sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aat (queen), Akhet (hieroglyph), Amarna, Amenemhat III, Amenemope (pharaoh), Amenhotep II

THE REIGN OF

HISTORY, HISTORIOGRAPHY, AND THE DAWN OF THE RAMESSIDE ERA

by

Karen Margaret (Maggie) Bryson

A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Baltimore, Maryland

April 2018

© Karen M. Bryson 2018

All Rights Reserved Abstract

The Horemheb, the general who became king, has long been recognized as a pivotal figure in the history of New Kingdom . In the last half-century, important new archaeological evidence has expanded our view of the king and his historical context, particularly the years before he took the throne. There has not, however, been a dedicated, scholarly study of the reign since 1964. This dissertation examines Horemheb’s years as pharaoh, particularly with regard to how his reign contributed to the direction that Egypt would take in the first decades of the Ramesside era.

The present work begins with an historiographical analysis of how Horemheb has been characterized by Egyptologists since the nineteenth century. The art and architecture associated with him are then analyzed stylistically and programmatically, clarifying what can truly be said to have originated during the reign. A prosopography of the officials who served under the king addresses how the structures of government and elite society changed from the reign of

Tutankhamun into that of II. A key text of the reign is analyzed with respect to how its rhetoric and its mythological allusions help to reveal the political conditions of the period.

Finally, the historical memory of Horemheb in the ancient world, from the end of his reign through the Greco-Roman period, is taken into consideration.

The results of this study show the extent to which many of our fundamental ideas and questions about Horemheb and his time still have their roots in the earliest days of , and reveal the need for major re-analysis. The monumental record of the reign is shown to be less extensive than often thought, and to reflect ongoing change rather than the culmination of a return to artistic orthodoxy. The literary and prosopographical studies, as well as the discussion of the ancient historiography, confirm that the political disruption of the

i period continued, and even increased, under Horemheb. Major and long-standing challenges likely confronted the first Ramesside kings, persisting well into the reign of Ramesses II.

Advisor: Dr. Betsy Bryan

Second Reader: Dr. Richard Jasnow

Committee Chair: Dr. William Rowe

Readers: Dr. Jacob Lauinger

Dr. Emily Anderson

ii Acknowledgements

My thanks are due first and foremost to my advisor, Professor Betsy Bryan. Whatever merit the present work have is due largely to her guidance, and her constant support in every aspect of my work (and beyond) has meant more to me than I can express. I would also like to thank Professor Richard Jasnow, both for his input on this dissertation, and for all that he has taught me. I am grateful to everyone on the faculty in the Department of Near Eastern

Studies at Johns Hopkins University, in particular Professors Glenn Schwartz, P. Kyle McCarter,

Paul Delnero, Jacob Lauinger, and Michael Harrower. Ms. Vonnie Wild and Ms. Glenda Hogan also have my gratitude, not only for their help with administrative matters, but also for the warmth and kindness that they bring to Gilman Hall.

Mr. James van Rensselaer and Mr. Ayman Damarany were instrumental to my research, sharing their time, expertise, and resources with me as I prepared for and carried out my research in the field – I could not have carried this project to completion without them, and I will forever be grateful to them for their help and for their friendship. I would also like to thank

Mr. Ahmed -Naseh, who served not only as my inspector, but also as a much-valued colleague and collaborator in my work in the . I would like to thank Ms. Djodi Deutsch,

Ms. Mary Sadek, Ms. Jane Smythe, and Mr. John Shearman of the American Resarch Center in

Egypt for all their help, as well as Mr. Salah el-Masekh, Chief Inspector at , and Mr. Ali El-

Aymary for facilitating my research in Egypt. I was fortunate to have the support of many other individuals at all levels of the Ministry of Antiquities in , including the directors, inspectors, and security personnel in the Luxor district who so kindly lent their assistance to me in my work

– I hope to thank each of them individually in the published edition of this dissertation, once it has been rendered into a work worthy of their efforts. I would like to thank Dr. Violeta Pereyra

iii for her kind permission to study the decoration of TT 49, and the team from Factum Arte who generously allowed me to study and photograph in KV 17, even as they themselves were working in the tomb. I would also like to thank Dr. Cedric Gobeil for his hospitality and permission to work at Deir el-Medina, and Dr. Nozomu Kawai for permission to consult and cite his doctoral dissertation; also Ms. Aurelie Quirion for permission to consult and cite her MA thesis. I would like to thank Ms. Roxie Walker, Dr. Jessica Kaiser, Ms. Afaf Wahba, and Mr. Dave

Hunt for introducing me to human osteology; and Dr. Janice Kamrin for many things, but especially for teaching me that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”

Perhaps the hardest part of writing these acknowledgements is expressing my gratitude to the many friends whose presence in my life has made the good times joyful and the hard times survivable over the last nine years. Ashley Fiutko Arico, Meredith Fraser, Gaultier Mouron,

Rania Galal, Katherine Davis, Fatma Talaat Ismail, Erin Guinn-Villareal, and Marina Escolano-

Poveda have carried me through it all, and I can never thank them enough. I would also like to thank Heather Parker, Tiffany Early-Spadoni, Chris Brinker, Michele Asuni, Michael Arico,

Terrance Ooey, and the rest of the Hopkins-Baltimore crew – you guys are the best. Thanks to my friends from the days, especially Andrew Bednarski, Julie Patenaude, Garry Shaw,

Allison Ripley and Allison Hedges. I would also like to thank Michael Slevin for his input and support. There are many names that I have left out here due to constraints of time and space, but I will never forget each and every one of the many people who have been so generous with their help and support over the years.

I would like to thank the friends whom I have been lucky to know for so long, Anne

DeVito, Amity McGinnis, and Riya Kuo. And thank you, from the bottom of my heart, to Connie

Hopkins, Amanda Bryson, Ken and Terri Bryson, and J.D. and Mary Pierce. Even when it wasn’t clear to you why I was doing what I was doing (or even what I was doing in the first place), you

iv never wavered for a minute, wanting only for me to be happy. I have loved you since I opened my eyes, and I owe everything to you.

Finally, to Dr. : thank you for teaching me, supporting me, and believing in me.

v

This page intentionally left blank.

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract ------i - ii

Acknowledgments ------iii - v

Table of Contents ------vii-ix

List of Figures, Tables, and Plates ------x-xi

List of Abbreviations ------xii-xvi

Introduction ------1 - 7

Chapter 1: The Historiography of the Reign of Horemheb

1.1: The Nineteenth Century: The “Classic” Narrative ------8- 22

1.2: The Nineteenth Century: Divergent Narratives------22-30

1.3: The Twentieth Century: War, Peace, and the Post- ----- 30 - 39

1.4: The Twentieth Century: Ongoing Debates------39 - 43

1.5: Conclusion ------43 - 44

Chapter 2: The Monuments of Horemheb

2.1: Introduction ------45-46

2.2: The North Coast and the Delta ------46- 52

2.3: The Memphite Region ------52-58

2.4: ------58-61

2.5: Karnak ------61-65

2.6: Horemheb’s relief sculpture at Karnak – X ------65-75

Chapter 3: Horemheb’s Officials

3.1: Introduction ------76-79

vii 3.2: Securely Attested Officials ------

3.2.1: , viceroy of Kush------79-86

3.2.2: , First Overseer of Cattle of His Majesty ------86-89

3.2.3: Taemwadjsy, Great One of the Khener of Nebkheperure ---- 89-97

3.2.4: Parennefer c. Wennefer, High of at Karnak ----- 97-112

3.2.5: , Overseer of the Treasury ------112-122

3.2.6: Neferhotep, God’s Father of Amun ------122-126

3.2.7: Neferhotep, Foreman in the ------126-127

3.2.8: Amenemope c. Panhesi, Overseer of the Treasury ------127-131

3.2.9: Nebwa, High Priest of Amun of Sema-Behdet ------131-134

3.2.10: Preemheb, High Priest of Re at Heliopolis ------134-136

3.2.11: Usermontu, ------137-140

3.2.12: Paramessu, Vizier ------140-151

3.3: Family Politics: Officialdom from Horemheb to the early Ramesside

Period ------151-156

Chapter 4: The Coronation Inscription

4.1: Past Scholarship ------157

4.2: Translation ------157-166

4.3: Genre ------166-168

4.4: “Coronation Inscriptions” and Coronation ------168-177

4.5: Legitimation ------177-180

4.6: Apology ------180-186

4.7: The Circumstances Behind the Coronation Inscripiton of Horemheb:

Myth and History ------186-196

viii Chapter 5: The Deification of Horemheb?

5.1: Introduction ------197-197

5.2: Horemheb in the Ramesside Period ------198-209

5.3: The Third Intermediate Period – Deification and Memory ------209-213

5.4: The Greco Roman Period – Armaios/Harmais ------213-218

Conclusion and Future Lines of Research ------219-222

Catalog of Monuments ------223-246

Plates ------247-259

Tables ------260-269

Bibliography ------270-310

Curriculum Vitae, Karen M. Bryson ------311-316

ix Figures:

Fig. 1: Karnak temples in year 1 of Horemheb, p. 63.

Fig. 1: Karnak temples at the end of the reign of Horemheb, p. 68.

Fig. 2: 20-square grid, reign of Horemheb (Robins, Propotion and Style, fig. 6.47), p. 69.

Fig. 3: 18-square grid, reign of Horemheb (image by the author), p. 70.

Plates:

Plate 1: a. Figure of (KV 23), b. Figure of Horemheb (KV 57), p. 247.

Plate 2: a. Figure of (KV 16), b. Figure of I (KV 17), p. 248.

Plate 3: Pylon X gateway, scene SE 1 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 59), p. 249.

Plate 4: Pylon X gateway, scene SE 2 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 65), p. 250.

Plate 5: Pylon X gateway, scene SW 2 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 67), p. 251.

Plate 6: Pylon X gateway, scene SE 3 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 71), p. 252.

Plate 7: Pylon X gateway, scene SW 3 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 73), p. 253.

Plate 8: Pylon X gateway, scene SE 4 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 77), p. 254.

Plate 9: Pylon X gateway, scene E (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 109), p. 255.

Plate 10: Pylon X gateway, scene W 3 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb,109), p. 256.

Plate 11: Pylon X gateway, scene NW 1 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 119), p. 257.

Plate 12: Pylon X gateway, scene NW 2 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 125), p. 258.

Plate 13: Pylon X gateway, scene NW 3 (after Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 131), p. 259.

Tables:

Table 1: Abbreviations for Tables 1-2, p. 260.

x Table 2: Genealogy of family of the early 19th Dynasty high of and Onuris, p. 261-

Table 3: Abbreviations for titles used in Tables 1 and 2.

xi List of Abbreviations (Journals, Series, Institutions)

ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandlungen (Wiesbaden: Harassowitzz)

ÄAT Ägypten und Altes Testament (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz)

AAWLM Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Geistes- und Socialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner)

AJA American Journal of (Boston: Archaeological Institute of America)

ÄL Ägypten und Levante (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften)

ÄM Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung,

AoF Altorientalische Forschungen (Berlin: De Gruyter)

AÖAW Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

ARCE American Research Center in Egypt, Washington, D.C./Cairo

ASAE Annales du service des antiquités de l'Égypte (Cairo: IFAO)

AUC American University in Cairo

AW Antike Welt (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern)

BACE Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology (Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptolgy)

BAR Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906-1907.

BBf Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde (Cairo: Schweizerisches Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde)

BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten)

BM ,

BSAE British School of Archaeology in Egypt

xii BSAK Beihefte SAK (: Helmut Buske)

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (Ann Arbor: American Schools of Oriental Research)

BdÉ Bibliotheque d’étude (Cairo: IFAO)

BIFAO Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale (Cairo: IFAO)

BMSAES British Museum Studies in and (London/Online: British Museum)

BSAE British School of Archaeology in Egypt

BSÉG Bulletin de la société d'égyptologie de Genève (Geneva: Société d'égyptologie)

CdÉ Chronique d’Égypte (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth)

CSÉG Cahiers de la société d'égyptologie, Genève (Geneva: Société d'égyptologie)

DE Discussions in Egyptology (Oxford: Oxbow)

DGOeAW Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften)

EEF Egypt Exploration Fund, London

EES Egypt Exploration Society, London

اﻟﻤﺘﺤﻒ اﻟﻤﺼﺮي Cairo Museum, Egyptian EMC

ENiM Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne (Montpellier/Online: Équipe Égypte nilotique et méditerranéene)

ERA Egyptian Research Account (London: BSAE)

FIFAO Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale (Cairo: IFAO)

FuB Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz)

GM Göttinger Miszellen (Göttengen: Aegyptologisches Seminar)

HÄB Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg)

HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden: Brill)

xiii

IFAO Institut français d'archéologie orientale, Cairo

JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (Atlanta: Lockwood)

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (London: Egypt Exploration Fund)

JEH Journal of Egyptian History (Leiden: Brill)

JSSEA Journal for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. (Toronto: Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities)

Karnak Cahiers de Karnak (Luxor: Centre franco-égyptien d’étude des temples de Karnak)

KRI Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical. 8 vols. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975-1990.

LD Lepsius, Karl Richard. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. 12 vols. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, [1849-1859].

LD Text Lepsius, Karl Richard. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien: Text. 5 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897-1913.

Mag. Storage magazine

MAS Münchner Ägyptologische Studien (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern)

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (Berlin: De Gruyter)

MFA Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

MRAH Musées royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels

NARCE Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt

OBO Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg)

OIC Oriental Institute Communications (Chicago: Oriental Institute)

OIM Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago IL

OIP Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago: Oriental Institute)

OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta (Leuven: Peeters)

xiv PALMA Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities (Turnhout: Brepolis)

PM I Porter, Bertha and Rosalind Moss, asst. Ethel Burney. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egypitan Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. 1, The Theban Necropolis. 2 fascs. 2nd edition. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1970.

PM V Porter, Bertha and Rosalind Moss, asst. Ethel Burney. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egypitan Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. 5, : Sites. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962.

RAPH Recherches d'archéologie, de philologie et d'histoire (Cairo: IFAO)

RdÉ Revue d'égyptologie (: Société française d'égyptologie)

ROM , Toronto

RT Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes (Cairo: Mission archéologique française)

SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

SAGA Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens (Stellerloh: Verlag Marie Leidorf)

SAK Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur (Hamburg: Helmut Buske)

SASAE Supplément aux ASAE (Cairo: IFAO)

SDAIK Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz)

اﻟﻤﺘﺤﻒ اﻟﺴﻮدان اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ,Sudan of Museum National SNM Khartoum

SSEA Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto

TSBA Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (London: Society of Biblical Archaeology)

TTS Theban Tombs Series (London: EES)

Urk. IV Sethe, Kurt and Wolfgang Helck. Urkunden des Ägyptischen Altertums, Vol. 4, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906-1909 and Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955-1958.

xv VA Varia Aegyptiaca (San Antonio: Van SIclen)

WAW Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature)

WB Erman, Adolf and Hermann Grapow. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache im Auftrage der Deutschen Akademien. 5 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1926-1931.

YPM Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven CT

ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (Berlin: De Gruyter)

xvi

Introduction

The fifteenth and last king of Egypt’s 18th Dynasty1 was Djoserkheperure-

Horemheb, most famous in the popular imagination as the general who became king in the wake of the Amarna revolution. He was the second successor but one to , under whom he had become perhaps the most powerful official in Egypt’s history. His pre-royal career as a military leader, administrator, diplomat, and royal advisor has been extensively discussed for almost a century. In 1936, Pflüger produced the first dedicated study of the king’s path to the throne as his doctoral dissertation in Zürich.2 Nearly three decades later, Hari (another Swiss scholar) published his Horemheb et la reine Mutnodjmet,3 an ambitious work that sought to tie together Horemheb’s private and royal identities through a comprehensive account of the monuments of the pharaoh and his queen. Hari’s remains to this day the most comprehensive account of both the pre-royal and royal periods, and is still the standard source for the discussion of the king’s monuments.

Horemheb’s pre-royal tomb in the Memphite necropolis was known already in the nineteenth century through relief elements in various museums. In 1975, however, the discovery of its actual location at sparked a new wave of scholarship, with Martin, H.

Schneider, Raven, van Dijk, and others contributing not only to our knowledge of Horemheb

1 I choose to consider Horemheb the last king of the 18th Dynasty rather than the first of the 19th, as his origin as an official under the Thutmoside line is beyond dispute, whereas the character of his memory under the Ramesside kings is not entirey clear – see this dissertation, chapter 5. 2 Robert Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjmet (Genva: La Sirène, 1964). 3 Kurt Pflüger, Haremhab und die Amarnazeit, Teildruck: Haremhabs Laufbahn bis zur Thronbesteigung (Zwickau: Ullmann, 1936).

1 prior to his accession, but also to our overall understanding of the Memphite necropolis in the

New Kingdom.4 Van Dijk in particular has shaped the conception of Horemheb’s role in the political and religious history of the post-Amarna period.5 In addition, studies of the military in

New Kingdom Egypt have often made extensive reference to Hormeheb.6 Recently, moreover, a works on the reign of Tutankhamun have done much to contextualize and expand our knowledge of Horemheb in the years before he took the throne.7

Although our perception of Horemheb’s identity at his accession has been revolutionized since 1975, though, remarkably little has changed with regard to our understanding of what happened after he was crowned king. There have been contributions in two major areas: first, some royal monuments have been discovered and/or adequately published for the first time. Among these are the sculptures inscribed for Horemheb from the

Luxor Temple cachette (found in 1989 by el-Saghir)8 and the king’s rock-cut temples in at

Gebel el-Silsila9 and Abu-Oda.10 Second, the issue of “legitimation,” that is, the king’s defense of his accession in spite of his non-royal background, has been the subject of extensive study by

4 See the bibliography and notes throughout the present dissertation for reference to their works. 5 See in particular Jacobus van Dijk, “New Evidence on the Length of the Reign of Horemheb,” JARCE 44 (2014), 193- 200; id., “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun. BACE 7 (1996), 29-42; id., “Hymnen aan Re en Osiris in Memphitische graven van het Nieuwe Rijk.” Phoenix 42, no. 1 (1996), 3-22; id., “Maya's Chief Sculptor Userhat-Hatiay, with a Note on the Length of the Reign of Horemheb.” GM 148 (1995), 29-34; id., “The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis: Historical and Iconographical Studies,” (PhD diss., University of Groningen, 1993). 6 For instance, Andrea Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft: ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches (Heldelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996); Anthony Spalinger, War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005); John Darnell and Colleen Manassa, Tutankhamnu’s Armies: Battle and Conquest during Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007). 7 Nozomu Kawai, “Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun” (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2005); Marc Gabolde, Toutankhamon (Paris: Pygmalion, 2015), 685 pp.; Marianne Eaton-Krauss, The Unknown Tutankhamun (London: Bloomsbury, 2016). 8 Mohammed el-Saghir, Das Statuenversteck im Luxortempel (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1992); for a detailed analysis of the Horemheb pieces, see Matthias Seidel, Die königlichen Statuengruppen: Die Denkmäler vom Alten Reich bis zum Ende der 18. Dynastie, HÄB 42 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1996). 9 Andrea-Christina Thiem, Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh: Analyse der architektonischen und ikonographischen Konzeption im Rahmen des politischen und legitimatorischen Programmes der Nachamarnazeit, 2 vols., ÄAT 47 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2000). 10 Mirella Sidro, Der Felstempel von Abu Oda: Eine architektonische und ikonographische Untersuchung, Schriftenreihe Antiquates 38 (Hamburg: Kovaec, 2006).

2 Gundlach and others.11 There has not, however, been any effort to synthesize an updated understanding of the history of the king’s reign as such, on the basis of currently available evidence, since Hari. Given the amount of excellent scholarship that exists on the pre-royal career, it would be redundant to cover that material again here. This dissertation will focus to the greatest possible extent on material dating to the regnal period; although reference to the king’s extraordinary origins is necessary in some circumstances, I will seek to avoid “reinventing the wheel” in this regard. Less studied is the question of how the events of Horemheb’s actual reign can be contextualized as part of the origin of the Ramesside dynasty, and how they may

(or may not) have shaped subsequent history; I have attempted to orient my study primarily toward this question. A second major theme of this dissertation is the matter of “history” itself with regard to Horemheb and his period. As I conducted my initial research on the topic, I noticed the frequency with which the same questions were raised, without adequate reference as to why those were the particular issues being explored, or where conventional explanations and interpretations had originated. Upon further investigation, it became clear to me that the historiography of Horemheb’s reign has, ever since antiquity,12 been fraught with uncertainty and the perpetuation of poorly-examined (although not necessarily incorrect!) ideas. This matter forms the basis for the first and fifth chapter of the present dissertation, which address the modern historiography of the reign and the memory of Horemheb13 respectively.

11 For instance, William Murnane, “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution,” in Ancient Egyptian Kingship, ed. O’Connor and David Silverman (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 185-220; Rolf Gundlach and Hermann Weber, Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers. Vom Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992). 12 When it might better be spoken of as “historical memory” or even “cultural memory,” see recently , “Memory and Culture,” in Memory: A History, ed. Dmitri Nikulin (Oxford: , 2015). 13 The issue of historical memory is complicated for ancient Egypt, where the role of an individual in the consciousness of subsequent generations was tied in closely with requirements; I have tried to separate the ideas of the “deification” of Horemheb and the historical memory of him in antiquity, but have likely not been entirely successful.

3 The second chapter is a summary of the material evidence for Horemheb’s activities as king. It is organized geographically from north to south, both for convenience and because seems to play an important role in how Hormeheb’s reign unfolded. The indications that Horemheb’s interaction with the Theban region was different from his experience elsewhere in the country are quite subtle in the monumental record. The king’s most impressive architectural achievements – the three pylons at Karnak that he either completed (II and X) or initiated (IX) – are at Thebes. What is more, the documentation of his reign elsewhere is sparse: although Horemheb’s name is found at sites from the north coast to south of , the surviving objects that witness his presence are rarely of great size or especially high quality. It is only when we consider the careers of the officials who served under him that the possibility that his relationship with the Thebaid was contentious begins to emerge. In the third chapter, we examine the documentation for his administration, and find that from early in his reign, only his most powerful subordinate, the overseer of the treasury Maya, seems to have a real presence in the south. Around the time of Maya’s apparent death in or around year 8, evidence for the king’s activity in the of Amun wanes; moreover, through a study of the Theban tombs that can be dated stylistically to the post-Amarna period, it is possible to demonstrated that not a single individual who served under him in a significant capacity was buried there. When considered in this context, the monumental record can be interpreted as indicating division and a complicated political history for the reign. The fourth chapter of this dissertation then looks at a key text of Horemheb, the coronation inscription that we know from the pair statue of the king and his queen, Mutnodjmet, apparently found at Thebes. A study of the rhetoric that it employs and the mythology to which it makes reference strengthens the impression of conflict and geographical division.

4 A catalog of the monuments to which reference is made in this study is appended after the main text. It is divided into four sections: the first includes those works that Horemheb appropriated from his predecessors, whether by completing their initiatives in his own name or by retroactively removing their names from the record. The second includes the art, architecture, and other documentation that we can most securely say was both initiated by and largely completed under the king, while the third section compiles the main instances in which we know that the first kings of the 19th Dynasty appropriated Horemheb’s works. A final section is devoted to the royal sculpture in the round that bears Horemheb’s name, and the problem of the stylistic attribution to him of a sculpted “portrait.” An interpretive thread that connects the entire dissertation is the possibility that Horemheb’s career as king has been consistently misunderstood by historians as a story of movement from from “heresy” to “orthodoxy” in religion and art, and from “disorder” to “order” in the political organization of Egypt. His reign remains one of the most frustratingly opaque in the – it was clearly a pivotal moment, when rule of the country passed from the hands of one line of rulers to another. At the same time, it has left us with limited (and often confusing) material remains by comparison with its apparent historical significance.

I have largely left aside a few matters of considerable interest. Apart from the coronation inscription, the best-known document from Horemheb’s reign is the great edict that he issued, and that we know from its monumental publication at Karnak. My own understanding of the decree proceeds from the seminal study of Kruchten,14 which although nearly forty years old, remains sufficient for the current purpose. To re-evaluate the decree would require the detailed study of both practical and theoretical issues related to the highly-specialized areas of

14 Jean-Marie Kruchten, Le décret d'Horemheb: traduction, commentaire épigraphique, philologique et institutionnel (Bruxelles: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1981).

5 law and economics, and deserves more space and attention than I can devote to it here. A second issue that demands more concentrated study is the development of Egyptian theology in the post-Amarna period. His reign saw the first appearance of the “,” an important text related to royal funerary religion. Along with other works such as the Book of the Heavenly

Cow that first become prominent in that era, it may reflect a broader effort to reconcile the solar-focused religious developments that culminated in the Amarna “heresy” with other cultic traditions in the course of the restoration. Scholars including Hornung,15 van Dijk,16 and Darnell17 have explored this material, and it, too, merits considerably more careful consideration than I am able to devote to it here.

This dissertation is intended to serve mainly as an overview of the evidence for, and problems surrounding, the narrative political history of the reign of Hormemheb, particularly as it pertains to the beginning of the Ramesside era. The question of whether it is even appropriate to try and “write history” for ancient Egypt is one that has been debated among Egyptologists since the mid-twentieth century.18 I follow T. Schneider19 without reservation in considering historiography “not…a discipline among other Egyptological subfields, but as the comprehensive endeavor of Egyptology as a whole.”20 In other words, it seems to me that Horemheb’s reign is a prime example of how archaeology, philology, and art history can be colored by the expectations of investigators – there have been almost no studies related to material from this

15 Erik Hornung, Das Buch von Pforten des Jenseits: nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches, 2 vols. (Geneva: Editions des Belles-Lettres, 1979-1984); id. Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh. Eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen, OBO 46 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); id., Die Unterweltsbücher der Ägypter: ein einführender Überblick (Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1997). 16 “The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis.” 17 John Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses IX, OBO 198 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). 18 See the seminal of Donald Redford, “The Historiography of Ancient Egypt,” in Egyptology and the Social Sciences, ed. Kent Weeks (Cairo: AUC Press, 1979), 3-20. 19 Who refers in turn to Stephen Glanville, The Growth and Nature of Egyptology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947). 20 Thomas Schneider, “Preface,” JEH 1 (2008), 1.

6 period that have not proceeded from certain assumptions about the historical narrative. My own work is unlikely to be free from such constraints. I hope, however, that the present study will help lay as transparent and methodologically sound a foundation as possible for future study.

7

Chapter 1: The Historiography of the Reign of Horemheb

1.1 - The Nineteenth Century: The “Classic” Narrative

Horemheb has fascinated scholars since the birth of modern Egyptology. In 1824, in the first of his letters to the Duc de Blacas, J.-F. Champollion devoted considerable attention to the king’s monuments in the royal museum in Turin.21 In the nearly two centuries since, with the ongoing emergence of new evidence, we might expect the ways in which scholars characterize

Horemheb’s reign to have changed considerably. In many ways, this is indeed what has happened, particularly as a fuller picture has emerged of the period before he became king. On the other hand, though, much of what we think of him has changed little since the first hieroglyphic inscriptions were deciphered. We will examine here how the historiography of the reign of Horemheb has developed up to the present day. It will be seen that a surprising number of our current perceptions can be traced back well into the scholarly past. Over many generations of historical writing, some ideas have become untethered from their original evidential foundations. In specialist publications, broader historical questions are seldom addressed to more than a limited extent, simply because it would not be productive or appropriate given the scope of the discussion. In many cases, however, the very questions that we ask of the material under study are rooted in decades or even centuries of secondary scholarship. It is not my intention here to explore the philosophical problems of the “historical

21 Lettres à M. le duc de Blacas d'Aulps, Premier Gentilhomme de la Chambre, Pair de , etc., relatives au Musée Royal Égyptien de Turin, vol. 1, Première letter: monuments historiques (Paris: Firmin Didot Père et Fils, 1824), 46-64.

8 imagination” and “metahistory.”22 Nor do I wish to diminish in any way the value of past historical scholarship on Horemheb and his reign. It does nothing to minimize the achievements of earlier researchers to examine how their ideas were formed and evolved. I contend, however, that an awareness of the (often very old) origins of the assumptions that shape our image of the king in the twenty-first century may prove to be of help in moving the historical discussion forward.

At the time when Champollion was writing to the Duc de Blacas, the classical tradition was essentially the only source available to those attempting to reconstruct an historical narrative of any kind for ancient Egypt. Since the seventeenth century, there had been debate among antiquarian scholars over whether ancient historians from to the Hellenistic period were potentially reliable as sources of information on ancient Egypt.23 Many authors of the pre-decipherment era were quite skeptical of the usefulness of Greek accounts of Egypt’s history.24 As Levitin has noted, however, even the early modern antiquarians who were most critical of the classical authors were largely dependent on them, if only as a foil for their own conjectures.25 With the decipherment of hieroglyphs and the rapid progress that followed in the understanding of language,26 we might perhaps expect the dependence of

Egyptologists on the Greek authors to have lessened. Given that it was now possible to consult

22 For a recent summary of the debates surrounding historical realism see (in explicit defense of Collingwood’s idealism) Timothy Lord, “Collingwood, Idealism, Realism, and the Possibility of Historical Knowledge,” Journal of the Philosophy of History 11 (2017), 342-357. 23 For a recent discussion, see Dmitri Levitin, “Egyptology, the Limits of Antiquarianism, and the Origins of Conjectural History: New Sources and Perspectives,” History of European Ideas 41, no. 6 (2015), 723-726. 24 To be fair, much of the mistrust stemmed from the reluctance of theologians and the devoted religious to any chronology that might conflict with that of the Hebrew Bible, as ’s was perceived to do; see, for instance, the still-relevant article of Anthony Grafton, “ Scaliger and Historical Chronology: The Rise and Fall of a Discipline,” History and Theory 14, no. 2 (1975), 156-185; cf. Levitin, “Egyptology,” 704, n. 27. There is a considerable literature on the importance of chronology to antiquarians in pre-decipherment Europe. Unfortunately, there seems so far to be no dedicated study of the reception of the ancient authors by post-decipherment historians and Egyptologists; cf. Levitin, Ancient Wisdom in the Age of the New Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 85-86. 25 See Levitin, “Egyptology,” 705-716. 26 Not, of course, a monolithic achievement; for an overview of the many contributors to the process of decipherment, and the ongoing state of the project well into the nineteenth century, see, for instance, Wolfgang Schenkel, “The Decipherment of Hieroglyphs and Richard Lepsius,” BACE 23 (2012), 105-144.

9 the pharaonic documentation, it would seem natural for would-be historians of ancient Egypt have to become, if anything, somewhat more critical in their attitudes toward the classical and late-antique accounts. In fact, however, almost the opposite seems to have happened.

Not long before Champollion wrote his first letter to the Duc de Blacas, the famous king- lists from Abydos were uncovered.27 Champollion himself conducted the first study of the Turin

Canon, which the in Turin had acquired around 1820.28 The great decipherer was struck by the similarities between the royal names preserved in the pharaonic lists, those found on other Egyptian monuments, and the ones given in classical sources. Apparently, he felt there was reason to hope that Manetho could finally be fully vindicated as an historical source: “…il deviendra possible alors, en comparant les faits déduits d’un tel accord des monuments, avec les extraits qui nous restent des écrits de Manéthon, d’apprécier à sa juste valeur le mérite et la fidélité de cet historien, sur lequel la critique a prononcé, de tout temps, des jugements bien contradictoires: et si l’exactitude et l’authenticité de son Canon chronologique des rois, reste démontré par concordance avec ces monuments, adoptent des lors avec toute confiance la durée qu’il donne au règne de chaque prince…”29 Confidence in the overall historicity of the

Aegyptiaka seems to have risen among the first Egyptologists as its many commonalities with the pharaonic king-lists were recognized. In the 1830’s, Rosellini cautioned against “deriving the meaning” of pharaonic monuments from the classical sources, instead arguing for the complementary use of both to improve our understanding of the history of Egypt.30 Tellingly,

27 See Donald Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books. A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History, SSEA Publication 4 (Mississauga: , 1986), 18-24. 28 See , “The Turin-King List,” ÄL 14 (2004), 135. 29 Lettres a M. le duc, 16. Champollion’s eagerness to “validate Manetho in general,” has been noted by Gerald P. Verbrugghe and John M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 120. 30 Ippolito Rosellini, I monumenti di Egitto e della Nubie, vol. 1, Monumenti storici (Pisa: Presso Niccolo Capurro, 1832), fasc. 1: xi-xii; xvi.

10 though, the first fascicle of his Monumenti Storici is devoted almost entirely to a comparative analysis of the Greek sources.

In its finer points, Manetho’s chronology has always been recognized as problematic, but it is a commonplace today for historians to note that we remain reliant on the Aegyptiaka for our general chronological framework.31 What is less commonly recognized is the fact that the impact of the Greek historians (in particular Manetho) on the historiography of Egypt extends well beyond questions of chronology. This phenomenon is nowhere clearer than in the case of

Horemheb. Champollion was quite confident in his understanding of how the newly legible

Egyptian names of the corresponded with the Hellenized versions known through the classical authors. In 1823, Young wrote (with respect to Egyptian royal names) that his French rival claimed to have “identified…no less than thirty of them, and that they accord with the traditions of Manetho…” Champollion settled on an identification of Horemheb with “,” the eighth32 king of the Aegyptiaka’s 18th Dynasty.33 Manetho’s “Horus” was distinguished in two ways. First, he was accorded a reign of between thirty-six and thirty-eight years, depending on the epitome. This would have made him one of the longest reigning monarchs of the New

Kingdom, behind only Manetho’s “Ramesses,” “Sethos,” and “Amenophis.”34 Second, a “King

Horus” is briefly mentioned in the famous Osarseph story of Josephus’ Contra Apionem 1.228-

252, where he is said to have “desired to behold the gods.” 35

31 For a recent example of a challenge to and defense of Manetho’s reliability, see Peter James and Robert Morkot, “Two Studies in 21st Dynasty Chronology I: Deconstructing Manetho’s 21st Dynasty II: The Datelines of High Priest ,” JEH 6 (2013), 219-256; and the response of Thomas Scheider, “Controversies about Chronology,” JEH 6 (2013), 217-218. 32 Ninth in Africanus. 33 Champollion, Lettres a M. le Duc, 47. 34 Usually given a reign of 31 years, but 40 in the Armenian ; W.G. Waddell, Manetho (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 103, 109, 113, 115, 117, 119. 35 See ibid., 121-123;

11 It truly seems that Champollion’s perception of the king was influenced considerably by his familiarity with the Aegyptiaka. The great decipherer characterized the coronation inscription, the content of which he was able to make out to a limited extent, as a “decree” in favor of Egypt’s temples,36 which would accord with the image of Horus as an especially pious king. Champollion also concluded that Horemheb was the father of the queen seated at his side in the Turin pair statue.37 The possibility apparently occurred to him largely because, in

Josephus’ recension of Manetho’s 18th Dynasty, Horus’ successor is said to have been a

“daughter.”38 To be able to put a face to such a remarkable woman would surely have been exhilarating, and would have helped to capture the interest of the Duc de Blacas, a wealthy and influential patron. “Nous aurions certainement su…si cette princesse était la fille, la soeur, ou l’épouse du roi Horus; mais ces mêmes signes one été emporté…Cette question, Monsieur le

Duc, vous paraîtra d’autant plus interessant à decider, que le roi Horus a eu pour successeur immédiat au trône, une de ses filles…” “Manethon,” Champollion reminded the duke, “…paraît avoir parlé de cette princesse…”39 The great decipherer clearly held “Horus” in high esteem, calling two of the king’s sculptures in Turin “deux des plus précieux objets de la collection royale.”40 He also attributed “plusieurs portions importantes du palais de Louqsor à Thèbes,” and “une magnifique porte de granit au palais de Karnac” to the king.41

In his letter to the Duke, Champollion established a perception of Horemheb and his reign that would inform generations of subsequent scholars. It goes without saying, of course, that our narrative of Horemheb’s reign has changed over the last two centuries. It is perhaps harder now to see the subtle but persistent effect that the authority of Champollion’s analysis

36 Lettres a M. le Duc, 52, 53-54. 37 Ibid., 50-51. 38 Waddell, Manetho, 103. 39 Lettres a M. le Duc, 51. 40 Ibid., 46. 41 Ibid., 48.

12 has had on subsequent scholars. Nevertheless, as understanding grew of the political history of the late 18th Dynasty, and new ideas and evidence had to be weighed against prior understandings, Champollion’s narrative served as a starting point for many of the most influential scholars who came after him. Elements of the story might have seemed to be confirmed or refuted, but it still formed a starting point for most of the scholars who came after him. Champollion’s friend and student Rosellini modified the notion of the king as entirely devoted to matters of religion, arguing on the basis of the triumph scene from the Silsila speos that “oltre le arti di pace, esercitò anche la guerra e fece conquiste...”42 The Italian agreed with

Champollion, however, that the monuments of Horemheb/Horus were “multi e grandi,” and of a quality as high as those of any era in Egypt’s history.43

The Baron von Bunsen’s Ägyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte, the fourth volume of which came out in 1856, heavily emphasized the king’s supposed piety.44 Bunsen was, by vocation, a philosopher and theologian, whose overriding interest in history lay in the religious and moral development of society. It is perhaps for this reason that he chose to emphasize religiosity as Horemheb’s defining characteristic, downplaying somewhat his supposed military achievements. Citing only the remark in the Manethonian narrative passage that “Horus” had

“desired to see the gods,” Bunsen described Horemheb as “ein abergläubischer, den Priestern ergebener, in beschaulicher Schwärmerei versunkener König,” whose “Prachtwerke” in the

Theban area showed “vorzügsweise religiöse und mythische Darstellungen.”45 The Baron falls today outside the mainstream history of “scientific Egyptology,” which is widely considered to

42 Monumenti Storici, fasc. 3.1:272. 43 Monumenti Storici, fasc. 3.1: 271-272. 44 Christian von Bunsen, Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte: geschichtliche Untersuchung in fünf Büchern, vol. 4, Die Gleichzeitigkeiten (Hamburg: Perthes, 1856). 45 Bunsen, Aegyptens Stelle, 4:163-164. His opinion of the religious convictions of Horemheb/Horus was not very high.

13 begin (for , at least) with with Lepsius.46 With regard to historiography, however we should not necessarily underestimate the impact of such early authors as Bunsen on even the most distinguished of the pioneers of Egyptology.

Von Bunsen was, in fact, one of Lepsius’ most important mentors and patrons. In the introduction to his 1849 Chronologie, Lepsius took care to praise Ägyptens Stelle, and to assure his benefactor that his own work “ein weit näheres Ziel ins Auge [fasst], als Ihr

Geschichtswerk…,” being intended only “im günstigen Falle nachträglich die ergänzende Stelle ausfüllen, die Sie Ihr ursprünglich in Ihrem weit umfassenderen Plane zugedacht hatten.”47 Even if this statement was made only in deference to Bunsen, Lepsius did maintain the identification of Horemheb with Manetho’s Horus in his epigraphic work and in his chronological studies.48

Lepsius’ influence on the development of Egyptology as a legitimate academic discipline can hardly be overstated. Although he himself eschewed the moralizing historiography that was endemic in the 19th century, his deference to Bunsen and his strong affinity for Manetho49 likely contributed to the extent to which a particular characterization of Horemheb and his reign became entrenched by the second half of the nineteenth century. The pioneers of Egyptology cast the king as a long-reigning monarch, whose military exploits were not to be discounted, but whose devotion to the gods and priests of Egypt was his defining characteristic; the monuments of his reign were judged to be plentiful and of high artistic quality. This is not too say that the early Egyptologists were not careful scholars, or that what they wrote retains no value. It is striking, however, how much of this image of Horemheb could have been constructed

46 Cf. Thomas L. Gertzen, École de Berlin und "Goldenes Zeitalter" (1882-1914) der Ägyptologie als Wissenschaft: Das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis von Ebers, Erman und Sethe (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 15. 47 Chronologie der Aegypter. Einleitung und erster Theil: Kritik der Quellen (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849), iii. 48 Königsbuch der alten Ägypter, 2 vols. (Berlin: Bessersche Buchhandlung, 1858), 1:70-71. 49 Cf. Jason Thompson, Wonderful Things: A History of Egyptology, vol. 1, From Antiquity to 1881 (Cairo: AUC Press, 2015), 270-271.

14 independently of the pharaonic monuments altogether. What is even more remarkable that as dramatic new evidence emerged concerning the history of the period, ideas about Horemheb and his reign changed only slowly, evolving to accommodate new information even as some of the fundamental premises on which they were based remained largely unexamined.

At the time when Bunsen was writing Ägyptens Stelle, the Amarna period was just beginning to emerge into the light of scholarship. Many early Egyptologists had recognized aspects of and his reign. In 1850, for instance, Kenrick wrote that “[t]he explanation which Lepsius has devised for the various facts observed on the monuments,” Kenrick wrote, “is, that besides Horus who succeeded him, Amenoph III left two sons, Amenoph IV [and]

Amuntuanch…[whose] relations to Horus were hostile. It is evident that he either put down or survived Amenoph IV and Amuntuanch…”50 The true “rediscovery” of the “heretic king,” however, is usually dated to a landmark 1851 paper by Lepsius;51 Hornung has identified the first “author of a universal history familiar with Akhenaten and his significance” as Georg Weber, the initial volume of whose Allgemeine Weltgeschichte was published in 1857.52 The insertion of

Akhenaten’s “revolution” into the New Kingdom narrative did little to change the existing model of the reign of Horemheb. On the contrary, the idea that Horemheb’s defining characteristic was a strong attachment to the gods and priests of Egypt seems to have acquired a new significance.

In 1840, Prisse d’Avennes and l’Hote had brought scholarly attention to the blocks contained in the 2nd, 9th, and 10th pylons at Karnak.53 Brugsch, in his influential Histoire d'Égypte (1859), argued that, on the basis of Horemheb’s association with those pylons, it must

50 John Kenrick, Ancient Egypt Under the Pharaohs, 2 vols. (London: Fellowes, 1850), 1:250. 51 Erik Hornung, The Rediscovery of Akhenaten and his Place in Religion, JARCE 29 (1992), 44; for the rediscovery of the Amarna period see also Jacquelyn Williamson, “Amarna Period,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Wolfram Grajetzki and Willeke Wendrich (Los Angeles, 2015), http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k2h3t. 52 Hornung, “Rediscovery,” 44. 53 See, for instance, Robert Vergnieux, Recherches sur les monuments thebains d’ IV a l’aide d’outils informatiques, CSEG 4 (Geneva: Société d’Égyptologie, 1999), 2 vols., 1:2-3.

15 have been he who destroyed the Theban constructions of Akhenaten. Afterward, according to

Brugsch, Horemheb built his own monuments at Karnak in a demonstration of his “plus grande veneration pour…le dieu Amon.”54 Stating that, other than the speos at Silsila, Horemheb’s building works were of a religious character, “sans aucun renseignement historique,” Brugsch concluded his discussion of the king’s reign by remarking that there seemed to be proof of “ce que Manéthon…raconte…que le roi Horus s’occupait de voir les dieux.”55 In 1864, Mariette also described Horemheb as zealous in his effacement of the Amarna heresy: “Après quelques autres règnes qui ont laisse des traces insignificantes, parait Horus. La série des princes légitimes recommence avec lui, mais avec lui se produisent de violentes reactions contre les réformes du fanatique Aménophis IV…”56 The new information was fitted with the long, stable, and productive reign attributed to the king in the early part of the century. Mariette wrote further that “Horus, toutefois, fut un roi prudent qui sut garder à l’Egypte le rang quelle avait acquis, et lui conserver ces lointaines frontières…Il fut le dernier Pharaon de cette XVIIIme dynastie qui…avait porté si haut la gloire de l’Egypte.”57 In 1875, in the first edition of his Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient, Maspero followed along the same lines: “Le roi

Horemheb…rétablit la paix, supprima la religion solaire, détruisit les monuments de Khouenaten et restaura partout l’ancien culte…”58 Overall, the discovery of the Amarna episode changed little about Hormeheb’s image apart from the fact that his piety was now seen to have had a specific, and quite remarkable, motivation.

54 Heinrich Brugsch, Histoire d'Egypte des les premiers temps de son existence jusqu'a nos jours, vol. 1, L'Égypte sous les rois indigènes (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1859), 124. 55 Ibid., 125. 56 , Aperçu de l'histoire d'Égypte depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à la conquête musulmane: ouvrage destiné aux écoles spéciales de l'Égypte (: Mourès, 1864), 37. 57 Ibid. 58 , Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient, 1st ed. (Paris: Hachette, 1875), 213.

16 Up to the third quarter of the nineteenth century, the king’s status as a scion of the ruling dynasty had never been questioned. At the time, of course, there was no reason to doubt that Horemheb was born into the succession. Although a handful of material from the

Memphite tomb had been published by the 1870’s, it seems that no one had considered seriously the possibility that the general Horemheb was also the king of the same name. In his

1874 publication of the coronation inscription, however, Birch became the first to note that the famous text must have been describing the Horemheb of the Memphite tomb. Birch was hesitant to make assumptions about the order of historical events, stating that the at the general’s brow could “be explained on the supposition that this Haremhebi was either an individual who had raised himself to the , or an independent ruler, or a king who had been deposed, but who had been allowed to retain in his sepulcher the emblem of his former power.”

Brugsch, in his 1877 Geschichte Aegypten’s, seized on the idea that Horemheb’s career took him from officialdom to the throne: “Wer soll König sein? Das war die große Frage nach dem

Begräbnis des Stallmeisters. Da erinnerte man sich, dass im mittleren Aegypten noch ein Mann guten Rufes lebte, der aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach Amenhotep III gekannt und bereits durch sein Vertrauen geehrt hatte.”59 Brugsch went on to use the coronation inscription to build a narrative of how the king, in spite of his lack of a genealogical claim to the right of accession, rose to the kingship through his own merit, whereupon he quickly began the work of expanding the sanctuaries of Amun and destroying the works of Akhenaten.60 Brugsch attributed a long reign to Horemheb,61 and said nothing of any possibility that the king had abdicated or been deposed. For Brugsch, Horemheb’s career was one of ongoing progress, ending in the peaceful transmission of a much-restored Egypt to Ramesses I. The son of a military officer, Brugsch

59 Heinrich Brugsch, Geschichte Ägyptens unter den Pharaonen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1877), 439. 60 Ibid., 444. 61 Ibid., 448.

17 thought of himself as someone who had made good in spite of a lack of aristocratic heritage;62 as such, it seems fitting that he was among the first to accept wholeheartedly the king’s non- royal origin, and to incorporate it into an essentially triumphal narrative of the reign.

Widespread acceptance of Horemheb’s pre-royal identity took some time to develop. In

1874, Birch had not been commited to a particular sequence for the private and royal careers.

He did, however, apparently come later to favor the possibility that the Memphite tomb dated to the end of Horemheb’s life. In a letter to the historian Meyer, Birch wrote that he believed the Saqqara monument dated to a period after the king had been deposed or abdicated, but

“allowed to retain certain charges and the honour of the royal uraeus.”63 It actually seems to have been the proposition that Horemheb had been deposed, more than the possibility that the two men were the same, that occasioned the most resistance. Maspero, for instance, expressed an objection to the identification of the general with the king, but only in connection with the idea that he had lost the throne. “L’idée émise par Birch…qu’Harmhabi aurait été depose ou aurait abdiqué, repose sur une identification arbitraire d’Harmhabi avec un particulier du même nom, dont le tombeau a été déblayé à Saqqarah par Mariette,” he wrote.64 Wiedemann, in his

1884 Agyptische Geschichte, seems also to have closely linked the idea of a non-royal career with Birch’s speculation that Horemehb had been deposed. Against the identification of the two men, Wiedemann argued “spricht…dass von einer Absetzung des Horemheb historisch gar nichts bekannt ist, und das Ansehen, in dem er bei seinem Nachfolger steht, eine solche anzunehmen verbietet.”65

62 See Hannelore Kischkewitz, “Die Ägyptologen Richard Lepsius, Heinrich Brugsch und Georg Ebers und ihre Stellung zu Zeitfragen,” FuB 20 (1980), 94. 63 Eduard Meyer, “Die des Horemheb,” ZÄS 15 (1877), 149. 64 Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient, 4th ed. (Paris: Hachette, 1886), 213-214. 65 Alfred Wiedemann, Ägyptische Geschichte, 2 vols. (Gotha: Perthes, 1884), 2:413.

18 Wiedemann’s objections to the idea that Horemheb was deposed were of course reasonable, but it seems that the addition of the deposition hypothesis to that a non-royal career for Horemheb interfered with the ability of other scholars to recognize the range of historical possibilities. Birch himself, of course, had initially referred to the possibility that

Horemheb had risen to the throne at the start of his reign rather than losing it at the end. It could be that the idea of Horemheb’s private identity reached Maspero and Wiedemann only through the 1877 article66 in which Meyer agreed with the Englishman’s deposition scenario, omitting the alternatives. In any case, though, the way in which the two ideas seem to have traveled together in spite of the fact that they were logically unrelated suggests the possibility that the way different scholars interpreted the evidence may have been conditioned to some extent by their expectations. The weight of the evidence did eventually result in the acceptance of the identification of the general Horemheb with the king. By 1897, Maspero had conceded the point, effectively bringing an end to the debate. In the expanded, three-volume version of his Histoire ancienne (1897), he wrote: “Toute bien examiné, je crois que l’Harmhabi du tombeau de Saqqarah et le Pharaon Harmhabi ne font qu’un.”67 In a 1900 article, Breasted was the first to show that the uraeus and of Horemheb were later additions to the

Memphite tomb, rather than original elements of its decoration,68 effectively ending the debate on this point.

Another critical development in the historiography of Horemheb’s reign was Maspero’s own discovery of the decree stela in 1882. Although it would be years before the text was adequately treated, Bouriant’s initial publication69 was enough for it to be characterized as an

66 Meyer, “Die Stele des Horemhebs,” 413. 67 Gaston Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient classique, vol. 2, Les premières mêlées des peuples (Paris: Hachette, 1897), 343, n. 2. 68 , “King Harmhab and his Sakkara Tomb,” ZÄS 38 (1900), 49-50. 69 Urbain Bouriant, “Â Thébes,” RT 6 (1885), 41-51.

19 effort to protect the populace from abuses by officials and the military. In parallel with his reputation as the king under whom the Amarna “heresy” was finally stamped out, the decree could be, and generally was, taken as an indication of the thoroughness with which Horemheb sought to renovate Egypt’s institutions, religious and secular alike. Meyer, in his 1887 Geschichte des Alten Aegypten, was perhaps the first to characterize Horemheb in print as an all-around restorer of the old order: “Nicht nur die Götter nahmen die Thätigkeit des Königs in Anspruch.

Auf allen Gebieten der Verwaltung galt es wiedersezte Ordnung zu schaffen...Als der

Wiederherstellter gesetzlicher Zustände, der Göttern und Menschen gab was ihnen zukam, ist

Haremhebi bei der Nachwelt in hohen Ehren geblieben.”70 Combined with the knowledge of

Horemehb’s pre-royal identity as a military officer and administrator, the discovery of the decree seems to have rendered Meyer skeptical of the sincerity of Horemheb’s religious convictions. Nevertheless, Meyer still attributed to him a zeal for the restoration of the traditional cults: “Haremhebi verwies sich, weniger offenbar aus Ueberzeugung, als aus politischen Gründen, als einen eifrigen Anhänger der alten Religion.” 71

Maspero has been called the “principal author of the legend of Horemheb,”72 and it is certainly true that he elaborated on the king’s story to an unprecedented extent. By 1897, the account of the reign that he had distilled from his own work and the writings of previous scholars can be outlined as follows:

• Horemheb was a member of the royal family, possibly through Mutnodjmet.73

• His outstanding qualities were evident from his youth, and Ay appointed him heir.74

70 Meyer, Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens (Berlin: G. Grote, 1887), 273 71 Ibid., 274 72 Hari, Horemheb, 419. 73 The question of Mutnodjmet’s relationship to Horemheb was still unsettled at this point in time. Maspero, in taking her to be Horemheb’s mother, was following Birch; Maspero, Les premières mêlées, 342, n. 2. 74 Ibid., 342-343.

20 • The efforts of Tutankhamun and Ay to stamp out the Atenist heresy and restore the

traditional cults had been halfhearted; Horemheb, however, immediately began a

zealous effort to efface the memory of the Amarna period, and to restore the temples

of the gods to their former glory. He was particularly devoted to the cult of Amun at

Thebes.75

• As he traveled the country inspecting Egypt’s neglected temples, the new king saw

rampant corruption, and promulgated an edict to stamp out abuses perpetrated by

officials and soldiers.

• Early in his reign, Horemheb began to reassert Egypt’s authority over Nubia, personally

leading razzias beyond Egypt’s southern border.76

• Also early in his reign, construction began on his monuments at Karnak. At Silsila, he

ordered the creation of the speos in connection with the quarrying activities taking

place there.77

• Rather than engage with the increasingly powerful Hittite empire, Horemheb concluded

a peace treaty with .78

• Of the later part of his reign, we know nothing except that the king was succeeded upon

his death by Ramesses I.79

By the last decade of the nineteenth century, it would probably be fair to describe

Maspero’s account of Horemheb as definitive, at least among scholars on the European

75 Ibid., 345. 76 Ibid., 348. 77 Ibid., 348-349. 78 Maspero considered that Horemheb had been party to the earlier treaty to which the Treaty of refers. The Hittite empire had slowly been coming into archaeological focus over the second half of the nineteenth century, with the discovery of the in 1887 probably sparking renewed interest in Egypt’s relations with its rival to the north; for the history of Hittite-Egyptian treaty-making, see foundationally William Murnane, The Road to Kadesh, SAOC 42 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 49. 79 Maspero, Les premières mêlées, 368.

21 continent. Although there remained points of debate (particularly the king’s relation to

Mutnodjmet and the length of his reign), it was widely accepted that Horemheb had acceded to the throne by some combination of merit and hereditary right, facilitated by the dynastic affiliation of a queen who was either his daughter, his wife, or his mother. His early reign was thought to have seen energetic efforts to cleanse Egypt of the Amarna heresy and the administrative abuses that arose in its wake. The king built extensively, and restored some of

Egypt’s international prestige through military activity in the south and diplomatic efforts in the north. His later reign was thought to have been quiet. Horemheb’s death could have been natural or the result of some sort of intrigue, but in either case, it marked the close of the 18th

Dynasty. In 1908, Ayrton discovered KV 57.80 This was the final breakthrough in the construction of what might be considered the classic version of the king’s story. It seems to have sealed in place the conclusion that the king ended his reign in peace and honor, regardless of what had been his circumstances at his accession.

1.2 - The Nineteenth Century: Divergent Narratives

Although it has since been much revised, Maspero’s narrative still rings familiar today. It would be easy, and perhaps not entirely incorrect, to think of it simply as a stage in the ongoing development of our knowledge of the period. The characterization of the reign could, however, just as easily have taken quite a different shape in the earliest days of Egyptology. Wilkinson, only a few years after Champollion’s letter to the Duc de Blacas, could find nothing more to say of Horemheb than that “…the monuments of his reign are few and inconsiderable, consisting

80 Theordore Davis, “The Finding of the Tombs of Harmhabi and Touthânkhamanou,” in The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou, ed. Theodore Davis (London: Constable, 1912), 1-3.

22 chiefly of additions to the previously existing buildings.”81 Wilkinson’s idiosyncrasies as a scholar are well known; in fact, he was long marginalized from the history of Egyptology as a “scientific” discipline.82 Even his fundamental Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (1837) was not met with universal praise for its scholarly merits.83 Wilkinson, was, however, a meticulous observer and copyist.84 Nor was he without competence in interpreting inscriptional evidence; in fact, modern historians of Egyptology have argued that he had, in some ways, a better grasp of the succession of the kings of Egypt than Champollion himself.85 Wilkinson would not only have had access to Champollion’s work, but he would also have personally studied many of the same monuments of Horemheb that Champollion had rhapsodized about, at least in the Theban region.86 It seems odd, at least on the face of it, that the two men should have evaluated the king’s achievements so differently. A key distinction between their views of the king, however, was how they related him to the Manethonian tradition. Wilkinson was not particularly confident in his own reading of Horemheb’s , which he transliterated as “Amun-men

(?)…or Horus?” in Modern Egypt and Thebes,87 and as “Amun-men…?” in Manners and

Customs.88 The Englishman was, however, confident that Manetho’s “Horus” should correspond with the IV of the pharaonic monuments and not with Horemheb.89 The latter he considered to have been an “Achencheres,”whose reign had been of a moderate length, and

81 John Gardner Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (London: John Murray, 1838), 3 vols., 1:60. 82 See, for instance, Thompson, Sir Gardner Wilkinson and his Circle (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992), 231-233; and David Gange, Dialogues with the Dead: Egyptology in British Culture and Religion, 1822-1922 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 85. 83 See Gange, Dialogues, 85-86. 84 Cf. Thompson, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, 112-114; Morris L. Bierbrier, ed., Who Was Who in Ancient Egypt (London: EES, 2012), 579. 85 Cf. Thompson, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, 76-77. 86 Champollion, of course, would have had in mind also the collection of the Museo Egizio in Turin and the Silsila speos, with which Wilkinson was presumably less familiar. 87 Modern Egypt and Thebes: Being a Description of Egypt; Including the Information Required for Travellers in that Country (London: John Murray, 1843), 2 vols., 2:427 88 Manners and Customs, 1:47. 89 Ibid.

23 who had no presence in the extant narrative portions of Manetho.90 Wilkinson’s assessments of

Horemheb differed so much from Champollion’s and Rosellini’s that it seems fair to ask whether their fundamental expectations may not have conditioned their perceptions to some extent. The continental scholars may have been inclined to imagine that a large and distinguished body of work would represent Horus’ reign of over thirty years. Wilkinson, on the other hand, could have been more reserved in his evaluation of Horemheb’s ouvre because he was simply not looking for much in the first place.

Wilkinson’s remarks on Horemheb in Manners and Customs might have seemed idiosyncratic, even misguided, to many of his contemporaries. There could hardly be a starker contrast between his dismissiveness of the monumental output of the reign and the glowing assessments of Champollion, Rosellini and the continental Egyptologists who followed. In

England, however, the idea that Horemheb and Horus were the same individual seems not to have become so thoroughly rooted, which could have something to do with why assessments of the king’s characteristics and accomplishments often took a different direction there. Sharpe, for instance, published a popular history of Egypt whose first edition came out in 1836,91 just ahead of Manners and Customs. Offering no explicit justification, Sharpe also found a different

Manethonian identity for of Horemheb, seeing in him “Harmais,” the fourteenth king of the

18th Dynasty in the Aegyptiaka.92 Perhaps not coincidentally, Sharpe was almost as laconic as

Wilkinson in describing the monuments of the brief (according to Manetho) reign of Harmais.

Sharpe mentioned only the speoi at Silsila and Abu Oda, as well as two statues in the British

Museum bearing the king’s name.93 The sole event that Sharpe seems to have attributed to the

90 Waddell, Manetho, 103, 109, 113, 115, 119. 91 Samuel Sharpe, The History of Egypt from the Earliest Times till the Conquest by the Arabs A.D. 640, 2 vols. (London: Edward Moxon & Co., 1859). 92 Ibid., 1:69. 93 Ibid.

24 reign is the “overthrow” of a “little state” established by Greek traders in the Delta, which he based on the famous Manethonian narrative episode of the brothers Sethos and Harmais.94 That

Wilkinson’s and Sharpe’s views of Horemheb’s reign differed so much from that of their continental contemporaries could be due, at least in part, to the lingering effects of the rivalry between English partisans of Thomas Young and the continental scholars who had more readily accepted Champollion’s system of the .95 It could also owe something to personal temperament; Sharpe, for instance, once described himself as a “heretic in everything.”96 Whatever the reason, though, the discrepancy illustrates the fact that the image of Horemeheb’s reign as period of restoration and increasing stability, under the stewardship of an exceptionally pious king, was not self-evident to all observers in the earliest days of

Egyptology.

Wilkinson and Sharpe were, as it turned out, ahead of their time, at least in rejecting the identification of Horemheb with Manetho’s Horus. In 1867, Devéria pointed out that the

Hellenized form of Horemheb would in fact have been “Harmais,”97 as Sharpe had assumed

(though without offering a linguistic justification) three decades earlier.98 This hypothesis did not immediately find widespread acceptance - Horemheb could still be identified with Horus as late as the 1870’s.99 By 1896, however, in his History of Egypt, Petrie advocated the view that

Horemheb was in fact Manetho’s Harmais, rather than Horus.100 Comparing the views of Birch

94 Ibid; for the Manethonian narrative, see Waddell, Manetho, 102-105, 118-119. 95 Cf. Gange, Dialogues, 34, 85. 96 Ibid., 108. 97 See Henri Gauthier, Le livre des rois d'Égypte: recueil de titres et protocoles royaux, noms propres de rois, reines, princes et princesses, noms de pyramides et de temples solaires, suivi d'un index alphabétique. 5 vols (Cairo: IFAO, 1907-1917), 2:381. For the name Harmais, see Erich Lüddeckens et al., Demotisches Namenbuch I (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1980-2000), 812-813. In Africanus alone, the name is given as “Armesis;” Waddell, Manetho, 113. 98 Gauthier (Livre des Rois, 2:381), attributes the identification Horemheb=Harmais to Devéria, who was the first to demonstrate its plausibility on linguistic grounds. 99 See, for instance, Samuel Birch, Egypt from the Earliest Times to B. C. 300 (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1875]), 117. 100 William M.F. Petrie, A History of Egypt, vol. 2, The XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties (London: Methuen & Co., 1896), 250.

25 and Petrie reveals an historiographical bifurcation that seems to parallel the disagreement about the king’s Manethonian identity quite closely. Although Birch found that “no remarkably glorious event distinguished his reign,” he noted that Horemheb “…made one campaign at least agains the Ethiopians. Birch emphasized, however, that “piety, or his beholding the gods, according to the Greek epitomists, was his characteristic…” and Horemheb “destroyed the edifices of the heretic monarchs at Thebes, and built with the stones the fourth gateway of the temple at Karnak, in honor of Amon, re-established in his pristine glory.” 101 Petrie, in contrast, attributed Horemheb’s delayed accession upon the death of Tutankhamun to precisely the fact that he was not well-placed enough with regard to the traditional cults: “The general cannot have been very strong at the beginning of Ay’s reign, or the “divine father” would never have reached the throne. It seems as if there had been a great outburst of Amen worship at the close of --amen’s reign, and a religious representative stood firmest in the kingdom; while real power steadily accumulated in the strong hands of the general who became viceroy.”102

Although Petrie never explicitly connected his imagining of Horemheb with the accounts of

Manetho, he did note that “much confusion” had “arisen in modern works from [the] false identification” of the king with Horus.103 We should perhaps consider the possibility that the weakening of the construct of religiosity as the king’s outstanding characteristic could have something to do with this change in the prevailing understanding of the Aegyptiaka.

Wilkinson and Sharpe may also have been ahead of their time in their assessment of

Horemheb’s monumental output. The effusive praise of Champollion and those who followed him for the art and architecture of the reign of “Horus” did not factor in the frequency with which the king added his own name to earlier constructions. It would, of course, not be fair to

101 Birch, Egypt from the Earliest Times, 117-118. 102 Petrie, A History of Egypt, 2:247-248. 103 Ibid., 250.

26 expect them to have recognized that many of Horemheb’s monuments had originally been those of Ay and Tutankhamun. With ongoing excavation and documentation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, it became increasingly obvious. In 1896, for instance, Borchardt noted that Horemheb’s work in , seems to have been limited largely to the replacement of his predecessors’ cartouches with his own.104 While Champollion had attributed “plusieurs portions importantes du palais de Louqsor” to the king, this later observation gives the sense that Wilkinson was perhaps not unjustified in failing to notice their supposed grandeur at around the same time. At Karnak, too, usurpations were being disovered;

Legrain was able to identify Horemheb’s in the year 1 inscription in the temple as a surcharge.105 In 1908, Breasted characterized the Opet procession scenes in the Luxor

Temple colonnade as the work entirely of Tutankhamun.106 Maspero seems to have resisted these revisions. Although he acknowledged that Borchardt and Breasted, had been correct in some cases, he maintained that “those cartouches of Harmhabi which are still legible are not always engraved over cartouches of another king…”107 The work of the Epigraphic Survey of the

OIC would, of course, later demonstrate that the original decoration was completed under

Tutankhamun and Ay, proving Maspero incorrect;108 it seems possible that this was another instance in which a scholar’s expectations may have had an effect on his interpretation of the evidence.

104 , “Zur Geschichte des Luqsortempels,” ZÄS 34 (1896), 136; cf. Maspero, “Note on the Life and Monuments of Harmhabi,” in The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou, ed. Theodore Davis (London: Constable, 1912), 23. 105 , “Le temple de Ptah Rîs-anbou-f dans Thèbes,” ASAE 3 (1902), 41. 106 James Henry Breasted, A History of the Ancient Egyptians (New York: Scribner, 1908), 393, cf. Maspero, “Life and Monuments,” 23. 107 Ibid. 108 Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, vol. 1, The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 112 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1994), xix.

27 It was apparently Petrie who added a final crucial element to the narrative of

Horemheb’s accession – the notion of a true military coup. Where most scholars of the time saw

Horemheb as a member of the royal family, and thus assumed that no conflict would necessarily have attended his accession, Petrie wrote that he had “come to the throne through the power of the soldiery.”109 That he had been backed by the military does not necessarily contradict the possibility that he also had royal blood, but Petrie seems to have been the first to imply that military power could have been the main key to Horemheb’s accession. In fact, the pioneering archaeologist even suggested that the very corruption that Horemheb sought to remedy through the decree had been the result of his own military stewardship of the country under

Tutankhamun and Ay: “…he found it needful to check that power and prevent the abuses of which it were only too certain in a military rule…No form of tyranny in the East is so bad as that of an undisciplined army, as soldiers ravage over a whole country…”110 The problem, Petrie thought, could be traced back to the expansion of Egypt’s empire earlier in the 18th Dynasty:

“…the country was paying the price of its foreign conquests, in its oppression by a standing army.”111 The characterization of Horemheb’s accession as a coup could be seen in part as a natural outgrowth of the realization that he had commanded Egypt’s armies before becoming king, combined with the growing recognition of the extent of his artistic and architectural

“usurpations.” It is perhaps worth considering, though, that Britain’s recent occupation of Egypt and Petrie’s political views may have played into this assessment. In any case, in 1912, Maspero echoed Petrie strongly in suggesting that a military coup, in effect, had likely brought the king to power: “Though in the Turin inscription he represented his advent to the throne as a normal fact, accomplished peacefully under the inspiration of Amon, it is probable that the support of

109 History of Egypt, 2:251. 110 Ibid., 252. 111 Ibid.

28 the military materially assisted the divine will: the disorders which he attempted to reform were due to his own ambition…”112

By the first part of the twentieth century, it had become impossible to maintain the image of Horemheb simply as a pious ruler whose reign was mainly notable for the full restoration of the cult of Amun. In 1912, in addition to allowing for the possibility that

Horemheb had come to the throne through a coup, Maspero admitted the possibility that his restorations and reforms were not motivated entirely by altruism. “He was constrained to take the best care he could of [his subjects]…” Maspero wrote, and “…he may not have treated them as the modern concept of royalty would require that he should.”113 In spite of all of the many changes in the evidentiary picture, however, most historical assessments of Horemheb’s achievements as king was not too different from what had come before. In fact, if anything, much of the historical writing of this period seems to be an effort to fit new information with the basic characterization of the reign that Champollion had derived from his reading of

Manetho. Maspero, for instance, maintained that after coming to the throne, Horemheb used his newly-won royal authority to restore the cult of Egypt’s national gods, especially Amun, and to enact administrative reforms. “He behaved equitably according to the ideas which ruled the world in his time.”114 Although all he could say of the greater part of the reign was that “we may believe that it was happy at home…” Maspero felt confident that “[i]f he showed as much decision in the execution of his decrees as he had done in the enacting of him, [Horemheb] deserves to be classed among the good sovereigns of Egypt.” Petrie had earlier admitted that

“of the reign…we know very little…,”115 but he did describe what seemed to him to be the

112 “Life and Monuments,” 55-56. 113 Ibid., 55. 114 Ibid. 115 History of Egypt, 252.

29 abundant and high-quality monuments created under the king. He also upheld the image of the full restoration of the Amun cult as central to Horemehb’s identity. Petrie took the “final abolition of the worship,” to have been a watershed moment for the king, who “soon swept away all trace of it,” and “glorified himself” at that point by taking the remarkable step of altering his year-count to include that of his now-anathematized predecessors.116 “Of the end of

Horemheb we know nothing,” he added, “but, considering his age, he may well have died a natural death,” implying the possibility that the reign had been largely stable and peaceful, at least towards its close. Breasted also presented Horemheb as a triumphant restorer of the old order. “He performed his task (of reform) with a strength and skill not less than were required for great conquest abroad; while at the same time he showed a spirit of humane solicitude for the amelioration of the conditions among the masses, which has never been surpassed in

Egypt…until the present day…when he became king, he could truly say: ‘Behold, his majesty spent the whole time seeking the welfare of Egypt.’”117

1.3 - The Twentieth Century: War, Peace, and the Post-Amarna Period

The years from 1912 to 1945 have recently become the subject of intensive study by historians of Egyptology. T. Schneider has written that this period “laid the foundations of modern Egyptology…it is only now that we can speak of a professional academic discipline exhibiting a of methodologies, instruments of research…and in-depth analyses of Egyptian culture.”118 This period, bracketed by the two world wars, understandably saw an intense focus among Egyptologists on the apparatuses of power within the pharaonic state. Ambridge has

116 Ibid., 246. 117 History of the Ancient Egyptians, 407. 118 Thomas Schneider, “Egyptology Past, Present, and Future – A Reflection,” Near Eastern Archaeology 75, no. 1 (2012), 58.

30 highlighted Breasted’s high school textbook, Ancient Times, a History of the Early World, as an example of the extent to which leading Egyptologists of the period were concerned with the

“conditions of modernity,” including such issues as “colonial expansion; militarism; industrialization; and the perceived cultural superiority of those cultures which possess and transmit the hallmarks of ‘civilization.’”119 Nationalist and “racial” theories of historical development are well-known to have become enmeshed with the study of ancient Egypt in the early twentieth century, and In Germany, a hyper-masculine, militarized, authoritarian ideal of leadership was growing in importance, culminating in the triumph of the NSDAP and National

Socialism.120 It is likely no coincidence that Horemheb was the subject of considerable interest in the years leading up to World War II, or that it was his pre-royal career as a “military man” that took the foreground.

Pflüger’s Haremhab und die Amarnazeit (1936)121 cast Horemheb’s rise as the suppression of what might be called a “popular” revolution, in which Akhenaten used the support of Egypt’s non-elite in order to break with Egypt’s traditional political-religious system;

Horemheb he presented as the leader of a sort of “counter-reformation.”122 Helck, on the other hand, in Der Einfluss der Militärführer (1939), adopted the position that Horemheb was the chief representative of a class of “new men” who used the increased importance of the military under

119 Lindsay Ambridge, “Imperialism and Racial Geography in James Henry Breasted’s Ancient Times, A History of the Early World,” in Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich: Ideology, Scholarship, and Individual Biographies, ed. Thomas Schneider and Peter Raulwing (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 14. 120 For a recent discussion of the idealization of charismatic military leadership in prewar Germany, see Christopher Dillon, “Masculinity, Political Culture, and the Rise of Nazism,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Political Culture in Europe, ed. Christopher Fletcher et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 386. 121 Pflüger, Haremhab und die Amarnazeit. 122 Pflüger, who died in 1994, may have left Germany on account of the growing influence of the National Socialists. After completing his dissertation in Switzerland, he emigrated to the UK, where he worked for the BBC; see Henning Franzmeier and Anke Weber, “’Andererseits finde ich, dass man jetzt nicht so tun soll, als wäre nichts gewesen.’ Die Deutsche Ägyptologie in den Jahren 1945-1949 im Spiegel der Korrespondenz mit dem Verlag J. C. Hinrichs,” in Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien zwischen Kaiserreich und Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten: Reflexionen zur Geschichte und Episteme eines altertumswissenschaftlichen Fachs im 150. Jahr der Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, ed. Susanne Bickel et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), 139. Although Pflüger largely abandoned Egyptology, he published an article in the year of his death in which he revisited the conclusions of his 1939 work in light of subsequent scholarship; Kurt Pflüger, “Beiträge zur Amarnazeit,” ZÄS 121 (1994), 123-132.

31 Akhenaten to take the reins of government.123 Both of these characterizations seem to reflect the concern of prewar Europe with the growth of authoritarianism and the ubiquity of militarism during and after the first world war. The role that the Amarna period played in the

Nazi imagination has been extensively studied,124 and it is not necessary to reiterate the discussion here. It is worth noting, however, the extent to which the ideological sympathies of the Egyptologists of the period may have informed their views of Horemheb. Schneider has observed that terminology and ideas associated with National Socialism appear in Helck’s writing even after the war.125 As late as the 1960’s, he remained interested in the “racial” origin of the Ramesside dynasty and the impact of the infiltration of “Asiatic” peoples on the 18th

Dynasty state.126 Helck’s contribution to the study of the New Kingdom was enormous,127 and his perception that Horemheb’s military career was both the driving force behind his accession and ultimately the chief force that would shape the Ramesside era remained influential for years to come. Helck saw the Amarna period as having brought about an interruption in the administration of Egypt. “Priesterschaft wie Beamtenschaft waren zweimal gesäubert worden, die Kontinuität der Ausbildung war unterbrochen, und so fehlten dem Staat sowohl die erfahrenen früheren Beamten…Das schwierigste Problem seiner Regierung wird…gewesen sein, genügend geeignete Männer für die wichtigsten Staatstellen zu finden,” Helck wrote.

“Haremheb griff daher – wie nach seiner Herkunft zu verstehen – auf das Heer zurück.”128

Horemheb’s reign inaugurated, for Helck, the key historical dynamic of the Ramesside era - a

123 Wolfgang Helck, Der Einfluss der Militärführer in der 18. Ägyptischen Dynastie (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939). 124 For instance, Dominic Montserrat, Akhenaten: History, Fantasy, and Ancient Egypt (London: Routledge, 2003), especially 95-138; Carolyn Lipson, “Comparative Rhetoric, Egyptology, and the Case of Akhenaten,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 43, no. 3 (2013), 270-284; Bickel et al., eds., Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien, especially 155-344; Thomas Schneider, “Ägyptologen im Dritten Reich: Biographische Notizen anhand der sogenannten ‘Steindorff-Liste,’” in Schneider and Raulwing, eds., Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich, 120-247. 125 See in particular his remarks in “Ägyptologen im Dritten Reich,” 125, n. 17. 126 Cf. ibid.; for Helck’s postwar view of the end of the 18th Dynasty, see Wolfgang Helck, Geschichte des Alten Ägypten (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 179-184. 127 Cf. Bierbrier, ed., Who was Who, 251-252. 128 Helck, Geschichte, 179.

32 conflict between the restored cult of Amun and the militarized government that had helped to reinstate it in the first place. As the power of the Amun cult in Thebes grew, and Ramesses I and his descendants focused their energy on the north, a “Gegensatz zwischen Nord und Süd” developed that was, at the same time, a conflict between priests and soldiers.129 This recasting of the king’s military identity as his primary legacy to Egypt was an important development in the historiography of the reign. Even the world wars could not, however, displace two fundamental components of Horemheb’s image – that he was a champion of Egypt’s traditional religion, and that his career saw steady and sustained progress toward the restoration of the country’s fortunes in the wake of the Amarna episode. Kees wrote that Horemheb, in spite of his military roots, sought “Anschluss an die alte Königsmythe und die bodenständigen religiösen

Kräften.”130 In Helck’s view, “[a]ls Haremhab starb, waren die Verhältnisse des Reiches wieder geordnet,” with Ramesses I peacefully inheriting an Egypt whose internal affairs had been restored.131

After World War II, Helck described Horemheb’s reign in no uncertain terms as a

“Militärdikatatur.”132 Kees characterized the kings of the early 19th Dynasty as pragmatic and disciplined, “…eine Familie von Soldaten und Beamten…” who “einen starken Ordnungsinn mitbrachte.”133 It is hard not to see echoes of the social and political atmosphere of the war years in their accounts. That their analyses may have been based on something more than dispassionate scientific observation is supported by Gardiner’s remarks in a 1953 article on the then-known portions of the Memphite tomb. “I make bold,” he wrote, to enter a protest against the extremely complex and fine-spun theories which Pflüger and Helck have woven around the

129 Ibid., 183; this conflict would, Helck argued further, bring about the ultimate downfall of the New Kingdom. 130 Hermann Kees, Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat: vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit (Leiden: Brill, 1953), 88. 131 Helck, Geschichte, 181. 132 Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 539, n. 1. 133 Kees, Priestertum, 90.

33 personages of Haremhab and his predecessors…” The ideas of both German scholars seemed to

Gardiner “to go far beyond what is warranted by the facts at our disposal.”134 It is to Helck, however that we that we owe the important recognition of Horemheb’s status as regent under

Tutankhamun.135

For all of his contributions to the picture of Horemheb’s pre-royal career, Gardiner felt it reasonable for Egyptologists to refrain from speculation and “content themselves with the sketchiest notions” about Egyptian history,136 a strong engagement with the historiography of the early twentieth century (and by extension the even earlier studies that had shaped it) persisted in the study of the reign of Horemheb. In the early 1960’s, Hari set about interrogating what he called the “portrait traditionnel” of the king: the powerful generalissimo who usurped the throne in a coup, became an ardent champion of the cult of Amun, and zealously purged

Egypt of reminders of the Amarna episode. Hari described this portrait as having been passed down unchanged from generation to generation, as earlier Egyptologists: “…ont sucuccédé d’autres specialistes, trop respectueux de l’autorité de leurs aînes pour ne pas faire entrer leurs recherches dans un moule préétabli.”137 As we have seen, this is an oversimplification of the way in which the conception of Horemheb evolved over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Nevertheless, these premises were certainly well-engrained in the

Egyptological literature, and Hari was the first to hold them up to scrutiny against a thorough survey of the evidence that was available at that time.

One of Hari’s most important contributions was a major re-framing of Horemheb’s treatment of the monuments of his predecessors. He suggested that the motivation behind

134 , “The Memphite Tomb of the General Haremhab,” JEA 39 (1953), 11. 135 Helck, “Rp’t auf dem Thron des ,” Orientalia NS 19, no. 4 (1950), 416-434; Gardiner, “The Memphite Tomb,” 10-11. 136 Ibid., 12. 137 Horemheb, 420.

34 Horemheb’s “usurpations” need not have been animus against Ay, Tutankhamun, or even

Akhenaten. By noting instances where continuities with the Amarna period were evident, as well as by identifying practical rather than ideological reasons for Horemheb’s appropriation of earlier monuments, Hari was able to cast the “persecution” of the memory of the Amarna pharaohs as the work of and his successors.138 As for the idea that a career in the army had been the key to the king’s accession, Hari noted that the military was not the only institution with which Horemheb had been entrusted under Tutankhamun. In fact, Hari argued, his civil titles and role of idnw, “deputy,” to the king indicated that his primary role had been that of an administrator; with regard to foreign affairs his achievements were more in the diplomatic than the martial sphere.139 Hari also dispensed with Horemheb’s reputation as a zealous partisan of the cult of Amun. His synoptic study revealed that, at least in numeric terms, the texts of the reign did not emphasize the Theban god disproportionately. In fact, Amun appeared most frequently in texts from his own temple, and was otherwise matched by Horemheb’s patron

Horus, and numerous other members of the pantheon also received homage from the king.140

“Pour Horemheb,” he argued, “la restauration d’Amon fait partie du plan general de rénovation de l’Egypte.”141

Perhaps the most interesting of Hari’s propositions was his implication that it was the end of Horemheb’s reign rather than its beginning that saw political disruption. The very fact that Ay succeeded Tutankhamun suggested to Hari that the Horemheb maintained a “respect des règles de succession,” and had willingly passed over the throne in favor of the god’s father

(whose closer relation to the Thutmoside dynasty would have accorded him a better claim).142

138 Ibid., especially 321-324, 352-355, 429-431. 139 Ibid., 424-425. 140 Ibid., 426-429. 141 Ibid., 428. 142 Ibid., 425.

35 The incomplete state of KV 57, however, suggested to Hari that there had been a conflict over the succession on the death of Horemheb, one “suffisamment aiguë pour que le successeur désigné par [Ramesses I] n’ait pas pu terminer en toute quietude – comme Aï pour Tout-ankh- amon – la tombe d’Horemheb…”143 In assessing Horemheb’s reign overall, however, Hari remained within the tradition that saw the period as one of restoration and progress. In fact,

Hari valorized Horemheb’s achievements to an unprecedented extent. “Il n’est pas exagéré,” he maintained “de dire qu’Horemheb fut, des pharaons constructeurs, l’un de ceux qui a le plus contribué à l’agrandissement de Karnak…”144 He extolled the art of the reign as enthusiastically as any of the nineteenth century historians: “Quelle sensibilité, quelle douceur, quelle vie dans ces groupes de Turin ou de Vienne, dans ces reliefs inachevés de la tombe thebaine…”145

Horemheb’s reign had been a veritable Egyptian renaissance – “en un , il aurait pu être le

François Ier de l’Egypte.”146

Hari’s effusiveness, along with the largely speculative nature of his conclusions with regard to Horemheb’s attitude toward the Amarna kings, contributed to a mixed reception of his work. Schulman’s 1966 review is representative of the impact that it has had on the study of the reign.147 Schulman could not deny the importance of Hari’s efforts in compiling the documentation related to Horemheb, both before and after his accession. Horemheb et la reine

Moutnedjemet remains up to today the standard work to which reference is made when discussing the monuments of the regnal period. Schulman casts considerable shade, however, on Hari’s historiography. “[I]f Hari does not absolve and exonerate Horemehb of all guilt in his

143 Ibid., 412. Hari suggested that the unrest could have been due to an eruption of anti-Atenist sentiment on the part of the priesthood of Amun, with the king’s death causing setbacks in the compromises he had been able to effect with the previously disenfranchised clerics; ibid., 417. 144 Ibid., 322. 145 Ibid., 434. 146 Ibid., 432. 147 Alan Schulman, “Review of Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, ou, la fin d’une dynastie,” AJA 70, no. 4 (1966), 381-382.

36 actions toward Akhenaton, Tutankhamun, and Ay, he certainly attempts to cover him with a thick coat of whitewash,” Schulman wrote. “The line of reasoning which Hari follows in order to achieve these results, however, is not clear to me. What does seem apparent, however, is that

Hari first arrived at his final conclusions, and then attempted to justify them…” Although he acknowledged Hari’s efforts, Schulman maintained that “…the history of Horemehb and his queen, Mutnodjme, [was] still to be written.”

In 1975, a joint expedition from the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden and the Egypt

Exploration Society rediscovered Horemheb’s Memphite tomb.148 This momentous find reinvigorated the study of the king, and much of the scholarship on Horemheb and his reign in the last forty years has been connected with the Leiden-EES-Bologna-Turin expedition’s work the Memphite necropolis. To the technical publications of Martin, Schneider, and Raven associated with the excavations, van Dijk has contributed a significant amount of historical analysis. In his 1993 dissertation, he summarized the impact at that point of the rediscovery on our understanding of the king’s career.149 Until 1975, there was debate over which the titles that

Horemheb claimed in the coronation inscription corresponded to his actual status under

Tutankhamun. Van Dijk, however, demonstrated conclusively that the newly uncovered texts and scenes in the Memphite tomb confirmed the reality that the dignities conferred on

Horemheb were not a fiction, but had been granted by Tutankhamun.150 Another of van Dijk’s observations was that the distribution of Horemheb’s titles among the tomb’s various construction phases showed that he had been “sidelined” during the reign of Ay, apparently in favor of other men who were awarded the title of iry-pat, in the sense of “crown prine,” while

148 The rediscovery is detailed in Geoffrey T. Martin, “Excavations at the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb 1975: Preliminary Report,” JEA 62 (1976), 5-13. 149 Jacobus van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis: Historical and Iconographical Studies” (PhD diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1993), 11-64. 150 Ibid., 18. Helck had maintained that the term acquired the connotation of “crown prince” only after Horemheb retroactively cast himself as the chosen successor of Tutankhamun; “Rp’t auf dem Thron des Geb,” 433.

37 Horemheb was divested of it.151 The marginalization of Horemheb likely, according to van Dijk, had something to do with the international political intrigues that had followed on the death of

Tutankhamun, culminating in the “Zananza affair.” Murnane, in 1985, published an influential account of the relationship between Egypt and the Hittite Empire in the 18th and 19th

Dynasties.152 M. Gabolde had also contributed to the study of the matter, particularly through his (regrettably still unpublished) dissertation on the reign of Ay.153 Although a number of scholars, including Hari, had argued that Ay and Horemheb must have cooperated to at least some extent in the years after Tutankhamun’s death,154 van Dijk was of the opinion that the evidence from the Memphite tomb conclusively established that Horemheb at least had reason to resent Ay. The scenario that van Dijk reconstructed was one in which Ay and had tried to conclude a marriage alliance with the , depriving Horemheb of his promised succession.155 Because he was away on a military expedition in , Horemheb was unable to take control of the situation immediately, and may even have “resigned himself to his fate,” at least for a time.156 Upon the death of Ay, however, Horemheb was able to wrest the throne from the successors appointed by the god’s father, and proceeded to efface the memory of Ay and Ankhesenamun wherever it could be found.157 The idea of a political conflict between

151 Van Dijk, The Memphite Necropolis, 59-63. 152 The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985). 153 Marc Gabolde, “Le père divin Aÿ” (PhD diss., Université II, 1992). See also id., “Aÿ, Toutankhamon et les martelages de la stèle de la restauration de Karnak (CG 34183),” BSEG 11 (1987), 37-61; and id., “Le droit d’aînesse d’Ankhesenpaaton (à propos de deux récents articles sur la stèle UC 410),” BSEG 14 (1990), 33-47. 154 Most notably Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, Vie et mort d’un pharaon, Toutankhamon (Paris: Pygmalion, 1963), 170; and Otto Schaden, “The God’s Father Ay” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1977), 142-143; cf. the summary in Nozomu Kawai, “Ay versus Horemheb: The Political Situation in the Late Eighteenth Dynasty Revisited,” JEH 3, no. 2 (2010), 262-264. 155 Van Dijk, “The Memphite Necropolis,” 53-59. 156 Ibid., 62. 157 Ibid., 63.

38 Horemheb and Ay has since been widely accepted, although whether it began at the time of the young king’s death or erupted later remains subject to debate.158

1.4 - The Twentieth Century: Ongoing Debates

Even as our understanding of Horemheb’s pre-royal career has become more detailed, little has changed with regard to the reign itself. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the opacity of the years during which Horemheb held the throne has frequently been noted. In

1994, Vandersleyen stated that although “l’argument du silence est dangereux,” it seemed that

“[a]u moment où il deviant roi, Horemheb a terminé sa vie active,” administering Egypt “en silence.”159 Van Dijk has stated that “[if] Horemheb’s path to the throne had been beset with difficulties, his actual reign appears to have been relatively uneventful.”160 The most comprehensive recent account of Horemheb’s career is that of Dodson. Although almost ten years old at the time of this writing, it remains the best overall representation of our current understanding of the regnal period. As Dodson describes it, the early part of the reign likely saw lingering political turmoil and “administrative dislocation.”161 Horemheb was able, however, to effect the demolition Akhenaten’s constructions at Amarna and at Karnak, and he built extensively throughout Egypt.162 His reign was evidently long and prosperous enough to see him held in high regard by posterity.163 His Theban was long-lived, with economic if not

158 Cf. Aidan Dodson, Amarna Sunset: , Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation (Cairo: AUC Press, 2009), 114-120. Kawai has recently rejected the idea that Horemheb was in fact Tutankhamun’s designated successor, and argued convincingly that he was never “pensioned off” under Ay, nor did he acquiesce to the appointment of other men as crown prince. Instead, he asserted his own right to the throne from some point in Ay’s reign, refusing to acknowledge the latter as king; “Ay versus Horemheb,” 287-288. 159 Claude Vandersleyen, Le Egypte et la vallée du Nil, vol. 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994), 488. 160 Van Dijk, “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom,” in The Oxford , ed. Ian Shaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 248. 161 Ibid., 120. 162 Dodson credits him with “considerable building achievements;” ibid., 132. 163 Ibid., 132.

39 cultic activity attested at his well into the reign of Ramesses III. At Saqqara, the pre-royal tomb functioned as the site of a cult of the deified Horemheb during the reign of

Ramesses II, if not later;164 there is some possibility that the king was still venerated (or at least remembered as an important figure) in the Late and Ptolemaic Periods.165

Interestingly, the two issues that remain perhaps the most vexing to scholars today have been the subject of ongoing debate since the nineteenth century. The length of the reign is controversial; according to presently available evidence it lasted not less than fourteen years, although some Egyptologists remain open to the possibility that the king held the throne for nearly three decades.166 The first to grapple with the question of the reign’s chronology was

Lepsius. In his effort to reconcile the names in Manetho’s list with the then-known reign lengths attested by the monuments, he had to posit a shift in the columns of names and numbers for the 18th Dynasty, collapsing what he considered artificially separated counts for the sole reign and of Thutmose III, and as a result moving the reign lengths that followed down a space with respect to the royal names. According to this solution, King Horus should actually be accorded the twelve years given for his successor Achencheres;167 conveniently, this corresponded to what Lepsius considered the highest attested date of Horemheb.168 The re- identification of Horemheb with Harmais also contributed to the argument in favor of a short reign.169 The epitomists are unanimous that Harmais reigned only into his fifth year, which conflicted with the pharaonic documentation even as it was understood in the late nineteenth

164 Ibid., 134. 165 Ibid.; our knowledge of the posthumous cult at Saqqara is due to the rediscovery of the Memphite tomb by Martin. 166 For a summary of the problem as it stands today, see Ibid., 128-132. 167 Richard Lepsius, Königsbuch der alten Ägypter, 2 vols. (Berlin: W. Hertz, 1858), 1:69-70 168 He did not specify the monument from which he took this number. 169 Cf. Petrie, History, 246.

40 century.170 Rather than question the interpretation of Manetho, however, Petrie, for instance, proposed in 1896 that the Manethonian year count reflected a change in Horemheb’s year- dating system after the “final abolition” of the Amarna heresy.171 When a possible date in year

27 was uncovered in the king’s mortuary temple by in 1930, Hölscher put forward the idea that from his accession, Horemheb had dated his reign from the first year of

Akhenaten.172 With the recent find of wine dockets dated to Horemheb’s year 14 in KV 57, T.

Schneider has suggested that the five years of Manetho’s Harmais derive from the accidental omission of a Greek letter iota, representing the number ten, in the Manethonian text

(preserving the Horemheb = Harmais and the short reign hypotheses.173 As recently as 2014, however, Kitchen has argued vehemently for a twenty-eight year reign on the basis of

Babylonian synchronisms;174 the question of the chronology of Horemheb’s reign still remains to be resolved. What is important here, however, is the fact that in spite of countless adjustments to the evidentiary picture over the last two centuries, there remains a divide between the

(slightly more numerous) partisans of a reign of around a decade and a half, and those who believe the king held the throne for nearly three decades;175 even the figures involved have changed little over the last century or more. The identity of Mutnodjmet and her role in

Horemheb’s career also remain subject to debate. One early interpretation of the coronation

170 The highest date of Horemheb was at the time considered to be year 21, based on a misreading of ostracon BM EA 5624. 171 History of Egypt, 246. 172 Uvo Hölscher, Excavations at Ancient Thebes 1930/31, OIC 15 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1932), 53. This interpretation was based on the incorrect idea that Horemheb’s year 1 would have followed 27 years after the death of Amenhotep III. By the time of the final publication of the text, it was clear it was clear that this interpretation would not hold up chronologically; see Rudolf Anthes, “ Graffiti on Statue Fragments,” in Uvo Hölscher, The Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 2, The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty, OIP 41 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), 107. 173 Thomas Schneider, “Contributions to the Chronology of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period,” ÄL 20 (2010), 394. 174 , “Establishing Chronology in Pharaonic Egypt and the : Interlocking Textual Sources Relating to c. 1600-664 BC,” in Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt, ed. Christopher Ramsey and Andrew Short (Havertown: Oxbow Books, 2014), 15-92. 175 For a recent overview of the state of the problem, see also K. Margaret Bryson, “Some Year Dates of Horemheb in Context,” JARCE 51 (2015), 285-301.

41 inscription held that the text identified Mudnedjmet as a royal princess, whom Horemheb married in an effort to legitimize his claim to the throne.176 Variations of this hypothesis (first suggested, as far as I know by Lepsius, who immediately rejected it) have been advanced as the evidentiary picture has changed. Hölscher, for instance, Another interpretation held that the coronation text identified Mudnedjmet as a royal princess, whom Horemheb married in an effort to legitimize his claim to the throne.177 The recognition of a sister of Nefertiti whose name appeared to read “” in the royal tombs at Amarna seemed to support this hypothesis. Sethe’s recognition, however, that the

“daughter” mentioned in the text was in fact Weret-hekau rather than Mutnodjmet resulted in a reaction against the idea of her relationship to the Amarna royal family; Maspero forcefully stated in 1912 that “[w]e must therefore take away from our every hypothesis which had been introduced in consequence of the faulty interpretation momentarily given to this passage…”178 Hari, however, sought concertedly to rehabilitate the idea that Mutnodjmet was a relation of Nefertiti. This point was a major focus of Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjmet, and

Hari certainly succeeded in reopening the matter,179 which remains a subject of debate up until the present day.180

Both of these issues are legitimate subjects of discussion. What is most important for the present discussion, however, is that even as the evidentiary picture has been revolutionized over generations of excavation and research, the stakes of the various debates surrounding Horemheb have changed remarkably little. The key

176 For instance, Brugsch, Geschichte, 439 177 For instance, Brugsch, Geschichte, 439. 178 “Life and Monuments,” 22. 179 Cf., for instance, , “Two Monuments of the Reign of Horemheb,” JEA 54 (1968), 105-106. 180 Cf. Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 132.

42 questions - whether Horemheb contended or cooperated with Ay, whether the reign was short or long, and whether Horemheb’s marriage to Mutnodjmet was a matter of dynastic strategy – have remained subject to debate, but the basic idea of Horemheb’s reign as a time of rebuilding and consolidation has changed little, if at all. Scholars remain confident, moreover, that “[h]is reign was regarded as significant by posterity through his being acknowledged as the first legitimate ruler since the days of

Amenhotep III;”181 and that power passed smoothly to the Ramesside dynasty, who inherited a transformed, but stabilized Egypt. In the following chapter, we will attempt to re-examine the evidence for the regnal period, incorporating new evidence and interpretations that have emerged in recent decades. By remaining aware of the extent to which the evidentiary foundations of the prevailing view of the reign have been transformed without always bringing the historiographical picture along with them, we can perhaps identify previously overlooked patterns. At the very least, we will reframe what is known about the regnal period in up-to-date terms, and identify new questions that can be asked of the material.

1.5 - Conclusion

As we have seen, the reign of Horemheb has, since Champollion began to decipher the king’s coronation inscription in the early 1820’s, been perceived in one of two ways: as a long and stable period, or as a shorter period whose beginning saw intense conflict. This basic dichotomy predates the discovery of most of the evidence

181 Ibid.

43 currently available to us; it seems to have its roots in the earliest efforts to make sense of Egypt’s history as scholars acquired the philological means to read the Egyptians’ own words about themselves. The influence of the Greek historians, particularly Manetho, has remained a constant factor in our interpretation of the pharaonic monuments. It seems to have shaped the debates that have surrounded the reign since the earliest days of Egyptology: was it long or short? Was Horemheb primarily a man of peace and piety or a military leader? Was he a “legitimate” heir or an usurper? Did he marry into the 18th Dynasty royal family? In spite of the existence of contrasting views on so many issues, moreover, one historiographical motif has persisted throughout the years, regardless of each historian’s views on such topics as the chronology, the genealogy of

Mutnodjmet, or the importance of the military to Horemheb’s succession - it has almost always been accepted that under the king, Egypt moved steadily toward religious

“orthodoxy” and political stability. Without discounting the importance of other questions, it is chiefly this perception that the following chapters of the present dissertation will seek to test.

44 Chapter 2: The Monuments of Horemheb

2.1 - Introduction

As we have noted,182 Horemheb has long had a reputation as a prolific builder. In this section, we will examine the construction projects attributed to him. Beginning with the northern coast and the Delta, we will move southward to the Theban area. The king’s two speoi

– at Gebel el-Silsila (cat. 2.62) and Abu Oda (cat. 2.63) – have been the subject of dedicated publications within the last twenty years;183 there is, moreover, an ongoing project at Gebel el-

Silsila which promises to change much about our understanding of the sanctuary, its history, and its context within the broader region;184 for these reasons, our discussion of these monuments will be limited. We will focus instead on architectural remains associated with Horemheb from the Delta to Thebes. It will be seen that while the king certainly changed the monumental landscape of Egypt, it is somewhat misleading (based on current evidence, at least) to say that he undertook a large program of building efforts. He completed the projects of his predecessors and left his mark as a “restorer,” frequently replacing the names of Tutankhamun and Ay with his own.185 In fact, when the entirety of his building efforts is considered, a pattern emerges in

182 Cf. above, 11-12, 36. 183 Above, 2, nn. 9, 10. 184 See Maria Nilsson and Philippe Martinez, “In the Footsteps of Ricardo Caminos: Rediscovering the Gebel el Silsila and its Rock-Cut Temple,” in Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists: Florence, 23-30 August 2015, ed. Gloria Rosati and Maria Cristina Guidotti (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017), 441-445. 185 For the characterization of Horemheb’s “usurpations” as damnatio, see recently Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “Usurpation,” in Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy Bryan, ed. Richard Jasnow and Kathlyn Cooney (Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2015), 97-104. Eaton-Krauss takes up the work of Magen, who refers to the “usurpation” of earlier monuments as “adaptation,” questioning whether the negative connotations attached to the word usurpation are always, or even usually, appropriate; Barbara Magen, Steinerne Palimpseste: Zur Wiederverwendung von Statuen durch Ramses II. und seine Nachfolger (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2011). Eaton-Krauss disagrees entirely with Magen, noting that the usurpations of Horemehb “effectively deprived (his predecessors) of the benefits of the cult,” a point in which is correct. Brand has pointed out that the usurpations of Ramesses II and those of Horemheb differ in their scope and nature, at least at Thebes, with Ramesses apparently commemorating his extraordinary longevity by taking over earlier monuments – he was effectively “embodying” the

45 which indisputably “original” works of Horemheb are rare indeed; most of his work consists of the completion or modification of earlier projects. The work that he undertook on his own initiative, moreover, seems to reflect logistical challenges - almost all of his “original” monuments show evidence of significant haste or interruption (and sometimes, possibly, both).

Some of this could be due to accidents of preservation. Nevertheless, the following overview of

Horemheb’s monumental ouvre will show that his reputation as a great builder should not necessarily be accepted at face value, and hints of unsettled conditions may be seen throughout the monumental record of his reign.

2.2 – The North Coast and the Delta

Poor preservation and difficult excavation conditions have left this area somewhat underrepresented in our current understanding of the ancient Egyptian cultural landscape.186

Nevertheless, recent work at sites in northern Egypt has light on the activities of Horemheb as king. Van Dijk and Hoffmeier have reported the find of a clay seal impression, clay bulla, and faience ring bezel (cat. 2.01) bearing Horemheb’s nomen at el-Borg in the northwestern

Sinai. These are among a number of minor objects (mostly stamped amphora handles) from the site that attest to the entire series of Amarna and post-Amarna kings from Akhenaten to

Horemheb.187 It seems that an 18th Dynasty fortress on the site was destroyed at the end of the

fact that by his later reign, few people would have ever lived under any other king; see Peter Brand, “Usurpation of Monuments,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1 (1), 2010, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5gj996k5, accessed February 15, 2017). Ongoing work in the hypostyle hall at Karnak will surely continue to add to our understanding of this phenomenon; see recently Jean Revez and Peter Brand, “The Notion of Prime Space in the Layout of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak,” Karnak 15 (2015), 253-310. 186 For recent discussion of some of the challenges facing the archaeology of the Delta, as well as progress made in the area, see, for instance, Joshua Trampier, “In Search of a Future Companion: Digital and Field Survey Methods in the Western Delta,” in The Nile: Natural and Cultural Landscape in Egypt, ed. Harco Willems and Jan-Michael Dahms, Mainz Historical Cultural Sciences 36 (Mainz: Bielefeld, 2017), 217-219, 230-233. 187 James Hoffmeier and Jacobus van Dijk, “New Light on the Amarna Period from North Sinai,” JEA 96 (2010), 12-13, 15.

46 Amarna period - a stamped jar handle of Ankhkheperure () was found in the layer of the debris used to fill the fort’s baked-brick moat when a second fortress, just to the east, was built.188 The moat itself is singular in the military architecture of the New Kingdom, with similar features otherwise known only from the Nubian fortresses of the Middle

Kingdom.189 Although it occurred at a major turning point in Egypt’s political history, the timing of the construction of the new fort seems to be coincidental, as the excavators think that the original was lost shortly before to flood damage.190 Tell Borg is thought to be the second

(moving from norhtheast to southwest) in a line of New Kingdom fortifications on Egypt’s strategically critical northeast frontier. It lies just three miles southwest of the site (Tell Hebua I)

191 now thought to be the great ḫtm-fortress of named in Horemheb’s great decree.

That Horemheb’s presence should be attested on the “Ways of Horus,” the military route leading across the Sinai and into the Levant, is hardly surprising.192 It seems obvious that he must have been involved in the management of the northeastern border - and perhaps in military excursions into the Levant – either under Tutankhamun or as king, or possibly both. The military scenes in his Memphite tomb are well-known, as is his epithet of iry rdwy nb.f Hr pri hrw pn n smA sttyw, “one in attendance on his lord upon the battlefield on this day of smiting the Asiatics.”193 Johnson has discussed the remains of battle reliefs, apparently dating to the reign of Horemheb, that could have originated in the Medinet Habu mortuary temple that the

188 Ibid., 2. 189 Ellen Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypyt’s New Kingdom (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 177-179. 190 Hoffmeier et al., “The Ramesside Period Fort,” in Tell el Borg I, ed. James K. Hoffmeier (New York: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 207. 191 For background on the excavation of the site and its identification as the great eastern fortress, see first Mohammed Abd el-Maksoud, Tell Heboua (1981-1991): enquête archéologique sur la deuxième période intermédiaiire et le nouvel empire à l'extrémité orientale du delta (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1998); more recently Mohammed Abd el-Maksoud and Dominique Valbelle, “Tell Héboua-Tjarou: l'apport de l'épigraphie,” RdÉ 56 (2005), 1-43. 192 For an overview of the route in the early Ramesside period, see Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism, 402-443. 193 See Geoffrey Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun, vol 1, The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary (London: EES, 1989), 84-100, 163.

47 king usurped from Ay (cat. 1.19).194 It remains difficult, however, to say more than that we expect that Horemheb, during his own reign, was involved in military actions in Syria.195 The annals of the Hittite king Mursili II record an engagement with the Egyptians over Kadesh in

Mursili’s seventh year.196 Miller has argued that Hittite-Egyptian synchronisms necessitate

Horemheb’s year 1 coinciding with Mursili’s year 7,197 meaning that he participated in indirect military confrontations with the Hittite empire both before and after his accession. The main basis for this assertion is a letter, KUB XIX 15+KBo L 24 (cat. 2.06), from the royal archive at

Bogazkoy. It records a conflict between Tette of Nuhasse and an Egyptian official named

‘Arma’a,198 along with a later expedition by ‘Arma’a against . These events correspond well with a Nuhassean rebellion in Mursili’s year 7, leading Miller to suggest the synchronism.

Miller’s identification of Horemheb as the pharaoh in question rests to a great extent on phonetics. He argues that the name Horemheb could be rendered in the Hittite plene writing as

“Ar-ma-a,” reflecting a pronunciation of “Armaya” or similar.”199 In large part on the basis of a rendering of “Armais” in one version Manetho for the name of the fourteenth pharaoh of the

18th Dynasty, he suggests that this could be close to how the king’s birth name would have sounded to the Hittites of the second millennium BC. There are problems, however, with

194 See W. Raymond Johnson, “An Asiatic Battle Scene of Tutankhamun” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1992), 124- 129; more work on this corpus is surely warranted. 195 Cf. Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism, 266; also Francis Breyer, Ägypten und Anatolien: Politische, kulturelle, und sprachliche Kontakte zwischen dem Niltal und Kleinasien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), 203-205. 196 A. Goetze, Die Annalen des Musilis, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft Leipzig 38 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1938). 197 Jared Miller, “Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text,” AoF 34 (2007), 252-293; Elena Devecchi and Jared Miller, “Hittite-Egyptian Synchronisms and their Consequences for Ancient Near Eastern Chronology,” in Egypt and the Near East: The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the , Prague, September 1-3, 2010, ed. Jana Mynarova (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2011), 139-176. 198 I follow Miller in adopting this as a conventional anglicized spelling; see Miller, “The Rebellion of Hatti’s Syrian Vassals and Egypt’s Meddling in Amurru,” in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici XLIX -2007, VI Congresso Internatzionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 settembre 2005 (Rome: CNR, 2007), 546 n. 39. See also Breyer, Ägypten und Anatolien, 205. 199 Miller, “Hatti’s Syrian Vassals,” 545.

48 Miller’s premise. First, I find the arguments of Simon200 and Breyer201 convincing, namely that the H is unlikely to have disappeared when the name was rendered into Hittite. The Hellenized

“Armais,” with a smooth breathing, is found only in the Eusebian version of Manetho;202 everywhere else the rough breathing was retained. In addition, I would cautiously posit that there could be an alternative candidate for the Egyptian underlying ‘Arma’a. The “Armais” or

“Harmais” of Manetho, according to a little-known remark made by Jahn in 1896, could actually represent a frequent epithet of Ay – iri , “one who performs ma’at.” This phrase was frequently enclosed in his first cartouche along with his of Kheperheperure. Given the apparent difficulties that the scribes of the Amarna letters had in dealing with the word xpr,203 it could be that the epithet was used for convenience. Ay was, apart from the “god’s father,” an

“overseer of horses” (imy-r ssmwt) as a private official; Horemheb, by contrast, is not known to have been a chariotry officer.204 Given that Tette of Nuhasse requested from Egypt, it is not inconceivable that Ay would have been involved in the negotiation.

The only direct indication of a military campaign of Horemheb in the north (dated to year 16) is a votive bowl (cat. 2.05) seen in trade in Cairo in the 1970’s. Its current whereabouts are unknown,205 and the bowl itself is universally thought to have been a forgery.206 The inscription, however, is so compelling that some have suggested that it was a copy of a genuine text.207 It refers to a campaign “from to the land of the wretched rulers of Carcemish,”and names Ptah, , “the daughter of Ptah,” and Reshep in the offering

200 Zsolt Simon, “Kann Arma mit Haremhab gleichgesetzt warden?” AoF 39 (2009), 340-348. 201 Breyer, Ägypten und Anatolien, 205-206. 202 See Waddell, Manetho, 116, 118. 203 Cf. Breyer, Ägypten und Anatolien, 185-186. 204 See Martin, The Memphite Tomb, 163-164. 205 Donald Redford, “New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Horemheb,” BASOR 211 (1973), 36-49. 206 Breyer cites a personal communication from Hornung that the bowl was “Fälschung von B. Grdseloff;” Ägypten und Anatolien, 205 n. 1195. 207 Redford, “A Head-Smiting Scene from the 10th Pylon,” in Fontes atque pontes: eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner, ed. Manfred Görg (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1983), 363-364; Alan Schulman, Ankhesenamun, Nofretiti, and the Amka Affair,” JARCE 15, (1978), 43-48.

49 formula.208 One of the arguments that the bowl was forged is that the king’s name is written

“incorrectly” – rather than the usual Horemheb-meryamun, with the god’s name placed first in honorific transposition, it is written with the falcon, the crown of above its shoulder, and then the signs m-Hb. This same writing, however, seems to be attested on a sandstone block from the temple (cat. 2.52), where it is clearly written over the nomen of

Ay. This is also close to the writing in line 15 of the coronation inscription (see below, p. 162), although according to Gardiner’s copy this instance omits the lower Egyptian crown above the falcon’s shoulder. In the coronation inscription, the name’s form seems to mark a transition between Horemheb as king elect and Horemheb as fully-recognized monarch, occurring in the text just before the moment when he leaves the ritual palace and proceeds to the per-wer shrine having been acknowledged by Amun. It seems possible that this writing of the name need not rule out the authenticity of any given text exhibiting a similar writing; given the impossibility of corroborating the inscription, however, the bowl cannot be taken as evidence for any military engagement in Syria during Horemheb’s actual reign.

Whatever the status of his military activities abroad, Horemheb was certainly concerned with the security of the northeastern border. In addition to forts on the Ways of Horus,

Horemheb is attested somewhat farther inland, at Tell el-Dab’a (ancient ). In this city, the former capital of the , the cult of the god Seth was well-established by the New Kingdom

- the fall of the Hyksos did not displace their patron deity.209 A lintel (cat. 1..01) from the temple of Seth shows that under Tutankhamun, restorations to the god’s temple were undertaken;

Horemheb later surcharged his own name over that of the young king, claiming the work as his

208 See the transcription and translation in Breyer, Ägypten und Anatolien, 204. 209 See, for instance, , “Sethos I’s Devotion to Seth of Avaris,” ZÄS 100, no. 2 (1974),95-102; , “Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris,” ÄL 1 (1990), 9-16; Orly Goldwasser, “King Apophis of Avaris and the Emergence of ,” in Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. ed. Ernst Cerny et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 129-133.

50 own.210 A massive wall (cat. 2.08), apparently delineating a large fortification at the site, may also have been the work of Horemheb. There is, however, as yet no epigraphic evidence of the building’s precise date; the excavators’ designation of the building as the “fortress of

Horemheb” is based on the ceramics found in association with it.211 Horemheb is further attested at Avaris by the find of a dagger pommel bearing his cartouche (cat. 2.09) in an area with evidence of Ramesside cemeteries. It has been suggested that Horemheb’s reign saw the beginning of the establishment of Qantir (Piramesse) as Egypt’s new “capital.”212 The basis for this argument seems to be rather limited, with only a single faience vessel (cat. 2.07) inscribed for Horemheb and Mutnodjmet known from the site.213

We might certainly expect Horemheb, as the most senior military official in Egypt under

Tutankhamun, to have taken a strong interest in affairs in the north of the country at a time when the power of the Hittite Empire complicated Egypt’s authority in the Levant. There is certainly evidence that the strategic sites of northern Egypt were active during his reign; scant traces of Horemheb’s presence at Tell Basta (cat. 1.02) and in the Sinai (cat. 2.02) support this impression. It is somewhat striking that as the purported founder of the Ramesside dynasty and the most senior military official of the late 18th Dynasty, Horemheb did not leave more of a mark on the region once he came to the throne in his own right. Perhaps the fact that it was left to his

Ramesside successors to establish a more significant monumental presence reflects his

210 See Manfred Bietak and Irene Forstner-Müller, “The Topography of New Kingdom Avaris and Per-Ramesses,” in Ramesside Studies in Honor of K.A. Kitchen, ed. Mark Collier and Steven Snape (Bolton: Rutherford, 2011), 23-50. 211 Discussed by David Aston, “The Pottery from H/VI süd Strata a and b: Preliminary Report,” ÄL 11 (2001), 167-196; the excavators state elsewhere only that the ceramics “in die Zeit Tutanchamuns und Haremhabs datiert warden kann;” Bietak, Dorner, and Janosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk,” 46. 212 See Bietak and Müller, The Topography of New Kingdom Avaris and Per-Ramesses,” 30. 213 The vessel’s provenance is known only from the claim of the dealer from whom it was purchased; see Habachi, Tell el-Dab’a I: Tell el-Dab’a and Qantir, the Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse, DGOeAW 23 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001), 47.

51 preoccupation with the ongoing restoration of domestic affairs in the wake of the Amarna episode.

2.3 - The Memphite Region

The most important monument associated with Horemheb in this area is, of course, his tomb at Saqqara (cat. 2.19). Although the tomb was originally constructed for him as a private individual, his royal identity was commemorated there through the addition of uraei to the brow of many of his relief figures in the monument.214 The question of when and why the reliefs were altered is a difficult one to answer. It could have taken place after the king’s death in connection with his cult there,215 or during his own lifetime.216 Recent excavations have revealed that the large forecourt was added at a separate stage, and fronted by its own pylon. The effect was, as

Raven has observed, to give the monument a “royal character.”217 It stands to reason that this would have taken place as part of the same process that involved adding uraei to the king’s figures. A large wall near the tomb has been interpreted as its enclosure wall; bricks stamped with Horemheb’s prenomen were found in association with it.218 A possible reason that

Horemheb maintained his interest in the monument even after his accession is the fact that

Mutnodjmet seems to have been buried there, evidently sometime around her husband’s thirteenth year if wine dockets recovered in association with the interment are any indication

(cat. no. 2.20).219 Queen Mutnodjmet was certainly honored at the tomb; a very fragmentary

214 See Martin, The Memphite Tomb, 1:45-46, 55-56, 68, 72, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84-85, 94, 100, 110-112, 114-115. 215 See ibid., 68. 216 See Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “Review of Geoffrey Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun,” JEA 78 (1992), 337-338. 217 Maarten Raven et al., The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun, vol. 5, The Forecourt and the Area South of the Tomb with some Notes on the Tomb of , PALMA 6 (Turnhout: Brepolis, 2011), 27-28. 218 See ibid., 28. 219 See, in the first place, Eugen Strouhal, “Queen Mutnodjmet at Memphis: Anthropological and Paleopathological Evidence,”in L'égyptologie en 1979: axes prioritaires de recherches, 2 vols. (Paris; CNRS, 1982), 2: 317-322; more

52 (probably “deliberately smashed,” according to H. Schneider) statue of her in her royal status220 was discovered there, as were the remains of a canopic vessel repurposed for her.221 In addition, a small, crudely carved stela (cat. 2.21) depicting the queen seated behind her husband was recovered from the fill of the forecourt of the neighboring tomb of Tia and Tia.222 It shows

Mutnodjmet (identified by her cartouche) wearing a short, rounded wig with heavy sidelock, like the one “typical for princesses at the Ramesside court,” also worn by the lady Isetnofret, who dedicated a stela found in the fill of the forecourt.223

Why Horemheb would have buried his queen at Memphis over a dozen years after his accession, and after work on his tomb in the Valley of the Kings was presumably well underway, is something of an enigma. Regardless of where the residence was located of where the court was active at the time of her death, we might expect him to have had her interred in the Theban necropolis; as far as I am aware, it is otherwise unknown for a royal wife to be buried so far from her husband. This would seem especially true if Horemheb himself died and was buried at

Thebes only a year or so later. It is also interesting that so little survives in the way of representations of any woman in the relief decoration – the only woman whose name is preserved is Amenia, usually thought to have been Horemheb’s first wife.224 One speculative possibility is that a plague outbreak225 made it inadvisable or difficult to move remains farther than necessary; if she had died at Memphis or Gurob, then the pre-royal tomb might have

recently id., The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun, vol. 4, Human Skeletal Remains (London: EES, 2008). The burial is usually dated by wine dockets found in association (cat. 2.20 in the present work). 220 Hans Schneider, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun, vol. 2, A Catalogue of the Finds (London: EES, 1996), 377-78, pl. 86. 221 Ibid., 251, pls. 24, 71. 222 Raven et al., The Memphite Tomb, 5:74, fig. 8 (no. 8), pls. 55-57. 223 Schneider, The Memphite Tomb, 94-95, pl. 99. Cf. also the wig worn by the “princesses” in the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192); The Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980), pls. 55-57. 224 For the reading of the name and representations of her in the tomb, see Martin, Tutankhamun’s Regent, 93-94, 102. 225 For the prevalence of such outbreaks at the time see, for instance, Eva Panagiotakopulu, “Pharaonic Egypt and the Origins of Plague,” Journal of Biogeography 31, no. 2 (2006), 269-275.

53 combined expediency with an acceptable cultic environment. Strouhal, however, has indicated that Mutnodjmet most likely died in childbirth.226 What is more, the expansion of the tomb does not seem to correspond with any special focus on the queen as the occupant of the memorial.227

The excavators often remark on the fact that there is no way to know when the modifications to the tomb’s plan were realized.228 It seems worth considering, however, that the entire movement toward the reconfiguration of the monument for a royal burial was the result of

Horemheb’s own initiative. Kawai has noted subtle evidence that Horemheb did not really acknowledge Ay’s kingship even during the latter’s lifetime.229 It was Ay who attended to

Tutankhamun’s burial; van Dijk has plausibly suggested that this might reflect Horemheb’s absence from the Theban region at the time of the young king’s death.230 As we will see,

Horemheb’s visibility in the southern city does not seem to have increased as much as we might expect even after his accession, and there is reason to think that his foothold in the south was not entirely secure for much of his reign. It is worth at least considering the possibility that the architectural modifications to the Memphite tomb are another indication of his resistance to

Ay’s authority, and it is not impossible that the addition of the uraeus and even the replacement of the earlier cartouches reflect an intention that Horemheb himself maintained to be buried there even after he took the throne. His Theban tomb is largely unfinished, in spite of his reign’s length of at least fourteen years – by comparison, Seti I, who reigned eleven years at most,231

226 The Memphite Tomb, 4:3. 227 Cf. Raven et al., The Memphite Tomb, 5:27-28. It is worth noting, however, that the portion of the tomb apparently devoted to the burial of Mutnodjmet was “more sumptuous than any tomb made for a queen consort of the Eighteenth Dynasty;” Martin, The Hidden Tombs of Memphis: New Discoveries from the Time of Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992), 97; cf. Heather McCarthy, “Queenship, Cosmography, and Regeneration: The Decorative Programs and Architecture of Ramesside Royal Women’s Tombs” (Phd diss., New York University 2011), 66-68. 228 Cf. ibid.; Raven seems to date the addition of the uraei to the period when the tomb was used to celebrate Horemheb’s posthumous cult. 229 Kawai, “Ay vs. Horemheb,” 261-292. 230 Van Dijk, “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun,” 29-42. 231 For a recent discussion of the problem of the length of Seti’s reign, see Bryson, “Some Year Dates of Horemheb,” 299.

54 was able to complete the intricate and beautiful decoration of KV 17. In its final state, the

Memphite tomb served not only as a pre-royal, but also a royal monument of Horemheb; it bears considering whether this did not hold true even during the king’s lifetime.

We can only assume, given the relative dearth of surviving remains from any reign there, that Horemheb was active in construction in the temples of Memphis and Heliopolis. Two quartzite monuments depicting the king come from the area of the latter city - the stela of the frontier officer and high priest of Re, Preemheb (see below, 3.2.10 A), and the stela of the king censing and libating before (cat. 2.10). Both of these stelae appear to be original works of the Horemheb’s reign, showing no signs of over-carving. The king’s nebty-name, wr biAwt232 m

Ipt-swt, is usually translated as “great of marvels in Ipet-sut (Karnak),”233 It may, however, also have encoded a reference to the valuable red stone quartzite,234 a metamorphic variety of sandstone. Interestingly, while the name refers to the temple of Amun at Karnak, the king’s original quartzite monuments are, with one exception, all from Lower Egypt. In the Amun

Precinct, he moved a large quantity of sandstone, but added only one quartzite monument of his own, a colossus in front of the south face of Pylon X (cat 2.49). The stela of Preemheb is badly weathered, but the stela of the king and Khepri is better preserved. There, the carving appears235 to be executed in a manner often seen in monuments of Horemheb in sandstone.

The characters in the inscription, in particular display this appareance – they are carved in a very rounded, raised relief, with distinct margins around the edges of each element. The signs in the inscription show this appearance very clearly. Like many, if not most, of the king’s raised relief

232 WB I, 440.1-6. 233 See Ronald Leprohon, The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary (Atlanta: Lockwood, 2013), 107. 234 Wb 1, 438.16-439.5; John Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals (Berlin: Akademie Verag, 1961), 75. 235 I have been unable so far to examine the stela in person, and so will reserve most comment on its appearance.

55 inscriptions in sandstone, they appear, so to speak, “puffy,” almost as if they were applied to the surface rather than sculpted from it.

Horemheb is even better attested as king at Memphis than at Heliopolis. From near the propylon of the Ptah precinct come two fragments what has been called a “copy” of his coronation inscription (cat. 2.17, see chapter 4 below).236 According to Petrie, they are of quartzite, like the two stelae from Heliopolis; unfortunately, their present whereabouts are unknown, so this cannot be verified. The fragments do not represent an exact copy of the inscription on the staue of Horemheb and Mutnodjmet (Turin 1379, cat. 3.01); in fact, to present them as “duplicates” of the Theban text is misleading. Gardiner presented the larger of the fragments along with the main recension; he noted only five “sentences” in common between the Memphite fragments and the corresponding portion of the Theban coronation inscription.

The last four lines of the Memphite stela characterize in detail Horemheb’s benefactions in the temple of Ptah in Memphis; interestingly, the portions that differ emphasize that Horemheb is the “son who came forth from [the] flesh” of a god, perhaps Amun.237 The Theban version, in contrast, seems to emphasize Horemheb as the chosen, rather than begotten, heir of Horus and

Amun. Petrie described the Memphite fragments as coming from “a quartzite stele, which had been reworked by Ramessu II.”238 Without being able to locate the fragments or their original findspot, however, it remains only a tantalizing possibility that the Memphite “version” of the coronation inscription was usurped in the 19th Dynasty. Two other block fragments (cat. 2.16 a and b), also from the Ptah temple and bearing the name of Horemheb, were recovered at

Memphis by Petrie. One, apparently of bekhen-stone, shows a fineness of carving unusual in monuments of Hormeheb, although hardly of the highest quality that could be achieved in the

236 Cf. Alan Gardiner, “The Coronation Inscription of Haremhab,” JEA 39 (1953), 14, 28-31. 237 Gardiner, “Coronation,” 29. 238 William M. , Memphis I, ERA 15 (London: BSAE, 1909), 10, 18, 20, pls. 6, 26.

56 18th Dynasty. The other is typically uneven in appearance. Nothing can be said with certainty about the monuments from which they derive, although the granite fragment appears to come from a door, or perhaps a small (cf. cat. 2.30). A final attestation of Horemheb’s activity in the Ptah temple is a stela fragment in the Petrie Museum at UCL (cat. 2.18). This piece bore a date in the first line, which has frustratingly been broken off, leaving only strokes arranged to show the digit 5. This could, in theory, also be 15 or 25; only one’s preference as to the length of the reign determines the most likely reading. The stela gives the names and some laudatory descriptions of the king.

Another site in the Memphite region where Horemheb is attested is the Old Kingdom necropolis of Abusir, together with the nearby sun-temples at Abu-Ghurob. In the New

Kingdom, a sanctuary of the goddess Sakhmet “of ” was active at the latter site, and it is from this location that two small, limestone fragments with torus molding (cat. 2.12) come.239

Almost nothing can be ascertained about the monument from which they originated; the unusual layout of what remains of the registers in the example decorated in raised relief, and the crude carving of the other fragment, might suggest that they derive from a private rather than a royal monument. Another monument apparently from Abusir is a (much abraded) stela

(cat. 2.22), showing the king offering to Ptah. The god’s identity as the consort of Sakhmet is consistent with a provenance from Abusir. The inscription, however, describes Horemheb’s efforts to be beneficial to Osiris, and it seems possible that the mummiform god in the lunette has been misidentified in the publication of the piece.240 The text of the stela seems to have taken the form of a “Königsnovelle,” as the king’s titulary is followed by the opening remark

“istw Hm.f m [aH,],” and goes on to describe the king’s desire to seek out ways in which to be

239 Ludwig Borchardt, 240Zakeya Topozada, “Une stèle de Horemheb retrouvée au Musée du Caire,” BIFAO 91 (1991), 249-254.

57 mnx, “effective,” for “his father, Osiris-Ruler-of-Eternity.”241 A final attestation from Abusir is a rough ink inscription (cat. 2.14) of Horemheb’s prenomen found on a block in the sun-temple of

Userkaf – it seems to have been jotted in haste, and does not include the otherwise nearly ubiquitous epithet “stp n ,” “the one chosen by Re.” None of these fragments suggest a large- scale investment at the site under Horemheb, but it is interesting that he should be so well- attested here.

A final Lower Egyptian monument of Horemheb is a stela, Brussels MRAH E 761 (cat.

2.11). It does not appear to be a royal commission, but instead a private votive dedicated with the expectation that the king would serve as an intermediary on behalf of the donor.242 Zivie has identified the object’s provenance as , where it was purchased in 1900.243 Although the stela is quite eroded, the fact that the king’s figure was carved in an Amarna-inspired style is evident;244 the stela could thus date to the early part of the reign.

2.4 – Middle Egypt

Although it might seem unexpected, Horemheb is attested at Amarna. It is to his reign that the culmination of the “restoration” is usually dated, but apparently, it was not out of the realm of possibility for him to be commemorated in the city of the “heretic.” One of the

241 Ibid. 242 On the issue of royal intermediacy specifically, see, for instance, Hartwig Altenmüller, “Amenophis I. als Mittler,” MDAIK 37 (1981), 1-7; Sarah Quinn, “A New Kingdom Stela in Girton College Showing Amenophis I Wearing the ḫprš,” JEA 77 (1991), 169-175. Karen Exell, “The Senior Scribe Ramose (I) and the Cult of the King: a Social and Historical Reading of Some Private Votive Stelae from Deir el Medina in the Reign of Ramesses II,” in Current Research in Egyptology 2004: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium Which Took Place at the University of Durham January 2004, ed. R. Dann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 51-67; Gabrielle Heffernan, “Remembering Royalty in Ancient Egypt: Shared Memories of ‘Royal Ancestors’ by Private Individuals in the Eighteenth Dynasty” (PhD diss., , 2017), 318 n. 59. 243 Christiane Zivie, Giza au deuxìeme millenaire (Cairo: IFAO, 1976), 182-183. 244 Cf. ibid.

58 fragments in his name found at Amarna belongs to a statue base (cat. 2.23);245 three appear to come from a votive bowl or similar object (cat. 2.24);246 and a fourth belongs to a relief scene that showed a procession of officials (cat. 2.25).247 The quality of carving is as high or higher in these fragments as in any of the other monuments of Horemheb discussed in this section. The statue base and votive bowl fragments were found in the remains of the Aten temple sanctuary, and it seems unlikely that their presence there was the result of anything less than the king’s active engagement with the cult.

Dodson has suggested that these objects might represent an early stage in Horemehb’s royal career,248 which is not implausible; afterwards, he would have (according to the most commonly accepted narrative) repudiated the city and everything associated with it, razing it to the ground. In fact, though, the animus against Amarna that is usually attributed to Horemheb is difficult to track at all in the material record. One of the most commonly cited pieces of evidence for Horemheb’s destruction of the city is the use of talatat-blocks, apparently from the great Aten temple, in a temple pylon at the nearby site of el-Ashmunein, the city of the god

Thoth. British Museum excavations in the 1980’s revealed the remains of a pylon of Horemheb

(cat. 2.26) at the site of the Temple. A later Ramesside pylon at the site contained a fill of tatalat-blocks, like Horemehb’s pylons at Karnak, and Roeder (before the discovery of the

Horemheb material at Amarna) speculated that the king had been responsible for the demolition of Akhenaten’s city, if not for bringing the blocks across the river for use in building the temple.249 By the time the Horemheb pylon was discovered, however, its fill had all been

245 John Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten Part III: The Central City and The Official Quarters (London: EES, 1951), 3, 4, 12 (nos. 24, 26), pl. 60. 246 Morris Bierbrier, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc. in the British Museum, Part 10 (London: British Museum, 1982), 9, pls. 1-3. 247 Petrie, Tell el Amarna (London: Methuen, 1894), 44, pl. 11. 248 Dodson, Amarna Sunset, 123-124. 249 Günther Roeder, 1929-1939: Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis, Oberägypten (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1959), 87.

59 quarried away;250 it is thus impossible to know, even if it seems likely, that it was filled with stone from across the river at Amarna. The question of when and to what extent Tutankhamun and Ay began to expunge the cult of the Aten has not yet been satisfactorily answered. At

Karnak, the demolition of Akhenaten’s monuments began under Tutankhamun;251 but many of the temples to the Aten elsewhere in Egypt seemed to have continued functioning,252 as did the city of Akhetaten, at least for a few years.253 If Horemheb was associated with the site over a decade after it was officially abandoned, it may imply that, whatever the policy toward the Aten cult and Akhenaten at Thebes, or toward Tutankhamun throughout Egypt, the idea of

Horemheb as a zealous and single-minded proponent of orthodoxy may not be entirely accurate. Horemheb did, of course, usurp monuments of Tutankhamun worshipping the traditional gods of Egypt - if the damnatio of the young king had anything to do with the Aten religion per se, it may have been only indirectly.

Horemheb had a strong affinity for Re-Horakhty, both before and after his accession.254

If we take variety of epithets as a proxy for the importance accorded the gods, then the complex of Re-Horakhty- (together or separately) is more prominent in the Memphite tomb than even Osiris (seventy-eight to fourty-three epithets respectively). Hari observed that Re,

Horakhty, Re-Horakhty and Atum appear forty-four times in Horemheb’s royal monumental corpus compared with Amun’s fifty-one; almost every mention of Amun, moreover, was at

Luxor or Karnak.255 Although Hari’s point was that earlier characterizations of Horemheb as a

250 Jeffrey , Excavations at El-Ashmunein, vol. 2, The Temple Area (London: British Museum, 1989), 15-16, 251 See for instance, Kawai, “Studies,” 184. 252 Ibid., 578-579, 592. 253 Kawai dates the removal of the court to year 2 of Tutankhamun, but notes that the young king’s full renunciation of his Amarna name may not have taken place until halfway through the reign; see ibid. A small settlement remained at the site for many years afterward; see Barry J. Kemp, “Outlying Temples at Amarna,” in Amarna Reports VI, ed. Barry J. Kemp (London: EES, 1995), 446-448. 254 Cf. Hari, Horemheb, 427-428. 255 Hari, Horemheb, 427-428.

60 partisan of Amun were misleading, his observation highlights the importance of the solar-divine complex for Horemheb. Such a prominence accorded to Re-Horakhty cannot but have evoked the Amarna period in the minds of Horemheb’s contemporaries – Re-Horakhty, of course, was an early avatar of the “great living Aten;” Akhenaten also cast himself as , the first-born of

Atum.256 In fact, it is perhaps less surprising in some ways to find Horemheb attested at

Akhetaten even after the fall of the city than to see him as the champion of Amun at Karnak.

2.5 - Karnak

Horemheb’s nebty-name was wr biAwt m Ipt-swt, “great of marvels in Karnak;” and indeed, his reign saw significant developments in the great temple complex of Amun. Three pylons – II, IX, and X - are associated with him, more than any other pharaoh could claim. The north-south axis of the Amun precinct was enhanced during his reign through the completion of

Pylon X and the erection of Pylon IX; when the court between these two pylons was walled in, it added a full square kilometer to the temple’s enclosed area. On the temple’s east-west axis,

Pylon II not only served as a new monumental entrance, but also established the footprint of the grand hypostyle hall, one of Egypt’s most iconic monuments up to the present day. In some ways, however, it is not entirely correct to say that Horemheb transformed the domain of

Amun. In fact, the projects that he undertook there had been initiated by his successors - Pylon

X stood to eight courses already, and it has recently emerged that Pylon II was probably under construction already when Horemheb came to the throne.257

Fig. 1 shows the plan of the temple as it would have stood in the king’s year 1, while Fig.

2 shows how it would have appeared at the end of the reign. A broken line indicates the

256 See, for instance, Johnson, “Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some New Considerations,” JEA 82 (1996), 65-82. 257

61 enclosure wall, the location of which is largely speculative. It has been shown that in the 18th

Dynasty, the Ptah temple lay outside of the temenos to the north,258 and remains are known of an enclosure wall, east of the sacred lake, that dates to the reign of Thutmose III.259 To the south, it is unclear whether the temenos reached Pylon X, or indeed what might have been its course at all,260 but in any case, the massifs of Pylon X already stood to eight courses when

Horemheb took the throne, and the first three courses of the granite gateway had been laid in.261 Work on the dromos of that connected the Amun and Mut precincts had gone far under Tutankhamun and Ay; in fact, it would seem that the north-south processional way was a high priority under the young king.262 It is interesting to imagine the ritual environment at

Karank in this period. Under Tutankhamun, the work of restoring the existing decoration (and the moveable cult apparatus) of the temple complex must have occupied time and resources that might otherwise have used to complete the architectural program of Amenhotep III.

Nevertheless, religious activity would have continued, with processions moving through elements of the temple in various states of construction and demolition.

When Tutankhamun died, Horemheb would have found Karnak temple in a state ripe for the insertion of his presence with a comparatively limited investment of resources. Rather than having to bring in building materials from a great distance, the monuments of Akhenaten offered a ready source of stone. Although the blocks of the “heretic” could hardly have been employed visibly, their presence allowed the king to construct his pylons as rubble-filled

258 See Christophe Thiers and Pierre Zignani, “The Temple of Ptah at Karnak,” Egyptian Archaeology 38 (2011), 21. 259 PM II, 224. 260 CF. Charles van Siclen, “The Edifice of Amenhotep II at Karnak: An Architectural Pious Fraud,” in Les temples de millions d'années et le pouvoir royal à Thèbes au Nouvel Empire: sciences et nouvelles technologies appliquées à l'archéologie, Memnonia Cahier Supplementaire 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 2010), 86 n. 20. 261 See Michel Jordan et al., La Porte d’Horemheb au Xe pylône de Karnak, CSÉG 13 (Geneva: Societe Société d'Égyptologie, 2015), 262 For the alley in general in the post-Amarna period, see Agnès Cabrol, Les voies processionelles de Thèbes, OLA 97 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 270-220. For Tutankhamun’s work on the dromos, see Marianne Eaton-Krauss and William J. Murnane, “Tutankhamun, Ay, and the Avenue of Sphinxes between Pylon X and the Mut Precinct at Karnak, BSÉG 15 (1991), 31-38.

62

Fig. 1: Karnak Temples in year 1 of Hormeheb

63

Fig. 2: Karnak Temples at the end of the reign of Horemheb

64 revetments,263 filling their cores with masonry taken from the monuments not only of

Akhenaten, but of other kings as well, including Amenhotep III. For Pylon X, this approach meant that the two phases of construction can easily be differentiated today. The lower courses are made of large, parallel masonry blocks, whereas the upper chambers are made up of fill faced with smaller sandstone bocks. This change in building technique was not without consequences for the integrity of the structure – the upper courses have collapsed to a considerable extent, and there is evidence of “warping” in the interior staircase. 264 In spite of this issue, however, the pylon remains impressive.

2.6 – Horemheb’s relief sculpture at Karnak – Pylon X

Pylon X, in addition to its importance as the southern limit of the Amun Temple complex is perhaps the best source of information available to us on one of the more challenging issues surrounding Horemheb’s reign – that of the “style” of the art produced for him, and how it may have developed over the course of the reign. Of the monuments with relief images bearing the king’s name, Pylon X is among the only examples that was neither obviously taken over from a predecessor, nor so extensively modified by Horemheb’s successors that it is difficult to discern the intended effect of the of the decoration. Jordan et al., in their discussion of the proportion and style of the figures on the pylon, note that there is a significant amount of variation among them: “Il n’y a aucune homogenité, ni dans les traits ni dans les style du visage du roi. Son nez plutôt long et droit, parfois à peine busqué…Le traitmenet des sourcils et du trait de fard prolongeant l’oeil est variable…Cette diversité n’autorise aucune conclusion chronologique sur l’évolution du ‘portrait’ d’Horemheb.”265 Furthermore: “La taille des

263 Michel Azim, “La structure des pylônes d’Horemheb à Karnak,” Karnak 7 (1982), 127-166, 264 Jordan et al., La porte d’Horemheb, 3. 265 Jordan, La porte d’Homremheb, 40.

65 personanages n’est pas identique sur la face sud et la face nord. Si le rapport entre le sommet de la tête et la base du pagne est le même dans toutes les scènes nord et sud, la taille des personnages de la face nord est plus important en raison d’un allongement des jambes. Les personnages paraissent donc plus élancés sur la face nord…”266 With the publication of epigraphic drawings of the monument, it is possible to test this assessment of the decoration of

Pylon X, at least in terms of the proportions of the figures. The result is that, while Jordan et al. are of course correct about the heterogeneity of the appearance of the figures, there is in fact a pattern in the distribution of metrical traits, one that corresponds to the aesthetic features in a manner suggestive of, if not chronological development, then at least some kind of ordered variation in the manner in which the work was carried out.

Robins has described the development over the course of the New Kingdom of representations of the human figure through the use of both the study of actual ancient artists’ grids and the imposition of hypothetical grids for material for which no extant examples survive.267 Even if an original ancient grid does not exist to verify conclusions about how the layout was designed, placing two figures on a consistent grid allows for the visual comparison of their proportions. In the spring of 2016, through an USAID-funded fellowship administered by the American Research Center in Egypt, I was able to visit and document photographically thirty- four tombs in the Theban necropolis, thirty private, and four royal (Ay, Horemheb, Ramesses I, and Seti I). Using the technique of digital, structure-from-motion photogrammetry, I created three-dimensional models of the human figures, or a selection of the same, in each tomb. My ultimate goal is to conduct a detailed stylometric analysis of the material;268 in this

266 Ibid., 48. 267 Proportion and Style, especially 87-159. 268 Stylometry, the statistical analysis of measurable variation between artworks and texts, would allow individual and combined proportional evaluation of features either too small for grid-based study (such as facial characteristics) or not suited to the conventional methods of grid-based analysis as developed most notably by Robins; see in particular Gay Robins, Proportion and Style in Egyptian Art (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992). For stylometry in literature,

66 dissertation, however, I will present only limited preliminary findings, based on conventional grid-based analysis, pending the full processing of my dataset. My findings concerning how the human representations in these royal tombs are configured have been entirely consistent with what one would expect from Robins’ work. What is more, the figures in the royal tomb relief of the Valley of the Kings in the post-Amarna period show a significant degree of proportional correlation with the relief decoration of the Pylon X gateway. There is not a straightforward, 1- to-1 correspondence between the figures in KV 57 and those of the Pylon X gateway. Instead, the gateway seems to reflect the choice, in different instances, of proportional systems found in royal art over the course of several reigns. For the present discussion, I will use the proportions of the human figures in the four royal tombs studied - combined with Robins’ observations on the art of the reign of Tutankhamun - in order to illustrate that the proportions of the human figures on the Pylon X gateway, while inconsistent, are not random. They can be understood to reflect a combination of the stylistic possibilities available to artists over the course of the post-

Amarna period, covering a temporal range from the reign of Tutankhamun to that of Seti I.

Robins has suggested that in the post-Amarna period, a number of different systems by which the layout of figures could be organized coexisted.269 This is exactly what I found for Pylon X: different scenes show different proportions; in many, even the facing figures of the king and the god with whom he interacts are proportioned differently. Robins proposed a number of hypothetical systems of proportioning, developed from different monuments, based on both 20- square (Amarna-style) and 18-square (conventional Egyptian) grids. All of the figures on Pylon 10 correspond almost perfectly to one of three of these systems:

see (among many others) Maciej Eder, Jan Rybicki and Mike Kestemont, “Stylometry with R: A Package for Computational Text Analysis,” The R Journal 8, no. 1 (2016), 107-121; in visual art, see for instance Hanchao Qi, Armeen Taeb, and Shannon M.Hughes, “Visual stylometry using background selection and wavelet-HMT-based Fisher information distances for attribution and dating of impressionist paintings,” Signal Processing 93, no. 3 (2016), 541- 553. 269 Ibid., 148.

67 • An 18-square grid, with physiognomic landmarks placed as in the second of the large,

gilded shrines from KV 62 (the )270

270 Robins, Proportion and Style, 154, fig. 6.42.

68 • A 20-square grid, with landmarks placed as for the figures in KV 57 (the Theban tomb of

Horemheb)271

271 Ibid., 158, fig. 6.47.

69 • An 18-square “traditional” grid with landmarks placed as the fully “reformed” system of

the figures in KV 17 (the tomb of Seti I), illustrated here on the basis of my own modeling

of selected royal figures in that tomb.272

272 For further discussion of the proportions of relief figures of Seti I, see Peter Brand, The Monuments of Seti I (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 8-11.

70 Figures in tomb scenes derived from my own photogrammetric modeling have been rendered here as orthocorrected 2-dimensional images for illustration purposes, but measurements have been checked against the digital models, which I have in turn determined through controlled testing to produce measurements in agreement to <1 mm with measurements taken by hand.

Pls. 1-2 of this chapter show how the tomb figures of the four kings after Tutankhamun can be represented against hypothetical grids of 18 squares (the best fit for figures of Seti I), and

20 squares (the best fit for Ay,273 Horemheb,274 and Ramesses I). Pls. 2.1-13 illustrate the various scenes from Pylon X and the proportions of the figures in them, together with photographs of the facial features of the figures, where available. In summary, what can be seen is that on the south face of the gateway, the royal figures are all proportioned in the same way, corresponding best with an 18-square grid, the knees falling at horizontal line 6; the hairline at 18 and the crown of the head (where applicable) 19, the neck/shoulder junction at 16; and the feet three squares long. The figures of the king, and all of the gods except Amun in scene SE 1, correspond most closely to the 18-square grid that Robins hypothesized for the second shrine in the tomb of

Tutankhamun, with the navel at 11 and the junction of the leg and buttocks around line 9. This has the effect of lengthening the torso by comparison with the traditional pre-Amarna canon, or with the figure of Seti I from KV 17. The god Amun in scene SE 1 is different – his proportions with regard to the vertical placement of physiognomic landmarks are almost exactly those of

Seti I in KV 17 – that is to say, “traditional,” or “orthodox,” consistent with something like a

“return” to the pre-Amarna canon. As can be seen from the photograph that accompanies the drawing in pl. 2.3, the face of the king on the south face of the gate shares some features with the classic image of Tutankhamun in the Theban region, as represented by the Opet-festival

273 The figures in KV 23 are difficult to fit to a grid of either 18 or 20 squares; the use of the proportional canon under Ay seems to bear further investigation. 274 See Gay Robins, “Anomalous Proportions in the Tomb of Horemheb,” GM 65 (1983), 91-96.

71 scenes in the colonnade hall at Luxor Temple. The eyes are distinctly almond-shaped, narrow vertically with repsect to their length, and with narrow, tapered inner and outer canthi. The downturned lips appear pursed, and the long nose is very slightly upturned at the tip. the chin is small and rounded. In the thicknesses of the gateway (pls. 2.9 and 2,10), however, the closest match in terms of proportion is the figure of Horemheb as represented in KV 57, on a hypothetical 20-square grid (the same number of squares used in the “revolutionary” art of

Amarna. In the surviving scenes in the north face of the gateway, meanwhile, all of the royal and most of the divine figures fit with a hypothetical 20-square grid. As on the south face, however, there is one image of the god Amun (pl. 2.13) that appears to be proportioned like Seti I in KV 17

– according to the “traditional” canon. The “traditional” Amun on the south face is in the first register on the east jamb; its counterpart on the north face is in the third register on the west jamb. The only scenes where both king and god conform to the KV 62 shrine grid are those in the second register of the south face. Meanwhile, the facial features of both the 20-square and

“conventional” 18-square features are distinct from those of the “earlier” looking ones. The eyes are larger, both in length and in width, and have a distinctive “everted” appearance, with the lower lid line sloping downward away from the inner canthus before turning up to meet the outer canthus. The eyelids are very thick and prominent. The eyebrows make an even arc, giving them the appearance of being slightly raised. The mouth, meanwhile, retains the pursed appearance of those of the figures with “early” proportions; the naso-labial fold is even more pronounced. The corners of the lips are often, however, turned slightly upward, almost as if in a smile. The nose is long and straight.

Although Jordan et al. are correct to advise caution in drawing any conclusions about chronology from these stylistic differences, I would posit that it is not impossible that we are seeing exactly that. The south face of the gateway looks outward from the Amun precinct

72 toward that of his consort, Mut. Two badly damaged quartzite colossi flank the gate on the south side of the pylon, one inscribed for Amenhotep III, and its smaller counterpart for

Horemheb. This is also the direction of the dromos of sphinxes installed by Tutankhamun and

Ay, connecting the Amun and Mut precincts, and perhaps the sanctuary of Kamutef just north of the Mut Temple as well. The north face, meanwhile, looks in toward the courtyard - enclosed by

Horemheb - between Pylon X and his Pylon IX. This seems to have been the environment that was more active under Horemheb’s successors. The limestone colossi north of the gateway, almost certainly both among the rare works of sculpture that reflect Horemheb’s agency more than that of any other ruler, were thoroughly usurped by Ramesses II. The relief decoration of

Pylon IX (cat. 2.46) Ramesses also carved over, replacing Horemheb’s name with his own. The

“edifice of Amenhotep II”275 bears Seti I’s name as well, even though it was Horemheb who moved it from where it originally stood and remodeled it in its present location.

It almost seems as though the south face of the gateway looks toward the 18th Dynasty, while the north face has been integrated into an emerging Ramesside ritual environment. This is not to say that Ramesses II took no interest in the processional way to the south, but the thoroughness with which he inserted himself to the north is strikingly greater. The inner thicknesses of the gate, meanwhile, echo KV 57 most closely and completely of all the scenes in their proportions. One possible interpretation would be that Horemheb’s work to the south of

Pylon X took place at the beginning of his reign, with work on the north dating to its end. The two figures of Amun showing fully “traditional” proportions could be the last to be added, at a phase when the decision had been taken (or when enough artisans with the correct skills and training had become available) to return to the “orthodox” image of the human figure. That

Horemheb should have started work at Karnak early in his reign, in a spot where Amenhotep III

275 See van Siclen, op. cit., passim.

73 had left off, is not surprising. It is a pity that Pylon II offers so little in the way of comparative material (and is so poorly documented, with no epigraphic publication available). It is worth noting that, as with Pylon IX, Ramesses I and his successors appropriated Horemheb’s image there; restoration inscriptions of Horemheb in the vicinity were left unmolested, but the images that the king himself presumably commissioned were incorporated into the monumental oeuvre of his successors.

A “-Horemehb in the house of Amun” is known from P. Wilbour; Gardiner suggested that this could have been a “[temple] of which the remains are preserved at Karnak near the

IXth Pylon…”276 Between 1975 and 1977, Goyon and Traunecker cleared and stabilized a small

(around 2 m square) chapel (cat. 2.45) to the south of the Sacred Lake, which, although modest in the extreme, could perhaps be this same institution.277 The remaining inscriptions in this poorly preserved building name Horemheb and an Osorkon278 as beloved of “Amun-Re-the-

Primordial One of the Two Lands” and “Thoth-who-Satisfies-the-Gods-in-the-Domain-of-Amun” respectively.279 The interior decoration of the chapel included an image and text of a wab-priest named Wafabwy, son of the second priest of Amun Bakenamun.280 The chapel is positioned between the eastern gate of the court of Pylon IX and the storehouse of the 29th Dynasty.281

Given that it was the Pylon IX environment rather than that of Pylon X that became the focus of

Ramesside interest on the south axis, it is tempting to wonder whether an early version of the storehouse was in some way connected with Horemheb. We will see in the following chapter that it was artisans, particularly those involved with precious materials, who seem to have been

276 Alan Gardiner, The Wilbour , vol. 2, Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948), 135. The reference to Porter and Moss is unclear. 277 Jean-Claude Goyon and Claude Traunecker, “La chapelle de Thot et d’Amon au sud-ouest du lac sacré,” Karnak 7 (1982), 355. 278 Ibid., 359. 279 Ibid., 358-359. 280 Ibid. 281 Ibid., 359.

74 the most likely to associate themselves with Horemheb; what is more, from the death of the treasury chief Maya in or around year 8, Horemheb’s visibility in Thebes wanes dramatically.

Could the shift in the decorative styles on Pylon X, as well as the Ramesside focus on the Pylon

IX court environment, have something to do with an effort to enhance royal influence and prestige in the Amun precinct by either inaugurating or reviving an economically meaningful ritual circuit connected with the storehouse and the pr-Horemheb? If so, it is interesting that the art and architecture connected with this (admittedly speculative) policy change seem to skew late in date, into the beginning of the nineteenth dynasty. If Horemheb had, early in his reign, seen his role at Karnak as that of restorer and completer of his predecessors’ works, what event or events could have put him in a position to change that role, and to complete those efforts only late enough in his reign that the art and architecture could segue seamlessly into the 19th Dynasty?

75 Chapter 3: Horemheb’s Officials

3.1 - Introduction

Our understanding of the structure of government in any given period of Egyptian history is closely tied to what we know of the individuals who administered the state on behalf of the monarch.282 For the reign of Horemheb, we are faced with a significant challenge in examining this issue: only a few officials can be said with relative certainty to have served under him, and a large part of what we think we know of the officialdom of this period is based on circumstantial evidence. In an effort to treat the subject as fairly as possible, this chapter begins by examining the most secure attestations of officials dating to the reign of Horemheb, and reviewing the information pertaining to those individuals. We will then proceed to discuss officials for whose careers the evidence is less solid. Finally, we will attempt to draw the most plausible conclusions about the roles that these men played under Horemheb, along with their links to one another and to the preceding and following periods.

We know of a dozen individuals for whom clear evidence supports a career under

Horemheb. It may seem trivial to enumerate here the concrete indications that each man in fact served during his reign. Nevertheless, in an effort to establish a secure foundation for the discussion that follows, the monuments that explicitly date each man’s career to Horemheb are highlighted below:

• The King’s Son of Kush, Paser (I)

282 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun,” 268 for works that have examined the officialdoms of individual reigns.

76 283 284 o Paser’s rock-chapel from Gebel el-Shams names Horemheb in a prayer for

the benefit of the king.

o The viceroy is shown venerating the king’s cartouche on a relief fragment from

Aniba285

• The First Overseer of the Cattle of his Majesty, Amenemope, son of Paser (I)

o Amenemope is represented in the Gebel el-Shams rock chapel of Paser I, which

dates to the reign of Horemheb.

• The Vizier, Usermontu

o Stela Cairo TR 22.6.37.1 from Armant bears the cartouche of Horemheb; it has,

however, been inscribed over an earlier, erased cartouche.

• The Overseer of the Treasury, Maya

286 o His headless scribe statue Cairo JE 36329, from Karnak, bears a cartouche of

Horemheb on its right breast.

287 o Maya appears in TT 50 (Neferhotep) in a reward scene given a date of

Horemheb’s year 3.288

289 o The inspection notation or of Horemheb’s year 8 in KV 43 (Thutmose

IV) names Maya as one of the officials responsible for the restoration of the

king’s burial.

• The overseer of the double granary, Amenemope

283 Jaroslav Černý and Elmar Edel, Gebel el-Shams: textes hieroglyphiques, Collection scientifique 28 (Cairo: Centre de documentation égyptologique, [n.d.]), 1-5. 284 Ibid., 5 (A8). 285 Georg Steindorff, , 2 vols. (Glückstadt; Hamburg; New York, 1937), 2:25, pl. 12 286 Legrain, “Notes d’inspection,” ASAE 4 (1903), 213-215; Urk. IV, 2168.1-2169.10. 287 The date at which the tomb was actually decorated (as opposed to when the events depicted in it took place). 288 Hari, La tombe thébaine du père divin Neferhotep (TT 50), Collection epigraphica (Geneva: Éditions de Belles- Lettres, 1985), 16-19, pls. 6, 66. 289 and , The Tomb of Thoutmosis IV, Theodore M. Davis’ Excavations: Bibân el Molûk (Westminster: Constable, 1904), xxxiii-xxxiv, figs. 7-8; Urk. IV, 2170.12-2171.6; Hari, Horemheb, 393, pl. 40.

77 o Horemheb is named on a cubit rod from Saqqara (Turin 6347) belonging to

Amenemope.

• The high priest of Amun at Thebes, Parennefer c. Wennefer

o Horemheb’s cartouche appears in his tomb, TT -162-, where it replaces earlier

cartouches of Tutankhamun.290

• The god’s father of Amun, Neferhotep (TT 50)

o In his tomb, TT 50, Neferhotep is shown being rewarded with the of honor

in a scene dated to year 3 of Horemheb.291

• The foreman Neferhotep

292 o On an offering table now in the , he is titled the “overseer of the Lord

of the Two Lands Djoserkheperure,” showing that it was he who headed work

on KV 57.

• The high priest of Amun-Re of Sema-Behdet, Nebwa

o Horemheb’s cartouche appears on the standard carried by Nebwa in his

limestone statue Cairo TR 3.6.24.7.

• The Greatest of Seers in the House of Re in Heliopolis, Pareemheb

293 o Pareemheb’s stela Cairo CG 34175 shows Horemheb offering to Atum and

Hathor, and its text includes formulae for the benefit of the king.

• The General and Vizier, Paramessu

290 Friederike Kampp and Karl-Joachim Seyfried. “Eine Rückkehr nach Theben – Das Grab des Pa-ren-nefer, Hoherpriester des Amun zur Zeit Tutanchamuns,” AW 26 (1995), 336. 291 Hari, La tombe thébaine du père divin Neferhotep (TT 50), Collection epigraphica (Geneva: Éditions de Belles- Lettres, 1985), 16-19, pls. 6, 66. 292 Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1923-1924), FIFAO 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 1925), pl. 12. 293 , Stèles du Nouvel Empire. 3 fascs. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos.34001-34189 (Cairo: IFAO, 1909-1957), 2:214-216, pl. 65; Urk. IV, 2171.7-2173.12; Raue, Heliopolis, 184.

78 294 295 o Each of Paramessu’s famous scribe statues Cairo JE 44863 and JE 44864

bears the cartouches of Horemheb on its shoulders.

In addition to the men just listed, there are a number of officials for whom circumstantial evidence suggests a career under Horemheb. Thiem, in her publication of the speos at Gebel el-

Silsila, gives some one hundred ninety-four individuals in her prosopography of the reign.296 Her work in assembling the material related to them is laudable; however (perhaps due simply to the sheer volume of material), she is able only to list titles, family members, attestations, and bibliography for each one. For most, the documentation is so sparse, equivocal, or both that to include them here would only cloud the discussion. For others, however, there is reason to consider the question of whether or not they served under Horemheb. Here, we will discuss only those individuals who are securely attested as having served under Horemheb.

3.2 – Securely Attested Officials

3.2.1 - Paser, Viceroy of Kush

Father: Amenhotep (TT 40), viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS).

Mother: Taemwadjy, great one of the khener of Nebkheperure in Faras (wrt xnr n Nb-xprw-Ra

Hry-ib 4Htp-nTrw) [3.2.3].

Sons: Amenemope, viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS) [3.2.3]; Amenmose.

Attestations

294 Legrain, “Au pylône d’Harmhabi,” ASAE 14 (1914), 29-31, 32-38, pls. 1-3; Urk. IV, 2175.1-2176.10. 295 Legrain, “Au pylône d’Harmhabi,” 31-32, 32-38, pls. 1-3; Urk. IV, 217.11-21. 296 Thiem, Speos, 1:409-518.

79 Reign of Tutankhamun:

A) TT 40297

Reign of Ay:

B) Rock-stela, Gebel el-Shams298

Reign of Horemheb:

C) Rock-shrine, Gebel el-Shams299

D) Relief fragment, Aniba300

Reign of Seti I:

E) Graffito of Amenemope, Aswan301

Unknown date:

F) Graffito, Sehel302

G) Statue, Abu Simbel303

297 Alan Gardiner and Nina M. Davies, The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tut’ankhamūn, TTS 4 (London: EES, 1926), 11, 14, pls. 6, 11, 39; Urk. IV, 2065.9, 2067.3; Thiem, Speos, 506 (LXVII.5). For the tomb overall, see Gardiner and Davies, The Tomb of Huy, passim; Urk. IV, 2064.1-2073.5; PM I2.1, 75-78; Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole: zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der 18. bis zur 20. Dynastie, 2 vols, Theben 13 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 1:233-234. 298 Černý and Edel, Gebel el-Shams, 7-8 (D); Thiem, Speos, 506 (LXVII.1); Ingeborg Müller, Die Verwaltung Nubiens im Neuen Reich, Meroitica 18 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2013), 121, 430 (no. 33.1). For earlier bibliography, see George Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” JEA 6, no. 1 (Jan. 1920), 36 (no. 9a); and PM VII, 122. 299 Černý and Edel, Gebel el-Shams, 1-5 (A); Thiem, Speos, 506 (LXVII.1); Müller, Die Verwaltung, 121, 430 (no. 33.2A). For earlier bibliography, see Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 36 (no. 9b); and PM VII, 122 300 Steindorff, Aniba, 2:25, pl. 12; PM VII, 81; Urk. IV, 2112.8-16; Thiem, Speos, 506 (LXVII.2); Cathie Spieser, Les noms du Pharaon comme êtres autonomes au Nouvel Empire, OBO 174 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 191 (no. 28); Müller, Die Verwaltung, 121, 415 (no. 30.8). Thiem, Speos, 506, indicates that this piece is in the Ägyptisches Museum in Leipzig under the inventory number 6001. 301 KRI I, 302.14; Labib Habachi, Sixteen Studies on , SASAE 23 (Cairo: IFAO, 1981), 49-50 (no. 22); Thiem, Speos, 500 (XVIII.3); Müller, Die Verwaltung, 121, 386 (no. 15.1.8). For earlier bibliography see Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 37 (no. 9d) and 38 (no. 10a); PM V, 246. 302 Urk. IV, 2112.1-7; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 48-49 (no. 19); Thiem, Speos, 506 (LXVII.4); Müller, Die Verwaltung, 121, 390 (no. 15.3.16). For earlier bibliography see Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 37 (no. 9c); PM V, 250. 303 LD III, 196b; LDT V, 159-60; PM VII, 108; KRI III, 74; Michel Dewachter, “Nubie: notes diverses (II),” BIFAO 79 (1979), 317-320; see also Nozomu Kawai, “The Administrators and Notables in Nubia under Tutankhamun,” in Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy M. Bryan, ed. Richard Jasnow and Kathlyn M. Cooney (Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2015), 314. A photograph is published in Louis Christophe, Abou-Simbel et l’épopée de sa découverte (Brussels: P.F. Merckx, 1965), opposite p. 96.

80 Paser’s service as viceroy of Kush under Horemheb is attested by two monuments: his rock- shrine (C) at Gebel el-Shams (just south of Abu Oda); and a relief fragment (D), perhaps from a stela, found at Aniba. While Reisner stated that the Gebel el-Shams shrine was of uncertain date,304 a later epigraphic study by Černý and Edel determined that the royal name in a prayer inscribed on the west wall was that of Horemheb.305 The relief fragment (D) from Aniba, meanwhile, shows Paser venerating Horemheb’s cartouches. From a rock-stela (B) that Paser dedicated, also at Gebel el-Shams, we know that he already held office under Ay, who is shown on the rock-stela offering to several different gods.

For Paser’s career prior to the reign of Ay, the evidence is less direct, but it is generally accepted that he was the son of the famous Amenhotep, called Huy, who held the office of viceroy of Kush under Tutankhamun. In Huy’s tomb (A), a son named Paser is represented twice, and the likelihood that this man is identical with the later king’s son of Kush is supported by the fact that both Huy and the viceroy Paser are linked to a woman (or women) named Taemwadjsy

(see below, sec. 3.2.3). This lady bore the titles “great one of the harem of Amun,” and “great one of the harem of Nebkheperure in the midst of Faras.”306 She is not present in any surviving representation in TT 40,307 but she is known to have been a close relative of both Huy and

Paser. She joined the latter in dedicating a statue (G) that was later found at .308

Although the relationship between Taemwadjsy and Paser is not specified on the statue, it is

304 “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 37; however, in ibid., n. 1, Reisner observed that his own transcription suggested that the cartouche read “-kheperu-Re-setep-en-Re.” 305 Gebel el-Shams, 5 (A8). 306 For Huy and Taemwadjsy, see Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 383-392; and most recently Kawai, “The Administrators,” 313-314; see also below. 307 Some women of his family are represented on the east wall of the transverse hall, but Taemwadjsy is not among them. See Gardiner and Davies, The Tomb of Huy, 15, pl. 11. 308 The fact that it was found at Abu Simbel is likely due to its rededication in a “soft” usurpation by the later King’s Son of Kush, Paser (II): Christine Raedler, “Zur Repräsentation und Verwirklichung pharaonischer Herrschaft in Nubien: der Vizekönig ,” in Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit: Voraussetzungen-Verwirklichung-Vermächtnis. Akten des 3. Symposions zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.-9.6.2001, ed. Rolf Gundlach and Ursula Rossler- Köhler, 131. This is also the position taken by Kawai; “Tutankhamun,” 385-386, 516-517; see also Kawai, “The Administrators,” 313-314. I consider the statue to be a representation of Paser I.

81 widely agreed on the basis of this monument and the Faras chapel that she was the wife of Huy and the mother of Paser, who was thus identical to Paser, the son of Huy represented in TT

40.309 This hypothesis is not definitive, as it is not entirely clear that the Abu Simbel statue represents the first viceroy Paser rather than Paser II, who served in the middle years of the reign of Ramesses II.310 The most likely reconstruction, however, seems to be that Taemwadjsy was the mother of Paser I.

When Paser first appears, in the tomb (A) of his father Huy, he bears the titles Hry-iHw

(stablemaster), TAy-Sryt (standard-bearer), and imy-r ssmwt (“overseer of horses”). From the 18th

Dynasty on, a military background of this sort was common for men who were later elevated to the post of viceroy.311 The title imy-r ssmwt indicates that Paser had achieved a high rank within Tutankhamun’s chariotry during his father’s lifetime.312 When we next encounter Paser, on his Gebel el-Shams stela (B) dating to the reign of Ay, he has become viceroy. The surviving portion of the stela’s inscription gives him only the closely related titles sA-nswt n KS (king’s son of Kush) and imy-r xAst rsyt (overseer of southern foreign lands).313 He continued to hold the office of viceroy in the reign of Horemheb. In his Gebel el-Shams shrine (C), the following titles occur:

• ır̓ y-pꜥt - hereditary noble

309 See Robert Morkot, “From Conquered to Conqueror: The Organization of Nubia in the New Kingdom and the Kushite Administration of Egypt,” in Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. Juan Carlos Moreno García, HdO 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 933. 310 Müller, Die Verwaltung, 128 attributes the pair statue to Paser II, who dedicated a series of other monuments at Abu Simbel, including British Museum EA 1376. 311 See Andrea M. Gnirs, “Coping with the Army: The Military and the State in the New Kingdom,” in Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. Juan Carlos Moreno García, HdO 104 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 676-686. 312 For the high rank of an imy-r ssmwt, see Gnirs, “Coping with the Army,” 677; see also Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 29-31. 313 The two titles occur together so often that they are generally treated as a kind of “joint” title for the viceroy, e.g. Gnirs, “Coping with the Army,” 676. Robert Morkot, however, has argued that the “overseer of southern foreign lands” was in fact a designation shared by a variety of officials with responsibilities in Kush, including local elites; “From Conquered to Conqueror,” 916.

82 • HAty-a - “count”

• TAy-xw Hr [wnm n nswt] - fan-bearer on [the right of the king]

• zXAw-nswt - royal scribe

• zXAw-nswt mAa mr[.f] - royal scribe whom [he (the king)] loves

• sA nswt n KS - king’s son of Kush

• imy-r xAswt rsyt - overseer of southern foreign lands

• imy-r xAswt nbw n Imn - overseer of the foreign lands of gold of Amun

• imy-r iHw n Imn m 6A-4ti - overseer of the cattle of Amun in Nubia

In spite of the additional titles found here, it is unlikely that Paser’s status changed significantly with Horemheb’s accession. He had already reached the highest post in the Nubian administration, and the titles of imy-r xAswt nbw n Imn and imy-r iHw n Imn m 6A-sty had, since before the Amarna period, been attached to the office of viceroy as a matter of course.314 The remaining additional titles found in the shrine (C) are Rangtiteln expressing Paser’s ties to the king and his status at court. These same themes are expressed on the Gebel el-Shams stela (B) by a long list of epithets, even though the titles themselves are not found in the preserved portion of the inscription. The epithets that he bore under Ay include:

• sSm(w) Hb n Imn m […] - the one who leads the festival of Amun in […]

• […] biAt - […] character(?)315

• hr.tw Hr pr n r.f - at the utterance of whose mouth one is content

• aq m HAt pr Hr pHwy - one who enters first and exits last316

314 See Selke Eichler, Die Verwaltung des ‘Hauses des Amun’ in der 18. Dynastie, BSAK 7 (Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 2000) 79, 153, 190; Müller, Die Verwaltung, 18. 315 For a discussion of this term, see Erhart Graefe, “Untersuchungen zur Wortfamilie bjA-“ (PhD diss., Universität Köln, 1971), 67-78. 316 Cf. stela Cairo TR 9.6.18.26, see Sabine Kubisch, Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit: biographische Inschriften der 13.- 17. Dynastie, SDAIK 34 (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 244-247; stela Cairo JE 46200, see ibid., 234-238; stele Vienna ÄS 8580, see ibid., 179-180.

83 • HAty nxt n iry.f - foremost of strength among his companions

• wsx nmtt m st (?) - broad of stride in the place of (?)

• qAi [xrw] m st sgA - loud of [voice] in the place of silence317

• xrp […] - one who leads […]

• Sw m bgA318 - free from weariness

• Hsy n nswt n hAw.f - one praised by the king on account of his affairs319

• mH-ib mnx […] - effective confidant […]

• Hsy aA n nTr nfr - one greatly praised by the good god

• snw (?) n ib n 1r m pr.f - the companion(?) of the heart of Horus in his palace320

• TAty wp mAat - vizier who judges maat321

It is interesting to note that Paser’s relationship with the king is expressed more formally, through standard titles, under Horemheb, when under Ay it had been conveyed by a series of expressive epithets.

317 Cf. stela Vienna ÄS 8580, ibid.; Elkab, tomb of -nakht, see Kubisch, “Biographies of the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties,” in The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, ed. Marcel Marée (Leuven; Paris; Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), 314; P. Anastasi III, Rt. 1.2, Ricardo Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellenies, Brown Egyptological Studies 1 (London: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1954), 69. 318 bAgi, Wb 1, 431.7. The WB translates the expression “free from carelessness.” 319 hAw, Wb 2, 478.14-18. 320 Cf. the statue of Ameny from Ezbet Rushdi, see Dorothea Arnold, “Image and Identity: Egypt’s Eastern Neighbours, East Delta People, and the Hyksos,” in Marée, ed., The Second Intermediate Period, 190. 321 There is no indication that Paser ever actually held the office of vizier. Müller, Die Verwaltung, 102 states that this expression is obviously a miswriting of ‘standard bearer;’” however, it is not inconceivable that the expression is meant to be read as written. As Habachi noted, in the reign of Ramesses II, TAty wp-mAat is attested as an epithet of the deified ; “Unknown or Little-Known Monuments of Tutankhamun and his Viziers,” in Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, edited by John Ruffle, Gaballa A. Gaballa, Kenneth A. Kitchen (Warminster: Aris & Phillips), 36; see also LGG VII, 449; KRI III 187.7-8, 240.1-2, 247.10-11, 464.9. It could thus indicate some involvement with judicial processes (the oracle of the deified Amenhotep I was, of course, commonly consulted in legal matters), although it is unlikely to designate an actual office. Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 280-281, n. 80, suggests that it may be a sort of “honorific” title, and compares the viceroy Paser’s use of the phrase to Ay’s adoption of the title of TAty ir mAat at a time when other men likely held the office in practice. On the other hand, Seti I’s vizier Paser also used this epithet in a biographical text in his tomb (TT 106), see KRI I, 299.11; Elizabeth Frood, Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 151. Earlier, the vizier Ramose (TT 55) called himself a “great official on account of his discerning maat daily,” Urk. IV, 1779.19. The performance of maat was of, course, central to the concept of the vizierate.

84 While a background in the armed forces was often emphasized by the viceroys of the New

Kingdom, particularly in the Ramesside period,322 in both of his Gebel el-Shams monuments (B and C) Paser seems to have downplayed his military experience. Only the epithet HAty nxt n iry.f, “great of strength of his companions,” (B, reign of Ay) has martial overtones. One epithet may imply priestly status (sSmw Hb n Imn m […]), “festival leader of Amun in […]”) (B), while TAty wp mAat “vizier who judges ma’at”, suggests judicial competence (see n. 322). Such a range of claimed spheres of influence would be perfectly in keeping with the encompassing nature of the viceroy’s authority in Kush.323

Paser may have continued in service during the short reign of Ramesses I, although there is no direct evidence for this.324 In any case, his son Amenemope succeeded him directly in the office of viceroy.325 The family thus represents one of four known cases over the course of the New

Kingdom in which the viceroyalty descended within the same line, and one of two cases in which three successive generations shared the office.326 Gnirs argued that these small “dynasties” of viceroys arose particularly in times when the central government in the “homeland” was weakened.327 Müller has downplayed the overall importance of family connections to the accession of an individual as viceroy, claiming that it was personal ability and the trust of the king that factored most heavily.328 It is true that of the more than thirty viceroys currently

322 See Gnirs, “Coping with the Army,” 678. 323 See Müller, Die Verwaltung, 21. 324 It has been suggested that Paser is the viceroy mentioned in stela Vienna KHM 8953, but his name is not actually preserved. For the stela, see Irmgard Hein, “Ein Stelenfragment Ramses’ I: Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum; Ägyptische Sammlung Inv. Nr. 8953,” ZÄS 116 (1989), 36-40. It is also given as an attestation of Paser in Müller, Die Verwaltung, 121. 325 Two men, Amenemope and Iuni, are attested as viceroy under both Seti I and Ramesses II. It is generally accepted that Iuni was a short-lived successor of Amenemope who took office around the time of the reign change. The fact that both viceroys are attested in connection with both monarchs can be explained either by a co-regency between Seti I and Ramesses II, or by the supposition that references to Amenemope as viceroy in the Beit el-Wali Temple of Ramesses II are posthumous. See recently Müller, Die Verwaltung, 122-123. 326 Ibid., 26-27. 327 Militär und Gesellschaft, 35-36. 328 Ibid., 27.

85 known, only six inherited the office from their fathers.329 Shirley, however, has shown the extent and importance of family connections in the highest state offices (including that of the viceroy) at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. She notes, in an observation that accords well with the view of Gnirs, that it was only when “Egypt’s stability and royal power were assured” under

Amenhotep II that the family’s influence was checked.330 Later instances of the inheritance of the office of viceroy took place early in the reign of Ramesses III and in the reign of Ramesses IX, both periods when the Egyptian kings might have been more occupied with domestic affairs than with preventing the consolidation of power by high-ranking families. The succession of ,

Paser, and Amenemope in turn to the office of viceroy may thus be an indication of unsettled political conditions prevailing throughout the post-Amarna period. Notably, it was not under

Horemheb that the family’s hold on power in Kush was disrupted; it was only in the reign of

Ramesses II that the previously established father-son succession in the post was apparently brought to a halt.331

3.2.2 - Amenemope, First Overseer of the Cattle of his Majesty

Father: Paser I, viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS) [3.2.1].

Grandfather: Amenhotep Huy (TT 40), viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS).

Grandmother: Taemwadjsy, great one of the khener of Nebkheperure in Faras (wrt xnr n Nb- xprw-Ra Hry-ib 4Htp-nTrw) [3.2.2].

Brother: Amenmose.

329 -Turo under Amenhotep I; Paser I under Ramesses I or Seti I; Amenemope under Seti I; II under Ramesses III; Wentawat and Ramessesnakht under Ramesses IX. 330 JJ Shirley, “Viceroys, Viziers, and the Amun Precinct: The Power of Heredity and Strategic Marriage in the Early 18th Dynasty,” JEH 3, no. 1 (2010), 109. 331 With the appointment of Iuni to the post, see n. 41.

86 Attestations

Reign of Horemheb:

A) Rock-shrine, Gebel el-Shams332

Reign of Seti I:

B) Graffito, Aswan/Shellal road333

C) Graffito, Aswan/Shellal road334

D) Graffito, Aswan/Shellal road335

E) Graffito, Aswan/Shellal road336

F) Graffito, Sehel337

G) Rock stela, Qasr Ibrim338

H) Rock stela, Gebel Doshe339

I) Votive Stela, Buhen340

J) Bronze knife, Tübingen University Egyptian Collection no. 399341

Reign of Ramesses II:

332 Černý and Edel, Gebel el-Shams, 1-5 (A); Thiem, Speos, 506 (LXVII.1); Müller, Die Verwaltung, 121, 430 (no. 33.2A). For earlier bibliography, see Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 36 (no. 9b); and PM VII, 122 333 Reisner 1920, 38 (no. 10c); PM V, 245; Habachi 1981, 49 (no. 22), De Morgan, 28 (no. 5), Thiem 2000, 500 (2). 334 Reisner, “Viceroys,” 38 (no. 10d); PM V, 246; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 49-50, (no. 23); De Morgan, Catalogue, 29 (no. 12); Thiem, Speos, 500 (2). 335 Reisner “Viceroys,” 38 (no. 10a); PM V, 247; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 49, (no. 20); De Morgan, Catalogue, 20 (no. 123); Pierre-Michel Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens du Nouvel Empire (Antony: Chevereau, 1994), 178 (no. 23.46); Thiem, Speos, 500 (2). 336 Reisner “Viceroys,” 38 (no. 10b); PM V, 247; Habachi Sixteen Studies, 49, (no. 21); De Morgan, Catalogue, 20 (no. 124); Thiem, Speos, 500 (2). 337 Reisner “Viceroys,” 39 (no. 10e); PM V, 253; Habachi Sixteen Studies, 49; De Morgan, Catalogue, 103 (no. 53, Mariette); Thiem, Speos, 500 (3). “Mariette spoke of a fifth graffito (Reisner, 39, 10e) which he saw in Sehel, but nobody since has been able to find it and it is quite likely that he referred to one of the graffiti on the road;” Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 49. 338 Reisner “Viceroys,” 39 (no. 10f); PM VII, 94; Caminos, The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 32 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1968), 83-90, pl. 39-40; Thiem Speos, 500 (4). 339 W.Vivian Davies, “The Egyptian Inscriptions at Jebel Dosha, Sudan,” British MuseumSAES 4 (2004), 3, fig. 26 (http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/bmsaes/issue4/davies.html). 340 David Randall MacIver and C. Leonard Wooley, , 2 vols. (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1911), 1:77; PM VII, 137; Thiem Speos, 500 (6); https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/54463. 341 Emma Brunner-Traut, Die ägyptische Sammlung der Universität Tübingen, 2 vols (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1981), 1: 200; 2: pl. 97; Thiem 2000, 500 (7).

87 K) Beit el-Wali temple of Ramesses II, temple entrance342

All we know of Amenemope’s career under Horemheb is that he served in the cattle administration, probably in Nubia under the supervision of his father, Paser I. According to a graffito on the Aswan/Shellal road, he began the military portion of his career as a “field officer”

– a kDn-tpy n Hm.f (E), “first charioteer of his majesty.”343 The graffito dates to the reign of Seti I, and when it was carved Amenemope already held the title viceroy of Kush. However, there is no indication of when he entered the chariotry. Gnirs has suggested that being an officer in this relatively new division must have given him an elevated social rank and distinctive identity.344

The fact that he held such important offices already when he first appears in the monumental record may indicate the prestige that his family had built up over the careers of his father and grandfather. Other than members of the viceroy Amenhotep Huy’s family, only the non-royal successors Ay, Horemheb, and Paramessu had held the title of first charioteer of his majesty before Amenemope.345 Amenemope most likely also held the title imy-r xAswt like his father.346

The viceroy apparently served almost his entire career under Seti I, as he is associated with this title under Ramesses II only at Beit el-Wali,347 where his successor also appears in the decoration. This individual, Iuny, was evidently not a member of the illustrious line established

342 Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, 2 vols (Geneva; Paris: Slatkine Reprints, 1988), 2:167-168; Roeder, Der Felsentempel von Bet el-Wali (Cairo: IFAO, 1938), 30-34; Herbert Ricke, George R. Hughes, and Edward F. Wente, The Beit el-Wali Temple of Ramesses II, 2 vols, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 7,9, pls. 12-13; PM VII, 23; Thiem, Speos, 500 (8); Silke Hallmann, Die Tributszenen des Neuen Reiches, ÄAT 66 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 230-232 (doc. 53). 343 Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 31. 344 Ibid. 345 Ibid., 74. 346 See , “Une famille de ‘grands des djebels de l'or’ d'Amon,” Rd'É 33 (1981), 129 n. 32, who cites Weigall for a stela that perhaps belonged to Amenemope; , A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (The First Cataract to the Sudan Frontier) and their Condition in 1906-1907 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907), 27, pl. 66. The name is lost, but the owner is called “Commander of the Foreign Land, Overseer of the Gold of [….], King’s Son of a King’s Son…;” ibid. See also Chevereau, Cadres militaires, 100, no. 14.2. For a review with corrections of Chevereau, Cadres militaires, see Peter Pamminger, “Contributions à la prosopographie militaire du Nouvel Empire,” BiOr 54 (1997), 22 (18261 bis). 347 Ibid., 135-136; Herbert Ricke, Hughes, and Wente, The Beit el-Wali Temple, 12-13, pl. 11.

88 by Amenhotep Huy.348 In fact, Amenemopet may have been succeeded during a of

Seti I and Ramesses II by the viceroy Yuni; in spite of some debate, it is unlikely that two men shared the office.349 With him, the direct father-son succession of viceroys comes to an end; however, it is possible that, through a connection with Amenemope’s grandmother

Taemwadjsy, the office found its way into the family once again some decades later.

3.2.3 – Taemwadjsy, Great One of the Khener of Nebkheperure in Faras

Father (?): , troop commander of Kush (Hry pDt n KS).

Mother (?): Taemwadjsy, great one of the khener of Amun (wrt xnr n Imn).

Siblings (?): , second priest of Amun (Hm-nTr 2-nw n Imn); Ay, god’s father (it-nTr).

Husband: Amenhotep Huy, viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS).

Son: Paser I, viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS) [3.2.1].

Grandson (?): Amenemope, viceroy of Kush (sA nswt n KS) [3.2.2].

Although she was not an official under Horemheb, the lady Taemwadjsy serves as a critical link among the king’s administrative network. As the wife of Amenhotep Huy, the mother of Paser I, and the grandmother of Amenemope, she was a key figure in the Nubian aristocracy of the late 18th Dynasty. In addition, it is through her that not just Horemheb’s viceroy, but others among his officials were tied into the Thutmosid royal family, as appendages to the famous “ clan.”

Amenhotep III’s prominent and influential queen was the daughter of the military officer , and his wife, Tjuyu. We know the identity of one of Tiye’s siblings, the second priest

348 See Raedler, “Der Vizekönig Setau,” 131. 349 Reisner, “Viceroys,” 38-40, 44-46.

89 of Amun, Anen.350 Apart from the queen and her brother, however, the names of only two other presumable relatives were found on objects from KV 46. Princess Sitamun351 was Yuya and

Tjuyu’s granddaughter through Tiye and Amenhotep III. The identity of the other individual is less clear. Only her name, Taemwadjsy, and a title, “great one of the khener of Amun,” appear on a pottery vessel that was included in the tomb assemblage.352 The fact that Taemwadjsy contributed the vessel to the burial does not necessarily imply kinship with Yuya and Tjuyu.353

Her prestigious title, however, is one that Tjuyu also held.354 Given this fact, and Taemwadjsy’s own apparent influence (see below), it is quite reasonable to conclude that they shared a familial connection. It is worth systematically considering the identity of Taemwadjsy, because it is through her355 that Horemheb’s viceroy of Kush, and perhaps other key officials of his reign, were linked to the extended family of Amenhotep III.

The name Taemwadjsy is uncommon, but not unique - the following attestations have been published or noted in the literature:356

350 His name and title appear on his mother’s outer coffin, Cairo CG 51005; James E. Quibell, Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 51001-51191 (Cairo: IFAO, 1908), 18. 351 ’s name appears on a chair (Cairo CG 5112) from her grandparents’ burial; Quibell, Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu, 52-53. 352 See below, (A) 353 Tutankhamun’s tomb equipment, for instance, included gifts from the overseer of the treasury Maya of a wooden shabti as well as a miniature effigy of the mummified king, complete with its own sarcophagus (see p. 115). The general also dedicated five shabtis to Tutankhamun’s burial (see Kawai, “Tutankhamun,” 114), although there is a possibility that he may have been a cousin of the young king. Outside of the royal necropolis, the tomb of Kha (TT 8) at Deir el Medina serves as an example of the range of relationships that could be reflected in the donation of funerary gifts; see Barbara Russo, Kha (TT 8) and his Colleagues: The Gifts in his Funerary Equipment and Related Artefacts from Western Thebes (London: Golden House, 2012), passim. The names of individuals not interred in a tomb could find their way into the burial assemblage in other ways as well. In KV 46 itself, for instance, many of the embalmers’ vessels seem to be docketed with names of men who were responsible in some way for the jars and/or their contents; see Quibell, Yuaa and Thuiu, vi. (this is my interpretation of the texts - Quibell does not indicate what he thought them to be). 354 For instance, Cairo CG 51005; Quibell, Yuaa and Thuiu, 18. 355 Or another woman or women of the same name, presumably from the same family, see below, 3.2.3. 356 Ranke, Die Ägyptische Personennamen, 3 vols. (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1935-1977), 1: 376 (20); the more recently discovered attestations enumerated here are given by Gabolde, “L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égytpiennes,” ENiM 6 (2013), 186-187, n. 41; Morkot, “From Conquered to Conqueror,” 933; and Eaton- Krauss, The Unknown Tutankhamun, 133 n. 46.

90 Attestations

Reign of Amenhotep III:

A) Cairo CG 51083 - pottery vessel, KV 46 (Yuya and Tjuyu)357

• imAxyt xr Wsir wr(t) xnr n Imn 6A-m-wAD-s(y), “the revered one before Osiris, the

great one of the khener of Amun, Taemwadjsy”

B) Tomb of User, Elephantine358

• nbt pr 6A-m-wAD-sy, “the mistress of a house, Taemwadjsy”

C) KV 40359

• “the royal daughter Taemwadjsy of the house of royal children”

Reign of Tutankhamun:

D) Khartoum 3745 – lintel fragment from a chapel dedicated to the viceroy Amenhotep

Huy, Faras360

• wrt xnr n Nb-xprw-RA 6A-m-wAD-sy, “the great one of the khener of Nebkheperure,

Taemwadjsy”

E) Khartoum 4449- sandstone basin fragments, Faras361

• wrt xnr n Nb-xprw-Ra Hr(y)-ib 4Htp-nTrw [6A-m-wAD-sy], “the great one of the

khener of Nebkheperure, who is in the midst of Faras, T[aemwadjsy]”

F) Khartoum 2690 - pair statue, Kawa362

357 Quibell, Yuaa and Thuiu, 45-46. 358 Although investigation of the tomb began only recently, Gabolde noticed that the name and titles were legible in a video shared on Facebook. Gabolde, “L’ADN,” 186-187, n. 41. The video is still accessible as of this writing, at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=547991618591230 (accessed 7/31/17). In addition, some relatively clear photos of other parts of the tomb are available on the blog “Egyptian Chronicles,” http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.co.ke/2013/06/actually--can-stop-them-if-they.html#more (accessed 7/31/17). 359 Salima Ikram, “Nile Currents,” KMT 25, no. 3 (2014), 7; Gabolde, Toutankhamon, 270, n. 452. 360 Janusz Karkowski, The Pharaonic Inscriptions from Faras (Warsaw: Éditions scientifiques de Pologne, 1981), 130- 131, pl. 15. 361 Karkowski, The Pharaonic Inscriptions, 89-90, pl. 5. 362 M.F. Laming Macadam, The Temples of Kawa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), 3-4, pl. 4

91 • On the garment of the female figure: nbt pr wrt xnr n Imn nb ns[wt tAwy 6A-m-wAD-

sy], “the great one of the khener of Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two La[nds,

Taemwadjsy]”

• On the back slab: wrt xnr n Nb-xprw-Ra 6A-m-wAD-sy, “the great one of the khener

of Nebkheperure, Taemwadjsy”

Late 18th Dynasty

G) Shabti from tomb S 57, Aniba363

• Smay(t) 6A-m-wAD-sy, “the chantress Taemwadjsy”

19th Dynasty

H) Shabti from tomb SA 37, Aniba364

• Smayt 6A-m-wAD-sy, “the chantress Taemwadjsy”

I) Leiden D 50, block statue of Simut365

• nbt pr 6A-m-wAD-sy, “the mistress of a house, Taemwadjsy”

Unknown date:

J) Pair statue, Abu Simbel366

• [wrt xnr 6A-m-wAD-sy], “[the great one of the khener, Taemwadjsy]”

363 Steindorff, Aniba, 2:78. The date of this shabti and the following (H) are the ones posited by Steindorff. 364 Steindorff, Aniba, 2:85. 365 Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus: eine Untersuchung zu den sogenannten "Würfelhockern," 2 vols., HÄB 33-34 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1992), 1:350 (200), 2:pl. 89. Schulz gives the date as Ramesses II to Merenptah. See also Conrad Leemans, Monuments égyptiens du Musée d'antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide, publiés d'après ordres du gouvernement, 11 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1842-1905), 1:D 50; Pieter A. A. Boeser, Beschreibung der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden, 12 vols. (Haag: Nijhoff, 1905-1925), 5:23, pl. 10; Jacques Vandier, Manuel d'archéologie égyptienne, vol. 3, Les grandes epoques – la statuaire (Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard & Cie., 1958), 457, 494, pl. 152.4; H. Schneider and Raven, De Egyptische Oudheid: Een inleiding aan de hand van de Egyptische verzameling in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden to Leiden (Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1981), no. 90; H. Schneider, Beeldhouwkunst in het land van de farao's (Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1992), 75, no. 30; H. Schneider, De ontdekking van de Egyptische kunst: 1798-1830 (Gent: Snoeck- Ducaju, 1998), 5, 6; Paola Giovetti and Daniela Picchi, Egitto. Splendore millenario: la collezione di Leiden a Bologna (Milan: Skira, 2015), cat. V.59. 366 See note 303 above. According to Kitchen, KRI III, 74, the text - legible in Lepsius’ time - is “now destroyed.”

92 All of these attestations date from the late 18th to the 19th Dynasty, and most are from Upper

Egypt or Nubia. The shabtis from Aniba (G, H) and the block statue (I) are unlikely to refer to the

Taemwadjsy of KV 46.367 The KV 40 attestation (C) is also thought to belong to a separate individual.368 The remaining monuments (A, B, D, E, F, J), however, are generally accepted as referring to a single person, the woman who donated the pot to Yuya and Tjuyu’s burial.369 Two possibilities are usually given for Taemwadjsy’s relationship with the royal in-laws: Herrero370 hypothesized that she was their granddaughter, while Kawai371 and Gabolde372 have suggested that she was their daughter, a sister of Tiye. An alternative might be that she was a daughter-in- law, particularly since it has been noted in some contexts that women often held titles identical or similar to those of their husbands’ mothers.373 We know, however, of two men who seem to have been married to Taemwadjsy, and in the absence of any evidence that either was a son of

Yuya and Tjuyu, it is more parsimonious to think that she was a descendant in her own right.

Whatever her relationship to Amenhotep III’s parents-in-law, it was in Nubia that

Taemwadjsy apparently established herself. We have already discussed her apparent marriage to Tutankhamun’s viceroy of Kush, Amenhotep Huy by whom she was likely the mother of

Horemheb’s viceroy, Paser (see 3.2.1). In addition, she was evidently married at some point to a man named Khaemwaset, who bore the title of troop commander of Kush. The two are depicted together in a pair statue discovered at Kawa (F); on her garment, the female figure is called the

367 Morkot, “From Conquered to Conqueror,” 933. The statue and at least one of the shabtis could refer to the same person, as the shabti was one of a group that included an example naming a man called Simut; see Steindorff, Aniba, 2:85. The Aniba shabti of Simut gives his title as wab-priest (unspecified cult), while the Leiden block statue calls him a treasury scribe, but there is no reason why a treasury employee could not have held a wab priesthood as well. 368 Gabolde, Toutankhamon, 270, n. 452. 369 Even if these monuments do not belong to a single person, based on the similarity of the titles, the rareness of the name, and the geographic range, we can probably be confident that the women were somehow related. 370 Alexandre Herrero, “The ‘King’s Son of Kush’ Paser (II), Son of the ‘High Priest of and ’ ,” BACE 13 (2002), 75, 78. 371 “Tutankhamun,” 385-386. 372 “L’ADN,” 195. 373 See Suzanne Onstine, “The Role of the Chantress (Smayt) in Ancient Egypt” (PhD diss., , 2001), 91-92.

93 “great one of the khener of Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two La[nds, Taemwadjsy].” In point of fact, only the title of the female figure in the Kawa statue is preserved – her name has been lost. The reconstruction,374 however, is well-founded based on the combination of her title with the fact that a “great one of the khener of Nebkheperure, Taemwadjsy” is named as the statue’s donor on the back slab. The relationship between Taemwadjsy and Khaemwaset is not specified in any of the text on the statue. The vast majority of male-female pair statues depict married couples (less frequently, a mother is shown with her son).375 On this basis alone, the likeliest scenario by a good measure is that Khaemwaset was the husband of the woman depicted sculpturally at his side. In addition, on the back slab, the great one of the khener of

Nebkheperure Taemwadjsy is called “the one who causes his (Khaemwaset’s) name to live.” The fact that the pronoun is singular could suggest that she was both the dedicant of the statue and the woman depicted sculpturally alongside the troop commander. If she were not, then we might expect some textual indication that Taemwadjsy donated the statue on behalf of both of the people depicted, whoever the female figure might represent.

We should perhaps not automatically assume, however, that the sculpted female figure and the woman who dedicated the Kawa statue were one and the same person. The use of the singular pronoun is not conclusive, since on stelae, at least, the “vivification formula” can read

“sanx rn.f” when a man is depicted together with his wife.376 The fact in itself that Taemwadjsy is said to cause Khaemwaset’s name to live tells us nothing. For the New Kingdom, such

374 Macadam, The Temples of Kawa, 3-4. 375 See Vandier, Manuel 3:439; and Gay Robins, “Some Principles of Compositional Dominance and Gender Hierarchy in Egyptian Art,” JARCE 31 (1994), 34. I am aware of only one pair statue that may depict a father and his daughter, although they could (alternatively or additionally) have been married; Dina Metawi, “A Possible Father-Daughter Marriage in the New Kingdom,” SAK 42 (2013), 221-232. 376 For example, Cairo JE 27947; Rasha Metawi, “Mery-Maat, an Eighteenth Dynasty iry-aA n pr ptH from Memphis and his Hypothetical Family,” JEA 101 (2015), 281-295.

94 vivification formulae most commonly identify the donor as a son,377 but when female dedicants are named, mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters may all take the role.378 Statues in the round bearing the “vivification formula,” however, seem most commonly to have been presented by mothers or daughters; wives and sisters are generally the dedicants only of stelae.379 This certainly does not rule out the possibility that the Kawa pair statue represents a commemoration of Khaemwaset by his wife. If this is the case, however, it would be highly unusual. Daughters are known to have commissioned family monuments in the New

Kingdom,380 but it was extremely rare (on currently available evidence) for a wife to honor her husband in this way.381 Additionally, on all of the non-Aniba Nubian monuments, Taemwadjsy is called the “great one of the khener of Nebkheperure,” or simply the “great one of the khener”

(J). She is the “great one of the khener of Amun” only in KV 46 and on the front of the Kawa statue. Meanwhile, it is only in the tomb of User (B) and on the front of the Kawa statue that she is referred to as the “mistress of a house.” The presence or absence of this very common title may not say much, but within the present corpus it could mark a distinction.

If we are speaking of one woman, then Taemwadjsy could easily, as is usually suggested, have married Huy and then Khaemwaset,382 or Khaemwaset and then Huy.383 In the latter case,

377 Melinda G. Nelson-Hurst, “’…Who Causes his Name to Live:’ The Vivification Formula Through the Second Intermediate Period,” in Zahi Hawass and Jennifer Houser Wegner, eds., Millions of Jubilees: Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman (Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2010), 2: 25. 378 See Silke Grallert, Bauen-Stiften-Weihen: Ägyptische Bau- und Restaurierungsinschriften von den Anfangen bis zur 30. Dynastie (Berlin: Achet Verlag, 2001), 101-104, 106-107. 379 Women were apparently freer in general to dedicate stelae than statues; see Gay Robins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 189. 380 One example is a statue of Ked-Amun and -Iunet (New York, MMA 25.184.8) dedicated by their granddaughter Mut-nefret; see Anne K. Capel, “Family Group: Couple with Granddaughter,” in Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, edited by Anne K. Capel and Glenn E. Markoe 9 (New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1997), 50-51. 381 The only example I have so far been able to find of a male-female pair statue, dedicated by a wife to her husband using the vivification formula, is Detroit Institute of Arts 2001.127; see William H. Peck, “The Standard-Bearer Mery and his Wife Sati: An Egyptian Pair Statue from the Time of Amenhotep III,” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 79, no. 1/2 (2005), 12-19. 382 As suggested by Herrero, “The King’s Son of Kush Paser (II),” 74. 383 As Kawai believes, see “Tutankhamun,” 386.

95 then the Kawa statue must have been dedicated years after Khaemwaset’s death384 and

Taemwadjsy’s subsequent remarriage.385 An alternative scenario, as we have noted, is that two different women are referenced by the Kawa statue. In this case, Taemwadjsy, the great one of the khener of Nebkheperure named on the back slab, would almost certainly be the daughter of the great one of the khener of Amun (presumably also named Taemwadjsy) depicted by the female figure. The younger woman would have been the daughter of Khaemwaset, as well as the wife of the viceroy Huy and the mother of the viceroy Paser.386

Regardless, whether there was one Taemwadjsy or two, the viceroy of Kush Paser was almost certainly a lineal descendant of Yuya and Tjuyu on his mother’s side. Sometime around year 1 of

Seti I, the office of viceroy passed to Paser’s son, Amenemope (see 3.2.2)The reign of Horemheb thus did not result in any significant disruption to the succession in this office. What is more, regardless of what we might expect based on recent assessments of the relationship between

Horemheb and Ay, it would seem that the same power network that produced the god’s father also produced one of his successor’s most important officials. When the viceroy Amenemope took his father Paser’s office, he demonstrated not only the durability of the inheritance model

384 It strikes me that it would have been odd for her to have commemorated him at a time when she was married to another man, unless he had died. 385 The title of “great one of the khener of Nebkheperure” on the back slab shows that the monument was dedicated during or soon after Tutankhamun’s reign, but for Taemwadjsy to have been the mother of the viceroy Paser, she must have been married to Huy already during the reign of Akhenaten at the latest. This is perhaps why Herrero assumed that Khaemwaset was her second husband. It is difficult to say on independent grounds whether it would be more likely for Khaemwaset to have been her first or second husband. The best-documented second marriage of an Egyptian woman is that of Naunakhte from Deir el-Medina. Her first husband seems to have had greater wealth and higher status than her second; see recently Koen Donker van Heel, Mrs. Naunakhte and Family: The Women of Ramesside Deir al-Medina (Cairo: AUC Press, 2016), passim. A Ramesside “letter to the dead” (P. Leiden I 371) implies that, then as now, a man of imperfect character might abandon his first wife as his station in life improved; see Janet Johnson, “Sex and Marriage in Ancient Egypt,” in Hommages à Fayza Haikal, ed. Nicolas Grimal, Amr Kamel, and Cynthia May-Sheikholeslami, BdÉ 138 (Cairo: IFAO 2003), 151. We might imagine that a woman’s chances for an advantageous marriage would usually be reduced after the end of a first union, but it is impossible to generalize from the limited evidence available. If her first husband had died, then Taemwadjsy’s second husband could have been hoping to gain an advantage through the status and wealth that she accumulated in her first marriage, or she could have been taking the opportunity to ally herself with a man of higher rank, or perhaps both. 386 In spite of the damage to the front of the Kawa statue, we may suppose that mother and daughter shared the same unusual name, as we would not expect any other “great one of the khener of Amun” around this time (other than Tjuyu) to have had a daughter called Taemwadjsy.

96 of succession to office,387 but also that leadership of the Kushite administration - vital to Egypt’s economic and security interests - was something that Horemheb either did not want to, or could not, significantly disrupt. Whether Paser’s connection to the Akhmim family would have been a liability or an asset to the viceroy in Horemheb’s eyes is difficult to assess on its own. It is necessary to consider how other branches of the administration evolved between the reign of

Tutankhamun and the early years of the 19th Dynasty in order to build a fuller picture of the relationship between the crown, the Akhmim family, and the administration of Egypt in this period.

3.2.4 - Parennefer c. Wennefer, High Priest of Amun at Karnak

Father: Minhotep, judge (sAb).

Mother: Maya, chantressof Amun (Smayt n Imn).

Brother-in-law: Minmose, High priest of Min and Isis at Coptos (Hm nTr tpy n Mnw Ist m Gbtyw). sn-brother: Pennesuttawy, troop commander of Kush (Hry pDt n KS).

Wife: Isis, great one of the khener of Amun (wrt xnr n Imn).

Sons: Hori, high priest of Onuris (Hm nTr tpy n In-Hrt); Amenemone, chief of (Hry mDAy)

Grandson: Minmose, high priest of Onuris (Hm nTr tpy n In-Hrt).

Attestations

Reign of Tutankhamun:

A) Tomb Kampp no. -162- (Parennefer c. Wennefer) – main decorative phase388

387 For the different modes of succession among ancient Egyptian officials, see Shirley, “The Culture of Officialdom: An Examination of the Acquisition of Offices during the Mid-18th Dynasty” (PhD. Diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2005), especially 34-55. 388 The number of this tomb is that given by Kampp, and is conventionally distinguished from TT 162 by the dashes on either side. Friederike Kampp, “Vierter Vorbericht über die Arbeiten des Ägyptologischen Instituts der Universität Heidelberg in thebanischen Gräbern der Ramessidenzeit,” MDAIK 50 (1994), 175-188; Nigel Strudwick, “Change and

97 B) Stamped brick fragment from Dra Abu el-Naga, Berlin 1553389

Reign of Horemheb:

C) TT -162- (Parennefer c. Wennefer) - surcharged cartouche

Reign of Ramesses II:

D) Grey granite family group statue of Amenemone, Naples 1069390

E) Sandstone kneeling naophorous statue of Amenemone, Cairo CG 1077391

F) Block statue of Wenefer from Deir el-Bahari, Luxor J. 227392

G) Block statue of Wennefer, Copenhagen AEIN 662393

Like the viceroy of Kush, the high priest of Amun at Thebes would have been among the most influential men serving under Horemheb. The first known incumbent in this office after the restoration was Parennefer c. Wennefer, who is first attested serving under Tutankhamun. He was the owner of a large tomb (A), Kampp -162-, at Dra Abu el-Naga, which was only discovered in the early 1990’s by the University of Heidelberg mission to document officials’ tombs of the

Continuity at Thebes: The Private Tomb after Akhenaten,” in The Unbroken Reed: Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt in Honour of A.F. Shore (London: EES, 1994), 331; Kampp and Seyfried. “Eine Rückkehr nach Theben;” Kampp, Nekropole, 325-342; 713-716, figs 643-645; Kawai, “Studies,” 460-470; Kiser-Go, “Post-Amarna Tombs,” 11 n. 36, 70-79, 102-108, 130 figs. 23-34, 212; Eva Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel: die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber, 2 vols (Heidelberg: Propylaeum-DOK Digital Edition, 2015), 1:17-21. 389 Gustave Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres d'Amon de Karnak jusqu'à la XXIe dynastie (Paris: Geuthner, 1929), 68, 228. 390 Vincent Chollier, “Hatiay, responsable des prophètes de tous les dieux: une généalogie ramesside à reviser,” BIFAO 114 (2014), 99-110; Rosanna Pirelli, “The Monument of Imeneminet (Naples, Inv. 1069) as a Document of Social Changes in the Egyptian New Kingdom,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, edited by Christopher J. Eyre (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 871-884; Marcella Trapani, “The Monument of Imeneminet (Naples, Inv. 1069): An Essay of Interpretation,” in Eyre, ed., Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress, 1165-1176; id., “Sur l'origine de la statue-groupe de famille d'Amenéminet, directeur des travaux du Ramesseum: Naples inv. no 1069,” Memnonia 7 (1996), , 123-137; 391 Borchardt, Statuen, 4:47; KRI III, 275.14-276.1; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 460-470; 392 KRI III, 274.10-275.7; Jacques Clère, Les chauves d', ed. Paule Posener-Kriéger, OLA 63 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 87-94, pls. 6-7; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 460-470. 393 Vandier, Manuel, 3:556-557; PM VIII.2, 607; Schulz, Cuboiden Statuentypus, 344-345; Mogens Jørgensen, Catalogue Egypt II (1550-1080 BC) Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1998), 214-215, no. 83; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 460-470.

98 Ramesside period.394 The most complete account to date of the individuals represented in tomb

-162- is that of Kawai, who studied the tomb in preparing his doctoral dissertation.395 Its decoration has been examined and discussed extensively by Kiser-Go, also for her doctoral dissertation;396 although it seems to have been completed in stages, for the purpose of the present discussion, it is sufficient to note that Kampp -162- dates for the most part to the reign of Tutankhamun.397 The only evidence of its owner’s service under Horemheb are the latter’s cartouches, surcharged over those of the young king.398

By the time that his tomb was discovered, Wennefer had long been known, but only from a single (undated) stamped brick from the necropolis (B), and from a family group statue,

Naples 1069 (D), dedicated by one of his sons. Naples 1069 dates to the reign of Ramesses II, and so the Egyptological literature prior to the 1990’s placed him in that reign. Once Kampp -

162- was known, however, it became possible to date the high priest correctly to the reign of

Tutankhamun. It was also possible to confirm and expand upon the family relationships given for him on Naples 1069; with the correction of his chronological position, it became clear that his genealogy had significant historical implications. Wennefer’s parents are known only as the judge Minhotep and the chantress of Amun, Maya.399 His wife, Isis, was the great one of the khener of Amun, a position in which it seems that she would have been succeeded by

Taemwadjsy (see 3.2.4) and Amenhotep III’s mother-in-law, Tiye.

394 See http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/aegy/ramessiden.html (accessed 2/15/18). The final publication of the tomb is still forthcoming. 395 Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 462-470. I am most grateful to Dr. Kawai for permission to consult and cite his own study of this tomb, the decoration of which is not yet published. 396 Kiser-Go, “Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis,” 71-79. 397 Cf. ibid. 398 Kampp and Seyfried, “Rückkehr,”334, 336. I myself was unable to locate the cartouches. 399 For Maya’s title, see Kiser-Go, “Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis,” 73.

99 On Naples 1069, Wennefer is said to be the “brother,” sn, of a high priest of Min and Isis named Minmose; with the discovery of TT -162-, this relationship was confirmed. Herrero400 put forward the suggestion that Minmose was not Wennefer’s natal brother, but instead his brother-in-law - Minmose and Wennefer’s wife Isis were, according to Herrero, siblings. He further proposed that they could be the children of a high priest of Min and Isis, Nakhtmin, who served at Akhmim during the reign of Ay.401 A statue in the British Museum (EA 1222)402 the style of which has strong affinities to Amarna, shows a “wab-priest in front of Isis” called Nakhtmin, along with his wife, Mut-Tuy, and six of their children. A son named Minmose is represented, as is a daughter, Isis. It is possible that these two, who are given no titles on British Museum EA

1222, later became the wife, and “brother” respectively of Wennefer. The hypothesis, however, remains open to debate. Gabolde403 has recently taken at face value Edwards’ description of the statue,404 in which all of Nakhtmin’s children are identified as daughters, and the family could thus not be that of Wennefer’s wife and her brother. Herrero, however was correct in noting that the figure labeled “Minmose” on the statue is male, and that the Isis and Minmose of TT -

162- could, in view of British Museum EA 1222, be the children of this Nakhtmin.

It is somewhat more doubtful that the wab-priest Nakhtmin of British Museum EA 1222 was, as Herrero posits, the same individual who served as high priest of Min and Isis at Akhmim under Ay. The two men seem, for instance, to have held priesthoods at different centers of the cult of Min. Nakhtmin is consistently identified as active in the cult at Akhmim during the reign of Ay, while it was Min of Coptos that Minmose served under Tutankhamun. In fact, the

Nakhtmin of British Museum EA 1222 and his wife are titled only in connection with Isis; the

400 “The ‘King’s Son of Kush’ Paser (II),” 72. 401 Ibid., 76-80. 402 I.E.S. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc. in the British Museum, Part 8 (London: British Museum 1939), pl 44; PM VIII, 572; Gabolde, Toutankhamon, 465. 403 Ibid. 404 Hieroglyphic Texts, Part 8, 52-53.

100 prayer on the stela is to Re-Horakhty (shown in the lunette as a child in the solar bark). In the

New Kingdom, the cults of Min and Osiris were closely linked, both conceptually and in terms of cult activities,405 and Isis and Horus were revered as the wife and son of Min at both of the god’s cult centers. It seems, however, that the form of Horus most closely associated with Akhmim was the victorious Harendotes,406 while - at least in later periods - was more prominent at Coptos.407 Whether such a subtle variation in emphasis would necessarily imply a cultic-geographical distinction is difficult to say, but it would be consistent with the fact that

Wennefer’s “brother” Minmose was high priest at Coptos. The relationship between the priesthoods of the two cult centers is uncertain; we do not know whether each would have had its own high priest, or whether the same individual would have been responsible for the cult overall. Nevertheless, the geographical discrepancy bears noting; in my view, it makes it marginally less likely that the Nakhtmin of British Museum EA 1222 and the high priest of Min and Isis at Akhmim under Ay are the same man.

Further to the question of the two Nakhtmins, Kawai408 has pointed out that in TT -162-,

Minmose (the putative son of Nakhtmin) is already identified as high priest of Min and Isis.

Because the tomb’s decoration dates to the reign of Tutankhamun this would mean that he held his office in the reign before his father is attested as high priest at Akhmim; Kawai argues that it would be highly unlikey for Minmose’s father to have become high priest at a later date than his son. The date of British Museum EA 1222 itself is unclear. Gabolde suggests that it dates to the reign of Tutankhamun,409 in which case Minmose and his father Nakhtmin would have had to

405 See, for instance, Pascal Vernus, “Deux statues du Moyen Empire,” BIFAO 74 (1974), 153-155; Elizabeth Frood, “Ritual Function and Priestly Narrative: The Stelae of the High Priest of Osiris, Nebwawy,” JEA 89 (2003), 59-81. 406 See Frood, “Ritual Function,” 67-68. 407 See Marc Gabolde, “Osiris et Amon,” in Autour de Coptos. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (17-18 mars 2000), Topoi Supplement 3 (: Musée des Beaux-Arts, 200), 125-127. 408 “Tutankhamun,” 466-467. 409 Toutankhamon, 465.

101 make sudden leaps in status roughly simultaneously, within a short span of time. Kawai, however, dates the statue to the reign of Amenhotep III,410 in which case it is somewhat more likely that it represents Wennefer’s wife and in-laws at an early stage in their careers.

Herrero goes even further than the speculation that the high priest of Min, Minmose (TT -162- and Naples 1069), was the son of the high priest of Min, Nakhtmin of Akhmim. He suggests that this Nakhtmin was himself a grandson of Yuya through the latter’s son, the second priest of

Amun Anen.411 Herrero’s reasoning is that Yuya held the title of “high priest of Min”412 along with his military and courtly ranks, and that his descendants could easily have reclaimed control of the office after the interruption of the Amarna period.413

We know that the HPMI Minmose was at some point also high priest of Amun-

Kamutef,414 suggesting that he may have had a foothold in Thebes. Both Yuya and Tjuyu held offices in the cult of Amun in addition to that of Min. What is more, apart from Wennefer’s relationship with his brother “Minmose” another, Minmose depicted in TT -162- was high priest of Mut. It seems that it may have been family policy to maintain a connection to the Theban

Amun priesthood; the HPMI Minmose could have been participating in this arrangement by serving a Theban god (one in whose identity Min also partook415). It is not necessary for the

HPMI Nakhtmin to have been the son of Anen and/or the father of the HPMI Minmose for this observation to hold. If the men were collateral relatives, even distant ones through unattested family members, then the effect would remain the same. Tjuyu, as great one of the khener of

410 I find this dating doubtful, and prefer a date early in the post-Amarna period. The relief image of Natkhtmin’s wife in particular seems to show the influence of a well-developed Amarna style, suggesting the later date. . 411 “The ‘King’s Son of Kush’ Paser (II), 77. 412 Although he is often described in the literature as a “high priest” of Min, I have found no evidence that Yuya held any cult titles at Akhmim other than overseer of cattle and simple Hm-nTr-priest. I would like to collate Yuya’s titles directly from his funerary equipment, or find reference to an instance where someone has done so. 413 “The ‘King’s Son of Kush’ Paser (II), 77. 414 Identified as the same individual through the filiations given on Naples 1069 and a rock-stela at Abydos; for the latter see Raedler, “Der Vizekönig Setau,” 133. 415 See recently Luc Gabolde, “Les origines de Karnak et la genèse de la théologie d’Amon.” BSFE 186-187 (2013), 186- 187, 13-35.

102 Amun, and her son Anen could represent an earlier high point of the family’s influence at

Karnak, with other representatives of the Min-affiliated “Akhmim clan” seeking to regain this foothold once the restoration had begun.

All that can be said with certainty about Wennefer and his “brother” Minmose is, as

Kawai notes, that through the latter, “[the HPA] Parennefer/Wennefer had family ties to the old nobility in , Coptos, and Akhmim.”416 These ties seem to have been stronger than the influence of the office of high priest of Amun, since after Wennefer’s death, we do not find most of his descendants in positions at Thebes, but only elsewhere in Egypt. Naples 1069, the family monument of Amenemone, paints an interesting picture of Wennefer’s posterity. On his mother’s side, Amenemone had a handful of relatives who were active in the Theban Amun cult.

A “sister from the same mother” was married to the steward of the house of Amun,417 and a

“brother from the same mother” was a document scribe in the same institution.418 Isis herself was, of course, great one of the khener of Amun, at least during her husband Wennefer’s pontificate. Amenemone, for his part, married at least one chantress of Amun, perhaps two.419 A brother-in-law was a high priest of ,420 while a second brother-in-law was an overseer of the hem-netjer priests of an unspecified god or gods.421 The father of at least one of

Amenemone’s wives and her brother was yet another Minmose, a sem-priest of Sokar; given his children’s apparently Theban careers, it is likely that he was affiliated with the Sokar cult at

Thebes rather than at Memphis.422

416 “Tutankhamun,” 467. 417 KRI III, 273.7; I take “n mwt wa” to mean “of the same mother.” 418 KRI III, 273. 4. 419 KRI III, 274.3-4; two women with this title, Wiay and , are called “his wife.” 420 KRI III, 273.14. 421 KRI III, 274.1. 422 For the Theban cult of Sokar, see Gaballa A. Gaballa, “New Light on the Cult of Sokar,” Orientalia 41 (1972), 178- 179; Gaballa and Kitchen, “The Festival of Sokar,” Orientalia 38 (1969), 1-76.

103 Amenemone himself was, of course, a military man - in addition to his position of chief of Medjay, he was an overseer of works for the Ramesseum,423 and he was a troop commander of the army.424 His professional ties, however, like his affiliation with the southern cults, seem to have come through his female relatives. Among the individuals named on Naples 1069, most of the military titles (apart from Amenemone’s) belong to family members of one (or perhaps both?) of his wives. Among his other male in-laws were a charioteer of his Majesty,425 a troop commander of the army,426 and a troop commander of the chariotry.427 One of Amenemone’s maternal half-sisters married a troop commander of the chariotry as well.428 On Naples 1069,

Amenemone names two ostensibly paternal relations in the Kushite administration - “his brother,” the viceroy of Kush Paser (II), and “his father’s brother,” the troop commander of

Kush, Pennesuttawy. Both of these Kushite officials are presented as relatives on Wennefer’s side. It is possible, however, that they were actually maternal kin.429 Paser II, the “brother” of

Amenemone, was actually the son of a high priest of Amun-Kamutef named Minmose (). Given the “brotherhood” between the younger men, this same Minmose seems likely to have been also the “brother” of Wennefer, the Coptite HPMI Minmose, named both on Naples 1069 and in

TT -162-. The blood relation between Amenemone and Paser II was thus likely through

Amenemone’s mother, Isis, the sister of Minmose. Wennefer’s cadet son thus apparently made a life for himself among military and priestly circles in the south, but his mother and wife (or

423 KRI III, 275.4. 424 A “troop commander of many armies (expeditions?),” Hry-pDt n mSaw aSa; KRI III, 275.6. 425 KRI III, 274.6. 426 KRI III, 273.15. 427 KRI III, 273.16 428 KRI III, 273.10. 429 Of course, if there had been a cousin marriage at some earlier point, there is no reason why they could not have been kin on both Wennefer’s and Isis’ sides. This is impossible to prove at present, of course, and a discussion of the prevalence, or lack thereof, of cousin marriage in New Kingdom Egypt is well beyond the scope of this work.

104 wives) seem to have played a larger role in his status there than his father, the high priest of

Amun.430

As for Amenemone’s other ostensibly paternal relatives on Naples 1069, one “brother,”

Amenemope, was “chief of seers in the house of Re” and chamberlain of the Lord of the Two

Lands, suggesting that he was active at Memphis.431 Amenemone’s actual brother (Wennefer’s oldest son and heir), Hori, served at one point as a priest of Mut at Karnak,432 but he likely finished his career at Thinis, given that his only title outside of TT -162- is high priest of Onuris. If

Amenemone had any contemporary paternal relatives active in the immediate area of Thebes, he apparently did not deem it important to mention them on Naples 1069. We should not necessarily be surprised that Wennefer’s sons were not prominent in the Amun cult; in fact, the office of HPA was actually not particularly heritable. The closest known relationship between two high priests in 18th Dynasty is that of uncle and nephew,433 while from the 19th Dynsaty we have only one example of father-son transmission of the office.434 We might, however, expect to see descendants of Wennefer in lower-ranking Theban positions, given that Shirley435 has shown that the Amun cult – at least in the earlier 18th Dynasty – was a popular place for high officials of various kinds to find lucrative positions for their offspring. There may have been a relationship between the local origin of any given high priest of Amun and the career paths followed by his children. The HPA Ptahmose, for instance, was apparently from Memphis, and his oldest son

430 It may be Amenemone’s youth that allowed him to take advantage of his mother’s family connections; if all of his maternal half-siblings were from a second marriage on the part of Isis, then he could have been young enough to have strong social ties to them. 431 There was, at least later, a “chief of seers of Re” in Thebes; see Frood, Biographical Texts, 45. Raue, however, considers him to have been a Memphite high priest; Heliopolis, 155-156. 432 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun,” 480. 433 See Shirley, “The Culture of Officialdom,” 110-121. 434 Gustave Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prètres d’Amon de Karnak jusqu’a la XXIe dynastie (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1929), 67-159. 435 “Viceroys, Viziers, and the Amun Precinct,” in particular 97.

105 became a high priest of Horus rather than taking an office at Thebes.436 Nevertheless, even HPAs of provincial origin could apparently place relatives in positions at Karnak, at least some of the time,437 and it is striking that (apart from Hori’s early career in the Mut cult) we have no indication that Wennefer did so. After Wennefer, the next attested high priest of Amun is

Nebnetjeru, called Tjenry. Tjenry’s floruit - at least as presented by his son, the vizier and HPA

Paser - apparently took place largely during the reign of Seti I.438 We know of Nebnetjeru, however, only from monuments produced under Ramesses II.

Thus, given that the high point of the HPA Wennefer’s career seems to have occurred under Tutankhamun, we have a period of several years when our picture of the leadership at

Karnak is somewhat hazy at best, but it seems that his family retained its influence at Thebes in only a limited manner, and largely through his wife, Isis. There is no particular reason why the lack of clarity in the sequence of post-Amarna high priests of Amun could not be due to accidents of preservation and/or discovery, at least when considered on its own. We may yet find documentation of the HPA Wennefer under Ay, or an indication of when Nebnetjeru (or some so far unattested individual) succeeded him. These same years, however, are also a period when our view of other important offices becomes fuzzy. The fortunes of Wennefer’s descendants (as well as the way that they represented themselves with respect to one another)

436 See Johannes Auenmüller, “Die Territorialität der Ägyptischen Elite(n) des Neuen Reiches - Eine Studie zu Raum und räumlichen Relationen im textlichen Diskurs, anhand prosopografischer Daten und im archäologischen Record” (PhD diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 2013), 493. Ptahmose’s wife was a great one of the khener of Amun, which may explain why they had five daughters who became chantresses of that god; for Ptahmose and his family see also Lefebvre, Grands prètres, 99-102. 437 For instance, the HPA Mery, who though apparently of Coptite origin, seems to have found a job in the Amun cult for at least one of his brothers; Shirley, Culture of Officialdom, 264. 438 See Kitchen, “Aspects of Ramesside Egypt,” in Acts: First International Congress of Egyptology, Cairo, October 2-19, 1976, ed. Walter F. Reineke (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979), 383-389, for the dates of Nebnetjeru. It is far from impossible, of course, that he was already in service under Horemheb. We know that he no longer held the office of high priest in year 1 of Ramesses II, when was appointed to the position; see Lefebvre, Grands prètres, 117. The reign of Seti I lasted around eleven years at most, leaving plenty of time for Nebnetjeru to have served earlier.

106 are worth considering here, for the sake of evaluating how, if at all, the family was tied into that of Yuya and Tjuyu.

The corpus of monuments belonging to the HPA Wennefer’s relations is large. Bryan439 published an important discussion of the monuments of Wennefer’s grandson, the high priest of

Onuris, Minmose, and his family. Since then the secondary literature has become fairly extensive. A number of articles have each systematically cataloged a subset of the monuments, helpfully bringing order both to the material and to the body of scholarship that it has inspired.

Effland and Effland examined the monuments of the HPOn Minmose, adding some recently discovered additions to the corpus discussed by Bryan.440 The monuments of Minmose’s father- in-law, the high priest of Osiris Wennefer, have recently been studied by Thomas with respect to their context at Abydos.441 Raue,442 Raedler443 and Franzmeier444 have dealt with the documentation pertaining to the vizier Prehotep, who married into the family in the reign of

Ramesses II. Rather than repeat the efforts of these authors by re-cataloging the monuments, I have here only listed them, with references to the works above (which give further bibliography) as well as the most easily accessible reproduction of each text (Table 2). Table 1 provides a list of abbreviations for the offices held by the individuals discussed below. Most of what we know

439 Betsy M. Bryan, “The Career and Family of Minmose, High Priest of Onuris,” CdÉ 61 (1986), 5-30. 440 Ute Effland and Andreas Effland, “Minmose in Abydos,” GM 198 (2004), 5-17. 441 Angela P. Thomas, “A Review of the Monuments of Unnefer, High Priest of Osiris at Abydos in the Reign of Ramesses II,” in , Magic and Medicine in Ancient Egypt: Multidisciplinary Essays for Rosalie David, edited by Campbell Price et al. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016), 56-68; now also Christine Raedler, “Creating Authority: The High Priest of Osiris Wennefer and a Special Deification of Ramesses II,” in Constructing Authority: Prestige, Reputation and the Perception of Power in Egyptian Kingship, 8. Symposion zur ägyptischen Königsideologie/8th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, Budapest, May 12-14, 2016, edited by Tamás A Bács and Horst Beinlich (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2017), 215-240. 442 “Ein Wesir Ramses' II.” In Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, edited by Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz, 341-351. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998. 443 Christine Raedler, “Creating Authority: The High Priest of Osiris Wenennefer and a Special Deification of Ramesses II,” in Constructing Authority: Prestige, Reputation and the Perception of Power in Egyptian Kingship, 8. Symposion zur ägyptischen Königsideologie/8th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, Budapest, May 12-14, 2016, edited by Tamás A Bács and Horst Beinlich, (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2017), 215-240. 444 Henning Franzmeier, “News from Parahotep: The Small Finds from his Tomb at Sedment Rediscovered.” JEA 100 (2014), 151-180.

107 about the posterity of the HPA Wennefer (apart from what can be gleaned at this point from TT

-162-) is quite late in date. None of the monuments commemorating his relatives can conclusively be assigned to a reign before that of Ramesses II. For this reason, we will work our way back from Wennefer’s great-great granddaughter to the reign of Tutankhamun, when

Wennefer was in office at Thebes. We will then reconsider the possibility of an Akhmim connection for the family. An abbreviated genealogy is presented in Table 3. Table 3 is not meant to be exhaustive or definitive, but only to help the reader keep her place in the narrative.

It gives an indication of generational affiliations, but these divisions can only be taken as a suggestion of how members of the family were positioned in this regard; the picture could be skewed at any point as the result of an unrecognized inter-generational marriage or unusually great age disparity between siblings.

The great-great granddaughter of the HPA Wennefer was a great one of the khener of

Herishef named Heli. She was married to one of Ramesses II’s northern viziers, Prehotep. From

British Museum EA 712, a seated statue of Prehotep, we know that Heli’s mother was the Great

One of the Khener of Onuris Buja, called Khatnesu. The High Priest of Onuris Minmose, Buja’s husband and the “brother” of Prehotep, must have been Heli’s father. The fact that Buja is singled out as Heli’s mother on British Museum EA 712, rather than being subsumed under her husband’s identity, seems to indicate that she held some social importance to Prehotep in her own right. In fact, she was almost certainly the daughter of a High Priest of Osiris named

Wennefer,445 whose descendants continued to serve in that office throughout the reign of

445 Bryan, “Minmose,” 22-25. Raue, in his reconstruction of Prehotep’s genealogy, dismissed the possibility that Buja c. Khatnesu, the wife of the HPOn Minmose, was also Buja, the daughter of the HPOs Wennefer; “Ein Wesir Ramses’ II,” 347. Raue’s reasoning is not entirely clear, but seems to be based at least partly on the observation that Minmose could have been considerably older than the HPOs Wennefer’s daughter Buja, or belonged to an earlier generation altogether. In reality, however, neither of these possibilities rules out a marriage. A woman could easily take a much older husband, whether from her own generation or an earlier one from an earlier one; conversely, a disparity in generation does not necessarily mean a disparity in age. Another factor that seems to have affected Raue’s reconstruction is that a “deputy of the house of life” Mery, is called the son of Prehotep on British Museum EA 712,

108 Ramesses II.446 The Vizier Prehotep, the HPOn Minmose, and the HPOs Wennefer are often described as members of a “Gemeinschaft” of “sn-brothers,” men who referred to one another as “brother” on account of their similar status and shared social connections, without necessarily being related by blood.447 On monuments honoring the HPOs Wennefer, both

Minmose and Prehotep could indeed be called his brother (sn). Interestingly, however, on monuments dedicated to Minmose, Wennefer is never named. From what survives of

Minmose’s funerary chapel at Abydos (see Table 2, nos. 8-15), it seems that even in Wennefer’s own jurisdiction, Minmose either did not or could not take any particular pains to emphasize the relationship. The high priest of Osiris is not mentioned at all on the extant chapel fragments.

Minmose memorialized his relationships with his own wife, his ancestors and (to a lesser extent) with his son-in-law, the vizier, but we hear nothing from him about his relationship with his

“brother” Wennefer. Meanwhile, Minmose appears twice as Wennefer’s “brother” on Abydene monuments honoring the High Priest of Osiris.

On inspection, we actually find that no monument calling the HPOn Minmose and the

HPOs Wennefer “brothers” exists at all until Prehotep enters the picture. Both of the monuments on which Minmose is called “his brother” with respect to Wennefer name Prehotep as a “brother” as well. Prehotep can appear (see Table 3) as “brother” to Wennefer in the absence of Minmose, or vice versa, but the two priests are never “brothers” in the absence of the vizier. The extent to which the three men’s careers overlapped is uncertain. In year 42 of

Ramesses II, all were named with their highest attested titles on stela Cairo CG 34505 from

but the “brother” of the HPOs Wennefer on Cairo JE 35257. Bryan, however, had already observed that the inscriptions of Mery on the two monuments were later additions, and tell us nothing about the family’s actual genealogy. 446 Cf. Raue, “Ein Wesir Ramses’ II,” 345. 447 For the concept of “sn-brother ‘Gemeinschaften,’” see Detlev Franke, Altägyptische Verwandschaftsbezeichnungen im Mittleren Reich, Hamburger Ägyptologische Studien 3 (Hamburg: Borg, 1983), 311, 158-159; Raue, “Ein Wesir Ramses’ II,” 346; Raedler, “Creating Authority,” 222.

109 Abydos (Table 2, no. 71). At this time, Wennefer must have been active (if not already High

Priest) for at least two decades, given that a statue endowment recorded in his tomb is dated to

Ramesses II’s year 21 (Table 2, no. 84). Minmose, menanwhile, was apparently succeeded in his office by an individual named Anhurmose (no known relation), for whom there is no record of service prior to the reign of .448 Prehotep also seems to have served until very late in

Ramesses’ reign.449 It would thus make sense to see Minmose and Prehotep as relatively close contemporaries, both active in the second half of the reign of Ramesses II. The HPOs Wennefer, meanwhile, would have been older, but still alive until at least the beginning of Ramesses’ fifth decade, as the last preserved statue endowment in his tomb is dated to year 40 (Table 2, no.

84). He could have been recently deceased when the year 42 stela was presented by Prehotep and Minmose together in his honor, perhaps on the occasion of Ramesses II’s second sed- festival. The only other monument where Minmose is called Wennefer’s “brother” is a statue of

Wennefer (Louvre A 66, Table 2, no. 73) on which Prehotep is also named; this statue could likewise be a posthumous joint dedication. The HPOs Wennefer might be absent, then, from

Minmose’s monuments because he had already died when they were created. An alternative possibility is that, without the clout of his high-ranking son-in-law, Minmose had lacked standing to commemorate his relationship with the Abydene high priest at an earlier stage of his career.

Minmose was, however, a man who came from an illustrious family.450 He inherited his post as

High Priest of Onuris from his father, Hori.451 The HPOn Hori had followed his own father in the position; Hori’s father, of course, was the High Priest of Amun, Wennefer.

448 See KRI III, 477. 449 See Raedler, “Die Wesire Ramses' II.: Netzwerke der Macht,” in Das ägyptische Königtum im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Aussenpolitik im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., edited by Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug (“Die Wesire Ramses' II.: Netzwerke der Macht.” In Das ägyptische Königtum im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Aussenpolitik im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., edited by Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 298. 450 Cf. Bryan, “The Career and Family,” 29. 451 Cf. bid., 29.

110 It is not clear how the career of the HPA Wennefer ended. Given the fact that

Horemheb’s cartouches in TT -162- were apparently only usurpations, it seems that Wennefer’s floruit, and the period when most of his tomb was decorated, chiefly occurred under

Tutankhamun. The next attested incumbent in the office of HPA is Nebnetjeru Tjenry. His floruit, at least as presented by his son, the vizier and HPA Paser, apparently took place largely during the reign of Seti I. It is far from impossible that Nebnetjeru was already in service under

Horemheb. We know that he no longer held the office of high priest in year 1 of Ramesses II, when Nebwenenef was appointed to the position,452 and the reign of Seti I lasted around eleven years at most. Nevertheless, in the case of both Wennefer and Nebnetjeru, we are confronted by a situation in which an important official who could have served under Horemheb was not commemorated, in more than a summary way, in association with that king during the actual reign. We can never rule out accidents of preservation as having colored the picture. Given, however, that this is the same situation that we will encounter with the rest of the Theban priesthood, the economic administrations of the Theban temples, the vizierate, and the mayorality of the city, it is difficult not to see some significance in the negative evidence. The fact that Horemheb’s officials are so poorly represented in the Theban necropolis, while evidence of Tutankhamun’ and Ay’s officials is not difficult to find, very much begs the question of why this might be so. Accidents of discovery are suspect as a possible reason for the gap, as the other reigns of the 18th Dynasty are well represented in the necropolis and as we know it. A close geographical clustering in an out-of-the-way area could account for material having gone undiscovered; nevertheless, this situation too would require an explanation. Thus, between the reigns of Tutankhamun and Ramesses II, the paternal relatives of Amenemope can be said to

452 For the autobiography of Nebwenenef, which records his appointment, see Elizabeth Frood, Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt, WAW 26 (Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2007), 35-38.

111 have kept a low profile in Thebes. The marriage of the HPOn Minmose to Buja c. Khatnesu would have given them a foothold in a national cult, but one some distance removed from

Amun’s territory. Their presence in the Kushite administration likewise gave them an important, but distant, field of operations. It was not, however, until well into the reign of Ramesses II that the family connections formed in earlier generations became such a point of emphasis, at least in what survives of the material record. Nevertheless, in the case of this particular family, we can gain a sense that it could have had to do with the desire to “correct” a gap in their social trajectory, when the male line was displaced from the cult of Amun – perhaps, given the epigraphic evidence for the HPA Wennefer, during the reign of Horemheb.

3.2.5 – Maya, Overseer of the Treasury

Father: Iuy, judge (sAb).

Mother/Stepmother: Weret, chantress of Amun (Smayt nt Imn); Henutiunu, chantress of Amun

(Smayt nt Imn).

Brothers: Nahuher, royal scribe (zXAw nswt); Nakht, treasury scribe (zXAw pr-HD); Parennefer, troop commander (Hry-pDt).

Wife: Meryt, chantress of Amun (Smayt nt Imn).

Daughters: Tjauenmaya; Mayamenti.

Attestations

Reign of Akhenaten:

A) Amarna Tomb 14453

453 Davies, The Rock Tombs of el-Amarna, 6 vols, Archaeological Survey of Egypt 13-18 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903-1908) 5:1-4, 16, pls. 1-5, 19, 36; PM IV, 225; Marjorie Sandman, Texts from the Time of Akhenaten, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 8 (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1938), 59-63.

112 Reign of Tutankhamun:

B) Stela, Liverpool E. 583454

Reign of Ay:

C) Shabti from KV 62, Cairo JE 60826455

D) Miniature coffin and contents from KV 62, Cairo JE 60720-21456

Reign of Horemheb:

E) Scribe statue, Cairo JE 36329457

F) Graffito of year 8, KV 43458

Unknown date:

G) Saqqara tomb459

H) Statue base, Copenhagen AEIN 102460

I) Cubit rod, Louvre N.1538461

J) Statue, Louvre E.25984462

454 A.M.A. Amin Amer, “Tutankhamun’s Decree for the Chief Treasurer Maya,” RdE 36 (1985), 17-20; van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 82 (no. 5); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.12); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3f). 455 Van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 82-83 (no. 6); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.13); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3g) 456 Van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 82-83 (no. 6); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3g). 457 Georges Legrain, “Notes d’inspection,”ASAE 3 (1903), 213-216; PM II2.2, 77; Michel Dewachter, “A propos de deux groups monumentaux de Karnak,” BSFE 87-88 (Mar.-May 1980), 26-27, fig. 9; van Dijk, "The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 83 (no. 9); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.14); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3i). 458 Howard Carter and Percy E. Newberry, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, Davis’ Excavations: Bibân el Molûk 2 (Westminster: Archibald Constable and Co., 1904), XXXIII-XXXIV, fig. 7; Urk. IV, 2170.12-2171.6; PM I2.2, 560 (4); van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 83 (no. 11); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIIIb); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3l). 459 PM III2.2, 661-663; van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 82 (no. 11); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.1-8, 17); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 323 (4.1.3a); Geoffrey T. Martin, The Tomb of Maya and Meryt, vol. 1, The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary, EES Excavation Memoir 99 (London: EES, 2012). For a list of fragments in museum collections, see ibid., 79-80. For the finds from the tomb, see Maarten J. Raven, The Tomb of Maya and Meryt, vol. 2, Objects and Skeletal Remains, EES Excavation Memoir 65 (London; Leiden: EES, 2001). 460 Otto Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue des bas-reliefs et peintures égyptiens, Publications de la Glyptothéque Ny Carlsberg 6 (Copenhagen: Glyptothéque Ny Carlsberg, 1956), 52, no. 85; PM VIII.2, 681; van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 75, 82 (no. 4); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.11); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 323-324 (4.1.3e). 461 Lepsius, “Die altägyptische Elle und ihre Eintheilung.” Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1865 (1866), pl. 2a; Urk. IV, 2169.12-2170.11; PM III2.2, 663; van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 82 (no. 2); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.9); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 323 (4.1.3b). 462 Jacques Vandier, “Nouvelles acquisitions: Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités égyptienne,” Revue du Louvre 18 (1968), 98-99, fig. 7; id., “A propos de deux statues fragmentaires récemment entrées au Musée du Louvre,” in Ugaritica VI, publié à l’occasion de la XXXe campagne de fouilles à Ras Shamra (1968), edited by Claude

113 K) Reward scene, TT 50463

L) Stela of Tiya464

M) Stela of Yamen465

Anonymous, thought to represent Maya:

N) “Trauerrelief” from the tomb of Ptahemhat Ty at Saqqara, Berlin 12411466

O) Relief from the tomb of Ahmose at Saqqara467

It is generally accepted468 that the Maya who served as treasury chief under Tutankhamun and

Horemheb first appears as the owner of tomb 14 at Amarna (A).469 There, his name is spelled

May, and he is given the following titles:470

• iry-pat HAty-a (“hereditary noble, count”)471

• xtmty-bity (sealer of the King of Lower Egypt)

• smr waty (sole companion)

• TAy-xw Hr wnm n nswt (fan-bearer on the right of the king)

Schaeffer (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1969), 492-499, fig. 3; van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 82 (no. 3); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.10); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 323 (4.1.3.d). 463 Urk. IV, 2177.1-2178.5; PM I2.1, 95; Hari, La tombe Thébaine du père divin Neferhotep (TT 50) (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1985), 16-19, pls. 6, 56; van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis, 83 (no. 10); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.16); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3k). 464 Georges Legrain, Collection Hoffmann: Catalogue des Antiquités Égyptiennes (Paris: n.p., 1894), 24-26 (no. 65); van Dijk, “The Overseer of the Treasury Maya: A Biographical Sketch,” OMRO 70 (1990), 23, pl. 1; ibid., “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 79-80, fig. 12; ibid., 83 (no. 12); Thiem, Speos, 508 (LXXXVIa.15); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 325 (4.1.3m). 465 Raven, Maya and Meryt, 2:28, pls. 9a-b (no. 18); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 325 (4.1.3n); Martin, Maya and Meryt, 1:51, pl. 57. 466 PM III2.2, 711-712; van Dijk, “The Theban Necropolis,” 83 (no. 7); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3h). 467 van Dijk, “The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 83 (no. 8); Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 324 (4.1.3i). 468 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 326, n. 295; the identity of May and Maya is supported particularly by van Dijk (“The New Kingdom Necropolis,” 71-76) on the basis of a statue base in Copenhagen on which the name of the overseer of the treasury is spelled without the final -A. For the statue base see Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue, 52, no. 85. 469 As suggested by Hari, Horemheb, 370 and id., “Maya,” 161. Also Hans D. Schneider, “Maya l’amateur de statues: à propos de trois statues fameuses du Musée de Leyde et d’une sepulture oubliée à Saqqarah,” BSFE 69 (1974), 43-45. 470 Davies, Rock Tombs 5, 1-4, 16, pls. 1-5, 19, 36; Sandman, Texts, 59-63. 471 For iry-pat as a “Rangtitel,” see Andrea Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches, SAGA 17 (Heidelberg: Heiderlberger Orientverlag, 1996), 101 n. 524. For the stereotypical sequences of “Rangtiteln” (the first four titles given here), see Rolf Gundlach, “Hof – Hofgesellschaft – Hofkultur im pharaonischen Ägypten,” in Der ägyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches: Seine Gesellschaft und Kultur im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Auβenpolitik, Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums vom 27.-29. Mai 2002 an der Johannes Gutenberg- Universität Mainz, ed. Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2006), 37.

114 • zXAw-nswt mAa mr.f 472 (royal scribe whom he, i.e. the king, loves)

• sXAw nfrw473 (scribe of recruits)

• imy-r mSaw n nb tAwy474 (overseer of the army of the Lord of the Two Lands)

• imy-r pr n 4Htp-Itn475 (steward of Sehetep-Aten)

• imy-r pr n Wa-n-Ra476 (steward of the house of Waenre)

• imy-r iHw n pr Ra m Iwnw477 (overseer of cattle in the temple of Ra in Heliopolis)

• imy-r kAwt nbt n nb tAwy (overseer of all works of the Lord of the Two Lands)

Maya’s family and the dozens of titles and epithets given to him in his Saqqara tomb are amply addressed in the recent publication of that monument,478 and this account will not be repeated here in extenso. It is sufficient for our purposes to note that in the post-Amarna stage of his career, Maya continued to hold titles that reflect a prominent place at court; to them were added epithets describing him as having intimate access to the king.479 His “Amtstitlen,” meanwhile, reflect an evolution in his responsibilities:

472 For this title, also by this time an honorific, see Chloe Ragazzoli, “Les artisans du texte: La culture des scribes en Égypte ancienne d’après les sources du Nouvel Empire” (PhD diss., Université de Paris IV, 2011), 507-509; and Angela Osnach, “Der Titel ‘Schrieber des Königs’ – Ursprung und Funktion,” in Studies in Egyptology, ÄAT 40 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998), passim; cf. Niv Allon, “Writing, Violence, and the Military: Visualizing Literacies at the Time of Horemheb” (PhD diss., Yale University, 2014), 102. 473 For the title, see recently Nagwa Arafa, “Le sS nfr.w ou ‘scribe des recrues’ au Nouvel Empire,” Cahiers Carribéens de Égyptologie 15 (2011), 117-137. 474 The military offices of sS nfrw and imy-r mSaw n nb tAwy are not known for Maya in his post-Amarna years. Van Dijk proposed that a career change from the military to the financial administration could have been a calculated move on Maya’s part to avoid stepping on Horemheb’s toes as the latter’s authority grew under Tutankhamun; “The Memphite Necropolis,” 76. 475 The pr of Sehetep-Aten is known from a letter, written by a scribe named May, found at Amarna (O. Amarna 2): Pendlebury, CoA, 2:198; cf. recently Susan Thorpe, “Social Aspects in Ancient Egyptian Personal Correspondence” (PhD diss., University of Auckland, 2016), 137. Sehetep-Aten may have been an epithet of Amenhotep III at Amarna; see Pendlebury, CoA 2. Apparently a military legion also honored the king by this name; see Henri Frankfort, “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell el-‘Amarnah, 1926-27,” JEA 13, no. 3/4 (1927), 210. 476 See Hassan Bakry, “Ahenaten at Heliopolis,” CdE 47 (1972), 55-67; Dietrich Raue, Heliopolis und das Haus des Re (Berlin: Achet-Verlag, 1999), 118-119. 477 See Raue, Heliopolis. 478 Geoffrey Martin, The Tomb of Maya and Meryt, vol. 1, The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary (London: EES, 2012), 60-62. 479 For instance, aq r aH ity sw m Dsrw r mAA 3r [m aH.f], “he who enters into the palace when he (the king) is in his sacred seclusion, in order to see Horus (the king) [in his palace],” ibid., 60.

115 • imy-r pr-HD n nb tAwy480 (overseer of the treasury of the Lord of the Two Lands)

• imy-r Hmwt nb n nswt481 (overseer of craftsmen of the king)

• imy-r kAt m st-nHH (overseer of works in the Valley of the Kings)

• imy-r kAt nbt n nswt (overseer of works of the king)

• Hry sStA pr nwb m r-prw nTrw nbw482 (chief of secrets of the house of gold in the

temples of all the gods)

• sSm-Hb n Imn483 (festival leader of Amun)

• sSm-Hb n Imn m Ipt-swt (festival leader of Amun at Karnak)

It seems that the management of royal property was Maya’s key area of expertise in both of these phases of his career. Under Akhenaten, he was the steward of two presumably royal foundations, the “house of Sehetep-Aten” and the “house of Waenre in Heliopolis.” As overseer of royal works of the king as well as overseer of troops, he would have been responsible for the organization of expeditions to obtain building materials,484 as well as construction, perhaps in particular for the temples in which he served as steward. Under

Tutankhamun, he continued to hold oversight of royal construction projects, including the royal

480 See recently Sophie Desplancques, L’institution du trésor en Egypte des origines à la fin du Moyen Empire (Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2006), 128-158; by the end of the New Kingdom, Desplancques concludes, the “overseer of sealed things,” imy-r xtmt, was primarily responsible for the receipt of tribute, while the domestic functions that we would associate with a “treasury” belonged to the pr-HD; ibid., 424-427. 481 For the two titles imy-r Hmwt nb n nsw and imy-r kAt nbt n nsw among individuals also affiliated with the Theban Amun cult, see Selke Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” in der 18. Dynastie (Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 2000), 156-157. 482 For the “house of gold” in this sense, see Claude Traunecker, “Le ’Château de lÓr de Thoutmosis III et les magasins nord du temple d’Ámon,” CRIPEL 11 (1989), 108-110; Jan Assmamn, “Ein Gespräch im Goldhaus über Kunst und andere Gegenstände,”in Gegengabe: Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut, ed. Ingrid Gamer-Wallert and Wolfgang Helck (Tübingen: Attempto, 1992), 43-60; Támas Bács, “A Royal Litany in a Private Context,” MDAIK 60, 5 n. 2; Alexandra von Lieven, “Im Schatten des Goldhauses: Berufsgeheimnis und Handwerkerinitiation im Alten Ägypten,” SAK 36, 2007, 147-155; and Anna Van den Kerchove, La voie d’Hermès: Pratiques rituelles et traités hermétiques (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 211-212. 483 For the title of sSm-Hb, see recently Gaultier Mouron, “À propos de la function de conducteur de fête,” BSEG 28 (2008-10), 97-117. 484 For the relationship between the titles imy-r-mSa and imy-r kAwt see recently Nico Staring, “The Title .ty-a.w HA inb.w n PtH, ‘Mayor of Beyond the Walls of Ptah,’” ZÄS 142, no, 2 (2015), 176 n. 118; earlier Franz Steinmann, “Untersuchungen zu den in der handwerklich-künstlerischen Produktion beschäftigten Personen und Berufsgruppen des Neuen Reichs, IV: Bemerkungen zur Arbeitsorganisation,” ZÄS 111 (1984), 30-40.

116 tombs in the Valley of the Kings. In his capacity as overseer of the treasury he would presumably have been responsible for the financing of such projects, and also for the disbursement of valuable materials. His oversight of royal building works and craftsmen would presumably have put him in a position to see these materials through to their final use.485 In his Memphite tomb,

Maya is explicit about the latter aspect of his job: “I was the king’s mouthpiece in order to make splendid the temples and to the images of the gods. I entered the Mansion of Gold in person in order to satisfy their cult statues…”486 In fact, Maya’s involvement with the “Mansion of Gold” at Karnak is evoked in the reward scene in the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 50). A statue of

Amun had come forth from the Hwt-nbw, and the king had taken this occasion to reward the craftsmen (or at least Neferhotep, his brother Parennefer, and their father Amenemone) who had created the god’s image.487 Maya stands bowing before the king, with the unnamed

“overseers of ” behind him. The provision of precious materials for the cult of Amun must have been considered one of Horemheb’s (and by extension Maya’s) most important acts at Thebes - the coffin of a mid-22nd Dynasty gold-worker is one of the few attestations of the “deified” king that date later than the reign of Ramesses II.

Maya’s Memphite tomb, including its decoration, apparently dates largely to the reign of Tutankhamun.488 The extraordinary honor that he held under the young king is indicated, as van Dijk has noted, by his use of otherwise strictly royal epithets: Tsw tA m sxrw.f, “the one who unites the lands with [his] plans,” and sgrH tAwy, “the one who pacifies the two lands.”489 There is no sign of Maya under Ay, which seems to indicate that his experience of the reign of the

485 See, for instance, Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 183; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 162. 486 Martin, The Tomb of Maya and Meryt, 1, 30, pls. 24-25; LD III, 240a. 487 Robert Hari, La Tombe Thébaine du père divin Neferhotep (TT 50) (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1985), pl.6; Susanne Binder, The Gold of Honor in New Kingdom Egypt (Oxford: Arris and Philips, 2008), 118-120. 488 See most recently van Dijk, “Overseer of the Treasury Maya: A Biographic Sketch,”in Martin, The Tomb of Maya and Merit, 1:68. 489 Ibid.

117 god’s father was similar to that of Horemheb. Only two documents of Maya explicitly name

Horemheb as the reigning king; from these, however, it seems that his purview changed little when his erstwhile colleague took the throne. Under Horemheb, Maya dedicated a granite scribal state, Cairo JE 36329 (E), at Karnak. It was uncovered by Legrain in the court of Pylon IV in

March of 1903. The following titles and epithets can be read in the preserved portion of the statue:490

• iry-pat hAty-a (“hereditary noble, count”)

• sr […] (noble […])

• wr wrw n nswt (great one of the great ones of the king)

• sr m-HAt nswt (noble in front of the king)

• iqr mdw nfryt (excellent of beautiful words)

• […] ib n nswt ([…] the heart of the king)

• TAy xw Hr wnm n nswt (fan-bearer at the right of the king)

• imy-r kAwt n Imn m Ipt-swt (overseer of works of Amun in Karnak)

• zXAw nswt (royal scribe)

• imy-r pr-HD (overseer of the treasury)

The “graffito” in KV 43 (F), reads as follows:

1) HAt-sp 8 Abd 3 Axt xr Hm n nswt-bity Dsr-xprw-Ra-stp-nRa sA-Ra 1r-m-Hb mr-n-Imn

“Year 8, month 3 of , under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt

Djoserkheperure-setepenre, son of Re Horemheb-beloved-of-Amun”

1) wD Hm.f anx-wDA-snb rdit m Hr n TAy -xw Hr wnm n nswt zXAw-nswt imy-r prwy-HD imy-r

kAwt m st-nHH

490 Legrain, “Notes d’inspection,” 213-215.

118 The command of his Majesty, l.p.h., placed before the fan-bearer on the right of the

king, royal scribe, overseer of the treasury, overseer of works in the Place of Eternity

(Valley of the Kings):

1) sSm Hb n Imn m Ipt-swt MayA sA sAb Iwny ms.n nbt-pr Wrt

the festival leader of Amun in Karnak, Maya, son of the judge Iuny, born of the mistress

of the house Weret,

1) r wHm qrs n nswt Mn-xprw-Ra mAa-xrw m Hwt Spst Hr imntt WAst

in order to repeat the burial of King Menkheperure, true of voice, in the noble mansion

on the west bank of Thebes.

1) Xry-a.f imy-r pr niwt-rsyt DHwty-ms sA HAtyAy mwt.f Iw-at-nt-xt n niwt

His subordinate, the steward of the Southern City (Thebes), Djehutymes, son of Hatiay;

his mother [is] Iuinhe of the City (Thebes).”

Maya was already overseer of works in the Valley of the Kings under Tutankhamun, when his own Memphite tomb was decorated. He must have been a subordinate of Horemheb at that time, who held the title “overseer of works” for the entire country.491 The surviving portions of

Maya’s tomb do not preserve any titles referring to work at Karnak,492 although this is no reason to think that he would not have been involved in Tutankhamun’s activities there. There is no evidence under Horemheb, on the other hand, of the exalted epithets that Maya held under

Tutankhamun. Without more extensive documentation, it seems unwise to assume that we have his full range of epithets for Horemheb’s reign, but it is entirely reasonable to think that he would not have had access to a quasi-royal register after Tutankhamun’s regency period ended.

491 For a convenient summary of Horemheb’s pre-royal titles see Thiem, Speos, 288-291. 492 Martin, The Tomb of Maya and Meryt, 1:60-62.

119 Maya’s office of overseer of the treasury nominally fell under the vizierate.493 As one of the three “men behind the throne” under Tutankhamun,494 he was surely more powerful in effect than the viziers would have been, but it is not entirely clear how this situation came about. Kawai has remarked on the apparent anomaly of Maya’s position with respect to the vizierate, suggesting that the overwhelming importance of the economy in the post-Amarna period was the reason for his elevation.495 Why this would result in the viziers - who were ultimately responsible for the economic administration of the country as the superiors of the treasury chief - being “sidelined” in this way is less clear. In the reign of Seti I, the vizier Paser prominently illustrated an inspection of the house of gold that he had personally carried out (TT

106).496 Under both Tutankhamun and Horemheb, however, Maya seems to have been the

“public face,” so to speak, of numerous high-value royal projects. A stela dated to

Tutankhamun’s year 8 (B) tells us that he was commissioned to lead an expedition that spanned the length of Egypt, from to Sema-Behdet in northeast Delta. Its purpose was the collection of taxes and the reestablishment of gods’ offerings 497 In TT 50 (Neferhotep), he figures prominently in a scene dated to year 3 of Horemheb, in which the employees of the house of gold are rewarded for the completion of a statue of Amun. The “overseers of Upper and Lower Egypt” (presumably his superiors) stand behind him, and are not named. Maya’s personal authority was evidently sufficient to counteract the notional structure of the bureaucracy in the years following the Amarna interlude.498 It is possible that a combination of

493 See Bryan, Thutmose IV, 244-249; 494 Cf. Kawai, 269-333. 495 Tutakhamun, 325. 496 See Jan Assmann, “Ein Gespräch im Goldhaus,” 43-60. 497 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 329-330. 498 For a discussion of this dynamic in ancient Egypt, see Christopher Eyre, “Patronage, Power, and Corruption in Pharaonic Egypt,” International Journal of Public Administration 34, no. 11 (2011), 701-711; more recently id., “Reciprocity, Retribution, and Feud,” in Aere perennius: mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus, ed. Philippe Collombert et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 163-179.

120 the king’s patronage and the face-to-face contact that he would have had with beneficiaries of royal construction and craft projects contributed to his professional effectiveness and visibility.

Under Horemheb, Maya would likely have supervised at least the initiation of work on KV 57. He was clearly involved in the ongoing refurbishment of the cult at Karnak, and probably oversaw work on Pylon II. It also seems likely that he would have overseen the restoration of the staircase at Kom el-Hettan in year 6.

Maya apparently died in or around year 9 of Horemheb, leaving behind no male children;499 his offices passed wholesale to the overseer of the double granaries, Amenemope.

Maya’s death coincides with a hiatus in the series of dated monuments of Horemheb – the last regnal year attested before the wine dockets from the Memphite and Theban tombs is

Horemheb’s eighth, in Maya’s “graffito” in KV 43. If Maya was the director of work on Pylons II,

IX, and X alike, as well as the possible colonnade between Pylons II and III,500 then his successor

Amenemope was occupied only with completing the work of the first half of Horemheb’s reign.

An alternative to this view would be to suggest that Maya was primarily concerned with the restoration program on the east-west axis of the Amun Temple that had begun under

Tutankhamun. The discovery of his scribe statue (E) in the court of Pylon IV (unless it was moved there in later years) could indicate that he anticipated this to be the prime route along which the offerings that he hoped to partake in would move.

The lack of regnal dates after the death of Maya raises some important questions. There is no way to be certain whether this is simply the result of accidents of preservation.

Nevertheless, it seems to fit well into a broader pattern observable in Horemheb’s work as king.

The first seven years of the reign were active, with efforts to restore the cults and temples of

499 Van Dijk, “Overseer of the Treasury Maya,” 67. 500 Van Dijk attributes all of these projects to Maya’s tenure as overseer of works at Karnak; ibid., 68.

121 Thebes attested in year 3 (TT 50), year 6 (Kom el-Hettan), and year 8 (KV 43). Year 7 in particular seems to have been remembered in later years; both the letter (O. Toronto A 11) of Mininiuy and the ostracon (British Museum EA 5624) documenting the dispute over the tomb of Hay include this date. With Maya’s death, the record breaks off, even though the king reigned for another five or six years at minimum. What is more, most of the projects begun under Maya’s supervision were left unfinished at the end of the reign. This picture suggests, as much as anything, an interruption in the work at Thebes. The remains of Tutankhamun’s temple found in

Pylon II come from the upper half of the monument, and although this is in no way conclusive, it could also be construed as evidence that there was a phase of construction during which the monuments of the young king were left alone, and during which work on Pylon II was partly completed. Could this phase correspond to the first part of the reign, during which Maya was responsible for work in the temple precinct? That his purview would have included more than just large-scale building works is indicated by his involvement with the pr-nbw; he need not have devoted all of his time and attention to work on the pylon or pylons whose construction he oversaw. Maya served as a festival-leader in the Amun Temple, and held responsibility for the houses of gold in other temples. In fact, year 1 of Horemheb is documented only by the usurpation of a cartouche of Ay; year 3 saw the completion of a statue of Amun. Maya clearly had connections at Thebes, which does not seem to be the case for most of Horemheb’s other officials. We can perhaps speculate that with his death, the effectiveness of royal authority in the region sustained a blow. Maya’s career, like that of so many of Horemheb’s other officials, seems to indicate a hiatus in his effective control of the Theban region.

3.2.6 – Neferhotep, God’s Father of Amun

Father: Amenemone, god’s father (it-nTr).

122 Mother: , great one of the khener of Amun (wrt xnr n Imn).

Brothers: Amenemope, lector priest of Amun (Xry-Hb n Imn); Nedjem, wab-priest of Amun (wab n Imn); Kenna, wab-priest of Amun (wab n Imn); Khonsuhotepemhebef, wab-priest of Amun

(wab n Imn).

Wife: , chantress of Amun (Smayt nt Imn).

Daughters: Tanetdjeser; Takhat.

Attestations

19th Dynasty:

A) TT 50 (Neferhotep)501

TT 50 is one of only two tombs (along with TT 255) in the necropolis in which Horemheb is depicted in a context that does not clearly indicate that he is deceased. It is also the only

Theban tomb to date an event to his reign. On the south (left-hand) wall of the transverse hall502 is a scene showing Neferhotep receiving the gold of honor.503 At the far right, Horemheb is shown standing, his far arm extended and supported on a cushion atop a balustrade.504 In his near arm, he holds the . Behind him stand two unnamed men, indentified as the

“chamberlain and royal butler.” In front of the king, a figure of the overseer of the treasury

Maya [3.2.5] bows, as do two men standing behind Maya, identified without names as the

“governors (viziers) of Upper and Lower Egypt.” Neferhotep himself is shown to the left of Maya and the viziers, wearing the shebyu-collar and with an attendant on either side. To the left of

501 Most comprehensively Hari, Neferhotep. 502 Hari, Neferhotep, 16-21. 503 For the scene, see further Petra Vornberg, Das Erscheinungsfenster innerhalb der amarnazeitlichen Palastarchitektur: Herkunft, Entwicklung, Fortleben, Philippika 4 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2004), 145, 210, 226- 228,235, 240-241, 246; and Susanne Binder, The Gold of Honor in New Kingdom Egypt, ACE Studies 8 (Oxford: Arris and Philips, 2008), 82, 84, 118-119, 196, 198-199, 202-203, 205, 229-230, 245, 321-322 (no. 136). 504 Binder, Gold of Honor, 118, observes that the composition is an “abbreviation” for the window of appearances. The king’s figure is destroyed from the waist up.

123 this group, we see three men: two wear the shebyu-collar and face left, while a third (not wearing a collar) faces toward them, reaching out to receive them. The man at far left, without a collar, is named as the “god’s father of Amun, Amenemone;” the first rewardee is called “his brother, the god’s father of Amun Neferhotep,” while the second is called the “god’s father of

Amun, Parennefer.” “His brother” likely refers to Neferhotep as the brother of Parennefer,505 with their father Amenemone welcoming them after the ceremony.

TT 50 shares a courtyard with four other tombs. The earliest of these is TT 30, which Kampp dates on the basis of its architecture to the reign of Amenotep III, with a usurpation in the 20th

Dynasty.506 Next is the well-known TT 51 of Userhat, usually dated to the reign of Seti I. TT 111

(Amenwahsu), dated to the reign of Ramesses II, lies to the south of TT 51. Finally, south of TT

50, is tomb -95-, which Kampp was able to date only to the Ramesside period “or later,” on the basis of its location with respect to the other tombs in the cluster.507 The low elevation of TT 50, which is dug into the desert floor below the gebel, offered high-quality stone for its sunk-relief decoration.508 This technique, while widely used in the Memphite necropolis in the later 18th

Dynasty, is not known to have been used at Thebes for the decoration of entire tombs prior to the reign of Ramesses II.509 Along with the use of sunk relief, the arrangement of the scenes and texts has been said to show a greater affinity with Ramesside tombs than those of known 18th

505 Amenemone is known from elsewhere in the tomb as the father of both Neferhotep and a Parennefer who was a wab-priest, and lector priest of Amun: Hari, Neferhotep, in particular 10-11, pl. 3. It could be this Parennefer who is also represented with his wife on the southwest wall of the transverse hall, to the left of a scene showing Renenutet offering to her parents and siblings, see Hari, Neferhotep, 22-23, pl. 9. There, he is called a god’s father of Amun. Hari, however, thought that the two Parennefers were different men, one the brother of Neferhotep and one the grandfather of Renenutet. 506 Ibid., 215. TT 30 is poorly published, leaving the matter of its phases of use somewhat opaque. 507 Kampp, Nekropole, 680. 508 See Deanna Kiser-Go, “A Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis of Private Post-Amarna Period Tombs in Thebes” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2006), 176. 509 Eva Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel: Die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2004) 30. A possible exception is TT 353 of , where the walls of the only decorated chamber are in sunk relief; see Peter F. Dorman, The Tombs of Senenmut: The Architecture and Decoration of Tombs 71 and 353, PMMA 24 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1991), 81-159, pls. 54-85.

124 Dynasty date, in that the scenes are closely surrounded by the inscriptions, giving the former something of the appearance of “vignettes.”510 Another feature of the decoration commonly mentioned in support of a later date is the frequent use of yellow as a background color.511

The subject of the tomb’s dating is contentious. For the purposes of the present discussion, it is sufficient to note that the general consensus places it in the early part of the 19th Dynasty, a date with which I agree in general. The reward scene is not a contemporary attestation of

Horemheb, but the commemoration of an event that significantly affected the fortunes of

Neferhotep’s family. When we consider their profession, it becomes clear why they are among the few to associate themselves so closely with Horemheb. Neferhotep’s main title, “god’s father of Amun,” is relatively common. Outside of the royal court, particularly in Thebes, it-nTr seems to have served essentially as a synonym for Hm-nTr, simply indicating an initiated priest.512 The additional title “chief of secrets in the house of gold…,” however, allows us to understand that Neferhotep was also concerned with surrounding the creation of precious objects for the temple. Hari,513 clearly drawing on the Wörterbuch,514 remarked that the

Hwt-nbw could be the goldsmiths’ studio pertaining to the temple, or that it could be a ritual space, perhaps one associated with the opening of the mouth. In point of fact, it was probably both, or closely connected in some way to such installations. Some of Neferhotep’s relatives were “overseers of the craftsmen of Amun;”515 a relation named Kenna, perhaps Neferhotep’s brother, bore the title of sanx n Imn. This can be translated simply as “sculptor,”516 but probably

510 See ibid., 30-31. 511 Ibid., 31; Kiser-Go,”Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis,” 183. 512 Gustave Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres d’Amon de Karnak jusqu’a la XXI dynastie (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929), 19; Hermann Kees, “’Gottesvater’ als Priesterklasse,” ZÄS 86 (1961), 121-125. For the use of the term as a general designation for a court advisor in the New Kingdom, see Bryan, Thutmose IV, 45-46. 513 Hari, Neferhotep, 10, n. 6. 514 WB II, 238.16-18. 515 Hari, Neferhotep, 28-29. 516 WB IV, 47.17-18.

125 also carried with it the connotation of creating images that would “live,” such as (in particular) the statues of gods.517 Rather than seeing this as a priestly family, it would probably be closer to the truth to think of them as highly skilled artisans employed in a setting that had tremendous religious significance and strict ritual requirements. We have noted above the significance of the

“house of gold” to Maya; Neferhotep and his relatives were probably the beneficiaries of efforts, instigated under Horemheb, to provide for the enrichment of the cult of Amun with precious objects.

3.2.7 – Neferhotep “the Elder,” Foreman in the Valley of the Kings

Wife: Iyemwaw.

Sons: Nebnefer (TT 6), foreman in the Valley of the Kings (aA n iswt); Nakhy, army scribe of the

Lord of the Two Lands (zXAw mSaw n nb tAwy); Mose, chief transport officer of His Majesty (mSkb tpy n Hm.f); Turo.

Daughter: Tuia.

Grandsons: Neferhotep “the Younger” (TT 216), foreman in the Valley of the Kings (aA n iswt);

Pashedu; Anuy

Granddaughters: Henutmehyt; Iyemwaw.

Attestations

Reign of Horemheb (?):

A) Offering table from the courtyard of TT216, now in the Louvre.518

517 See, for instance, Joachim Quack, “Das Mundöffnungsritual als Tempeltext und Funerärtext,” in Liturgical texts for Osiris and the deceased in Late Period and Greco- / Liturgische Texte für Osiris und Verstorbene im spätzeitlichen Ägypten: proceedings of the colloquiums at New York (ISAW), 6 May 2011, and Freudenstadt, 18-21 July 2012, ed. Burckhard Backes and Jacco Dieleman (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2015), 145-159. 518 Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh 1923-1924, FIFAO 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 1925), pl. 12.

126 Reign of Ramesses II

B) TT 216 (Neferhotep ii)519

C) TT 250 (Ramose)520

As “foreman” (aA n iswt) of the “Lord of the Two Lands, Djoserkheperure-setepenre,”

Neferhotep would have been charged with managing the workers who created the king’s tomb

(KV 57) in the Valley of the Kings.521 He lived the workmens’village at Deir el-Medina, where at least two generations of his descendants succeeded him in his position.522 Neferhotep is known to us only from the tombs of his namesake grandson (TT 216), and the famous scribe Ramose

(TT 250). The offering table which gives his title as the foreman of Horemheb was found in the courtyard of TT 216. Since the king’s name appears only in Neferhotep’s title, it is not possible to be entirely certain that the offering table was not a posthumous donation. It does, however, show that it was under Horemheb that Neferhotep served. No tomb is known for him.

3.2.8 - Amenemope c. Panhesi, Overseer of the Double Granaries/Overseer of the Treasury

Grandmother: Satre

Father: Paser, chamberlain (imy-r a-Xnwty)

Mother: Iunna, mistress of a house (nbt pr)

Sister: Satre

519 Bruyére, Rapport (1923-1924), 36-40; id., Rapport (1924-1925), 16-17, 35-42; Kampp, Nekropole, 2:494-496, fig. 387; PM I.1, 312-313. 520 Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh, 1925-1926, FIFAO 3 (Cairo: IFAO, 1926), 59-66; Eva Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel: die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber, 2 vols (Heidelberg: Propylaeum-DOK Digital Edition, 2015), 91, 101-102; Kampp, Nekropole, 525 (no description); PM I.1, 336; Alain Zivie, “Un Détour par Saqqara: Deir el Médineh et la Nécropole Memphite,” in Deir el Médineh et la Valée des Rois: La Vie en Égypte au Temps des Pharaons du Nouvel Empire. Actes du Colloque Organisé par le Musée du Louvre les 3 et 4 Mai 2002, ed. (Paris: Khéops, 2003), 67-82. 521 For the duties of the foremen, see Jaroslav Cerny, A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period (Cairo: IFAO, 2001), 121-132. 522 See Benedict Davies, Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina (Leiden: Nederlands Instiituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999), 31-34.

127 Wife: Mutnisut, c. Muty or Tiy, mistress of a house (nbt pr)

Attestations

Reign of Amenhotep III:

A) Limestone stela, Louvre C 65

Reign of Horemheb:

B) Wooden cubit rod from Saqqara, Turin Cat. 6347523

C) Granite kneeling naophorous statue, probably from Abu Oda, Princeton y1991-20524

D) Architectural fragments from Mit Rahina525

Reign of Seti I:

E) Stela from Beth-Shan526

Unknown date:

F) Limestone column, Luxor, Coll. Habachi527

G) Shabti, Bologna528

H) Shabti, Florence529

I) TT 255 (Roy)530

523 PM III.1, 773-774 (with earlier bibliography); Thiem, Speos, 500; Briant Bohleke “Amenemopet Panehesi: Direct Successor of the Chief Treasurer Maya,” JARCE 39 (2002), 168; F. Monnier, J. P. Petit, and C. Tardy. "The Use of the ‘Ceremonial’ Cubit Rod as a Measuring Tool: An Explanation," Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 1 (2016), 1-9; Simon Schaffer, “Oriental Metrology and the Politics of Antiquity in Nineteenth-Century Survey Sciences,” Science in Context 30, no. 2 (2017), 173. 524 Ibid., 162-168; http://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/33443 (accessed 2/3/2018). 525 PM III.1, 861, where they are reported to have been photographed by the University of Pennsylvania mission; I was unable to locate them in the museum’s online collection records. 526 Alan Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-Shan (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1930), 37-38, pl. 49; Bohleke, “Amenemopet Panehesi,” 169-171. 527 Ibid., 158-162. 528 William M. F. Petrie, Shabtis, Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London, with Catalogue of Figures from Many Other Sources (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1935), pl. 16; Bohleke, “Amenopet Panehesi,” 168. 529 Petrie, Shabtis, pl. 16; Bohleke, “Amenopet Panehesi,” 168. 530 PM I.1, 339; Marcelle Baud, Étienne Drioton, Le tombeau de Roÿ (tombeau no. 255), MIFAO 57, fasc. 4 (1928), 35, no. 20C, fig. 9; Max Wegner, “Stilentwicklung der Thebansichen Beamtengräber,” MDAIK 4 (1933), 45, 48, 50, 57, 87, 91, 160-161, pl. 26 a-b; Urk. IV, 2174.14-15; Wolfgang Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs, PdÄ 3

128 Like the overseer of the treasury, another critical functionary of the royal system of revenues and disbursements was the overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower

Egypt.531 Horemheb’s overseer of double granaries was Amenemope, called Panhesi, who apparently became also the overseer of the treasury around year 9. Bohleke has noted that most of his monuments date to the period before he acquired his second, more prestigious office; we know him best as granary chief, and it is under that title that he is usually discussed.

In the earlier part of his career532 he would have been the official who bore ultimate responsibility for the collection and disbursement of the grain supply that appertained to the king, and likely for the accounting of agricultural tax revenues.533

Of the three attestations of Amenemope as overseer of the treasury, the Beth Shan stela (E) probably dates from the end of his period of service, perhaps in the early years of Seti I. His putative Theban tomb, from which the column (F) in the Habachi collection would have come, has not yet been discovered. This leaves (if Bohleke is correct in his reconstruction of

Amenemope’s career) only the naophorous statue from Abu Oda (C) to testify to his role throughout Horemheb’s later reign, in spite of the fact that his position had theoretically increased in importance. After Amenemope, the next overseer of the treasury of whom we are aware is Tia, the brother-in-law of Ramesses II.534 Tia was probably older than Ramesses II,535

(Leiden: Brill, 1958), 392-393; Andrea Gnirs, “Haremhab: ein Staatsreformator? Neue Betrachtungen zum Haremhab- Dekret,” SAK 16 (1989), 100 n. 73; Thiem, Speos, 500; Briant Bohleke, “Overseers of the Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt in the New Kingdom,” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1991, 253-256, 258; Bohleke, “Amenemopet Panehesi,” 168. 531 That is, for the central, royally controlled granaries. Many institutions, including temples, had their own “overseers of double granaries,” which has resulted in some confusion in past prosopographies, as the institution of affiliation is not necessarily given in each instance of a title. See Bohleke, “Overseers,” 40-44. 532 That is, for the central, royally controlled granaries. Many institutions, including temples, had their own “overseers of double granaries,” which has resulted in some confusion in past prosopographies, as the institution of affiliation is not necessarily given in each instance of a title. See Bohleke, “Overseers,” 40-44. 533 Ibid., 119-123; also recently Brian Muhs, The Ancient Egyptian Economy: 3000-30 BCE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 116-117. 534 For the career and monuments of Tia, see Jacobus van Dijk, “The Family and Career of Tia,” in Geoffrey T. Martin, The Tomb of Tia and Tia: A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite Necropolis (London: EES, 1997), 49-62. 535 Ibid., 50.

129 and could have served Seti I in this capacity. He seems still to have been living, though, around year 20 of Ramesses II.536 This means that from a period of some forty years at least, we have documentation of only two overseers of the treasury. What is more, at the same time that visibility of individuals titled imy-r pr(wy)-HD seems to have waned, another title related to valuable goods, the “overseer of sealed things,” imy-r xtmt, shows a gap in attestations from the reign of Amenhotep III to that of Seti I.537 It is possible that the overseers of sealed things were largely responsible for the reception of tributes.538 If this is the case, then the change in the frequency with which the office changed hands may offer support for the notion that both domestic and foreign revenue streams were somewhat out of order in the post-Amarna period.

Amenemope’s career highlights the extent to which the succession in leadership of yet another important government bureau is opaque for this period. His predecessor in office seems to have been a man named Wepwawetmose (I).539 Wepwawetmose was apparently the grandson of a wab-priest named Panhesi, but given the popularity of the name in the New Kingdom, this does not suggest any relationship between him and Amenemope. After Horemheb’s reign, the next known overseer of double granaries is probably Siese (I), whose son and grandson would both eventually follow him in office.540 Siese I was likely succeeded immediately by a Wepwawetmose

(II). All three of the overseers of the double granaries Siese dedicated monuments that honor the got Wepwaet in a prominent manner.541 A number of attestations of these men come from

536 Ibid., 59. 537 For much of the New Kingdom, Bryan has noted that there seems to have been an overabundance of overseers of the treasury, in contrast to the sparse record of the post-Amarna period; The Reign of Thutmose IV (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), 248-249. 538 See recently Sophie Desplancques, L’institution du trésor en Egypte des origines à la fin du Moyen Empire (Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2006), 128-158; by the end of the New Kingdom, Desplancques concludes, the “overseer of sealed things,” imy-r xtmt, was primarily responsible for the receipt of tribute, while the domestic functions that we would associate with a “treasury” belonged to the pr-HD; ibid., 424-427. 539 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 428. 540 Bohleke, “Overseers,” 260-280. 541 See KRI III, 149.12-154.11, 465.7-467.7; KRI IV, 100.9-101.15 for the frequency of mentions of Wepwawet in their monuments.

130 the area around , whose chief god was Wepwawet. It seems reasonable to think that the entire line of overseers of the double granary from Wepwawetmose I to Siese III (who served late in the reign of Ramesses II) were members of the same Asyuti clan. Because the genealogy is unclear, however, we cannot be sure, but the movement of an office among collateral kin is not unheard of in ancient Egypt.542 The most that can be said is that, as with the office of viceroy of Kush, the reign of Horemheb does not seem to have disrupted the existing line very much.

The one possible exception to the apparently unbroken Asyuti chain of succession is

Amenemope c. Panhesi himself. Stela Louvre C 65 (A), which probably represents his family, gives their titles as associated with the cults of Amun and Ptah.543 Gnirs544 has represented this apparent break in the Asyuti grip on the office of overseer of the double granaries as an indication of Horemheb’s efforts at state reform. If this is the case, however, it would seem that rather than laying the foundation for a new direction in the oiffice, Horemheb succeeded only in causing a hiatus – after his death, the older structure seems to have prevailed.

3.2.9 – Nebwa, High Priest of Amun of Sema-Behdet/Pa-Iw (“Amun of the Isle”)

Father: Huy, judge (sAb)

Wife: Mutnefret, chantress of Amun (Smayt nt Imn)

Attestations

Reign of Horemheb:

A) Limestone statue of Nebwa as a standard-bearer, from Tell Basta (?), Cairo EMC TR

3.6.24.7

542 Cf., for instance, Shirley, “The Culture of Officialdom,” 177. 543 See Bohleke, “Overseers,” 250-251. 544 Gnirs, “Haremhab – ein Staatsreformator?,” 100.

131 Unknown date:

B) Amethyst carab, Coll. Amherst545

C) Faience shabti fragment, from Qurna (?), Cairo EMC CG 48494 = JE 37703546

D) Limestone statue of Nebwa and Mutnefret from Tell Umm el-Harb, Cairo EMC TR

29.9.14.5547

E) Limestone statue of Nebwa striding, EMC CG 883 = JE 29092548

F) Grey granite statue base, Coll. Michaelides549

Nebwa is one of the better attested individuals who served during the reign of

Horemheb, but even he poses significant challenges with regard to the interpretation of his career. Only one of his monuments bears the name of Horemheb – his standard-bearing statue

Cairo TR 3.6.24.7 (C). Nebwa has most recently been discussed by Metawi,550 who argues that stylistically, his monuments are more in keeping with a date in the early 19th Dynasty than the late 18th.551 I would argue that the stylistic development of private sculpture in the post-Amarna period is not sufficiently understood to take this assertion at face value, but if Metawi is correct, then it would seem that Nebwa first came to prominence under Horemheb instead of being (like

Maya) an ally from his pre-royal circle.

545 Percy Newberry, “Exctracts from my Notebooks VII,” PSBA 25 (1903), 362-363; Georges Legrain, “Notes d’Inspection,” ASAE 8 (1907), 269; Dina Metawi, “Nebwa Revisited (Cairo Museum TR.29/9/15/5),” SAK 44 (2015), 237. 546 Newberry, Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi: Fasc. 2, nos. 46520-48575, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Cairo: IFAO, 1937), 377; Legrain, Répertoire généalogique et onomastique du Musée du Caire (Geneva: Société Anonyme des Arts Graphiques, 1908), no. 329; id., “Notes d’Inspection “(1908), 269; Ivan Guermeur, Les cultes d’Amon hors de Thèbes: recherches de géographie religieuse (Turnhout: Brepolis, 2005), 208; Metawi, “Nebwa Revisited,” 327. 547 Metawi, “Nebwa Revisited,” passim. 548 Legrain, “Notes d’Inspection” (1908), 269-270; Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleute, vol. 3, Nos. 654-950, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Berlin: Reichsdrückerei, 1930), 135; Legrain, Répertoire, no. 327; Guermeur, Les cultes d’Amon, 208; Metawi, “Nebwa Revisited,” 327. 549 Legrain, “Notes d’Inspection” (1908), 269-272; Guermeur, Les cultes d’Amon, 210-211; Metawi, “Nebwa Revisited,” 237. 550 Ibid., passim. 551 Ibid., 237.

132 Nebwa’s most frequent title is that of “high priest of Amun of Sema-Behdet/Pa-iw.” Both

Egyptian toponyms seem to refer to the same site, in the vicinity of Tell Umm el-Harb in

Monofiya governorate.552 Daressy identified a “Ramesside” cemetery at the site,553 which could suggest that the pair statue of Nebwa and Mutnefret (E) from Tell Umm el-Harb dates to the later part of his career. Metawi argues that the use of the plain title “high priest of Amun-Re” on the back slab of the Tell Umm el-Harb statue suggests that Nebwa also served as Theban high priest.554 It seems more likely, however, that it is an abbreviation for his longer title,555 particularly since he is called “high priest of “Amun-Re in the island,” Hm-nTr-tp n Imn-Ra m pA- iw, in the first column of the same inscription, with the shorter version repeated consistently thereafter. I see no reason, pending the discovery of further evidence, to think that Nebwa held the high priesthood at Karnak. One of his shabtis (C) has a claimed provenance of Qurna; given the portability of such an object and the wide range of the antiquities trade (it is not reported whether the statue was excavated or purchased), I hesitate to take this as certain.

That Nebwa did not hold the high priesthood of Amun at Thebes does not mean that he was an insignificant clergyman. Sema-Behdet was important enough during the reign of Tutankhamun to serve as the northern endpoint (at least for rhetorical purposes) of Maya’s journey throughout the length of Egypt.556 It also seems to have been a locus where the cult of Amun and Mut was associated with that of Thoth and , also important patrons of the region.557

He was also, of course, connected with Thebes; in in a stela from the reign of Amenhotep II,

Amun-of-the-Isle is given the epithet “Amun-Lord-of-the-Two-Lands,” that is, of Karnak,558

552 Metawi also calls the site Tell Mustai, ibid., 242; see also Guermuer, Les cultes d’Amon, 202-204, who identifies Sema-Behdet as modern Tell el-Balamun. 553 Daressy, “À travers les koms du Delta,” ASAE 12 (1912), 210-212; Metawi, “Nebwa” 243. 554 Metawi, “Nebwa,” 243. 555 A possibility which Metawi, ibid., also suggests. 556 See above, 3.2.5 (B). 557 Metawi, “Nebwa,” 242. 558 Guermeur, Les cultes d’Amon, 207.

133 We have noted that after Parennefer c. Wennefer, there is no high priest of Amun attested at

Thebes until Nebnetjeru c. Tjenry; although this cleric may have served under Horemheb, he is known to us only through the tomb of his son, the vizier and high priest of Amun, Paser (TT 106).

The fact that the high priest of an important Amun cult in the Delta is better attested seems to reinforce the idea that Horemheb was very much oriented toward the north. While this is no surprise, what is interesting is that Nebwa, if Metawi is correct, served in the later part of

Horemheb’s reign, while Parennefer c. Wennefer was likely active only at the beginning. If

Nebwa is any indication, it would seem that rather than seeing a steady progress toward restored royal prestige at Thebes, Horemheb’s reign may have been characterized by ongoing, or even new political rifts between the north and south.

3.2.10 – Preemheb, High Priest of Re at Heliopolis

Attestations

Reign of Horemheb:

A) Stele from Heliopolis, Cairo CG 34175 (verso)559

559 ] Lacau, Stèles, 214-216, pl. LXV; , “Notes et Remarques,” RecTrav 16 (1894), 123-124; Sandman, Texts, 157-157; Urk. IV, 2171.7-2173.12; PM IV, 63; Hari, Horemheb, 32-35, pl. V, fig. 2; Jacques Vandier, “Iousâas et (Hathor)-Nébet-Hétépet,” RdE 16 (1964), 76 n. 3-4; Helck, Materialien, 1:125; Labib Habachi, “Akhenaten in Heliopolis,” in Aufsätze zum 70. Geburtstag von Herbert Ricke, ed. Gerhard Haeny, BBA 12 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1971), 41-45, fig. 20; Mohamed Moursi, Die Hohenpriester des Sonnengottes von der Frühzeit Ägyptens bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches, MÄS 26 (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1972), 50-52; Karol Myśliwiec, Studien zum Gott Atum, 2 vols., HÄB 8 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1979), 2:16; Andrea Gnirs, “Haremhab - ein Staatsreformator?” 103 n. 88; Ian Shaw, “Balustrades, Stairs, and Altars in the Cult of the Aten at el-Amarna,” JEA 80 (1994), 119-121; Chevereau, Cadres militaires, 60 (9.09); Heike Guksch, Königsdienst: zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie, SAGA 11 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1994), 113, (007)08, (009)05; Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft: ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches, SAGA 16 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996), 191 n. 1285); Dietrich Raue, Heliopolis und das Haus des Re: eine Prosopographie und ein Toponym im Neuen Reich, ADAIK 16 (Berlin: Achet, 1999); Rolf Krauss, “Eine Regentin, ein König und eine Königin zwischen dem Tod von Achenaten und der Thronbesteigung von Tutanchaten,” AF 34, no. 2 (2007), 297 n. 30; Valerie Angenot, “A Horizon of Aten at Memphis?” JSSEA 35 (2008), 12 n. 83.

134 Another of Horemheb’s northern religious officials is Preemheb, known only from his stela, Cairo CG 34174 (A). We have regrettably little information on him or his career.

Throughout the New Kingdom, the high priesthood at Heliopolis seems to have been an exception to the general pattern whereby such offices were passed down in families.560 In fact,

Raue has convincingly argued that the priesthood of Re served in the New Kingdom as a king of

“pension,” an office into which older officials could comfortably retire.561 Unfortunately, this lack of continuity in the transmission of the priesthood results in a limited amount of prosopographical data on the officeholders.

What we do know about Preemheb is that he spent much of his career in the military.

Rather than an being a field officer or administrator, his work was to supervise a fortress in the eastern Delta (and its environs), possiblythe famous installation at Tjaru.562 The titles and epithets given for him on his stela are:

• imy-r pHw – overseer of the marshalnds

• imy-r xtmw n nTr nfr – overseer of the fortress of the good god

• swsr nswt saA bity – one who empowers the king of upper Egypt and magnifies the king

of lower Egypt

• rs(w)-tp – the watchful one

• smAa(w) – the one who justifies563

• Hsy n nTr nfr – the one praised fo the good god

• wr-iAwt – great of (his) offices

560 Raue, Heliopolis, 42-44. 561 Ibid., 44-45. 562 See Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism, 288. 563 WB IV, 124.14-125.9, 125.10-16.

135 • mh-ib n nb tAwy – favorite of the Lord of the Two Lands564

• rx n nswt [?].f – royal acquaintance

• wr-mAw n pr-Ra – chief of seers (high priest) in the house of Re

The appointment of Preemheb to the doubtless well-endowed pontificate of Re would have been a fitting reward for his service on a contested frontier.

The stela itself is a remarkable object. It was originally a stela of Akhenaten, showing that king offering and libating before his god, accompanied by Nefertiti and . The name “Aten” has been erased in several of the cartouches, but left intact in others. One wonders how, in the reign of a king who saw through much of the destruction of Akhenaten’s construction, the stela of a prominent and loyal official could be added to the back of a monument to the “heretic” king. In fact, the Akhenaten side of the stela is in fairly good condition. This stands in contravention of the fact that, at least in terms of royal monuments,

“no attempt was ever made to usurp, appropriate, or reuse any of Akhenaten’s statues…,” or in fact his architecture and its decoration.565 The back of the stela would certainly have been hidden, like the remains of Akhenaten’s buildings were when they were used as construction fill.

The figures and text of Akhenaten were defaced. The link between Re, Horus, and the Aten is, however, among the best-known and most characteristic features of the theology of

Akhenaten’s early reign;566 one wonders if the stela of Preemheb is an indication that the animus against the “heretic” pharaoh might have been less intense in the environs of Heliopolis than elsewhere in Egypt.

564 Cf. Denise Doxey, Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 313. It is not clear whether he would have preceded or succeeded Paramessu in this office. 565 Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “Usurpation,” in Joyful in Thebes: Studies in Honor of Betsy M. Bryan, ed. Kathlyn Cooney and Richard Jasnow (Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2015), 97. 566 Cf. recently Josef Wegner, The Sunshade Chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017), 77-78.

136 3.2.11 - Usermontu, Vizier

Father: Nebmehyt, judge (sAb) Mother: Maya Brother: Huy, high priest of Montu, lord of Heliopolis (Hm-nTr tpy n MnTw nb Iwnw)

Attestations

Reign of Tutankhamun:

A) Stelophorous statue fragment from Armant, EMC TR 22.6.37.1 (original inscription)567

Reign of Horemheb:

B) Stelophorous statue fragment from Armant, EMC TR 22.6.37.1 (surcharged cartouche)568

19th Dynasty:

C) TT 31 ()569

D) TT 148 (Amenemope)570

E) “Daressy fragment,” Paris, Collège de France, Inv. B:Arch. E 30/1571

567 M.S. Drower, “The Inscriptions,” in and Oliver Myers, Temples of Armant: A Preliminary Survey, 2 vols. (London: EES, 1940), 1:184-185, 2: pl. 101, no. 3; Urk. IV, 2080.6-2083.8; Labib Habachi, “Unknown or Little- Known Monuments of Tutankhamun and of his Viziers,” in Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H.W. Fairman, ed. John Ruffle, Gaballa.A. Gaballa, and Kenneth Kitchen (Warminster: Arris & Phillips, 1979), 36, 40; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 335-340. 568 See n. 1. 569 Alan Gardiner and Arthur Weigall, A Topographical Catalogue of the Private Tombs of Thebes (London: Quaritch, 1913), 176; Robert Mond and Walter Emery, “Excavations at Sheikh Abd el Gurneh, 1925-1926,” LAAA 14 (1927), 30; Norman de Garis Davies and Alan Gardiner, Seven Private Tombs at Kurnah, Mond Excavations at Thebes 2, (London: EES, 1948), 11-30; PM I.1, 47-49; Kampp, Nekropole, 1:219-221, fig. 122-125; Jiro Kondo, “The Re-use of the Private Tombs on the Western Bank of Thebes and its Chronological Problem: the Cases of the Tomb of Hnsw (no. 31) and the Tomb of Wsr-h3t (no. 51),” Orient 32 (1997), 50-68; Kent Weeks, The Treasures of Luxor and the Valley of the Kings (Vercelli: White Star, 2005), 484-487; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 335-340. 570 PM I.1, 259-260; Gaballa A. Gaballa and Kenneth Kitchen, “Ramesside Varia, 6: The Prophet Amenemope, His Tomb and Family,” MDAIK 37 (1981), 161-180; Boyo Ockinga, “Macquarie University Theban Tombs Project, TT 148: Amenemope, Preliminary Report on 1991/2 and 1992/3 Seasons,” BACE 4 (1993), 41-50; Kampp, Nekropole, 1:434- 437, figs. 329-331; Ockinga, “Macquarie University Theban Tombs Project, TT 148: Amenemope, Preliminary Report on 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 Seasons,” BACE 7 (1996), 65-73; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 335-340; Ockinga, The Tomb of Amenemope (TT 148), vol. 1, Architecture, Texts and Decoration, RACE 27 (Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 2009). 571 The catalog number refers to the drawing of the fragment preserved in the library of the Collège de France. Dietrich Wildung, und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im Alten Ägypten, MÄS 36 (München: Deutscher

137 Unknown date:

F) Red granite sarcophagus of Usermontu from Thebes, Luxor, Metropolitan House,

Assasif572

G) TT 364 (Hatiay)573

The only person other than Paramessu (see below, 3.2.12) who indisputably bore the title of vizier in association with Horemheb is Usermontu. Usermontu had been in service under

Tutankhamun, probably as southern vizier.574 We know that he held that office under

Horemheb as well, but only because the king’s cartouche is carved over one of Tutankhamun on a statue fragment from Armant (A/B) – in fact, most of what we know about him comes from the later tombs of other individuals. In the tomb of Khonsu (TT 31), Usermontu and his brother

Huy are shown together on the bark of Montu, named as the sons of the lady Maya.575 Their father, Nebmehyt, is depicted in the same scene on a battleship, with the title of TAy-Sryt n sAw n

Nb-mAar-Ra, standard bearer of the regiment of (Amenhotep III).576 The tomb owner,

Khonsu’s, father Neferhotep appears nearby; Nebmehyt is described as the father of

Neferhotep as well. It seems that Usermontu and his brother Huy were ancestors of Neferhotep and Khonsu, but in what relation is unclear. Given that Nebmehyt is described as the father of all

Kunstverlag, 1977), 28-29; Wildung, Sesostris und Amenemhet: Ägypten im Mittleren Reich (München: Hirmer, 1984), Loprieno, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature, 53, 58, 77, 128, 143, 552; Elizabeth Frood, “Self-Representation,” 10-11. 572 Habachi, “Unknown or Little Known Monuments,” 37-40; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 335-340; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 335-340. 573 Shemuel Yeivin, “The Tomb of Hati Yati (No. 324). The Mond Excavations at Luxor, 1924-1925.” AAAL 13 (1926), 10-11. Norman de Garis Davies, Seven Private Tombs at Kurneh (London: EES, 1948), 42-48; PM I.1, 395-396; Habachi, “A Family from Armant in Aswan and in Thebes,” JEA 51 (1965), 123-126; Kampp, Nekropole, 2:574-577, figs. 470-471; Melanie Wasmuth, Innovationen und Extravaganzen: Ein Beitrag zur Architektur der thebanischen Beamtengräber der 18. Dynastie, BAR International Series 1165 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2003), 131; Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 335-340; Deanna Kiser-Go, “A Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis” 97-102, 109, 119 n. 9, 254, 424; Vincent Chollier, “Hatiay, responsable des prophètes de tous les dieux: une généalogie ramesside à reviser,” BIFAO 114 (2014), 99-110; Eva Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel: die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber, 2 vols (Heidelberg: Propylaeum-DOK Digital Edition, 2015), 26-27. 574 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun,” 336. 575 Davies, Seven Private Tombs, 11, pl. 21. 576 Ibid.

138 three of the older men, perhaps the simplest explanation would be that Usermontu and Huy were Khonsu’s uncles. As that the latter flourished in the second half of the reign of Ramesses II, this is not inconceivable. Usermontu also appears in TT 148 of Amenemope, which dates to the

20th Dynasty. This much later monument also depicts him as an ancestor of the tomb owner.577

A final depiction of Usermontu appears in TT 324, the tomb of Hatiay. Like TT 50 (Neferhotep), this tomb’s date has been subject to some debate. Habachi suggested a date as late as the reign of Ramesses VI-VII.578 Both Kampp579 and Hofmann,580 however, date the tomb to the reign of

Ay through that of Seti I, as does Kawai.581 The tomb’s decoration is too badly damaged for close study. It seems to me that a post-Amarna date is entirely reasonable, but I would not rule out the first half of the reign of Ramesses II.

Apart from the statue from Armant, the only contemporary monument of Usermontu is a granite sarcophagus trough (F). It seems most likely that it dates to the reign of Horemheb, as there is no evidence that Usermontu survived into the reign of Seti I. He must have been the owner of a Theban tomb, which remains as yet undiscovered. During his own lifetime, he was associated with Horemheb only through the replacement of Tutankhamun’s cartouche, as is the case for the high priest of Amun Parennefer c. Wennefer. Like Wennefer, he also reappears in the monuments of his descandants, beginning in the reign of Ramesses II. The usurpation of

Tutankhamun’s cartouches seems like an ad-hoc measure to update existing monuments.

Without knowing when the damnatio memoriae of the young king began, it is difficult to say how long into the reign of Horemheb the men served. Given that neither seems to have had the opportunity to create any monuments that commemorate, from the outset, their relationships

577 See Kawai, “Tutankhamun”, 338. 578 Habachi 1965. 579 Kampp 1996, 574. 580 Hoffmann 2015, 27. 581 “Tutankhamun,” 339.

139 with Horemheb, it seems reasonable to assume that they were officials of the early reign, perhaps only the period when Maya was still alive and active at Thebes.

3.2.12 – Paramessu, Vizier

While Usermontu seems to have served Horemheb early in his reign, the king’s other certain vizier was active at its end. Paramessu, like Horemheb was originally a military man, promoted to the role of crown prince in the apparent absence of an heir of the blood. He must certainly have been the most powerful man to serve Horemheb, and it is to his career that we must look for the real origins of the 19th Dynasty.

Attestations

Reign of Horemheb:

A) Scribe statue from Karnak, Cairo JE 44863582

B) Scribe statue from Karnak, Cairo JE 44864583

C) Outer sarcophagus trough, Cairo JE 46764584

D) Outer sarcophagus lid, Cairo JE 30707585

E) Inner sarcophagus, Cairo JE 72203586

Reign of Ramesses II:

582 Legrain, “Les statues de Paramessou, fils de Séti,” ASAE 14 (1914), 29-31, 32-38, pls. 1-2; Urk. IV, 2175.1-2176.10; PM II2, 188; Gerry Scott, The History and Development of the Egyptian Scribe Statue, (PhD diss., Yale University, 1989), 454-458 (no. 164), inventory number given as JE 44864; Thiem, Speos, 505 (LVII.1). 583 Legrain, “Les statues de Paramessou, 31-32, 32-38, pls. 1-2; Urk. IV, 2176.11-21; PM II2, 188; Scott, Scribe Statue, 450-453 (no. 163), inventory number given as JE 44863; Thiem, Speos, 505 (LVII.1). 584 Guy Brunton and Reginald Engelbach, Gurob, BSAE 41 (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1927), 19- 25, frontispiece, pl. 32; PM IV, 114; Daniel Polz, “Die Särge des (Pa-) Ramessu,” MDAIK 42 (1986), passim (A), see especially 149-150; Thiem, Speos, 505 (LVII.4). 585 Brunton and Reginald Engelbach, Gurob, 19-25, frontispiece, pl. 32; PM IV, 114; Daniel Polz, “Die Särge des (Pa-) Ramessu,” MDAIK 42 (1986), passim (A), see especially 147-149; Thiem, Speos, 505 (LVII.4). 586 Brunton, “The Inner Sarcophagus of Prince Ramessu from Medinet Habu,” ASAE 43 (1943), 133-148; Daniel Polz, “Die Särge des (Pa-) Ramessu,” passim (B), see especially 150-154; Thiem, Speos, 505 (LVII.3).

140 F) “400-Year Stela” discovered at , Cairo JE 60539587

Unknown Date:

G) Stela of Suty, Chicago OI 11456588 (attribution to Paramessu uncertain)

We know from Paramessu’s Karnak scribe statue (A) that his father was a sAb (judge) and Hry-pDt (troop commander) named Seti. The future king’s other monuments, however, tell us nothing about his origins. The matter is of more than notional interest, since a genealogical connection has been proposed between Paramessu and the powerful “Akhmim family” that produced Amenhotep III’s queen, Tiye.589 Whether we accept or reject this connection has significant implications for our understanding of how power transitioned at the beginning of the

19th Dynasty; for this reason, we will examine the question here at some length.

It has been proposed that the man who would become Ramesses I first appears in the record on a fragmentary stela in Chicago, OI 11456 (G).590 The surviving portion of the stela represents three members of a family (two males and a female) together, carved in high relief in a central niche. On each side of the niche is a sunk-relief representation of a male figure bringing bread- loaves and a duck. The bands of text that run down the raised borders of the stela identify the

587 Auguste Mariette, “La stèle de l'an 400,” RAr, n.s. 11 (1865), 169-190; BAR III, 226-228; Kurt Sethe, “Der Denkstein mit dem Datum des Jahres 400 der Ära von Tanis,” ZÄS 65 (1930), 85-89; , “La Stèle de l’an 400 retrouvée,” Kêmi 4 (1933), 191-215; PM IV, 23; Rainer Stadelmann, “Die 400-Jahr-Stele,” CdÉ 40, no. 79 (1965), 46-60; Hans Goedicke, “Some Remarks on the 400-Year-Stela,” CdÉ 41, no. 81 (1966), 23-39; KRI II, 287.3-288.11; Goedicke, “The 400-Year-Stela Reconsidered,” 3 (1981), 25-42; Stadelmann, “Vierhundertjahrstele,” LÄ VI, 1039-1043; von Beckerath, “Nochmals die ‘Vierhundertjahr-Stele’”,” Orientalia 62 (1993), 400-403; Antonio Loprieno, “The ‘King’s Novel,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, ed. Antonio Loprieno (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 292-293; Donald Redford, ”Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period,” in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. Eliezer D. Oren (Philadelphia: The Univeristy Museum, 1997), 18-19 (no. 75); Thiem, Speos, 505 (LVII.2); Peter Brand, The Monuments of Seti I (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 336-341; Elizabeth Frood, “Self-Presentation in Ramessid Egypt,” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2004, 11; Niv Allon, “Seth is : Evidence from the Egyptian Script,” ÄL 17 (2007), 15-22; Colleen Manassa, Imagining the Past: HIsotrical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 47-49, 155-156; Claire Somaglino, “Du Delta orientale à la tête de l’Êgypte: la trajectoire de Paramessou sous le règne d’Horemheb,” EAO 76 (2014-2015), 41-42. 588 Eugene Cruz-Uribe, “The Father of Ramses I: OI 11456,” JNES 37, no. 3 (Jul. 1978), 237-244. 589 Cruz-Uribe, “The Father of Ramses I,” 244; Alexandre Herrero, “The ‘King’s Son of Kush’ Paser (II),” 74-75. 590 Cruz-Uribe, “The Father of Ramses I,” passim.

141 monument’s owner as a man named Suty, who bore the title Hry-pDt n nb tAwy (troop commander of the lord of the two lands). The two men on either side of the niche are identified respectively as “his brother” (presumably with regard to Suty), the TAy-Sryt n pA Smsw”

(standard-bearer of the retinue) Khaemwaset, and “his son (?)”, the Hry-iHw (stablemaster) ⌜ ⌝

Ra? -mose. Cruz-Uribe argues, given the proximity in time591 of this troop commander Suty to the troop commander Seti named as Paramessu’s father, that the monument represents none ⌜ ⌝ other than the future Ramesses I and members of his family.

There are a number of possible objections to Cruz-Uribe’s hypothesis. Van Dijk592 has questioned the reading of “Ramose” as the name of the stablemaster; it was originally recorded by in the stela’s museum record as Amenmose. Moreover, even if the name is to be read Ramose, van

Dijk does not agree with Cruz-Uribe’s assertion that the names Ramessu and Ramose are interchangeable.593 Kawai, meanwhile, has pointed out that stylistically, the stela could easily date to the later part of the reign of Amenhotep III rather than to the post-Amarna period, the date attributed to it by Cruz-Uribe.594 Most recently, Cahail has noted (qualifying the argument of van Dijk) that the names Ramsw (Ramose) and Ramss (Ramesses) do seem to have been equivalent, but too believes that the definite article pA- was an essential part of the name

“Paramessu.”595 A final objection to the identification of the Ramose of OI 11456 with

Paramessu is the fact that the former’s title of Hry-iHw is nowhere attested for the latter.596

In spite of these objections, however, Cruz-Uribe’s hypothesis remains attractive. His reading of the name as Ramose is supported by Cahail;597 to Cahail’s observation that the ra- sign is clearly

591 He dates the stela to the reign of Tutankhamun on stylistic grounds, ibid., 242. 592 The New Kingdom Necropolis, 111 n. 95. 593 Ibid. 594 “The Administrators and Notables in Nubia,” 316. 595 Kevin Cahail, In the Shadow of Osiris: Non-Royal Mortuary Landscapes at South Abydos During the Late Middle and New Kingdoms (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2014), 538-539. 596 Ibid., 539. 597 Ibid., 538.

142 visible in the published photograph, I would add that the seated god determinative that Cruz-

Uribe reconstructed after it (and which van Dijk598 took as an argument against the reading of

Ramose) would not fit well in the space available as it appears in the photo. Cruz-Uribe, in his article on the stela, had already put forward a number of convincing arguments that the different forms of the men’s names (Suty vs. Seti, Ramose vs. Paramessu) are no obstacle to identifying the figure of Ramose on the stela as the future Ramesses I.599 Further to his arguments, which I will not repeat here, I would note the simple fact that, while there is no evidence that Paramessu ever wrote his name differently during his life as a private individual, it was under the name Ramesses that he took the throne. Kawai’s objection that the stela likely dates to the reign of Amenhotep III is also subject to question. He is quite correct that the of the figures flanking the central niche – a short-sleeved bag- combined with a pointed apron; short, wrap-around kilt; and bloused sash600 - is common in the period just before the Amarna revolution.601 Kawai rightly notes as well that the combination of this with the long legs of the figures is consistent with a date in the reign of Amenhotep III.602 A comparison, however, with some small figures of guards supervising foreigners in the Memphite tomb of Horemheb suggests that this particular costume along with relatively long, slender limbs could also occur in the post-Amarna era.603 While the figures from Horemheb’s tomb are

598 The “New Kingdom Necropolis,” 111 n. 95. 599 “The Father of Ramses I,” 242-243. For further confirmation that pA- was not a necessary element of names of which it was a part, see Bryan, “The Career and Family of Minmose,” 28. 600 I have identified the components of the costume according to Gillian Vogelsang-Eastwood, Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 69; and Leonie Donovan, “Representations of Costume in New Kingdom Offering Bearer Scenes,” BACE 14 (2003), 21, 25-26. 601 For a few examples, the tombs of Tjanuny (TT 74, reign of Thutmose IV), Menna (TT 69, reign of Thutmose IV to Amenhotep III), Khaemhat (TT 57, reign of Amenhotep III), and Ramose (TT 55, reign of Amenhotep III-Amenhotep IV), as well as on stela Münich ÄS 11 (reign of Amenhotep III). For recent images from these Theban Tombs, see The lost tombs of Thebes: life in paradise, photographs by Sandro Vannini (London: Thames & Hudson, 2009). For the stela, see Betsy Bryan, “Private Relief Sculpture Outside Thebes and its Relationship to Theban Relief Sculpture,” in The Art of Amnehotep III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. Lawrence Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990), pl. 18, fig. 6. 602 See Bryan, “Private Relief Sculpture,” 68. 603 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 1:pls. 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93.

143 carved in raised relief, and with far more skill and detail than those of the stela, this comparison does indicate that we should perhaps not rule out the later date suggested for OI 11456 by Cruz-

Uribe.604 Moreover, even if the stela does date to the reign of Amenhotep III, this does not necessarily mean that it cannot represent the future Ramesses I and his family. Even presuming a long reign for Horemheb, only a little over sixty years would separate his death from the end of the reign of Amenhotep III.605 It is generally accepted that Ramesses I was an elderly man at the time of his accession; if he lived into his eighties (not inconceivable given the extraordinary longevity of his grandson, Ramesses II),606 his career could have spanned that entire period. If we give credence to the idea of a short reign for Horemheb, it becomes even more reasonable to think that OI 11456 could represent his successor, even if the stela is quite early in date.

Finally, the fact that Paramessu never, on his known monuments, mentions the title of stablemaster given for the Ramose of OI 11456 is inconclusive. It is possible that Paramessu simply chose not to include a lower-ranking607 title from early in his life in his later title sequences. In fact, Horemheb’s viceroy of Kush, Paser, seems early in his career to have held the title of Hry-iHw together with that of imy-r ssmwt (overseer of horses). The latter title is attested for Paramessu on his Karnak scribe statue (A), as well as his inner sarcophagus (E). Later in life,

Paser omitted both of these titles from his résumé, at least in the monuments that survive to us, and there is no reason why Paramessu could not have done the same with one of them.

604 “The Father of Ramses I,” 240-242. 605 Following the chronology in Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and David A. Warburton, eds., Ancient (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), 492-493. 606 Although Brand points out that even this idea is speculative, and he could have died in middle age; Peter Brand, The Monuments of Seti I (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 377. 607 Gnirs remarks that this title is one that seems to mark the beginning of the careers of prominent military officers, Militär und Gesellschaft, 30; cf. Somaglino, “Du Delta orientale,” 41.

144 Cahail has recently excavated a shared New Kingdom tomb at Abydos, TC.20, belonging to a scribe named Horemheb608 and a stablemaster named Ramose.609 The tomb’s date is thought to lie in the post-Amarna period, sometime between the reigns of Tutankhamun and King

Horemheb.610 Given their shared title of stablemaster, Cahail argues that the Ramose of TC.20 is a better fit with the Ramose of stela OI 11456 than Paremessu.611 He maintains, however, that even if the Ramose of OI 11456 is not the future Ramesses I, he was likely still a relative, perhaps a brother of Suty.612 The portion of the inscription on the Chicago stela specifying the relationship between Suty and Ramose is damaged. While Cruz-Uribe reconstructed “his son…Ramose,” Cahail considers “his brother” as a possibility as well. If Cahail is correct in this regard, even though his genealogical reconstruction differs from that of Cruz-Uribe, the outcome is very much the same in terms of the historical implications of OI 11456: it represents the father of Paramessu, and can thus potentially shed light on the family of Ramesses I prior to his accession.

The man facing Ramose on the opposite side of OI 11456’s central niche is called “his brother…Khaemwaset.” Presumably “his brother” refers to Suty, making Khaemwaset the uncle of Ramose (or, if we follow Cahail, the brother of Ramose and the uncle of Paramessu). One of the most intriguing suggestions that Cruz-Uribe made about the stela is that this man could be identical to the Khaemwaset depicted in a pair statue from Kawa,613 dedicated by the “great one of the khener of Nebkheperure,” Taemwadjsy. This same woman, or a close relative of hers, was likely the wife of the viceroy of Kush Amenhotep Huy, and the mother of Horemheb’s viceroy

Paser. She was probably also a descendant of Amenhotep III’s parents-in-law, Yuya and Tjuyu.

608 In the Shadow of Osiris, 382-386. 609 Ibid., 468-470 610 Ibid., 515. 611 Ibid., 541-542. 612 Ibid., 540. 613 M.F. Laming Macadam, The Temples of Kawa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), 3-4, pl. 4.

145 Thus, if we accept that the Kawa Khaemwaset is the same individual depicted on OI 11456, and that the Suty of the stela is Paramessu’s father, then the future Ramesses I was related by marriage not only to the viceroy Paser, but also to the clan of Queen Tiye.

3.2.12a - The 400-year stela

The Ramesside royal line as we know it had its roots in the eastern .614 The key document concerning their origins is the so-called “400-year stela” of Ramesses II (F), rediscovered by Montet at Tanis in 1933.615 The stela, which commemorates an event honoring the god Seth, is dated not to the reign of a human king but to that of Seth himself, who is given the twofold title of a pharaoh: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Seth, great of power; Son of Re

Nubti,616 beloved of Re-Horakhty.” The second epithet seems to refer to what Mathieu has recently called the “couple divin…emblématique de l’unification territorial…”617 of Horus and

Seth; Mathieu also noted that a the “pacified” (sHtp) form of the Ombite Seth was the one that was so important to the Ramesside royal line.618 The event that the stela commemorates seems to have taken place in a period when Seti I was still serving as a high official. According to Brand, this was likely at a time when Horemheb was still on the throne;619 given that both Seti and his father Paramessu are treated as private individuals, this seems entirely plausible.620 In any case, perhaps the most interesting thing about the monument is the extremely unusual assignment of a kingly status, comparable to that of a human ruler, to the god. The event described in the

614 Cf. Somaglino, “Du delta orientale,” 41. 615 Montet, “La Stèle de l’an 400,” 191. 616 “The Ombite,” a reference to Seth’s association with Naqada in Upper Egypt; see Herman te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 10-11, 131-132; more recently Bernard Mathieu, “Seth polymorphe: le rival, le vaincu, l’auxiliaire,” ENiM 4 (2011), 139-142; and Ivan Guermeur, “Du dualism et de l’ambivalence séthienne dans la pensée religieuse de l’égypte ancienne,” Chôra 13 (2015), 63-88. 617 Mathieu, “Seth polymorphe,” 144. 618 Ibid. 619 Brand, Monuments of Seti I, 340. 620 The identities of the Seti and Paramessu of the 400-year stela have been disputed in the past; I find Brand’s argument convincing that the coincidence of the names and extraordinary titles of the two men makes it unlikely that they represent anyone other than Ramesses I and Seti I before their accessions.

146 text must have taken place under Horemheb, the only time when a vizier Paramessu with a son named Seti is known to have served. The fact that the Horemheb himself is not represented is puzzling. It is often said that Horemheb was deified after his death, at least in part because of his role as a kind of dynastic forebear of the Ramesside line.621 If this is the case, would it not have made as much sense for Horemheb to appear in the lunette, perhaps in conjunction with

Seth, even if the reign date in the text was given as that of the god? Instead, Horemheb is absent from the image and from the extant portion of the inscription. What is more, Seth is portrayed not in his theriomorphic (and more characteristically Egyptian) form, but as an anthropomorphic being whose attributes mark him as a Levantine god. While Te Velde played down somewhat the identification of Seth with the Canaanite storm-god Baal,622 Allon has shown that in fact, a deep-rooted syncretism of the two deities existed in the eastern Delta before the New Kingdom, perhaps even before the Hyksos kings took control of Egypt.623 Bietak has uncovered thoroughly Levantine cult installations at Tell el-Dab’a/Avaris624 which apparently continued to function into the early New Kingdom.625

Not only was Ramesses II here demonstrating his strong affiliation with a “foreign” deity, he was also ignoring the memory of the man to whom his ancestors owed their accession to the throne, even as he highlighted his own origins. Loprieno626 and Manassa627 have characterized the 400-year stela as a king of “historical fiction,” which would have encapsulated theological concerns at the same time that it evoked an historical setting that would be familiar to its audience, if not expected to be realistic in its details. Without disputing this interpretation,

621 Cf. Martin, Tutankhamun’s Regent: Scenes and Texts from the Memphtie Tomb of Horemheb, MEES 111 (London: EES, 2016), 68. 622 Seth, God of Confusion, 127-130. 623 Allon, “Seth is Baal,” 15-22. 624 Manfred Bietak, “Near Eastern Sanctuaries in the Eastern Nile Delta,” BAAL, Hors Série 6 (2009), 209-228. 625 Ibid., 215. 626 “The King’s Novel,” 292-293. 627 Manassa, Imagining the Past: 47-49, 154-155.

147 I would point out that the pragmatics of the stela in the reign of Ramesses II speak not just to the perception of the past, but the political climate of the present. By omitting Horemheb from an account of his dynasty’s origins (even in a context in which their very human beginnings are highlighted), he seems to have been making a statement of some sort. Given that Horemheb’s reign would still have been within living memory (if only that of the long-lived Ramesses II himself), to regard it as devoid of political-historical content seems unwise.

3.2.12b - Ramesses I and Thebes: speculations

Up to this point, we have been careful to acknowledge that the evidence supports very little in the way of firm conclusions concerning the exact relationship of Ramesses I to the

Theban aristocracy. If, however, we were to accept that his family, like that of most of the other

Upper Egyptian officials that we have discussed, was linked in some way with the Akhmim clan, it could have significant implications for our understanding of Horemheb’s reign. With the caveat that what follows is highly speculative, it is worth examining those potential implications here. If, however, we accept that the troop commander Khaemwaset was the uncle of the future Ramesses I, then the various genealogical reconstructions have different political implications.

If there was only one Taemwadjsy, then two scenarios are possible. In the first, she married Khaemwaset first, either before or in the early years of the Amarna period. A link between Paramessu’s Delta family and the Thutmosid dynasty would thus have existed at one point, but would have been broken when Khaemwaset died and Taemwadjsy became the wife of Amenhotep Huy. In this case, Horemheb’s choice of Paramessu to serve and ultimately succeed him might have “shaken up” the southern aristocracy. It could, in fact, be viewed as a pointed repudiation of the people and events associated with the period between the beginning

148 of Akhenaten’s reign and the death of Ay. At least two of Horemheb’s highest officials, however, continued in their offices throughout this entire period - both the overseer of the treasury Maya and the viceroy Paser are explicitly attested in service under Tutankhamun, Ay, and Horemheb.

Alternatively, Taemwadjsy could have been married first to Huy, and then, late in

Tutankhamun’s reign, to Khaemwaset. In this case, we could see the second marriage as positive factor for the rise of Paramessu. If he, more than the king’s other northern associates, had even a distant link to the old Theban aristocracy, it could have heightened his appeal as a partner in the task of governing the country. In this version of events, the fact that the link was recently forged would have left the Ramesside dynasty free from the taint of Amarna, but still connected to the last “legitimate” king of the 18th Dynasty.

On the other hand altogether, if there were two Taemwadjsys (the wife and daughter respectively of Khaemwaset) then there would have been a continuous link between the future

Ramesside dynasty and the family of Amenhotep III. In this scenario, before Amarna,

Paramessu’s family would have been one of many jockeying for influence in a system where

Yuya and Tjuyu’s descendants must have been particularly desirable as marriage partners. When

Khaemwaset married the elder Taemwadjsy during the reign of Amenhotep III, he would presumably have acquired some prestige through the alliance with the family of Queen Tiye. We can only speculate as to when and how the elder Taemwadjsy would have gone from being

Tjuyu’s successor as great one of the khener of Amun in Thebes to an existence (presumably) far to the south, as the wife of an official of the Nubian administration.628 It is possible that as a royal relative with ties to the Amun cult, she found it convenient to be far from court when

Amenhotep IV (who would have been her nephew) changed his name and moved the capital to

628 We should perhaps not make the assumption that both women worked at Karnak, given that Amun of Thebes was widely worshipped in Nubia and the oases; see Ivan Guermeur, Les cultes d’Amon hors de Thèbes, 419-539.

149 Akhetaten. Khaemwaset’s appointment as troop commander of Kush, an office in which he is the first recorded incumbent, could even have been a compromise between maintaining royal relatives in comfortable positions and keeping those with “Amunist” backgrounds at a distance.

The younger Taemwadjsy, raised in close contact with the Nubian administration, would in turn have been well-positioned either to take a husband from among promising officials, or to help her husband reach high office in that branch of government. Her son,

The idea that Paramessu was related to the in-laws of Amenhotep III hinges on identifying the Khaemwaset of OI 11456 with the like-named troop commander of Kush known from the Kawa statue. This is a tenuous point on which to base a hypothesis with considerable import for our understanding of New Kingdom history. Nevertheless, it has some explanatory power. In this reconstruction, Paramessu would be the viceroy Paser I’s first cousin once removed, and the great-nephew by marriage of Yuya and Tjuyu. It would surely have been to

Paramessu’s advantage if he, although of Delta origins himself, had ties to the pre-Amarna power network of Upper Egypt. As a relative, albeit collateral, of Yuya and Tjuyu, Paramessu might have had insights into, and even credibility within, the elite circle that had connected

Akhmim and Thebes in the pre-Amarna period. An associate who combined personal ability with a foothold in the south would have been a tremendous asset to Horemheb. If we are correct that the king’s grip on the Thebaid was tenuous for much of his reign, then this was probably especially true for the vizierate in the south. Usermontu seems to disappear early in the reign of

Horemehb, only to reappear in the monuments of his descendants years later. , meanwhile, can be assumed to have served Horemheb as vizier only on a circumstantial basis. If the difficulty of “pinning down” these officials reflects instability or turnover in the office, then

Paramessu’s office of “deputy of his majesty in the south and north” could have described a real

150 and important function, for which he was particularly well-suited.629 Finally, an Akhmimi connection for Paramessu would fit well with a phenomenon, which we will discuss next, that seems to have played out from before the Amarna period until well into the reign of Ramesses II

– a gradual consolidation, largely through marriage, of a large variety of religious and civil offices within the orbit of a single extended family group.

3.3 – Family Politics: Officialdom from Horemheb to the early Ramesside

Period

The HPA Wennefer [3.2.4] is not the only official whose descendants married into the family of the Abydene pontiff in the early Ramesside period. In the reign of Ramesses II, the “Siese dynasty” of overseers of the double granary also became relatives, with the HPOs Wennefer’s wife Tiy being the sister of the ODG Siese III (see Table 3, chart 3).630 This Siese was the scion of an Asyuti family that had held the office in at least two previous generations.631 It is likely that there were three ODG’s by the name of Siese. The third, the brother-in-law of the HPOs

Wennefer, evidently served at the end of the reign of Ramesses II, and into that of

Merneptah.632 A graffito from Deir el-Bahari dated to year 20 of Ramesses II seems to indicate that the HPOs Wennefer (Siese III’s brother-in-law) was already the father of a young-adult son by that time (the future HPOs Hori).633 Hori’s mother (Wennefer’s wife) Tiye must thus have been born by the beginning of the reign of Seti I. The youngest realistic age for her grandfather,

629 A handful of Ramesside viziers held the title of “vizier of Upper and Lower Egypt.” Raedler postulates that, at least in the reign of Ramesses II, this was a functioned they assumed when their counterpart’s office was temporarily vacant for whatever reason; “Die Wesire Ramses’ II., 296. 630 See Bohleke, “Overseers,” 416. 631 Ibid., 324. 632 Ibid., 337. 633 Miroslaw Barwik, “A Priestly Family from Abydos at Deir el-Bahari,” MDAIK 66 (2010), 13-18.

151 Siese II, is thus probably about forty at that time. Meanwhile, however, it seems that

Horemheb’s ODG Amenemope Panhesi – apparently still in office when Seti I took the throne - was succeeded not by Siese II, but by a man called Wepwawetmose, the second of that name. In his dissertation, Bohleke argued that the first ODG named Siese (Siese I), was the successor of

Amenemope Panhesi, under the assumption that he would have served as the head of the central civil grain administration beginning only in the late reign of Horemheb.634 He has recently revised his argument, however, pushing the dates of both monuments on which Siese I is attested into the reign of Tutankhamun.635 Siese I was thus ODG of ULE by the end of the young king’s reign. Under Ay, we know that the ODG was a man named Ramose, of unknown parentage and hometown, who had a tomb at Thebes (TT 46).636 Amenemope c. Panhesi is attested next; to his title of ODG, Panhesi added that of overseer of the treasury around year 9 of Horemheb, apparently holding both offices until around the time of the accession of Seti I.

With the repositioning of Siese I, Amenemope’s successor becomes Wepwawetmose II. After the tenure of Wepwawetmose, Bohleke inserts that of Nefersekheru,637 followed by Iuny.638

Siese II then became the civil ODG,639 being replaced by Kheruef before year 27 of Ramesses

II.640 Qeny and then his son Siese III rounded out the civil ODGs of the reign of Ramesses II.641

From this slightly revised sequence and chronology of the overseers of the civil double granary, a couple of points emerge. First, Siese II and Qeny must have been fairly advanced in age when they served as ODG. Siese II was, at minimum, forty in year 1 of Seti I. He did not take office as ODG until after the tenure of Wepwawetmose II, and apparently after the tenures of

634 Bohleke, “Overseers,” 275-276. 635 Id. “Amenemopet Panehesi: Direct Successor of the Chief Treasurer Maya.” JARCE 39 (2002), 172. 636 Id. “Overseers,” 244-249. 637 Ibid., 303-306. 638 Ibid., 307-312. 639 Ibid., 327-328. 640 Ibid. 641 Ibid., 342-348.

152 Nefersekheru and Iuny as well. This probably takes us up to the first years of Ramesses II, when

Siese was at least fifty. Siese’s successor Kheruef is known to have been in office in year 27 of

Ramesses II;642 Kheruef’s successor Qeny, meanwhile must have been at least in his late teens at the time that his daughter Tiy was born (ca. year 1 of Seti I).643 Qeny was thus close to sixty when he took control of the civil grain administration. Second, there appears to be a drop-off in the record of monuments of ODGs after the mid-to late reign of Horemheb; the number and quality of preserved attestations does not pick back up until the reign of Ramesses II. Most of

Amenemope c. Panhesi’s monuments date to before year 9 of Horemheb;644 he reappears after a span of at least five years, but only outside of Egypt, at Beth Shan.645 Apart from this last,

Panhesi’s monuments as the head of the civil grain administration are from Saqqara, Abu Oda, and (probably) the Delta; his only known appearance at Thebes is a cameo in TT 255 (the tomb of Roy. Wepwawetmose II is so far known as ODG from a single stela, Berlin 7316 from Saqqara - other attestations are from an earlier point in his career. The only documentation of

Nefersekheru is his tomb at Zawiyet el-Meitin near modern Minya. Iuny, who probably served in the early reign of Ramesses II, is known as ODG through one statue from Luxor temple;646 Iuny’s putative successor Kheruef is only attested in later ostraca.647 Siese II, by contrast, is quite well documented. He left his name at Abydos and Asyut, and also appears as the head of the civil grain administration on a statue from Deir el-Bahari.648 Siese’s son Qeny is known only from the monuments of others, but this could have to do with a short tenure in office. Siese II’s grandson,

642 Ibid., 321. 643 C.f. ibid., 347-348. 644 Id., “Amenemopet Panehesi: Direct Successor,” 168. 645 Ibid., 168. 646 Interestingly, Bohleke was not able to rule out the possibility that this Iuny was, earlier in his career, Paser II’s successor as viceroy of Kush; id., “Overseers,” 307. This would place the beginning of his tenure as ODG around year 4 of Ramesses II. 647 Ibid., 318-322. 648 Ibid., 326.

153 Siese III, is of course well known from his tomb at Asyut, and the fine sculptures that he dedicated (presumably) in the same area.649

The geographical distribution of these monuments is not necessarily surprising. At least two, possibly three, of the heads of the civil grain administration in the earlier 18th Dynasty were from Middle Egypt;650 thus, the apparent Asyuti origin of many of the post-Amarna ODGs is nothing out of the ordinary. Furthermore, it seems that the members of the “Siese dynasty” preferred to be buried near their hometown; other officials might have had the same preference, or been buried at Memphis.651 At the same time, however, it is perhaps of interest that up until the reign of Horemheb all but three of the known ODGs of ULE652 have extant tombs in the Theban necropolis. After that point, it seems that all were buried elsewhere. The traditional explanation for this phenomenon is simply that the royal residence shifted to

Memphis after Amarna. Apart from the Amarna interval, however, there is a possibility at least that the main royal city had been Memphis since the time of Thutmose III. In this case it could be significant that this shift in the geographical distribution of monuments (particularly burials) occurs prior to the rise of Piramesse. Comparing the trajectory of the Siese dynasty with that of the HPA Wennefer’s descendants is suggestive. In both cases, the end of the Amarna period saw the appointment of an important official who apparently came from a provincial background. By the later reign of Horemheb, the descendants of that official seem to disappear from the material record of the southern city. They reemerge there, sometimes in slightly altered circumstances, in the reign of Ramesses II. In the first decades of Ramesses II, moreover, the

649 Ibid., 356-358. 650 See recently Eric Ryan Wells, “Display and Devotion: A Social and Religious Analysis of New Kingdom Votive Stelae from Asyut”( PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2014) 150-154. 651 By the 19th Dynasty, even the high officials of the Ramesseum, a Theban institution, were apparently stationed and buried in the north; Nico Staring, “The Personnel of the Theban Ramesseum in the Memphite Necropolis,” JEOL 45 (2015), especially 81-83. 652 These three represent the known incumbents of the position under Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV.

154 relationship between members of the circle and the priestly lineage of Abydos becomes a point of emphasis on family monuments. In the case of the HPA Wennefer, it was a marriage between the Abydene pontiff’s daughter and the HPA’s son, Minmose. For the Siese dynasty, it was a marriage between the daughter of Qeny and the high priest of Osiris himself. The later years of

Horemheb and the reign of Seti I almost seem to have been a time of retrenchment for certain elite networks, whose roots reached back to before the Amarna period, but which were disrupted in the very last years of the 18th Dynasty. With the extensive royal attention that

Abydos received under Seti I, the fortunes of the city’s priesthood must have risen, even by the standards of their role as one of Egypt’s key religious institutions. The HPOs Wennefer must, in fact, have been one of the first men to lead the Osiris cult after Ramesses II’s “completion” of the Seti Temple complex.653 Marriage into the Abydene high priest’s family at that particular moment might have been a way in which marginalized officials could restore some prestige to their clans, while also bringing themselves back into proximity with the central government through the Ramesside dynasty’s high level of activity in the area. At the time when the chief of

Medjay Amenemone dedicated Naples 1069, this dynamic might not have emerged fully, making it more advantageous to foreground his links to Thebes and the Nubian administration.

As a final note, it is worth mentioning that in the reconstruction that I have presented here, the genealogies presented by the Siese Dynasty, the descendants of the HPA Wennefer, and the lineage of the high priests of Osiris all reach back to the equivalent of generation 3 in the lineage of Yuya and Tjuyu.654 This is the last generation for which all of our known individuals were probably born before or during the reign of Amenhotep III; each genealogy thus securely spans

653 The family was active at Abydos even earlier, when Siese II appears prominently among the associates of a lector priest of Osiris named Menmaatreemheb on a monument of the latter (Boston 00.690). 654 This could be little more than a coincidence, since generational affiliation need not correlate with absolute dates or the age of a given individual in anything but the most general way.

155 the Amarna period. It is perhaps worth considering that documentation and monumental production suffered over much of the fifty to sixty years that passed from generation 3 to the dedication of the monuments with which we have been concerned here. In this case, each genealogy could help both to preserve the memory of the family’s ancestors and to display their affiliation with the last moment in which the “legitimacy” of the monarchy was not in widespread doubt.

Further prosopographical investigation, along with the emergence of new evidence from the vast and still underexplored Memphite necropolis, could significantly affect the hypothesis presented here. It is not possible at present to demonstrate conclusively that the relationship between the Thebaid and the rest of Egypt was significantly impacted, not just at the religious but also at the political level, by dynamics that continued to unfold into the first years of Ramesside rule. Nevertheless, the evidence as it stands suggests that further inquiry in this direction is warranted.

156 Chapter 4: The Coronation Inscription

4.1 Past Scholarship

The most common scholarly approach to Horemheb’s coronation inscription has in the past been a historicizing one. Maspero treated the text as a factual account, using it to construct a narrative of Horemheb’s rise and coronation. Gardiner also approached the coronation inscription with an eye to historical detail, calling it the “most straightforward and perspicuous” description of a coronation ceremony preserved from ancient Egypt. A similar emphasis on historical detail is evident in the analysis of Hari, whose primary interest was in the figure of Mutnedjmet and the queen’s possible role in

Horemheb’s rise to the throne. Van Dijk has likewise focused on the historical content of the inscription in his effort to show that Horemheb had been selected as heir to the throne during the reign of

Tutankhamun. For all the scholarly attention that the coronation inscription has received, however, there has so far been no systematic attempt to move beyond the plain sense of the text to examine its rhetorical strategies, particularly in comparison with other texts with which it has similarities. However useful conclusions drawn from historicizing readings of the text may be, I propose that an additional level can be added to our understanding of the composition if we consider it alongside other texts in a manner sensitive to its literary and rhetorical characteristics as well as its historical content.

4.2 – Translation

157 The coronation inscription has been translated numerous times into English,655 French,656 and

German.657 The definitive edition is still that of Gardiner;658 I offer my own translation here for the reader’s convenience. It differs from Gardiner’s mainly in that the language has been updated. Proposed restorations have largely been omitted in the interest of drawing focus to the known content of the text.

1) …hrw Hr MAat sxpr tAwy, nswt bjt nb tAwy 9sr-xprw-Ra-stp-n-Ra sA Ra nb xaw 1r-m-Hb-mry-Imn 1r nb 1wt-nswt…

659…content upon Maat, who creates the two lands; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two

Lands Djoserkheperure-Setepenre; Son of Re, Lord of Appearances Horemheb-Meryamun [beloved of]

Horus, Lord of Hutnesu660…

2) …-mwt.f Imn nswt nTrw rnn sw 1r sA Ist xwt.f m sAw Haw.f pr.n.f m Xt DbA m Sfyt iwn nTr Hr.f ir.n.f…

…Kamutef; Amun, King of the Gods, the one who raised him; Horus, Son of Isis, his protection as the of his flesh.661 He came forth from the womb clothed in splendor, the complexion of a god upon him; he made662…

655 Birch “Inscription of Haremhebi on a statue at Turin.” TSBA 3 (1874), 486-495; BAR III, 22-32; Gardiner “The Coronation Inscription of Haremhab.” JEA 39 (1953), 14-21; Murnane “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution.” In Ancient Egyptian Kingship, edited by David O’Connor and David Silverman (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 230-233; Abd el-Hamid Youssef, “The Coronation of King Haremheb Re-read,” in Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan, edited by Daoud, Khaled, Shafia Bedier, and Sawsan Abd El-Fattah (Cairo: SCA, 2005), 397-398. A partial translation is given in Maspero “Note on the Life and Monuments,” 8-11, 19-21, 40-41. 656 Hari, Horemheb, 209-219. 657 Urk. Übers. 404-407; Ursula Kaplony-Heckel, “Ägyptische historische Texte,” in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, neue Folge, vol. 1, Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden: historisch-chronologische Texte I, ed. Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2004), 534-540. 658 Op. cit. 659 Gardiner (op. cit., 14) restores here only the beginning of Horemheb’s titulary; Hari, however, also restored an unknown date in year one (Horemheb, 209). Although his argument that the lacuna is too long for the titles alone is likely correct, the question of when the inscription was composed (whether or not the text was dated internally to year one) remains open, and could have bearing on the Sitz im Leben of the text. 660 For a discussion of the signification of this god in the text, see below, pp. 661 The expression sAw n xaw.f is a reference to very concrete magical protection; see for instance the use of the phrase in an amuletic text of Qenherkhepeshef, see Yvan Koenig, “Les effrois de Keniherkhepeshef (Papyrus Deir el-Médineh 40),” RdE 33 (1981), 29-37. 662 As Hari (1964, 210 n. 173) observed, sign read here as ir could also be a simple r, making the word rn.f, “his name.” I follow Gardiner in reading ir, perhaps the introduction of a Late Egyptian ir.f sDm expression.

158

3) …xAm.tw n.f rmn m nxn snw tA m wrw Hr kttw qri.n sw kAw DfAw iw.f m Hwn nn sArt.f

…one bent the arm to him (when he was) as a child, and the ground was kissed663 by great and small

(alike). Offerings and provisions accrued to him664 (when he was) as a boy without understanding.

4) …srw (?) …n tm tit nTr m iwn.f m Hr dgg twt.f nrit it.f 1r di.n.f sw HA.f qmA sw Hr ir.t mkt.f Xt Hr sb kt

…(the officials?)…of all (the people), the image of a god in his complexion in the sight of one who beheld his fearful665 figure. His father Horus666 placed himself behind him, the one who created him making his protection as a generation passed, (then) another.

5) …iw.f rx hrw n Htp.f r rdi.t n.f nsywt.f istw nTr pn Hr sTn sA.f m Hr n tA tmw Ab.n.f swsx nmtt.f r iw.t hrw n Ssp.f iAwt.f di.f

…when he knew the day of his contentment to give to him his kingship; so, this god667 distinguished his son in the sight of the land and all (the people). He wished to broaden his gait until the coming of the day of his taking his office, giving…

6) …n rk.f ib n nswt Htp m xrwt.f Hay n stp.f rdi.n.f sw r rA-Hry tA r mni hpw idbwy m r-pat n n tA pn mi qd.f wa pw nn sn.f sxrw…

663 Gardiner (“The Coronation,” 16) expressed reservations about taking m for in here; it seems, however, the most likely solution. 664 WB V, 59.1-7; Gardiner (“The Coronation,” 16), noted that the verb qri is “rare.” It is used here in its transitive sense (WB V, 59.1-2) rather than with a dative (WB V, 59.3). 665 Gardiner (“The Coronation,”16) treated nrit as a participial adjective analogous to mryty, translating it as “fearful;” Hari (1964, 210) chose for some reason to translate twt.f nrit as “his tutlary image.” 666 It is striking that Horus rather than Amun is named as the father of the king. 667 Presumably Horus; not, pace Hari (Horemheb, 210), the previous king.

159 …of his time, the heart of the king being content with his affairs and rejoicing at the choice of him. He placed him to be the highest official668 of the land in order to secure669 the laws of the two banks as hereditary prince of this entire land. He was unique, without an equal, the plans…

7) …tmw Hr pr n r.f nis.tw.f m bAH ity aH wA.f r nSn wp.f r.f wSb.f n nswt shr.f sw m pr n r.f wa mnx nn

…everyone on account of what came forth from his mouth. He was called before the king when the palace was falling into rage.670 He opened his mouth to answer the king, and he appeased him with what came forth from his mouth; alone effective, without (equal)…

8) …sxrw.f nb m iwt hby Ssrw.f tit nb 1srt Hay m mAat mi fndy xntS ib im.s mi PtH rs.f dwA Hnk.f Xr.s di.t…

…all his plans like the gait of the ibis, his statements (like) the form of the Lord of Hesret, rejoicing in

Maat like the Beaky One, joyful of heart because of her like Ptah when he awakens in the morning that he may present her, she being placed (?)…

9) …sxrw.f xnd Hr mtn.s nts ir.s mkwt.f tp tA m Aw Dt istw rf sw Hr idn tAwy r aHa rnpwt aSa smi…

…his plans, treading upon her671 path. It is she who will make his protections on earth for the length of eternity. And indeed he acted as deputy of the two lands for a span of many years, reporting…

668 WB II, 390.6, lit. “mouth above,” Gardiner (“The Coronation,”17) states that this is not technically a title with official functions but a description of the elevated position of the person it indicates. 669 Lit. “to land,” as of a boat, WB II, 73.13-74.10; see also line 11. The use of the term to refer to good governance is given in the Belegstellen (II, 109) as occurring in the Nineteenth Dynasty and after, but it is perhaps worth noting that a similar nautical metaphor was also used of , who was called “the prow-rope of the South, the mooring-post of the Southerners” in the tomb of (TT 81), Urk, IV, 60.6-7. 670 The word nSny (WB II, 340.11-342.2 including derivatives) is often written with a Seth-animal determinative; its absence here is no doubt in deference to Horus. The word itself has a particular nuance: as the Seth-animal determinative suggests, it originally referred to storms. It occurs several times in the , where usually the association with weather is clear: PT 261, James Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005), 47; PT 255 (Allen 2005, 45); PT 261, (Allen, Pyramid Texts, 47); PT 1044 (Allen, Pyramid Texts, 148). It would seem that the implication is that of a wild, uncontrollable anger. 671 Most likely Maat’s

160

10) …DADAwt m ksi r rwty pr nswt spr.n.f wrw psDt pdw rsy mi mHtt awy.sn pD m xsf.f swAS.sn n Hr.f mi nTr ir.n.tw irwt nb Hr wD…

…the assembly bowing at the gates of the palace. The great ones of the nine bows petitioned him, the southern as well as the northern ones, their arms spread out in encountering him; they gave praise before him like a god.672 One did every deed upon the command…

11) …xnd.f Sfyt.f wrty m Hr tmw nHi.tw n.f wDA snb smwn.f it idbwy sArwt iqrt n dd nTr r mni…

…his tread, his splendor being great in the sight of everyone. One prayed prosperity and health for him as he was surely the father of the two banks, with excellent understanding through what the god gives with respect to moor[ing]…

12) …swA Hr nn sA smsw n 1r m r-Hry m iri-pat n tA pm mi qd.f istw rf nTr pn Sps 1r nb 1wt-nswt Ab.n ib.f smn sA.f Hr nst.f nHH wD…

…had passed in this manner, with the eldest son of Horus as highest official and Iry-Pat of this entire land. Now indeed this noble god, Horus Lord of Hutnesu, his heart desired to affirm his son upon his throne for eternity. (He) decreed673…

13) …Imn wDA.in 1r m Haaw r WAst niwt nb nHH sA.f m qni.f r Ipt-swt r bs.f m-bAH Imn r swD n.f iAwt.f n nswt r ir.t aHa.f ist…

672 Van Dijk (“The Memphite Necropolis,” 18) notes that the description of foreign representatives paying homage to Horemheb is highly reminiscent of the famous scene in his pre-royal Memphite tomb: Martin, The Memphite Tomb, 78-84, pls. 78-95. 673 It is presumably Horus who is the subject of wD. By the Third Intermediate Period, oracles had come to be called by the terminus technicus wD-nTr, the “god’s decree;” see Marcella Trapani, “Il decreto regale e l'oracolo divino nell'antico Egitto (dalle origini alla XX dinastia: 2472-1070 a.C.),” Annali, Istituto universitario orientale 52 (1992), 1-33. At this early date, it is unlikely that the term connotes a ceremonial occasion, but there remains the question of how the will of the god became evident. The lacuna that follows is particularly unfortunate – it would seem from what remains that Horemheb’s kingship may have been acknowledged at Hutnesu before the journey to Thebes. Why this would not have taken place at Memphis or at Thebes itself is unclear.

161 …Amun. Then Horus proceeded in rejoicing to Thebes, the city of the Lord of Eternity, with his son in his embrace, to Karnak to induct him into the presence of Amun, to pass to him his office of kingship, and to make his lifetime. Indeed…

14) …m Hb.f nfr xnty Ipt-rsyt mA.in.f Hm n nTr pn 1r nb 1wt-nswt sA.f Hna.f m bs nsw r di.t n.f iAwt.f nst.f ist rf Imn-Ra Abx m rSrS mA.n.f…

…in his beautiful festival in front of Luxor Temple. Then he saw the majesty of this god, Horus Lord of

Hutnesu, his son with him in the “induction of the king” in order to give to him his office and his throne.

And Amun-Re joined in joyfulness, having seen…

15) …hrw rdi.t Htpw.f aHa.n ms.n.f sw n sr pn iry-pat Hry-tp-tAwy 1r-m-Hb wDA.in.f r pr nswt rdi.n.f sw

Xr HAt.f r pr wr n sAt.f Spst Wrt-…

…the day when his offerings were given. Then he brought himself to this courtier, the Iry-pat and Chief of the Two Lands674 Horemheb. Then he proceeded to the palace, having placed him before him at the

Per-wer shrine of his noble daughter Weret-…675

16) …m nyny Hpt.n.s nfrw.f smn.n.s s(t) m HAt.f psD.t nbw pr-nsr m ihhy n xaa.f Nxbt WDyt Nt Ist Nbt-

Hwt 1r 4tX psDt tm xnty st wrt…

674 In contrast to Iry-pat, which had the specific meaning of “crown prince,” the title “Chief of the Two Lands” seems to have been an honorific indicating its holder’s close association with the king – Jan Quaegebeur, “La désignation (pA) Hry-tp: phritob,” in Jürgen Osing and Günter Dreyer, eds., Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache, und Kunt des alten Ägypten. Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987), 368-394. 675 Weret-hekau, here as the independent goddess associated with the divine nurturance of the king and his accession to the throne. Kate Bosse-Griffiths, “The Great Enchantress in the Little Golden Shrine of Tutankhamun,” JEA 59 (1973), 100-108; Ingrid Nebe, “Werethekau,” LÄ VI, 1221-1224; more recently Ahmed M. Mekawy Ouda, “Did Werethekau ‘Great of Magic’ Have a Cult? A Disjunction between Scholarly Opinions and Sources,” in Kelly Accetta et al., eds., Current Research in Egyptology 2013: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, March 19-22, 2013 (Oxford, Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 2014), 105-121. Werethekau was closely connected with the uraeus goddess Wadjyt,making her association here with the Upper Egyptian Per-wer shrine somewhat puzzling.

162 …in the nyny-greeting. She embraced his beauties and she established herself on his forehead;676 and the , the lords of the Per-neser,677 rejoiced at his appearing - , Wadjyt, Neith, Isis,

Nephthys, Horus, Seth, and the entire ennead before the great seat.

17) …Hknw r qA n pt Hawy n Htp Imn mtn is Imn iw sA.f Xr HAt.f r aH r smn xaw.f Hr tp.f r sqA aHa.f mi qd.f twt.n.n smn.n f

…praise to the height of heaven, rejoicing at the satisfaction of Amun. “See, Amun has come, his son678 before him, to the palace to establish his crown upon his head, to raise up his lifetime in its entirety. We have gathered to establish for him…”

18) …ip.n n.f xkrw Ra swAS.n Imn Hr.f in.k n.n nDty.n imm n.f hbw-sd n Ra rnpwt 1r m nswt ntf ir.f hrrt ib.k m Xnw Ipt-swt m mitt Iwnw 1wt-kA-PtH ntf Sps.n.f st

“…and we reckon to him the insignia of Re, and praise Amun on account of him. You have brought to us our protector - give him the jubilees of Re and the years of Horus as king. It is he who does what pleases your heart within Karnak as well as Heliopolis and Memphis, having ennobled them.”

19) ir.w rn wr nTr pn nfr nxbt.f mi Hm n Ra m 1r KA-nxt 4pd-sxrw nbty Wr-biAwt-m-Ipt-swt 1r nbw

0ry-Hr-MAat-sxpr-tAwy nswt bit 9sr-xprw-Ra-stp-n-Ra sA Ra 1r-m-Hb-mry-Imn di anx pr.t r HA

The great name of this good god was made, his titulary like the majesty of Re, as Horus Strong ,

Sharp of Plans; Great of Wonders in Karnak; Gold Horus Content upon Maat, Creator of the

676 Gardiner (“The Coronation,” 19) was the first to note that m-HAt.f was to be distinguished from Xr-HAt.f, “in front of him” in this text. 677 One might expect the Per- here, in parallel to the Per-wer. The Per-neser is the Lower Egyptian shrine of the city of Dep (or perhaps Pe), while the Per-nu is the shrine of Pe (or Dep). The two are thought to be essentially interchangeable, as both pertained to the goddess Wadjyt and represented Lower Egypt, see Gardiner, “Horus the Behdite,” JEA 30 (1944), 27 n. 3. There is perhaps a possibility of some intertextuality here with the speos of Horemheb at Gebel el-Silsila, which could evidently be called the jw-nsrsr, “Island of Fire;” see Thiem, Speos, 33ff. 678 From this point in this text on, Horemheb is not referred to as the “son” of Horus, but instead of Amun.

163 Two Lands; King of Upper and Lower Egypt Djoserkheperure-setepenre; Son of Re Horemheb- meryamun.

20) pr m pr-nswt in Hm n nTr pn Sps Imn nswt nTrw sA.f Xr HAt.f Hpt.n.f nfrw.f xaw m xprS r swAD n.f

Snnt Itn pDt psDt Xr rdwy.fy pt m Hb tA Xr rSwt psDwt nw tA mry ib.sn nDm

The emergence from the palace by the majesty of this noble god Amun, king of the gods, his son before him. He embraced his beauties, he having arisen in the to give over to him what the Aten encircles. The nine bows are under his feet, heaven is in festival, the land is in joy, and (as for) the of the beloved land, their hearts are sweet.

21) ist rf tA tmw m rSwt sgb.sn r Hrt wrw kttw TAy.sn nhm tA r Dr.f Hay ir-m-xt mnq Hb pn xnty Ipt-rsyt

Imn nswt nTrw iw m Htp r

Indeed, all the people are in joy, and they exult to heaven. Great and small seize upon gladness and the entire land exults. After this festival in front of Luxor Temple concluded, Amun, king of the gods, having returned in satisfaction to

22) WAst na.t in Hm.f m xd m Xnty 1r-Axty ist nswt grg.n.f tA pn nt-a.f sw r rk Ra smAw.n.f hwwt nTrw HAt idHw r tA mHyt msy.n.f Axmw.sn

Thebes, faring north by his Majesty as679 the statue of Horakhty. And he founded this land and put it in order as in the time of Re, having renewed the houses of the gods from the Delta marsh to Ta-Sety. He created all their divine images,

679 Gardiner (“The Coronation,” 20) discounted the possibility that m could mean “as” here – he was confident that we should understand that the king was traveling with a portable statue of the god. See, however, Boyo Ockinga, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im alten Ägypten und im alten Testament (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1984),11-16 for the observation that not only processional but also monumental statues could (at least by the Nineteenth Dynasty) be referred to as Xnty; see ibid., 7-8 for instances in which the king is referred to as the Xnty image of a god. The passage seems to evoke an image of the king himself, moving downriver accompanied by his retinue, as a living representation of a god in procession. Alternatively, if we were to take m to

164

23) nbw Tniw r imy-HAt HAw Hr nfr m irt.n.f xr.w Haa Ra mA.f st gm(.w) wS n rk HAt Ts.f r-pr.sn qmA.f sSmw m Dt nb mty m nb Spst distinguished more than those that were before and surpassing in beauty through what he did on their account. Re rejoiced when he saw them, they having been found in ruins in former times. He680 raised up their temples and created (their) statues as every exact681 body of every precious stone.

24) Dar.n.f bAkAywt nTrw nty m iAwt m tA pn grg.n.f swt mi wnn.sn Dr rk pAwt tpt wAH.n.f n.sn Htp.w nTr m imnywt ra nb qrHwt nb n r-pr.sn

He sought out the precincts of the gods which were as ruin-mounds in this land. He founded them as they were in the earliest times. He established divine offerings for them every day on a continuing basis, and the vessels of their

25) nbi.w m nbw HD apr.n.f swt m wabw Xry-Hbw m stp n mnfyt nxb.n.f n.sn AHwt mnmnwt apr m Hnwt nb nhp.sn r swAS n Ra tp dwAyt temples were made of gold and silver. He provided them with wab-priests and lector priests from the best of the troops, and he assigned fields and herds to them equipped with every command that they be up early in order to praise Re at the beginning of

26) ra nb sqA.k n.n nsyt n sA.k ir hrr.t ib.k 9sr-xprw-Ra stp-n-Ra di.k n.f HHw m Hbw-sd di.k nxtw.f r tAw nbw mi 1r-sA-Ist mi sHtp.f ib.k m Iwnw m Xnmwt psDt.k

mean “together with,” we could perhaps understand that Horus of Hutnesu, after his encounter with Amun at the , had acquired a more exalted and solarized status as Re-Horakhty for the return journey. It is also possible that the ambiguity is deliberate. 680 Horemheb. 681 In the Greco-Roman period, the use of pA-mtr (pA-mty), to refer to a god’s statue is attested (WB II, 174.5), apparently meaning “the exact one.”

165 every day. May you raise up for us the kingship of your son, who does what pleases your heart,

Djoserkheperure-setepenre; may you give to him millions of Heb-seds, may you give him his victories over all lands like Horus Son of Isis, inasmuch as he satisfies your682 heart in Heliopolis with the entirety of your ennead.

4.3 Genre

Perhaps the first question to consider with regard to the coronation inscription as literary text is that of its genre. The question of how we should understand the concept of genre for Egyptian literature, or even whether the term in any of its modern senses is applicable to the topic, has been subject to debate.683 Nevertheless, the utility of categorization for examining intertextual relations of various sorts is widely accepted; as Parkinson has remarked, Egyptian texts “share a strong commonality of form and content…[a]s such, Egyptian literature is particularly susceptible to generic analysis of types.”684 Among the widely adopted categories of Egyptian texts, Horemheb’s coronation inscription falls under the heading of “royal monumental inscriptions” – officially composed, openly displayed texts recording the actions and/or qualities of the king.685 This grouping, however, is something of a catch-all, including everything from panegyrics to battle narratives.686 To arrive at a narrower range within the category of royal monumental inscriptions, we can certainly identify the coronation inscription as an “historical” writing, which Baines defines as any that make “use of the past through written means,” or that “look to

682 It seems to be Re who is meant here; emphasis is already drawn away from Amun to the sun-god in his Lower-Egyptian form. 683 For a concise overview, see Steve Vinson, “The Accent’s on Evil: ‘Melodrama’ and the Problem of Genre,” JARCE 41 (2004), 33-54. 684 Richard Parkinson, “Types of Literature in the Middle Kingdom,” in Loprieno, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature, 298. 685See Jan Assmann, “Egyptian Literature (Survey),” in David Noel Freedman et al., eds., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 387. 686 As shown, for instance in the lists of documents included under this heading in Assmann, “Egyptian Literature;” or Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings 2: The New Kingdom (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2006), vii.

166 the future so that they can be used as a society’s past.”687 The coronation text of Horemheb, then, is a royal, monumental, historical inscription – a text that records publicly688 for posterity an official account of an event or events with the king at the center of the narrative. Among texts of this sort, a number are thought to make reference to what we will for now call the “coronation” of a pharaoh.689 These include:

● The “Great Dedicatory Inscription” of Ramesses at Abydos II690

● The stela of Seti I for Ramses I at Abydos691

● The “Restoration Stela” of Tutankhamun692

● The “Great Sphinx Stela” of Amenhotep II693

● The building inscription of Thutmose III on the Seventh Pylon at Karnak694

● The “Texte de la jeunesse” of Thutmose III695

● The “Coronation Inscription” of Hatshepsut from the Red Chapel at Karnak696

● The “Texte de la jeunesse” of Hatshepsut697

687 John Baines, “Ancient Egypt,” in Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy, eds., The Oxford History of Historical Writing, Volume 1: Beginnings to AD 600 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 53. 688 At least to the restricted “public” who would have had access to the spaces where such texts were displayed. 689 I have excluded the well-known Kushite “coronation texts” from this selection in view of the apparently distinctive traditions of Kushite succession and coronation; see, for instance, Angelika Lohwasser, “Die Auswahl des Königs in Kusch,” Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 7 (2000), 85-102; Eleonora Kormysheva, “Das Inthronisationsritual des Königs von Meroe,” in Rolf Gundlach and Matthias Rochholz, eds., Ägyptische Tempel: Struktur, Funktion, und Programm. Akten der Ägyptologischen Tempeltagung in Gosen 1990 und in Mainz 1992 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1994), 187-209; and László Török, The Image of the Ordered World in Nubian Art: The Construction of the Kushite Mind, 800 BC-300 AD (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 16-18. The recent dissertation of Belekdanian on the coronation texts of the 18th Dynasty remains unpublished, and I have been unable as of this writing to consult it; Arto Belekdanian, “The Coronation Ceremony during the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: An Analysis of Three ‘Coronation’ Inscriptions” (PhD diss., Oxford University, 2015). 690 KRI II, 323-336; Kenneth Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations II (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996), 162-174; most recently Anthony Spalinger, The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II: A Solar- Osirian Tractate at Abydos (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 691 KRI I, 110-114; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions Translated I, 93-96; Siegfied Schott, “Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos,” Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: philologisch-historische Klasse 1964 (1), 1-84. 692 Urk. IV, 2025.1-2032.25; Nozomu Kawai, “Tutankhamun” in the Reign of Tutankhamun, (PhD Diss.:Johns Hopkins University, 2005), 157-166 693 Urk. IV 1276-1283; Lichtheim 2006 vol. 2, 39-43. 694 Urk. IV 178.1-181.5. 695 Urk. IV 155.5-162.8. 696 Matthias Müller, “Die Krönungsinschrift der Hatschepsut,” in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, neue Folge, vol. 2, Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften, und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte, edited by Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005), 197-211; David Warburton, Architecture, Power, and Religion: Hatshepsut, Amun, & Karnak in Context (Vienna, Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2012), 226-233. 697 Urk. IV 241.10-265.5.

167 ● The “Tombos Stela” of Thutmose I698

● The “Berlin Blocks,” apparently containing a narrative of the coronation of Amenemhat III.699

● The “Berlin Leather Roll,” containing an inscription ostensibly composed for Senwosret I.700

In most of these texts, although the king’s accession is mentioned, coronation ceremonies do not serve as the main theme of the narrative. In general, they are described in passing, with the bulk of the text focused on, for instance, the building activities of the king. Of the group, the “Texte de la jeunesse” of Hatshepsut is the most closely comparable to Horemheb’s coronation inscription in the extent to which it foregrounds the ritual affirmation of power that we usually describe as “coronation.”

4.4 “Coronation” Inscriptions and Coronation

In most of the texts mentioned above, rituals that affirm royal power do not serve as the main theme of the narrative. In general, the moment of accession or coronation (however we are to understand it) is only mentioned, with the bulk of the text focused on, for instance, the building activities of the king. Of the group, the “Texte de la jeunesse” of Hatshepsut and the “Texte de la jeunesse” of Thutmose III are the most closely comparable to Horemheb’s coronation inscription in the extent to which they foreground the ritual affirmation of power that we usually describe as a

“coronation.” Despite the different lengths and wording of Hatshepsut’s and Horemheb’s texs, they are

698 Urk. IV, 82-86. 699 Matthias Müller, “Hatschepsut und der Umgang mit der Verganenheit,” in Susanne Bickel, ed., Vergangenheit und Zukunft: Studien zum historischen Bewusstsein in der Thutmosidenzeit (Basel: Schwabe, 2013), 187-202. The Berlin blocks are widely thought to be the direct model for Hatshepsut’s Deir el-Bahari “coronation text,” although Müller (ibid.) convincingly challenges this proposition. That the narrative of divine birth has its roots in the Middle Kingdom, however, has recently been supported by excavations at , see Adela Oppenheim, “The early life of pharaoh: divine birth and adolescence scenes in the causeway of Senwosret III at Dahshur,” in Miroslav Bárta, Filip Coppens, and Jaromír Krejčí (eds), Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2010 1 (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, 2011), 171-188. 700 Adrian de Buck, “The Building Inscription of the Berlin Leather Roll,” Studia Aegyptiaca 1 (1938), 48-57; most recently translated in Wolfgang Kosack, Berliner Hefte zur ägyptischen Literatur: Paralleltexte in Hieroglyphen mit Einführungen und Übersetzung 1 (Berlin: Christoph Brunner, 2015), 269-288. Although the text as it exists today is not “monumental,” I have included it because it is often considered a record of a monumental inscription, see, for instance, Anthony Spalinger, “Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIII,” SAK 24 (1997), 278

168 connected by certain motifs. Most of these motifs are common enough individually in royal inscriptions, but when taken together, they represent a distinctive pattern:701

● The king is nurtured by the gods in his youth.

Hatshepsut: “[…] of [this nob]le [god] Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands:

[(decree)] to Nekhbet, , Selket, […], the Hesat-cow. [This god] has commanded to

nurse her Majesty along with all her kas…” (Urk. IV, 230.11-17)

Thutmose III: “I was in the appearance and form of a Iunmutef-priest, as Horus was in

Chemmis…” (Urk. IV, 157.11-12)

Horemheb: “Amun, King of the Gods, (is) the one who raised him; Horus, son of Isis, his

protector as the amulet of his flesh.” (2)

● His outstanding qualities are recognized while he is still young.

Hatshepsut: (said of the queen as a young woman) “She said to the people ‘listen,’ and

awe then fell among them.” (Urk. IV, 245.14-16)

Thutmose III: (This motif is actually conspicuously absent in Thutmose’s account; in fact,

his selection seems to have met at first with bemusement) “…then he made wonders

701 I quote the text of Hatshepsut only in part for the sake of brevity; however, the citations refer to full passages. The translations are my own.

169 upon me, […it is not] a lie. They were (?) in the hearts of the people, secrets in the

hearts of the gods, who knew these […]; there was none there who knew it, there was

none there who interpreted it…”702

Horemheb: Horemheb: "One bent the arm to him (when he was) as a child, and there

was kissing of the ground by both the young and the old." (3)

"Offerings and provisions accrued to him (when he was) as a boy

without understanding." (3)

● He is godlike in appearance.

Hatshepsut: "It was more beautiful to look upon her than anything...Her form was like

that of a god…"(Urk. IV, 246.1-3)

"Re himself established me; I was adorned with the that were upon his head."

(IV 160.1-2)

Horemheb: "He came forth from the womb clothed in splendor, the complexion of a god

upon him. He made…"(2)

702 This same motif of the assembled crowd being astounded at the wonder occurs in Hatshepsut’s narration of her oracular selection, see Müller in TUAT 2, 203.13b-25; the oracle text is also translated into English in David A. Warburton, Architecture, Power, and Religion, 226-233.

170 "…the image of a god in his complexion in the sight of one who beheld his fearful

figure." (4)

● He is designated by his predecessor

Hatshepsut: "Then his Majesty said to them: 'This my daughter Hatshepsut, may she

live, I put her in my place…" (Urk. IV 257.3-258.5)

Thutmose III: Again, the text of Thutmose differs, although the god Amun is called “his

Majesty,” perhaps in lieu of a kingly appointment. “…he (presumably the god Amun)

placed me before his Majesty. I was caused to stand at the ‘Standing Place of the Lord.’”

(Urk. IV 158.17-159.1)

Horemheb: "...He (the king) placed him to be the highest official of the land in order to

secure the laws of the two banks as hereditary prince of this entire land." (6)

● He is the successor chosen by the gods.

Hatshepsut: "Then spoke Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, to her:

'Khenmetamun Hatshepsut is the name of this your son, whom I have planted in your

womb. This which has come forth from your mouth (is true). She will exercise this

magnificent kingship in this entire land. My will belong to her, my power will belong

to her, my crown will belong to her, she it is who shall lead the two lands in that she

leads all the living...'" (Urk. IV 221.6-222.4)

171

Thutmose III: "He (Amun) commanded that I be upon his throne when I was still a

nestling." (Urk. IV 157.2-3)

Horemheb: "Now indeed this noble god, Horus Lord of Hutnesu, his heart desired to

affirm his son upon his throne for eternity." (12)

● His titulary is proclaimed.

Hatshepsut: "The god had let it come into their heart to make her names as they had

before…” (Urk. IV 261.12-262.1)

Thutmose III: "He placed my crowns for me and himself set my titulary…" (Urk. IV

160.10-161.8)

Horemheb: "The great name of this good god was made, his titulary like the majesty of

Re…” (18)

● He is acclaimed by the people (in the case of Thutmose III, by the inhabitants of the foreign

lands that are placed under his dominion).

Hatshepsut: "Then the nobles of the king heard this command, the dignitaries and the

heads of the ordinary people, in order to convey the dignity of his daughter, the king of

Upper and Lower Egypt, Maatkare, may he live forever. Then they kissed the ground at

172 his feet, and the word of the king fell upon them, they praised all the gods for the king

of Upper and Lower Egypt Aakheperkare, may he live forever. Then they went out in

jubilation and rejoiced..." (Urk. IV 258.11-260.14)

Thutmose III: (Once again, the case of Thutmose is different, with the

recognition of his power by foreign enemies seeming to take the place of the adulation

of his own people.) "He caused every foreign land (to come) bowing before the fame of

my Majesty, fear of me being in the hearts of the Nine Bows, and all lands were under

my sandals." (Urk. IV 161.14-16)

Horemheb: "One prayed prosperity and health for him as he was surely the father of the

two banks…" (11)

"Indeed, all the people are in joy, and they exult to heaven. Great and small seize upon

gladness and the entire land exults." (21)

Although Horemheb’s coronation inscription is (as noted above) extensively used as an historical source, that of Hatshepsut is universally regarded as fictitious,703 while that of Thutmose III must be at least partially fictionalized (the journey to the sky). This may, however, be an artificial distinction based on modern epistemology. There is no reason to assume that narrative fictions in these texts necessarily ruled out any value they might have as statements of truth for the ancient Egyptians.704 In fact, the

703 See, among many examples, David O’Connor, “Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh,” in Eric Cline and David O’Connor, eds., Thutmose III: A New Biography (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2009), 22, as well as Christopher J. Eyre, “Is Egyptian Historical Literature ‘Historical’ or ‘Literary’?” in Loprieno, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature), 417. 704 Ibid., 416.

173 application of modern notions of history and fiction may have something to do with why the coronation texts of Horemheb, Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III have not been compared in the past. Each, however, is clearly concerned with similar themes, and their common designation as “cornation texts” is appropriate in this sense.

It is worth explaining here what we mean by the term “coronation,” and how it relates to these texts. The transfer of actual royal power to a new king took place immediately upon the death of his predecessor,705 or, in the case of a coregency, during the previous king’s lifetime.706 The question of how the beginning of the new reign was ritually celebrated, however, is less clear. It is widely held that a

“coronation ceremony” followed some time after a new king took the throne.707 It is difficult to know, however, whether we should understand this as a standardized ritual affirmation of the new reign, analogous to a modern coronation (a one-time event taking place after the accession, emphasizing the new sovereign’s right to rule).708 Nothing in the Egyptian language distinguishes any putative coronation ceremony from the day of a king’s accession.709 There were, of course, rituals that included or focused on the conferral of crowns by the gods. The sed-festival is widely understood as a “reenactment” of the king’s coronation, and ritual presentation with the crowns (again thought of as a reenactment of the coronation) has been said to form part of the annual progress of the Opet-festival.710 Bommas has recently argued that an elaborate ritual of “investiture” with crowns and other regalia was a daily part of

705 See Maria-Theresia Derchain-Urtel, “Thronbesteigung,” in LÄ VI, 529-532. 706 See William J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 243-244. 707 See Winfried Barta, “Königskrönung,” in LÄ III, 531-533. 708 Anthony Spalinger, “The Calendrical Importance of the Tombos Stela,” SAK 8 (1980), 277 n. 24, remarks that the term may be a modern imposition; see also Baines’ remark that the term “coronation” in the context of the Horemheb’s approval by Amun at the Opet festival is “inexact;” “Public Ceremonial Performance,” 282. 709 See Donald Redford, “2ay and its Derivatives,” in Donald Redford, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967); Winfried Barta argued that the “appearance” (xaw) of a king outside the context of accession or coronation can distinguished by the use of Hm.f to refer to the king as opposed describing his appearance as a xaw nswt or xaw nswt-bity,“Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier als unterschiedliche Zeugnisse Königlicher Herrschaftsübernahme,” SAK 8 (1980), 34. 710 Lanny Bell, “The New Kingdom Divine Temple,” in Byron E. Shafer, ed., Temples of Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 173.

174 the royal routine.711 The accession (as opposed to coronation) day of each king appears to have been celebrated yearly,712 and we may assume that the crowns and other insignia of rule played some role in the ritual performance on this occasion. The New Year was also a moment when the appearance of the king as the legitimate heir to the throne appears to have been celebrated.713 We lack, however, any concrete indication that there was a standard ritual procedure designed solely to mark the king’s assumption of the throne in his first year. There is no absolute evidence that the Egyptians themselves distinguished such a ritual occasion conceptually from the many others on which the donning of the crowns played a role in royal ceremonial practice.714 Further complicating the matter is the fact that it is often difficult to distinguish iconographically between an accession, a moment of “coronation,” and any other putative repetition of the coronation.715

711 , Das ägyptische Investiturritual, BAR International Series 2562 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013), passim. 712 See Barta, “Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier,” 37 n. 23, for references in the primary source material; for the argument that xaw-nswt and Hb n xaw refer exclusively to accessions and should never be taken to indicate a separate coronation, see Redford, “2ay and its Derivatives,” 25-27. 713 See Jean-Claude Goyon, Confirmation du pouvoir royal au nouvel an [Brooklyn Museum Papyrus 47.218.50] (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archaeologie Orientale/Brooklyn Museum, 1972), especially 41-46. The argument is frequently made that New Year’s Day was regarded as the ideal day for the commencement of a reign, and thus was the day on which co-regencies traditionally began. The best evidence for this, however, is the “Texte de la jeunesse” of Hatshepsut, and it is by no means certain that this was in fact regularly the case; see Murnane, Coregencies, 1-2. 714 Pace Barta, “Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier,” whose arguments for a separate coronation fixed, in the New Kingdom, to the second lunar day of a month are largely dependent on circumstantial evidence, often on absolute dating on an astronomical basis. That the astronomical evidence is far from conclusive is demonstrated by the fact that efforts to establish an absolute chronology for the Eighteenth Dynasty are ongoing; see recently A.E. Quiles et al., “Bayesian Modelling of an Absolute Chronology for Egypt's 18th Dynasty by Astrophysical and Radiocarbon Methods,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40.1 (2013), 423-432. The strongest evidence that a “coronation ceremony” regularly followed the burial of the old king seems to be P. Harris I, 76.1 ff. (highlighted by Barta, op. cit., 37), where a clear description of the funeral of Sethnakht is followed by an extended description of the “appearance” of Ramesses III as nswt-bity. The fact that two festivals celebrating the “appearance” of Amenhotep I are known (Barta, op. cit., 43-44) is suggestive, but hardly conclusive, especially given the special status of that deified king. 715 Without a regnal year or sed-festival explicitly identified, many of the iconographic markers of the jubilee could also be viewed as making reference to the king’s original coronation; see ,”The Suckling of the Pharoh as Part of the Coronation Rites in Ancient Egypt,” in Proceedings of the IXth international congress for the history of religions: and Kyoto 1958 (Tokyo: Maruzen, 1960), 138; as far as I know, recent scholarship has not clarified the matter – for instance, no criteria for making such distinctions are mentioned or given in Kate Liszka, “Tracing Stylistic Changes within Coronation Scenes,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists: Grenoble, 6-12 septembre, 2004 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 1151-1161.

175 We can certainly state that in inscriptions that we commonly refer to as “coronation texts” (the one of Horemheb as well as the Textes de la jeunesse of Hatshepsut716 and Thutmose III) it is a critical moment of “appearance” that is described. In each case, however, what seems to be at stake is not the literal beginning of the reign, but the recognition by an earthly audience of the royal destiny of the king.

As Redford has remarked, in these very same texts, we meet with difficulty in associating the ceremony described with the actual moment of accession.717 Hatshepsut, for instance, speaks of two

“coronations,” one during the lifetime of her father and one in “year two” during the proceedings described in the Red Chapel inscription. Neither of these however, is related to the actual beginning of her year-count.718 Thutmose III underwent a miraculous “coronation” occurring after an oracle at

Karnak, but given that he was old enough to hold a priesthood, it is unlikely that his kingship was not already established. Spalinger has argued that this text is “no coronation inscription per se,” but an account of the later recognition by Amun of the king’s status as rightful monarch.719 Redford has noted that Horemheb’s coronation “smacks of the miraculous”720 – by analogy to the texts of Hatshepsut and

Thutmose III, we need not assume that the action in the text could only have played out in regnal year one, just after his actual accession. In fact, regardless of how accurately the biographical portion of the text reflects Horemheb’s actual pre-royal career, we should perhaps regard his coronation inscription in much the same way that we do those of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III – an at least partially fictionalized dramatization of a pivotal moment in the sovereign’s career, one when his or her role as king was confirmed by the gods, even it did not mark a real administrative event. We can see further that the close similarity of the motifs that each of these texts employs points to a common rhetorical strategy,

716 Hatshepsut’s Red Chapel inscription concerning the miraculous revelation of her royal status is also sometimes called a “coronation inscription.” 717 Redford, “2ay and its Derivatives,” 21-22. 718 Ibid. 719 Spalinger, “Drama in History,” 274. 720 Ibid., 21.

176 one that depends on notions of divine election and its public recognition to emphasize the legitimacy of the ruling pharaoh.

4.5 - Legitimation

“Legitimacy” and “legitimation” are terms that are found frequently in discussions of ancient

Egyptian kingship, and it is in this context that discussion of the coronation inscriptions frequently occurs. It is only in the last year (as of this writing), however, that the subject has been received an adequate, if brief, theoretical treatment in the Egyptological literature.721 What follows is a summary of the problem, together with a few references to English-language literature on the subject that may be appended to Widmaier’s cogent discussion, From a social-scientific standpoint,722 the use of the term originates with the Weberian notion that there are certain discrete bases on which the political authority (as opposed to coercive power) of any given regime may be accepted by the bulk of the people that it seeks to rule. It is the belief of the public in the legitimacy of the government

(“Legitimationsglaube”) on one or more of these bases that constitutes the legitimacy of a regime.723 A more recent and more nuanced definition of the term holds that the legitimacy of a government (or any other social structure or phenomenon) lies in its accordance with the “norms, values, beliefs, practices, and procedures accepted by a group.”724 Legitimation, then, is the process by which a regime seeks to shape its public image in conformation with one or more of a finite number of bases on which the ruled may accept its authority.

721 Kai Widmaier, Bilderwelten: Ägyptische Bilder und ägyptologische Kunst. PdE 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 424-442. The book was published as I was in the final stages of preparing the present dissertation. 722 As opposed to a legal or philosophical one, for instance; see David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 4-6. 723 Max Weber, “Die drei reinen Typen der legitimen Herrschaft,” Preussische Jahrbücher 187, no. 1 (1922), 1. 724 Morris Zelditch, Jr., “Theories of Legitimacy,” in John T. Jost and Barbara Majors, eds., The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 33. This essay is a useful overview of the topic as a whole.

177 Weber identified three fundamental bases on which claims of any regime to legitimacy could rest: law, tradition, and charisma.725 According to Weber, a regime could achieve the perception of legitimacy if it could cause the governed population to believe that its authority had the sanction of law or tradition, or if the leader had sufficient personal charisma to sway public opinion in his favor. In a seminal article on legitimation in ancient Egypt, Otto identified more culturally circumscribed bases for ancient Egypt, although he may have been drawing on the threefold character of Weber’s model when he suggested that the legitimacy of a pharaoh was measured against the criteria of rightful inheritance, mythological foundation, and effectiveness.726 By “effectiveness,” it was particularly ritual effectiveness that Otto meant, with emphasis on the king’s performance of his religious duties and the affirmation through festivals of his accomplishments in maintaining the cosmic order.727 Gundlach has proposed a somewhat different system, dividing the bases for pharaonic authority into political, juridical, and divine.728 In

Gundlach’s view, each Egyptian king needed to be legitimized through reference to one or more of the criteria of direct royal descent (political); designation as heir by a predecessor (juridical); and the expression of divine approbation through titulary, iconography, texts, and rituals, particularly those connected with birth and coronation (divine).729

Legitimation is usually treated as a universal concern of Egyptian kings in all periods. It was, according to

Baines, “a feature of most institutions and must have been a factor from the beginning of the kingship.”

730 Both the “institution of kingship and individual holders of office needed continual legitimation.”731

725 Weber, “Die drei reinen Typen,” passim. 726 Eberhard Otto, “Legitimation des Herrschers im pharaonischen Ägypten,” Saeculum 20 (1969), 389. Otto never compares his bases of legitimacy with those of Weber, nor does he make any explicit reference to the latter. 727 Otto “Legitimation,” 389 ff.; see also Winfried Barta, “Legitimation,” in LÄ V, 962. 728 Rolf Gundlach “Die Legitimation des ägyptischen Königs – Versuch einer Systematisierung,” in Rolf Gundlach and Christine Raedler, eds., Selbstverständnis und Realität: Akten des Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Mainz 15.-17.6.1995 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1997), 19. 729 Ibid., 19-20; cf. Widmaier, Bilderwelten, 433. 730 John Baines, “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation,” in David O’Connor and David P. Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 42. 731 Ibid., 4; note that some scholars have regarded legitimation as required only by individual kings, not by the institution as a whole, e.g. Gundlach, “Weltherrscher und Weltordnung: Legitimation und Funktion des ägyptischen Königs am Beispiel

178 Assmann, in fact, has identified legitimation as the defining concern of royal monumental discourse.732

Studying legitimating strategies from this perspective has yielded a great deal in terms of our understanding of the ideological content of Egyptian kingship. It has also, however, tended to direct scholarly focus toward universals and away from historical specificity. It is common to address the question of legitimacy by reflecting on it from the perspective of historical circumstances whose outlines are considered already to be known. The monumental discourse of Hatshepsut, for instance, has been used to illustrate the overall phenomenon of royal legitimation in the 18th dynasty because the irregularity of her succession is supposed to have forced her to place particular stress on certain universal elements of royal legitimacy.733 Innovations in monumental discourse under Hatshepsut have similarly been used as a window into large-scale changes in Egypt’s overall worldview in the first half of the 18th Dynasty.734 As Zelditch puts it, the process of legitimation “…has as one of its outcomes the specification and elaboration of pre-given values, norms, beliefs, and practices…”735

Legitimation only serves to highlight beliefs and norms, however, because the process of legitimation is one of building consent,736 that is, of negotiating between potentially conflicting interests or viewpoints.

The idea that legitimating discourse has at its root actual or potential conflict is supported by the observation of Otto that, with regard to legitimation, “[man hat das Augenmerk] besonders auf jene

Herrscher zu richten…von denen wir wissen, dass sie den Thron usurpierten.”737 The fact that it is rulers whose accessions were irregular that offer the best examples of legitimating strategies in their discourse

Thutmoses III. Und Amenophis III.,” in Rolf Gundlach and Hermann Weber, eds., Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers: vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1992), 40. 732 Assman, “Egyptian Literature.” 733 Gundlach, “Tempelfeste und Etappen der Königsherrschaft,” in Rolf Gundlach and Matthias Rochholz, eds., 4. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung Köln, 10.-12. Oktober 1996: Feste im Tempel (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998), 69. 734 Susanne Bickel, “Worldview and Royal Discourse in the Time of Hatshepsut,” in José M. Galán, Betsy M. Bryan, and Peter F. Dorman, eds., Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut: Papers from the Theban Workshop 2010 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2014), 21-32. 735 Zelditch, “Theories of Legitimacy,” 50. 736 Ibid. 737 Otto, “Legitimation,” 385;

179 emphasizes the role of conflict in producing such discourse.738 Given the barrier posed by rules of decorum, Widmaier is pessimistic about the value of legitimation as a concept to any effort to reconstruct actual historical circumstances in ancient Egypt: “Daher sind in letzter Konsequenz

Legitimationsansprüche auch nicht als eine auf konkrete machtpolitische Situationen zurückführbare

Legitimitätsbedürftigkeit interpretierbar.”739 Under certain circumstances, however, it is my view that understanding legitimation as a process grounded in conflict can open the way to refinement of the historical narrative, when combined with analysis of the form and content of specific documents.

4.6 - Apology

Although it has not until recently been highlighted in Egyptology, the link between legitimating discourse and conflict has been foregrounded in the study of other ancient Near Eastern cultures through discussion of certain royal texts, termed “apologetic” in what may be called their literary mode.740 Apologetic texts are by definition those in which a king defends his reputation against attacks on his legitimacy.741 A term borrowed from classical rhetorics, “apologetic” has not been applied before to Egyptian literature,742 having originally been identified for the ancient Near East in texts from the

Hittite royal court.743 As we will see, however, it may be possible to identify elements of this type of discourse in the “coronation inscriptions” of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Horemheb, and perhaps to some degree in other texts related to this topic.

738 Cf. Widmaier, Bilderwelten, 435-436, closely following (and indeed quoting in extenso) Anja Berendine Kootz, Der altägyptische Staat. Untersuchung aus politikwissenschaftlicher Sicht (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2006), 120-121. 739 Bilderwelten, 441. 740 The distinction between literary and rhetorical genres and modes and its implications are discussed by Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), see particularly 31-42. 741 Ibid., 25. 742 Wth the possible exception of the “Apology of the Potter;” for the text, see, for instance, Allen Kerkeslager, “The apology of the Potter: a Translation of the Potter's Oracle, in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology, edited by Irene Shirun-Grumach (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998), 67-79. 743 For a history of scholarship on this topic, see ibid., 1-15.

180 In an influential 1975 article, Hoffner identified apologetic in the Hittite as well as other ancient Near

Eastern sources as a “certain loose literary form,”744 developed specifically to address accusations that a king had assumed the throne in an illegitimate fashion. The basic characteristic of this form was the deployment of historical writing in a defensive capacity.745 In other words, Hittite apologetic consists of the dissemination of a version of events specifically crafted to portray the accession of a ruler as in keeping with the bases of legitimacy accepted in his society. According to Knapp, three such bases are asserted consistently enough that they can be considered characteristic of apologetic discourse in a number of ancient Near Eastern societies, including, but not limited to, that of the Hittites. These bases are: 1) divine election, 2) royal prerogative/affiliation – that is, connection to and approval by the prior monarch, and 3) popular acclamation.746 This “triad” of themes is clearly present in the coronation narratives of Hatshepsut and Horemheb. Each is explicitly designated as heir by a god or gods as well as by his predecessor, and is recognized after the moment of coronation by his subjects (whether foreign or domestic). Of course, each of these themes is common enough in its own right (especially in Egypt); it is the combination of and particular emphasis on them that distinguishes apologetic discourse.747 The degree to which each component of this “triad” is developed in the “coronation inscriptions” distinguishes them from other Egyptian historical texts. For instance, divine election is highlighted in each case not only through titulary and stock phrases or epithets, but also by explications of the king’s nurturance in youth by the gods as well as the god’s choice of the king as successor. Royal affiliation is stressed in the texts of Hatshepsut and Horemheb through narrative expositions of their relationships with their predecessors. Finally, acclamation by the king’s earthly constituency marks a high point in each text.

744 Harry A. Hoffner, “Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite Historiography,” in Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts, eds., Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 50. 745 See, for instance, ibid., 52. 746 Knapp, Royal Apologetic. 46-51. 747 See ibid., 47.

181 It is worth examining here how this pattern corresponds with one notable example of ancient Near

Eastern “apologetic” – the autobiography of Hattusili III. A near contemporary of Horemheb, Hattusili is considered the subject of the paradigmatic example of Near Eastern royal apologetic discourse. The text describing his accession to the Hittite throne has been analyzed most recently by Knapp,748 whose translation will be used here. Speaking in the first person, Hattusili relates a series of events that see his rise, in spite of adversity, to ever higher office. The most prominent factor to which he attributes his continued advancement is the favor of the goddess Ishtar. Like the coronation inscriptions of

Hatshepsut and Horemheb, the autobiography of Hattusili begins with an account of the king’s youth, in which his special relationship with the goddess is evident. She arranges for Hattusili, a sickly youth and not the heir apparent, to be placed in her care as a priest and nurtured to adulthood: “At the hand of

Ishtar, my lady, I experienced pleasant things, and Ishtar, my lady, took me by the hand and I was sustained by her.”749 Her continued favor is perhaps the most prominent theme of the text – at each major juncture in his life, Hattusili is aided by the goddess. Another factor which plays a role in

Hattusili’s continued advancement is his affiliation with his brother, King Muwatalli. Muwatalli awards

Hattusili his first administrative position,750 and the combination of his favor with that of Ishtar is credited with Hattusili’s continued success: “My brother Muwatalli regularly sent me forth, and when

Ishtar, my lady, had recognized me, wherever I turned my eyes to an enemy land, nobody turned enemy eyes back to me…”751 Finally, public acclamation figures into the narrative when Hattusili has finally ascended the throne and his fellow Great Kings begin to send envoys and gifts, and to seek peace with

Hatti.752

748 Ibid., 119-160. 749 i.20-21, Ibid., 142. 750 i.25-26, Ibid., 142-143. 751 i.66-70a, Ibid., 143. 752 iv.48b-61, Ibid., 147.

182 There is no argument to be made for a direct literary relationship between the Egyptian coronation inscriptions and the “Apology” of Hattusili III. As we have seen, the much earlier “coronation text” of

Hatshepsut might serve as a closer, indigenous parallel to the Horemheb text; none of the three texts, moreover, shares significant vocabulary or phraseology with another. Second, the Apology of Hattusili contains, like other Near Eastern “apologies” (but unlike the Egyptian coronation inscriptions), narration of discord within the hero’s own country, and in fact within the royal family itself. Much of the length of

Hattusili’s text is concerned with his conflicts with his relative Arma-Tarhunta753 and his nephew Urhi-

Tessup.754 The Egyptian texts make no reference at all to internal opposition to either Hatshepsut’s or

Horemheb’s accession. This is perhaps the greatest challenge to seeing the coronation texts as akin in some way to the Near Eastern apologies. Here, however, we must acknowledge a distinctive aspect of

Egyptian monumental discourse – the system of decorum that prevented opposition to the ruler within

Egypt from being acknowledged directly, if at all. Particularly during the New Kingdom, it is extremely rare within monumental royal inscriptions to hear, as Baines has put it, of “anything untoward”755 in the realm. Enemies of the king are found almost exclusively beyond Egypt’s borders. In fact, Egyptian monumental discourse seems often to have couched irregular successions in mythological terms,756 avoiding direct reference to them. We might expect that if the Egyptians did publish defenses of dynastic legitimacy, they would usually omit the sort of straightforward narratives that allow us to infer the rhetorical character of Near Eastern royal apologies. In other words, the very situations that might have occasioned the need for the justification of a king’s authority would not have been considered suitable for “public consumption” in the form of Egyptian monumental royal inscriptions.

753 For instance, ii.69-iii.30, Ibid., 144-145. 754 For instance, iii.31’-iv.40, Ibid., 145-146. 755 John Baines, Visual and Written Culture in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 188 756 See Jean Revez, “Looking at History Through the Prism of Mythology: Can the Osirian Myth Shed any Light on Ancient Egyptian Royal Succession Patterns?” in JEH 3, no. 1 (2010), 47-71.

183 Where decorum allows, however, we can see that the “coronation” texts of Horemheb and Hatshepsut exhibit similar rhetorical strategies to those employed in ancient Near Eastern royal apologies. Another example of such a strategy is the attribution of passivity to the monarch.757 The Textes de la jeuness of

Hatshepsut and Thutmose III and the Coronation Inscription of Horemheb could be considered not only royal monumental inscriptions, but also “Königsnovellen,” an often-discussed Egyptian “genre” that stands at the intersection of what we might consider historical and literary writing.758 The Königsnovelle is, broadly speaking, a narrative that focuses on a single episode in the life of a particular king, with the ruler at the center of the action.759 In texts that are generally classed as Königsnovellen, the king is usually portrayed as an active figure – it is some deed or decision of his that drives the story forward.760

In the coronation narratives of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Horemheb, however, the king is more often the object rather than the subject of the narrative. The gods, the king’s predecessor, or the king’s subjects carry out actions that reflect upon the king, but the king him- or herself conspicuously receives rather than initiates most of the developments in the story. Horemheb, for instance, although he is active in “[opening] his mouth to answer the king, and [appeasing] him with what came forth from his mouth,” does so only when he is “called before the king when the palace was falling into conflict” (7).

The story ends with a coda in which Horemheb “[founds] this land and [puts] it in order as in the time of

Re…” (22), but much more characteristic of the text is the manner in which Horemheb is shepherded

757 Identified as a common Near Eastern apologetic tactic by Michael B. Dick, “The ‘History of David’s Rise to Power’ and the Neo-Babylonian Succession Apologies,” in Bernard Frank Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts, eds., David and Zion: in Honor of J.J.M. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), PAGE. While Knapp (Royal Apologetic, 361) does not identify passivity as a motif in the Apology of Hattusili, I would argue that the extent to which Hattusili attributes the advancement of his career to his brother and to the goddess Ishtar indicates a passive attitude on his part. 758 See Antonio Loprieno, “The King’s Novel,” in Loprieno, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature, 285-290. 759 As originally formulated by Adolf Hermann, Die ägyptische Königsnovelle, Leipziger ägyptologische Studien 10 (Glückstadt: Augustin, 1938), the Königsnovelle is distinguished by the presence of certain motifs, or topoi, such as the king sitting upon the throne in his palace or the acclamation by courtiers of a decision made by the king. More recently, a broader definition of the genre has come into usage, where the centrality of the king to an episodic narrative is considered the primary hallmark; see Loprieno, “The King’s Novel,” 294-295; Karl Jansen-Winkeln, “Die ägyptische ‘Königsnovelle’ als Texttyp,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 83 (1993),108; and more recently Shih-Wei Hsu, “The Development of Ancient Egyptian Royal Inscriptions,” JEA 98 (2012), 274-276. See also Beate Hofmann, Die Königsnovelle: Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2004); Hofmann diverges from the broader definitions of the genre, seeing the alternation of units of speech and narrative as an essential formal characteristic. 760 See Loprieno, “The King’s Novel,” 280.

184 into the coronation ceremony by Re-Horakhty: “Then Horus proceeded in rejoicing to Thebes, the city of the Lord of Eternity, with his son in his embrace, to Karnak to induct him into the presence of Amun, to pass to him his office of kingship, and to make his lifetime.” (13). Hatshepsut is likewise designated by

Amun and by her father as heir without any reference to her own intentions. This passivity on the part of the king may mark a particular rhetorical strategy at play in the coronation texts that is not found in other Königsnovellen, indicating their particularly apologetic tone.

Finally, as one might expect, the very topic of accession seems to have an intrinsic relation to the rhetorical mode of apology. The two are certainly closely connected in the literature of the ancient Near

East; in fact, the accession of a new ruler plays an important role in every text that Knapp identifies as apologetic:

● The “Proclamation of Telipinu” - lines ii.16-ii.35 describe the king’s accession and early

reign, while lines ii.36-ii.45 lay out rules for the royal succession.761

● The “Autobiography of Hattusili” – lines iv.41-iv.48a summarize the preceding narrative of

the king’s early life leading up to his accession, while lines iv.48b-iv.80 describe the deeds he

performs immediately upon becoming king.762

● The Biblical account of the reign of King David contains a textual unit traditionally thought of

as the “History of David’s Rise,” which concerns itself with his path to the throne and his

accession.763

● The Biblical account of the reign of likewise includes a “succession narrative.”764

● The “Tell Dan Inscription” of Hazael makes the accession of Hazael an important point in the

narrative (lines 3-5).765

761 See Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 96. 762 See ibid., 147. 763 See ibid., 181-200. 764 See ibid., 252-257 765 See ibid., 288.

185 ● The “Accession of ” culminates in the king’s assumption of the throne (i.74-

ii.7).766

● The “Rise of ” takes the king’s accession as its starting point (iv.34’-v.24’).767

This close connection between accession narratives and defense against apparent attacks on the legitimacy of ancient Near Eastern kings compels us to consider the idea of a similar circumstance in

Egypt. The Egyptian system of decorum would have made the composition of an overtly apologetic text - one defending the king’s actions in explicitly described political circumstances - unlikely. It is worth noting the similarity, however, between many of the rhetorical devices utilized in both Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern accession narratives. This connection suggests the possibility of recognizing situations of conflict underlying the Egyptian texts. For Hatshepsut, of course, it is not difficult to identify the specific complaints and allegations that would likely have been made against her. Spalinger has connected the Texte de la jeunesse of Thutmose III to a time when his claim to the throne was insecure given his status as the son of a secondary wife.768 For Horemheb, the irregularity of his succession is an obvious fact; however, although the suggestion that he came to the throne under contested circumstances is hardly new, it has not always been taken for granted. Recognizing an apologetic tone in the coronation inscription, however, lends added weight to the belief that the historical background of

Horemheb’s coronation inscription was a time of unrest and opposition.

4.7 - The Circumstances Behind the Coronation Inscription of Horemheb: Myth and History

766 See ibid., 316. 767 This assumes a structure for the overall text in which the narrative of Nabonidus’ accession and early kingship are separate from the introductory and concluding lines of the stela text; see ibid., 341, 347-348. 768 “Drama in History,” 277

186 Along with the apologetic tone of Horemheb’s coronation inscription, its mythological allusions hint at an unsettled political environment. As is often observed, one of the most unique things about the text is the outstanding role played by the provincial god Horus of Hutnesu. The centrality of this deity to the text is evident from the outset - where the king’s titulary is given, he is called “beloved of Horus,

Lord of Hutnesu” (1) as opposed to beloved of Amun or any other national god. When Horemheb journeys to Thebes to be crowned, it is because “this noble god, Horus, Lord of Hutnesu, desired in his heart to affirm his son upon his throne for eternity” (12). Only halfway through the text does Amun begin to take an active role in the proceedings, when he “[joins] in joyfulness” upon seeing Horemheb and Horus of Hutnesu in front of Luxor Temple on the occasion of the Opet festival (14). The standard explanation of the god’s prominence is that Hutnesu must have been Horemheb’s hometown.769

Gardiner suggested that the role of this particular form of Horus was the result of a combination of his personal importance to Horemheb as his local god, and the fact that he could easily step into the role of the national god Horus in the rituals of coronation.770 All of this could easily be true. It may not, however, be sufficient to explain the very active and specific role that the god plays here. An examination of the religious traditions of Hutnesu and its region may shed light on the more complex message that could be conveyed by the decision to emphasize the god’s role as Horemheb’s escort to

Luxor.

Horus of Hutnesu was not just a local variant of the national god, but represented Horus at a specific moment in the mythological cycle of his rise to kingship. Papyrus Jumilhac, a Ptolemaic manuscript that details the religious geography of the 18th Upper Egyptian , describes him as follows (XIX.1-12a):

769 See, for instance, Maspero, “Life and Monuments,” 11; Gardiner, “Coronation,” 21; Hari, Horemheb, 80; Aidan Dodson, Amarna Sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation (Cairo, New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2009). 770 Gardiner, “Coronation,” 21.

187

“As for Hutnesu, ‘House of the King’ is its name. One has called it Hutnesu since Horus exercised kingship therein. He appeared on the throne of his father Osiris when he ruled the share of Seth in the southland, having added it to his share. He appeared in the great , having united the ‘powerful one’ with his head, the gods and goddesses being in his following. As for the divine image which is in this place, it is Horus, son of Osiris, as a statue in striding posture with the face of a falcon, his arms at his sides and two mekes-scepters in his hands; the divine flesh of this god has been of gold since the beginning. Indeed, he is there as a statue seated upon a throne, with the Atef-crown upon his head. Isis is there as a statue, seated upon a throne with a human face, the Hathor-crown upon her head and her son in her arms. As for the wab-priest of this god, (he is called) the ‘Bringer of the Wedjat,’ the ‘Lord of

Victory,’ the ‘One-Upon –the-.’ The booth of this god (is called) the ‘House of the Wedjat.’ The divine hill (is called) ‘The Enduring Land’te after his mother said to him, “The land endures under you, my son Horus!”771

The aspect of Horus that is highlighted here is that of the triumphant new king, the son of Osiris and Isis, at the moment of his victory over Seth and the unification of the Two Lands. This same connection also appears elsewhere in the same text:

(X.10b-12) “Horus was justified against Seth, in the presence of Re and the Ennead. Thus, Re gave him

Egypt to rule, so that he appeared as Ruler of the Two Lands, his son Horus being in Hutnesu, in the north of this district, until this day.”772

771 The translation is my own; for the text, Jacques Vandier, Le Papyrus Jumilhac ([Paris]: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, [1961]), 131, pl. 19. A comparison between the cult topography of this text and that of the ritual for the execration of Seth might be of interest; see Siegfried Schott, Urkunden mythologischen Inhalts (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1929). 772 Ibid., 120-121, pl. 10.

188 (XV.1) “, Lord of Dunawy (?),773 went to Hutnesu to renew his appearance; a great balcony was made there, and the gods and goddesses around him rejoiced because he had attacked Seth in Egypt and had repelled him in the desert. And he is king of South and North, in the manner of a sovereign of the entire country.”774

Papyrus Jumilhac belongs to a tradition in which later Egyptian scribes could demonstrate their erudition by elucidating connections between “local” traditions and “national” mythology; the Osirian mythic cycle and the conflict between Horus and Seth formed the basis for many local cults as described in these works.775 The very name of the city, of course, lends itself to an association with the accession of a king. There are indications, however, that the precise mythology that Papyrus Jumilhac describes for

Hutnesu had roots in concrete events of an earlier period. From a sealing found in the palace of

Amenhotep III at Malqata, it seems that Horus-Son-of-Isis was already the aspect of the god associated with Hutnesu by the later Eighteenth Dynasty;776 thus, the mention of Horus-Son-of-Isis in the coronation inscription of Horemheb was likely intended to intensify the association of the king with

Hutnesu rather than to broaden the theological scope of the text. We can perhaps infer that it would also already have evoked the victory of Horus over Seth and the reunification of Egypt after a period of conflict. In the wake of the Amarna period, this in itself could have played a role in the selection of

Horus, Lord of Hutnesu, as the purported driving force behind Horemheb’s rise. There is some indication, however, that this mythology may have had its roots in the political reality of this part of

Middle Egypt and changes that took place there during the New Kingdom. If this is indeed the case, it could make the emphasis on Hutnesu in this text even more significant.

773 That is, the 18th UE nome. The writing in the papyrus is not entirely clear, and could actually name Hardai. 774 Ibid., 126, pl. 15. 775 See Joachim Quack, “Lokalressourcen oder Zentraltheologie? Zur Relevanz und Situierung geographisch strukturierter Mythologie im Alten Ägypten,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 10 (2008), 5-29. 776 W.C. Hayes, “Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III,” JNES 10 (1951), 165, fig. 32 (S 77,78).

189 The 18th and neighboring 17th UE nomes experienced a somewhat turbulent history. In the

Middle Kingdom, there are indications in the biography of Khnumhotep II that the 17th UE nome may have been prone to boundary disputes - the great achievement of Khnumhotep’s son Nakht was setting the borders of the province,777 including one down the middle of the Nile that would presumably have divided it from the 18th UE nome on the east bank.778 During his campaign against the Hyksos, apparently felt the need to stage a significant operation in the 17th UE nome.779 It is widely accepted, moreover, that the “Tale of the Two Brothers” is a mythologized account of conflict within the region itself during the New Kingdom.780 It seems, however, that the mythology that may have been associated with Hutnesu in the time of Horemheb had its roots not in a general characteristic of the region, but in specific developments during the New Kingdom. From excavations in the Old Kingdom necropolis of el-

Kom el-Ahmar/Sharuna,781 it is clear that originally, the god who was called “Lord of Hutnesu” was not

Horus at all, but another falcon-god, .782 Nemty, whose name seems to mean something like

“voyager,”783 was evidently originally a god associated with the eastern desert and with travel, who shared many qualities with and Sokar.784 His worship was fairly widespread in Middle Egypt – already in the Old Kingdom, he is addressed in a song sung by the chair-bearers in the tomb of Heny at

777 See Alan B. Lloyd, “The Great Inscription of Khnumhotpe II at Beni Hasan,” in Alan B. Lloyd, ed., Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992), 23. 778 It is unfortunately unclear exactly how the two nomes were configured in the Middle Kingdom and at the beginning of the New Kingdom. While John Baines and Jaromir Malek (Atlas of Ancient Egypt (New York: Facts on File, 1980), 14) show the 17th nome extending on both sides of the river to the south of nomes 18 (east bank) and 19 (west bank); Frédéric Servajean (“Le conte des Deux Frères: La jeune femme que les chiens n’aimaient pas,” ENIM 4 (2011), 24ff.) bases much of his argument on the proposition that the two nomes were, originally, at least partially at the same latitude, with the 18th on the east bank and the 17th on the west. 779 For the mention of this area in Tablet Carnarvon I, see Philippe Collombert, “Le toponyme [] et la géographie des 17e et 18e nomes de Haute Égypte,” RdE 65 (2014), 11; for the second stela of Kamose, Labib Habachi, The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1972),41. 780 See Servajean, “Le conte des Deux Frères,” in particular 24-28. 781 The ancient city of Hutnesu most likely lay in the vicinity of the necropolis, about 3 kilometers south of the modern town of Sharuna. Wolfgang Schenkel and Farouk Gomaa, Scharuna I: der Grabungsplatz, Die Nekropole, Gräber aus der Alten-Reichs- Nekropole (Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 2004), 25-27. 782 For the most recent and thorough discussion of this god, see Aurelie Quirion, “Le dieu [] à l’Ancien et au Moyen Empire,” MA Thesis, Université de Genève, 2014 (unpub.). I am grateful to the author for allowing me to consult her work. 783 Ibid., 26-27. 784 Ibid., 70.

190 Meir785 as well as in the tomb of Pepiankh-Huy at Sharuna.786 By the Middle Kingdom, Nemty’s cult had evidently spread to the point where he was not only the tutelary god of the 12th Upper Egyptian nome, but also “Lord of” the of Tjerty in the 15th UE nome and Tjebu in the 10th UE nome.787 He seems also to have retained at this time his close association with the 18th UE nome, the capital of which was

Hutnesu. The evidence is quite sparse, but it seems that Nemty kept his role as the nome’s deity, at least in some circumstances, into the reign of Amenhotep III. At this time, we see the province’s standard shown with the traditional iconography of Nemty as a falcon on a bark atop a pedestal.788 As we have mentioned, however, Nemty had been replaced or assimilated by Horus at the nome capital as “Lord of

Hutnesu” by this same period.

Although the appearance of Horus as “Lord of Hutnesu” has a terminus ante quem in the reign of Amenhotep III, it likely has much earlier roots. The cult of the god Horus may have been spreading in the region since the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Collombert789 has convincingly argued that the toponyms Hutredu and Hardai (as well as Hut-red-benu790 and Henu) in the 17th UE nome are one and the same through phonetic change and graphic reinterpretation.791 According to Collombert, early in the

Eighteenth Dynasty, a new representation of the name of Hutredu (the capital of the 17th UE nome) appeared. While the toponym was originally written with the Hwt sign along with some representation of phoenetic rdw, by the reign of Kamose it had acquired a variant writing in hieratic (in keeping with the then-current pronunciation) with a falcon, 1r (Horus), followed by phoenetic dw.792 The writing, although it did not entirely replace the older “Hutredu,” then became more widespread over the course

785 See ibid., 55-57. 786 See ibid., 55-57; Schenkel and Gomaa, Scharuna I, 195. 787 See ibid., 69. 788 Collombert, “Le toponyme [],” 14-15. 789 Op. cit. 790 A place-name that appears along with Hutnesu in the tombs of el-Kom el-Ahmar/Sharuna; see Schenkel and Gomaa, Scharuna I, 130, 138, 173. 791 They were previously taken to represent separate places: one, a city of Hutredu associated with the cult of Anubis; the other, a city of Hardai ( 1r-dy, “Horus is there”) associated with the cult of Horus. For the identity of all these place- names, however, see Collombert, “Le toponyme [],” 4-10. 792 The new writing appears first in hieratic, and does not entirely supplant the earlier one, Collombert, “Le toponyme [],” 10ff.

191 of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and began to appear not only in hieratic but also in monumental contexts.

Instead of seeing this as a purely linguistic phenomenon, Collombert suggests that this new writing of the city’s name with a falcon may also have been related to cultic developments;793 it was Anubis who was, throughout most of Egyptian history, the “Lord of Hutredu/Hardai” but there is some evidence of

Horus as an alternative or syncretistic “Lord of Hutredu/Hardai in the Ptolemaic Period.794 Suggestively, moreover, a much earlier, isolated instance of Horus, Lord of Hardai appears on a statue belonging to a jdnw n mSa mi-qd.f of the reign of Amenhotep II.795 Thus we have what could be evidence of efforts at the dissemination, however limited, of a cult of Horus in the 17th UE nome, from as early as the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. We then encounter the displacement or assimilation of Nemty in favor of Horus at Hutnesu in the neighboring 18th UE nome by the reign of Amenhotep III. It is interesting to note that Nemty, a god of the east and of the desert, seems to have been strongly associated with Seth;796 thus, in a manner of speaking, the change in the identity of the god of the nome capital did mirror the mythological victory of Horus. A growing emphasis on Horus in favor of other local cults is not out of keeping with the stream of thought that produced increasing centralization of

Egyptian religion around the sun-god over the course of the Eighteenth Dynasty.797 The reign of

Amenhotep III, by which point Horus had become Lord of Hutnesu, saw programmatic modifications in this direction to temple cults throughout Egypt,798 and it is tempting to see a connection between this development and the appearance of the god in this new role.

793 Ibid., 18. 794 Ibid., 25-27. 795 Ibid. 796 See Quirion, Le Dieu [], 59. 797 For this phenomenon in the Thutmosid Period, see Jan Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun, and the Crisis of (London: Kegan Paul International, 1995), 102-132. A more balanced perspective incorporating other religious trends of the period can be found in Lana Troy, “Religion and Cult during the Time of Thutmose III,” in Eric Cline and David O’Connor, Thutmose III: A New Biography (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 123-182. 798 See Betsy Bryan, “Designing the Cosmos: Temples and Temple Decoration,” in Arielle Kozloff and Betsy Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), 74-76. Given that the purpose of this program seems to have been to emphasize the sun-god in the temples of local cults, we might perhaps imagine that the aspect of Horus being emphasized was that of Re-Horakhty; the Coronation Inscription of Horemheb does mention this god in connection with the king’s voyage north from Thebes (22).

192 Modifications to the cults of the region could have had more than just theological bases, however. In addition to these hints of an increasing focus on Horus in the region over time, the New

Kingdom seems to have seen a significant administrative change in the 17th and 18th UE nomes. At some point between the conquest of Kamose and the composition of Papyrus Wilbour, the 18th UE nome apparently lost its independence and became attached to the 17th.799 It is difficult to know when this consolidation took place. Servajean, interpreting the “Tale of the Two Brothers” as a myth describing a conflict between the 17th and 18th UE nomes over control of the city of Hardai,800 has argued that it must have happened around the time that Papyrus d’Orbiney was written.801 More recently Rouvière has argued that the unification of the provinces took place not long after the reunification of Egypt at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty,802 when the 17th UE nome first annexed the city of Hardai and then took over the rest of the 18th UE nome. While Rouvière’s hypothesis has much to recommend it, some of

Collombert’s observations raise interesting questions about the process of the consolidation of the two provinces. First, Collombert’s conclusion that Hutredu and Hardai were the same place would mean that the 17th UE nome never had to annex Hardai; we would have to look elsewhere for a source of conflict between the two nomes. This, in itself, is no reason to doubt the beginning of the 18th Dynasty as the moment of consolidation. Collombert has further noted, however, that in the reign of Seti I, a variant of the nome ensign of the 18th UE nome appeared, depicting a falcon perched directly on the standard, its wings spread.803 This new standard then apparently came to serve as the ensign of the combined 17th and 18th UE nomes, with its capital at the city of Hardai.804 Collombert is careful to note that the reign of

799 See Collombert, “Le toponyme [],” 16-17. 800 Servajean, “Le conte des Deux Frères,” in particular 24-33. 801 Ibid., 28. 802 Laurie Rouvière, Les XVIIe et XVIIIe provinces de Haute-Égypte. Essai de géographie religieuse et d'histoire (PhD Dissertation, University of Montpelier, 2015), 1158; the citation is thanks to a personal communication from the author, as the dissertation is still unpublished. 803 Ibid., 14-16. 804 Ibid., 16-17; see earlier Vandier, Papyrus Jumilhac, 59-60.

193 Seti I is only a terminus ante quem for a new version of the nome standard;805 moreover, we cannot even be certain that the god depicted on the new version of the nome standard was not still understood as Nemty.806 The fact that the displacement of the earlier nome god seems to have happened at Hardai and Hutnesu before it is reflected in the iconography of the entire nome could show that the process that it reflects was ongoing for several generations. Although this suggestion must remain speculative, we may perhaps see in this apparently gradual shift toward a national god – one of the gods par excellence of kingship, in fact – an evolving effort to strengthen centralized control of this turbulent region, one that began with rather than culminated in the consolidation of the 17th and 18th UE nomes in the early Eighteenth Dynasty.

Viewed from this perspective, Horemheb’s choice of Horus of Hutnesu as the god who would accompany him to his “appearance” as king at the Opet festival need not have been simply a matter of hometown pride. In fact, the coronation inscription of Horemheb indicates that the king wished it to be known that a god associated in a cultic-political manner with the resolution of regional conflict had appointed him to rule Egypt. Something similar may have been happening much later when, in one of the rare known attestations of Horus of Hutnesu outside of the coronation inscription, Amasis donated land to the god’s cult in the first year of his reign.807 Leahy has shown that the stela recording the donation is dated to a period when was still recognized as king at Thebes, but the area around

Hutnesu had begun to date by Amasis.808 The moment in line 12 of the coronation inscription of

Horemheb when (most likely) Horus of Hutnesu “decrees” Horemheb’s kingship could represent an analogous situation – a king seeking to consolidate his control of the country claiming affirmation of his

805 Collombert, “Le toponyme [].”, 15. 806 Ibid., 16. 807 See Anthony Leahy, “The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of the Reign of Apries,” JEA 74 (1988), 183-199. 808 See ibid., 187-188.

194 rule originating in an historically unsettled region, whose mythology evokes the moment of the resolution of a crisis of kingship and the reunification of the country.

This brings us back to the question of the relationship of Horus of Hutnesu and Amun in the coronation inscription of Horemheb. There is no a priori reason why Horemheb should not simply have claimed Amun as the primary force behind his rise to the throne. Instead, however, he chose to foreground the non-Theban origin of his authority – prior to the Opet festival, it is almost exclusively gods who were at home in Middle and Lower Egypt who advance the king’s career, and we are surely to envision the action of lines 5-12 taking place at Memphis.809 We can perhaps infer that Horemheb’s

“outsider” status at Thebes was so pronounced that even the fiction of Amun as the primary patron of his earlier career could not be sustained. Given the apologetic tone of the coronation inscription, moreover, it is possible that we should imagine that there was outright hostility to his accession in the city. The fact that this particular outside god was brought in to facilitate Horembeb’s recognition at the

Opet festival could be seen as an indicator that his acceptance as king at Thebes was hardly a foregone conclusion. The specific mythological associations of this form of Horus would certainly make him well- suited to a context in which the resolution of geographical division was required. It is worth noting that public processions like that of the Opet festival were an opportunity for the display of military might as well as religious piety; troops of soldiers could certainly take part in such events, at least during the

Eighteenth Dynasty.810 On a practical level, Horemheb’s journey from Hutnesu to Thebes would thus have been an ideal occasion for a display of strength. The coronation inscription of Horemheb seems to show a progression of stages, building up to his recognition by Amun in Thebes. This progression moves southward: the king’s destiny begins to emerge in the north of the country, while a god from Middle

809 It is likely that the residence was located in Memphis for much of Tutankhamun’s reign, see Kawai, “Tutankhamun” esp. 578- 579. 810 See Alan R. Schulman, “Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period,” JARCE 3 (1964), 57; also Silke Roth, “Der Herrscher im Fest: Zur rituellen Herrschaftslegitimation des ägyptischen Königs und ihrer Aussendarstellung im Rahmen von Festen,” in Dirk Bröckelmann and Andrea Klug, eds., in In Pharaos Staat: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 75. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2006), 219-220.

195 Egypt seems to play a key role in his transformation from high official to king. It is only at the end that he acquires the sanction of Amun, and thereby the right to claim to claim the title of nswt-bity, king of all of

Egypt like Horus at the defeat of Seth. Every king of Egypt in theory repeated the unification of the two lands at his accession, but this theme of conflict and its resolution plays out to an unusual degree in the rhetorical tone, the narrative progress, and the mythological allusions of the coronation inscription of

Horemheb. It is possible that it reflects a reality of his reign – the need to assert control over Thebes even after his kingship had become an almost complete fact.

196 Chapter 5: The Deification of Horemheb?

5.1 - Introduction

The extent to which the kings of Egypt were considered divine beings is a complex issue. It is indisputable that, at least in formal theology, the pharaohs were considered a priori to hold a special status with respect to the gods, and the idea of the fundamental divinity of the Egyptian kingship has remained a generally accepted proposition over decades of scholarship.811 However, the understanding that the king simply and invariably held a place among the gods has been challenged,812 with emphasis placed on the wide gamut of ways in which the king’s relationship to the divine could be expressed - from pragmatic and even irreverent references to him as a mortal ruler to his direct identification in text and image with the most powerful gods of Egypt. It has become customary among Egyptologists to speak of royal deification not in absolute terms, but as a matter of degree, with the divine status of the pharaoh more fully realized in some cases than in others.813 In his seminal study on the cults of Ramses

II, Habachi noted that “very few among [the king’s predecessors] were given the same consideration in life and even fewer were adored on such a wide scale after death” as Ramses814 – an observation that set the tone for a host of later studies focused on “features” or “aspects” of the cults of individual kings rather than the complex phenomenon of royal deification as a whole. Studies on the model of Habachi’s select kings for whom some kind of special elevation seems evident, and ask how their relationship to

811 This view was most notably formulated by Henri Frankfort in Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978). For the continued strength of this view, see, for instance, Suzanne Bickel, “Aspects et fonctions de la déification d'Amenhotep III,” BIFAO 102 (2002), 64: “La caractère divin du roi est indissociable de la conception égyptienne de l’État et de l’univers; il constitue un trait caractéristique de la culture.” 812 See the influential monograph by Georges Posener: De la divinité du Pharaon (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1960). 813 See, for instance, Dietrich Wildung, “Göttlichkeitsstufen des Pharaon,” OLZ 68, 549-565; or, David Silverman “The Nature of Egyptian Kingship,” in David O’Connor and David Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 49-92. 814 Features of the Deification of Ramesses II (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1969), preface.

197 the gods was expressed in art and in text, as well as why they might have been singled out for particular veneration and by whom.

The present chapter will take this approach with respect to Horemheb, examining the question of whether he was accorded a special “divine” status that exceeded what might be considered “typical” for a king of his period. It has often been suggested, in connection with the idea that Horemheb was deified, that the reason for the esteem in which he was held after his death had to do with a perception that he was the founder of the 19th Dynasty, and effectively of the Ramesside royal line.815 Alongside the question of whether Horemheb was “deified,” we will examine the basis on which he might have been considered worthy of special veneration, and attempt to determine whether his status as a “dynastic founder” was in fact a key component of the historical memory of his reign.

5.2 - Horemheb in the Ramesside Period

Although it seems obvious, it is worth noting at the outset that in terms of the formal religion of the New Kingdom, nothing should surprise us less than to find plentiful evidence of cultic service dedicated to a king both in life and after death. Along with other rites necessary for the establishment and maintenance of an individual king’s well-being in the afterlife, the royal ka as embodied by the living, reigning monarch was venerated on occasions like the royal jubilee and coronation festivals and the Opet celebration at Luxor temple,816 as well as being present through statue cults at other locations throughout the country and on Egypt’s frontiers.817 In addition, the worship of the “royal ancestors,”

815 See Martin, The Memphite Tomb, 72-73; more recently René van Walsem, “’Meaningful Places: Pragmatics from Ancient Egypt to Modern Times. A Diachronic and -Cultural Approach,” in Site-Seeing: Places in Culture, Time, and Space, ed. Kitty Zijlmans (Leiden: CNWS Publications, 2006), 131. 816 Bell, “Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka,” 251-294. For a succinct formulation of the problem of the divinity of the royal institution and its relationship to the person of an individual king, see Yasmin el-Shazly, Royal Ancestor Worship at Deir el- Medina During the New Kingdom (PhD Diss.: Johns Hopkins University, 2008), 15-16. 817 Including cults of rulers deified in border regions such as Nubia, for which see, among others, Peter Pamminger, “Zur Göttlichkeit Amenophis’ III,” BSEG 17 (1993), 83-92, and Susanne Bickel, “Le dieu Nebmaâtre de ,” in Nathalie Beaux and Nicolas Grimal, eds., Soleb VI: Hommages à Michela Schiff Giorgini (Cairo: IFAO, 2013), 9-36; see also Bell, “Aspects of the Cult

198 which can be traced in its evolution to the beginning of the pharaonic era, was highly developed in the New Kingdom, and found ritual expression in contexts such as the Min Festival and the Beautiful

Feast of the Valley, as well as the divine liturgy818 in state temples. The royal ancestors played a role in the private sphere as well, where their cult is particularly visible among the workmen’s community at

Deir el-Medina.819 Finally, as our knowledge of the royal “Houses of Millions of Years” has evolved, we have come to understand them not entirely or even primarily as funerary monuments, but as temples where each king could receive cultic service through his statues in conjunction with the major gods of the Egyptian pantheon, beginning in his own lifetime and continuing after his death.820

In one or more of the forms described above, we can say that more or less every king of the

New Kingdom, as well as many queens and other members of the royal family, were “deified” in life, death, or both. It is clear that certain kings and other individuals enjoyed an especially elevated status that is usually attributed to the historical character of their reigns.821 It can be challenging, however, to decide when the divine status of a New Kingdom ruler truly exceeds what we might consider the normal possibilities afforded by the theology of the period.822 In his publication of Horemheb’s Memphite tomb,

Martin listed a number of monuments that could, in one way or another, attest to a special cultic

of the Deified Tutankhamun,” in Paule Posener-Kriéger, Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), vol.1, 31-59, esp. 36-37. For the importance of the reigning king’s statue in divine rituals outside of Thebes, at least in the reign of Thutmose III, see, for instance, Anthony Spalinger, “The Festival Structure of Thutmose III’s Buto Stele,” JARCE 33 (1996), 69-76. 818 See Donald Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books (Mississsauga: Benben Publications, 1986), 37-39. 819 See el-Shazly, Royal Ancestor Worship, 7-8, 454 and elsewhere. 820 See Martina Ullmann, König für die Ewigkeit – Die Häuser von Millionen von Jahren: Eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), esp. 626 and 661-670. 821 For this perspective expressed in discussion of the cult of Amenhotep I, see Theresa Robin Moore, The Good God Amenhotep (PhD Diss.: University of California, Berkeley, 1996), 364-366. 822 This is especially true when we leave aside the type of literary and iconographic developments seen in the much-discussed “solarization” of the kingship under Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, and ultimately Akhenaten; for this phenomenon see recently Melinda Hartwig, “A vignette concerning the deification of Thutmose IV,” in Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini, ed. Sue D’Auria (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 120-125; also Agnès Cabrol, Amenhotep III: Le magnifique (Paris: Rocher, 2000), 280-282. For fundamental discussions, see Betsy Bryan, “Antecedents to Amenhotep III,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign, ed. David O’Connor and Eric Cline, eds. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 51-52; and Raymond Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III,” in Cline and O’Connor, eds., Amenhotep III, 86-94.

199 veneration of Horemheb.823 Given the scope of that work, it was not possible for him to explore in detail the content of each of these monuments, or to elaborate on their possible ideological and historical significance, but we will attempt here to build on his efforts.

Among the documents compiled by Martin are two stelae dedicated by private individuals, one in Leiden and the other in Bologna. The Leiden stela824 depicts, in the upper register, an individual named Paser, shown as a priest with shaven head and wearing a collar, kilt, and sandals. Paser stands facing an enthroned Osiris across an offering table, censing with one hand while pouring a libation from a nemset-ewer with the other. Behind Osiris stands his wife Isis, holding an ankh and a wadj-scepter.

The offering formula is dedicated to Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, suggesting a possible Memphite provenance for the stela. In the lower register, Paser’s son is depicted in the same costume and pose as his father. He stands facing other members of the family across an offering table, censing with one hand and pouring a libation from a hes-vessel with the other. The only reference to any king is in Paser’s title, “wab-priest of the Amun of Horemheb.” In the original description of the Stela in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheiden catalog, Horemheb’s cartouche is taken as part of the name of Paser, who is called “the wab-priest of

Amun, [named] ‘Horemheb-the-high-official.’”825 If this were the case, it would be of considerable interest, as it would imply that a deified version of Horemheb in his pre-royal role existed even after his accession. In fact, however, it is much more likely that the dedicant’s father was simply named Paser, and that his office was that of a wab-priest of the cult of Amun in a temple or chapel honoring the king jointly with the god. References to “God N of king so-and-so” are particularly plentiful for the Ramesside period, but this type of cult is relatively common in the New Kingdom overall, attested for kings including Merneptah and Thutmose III, and even for a cult of Sakhmet established in the 18th Dynasty in

823 The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 1: 72 n. 5. 824 P.A.A. Boeser, Beschreibung der aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden (Milan: Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1976), vol. 6, 10-11, pl. 16. 825 Ibid.

200 the temple of Sahure at Abusir.826 In the New Kingdom, at least, it does not seem to indicate an unusual emphasis on the divinity of the king named, but rather highlights his connection to the god through a particular cult locus.827 On the basis of its style, the Leiden stela must date to the early Nineteenth

Dynasty, or perhaps even the end of the Eighteenth, that is to say, within a couple of generations at most of Horemheb’s death. It would thus seem that rather than expressing exceptional veneration of

Horemheb, it simply reflects the continued function, no more than a few years after his death, of a cultic institution – perhaps a “mansion of millions of years” – that could have been founded already during his reign.

As with the Leiden stela, we cannot truly say that the Bologna stela828 shows an extraordinary kind or level of veneration for Horemheb. It has been dated to the beginning of the 19th Dynasty;829 and it is unlikely, stylistically, to be much later than this. The middle register shows the person for whom the stela was dedicated, the priest Ptahpatener, censing and libating across an offering table from an image of the king. Horemheb, or his statue, is shown seated on a low-backed, lion-footed chair, wearing a kilt with a sash that rises high in the back. He is crowned in a khepresh with trailing streamers, and holds the royal crook in his left hand and the flail in his right. His names are given in the cartouches in front of him

– “Lord of the Two Lands, Djoserkheperure-Setepenre, Lord of Appearances, Horemheb-Beloved-of-

Amun.” This does not imply, however, that the king is being singled out here for divine status above what we might consider typical for a pharaoh of the New Kingdom. The offerer, a man named

826 For general discussion and examples of gods called “of king so-and-so,” see Alan Gardiner, “Tanis and Pi-Ra’messe: A Retraction,” JEA 19, no. 3 / 4 (Nov., 1933), 127, n. 1; Dietrich Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt (Berlin: Hessling, 1969), 13; and Christian Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen (Leuven: Peeters, 2003). These cults were perhaps usually found in the context of a “mansion of millions of years.” 827 Fort the concrete, ritually effected character of the identification of king and god, see John Darnell, “Two Notes on Marginal Inscriptions at Medinet Habu,” in Essays in Egytology in Honor of Hans Goedicke, ed. Betsy Bryan and David Lorton (San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1994), 45. 828 Edda Bresciani, Le stele egiziane del Museo Civico di Bologna (Bologna: Grafis, 1985), 68-69 (no. 24). 829 Ibid.

201 Ptahpatener, was a wab-priest, hem-netjer-priest, “royal butler,” and lector-priest – all, evidently, in the cult service of Horemheb. All of his titles, moreover, are attested for the priests of numerous kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty and later in connection with their Theban “Mansion of Millions of Years,”830 and we may perhaps infer that it was in the temple by Medinet Habu that Horemheb usurped from Ay that

Ptahpatener was employed. Rather than indicating an exceptional divine status for Horemheb, the

Bologna stela shows principally that the king had a functioning cult, of a sort that we may consider

“typical” for rulers of the New Kingdom, that lasted for some decades after his death. Horemheb’s role is clearly subordinate here to that of the gods Osiris and Re-Horakhty, who occupy the top register, and it is to Osiris that the hetep-di-nesu formula is dedicated. The stela should probably be understood chiefly as a reflection of the priestly service of Ptahpatener, along with the reasonable expectation that the deceased king would reward this service by acting on Ptahpatener’s behalf as an intermediary with the gods.

Horemheb appears again in an intermediary role in Theban Tomb 255 (Roy) at Dra Abu el-Naga, where he is shown on the east side of the south (rear) wall offering flowers to Osiris.831 Queen

Mutnodjmet follows behind the king, shaking a pair of sistra. In the register below, the tomb owner stands in an attitude of prayer before a table heaped with offerings. As with the Bologna stela, while TT

255 might seem on the surface to attest to a special deification of Horemheb, we should probably not take it as evidence that an extraordinary divine status was widely accorded to him. Like Paser and

Ptahpatener, Roy was employed in a cult establishment founded by Horemheb, in this case an institution known as the pr Hr-m-Hb m pr ‘imn, which features prominently in Roy’s titles in the tomb.832

830 See, for instance, Benjamin Haring, Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1997), and Ullmann, König für die Ewigkeit, 682-685. 831 Georges Foucart, Marcelle Baud, and Étienne Drioton, Tombes Thébaines, nécropole de Dirâ Abû’n-Nága, Fasc. 1, Le Tombeau de Roÿ (Cairo: IFAO, 1928), 18-19. 832 Ibid., 6, 8, 19, 35-35; in addition, there are numerous instances where only imy-r pr is written, which may or may not be a shortened rendering of his title with regard to the pr 1r-m-Hb.

202 Moreover, on the opposite side of the wall, mirroring Horemheb and Mutnodjmet, we see Amenhotep I

– the “patron saint” of Thebes and deified king par excellence - and Ahmose Nefertari approaching

Anubis, the king bearing flowers and the queen shaking sistra. Although the two royal couples are presented visually in almost exactly the same way, their status is not truly equivalent. While the date of the tomb is uncertain, it was probably decorated within a generation of Horemheb’s death.833

Amenhotep I, on the other hand, had been dead for close to two centuries by Roy’s time, and while Roy evidently owed much of his status and livelihood to Horemheb, he has no known professional connection to any cult or foundation of Amenhotep.834 The juxtaposition of the two kings here highlights the contrast between the extent of their cults – we may perhaps infer that that Roy chose, for social and personal reasons, to parallel his own royal patron with a king who truly did receive exceptional veneration throughout Thebes for centuries after his death. Rather than showing

Horemheb’s “deification,” TT 255 makes reference alongside Horemheb to a king whose extraordinary divinity was widely acknowledged, perhaps, at least in part, in order to support the invocation of

Horemheb as a special intermediary in this case.

In addition to these appearances as an individual intermediary for his cult personnel, another role in which we find Horemheb “deified” in Nineteenth Dynasty Thebes is that of a royal ancestor – his statue is represented in this context in the Min festival reliefs of the Ramesseum and Medinet Habu,835 and he is among the deceased royals who are mentioned in the daily liturgy for Amenhotep I and

Amun.836 A variety of private monuments also show him as a royal ancestor. His statue, for instance, was included in the group of figures of the royal ancestors represented by the high-priest of Amenhotep

833 Deanna Kiser-Go dates it to the reign of Seti I; “A Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis,” 164. 834 Although his brother was a “first prophet of the Lady of the Two Lands, Ahmose-Nefertari,” Baud and Drioton, Le Tombeau du Roÿ, 47. 835 The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, vol. 4, Festival Scenes of Ramses III, OIP 51 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1940), pls. 207, 214. 836 See Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, 34-39.

203 I, Amenmose, in TT 19.837 Horemheb also appears as a royal ancestor in two Ramesside tombs at Deir el-

Medina, TT 10 of Penbuy and Kasa; and TT 7, one of three tombs built by the famous scribe Ramose.838

In TT 10,839 Horemheb appears twice, in the center registers of both the left and right walls of the inner shrine. The scenes are badly damaged, and it is only through Lepsius’ record of the tomb that we know which royal figures were represented. On the left wall, Penbuy and his son bring a floral offering before

Amenhotep I, followed by Ahmose Nefertari, Seti I (probably), then Ramesses I and Horemheb. On the right wall of the shrine, Kasa and his son are shown offering to Seti I, Ramesses I, and Horemheb. In the register above each of these scenes is a representation of Ramesses II, followed by the vizier Paser and, on the left, Ramose, the owner of TT 7. The king offers to Ptah and Hathor on the left and the Hathor cow in the mountain on the right. In TT 7,840 Horemheb appears behind Amenhotep I and Ahmose-

Nefertari and ahead of Thutmose IV in a line of figures receiving worship on the south wall of the entrance passage. In Ramose’s tomb, as in TT 10, Ramesses II was, as the reigning king, the dominant royal figure – even in TT 7, where he does not appear in the interior decoration, he was represented on a stela in the forecourt. In both TT 7 and TT 10, the series of royal figures show the males in mummiform guise and seated on block thrones, wearing the false beard and headdress and holding the crook and flail in their crossed arms. Their pose and costume indicate that we are to understand them in much the same way as the figures in TT 19 – that is, as deified royal ancestors as they would have been known to the inhabitants of Thebes through annual festivals like the Beautiful Feast of the Valley.841

837 Already destroyed by the early twentieth century, preserved in copies by Champollion and Hay; see George Foucart, Tombes thébaines: nécropole de Dirâ Abû’n-Nága, le tombeau d’Amonmos, MIFAO 57 (Cairo: IFAOE, 1935), p l. 12 838 For an account of Ramose, see Benedict Davies, Who ‘s Who at Deir el-Medina: A Prosopographical Study of the Royal Workmen’s Community (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999), 79-83. 839 See PM I.1, 20 and 21; LD III.3, 173; Moore, “The Good God,” 292; and el-Shazly, “Royal Ancestor Worship,” 98-100. 840 See PM I.1, 15-16; Moore, “The Good God,” 241; and el-Shazly, “Royal Ancestor Worship,” 96. 841 See el-Shazly, “Royal Ancestor Worship,” 453-454.

204 In isolation, the fact that Horemheb is shown in sequence with Ramesses I and Seti I as a royal ancestor at Deir el-Medina might seem to suggest that his role in the founding of the dynasty was a point of emphasis under Ramesses II, to whose reign these tombs date. In the larger context of royal ancestor veneration in Theban private tombs, however, this does not necessarily seem to be the case.

Horemheb is not one of the rulers most commonly represented as an ancestor in the Theban necropolis

– the Ahmosid line (not only kings but also queens, princes and princesses) is much more abundantly represented, while the first kings of the 19th Dynasty are often absent.842 What is more in TT 359, from the reign of Ramesses IV, although Ramesses I and perhaps Ramesses II are shown, Horemheb is not.843

If the choice of kings in that sequence was made on any kind of historical grounds, it would seem that the identity of Horemheb as the founder of the Nineteenth Dynasty, if it was ever emphasized, had lost its importance by that point.

Horemheb seems to have been important to Ramose personally. His cartouche appears with those of Thutmose IV and Ramesses II on a paving block from the khenu chapel that Ramose built in the village for a ka-cult of Ramesses II. Here, Horemheb is shown again as a mummiform ancestor in the company of Ramesses I and Seti I, on a stela that Ramose dedicated in that same chapel.844 In fact,

Horemheb appears in the village almost exclusively on monuments connected with Ramose and his circle: in addition to TT 7 and the two pieces from the khenu-chapel, he is shown in TT 10, where

Ramose himself is represented,845 Horemheb’s cartouche is also among those on an offering table dedicated by Ramose’s adopted son Qenherkhepeshef, found at Qurnet Mara’i.846 The one preserved

842 el-Shazly, “Royal Ancestor Worship,” 22-23. 843 See el-Shazly, Royal Ancestor Worship, 479-481. 844 , Cairo JE 72023 and JE 72017; see el-Shazly, “Royal Ancestor Worship,” 301-302 and 283-284. 845 See Jaroslav Cerny, A Community of Workmen, 326. 846 Marseilles no. 204, see el Shazly, Royal Ancestor Worship, 311-312; and Monique Nelson and Gisèle Piérini, Catalogue des antiquités egyptiennes (Marseilles: Musées d’archaeologie, 1978), 60-61, no. 247. Qenherkhepeshef is thought to be the scribe responsible for O. Cairo CG 25646; see Allan Philips, “Horemheb, Founder of the XIXth Dynasty? O. Cairo 25646 Reconsidered,” Orientalia NS 46, no. 1 (1977), 116-121; and Davies, Who’s Who, 86.

205 case in which Horemheb’s presence as a royal ancestor at Deir el-Medina does not involve Ramose in some way is that of an offering table, now in Swansea, belonging to and Aapehty and dating to the reign of Seti II.847 The sequence of ancestors there, however, is comprehensive from Thutmose III to

Seti II, and seems to have involved less in the way of selective choice on the part of the donor. It is difficult to say why Horemheb might have been so important to Ramose and his affiliates. The simplest explanation is that, although Ramose would not have served under Horemheb, he was likely alive during the king’s reign.848 Horemheb also seems, as we have discussed above, to have been remembered at

Deir el-Medina for his reorganization of the community after the Amarna period.849 If this were a key factor in his appeal as a divine intercessor, however, one might expect him to appear elsewhere in the necropolis and community. It is tempting to wonder if the Ramose of Deir el-Medina knew of the

Ramose who served as Horemheb’s personal scribe during the king’s pre-royal years,850 given that the

Theban also once served as “document scribe of the crown prince.”851 In spite of his importance to

Ramose and his circle and his occasional presence elsewhere as a royal ancestor, the special veneration of Horemehb at Deir el-Medina seems to have been relatively limited. As elsewhere, a personal connection to the king’s memory may have played a greater role in his “deification” than a broader awareness of his historical significance.

Nor is the picture that emerges from the royal Theban sources one in which Horemheb held a particularly elevated position with respect to the gods. As a legitimate predecessor whose actions in life

847 Egypt Centre, Wales, W957, see el Shazly, Royal Ancestor Worship, 337-338. The graffito of outline draftsman Pay does not seem to treat Horemheb as a royal ancestor, but as one of the monarchs under whom Pay served; see Davies, Who’s Who, 149. The same is true of the offering table of the foreman Neferhotep; see Davies, Who’s Who, 31. 848 See el-Shazly, Royal Ancestor Worship, 284. 849 See ibid. 850 For a recent discussion of this Ramose and his duties, see Niv Allon, “Writing, Violence, and the Military,” 39. 851 Bankes stela 4; Jaroslav Cerny, Egyptian Stelae of the Bankes Collection (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1958), no. 4. The stela is itself an interesting piece; the sun-disk in the bark in the lunette was formed of a natural chert nodule, and the prayer inscribed on it is similar to the much earlier Amun hymn of papyrus Cairo CG 58038, for which see Jan Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion, 121.

206 resulted in the passage of the royal ka to the Ramesside line, he could under no circumstances have been left out of the official ancestral cult, but his position at the head of the dynasty does not seem to have been unduly emphasized. While Ramesses I and Seti I are shown being celebrated at Abydos and at

Karnak alongside Ramesses II, we do not see a separate bark for the transport of Horemheb’s cult statues in these major state temples – it is only in the assembly of royal ancestors that he is visible.

Meanwhile, it is Amenhotep I and Ahmose Nefertari who appear as individuals in what is preserved of the decoration of the Qurna temple of Seti I and the temple of Ramesses II at Abydos. If anything, the concern seems to have been to connect the Ramesside line with the Ahmoside roots of the New

Kingdom as a whole in these contexts. If Horemheb was considered to hold a key to the public dynastic claims of the first kings of the Nineteenth Dynasties, it was not unduly emphasized. An ostracon from

Deir el-Medina does show the names of Horemheb and Nebhepetre opposite a list of the rulers of the New Kingdom,852 as if to imply a parallel between their roles in inaugurating new eras in the government of Egypt. The list itself, however, extends back to Ahmose. What is more, it has been suggested that the ostracon is the work of the scribe Qenherkhepeshef, the adopted son of Ramose, confirming the apparently restricted nature of this valuation of Horemheb in the workmen’s village.853

With respect to the country outside of Thebes, this brings us to the question of whether the presence of an ongoing cult in the tomb of Horemheb at Saqqara in the Nineteenth Dynasty can, as

Martin, van Dijk, and van Walsem have suggested, be taken as evidence that the first Ramesside kings promoted his worship as the “founder of their dynasty.”854 Among the discoveries made by the excavators of the Memphite tomb in the 1970’s was a pair of plinths that had once held statues of

852 Philips, “Horemheb, Founder of the XIXth Dynasty?,” 116-117. 853 Ibid., 117. 854 In addition to the sources cited above, n. 5, this view was reiterated by van Dijk in Martin et al., The Tomb of Tia and Tia: A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite Necropolis (London: EES, 1997), 62.

207 Anubis in the form of recumbent jackals.855 The plinths, which may themselves have been part of the tomb’s original decoration, are adorned with relief scenes. On the exposed long side of each plinth, which faced inward toward the tomb’s central axis, is a scene showing offerings by members of a priestly family connected with Horemheb’s funerary cult. The style, along with other archaeological material found in association, dates the reliefs to the first half of the Nineteenth Dynasty (probably the reign of Ramesses II),856 like the other documents discussed so far. It is worth noting that the honoree of the plinth texts is not Horemheb himself, but a lector priest of Horemheb named Pehefnefer. On the southern plinth, he receives offerings from his son Hapy, his daughter Anemesh, and a lector priest named Seankhptah. On the northern plinth is a scene, executed on a smaller scale, showing what seems to be another son of Pehefnefer, a man with the name of “Horemhebemnetjer” – “Horemheb is a (or his) god.” While basilophoric names are common in all periods,857 this particular form with -m-nTr is rare,858 and its use here is one of the strongest indications of a special divine status for Horemheb.

Nevertheless, the king’s “deification” is once again being emphasized by people associated with his cult, who would have depended on his memory for their livelihoods.

Thus, among the New Kingdom attestations of a possibly “deified” Horemheb that we have discussed here, two patterns emerge. First, about half belong to people directly involved in his cult or employed in foundations that he established. With one exception (the offering table of Paneb and

Aapehty), the remaining monuments are connected with the scribe Ramose of Deir el-Medina and his circle. In addition, all but one of our New Kingdom attestations of the veneration of the king almost

855 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 68-72. 856 See Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 10, 21, 72-73. 857 See Winfried Barta, “Ägyptische Personennamen mit einem Königsnamen als Komponente,” ZÄS 117 (1990), 2-11; and recently Christina Geisen, “Expression of Loyalty to the King: A Socio-Cultural Analysis of Basilophoric Personal Names Dating to the Old and Middle Kingdoms,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence, Italy 23-30 August 2015 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017), 228-232. 858 Ranke, Personennamen, 1:233, where the king named is perhaps Amenhotep I.

208 certainly date to the reign of Ramesses II or before. For other rulers in the New Kingdom, markers of exceptional divinity in cult practice included the worship of more than one named and iconographically distinct form, most of which seem to be connected with particular cult statues.859 Amenhotep I, for instance, appears as “Amenhotep of the Forecourt,” “Amenhotep, Lord of the City,” “Amenhotep who

Navigates on the Waters of Amun,” and others.860 Kings could also be invoked in offering formulas in the place where a god’s name would usually be found – Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari, of course, but also for Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV, Seti I , Ramesses II,

Merneptah, and Seti II, as well as the Middle Kingdom rulers Nebhepetre Mentuhotep and Senwosret

III.861 The first of these criteria for “deification” is uncertain for Horemheb. Only one named statue of him is known;862 the statue itself was destroyed in antiquity, and no independent attestations exist of a cult of the king by this name. No offering formulae naming Horemheb are presently known to exist either. If Horemheb was indeed worshipped with an “exceptional” deified status, it seems to have been only to a limited extent during the New Kingdom.

5.3 - The Third Intermediate Period: Deification and Memory

An artifact that has been taken as evidence for the longevity of a cult of the deified Horemheb is a painted wooden coffin, dating to the Third Intermediate Period, in the collection of the Rikjsmuseum van Oudheiden in Leiden.863 Belonging to a man named Khonsuhotep, it most likely dates to the mid-

859 For the cults of named royal statues in the New Kingdom, see recently Campbell Price, “Ramesses ‘King of Kings’: On the Context and Interpretation of the Royal Colossi,” Ramesside Studies in Honor of K.A. Kitchen, ed. Mark Collier and Steven Snape (Bolton: Rutherford, 2011), 403-411. 860 Moore, The Good God, 345 ff. 861 Winfried Barta, Aufbau und Bedeutung der altägyptischen Opferformel (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1968), 109 and 141. 862 See Bryson, “Some Year Dates of Horemheb,” passim. 863 Boeser, Beschreibung, 8:9-10, pl. 8.

209 21st Dynasty. Among the typical funerary and netherworld scenes that decorate the coffin are four representations on the cover of a seated king. Two identical, mirrored, outward facing depictions under the crossed hands of the coffin show him mummiform, wearing a broad collar and the khepresh crown with streamers. Seated on a block throne, he holds a scepter in one hand, with the other hand placed on his lap holding an ankh. The ceremonial bull’s tail is shown before his legs. The king is again represented twice, facing outward, in mirrored vignettes below the figure of with her wings outstretched. On the proper right side of the coffin, the king is shown in the same costume as above, although both of these lower figures are shown framed by kiosks with fetishes at their feet, seated on openwork chairs rather than block thrones. On the proper left, the king is not mummiform, but dressed in a shendyt-kilt with a wide sash. He wears a collar and khepresh, and holds a staff in his left hand and a crook over the opposite, forward shoulder. All four royal figures are identified by the accompanying text as Horemheb, who is called by the titles of a living king: “the good god,” “lord of the two lands,” “lord of appearances,”

“the lord who performs ritual actions,” and once, “son of Re.” Only the king’s prenomen is given, in each case enclosed in a cartouche. In the one case in which Horemheb is not shown mummiform but in a kilt, it is interesting to note the similarity of the iconography to that of the Bologna stela.

Khonsuhotep is described on the coffin as a wab nbiw m pr 1r-m-Hb mry-Imn. Rather than take this as a single title, it should probably be read “wab-priest and goldworker in the ‘house’ of

Horemheb.” It was not uncommon for people engaged in a profession (including craftsmen) to hold wab-priesthoods as well.864 As a goldsmith, Khonsuhotep would have been involved with the creation of valuable and cultically active objects; as such, it might be that he required access to temple spaces and ritual knowledge that would not have been available to a layman.865 Khonsuhotep was affiliated

864 See Emily Teeter, Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 17. 865 Cf. Selke Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, 158-161; and Andrew Shortland, “Who Were the Glassmakers? Status, Theory, and Method in Mid-Second Milennium Glass Production,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26, no. 3 (2007), 261-274.

210 with a Theban “pr,” “house,” of Horemheb; it is not unreasonable to think that this might be the same institution that had employed Roy (TT 255) many centuries earlier. In any case, Horemheb seems to have played a similar role in the two men’s funerary monuments; that is, each took the king who had endowed his workplace as a special patron. The coffin of Khonsuhotep indicates that the “pr” of

Horemheb continued to function centuries after the king’s death, and that at least the personnel of the institution could hold him in veneration. It does not, however, show that there was widespread adherence to a cult of the deified king at that time. Given the centrality of the king as a deified being in

Egyptian culture, it can be difficult to appreciate the extent to which specific historical circumstances may have contributed to the posthumous status of a particular ruler. On balance, however, it would seem that pragmatic concerns seem to have played a large role in the continued veneration of

Horemheb after his death. For private individuals, personal or professional connection to him, or employment in a foundation that he established seem to have prompted his commemoration as a

“divine” king. With regard to Ramesside dynastic claims, although his position as a legitimate predecessor could not be ignored, his role as a “divine” patron seems to have been limited. It almost seems more appropriate to speak of Horemheb’s “historical memory” than his “deification;” he was a god in the same sense as any deceased king, but when he found particular cultic devotion, it was for reasons grounded in his actions and social relationships.

That Horemheb’s contributions to the temples of Karnak were still recognized in the Third

Intermediate Period is certainly shown by the apparent restoration in the 22nd Dynasty of a tiny chapel of Thoth and Amun between the eastern gate of the court of Pylon IX and the 29th Dynasty storehouse south of the sacred lake.866 The cartouche of Horemheb is found next to one naming an Osorkon; although it is impossible to say on the basis of the inscription which king of that name was meant, the

866 Jean-Claude Goyon and Claude Traunecker, “La chapelle de Thot et d’Amon au sud-ouest du Lac Sacré,” Karnak 7 (1982), 355-356.

211 hypothesis of Goyon and Traunecker that it was Osorkon II seems quite reasonable.867 Prince Osorkon seems to have had an affinity for the god Thoth. His first action in his campaign against the Upper

Egyptian “rebels” evidently took place at Ashmunein.868 In addition, a festival mentioned in connection with a decree of Osorkon II evokes an epithet of Thoth that Vernus connected with his role as an administrator of temple goods and offerings.869 Because the chapel stands on what seems to be a route involving the 29th Dynasty storeroom and the north-south axis of the Amun precinct, Goyon and

Trauncker connected the presence of the Osorkon cartouche with reforms that Osorkon II claimed to have made with regard to the temple’s offering and payment structures.870 With regard both to the foregrounding of Thoth and to the proclamation of reform efforts, it would make perfect sense for the names of Horemheb and Osorkon II to appear together in the context of the chapel. It would make even more sense for Osorkon II to honor Horemheb’s memory if we were to consider the fact that disorder in the Thebaid was likely a defining factor in both men’s careers. As we have seen, the need to restore the burial of Thutmose IV; the reorganization of Deir el-Medina; the absence of Horemheb’s officials from the Theban necropolis; the attempt to convert the Memphite tomb into a royal monument; and the poverty of dated monuments after year 8 may all speak to the possibility that Horemheb’s control over the south was not consistent, even after he had taken the throne. The king’s relevance as a “deified” ruler, both in his own time and generations later, seems to have been largely confined to certain tight circles - employees of his cult foundations, and perhaps beneficiaries of his efforts to stimulate activity at Karnak temple and in the Valley of the Kings. This fact would be consistent with a certain amount of partisanship in how Horemheb was remembered; Even though he evidently held the Theban region securely by the end of his reign, whatever discord underlay his initial weakness in the south could still

867 Ibid., 383-384. 868 For the passage, see Ricardo Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1958). 29-30. 869 See Pascal Vernus, “Inscriptions de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire (I),” BIFAO 75 (1975), 23-24. 870 See Caminos, Chronicle, 54-70.

212 have been felt for a considerable period of time. The first Ramesside rulers, who supposedly saw their own dynastic line as originating with Horemheb, had no compunction about replacing his name and image with their own. Although it is clear that this could not represent any animus against his memory, it is not an act of commemoration either. Osorkon II, by contrast, placed his name side-by-side with that of his predecessor, at least in the tiny Thoth chapel. It is worth considering, at least, the possibility that he was expressing a perception of some similarity in their circumstances.

5.4 - The Greco-Roman Period: Armaios/Harmais

Hints of the association of Horemheb’s historical memory with domestic political conflict do not end with the dynastic period. A passage from (first century BC), relates a tradition whereby the pyramids of Giza were said to have been built for kings named “Armaios,” “Amasis,” and

“Inaros” respectively.871 Ryholt has argued that the basis for the tradition was that each of these men was held by the Egyptians of the Hellenistic period to have resolved an historical “trauma.”872 According to this hypothesis, “Inaros” could conceivably refer to two different princes: Inaros I, who rebelled against the Assyrian domination of Egypt, and Inaros II, who defeated a Persian force some two centuries later.873 Amasis is the Hellenized version of Ahmose, who expelled the Hyksos. “Harmais,” of course, is the Greek version of Horemheb, who could be said to have ended the Amarna trauma874 -

871 I:64.13; see Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes, vol. 1, Books I and II, 1-34, trans. C.H. Oldfather (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 223. 872 Kim Ryholt, “Historical Literature from the Greco-Roman Period,” in Das Ereignis: Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Vorfall und Befund, ed. Martin Fitzenrieter, IBAES 10 (London: Golden House, 2009), 236-237; cf. Jan Assmann, From Akhenaten to : Ancient Egypt and Religious Change (Cairo: AUC Press, 2013), 72-75. 873 For the distinction between Inaros I and II, see Kim Ryholt, “The Assyrian Invasion of Egypt in Egyptian Literary Tradition,”in and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J.G. Dercksen (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004), 348-511; and Joachim Quack, “Inaros, Held von ,”in Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die Antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante, ed. R. Rollinger and B. Trushcnegg (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006), 499-505. 874 Assman, From Akhenaten to Moses, 73.

213 “Armaios” (with the smooth breathing as in Diodorus’ text875) would be a variant of the Hellenized version of this name. In an era in which Egypt found itself once again under foreign domination, the pyramids thus served as locus for the maintenance of indigenous identity through the remembrance of the heroes of the past.876

It is possible, however, that there is more to the account in Diodorus than the memory of

Egypt’s great national traumas. There can be no doubt of most of Ryholt’s insights into the role of the heroes of the past in the cultural consciousness of Greco-Roman Egypt. At the same time, however, it is worth noting the different ways in which the name “Harmais” or its variants may have figured into the awareness of the period. First, the location of the king’s burial was not universally agreed to be the

Great Pyramid. In the first century AD, Pliny the Elder related a tradition according to which his final resting place was inside the Sphinx.877 That Harmais was the focus of two different legends might indicate a particular regard for his memory, but it also disrupts somewhat the symmetry of the triple traumas of the Hyksos, Amarna, and Assyrian/Persian periods. More to the point, perhaps, is the fact that it is not entirely clear who the Harmais of the Manethonian accounts actually was. A man by this name is given as the fourteenth king of the 18th Dynasty in the Epitome,878 which also preserves a narrative concerning a “Harmais” and his brother Sethos (called Ramesses), who came into conflict when Sethos set out on a maritime expedition, leaving Harmais behind as viceroy. In his brother’s absence, Harmais took advantage of the women of the royal harem, donned the crown of Egypt, and rose in revolt. Sethos, upon learning of his brother’s treachery from the “warden of the priests of

875 This variation exists also in the different recensions of Manetho – Eusebius in Syncellus gives the smooth breathing; see Waddell, Manetho, 116. This corresponds to the spelling of “Armais” in the Latin of the Armenian Eusebius; ibid., 118. Africanus, meanwhile, gives “Armesis;” ibid., 112. The variation in the phonetics of the name could perhaps bear further investigation. 876 Cf. Ryholt, Ëgyptian Historical Literature,”237. 877 See Christiane Zivie-Coche, Sphinx: History of a Monument, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), 102- 103. Zivie dismisses the association between Horemhakhet and Harmais in favor of Horemheb as the basis for the Greek name. 878 See Waddell, Manetho, 102-107, 109, 113, 117, 119.

214 Egypt,”879 returned and put down the rebellion. Harmais was, however, allowed to live - he is said to have fled to Greece, where he took control of the Argives.880 The details of this story do little to help identify the historical events (if any) that inspired it. We cannot necessarily assume that the characters in the narrative correspond precisely to the Sethos and Haramais of the king lists, as the ancient historians seem to have had some flexibility in how they connected historical and literary traditions with their chronologies.881 Second, it is unclear how the plot of the narrative may correspond with the actual history of the New Kingdom. It seems highly unlikely that this Harmais is the same hero who was thought to have been buried under the great pyramid. Schneider has offered two insightful possibilities for the situation underlying the story. He has argued that the conflict between Seti I and Amenmessu offers a strong parallel, but that the mysterious Mehy, who seems to have been an antagonist of

Ramesses II, could also have inspired the tale.882

In any case, it is interesting that Harmais was associated strongly with Greece. He was said to have borne a second name, Danaos, while his brother was called Aegyptus. Danaos, the legendary founder of the Argive royal line, was considered by the to have been their own ancestor,883 and there seems to have been a more extensive Hellenistic tradition in which the origins of various peoples were traced to Egypt.884 If this is the case, then it is possible that whatever the underlying history of the Harmais/Sethos tale, it would have had a resonance with Greek-speaking audiences

879 ὁ τεταγμένος ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερέῶν, ibid., 105. The term could be a translation of “overseer of priests of Upper and Lower Egypt,” or perhaps refer to the high priest of a temple. Dillery suggests that it is original to the Manethonian text, given that the Ptolemaic expression for “high priest” is virtually identical; John Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015), 308-309. 880 Ibid., 107, 118-121. 881 See, for instance, ibid., 171-172, 179-180. 882 Schneider points out that Mehy is a hypocoristic for names ending in m-Hb; Thomas Schneider, “Conjectures about : Historical, Biographical, Chronological, in Ramesside Studies in Honor of K.A. Kitchen, ed. Mark Collier and Steven Snape (Rutherford: Bolton, 2010), especially 451. 883 See Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons, 114. 884 For instance, Pseudo-Hecateus, see ibid., 208.

215 beyond its value as a locus for Egyptian cultural memory.885 At the time of the Roman conquest, there is a possibility that Augustus continued the tradition of using the myth of the Argive royal line to enhance his legitimacy.886 In fact, on the eastern outer wall of the naos of Temple, Augustus is represented with a cartouche reading “hArmys” in phonetic characters (written with a throwstick determinative) in place of the usual “autocrator.”887 Further investigation might help to indicate whether this is a reference to Hermes, to Harmais-Danaos, or something else entirely.888 In fact, the

Ramesside origin of the character Harmais, at least, would have existed in the minds of Hellenistic audiences alongside another connotation of the name. It has often been noted that a separate

Horemheb, a Greek from Pekhat in the Delta, was venerated as a kind of “saint” in the Ptolemaic Period.

He is known from a colossal (3.6 m) statue found at Naukratis, and while the reasons for his veneration are unclear, it has been suggested that the widespread popularity of the name Horemheb in second half of the first millennium BC could be in some part due to him.889

None of this is to suggest that interpretations of the Harmais-Sethos story as an account of a struggle in the Ramesside period are incorrect. In fact, even Djoserkheperure-setepenre Horemheb could be present in some way in the historical memory encapsulated in the narrative. Regency, usurpation, and interaction with the Mediterranean region to the north and east of Egypt are certainly themes that evoke the end of the 18th Dynasty. In fact, if we were to take Ay and Horemheb as Harmais

885 The Egyptian origin of the Argive royal line was a widespread mytheme in the Hellenistic world; see recently, for instance, Alexandros Kampakoglou, “Danaus βουγενής: Greco-Egyptian Mythology and Ptolemaic Kingship,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016), 111-139; 886 Recently, for instance, Attilio Mastrocinque, “Danaus and Augustus,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae 55 (2016), 179-184. 887 For the scene, see Sylvie Cauville Dendara XII, 83-86, pl. 58. The problem of “Harmais” in Roman Egypt was discussed long ago by Franz Joseph Lauth, “Augustus-Harmaïs,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München 1877, 175-226. 888 The possible identification of Augustus with Hermes is a topic that was discussed extensively in the first half of the twentieth century and earlier; for a recent summary of the problem, see Paulo Martins, “Augusto como Mercúrio enfim,” Revista de História (São Paulo) 176 (2017), 1-43. 889 For such “saints,” including Horemheb of Pekhat, see Alexandra von Lieven, “Heiligenkult und Vergöttlichung im Alten Ägypten.” Habilitationsschrift, Freie Universität Berlin, 2007.

216 and Danaos (however unlikely it is that the names would have been thus displaced), we could see van

Dijk’s old hypothesis - that Ay married Tutankhamun’s widow and took the throne while Horemheb was in the north campaigning - as a possible background to the story.890 It is worth considering, however that the Hellenistic context may have had an effect on the transmission of whatever tradition gave rise to the narrative. In fact, to a Greek audience, the names Amasis, Harmais, and Inaros could all have evoked Hellenic connections. In view of Harmais’ identification as the Argive dynastic founder Danaos, the name Amasis could have referred to Ahmose II as easily as . According to Herodotus, at least, this 26th Dynasty king had employed Greek mercenaries in his conflict with the Persians. Inaros II, meanwhile, opposed Persian domination with the help of Athenian allies. Given the continued importance of the Persian empire to the Hellenistic historians,891 it could be that the later history of

Egypt would have been more present than even the Amarna “trauma” in their reception of the tradition concerning the Giza pyramids.892

Whatever historical memory underlay the character of “Harmais”893 in Greco-Roman Egypt

(from either the Greek or the indigenous perspective), the theme of internecine conflict could have been present then, as much as at any point in Egypt’s history, in the memory of Horemheb. In terms of the story of the three pyramids, Amasis contended not only with the Persians, but also with internal discord that culminated in his overthrow of the pharaoh Apries. The cycle of stories involving Inaros I, meanwhile, is set in the context of the civil wars of the historical Libyan period.894 The notion that

Horemheb later claimed his achievements as Tutankhamun’s regent under his royal identity is a

890 Jacobus van Dijk, “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun,” BACE 7 (1996), 29-42. 891 A recent work on Diodorus’ treatment of the history of the Persian Empire is Jan Stronk, Semiramis’ Legacy: The History of Persia According to Diodorus of Sicily (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017). 892 In fact, it could be that Diodorus’ Egyptian informants knew that the names associated with the pyramids could have “philhellenic” connotations, and were making a gesture toward their visitor. 893 Leaving aside Horemheb of Pekhat, whose story is still unknown to us. 894 See Kim Ryholt, Narrative Literature from the Tebtunis Temple Library, Carlsberg Papyri 10 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2012), 73-83.

217 commonplace. In this regard, the idea that he was remembered for having settled the conflict surrounding the Amarna episode would make sense. As we have seen from the careers of the officials who served under him, however (as well as the unevenness of the architectural and artistic production of his reign), there was likely a major break in political continuity not just on the verge of Horemheb’s accession, which either continued into or was repeated later in his reign.

The conflict between Harmais and Sethos is clearly situated more in the Ramesside than the

Amarna period, occurring apart from the narrative of Osarseph and the lepers. The name Sethos, moreover, is separated in the king-list from the Amarna rulers by a considerable distance, and is placed in the subsequent 19th Dynasty in the Epitome.895 A narrative involving him seems unlikely to serve as a direct sequel to the Osarseph tale. That Sethos was thought of as having a connection with historical milieu of Amarna is suggested by the fact that is said to have been hidden away in Ethiopia, as a five- year-old child, during the conflict between Amenophis and Osarseph.896 Whether the “Sethos” of

Manethonian narrative corresponds to Seti I or Seti II, the antagonism between him and Harmais was not cast as the resolution of the Amarna episode. If the Harmais of the tradition related by Diodorus is the same as the “Harmais/Horemheb” of the king-list, then we should likely see two separate, like- named men within the Aegyptiaka itself. All in all, however, it seems that whatever vestige of the historical Horemheb survived in Greco-Roman Period tradition was seen as a figure whose reign was, in its own right, characterized by political turmoil within Egypt. This is fully in keeping with the picture, hazy though it is, that can be reconstructed from the monumental record. Whatever forces Horemheb overcame to leave his mark on the country, they were not exclusively the result of Akhenaten’s

“revolution,” nor were they without consequence for the Ramesside kings who succeeded him.

895 Waddell, Manetho, 149-153. 896 Ibid., 129.

218 Conclusion and Future Lines of Research

This dissertation has sought to test a premise that has long been part of the accepted narrative of the history of the New Kingdom: that the reign of Horemheb was a period of consolidation and reconstruction in the wake of the upheaval of the Amarna period. Horemheb is usually thought of as the individual who drove the reconstruction of the country, and under whom the return to religious and cultural orthodoxy culminated. A study of the monuments of his reign, however, suggests that the reality may be more complex than this. If Horemheb had made steady progress toward the restoration of the country, laying a secure foundation for his

Ramesside successors, then we might expect to be able to trace an evolution in the material production of his reign, or at least to discern some continuity in the monumental record, especially given that he held the throne for a minimum of fourteen years.

Instead, scholars have been unable for the last two centuries even to agree on what constitutes a monument “of Horemheb” in the first place. The presence of his name on a sculpture or building does not indicate that he was responsible for commissioning it, nor does the absence of his name indicate that he was uninvolved in a project or event. As we have seen, there is not a single statue in the round that has been universally agreed to represent him, and many of the historical episodes thought to have occurred under – military campaigns and diplomatic efforts in Syria, for instance – rest on evidence that is almost entirely circumstantial. This is not to say that the history that scholars have reconstructed for his reign consists entirely of falsehoods, or even unfounded speculation. The material correlates of his activities, however, are more sparse and equivocal than we would expect for a king of such consequence, and indeed an examination of the early historiography of his reign reveals that

219 ever since Champollion, expectations as much as evidence have colored how he is characterized by Egyptologists. For this reason, this dissertation has assembled and re- evaluated the monuments that document Horemheb’s reign. The last time that such an effort was undertaken was in 1964, and with the addition of new material to the corpus, and an evolution in our understanding of Hormeheb’s pre-royal career and its cultural and political context, it was hoped that revisiting even well-known material might prove fruitful in terms of refining and improving our understanding of the king and his times. The private officials who are known to have worked under Horemheb were also examined, in the hopes that their careers might reflect on in which they lived.

The results of this study have been twofold: first, we have shown that while Horemheb’s presence in the monumental record is not insignificant, it is idiosyncratic. The only major physical monuments that can confidently be said to have been both commissioned and completed under him can be counted on one hand: Pylon IX at Karnak Temple, three of the colossal sculptures that flank the gateway of Pylon X of the Amun precinct, the statue group of

Horemheb and Horus, and the small, rock-cut shrine at Abu Oda. Critical texts have survived from his reign, in particular the “coronation inscription” inscribed on the pair statue of the king and his queen in Turin. The coronation inscription, however, encodes political division and turmoil; as a physical document, it is paleographically poor and seems, like so many of his inscriptions, to have been added in haste to a monument for which it was not originally intended. Horemheb is widely said to have been deified after his death, particularly because of his role as the political, though not the physical, progenitor of the Ramesside dynasty. Again, however, the material correlates of attitudes toward him – monuments restricted in time and space, associated with a narrow stratum of society – indicate that whatever divinity he enjoyed after his death was not widespread. In the historical memory of ancient Egypt, his position was

220 likewise equivocal. We would expect him to be venerated as a dynastic founder, but in monuments like the 400-year stela where the Ramessside kings make historically specific reference to their origins, he is conspiciuously absent. By the Hellenistic period, it seems that he was still remembered as the historical king “Harmais” of Manetho, Diodorus, and others. A closer look, however, again reveals equivocality – the name Harmais seems also to have belonged to a culture hero of Greek origin from the Delta; meanwhile, the narrative legend of the Egyptian king “Harmais” in the Greek-speaking world seems to have cast him as a defeated usurper who fled Egypt to found the Argive royal house; either we are speaking of two different men “Harmais,” or there are layers to his story that we have yet to peel back.

We have indicated that, with regard to a characteristic artistic style of the reign, there are is a group of monuments characterized by crude paleography, unusual proportions in human figures, and a distinctive facial type characterized by large, everted, heavy lidded eyes and a slight smile that may be attributed to him. It seems to be created, however, using a proportional system carried over from Amarna, one which had already begun to be replaced under

Tutankhamun and Ay. If anything, artistically, his reign may have been something of a regression. Part of the reason for this may have to do with the organization of production under him; Deir el-Medina apparently saw some upheaval around year 7, and the management and provision of precious materials for the cults of Egypt was (as it had been under Tutankhamun) a major concern of his. The “houses of gold,” or ritually active temple workshops, may have been a means by which he promulgated his authority. Even so, at Thebes, in spite of the volume of stone that he moved and the loyal craftsmen who paid homage to him after his death, there are indications that his authority was never entirely secure, even after the initial years when we might infer that conflict with Ay and his heirs could have lingered.

221 In spite of these results, there is an enormous amount of room for future research. This dissertation has left aside the most important document of the reign, the great decree – although it has been most capably studied in the past, an effort to correlate it with the premises put forward here could prove to be of interest. An additional topic that could bear further investigation is Horemheb’s place in the theological developments of the period; if, as we have seen, the art of his period seems to carry over already fading elements of, if not the Amarna aesthetic, then its production structure, then it is possible that the same could hold true for

Egyptian religion. Finally, this dissertation has been restricted to art in the Theban region. It is a commonplace that the vast Memphite necropolis holds almost limitless potential for future investigation, but it bears repeating how little understood the relationship between the art of the north and the south played out in the post-Amarna period. We have seen over the course of this dissertation how frustratingly opaque the evidence is, and will likely remain. We have also seen the extent to which historiographical expectations can color the interpretation of the monumental record. Methodological concerns should remain a prime focus of future investigation into this fascinating period, lest, as Martin has so wisely cautioned, “the history of this much-discussed period degenerates into fiction.”897

897 Martin, Tutankhamun’s Regent, 98.

222 Appendix: Catalog

Section 1: Monuments and objects commissioned under earlier rulers

Cat. 1.01 – Lintel Unknown. Tell el-Dab’a, ‘Ezbet Helmy, Temple of Seth.

- Bietak 1990, 11-12 - Bietak 1994, 282-283 - Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 36

Cat. 1.02 – Block Unknown. Tell Basta.

- Habachi 2001, 47.

Cat. 1.03 – Relief block Cairo, EMC TR 25.07.18.02. Heliopolis, tomb of a buried under Ramesses II. Limestone.

-Daressy 1919, 205 (1) – 206 (5). -Raue 1999, 317 (XVIII.14-7.1), 472. -Hari 1964, 387-388 (21). -Thiem 2000, 433 (no. 8). -el-Banna 1992-1993, 90, n. 63 (doc. 21) -Kawai 2005,

Cat. 1.04 – Relief block Cairo, EMC TR 25.07.18.04. Heliopolis, tomb of a Mnevis buried under Ramesses II. Limestone.

-Daressy 1919, 205 (1) – 206 (5). -Raue 1999, 317 (XVIII.14-7.1), 472. -Hari 1964, 387-388 (21). -Thiem 2000, 433 (no. 8). -el-Banna 1992-1993, 90, n. 63 (doc. 21) -Kawai 2005,

Cat. 1.05 – Relief fragment Cairo, EMC TR 12.02.25.08. Possibly from Letopolis.

223 Limestone.

Radwan 1974, 393-397, pl. 52. Kawai 2005, 127-128, fig. 29.

Cat. 1.06 – Lintel Cairo, EMC JE 88131. Memphis, Ptah Temple area, tomb of Prince Sheshonq D. Limestone.

-Badawi 1957, 159-160, pl. 4. -Habachi 1979, 34-35, fig. 2, pl. 2. -PM III.2, 846. -Thiem 2000, 437 (no. 13). -Kawai 2015, 138-139.

Cat. 1.07 – Stela (Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun) Cairo, EMC CG 34183. Karnak, Amun Precinct, hypostyle hall. Quartzite.

-Legrain 1907, 162-173, -Gabolde and Rondot 1993, 246, n. 5. -Lacau, Stèles, pl. 70. -Ockinga 1993, 77. -Bennett 1939, 8-15. -Murnane (1995), 212-214. -Varille 1943, 19, pl. 48. -Niwinski 1996, 8, n. 14. -Urk. IV, 2025.1-2032.15. -Gabolde 1998, 35. -Hari 1964, 128-134, fig. 43, pls. 21, 23. -Raue 1999, 119-120. -Harris 1973, 9-11. -Thiem 2000, 443-444 (no. 22). -PM II, 47 (157). -Grallert 2001, 308-309. -Leprohon 1985, 97-99. -Kawai 2005, 94-101, 124, 128, 134 n. 46, -Redford, 1986, 264-265. 156-166, 168, 176, 185, 211 n. 341, 251, 316, -Gabolde 1987, 37-61. 342, 426, 460, 496, 519, 561, 567, 585-586, 578, -Le Saout 1987, 287-288, n. 27. 582, 592, 597, 589-590, 601 -Eaton-Krauss 1988, 2, n. 7. -Laboury 2010, 345-348. -Schlögl (1989), 128-133. -Biston-Moulin 2016, 23-38. -Eaton-Krauss 2016, 25, 30, 33-35, 66, 72, 74- -van Dijk 1993, 14-16, n. 15, 63-63, n. 192. 75, 81, pl. 6.

Cat. 1.08 – Stela fragment (from a copy of the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun) Cairo, EMC CG 34184. North Karnak, Montu precinct. Sandstone.

-Legrain 1904, 112. -Urk. IV, 20-22. -Legrain 1905, 67. -Helck 1958, 7 n. 3. -Legrain 1907, 256-258. -Hari 1964, 129-130, 134-135, pl. 22, figs. 44-45.

224 -Lacau, Stèles, 1:230-231. -Biston-Moulin 2016, 23. -Varille 1943, 19 n. 2, pl. 48. http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/?id=782

Cat. 1.09 – Stela fragment (“fragment Varille,” from a copy of the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun) Unknown. North Karnak, Montu precinct. Sandstone.

-Varille 1943, 19 n. 2, pl. 48. -Thiem 2000, 465 (no. 49). -Hari 1964, 129-130, 134-135, pl. 22, figs. 44- -Biston-Moulin 2016, 23. 45.

Cat. 1.10 – Stela fragment (from a copy of the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun) Karnak, Gadaya mag. inv. 74. Probably from Karnak. Limestone.

-Biston-Moulin 2016, passim.

Cat. 1.11 – Restoration text and relief scene (dated to year 1) In situ. Karnak, Ptah Temple, 2-pillared hall, south wall.

-Legrain 1902, 100, n. 1. -Hari 1964, 390-391 (27), pl. 60. -BAR III, sec. 23. -Harris 1968, 95, n. 2. -Nelson 1941, pl. 10 (90). -PM II, 200 (18), pl. 16. -Schott 1950, 970, no. 65. -Gabolde 1987, 39, n. 1 (i). -Kees 1955, 336-337. -Le Saout 1987, 340. -Urk. IV, 2132.1-7. -Thiem 2000, 462 (no. 45). -Biston-Moulin 2016, nos. 115-129bis, pl. 127.

Cat. 1.12 – Stela (Stela “H” of Tutankhamun) In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon VII, north face. Sandstone.

-Legrain 1903, 9-10, pl. 1. -Gabolde 1987, 39, n. 1 (k). -Urk. IV, 2033.1-2034.9. -Thiem 2000, 453-454 (no. 34). -Hari 1964, 190-192, 289, 295-297 (5), pl. 9. -Kawai 2005, 175-176. -PM II, 168 (H).

225 Cat. 1.13 – Restoration text and relief scene In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, cachette court, southern outer wall.

-Legrain 1902, 100, n. 1. -Hari 1964, 390-391 (27), pl. 60. -BAR III, sec. 23. -Harris 1968, 95, n. 2. -Nelson 1941, pl. 10 (90). -PM II, 200 (18), pl. 16. -Schott 1950, 970, no. 65. -Gabolde 1987, 39, n. 1 (i). -Kees 1955, 336-337. -Le Saout 1987, 340. -Urk. IV, 2132.1-7. -Thiem 2000, 462 (no. 45). -Biston-Moulin 2016, nos. 115-129bis, pl. 127.

Cat. 1.14 – Stela fragments Karnak, Sheikh Labib mag. Probably from Karnak. Sandstone.

-Le Saout and Maarouf 1987, 285-291, pl. 1-2. -Thiem 2000, 451 (no. 30). -Schaden 1977, 279-284, pl. 1.1-2, pl. 2.1-3. -Kawai 2005, 201-203.

Cat. 1.15 – Colossal statue of Amun In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, vicinity of Pylon VI. Quartzite.

-Nelson 1941, pl. 151-152 (160a-b). -Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, pl. 140. -Barguet 1962, 119. -Gabolde 1987, 38-39, n. 1 (h). -Hari 1964, 271-272 (14-15), n. 23, pl. 44. -Thiem 2000, 445 (no. 24). -PM II, 90 (252-253). -Kawai 2005, 172-174. -Eaton-Krauss 2016, 53-55.

Cat. 1.16 – Colossal statue of Amaunet In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, vicinity of Pylon VI. Quartzite.

-Nelson 1941, pl. 151-152 (160a-b). -Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, pl. 140. -Barguet 1962, 119. -Gabolde 1987, 38-39, n. 1 (h). -Hari 1964, 271-272 (14-15), n. 23, pl. 44. -Thiem 2000, 445 (no. 24). -PM II, 90 (252-253). -Kawai 2005, 172-174. -Eaton-Krauss 2016, 53-55.

226 Cat. 1.17 – Relief scenes In situ. Luxor Temple, Opet-festival colonnade.

-De Morgan et al. 1894, passim -Brand 1999, 114 n. 10 and 15, 118 n. 51, 122- -Hari 1964, 338-352. 123, 132. -Bell 1985, 253-254, 259-262. -Thiem 2000, 467-475 (nos. 51-65). -Traunecker, 1986, passim. -Brand 2000, 89-92. -Bell 1992, passim. -Baines 2006, 278-282 -Murnane 1992, passim. -Wickett 2009, passim. -Epigraphic Survey 1994, passim. -Brand 2009, passim. -Johnson 1994, passim. -Johnson 2009, 125-127. -Epigraphic Survey 1998, passim. -Darnell 2010, passim. -Saleh et al. 2014, 171. -Eaton-Krauss 2016, 78-80.

Cat. 1.18 – Doorjamb fragment Unknown. Malqata, palace of Amenhotep III, Amun Temple. Sandstone.

Hayes 1951, 239, n. 473, fig. 37b. Thiem 2000, 488 (no. 83).

Cat. 1.19 – Temple (“Mansion of Millions of Years”) of Ay In situ. Medinet Habu, immediately north of the Temple of Ramesses III.

Hölscher 1932, passim. Holscher 1934, passim. Hölscher 1933, passim. Thiem 2000. Ullmann 2002.

Cat. 1.20 – Colossal statue of a king Chicago, OIM 14088. Medinet Habu, Temple of Ay. Sandstone.

-Hölscher 1933, 46. -Hari 1964, 269-271 (13), illus. 69, pl. 63. -Hölscher 1939, 104-105, pls. 45a, 46b, 47, -PM II, 459-459 (d). fig. 87. -Le Saout 1989, 340. -Dow 1948, pl. 139. -Thiem 2000, 484-485 (no. 78). -Urk. IV, 2136.1-10. -https://oi-idb.uchicago.edu/id/157ca2cf-dddb-4024- -Hölscher 1958, 55, pl. 156. 8ab7-ffc96f6d8c40

227

Cat. 1.21 – Colossal statue of a king Cairo, EMC CG 60134 = JE 59869. Sandstone. Medinet Habu, Temple of Ay.

-Hölscher 1932, 52, fig. 34. -Hölscher 1958, 55. -Hölscher 1933, 46, pl. 14, illus. 22. -Hari 1964, 269-271 (13), illus. 69, pl. 43. -Hölscher 1939, 102-103, pls. 44-46 (A), illus. 84- -PM II, 458 (c). 86, 88. -Le Saout 1987, 340. -Urk. IV, 2135.7-20. -Thiem 2000, 483-484 (no. 77).

Cat. 1.22 – Colossal statue of a king Cairo, EMC CG 632 + TR 22.1.35.1 + TR 10.6.33.1-4.898 Medinet Habu, Temple of Ay. Indurated limestone.

-Hölscher 1933, 46. -PM II, 458 (a). -Hölscher 1939, 105, pl. 48. -Le Saout 1987, 339. -Hölscher 1958, 57. -Thiem 2000, 482 (no. 75). -Hari 1964, 268-269 (11), 195-197, illus. 55-57, pl. 35d-e.

Cat. 1.23 – Colossal statue of a king Berlin, ÄM 1479. Medinet Habu, Temple of Ay. Indurated limestone.

-Hölscher 1933, 46. -Hari 1964, 195-197, 268-269 (12), pl. 35a-c. -Hölscher 1939, 105-106, pl. 49. -PM II, 458 (b). -Eaton 1942, 42, illus. 1. -Le Saout 1987, 339. -Hölscher 1958, 57. -Thiem 2000, 483 (no. 76). -Hanus 2013, fig. 6

Cat. 1.24 – Relief fragment Khartoum, SNM 3814. Faras, Temple of Tutankhamun. Sandstone.

-Griffith 1921, 91-93 (11), pl. 27 (11). -Hari 1964, 384 (14). -Karkowski 1981, 73, 116-117 (no. 59), pl. 13. -Thiem 2000, 489 (no. 110).

898

228

Cat. 1.25 – Statue of Tutankhamun Cairo, EMC CG 42091 = JE 56583 = SR 1/3236 = Legrain K 4. Karnak, cachette. Grey granite.

-Anonymous 1905, 58, no, 59, no. 10A -Russmann 1997, 266, 268, 273 n. 4, 275 n. 45. -Legrain, Statues, 1:53-54, pls. 57-58. -DeMeulenaere 1998, 339. -Legrain 1905, 70. -Laboury 1998, 187 n. 622, 224 n. 689.. -Capart 1909, 24, pl. 65. -Freed, Markowitz, and D’Auria 1999, 177-178, -Maspero 1915, 135-136, fig. 49, 138 (no. 457). fig. 137. -Bénédite 1920, 55 n. 3-4, 60-61, fig. 5. -Johnson 1999, 246. -Boreux 1926, 36, pl. 42. -Thiem 2000, 447 (no. 26). -Vandier, Manuel III, 361 n. 1, 363-365, 405 n. 1, -Azim and Réveillac 2004, 1:295, 1:298, 2:213. 625, pl. 117.1. -Wiese, Brodbeck et al. 2004, 41, fig. 21, 242- -Hari 1964, 251, 273 (16), n. 27. 243 (no. 51). -Kees 1953-1958, 196 n. 1. -Kawai 2005, 205. -Urk. IV, 2061.3-6. -Bryson 2008, vi, 51-54, 60-62, 86, fig. 4.8. -Lange and Hirmer 1976, 110-111, pl. 192. -Jambon 2009, 279. -Gabolde 1987, 39, n. 1. -Selim 2011, 330 n. 32. -Ertman 1994, 82-83, n. 7, 85. -Jambon 2016, 141 n. 42, 152 n. 87, 169. -Seidel 1996, 234 n. 387. -www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/?id=4 (accessed 2/1/2018).

Cat. 1.26 – Statue of Tutankhamun Cairo, EMC CG 42092 = JE 58562 = Legrain K 41. Karnak, cachette. Grey granite.

-Legrain 1905d, 70. -Hari 1964, 273 (16). -Legrain, Statues, 54. -De Meulenaere 1998, 339. -Legrain 1908, 182 (no. 310). -Laboury 1998, 187 n. 622, 224 n. 689. -Bénédite 1920, 55 n. 3. -Gabolde 1987, 39 n. 1, (r). -Urk. IV, 20-22 -Russmann 1997b, 266, 268, 273 n. 4, 275 n. 45. -Urk. IV, 381. -Roeder 1998b, 248=249, 348, pl. 32a (42091b). -Engelbach 1938, 23-28, pl. 5. -Thiem 2000, 447 (no. 26). -Engelbach 1939, 199, pl. 27. -Wiese, Brodbeck et al. 2004, 242. -Drioton and Sved 1950, 94-95, fig. 86. -Selim 2011, 330 n. 32. -Kees 1953-1958, 196 n. 1. -Jambon 2016, 142 n. 45, 147 n. 67, 152 n. 88, 169. -Anonymous 1956, 168 (6282). -www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/?id=28 -Vandier, Manuel III, 361, 363-365, 625. (accessed 2/1/2018).

Cat. 1.27 – Statue of Tutankhamun London, British Museum EA 37361. Unknown provenance. Schist.

229

-Budge 1922, 126 (no. 58). -Hari 1964, 278-279. -Hall 1928, 75-76. -Bierbrier 1982, pl. 2-3. -PM VIII, 57. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_onlin e/collection_object_details.aspx?searchText=horemheb&I LINK|34484,|assetId=236990001&objectId=166746&partI d=1 (accessed 2/1/2018).

Cat. 1.28 – Statue of a king Cairo, EMC CG 42095 = JE 41504 = Legrain K 168. Karnak, cachette. Petrified wood.

-Legrain 1904, “Travaux a Karnak 1903- -Gabolde 1987, 39 n. 1. 1904”, 27 -Legrain 1905, “Renseignemens,” 70. -Müller 1989, 17 n. 35, 21. -Legrain, Statues, 1:55-56, pls. 60-61. -Gabolde 1992, 27-28, 36 n. 11, pl. 4. -Capart 1911, 46, pl. 159. -De Putter and Karlshausen 1992, 55-56. Maspero 1914, 228. -Baines 2000, 31, 39 (no. 16). -Capart 1942, 38, pls. 361-362. -Thiem 2000, 448 (no. 27). -Urk. IV, 2137.15-19. -Hardwick 2003, 119, 137. -Vandier, Manuel, 3:368, 371, 373, 625, -Azim and Réveillac 2004, 309-310, 241. pl. 120.1-3 -Jambon 2016, 135 n. 15, 145 n. 60, 146, 169, -Hari 1964, 252, 278 (24), n. 31, fig. 76. 170, 172, fig. 11. -Satzinger 1981, 9-10, 29 (doc. A7). -www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/?id=144 -Chadefaud 1982, 12-13. (accessed 2/1/2018).

Cat. 1.29 – Statue of a king and Amun Turin, Museo Egizio 768. Unknown provenance. Indurated limestone.

-Von Bissing 1914, pl. 46A -James 1970, 6-7, pl. 3. -Vandier, Manuel III, 370, n. 1, 372. -Vandersleyen, ed. 1975, 251-252, pl. 198. -Pritchard 1954, 146, ill. 419. -Curto 1984, 130-131. -Aldred 1961, 92, pl. 172. -Baines 1985, 119, fig. 80. -Desroches-Noblecourt 1963, ill. 183. -Smith 1988, 339, pl. 326. -Scamuzzi 1963, pl. 30-31. -Seidel 1996, pl. 49 (doc. 82). -Hari 1964, 251, 265, pl. 44, fig. 67. -Thiem 2000, 491 (no. 113).

Cat. 1.30 – Statue of a king and Amun Luxor, J 823.

230 Luxor Temple, cachette. Granodiorite.

El-Saghir 1991, 65-67, illus. 141-148. Helck 1995, 71 (no. 43). Johnson 1994, 131-136. Seidel 1996, 236-238 (doc. 92), pls. 58, 59a-c. Thiem 2000, 477-478 (no. 68).

Cat. 1.31 – Statue of a king and Amun Luxor, Luxor Museum J 834. Luxor Temple, cachette. Granodiorite.

-El-Saghir 1991, 62-64. -Helck 1995, 70 (no. 42). -Johnson 1994, 131-136. -Seidel 1996, 234-236 (doc. 91), pl. 57. -Thiem 2000, 476-477 (no. 67).

Cat. 1.32 – Relief block Karnak, Mut Temple Open-Air Museum. Karnak, Mut Temple. Sandstone.

- Unpublished

Cat. 1.33 – Relief block Karnak, Mut Temple Open-Air Museum. Karnak, Mut Temple. Sandstone.

- Unpublished

Section 2: Monuments commissioned under Horemheb

Cat. 2.01 – Bullae and ring bezel Unknown. Tell el-Borg.

Hoffmeier and van Dijk 2010, passim.

Cat. 2.02 – Ring stand fragment

231 Toronto, ROM B 3.111. Serabit el-Khadim. Faience.

Mumford 2006, passim.

Cat. 2.03 – Stone vessel Damascus, DO 4467. Ras Shamra/, “house of Rashapabou.” Calcite .

-Schaeffer 1953, 131. -Lagarce-Othman 2013, passim. -Lagarce 2008, 269, 274-275, 268-269, figs. -Matoïan 2013, 157-202. 6a-c. -Sparks 2017, 7, 76.

Cat. 2.04 – Stone vessel Damascus, DO 4466. Ras Shamra/Ugarit, “house of Rashapabou.” Calcite alabaster.

-Schaeffer 1953, 131. -Lagarce-Othman 2013, passim. -Matoïan 2013, 157-202.

Cat. 2.05 – Votive bowl (possible forgery) Seen in trade in Cairo in 1973. From the Memphite area? Granite.

-Redford 1973, passim. Van Dijk 2008, 198. -Murnane 1985, 40 n 55. Breyer 2010, 203-205, ill. 31.

Cat. 2.06 – Hittite royal letter KUB 19.5 + KBo 50.24.

Miller 2007, passim. Simon 2009, passim. Miller 2008, passim. Miller 2011, passim.

Cat. 2.07 – Faience vessel Cairo, EMC JE 86715. Qantir (Piramesse).

232 - Habachi 2001, 47, 255. - Bietak 1975, 45. - Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 30.

Cat. 2.08 – Fortification wall In situ. Tell el-Dab’a (Avaris), ‘Ezbet Helmy.

-Bietak, Dorner, and Janosi 2011, 101. - Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 30.

Cat. 2.09 - Dagger pommel Unknown. Sama’na (Avaris), gezira G8.

-Bietak 1985, 267-278, fig. 7. - Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 28.

Cat. 2.10 – Stela depicting Horemheb censing and libating before Khepri Cairo, EMC CG 34189 = TR 06.11.26.11. Probably from Heliopolis.

-Daressy 1903, 103-104 (4). -PM IV, 70. -Legrain 1907, 57-59 (XLVI). -Le Saout 1985, 340. -Lacau, Stèles, 235-236. -Raue 1999, 101, n. 8, 314-317. -Urk. IV, 2129.15-1231.18. -Thiem 2000, 429- 430 (no. 2). -Hari 1964, 289-292 (1), pls. 46-47, fig. 79. -Ziegler, ed. 2002, 149,

Cat. 2.11 – Stela depicting Horemheb and Re-Horakhty Brussels, MRAH E 761. Possibly from Giza.

-Hari 1964, 289, 292 (2), n. 48, pl. 50, fig. 80. -Raue 1999, 317, nn. 5-6. -Zivie 1976, 182-183 (NE 48). -Thiem 2000, 430 (no. 3).

Cat. 2.12 – Relief fragments with torus molding Unknown. Abusir, pyramid complex of Sahure, Sanctuary. Limestone.

-LD I, 139. -PM III.1, 333. -Borchardt 1910-1913, 101, illus. 123. -Topozada 1991, 252, n. 15. -Hari 1964, 388 (22). -Thiem 2000, 431 (nos. 4, 6)

233 Cat. 2.13 – Block fragment Unknown. Abusir, necropolis.

-LD I, 139. -Hari 1964, 388 (22). -Borchardt, 1910-1913, 1:101. -Thiem 2000, 432 (no. 6).

Cat. 2.14 – Graffito Unknown. Abusir, sun temple of . Ink on stone.

-Stock 1956, 80, pl. 10 (13). -PM III.1, 325. -Ricke 1957, 82. -Thiem 2000, 432 (no. 7).

Cat. 2.15 – Relief fragment Unknown. Memphis, Ptah Temple. Limestone.

Cat. 2.16a & b – Relief fragments Unknown. Memphis, Ptah Temple. a. Bekhen-stone (?),899 b. limestone.

-Petrie 1915, 33, pl. 55 (16, 17). -PM III.2, 850. -Thiem 2000, 434 (no. 10).

Cat. 2.17 – Stela fragments from a “copy” of Horemheb’s coronation inscription) Unknown. Memphis, Ptah Temple, propylon. Quartzite.

-Daressy 1902, 27-28 (1). -Urk. IV, 2121.1-2124.8. -BAR III, secs. 22-32. -Hari 1964, 208-209, 358, 214-217, pls. 38-39. -Petrie 1909, 10, 18, 20, pl. 6 (frag. 1), pl. 26.2 -PM III.2, 832. (frag. 2). -Azim and Traunecker 1982, 75-92.

899 Petrie does not describe the material of the fragment, but the very dark, homogeneous, fine-grained stone looks something like Gebel el-Qatrani basalt in the photograph; see Rosemarie and Dietrich Klemm, Stones and Quarries in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum, 2008), 315-320. Another possibility is a black variety of the famous bekhen- stone of Wadi Hammamat, a fine-grained sandstone; see recently A. Borghi et al., “The Stones of the Statuary of the Egyptian Museum of Torino (Italy): Geologic and Petrographic Characterization,” Geosciences and Cultural Heritage 26, no. 4 (2015), 393.

234 -Newberry 1925, 4 (frag. 1). -Thiem 2000, 435-436 (no. 11). -Gardiner 1953, 14, nn. 3-5, 28-31, pl. 2. (frag. 1)

Cat. 2.18 – Stela fragment (year x + 5) London, UCL 14391. Memphis, Ptah Temple. Limestone.

-Hari 1964, 300-302 (9), fig. 82, pl. 50. -Stewart 1976, 5-6, pl. 1 (2). -PM III.2, 870. -Troy 1989, 62. -Helck 1975, 143 (152). -von Beckereath 1994, 104, n. 652. -Thiem 2000, 426 (no. 12).

Cat. 2.19 – Tomb of Horemheb In situ, fragments in various museum collections. Saqqara.

- See most recently Martin 2016.

Cat. 2.20 – Wine dockets Cairo, EMC SR 4/7291, SR 4/6522, SR 4/7290. Ink on pottery.

-Martin 1979, 1-2, 15-16, pl. 3. -Martin 1991, 98, fig. 63. -Martin 1988, 119, nn. 31-31. -Krauss 1994, 75, n. 16. -Martin 1989, pl. 150. -Schneider 1996, 12 (nos. 22, 23), pls. 2-4, 50-51. -Thiem 2000, 437-438 (no. 14).

Cat. 2.21 – Stela Unknown. Saqqara, tomb of Tia and Tia, forecourt.

- Raven 2011, 74, fig. 8 (no. 8), pls. 55-57.

Cat. 2.22 – Stela depicting Horemheb before a mummiform deity Cairo, EMC TR 25.05.25.02. Abusir? Limestone

-Daressy 1917, 85. -PM III.2, 828. -Urk. IV, 2129.1-14. -Le Saout 1982-1985, 340. -Hari 1964, 293 (3), pl. 49. -Topozada 1991, 249-254, pl. 71-74. -Thiem 2000, 440 (no. 18).

235

Cat. 2.23 – Statue base London, British Museum EA 58468b. Tell el-Amarna, Aten Temple, sanctuary. Limestone.

-Frankfort 1927, 210. -Bierbrier 1982, 9, pl. 1/2. -Pendlebury 1951, 3, 4, 12 (nos. 24, 26), pl. 60. -Hari 1984-1985, 115-117. -Hari 1964, 36, nn. 26-27, 38, 284 (33), pl. 1. -Murnane 1995, 234 (no. 107 B.2), 259. -Thiem 2000, 438 (no. 15).

Cat. 2.24 - Bowl or basin fragments? London, British Museum EA 58468a, EA 58468c, 58469. Limestone.

-Pendlebury 1951, 12, no. 26/30. -Bierbrier 1982, 9, pl. 1 (1-3). -Thiem 2000, 439 (no. 16).

Cat. 2.25 – Relief fragment depicting a procession of officials Unknown. Tell el-Amarna, western temenos area.

- Petrie 1894, 44 (98), pl. 11 (5). - Murnane 1995, 234 (no. 107-B.1), 259. - Thiem 2000, 439 (no. 17).

Cat. 2.26 – Pylon In situ. Ashmunein, Temple of Thoth.

- Spencer 1989, 15-16.

Cat. 2.27 – Restoration text In situ. Deir el-Bahari, Temple of Hatshepsut.

-LdR II, 387 (XVII). -Björkman 1971, 48. -Nelson 1941, pl. 35 (151-152). -Robins 1979, 200, n. 3. -Urk. IV, 2134.18-2135.3. -Redford 1986, 190, n. 182. -Hari 1964, 39, n. 35, 393 (31), pl. 60. -Polz 1986, 164, n. 46. -PM II, 356 (74), pl. 35. -Dolinska 1990, 4, n. 8. -Thiem 2000, 480 (no. 71).

Cat. 2.28 – Doorjamb

236 Unknown, Jacquet-Gordon inv. AB 252. North Karnak, Treasury of . Sandstone.

-Jacquet 1994, 93 (8.2.2.3). -Jacquet-Gordon 1999, 21 (3.2.1.7), 386-387, fig. 296. -Thiem 2000, 466 (no. 50b).

Cat. 2.29 – Restoration text In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon VI, vestibule of Thutmose III.

-Nelson 1941, pl. 6 (151/152, 160a-b). -PM II, 89 (V) (240-244). -Barguet 1962 ,119. -Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, 2:pl. 140. -Hari 1964, 391-392 (28), pl. 60. -Gabolde 1987, 38-39, n. 1 (h). -Thiem 2000, 445 (no. 23).

Cat. 2.30 – Obelisk fragments Cairo, EMC CG 17017 = JE 37523, CG 17018 = JE 37524. Karnak, Amun Precinct, cachette. Bekhen-stone (?)900

Kuentz 1932, 32-35, pl. 10. Mysliwiec 1979, 13. Urk. IV, 2136.11-2137.6. Le Saout 1982, 340. Hari 1964, 252, 280-282 (28), nn. 35-39, pl. 45. Thiem 2000, 449-450 (no. 29).

Cat. 2.31 – Sphinx Cairo, EMC CG 42096 = JE 38742. Inlaid composite. Karnak, Amun Precinct, cachette.

- Legrain, Statues, 1:55. - Hari 1964, 252, 282 (29), n. 40, fig. 77. - Thiem 2000, 449 (no. 28).

Cat. 2.32 – Doorjamb Unknown, Varille exc. 1458/1469. North Karnak, Harpre Temple. Limestone.

-Varille 1943, 30. -Gabolde and Rondot 1996, 41, fig. 7. -PM II, 11 (A). -Thiem 2000, 466 (no. 50a).

900 See n. 907 above; Kuentz describes the material as “sandstone schist,” which would be consistent with bekhen- stone as characterized by Borghi et al.

237

Cat. 2.33 – Doorjamb Unknown, Varille exc. no. 1458/1469. North Karnak, Montu Precinct, northwest area. Limestone.

Christophe 1951, 94 (no. 1). PM II, 17 (I), pl. 5 (3). Thiem 2000, 464 (no. 47).

Cat. 2.34 – Stela fragment with “coronation inscription” Unknown. North Karnak, Montu Precinct, temple forecourt. Limestone

Leclant 1951, 469. PM II, 6, pl. 3. Barguet 1954, 58-59 (7), pls. 55-56, fig. 88. Le Saout 1987, 340. Urk. IV, 2124.9-2126.12. Gabolde and Rondot 1993, 246, n. 6. Hari 1964, 218-219, pl. 39, fig. 64. Thiem 2000, 464-465 (no. 48).

Cat. 2.35 – Stela fragment depicting Horemheb offering to the Unknown. Karnak, Ptah Temple, northwest wall, fourth gate. Limestone.

Legrain 1902, 111-112. PM II, 198 (7), pl. 16. Urk. IV, 2132.8-2133.5. Hari 1976, 100-107, pl. 14 A, B. Hari 1964, 289, 294-295 (4), pl. 49. Le Saout 1987, 339-340. Thiem 2000, 463 (no. 46).

Cat. 2.36 – Statue fragments (“blocks 1-3”) Karnak, Sheikh Labib mag. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon VIII court, west side. Limestone.

-Hari 1964, 251-252. -Thiem 2000, 451 (no. 31). -Le Saout 1982, 259-260, figs. 1-2. -Le Saout 1987, 345, pl. 4a.

Cat. 2.37 – Statue fragment (“block 4”) Karnak, Sheikh Labib mag. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon VIII court, west side.

238 Limestone.

-Legrain 1904, 273. -Le Saout 1982, 260, fig. 1. -Hari 1964, 251-252. -Thiem 2000, 451 (no. 31).

Cat. 2.38 – Statue fragments (“blocks 5-10”) Karnak, Sheikh Labib mag. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon VIII court, west side. Limestone.

-Legrain 1904, 273. -Le Saout 1982, 260, fig. 3. -Hari 1964, 251-252. -Le Saout 1987, 345, pl. 4b. -Thiem 2000, 451 (no. 31).

Cat. 2.39 – Statue fragments (“block 11 etc.”) Karnak, Sheikh Labib mag. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon VIII court, west side. Limestone.

-Legrain 1904, 273. -Le Saout 1982, 260, fig. 4. -Hari 1964, 251-252. -Thiem 2000, 451 (no. 31).

Cat. 2.40 – Text and relief scenes In situ. Karnak, Amun Precint, Pylon IX massifs, N faces.

PM II, 180-182. Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, 2:pls. 390-399. Saad and Sauneron 1969, passim. Azim 1982, passim. Saad and Sauneron 1969, passim. Azim and Traunecker 1982, passim. Saad 1979, passim. Le Saout and Traunecker 1982, passim. Golvin, Abd’ul Hamid, and Goyon 1982, Le Saout 1987, passim. passim. Kühn 2001, passim.

Cat. 2.41 – Text and relief scenes In situ. Karnak, Amun Precint, Pylon IX massifs, S faces.

PM II, 180-182. Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, 2:pls. 390-399. Saad and Sauneron 1969, passim. Azim 1982, passim. Saad and Sauneron 1969, passim. Azim and Traunecker 1982, passim. Saad 1979, passim. Le Saout and Traunecker 1982, passim.

239 Golvin, Abd’ul Hamid, and Goyon 1982, Le Saout 1987, passim. passim. Kühn 2001, passim.

Cat. 2.42 – Plate from a flagpole emplacement Unknown. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon IX, S face. Bronze.

Nelson 1941, pl. 8 (194, 205) PM II, 181 (583). Urk. IV, 2134.1-17. Azim 1982, 75-92, pls. 1-2. Hari 1964, 330-331. Golvin, Sayed, and Goyon 1982, 257. Thiem 2000, 454-455 (no. 35).

Cat. 2.43 – Text and relief scenes In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon IX court, W inner wall, S end.

Bouriant 1895, 41-43. Hari 1964, 331-334, pl. 51. Nelson 1941, pl. 8 (291-295). PM II, 183 (551-552), pl. 15. Urk. IV, 2126.13-2128.8. Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, pl. 407-408. Barguet 1962, 251, pl. 37. Thiem 2000, 455-456 (no. 36).

Cat. 2.44 – Stela of the Decree of Horemheb In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon IX court.

Bouriant 1885, 41-51. Helck 1973, 264-265. Müller 1888, 70-94. Kruchten 1981, passim. BAR 3, secs. 45-67. Leprohon 1985, 100-102. Pflüger 1946, 260-276, pls. 1-6. Allam 1986, 225-228. van de Walle (trans.) 1947, 230-238. Lorton 1986, 55. Helck 1955, 109-136, pls. 10-11. Thompson 1991, 54-55. Urk. IV, 2140.1-2162.6. Grimal and Larché 1995, 83-110. Seidl 1958, 416. Warburton 1997, 188-189, nn. 564-566. Hari 1964, 302-318. Thiem 2000, 456 (no. 37).

Cat. 2.45 – Chapel of Thoth and Amun In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, east of Pylon IX court.

-Goyon and Traunecker 1982, passim.

240

Cat. 2.47 – Pylon X, massifs In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct.

- See most recently Jordan, Bickel, and Chappaz 2014, passim.

Cat. 2.48 – Pylon X, gateway In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct.

-Legrain 1914 (Au pylone), 13-15. -PM II, 187-190. -Nelson 1941, pl. 8 (301, 322-329). -Azim 1980, 153-165 -Pillet 1922, passim. -Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, 1:209, fig. 134, 2:409, -Pillet 1923, passim. 414, 416-419. -Chevrier 1947, 177-178. -Azim 1982 (structure), 143-155. -Vercoutter 1949, 136-137 (XXII). -Chappaz 1987, 7-16. -Barguet 1962, 247-248, pl. 34A. -Thiem 2000, 457-459 (no. 38-40). -Hari 1964, 334-337, pl. 51. -Jordan, Bickel, and Chappaz 2014, passim.

Cat. 2.48a – Relief fragment Swiss private collection. Karnak, Amun Precinct, Pylon X gateway.

-Page-Gasser and Wiese 1997, 172 (no. -Thiem 2000, 461 (no. 43). 108A).

Cat. 2.49 – Base from a colossal statue In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, in front of Pylon X (S face, W side). Quartzite.

-Clère, Menassa, and Deleuze 1975, 159- -Hari 1964, 192-194. 166, fig. 1-11. -Azim 1978-1981, 127-166, 143-153. -Jordan, Bickel, and Chappaz 2015, 205-221.

Cat. 2.50 – Colossal statue of Horemheb In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, in front of Pylon X (N face, E side). Indurated limestone.

241

-Nelson 1941, pl. 8 (320/321). -PM II, 187-188 (582-583). -Hari 1964, 192-195, 256-262, pl. 61a-b. -Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, 2:409-413. -Thiem 2000, 459-460 (no. 41).

Cat. 2.51 – Colossal statue of Horemheb In situ. Karnak, Amun Precinct, in front of Pylon X (N face, W side). Indurated limestone.

-Nelson 1941, pl. 14 (72). -Hari 1964, 195, 256-257. -Barguet 1962, 245, pl. 34b-d. -PM II, 189 (586). -Thiem 2000, 440-441 (no. 42).

Cat. 2.52 – Stela, year 6 Unknown. Kom el-Hetan, Temple of Amenhotep III. Sandstone.

-Haeny 1981, 65-70, illus. 12, pl. 14. -Von Beckerath 1994, 103, n. 644. -Helck 1983, 47. -Helck 1995, 71-72 (44). -Helck 1987, 19. -Von Beckerath 1997, 116, n. 532. -Thiem 2000, 480-481 (no. 72).

Cat. 2.55 – KV 57, Tomb of Horemheb In situ. Valley of the Kings.

Hari 1964, 374-383 (13), pls. 54-59. Hornung 1979-1980, 1:24-146, 1:192-200, 1:243- PM I.2, 567-569. 244, 2:10-11, 2:54-120, 2:143-152, 2:171-174. Hornung 1971, passim. Abitz 1984, 14-20, 29, 33, 38-39, 44-59, 122-123, Kaplony 1974, 94-102, tabs. 3-4. 227-233. Abitz 1979, 36-37. Valbelle 1985, 162. Guilhou 2014-2015 Thiem 2000, 479 (no. 70).

Cat. 2.56 – Restoration texts In situ.901 Medinet Habu, Small Temple.

-Nelson 1941, pl. 27 (112/113). -PM II, 466-467, pl. 45 [1] (38a-b). -Hari 1964, 392 (29), pl. 60. -KRI I, 229.8-9

901

242 -Urk. IV, 2135.4-6. -KRI IV, 197.12-14. -Thiem 2000, 486 (nos. 80-82).

Cat. 2.57 – Relief fragment with recitation of Re-Horakhty Unknown. Armant, Bucheum, stone wall surrounding burial E.

-Mond and Myers 1934, 2:51-52, 3:pl. 55 (56), fig. 5. -PM V, 159. -Hari 1964, 386 (19). -Thiem 2000, 488 (no. 84).

Cat. 2.58 – Relief fragment, restoration text of “year 25” Unknown. Elkab, temple area.

- Capart 1937, 10. - Hari 1964, 392 (30), pl. 60. - Thiem 2000, 489 (no. 85).

Cat. 2.59 – Speos at Gebel el-Silsila In situ.

- See most recently Thiem 2000, passim.

Cat. 2.60 – Speos at Abu Oda In situ.

- See most recently Sidro 2006, passim.

Cat. 2.61 – Base fragment from a statue group Cairo, EMC CG 1284. Unknown provenance. Granodiorite.

- Borchardt 1910-1913, 4:145. - Hari 1964, 251, 262 (3). - Thiem 2000, 495 (no. 117).

Cat. 2.62 – Stela fragment Cairo, EMC TR 23.01.22.14. Unknown provenance, possibly from Memphis.

- Urk. IV, 2133.6-20. - Hari 1964, 289, 297-298 (6). - Thiem 2000, 496 (no. 118).

243

Cat. 2.63 – Stela fragment Paris, Louvre E 11101. Unknown provenance. Flint (?).

- Hari 1964, 289, 299 (7), pl. 50, fig. 81. - Le Saout 1987, 340. - Helck 1975, 143 (151). - Thiem 2000, 496 (no. 119).

Cat. 2.64 – Relief fragment from a door socket Lyon, 14714. Unknown provenance. Limestone.

- Moret 1909, 117 (C 61), pl. 52, 61. - Thiem 2000, 497 (no. 121).

Cat. 2.65 – Obelisk fragment Edinburgh, 1965.318. Unknown provenance. Red granite.

- Aldred 1968, 100-103, pl. 17.1. - Niwinski 1996, 8, n. 15. - Murnane 1977, 182-183. - Thiem 2000, 497 (no. 120).

Section 3: Monuments of uncertain attribution

Cat. 3.01 – Statue of Horemheb and Mutnodjmet Turin, 1379. Unknown provenance. Granodiorite.

Birch 1874, 486-495. Curto 1984, 132-134, 345. BAR III, secs. 22-32. Bell 1985, 273, nn. 107-109. Gardiner 1953, 13-31, pl. 2. Leprohon 1985, 99-100. Urk. IV, 2113.1-2120.17. Strouhal and Callender 1982, 69 n. 9. Hari 1964, 208-214, 251, 268 (10), pl. 37, figs. Van Dijk 1993, 14-16, fig. 3. 51-52, 60-63. Gnirs 1996, 105-106, 109. Scamuzzi 1964, pl. 32. Raue 1999, 125-126, 433 (E.2) PM VIII.1, 58-59. Kaplony-Heckel, TUAT I, 5, 534-540. Thiem 2000, 493-495 (no. 116).

244 Cat. 3.02 – Statue of Horemheb and Atum Luxor, J 837. Luxor Temple, cachette. Granodiorite.

-El-Saghir 1991, 35-40. -Seidel 1996, 232-234 (doc. 90), pl. 56a-c. -Helck 1995, 70 (no. 41). -Thiem 2000, 475-476 (no. 66).

Cat. 3.03 – Statue of Horemheb with Amun-Min-Kamutef London, British Museum EA 21. Unknown provenance. Granodiorite.

-Edwards 1939, 29-30 (21), pl. 26. -Le Saout 1987, 340. -Urk. IV, 2137.7-14. -Seidel 1996, 217-219 (doc. 84), pl. 51. -Hari 1964, 251, 266 (8), pl. 42 (1), fig. 68. -Thiem 2000, 492-493 (no. 115). -PM II, 533. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection _online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=11 1454&partId=1&searchText=horemheb&page=1 (accessed 2/1/2018).

Cat. 3.04 – Statue of Horemheb as London, British Museum EA 75. Unknown provenance. Granodiorite.

-Vandier, Manuel III, 370, n. 1, 372. -Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 298. -Hari 1964, 251, 265, pl. 44, fig. 67. -Thiem 2000, 491 (no. 113). -James 1970, 6-7, pl. 3. -James 1970, pl. 3. -Baines 1985, 119, fig. 80. -Strudwick 2006 pp.184-185 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_on line/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=177498& partId=1&searchText=horemheb&page=1 (accessed 2/1/2018).

Cat. 3.05 – Statue of Horemheb and Mutnodjmet Cairo, EMC CG 39213 = JE 36340. Karnak, Amun Precinct, cachette. Limestone.

-Legrain 1904, 31 (10). -PM II, 84. -Daressy, Statues, 1:301. -Dewachter 1980, 25, n. 37, fig. 7. -Hari 1964, 206, 252, 280 (27), pl. 35. -Thiem 2000, 452 (no. 32).

Cat. 3.06 – Statue of Amun, Mut, and Horemheb

245 Cairo, EMC CG 36705. Karnak, Amun Precinct, cachette. Indurated limestone.

-Dewachter 1980, 23-25, 27, figs. 5-6. -Sourouzian 1999, 17, 26, fig. 15. -Gabolde 1987, 39, n. 1 (t). -Jambon 2003, 141. -Sourouzian 2003, 410.

Cat. 3.07 – Statue of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Horemheb Cairo, EMC CG 32917 = JE 49536 = SR 4/6018. Abydos. Indurated limestone.

-Vandier, Manuel III, 372-373, pl. 121 (2). -Eaton-Krauss 1984, 501-508. -PM V, 90 (C). -Seidel 1996, 243-246. -Hari 1964, 275-276. -Thiem 2000, 441 (no. 19).

Cat. 3.08 – Statue of Horemheb and Horus Vienna, KHM 8301. Unknown provenance. Indurated limestone.

- Hari 1964, 251, 264-265 (5), pl. 42a-b, fig. 66. - Eaton-Krauss 1984, 508, n. 19. - PM VIII.1, 59-60 [800, 642, 700]. - Satzinger 1994, 97-98, illus. 66. - Satzinger 1980, 37-38, fig. 16. - Seidel 254-256, pl. 63, doc. 95. - Thiem 2000, 490 (no. 112).

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259 Table 1: Abbreviations for Tables 1-2

CA – Chantress of Amun HPOn – High priest of Onuris

CC – commander HPOs – High priest of Osiris

ChM – Charioteer of his majesty J - Judge

CM – Chief of Medjay KSK – King’s son of Kush

CSH – Chief of seers in Heliopolis MH – Mistress of a house

DHL – Deputy in the house of life ODG – Overseer of the double granaries

DSA – Document scribe of Amun OHP – Overseer of hem-netjer priests

FBR – Fan-bearer of the retinue PMI – Priest of Min and Isis

GF – God’s father SHS – Sem-priest in the house of Sokar

GKA – Great one of the khener of Amun SM - Stablemaster

GKH – Great one of the khener of Herishef SP – player

GKN – Great one of the khener of SPA – Second priest of Amun Nebkheperure

GKOn – Great one of the khener of Onuris TC -Troop commander

GKOs – Great one of the khener of Osiris TCK – Troop commander of Kush

HPA – High Priest of Amun V - Vizier

HPAK – High Priest of Amun-Kamutef WCC – Wife of the chariotry commander

HPMI – High priest of Min and Isis WChM – Wife of the charioteer of his majesty HPMnt – High priest of Montu WFI – Wab-priest in the front of Isis

HPP – WSA – Wife of the steward of Amun

GOCA – Great overseer of cattle of his WSM – Wife of the steward of Memphis majesty

260 Table 2: Monuments of the High Priests of Onuris and Osiris

Museum No. Object Owner Provenance KRI (p.) Raue 1998 (no.) Raedler 2004 (no.) Effland and Effland 2004 (no.) Thomas 2016 (p.) Franzmeier 2016 (p.)

01 Boston, MFA Shabti HPOs Tjay Abydos, 173 00.699 “Heqareshu Hill” 02 Chicago, OIM Shabti HPOs Tjay Sedment 164-165, 11749 172-176 03 Chicago, OIM Shabti HPOs Tjay Sedment 164-165, 11750 172-176 04 Cairo, EMC CG Sistriphorous HPOn III, 470.5- I.1 1203 statue Minmose 471.5 05 Brighton Art Statuette HPOn III, 471.7- I.2 Gallery Minmose 15. 06 Brooklyn, 16.206 Block statue HPOn I.3 A-B Minmose 07 Cairo, EMC CG Offering table HPOn el-Mashaykh III, 472.1-8 II.1 23095 Minmose 08 Chapel/stela HPOn Abydos III, 472.10- III.2.a fragment Minmose 13 09 Chapel fragment HPOn Abydos III, 472.14- III.2.b 63 Minmose 15 10 Chapel fragment HPOn Abydos III, 473.1-10 III.2.c 63 Minmose 11 Chapel HPOn Abydos III, 473.11- III.2.d 63 pillar/relief Minmose 474.2 fragment 12 Cairo, EMC JE Chapel relief HPOn Abydos III, 474.3-10 III.2.e 63 32024 Minmose 13 Chapel HPOn Abydos III, 474.11- III.2.f 63 doorjamb Minmose 12 14 Chapel text HPOn Abydos III, 474.13- III.2.g 63 fragment Minmose 475.2 15 Uppsala, Uppsala Chapel relief HPOn Abydos III, 475.3-5 III.2.h 63 University no. 6 fragment Minmose 16 Shabti HPOn Abydos III, 475.6 - III.3.a 63 Minmose 16 17 Shabti HPOn Abydos III, 476.1-5 III.3.b 63 Minmose 18 Statuette HPOn Abydos III, 476.6-9 III.1 63 Minmose 19 Pot fragments HPOn Abydos III, 476.14- III.4 65 Minmose 477.2 20 Cairo, EMC CG 548 Block statue HPOn el-Mashaykh III, 477.4-5 Minmose

261 21 DAI Ab K 1189 b Votive pot HPOn Abydos III.7 Minmose 22 DAI Ab K 1189 a Votive pot HPOn Abydos III.8 Minmose 23 DAI Ab K 2280 Votive stela HPOn Abydos III.9 Minmose 24 DAI Ab K 2252 Shabti HPOn Abydos III.10 Minmose 25 Cairo, EMC JE Stela Prehotep Abydos III, 52.2-5 7 5.7 19775 26 Brussels, MRAH E Prehotep III, 52.6-9 13 5.13 5901 () 27 Munich, Stela Prehotep Qantir III, 52.12- 11 5.11 Glyptothek 287 53.6 28 Cairo, EMC JE Stela Prehotep Saqqara III, 53.7– 24 5.24 48845 55.16 29 Salzburg, Naophorous Prehotep Saqqara III, 56.1-13 25 5.25 Freilichtmuseum statue 30 Saqqara, mag. Relief block Prehotep Saqqara 26 5.26 31 British Museum EA Stela Prehotep III, 56.14- 9 5.9 183 57.8 32 Cairo, EMC CG 605 Stela Prehotep Sedment III, 57.10-15 5 5.5

33 Sarcophagus Prehotep Sedment III, 58.1– 38 5.38 59.5 34 Statue base Prehotep Sedment III, 59.4-5 35 Cairo, EMC JE Stela Prehotep Sedment III, 59.6– 36 5.36 47001 60.1 36 Philadelphia, Penn Offering table Prehotep Sedment III, 60.2-6 37 5.37 Museum E.15413 37 Column Prehotep Sedment III, 60.7-9 29 5.29 fragment 37 Lintel Prehotep Sedment, III, 60.10-15 27 5.27 tomb 216 39 Tomb fragments Prehotep Sedment III, 61.1-4 30, 31 5.30, 5.31 40 Stela fragments Prehotep Sedment III, 61.5-7 41 Geneva, Musée Granite naos Prehotep Sedment III, 61.8- 33 5.33 d’Art et d’Histoire 62.7 25642b 42 Statue base Prehotep Sedment III, 62.8-10 34 5.34 43 Shrine fragment Prehotep Sedment III, 62.11-13

44 Chicago, OIM 1736 Relief fragment Prehotep Sedment III, 62.14-15 32 5.32 45 Canopic jar Prehotep Sedment III, 63.1-4 39 5.39, fragments (Qebeh 5.46 (Qebehsenuef senuef and ) only) 46 Bristol, Bristol City Kneeling statue Prehotep Herakleopolis 5.47 Museum, H. 406

262 47 Melbourne, Stela Prehotep, Sedment, III, 66.14- 35 5.35 National Gallery Nebhotep tombs 56 and 67.4 60 48 Stela Prehotep Abydos III, 63.6-12 8 5.8 49 Boston, MFA Squatting statue Prehotep Abydos III, 63.13- 3 5.3 03.1981 64.7 50 Cairo, EMC JE Votive pot Prehotep Abydos III, 64.8-15 17 III.5 32024 51 Marischal College Statue Prehotep III, 65.2-5 1 5.1 Aberdeen 1393 52 British Museum EA Seated statue Prehotep III, 65.6-14 6 5.6 712 53 Bellagio, Villa Squatting statue Prehotep III, 65.15- 2 5.2 Melzi 66.9; VII, 110 54 Ehnasya Magazine Statue torso Prehotep Herakleopolis 4 5.4 85-173 55 Durham 1961 Stela Prehotep VII, 408-409 10 5.10 56 British Museum EA Canopic jar Prehotep VII, 109 12 5.12 36531 (Hapy) 57 Cairo, EMC JE Votive pot Prehotep Abydos VII, 439.14 17 5.17 32054 (Minmose) 58 Chicago, OIM Amulet Prehotep Sedment 40 5.40 59 Chicago, OIM Shabti Prehotep Sedment 41 5.41 60 Cambridge, Model scribe’s Prehotep 14 5.14 Fitzwilliam palette E.428.1982 61 Chicago, Field Stamp seal Prehotep Sedment? 15 5.15 Museum 94.1340 62 Cairo, EMC JE Faience vessel Prehotep Memphis, 16 5.16 46109 Merneptah Palace 63 London, UCL 39678 Votive pot Prehotep Abydos 18 5.18 III.6 64 London, British Papyrus Prehotep VII, 100-101 19 5.19 Museum EA 15068 65 Door jamb Prehotep, Sedment 28 5.28 Nebhotep 66 Chicago, OIM Shabti Prehotep 5.42-44 11774-11776 fragments 67 Tomb, Cemetery Prehotep Sedment 5.45 B, no. 201 68 Fragment of a Prehotep Sedment, 5.48 group statue tomb 201 69 Brooklyn, Brooklyn Papyrus Wilbour Prehotep 5.49 Museum 34.5596 (tp. Rameses III) 70 Geneva, Musée Sarcophagus Huner Chappaz d’Art et d’Histoire 25642c-d 71 Cairo, EMC CG Stele, year 42 of HPOs Abydos III, 453.6- 20 5.20 60 35045 Rameses II Wennefer 454.6

263 72 Athens, National Statue HPOs III, 451.1- 21 5.21 61-62 Museum 106 Wennefer 452.3

73 Paris, Louvre A 66 Statue HPOs III, 452.4- 22 5.22 61-62 Wennefer 453.5

74 Cairo, EMC JE Statue HPOs Abydos III, 449.11- 23 5.23 61-2 35258 Wennefer 450.16 75 Cairo, EMC JE Pair statue with HPOs Abydos III, 447.10- 63-64 35257 HPOs Mery Wennefer 449.10 (cartouches of Seti I) 76 Paris, Louvre C 97 Stela HPOs III, 454.7- 62 Wennefer 455.2 77 Cairo, EMC JE Stela HPOs Abydos III, 455.3-12 62 32025 Wennefer 78 New Haven, YPM Two statues of HPOs Abydos III, 455.13- 58 ANT 264189 Wennefer and Wennefer 16 Tiye 79 Basalt statuette HPOs Abydos III, 456.1-4 58 fragments Wennefer 80 Bolton, Bolton Block statue HPOs Abydos III, 456.5-7 58 Museum 46.03.35 Wennefer (head) 81 Sculpture HPOs Abydos III, 456.8- 58 fragments Wennefer 457.2 82 Philadelphia, Penn Blocks with text HPOs Abydos III, 457.3-13 64 Museum E.9930 of statue Wennefer endowments 83 Ebony fragments HPOs Abydos III, 457.14- 60 of shrine inlay Wennefer 458.7 84 Tomb chapel HPOs Abydos III, 458.8- 63 fragments Wennefer 460.11 85 Funerary HPOs Abydos III, 460.12- statuette Wennefer 16

264

Table 3: Hypothetical Genealogy of the “Akhmim Family”

Chart 1

265

Chart 2

266

Chart 3

267

268

269 Bibliography

Abitz, Friedrich. König und Gott: die Götterszenen in den ägyptischen Königsgräbern von Thutmosis IV. bis Ramses III. ÄA 40. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1984.

------Statuetten in Schreinen als Grabbeigaben in den ägyptischen Königsgräbern der 18. und 19. Dynastie. ÄA 35. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1979.

Aldred, Cyril. “Two Monuments of the Reign of Horemheb.” JEA 54 (1968). 100-106.

Allam, Shafik. “L'administration locale à la lumière du décret du roi Horemheb.” JEA 72 (1986), 194-195.

Allen, James. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005.

Allon, Niv. “Writing, Violence, and the Military: Visualizing Literacies at the Time of Horemheb.” PhD diss., Yale University, 2014.

------“Seth is Baal: Evidence from the Egyptian Script.” ÄL 17 (2007), 15-22.

Altenmüller, Hartwig. “Amenophis I. als Mittler.” MDAIK 37 (1981), 1-7.

Ambridge, Lindsay. “Imperialism and Racial Geography in James Henry Breasted’s Ancient Times, A History of the Early World.” In Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich: Ideology, Scholarship, and Individual Biographies, edited by Thomas Schneider and Peter Raulwing, 12-33. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Amer, A.M.A. Amin. “Tutankhamun’s Decree for the Chief Treasurer Maya.” RdÉ 36 (1985), 17- 20.

Angenot, Valérie. “A Horizon of Aten at Memphis?” JSSEA 35 (2008), 7-26.

Anthes, Rudolf. Mit Rahineh 1956. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1965.

------“Hieratic Graffiti on Statue Fragments.” In Uvo Hölscher, The Excavation of Medinet Habu. Vol. 2, The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 106-109. OIP 41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939.

Arafa, Nagwa. “Le sS nfr.w ou ‘scribe des recrues’ au Nouvel Empire.” Cahiers Carribéens de Égyptologie 15 (2011), 117-137.

Arnold, Dorothea. “Image and Identity: Egypt’s Eastern Neighbours, East Delta People, and the Hyksos.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, edited by Marcel Marée, 183-221. Leuven; Paris; Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010.

270 Assmann, Jan. “Memory and Culture.” In Memory: A History, edited by Dmitri Nikulin, 325-350. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

------From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change. Cairo: AUC Press, 2013.

------Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun, and the Crisis of Polytheism. London: Kegan Paul International, 1995.

------“Egyptian Literature (Survey).” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, edited by David Noel Freedman et al., 378-390. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

------“Ein Gespräch im Goldhaus über Kunst und andere Gegenstände.”In Gegengabe: Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut, edited by Ingrid Gamer-Wallert and Wolfgang Helck, 43-60. Tübingen: Attempto, 1992.

Aston, David. “The Pottery from H/VI süd Strata a and b: Preliminary Report.” ÄL 11 (2001), 167- 196.

Auenmüller, Johannes. “Die Territorialität der Ägyptischen Elite(n) des Neuen Reiches - Eine Studie zu Raum und räumlichen Relationen im textlichen Diskurs, anhand prosopografischer Daten und im archäologischen Record.” PhD diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 2013.

Azim, Michel. “La structure des pylônes d’Horemheb à Karnak.” Karnak 7 (1982), 127-166.

------“Découverte de dépôts de fondation d'Horemheb au IXe pylône de Karnak.” Karnak 7 (1978-1981), 93-120.

------"La fouille de la cour du Xe pylône - Rapport préliminaire." Karnak 6 (1980), 153-166.

Azim, Michel, and Claude Traunecker. “Un mât du IXe pylône au nom d'Horemheb.” Karnak 7 (1982), 75-92.

Bács, Támas. “A Royal Litany in a Private Context.” MDAIK 60 (2004), 1-16.

Badawi, Ahmad. “Das Grab des Kronenprinzen Scheschonk, Sohnes Osorkon’s II. und Hohenpriesters von Memphis.” ASAE 54, no. 1 (1956), 153-177.

Baines, John. “Ancient Egypt.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Vol. 1, Beginnings to AD 600, edited by Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy, 53-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

------“Public Ceremonial Performance in Ancient Egypt: Exclusion and Integration.” In Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Lawrence S. Coben, 261-302. Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2006.

------Fecundity Figures: Egyptian Personification and the Iconology of a Genre. Warminster; Chicago: Aris & Philips, 1985.

271 Baines, John and Jaromir Malek. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File, 1980. el-Banna, Essam. “A propos de quelques cultes peu connus à Héliopolis.” ASAE 72 (1992-1993), 83-98.

Barguet, Paul. Le temple d'Amon-Rê à Karnak: essai d'exégèse. RAPH 21. Cairo: IFAO, 1962.

Barguet, Paul, and Jean Leclant. Karnak-Nord. Vol. 4, (1949-1951). FIFAO 25. Cairo: IFAO, 1954.

Barta, Winfried. “Ägyptische Personennamen mit einem Königsnamen als Komponente,” ZÄS 117 (1990), 2-11.

------“Thronbesteigung und Krönungsfeier als unterschiedliche Zeugnisse Königlicher Herrschaftsübernahme.” SAK 8 (1980), 33-53.

------“Legitimation,” in LÄ V, 962.

------“Königskrönung.” LÄ III, 531-533.

------Aufbau und Bedeutung der altägyptischen Opferformel. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1968.

Barwik, Miroslaw. “A Priestly Family from Abydos at Deir el-Bahari,” MDAIK 66 (2010), 13-18.

Baud, Marcelle, and Étienne Drioton. Le tombeau de Roÿ (tombeau no. 255). MIFAO 57, fasc. 4. Cairo: IFAO, 1928. von Beckerath, Jürgen. Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. MÄS 46. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997.

------Chronologie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. HÄB 39. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1994.

------“Nochmals die ‘Vierhundertjahr-Stele’.” Orientalia 62 (1993), 400-403.

Beetham, David. The Legitimation of Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Bell, Lanny. “The New Kingdom Divine Temple.” In Temples of Ancient Egypt, edited by Byron E. Shafer, 17-46. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.

------“Aspects of the Cult of the Deified Tutankhamun.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, edited by in Paule Posener-Kriéger, 1:35-59. Cairo: IFAO, 1985.

------“Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka.” JNES 44, no. 4 (1985), 251-294.

Bennett, John. “The Restoration Inscription of Tut'ankhamūn.” JEA 25, no. 1 (1939), 8-15.

Bickel, Susanne. “Worldview and Royal Discourse in the Time of Hatshepsut.” In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut: Papers from the Theban Workshop 2010, edited by José M. Galán, Betsy M. Bryan, and Peter F. Dorman, 21-32. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2014.

272

------“Le dieu Nebmaâtre de Soleb.” In Soleb VI: Hommages à Michela Schiff Giorgini, edited by Nathalie Beaux and Nicolas Grimal, 9-36. Cairo: IFAO, 2013.

------“Aspects et fonctions de la déification d'Amenhotep III,” BIFAO 102 (2002), 63-90.

Bierbrier, Morris. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc. in the British Museum, Part 10. London: British Museum, 1982.

Bierbrier, Morris, ed. Who Was Who in Ancient Egypt. London: EES, 2012.

Bietak, Manfred. “Near Eastern Sanctuaries in the Eastern Nile Delta.” BAAL, Hors Série 6 (2009), 209-228.

------“Kat. Nr. 393, Inschriftenstein des Haremhab.” In Pharaonen und Fremde, Dynastien im Dunkeln: Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptologischen Institut der Universität Wien und dem Osterreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle. 8. Sept.-23. Okt. 1994, edited by Manfred Bietak and Irmgard Hein, 282-283. Vienna: Museen der Stadt Wien, 1994.

------“Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris.” ÄL 1 (1990), 9-16.

Bietak, Manfred and Irene Forstner-Müller. “The Topography of New Kingdom Avaris and Per- Ramesses.” In Ramesside Studies in Honor of K.A. Kitchen, edited by Mark Collier and Steven Snape, 23-50. Bolton: Rutherford, 2011.

Bietak, Manfred, Josef Dorner, and Peter Janosi. “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris: Vorbericht Tell el-Dab’a/Ezbet Helmi 1993-2000.” ÄL 11 (2001), 27-119.

Binder, Susanne. The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt. ACE Studies 8. Oxford: Arris and Philips, 2008.

Birch, Samuel. Egypt from the Earliest Times to B. C. 300. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1875].

------“Inscription of Haremhebi on a statue at Turin.” TSBA 3 (1874), 486-495.

Biston-Moulin, Sébastien. “Un nouvel exemplaire de la Stèle de la restauration de Toutânkhamon à Karnak.” Karnak 15 (2015), 23-38.

Biston-Moulin, Sébastien, and Christophe Thiers. Le temple de Ptah à Karnak. 2 vols. Cairo: IFAO, 2016.

Björkman, Gun. Kings at Karnak: A Study of the Treatment of the Monuments of Royal Predecessors in the Early New Kingdom. Boreas 2. Uppsala: [Uppsala University], 1971.

Boeser, Pieter A. A. Beschreibung der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden. 12 vols. Haag: Nijhoff, 1905-1925.

273

Bohleke, Briant. “Amenemopet Panehesi: Direct Successor of the Chief Treasurer Maya.” JARCE 39 (2002), 157-172.

------s“Overseers of the Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt in the New Kingdom.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1991.

Bommas, Martin. Das ägyptische Investiturritual. BAR International Series 2562. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013.

Borchardt, Ludwig. Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Museum zu Kairo. 5 vols. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 1-1294. Berlin: Reichsdrückerei, 1911-1936.

------Das Grabdenkmal des Königs S'aȝḥu-Reʿ. 2 vols. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 14, 26. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910-1913.

------“Zur Geschichte des Luqsortempels,” ZÄS 34 (1896), 122-138.

Borghi, A., D. Angelici, M. Borla, D. Castelli, A. d’Atri, G. Gariani, A. lo Giudice, L. Martire, A. Re, and G. Vaggelli. “The Stones of the Statuary of the Egyptian Museum of Torino (Italy): Geologic and Petrographic Characterization.” Geosciences and Cultural Heritage 26, no. 4 (2015), 385-398.

Kate Bosse-Griffiths, “The Great Enchantress in the Little Golden Shrine of Tutankhamun.” JEA 59 (1973), 100-108.

Bouriant, Urbain. “Lettre de M. Bouriant à M. Max Müller sur le mur d'Horemheb à Karnak.” RT 17 (1895), 41-44.

------“Â Thébes,” RT 6 (1885), 41-56.

Brand, Peter. “Usurpation of Monuments.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1 (1), 2010, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5gj996k5.

------The Monuments of Seti I. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

------“Secondary Restorations in the Post-Amarna Period.” JARCE 36 (1999), 113-134.

Breasted, James Henry. A History of the Ancient Egyptians. New York: Scribner, 1908.

------Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906-1907.

------“King Harmhab and his Sakkara Tomb,” ZÄS 38 (1900), 47-50.

Bresciani, Edda. Le stele egiziane del Museo Civico di Bologna. Bologna: Grafis, 1985.

274 Breyer, Francis. Ägypten und Anatolien: Politische, kulturelle, und sprachliche Kontakte zwischen dem Niltal und Kleinasien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.

Brugsch, Heinrich. Histoire d'Egypte des les premiers temps de son existence jusqu'a nos jours. Vol. 1, L'Égypte sous les rois indigènes. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1859.

------Geschichte Ägyptens unter den Pharaonen. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1877.

Brunner-Traut, Emma. Die ägyptische Sammlung der Universität Tübingen. 2 vols. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1981.

Brunton, Guy. “The Inner Sarcophagus of Prince Ramessu from Medinet Habu.” ASAE 43 (1943), 133-148.

Brunton, Guy, and Reginald Engelbach. Gurob. BSAE 41. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1927.

Bruyère, Bernard. Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh, 1925-1926. FIFAO 3. Cairo: IFAO, 1926.

------Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1923-1924). FIFAO 2. Cairo: IFAO, 1925.

Bryan, Betsy M. “Antecedents to Amenhotep III.” In Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign, edited by David O’Connor and Eric Cline, 27-62. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

------“Designing the Cosmos: Temples and Temple Decoration.” In Arielle Kozloff and Betsy Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992.

------The Reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.

------“Private Relief Sculpture Outside Thebes and its Relationship to Theban Relief Sculpture,” in The Art of Amnehotep III: Art Historical Analysis, edited by Lawrence Berman, .65- 80. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990.

------“The career and family of Minmose, High Priest of Onuris.” CdÉ 61 (1986), 5-30.

Bryson, K. Margaret. “Some Year Dates of Horemheb in Context.” JARCE 51 (2015), 285-301. de Buck, Adrian. “The Building Inscription of the Berlin Leather Roll.” Studia Aegyptiaca 1 (1938), 48-57.

Von Bunsen, Christian (Baron). Egypt’s Place in Universal History. 5 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848-1867.

------Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte: geschichtliche Untersuchung in fünf Büchern. 5 vols. Hamburg: Perthes, 1844-1857.

275

Cabrol, Agnès. Les voies processionelles de Thèbes. OLA 97. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.

------Amenhotep III: Le magnifique. Paris: Rocher, 2000.

Cahail, Kevin. In the Shadow of Osiris: Non-Royal Mortuary Landscapes at South Abydos During the Late Middle and New Kingdoms (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2014

Caminos, Ricardo. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1958.

------The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 32. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1968.

------Late Egyptian Miscellenies. Brown Egyptological Studies 1. London: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1954.

Capart, Jean. “Rapport sommaire sur les fouilles de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth à El-Kab.” ASAE 37 (1937), 3-15.

Capel, Anne K., and Glenn E. Markoe, eds. “Family Group: Couple with Granddaughter.” In Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt. Edited by Anne K. Capel and Glenn E. Markoe, 50-51. New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1997.

Carter, Howard, and Percy Newberry. The Tomb of Thoutmosis IV. Theodore M. Davis’ Excavations: Bibân el Molûk. Westminster: Constable, 1904.

Cauville, Sylvie. Le temple de Dendara 12. 2 vols. Cairo: IFAO, 2007.

Černý, Jaroslav. A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period. BdÉ 50. Cairo: IFAO, 2001.

------Egyptian Stelae of the Bankes Collection. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1958.

Černý, Jaroslav, and Elmar Edel. Gebel el-Shams: textes hieroglyphiques. Collection scientifique 28. Cairo: Centre de documentation égyptologique, 1958.

Champollion, Jean-Francois. Lettres à M. le duc de Blacas d'Aulps, Premier Gentilhomme de la Chambre, Pair de France, etc., relatives au Musée Royal Égyptien de Turin. Vol. 1, Première letter: monuments historiques. Paris: Firmin Didot Père et Fils, 1824.

Chappaz, Jean-Luc. “La mission 1985 de la Commission du Fonds de l'Egyptologie à la porte du Xe pylône de Karnak.” BSEG 11 (1987), 7-16.

------“Le sarcophage de Houner, épouse du vizir Râ-, et deux fragments inédits du Musée d'Art et d'Histoire de Genève.” Chronique d'Égypte 61 (1986), 31-42.

Chevereau, Pierre-Michel. Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. Antony: Chevereau, 1994.

276

Chevrier, Henri. “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1947-1948).” ASAE 47 (1947), 161-183.

Christophe, Louis. Abou-Simbel et l’épopée de sa découverte. Brussels: P.F. Merckx, 1965.

------Karnak-Nord. Vol. 3, (1945-1949). Cairo: IFAO, 1951.

Chollier, Vincent. Hatiay, responsable des prophètes de tous les dieux: une généalogie ramesside à réviser. Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 114 (2014), 99-110;

Clère, Pierre, Laïla Ménassa, and Patrick Deleuze. “Le socle du colosse oriental dressé devant le Xe pylône de Karnak.” Karnak 5 (1975), 159-166.

Collombert, Philippe. “Le toponyme [] et la géographie des 17e et 18e nomes de Haute Égypte.” RdE 65 (2014), 1-27.

Cruz-Uribe, Eugene. “The Father of Ramses I: OI 11456.” JNES 37, no. 3 (Jul. 1978), 237-244.

Curto, Silvio. L'antico Egitto nel Museo Egizio di Torino. Turin: Tipografia Torinese Editrice, 1984.

Daressy, Georges. “La tombe d'un Mnévis de Ramsès II.” ASAE 18 (1919), 196-210.

------“Débris de stéle d'-m-heb. ASAE 17 (1917), 85.

------“À travers les koms du Delta,” ASAE 12 (1912), 169-213.

------Statues de divinités. 2 vols. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 38001-39384. Cairo: IFAO, 1905-1906.

------“Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques trouvées dans Le Caire.” ASAE 4 (1903), 101-109.

------“Le temple de Mit Rahineh.” ASAE 3 (1902), 22-31.

------“Notes et Remarques.” RecTrav 16 (1894), 16, 42-60, 123-133

Darnell, John. The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses IX. OBO 198. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.

------“Two Notes on Marginal Inscriptions at Medinet Habu.” In Essays in Egytology in Honor of Hans Goedicke, edited by Betsy Bryan and David Lorton, 35-55. San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1994

Darnell, John and Colleen Manassa. Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest during Ancient Egypt’s Late Eighteenth Dynasty. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

Davies, Benedict. Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina. Leiden: Nederlands Instiituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999.

277

Davies, Norman de Garis. Seven Private Tombs as Kurnah. London: EES, 1948.

The Rock Tombs of el-Amarna. 6 vols. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 13-18. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903-1908.

Davies, W. Vivian. “The Egyptian Inscriptions at Jebel Dosha, Sudan.” BMSAES 4 (2004), http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/bmsaes/issue4/davies.html.

Davis, Theodore. “The Finding of the Tombs of Harmhabi and Touthânkhamanou.” In The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou, edited by Theodore Davis, 1-3. London: Constable, 1912.

Desplancques, Sophie. L’institution du trésor en Egypte des origines à la fin du Moyen Empire. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2006.

Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane. Vie et mort d’un pharaon, Toutankhamon. Paris: Pygmalion, 1963.

Devecchi, Elena and Jared Miller. “Hittite-Egyptian Synchronisms and their Consequences for Ancient Near Eastern Chronology.” In Egypt and the Near East: The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1-3, 2010, edited by Jana Mynarova, 139-176. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2011.

Dewachter, Michel. “A propos de deux groupes monumentaux de Karnak.” BSFÉ 87-88 (1980), 87-88, 18-27.

------“Nubie: notes diverses (II).” BIFAO 79 (1979), 311-326.

Dillery, John. Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho. Ann Arbor, University of Michicgan Press, 2015.

Dillon, Christopher. “Masculinity, Political Culture, and the Rise of Nazism.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Political Culture in Europe, edited by Christopher Fletcher et al., 379-402. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Van Dijk, Jacobus. “New Evidence on the Length of the Reign of Horemheb.” JARCE 44 (2014), 193-200.

------“The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom.” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, 272-313. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

------“Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun. BACE 7 (1996), 29-42.

------“Hymnen aan Re en Osiris in Memphitische graven van het Nieuwe Rijk.” Phoenix 42, no. 1 (1996), 3-22.

278 ------“Maya's Chief Sculptor Userhat-Hatiay, with a Note on the Length of the Reign of Horemheb.” GM 148 (1995), 29-34.

------“The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis: Historical and Iconographical Studies.” PhD diss., University of Groningen, 1993.

------“The Overseer of the Treasury Maya: A Biographical Sketch,” OMRO 70 (1990), 23-28.

Dodson, Aidan. Amarna Sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation. Cairo: AUC Press, 2009.

Dolinska, Monika. “Studies on the kheker-frieze in the temple of Thutmosis III in Deir el-Bahari.” Études et Travaux 14 (1990), 29-60.

Donovan, Leonie. “Representations of Costume in New Kingdom Offering Bearer Scenes.” BACE 14 (2003), 7-37.

Dorman, Peter F. The Tombs of Senenmut: The Architecture and Decoration of Tombs 71 and 353, PMMA 24. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1991.

Doxey, Denise. Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Drower, M.S. “The Inscriptions.” In Robert Mond and Oliver Myers, Temples of Armant: A Preliminary Survey. 2 vols. London: EES, 1940.

Eaton-Krauss, Marianne. The Unknown Tutankhamun. London: Bloomsbury, 2016.

------“Usurpation.” In Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy Bryan, edited by Richard Jasnow and Kathlyn Cooney, 97-104. Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2015.

------“Review of Geoffrey Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun,” JEA 78 (1992), 337-338.

------“Tutankhamun at Karnak.” MDAIK 44 (1988), 1-11.

------“JE 49536: Horemhab and the Abydene triad.” SAK 11 (1984), 501-508.

Eaton-Krauss, Marianne and William J. Murnane. “Tutankhamun, Ay, and the Avenue of Sphinxes between Pylon X and the Mut Precinct at Karnak.” BSÉG 15 (1991), 31-38.

Eder, Maciej, Jan Rybicki and Mike Kestemont. “Stylometry with R: A Package for Computational Text Analysis.” The R Journal 8, no. 1 (2016), 107-121.

Edwards, I.E.S. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae, etc. in the British Museum, Part 8. London: British Museum 1939.

Effland, Ute, and Andreas Effland. “Minmose in Abydos.” GM 198 (2004), 5-17.

279 Egberts, Arno. In Quest of Meaning: A Study of the Ancient Egyptian Rites of Consecrating the Merit-Chests and Driving the Calves. 2 vols. Egyptologische Uitgaven 8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1995.

Eichler, Selke. Die Verwaltung des ‘Hauses des Amun’ in der 18. Dynastie. BSAK 7. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 2000.

Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple. Volume 2: The Facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall: With Translations of Texts, Commentary, and Glossary. OIP 116. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1998.

------Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple. Vol. 1, The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall. OIP 112. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1994.

------The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192. OIP 102. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980.

------Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu. Vol. 4, Festival Scenes of Ramses III. OIP 51. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1940.

Exell, Karen. “The Senior Scribe Ramose (I) and the Cult of the King: A Social and Historical Reading of Some Private Votive Stelae from Deir el Medina in the Reign of Ramesses II.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2004: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium Which Took Place at the University of Durham January 2004, edited by R. Dann, 51-67. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Eyre, Christopher J. “Is Egyptian Historical Literature ‘Historical’ or ‘Literary’?” In Ancient Egyptian Literature, edited by Antonio Loprieno, 415-433. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Foucart, George. Tombes thébaines: nécropole de Dirâ Abû’n-Nága, le tombeau d’Amonmos. MIFAO 57. Cairo: IFAOE, 1935.

Foucart, Georges, Marcelle Baud, and Étienne Drioton. Tombes Thébaines, nécropole de Dirâ Abû’n-Nága. Fasc. 1, Le Tombeau de Roÿ. Cairo: IFAO, 1928.

Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

------“Preliminary report on the excavations at Tell el-'Amarnah, 1926-7.” JEA 13, no. 3/4 (1927), 209-218.

Franzmeier, Henning. “News from Parahotep: The Small Finds from his Tomb at Sedment Rediscovered.” JEA 100 (2014), 151-180.

Franzmeier, Henning and Anke Weber. “’Andererseits finde ich, dass man jetzt nicht so tun soll, als wäre nichts gewesen.’ Die Deutsche Ägyptologie in den Jahren 1945-1949 im Spiegel der Korrespondenz mit dem Verlag J. C. Hinrichs.” In Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien zwischen Kaiserreich und Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten: Reflexionen zur Geschichte und Episteme eines altertumswissenschaftlichen Fachs im 150. Jahr der Zeitschrift für Ägyptische

280 Sprache und Altertumskunde, edited by Susanne Bickel et al., 113-152. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013.

Frood, Elizabeth. Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt. Atlanta: SBL, 2007.

------“Self-Presentation in Ramessid Egypt.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2004.

Gaballa, Gaballa A. “New Light on the Cult of Sokar,” Orientalia 41 (1972), 178-179.

Gaballa, Gaballa A., and Kenneth A. Kitchen. “Ramesside Varia, 6: The Prophet Amenemope, His Tomb and Family.” MDAIK 37 (1981), 161-180.

------“The Festival of Sokar,” Orientalia 38 (1969), 1-76.

Gabolde, Marc. Toutankhamon. Paris: Pygmalion, 2015.

------“L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égytpiennes.” ENiM 6 (2013), 177- 203.

------“Osiris et Amon.” In Autour de Coptos. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée des Beaux- Arts de Lyon (17-18 mars 2000). Topoi Supplement 3. Lyons: Musée des Beaux-Arts, 200), 125- 127.

------D'Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon. Lyon: Université Lumière-Lyon 2, Institut d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Antiquité, 1998.

------“Le père divin Aÿ.” PhD diss., Université Lyon II, 1992.

------“Le droit d’aînesse d’Ankhesenpaaton (à propos de deux récents articles sur la stèle UC 410).” BSEG 14 (1990), 33-47.

------“Aÿ, Toutankhamon et les martelages de la stèle de la restauration de Karnak (CG 34183).” BSEG 11 (1987), 37-61.

Gabolde, Luc, and Vincent Rondot. “Le temple de Montou n'était pas un temple à Montou (Karnak-Nord 1990-1996).” BSFÉ 136 (1996), 27-41.

------“Une catastrophe antique dans le temple de Montou à Karnak-Nord.” BIFAO 93 (1993), 245-264.

Gange, David. Dialogues with the Dead: Egyptology in British Culture and Religion, 1822-1922. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Gardiner, Alan. “The Coronation Inscription of Haremhab.” JEA 39 (1953), 13-31.

------“The Memphite Tomb of the General Haremhab.” JEA 39 (1953), 3-12.

------The Wilbour Papyrus. Vol. 2, Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948.

281

------“Horus the Behdite,” JEA 30 (1944), 23-60.

------“Tanis and Pi-Ra’messe: A Retraction.” JEA 19, no. 3/4 (Nov., 1933), 122-128.

Gardiner, Alan and Nina M. Davies. The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tut’ankhamūn. TTS 4. London: EES, 1926.

Alan Gardiner and Arthur Weigall. A Topographical Catalogue of the Private Tombs of Thebes. London: Quaritch, 1913.

Gauthier, Henri. Le livre des rois d'Égypte: recueil de titres et protocoles royaux, noms propres de rois, reines, princes et princesses, noms de pyramides et de temples solaires, suivi d'un index alphabétique. 5 vols. Cairo: IFAO, 1907-1917.

Geisen, Christina. “Expression of Loyalty to the King: A Socio-Cultural Analysis of Basilophoric Personal Names Dating to the Old and Middle Kingdoms.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence, Italy 23-30 August 2015, 228-232. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017.

Gertzen, Thomas. École de Berlin und "Goldenes Zeitalter" (1882-1914) der Ägyptologie als Wissenschaft: Das Lehrer-Schüler-Verhältnis von Ebers, Erman und Sethe. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.

Giovetti, Paola and Daniela Picchi. Egitto. Splendore millenario: la collezione di Leiden a Bologna. Milan: Skira, 2015.

Glanville, Stephen. The Growth and Nature of Egyptology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.

Gnirs, Andrea. “Coping with the Army: The Military and the State in the New Kingdom.” In Ancient Egyptian Administration, edited by Juan Carlos Moreno García, 639-717. HdO 104. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013.

------Militär und Gesellschaft: ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches. SAGA 17. Heldelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996.

------“Haremhab: ein Staatsreformator? Neue Betrachtungen zum Haremhab-Dekret.” SAK 16 (1989), 83-110.

Goedicke, Hans. “The 400-Year-Stela Reconsidered.” BES 3 (1981), 25-42.

------“Some Remarks on the 400-Year-Stela.” CdÉ 41, no. 81 (1966), 23-39.

Goetze, Albrecht. Die Annalen des Musilis. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft Leipzig 38. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1938.

282 Goldwasser, Orly. “King Apophis of Avaris and the Emergence of Monotheism.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, edited by Ernst Cerny et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2006, 129- 133.

Golvin, Jean-Claude, Sayed Abd’ul Hamid, and Jean-Claude Goyon. “Le IXe pylône de Karnak: travaux et résultats.” In L'Égyptologie en 1979: axes prioritaires de recherches, edited by Anonymous, 2:255-257. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la Recherche scientifique, 1982.

Goyon, Jean-Claude. Confirmation du pouvoir royal au nouvel an [Brooklyn Museum Papyrus 47.218.50]. Cairo: IFAO; Brooklyn Museum, 1972.

Goyon, Jean-Claude and Claude Traunecker. “La chapelle de Thot et d’Amon au sud-ouest du lac sacré,” Karnak 7 (1982), 355-366.

Graefe, Erhart. “Untersuchungen zur Wortfamilie bjA-.” PhD diss., Universität Köln, 1971.

Grafton, Anthony. “Joseph Scaliger and Historical Chronology: The Rise and Fall of a Discipline.” History and Theory 14, no. 2 (1975), 156-185.

Grallert, Silke. Bauen-Stiften-Weihen: Ägyptische Bau- und Restaurierungsinschriften von den Anfangen bis zur 30. Dynastie. Berlin: Achet Verlag, 2001.

Grimal, Nicolas, and Fransois Larché. “Karnak, 1992-1994.” Karnak 10 (1995), vii-xxxii.

Guksch, Heike. Königsdienst: zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie. SAGA 11. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1994.

Guermeur, Ivan. “Du dualism et de l’ambivalence séthienne dans la pensée religieuse de l’égypte ancienne.” In Dualismes: doctrines religieuses et traditions philosophiques, edited by Fabienne Jourdan and Anca Vasiliu, 63-88. Cluj; Paris: Polirom; Chôra, 2015.

------Les cultes d’Amon hors de Thèbes: recherches de géographie religieuse. Turnhout: Brepolis, 2005.

Guilhou, Nadine. La tombe d'Horemheb (KV 57). ÉAO 76 (2014-2015), 51-60.

Gundlach, Rolf. “Hof – Hofgesellschaft – Hofkultur im pharaonischen Ägypten.” In Der ägyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches: Seine Gesellschaft und Kultur im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Auβenpolitik, Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums vom 27.-29. Mai 2002 an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, edited by. Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug, 1-38. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2006.

------“Tempelfeste und Etappen der Königsherrschaft.” In 4. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung Köln, 10.-12. Oktober 1996: Feste im Tempel, edited by in Rolf Gundlach and Matthias Rochholz, 55-75. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998.

Gundlach, Rolf and Hermann Weber. Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers. Vom Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992.

283

Habachi, Labib. Tell el-Dab’a I: Tell el-Dab’a and Qantir, the Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse. DGOeAW 23. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001.

------Sixteen Studies on Lower Nubia. SASAE 23. Cairo: IFAO, 1981.

------“Unknown or Little-Known Monuments of Tutankhamun and his Viziers. In Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, edited by John Ruffle, Gaballa A. Gaballa, and Kenneth A. Kitchen, 32-41. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1979.

------“Sethos I’s Devotion to Seth of Avaris.” ZÄS 100, no. 2 (1974), 95-102.

------The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1972.

------“Akhenaten in Heliopolis.” In Aufsätze zum 70. Geburtstag von Herbert Ricke, edited by Gerhard Haeny, 35-45. BBA 12. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1971.

------Features of the Deification of Ramesses II. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1969.

------“A Family from Armant in Aswan and in Thebes.” JEA 51 (1965), 123-126.

Haeny, Gerhard. Untersuchungen im Totentempel Amenophis' III. BBf 11. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1981.

Hallmann, Silke. Die Tributszenen des Neuen Reiches. ÄAT 66. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006.

Hari, Robert. La tombe thébaine du père divin Neferhotep (TT 50). Collection epigraphica. Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1985.

------“Quelques remarques sur l'abandon d'Akhetaton.” BSFE 9-10 (1984-1985), 113-118.

------“La Grande-en-magie et la stèle du temple de Ptah à Karnak.” JEA 62 (1976), 100-107.

------Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, ou, la fin d'une dynastie. Geneva: Imprimerie la Sirène, 1964.

Haring, Benjamin. Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1997.

Harris, J. R. “The date of the "Restoration" Stela of Tutankhamun.” GM 5 (1973), 9-11.

------How long was the reign of Ḥoremḥeb? JEA 54 (1968), 95-99.

------Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals. Berlin: Akademie Verag, 1961.

284

Hartwig, Melinda. “A vignette concerning the deification of Thutmose IV.” In Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini, edited by Sue D’Auria, 120-125. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Hawass, Zahi. The lost tombs of Thebes: life in paradise. Photographs by Sandro Vannini. London: Thames & Hudson, 2009.

Hayes, William C. “Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III.” JNES 10, no. 1 (1951), 169- 176.

Hein, Irmgard. “Ein Stelenfragment Ramses’ I: Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum; Ägyptische Sammlung Inv. Nr. 8953.” ZÄS 116 (1989), 36-40.

Heffernan, Gabrielle. “Remembering Royalty in Ancient Egypt: Shared Memories of ‘Royal Ancestors’ by Private Individuals in the Eighteenth Dynasty.” PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2017.

Helck, Wolfgang. ------Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7 Jahrhundert v. Chr. Erträge der Forschung 120. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.

------"Was kann die Ägyptologie wirklich zum Problem der absoluten Chronologie in der Bronzezeit beitragen? Chronologische Annäherungswerte in der 18. Dynastie.” In High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th - 22nd August 1987, edited by Paul Åström, 18-26. Gothenburg: Paul Åströms Förlag, 1987.

------“Schwachstellen der Chronologie-Diskussion.” GM 67 (1983), 43-49.

------“Probleme der Zeit Haremhebs.” CdÉ 48 (1973), 251-265.

------Geschichte des Alten Ägypten. Leiden: Brill, 1968.

------Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Leiden: Brill, 1958.

------“Das Dekret des Königs Haremheb.” ZÄS 80 (1955), 109-136.

------“Rp’t auf dem Thron des Geb,” Orientalia NS 19, no. 4 (1950), 416-434.

------Der Einfluss der Militärführer in der 18. Ägyptischen Dynastie. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939.

Herrero, Alexandre. “The ‘King’s Son of Kush’ Paser (II), Son of the ‘High Priest of Min and Isis’ Minmose,” BACE 13 (2002), 71-84.

Hermann, Alfred. Die ägyptische Königsnovelle. Leipziger ägyptologische Studien 10. Glückstadt: Augustin, 1938.

285 Hofmann, Eva. Bilder im Wandel: Die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Propylaeum-DOK Digital Edition, 2015.

Hoffner, Harry A. “Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite Historiography.” In Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, edited by Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Hofmann, Beate. Die Königsnovelle: Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2004.

Hölscher, Uvo. The Excavation of Medinet Habu. Vol. 2, The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty. OIP 41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939.

------The Excavation of Medinet Habu. Volume 1, General Plans and Views. OIP 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.

------Medinet Habu: Ausgrabungen des Oriental Institutes der Universität Chicago. Ein Vorbericht. Morgenland 24. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1933.

------Excavations at Ancient Thebes 1930/31. OIC 15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932.

Hoffmeier, James K., James E. Knudstad, Rosa Frey, Gregory Mumford, and Kenneth A. Kitchen. “The Ramesside Period Fort.” In Tell el-Borg I: The "Dwelling of the Lion" on the Ways of Horus, edited by James K. Hoffmeier, 207-345. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014.

Hoffmeier, James K. and Jacobus van Dijk, “New Light on the Amarna Period from North Sinai.” JEA 96 (2010), 191-205.

Hornung, Erik. Die Unterweltsbücher der Ägypter: ein einführender Überblick. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1997.

------The Rediscovery of Akhenaten and his Place in Religion, JARCE 29 (1992), 43-49.

------Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits: nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches. 2 vols. Geneva: Editions des Belles-Lettres, 1979-1984.

------Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh. Eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen. OBO 46. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

------Das Grab des Haremhab im Tal der Könige. Berlin: Francke, 1971.

Hornung, Erik, Rolf Krauss, and David A. Warburton, eds. Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006.

Hsu, Shih-Wei. “The Development of Ancient Egyptian Royal Inscriptions,” JEA 98 (2012), 269- 283.

286 Ikram, Salima. “Nile Currents.” KMT 25, no. 3 (2014), 7.

Jacquet, Jean. Karnak-Nord VII: le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. Installations antérieurs ou postérieurs au monument. FIFAO 36. Cairo: IFAO, 1994.

Jacquet-Gordon, Helen. Karnak-Nord VIII: le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. Statues, stèles et blocs réutilisés. FIFAO 39. Cairo: IFAO 1999.

Jambon, Emmanuel. “La Cachette de Karnak: étude analytique et essais d'interprétation.” In La Cachette de Karnak: nouvelles perspectives sur les découvertes de Georges Legrain, edited by Laurent Coulon, 131-175. Cairo: IFAO, 2016.

James, Peter and Robert Morkot. “Two Studies in 21st Dynasty Chronology I: Deconstructing Manetho’s 21st Dynasty II: The Datelines of High Priest Menkheperre.” JEH 6 (2013), 219-256.

James, T.G.H. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae, etc., in the British Museum, Part 9. London: British Museum, 1970.

Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. “Die ägyptische ‘Königsnovelle’ als Texttyp.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 83 (1993), 101-116.

Johnson, Janet. “Sex and Marriage in Ancient Egypt.” In Hommages à Fayza Haikal, edited by Nicolas Grimal, Amr Kamel, and Cynthia May-Sheikholeslami, 149-159. BdÉ 138. Cairo: IFAO, 2003.

Johnson, W. Raymond. “A Sandstone Relief of Tutankhamun in the Liverpool Museum from the Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall.” In Causing his Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, edited by Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper, 125-128. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009.

------“Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III.” In Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign, edited by Eric Cline and David O’Connor, 63-94. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

------“Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some New Considerations.” JEA 82 (1996), 65-82.

------Honorific Figures of Amenhotep III in the Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall.” In For his Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, edited by David P. Silverman, 133-144. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1994.

------“Hidden Kings and Queens of the Luxor Temple Cachette.” Amarna Letters 3 (1994), 128- 149.

------“An Asiatic Battle Scene of Tutankhamun.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1992.

Jordan, Michel, Suzanne Bickel, and Jean-Luc Chappaz. La Porte d’Horemheb au Xe pylône de Karnak. CSÉG 13. Geneva: Societe Société d'Égyptologie, 2015.

287 Kampakoglou, Alexandros. “Danaus βουγενής: Greco-Egyptian Mythology and Ptolemaic Kingship.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016), 111-139.

Kampp, Friederike. Die thebanische Nekropole: zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der 18. bis zur 20. Dynastie. 2 vols. Theben 13. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996.

------“Vierter Vorbericht über die Arbeiten des Ägyptologischen Instituts der Universität Heidelberg in thebanischen Gräbern der Ramessidenzeit.” MDAIK 50 (1994), 175-188.

Kampp, Friederike and Karl-Joachim Seyfried. “Eine Rückkehr nach Theben – Das Grab des Pa- ren-nefer, Hoherpriester des Amun zur Zeit Tutanchamuns,” AW 26 (1995), 325-342.

Kaplony-Heckel, Ursula. “Ägyptische historische Texte.” In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, neue Folge. Vol. 1, Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden: historisch-chronologische Texte I, edited by Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm, 534-540. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2004.

Kaplony, Peter. “Das Grab des Haremhab im Tal der Könige.” Orientalia 43 (1974), 94-102.

Karkowski, Janusz. The Pharaonic Inscriptions from Faras. Warsaw: Éditions scientifiques de Pologne, 1981.

Kawai, Nozomu. “The Administrators and Notables in Nubia under Tutankhamun.” In Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy M. Bryan, edited by Richard Jasnow and Kathlyn M. Cooney, 309-322. Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2015.

------“Ay versus Horemheb: The Political Situation in the Late Eighteenth Dynasty Revisited.” JEH 3, no. 2 (2010), 261-292.

------“Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2005.

Kees, Hermann. “’Gottesvater’ als Priesterklasse.” ZÄS 86 (1961), 121-125.

------Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat: vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit. Leiden: Brill, 1953.

Kemp, Barry J. “Outlying Temples at Amarna.” In Amarna Reports VI, edited by Barry J. Kemp, 411-462. London: EES, 1995.

Kenrick, John. Ancient Egypt Under the Pharaohs. 2 vols. London: Fellowes, 1850. van den Kerchove, Anna. La voie d’Hermès: Pratiques rituelles et traités hermétiques. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Kerkeslager, Allen. “The apology of the Potter: A Translation of the Potter's Oracle.” In Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology, edited by Irene Shirun-Grumach, 67-79. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998.

288 Kischkewitz, Hannelore. “Die Ägyptologen Richard Lepsius, Heinrich Brugsch und Georg Ebers und ihre Stellung zu Zeitfragen,” FuB 20 (1980), 89-100.

Kiser-Go, Deanna. “A Stylistic and Iconographic Analysis of Private Post-Amarna Period Tombs in Thebes” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2006.

Kitchen, Kenneth. “Establishing Chronology in Pharaonic Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Interlocking Textual Sources Relating to c. 1600-664 BC.” In Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt, edited by Christopher Ramsey and Andrew Short, 15-92. Havertown: Oxbow Books, 2014.

------Aspects of Ramesside Egypt,” in Acts: First International Congress of Egyptology, Cairo, October 2-19, 1976, edited by Walter F. Reineke, 383-389. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1979.

------Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical. 8 vols. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975- 1990.

Knapp, Andrew. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Koefoed-Petersen, Otto. Catalogue des bas-reliefs et peintures égyptiens. Publications de la Glyptothéque Ny Carlsberg 6. Copenhagen: Glyptothéque Ny Carlsberg, 1956.

Koenig, Yvan. “Les effrois de Keniherkhepeshef (Papyrus Deir el-Médineh 40).” RdE 33 (1981), 29-37.

Kondo, Jiro. “The Re-use of the Private Tombs on the Western Bank of Thebes and its Chronological Problem: the Cases of the Tomb of 2nsw (no. 31) and the Tomb of Wsr-h3t (no. 51),” Orient 32 (1997), 50-68.

Kootz, Anja Berendine. Der altägyptische Staat.Untersuchung aus politikwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2006.

Kosack, Wolfgang. Berliner Hefte zur ägyptischen Literatur: Paralleltexte in Hieroglyphen mit Einführungen und Übersetzung. Berlin: Christoph Brunner, 2015.

Krauss, Rolf. “Eine Regentin, ein König und eine Königin zwischen dem Tod von Achenaten und der Thronbesteigung von Tutanchaten.” AF 34, no. 2 (2007).

“Nur ein kurioser Irrtum oder ein Beleg für die Jahre 26 und 27 von Haremhab?” DE 30 (1994), 73-85.

Kruchten, Jean-Marie. Le décret d'Horemheb: traduction, commentaire épigraphique, philologique et institutionnel. Bruxelles: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1981.

Kubisch, Sabine. “Biographies of the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, edited by Marcel Marée, 313-327. Leuven; Paris; Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010.

289 ------Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit: biographische Inschriften der 13.-17. Dynastie. SDAIK 34. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Kuentz, Charles. Obélisques. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 1308-1315, 17001-17036. Cairo: IFAO, 1932.

Kühn, Thomas. “Der IX. Pylon von Karnak.” Kemet 2001, no. 1, 45.

Laboury, Dimitri. Akhénaton. Paris: Pygmalion, 2010.

Lacau, Pierre. Stèles du Nouvel Empire. 3 fascs. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 34001-34189. Cairo: IFAO, 1909-1957.

Lagarce, Bérénice. “Réexamen des monuments du palais royal d'Ougarit inscrits en hiéroglyphes égyptiens conservées au Musée national de Damas.” In Le mobilier du palais royal d'Ougarit, edited by Valérie Matoïan, 261-280. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, 2008.

Lagarce-Othman, Bérénice. “Un noveau vase inédit d'Horemheb.” Études Ougaritiques III, Ras Shamra–Ougarit. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

Lauth, Franz Joseph. “Augustus-Harmaïs.” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München 1877, 175-226.

Leahy, Anthony. “The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of the Reign of Apries.” JEA 74 (1988), 183-199.

Leclant, Jean. The Suckling of the Pharoh as Part of the Coronation Rites in Ancient Egypt.” In Proceedings of the IXth international congress for the history of religions: Tokyo and Kyoto 1958, 135-145. Tokyo: Maruzen, 1960.

------“Fouilles et travaux en Égypte, 1950-1951.” Orientalia 20 (1951), 453-475.

Leemans, Conrad. Monuments égyptiens du Musée d'antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide, publiés d'après ordres du gouvernement. 11 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1842-1905.

Lefebvre, Gustave. Histoire des grands prètres d’Amon de Karnak jusqu’a la XXIe dynastie. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1929.

Legrain, Georges. Les temples de Karnak: fragment du dernier ouvrage de Georges Legrain. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1929.

------“Au pylône d'Harmhabi à Karnak (Xe pylône).” ASAE 14 (1914), 13-44.

------“Les statues de Paramessou, fils de Séti,” ASAE 14 (1914), 29-38.

------Répertoire généalogique et onomastique du Musée du Caire. Geneva: Société Anonyme des Arts Graphiques, 1908.

290 ------“Notes d'inspection.” ASAE 9 (1908), 54-60, 271-284.

------“Notes d'inspection.” ASAE 8 (1907), 51-59, 122-129, 248-275.

------“La grande stèle de Toutankhamanou à Karnak.” RT 29 (1907), 162-173.

------“Nouveaux renseignements sur les dernières découvertes faites à Karnak (15 novembre 1904 - 25 juillet 1905).” RT 28 (1906), 137-161.

------“Rapport sur les travaux exécutés à Karnak du 31 octobre 1902 au 15 mai 1903.” ASAE 5 (1904), 1-43.

------“Rapport sur les travaux exécutés à Karnak du 28 septembre 1903 au 6 juillet 1904.” ASAE 5 (1904), 265-280.

------“Les récentes découvertes de Karnak.” Bulletin de l'Institut Égyptien, quatrième série 5 (1904), 109-119.

------“Second rapport sur les travaux exécutés à Karnak du 31 octobre 1901 au 15 mai 1902.” ASAE 4 (1903), 1-40.

------“Notes d'inspection.” ASAE 4 (1903), 193-226.

------“Le temple de Ptah Rîs-anbou-f dans Thèbes.” ASAE 3 (1902), 38-66.

------Collection Hoffmann: Catalogue des Antiquités Égyptiennes. Paris: n.p., 1894.

Leitz, Christian. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. 8 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.

Leprohon, Ronald. The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary. Atlanta: Lockwood, 2013.

------“The reign of Akhenaten seen through the later royal decrees.” In Mélanges Gamal eddin Mokhtar, edited by Paule Posener-Kriéger, vol. 2, 93-103. Cairo: IFAO, 1985.

Levitin, Dmitri. “Egyptology, the Limits of Antiquarianism, and the Origins of Conjectural History: New Sources and Perspectives.” History of European Ideas 41, no. 6 (2015), 699-727.

------Ancient Wisdom in the Age of the New Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Lepsius, Karl Richard. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien: Text. 5 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897-1913.

------“Die altägyptische Elle und ihre Eintheilung.” Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1865 (1866), 1-64.

291 ------Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. 12 vols. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, [1849-1859].

------Chronologie der Aegypter. Einleitung und erster Theil: Kritik der Quellen. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849.

------Königsbuch der alten Ägypter, 2 vols. Berlin: Bessersche Buchhandlung, 1858.

------Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Vol. 2, The New Kingdom. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2006. von Lieven, Alexandra. “Deified Humans.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, edited by Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich. Los Angeles: UCLA, 2010. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0025k5hz

------“Im Schatten des Goldhauses: Berufsgeheimnis und Handwerkerinitiation im Alten Ägypten.” SAK 36 (2007), 147-155.

------“Heiligenkult und Vergöttlichung im Alten Ägypten.” Habilitationsschrift, Freie Universität Berlin, 2007.

Lipson, Carolyn. “Comparative Rhetoric, Egyptology, and the Case of Akhenaten.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 43, no. 3 (2013), 270-284.

Lloyd, Alan B. “The Great Inscription of Khnumhotpe II at Beni Hasan.” In Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths, edited by Alan B. Lloyd, London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992, 21-36.

Loprieno, Antonio. “The ‘King’s Novel.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, edited by Antonio Loprieno 277-295. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Lord, Timothy. “Collingwood, Idealism, Realism, and the Possibility of Historical Knowledge.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 11 (2017), 342-357.

Lorton, David. “The King and the Law.” VA 2, no. 1 (1986), 53-62.

Lüddeckens, Erich, Wolfgang Brunsch, Heinz-Josef Thissen, Günter Vittmann, and Karl-Theodor Zauzich. Demotisches Namenbuch I. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 1980-2000.

Macadam, M.F. Laming. The Temples of Kawa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Magen, Barbara. Steinerne Palimpseste: Zur Wiederverwendung von Statuen durch Ramses II. und seine Nachfolger. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2011.

Abd el-Maksoud, Mohammed. Tell Heboua (1981-1991): enquête archéologique sur la deuxième période intermédiaiire et le nouvel empire à l'extrémité orientale du delta. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1998.

292 Abd el-Maksoud, Mohammed, and Dominique Valbelle. “Tell Héboua-Tjarou: l'apport de l'épigraphie.” RdE 56 (2005), 1-43.

Manassa, Colleen. Imagining the Past: HIsotrical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Mariette, Auguste. “La stèle de l'an 400,” RAr, n.s. 11 (1865), 169-190.

------Aperçu de l'histoire d'Égypte depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à la conquête musulmane: ouvrage destiné aux écoles spéciales de l'Égypte. Alexandria: Mourès, 1864.

Martin, Geoffrey T. Tutankhamun’s Regent: Scenes and Texts from the Memphtie Tomb of Horemheb. MEES 111. London: EES, 2016.

------The Tomb of Maya and Meryt. Vol. 1, The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary. EES Excavation Memoir 99. London: EES, 2012.

------“The Family and Career of Tia.” in Geoffrey T. Martin, The Tomb of Tia and Tia: A Royal Monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite Necropolis, 49-62. London: EES, 1997.

------The hidden tombs of Memphis: new discoveries from the time of Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.

------The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun. Vol 1, The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary. London: EES, 1989.

------“Three objects of New Kingdom date from the Memphite area and Sidmant.” In Pyramid Studies and Other Essays Presented to I. E. S. Edwards, edited by John Baines, T. G. H. James, Anthony Leahy, and A. F. Shore, 114-120. London: EES, 1988.

------“Excavations at the Memphite tomb of Ḥoremḥeb.” JEA 65 (1979), 13-16.

------“Excavations at the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb 1975: Preliminary Report.” JEA 62 (1976), 5-13.

Martins, Paulo. “Augusto como Mercúrio enfim.” Revista de História (São Paulo) 176 (2017), 1- 43.

Maspero, Gaston. “Note on the Life and Monuments of Harmhabi.” In The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou, edited by Theodore Davis, 5-60. London: Constable, 1912.

------Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient classique. Vol. 2, Les premières mêlées des peoples. Paris: Hachette, 1897.

------Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient. 4th ed. Paris: Hachette, 1886.

------Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient. 1st ed. Paris: Hachette, 1875.

293 Mastrocinque, Attilio. “Danaus and Augustus.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae 55 (2016), 179-184.

Mathieu, Bernard. “Seth polymorphe: le rival, le vaincu, l’auxiliaire.” ENiM 4 (2011), 137-148.

Matoïan, Valérie. “La Maison dite “de Rashapabou”: inventaire des objets découverts lors de la fouille de l’édiÀ ce et essai d’interprétation.” Études Ougaritiques III, Ras Shamra–Ougarit. Leuven: Peeters, 2013

Maystre, Charles. Les grands prêtres de Ptah de Memphis. OBO 113. Freiburg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).

McCarthy, Heather. “Queenship, Cosmography, and Regeneration: The Decorative Programs and Architecture of Ramesside Royal Women’s Tombs.” Phd diss., New York University 2011.

Metawi, Dina. “Nebwa Revisited (Cairo Museum TR.29/9/15/5),” SAK 44 (2015), 237-248.

------“A Possible Father-Daughter Marriage in the New Kingdom,” SAK 42 (2013), 221-232.

Metawi, Rasha. “Mery-Maat, an Eighteenth Dynasty iry-aA n pr ptH from Memphis and his Hypothetical Family,” JEA 101 (2015), 281-295.

Meyer, Eduard. Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens. Berlin: G. Grote, 1887.

------“Die Stele des Horemheb.” ZÄS 15 (1877), 148-157.

Miller, Jared. “Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text.” AoF 34 (2007), 252-293.

------“The Rebellion of Hatti’s Syrian Vassals and Egypt’s Meddling in Amurru,” in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 50 (2008), 533-554.

Mond, Robert, and Oliver H. Myers. The Bucheum. 3 vols. MEES 41. London: EES, 1934.

Mond, Robert, and Walter Emery. “Excavations at Sheikh Abd el Gurneh, 1925-1926.” LAAA 14 (1927), 13-34.

Monnier, F., J. P. Petit, and C. Tardy. "The Use of the ‘Ceremonial’ Cubit Rod as a Measuring Tool: An Explanation." Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 1 (2016), 1-9.

Montserrat, Dominic. Akhenaten: History, Fantasy, and Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 2003.

Montet, Pierre. “La Stèle de l’an 400 retrouvée.” Kêmi 4 (1933), 191-215.

Moore, Theresa Robin. ”The Good God Amenhotep.” PhD Diss.: University of California, Berkeley, 1996.

294 Moret, Alexandre. Catalogue du Musée Guimet: galerie égyptienne ; stèles, bas-reliefs, monuments divers. 2 vols. Paris: Musée Guimet, 1909. de Morgan, Jacques, Urbain Bouriant, Georges Legrain, Gustav Jéquier, and Alessandro Barsanti. Catalogue des monuments et inscriptions de l'Égypte antique: ouvrage publ. sous les auspices de S. A. Abbas II Helmi, khédive d'Égypte, par la direction générale du Service des Antiquités. Vol. 1, De la frontière de Nubie à Kom Ombos. Vienna: Holzhausen, 1894- 1909.

Morkot, Robert. “From Conquered to Conqueror: The Organization of Nubia in the New Kingdom and the Kushite Administration of Egypt. In Ancient Egyptian Administration, edited by Juan Carlos Moreno García, 911-963. HdO 104. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Morris, Ellen. The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypyt’s New Kingdom. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Mouron, Gaultier. “À propos de la function de conducteur de fête.” BSEG 28 (2008-10), 97-117.

Moursi, Mohammed. Die Hohenpriester des Sonnengottes von der Frühzeit Ägyptens bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches. MÄS 26. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1972.

Muhs, Brian. The Ancient Egyptian Economy: 3000-30 BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Müller, Max. “Erklärung des großen Dekrets des Königs Ḥar-m-ḥebe.” ZAS 26 (1888), 70-94.

Müller, Ingeborg. Die Verwaltung Nubiens im Neuen Reich. Meroitica 18. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2013.

Müller, Matthias. “Hatschepsut und der Umgang mit der Verganenheit.” In Vergangenheit und Zukunft: Studien zum historischen Bewusstsein in der Thutmosidenzeit, edited by Susanne Bickel, 187-202. Basel: Schwabe, 2013.

------“Die Krönungsinschrift der Hatschepsut.” In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, neue Folge. Vol. 2, Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften, und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte, edited by Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm, 197-211. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005.

Mumford, Gregory. “Egypt's New Kingdom Levantine empire and Serabit el-Khadim, including a newly attested votive offering of Horemheb.” JSSEA 33 (2006), 159-203.

Murnane, William. “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution.” In Ancient Egyptian Kingship, edited by David O’Connor and David Silverman, 185- 220. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

------“La grande fête d'Opet.” In Louqsor: temple du ka royal, edited by Anonymous, 20-23. Dijon: Faton, 1992.

295 ------The Road to Kadesh. SAOC 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

------Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. SAOC 40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Mysliwiec, Karol. Studien zum Gott Atum. 2 vols. HÄB 8. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1979.

Nebe, Ingrid. “Werethekau.” LÄ VI, 1221-1224.

Nelson, Harold H. Key Plans Showing Locations of Theban Temple Decorations. OIP 56. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941.

Nelson Monique and Gisèle Piérini. Catalogue des antiquités egyptiennes. Marseilles: Musées d’archaeologie, 1978.

Nelson-Hurst, Melinda G. “’…Who Causes his Name to Live:’ The Vivification Formula Through the Second Intermediate Period.” In Millions of Jubilees: Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman, edited by Zahi Hawass and Jennifer Houser Wegner, 13-31. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2010.

Newberry, Percy E. Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi: Fasc. 2, nos. 46520-48575, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Cairo: IFAO, 1937).

------“A Duplicate Text of Horemheb's Coronation Inscription.” Ancient Egypt 1925, 4.

------“Exctracts from my Notebooks VII,” PSBA 25 (1903), 357-363.

Nilsson, Maria, and Philippe Martinez. “In the Footsteps of Ricardo Caminos: Rediscovering the Gebel el Silsila and its Rock-Cut Temple.” In Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists: Florence, Italy 23-30 August 2015, edited by Gloria Rosati and Maria Cristina Guidotti, 441-445. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017.

Niwinski, Andrzej. “Les périodes wHm mswt dans l'histoire de l'Égypte: un essai comparative.” BSFE 136 (1996), 5-26.

O’Connor, David. “Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh.” in III: A New Biography, edited by Eric Cline and David O’Connor. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2009.

Ockinga, Boyo. The Tomb of Amenemope (TT 148), vol. 1, Architecture, Texts and Decoration, RACE 27 (Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 2009).

------“Macquarie University Theban Tombs Project, TT 148: Amenemope, Preliminary Report on 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 Seasons.” BACE 7 (1996). 65-73.

------“ti.t Sps.t and ti.t Dsr.t in the Restoration Stele of Tutankhamun.” GM 137 (1993), 77.

------“Macquarie University Theban Tombs Project, TT 148: Amenemope, Preliminary Report on 1991/2 and 1992/3 Seasons.” BACE 4 (1993), 41-50.

296

------Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im alten Ägypten und im alten Testament. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1984.

Oda, Ahmed M. Mekawy. “Did Werethekau ‘Great of Magic’ Have a Cult? A Disjunction between Scholarly Opinions and Sources.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2013: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, March 19-22, 2013, edited by Kelly Accetta et al., 105-121. Oxford, Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 2014.

Oldfather, C.H. trans. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes, vol. 1, Books I and II, 1-34. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Suzanne Onstine, “The Role of the Chantress (Smayt) in Ancient Egypt” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2001

Oppenheim, Adela. “The early life of pharaoh: divine birth and adolescence scenes in the causeway of Senwosret III at Dahshur,” In Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2010, edited by Miroslav Bárta, Filip Coppens, and Jaromír Krejčí, ,171-188. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, 2011.

Osnach, Angela. “Der Titel ‘Schrieber des Königs’ – Ursprung und Funktion.” In Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology, edited by Irene Shirun-Grumach. ÄAT 40. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998.

Otto, Eberhard. “Legitimation des Herrschers im pharaonischen Ägypten.” Saeculum 20 (1969), 385-411.

Page-Gasser, Madeleine, and André Wiese. Ägypten, Augenblicke der Ewigkeit: unbekannte Schätze aus Schweizer Privatbesitz. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997.

Pamminger, Peter. “Contributions à la prosopographie militaire du Nouvel Empire,” BiOr 54 (1997), 5-31.

------“Zur Göttlichkeit Amenophis’ III.” BSEG 17 (1993), 83-92.

Panagiotakopulu, Eva. “Pharaonic Egypt and the Origins of Plague.” Journal of Biogeography 31, no. 2 (2006), 269-275.

Parkinson, Richard. “Types of Literature in the Middle Kingdom.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, edited by Antonio Loprieno, 298-312. Leiden: Brill, 1996

Peck, William H. “The Standard-Bearer Mery and his Wife Sati: An Egyptian Pair Statue from the Time of Amenhotep III,” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 79, no. 1/2 (2005), 12-19.

Pendlebury, John. The City of Akhenaten Part III: The Central City and The Official Quarters. 2 vols. London: EES, 1951.

297 Petrie, William M. Flinders. Shabtis,, Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London, with Catalogue of Figures from Many Other Sources. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1935.

------“Memphis VI.” In Reginald Engelbach, Riqqeh and Memphis VI, 32-34. ERA 19. London: BSAE, 1915.

------Memphis I. ERA 15. London: BSAE, 1909.

------A History of Egypt. Vol. 2, The XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties. London: Methuen & Co., 1896.

------Tell el Amarna. London: Methuen & Co., 1894.

Pflüger, Kurt. “Beiträge zur Amarnazeit,” ZÄS 121 (1994), 123-132.

------“Le décret d'Horemheb.” Translated by Baudouin van de Walle. CdÉ 22, no. 44 (1947), 230-238.

------“The Edict of King Haremhab.” JNES 5, no. 4 (1946), 260-276.

------Haremhab und die Amarnazeit, Teildruck: Haremhabs Laufbahn bis zur Thronbesteigung. Zwickau: Ullmann, 1936.

Philips, Allan. “Horemheb, Founder of the XIXth Dynasty? O. Cairo 25646 Reconsidered.” Orientalia NS 46, no. 1 (1977), 116-121.

Pillet, Maurice. “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (hiver 1921) / (1921-1922).” ASAE 22 (1922), 65-68, 235-260.

Pirelli, Rosanna. “The Monument of Imeneminet (Naples, Inv. 1069) as a Document of Social Changes in the Egyptian New Kingdom.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, edited by Christopher J. Eyre, 871-884. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Posener, Georges. De la divinité du Pharaon. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1960.

Polz, Daniel. “Die Särge des (Pa-)Ramessu.” MDAIK 42 (1986), 145-166.

Price, Campbell. “Ramesses ‘King of Kings’: On the Context and Interpretation of the Royal Colossi.” In Ramesside Studies in Honor of K.A. Kitchen, edited by Mark Collier and Steven Snape, 403-411. Bolton: Rutherford, 2011.

Qi, Hanchao, Armeen Taeb, and Shannon M. Hughes. “Visual Stylometry Using Background Selection and Wavelet-HMT-Based Fisher Information Distances for Attribution and Dating of Impressionist Paintings,” Signal Processing 93, no. 3 (2016), 541-553.

298 Quack, Joachim. “Das Mundöffnungsritual als Tempeltext und Funerärtext.” In Liturgical texts for Osiris and the deceased in Late Period and Greco-Roman Egypt / Liturgische Texte für Osiris und Verstorbene im spätzeitlichen Ägypten: proceedings of the colloquiums at New York (ISAW), 6 May 2011, and Freudenstadt, 18-21 July 2012, edited by Burckhard Backes and Jacco Dieleman, 145-159. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2015.

------“Lokalressourcen oder Zentraltheologie? Zur Relevanz und Situierung geographisch strukturierter Mythologie im Alten Ägypten.” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 10 (2008), 5-29.

------“Inaros, Held von Athribis.” In Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die Antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante, edited by R. Rollinger and B. Truschnegg, 499-505. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006.

Quaegebeur, Jan. “La désignation (pA) Hry-tp: phritob.” In Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache, und Kunt des alten Ägypten. Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987, edited by Jürgen Osing and Günter Dreyer, 368-394. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.

Quibell, James E. Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 51001-51191. Cairo: IFAO, 1908.

Quiles, A.E. et al. “Bayesian Modelling of an Absolute Chronology for Egypt's 18th Dynasty by Astrophysical and Radiocarbon Methods.” Journal of Archaeological Science 40.1 (2013), 423- 432.

Quinn, Sarah. “A New Kingdom Stela in Girton College Showing Amenophis I Wearing the ḫprš.” JEA 77 (1991), 169-175.

Quirion, Aurelie. “Le dieu [] à l’Ancien et au Moyen Empire.” MA Thesis, Université de Genève, 2014.

Radwan, Ali. “Ein Relief der Nachamarnazeit.” Orientalia 43 (1974), 393-397.

Raedler, Christine. “Creating Authority: The High Priest of Osiris Wenennefer and a Special Deification of Ramesses II.” In Constructing Authority: Prestige, Reputation and the Perception of Power in Egyptian Kingship, 8. Symposion zur ägyptischen Königsideologie/8th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, Budapest, May 12-14, 2016, edited by Tamás A Bács and Horst Beinlich, 215-240. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017.

------“Die Wesire Ramses' II.: Netzwerke der Macht.” In Das ägyptische Königtum im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Aussenpolitik im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., edited by Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug, 277-416. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.

------“Zur Repräsentation und Verwirklichung pharaonischer Herrschaft in Nubien: der Vizekönig Setau.” In Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit: Voraussetzungen-Verwirklichung- Vermächtnis. Akten des 3. Symposions zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.-9.6.2001, edited by Rolf Gundlach and Ursula Rossler-Köhler, 129-173. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2003.

299 Ragazzoli, Chloe. “Les artisans du texte: La culture des scribes en Égypte ancienne d’après les sources du Nouvel Empire.” PhD diss., Université de Paris IV, 2011.

Randall-MacIver, David and C. Leonard Wooley. Buhen. 2 vols. Eckley B. Coxe Junior Expedition to Nubia 7-8. Philadelphia: University Museum: 1911.

Ranke, Hermann. Die ägyptischen Personennamen. 3 vols. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1935-1977.

Raue, Dietrich. Heliopolis und das Haus des Re: eine Prosopographie und ein Toponym im Neuen Reich. ADAIK 16. Berlin: Achet, 1999.

------“Ein Wesir Ramses' II.” In Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, edited by Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz, 341-351. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998.

Raven, Maarten. The Tomb of Maya and Meryt. Vol. 2, Objects and Skeletal Remains. EES Excavation Memoir 65. London; Leiden: EES, 2001.

Raven, Maarten, Vincent Verschoor, Marije Vugts, and René van Walsem. The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander in Chief of Tutankhamun. Bol. 5, The Forecourt and the Area South of the Tomb with some Notes on the Tomb of Tia. PALMA 6. Turnhout: Brepolis, 2011.

Redford, Donald. “Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Eliezer D. Oren, 1-44. Philadelphia: The Univeristy Museum, 1997.

------Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books. A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. SSEA Publication 4. Mississauga: Benben, 1986.

------“A Head-Smiting Scene from the 10th Pylon.” In Fontes atque pontes: eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner, edited by Manfred Görg, 362-373. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1983.

------“The Historiography of Ancient Egypt.” In Egyptology and the Social Sciences, edited by Kent Weeks, 3-20. Cairo: AUC Press, 1979.

------“New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Horemheb.” BASOR 211 (1973), 36-49.

------“2ay and its Derivatives.” In Donald Redford, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies, . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967.

Reisner, George. “The Viceroys of Ethiopia.” JEA 6, no. 1 (1920), 28-55.

------“The Viceroys of Ethiopia (continued).” JEA 6, no. 2 (1920), 73-88.

Revez, Jean, and Peter Brand. “The Notion of Prime Space in the Layout of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.” Karnak 15 (2015), 253-310.

300 Ricke, Herbert. Das Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Userkaf. Vol 1, Der Bau. BBf 7. Cairo: Schweizerisches Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde, 1965.

Ricke, Herbert, George R. Hughes, and Edward F. Wente. The Beit el-Wali Temple of Ramesses II. 2 vols. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Robins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

------“Some Principles of Compositional Dominance and Gender Hierarchy in Egyptian Art,” JARCE 31 (1994), 33-40.

------Proportion and Style in Egyptian Art. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

------“Anomalous Proportions in the Tomb of Horemheb,” GM 65 (1983), 91-96.

------“The Relationships Specified by Egyptian Kinship Terms of the Middle and New Kingdoms.” CdÉ 54 (1979), 197-217.

Roeder, Günter. Hermopolis 1929-1939: Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis, Oberägypten. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1959.

------Der Felsentempel von Bet el-Wali. Cairo: IFAO, 1938.

Rosellini, Ippolito. I monumenti di Egitto e della Nubie. Vol. 1, Monumenti storici. Pisa: Presso Niccolo Capurro, 1832.

Roth, Silke. “Der Herrscher im Fest: Zur rituellen Herrschaftslegitimation des ägyptischen Königs und ihrer Aussendarstellung im Rahmen von Festen.” In In Pharaos Staat: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by Dirk Bröckelmann and Andrea Klug, 205-249. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2006.

Rouvière, Laurie. “Les XVIIe et XVIIIe provinces de Haute-Égypte. Essai de géographie religieuse et d'histoire.” PhD diss., University of Montpelier, 2015.

Rowe, Alan. The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1930.

Russo, Barbara. Kha (TT 8) and his Colleagues: The Gifts in his Funerary Equipment and Related Artefacts from Western Thebes. London: Golden House, 2012.

Ryholt, Kim. Narrative Literature from the Tebtunis Temple Library. Carlsberg Papyri 10. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2012.

------“Historical Literature from the Greco-Roman Period.” In Das Ereignis: Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Vorfall und Befund, edited by Martin Fitzenrieter, 231-238. IBAES 10. London: Golden House, 2009.

301 ------“The Turin-King List.” ÄL 14 (2004), 135-155.

------“The Assyrian Invasion of Egypt in Egyptian Literary Tradition.” In Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, edited by J.G. Dercksen, 348-511. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004.

Saad, Ramadan. “Fragments d'un monument de Toutânkhamon retrouvés dans le IXe pylône de Karnak.” Karnak 5 (1975), 93-109.

Saad, Ramadan, and Serge Sauneron. “Le démontage et l’étude du IXe pylône à Karnak.” Karnak 2 (1969), 249-276.

Le Saout, Francoise. “À propos des dépôts de fondation du IXe pylône: le nom d'Horemheb.” Karnak 8 (1987), 339-346.

------“Nouveaux fragments au nom d'Horemheb.” Karnak 7 (1982), 259-263.

------“Reconstitution des murs de la cour de la Cachette.” Karnak 7 (1982), 213-258.

Le Saout, Francoise, and Abd el-Hamid Maarouf. “Un nouveau fragment de stèle de Toutânkhamon.” Karnak 8 (1987), 285-291.

El-Saghir, Mohammed. Das Statuenversteck im Luxortempel. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1992.

Sandman, Marjorie. Texts from the Time of Akhenaten. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 8. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1938.

Satzinger, Helmut. Das Kunsthistorische Museum in Wien: die Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie 14. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994.

------Ägyptische Kunst in Wien. Vienna: MBV, [1980].

Scamuzzi, Ernesto. Museo Egizio di Torino. Second edition. Turin: Edizioni d’arte fratelli Pozzo, 1964.

Schaden, Otto. “Tutankhamun-Ay Shrine at Karnak and Western Valley of the Kings Project: Report on the 1985-1986 Season.” NARCE 138 (1987), 10-15.

------“The God’s Father Ay.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1977.

Schaeffer, Claude. “Les découvertes faites pendant la dernière campagne de fouilles à Ras Shamra-Ugarit (1952).” Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions & Belles- Lettres 97, no. 3 (1953), 227-240.

Schaffer, Simon. “Oriental Metrology and the Politics of Antiquity in Nineteenth-Century Survey Sciences.” Science in Context 30, no. 2 (2017), 173-212.

302 Schenkel, Wolfgang. “The Decipherment of Hieroglyphs and Richard Lepsius.” BACE 23 (2012), 105-144.

Wolfgang Schenkel and Farouk Gomaa. Scharuna I: der Grabungsplatz, Die Nekropole, Gräber aus der Alten-Reichs-Nekropole. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 2004. el-Shazly, Yasmin. “Royal Ancestor Worship at Deir el-Medina During the New Kingdom”. PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2008.

Schlögl, Hermann. Echnaton - Tutanchamun: Fakten und Texte. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1989.

Schneider, Hans D. De ontdekking van de Egyptische kunst: 1798-1830. Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju, 1998.

------The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun. Vol. 2, A Catalogue of the Finds. London: EES, 1996.

------Beeldhouwkunst in het land van de farao's. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1992.

------“Maya l’amateur de statues: à propos de trois statues fameuses du Musée de Leyde et d’une sepulture oubliée à Saqqarah.” BSFE 69 (1974), 43-45.

Schneider, Hans D. and Maarten Raven. De Egyptische Oudheid: Een inleiding aan de hand van de Egyptische verzameling in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden to Leiden. Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1981.

Schneider, Thomas. “Controversies about Chronology.” JEH 6 (2013), 217-218.

------“Ägyptologen im Dritten Reich: Biographische Notizen anhand der sogenannten ‘Steindorff-Liste.’” In Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich: Ideology, Scholarship, and Individual Biographies, edited by Thomas Schneider and Peter Raulwing, 120- 247. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

------“Egyptology Past, Present, and Future – A Reflection,” Near Eastern Archaeology 75, no. 1 (2012), 56-59.

------“Contributions to the Chronology of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period.” ÄL 20 (2010), 373-403.

------“Conjectures about Amenmesse: Historical, Biographical, Chronological. In Ramesside Studies in Honor of K.A. Kitchen, edited by Mark Collier and Steven Snape, 445-451. Rutherford: Bolton, 2010.

------“Preface.” JEH 1 (2008), 1.

Shortland, Andrew. “Who Were the Glassmakers? Status, Theory, and Method in Mid-Second Milennium Glass Production.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26, no. 3 (2007), 261-274.

303 Schott, Siegfried. Altägyptische Festdaten. AAWLM 10. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1950.

------Urkunden mythologischen Inhalts. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1929.

Schulman, Alan. “Review of Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, ou, la fin d’une dynastie.” AJA 70, no. 4 (1966), 381-382.

------Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period.” JARCE 3 (1964),51-69.

Schulz, Regine. Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus: eine Untersuchung zu den sogenannten "Würfelhockern." 2 vols. HÄB 33-34. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1992.

Scott, Gerry. “The History and Development of the Egyptian Scribe Statue.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1989.

Schwaller de Lubicz, R.A. Les temples de Karnak: contribution à l'étude de la pensée pharaonique. 2 vols. Paris: Dervy-Livres, 1982.

Seele, Keith. The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and the Date of the at Karnak. SAOC 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.

Seidel, Matthias. Die königlichen Statuengruppen: Die Denkmäler vom Alten Reich bis zum Ende der 18. Dynastie, HÄB 42. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1996.

Seidl, Erwin. “Juristische Papyruskunde: 13. Bericht (Neuerscheinungen vom September 1955 bis September 1958).” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 25 (1958), 445-511.

Servajean, Frédéric. “Le conte des Deux Frères: La jeune femme que les chiens n’aimaient pas.” ENiM 4 (2011), 1-37.

Sethe, Kurt. “Der Denkstein mit dem Datum des Jahres 400 der Ära von Tanis.” ZÄS 65 (1930), 85-89.

------“Die Schwägerin Amenophis' IV,” ZÄS 42 (1905), 134-135.

Sharpe, Samuel. The History of Egypt from the Earliest Times till the Conquest by the Arabs A.D. 640. 2 vols. London: Edward Moxon & Co., 1859.

Shaw, Ian. “Balustrades, Stairs, and Altars in the Cult of the Aten at el-Amarna,” JEA 80 (1994), 109-127.

Shaw, Ian, and Paul Nicholson. British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum, 1995.

Shirley, JJ. “Viceroys, Viziers, and the Amun Precinct: The Power of Heredity and Strategic Marriage in the Early 18th Dynasty.” JEH 3, no. 1 (2010), 73-113.

304 ------“The Culture of Officialdom: An Examination of the Acquisition of Offices during the Mid-18th Dynasty.” PhD. Diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2005.

Van Siclen, Charles. “The Edifice of Amenhotep II at Karnak: An Architectural Pious Fraud.” In Les temples de millions d'années et le pouvoir royal à Thèbes au Nouvel Empire: sciences et nouvelles technologies appliquées à l'archéologie, Memnonia Cahier Supplementaire 2, 81-98. Cairo: IFAO, 2010.

Sidro, Mirella. Der Felstempel von Abu Oda: Eine architektonische und ikonographische Untersuchung. Schriftenreihe Antiquates 38. Hamburg: Kovaec, 2006.

Silverman, David. “The Nature of Egyptian Kingship.” In Egyptian Kingship, edited by David O’Connor and David Silverman, 49-92. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Simon, Zsolt. “Kann Arma mit Haremhab gleichgesetzt warden?” AoF 39 (2009), 340-348.

Somaglino, Claire. “Du Delta orientale à la tête de l’Êgypte: la trajectoire de Paramessou sous le règne d’Horemheb.” EAO 76 (2014-2015), 39-50.

Sourouzian, Hourig. “Conservation of Statuary.” In Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo 2000, edited by Zahi Hawass and Lyla Pinch Brock. Cairo; New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2003.

------“Amun und Mut: eine Doppelstatue aus der Zeit des Haremheb (1320-1306 v. Chr.). Die Restaurierung einer monumentalen Statuengruppe im Ägyptischen Museum Kairo.” Antike Welt 30, no. 6 (1999), 595-597.

------“Deux groupes statuaires thébains réassemblées au Musée du Caire.” BSFÉ 144 (1999), 6-26.

------“Monumental statue group conservation project at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.” NARCE 178 (1999), 2-3.

Spalinger, Anthony. War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.

------“Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIII.” SAK 24 (1997), 269-300.

------“The Festival Structure of Thutmose III’s Buto Stele.” JARCE 33 (1996), 69-76.

------“The Calendrical Importance of the Tombos Stela.” SAK 8 (1980), 271-281.

Sparks, Rachel. Stone Vessels in the Levant. London; New York: Routledge, 2017.

Spencer, Jeffrey. Excavations at Ashmunein. Vol. 2, The Temple Area. London: British Museum, 1989.

Stadelmann, Rainer. “Vierhundertjahrstele.” LÄ VI, 1039-1043.

305 ------“Die 400-Jahr-Stele.” CdÉ 40, no. 79 (1965), 46-60.

Staring, Nico. “The Title HA.ty-a.w HA inb.w n PtH, ‘Mayor of Beyond the Walls of Ptah.’” ZÄS 142, no, 2 (2015), 167-190.

Steindorff, Georg. Aniba. 2 vols. Glückstadt; Hamburg; New York, 1937.

Steinmann, Franz. “Untersuchungen zu den in der handwerklich-künstlerischen Produktion beschäftigten Personen und Berufsgruppen des Neuen Reichs, IV: Bemerkungen zur Arbeitsorganisation.” ZÄS 111 (1984), 30-40.

Stewart, H.M. Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection. Part One: The New Kingdom. Warminster: Aris Phillips, 1976.

Spieser, Cathie. Les noms du Pharaon comme êtres autonomes au Nouvel Empire. OBO 174. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

Stock, Hanns. “Bericht über die erste Kampagne am Sonnenheiligtum des Userkaf bei Abusir (Winter 1945-55).” Orientalia 25 (1956), 74-80.

Stronk, Jan. Semiramis’ Legacy: The History of Persia According to Diodorus of Sicily. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

Strouhal, Eugen. The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun. Vol. 4, Human Skeletal Remains. London: EES, 2008.

------“Queen Mutnodjmet at Memphis: Anthropological and Paleopathological Evidence.” In L'égyptologie en 1979: axes prioritaires de recherches, 317-322. 2 vols. Paris; CNRS, 1982.

Strouhal, Eugen and Gae Callender. “A profile of queen Mutnodjmet.” BACE 3 (1992), 67-75.

Strudwick, Nigel. Masterpieces of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum, 2006.

------“Change and Continuity at Thebes: The Private Tomb after Akhenaten.” In The Unbroken Reed: Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt in Honour of A.F. Shore, edited by Christopher Eyre, Anthony Leahy, and Lisa Montagno Leahy, 321-336. London: EES, 1994.

Teeter, Emily. Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Thiem, Andrea-Christina. Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh: Analyse der architektonischen und ikonographischen Konzeption im Rahmen des politischen und legitimatorischen Programmes der Nachamarnazeit. 2 vols. ÄAT 47. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2000.

Thiers, Christophe, and Pierre Zignani. “The Temple of Ptah at Karnak.” Egyptian Archaeology 38 (2011), 20-24.

306 Thomas, Angela P. “A Review of the Monuments of Unnefer, High Priest of Osiris at Abydos in the Reign of Ramesses II.” In Mummies, Magic and Medicine in Ancient Egypt: Multidisciplinary Essays for Rosalie David, edited by Campbell Price, Roger Forshaw, Andrew Chamberlain, and Paul T. Nicholson, 56-68. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016.

Thompson, Jason. Wonderful Things: A History of Egyptology. Vol. 1, From Antiquity to 1881. Cairo: AUC Press, 2015.

------Sir Gardner Wilkinson and his Circle. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

Topozada, Zakeya. “Une stèle de Horemheb retrouvée au Musée du Caire.” BIFAO 91 (1991), 249-254.

Trampier, Joshua. “In Search of a Future Companion: Digital and Field Survey Methods in the Western Nile Delta.” In The Nile: Natural and Cultural Landscape in Egypt, edited by Harco Willems and Jan-Michael Dahms, 215-237. Mainz Historical Cultural Sciences 36. Mainz: Bielefeld, 2017.

Trapani, Marcella. “The Monument of Imeneminet (Naples, Inv. 1069): An Essay of Interpretation. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, edited by Christopher J. Eyre, 1165-1176. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

------“Sur l'origine de la statue-groupe de famille d'Amenéminet, directeur des travaux du Ramesseum: Naples inv. no 1069.” Memnonia 7 (1996), 123-137.

------“La carriera di Imeneminet, soprintendente ai lavori di Ramesse II.” BSEG 19 (1995), 49- 68.

------“Il decreto regale e l'oracolo divino nell'antico Egitto (dalle origini alla XX dinastia: 2472- 1070 a.C.).” Annali, Istituto universitario orientale 52 (1992), 1-33.

Traunecker, Claude. “Le ’Château de lÓr de Thoutmosis III et les magasins nord du temple d’Ámon.” CRIPEL 11 (1989), 108-110.

Troy, Lana. “Religion and Cult during the Time of Thutmose III.” In Thutmose III: A New Biography, edited by Eric Cline and David O’Connor, 123-182. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006.

Ullmann, Martina. König für die Ewigkeit. Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren: Eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten. ÄAT 51. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2002.

Valbelle, Dominique. "Les ouvriers de la tombe": Deir el-Médineh à l'époque ramesside. BdÉ 96. Cairo: IFAO, 1985.

Vandersleyen, Claude. Le Egypte et la vallée du Nil. Vol. 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994.

307 Vandier, Jacques. “A propos de deux statues fragmentaires récemment entrées au Musée du Louvre.” In Ugaritica VI, publié à l’occasion de la XXXe campagne de fouilles à Ras Shamra (1968), edited by Claude Schaeffer, 483-499. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1969.

“Nouvelles acquisitions: Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités égyptienne.” Revue du Louvre 18 (1968), 95-108.

------“Iousâas et (Hathor)-Nébet-Hétépet.” RdE 16 (1964), 55-146.

------Le Papyrus Jumilhac. [Paris]: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, [1961].

------Manuel d'archéologie égyptienne. Vol. 3, Les grandes epoques – la statuaire. Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard & Cie., 1958.

Varille, Alexandre. Karnak I. FIFAO 19. Cairo: IFAO, 1943. te Velde, Herman. Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. Probleme der Ägyptologie 6. Leiden: Brill, 1967.

Verbrugghe, Gerald and John Wickersham. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Vercoutter, Jean. “Les Haou-Nebout.” BIFAO 48 (1949), 107-209.

Vergnieux, Robert. Recherches sur les monuments thebains d’Amenhotep IV a l’aide d’outils informatiques. 2 vols. CSEG 4. Geneva: Société d’Égyptologie, 1999.

Vernus, Pascal. “Inscriptions de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire (I),” BIFAO 75 (1975), 1-66.

Vinson, Steve. “The Accent’s on Evil: ‘Melodrama’ and the Problem of Genre.” JARCE 41 (2004), 33-54.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, Gillian. Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Vornberg, Petra. Das Erscheinungsfenster innerhalb der amarnazeitlichen Palastarchitektur: Herkunft, Entwicklung, Fortleben. Philippika 4. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2004.

Waddell, W.G. Manetho. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. van Walsem, René. “Meaningful Places: Pragmatics from Ancient Egypt to Modern Times. A Diachronic and Cross-Cultural Approach.” in Site-Seeing: Places in Culture, Time, and Space, edited by Kitty Zijlmans, 111-146. Leiden: CNWS Publications, 2006.

Warburton, David A. State and Economy in Ancient Egypt: Fiscal Vocabulary of the New Kingdom. OBO 151. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1997.

308 Wasmuth, Melanie. Innovationen und Extravaganzen: Ein Beitrag zur Architektur der thebanischen Beamtengräber der 18. Dynastie. BAR International Series 1165, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2003.

Weber, Max. “Die drei reinen Typen der legitimen Herrschaft.” Preussische Jahrbücher 187, no. 1 (1922).

Weeks, Kent. The Treasures of Luxor and the Valley of the Kings. Vercelli: White Star, 2005.

Wegner, Josef. The Sunshade Chapel of Meritaten from the House-of-Waenre of Akhenaten. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.

Wegner, Max. “Stilentwicklung der Thebansichen Beamtengräber.” MDAIK 4 (1933), 38-164.

Wells, Eric Ryan. “Display and Devotion: A Social and Religious Analysis of New Kingdom Votive Stelae from Asyut.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2014.

Wickett, Elizabeth. “Archaeological Memory, the Leitmotifs of Ancient Egyptian Festival Tradition, and Cultural Legacy in the Festival Tradition of Luxor: The Mulid of Sidi Abu’l Hajjaj al- Uqsori and the Ancient Egyptian ‘Feast of Opet’.” JARCE 45 (2009), 403-426.

Widmaier, Kai. Bilderwelten: Ägyptische Bilder und ägyptologische Kunst. Probleme der Ägyptologie 35. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

Wiedemann, Alfred. Ägyptische Geschichte. 2 vols. Gotha: Perthes, 1884.

Wildung, Dietrich. Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im Alten Ägypten, MÄS 36. München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1977.

------“Göttlichkeitsstufen des Pharaon.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 68 (1973), 549-565.

------Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt. Berlin: Hessling, 1969.

Wilkinson, John Gardner. Modern Egypt and Thebes: Being a Description of Egypt; Including the Information Required for Travellers in that Country. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1843.

------Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1838.

Williamson, Jacquelyn. “Amarna Period.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, edited by Wolfram Grajetzki and Willeke Wendrich. Los Angeles, 2015. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k2h3t.

Wreszinski, Walter. Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte. 2 vols. Geneva; Paris: Slatkine Reprints, 1988.

Yelvin, Shemuel. “The Tomb of Hati Yati (No. 324). The Mond Excavations at Luxor, 1924-1925.” AAAL 13 (1926), 3-16.

309 Youssef, Abd el-Hamid Abd el-Hamid. “The Coronation of King Haremheb Re-read.” In Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan, edited by Daoud, Khaled, Shafia Bedier, and Sawsan Abd El-Fattah, 397- 398. Cairo: SCA, 2005.

Zelditch, Morris Jr. “Theories of Legitimacy.” In The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, edited by John T. Jost and Barbara Majors. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Ziegler, Christiane, “Une famille de ‘grands des djebels de l'or’ d'Amon.” Rd'É 33 (1981), 125- 132.

Ziegler, Christiane, ed., The Pharaohs. New York: Rizzoli, 2002.

Zivie (Zivie-Coche), Christiane. Sphinx: History of a Monument, translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.

------Giza au deuxìeme millenaire. Cairo: IFAO, 1976.

Zivie, Alain. “Un Détour par Saqqara: Deir el Médineh et la Nécropole Memphite,” in Deir el Médineh et la Valée des Rois: La Vie en Égypte au Temps des Pharaons du Nouvel Empire. Actes du Colloque Organisé par le Musée du Louvre les 3 et 4 Mai 2002, edited by Guillemette Andreu, 67-82. Paris: Khéops, 2003.

310 Curriculum Vitae, Karen Margaret (Maggie) Bryson

Born January 10 1981, Atlanta, GA

EDUCATION

2018 – PhD, Johns Hopkins University

Near Eastern Studies, Egyptology

Dissertation: “The Reign of Horemheb – History, Historiography, and the Dawn of the Ramesside Era”

2008 - M.A., Georgia State University

Art History, Egyptian Art

Thesis: “An Egyptian Royal Portrait Head in the Collection of the Michael C. Carlos Museum at .”

2003 - B.A., Oglethorpe University

History, Minor in Classical Studies

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2010 – 2016: The Johns Hopkins University Archaeological Museum

Baltimore, MD

Graduate Student Assistant: Performed logistical tasks and cataloging of artifacts in preparation for the re-opening of the JHU Archaeological Museum from September to December 2010. From September 2013 to September 2016, researched and cataloged objects as part of the team assigned to objects on loan to JHUAM from the Eton College Myers Collection. Assisted with day-to-day museum tasks including greeting and interacting with visitors.

2010 – 2015: The Johns Hopkins University Excavations at the Temple of Mut, Karnak

311 (Seasonal, May 2010-January 2015)

Luxor, Egypt

Square Supervisor: Participated in five missions to the Mut Precinct at Karnak under the direction of Dr. Betsy Bryan. In 2010, worked with a team on the creation of a FileMaker database and the cataloguing of small finds from previous seasons of excavation. From 2010 through 2012, supervised and recorded excavation of a trench on the site in conjunction with a team of Egyptian archaeological technicians. From 2012 through 2014, assisted the expedition’s osteologists in the excavation, study, recording, and storage of human remains on the site; used photogrammetry (Agisoft PhotoScan) to create three-dimensional models of skeletal elements.

2013 – 2015: Harford Community College, Humanities Division

Bel Air, MD

Adjunct Instructor: Taught introductory courses on the Hebrew Bible and Christian as historical and literary documents.

2010: The Johns Hopkins University/University of Amsterdam Expedition to Tell Umm el- Marra

Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria

Square Supervisor: Supervised and recorded excavation of a trench on the site.

2007 – 2009: The Supreme Council of Antiquities, Ministry of Culture, Arab Republic of Egypt

Cairo, Egypt

Administrative and Research Assistant to the Secretary General: Drafted and edited official correspondence in direct consultation with the secretary general of the SCA (now the Ministry of State for Antiquities). Researched, fact-checked, and edited project reports, museum labels, press releases, and educational materials produced by the Office of the Secretary General. Worked successfully with colleagues from a variety of different countries in a multi-language and multi-cultural environment.

2007 – 2009: The Egyptian Museum Database Project

Cairo, Egypt

312 Project Assistant (part-time): Used Adobe Photoshop to process digital images of the handwritten register books of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, to ensure their preservation in electronic format. Performed data entry from these registers (in French and English) into the museum's FileMaker database system in the early stages of its development.

ARTICLES

Forthcoming: “The Application of Photogrammetry to the Study of Egyptian Art," in FS Zahi Hawass.

2015: “Some Year Dates of Horemheb in Context,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51, 285-301.

CONFERENCE PAPERS

2018: The American Research Center in Egypt, Annual Meeting

“Fashion Forward: Dress and Decoding the Queenly Images of the Early 19th Dynasty”

2015: The American Research Center in Egypt, Annual Meeting

"Man, King, God? The Deification of Horemheb"

2013: The American Research Center in Egypt, Annual Meeting

"Some Year Dates of Horemheb in Context"

2012: The American Research Center in Egypt, Annual Meeting

"A New Look at the 'Coronation Inscription' of Horemheb."

PUBLIC TALKS

2013: The Johns Hopkins University Archaeological Museum Symposium

"An Old Kingdom Offering Bearer."

313 2012: The Johns Hopkins University Archaeological Museum

"Museum Chat,” presented with Dr. Betsy Bryan.

COURSES TAUGHT

2015: The Johns Hopkins University

AS 130.355, “The Pharaohs: Power and Authority in Ancient Egypt”

2014: The Johns Hopkins University

AS 130.253, “Ghosts and Demons in Ancient Egypt”

2013-2014: Harford Community College

RELG 207, “Literature and Religious Thought of the ”

RELG 208, “Literature and Religious Thought of the New Testament”

FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS

2016: American Research Center in Egypt Pre-Doctoral Fellowship

2016: American Research Center in Egypt Antiquities Endowment Fund Grant, co-writer for the “Abydos Temple Archive Project” (Nora Shalaby, PI)

2015: Johns Hopkins University, Dean’s Teaching Fellowship

OTHER TRAINING

2014: The Smithsonion Institution NMNH, Department of Physical Anthropology

Suitville, MD Six-week training course in human osteology

314 RESEARCH SKILLS

Computer operating systems:

Microsoft Windows (versions XP and later), Mac OSX (through current version).

Software:

MS Office Suite; FileMaker/FileMaker Pro versions 7-12; Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe InDesign; Agisoft PhotoScan; Meshlab; Blender; ImageJ; Trimble Sketchup.

Computer networking: basic networking skills appropriate to a small office network.

Photography: 35mm and medium format film photography, specialty films including infrared; digital photography with both compact and DSLR equipment.

Advanced digital imaging: reflectance transformation imaging (RTI); digital photogrammetry; multispectral photography.

LANGUAGES

Modern

German: Speak (fluent), read (fluent), write (advanced)

French: Speak (basic) read (advanced)

Spanish: Speak (basic), read (advanced)

Italian: Read (intermediate)

Arabic (MSA): Speak (basic), read (basic)

Arabic (ECA): Speak (intermediate), read (basic)

Ancient

Egyptian (Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian; hieratic script; Coptic)

315 Latin Classical Greek (Attic, Homeric)

Sumerian (basic proficiency)

Akkadian (basic proficiency)

316