Nodjmet A, Daughter of Amenhotep, Wife of Piankh and Mother of Herihor*
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
54 ZÄS 140 (2013) / DOI 10.1524/zaes.2013.0005 AD THIJS Nodjmet A, Daughter of Amenhotep, Wife of Piankh and Mother of Herihor* Two books for one lady? At the time, I was of the opinion that their identities were to be “separated” as follows: Back in 1998, I published an article called – Nodjmet A, the mother of Herihor. Her “Two Books for One Lady, The mother of 6 7 1 mummy and coffins were found in the great Herihor rediscovered” . Although in the early Royal Cache. Since the title “God’s mother of days of Egyptology there had been much uncer- Khons-the-child” appears on her coffins and in 2 the Book of the Dead, BM 10541, the latter was tainty regarding her relationship to Herihor , 8 today Nodjmet is normally taken to have been tentatively ascribed to her . 3 – Nodjmet B, the daughter of Hrere and Piankh. the wife of Herihor . The reversed order of High She married Herihor with whom she is depicted Priests as proposed by Jansen-Winkeln has done on the Leiden Stela V 65 while he was still a mere little to alter this4. In my 1998 article, however, High Priest of Amun (HPA)9, and in the Temple of Khonsu, with her husband as king and a whole I postulated that there had been actually two 10 ladies called Nodjmet: Nodjmet A, the mother row of sons and daughters . The second funeral 5 papyrus belonging to a Nodjmet, Pap. BM 10490, of Herihor and Nodjmet B, his wife (see Fig. 1) . was ascribed to her11. As the title of the article indicates, I based my hypothesis mainly on the fact that there were In a way, the bottom has fallen out of this ar- two funeral papyri belonging to a queen Nodj- ticle, since its main purpose had been to explain met. the phenomenon of Nodjmet apparently having two funeral papyri. Following a remark by Kit- chen12, I assumed this was an anomaly which Hrere = HPA Piankh Nodjmet A needed explaining. However, since it turns out | that there is no a priori problem with a mummy HPA Pinuzem Nodjmet B = HPA Herihor Fig. 1. My position in 1998. 6 Mummy no. 61087; Smith, The Royal Mummies, * I would like to thank all readers of the drafts of Cairo 1912 (CGC), 94–98, pl. LXIX, LXX and LXXI. this article, especially Dr G. P. F. Broekman, Dr R. J. 7 No. 61024, in: Daressy, Cercueils des cachettes Demarée, Dr L. Popko, Dr R. Porter and Dr P. G. royales, Cairo 1909 (CGC), 40–50. van der Veen, who have all given valuable comments. 8 I use the designation P. BM 10541 for conven- The responsibility for the theories presented here and ience. Actually, this papyrus is split into three parts, for any remaining errors (and I hope the reader will not with the two other parts in the Louvre (Louvre E. 6258) conclude that these are mere synonyms) lies with the and in Munich (now lost: Niwinˊ ski, DE 20 (1991), author. 39); TIPE, 42. 1 Thijs, GM 163 (1998), 101–110. 9 TIPE, 41. 2 Comp. Thijs, o.c., 107–110. 10 The Epigraphic Survey, The Temple of 3 E.g. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Khonsu, vol. I (OIP 100), 11, plate 26. She also appears Egypt, 2nd revised edition, Warminster 1996, 40ff. together with the princess Shesebeke, while she (henceforth: TIPE). (= Nodjmet) is carrying an infant; ibid, 14f., plate 28.B. 4 Jansen-Winkeln, ZÄS 119 (1992), 22–37; GM 11 For a discussion of Nodjmet’s funeral papyri, see: 157 (1997), 49–74. Lenzo, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and 5 For an alternative genealogy involving two Nodj- Sudan 15 (2010), 63–83. mets, now see Dodson, KMT 22:4 (2011–2012), 12 “(...) the relation of this Book of the Dead to the 21, 24. I would like to thank R. Porter for bringing other remains problematic (two copies for one lady?) this to my attention. (...)”: TIPE, 44. Unauthenticated | 81.206.192.140 Download Date | 9/27/13 12:47 AM ZÄS 140 (2013) A. Thijs: Nodjmet A, Daughter of Amenhotep 55 possessing two funeral papyri13, we can no lon- still alive17. It is only after we have let her cof- ger use this fact as the basis for postulating two fins, shroud and funeral papyri tell their own separate identities. But although the original story, that we will compare this to the informa- premise underlying the article may have been tion from these other sources. By taking this wrong, this does not automatically mean that cautious step by step approach, we can try to there is not a case for the existence of two sepa- avoid jumping to conclusions, which poses a rate Nodjmets. Quite the contrary. In fact, as I real danger, especially given the amount of time hope to show, the case is much stronger than during which we have all familiarised ourselves presented back then14. with a model in which there was only one Nodj- met18. There can be no harm in our temporary postponement, for if there was indeed only one A new start after an early mistake historical Nodjmet, the two distinct sets of evi- dence should add up without too much prob- There is no obvious a priori reason why a lems in whatever order they are studied. model which distributes the available artefacts and references over two individuals would be inferior compared to a scenario which ascribes Nodjmet’s funeral equipment all sources mentioning the name Nodjmet to a single individual. Nevertheless, ‘multiplying his- If we take the funeral papyri and the evidence torical personages’ should not be done lightly. from the coffins and the mummy shroud as our Therefore, we will start out by showing that starting point, one cannot help but being struck there is indeed a problem with a “one Nodjmet by the fact that Nodjmet’s ‘claim to fame’ seems hypothesis” in any chronology. For methodo- to have been that she mothered a king rather than logical reasons, the natural thing to do would be that she married one, although this has not al- to assume that all sources mentioning Nodjmet ways been fully appreciated. Broekman has criti- belong to one lady and see whether that working cised my model because 15 hypothesis “runs into trouble” . However, we “as well in BM 10541 as on the mummy shroud will here take on a slightly more severe ap- Thijs’ Nodjmet A is called ‘Lady of the two lands’, proach: we will start on the assumption that we which indicates that she is a king’s wife”. are dealing with one single lady, but, not unlike He adds: the method used for the Banishment Stele in an 16 “as not any king belonging to a dynasty prior to the earlier article , we will first study the funerary st equipment in isolation and ‘postpone’ all knowl- 21 was at the same time High Priest of Amun, a lady bearing both titles Chief/Principal of the Harim of edge of the sources on which she is depicted as Amun(ra)(sonter) and Lady of the two Lands could not possibly have been married to a 20th dynasty king 13 or high priest, which means that it is improbable that Niwinˊ ski, Studies on the Illustrated Theban 19 th th Nodjmet A was Herihor’s mother” . Funerary Papyri of the 11 and 10 Centuries B.C., Freiburg-Göttingen, 1989, 42, 219 et passim. 14 However, it is by no means certain that the ti- Already in 1998 I had additional reasons to postu- late a second Nodjmet, but since these were related to tle “Lady of the Two Lands” (nb.t t#wy) was an alternative chronology which I had not even begun to publish, I decided to use the two book phenomenon as a first step to work towards this chronology. Even 17 In casu Leiden Stele V 65; the evidence from the now, several important pieces of evidence will have to Temple of Khonsu; the Late Ramesside Letters and the be postponed to a forthcoming article, because they can Luxor graffito: TIPE, 41f. only come into play once I have published my views on 18 The temporal precedence of one theory over an- the 21st Dynasty. other is always a factor to be reckoned with. As I have 15 For a summary of these sources: Jansen- experienced before, it is very difficult not to uncon- Winkeln, Inschriften der Spätzeit I, 30–33, 3.57 sciously carry elements from one model into another: (henceforth, Inschriften I); TIPE, 41f. Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 84 with note 95; 87. 16 Thijs, ZÄS 132 (2005), 81ff.; ZÄS 138 (2011), 19 Broekman, GM 191 (2002), 14; in this he was 163–181. followed by Lenzo, o.c., 65. Unauthenticated | 81.206.192.140 Download Date | 9/27/13 12:47 AM 56 A. Thijs: Nodjmet A, Daughter of Amenhotep ZÄS 140 (2013) borne exclusively by a queen. We find the title in Khakheperre Pinuzem were two distinct indi- the Luxor graffiti with the God’s Wife of Amun viduals, with the former never claiming king- (GWA) Maatkare20. On Marseilles Statue ship28, this interpretation seems highly unlikely no. 232, the God’s Wife of Amun Mutemhat- from the evidence of the goblet alone: if Henut- Maatkare is likewise called “Lady of the Two tawy’s title “Lady of the Two Lands” (or her Lands”21. Broekman’s assumption would there- cartouche for that matter) are supposed to make fore make the God’s Wife of Amun into the her into the wife of a king, it is highly incongru- wife of some king, although she is supposed to ous that there is not the slightest indication of have been celibate22.