pedigree). In Mesopotamia, a late omen text speaks of priestesses sinning against their husbands, suggesting that they were allowed to marry; motherhood may still have been forbidden to them, however, as another such text recommends that they adopt a particular contraceptive strategy. It is unclear whether these omen texts reflect the reality of later times, a mis-remembering earlier ones, or both. Of course, none of these considerations bear directly on the circumstances of the EPN and GWA during their respective peak periods. It is to this comparison that we must now return our attention.

Older scholarly literature on the named EPNs portray them as celibate and childless. Much current literature on these women perpetuates the belief in them as unmarried, childless or even virginal, while conceding that human failings meant that individuals sometimes fell short of the ideal.611 Normative behaviour was prescribed in the myth of Atrahasis, which says

Establish high priestesses and priestesses, Let them be taboo, and so cut down childbirth.

In Sargonic legend, the clandestine nature of this hero’s birth to an EN-priestess (if that is indeed the correct reading of her identity)612 provides an example of sexual indiscretion by a High Priestess at the dawn of the Akkadian era, and of the perceived necessity of concealing its consequences.613 Similarly, the GWAs of Dynasties 23-26 are often presumed to have been celibate; much modern literature on the institution perpetuates the belief that Ramses VI (Dynasty 20) had required his daughter Isis to remain unmarried as GWA, and that subsequent GWAs were obliged to followed suit.614 For Anthony Leahy, writing about the GWAs of the Late Period, “the distinctive requirement was one of celibacy.”615 Of course, the political rationale for such celibacy – that it prevented the princesses from engendering alternative dynasties that might contend for the throne616 – was as cogent in Mesopotamia as it was in Egypt.

Accepting the religious strictures of Mesopotamia at face value, Martin Stol argues from Ur III and Old Babylonian laws and customs that “priestesses [...] had to live a pure life [...] All of these women were expected to lead flawless and chaste lives.”617 Accordingly, they were forbidden to bear children or to have sexual relations, often on pain of death. Stol does however concede that children were sometimes born to the top-ranking priestesses (EREŠ-DINGIR) of gods other than 618 Nanna, especially the priestesses of less important gods.

50 Although the older appreciation of the EPN portrayed her as celibate and childless, it did permit her one possible path to conception and motherhood: ritual intercourse with the king, who (in an extension of the archaic concept of the king as the spouse of a goddess) 619 was thought to stand in for Nanna in the sacred marriage rite.620 For example, a hymn claims that the royal line of Ur-Namma – founder of the Ur III dynasty – was secured via an EN-priestess of Nanna from Nippur, on whom he sired Shulgi, his son and heir. Of this legend, Barbara Weadock writes that

the text tells of the gods’ reward to Ur-Nammu for his piety; they ensure his royal line by giving him a son, born of the entu-priestess of Nanna in Nippur and presumably conceived at the time of the celebration of the sacred marriage in Nippur. Since the king took part in the ritual of the sacred marriage as Nanna in Nippur and as the en in Uruk, it is reasonable to believe that he also took the role of Nanna in the rite in Ur.621

A standard translation of the relevant section (lines 15-20) of the hymn, An to Enlil for Shulgi [= Shulgi G], confirms that the conception of Shulgi – who, as king, proclaimed himself divine – is specifically attributed to the “sacred marriage” between Nanna and his EN-priestess:

To that end, Ashimbabbar [= Nanna] appeared shining in the E-kur, pleaded to his father Enlil and made him bring a childbearing mother (?); in the E- duga, Nanna, the princely son, asked for the thing to happen. The en priestess gave birth to the trustworthy man from his semen placed in the womb. Enlil, the powerful , caused a young man to emerge: a royal child, one who is perfectly fitted for the throne-dais, Shulgi the king.622

Martin Stol, however, suggests that the entire claim is “political literary fiction” and warns that the reference may not even be to an EN-priestess.623 Piotr Steinkeller follows J.S. Cooper in denying that the usual purpose of the sacred marriage was to produce a royal heir.624

Consistent with these cautions, current scholars tend to imagine the sacred marriage of the EPN at Ur as a symbolic (i.e. non-sexual) act which did not involve the king (Table 6, Sacred marriage). In this understanding, the EPN would consummate the marriage by lying down – to the sound of sacred music – on the special bed in Nanna’s bed-chamber, the AGRUN (room C28 within the GIPAR; Fig. 13).625 The bed was decorated for the occasion with hay & flowers.626 For the GWA, too, current opinion is that no good evidence exists in favour of sexual rituals.627 Colleen Manassa writes that “The sound of the sistrum evokes the sexual union of the creator god with his consort, but does not imply that the bearer of the sistrum is necessarily involved in the conjugal act.”628 Mariam Ayad goes further, denying that there is any sexual dimension to playing the sistrum.629 As mentioned in the previous section, Carolla Koch goes further still, arguing for a father-daughter rather than husband-wife relationship between Amun and the Dynasty 23-26 GWAs (Table 6, Sacred marriage).630 Apart from citing scenes that depict Amun in a parental role with respect to Amenirdis I, Koch contends that a genuine role for the these GWAs as the “wife of Amun” would have required the king to always have

51 his wife (rather than a daughter or sister) hold the title, and that he certainly would not have allowed the daughter of a conquered former king to continue in office.631

If the current consensus is that the sacred marriage was purely symbolic, does this consign the High Priestesses to a life of childless celibacy, punctuated (to those who found this a privation) only by furtive and well-hidden lapses in sexual continence? Not necessarily. Some recent literature contends that the EPNs were not celibate and claims that “children are attested in all periods;”632 that Enanatuma had a son is known for certain from two sealings that read “A-ab-, son of En-an[a]-tuma, en priestess of the god Nanna.”633 Likewise, the celibacy of the Late phase GWAs is contested by Coleen Manassa and Emily Teeter, the latter and Jeremy Pope allowing that some (like their New Kingdom predecessors) may indeed have been king’s wives (Table 4, Additional possible titles). Mariam Ayad steers a middle course, proposing that the powerful GWAs of Dyn 23-26 were indeed single and seemingly childless, although perhaps not ritually precluded from sexual relations.634 Betsy Bryan accepts husbands as a possibility; while conceding that evidence for their existence is lacking, she points out that Egyptian women’s monuments routinely exclude any reference to their male family members, particularly their husbands.635 Teeter advances as evidence Habachi’s identification of Amenirdis II with a Nubian princess of the same name who was married to a named , and by whom she had a son named Nasalsa.636 This argument is complicated by the fact that Amenirdis II probably never attained the rank of GWA, being passed over in favour of Nitocris;637 if this caused her to relinquish her religious role, she may then have been free to marry.638 In any case, “Habachi’s speculation [...] is generally rejected.”639 Perhaps the safest summary of the situation for the later GWAs is that of Rosalie : “although there is no record that any God’s Wife had a husband or children, neither is there any conclusive evidence that they remained celibate.”640 The long lives of many GWAs might be circumstantial evidence that they avoided childbearing.641

Before ending this section, it is appropriate to give the Greek writer Herodotus ( BCE) special credit for recognising the participation of a High Priestess in a sacred marriage with her male deity as a common feature of Babylonian and Egyptian religious practice (Table 6, Sacred marriage). It is likely that the marriage ritual that he describes for the former is a memory of the EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna’s union with Sin at Ur in 554, a mere century before his own time (Table 5, Belated survival/revival), and not – as it claims to be – that of an EN with -Marduk at Babylon.642 On top of an eight-staged ziggurat, Herodotus says,

stands a great temple with a fine large couch in it, richly covered, and a golden table beside it. The shrine contains no image and no one spends the night there except (if we may believe the Chaldaeans who are the priests of Bel) one Assyrian woman, all alone, whoever it may be that the god has chosen. The Chaldaeans also say – though I do not believe them – that the god enters the temple in person and takes his rest upon the bed. There is a similar story told by the Egyptians at Thebes, where a woman always passes the night in the temple of the Theban Zeus [i.e., Amun] and is forbidden, so they say, like the woman in the temple at Babylon, to have any intercourse with men.643

En-nigaldi-Nanna’s reign as EPN at Ur actually coincided temporally with the reign of the last GWA, Ankhnesneferibre, at Thebes (Fig. 3). In addition to the similarity

52

in their roles and the short time separating these priestesses from Herodotus, it may have been this contemporaneity that prompted him to connect the institution of the Babylonian EN-priestess so directly with that of the Egyptian God’s Wife.644 Given Herodotus’s precedent, it is all the more surprising that no modern scholars have seen fit to compare the Mesopotamian EPN with her apparent counterpart in Egypt, the GWA.

Power and Prosperity

The role of High Priestess was arguably never merely a religious office. A political dimension for the EPN was present from the outset. The writings of Sargon’s daughter Enheduana,645 the first incumbent (Fig. 4), helped to legitimate Akkadian rule over the entirety of Babylonia by syncretising her father’s northern (Semitic) pantheon with the southern (Sumerian) one, and by connecting this pan-Babylonian cultic system – in which Sargon’s preferred deity, Ishtar, held pride of place – to the royal family (Table 6, Politicization). She also wrote poems that expressed political and legal outrage at challenges to the empire that her father had founded (Table 6, Politicization). In Egypt, politicization of the GWA had begun in Dynasty 20 when Ramses VI, a weak king who ruled from the Delta, installed his daughter Isis in the role in an attempt to rein in the unruly and powerful Theban priesthood (Table 3, Additional/special motivations; Table 6, Politicization). In their respective periods of peak power, then, the EPNs at Ur and GWAs at Thebes were not just spiritual leaders but also political figureheads and economic managers for their communities (Table 6, Power).

As anticipated in the previous section, the history of the GWA cannot fully be appreciated without an understanding of the position of High Priest of Amun (HPA), the GWA’s sole superior in the preeminent priesthood of Egypt’s religious capital, Thebes. At end of the New Kingdom, the office of HPA had absorbed the role of Viceroy of Kush, and in Dynasty 20 the HPA Herihor became the de facto ruler of Upper Egypt.646 By this stage the HPA position was no longer a royal appointment and had become hereditary, with the incumbent disposing of the office as he saw fit. The late Ramesside form of the role continued into the TIP, for “the High Priest of Amun in Dynasty 21 became an army general and effectively ruled the southern region of the country.”647 In the Late Period, the situation changed; during Dynasties 25-26, the powers of the GWA increased to the point where they eclipsed those of the HPA.648 In this period, the GWAs wielded direct political power on behalf of the king and – alongside local potentates such as the mayor of Thebes – could be considered de facto rulers of Upper Egypt (Table 5, Height of power; Table 6, Politicization). At the end of Dynasty 25, there was an apparent hiatus of ca. 50 years in the office of HPA after Harkhebi, the grandson of Shabaqo (Fig. 10). Eventually, control of the office was resumed by the crown, whereupon the title of HPA was bestowed formally (at the time of their adoption by the incumbent GWA) in Dynasty 26 upon the Saite GWA Ankhnesneferibre and – following that – her heiress, Nitocris B (Fig. 10).649 Overall, it is clear that the rise in power of the office of GWA was very much at the expense of the strength and independence of the office of High Priest.650

53

In Mesopotamia, Sargon’s precedent had set up the EPN of Ur as an important marker of political authority. To quote Marc van de Mieroop, “for some five centuries afterwards, the control of the high priesthood of Nanna at Ur remained an indicator of political prominence in Babylonia. Any ruler who could claim authority over Ur installed his daughter there.”651 Brigitte Lion concurs: “accordingly, among the female priesthoods, the office of EN of Nanna at Ur seems to have been the most prestigious.”652 The office-bearer was head of the Temple of Nanna, which incorporated that of Ningal; it was a major institution in the economy of Ur and its hinterland.653 While the political and economic reach of the known EPNs at Ur seems never to have reached the same scale and intensity as that of the later GWAs in Thebes, we should recall that their heyday was sustained for about twice as long (Fig. 3, magenta bracket). Although (like its Theban counterpart) the temple was probably off-limits for most citizens,654 the EPNs would have been known to the populace through their religious processions, and their blessing was probably needed for the appointment of the local ruler (Table 6, Power). By the time of Enanatuma, “the assets of the temples were manifold: they owned land inside and outside the city, they were involved in agriculture and animal husbandry, they controlled the marshes near Ur, they had influence in trade, and they used their treasuries for profit making purpose.”655 Enanatuma’s seal had the authority of a royal dynastic seal and continued to be used into the reign of Warad-Sin,656 some 100 years after the end of her tenure (Table 5, Height of power). Both Enanatuma and Enanedu used their wealth and power to undertake major reconstructions of the GIPAR at Ur and its associated burial ground (Table 5, Height of power and Hiatuses; Table 6, Building program; Fig. 16). Similarly, as described above in the section titled Residence and Remembrance, the GWAs built and dedicated Osirian chapels in North and East Karnak (Figs. 19 & 20) while constructing mortuary chapels – and reconstructing those of their predecessors – at Medinet Habu (Table 6, Building program; Figs. 21-24).

The spiritual, economic and political power of the Dynasty 23-26 GWAs is encapsulated by Rosalie David:

This title [= GWA], to which the king’s daughter (not his wife) was now appointed, implied that she was the consort of the chief god, Amun. On behalf of her father, she acted as the head of the god’s temple and estates at Thebes, one of the largest and most important economic centers in Egypt, which gave her considerable economic independence and religious authority. Her reciprocal duty was to secure the loyal support of Thebes and its local nobility for the king.657

David’s last remark serves as a useful reminder that the position was one of political obligation as well as prestige and power. For the GWAs of Dynasties 24 and 25, the kings were Libyan and Nubian, respectively, and the support of Egypt’s religious capital was essential for the success of their rule; the political and ideological dimension of the office was therefore paramount. Jeremy Pope observes of the Nubian dynasty that

the iconography and ritual actions of the God’s Wives in Egypt would suggest that their office functioned more as an organ of the state than as a cloister; though their monumental constructions appear to have been mostly confined to Upper Egypt, the theology and propaganda of rites such as the Protection of the Cenotaph and the Elevation of the Ṯs.t-Support were manifestly

54 directed outward, invoking the totality of the Double Kingdom as conceived by the Kushite dynasts.658

The Elevation ritual proclaimed the universal dominion of Amun(-Re) and, by extension, that of the Egyptian king,659 just as Enheduana’s theology promoted the universal power of Ishtar and, by extension, that of Ishtar’s protégé, the Akkadian king Sargon (Table 6, Politicization).

The most recent academic overviews acknowledge the economic importance of the Dynasty 23-26 GWAs but caution that their real political power is uncertain. Carola Koch goes so far as to say of the Nubian GWAs that “their political influence was severely restricted,”660 while accepting that the Saite ones were equal to the king on the political level because they did not have to contend with either a High Priest or a powerful local magnate (Table 5, Height of power).661 There is also a growing awareness that much of the GWA’s economic power was devolved to her male officials, especially the High Steward of the estate.662 Such officials were able to commemorate themselves with “enormous temple-like tombs in the Theban necropolis – the largest non-royal tombs anywhere in Egypt among them.”663 Overall, the suggestion is that the political power of the GWA herself was probably somewhat passive, being more closely involved with royal propaganda and legitimation of the king’s rule.664

At face value, the Nubian rule of Egypt represents an exception to the usual geographic polarity to the King/High Priestess pairing in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The usual pattern is that of a king in the north with his daughter in the south. The Akkadian pairings of Sargon/Enheduana and Naram-Sin/Enmenana conform to this template, as Akkad lies far to the north of Ur. In the post-Akkadian period – albeit on a much smaller scale – the geographic situation continued to mirror that initiated by Sargon, insofar as the capitals of Lagash, Isin and Larsa all lie to the north of Ur. In Egypt, Ramses VI/Isis and Psamtek I/Nitocris conform to the canonical north/south pattern, since the former king ruled from Piramesse and the latter from Sais, both located in and therefore far to the north of Thebes. For Dynasty 25, however, the Nubian pairings of Kashta/Amenirdis I and Piye/ Shepenwepet II seem to present the opposite configuration: a king based in the south at Napata, with his daughter at Thebes, far to its north. But one could view the traditional polarity as quickly reasserting itself with the selection of the Delta city of Memphis as the chief royal residence of the subsequent Nubian rulers Shabaqo, Shebitqo and Taharqo,665 whose reigns as king overlapped extensively with those of Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II as GWA (Fig. 10).

On the cultural and intellectual front, the prominence of the first EPN, Enheduana, as an author – and a named author, at that – positions her as the undisputed icon of female literacy in the ancient world (Table 5, Height of power).666 Sixteen hundred years after Enheduana’s time, the institution of the GWA in Egypt was also likely to be an enclave with exceptional rates of female literacy for its place and time. While noting that most of the powerful political women of the New Kingdom would have delegated their business writing, Baines & Eyre (1998) observe that

55

the replacement of princes as high priests of Amun in Thebes by princesses as divine adoratrices in the later 3rd intermediate period might have been facilitated if the latter could also exercise some of the former’s worldly functions. As stated above, the partly female institutions surrounding these ladies may in any case have been pockets of female literacy.667

A female scribe in the service of Nitocris exemplifies the presence of literate women in the retinues of the GWAs.668

Half a millennium after her time, Enheduana’s writings remained a political tool in Mesopotamia (Table 6, Politicization): in Old Babylonian times, her work formed part of the scribal curriculum, where it served to reinforce a sense of Sumerian unity and shared heritage in a time of fragmentation.669 Moreover, some 1700 years after their time, Sargon and Enheduana’s program was echoed by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus and his daughter, the EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna (Table 5, Belated survival/revival; Table 6, Politicization). As Tamara Green explains:

It is likely that, whatever Nabonidus’ personal feelings about the god [Sin = Nanna] may have been, his elevation of the god of Ur and Harran was grounded in his desire to use religion as a unifying force for the disparate peoples under his rule, for the power of the Moon god was already venerated among and Arabs; [...he also] may have been trying to shore up his own political prospects by exalting the god so closely connected with kingship.670

Even today, Enheduana continues to be used as a catalyst for social reform, insofar as she serves as a poster-child for women’s empowerment and the worldwide feminist movement.671 The Egyptian GWAs, too, left intangible legacies that outlasted the women themselves by centuries (Table 5, Belated survival/revival). For example, the title Divine Adoratrice was reprised by some Ptolemaic priestesses of Amun, and the titles and epithets of the Ptolemaic queens seem to draw heavily upon the titularies of the GWAs of Dynasties 23-26.

However tempting it might be to conclude the study in this diachronic afterglow, there remains an important dimension to the comparison that has yet to be addressed, and from which will emerge one of the most important conclusions of the analysis. To rectify this omission and complete the comparison, it is to the related themes of succession and survival that we must now turn our attention. As ever, the comparison will be drawn between the two institutions in their respective periods of greatest strength: the EPN in the Akkadian through Isin/Larsa periods, and the GWA during Dynasties 23-26.

Succession

In both Mesopotamia and Egypt, a number of seemingly eligible kings (e.g. , Shulgi, and Abi-sare in Mesopotamia; Shabaqo, Shebitqo and Necho in Egypt; Figs. 9-10) did not nominate a daughter as High Priestess. For those that did, the available data suggest that a change of king often did not immediately result in the installation of a new High Priestess or the designation of a new successor to

56 the position. In Ur,672 Enheduana (Fig. 4b) remained in office until well into the reign of her father’s third successor;673 Enirziana is estimated to have been installed in regnal year 17 of her father Shulgi; Enmahgalana in year 4 of her father Amar- Suen;674 Enshakiag-Nanna in the 23rd year of her father Sumu-el;675 Enanedu in the 5th or 6th year of her brother Warad-Sin.676 In Thebes,677 Shepenwepet I is estimated to have been designated (and installed, since there was seemingly no incumbent)678 ca. year 11-32 of her father Osorkon III;679 Amenirdis I (Figs. 8) was probably designated 5-25 years after the accession of her father Kashta;680 Shepenwepet II (Fig. 25-26) was designated 22-37 years after the accession of her father, Piye,681 while Nitocris I was designated in year 9 of her father Psamtek I (i.e., ca. 655).682 However, Ankhnesneferibre – the final GWA (Fig. 27) – was designated in 595,

Fig. 25. Proffering sphinx of Shepenwepet II. Item ÄM 7972 in the , Berlin. Photograph by Einsamer Schütze, available via Wikimedia Commons,683 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

57

Fig. 26. Relief of Shepenwepet II on the façade of her mortuary chapel at Medinet Habu.684 Original photograph by Asta, derivative work (zoom & clean) by JMCC1; available via Wikimedia Commons,685 public domain.

58

Fig. 27. Statue of Ankhnesneferibre. Nubian Museum, Egyptian Museums CG42205. Photograph by tutincommon (John Campana), available via Wikimedia Commons, 686 reproduced here under licence CC BY 2.0.

59 the year in which her father Psamtek II took the throne.687 These estimates are derived using the traditional GWA chronology (Table 7, cyan fill & note b). Augmentation of the revisionist chronology of Koch (2012) (Fig. 10, grey dates) with compatible recent proposals of designation dates (Table 7, blue fill & note c) suggests that Amenirdis I was designated 13-18 years after the accession of Kashta688 and that Shepenwepet II was designated 37 years after the accession of Piye, outcomes encompassed in the ranges already provided.689 For the subsequent GWAs (Nitocris, Ankhnesneferibre) there is full agreement with the values already given.

In both countries, the recurring delays between royal accession and the designation/ installation of the new king’s daughter may in part reflect issues such as a lack of perceived necessity for a new priestess (e.g., upon peaceful intra-dynastic succession while the incumbent GWA was relatively young), a lack of political power on the part of the new king, or simply a need for the princess to have reached a minimum age.690 On the last consideration, we should note that three of the GWAs may have been designated while still children; Nitocris almost certainly was.691 However, even if the new king had the motivation and the means to appoint a daughter, the incumbent High Priestess was a revered figure who had to be treated with great respect (Table 6, Tenure...). In Egypt, this was accommodated by the existing God’s Wife adopting the newly-designated princess as heiress apparent; with a lesser title (such as Great Chantress of the Interior of Amun or Divine Adoratrice),692 the latter could serve as assistant or junior partner in the “college” of supreme priestesses until the existing God’s Wife retired or died.693 This apprenticeship could be lengthy. For example, in the traditional GWA chronology (Table 7, cyan fill & note b), Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II are estimated to have served 26-35 and 10-35 years as heiress apparent, respectively, with both being installed as GWA long after the reigns of their respective fathers had ended. The revisionist chronology of Koch (2012) (Fig. 10, grey dates; Table 7, blue fill & note c) seems to deny any overlap between Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet I but, when it is augmented with recent proposals of designation dates for Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II, apprenticeships of 25-37 and 33-40 years emerge, respectively. Ankhnesneferibre’s time as understudy (which is securely known) was comparatively short, a mere 9 years.

In Mesopotamia, a system similar to the Egyptian one may have operated, albeit without formal adoption (Table 6, Tenure...). For example, the year-list indicates that Shulgi’s daughter Enirziana was appointed as EN-priestess two years before her installation took place.694 At the very least, it is likely that the elder EN-priestess trained her successor during a novitiate that could last for several years.695 Thereafter, the senior EN stayed on in the GIPAR. Either she retained the EN-ship until she had served out a fixed term, reached a certain age, chosen to relinquish the role, or died,696 or – alternatively – she retired in favour of her protégé once the latter had become proficient in the role,697 thereafter continuing in the background as emerita.698 Some of these options could entail a lengthy delay between the investiture of a new king and the installation of his daughter as EN-priestess, in keeping with the delays noted at the start of this section. Most of the options could countenance some level of power-sharing, whether transitional or long-term.

60

Table 7. Length of term as apprentice/heiress to incumbent GWA Estimates are for the GWA at Thebes in the institution’s period of peak strength.

Overlap b,c Incumbent GWA Novice/Heiress a References (years) Shepenwepet I Amenirdis I 26-35 Ayad; Dodson.699 Libyan Nubian 35-47 Ayad.700 0 Koch.701 25-37 Koch; Broekman.702 Amenirdis I Shepenwepet II 10-35 Ayad; Dodson.703 ? Koch. 33-40 Koch; Pope.704 Shepenwepet II Nitocris I 2-6 Dodson; Ayad.705 Nubian Saite 6-15 Bryan; Graefe; Pope; Leahy.706 ≤17 Leahy; Pope; Coulon.707 ≤17 Koch.708 Nitocris I Ankhnesneferibre 9 Dodson; Leahy; Ayad.709 9 Koch.710 a Care has been taken to avoid mixing dates from incompatible chronological schemes. All estimates of terms should be regarded as approximate. b Cyan fill indicates sources that conform to the traditional chronology, which was described thus in 2014: “Over the past century of Egyptological research, historical evidence pertaining to the God’s Wives and their staffs has been mapped across this line of succession and its accompanying protocol to produce an elaborate matrix of interdependent dates and a standard narrative of the office’s evolution.”711 c Blue fill indicates calculations from recent publications (2012-2016) that use, or are compatible with, a revisionist chronology for the GWAs. In 2012, Carola Koch proposed that the titles “God’s Wife,” “Divine Adoratrice” and “God’s Hand” do not denote different levels of seniority; she further asserted that these titles were only ever used by the incumbent GWA, and never by an heiress prior to the death of her predecessor.712 Her thesis, which leads to a different chronology for the GWAs from Shepenwepet I to Nitocris I (Fig. 10, grey dates), runs contrary to many assumptions underpinning the traditional scholarship (note b), but is gaining significant – if qualified – support.713,714

61

Table 8. Length of term in office (excluding apprenticeship/retirement). Estimates are for the EPN at Ur and the GWA at Thebes in their respective periods of peak strength.

a EPN Years References Enheduana 77 Weadock; Gadotti.715 Enmahgalana (28-34)+ (38) Weadock; Westenholz.716 Enanatuma 30+ Stol.717 Enshakiag-Nanna 40 Gadd.718 Enanedu (30-33)+ (36+) Gadd; Stol; Frayne.719

a b,c GWA Years References Shepenwepet I 40-65 Ayad; Dodson.720 19-42 (?) Koch; Kitchen.721 Amenirdis I 14-25 Ayad; Dodson.722 40 Koch.723 Shepenwepet II 41-50 Dodson; Ayad.724 31+ Koch; Pope.725 Nitocris I 64-68 (50+) Ayad; Dodson; Leahy.726 53 Koch; Coulon; Pope.727 Ankhnesneferibre 61 Ayad; Dodson; Leahy.728 61 Koch.729 a Care has been taken to avoid mixing dates from incompatible chronological schemes. EPNs for whom there is insufficient data to estimate a period of tenure are not listed. All estimates of terms should be regarded as approximate. b Cyan fill indicates sources that conform to the traditional chronology, as explained in note b to Table 7. c Blue fill indicates calculations that use the revisionist chronology of Koch (2012), as explained in note c to Table 7.

62

Consistent with this idea, one text names two EN-priestesses (Enshakiag-Nanna and her successor, Enanedu) together in a list of donors that includes various other members of Larsa’s royal family.730

In Ur and Thebes, only one person could occupy the supreme position at any given time (Table 6, Concurrency),731 and an incumbent EPN or GWA could not be removed from office (Table 6, Tenure...).732 In consequence (Table 6, Tenure...), many High Priestesses served for long periods: typically 30-40 years in Mesopotamia, with Enheduana achieving twice that, and 31-65 years in Egypt, perhaps with one low outlier (14-25 years) and about four GWAs each achieving 40 or more years in office (Table 8).733 This continuity provided an important unifying link through times of social disorder and during dynastic change.734 A further contributor to stability was the apprenticeship/retirement system and the scope that it afforded for collaboration and delegation among representatives of the old and new regimes. The traditional GWA chronology indicates that the overlaps between members of the Theban “college” of the God’s Wife and her designated successor required co-operation between women of different ethnicities for periods of around 35 years (after the rulership changed from Libyan to Nubian; Table 7, cyan) and for up to 41 years (after it changed from Nubian to Saite).735 Another calculation from the traditional chronology estimates the Libyan/Nubian overlap at 21-33 years, rising to 35-47 years when the inferred retirement period of Shepenwepet I is included (Table 7, cyan). As mentioned above, when the revisionist chronology of Koch (2012) is augmented with Gerard Broekman’s recently proposed designation date for Amenirdis I, an overlap of 25-37 years is suggested (Table 7, blue). A lengthy overlap is consistent with the fact that Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I are referenced jointly in various independent inscriptions, seemingly while both were alive,736 and the existence of their “joint project” at Karnak – the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity.737 The apprenticeship of Saite newcomer, Nitocris, at the hands of Nubian incumbent, Shepenwepet II, is conservatively estimated in the traditional chronology at 2-6 years; while it may well have been as long as 15 years, it was certainly less than 17 years (Table 7, cyan). The revisionist chronology, too, suggests that Nitocris was heiress for 17 years or less (Table 7, blue). It is the possible retention of Amenirdis II – a Nubian – in the “college” headed by Nitocris that potentially prolongs the Nubian/Saite overlap to 41 years. The twin themes of continuity and collaboration within the office of High Priestess, and the effect of these trends on society in Egypt and Mesopotamia, will be reprised in the final section of this paper.

One should not forget that the intra-dynastic succession of GWAs was often smoothed and reinforced by pre-existing biological and familial ties. In Thebes, Shepenwepet II was the niece of Amenirdis I,738 while Ankhnesneferibre was the grand-niece of Nitocris I (Fig. 10). Similarly, in Ur, Enmenana was not just Enheduana’s appointed successor but also her grand-niece (Fig. 9). In contrast, subtle differences in self-presentation suggest that a veiled rivalry may sometimes have existed when the God’s Wives of Amun represented different dynasties/ ethnicities. The contrasting actions of Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II provides a

63 possible illustration of such tension. Amenirdis I, the first Nubian GWA, respectfully retained all of the imagery depicting her Libyan predecessor, Shepenwepet I, in the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity (Fig. 19, no. 5). Indeed, the close association of the two women in the Nubian extension, and their balanced representations on its façade, are “reminiscent of instances of royal co-regency.”739 However, Amenirdis used subtle visual cues (i.e., the dominance of rightward orientation) to portray herself as the main officiant and claimed (in no less than three places) to be the daughter of Osiris, thereby avoiding any filiation that acknowledged Shepenwepet as her senior.740 In contrast, Shepenwepet II – the second Nubian GWA – repeatedly gave a place of honour to Amenirdis in scenes on the North Karnak chapels of Osiris, Lord of Life (Fig. 19, no. 3; Fig. 20) and of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree (Fig. 19, no. 4),741 and there explicitly identified Amenirdis as her mother within her titulary, even though there was no need to do so.742 In this and other scenes it is clear that, rather than competing with her intra-dynastic predecessor, Shepenwepet II was using the (adoptive) filial relationship to legitimise her position.743 Likewise, Ankhnesneferibre, the second Saite GWA, emphasised her adoption by her intra-dynastic predecessor, Nitocris I, in a publicly displayed decree (Table 4, Notable decrees).744

Of course, other factors may also have contributed to the seemingly more reserved attitude of Amenirdis I toward her predecessor. As mentioned above (Gender issues), the novitiate may not yet have been formalised as an adoption and/or the notional filiation may not yet have assumed the importance that was later attached to it.745 Moreover, the traditional GWA chronology allows for Shepenwepet I to have been alive (but – as mentioned above – no longer God’s Wife) when Amenirdis was taking care to avoid acknowledging her as her senior, whereas Amenirdis was dead when Shepenwepet II was honouring her and highlighting their relationship.746 Similarly, Nitocris I was dead at the time when Ankhnesneferibre’s inscription was composed. Still, the emotional distance between Amenirdis and her antecedent survived the death of both parties; Amenirdis’s funerary chapel at Medinet Habu (Figs. 21-23) provides her pedigree as “royal daughter” and “royal sister” in relation to the relevant Nubian ruler but continues to avoid any mention of her Libyan predecessor, Shepenwepet I.747 The revisionist chronology of Koch (2012) offers radically different explanation for the lack of filial piety, namely that Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I did not in fact overlap (Table 7, blue fill).

The impact of the next dynastic change in the Late Period – from Kushite to Saite – on the office of GWA is a matter of official record. The Nitocris Adoption Stela (Table 4, Notable decrees) presents the Saite newcomer’s reception by the incumbent Nubian God Wife, Shepenwepet II, and the latter’s Nubian heir apparent, Amenirdis II, in the most affable terms.748 When Nitocris I arrived in Thebes, probably still a young child,749 Shepenwepet II reportedly found her new charge delightful and loved her “more than anything.” She and Amenirdis II promptly declared Nitocris as their successor, to be established on their throne “firmly and enduringly till the end of eternity.”750 Despite Psamtek I’s promise not to supplant the existing heiress, Amenirdis II seems to have been passed over in favour of Nitocris, who – in the fullness of time – became the next God’s Wife.751 While the

64 Nubian priestesses may have had their reservations about the succession, Nitocris – who took the “beautiful name” of Shepenwepet752 – seems to have held them in high esteem.753 (It is unclear which of the two Nubians was formally considered to be her adoptive mother at the time,754 but Nitocris primarily honours Shepenwepet II in her monuments755 and later inscriptions invariably list her rather than Amenirdis II as Nitocris’s mother.756) Moreover, rather than erecting her funerary chapel at Medinet Habu as a free-standing entity, Nitocris enlarged that of Shepenwepet II and squeezed her own into a small space between those of her Nubian predecessors (Fig. 24).757 In contrast, the Saite kings are thought to have progressively turned against the memory of their Kushite predecessors,758 although a recent reappraisal suggests that this may be an over-reach.759 Either way, Amenirdis II – who of course was the daughter of the last Nubian king to rule Egypt – may ultimately have left Thebes and returned to Napata.760

Survival

In Mesopotamia, dynastic challenges and changes in the Akkadian through Isin/Larsa periods sometimes resulted in far greater upheavals to the circumstances of the EN-priestesses of Nana in Ur than were endured by the Late Period God’s Wives of Amun in Thebes (Table 5, Hiatuses). Not only was Babylonia more prone to political fragmentation and destructive warfare, but the time-period in scope at Ur is twice as long as that under consideration at Thebes. The Elamite destruction of Ur ca. 2003, which ended the tenure – and most probably the life – of the EPN Enmahgalana, is documented below. The only Theban episode in any way comparable to this would be the Assyrian sack of Thebes by Assurbanipal in 664/3,761 at a time when Shepenwepet II was God’s Wife and Amenirdis II was her heiress.762 But the office of GWA survived the Assyrian attack unscathed, and the two women went on to receive Nitocris I (the daughter of the Assyrian appointee, king Psamtek I) as heir apparent in 656.

Enheduana, the daughter of , endured a dynastic challenge and the potential overthrow of her father’s empire during the reign of her nephew, Naram- Sin (r. 2211-2175; Fig. 9). Toward the end of her term she fell foul of Lugal-Ane, a leader of the Great Rebellion who had risen up against the centralised authority of the Akkadian king in an attempt to seize power for himself.763 In consequence, Enheduana found herself evicted from the GIPAR and condemned to the privations of exile; we know of her tribulations because she recorded them in her hymn, the Adoration of Inanna. There she wails to the eponymous goddess that she is condemned to wander

... in an inimical land, There I will die, while singing the holy song [...] I have been attacked most cruelly [...] I, accustomed to triumph, have been driven forth (from) my house, Was forced to flee the cote like a swallow, my life is devoured, Was made to walk among the mountain thorns, The life-giving tiara of en-ship was taken from [...] The fruitful bed has been abolished.764

65 In the end, however, Enheduana’s fervent prayers to Inanna for revenge were answered; Lugal-Ane’s rebellion was quashed, and Enheduana returned to the GIPAR.

Enmahgalana was installed in year 4 of her father, Amar-Suen (Ur III, r. 2044-2036; Fig. 9). An EN-priestess named Enirsiana, who was appointed in year 10 of Ibbi-Sin (Ur III, r. 2026-2003), was probably an EN of Inanna (as the original text states)765 and not of Nanna (as subsequently amended).766 Her appointment coincided with a rebellion that reduced the state to a petty kingdom not much larger than Ur itself.767 Enmahgalana continued to feature in legal cases dated to the second decade of Ibbi- Sin’s reign (year 14 or 20),768 so she presumably remained as EPN at Ur at that stage. In year 23/25 of Ibbi-Sin,769 when Enmahgalana would have been in office for about 38 years (Table 8), the Elamites and their neighbours launched a successful attack on southern Mesopotamia. After a protracted siege, Ur fell; the city was ravaged by the invading mountain-people, and its inhabitants were either killed or deported as slaves.770 Ibbi-Sin himself was carried off in chains to .771 The buildings of the sacred temenos at Ur were destroyed, and Enmahgalana was presumably captured or killed. The tone of the for Ur, which describes the aftermath of the Elamite destruction, echoes the despair of Enheduana during her exile some 170 years earlier:

Nanna was abandoning Ur, and his sheepfold, to the winds, Suen [= Sin] was abandoning Ekishnugal [= the Temple of Nanna in Ur] and his sheepfold, to the winds His consort Ningal was abandoning it, and her sheepfold, to the winds, And her Agrunkug [= the Temple of Ningal in Ur] Ningal was abandoning and her sheepfold, to the winds [...] Ur has been given over to the winds [...] Its anointed one never walks in (his) wig [...] Its high priestess lives no more in the gipar temple [...] O father Nanna, your purification priest no longer perfects pure cups for you [...] Your goodly high priestess the very Ekishnugal one, chosen in your ardent heart, No longer proceeds in her joy from the temple close to the gipar. In the Ahua, your house of festivals, they no longer celebrate the festivals [...] Verily, they are garrotted as with a string in the dirt.772

Unlike Ur, Isin had successfully withstood the Elamite attack. Under Ishbi-Erra (r. 2019-1987; Fig. 9) and his son Shu-ilishu, the Dynasty of Isin began the task of restoring Ur. References to an appointment in year 19 of Ishbi-Erra are thought by some to refer to the installation of an EPN named Ninziana,773 but detailed examination of the sources suggests instead that it concerns the appointment of a

66 princess (whose name begins with Enbara...) as EGIZI of An, a position unrelated to the EPN and more likely the High Priestess of Isin.774

Enanatuma, the daughter of king Ishme-Dagan of Isin (r. 1955-1937), rebuilt the GIPAR775 in what may have been the first proper restoration of that building since the Elamite sack of the city (Fig. 16). She was still in office long after Ur had been conquered by king Gungunum of Larsa (r. 1932-1906), the city that was Isin’s habitual foe. Indeed, she served as EN-priestess for at least 30 years, dying under the rule of the subsequent Larsa king, Abi-sare (r. 1905-1895)(Table 6, Tenure...; Fig.9) (Table 8).776 As mentioned above (in the section titled Power and Prosperity) her seal continued to be used, with the authority of a royal seal, into the time of Warad- Sin of Larsa (r. 1834-1823). Clearly these achievements involved a major political realignment on Enanatuma’s part.777 Also as mentioned above (in the section titled Residence and Remembrance), she built a chapel named the EHILI to the sun-god Utu, son of Nanna, “for the life of Gungunum, the strong man, king of Ur [...] and dedicated it for the sake of his life.”778 Similarly attested is another such structure called the E-ESHMEDAGALA, which Enanatuma also built and dedicated for the life of Gungunum (Table 6, Building program).779

It seems likely that Enanatuma was succeeded by a daughter of Gungunum named Enmegalana, who – given that the latter had died by year 3 of Abi-sare’s reign780 – must have held office only briefly (Fig. 9).781 It is of course possible that, in a situation similar to that of the Dynasty 24/25-26 GWAs in Thebes, Enmegalana (of Larsa) had served an apprenticeship with Enanatuma (of Isin) prior to her accession.

Although Enshakiag-Nanna, daughter of the mid-Larsa ruler Sumu-el (r. 1894- 1866), held office for 40 years (Table 8) and served under no fewer than seven kings, she did not witness a major dynastic dislocation. She did, however, see the Larsa (sub-) dynasty of /Abi-sare cede to that of Nur-Adad, which in turn yielded to that of Kudur-Mabuk (Fig. 9).782 Her successor Enanedu, daughter of the last-named king, was EPN for at least 30 years (Table 8; Fig. 12). Serving under her brothers Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin I of Larsa (Fig. 9), she too avoided the turbulence of outright dynastic change.

Conclusion: Stability and Solidarity

This paper has sought to compare the institution of EN-priestess of Nanna (EPN) at Ur with its later analogue in Egypt, the office of God’s Wife of Amun (GWA). Both types of High Priestess served as the consort of an important male deity linked with kingship: the EPN was the earthly spouse of the Mesopotamian moon-god Nanna/Sin, while the GWA was the human wife of the Egyptian creator-god Amun(-Re). The GWA, who resided in Thebes, was the only such office-bearer in Egypt at any one time. While several EPNs could hold office concurrently at different sites across Babylonia, the one in Ur was invariably the most important. We have seen that, as institutions, the EPN and GWA both spanned about a millennium (Ur, ca. 2288-1104 BCE; Thebes, ca. 1552-525 BCE), albeit with interruptions and periods of uncertainty for both (Fig. 3). The office of EPN began

67 strongly, with a peak period that lasted ca. 525 years and involved 11 known incumbents (Fig. 9), whereas the GWA’s heyday came at the end of its trajectory and lasted only half as long (ca. 265 years), with just 5 office-bearers (Fig. 10). Both institutions were terminated by the arrival of Persian rule. While early GWAs were kings’ wives first and kings’ daughters second, the office of GWA evolved over time – presumably by natural selection – to match the Mesopotamian situation, where the usual practice was for a king to nominate his daughter as High Priestess and God’s Wife. Since it is this arrangement that obtained during the peak period of the EPN and GWA alike, we may conclude that this formula was especially effective in the context of ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian societies.

In the respective periods of strength of the two institutions, the incumbents were typically princesses whose political purpose was to assist the king in controlling a remote region and/or rival institution. These women were powerful royal figures whose served as religious, political, cultural and economic leaders of their communities. As heads of the major temples in their respective regions, they brought the assets of these wealthy institutions within the purview of the crown. The cultic roles of the EPN and GWA were similar, although the former focused her energies upon Ningal, the goddess of whom she was the earthly representative, whereas the latter directed her energies toward Amun(-Re), her divine husband. Although the current consensus is that the “sacred marriage” was in both cases symbolic, the quotidian sexual, marital and maternal status of the High Priestesses remains controversial. Despite femininity being central to the role of a divine consort, both offices are somewhat affected by a paradoxical gender distortion, namely the notional masculinisation of the incumbents. Other similarities between the two types of priestess – such as undertones of servitude in their titles, their associations with specific birds, and their construction of chapels with analogous features – were also explored.

Carola Koch (2012) presents something of a minority report on the Late phase GWAs. If Koch’s sometimes radical views are correct, there may be more conceptual distance between these Egyptian princess-priestesses and their Mesopotamian counterparts than is suggested by the traditional understanding of each office. In particular, Koch sees the Dynasty 23-26 God’s Wife as a daughter rather than a spouse or consort of Amun; claims that the titles “Divine Adoratrice” and “God’s Hand” are not junior titles and are only ever borne by the incumbent GWA; presents a revisionist chronology in which Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I appear not to overlap; does not allow that a GWA might retire in favour of her heiress; and denies that the Nubian incumbents wielded significant political power. Indeed, if one were to combine Koch’s idea of the Late phase GWA as a daughter of Amun with recurring suggestions that at least some of them were kings’ wives,783 the Late phase office could form the topic of counter-paper titled “God’s Daughter, King’s Wife!” Other of Koch’s claims, such as her re-assignment of the GWA structures at Medinet Habu as mortuary chapels for which the cognate tombs lie elsewhere, have little impact on the analysis in the present paper and are argued so convincingly that they have simply been accepted. All of Koch’s opinions have been recognised separately at the appropriate locations throughout the paper, but their collective origin in a single cohesive source is what warrants a special mention in this coda. If, in the fullness of time, some of Koch’s more controversial

68 suggestions (or revisionist proposals from other sources) are proven correct, it would of course be worth re-examining the data from Mesopotamia to see if the corrections applied to our understanding of the GWA might not also be relevant to our appreciation of the EPN at Ur. (As the GWAs of interest are 1500 years closer to us than the cognate EPNs, it makes sense to use the more abundant data for the former to formulate possibilities for the latter.) In the meantime, however, we can still draw many inferences from the comparison in the present paper which are likely to prove enduring, and to this end we may resume our summary.

Both types of High Priestess were spiritual leaders who were often instrumental in reconciling and integrating distinct cultural or ethnic groups within their respective countries, thereby furthering the royal agenda of national unification. For example, Enheduana’s writings helped to unite the Semitic Akkadians of northern Babylonia with the non-Semitic Sumerians of the south, and enhanced the authority of the Sargonic dynasty by connecting the resulting pan-Babylonian pantheon to the royal family. Similarly, the religious leadership of the Libyan and Nubian GWAs of Dynasties 23-25 demonstrated the deep commitment of the corresponding royal houses to upholding Egyptian religious norms, and thereby helped to legitimize the rule of Egypt by a series of non-indigenous kings. In Dynasty 26, the Saites – kings of Libyan descent whose dynasty had begun as an Assyrian vassalship – were naturalised and rehabilitated in the same way. With their enthusiastic revival of archaic Egyptian practices in piety and art,784 the various “foreign” elites appear almost more Egyptian than the Egyptians themselves. As Angelika Lohwasser observes, “the GWA epitomized continuity of the traditional rituals for the state god Amun. [...] The (Nubian) GWAs were considered Egyptian by the Egyptians – and it seems by the Kushites, including the GWAs themselves, as well.”785 “But the political influence and power of this institution was fruitfully used by the Kushites to stabilize their rule in Egypt.”786

Although the office of High Priestess in Ur was subject to greater upheavals than its counterpart in Thebes, we have seen that the incumbents of both institutions often served for long periods: typically 30-40 years in Ur, with one exceptional term of ca. 77 years, and 40-65 years in Thebes, possibly with one low term of 14-25 years (Table 8). This longevity provided the relevant community with a unifying link through times of social and political disorder. In both institutions, specific incumbents (e.g., Enanatuma and Shepenwepet I) are known or are widely believed to have successfully straddled dynastic change, remaining in office long into the new dynasty. For the GWA, we also saw that apprenticeship (via adoption of the new king’s daughter), collaboration and delegation were common, requiring co- operation between women of “different ethnic and cultural backgrounds [... who] belonged to warring dynasties”787 over long periods, e.g. probably 2-15 years for the Nubian/Saite overlap, and potentially 25 years or more for the Libyan/Nubian one. Thus, writing of Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I, Mariam Ayad observes:788

[T]he authority of the office of the God’s Wife [...] imbued the incumbent, Libyan or Nubian, with the ability to serve the gods. It is the harmonious co-existence, and association, of these two women that served to achieve a smooth transition of power in the Theban region. For it is in their capacity as the ultimate religious authority in Thebes that the two women were able to negotiate the dynastic transition from Libyan to Nubian rule.

69

Fig. 28. Continuity across a dynastic divide. A generic scheme to highlight a key benefit of the institution.789 HP, High Priestess (i.e., EPN/ GWA); Dau, daughter.

A similarly stabilising and collaborative situation (exemplified generically in Fig. 28) seems to have obtained, albeit without the formality of adoption, in the GIPAR at Ur. Although novitiates at Ur may have been limited to a few years, and evidence of protracted role-sharing is lacking,790 it is likely that any contemporaneous incumbent, trainee and retired EPNs were considered to form a unitary “college,” just as has been suggested for the God’s Wives of Amun.791 Either way, the political impacts of the two institutions were equivalent. In the words of Joan Westenholz:792

[T]he en-priestess [...] embodied the wider community of Ur in her union with Nanna. She was a symbol of the Sumerian community as a whole. For this reason [...], these en-priestesses who outlived their fathers and some even their dynasties, could not be removed from office and could thus continue to serve and provide the unifying link even in periods of disunity.

In other words, whether the princess officiated alone or shared aspects of the High Priestess role with her designated successor and/or predecessor, the outcome of her long reign was the same: stability and continuity, even in times of political and social distress.

Postscript

Subsequent to the release of this article, Manfred Bietak published a paper in which he proposes a re-assignment of the temple in section C of the Ur III-Larsa period GIPAR to Nanna rather than to Ningal.793 If this is correct, the cultic focus of the EPN may have been much more on Nanna than on his wife Ningal. This adjustment would reduce or remove one of the perceived differences between the EPN and the GWA (Cult and Ritual section).

70

© 2017 Lloyd D. Graham, excluding third party and public domain content; v.09_18.11.19

Cite as: Lloyd D. Graham (2017-19) “King’s Daughter, God’s Wife: The Princess as High Priestess in Mesopotamia (Ur, ca. 2300-1100 BCE) and Egypt (Thebes, ca. 1550-525 BCE),” online at https://www.academia.edu/34248896/King_s_Daughter_God_s_Wife_The_Princess_as_High_Priest ess_in_Mesopotamia_Ur_ca._2300-1100_BCE_and_Egypt_Thebes_ca._1550-525_BCE_

URLs for photographs reproduced in the figures are provided directly in footnotes to the figure legends. Creative Commons licence terms (CC BY 3.0, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, etc.) are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/.

Endnotes

Abbreviations: COS, Context of Scripture; RIME, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia – Early periods; UET, Ur Excavations – Texts; items within these series are listed by entry number.

1 Schuenemann et al. (2017). 2 E.g., Mumford (2013). David Wengrow (2006: 13) writes “In the second millennium BC, as from the time of their inception, the principal dynastic powers of South-West Asia and North-East Africa were related through material interests and exchanges, even as they remained culturally and politically divided.” 3 Indeed, the existence of predynastic cultural/trade contacts between Mesopotamia and Egypt (in the Uruk and Naqada IIIA/B periods, repectively) is attested by the presence of Mesopotamian iconography (Sumerian attire and Master of Animals motif) on the carved handle of the Egyptian “Gebel el-Arak Knife,” which is believed to have come from Abydos [Seidlmayer (2010: 26, Fig. 31); Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 124-5); Étienne (n.d.)]. Writing of Mesopotamian and Iranian cylinder seals, especially those from Uruk and Susa, David Wengrow (2006: 191) writes that “it must be assumed that, towards the end of the fourth millennium, small numbers of such objects became entangled within larger exchange networks extending between South-West Asia and the Mediterranean coast, and that the images carried on them were absorbed into a creative process then underway among local elites within Egypt. [...] In some well known cases, such as the ‘master of animals’ design on the Gebel el-Araq Knife-handle (fig 2.4), the decorative content of a foreign seal appears to have been transposed directly on to a locally crafted, Egyptian object. Such direct appropriations are no longer in evidence after the time of the Palette.” For his full discussion of Egyptian cultural borrowings from Mesopotamia and Iran, see Wengrow (2006: 187-95). 4 The motif is well developed in the Osiride legends preserved by Plutarch, but it is present even in Middle Kingdom versions of the myth. E.g., Wilkinson (2003: 118-20); Hart (2005: 117 & 124). 5 McDevitt (2014); Mettinger (2001: 55-81); Ginsberg (2011), esp. p.133-4 identifying Anat as Baal’s sister and lover. 6 Blackman (1924); Sparks (2005: 147-9); Westenholz (2013a: 258-9); Beckerleg (2009); Walker and Dick (1999); Lorton (1999), esp. p.147 fn 37; Dick (2017). 7 Zettler (1986: 36). 8 Hart (2005: 74-75); Shonkwiler (2014). 9 Lumsden (1990: 93-97); Teissier (1996: 95-101). 10 Michaux-Colombot (2008). 11 Ataç (2006), esp. p.83. 12 Maras (2009); Secunda (2010: 260-1). 13 Abram (2011), p.17 & fn 10. 14 One version of the “rod and ring” appears incidentally in Fig. 1.

71

15 For a good overview, see Ataç (2015). 16 Commendably, Herodotus [Hdt I 181.5-182.2] connected the “sacred marriage” of the High Priestess in Thebes with a corresponding Babylonian practice (discussed below in Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage). Similarly, some modern scholars mention the categories of Mesopotamian en-priestess and Egyptian God’s Wife in quick succession, without providing any detail, e.g., Solvang (2003: 43). Surprisingly, the recent 543-page compendium titled Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early devotes only a tangential paragraph to the GWA (Rikala 2008: 124-5) and – in a different paper – a single sentence to the EPN (Lapinkivi 2008: 17). 17 For convenience of layout and reference, Tables 1-6 (all of which are called by the end of the next paragraph) appear as a single group, uninterrupted by text, figures or page-breaks, starting on the next page. Figure placements commence after Table 6. Tables 7-8, which belong together, are also presented as a single group at the place where Table 7 is first called. 18 Dodson (2004), esp. p.27; Westenholz (2012). 19 Van Buylaere (2019), esp. p.44. 20 Stol (2016: 555). Although not listed as a separate title at this stage, it forms the initial part of the ceremonial name Enheduana; Westenholz (2012: 300). Lion (2009: 170) cautions that, prior to this, “no document of the archaic Sumerian period mentions an EN of Nanna.” EN-ship in its original sense (see main text, Gender Issues) was the distinctive form of kingship in archaic Uruk ca. 3000, where the king was EN (Lord) of Inanna, goddess of that city, in a sacred marriage. See Westenholz (2012: 292); Westenholz (2013a: 248-9); Beaulieu (2007: 167); Steinkeller (1999: 103-11). 21 Westenholz (2012: 293-4). 22 Weadock (1975: 106). 23 Woolley (1982: 92-4); Crawford (2015: 54-56); Stol (2016: 471-5); Van de Mieroop (2016: 65- 66). Nevertheless, Collon (1999: 20) keeps alive the idea that “the large number of women might indicate that they were priestesses of Nanna.” 24 Woolley (1982: 124); Weadock (1975) p. 101 & 105 fn 40; Podany (2010: xv & 38-39); Astour (2002: 57-58). 25 Steinkeller (1999: 121) writes: “Still other types of high priestesses documented in the ED period are munus-zi and zirru [; ...] zirru was the high priestess of Nanna at Ur.” 26 Westenholz (2012), p. 291 fn 2 & p.297-8; Collon (1999: 20-21); Winter (1987: 193-6). 27 Crawford (2015: 90); Westenholz (2013a: 251); Westenholz (2012: 297-8). Collon (1999: 19) identifies a possible “priestess-queen” figure on Uruk-period seals. 28 Steinkeller (1999: 125). 29 Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 300). 30 Ayad (2009a: 4). 31 Ayad (2009a: 4). 32 Bryan (2003: 1). 33 Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296). 34 Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296). 35 Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296). 36 Bryan (2003: 3-4). 37 Bryan (2003: 5). 38 Gitton (1976). 39 Bryan (2003: 2-7 & 12); Robins (1993a: 70-71); Ayad (2009a: 6 & 139). 40 Bryan (2003: 5). 41 Feldman & Lewis (2016). 42 Stol (2016: 557); Suter (2007: 321). 43 Westenholz (2012: 300); Steinkeller (1999: 124). 44 Van de Mieroop (2016: 70); Westenholz (2012: 303); Winter (1987: 200-1).

72

45 Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 304). 46 Ayad (2009a: 6); Rosalie David (2014: 21). 47 Stone (2016); Encyclopaedia Britannica (2000). 48 Stone (2016); Encyclopaedia Britannica (2000). 49 Green & Black (2000a: 273); Westenholz (2013a: 255). 50 Kriwaczek (2010: 120). 51 Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83 (3). 52 Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83 (2); Stone (2016). 53 Green (1992: 35). 54 Green (1992: 35). 55 Thus ca. 1800-1760. Green & Black (2000a: 273); Green (1992: 36). 56 Green & Black (2000a: 273); Van de Mieroop (2016: 298). 57 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 164-5 & 185). 58 Westenholz (2012: 301). 59 Promoted to this position to match the dominance of his city Ur over Babylonia during Ur III. Hall (1986: 153); Beaulieu (2007: 167). 60 Hall (1985); Hall (1986). 61 Green & Black (2000a: 273). 62 Westenholz (2012: 301); Beaulieu (2007: 166). 63 Volk (1999: 101); Asher-Greve (2013: 230). 64 Green (1992: 36-37). 65 Wilkinson (2003: 92-94); Hart (2005: 14-15 & 20-21). 66 El Hawary (2016: 12); Blöbaum (2016: 197). 67 Taylor (2003: 326-7). 68 Hart (2005: 15-16). 69 Green & Black (2000a: 272-3); Hrůša (2015: 46). 70 Hart (2005: 14-15); Wilkinson (2003: 92-93). 71 Hart (2005: 86-88); Wilkinson (2003: 113-4). 72 Green & Black (2000a: 273) 73 Hart (2005: 13); Wilkinson (2003: 95). 74 Westenholz (2013b: 49). 75 Faulkner (1962: 106), entries for mwt; Fazzini & Peck (1983: 16). 76 Suter (2007), p.336 incl. fn 60. A section of the fragmentary A Balbale to Nanna (also known as Nanna B) reads: “I shall …… to the beautiful young reeds. Mistress, …… the treasures (?) of the ubi-birds. I will gather their eggs for you, and I shall …… the nest. High priestess of Nanna, …… the ubi-birds.” Black et al. (2001a), lines 32-37. 77 Suter (2007: 336); Stol (2016: 558); Westenholz (2012), 295 fn 19; Asher-Greve (2013), p.182 (incl. fn 787) & p.230; Tinney & Jones (n.d.). 78 Westenholz (2012: 302); Westenholz (2013a:249). 79 Hart (2005: 97). 80 Wilkinson (2003: 154); Lohwasser (2016: 123). 81 Lohwasser (2016: 123). As #ai-nfr.w-Mw.t is probably a subjunctive, “May the perfection of Mut appear” [Ayad (2009a: 29)], there is no need to contend – as does Lohwasser (2016: 124) – that “Amenirdis I represents herself as the living personification of Mut, while the following GWAs construct their names as a title expressing a link to the goddess but not embodiment of her.” The extent to which the GWA may be identified with Mut is discussed in the main text section titled Cult and Ritual. 82 Westenholz (2012: 292). The city is not given, but cannot be Ur if Weadock (2012: 127) is correct. 83 Dodson (2004: 23).

73

84 “Originally a term for a god’s servant, but later understood as a variant of the high-priestess office.” Steinkeller (1999); van Koppen (2006: 91). See under table heading Iconography of spouse for an avian association. The term ZIRRU was adopted into Akkadian with the meaning “High Priestess of Sin;” in contrast, the native Akkadian term zirru means “reed fence.” Oppenheim (1961: 136). 85 Kriwaczek (2010: 120); Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 295-6 & 305); Stol (2016: 558); Asher-Greve (2013: 230-1). The title ZIRRU is still used by some post-Ur III EPNs such as Enanatuma (Isin dynasty); van Koppen (2006: 92). 86 Suter (2007: 322); Weadock (1975: 101-2); Westenholz (2012: 299). 87 Bryan (2003: 3-4). 88 Ayad (2009a: 3-4). 89 Westenholz (2012: 304). 90 Bryan (2003: 3-4). 91 Westenholz (2012: 304). 92 Weadock (1975: 103). 93 Westenholz (2013a: 251). Weadock (1975: 127-8) provides a list of known EN-priestesses of Nanna at Ur, with filiation and dates. Note however that Enirsiana and Ninziana (who are included by Weadock as En-nir-si-anna and Nin-zi-anna, respectively) are very unlikely to be EPNs, as discussed in the main text section titled Survival. 94 The biblical patriarch Abram/Abraham – whose origins are associated with Ur (Gen 11: 27-32) – is conventionally ascribed to a time at the end of the or in the early [Monson & Lancaster (2014), p.40 and foldout chart facing it]; traditionalists narrow the date-range to 2166-1991 BCE [Bauer (2007), p.128 fn]. If Abraham existed and his dating is broadly correct, he would probably have grown up in Ur at a time when the EPN there was a powerful and well-known individual. The name of Abraham’s father, , and the names of other relatives suggest that his forefathers and immediate family may have been followers of Nanna/Sin [Hamilton (1990:363); Hartley (2000: 131); Bauer (2007: 128)]. Moreover, Harran – the place to which Terah relocated his family from Ur, and thus the first stop on Abraham’s journey to (Gen 12: 1-5; Acts 7: 2-4) – was the main cult centre for Nanna/Sin in the north [Kriwaczek (2010: 163); Summers (2000)]. One scholar – Savina Teubal – has gone so far as to propose that Sarai/, Abraham’s wife, was herself an EPN or similar [Teubal (1984), assessed by Vancil (1993: 37-41) and, less charitably, by Milne (1987: 122)]. 95 Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Weadock (1975: 127). 96 Sollberger (1965): UET VIII 12; Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.4.33-34; Suter (2007), p.322, 325 & Fig. 3; Weadock (1975: 127). 97 Edzard (1997): RIME 3/1.1.6.12-13; Suter (2007: 322); Weadock (1975: 127). 98 Frayne (1997): RIME 3/2.1.3.19 & year-name p.237; Westenholz (2012: 304-5); Weadock (1975: 128); van de Mieroop (2016: 85), Fig. 4.3. 99 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.3-4 & 13 and RIME 4.2.5.1-2; Suter (2007), p.329-330 & Fig. 9; Stol (2016), p.560-563 & Fig. 43; Weadock (1975: 128). 100 Weadock (1975: 128). 101 Gadd (1951: 30); Weadock (1975: 128). 102 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15 & 32, and RIME 4.2.14.20; Weadock (1975: 128); Westenholz (2012: 306); Westenholz (2013a: 251); Stol (2016: 566); Gadd (1951). 103 Robins (1993a: 71-77). 104 Robins (1993a: 71); Ayad (2009a: 6). 105 Ayad (2009a: 6); Quirke (2000-3a); Bart (n.d.). 106 Ayad (2009a: 6); Dodson (2004: 23). 107 Ayad (2009a: 8-9); Quirke (2000-3a) ; Bart (n.d.). 108 Westenholz (2013a: 262). 109 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Gadd (1951); Stol (2016: 576); Weadock (1975: 109-10 & 119); Postgate (1992: 130).

74

110 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15; Asher-Greve (2013: 228). 111 Gadd (1951: 28); Stol (2016: 575-6). 112 Price (2014). 113 Crawford (2015: 92 & 94). 114 Van de Mieroop (1992: 128). 115 Gardiner (1961: 298); Pemberton (2013: 186); Ayad (2009a: 9); el Hawary (2016: 16). 116 Stol (2016: 584). 117 Ayad (2009a: 142-3); Dodson (2002: 186). 118 By continuation from the Early phase (Table 3, Basic titles). 119 Koch (2012: 65), contra Ayad (2009a: 19) who nominates Amenirdis I (Dynasty 25) as the first. 120 Ayad (2009a: 19). 121 Ayad (2009a: 131). 122 Amenirdis I made three references to Osiris as her father in the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity in East Karnak; Ayad (2009a: 132). 123 Teeter (1999: 411-2); Morkot (2006: 148 & 151). In an unrelated context, Pope (2013: 194) tells us that “epitheta of the God’s Wives in Egypt were themselves borrowed from a still earlier source – the institution of queenship;”. Perhaps this , together with the origins of the institution among the Great Royal Wives of the New Kingdom, underpins an occasional honorific use of the term Hm.t nsw in respect of later GWAs. Indeed, Pope (2015: 363-4) has argued that some of the Late phase GWAs may genuinely have been king’s wives. Most recently, however, a better photograph of the inscription on the sarcophagus of Nitocris I has caused him to abandon the claim that Shepenwepet II was there accorded the title of Hm.t nsw. Accordingly, there are now no known instances of Shepenwepet II being described as a king’s wife; Pope (2018: 51). 124 Ankhnesneferibre and Nitocris B were both appointed HPA while heiresses. The eventual absorption of this title by the GWA is discussed in the section titled Power and Prosperity. 125 Becker et al. (2016: 1). 126 Vittmann (2007), p.154 fn 83. 127 Brinkman (1996: 114); Weadock (1975: 112 & 128). 128 Due to the existence of incompatible chronological schemes, specific calendar dates are not included here. Specific dates from the various schemes are presented ahead in Fig. 10. 129 Ayad (2009a: 15-16). 130 Ayad (2009a: 16-18). 131 Ayad (2009a: 18-21). 132 Ayad (2009a: 23-27). 133 Ayad (2009a: 27-28). 134 Stol (2016: 575-6); Brinkman (1996: 114); Weadock (1975: 112). 135 Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 394-5). 136 Caminos (1964); Wilkinson (2016: 212-9); Blöbaum (2016). 137 Most recently reiterated by Ayad (2016a: 94) and Blöbaum (2016: 183-4). 138 Bryan (2003: 8-12); Dodson (2002); Koch (2012: 44-50). 139 Ayad (2009a: 120-1 & 140-141); Leahy (1996: 155). 140 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.118 (incl. fn 13). 141 Ayad (2009: 16 & 117). 142 Luft (2010: 426). 143 Taylor (2003: 353). 144 Ayad (2009a: 119-20); Becker (2016: 38-41). While not denying the prominence of Kushite royal women in affairs of state, Koch (2012:24) cautions that the Kushite social system was not matrilineal. 145 Luft (2010: 427); Taylor (2003: 350-2).

75

146 “Not surprisingly it is from the that come the greatest number of attestations and clearest indications of worship [of Nanna];” Stone (2016). The calculation of four EPNs for the Ur III period is from Weadock (1975: 127-8), minus Enirsiana (see main text section titled Survival). 147 She may of course have been a compiler/editor rather than author, or even have been credited honorifically with creations from a later time; Stol (2016: 565-6). 148 Westenholz (2012: 305). 149 Westenholz (2012: 305). 150 Westenholz (2012: 306). 151 Török (2009: 322). Some scholars (Ayad, Dodson and others) seem to consider Shepenwepet’s political prominence less important than the influence exerted by her Nubian and Saite successors (Dyn 25-26). 152 Dodson (2002: 179). 153 Ayad (2009a: 111 & 118-9); Kemp (2006: 346-7); Graves-Brown (2010: 89). 154 Koch (2012: 77), as discussed in main text section titled Power and Prosperity. 155 Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 107-8). 156 Enanedu held office for at least 30 years; Gadd (1951: 35). 157 Stol (2016: 584-604). Postgate (1992: 131) has them as “daughters-in-law” of Shamash rather than as the god’s second wives. 158 Stol (2016: 606). 159 Crawford (2015: 92). 160 Van de Mieroop (2016: 123); Crawford (2015: 112). 161 Weadock (1975: 110). 162 Stol (2016: 574). The “convent of nuns” at Sippar outlasted Samsuiluna by a century; Stol (2016: 603). 163 Weadock (1975: 111). 164 Zettler (2011), at 0:14:40-0:15:55. 165 Weadock (1975: 111). 166 Crawford (2015: 118). 167 Crawford (2015: 113). 168 Weadock (1975: 112). Conversely, Brigitte Lion appears to believe that there was no EPN at Ur between Enanedu and the Neo-Babylonian revival of the office a millennium later, when Nabonidus appointed his daughter En-nigaldi-Nanna as EPN; Lion (2009: 180). 169 Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 393-4); Anagnostou-Laoutides (2017: 83). 170 Zettler (2011), at 0:15:00-015:46. 171 Ayad (2009a: 6). 172 Ayad (2009a: 10), contra Ayad (2009a: 15). 173 Ayad (2009a: 15). 174 Ritner (2009: 591). 175 Coulon (2014: 567). 176 Crawford (2015: 119). 177 Weadock (1975: 112). 178 Stol (2016: 574); Weadock (1975: 112). 179 Crawford (2015: 120-6). 180 Stol (2016: 575-6); Weadock (1975: 109); Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 394-5). 181 Stol (2016: 574-5); Garrison (2012: 45); Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 393-5). Nabonidus’s daughter’s name was originally misread as Bel-shalti-Nanna [Stol (2016), p.576 fn 119] and the reading persists in some modern literature [Crawford (2015), p.126 & Fig. 9.iii]. 182 Woolley (1982), p.237 (plan); Crawford (2015), p.11 (map) & p.124-127; Weadock (1975: 113).

76

183 The criticism is recorded in the ; Arnold & Michalowski (2006: 426-9). The authors caution that Cyrus’s criticism of the appointment of En-nigaldi-Nanna as EPN is not entirely certain, as their translation glosses over a grammatical difficulty. 184 Ayad (2009a: 153-4). 185 Pope (2013: 197-8). Although Ayad (2009a: 154) claims the time interval to be 200 years, Pope (2014: 220) points out that its duration is actually around 60 years. The ancestor (whose identity has been effaced) is usually assumed to be Amenirdis II [Pope (2014: 220-2)], who may have returned to Nubia after she was displaced as heiress by Nitocris (main text, Succession). Recently, Pope (2015) has proposed Shepenwepet II as the ancestor. Lohwasser (2016: 129) does not believe that the ancestor was a genuine GWA or heiress, merely a priestess of Amun at Thebes. 186 Ritner (1998). 187 Koch (2012: 60). 188 Ritner (1998). 189 Koch (2012: 59). 190 Ayad (2009a: 155). 191 Koch (2012:59). 192 Hoffmeier (1992) p.89-90 & fn 63; Schulman (1979), p.193 & fn 13.; Herodotus III, 1-4 [de Sélincourt (1972: 203)]; Leahy (1996: 165). 193 Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 79-82. 194 Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83. 195 Ayad (2009a: 4); Perdu (2016: 226). 196 Ayad (2009a: 4); Bart (n.d.); Perdu (2016: 225). Perdu indicates that one such institution may relate to Horus-Re. 197 Pérez Die (1992), p.53 and Pl. XIVb & XVb; Koch (2012: 81-2). 198 Collombert (1995). 199 Koch (2012: 81); Perdu (2016: 225-6). The God’s Wife of Heryshaf, which is the subject of Perdu (2016), was not confined to royal women, but in the Saite period was occupied by a daughter of Psamtek II; see main text section titled The Office of High Priestess. 200 Perdu (2016:229); Graves-Brown (2010: 86). 201 Dodson (2004: 23). 202 Pope (2013: 205); Pope (2014: 227). 203 Stol (2016: 568). 204 Westenholz (2012: 297-8). 205 Finkel & Taylor (2015: 90); Weadock (1975: 101). 206 Stol (2016: 569). 207 Stol (2016: 574). 208 Bryan (2003: 4-5). 209 Ayad (2009a: 9). 210 Leahy (1996), p.150 (note m) & 157. 211 Westenholz (2013a: 254-5). 212 Stol (2016: 569). 213 Westenholz (2013a: 254-5). 214 Morkot (2006: 153). 215 Most detailed written account is for Ankhnesneferibre, supplemented by imagery for Nitocris I. Leahy (1996: 149 & 158-9). 216 Coulon (2014). 217 Kemp (2006: 352-3). 218 Woolley (1982: 139-47); Crawford (2015: 11). 219 Black (2000).

77

220 Koch (2012: 39). 221 Kemp (2006: 352-3); Robins (2008: 214). 222 Ayad (2009a), p.29 (Table 1.2). 223 For example, Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II were substituted for Mut in depictions of the “divine marriage” at the Chapel of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree (East Karnak), images that are clearly based on the depiction of Mut embracing Amun in the Hypostyle Hall of Karnak. Ayad (2009a: 134-5). 224 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 215); Wilkinson (2003: 155-6); Fazzini & Peck (1983); Pinkowski (2006); el Hawary (2016: 11-12). 225 Lohwasser (2016: 123). 226 Blackman (1921: 12-14); Morkot (2006: 151); Coulon (2014: 581); Koch (2012: 65). 227 Pope (2014: 206 & 224); Pope (2013: 179-181, 201 & 206-7); Manassa (2011: 355); Leahy (1996: 149); Koch (2012: 80-81); Coulon (2014: 581); el Hawary (2016: 12-13). 228 Ayad (2009a: 90, 95, 102 & 104); Ayad (2016a: 95). 229 Koch (2012: 65). 230 CDLI (2017), Ur III: Amar-Sin, year 9. 231 Leahy (1996: 159); Pope (2014: 212); Koch (2012: 77-79). 232 Robins (2008: 75). 233 Westenholz (2013a: 255). 234 Weadock (1975), p.115-16 & fn 96. 235 Westenholz (2013a: 257). 236 Suter (2007: 340). 237 Suter (2007: 340-1); Westenholz (2013a: 255). 238 Westenholz (2013a: 257); Weadock (1975: 103). 239 Westenholz (2013a: 257). 240 Westenholz (2013a: 257). 241 Stol (2016: 566); Suter (2007), p.320 fn 10; Postgate (1992: 130); Weadock (1975: 103). 242 Ayad (2009a: 121); Robins (1993a: 71). 243 Ayad (2009a: 94); Bryan (2003: 2). 244 Ayad (2009a: 35-70); Robins (1993a: 71); Koch (2012: 74). 245 Ayad (2009a: 122); Robins (1993a: 71); Bryan, (2003: 2). A God’s Father ranked higher than a wab-priest but below a Hm nTr; Contardi (2006: 145). The latter group were led by the First, Second, Third and Fourth Priests of Amun, the first-mentioned being the HPA; the sequence from wab-priest to HPA is exemplified by the career of the Ramesside priest Bakenkhons; Frood (2007: 41). There seems to have been no priestly rank of God’s Father in the Mesopotamian cult of Nanna. On the other hand, God’s Mother is a known female title within the Hittite priesthood; Taggar-Cowen (2006: 335-68). From Dynasty 21, the title of God’s Mother also appears in Egypt, usually in relation to Khonsu (as child) and sometimes in relation to Hathor (as mother); Perdu (2016: 226-8). 246 Ayad (2009a: 75-82 & 87-102); Koch (2012: 76) . 247 Ayad (2009a: 103-10); Robins (1993a: 71). 248 Ayad (2009a: 90, 95, 102 & 104) 249 Ayad (2009a: 70-74); Koch (2012: 74 & 81). 250 Ayad (2009a: 103-10); Ayad (2016a: 95); Koch (2012: 28 & 75). There was a brief period in the late New Kingdom/early Third Intermediate Period when some members of the High Priest of Amun’s family co-opted the ritual for private funerary use; Koch (2016: 156). 251 Ayad (2009a:110-6); Koch (2012: 41); Pope (2013: 210-1); Ayad (2016a: 96). 252 Green & Black (2000c); Steinkeller (1999: 116); Suter (2007: 322). For recent treatments of this phenomenon as a metaphor with parallels beyond ancient Mesopotamia, see e.g. Lapinkivi (2008); Pongratz-Leisten (2008). Until recently, the sacred marriage of the king to a fertility goddess or figure who represented the sovereignty of the land was accepted as having diffused

78

as far afield as Scandinavia, but this Frazerian generalisation has recently come under challenge; Sundqvist (2016: 7-12). 253 Weadock (1975: 102); Jacobsen (1957), p.126 fn 80; Wakeman (1985: 17-18); Black et al. (2001b), lines 15-20; cf. caution in Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 105. See discussion in the section titled Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage. 254 A small room with a large bed platform adjacent to C27, the shrine of the Ningal temple; Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Wooley (1982), p.185 (plan); Weadock (1975) Pl. XXVIa (plan) & p.115-118. 255 Westenholz (2013a: 257-8); Suter (2007: 322); Postgate (1992: 130); Steinkeller (1999: 133). 256 Steinkeller (1999), p.134 fn 106. 257 Hdt. 182.1-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114). 258 Robins (1993a: 67-70). However, see also the next endnote. 259 Blackman (1921: 12-4); Koch (2012: 79-80); Rikala (2008), esp. p.124 for the Hathor-Mut equivalence. 260 Accordingly, Koch (2012: 65) observes that the title of God’s Wife alludes to the king’s “divine descent by a proclaimed marriage of his mother with a god.” 261 Robins (1993b: 153); David (2014: 20); Graves-Brown (2010: 89). 262 Ayad (2009a: 34-51 & 151-2); Graves-Brown (2010: 90). 263 Manassa (2011: 357); Ayad (2009a: 38 & 51). 264 Koch (2012: 79-80). 265 Hdt. 182.1-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114 ). 266 Gadd (1951: 32). 267 Weadock (1975: 102). 268 Lion (2009: 166); Hrůša (2015: 76-7); Scurlock (2014: 106); Postgate (1992: 130). 269 Stol (2016: 568-73). 270 Stol (2016: 572); Sparks (2005: 279); cf. Speiser (2011: 82). See discussion in the section titled Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage. 271 Suter (2007), p.327 fn 32, citing a presentation by Markus Hilgert at the Oriental Institute, Chicago (30 May, 2000). 272 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.14; Westenholz (2013a: 268). 273 Ayad (2009a: 9). 274 Robins (1993a: 67); Rikala (2008: 124-5). The idea that the husband of the GWA would become king is central to the plot of the novel The God’s Wife (Voedisch 2011: 54). 275 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-8); Dodson (2004: 24-25); van de Mieroop (2010: 275); Mark (2017); Morkot (2006: 153). 276 Ayad (2009a: 117 & 152); Teeter (1999: 406). Ritner (2009: 460) quotes Baer in describing the GWAs as “celibate priestesses who secured the allegiance of Thebes to the crown by providing ‘a politically harmless titular head for the domain of Amun.’” 277 Leahy (1996: 164). 278 Teeter (1999: 411-2), following Habachi (1977: 169-70); cf. reservations in Ayad (2009a: 21) and critique in Russmann (1997), p.36 fn 125. The issue is discussed in the section titled Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage. 279 Manassa (2011: 359); Pope (2015: 363-4), but cf. Pope (2018: 52). 280 Bryan (2003: 13). 281 Ayad (2009a: 15, 28, 152 & 154); Ayad (2016a: 89). 282 Westenholz (2013a: 258 & 267); Hrůša (2015: 76). 283 Westenholz (2013a), p.248 (Table 12.1); Hrůša (2015: 76-81). 284 Kriwaczek (2010: 121); Hafford (2012); Hart (n.d.a). Source publications are Frayne (1992): RIME 2.1.1.2003 (seal U8988; UET I 271) for hairdresser Ilum Pal[il]; RIME 2.1.1.2005 (sealing U11684) for scribe [x]-kituš-du ; RIME 2.1.1.2004 (seal U9178) for the estate supervisor/majordomo Adda (the equivalent of the High Steward of a GWA). The seal for

79

scribe Sagadu, whose inscription is interpreted online by William Hallo [Hart (n.d.b.)], is in the Rosen Collection; see Eisenberg (1998), p.30 Fig. 23 (No. 64). 285 Assuming these designations were junior titles used by the heiress(es), an assumption common to much of the existing scholarship but recently contested by Koch (2012: 44-50 & 62-65). 286 Koch (2012: 82-86). 287 As heiresses, Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre each held the title Hsi.t wr.t n.t Xnw n.y Imn.w; Koch (2012: 62 & 77). As heiress, Amenirdis II seems to have done likewise with Hsi.t aA.t n.t Xnw n.y Imn.w; Pope (2015: 358). 288 Li (2011); Corsi (2013). 289 Koch (2012: 12-15) describes these functionaries (High Steward/Chief Steward/Great Overseer of the House); their Egyptian names are listed by (n.d.a). No less than eight statues of Harwa, the High Steward of Amenirdis I, are held by the Berlin Museum; David (2014: 19). Later in Dynasty 25 he was followed by Akhamenrau; Koch (2012: 14). In Dynasty 26, Nitocris I was served by Ibi, Pabasa, Padihorresnet, and Anchhor, while Ankhnesneferibre’s High Stewards were Sheshonq A, Padineith and Sheshonq B; Koch (2012: 15). 290 Bryan (2003: 2). 291 Westenholz (2012: 304). 292 Westenholz (2012), p.304 & fn 55. 293 Lion (2009); Westenholz (2012: 306); Westenholz (2013a: 267). 294 Westenholz (2012: 301). 295 Westenholz (2012: 304-5); Weadock (1975: 103). 296 Legrain (1937-47): UET III 864. 297 Westenholz (2012: 306); cf. the source inscription in Figulla & Martin (1953): UET V 343, which names the two lenders as Belshametabum and Namtinibani. None of the records for Enanedu in Figulla & Martin (1953): UET V show her lending money for interest. 298 E.g., the Adoption Stele of Nitocris. Caminos (1964); Wilkinson (2016: 212-9). 299 Török (2009: 322); Dodson (2002: 179); cf. cautions by Koch (2012: 76-77). 300 Brier (2010). 301 Van de Mieroop (2010: 275); Mark (2017). 302 Weadock (1975: 104-5). 303 Weadock (1975), p.104-5 & 128 fn 56; Gadd (1951: 30). 304 Gadd (1951: 30); Stol (2016: 562-3). 305 Gadd (1951: 39). Similarly Stol (2016: 557), Westenholz (2012: 304). 306 Kriwaczek (2010: 122-4); Stol (2016: 564-5). Similarly Ninshatapada, a daughter of King Sin- kashid of Uruk and a High Priestess of Meslamtaea, the god of Durum, was exiled under Rim- Sin I of Larsa, the brother of Enanedu after he conquered Uruk; Stol (2016: 577). 307 Gadd (1951: 30 & 35). 308 Westenholz (2012: 304). 309 Van de Mieroop (2016: 96); Stol (2016: 563). 310 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-8); Becker et al. (2017: 1). El Hawary (2016: 16) sees Isis as the prototype adoptee, being “the first God’s Wife who was enthroned through adoption by her predecessor, the divine grandmother Isis” (i.e., Ramses VI’s mother, Isis). 311 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-8). 312 Morkot (2006: 153); Ayad (2009a: 143). 313 Ritner (1998), p.91 & fn 6. 314 Teeter (1999). 315 Ayad (2009a: 9); el Hawary (2016: 16). 316 Leahy (1996), p.164 fn 81. 317 Dodson (2002: 186).

80

318 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1); Dodson (2002: 186). 319 Caminos (1964: 97); Leahy (1996: 159); Dodson (2002); Pope (2013: 178 & 188); Pope (2014: 212). 320 Ayad (2009a: 30). 321 Stol (2016: 565); Kriwaczek (2010: 122-3). 322 Gadd (1951: 28); Weadock (1975: 103). 323 Lion (2009: 171-3); Stol (2016: 555-6 & 559). 324 Lion (2009: 167-9). 325 Lion (2009); Westenholz (2012: 306); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.32. 326 Graves-Brown (2010: 88); Bart (n.d.), Isis, Dyn 20; Ayad (2009a), p.10, Dyn 21 & p.29 (Table 1.2), Dyn 23-26. 327 Leahy (1996: 155). 328 Ayad (2009: 10 & 155); Török (2009: 322). 329 Bryan (2003: 4); Gitton (1976), p.72 & Pl. XIV. 330 Bryan (2003: 11). Betsy Bryan connects this construction, which she interprets as “she is born to” NN, with the terminology commonly used to describe male filiation, e.g. the relative form [son X] ir(i).n [father Y], “[son X] whom [father Y] made” [Allen (2010: 364)] and the passive participial construction [son X] ir(i.y) n [father Y] “[son X] who was made by [father Y]” [Faulkner (1962: 25)], and on this basis suggests that “Nitocris may be understood to be now claiming a male-type filiation from Amenirdis II, who likewise claims it from Shepenwepet II;” Bryan (2003: 11). However, the grammar on the stele is consistent with other interpretations that do not imply male filiation, such as “she is made over to NN,” as preferred by other translators; Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 214). 331 Leahy (1996: 148 & 151); Dodson (2004: 27). 332 E.g., part of a diorite statue of Enanatuma has been found in the Ningal temple within the GIPAR Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.13; Franz van Koppen (2006: 92). 333 Suter (2007: 331-2 & 339); Collon (1999: 21); Westenholz (2012: 304). 334 Brisch (2007). 335 Suter (2007: 330-1); Collon (1999: 21); Westenholz (2012: 304). 336 Roberts (2004). 337 Suter (2007: 341) & Westenholz (2012: 304). 338 Westenholz (2012: 293). 339 Dodson (2004); Ayad (2009a: 34-115); Morkot (2006). 340 Robins (1993a: 71); Graves-Brown (2010: 90). 341 Ayad (2009a: 34-115 & 124-41); Morkot (2006: 148-53); Koch (2012: 73-4). As Queen/Mut, Ayad (2009a: 1), Pope (2013: 194 & 197), Koch (2012: 73). Unwigged, Ayad (2009a: 88 & 91- 95). As Dyn 18 queen, Robins (2008: 214). 342 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 215); Morkot (2006: 150); Hallmann (2016: 213). Probably in origin an expression of femininity; el Hawary (2016: 11-2). On the various types of headgear worn by Ankhnesneferibre and some previous GWAs, and the distinction between the vulture cap/headdress and , see Hallmann (2016: 212-7). 343 History of Ancient Egypt (n.d.b); Ayad (2009a: 124-9). 344 Ayad (2009a: 61-70). 345 Koch (2012: 42); Aufderhaar (2016). 346 Ayad (2009a: 42, 103-15, 118 & 132). 347 Ayad (2009a:134-7). 348 Ayad (2009a), p.104-9 and Figs. 2.11 & 2.26; Ayad (2016a: 95). 349 Quirke (2000-3b); Ayad (2009a: 36). 350 Stol (2016: 563); Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 108).

81

351 Van Koppen (2006: 91-92); Stol (2016: 563); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1-2; Frayne (2017): COS 2.98. 352 Jurman (2016: 62); Koch (2012: 112-39). 353 Coulon (2014). 354 Koch (2012: 39). 355 Ayad (2009a: 15-22 & 25-27). 356 Kriwaczek (2010: 120); Westenholz (2013a: 262); Weadock (1975: 103-4). 357 Westenholz (2013a: 262); Stol (2016: 561-2). 358 Stol (2016: 561-2); Postgate (1992: 130); Weadock (1975) p.109-10, 119, 124 & Pl. XXVIa; Gadd (1951: 28 & 36-38); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Westenholz (2013a: 262). The graveyard/tomb complex is discussed in the section titled Residence. 359 Crawford (2015: 91); Weadock (1975: 104). 360 Postgate (1992: 130). 361 Weadock (1975: 104 & 110). 362 Robins (1993a: 72-73). 363 Ayad (2009a: 15-28); Hays (2003); Koch (2012: 29-31 & 36). 364 Koch (2016: 160); Ayad (2016b: 171). 365 Ayad (2009a: 133 & 140). 366 Ayad (2009a), p.104-9 and Figs. 2.11 & 2.26; Ayad (2016a: 95). 367 Woolley (1982: 124-5). 368 Stol (2016: 564). 369 Kriwaczek (2010: 122); Stol (2016: 564-5); Wakeman (1985: 18-19); Mark (2014); Mark (2010). Some refuse to go as far as crediting Enheduana with a “new theology” that replaced Enlil with Inanna; Westenholz (2012: 303). 370 Stol (2016: 564-5); Westenholz (2012: 303); Mark (2014); Mark (2010); Feldman & Lewis (2016); van de Mieroop (2016; 70). 371 Roberts (2004). 372 Gadotti (2011: 195-6). 373 Green (1992: 37); Westenholz (2012: 306). 374 Ayad (2009a: 8-9); Morkot (2006: 153); el Hawary (2016: 16). 375 Török (2009: 322); Legrain (1908: 278-9). 376 Ayad (2009a: 111 & 118-9); Kemp (2006: 346-7); cf. cautions by Koch (2012: 76-77). 377 In synchronic terms, we are therefore comparing Mesopotamia at the time of the Egyptian late Old Kingdom through late Middle Kingdom with Egypt at the time of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires in Mesopotamia. 378 References are primarily cited in the footnotes to the tables, as the latter are the main repository of detailed information and the sources from which it has been drawn. To avoid cluttering the discussion with endnotes, references will be repeated only sparingly in the main text. 379 Mesopotamia: Green & Black (2000b); George (1999: 175-95). Egypt: Shaw & Nicholson (2008:119-20); Hornung (1999: xvii-xix & 13-152). 380 Roaf (1990: 75). 381 As a faithful representation of a two-dimensional work of art in the Public Domain, the image is also deemed to be in the Public Domain; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. 382 Penn Museum, online at https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/251212. 383 Dodson & Hilton (2004: 213-21); Jurman (2016), Figs. 4a & 4b. 384 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 240). 385 Kitchen (2009: 202). 386 Westenholz (2012: 300); Steinkeller (1999: 124).

82

387 British Museum, online at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?object Id=154939&partId=1&searchText=60006&images=true&page=1. 388 Order number: FI-000932680. 389 Ayad (2009a: 16 & 117). 390 Suter (2007: 323 & 341). Similarly, Angelika Lohwasser (2016: 122) writes that the Nubian GWAs “managed to tie together the two most influential institutions of their time – territorial kingship and the sacral realm.” 391 Tobin (2003: 163). 392 The legal view of the GWA as a “son,” as detailed in the section titled Gender Issues, makes for an even closer comparison. 393 Suter (2007), p.323-4 & Fig. 1; Collon (1999: 20-21). 394 Ur Online, object 6612, image B16665_8.jpg, online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/5841/. 395 Ayad (2009a), p.110-5 incl. Fig. 2.28. 396 Ayad (2009a: 10). 397 Delange et al. (2005: 99). Similar praise can be found in Edwards (1982: 578-9). 398 E.g., Edwards (1982: 556); Jurman (2016). Similarly, Koch (2012: 44-50 & 62-65) maintains that Divine Adoratrice was not a junior title and was only ever used by an installed GWA. 399 Jurman (2016: 66-67). 400 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karomama_Louvre_02.JPG. 401 Suter (2007), p.334 (Table 1) & Fig. 10. 402 Louvre Museum, online at http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=12224&langue=en; non- commercial reproduction permitted with attribution. 403 Green (1992: 36-37). 404 Fitzwilliam Museum, online at http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/collections/egypt/58993. 405 The Fitzwilliam Museum Images, licence 413-16-17. 406 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amenirdis_Med_Habou_1_c.jpg. 407 Shabaqo, Shebitqo and Necho (Fig. 10), as detailed in the section titled Succession. 408 Ayad (2009a: 142-3); Dodson (2002: 186). 409 This is the conventional wisdom within the traditional chronology for the GWAs; see ahead to notes b & c to Table 7. The revisionist program of Koch (2012) will be addressed later, especially in the section titled Succession and in Tables 7 & 8. 410 Török (2009: 322); Meffre (2016), p.48 incl. fn 10; Schulz (2009); Morkot (2016: 110 & 112); Lohwasser (2016: 125-6). On the other hand, Ayad (2016a: 97) and Koch (2012: 24) favour the idea that Amenirdis was actually appointed by her brother, Piye. 411 Vittmann (2007: 139); Dodson & Hilton (2004: 232-3 & 242). 412 Steinkeller (1999: 126). 413 Van de Mieroop (2016: 348-50). 414 Hallo (1971: 68). 415 Emelianov (2016). 416 Adjusted, where necessary, to match those in Dodson & Hilton (2004: 226-47). 417 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) and genealogical charts on p.12 & 23. Dates for Libyan kings have been refined using the more specialised chronological study of Kitchen (2009: 202). 418 Dodson (2002: 186). 419 Koch’s revisionist chronology is at odds with the traditional chronology of Ayad and Dodson for the earlier GWAs in the figure; see ahead to Table 7, notes b & c. The term for Shepenwepet I is inferred from Koch (2012: 11), Table 1, using Kitchen (2009: 202) as the best estimate of regnal dates for Osorkon III (786-758 BCE), Takelot III (763-744 BCE) and Sheshonq V (767-

83

730 BCE). The death of Amenirdis I and consequent installation of Shepenwepet II is estimated to be 677-670 BCE from Koch (2012: 42-43 & 282), Pope (2015: 361) and Coulon et al. (2018: 276, incl. fn 28), rounded to ca. 674 BCE for brevity in the figure. Koch (2014: 407) specifies a 40-year incumbency for Amenirdis I, which provides for her installation in 717-710 BCE, rounded to ca. 714 BCE in the figure. The death of Shepenwepet II and succession of Nitocris I is estimated to have occurred no later than 639 BCE, as it is known that Ibi was installed as the first High Steward to Nitocris in that year; Koch (2012: 15); Pope (2013: 187); Coulon (2014: 567). 420 Ayad (2009a: 12), cf. Dodson & Hilton (2004: 236-7). Also, Koch (2012: 43) calls Amenirdis I the great-aunt of Shepenwepet II, whereas in the figure she is simply the latter’s aunt. 421 Contra Morkot (2016: 108), who favours retaining the traditional order, stand Broekman (2017); Becker et al. (2017), p. 4 incl. fn 6; Ayad (2016: 91); Coulon et al. (2018). 422 Dodson (2002), p.179 fn 1. 423 Van De Mieroop (2016: 70). 424 Steinkeller (1999), p.126 fn 79 & p.129 fn 92. 425 Koch (2012: 81); Perdu (2016). In office, she bore the titles Hmt-nTr (God’s Wife), mwt-nTr (God’s Mother), dwA(t)-nTr (Divine Adoratrice) and, as her most important epithet, im(.yt) bAH / im(.yt) mtwt (rendered by Purdue as “Dépositaire de la Semence,” Depository of the Seed). The first, third and last titles are in relation to the god Heryshaf and relate the priestess to Hathor, while the second title is in relation to the god Somtous, son of Heryshaf and Hathor. 426 Ayad (2009a: 3). 427 Faulkner (1962: 168-9); Ockinga (2012: 160); Graves-Brown (2010: 86). 428 The title of Mariam Ayad’s book, God’s Wife, God’s Servant, is derived directly from this Egyptian double entendre. Ayad (2009a: xiii). 429 Preys (2002), p.8, p.11 fn 122 & p.12. 430 Cauville (2004: 262 & 320). 431 Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16. 432 Ur Online, object 6612, image B16665_5.jpg, online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/5841/. 433 Volk (1999: 43-74). The figure departs from the convention used in the main text, where Sumerian words (other than proper names) are given in small capitals. In the figure, capitals have been reserved for the components of DIRI-compounds. 434 Westenholz (2012: 295-7); Westenholz (2013a: 249-51); Steinkeller (1999: 212-2). 435 Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16. 436 Edzard (1997): RIME 3/1.1.6.12. 437 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.3 & 4.2.5.2. 438 Westenholz (2012), p.296 note 3. 439 Steinkeller (1999: 122); Westenholz (2012), p.295 fn 19. 440 Steinkeller (1999: 123). 441 Steinkeller (1999: 123). 442 Steinkeller (1999: 124). Steinkeller’s hypothesis explains why the general identification of DAM dingir – “spouse of a divinity” – with EN remains controversial; Westenholz (2012), p.299 fn 32. 443 Steinkeller (1999), p.124 & fn 78. 444 Westenholz (2012: 295); Westenholz (2013a: 267). For other points of disagreement, see Westenholz (2012: 292) and Westenholz (2013a: 248 & 260). 445 Westenholz (2012: 295, 299 & 301); Westenholz (2013a: 267). 446 Westenholz (2012: 295-99); Steinkeller (1999: 127-8). 447 Frayne (1997): RIME 3/2.1.3.19. 448 Gadd (1951: 27); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.32 & 4.2.14.20. 449 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20, lines 1-9. Note that Weadock’s reading of line 7 from the same section as “a [woman with] loins suitable by [their] purity for the entu-ship” [Weadock (1975), p.101& fn 10] seems no longer to be supported.

84

450 On the EPNs at Ur, “... or il semble que ces femmes y assument parfois un genre masculin;” Lion, (2009: 167). 451 Steinkeller (1999: 105 & 109). 452 Steinkeller (1999: 112). 453 Steinkeller (1999), p.106 & 125 fn 76; Westenholz (2012: 292). 454 Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 25. 455 Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 48; both “[son]” and “(this)” are present in the original text. 456 Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 103; likewise 104. 457 Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 114, note (1). 458 Lion (2009: 167-8 & 171-3). 459 In such compositions, EMESAL is used especially when goddesses, women, or priests of Inanna speak, as well as in cultic ; Gadotti (2014: 61). 460 Crawford (2014: 20); Whittaker (2002: 637). 461 After Gadd (1951), Pl. XIV. 462 Convention as for Fig. 11. In a departure from the convention used in the main text, capitals have again been reserved for the components of DIRI-compounds. 463 British Museum, online at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?object Id=1353451&partId=1&searchText=Enanedu&images=true&museumno=1949,1013.1&page= 1. 464 Order number: FI-000915118 465 Teppo (2008), p.76 & 85 incl. fn 64. 466 Emphasis is in the original text; Wakeman (1985: 20). Enheduana’s exile is discussed in the main text section titled Survival. 467 Lion (2009: 171-3 & 177). 468 Lion (2009: 167); Westenholz (2012: 306). 469 Lion (2009: 179); Westenholz (2012: 306). 470 Bryan (2003: 4); Gitton (1976), p.71-72 & Pl. XIV. 471 Bryan (2003: 4). On the other hand, Morkot (2016: 110) takes the declaration to mean that “the office was initially hereditary within the descendants of Ahmose-Nefertary.” 472 Note that a similar practice operated in Mesopotamia; in Ur during the Ur III-Isin/Larsa period, “it was the duty of the eldest son to look after the graves;” Crawford (2015: 107). Although a man’s inheritance was divided between all of his children, the eldest son received a larger share to help him maintain the funerary estate; Crawford (2015: 101 & 107). 473 Ayad p.71. 474 Ayad p.16 475 As mentioned earlier (main text, The Office of High Priestess) Karomama was possibly the daughter of Osorkon II [Dodson (2004: 212-23); Jurman (2016), Figs. 4a & 4b]. This would place her in the generation of Shepenwepet’s great-grandfather, meaning that she was unlikely to have survived to the time of Shepenwepet’s designation. Another daughter of Osorkon II, Tashakheper, may have served briefly as Adoratrice between Karomama and Shepenwepet [Guilleux (2016); Bart (n.d.)], but, for identical reasons, is unlikely to have been in office when Shepenwepet was designated. An alternative or additional possibility to Tashakheper is the even more enigmatic Qedmerut [Morkot (2016: 111)]. A recently-considered alternative genealogy [Jurman (2016), Fig. 4c] repositions Karomama as Shepenwepet’s aunt, in which case the former could well have been in office when the latter was designated. Either way, though, there is no indication that Shepenwepet was adopted by an existing God’s Wife or Divine Adoratrice. 476 Morkot (2016: 111-2) suggests that the practice developed in the reigns of Osorkon III or Kashta, but not earlier. 477 Ayad (2009a: 143); Morkot (2006: 153); Ayad (2016a: 93). Koch (2012)’s Tables 1 & 2 (p.11 & 13) seem to favour this too.

85

478 mwt=s dwA.t nTr ^p-n-wpt mAa-xrw; Jansen-Winkeln (2009:259); Koch (2012: 89). 479 E.g., Koch (2012: 161). However, as this chapel was built by Nitocris, the filiation could be an anachronism reflecting the norms of Dynasty 26. 480 Line 3. Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 213). 481 In line 4, the stele uses the term ir(i).t(w)=s n NN, which can be read “she is made for/by NN,” where NN is the adoptive mother’s name [Bryan (2003: 10)]. Bryan connects this construction, which she interprets as “she is born to” NN, with the terminology commonly used to describe male filiation, e.g. the relative form [son X] ir(i).n [father Y], “[son X] whom [father Y] made” [Allen (2010: 364)] and the passive participial construction [son X] ir(i.y) n [father Y], “[son X] who was made by [father Y]” [Faulkner (1962: 25)], and on this basis makes the suggestion quoted in the main text. Teeter (2003: 409) observes that “the use of the term ir.t n (“engendered of”) [...] was more often associated with reference to a male antecedent but was also employed for women,” and provides examples of the latter. The expression on the stele is also consistent with other interpretations that do not imply male filiation, such as “she is made over to NN,” as preferred by other translators [Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 214)]. 482 Bryan (2003: 11). 483 Morkot (2006: 153). 484 Leahy (1996: 155). 485 E.g., Monderson (2007: 32). 486 Ayad (2009a: 133). 487 Ayad (2009a: 103-16); Pope (2013: 210-1). 488 Leahy (1996: 148 & 151); Dodson (2004: 27). 489 Ayad (2016: 98). 490 El Hawary (2016: 11-12); Hallmann (2016: 210-8). 491 Ayad (2009a: 10); Török (2009: 322); Jurman (2016: 63). By and large, these epithets were not newly minted by the GWA, e.g. Mistress of the Two Lands has precedents among queens and other royal women dating as far back as the Middle Kingdom; Aufderhaar (2016: 138). 492 Ayad (2009a: 155); Aufderhaar (2016: 143-4). 493 Koch (2012: 80-81). 494 Aufderhaar (2016: 144-5). The concept of the GWA as a counterpart to the king is of course not novel, being evident from early Dynasty 21; Koch (2012: 282). 495 Lohwasser (2016: 126). 496 Aufderhaar (2016: 143-4); Koch (2012: 80-81). 497 Woolley (1982: 141, 237 & 267); Weadock (1975: 111). 498 Woolley (1982: 141). 499 Woolley (1982: 141); Crawford (2015), p.11 (Fig. 1.ii). 500 Woolley (1982: 267). 501 Crawford (2015: 90). 502 Weadock (1975: 102-3). Steinkeller disputes the interpretation in which the GIPAR was actually a storehouse for food; Steinkeller (1999), p.106 fn 6. 503 Woolley (1982); Weadock (1975). 504 Weadock (1975: 123-4); Asher-Greve (2013: 227). 505 Weadock (1975: 116). See plans in Woolley (1982: 185) and Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa. 506 Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Woolley (1982), p.185 (plan) and Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa (plan) & p.115-8. 507 Crawford (2015: 87 & 114-5); Weadock (1975: 111). 508 Crawford (2015: 123); Weadock (1975: 113). For a plan of the temenos in the Neo-Babylonian period, see Woolley (1982: 237). 509 Weadock (1975: 109-10 & 124); for plan, see Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa. 510 Gadd (1951: 28); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20. 511 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20, lines 34-37.

86

512 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Gadd (1951: 28 & 36-38); Westenholz (2013a: 262); Weadock (1975: 109-10); Postgate (1992: 130). 513 Weadock (1975: 119). 514 Ur Online, online at http://www.ur-online.org/file-detail/40162/. 515 Room numbers from Woolley (1982), p.185 (“Plan of the Giparu”); other information gleaned from text in Woolley’s book and from Weadock (1975). 516 Title image in Mandal (2017), bearing the legend “Reconstruction of the sacred precinct at Ur, circa BC.” 517 Christie (1936). 518 Murder in Mesopotamia (2001/2), Season 8, Episode 2 in Agatha Christie’s Poirot (TV Series); DVD. UK: Carnival Film & Television and USA: A&E Television Networks. 519 Crawford (2015: 10 & 131). 520 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_Of_Ancient_Ur_Iraq.JPG. 521 Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa. 522 Woolley (1982: 188). 523 Ur Online, images 84-26-14_1.jpg (panel a) and 84-26-14_2.jpg (panel b), online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/38970/. 524 Ur Online, images B16477_1.jpg (panel a) B16477_2.jpg (panel b), online at http://www.ur- online.org/subject/2730/. 525 Weadock (1975: 104 & 110). 526 Westenholz (2013a: 262). 527 Stol (2016: 561-2); Weadock (1975), p.110 fn 70. 528 Westenholz (2013a: 262). 529 Kemp (2006: 351). 530 Kemp (2006), p.351-3, incl. Fig. 122. 531 Koch (2012: 52); Coulon (2014: 582). 532 Porter & Moss (1972: 19); Coulon (2014: 569). 533 Adapted from Kemp (2006), p.353 (Fig. 122, Phase III) and Koch (2012), p.140 (Abb. 25) & 151 (Abb. 26). 534 Ayad (2009a), p.17 (Fig. 1.1), cf. Koch (2012: 38), who contests the assignation to Shepenwepet I as speculative and inherently unlikely. 535 Koch (2012: 58). 536 Building identifications are from Porter & Moss (1972) and Coulon (2014). In contrast, the master-map of Karnak in Koch (2012: 112) assigns the Chapel of Osiris who Perpetually Gives Life (Wsir pA Dd anx) [= building 1 in my Fig. 19] to the item titled “Columned Building of Nitocris” on my map; the Columned Building of Nitocris is assigned by Koch to the structure titled “Residence of Ankhnesneferibre” on my map. However, her detailed ground-plan of the Columned Building of Nitocris [Koch (2012: 131)] is consistent with my assignations rather than those on her master-map. The confusion may in part reflect the fact that this chapel, which had originally stood somewhere in the area of modern Naga Malgata (i.e., the region where the “Columned Building of Nitocris” is found) was completely destroyed, and that – in the Ptolemaic era – blocks from it were reassembled at the precinct (which adjoins building 1 in my Fig. 19); Koch (2012: 40 & 128). 537 After Coulon (2014). 538 Ayad (2009a: 141); Porter & Moss (1972: 17-18); Koch (2012: 38-39 & 128-9). 539 Ayad (2009a: 78-82); Porter & Moss (1972: 193-4); Koch (2012: 55 & 134-5). 540 Ayad (2009a: 75-78); Porter & Moss (1972: 194-5); Koch (2012: 39 & 124-7). 541 Ayad (2009a: 55-58); Corsi (2013); Koch (2012: 38-39 & 121-3). 542 Ayad (2009b); Koch (2012: 25 & 114-20). 543 Koch (2012: 112). 544 Coulon (2014: 567-70).

87

545 Coulon (2014: 567-70). 546 Porter & Moss (1972: 19); Coulon (2014: 569); Ritner (2009: 590-1), line 20 of inscription; Koch (2012: 53). The range of meanings for wab.t includes embalming-place, tomb, kitchen, offering- slab and refectory [Faulkner (1962: 57)]. Coulon seems to envisage a sacred structure and Koch a sanctuary or embalming-place, whereas Ritner opts for a refectory. 547 Coulon (2014: 569-70). 548 Ayad (2009a); Coulon et al. (2018). 549 Van Koppen (2006: 91-92). Rather than seeing the final portion of the inscription as “for his life,” a repeat of the initial (undisputed) dedication for the life of Gungunum, Stol (2016: 563) reads it as “for her life,” an alternative reading consistent with Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.2 and Frayne (2017): COS 2.98. 550 Van Koppen (2006: 92). 551 A West Semitic corn god and minor deity in the Sumerian pantheon; Black & Green (1992: 56). Clearly he was honoured by Enanatuma’s father, Ishme-Dagan of Isin. 552 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1. 553 Li (2011). 554 The Small Temple is in the forecourt of Ramses’ mortuary temple, adjacent to the Migdol gate (the “Eastern High Gate”) in the south-eastern segment of the enclosure wall; it abuts the Ptolemaic pylon that gives access to the compound from the Roman Courtyard beyond the enclosure wall. There has been a shrine on the site since the Middle Kingdom; the Small Temple ruins visible today are of the structure built in Dynasty 18 by Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. The GWA chapels, which are also in the forecourt of Ramses’ mortuary temple, face the Small Temple. Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 197). 555 Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7). 556 Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7). 557 Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 230). 558 Ayad (2009a: 75). 559 Ayad, (2009a: 76-77). 560 Ayad (2009a), legend to Fig. 2.20b (colour plates). 561 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chapelle_Taharka_Chepenoupet.jpg. 562 Kemp (2006), p.353, Fig. 122, Phase III. 563 Koch (2012: 54); Koch (2016: 158). 564 Koch (2012: 37); Koch (2016: 159), opposed by Lohwasser (2016: 126-7). 565 Koch (2012: 29-31 & 36); Koch (2016: 160). 566 Koch (2016: 160). 567 Ayad (2016b). 568 Koch (2016: 160). 569 Robins (2008: 214). 570 Koch (2012: 26 & 31). 571 Koch (2016: 156); Ayad (2016a: 167). 572 Ayad (2009a), p.20 (Fig. 1.4). 573 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Divine_Adoratrice2.JPG. 574 Coulon (2014: 581). 575 Kemp (2006: 351); Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7). 576 Ayad (2009a), p.105 (Fig. 2.26) & Fig. 2.25 (colour plates). 577 Ayad, Figs. 2.10-11 (colour plates). 578 Kemp (2006), p.151 (Fig. 54.2); Ayad (2016: 167). 579 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Grabkapellen_07.jpg , augmented 88

(by the present author) in lower left register with details from a closer photo by Neithsabes of the same panel (also under licence CC BY SA 3.0), online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chep_II_Am_I_Med_Habou.jpg. 580 E.g., sA.t n(.t) Imn.w Xt=f mr(r.t)=f , “the natural daughter of Amun, whom he loves;” Koch (2012: 79). Other expressions in Koch (2012: 116-7, 122, 130-1, 133, 139-41, 151, 155). 581 Koch (2012: 115 & 132-3). 582 Hart (2005: 41); el Hawary (2106: 12). 583 El Hawary (2106: 12). Similarly, the ithyphallic form of Amun is called “the bull of his mother,” meaning that he impregnates his mother to bring about his own conception; he therefore serves both as sire and son. Hart (2005: 21). 584 El Hawary (2106: 12). 585 The GWAs also claim other parents among the gods, such as Anubis, Osiris, Thoth, Wepwawet and Hathor, so perhaps it is not surprising to find Mut recruited as a mother; Koch (2012: 117- 8, 120, 125, 141, 150, 154, 167, 169). Also, once the adoption scheme had been established, a GWA could be considered the daughter of Amun and Mut insofar as she was the (adoptive) daughter of the previous GWA, the earthly embodiment/representative of Mut. 586 Kemp (2006), p.151 (Fig. 54.2); Ayad (2016). 587 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deamb_ch_Am_I_082005.jpg. 588 Koch (2012: 79-80). 589 Suter (2007: 336). 590 Ayad (2009a), p.26 (Fig. 1.5) and location data from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ch_Chep_II_Med_Habou_082005.jpg. 591 Ayad (2009a: 26); Li (2011), p.221 (Fig. 2). 592 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Grabkapellen_04.jpg. 593 Wilkinson (2003: 153). 594 Hart (2005: 97); Wilkinson (2003: 154). 595 Wilkinson (2003: 153-4); Pinkowski (2006: 47-49). 596 Wilkinson (2003: 153-4). This role was shared with other goddesses. 597 Fazzini & Peck (1983). Also Pinkowski (2006) and Brooklyn Museum (ca. 2015). 598 Wilkinson (2003: 154-6). 599 El Hawary (2016). 600 Ockinga (2010); Benderitter (n.d.). 601 Sullivan (2013), p.158 fn 33. 602 Sullivan (2013: 157). 603 Sullivan (2013: 157). 604 Sullivan (2013: 157). 605 Sullivan (2013: 157). 606 Contardi (2006: 144-5). 607 Sullivan (2013: 157). 608 Pinkowski (2006: 48). As we saw in the section Residence and Remembrance, the GWA residential quarter was in North Karnak; it was therefore relatively remote from the Temple of Mut in south Karnak. 609 Brooklyn Museum (ca. 2015), slides 47-48. 610 Weadock (1975: 104 & 110). 611 Lion (2009: 166); Hrůša (2015: 76-77); Scurlock (2014: 106); Postgate (1992: 130). 612 Speiser (2011: 82) translates the term as “changeling,” with a footnote saying that there is no indication as to the nature of her change (which potentially could be social, religious or national). 613 Stol (2016: 572); Sparks (2005: 279) also reads Sargon’s mother to be an EN-priestess.

89

614 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-18); Dodson (2004: 24-25); Leahy (1996: 164); Mark (2017). 615 Leahy (1996: 164). 616 Ayad (2009a: 117 & 152). 617 Stol (2016: 570-1). 618 Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 106-7. 619 Summers (2000: 247); Steinkeller (1999: 116); Suter (2007: 322). 620 Weadock (1975: 102). 621 Weadock (1975: 102). 622 Black et al. (2001b). 623 Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 105. 624 Steinkeller (1999: 135). 625 A small room with a large bed platform adjacent to C27, the shrine of the Ningal temple; Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Woolley (1982), p.185 (plan); Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa (plan) & p.115-8. 626 Westenholz (2013a: 257-8); Suter (2007: 322); Postgate (1992: 130); Steinkeller (1999: 133). 627 Ayad (2009a: 34-51 & 151-2). 628 Manassa (2011: 357). 629 Ayad (2009a: 38 & 51). 630 Koch (2012: 79-80). 631 Koch (2012: 79-80). For the later GWAs, she sees the title “God’s Wife” as a priestly title like the male title “God’s Father,” with neither to be taken literally. 632 Westenholz (2013a: 268); Suter (2007), p.327 fn 32, citing Markus Hilgert. 633 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.14; Westenholz (2013a: 268). 634 Ayad (2009a: 15, 28, 152 & 154). However, Ayad (2016a: 98) appears to endorse a deliberate prohibition against child-bearing, describing the GWA of this period as “a woman, who could not produce offspring of her own or put forward a rival claim to the Egyptian throne.” 635 Bryan (2003: 13). 636 Teeter (1999: 411-2), like Vittmann (2007: 154), follows Habachi (1977: 169-70), but she mistakenly writes “Montuemhet” for Mentuhotep, an error replicated by Graves-Brown (2010: 88). Montuemhat, the governor of Thebes, did indeed have a Nubian wife of royal blood, but she was called Wedjarenes; Russmann (1997). An independent confusion of Montuemhet with Mentuhotep – “another man entirely” – by Lazlo Török has recently been identified by Pope (2014: 172). 637 Dodson (2002); Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1). 638 Habachi (1977: 170). 639 Morkot (2016: 113). Amongst other shortcomings, Habachi’s identification of the name of Mentuhotep’s wife remains controversial, being based upon a reconstruction of incomplete text; Ayad (2009a: 21). Edna Russmann pre-empted Morkot’s recent judgement by almost two decades when, in respect of Mentuhotep’s wife, she wrote that Habachi’s “speculation that she is to be identified with the Divine Consort Amenirdas II seems to me untenable;” Russmann (1997), p.36 fn 125. 640 David (2014: 20). 641 Becker et al. (2017: 2). 642 Steinkeller (1999), p.134 fn 106. 643 Hdt I 181.5-182.-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114). 644 Koch (2012: 60) observes that, if Herodotus was in fact reporting a contemporary Egyptian practice (as he claims to be doing), then a priestess consecrated sexually to Amun was still a feature of the Theban temple in in the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes (as noted in Table 5, Belated survival/revival). 645 On “’s Political Persona,” see Westenholz (2012: 299-304).

90

646 Ayad (2009a: 8-9). 647 Sullivan (2013), p.159 fn 36. 648 Dodson (2002: 179). 649 Leahy (1996: 158). 650 Ayad (2016a: 89 & 97-98); Meffre (2016: 48-51). 651 Van de Mieroop (2016: 70). 652 Lion (2009: 179). 653 Westenholz (2012: 304); Weadock (1975: 103); van de Mieroop (1992: 125-6). 654 Van de Mieroop (1992: 125). 655 Mark van de Mieroop, cited by Westenholz (2012: 305). 656 Westenholz (2012: 305). 657 David (2014: 21). 658 Pope (2013: 193). 659 Ayad (2016a: 96 & 99); Koch (2012: 75-76). 660 Becker et al. (2017: 3-4); Koch (2012: 76-77). 661 Koch (2012: 77). 662 Becker et al. (2017: 3-4). On the various High Stewards, see Vittmann (1978: 100-43) and Koch (2012: 12-15). 663 Becker et al. (2017: 3), corroborated by Koch (2012: 15). 664 Becker et al. (2017: 3-5). The claim of passivity is critiqued by Pope (2018: 53). 665 Taylor (2003: 349); Dodson & Hilton (2004: 234). 666 Roberts (2004). 667 Baines & Eyre (1983: 85). 668 Tomb of Ireturu; Baines & Eyre (1983: 82). 669 Gadotti (2011: 195-6). 670 Green (1992: 37). 671 Wakeman (1985); Hart (n.d.a), 672 Weadock (9175: 127-8). Numerical values are consistent (within 1 year) of data in CDLI (2017). 673 Gadotti (2011: 199). 674 Frayne (1997), p.237 3b & 4. 675 Weadock (1975: 128). 676 Gadd (1951: 30); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15. Westenholz (2012: 306) gives year 8 of Warad-Sin. 677 For consistency, dates used in the calculations underpinning this sentence were taken exclusively from the traditional GWA chronology – using either the detailed breakdown in Dodson (2002: 168) or, alternatively, exclusively from Ayad (2009a), p.12, 15, 22 (Table 1.1) & 23-24. In Ayad’s Table 1.1, start dates for the “Approximate dates (in office)” are typically the years in which the named princesses were designated “heiress apparent” as opposed to their elevation to GWA proper. 678 Ayad (2009a: 16). 679 Shorter date from Dodson. Longer date from Ayad (2009a), p.15-16 & 22 (Table 1.1), but using Kitchen (2009: 202) to refine the accession date for Osorkon II to 786, as in Fig. 10; without this modification, the delay calculated from Ayad’s dates would be 23 years (i.e., within the time-span currently reported in the main text). According to Ayad (2009a: 16 & 117), the appointment of Shepenwepet I seems to have been designed to fill the vacuum left by the promotion of her brother, until then the High Priest of Amun, to the role of co-regent (as Takelot III) in 754, ruling alongside his father. 680 Shorter time from Dodson (2002: 186), longer from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1), assuming accession of Kashta in 760 BCE [Ayad (2009a: 11)] for both.

91

681 Lower value from Dodson (2002), p.186 & fn 47, higher one from Ayad (2009a), p.12 & 22 (Table 1.1). 682 Dodson (2002: 179 & 184); Caminos (1964: 71). 683 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Berlin_025.jpg. 684 The surrounding inscription is transcribed, transliterated and translated (into German) in Koch (2012), p.161, top of page. 685 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bas- relief_of_Shepenupet_II_at_the_mortuary_temple_of_Ramesses_III_1.jpg. 686 Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Ankhenesneferibre_by_John_Campana.jp g. 687 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.27; confirmed by Leahy (1996: 160). 688 Assuming her designation in 747-742 BCE [Broekman (2009: 101); Koch (2012: 181)] and Kashta’s accession in 760 BCE (Fig. 10). 689 No value can be calculated for Shepenwepet I. 690 Ayad (2009a: 16 & 24). Ayad (2016a: 99) suggests that the presence of the recently-installed Shepenwepet II as GWA prevented Shabaqo from nominating a daughter to the position, although of course there is no a priori reason why such a daughter (if available) could not have been designated as heiress, just as Amenirdis II was in the subsequent reign of Taharqo. 691 E.g. Koch (2012: 51). Nitocris’s youth was not the only reason for the delay; her father Psamtek’s struggle to wrest control of Thebes from the Nubians occupied the first 9 years of his reign; Bryan (2003: 8). The other two candidates for designation while still children are Amenirdis I and Ankhnesneferibre; Ayad (2009a: 24 & 142-3); Leahy (1996: 160-2). 692 Pope (2015: 357-8) highlights the lack of positive evidence for the use of Divine Adoratrice as a junior title held by the heiress, pointing instead to evidence for use of the title Great Chantress of the Interior of Amun, as set forth by Koch (2012: 62-63 & 77). 693 Caminos (1964: 97) calls it “a college or sisterhood;” see also Dodson (2002). For a recent summary, see Pope (2013: 178). 694 CDLI (2017), Ur III: Szulgi, years 15 & 17. 695 Westenholz (2013a: 254) & Stol (2016: 569). Frayne (1997: 237) observes for Ur III that a delay of 9 years between oracular designation of an individual and her installation as EN would be unprecedented in length. 696 Weadock (1975: 104-5); Gadotti (2011: 199) believes that they often died in office. 697 Weadock (1975), p.104-5 & 128 fn 56; Gadd (1951: 30). Hybrid options include the possibility that the designated princess did not commence her novitiate until the incumbent EN-priestess was nearing the end of her term. 698 Gadd (1951: 30); Stol (2016: 562-3). 699 Lower interval from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1), taking her best-guess of 740 BCE for Amenirdis’s designation as heiress; higher interval from Dodson p.186. 700 For consistency, all dates in this calculation are from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.129-30. It uses her full date-range of possibility (747-735 BCE) for Amenirdis I’s designation as heiress, which happens to straddle nicely the independent estimate of Broekman (2009: 101) that Amenirdis’s arrival in Thebes occurred in Piye’s 5th regnal year, equivalent to ca. 742 BCE if one accepts that Piye’s rule commenced ca. 747 BCE [Kitchen (2009: 202), happily in perfect agreement with Ayad (2009a: 12)]. It is also consistent with the estimate of Ritner (2009: 460) that “Amonardis I was adopted as junior votaress in the eighth year of Shepenwepet I,” which is 746 BCE using Ayad’s date of 754 BCE for Shepenwepet’s installation. In Ayad’s chronology, Shepenwepet I relinquished the role of God’s Wife ca. 714 BCE but was still alive – and thus presumably co-resident with Amenirdis I – ca. 700 BCE. 701 Koch (2012), p.11 & 13, Tables 1 & 2. 702 For Amenirdis I, apprenticeship starting 747-742 BCE; Broekman (2009: 101), compatible with the assessment of Koch (2012: 181) on the same object. Koch does not comment on

92

Broekman’s proposal, and (as shown in Table 7) her scheme envisages no overlap between Libyan and Nubian GWAs. 703 Lower interval from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1), taking her best-guess of 740 BCE for Amenirdis’s designation as heiress; higher interval from Dodson (2002: 186). 704 Adoption of Shepenwepet II ca. 710 BCE from Pope (2015: 361), who was working in full awareness of Koch (2012). If we assume that Amenirdis I was designated at around 15 years of age at her nomination in 747-742 BCE, then she would have been 47-52 years old when Shepenwepet II was adopted in 710 BCE, cf. the expectation of Koch (2012: 43-44) that Amenirdis was “presumably relatively young” at the time of Shepenwepet’s adoption. 705 Shorter estimate from Dodson (2002: 186), longer estimate from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1). 706 Bryan (2003: 12); Graefe (1994); Pope (2013: 187); Leahy (1996: 163). 707 Ibi, the first High Steward to Nitocris I, was installed in year 26 of Psamtek I (639 BCE), requiring Nitocris to have been GWA by then; Leahy (1996: 163); Pope (2013: 187); Coulon (2014: 567). 708 Based on Nitocris being adopted in 656 BCE [Koch (2012: 51)] and Shepenwepet II having died before 639 BCE, the time when Ibi was installed as the first High Steward to GWA Nitocris [Coulon (2014: 567); Pope (2013: 187)]. 709 Dodson (2002: 186); Leahy (1996: 155 & 157); Ayad (2009), p.22 (Table 1.1). 710 From the adoption of Ankhnesneferibre in 595 BCE to the death of Nitocris I in 586 BCE; Koch (2012: 55). 711 Pope (2014: 204). 712 Koch (2012: 44-50 & 62-5), esp. p.63, which translates into English as “It was not at the time of adoption, but after the death of the former incumbent, that the princess became the God’s Wife, Divine Adoratrice, and God’s Hand.” 713 Pope (2014), p.204 incl. fn 106; Pope (2015: 357-8). 714 An objection to Koch’s view might perhaps be raised using the inscription on a cultic vessel – Rome Museo Barracco MB 277, mentioned elsewhere in this paper and also in Koch (2012), p.64 fn 24 – which recent opinion sees as dedicated jointly by the Hermopolitan king Nimlot D, Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I; Meffre (2016: 52-53 & 56); Broekman (2009: 99). The women’s paternal filiation is given, thereby making certain their identities. Shepenwepet is there titled “Divine Adoratrice” and Amenirdis “God’s Hand,” and both names are in ; Meffre (2016: 52-53 & 56); Broekman (2009: 99). Koch’s position could of course be defended by proposing that the vessel is not a co-dedication – on the vessel as it now stands, Nimlot (r. ca. 750-725 BCE; Kitchen (2009: 202)) is actually qualified as maA Hrw – and that the inscription was made ca. 720-695 BCE, naming Amenirdis (the incumbent GWA) and Shepenwepet (her deceased predecessor, albeit without a maA Hrw) using a different GWA-only title for each. 715 The calculation assumes that Enheduana was not installed immediately upon Sargon’s accession, but in his year 3; it would presumably have taken some time to arrange the practicalities of the position, which may initially have been met by resistance; Steinkeller (1999: 125). Enheduana survived the Great Rebellion in Naram-Sin’s reign, which may have occurred soon after his accession; Jacobsen (1979); Steinkeller (1982: 258). She had time to return to her office and compose the Adoration of Inanna (main text, section titled Survival) before her death. The conservative assumption that she died in Naram-Sin’s year 3 (together with the assumption that she was installed in Sargon’s year 3) fixes her term of office at 77 years. Gadotti (2011: 199)’s assertion that Enheduana retained office until well into Naram-Sin’s 36-year reign begins to strain the limits of the human life-span. 716 Installed in Amar-Sin year 4 [Weadock (1975: 128)], Enmahgalana continued to feature in legal cases dated to the second decade of Ibbi-Sin’s reign (his year 14 [Loding (1976): UET IX 115; Westenholz (2012: 304-5)] or 20 [Legrain (1937-47): UET III 45], representing her 28th or 34th year, respectively), so she presumably remained as EPN at Ur at that stage [Westenholz (2012), p.304 fn 56]. Enmahgalana probably held office until the fall of Ur to the Elamites in 2003, a term of about 38 years. Her tenure is discussed later in the main text (section titled Survival). 717 Stol (2016: 563). Her tenure is discussed later in the main text (section titled Survival). 718 Gadd (1951: 30).

93

719 The estimate of over 30 years in office is from Gadd (1951: 35). Enanedu’s cone inscription [Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20] is provisionally dated by Frayne to year 30 of Rim-Sin or later, which would see Enanedu in office at least 36 years after her installation. Stol’s slightly different datings (Stol 2016: 563) give her about 33 years in office at the time of the inscription. 720 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1); Dodson (2002: 186). Full interval from Ayad is included because she asserts that Shepenwepet I did not serve an apprenticeship period as heiress; Ayad (2009a: 16). 721 Koch (2012), p.11 (Table 1), using Kitchen (2009: 202) as the best estimate of regnal dates for Osorkon III (786-758 BCE), Takelot III (763-744 BCE) and Sheshonq V (767-730 BCE). On this basis, Koch’s table suggests that Shepenwepet I’s term ran ca. 786-767 BCE (19 years) or 786-744 BCE (42 years). 722 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 14 years from the end of Shepenwepet I’s term to the end of Amenirdis I’s term; Dodson (2002: 186) has Amenirdis I in office for 25 years. Morkot (2016: 113) estimates that she lived for at least 50 years. 723 Koch (2014: 407). 724 Dodson (2002: 186) has Shepenwepet II in office for 41 years; Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 50 years from end of Amenirdis I’s term to the end of Shepenwepet II’s term. 725 Based on Amenirdis I dying ca. 677-670 BCE [Koch (2012: 42-3 & 282), Pope (2015: 361)] and Shepenwepet II dying ca. 639 BCE, around the time when Ibi was installed as the first High Steward to GWA Nitocris [Koch (2012: 15); Coulon (2014: 567); Pope (2013: 187)]. Consistent with Koch (2012: 44), which attributes “several decades in office” to Shepenwepet II. 726 Nitocris’s presence in Thebes is attested for almost 71 years, Mar 656- Dec 586 BCE [Dodson p. 186; Morkot (2016: 113)]. Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 64 years from end of Shepenwepet II’s term to the end of Nitocris’s term. Compared to Dodson (2002: 186)’s estimate of 68 years for Nitocris I’s tenure, Leahy (1996: 156) is perhaps more conservative, estimating it at “over 50 years,” reflecting the idea that Nitocris had been installed as GWA only a few years before the appointment of her first High Steward, Ibi, in year 26 of Psamtek I (639 BCE); Leahy (1996: 163); Pope (2013: 187); Coulon (2014: 567). 727 Based on Shepenwepet II dying ca. 639 BCE, around the time when Ibi was installed as the first High Steward to Nitocris [Koch (2012: 15); Coulon (2014: 567); Pope (2013: 187)], and Nitocris dying in 586 BCE when Ankhnesneferibre is known to have become GWA [Koch (2012: 55)]. 728 Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 61 years from end of Nitocris’s term to the end of Ankhnesneferibre’s term; Dodson (2002: 168) too has Ankhnesneferibre in office for 61 years. There is general agreement that Ankhnesneferibre’s incumbency lasted over 60 years [Leahy (1996: 160); Morkot (2016: 113)] and that, collectively, she and Nitocris – the last of their kind – reigned as GWAs for at least 113 years [Leahy (1996: 162-3)]. 729 Koch (2012: 55 & 58), i.e. from the accession of Ankhnesneferibre in 586 BCE to the arrival of the Persians in 525 BCE. 730 Figulla & Martin (1953: 544); Weadock (1975), p.104 & 128 fn 156; Gadd (1951: 30). 731 Pope (2013: 188); Dodson (2002: 186); Leahy (1996: 159); Pope (2014: 212). Despite this agreed dictum, the boundaries between incumbencies can be somewhat unclear. Even the Egyptian situation, for which far more information is available, is such that Mariam Ayad’s table listing “Approximate dates (in office)” for the Dynasty 23-26 God’s Wives [Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1)] gives a time-span for each that seemingly incorporates their apprenticeships (as remarked earlier in the legend to Fig. 10). This gives the impression that the overlaps could in practice amount to co-regencies, an idea encouraged by the same author’s descriptions of iconography portraying a God’s Wife and her heiress as “reminiscent of instances of royal co- regency;” Ayad (2009b: 46). Others have explicitly postulated co-regency of GWAs [refs. in Leahy (1996: 159 fn 50)], a view contested strongly by Leahy (1996: 159-60) and Koch (2012: 77-79). 732 Stol (2016: 557); Westenholz (2012: 304); Morkot (2006: 153). Oddly, a particular EPN for Nanna of Karzida at Ga’esh was allegedly installed three times; CDLI (2017), Ur III: Amar- Sin, year 9.

94

733 In Egypt, this longevity in office perpetuated a trend established in the New Kingdom. For example, Isis, the daughter of Ramses VI, was GWA for over 25 years, serving under 4 kings; Ayad (2009a: 9). El Hawary (2016: 16) estimates her political influence at almost 50 years. 734 Westenholz (2012: 304 & 306); David (2014: 21). 735 For consistency, all dates in this sentence are calculated from Dodson (2002: 186). As explained below in the main text, the increase over Dodson’s estimate of Nitocris’s term as heiress in Table 7 is because the calculation assumes the retention of Amenirdis II in the “college” headed by Nitocris. 736 E.g., a cultic vase, Rome Museo Barracco MB 277 [Meffre (2016: 52-3 & 56); Broekman (2009: 99)]; a stele, Cairo JE 40716 [Meffre (2016), p.54 incl. fn 65]; the exterior of the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, in East Karnak [Morkot (2016: 112)]. The Wadi Gasus graffiti [Ritner (2009: 460-1)] may or may not be synchronous [Kitchen (2009: 174-5)], with Broekman (2009: 94) following Claus Jurman’s opinion that the two inscriptions are independent, a position endorsed by Koch (2012: 42-43), albeit with a different absolute chronology. 737 Koch (2012: 115); Koch sees Shepenwepet I as dead before the Nubian extension was built, whereas Ayad (2009a: 130) sees her as alive but retired. 738 Hays (2003), p.90 fn 7; Dodson (2004: 26). Had Amenirdis II succeeded Shepenwepet II as GWA, this would have afforded another example of inheritance by a niece (Fig. 10). Note that Koch (2012: 43) describes Shepenwepet II as a grand-niece (rather than niece) of Amenirdis I. 739 Ayad (2009b: 46). 740 Ayad (2009a: 129-32); Ayad (2009b: 46); Ayad (2016a: 92). 741 Alessio Corsi concurs with Ayad (p.134 & fn 99) in identifying the Amenirdis represented in the chapel of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree as Amenirdis I rather than Amenirdis II; Corsi (2013: 540). 742 Ayad (2009a: 133-37); Ayad (2016a: 93). 743 Ayad (2009a: 133-37). Even so, the phraseology (“Shepenwepet, her mother [being] Amenirdis” rather than “Shepenwepet, daughter of Amenirdis” ) has been carefully chosen to avoid subordinating the current incumbent to her predecessor; Ayad (2009a: 144). 744 Ayad p.140 745 Ayad (2009a: 143); Morkot (2006: 153); Morkot (2016: 111-2); Ayad (2016a: 93); Koch (2012: 11-2). 746 Ayad (2009a: 130 & 133-5). 747 Ayad (2009a: 143-4). It has even been speculated that, rather than perpetuating Shepenwepet’s mortuary cult – as required by tradition – Amenirdis may even have authorised the destruction of her predecessor’s funerary chapel; Ayad (2009a: 145). However, the building in question Ayad (2009a), p.17 (Fig. 1.1)] may not even have been Shepenwepet’s funerary chapel; Koch (2012: 38). 748 Caminos (1964: 75). 749 Ayad (2009a: 142). 750 Ayad (2009a: 139). 751 Ayad (2009a: 23-26 & 139-40); Dodson (2002). Vittmann (2007: 154) maintains that Amenirdis II may still have served some time as GWA. 752 For this reason, she is sometimes listed as Shepenwepet (III); Dodson (2002), p.184 fn 32 & 36. Leahy (1996: 161) believes that the name, which is recorded in the Adoption Stele, was a diplomatic gesture on her father’s part toward his Theban subjects. Bryan (2003: 8) interprets it as a “nickname.” 753 Coulon (2014: 582). 754 Caminos (1964: 79 & 98) and Bryan (2003: 10-11) believe that Nitocris’s adoptive mother was Amenirdis II, a position seemingly endorsed by Koch (2012), p. 44 fn 401. In contrast, Rosalie David believes that it was Shepenwepet II; David (2014: 21). 755 Ayad (2009a: 24); Bryan (2003: 10-11). 756 Pope (2013: 189); Corsi (2013: 539).

95

757 Bryan (2003:11-12); Ayad (2009a: 26); Koch (2012: 31). As an alternative to modesty and deference, Koch (2012: 54) suggests that the memorial precinct at Medinet Habu may have been less important to the Saite princess Nitocris, who would have been buried locally and could have focused her efforts on a Theban tomb, than to her Nubian predecessors, who may have been buried far away in their homeland. Additionally or alternatively, there may already have been a mud-brick building (such as an out-house for the storage of cult items or the purification of priests; Fig. 18) in the position where Nitocris might have been expected to build her memorial chapel; Koch (2012: 58). 758 The conventional wisdom is that, within 12 years of Nitocris’s adoption, it was no longer permitted to write the Nubian kings’ names in Egypt, and that existing inscriptions were subsequently subjected to damnatio by Ankhnesneferibre’s father, Psamtek II [Pope (2013: 183); Lohwasser (2016: 130)], even though the statuary and inscriptions of the Nubian God’s Wives were often spared in deference to the sanctity of their office [Morkot (2006: 148], which of course was quintessentially Egyptian [Lohwasser (2016: 131)]. Coulon (2014: 582) specifically contrasts the devotion of Nitocris to the Nubian GWAs that preceded her with the Saite damnatio of their fathers. The erasure of cartouches belonging to Kashta and Piye can be seen in Fig. 26. 759 Koch (2014), a thorough re-examination of erasures in GWA and other relevant inscriptions. 760 Vittmann (2007: 154); Pope (2013: 185-6). 761 Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 45). 762 Dodson (2002: 186); Morkot (2016: 114). 763 Westenholz (1999: 53-54); Westenholz (2012: 301). 764 Kramer (2011: 336), “Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna: The Adoration of Inanna of Ur.” 765 Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 292; Legrain (1937-47): UET III 277. 766 Most notably, it is so amended in Frayne (1997: 363), a change accepted (with a footnoted reservation) by Weadock (1975: 128) when compiling the canonical list of EPNs at Ur. 767 Weadock (1975: 128); Jacobsen (1987: 447). 768 Legrain (1937-47): UET III 45 says year 20 of Ibbi-Sin, but Westenholz (2012: 304-5) identifies Loding (1976): UET IX 1156 as a duplicate of this document, and it is dated to year 14, a date that Westenholz favours. 769 Jacobsen (1987: 447); van de Mieroop (2016: 67 & 87-88). 770 Jacobsen (1987: 447); van de Mieroop (2016: 67 & 87-88). 771 Van de Mieroop (2016: 88). 772 Jacobsen (1987: 449 & 470-71), extract from between lines 20 to 360. 773 Weadock (1975: 128). 774 Westenholz (1993); Stol (2016: 567). 775 Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 108). 776 Van de Mieroop (2016: 96); Stol (2016: 563). 777 Westenholz (2012: 305). 778 Van Koppen (2006: 91-92). As remarked previously, Stol (2016: 563) reads the final portion of the dedication “for her life,” an alternative reading consistent with Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.2 and Frayne (2017): COS 2.98. 779 Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1. 780 Weadock (1975: 128). 781 Weadock (1975: 128). Stol (2016: 563)’s “previously unknown priestess, En-megal-ana” is presumably the same individual. 782 Fitzgerald (2002). 783 Teeter (1999: 411-2); Morkot (2006: 148 & 151); Pope (2015: 363-4), as flagged in Table 4, Additional possible titles, and discussed in footnote thereto. 784 Shaw (2003: 350-2); Robins (2008: 208-13); Pinkowski (2006: 48); Hays (2003: 97-99). Moreover, Angelika Lohwasser (2016: 124-5) observes that visual depictions of the Libyan, Nubian and Saite GWAs do not present any distinguishing markers of ethnicity.

96

785 Lohwasser (2016: 131-2). Expanded by Lohwasser (2016: 131): “The GWA were felt to be Egyptian. They had Egyptian names, were dressed in Egyptian costume and held a purely Egyptian office.” 786 Lohwasser (2016: 132). 787 Ayad (2016a: 89). 788 Ayad (2009b: 49). 789 Naturally, all of the specific details are hypothetical. 790 Perhaps due to the greater remoteness of the time-period, preceding the Egyptian counterpart as it does by well over a millennium. 791 Dodson (2002). 792 Westenholz (2012: 304). 793 Bietak (2018: 16).

97

Bibliography

All URLs were accessed July 2017, unless stated otherwise. As mentioned earlier, URLs for photographs reproduced in the figures are provided directly in footnotes to the relevant figure legends.

Abram, M. 2011 A New Look at the Mesopotamian Rod and Ring: Emblems of Time and Eternity. Studia Antiqua 10: 15–36. http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol10/iss1/5/ Allen, J. 2010 Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anagnostou-Laoutides, E. 2017 In the Garden of the Gods: Models of Kingship from the Sumerians to the Seleucids. London and New York: Routledge. Arnold, B.T. and Michalowski, P. 2006 Achaemenid Period Historical Texts Concerning Mesopotamia. Pp. 407–30 in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Malden, : Blackwell. Asher-Greve, J.M. 2013 Images. Pp. 149–275 in Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, ed. J.M. Asher-Greve & J.G. Westenholz. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259. Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Astour, M.C. 2002 A Reconstruction of the History of (Part 2). Pp. 57–196 in Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, ed. C.H. Gordon and G.A. Rendsburg. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ataç, M.-A. 2006 Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture. Art Bulletin 88: 69–101. Ataç, M.-A. 2015 Egyptian Connections with the Larger World: Ancient Near East. Pp.423–46 in A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, ed. M.K. Hartwig. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Aufderhaar, W. 2016 The Sphinxes of Shepenwepet II. Pp. 137–54 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Verlag. Ayad, M.F. 2009a God’s Servant, God’s Wife: The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525 BC) Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

98

Ayad, M.F. 2009b The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule: The Role of the God’s Wife of Amun. Pp. 29–49 in The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21–24th Dynasties, Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007, ed. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée and O.E. Kaper. Leiden/Leuven: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten/Peeters. Ayad, M.F. 2016a Gender, Ritual, and Manipulation of Power: The God’s Wife of Amun (Dynasty 23–26). Pp. 89–106 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Ayad, M.F. 2016b Reading a Chapel. Pp. 167–81 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Baines, J. and Eyre, C.J. 1983 Four Notes on Literacy. Göttinger Miszellen 61, 65-96. Bart, A. n.d. Ancient Egypt: God’s Wife of Amun. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis University. http://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/God's_W ife_of_Amun.html Bauer, S.W. 2007 The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome. New York and London: W.W. Norton. Beaulieu, P.-A. 2007 Mesopotamia. Pp. 165–72 in Ancient , ed. S.I. Johnston. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Becker, M. 2016 Female Influence, Aside from that of the God’s Wives of Amun, During the Third Intermediate Period. Pp. 21–46 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Becker, M., Blöbaum, A.I., Lohwasser, A. 2016 Introduction. Pp. 1–8 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Beckerleg, C.L. 2009 The “Image of God” in Eden: The Creation of Mankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

99

Benderitter, T. n.d. Tombs of Ancient Egypt: TT148, Tomb of Amenemope. France: Osirisnet. http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/amenemope148/e_amenemope148_01. htm Bietak, M. 2018 The Giparu of Ur as a Paradigm for Gender-related Temple Types in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 9–24 [English section] in Lawrence E. Stager Volume, eds. H. Geva and A. . Eretz-Israel – Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 33. : Israel Exploration Society. Black, J.A 2000 Ningal. P. 213 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Black, J. and Green, A. 1992 Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. Austin: University of Texas Press. Black, J.A.; Cunningham, G.; Fluckiger-Hawker, E.; Robson, E.; and Zólyomi, G. 2001a A Balbale to Nanna (Nanna B): translation. Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of (ETCSL). http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr41302.htm#para3 Black, J.A.; Cunningham, G.; Fluckiger-Hawker, E.; Robson, E.; and Zólyomi, G. 2001b An Adab to Enlil for Shulgi (Shulgi G): translation t.2.4.2.07. Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.2.07# Blackman, A.M. 1921 On the Position of Women in the Ancient Egyptian Hierarchy. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 7: 8–30. Blackman, A.M. 1924 The Rite of Opening the Mouth in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10: 47–59. Blöbaum, A.I. 2016 The Nitocris Adoption Stela. Representation of Royal Dominion and Regional Elite Power. Pp.183-204 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Brier, B. 2010 Review of God’s Wife, God’s Servant: The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525 BC), by Mariam F. Ayad. Journal of the American Oriental Society 130: 103- 5. Brinkman, J.A. 1996 Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia (1158–722 B.C.). Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.

100

Brisch, N. 2007 Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Symposium held February 23–24, 2007. Chicago: Oriental Institute. https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/symposia/religion-and-power-divine- kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond-0 Broekman, G.P.F. 2009 Takeloth III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty. Pp. 91-102 (and panel discussion p. 443) in The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007, ed. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée and O.E. Kaper. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, and Leuven: Peeters. Broekman, G.P.F. 2017 Genealogical considerations regarding the kings of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty in Egypt. Göttinger Miszellen 251: 13–20. [Brooklyn Museum] ca. 2015 Brooklyn Museum and the Precinct of Mut. New York: Brooklyn Museum. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/ Bryan, B. 2003 Property and the God’s Wives of Amun. Paper III.1 in Women and Property in Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Societies, ed. D. Lyons and R. Westbrook. Cambridge, MA/Washington, DC: Harvard University/ Center for Hellenic Studies. http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/1219 Caminos, R.A. 1964 The Nitocris Adoption Stela. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50: 71–101. Cauville, S. 2004 Dendara. V-VI. Index Phraséologique – Les Cryptes du Temple d’Hathor, vol. II. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 132. Leuven: Peeters. [CDLI] 2017 Year-Names. Los Angeles: Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (University of California, Los Angeles; University of Oxford; Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin). http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yearnames.htm Christie, A. 1936 Murder in Mesopotamia. UK: Collins.

Collombert, P. 1995 Hout-Sekhem et le Septième de Haute Égypte: La Divine Oudjarenes. Revue d’Égyptologie 46: 55-79. Collon, D. 1999 Depictions of Priests and Priestesses in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 17–25 in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Centre in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996, ed. K. Watanabe. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.

101

Corsi, A. 2013 The Songstress Diesehebsed in the “Chapel of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree” in Karnak. Pp.537–43 in Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012 [SOMA 2012], Vol. I., ed. L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini. BAR International Series 2581. Oxford: Archaeopress. Coulon, L. 2014 The Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices at Karnak (Naga Malgata) During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty: Some Hitherto Unpublished Epigraphic Material. Pp. 565–85 in Thebes in the First Millennium BC, ed. E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Coulon, L.; Hallmann, A.; and Payraudeau, F. 2018 The Osirian Chapels at Karnak: An Historical and Art Historical Overview Based on Recent Fieldwork and Studies. Pp.271-293 in Thebes in the First Millennium BC: Art and Archaeology of the Kushite Period and Beyond, [GHP 27], eds. E. Pischikova, J. Budka, K. Griffin, London: Golden House Publications. Crawford, H. 2014 An Exploration of the World of Women in third-Millennium Mesopotamia. Pp. 59–74 in Women in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Crawford, H. 2015 Ur: The City of the Moon God. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic. David, R. 2014 Voices of Ancient Egypt: Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life. Santa Barbara: Greenwood. De Sélincourt, A. (trans.) 1972 Herodotus: The Histories. London: Penguin. Delange, E.; Meyohas, M.-E.; and Aucouturier, M. 2005 The Statue of Karomama, a Testimony of the Skill of Egyptian Metallurgists in Polychrome Bronze Statuary. Journal of Cultural Heritage 6: 99–113. Dick, M.B. 2017 Revised and Corrected Texts of C. Walker and M. Dick’s Induction of the Cult Image in Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual (2001) [The Neo- Assyrian Text Corpus Project: State Archives of Literary Texts. I.] New York: Siena College, Standish Library Digital Scholarship. https://sites.google.com/a/siena.edu/mis-pi/home Dodson, A. 2002 The Problem of Amenirdis II and the Heirs to the Office of God’s Wife of Amun during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 88: 179–86. Dodson, A. 2004 The God’s Wives of Amun. Ancient Egypt 4.6: 22–27.

102

Dodson, A. and Hilton, D. 2004 The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson. Edwards, I.E.S. 1982 Egypt: From the Twenty-Second to the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. Pp. 534–81 in The Cambridge Ancient History, III/1: The Prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC, ed. J. Boardman, I. Edwards, N. Hammond, and E. Sollberger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edzard, D.O. 1997 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 3/1: Gudea and His Dynasty. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Eisenberg, J.M. 1998 Glyptic Art of the Ancient Near East: A Seal Upon Thine Heart. Minerva – International Review of & Archaeology 9.3: 25-32. El Hawary, A. 2016 The Figurative Power of Prayer. The “Ode to the Goddess” (EA 194) as a Theological Justification for Establishing the Office of the God’s Wife of Amun as an Institution at the End of the 20th Dynasty. Pp. 9-20 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Emelianov, V. 2016 The Identity of Gudea as a Historical and Cultural Problem. Pp. 63–76 in Kings, Gods and People: Establishing in the Ancient World, ed. T.R. Kämmerer, M. Kõiv and Vladimir Sazonov. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 390/4; Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia 4. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. [Encyclopaedia Britannica, eds.] 2000 Sin: Mesopotamian God. Encyclopaedia Britannica online. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sin-Mesopotamian-god Étienne, M. n.d. Dagger from Gebel el-Arak. Paris: Louvre. http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/dagger-gebel-el-arak Faulkner, R.O. 1962 A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Fazzini, R.A. and Peck, W.H. 1983 Excavating the Temple of Mut. Archaeology 36.2: 16–23. Feldman, M. and Lewis, M. 2016 Sargon the Great and the Charismatic Rulers of Ancient Akkad of Mesopotamia. OpenStax CNX, Jun 17, 2016. http://cnx.org/contents/e0b4aa89-4bf4-4c59-a7a4-5b5a627c73b1@2 Figulla, H.H. and Martin, W.J. 1953 Ur Excavations: Texts. V. Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian Period. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.

103

Finkel, I. and Taylor, J. 2015 Cuneiform. London: British Museum. Fitzgerald, M.A. 2002 The Rulers of Larsa. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Frayne, D. 1990 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 4: Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Frayne, D. 1993 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 2: Sargonic and Gutian Periods, 2334-2113 BC. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Frayne, D. 1997 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 3/2: Ur III Period (2112– 2004 BC). Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Frayne, D. 2017 Gungunum. COS 2.98 in Context of Scripture Online, ed. W. Hallo. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211-436X_cos_aCOSB_2_98 Frood, E. 2007 Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Gadd, C.J. 1951 En-an-e-du. 13: 27–39. Gadd, C.J. and Legrain, L. 1928 Ur Excavations: Texts. I. Royal Inscriptions. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Gadotti, A. 2011 Portraits of the Feminine in Sumerian Literature. Journal of the American Oriental Society 131: 195-206. Gadotti, A. 2014 Sumerian Wisdom Literature. Pp. 59–74 in Women in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Gardiner, A.H. 1961 Egypt of the : An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press. Garrison, M.B. 2012 Antiquarianism, Copying, Collecting. Pp. 27–47 in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, ed. D.T. Potts. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. George, A. (trans.) 1999 The Epic of . London: Penguin. Ginsberg, H.L. 2011 Poems About Baal and Anath (The Baal Cycle). Pp. 107–34 in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

104

Gitton, M. 1976 La Résiliation d’une Fonction Religieuse: Nouvelle Interprétation de la Stèle de Donation d’Ahmès Néfertary. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 76: 65–89. Graefe, E. 1994 autobiographische Text des Ibo, Obervermögensverwalter der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris, auf Kairo JE 36158. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 50: 85–99 & Taf. 10–14. Graves-Brown, C. 2010 Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. London: Continuum. Green, A. and Black, J.A. 2000a Sîn (Suen). Pp. 272–3 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Green, A. and Black, J.A. 2000b Death and Funerary Beliefs and Customs. Pp. 88–89 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Green, A. and Black, J.A. 2000c Sacred Marriage. P.247 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Green, T.M. 1992 The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Guilleux, J. 2016 Égypte – Les Divines Adoratrices d’Amon. France: Antikforever. http://antikforever.com/Egypte/Dyn/Divines_Adoratrices.htm. Habachi, L. 1977 Mentuhotp, the Vizier and Son-in-law of . Pp. 165–70 in Ägypten und Kusch (Fritz Hintze zum 60. Geburtstag), ed. E. Endesfelder, K.-H. Priese, W.- F. Reineke, and S. Wenig. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 13. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Hafford, B. 2012 Ur Digitization Project: Item of the Month, June 2012. Penn Museum Blog, 25 June, 2012. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. https://www.penn.museum/blog/museum/ur-digitization- project-item-of-the-month-june-2012/ Hall, M.G. 1985 A Study of the Sumerian Moon-God, Nanna/Suen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Hall, M.G. 1986 A Hymn to the Moon-God, Nanna. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38: 152–66.

105

Hallmann, A. 2016 Iconography of Prayer and Power: Portrayals of the God’s Wife Ankhnesneferibre in the Osiris Chapels at Karnak. Pp. 205–22 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Hallo, W.W. 1971 Mesopotamia and the Asiatic Near East. Pp. 1–184 in The Ancient Near East: A History. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hamilton, V.P. 1990 The : Chapters 1-19. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. Hart, G. 2005 The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London and New York: Routledge. Hart, M. n.d.a The En-hedu-ana Research Pages: Enheduana’s Visual Evidence. USA: Angelfire. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/enheduanna/Enhedvisual.html Hart, M. n.d.b The En-hedu-ana Research Pages: Enheduana Documentary, Radio Interview & New Visual Evidence. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/enheduanna/Whatsnew.html Hartley, J.E. 2000 Genesis. New International Biblical Commentary, 1. Peabody: Hendrickson. Hays, H.M. 2003 A New Offering Table for Shepenwepet. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 40: 89–102 [History of Ancient Egypt] n.d.a History of Ancient Egypt – High Steward. https://sites.google.com/site/historyofancientegypt/high-stewards [History of Ancient Egypt] n.d.b History of Ancient Egypt – God’s Wife of Amun: Shepenwepet I. https://sites.google.com/site/historyofancientegypt/god-s-wife-of- amun/shepenwepet-i Hoffmeier, J.K. 1992 The Wives’ Tales of Genesis 12, 20 and 26 and the Covenants at Beer-Sheeba. Tyndale Bulletin 43.1: 81–100. Hornung, E. 1999 The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Hrůša, I. 2015 Ancient Mesopotamian Religion: A Descriptive Introduction, trans. M. Tait. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

106

Jacobsen, T. 1957 Early Political Development in Mesopotamia. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 52: 91–140. Jacobsen, T. 1979 Iphur-Kishi and his Times. Archiv für Orientforschung 26: 1-14. Jacobsen, T. 1987 The Harps that Once... Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 2009 Inschriften der Spätzeit. III. Die 25. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jurman, C. 2016 Karomama Revisited. Pp. 61–88 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Kemp, B. 2006 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London and New York: Routledge. Kitchen, K.A. 2009 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact & Fiction. Pp. 161-202 (and panel discussion p. 443) in The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007, ed. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée and O.E. Kaper. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, and Leuven: Peeters. Koch, C. 2012 Die Amun mit ihrer Stimme zufriedenstellen: Gottesgemahlinnen und Musikerinnen im thebanischen Amunstaat von der 22. bis zur 26. Dynastie. Dettelbach: Röll. Koch, C. 2014 Usurpation and the Erasure of Names During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Pp. 397–413 in Thebes in the First Millennium BC, ed. E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Koch, C. 2016 Between Tradition and Innovation – The Hwwt-kA of the God’s Wives. Pp. 155–65 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Kramer, S.N. 2011 Sumerian Hymns. Pp.330–40 in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Kriwaczek, P. 2010 Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization. London: Atlantic.

107

Lapinkivi, P. 2008 The Sumerian Sacred Marriage and Its Aftermath in Later Sources. Pp. 7–41in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. M. Nissinen and R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Leahy, A. 1996 The Adoption of Ankhnesneferibre at Karnak. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 82: 145–65. Legrain, L. 1937–47 Ur Excavations: Texts. III. Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Legrain, M.G. 1908 Notes d’Inspection. LXI. Sur un Stele Acheté à Louqsor. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 9: 277-83. Li, J. 2011 The Singers in the Residence of the Temple of Amen at Medinet Habu: Mortuary Practices, Agency, and the Material Constructions of Identity. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47: 217-30. Lion, B. 2009 Sexe et Genre (2). Des Prêtresses Fils de Roi. Topoi Supplement 10: 165–82. Loding, D. 1976 Ur Excavations: Texts. IX. Economic Texts from the Third Dynasty. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Lohwasser, A. 2016 “Nubianess” and the God’s Wives of the 25th Dynasty. Office Holders, the Institution, Reception and Reaction. Pp. 121–36 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Lorton, D. 1999 The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 123–210 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Luft, U. 2010 A Different World: Religious Conceptions. Pp. 417–31 in Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs, ed. R. Schulz and M. Seidel. Potsdam: H.F. Ullmann. Lumsden, S.P. 1990 Symbols of Power: Hittite Royal Iconography in Seals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Manassa, C. 2011 Review of God's Wife, God's Servant, The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525 BC), by Mariam Ayad. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47: 355–9.

108

Mandal, D. 2017 Realm Of History – Animations Present The Reconstruction Of Ur, One Of The Richest Ancient Sumerian Cities Of The . Article posted 27 July, 2017. https://www.realmofhistory.com/2017/07/27/reconstruction-ur-city-sumerian/ Maras, S.S. 2009 Iconography, Identity and Inclusion: The Winged Disk and Royal Power During the Reign of . Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Mark, J. 2010 Ancient History Encyclopedia: Enheduanna – Poet, Priestess, Empire Builder . UK: Ancient History Encyclopedia Ltd. http://www.ancient.eu/article/190/ Mark, J. 2014 Ancient History Encyclopedia: Enheduanna. UK: Ancient History Encyclopedia Ltd. http://www.ancient.eu/Enheduanna/ Mark, J. 2017 Ancient History Encyclopedia: God's Wife of Amun. UK: Ancient History Encyclopedia Ltd. http://www.ancient.eu/God's_Wife_of_Amun/ McDevitt, A. 2014 Ancient Egypt – The Mythology: The Gods: Baal http://www.egyptianmyths.net/baal.htm Meffre, R. 2016 Political Changes in Thebes during the Late Libyan Period and the Relationship between Local Rulers and Thebes. Pp. 47–60 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Mettinger, T.N.D. 2001 The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising” Gods in the Ancient Near East. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Michaux-Colombot, D. 2008 The royal Hittite title “My Sun” and the Winged Sun Disk. Pp. 329–53 in ICANAS 38.1 [Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Ankara, 10-15th Sep 2007, Vol. 1: Religion], Ankara,. http://www.ayk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MICHAUX- COLOMBOT-Dani%C3%A8le-THE-ROYAL-HITTITE-TITLE- %E2%80%98MY-SUN%E2%80%99-AND-THE-WINGED-SUN-DISK.pdf Milne, P. 1987 Review of Texts of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, by Phyllis Trible, and Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis, by Savina J. Teubal. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 16, 121–3. Monderson, F. 2007 Hatshepsut’s Temple at Deir el Bahari. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

109

Monson, J.M. and Lancaster, S.P 2014 Regions On the Run: Introductory Map Studies in the Land of the . Rockford, IL: Biblical Backgrounds. Morkot, R. 2006 A Kushite Royal Woman, Perhaps a God’s Wife of Amun. Pp. 147–58 in Egyptian Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, ed. K.N. Sowada and B.G. Ockinga. Sydney: Meditarch. Morkot, R. 2016 The Late-Libyan and Kushite God’s Wives. Historical and Art-Historical Questions. Pp. 107–120 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Mumford, G. D. 2013 Egypt and the Levant. Pp. 69–89 in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE, ed. A.E. Killebrew and M. Steiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ockinga, B.G. 2010 The Tomb of Amenemope (TT 148). I. Architecture, Texts and Decoration. Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports 27. Oxford: Aris and Phillips. Ockinga, B.G. 2012 A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Oppenheim, A.L. (ed.) 1961 The Assyrian Dictionary, Vol. 21. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Pemberton, D. 2013 The Civilization of Ancient Egypt. New York: Rosen. Perdu, O. 2016 Une Épouse Divine à Héracléopolis. Suite. Pp. 223–43 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Pérez Die, M.C. 1992 Excavaciones en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna). Madrid: Minister de Cultura. Pinkowski, J. 2006 Egypt's Ageless Goddess: A Modern Pilgrim Visits the Temple of Mut. Archaeology 59.5, 44–49. Podany, A.H. 2010 Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East. New York: Oxford University Press. Pongratz-Leisten, B. 2008 Sacred Marriage and the Transfer of Divine Knowledge: Alliances between the Gods and the King in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 43–73 in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. M. Nissinen & R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

110

Pope, J. 2013 The Problem of Meritefnut: A “God’s Wife” During the 25th–26th Dynasties. Journal of Egyptian History 6: 177–216. Pope, J. 2014 The Double Kingdom under Taharqo: Studies in the History of Kush and Egypt, c. 690–664 BC. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Pope, J. 2015 Shepenwepet II and the : Implications of a Recent Study. Pp. 357–64 in Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy M. Bryan, ed. K.M. Cooney and R. Jasnow. Atlanta: Lockwood. Pope, J. 2018 Review – “Prayer and Power”: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt During the First Millennium BC, ed. M.Becker, A.I. Blöbaum, and A. Lohwasser. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 19: 50–53. Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. 1972 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. II. Theban Temples. Oxford: Griffith Institute and Clarendon Press. Postgate, J.N. 1992 Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London and New York: Routledge. Preys, R. 2002 Les Complexes de la Demeure du Sistre et du Trône de Rê: Théologie et Décoration dans le Temple d’Hathor à Dendera. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 106. Leuven: Peeters. Price, C. 2014 Egypt at the Manchester Museum: Texts in Translation #12: The Stela of the God’s Wife, Princess Isis (Acc. no. 1781). Manchester: Manchester Museum. https://egyptmanchester.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/texts-in-translation-12- the-stela-of-the-gods-wife-princess-isis-acc-no-1781/ Quirke, S. (ed.) 2000–3a God’s Wife of Amun. London: University College London/Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/thebes/late/godswife2.html Quirke, S. (ed.) 2000–3b God’s Wife of Amun in the Late Period. London: University College London/Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/thebes/late/godswife.html Rikala, M. 2008 Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation. Pp. 115–44 in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. M. Nissinen and R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ritner, R.K. 1998 Fictive Adoptions or Celibate Priestesses? Göttinger Miszellen 164: 85–90.

111

Ritner, R.K. 2009 The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period. Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature. Roaf, M. 1990 Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Abingdon, UK: Facts on File/Andromeda. Roberts, J. 2004 Enheduanna, Daughter of King Sargon: Princess, Poet, Priestess (2300 B.C.) Transoxiana 8, paper 7. http://www.transoxiana.org/0108/roberts-enheduanna.html Robins, G. 1993a The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt. Pp. 65–78 in Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt. London: Routledge. Robins, G. 1993b Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Mus Press. Robins, G. 2008 The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Russmann, E.R. 1997 Mentuemhat’s Kushite Wife (Further Remarks on the Decoration of the Tomb of Mentuemhat, 2). Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 34: 21– 39. Schuenemann, V.J.; Peltzer, A.; Welte, B.; van Pelt, W.P.; Molak, M.; Wang, C-C.; Furtwängler, A., Urban, C.; Reiter, E.; Nieselt, K.; Tessmann, B.; Francken, M.; Harvati, K.; Haak, W.; Schiffels, S.; Krause, J. 2017 Ancient Egyptian Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods. Nature Communications 8: e15694. Schulman, A.R. 1979 Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38: 177–93. Schulz, R. 2009 A Situla Carrying the Names of Kashta and Amenirdis I and its Historical Implications. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, Dallas, Texas, April 24–26, 2009. Abstract pp.103–4 in Conference Booklet, online at https://www.arce.org/files/user/page157/2009_AM_booklet.pdf Scurlock, J. 2014 Medicine and Healing Magic. Pp. 101–43 in Women in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.W. Chavalas. London & New York: Routledge. Secunda, N.V. 2010 Changes in Achaemenid Royal Dress. Pp. 255–74 in The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Curtis and St. John Simpson. London: I.B. Tauris. Seidlmayer, S. 2010 The Rise of the State to the Second Dynasty. Pp. 25–39 in Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs, ed. R. Schulz and M. Seidel. Potsdam: H.F Ullmann.

112

Shaw, I. 2003 Exploring Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shaw, I. and Nicholson, P. 2008 The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Shonkwiler, R.L. 2014 The Behdetite: A Study of Horus the Behdetite from the Old Kingdom to the Conquest of Alexander. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Sollberger, E. 1965 Ur Excavations: Texts. VIII. Royal Inscriptions, Part II. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Solvang, E.K. 2003 A Woman’s Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David. London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press. Sparks, K.L. 2005 Ancient Texts for the Study of the : A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Speiser, E.A. 2011 The Legend of Sargon. Pp. 82–83 in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Steinkeller, P. 1982 The Question of Marḫaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 72: 237–65. Steinkeller, P. 1999 On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship. Pp. 103–137 in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Centre in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996, ed. K. Watanabe. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Stol, M. 2016 Women in the Ancient Near East, trans. H. and M. Richardson. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. Stone, A. 2016 Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses: Nanna/Suen/Sin (god). Oracc and the UK Higher Education Academy. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/nannasuen/ Studevent-Hickman, B.; Melville, S.; and Noegel, S. 2006 Neo-Babylonian Period Texts from Babylonia and Syro-Palestine. Pp. 382– 406 in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

113

Sullivan, E.A. 2013 A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes: Excavations at South Karnak (2004-2006). BAR International Series 2538. Oxford: Archaeopress. Summers, G.D. 2000 Harran. P.140 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sundqvist, O. 2016 An Arena for Higher Powers: Ceremonial Buildings and Religious Strategies for Rulership in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Suter, C.E. 2007 Between Human and Divine: High Priestesses in Images from the Akkad to the Isin-Larsa Period. Pp. 317–61 in Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, ed. J. Cheng and M.H. Feldman. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Taggar-Cowen, A. 2006 Hittite Priesthood. Heidelberg: Winter. Taylor, J. 2003 The Third Intermediate Period (1069-664 BC). Pp. 324–63 in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Teeter, E. 1999 Celibacy and Adoption Among God’s Wives of Amun and Singers in the Temple of Amun: A Reexamination of the Evidence. Pp. 405–14 in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, ed. E. Teeter and J.A. Larson. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 58. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Teissier, B. 1996 Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht Teppo, S. 2008 Sacred Marriage and the Devotees of Ishtar. Pp. 75–92 in Sacred Marriages – The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. M. Nissinen & R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns. Teubal, S.J. 1984 Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis. Chicago and London: Swallow/Ohio University Press. Tinney, S. and Jones, P. n.d. Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project [ePSD]: Ubi [Bird]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5886.html Tobin, V.A. 2003 The Teaching for King Merikare. Pp. 152–65 in The Literature of Ancient Egypt, ed. W.K. Simpson. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

114

Török, L. 2009 Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 BC-AD 500. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Van Buylaere, G. 2019 The Decline of Female Professionals – and the Rise of the Witch – in the Second and Early First Millennium BCE. Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 14: 37–61. Van de Mieroop, M. 1992 Old Babylonian Ur: Portrait of an Ancient Mesopotamian City. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 21: 119–30. Van de Mieroop, M. 2010 A History of Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Van de Mieroop, M. 2016 A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000–323 BC. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Van Koppen, F. 2006 Old Babylonian Period Inscriptions. Pp. 88–106 in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Vancil, J.W. 1993 Sarah: Her Life and Legacy. Pp. 37–68 in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 2, ed. Carroll D. Osburn. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Vittmann, G. 1978 Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit: Genealogische und prosopographische Untersuchungen zum thebanischen Priesterund Beamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie. Vienna: Institut für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie. Vittmann, G. 2007 A Question of Names, Titles, and Iconography. Kushites in Priestly, Administrative and other Positions from Dynasties 25 to 26. Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin 18: 139–61. Voedisch, L. 2011 The God’s Wife. Stamford, CT: Story Plant. Volk, K. 1999 A Sumerian Reader. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 18. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico. Wakeman, M.K. 1985 Ancient Sumer and the Women's Movement: The Process of Reaching behind, Encompassing and Going Beyond. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 1.2: 7-27. Walker, C. and Dick, M.B. 1999 The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual. Pp. 55–122 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

115

Weadock, P.N. 1975 The Giparu at Ur. Iraq 37: 101–28.

Wengrow, D. 2006 The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westenholz, A. 1999 The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. Pp. 17–117 in Mesopotamien – Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, Annäherungen 3 [Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3], Part 1, ed. W. Sallaberger & A. Westenholz. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag Freiburg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Westenholz, J.G. 1993 Review of A Contribution to the Early Isin Craft Archive, by G.T. Ferwerda, and Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šū-ilišu, by M. van de Mieroop. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52: 292–96. Westenholz, J.G. 2012 EN-Priestess: Pawn or Power Mogul? Pp. 291–312 in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25th July 2008, ed. G. Wilhelm. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Westenholz, J.G. 2013a In The Service of The Gods: The Ministering Clergy. Pp. 246–74 in The Sumerian World, ed. H. Crawford. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Westenholz, J.G. 2013b Plethora of Female Deities. Pp. 29–135 in Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, ed. J.M. Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259. Freiburg, Switzerland: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Whittaker, G. 2002 Linguistic Anthropology and the Study of Emesal as (a) Women’s Language. Pp. 633–44 in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, ed. R. Whiting and S. Parpola. Proceedings of the 45th Recontre Assyriologique Internationale. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Wilkinson, R.H. 2003 The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson. Wilkinson, T. (trans.) 2016 Writings from Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin. Winter, I.J. 1987 Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Office of EN-Priestess, and the Weight of Visual Evidence. Pp. 189–201 in La Femme dans le Proche Orient Antique (Proceedings of the Rencontre Assyriologique

116

Internationale, Paris, July, 1986), ed. J.M. Durand. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Woolley, L. 1982 Ur “of the Chaldees” – The Final Account, Excavations at Ur, Revised and Updated by P.R.S. Moorey. London: Herbert Press. Zettler, R.L. 1986 From Beneath the Temple: Inscribed Objects from Ur. Expedition 28.3: 29– 38. https://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/28- 3/From.pdf Zettler, R.L. 2011 Biblical Ur of the Chaldees. Great Sites of the Ancient World [Lecture Series], Penn Museum podcast. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. https://itunes.apple.com/bb/itunes-u/iraqs-ancient-past/id431257055?mt=10

117