Causing His Name To Live (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East)

Causing His Name to Live

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor

M. H. E. Weippert Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P. J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 37

William J. Murnane 1945–2000

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

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 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. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17644-7 (hard cover : alk. paper) 1. Egypt—History—New Kingdom, ca. 1550-ca. 1070 B.C—Sources. 2. Egypt—History—To 332 B.C.— Sources. 3. Inscriptions, Egyptian. 4. Egypt—Antiquities. I. Brand, Peter James. II. Murnane, William J. III. Title. IV. Series. DT87.C34 2009 932’.014—dc22 2009020675

ISSN: 1566-2055 ISBN: 978 90 04 17644 7 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

table of contents

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Bibliographical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii ix xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

A Fond Remembrance: William Joseph Murnane, Jr. March 22, 1945–November 17, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lorelei H. Corcoran

5

The Amarna Succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James P. Allen Note archéologique et épigraphique sur les architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michel Azim et Vincent Rondot Usurped Cartouches of Merenptah at Karnak and Luxor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter J. Brand

9

21 29

Quantifying Regalia: A Contextual Study into the Variations and Significance of Egyptian Royal Costume Using Relational Databases and Advanced Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . . Amy Calvert

49

The Long Coregency Revisited: Architectural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter F. Dorman

65

The Death of Meketaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacobus van Dijk

83

Images of Amenhotep IV and Nefertiti in the Style of the Previous Reign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earl L. Ertman

89

Two Semi-Erased Kushite Cartouches in the Precinct of Mut at South Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard A. Fazzini

95

Un assemblage au nom d’Amenemhat Ier dans les magasins du temple de Louxor . . . . . . . . . Luc Gabolde

103

Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marc Gabolde

109

The Festival on Which Amun Went out to the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helen Jacquet-Gordon

121

A Sandstone Relief of Tutankhamun in the Liverpool Museum from the Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W. Raymond Johnson

125

vi

table of contents

Egyptian New-Kingdom Topographical Lists: An Historical Resource with “Literary” Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kenneth A. Kitchen

129

A Reconstruction of Senwosret I’s Portico and Some Structures of Amenhotep I at Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . François Larché

137

The Land of Ramesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donald B. Redford

175

Bibliography of William J. Murnane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179 183 231

bibliographical abbreviations

vii

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

ÄAT

ADAIK

AO ASAE ASE BÄBA

Barguet, Karnak

BdE BES BIE BIFAO BiOr BMMA BSEG BSFE CG/CGC CdÉ Champollion, ND

EEF/EES EEM ERC FIFAO Gauthier,

Ägypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägypten und des Altes Testament. Wiesbaden Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo. Ägyptologische Reihe. Hamburg and New York Acta Orientalia. Copenhagen Annales du Service des Antiquités de L’Égypte. Cairo Archaeological Survey of Egypt. London Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde. 11 vols (Cairo, Zurich & Wiesbaden: Schweizerisches Institut für ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde in Kairo, 1938-1997) Barguet, P. Le temple d’Amon-rê à Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1962) Bibliothèque d’Étude. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. New York Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien. Alexandria. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie de Genève. Geneva Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie. Paris Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo Chronique d’Égypte. Brussels Champollion, J.F. Notices descriptives conformes aux manuscrits autographes rédigés sur les lieux par Champollion le Jeune. 2 vols (Paris: Didot, 1844-1889) Egypt Exploration Fund/Society. London Egypt Exploration Society Memoir. London Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Paris. Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire. Cairo Gauthier, H. Dictionnaire des noms

DG

Gauthier, LdR

GM HÄB IEJ IFAO JAOS JARCE JEA JNES JSSEA Karnak

Key Plans

KMT KRI I-VII

LÄ I-VII

LD

LDT

MÄS MDIK/

géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques (Cairo: Société Royale de Géographie d’Égypte, 1925-1931) Gauthier, H. Le Livre des rois d’Égypte, recueil de titres et protocoles royaux I-V. MIFAO 17-21 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1907-1917) Göttinger Miszellen: Beiträge zur ägyptologische Diskussion. Göttingen Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge. Hildesheim Israel Exploration Journal. Tel Aviv Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo. Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. Boston & New York Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. London Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. Toronto Cahiers de Karnak. 12 vols (Paris: ERC, 1980—present). Centre Franco-égyptien d’études des temples de Karnak. Nelson, H. H. Key Plans Showing Locations of Theban Temple Decorations. OIP 56 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1941) KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt. Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical. I-VII (Oxford: Blackwell, 1969-1990) Helck, W. et al. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 7 vols (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972-1992) Lepsius, K. R. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. Abteilung I-VI in 12 vols (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849-1858 & reprint Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1973) Lepsius, K. R. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien: Texte. I-IV (eds.). Naville, E. et al. (Berlin & Leipzig: Hinrichs, 18971913) Münchener Ägyptologische Studien. Berlin & Munich Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-

viii MDAIK

bibliographical abbreviations

logischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Cairo MIFAO Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo MMAF Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire. Cairo MMJ Metropolitan Museum Journal. New York and Cairo NARCE Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt. New York OIP Oriental Institute Publications. Chicago OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven OLZ Orientalische Literatur Zeitung. Berlin PM I-VII Porter, B. & Moss, R. L. B. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts Reliefs and Paintings. 7 vols (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1927-1952) PM I-III.22 Porter, B., Moss, R. L. B., Burney, E. W. & Málek, J. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. 3 vols. second edition (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 19601978) RecTrav Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes. Paris RdE Revue d’Égyptologie. Cairo and Paris RIK I-IV Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak Temple. 4 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936-1986) RILT 1-2 Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple. 2 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994-98). RITANC Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions, I-II Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments. 2 vols (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993-1999) RITA I-II Kitchen, K. A. Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated and Annotated: Translations. 2. vols (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993-1994) SAK Studien zur Altägyptische Kultur. Hamburg SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Chicago TTS Tutankhamūn Tomb Series. Ox ford Urk. IV Sethe, K. & Helck, W. Urkunden des aegyptischen Altertums IV. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Hefte 1-22 (Leipzig & Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1908-1909, 1927-1930 & 1955-58) VA Varia Agyptiaca. San Antonio

Wb.

WVDOG ZÄS ZDMG

Erman, A. & Grapow, H. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. 6 vols (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1926-1963) Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Leipzig & Berlin Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Lepzig

Other Abbreviations ad loc. ARCE cat. cf. CFEETK chpt(s). cm. CNRS EAP e.g. ed(s). et al. fasc. ff. fig(s). ibid. idem. i.e. IFAO JE KV m. n.d. neg. n(n). no(s)./ n° op.cit. pl(s). QV SR s.v. TN TT trans. viz.

ad locum, at the location of American Research Center in Egypt. Cairo catalog entry number confer Centre Franco-égyptien d’études des temples de Karnak. Luxor, Egypt. chapter(s) centimeter Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Paris Egyptian Antiquities Project. ARCE. Cairo exempli gratia, for example editor(s) et alii, and others fascicle and following pages figure(s) ibidem, in the same place by the same author id est, that is L’institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo Journal d’Entrée, Egyptian Museum, Cairo Kings’ Valley meter no date photographic negative note(s) number(s) opus citatum, the work cited plate(s) Queens’ Valley Special Register, Egyptian Museum, Cairo sub verbo, under the heading of Temporary Number, Egyptian Museum, Cairo Theban Tomb translated by videlicet, namely

list of figures

ix

LIST OF FIGURES James P. Allen Fig. 1. Inscription on Jar 405 from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Fig. 2. Inscription on Box 1k from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Fig. 3. Stela Berlin 17813. Fig. 4. Unfinished Stela Berlin 20716. Fig. 5. Block from Hermopolis naming Tutankhamun and [Ankhesenpa]aten. Fig. 6. Nurse and Child from Room Gamma. Michel Azim et Vincent Rondot Fig. 1. Plan du magasin SB au sud de la salle hypostyle (relevé V. Rondot, mai 1983). Fig. 2. La salle hypostyle vue depuis le sud en 1912 avec, devant sa porte latérale, plusieurs des grands blocs descendus par Legrain ; on notera, au premier tiers gauche de la photographie, la présence des deux dernières demi-architraves reposant sur le mur sud (Collection M. Pillet, CNRS-MOM, 1912, inv.. B028-16). Fig. 3. Nouvel établissement des textes des architraves N° 31, sup. et 31, inf. (d’après V. RONDOT, Les architraves, p. 18*). Fig. 4. Photographie G. Legrain 1899. Archives Lacau A XX 12. Détail agrandi de l’architrave. Fig. 5. Fac-similé schématique du texte lisible sur la photographie d’archives Lacau A XX 12. Peter J. Brand Fig. 1. Cartouches of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II from a war scene at the north end of the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. The surface of the cartouche has not been cut back as have others on this wall. Location: PM II2, p. 132 (491). Fig. 2. Drawing of the same cartouche. No trace of Amenmesse’s name as claimed by Yurco was found after repeated collations. Fig. 3. Cartouches of Seti II carved over thoroughly erased originals from a gateway in central Karnak. Location: PM II2, p. 95 (272). The original author in this case was Amenmesse based on traces from another cartouche in the same series identified by Roy Hopper. Fig. 4. Bandeau text from central Karnak usurped by Seti II. No trace of the original name can be detected, although its original author is probably Merenptah. Location: PM II2, p. 88 (237). Fig. 5. Bandeau text of Merenptah usurped by Amenmesse from a pier in the second court of the Ramesseum. Location: PM II2, p. 435, pillar E(b); Leblanc et al., Le Ramesseum IX-1, pl. 9. Fig. 6. Detail of figure 5. the prenomen cartouche usurped by Amenmesse. Traces of plaster used to cover Merenptah’s titulary remain. Fig. 7. Architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nepkhepurure at Thebes” found at Karnak. The prenomen of Ay was carefully erased by Horemheb while that of Tutankhamen was left intact. O. Schaden, NARCE 127 (1984), p. 57, fig. 25-2. Fig. 8. Another erased cartouche of Ay. Distinct traces of his prenomen can still be made out. Fig. 9. Another architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nebkhepurure at Thebes.” The distinctive epithets of Ay’s Horus and Two Ladies names have been erased though traces remain. O. Schaden, NARCE 127 (1984), p. 56, fig. 7-2. Fig. 10. Scene of Merenptah kneeling between the paws of a criosphinx from the north end of the east interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Location: PM II2, p. 131 (482). Fig. 11. Detail of figure 10. Merenptah’s names have been subject to hacking, but the damnatio memoriae was never completed and no other royal names were carved in their stead. Fig. 12. Seti II driving the four calves before Amen-Re in a scene from the west interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Location: PM II2, p. 132 (490, II.5). Fig. 13. Detail of figure 12. cartouches and Horus name of Seti II carved over erased originals on the west interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak.

x

list of figures

Fig. 14. Erased cartouche of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II on a loose block from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 231. Fig. 15. Drawing of figure 14. My own collation did not find as many traces of Merenptah’s prenomen as Le Saout’s did. Cf. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 231. Fig. 16. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west interior wall of the Ramesside forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s daughters. Location: PM II2, p. 308 (28). Fig. 17. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west half of the south wall of the Ramesside forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s sons. A statue may have once stood in front of the un-erased segment in the middle of the photo. Location: PM II2, p. 308 (30). Fig. 18. Part of an erased marginal inscription of Merenptah below an intact one of Ramesses II from the west wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor. The phrase sA Ra nb xaw has been incompletely erased. More thorough was the treatment of the king’s nomen cartouche on the right, although the mr-hoe and mAat-figure are discernable. Location: PM II2, p. 309 (31); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A. Fig. 19. Erased nomen cartouche of Merenptah from the east wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143B. Fig. 20. Part of a damaged and erased prenomen cartouche of Merenptah from the west wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A. Fig. 21. Facimile drawings of erased cartouches of Merenptah on the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple, after Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143. Cf. fig.s 19-20. Fig. 22. Erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the dado of the west interior wall of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Ramesses IV later carved another bandeau text in its place. The partially erased ram-glyph of Merenptah’s prenomen is visible beneath the D-cobra at the left end of the photograph. Location: PM II2, p. 314 (78); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 173. Fig. 23. Large cartouches of Seti II surcharged over erased ones of Merenptah on a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. A Htp-sign is discernable beneath the group PtH of Seti’s nomen on the left. None of these traces are shown in the Epigraphic Survey’s drawings of the columns. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 194. Fig. 24. A nomen cartouche of Seti II surcharged over an erased cartouche of Merenptah from marginal decoration on a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. A diagonal line between the two reed leaves may stem from a squatting deity figure in Merenptah’s nomen. Fig. 25. An erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the base of the east interior wall of the solar court at Luxor Temple. Location: PM II2, p. 317 (96). Fig. 26. Block from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette showing Crown Prince Seti riding in a chariot. The first part of the Prince’s titulary has been erased. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 232. Fig. 27. Detail of fig 26. The erased protocol of Crown Prince Seti, iry-pat %wtXy. Fig. 28. Partly hacked cartouches of Merenptah from a Cour de la Cachette block. The relief was later plastered over by Seti II who cut a new inscription over it. The pattern of hacking to Merenptah’s cartouches is consistent with an uncompleted damnatio memoriae by Amenmesse rather than keying for plaster by Seti II prior to carving a new relief in its place. Cf. figs. 10-11. Amy Calvert Fig. 1. Detail of Medinet Habu Epigraphic Survey plate 121. Fig. 2. Photograph of same showing preserved paint. Fig. 3. Detail of Ramses III wearing feathered back apron. Fig. 4. Detail of Ramses III wearing falcon shirt in battle. Fig. 5. Ramses III wearing a falcon shirt. Fig. 6. Detail of Ramses III in QV 55 wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon shirt. Fig. 7. Details of Ramses III at Medinet Habu showing preserved sections of red textile shirts. Fig. 8. Ramses II wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon shirt at his temple at Abydos. Fig. 9. Example of high positive correlation: horns, feathers, and multiple uraei with nms. Fig 10. Example of high negative correlation: fans and divine interaction. Fig. 11. Main Layout: Pharaoh tab. Fig. 12. Main Layout: Text tab.

list of figures Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21. Fig. 22. Fig. 23. Fig. 24.

xi

Main Layout: Context tab. Main Layout: Context tab with both types of actors. Main Layout: Divine actor screen (related to Fig. 14). Main Layout: Human actor screen (related to Fig. 14). Main Layout: Chariot tab. Main Layout: Visual tab. Dichotomous Layout. Search for images of the king wearing selected attributes. Results of search. Example of a ‘multi’ apron. Example of a ‘flanking’ apron. Early version of the Dichotomous Layout.

Peter F. Dorman Fig. 1. Plan and section of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 3. Fig. 2. Amenhotep IV offers a libation to his parents. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 13. Fig. 3. Schematic timeline for a hypothetical long coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton. Fig. 4. Lintel and upper jambs of the entrance doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 8. Fig. 5. Lintel and upper jambs of the second doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 67. Fig. 6. Usurped cartouches on the cornice of the doorway of the first pylon of Soleb Temple. From Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb V: Le temple: bas-reliefs et inscriptions, pl. 23. Jacobus van Dijk Fig. 1. The so-called birth scene in Room γ of the Royal Tomb at Amarna Fig. 2. Parallel scene in Room α of the Royal Tomb at Amarna Fig. 3. A reconstruction by G. Legrain of the two columns of text inscribed in front of the woman holding the child in Room γ Fig. 4. G. T. Martin’s reconstruction of the same columns of text Fig. 5. Martin’s drawing of the scene, including the two columns of text Fig. 6. M. Gabolde’s reconstruction of the same columns of text Fig. 7. New reconstruction of the same columns of text Fig. 8. Detail of G. Jéquier’s photograph of the scene reconstructed in Fig. 7 Earl L. Ertman Fig. 1. Amenhotep IV kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1. Fig. 2. Nefertiti kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1. Fig. 3. After the Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, pl. 9. Fig. 4. Brussels E 2157, relief of Tiy from the tomb of Userhet. Drawing by Elaine Taylor. Fig. 5. Nefertiti in the Window of Appearances, TT 55, Tomb of Ramose. Photograph courtesy of George Johnson. Fig. 6. Nefertiti talatat ©CNRS/CFEETK—A. Bellod. Richard A. Fazzini Fig. 1. Detail of a Dynasty XXV stela found in front of the south wing of the Second Pylon of the Amun Temple at Karnak. Photograph by B. V. Bothmer. Fig. 2. The prenomen of Taharqa in the crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut. Drawing by J. van Dijk and R. Fazzini. Fig. 3. Schematic plan by C. Van Siclen of the rear half of the Temple of Mut. The dotted line indicates the Tuthmoside platform. Fig. 4. The crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut and the shaft before it. Photograph by M. McKercher. Fig. 5. Fragmentary offering table found at the bottom of the shaft before the crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut. Photograph by M. McKercher.

xii

list of figures

Fig. 6a-b. Photograph and drawing of the front part of a cartouche of ^bA…found in the rear of Temple A. Drawing by R. Fazzini. Photograph by M. McKercher. Fig. 7. Two well-preserved faces in relief in the rear of Temple A. Photograph by M. McKercher. Luc Gabolde Fig. 1. Assemblage de blocs d’Amenemhat Ier dans les magasins du temple de Louxor Marc Gabolde Fig. 1. An inlay fragment of the ‘sky’-sign discovered among the finds from KV 55 (Egyptian Museum in Cairo). Fig. 2. Original inscription from the canopic jars of KV 55 with the titulary of Kiya (drawing by the author based upon the reconstruction of Krauss, MDAIK 42 (1986), p. 72, Abbildung 7). Fig. 3. First step of the erasure of the name of Kiya. Her titulary is hacked out and the ‘sky’ sign is cut. Fig. 4. Second step of change: the right corner of the ‘sky’-sign is moved to the left and a calcite fragment is inserted in its place. Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the inscribed panel of the canopic jars from KV 55 in accordance with the identity of the last owner. Fig. 6. Last step of change, the remaining royal cartouches are erased and the ‘sky’-sign removed. Part of the calcite inlay is broken during the process. The names of the god were removed as well to prevent any confusion (the Aten could not have viscera). Fig. 7. View of the panel after the last change. A fragment of the ‘sky’-sign was left in the tomb and recovered later by the excavators. Fig. 8. Schematic drawing of traces from the gold sheet fragment ‘D 6’ from the coffin from KV 55. Fig. 9. Nomen from pectoral Carter 261 p 1. top, from left to right: enlarged detail scanned from the photography of T. G. H. James and A. De Luca, Toutankhamon (Paris: Gründ, 2000), p. 227; traces of defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; bottom, from left to right, drawing of traces of both defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; reconstruction of original cartouche. Fig. 10. Cartouche in Selkis coffinette (Carter 266g = JE 60691) line 7. top: scan from catalogue The Treasures of Tutankhamun, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, cat. no. 45, between plates 26 and 27; middle left: traces of both first and second engraved names; bottom left: traces of second engraved name; middle right: traces of first engraved name; bottom right: reconstructed first name taking advantage of the reading of Carter 261 p 1. W. Raymond Johnson Fig. 1. Liverpool Museum 1967.35. Courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum). Fig. 2. The barge of Mut (detail of prow) being towed by the barge of the queen, Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall western wall. photo by Ray Johnson.

list of figures

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to Richard Fazzini, who first suggested the idea of organizing a memorial volume in honor of Bill Murnane in early 2001. He has given me his advice and support for the project ever since. To Jacobus van Dijk, I am grateful for his assistance and encouragement in starting the project as the initial coeditor, and later for securing Brill’s agreement to publish the work. I am indebted, also, to my coeditor and doctoral student Louise Cooper for her invaluable editorial and organizational contributions. Thanks also go to Jennifer Pavelko, my editor at Brill. I must also express my profound gratitude to all of the contributors to this volume for their submissions and for their patience and forbearance during the long publication process. Their contributions stand as a fitting tribute to Bill Murnane’s eclecticism and insightfulness as a scholar. Finally, I am very grateful to Bill’s sister, Annie Miles, and especially to his beloved mother, Marie Murnane, for their support and encouragement.

Peter J. Brand April 2009

xiv

list of figures

introduction

1

INTRODUCTION For all who knew him, Bill Murnane’s unexpected death in 2000 came as both a great shock and a double tragedy. Not only had we suddenly lost one of the foremost Egyptological scholars of his generation, but a dear friend well known to colleagues around the world for his kindness and generosity. Bill was unfailingly a gentleman who freely gave of his time and expertise to all who asked it, be they scholars, students, tourists or members of the general public. Even when engrossed in his fieldwork for the Epigraphic Survey and later for his own Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project, Bill was never too busy to answer questions posed by tourists, responding in Arabic, English, French, German or Spanish depending on the questioner’s native tongue. Having grown up in Venezuela, he spoke Spanish fluently, and happily lent his expertise to Spanish speakers, whether to give the wife of a high-ranking Spanish dignitary a private tour of the Tomb of Queen Nefertari or to advise a new Argentinean expedition on their epigraphic work in the tomb of Neferhotep in Gurnah in his final years. Bill’s knowledge of Egyptology was encyclopedic. Simply put, he was a walking reference work who could cite on demand relevant bibliography, ancient textual references and monumental art and inscriptions from his prodigious memory. He loved to “talk shop” about all aspects of Ancient Egyptian history, especially the Amarna Period. Leisurely discussions over lunch and dinner, during breaks in fieldwork or in his office after class soon brought out his extensive lore on Egyptology, always illustrated with funny anecdotes about his own experiences and the many colorful personalities he encountered throughout his career. One of his favorite stories was a hysterical account of how he once climbed the gebel in Gurnah to sing the great love aria of Radames from the opera Aida at sunset, only to incite every dog on the west bank to barking. He was then pinned down by gunfire from locals, who presumed him to be a jackal, and he remained

stranded on the mountain overnight! Another of his favorite “war stories” was how he and Charles C. Van Siclen perfected the culinary art of “one pot spaghetti,” by boiling the noodles in the tomato sauce, during their expedition to record the boundary stelae of Akhenaten at Amarna. All who met him soon learned, too, of Bill’s great passion for Grand Opera. He once proudly confessed: “I own fifteen complete recordings of Wagner’s entire Ring cycle on vinyl records and CDs, not including separate recordings of the individual operas and discs with arias by various divas!” Among Bill Murnane’s most appealing scholarly qualities were his rigorous approach to the evidence and his open mindedness. These twin virtues were especially important in his favorite subject, the Amarna period. He would tell his students: “remember, we’re having an ongoing conversation about these issues; we’re not in the business of revealing truth.” He was always willing to reconsider the evidence and even change his mind about cherished, long-held views. Bill was a consummate field epigraphist who delighted in such conundrums as usurped cartouches and palimpsest inscriptions. He was also one of the deans of history and historiography in Egyptology, both as a thoughtful and meticulous scholar and a passionate and devoted mentor to students at the University of Memphis.1 Bill was a master of applying epigraphic data and analysis to the interpretation of Egyptian history. He could also make the most arcane subjects accessible to wider audiences of students, tourists and the public. In explaining the complex succession of usurpations and recut inscriptions at Karnak during the Ramesside Period, for example, he would often quip: “the history of Egypt is the story of who did what to whose monuments!” Bill Murnane made huge contributions to the recording and analysis of Egyptian monumental inscriptions through his tenure with the Epigraphic Survey of the University of Chicago2 and through the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project

1 One of his final contributions to scholarship was as a panellist for the millenium debate on history writing in Egyptology at the Eighth International Congress of Egyptology held in Cairo in the spring of 2000. W.J. Murnane, “Millennium Debate: Response to D.B. Redford,” in Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings

of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo 2000, Vol. 2, History and Religion, eds. Z. Hawass and L.P. Brock (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2003), pp. 15-19. 2 Among the Epigraphic Survey’s volumes to which he contributed through fieldwork and editorially are: Epigraphic

2

introduction

which he founded at the University of Memphis.3 Bill also took the initiative to edit, correct and publish the complete set of Harold H. Nelson’s drawings of the reliefs and hieroglyphic texts from the interior wall scenes in the Karnak Hypostyle Hall which had sat largely forgotten in the archives of Chicago House after Nelson’s death.4 The bibliography of Bill’s works highlights other contributions he made to the publication and interpretation of ancient sources, especially epigraphic data. These include publication of fragments of an important inscription of Hatshepsut from her famous Chapelle Rouge at Karnak and a funerary cone from a New Kingdom private tombs at Thebes.5 Most important is the volume he co-authored with Charles C. Van Siclen containing the definitive documentation, translation and analysis of the texts of the several boundary stelae of Akhenaten at Amarna with all their editions and colophons.6 His work also called attention to historically interesting temple reliefs which often seem to hide in plain sight on the walls of as yet unpublished Theban monuments,

such as reliefs from the Triple Shrine at Luxor and the Eighth Pylon at Karnak. His meticulous and exacting approach to the documentation and analysis of such inscriptions is reflected in his study of erased figures of Tutankhamun on the Third Pylon at Karnak.7 Bill Murnane made invaluable advances to our understanding of the history and chronology of pharaonic Egypt. Most fundamental was Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1977), his wide ranging study of this important and controversial historical phenomenon from the Old Kingdom down to the Roman emperors who ruled Egypt in the guise of pharaohs. He revisited the coregency debates concerning the Middle and New Kingdom in several articles, always keeping an open mind for new data and interpretations and modifying some of his own earlier conclusions.8 Sadly, a thoroughly revised and updated edition of his first book was only in the planning stages when he died. Another important contribution was The Road to Kadesh, SAOC 42 (Chicago: University

Survey, The Temple of Khonsu I, Scenes of King Herihor in the Court, OIP 100 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979); idem, The Temple of Khonsu II, Scenes and Inscriptions in the Court and the First Hypostyle Hall, OIP 103 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); idem, The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); idem, The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I, RIK 4 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); idem, The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall, RILT 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984); idem, The Facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, RILT 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). He is also listed as a participant in the prepration of the Epigraphic Survey’s latest volume: Medinet Habu IX, The Eighteenth Dynasty Temple, Part I: The Inner Sanctuaries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming). 3 In addition to articles published during his lifetime and after his death, some forthcoming volumes of the Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project will be published in his name: W.J. Murnane, “Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory,” KMT 5.3 (Summer 1994), pp. 15-24, 88; idem, “Ramesses I and The Building of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak Revisited,” Iubilate Conlegae: Egyptological Studies in Memory of A.A. Sadek, VA 10 (1995), pp. 163-168; idem, “Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak,” in Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipińska, ed. A. Niwinsky and A. Majewska, Warsaw Egyptological Studies vol. 1 (Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences, 1997), pp. 107-117; idem†, “A Forest of Columns: The Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project,” KMT 12.3 (Fall 2001), pp. 50-59; idem†, P.J. Brand, J. Karkowski, and R. Jaeschke, “The Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project (1992-2002),”ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 79-127. Currently in preparation are two further volumes: W.J. Murnane†, P.J. Brand, The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 1, Part 2. The Wall Reliefs:

Translations and Commentary; and idem, Murnane† and Brand, The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 2. The Gateways. Finally, his contribution to an eventual publication of the war scenes of Ramesses II on the south exterior wall of the Karnak Hypostyle Hall will also be honored. 4 H.H. Nelson, The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Volume I, Part 1. The Wall Reliefs, ed. W.J. Murnane, OIP 106 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). 5 W.J. Murnane, “Unpublished Fragments of Hatshepsut’s Historical Inscription from Her Sanctuary at Karnak,” Serapis 6 (1980), pp. 91-102; idem, “A Hitherto Unpublished Funerary Cone,” GM 19 (1976), pp. 39-40. 6 W.J. Murnane and C.C. Van Siclen, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten (London: Kegan Paul International, 1993). 7 W.J. Murnane, “The Bark of Amun on the Third Pylon at Karnak,” JARCE 16 (1979), pp. 11-27; idem, “False Doors and Cult Practices Inside Luxor Temple,” in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar Vol. II, ed. P. Posener-Kriéger (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1985), pp. 135148; idem, “Tutankhamun on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak,” VA 1 (1985), pp. 59-68. 8 E.g., W.J. Murnane, “The Hypothetical Coregency Between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton: Two Observations,” Serapis 2 (1970), pp. 17-21; idem, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” JNES 34 (1975), pp. 153-190; idem, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II: Two Addenda,” GM 19 (1976), pp. 41-43; idem, “In Defense of Middle Kingdom Double Dates,” BES 3 (1981), pp. 73-82; idem, J.P. Allen, J. van Dijk, “Further Evidence for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV: Three Views on a Graffito Found at Dahshur,”Amarna Letters 3 (1994), pp. 26-31, 152; idem†, “Coregency,” Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 1, ed. Donald B. Redford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 307-311.

introduction

3

of Chicago Press, 1985), Bill Murnane’s study of Egypt’s relations with Western Asia from the Amarna Period down to the early Nineteenth Dynasty written to accompany the Epigraphic Survey’s definitive edition of the Seti I battle reliefs at Karnak. His masterful elucidation and analysis of the complex range of evidence for the origins of the Egyptian-Hittite conflict found in the Amarna letters and in numerous other Egyptian and Akkadian sources had, in Donald Redford’s words, left us all in Bill’s debt. The book was so successful that it quickly sold out and a second revised edition was published in 1990. Bill Murnane was one of the foremost experts on the Amarna Period, as reflected in books and articles published throughout his career. In addition to his studies on the hotly debated coregency of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten and his monograph on the Amarna Boundary Stelae, his Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (Atlanta: Scholars’ Press, 1995), provides a comprehensive set of excellent translations of important texts from the reign of Amenhotep III down to that of Horemheb together with a survey of the historical problems of the Amarna age. A large corpus of his articles and book reviews considered various aspects of the age ranging from the accession date of Akhenaten to the epigraphic complexities of Soleb Temple and the enigmatic events at the end of the Amarna Period.9 Among Bill’s other important contributions to scholarship and the public’s knowledge of Ancient Egypt are his excellent gazetteer The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983, revised 1996) which still enjoys a wide following. Another is United With Eternity: A Concise Guide to the Monuments of Medinet Habu (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press,1980). The wealth of other scholarly articles and book reviews is too numerous to survey here. A final representative example of his meticulous analysis and thought-provoking interpretations of Egyptian history is his study of the introduction to Thutmose III’s Annals from Karnak. The title of this gem also betrays a playful sense of humor that could appear in even his most erudite

work.10 A hallmark of all his writings was lucid and elegant prose married to incisive, prescient analysis of the evidence. The essays in this volume reflect Bill Murnane’s wide variety of interests, especially historical and epigraphic issues. Lorelei H. Corcoran offers a fond remembrance of Bill and his legacy as a scholar and teacher based on the eulogy she gave at his funeral in November 2000. Subjects from the Amarna period loom large, as they did in Bill’s own research and thinking, especially the events at the close of Akhenaten’s reign and its aftermath. He would be delighted by the studies devoted to his favorite period of Egyptian history. James P. Allen investigates the complex problem of the royal succession in a study Akhenaten’s three immediate successors, Smenkhkare, the female pharaoh Neferneferuaten, and Tutankhamun, as he reaches new conclusions about the parentage of the latter. Peter Dorman revisits the hotly debated coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. Dorman uses the Theban tomb of Kheruef as a lens through which he establishes a chronological structure for Akhenaten’s reign and tests the coregency against it. In an addendum, he integrates the evidence from Soleb Temple into this picture. Jacobus van Dijk’s study on the death of Princess Meketaten reconsiders the funerary scenes in room γ of the royal tomb at Amarna and gives a new reconstruction of the broken text glossing the figure of a nurse who caries an infant from the death chamber. He concludes with a new interpretation of who this infant represents. Earl Eartman offers an art historical and iconographic study on a representation of Nefertiti on a talatat block from one of Akhenaten’s early temples at Karnak which shows a continuity of artistic style with the reliefs of Amenhotep III. Marc Gabolde’s offering combines Bill Murnane’s interests in the Amarna Period and monumental epigraphy through a careful analysis of erasures, alterations and usurpations of inscriptions on three objects: a canopic jar and the golden coffin from KV 55 and one of the gold coffinettes from Tutankhamun’s burial. He identifies the

9 E.g., W.J. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of Akhenaton,” in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, January 12, 1977, eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente, SAOC 39 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 163-167; idem, “The Return to Orthodoxy,” in Pharaohs of the Sun, eds. R. Freed, Y. Markowitz, and S. D’Auria (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1999), pp. 177-185; idem, “Soleb Renaissance:

Reconsidering the Nebmaatre Temple in Nubia,” Amarna Letters 4 (Fall, 2000), pp. 6-19, 160; idem†, “The End of the Amarna Period Once Again,” OLZ 96 (2001), pp. 9-22. 10 W.J. Murnane, “Rhetorical History? The Beginning of Thutmose III’s First Campaign in Western Asia,” JARCE 26 (1989), pp. 183-189.

4

introduction

original owners of all three objects and names the individual buried in KV 55. W. Raymond Johnson traces the history and original location of a fragment of relief decoration of Tutankhamun now in the collections of the Liverpool Museum. Bill dedicated most of his professional life to the scientific recording and interpretation of the standing monuments of Thebes, especially the temples of Karnak and Luxor, during his tenure with the Epigraphic Survey and later with his own Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project at the University of Memphis. It is appropriate, then, that several of the articles dedicated to his memory deal with these same monuments to which he devoted so many of his own energies. Michel Azim and Vincent Rondot present archaeological and epigraphic notes on a “lost” architrave of the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall. Peter J. Brand examines cartouches of Merenptah erased by Amenmesse and usurped by Seti II at Karnak and Luxor. Bill’s former graduate student Amy Calvert gives a précis of her doctoral study on the use of a computer database for analyzing the complex iconography of royal costume in New Kingdom temple reliefs from Medinet Habu and elsewhere. Richard Fazzini considers two semi-erased

cartouches from Kushite monuments from the precinct of Mut at Karnak Temple. Luc Gabolde investigates a group of blocks from the storage magazines of Luxor Temple inscribed for Amenemhet I and their relevance to the early history of Karnak temple. Helen Jacquet-Gordon reconstructs the origins and history of the “Festival on which Amun went out to the Treasury” which centered around the Treasury of Thutmose I in North Karnak. François Larché presents a major synthesis of a large corpus of archaeological and epigraphic data to reconstruct the monuments of Senwosret I and Amenhotep I at Karnak, including their eventual dismantling and reuse by various Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs. Bill Murnane also excelled in the realm of historical and textual studies. In honor of his important contributions to these disciplines, Kenneth A. Kitchen offers methodological analysis on the historical and literary aspects of New Kingdom topographical lists. Finally, Donald B. Redford examines the literary and lexicographic background in Egyptian texts to the “Land of Ramesses” of the Hebrew Bible. The book closes with a compilation of Bill Murnane’s own publications.

a fond remembrance: william joseph murnane, jr.

5

A FOND REMEMBRANCE: WILLIAM JOSEPH MURNANE, JR. MARCH 22, 1945NOVEMBER 17, 20001 Lorelei H. Corcoran University of Memphis

On November 17, 2000, we lost a beloved colleague. William Murnane died unexpectedly of heart failure at Baptist Memorial Hospital East in Memphis, Tennessee. Bill held a Dunavant Professorship in the History Department and was research associate of the Institute of Egyptian Art & Archaeology at the University of Memphis. He was also director of the Great Hypostyle Hall Project at Karnak Temple, Luxor, Egypt. Among his scholarly monographs, several are recognized as standard references by historians and philologists alike. These include Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago, 1977), The Road to Kadesh (Chicago, 1985; revised 1990), and Texts from the Amarna Period (Atlanta, 1995; revised 1998). Other publications, including The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt (London, 1983; revised 1996) and United with Eternity (Chicago, 1980), a comprehensive guide to the mortuary complex of Ramses III, are known to a wider audience. Dog-eared editions of these texts are carried throughout Egypt by tourists who are guided by Bill’s encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient monuments, every one of which he had personally visited. Of Bill, her friend of over thirty-five years, Cynthia Sheikholeslami wrote, “He was unfailingly a gentleman, perpetually kind and patient, and yet unassumingly modest with a gentle sense of humor. He was also one of the best of the Egyptologists of our generation.” Born in New York, but raised in Venezuela, Bill returned to the U.S. and attended St. Anselm’s College. He showed an early interest in Egyptian language and wrote letters home to his sister, Annie, in Egyptian hieroglyphs. His professional career began however in 1972 when he joined the staff of the Epigraphic Survey at Chicago House,

Luxor, Egypt, shortly before he received his doctorate from the University of Chicago in 1973. As field epigrapher, and then as senior Epigrapher until 1986, Bill helped document the texts and scenes on the walls of the major temples of Karnak, Khonsu, and Luxor, and at the small temple at Medinet Habu. He also contributed to the commentaries and translations of the landmark folio publications of the Oriental Institute. With Charles van Siclen he lived under difficult conditions at Amarna in Middle Egypt, a place Bill would have described as “a spot where God left his shoes.” The two of them braved challenging circumstances to locate and copy the texts at Akhenaten’s capital city, and to publish them in The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten (London, 1993). Bill’s dream of sharing his knowledge and experiences with students as a faculty member at a university came true in 1986 when he was appointed Visiting Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1987 he was hired by the History Department of the University of Memphis (then Memphis State University). According to Rita Freed, fellow Egyptologist in the Art Department at the time, “When the History Department hired Bill those of us at the Egyptian Institute couldn’t believe our good fortune. To count a scholar of his stature in our ranks immediately catapulted a fledgling academic program to international prominence.” Bill was promoted to full professor in 1994. Throughout his faculty career, one of the world’s foremost experts taught a wide range of courses— from undergraduate surveys in World Civilization to graduate seminars on the Amarna Period—in which he helped students to decipher the complexities of ancient history. Those who studied

1 This text was first read as a eulogy at the memorial service for William Murnane on November 20, 2000, at the Memphis Funeral Home, Poplar Chapel, Memphis, TN. It

was originally published (in an adapted form) in KMT, A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Volume 12, Number 1 (Spring 2001) and appears here with permission.

6

lorelei h. corcoran

with him will always treasure his comprehensiveif-intimidating reading lists. His role as a mentor to his students was marked by those qualities Rita Freed attributed most closely to him, “his brilliance, his patience, and his generosity” with his time, his ideas and his library. In 1992 his master’s student, Peter Brand, left Memphis to study Egyptology at the University of Toronto where he went on to receive a Ph.D. in 1998. Bill beamed with obvious pride when he presented to his Memphis colleagues a copy of the publication of Peter’s dissertation on a topic inspired by the work Peter had shared with Bill on the Hypostyle Hall Project. Bill Murnane’s achievements as an eminent scholar were acknowledged by his receipt of numerous awards and prestigious grants. He won three University faculty research awards. In 1994, he was awarded the Distinguished Research Award of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 2000 he was presented with the University of Memphis’ highest distinction: the Eminent Faculty Research Award. Bill’s commitment to professional service extended beyond the University, where he served on numerous politically significant academic committees, such as the Faculty Senate, and as the University’s representative to the American Association of University Professors. Bill was a member of the editorial boards of journals, in particular JARCE, JEA and KMT, as well as a member of the grant review boards of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Michela Schiff Giorgini Foundation. Bill’s international reputation is evident from the outpouring of reminiscences and condolences the Egyptian Institute received from colleagues all over the world. For over twenty years Bill served as the director of the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project: its mission to document the disappearing record of texts and scenes on one of the most frequently visited monuments in Egypt. His interest in the project began during his “free time” as a staff member of Chicago House. The project went with him to the University of Memphis. Supported by private donations and two major and increasingly competitive grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Bill took students to work with him in Egypt, some of whom had never left the U.S. before. He guided them through daily life in Egypt and bouts of “mummy tummy” as kindly and generously as he instructed them in the intricacies of identifying deteriorating

hieroglyphs on crumbling sandstone walls. Bill had projected twenty more years at the Hypostyle Hall; he considered this work to be vitally important and recognized it as his personal responsibility and legacy. The Institute of Egyptian Art & Archaeology honored its commitment to the project by appointing Peter Brand as director to complete Bill’s planned goals. One of Bill’s collection of quaint phrases seems appropriate in this context as he used it often about some exceptionally difficult or daunting task, “If generosity means giving, I give it to you.” James Allen struggled to accept the news of Bill’s passing. “It can’t be true,” he argued defensively against fate on behalf of his longtime friend, “because Bill hasn’t yet completed the general textbook of Egyptian history he had contracted to write,” on which he was working and had already titled, Kings and Mortals. An apt title, another friend remarked, for “Bill was a prince among men.” Richard and Helena Jaeschke wrote that they had “felt honored to know and work with such an eminent Egyptologist, but would miss his friendship far, far more.” Bill’s compassionate humanity touched some who had met him in person only once, and others who had never met him such as the members of an international Egyptological internet discussion group with which he graciously corresponded. Although the list of his publications on esoteric scholarly subjects is prolific, Bill enjoyed sharing his knowledge and ideas in on-screen interviews with television’s The Learning Channel and The History Channel, even offering a “historical introduction” to the films “Ben Hur” and “Spartacus” for a local Memphis film series. His last public lecture was for the Southern California Chapter of the American Research Center in Egypt. On my first visit to Egypt in 1983, Bill Murnane gave me a one-on-one introduction to Luxor Temple that I will always treasure. He also instructed me on the practicalities of getting about Egypt (when I proposed to him my day’s itinerary he responded, “Ah, the courage of these Western women”). Ever polite, he was adamantly protective, and stated emphatically, “The fare for the ferry to the west bank is only 2 1/2 cents. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.” Inevitably, I fell ill on my visit and, while suffering in my room at Chicago House, having actually selected the lemon tree in the back garden beneath which I wished to be buried, Bill appeared with a bottle of ginger ale. He shook his head with

a fond remembrance: william joseph murnane, jr. an impish grin, “The worst part,” he said, from experience, “is that you’ll feel so bad you’ll wish you would die . . . but you won’t!” A decade later, I would work together with Bill on the Hypostyle Hall Project. Although he was a passionate fan of opera and classical music, those who spent 24/7 with him out in the field also knew that Bill had unexpected tastes in other forms of music. None of us will forget Bill’s rendition of Screamin’ Jay Hawkins’ “I put a spell on you.”

7

Cynthia Sheikholeslami, wrote of Bill, “The most earnest wish of the ancient Egyptian was that his name, the most intimate sign of himself, would be remembered forever. I am sure that Bill’s name will live always amongst those of us who were fortunate enough to have been counted his friends, and amongst all Egyptologists now and in the future who benefit from his scholarly publications.” Indeed, we miss him dearly.

8

lorelei h. corcoran

the amarna succession

9

THE AMARNA SUCCESSION James P. Allen Brown University

Bill Murnane had many admirable qualities, but the one that impressed me most was his openmindedness as a scholar. Bill was always concerned about facts, and he valued them much higher than theories. He was always ready to embrace new interpretations if they could be shown to be more consistent with the facts than previous ones, even at the expense of his own theories, published or otherwise. This article treats a subject for which hard facts are few and theories many. It concerns a period of Egyptian history that interested Bill more than any other, one that his own work has significantly elucidated. I don’t know whether he would have agreed with its interpretations or not, but I wish he were here to discuss them with. **** The scene of foreign tribute in the tomb of Merire II at Amarna, often called the “durbar,” provides the last clear view we have of the Amarna Period before the accession of Tutankhamun. Dated to the second month of Akhenaten’s twelfth regnal year, it shows Akhenaten and Nefertiti together with their six daughters, Meritaten, Meketaten, Ankhesenpaaten, Neferneferuaten Jr., Neferneferure, and Setepenre.1 The scene provides the last securely dated appearance of all seven women as well as the first dated attestation of the later name of the Aten.2 Between this point and the accession of Tutankhamun, the events of Amarna history are much less lucid. 1 N. de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna, II. The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II, ASE 14 (London: EEF, 1905), p. 38 and pl. 38. The second month of Akhenaten’s regnal years was 2 prt; his accession took place in 1 prt: W.J. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of Akhenaten,” in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente, SAOC 39 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 163-67. 2 The Aten’s name was changed sometime after its last attestation in the colophon of the Later Proclamation on boundary stelae A and B at Amarna, dated to the last day of Month 12 in Regnal Year 8. It is possible that the change occurred even later than Regnal Year 12: see M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon (Collection de l’Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité vol 3 (Lyon &

Most of the questions in this shadowy period center on the identity behind two sets of pharaonic cartouches, both characterized by the element n-prw-r in the prenomen. One set, belonging to a king named Smenkhkare, always has the form (n-prw-r)| (smn-kA-r sr-prw)|; the other, of a king named Neferneferuaten, regularly appears as (n-prw-r plus epithet)| (nfr-nfrw-jtn plus epithet)|; the epithets usually identify this king as “desired of Akhenaten,” using one of the two parts of Akhenaten’s prenomen (nfr-prw-r w-n-r)|. In the second set, elements of both cartouches are occasionally marked as feminine: the prenomen as nt-prw-r and the relative form “desired” in the epithets as mrt; in addition, the epithet “desired of Waenre” in the nomen is occasionally replaced by At n h(j).s “effective for her husband,” and the names can be followed by the feminine attributes n.tj Dt “alive forever” and mAt rw “justified.”3 Both sets of cartouches are associated with Akhenaten. In the case of Smenkhkare, the two kings appear together on one object only, a calcite jar from the tomb of Tutankhamun on which Smenkhkare’s cartouches follow those of Akhenaten, both subsequently erased (Carter 405, Fig. 1).4 Evidence for Neferneferuaten’s association with Akhenaten is more substantial: apart from the epithets noted above, her cartouches follow his on at least two objects, a box from the tomb of Tutankhamun (Carter 1k, Fig. 2) and a Paris: Université Lumière-Lyon 2, 1998), pp. 110-18. I thank M. Gabolde for his comments on an earlier draft of the present article. 3 J.P. Allen, “Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re,” GM 141 (1994), pp. 7-17; M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 147-62, 213-219. 4 C.E. Loeben, “No Evidence of Coregency: Zwei getilgte Inschriften aus dem Grab von Tutanchamun,” BSEG 15 (1991), pp. 82-90; idem, “No Evidence of Coregency: Two Erased Inscriptions from Tutankhamun’s Tomb,” Amarna Letters 3 (1994), pp. 105-109. See Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 224-26. Fig. 1 is based on Loeben’s reconstruction; darker signs represent those for which traces are preserved.

10

james p. allen

fragmentary stela found at Amarna.5 Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten are each associated as well with Meritaten as chief queen, the former in a scene in the tomb of Merire II at Amarna and the latter (together with Akhenaten) on the box just cited.6 At least one of these kings have served for a time as coregent with Akhenaten. The primary evidence for Smenkhkare as coregent is the jar

that once displayed his cartouches side by side with those of Akhenaten. The juxtaposition, however, is not conclusive proof of a coregency;7 the jar could have been dedicated by Smenkhkare in memory of his deceased predecessor. Examples of Neferneferuaten’s cartouches together with those of Akhenaten are subject to the same caveat. A relief found at Memphis, apparently showing a male king behind a larger figure, has often been cited as evidence of a coregency between Smenkhkare (as the smaller figure) and Akhenaten (as the larger).8 The identification of the smaller figure as Smenkhkare was based on a second block from the same site, which preserves the ends of his cartouches and that of a queen, probably Meritaten.9 The cartouches, however, are juxtaposed directly with those of the Aten, at the same level and approximately the same size, which must indicate that Smenkhkare was depicted as the primary figure in the scene below.10 Both blocks are preserved only in drawings; additional drawings of the first block, recently published, indicate that the scene probably depicted an Amarna princess behind one of her parents.11 Several stelae from the end of the Amarna period show a male and female king, who must be Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten (Figs. 3-4).12 These have been interpreted as anachronistic scenes carved after Akhenaten’s death,13 but the nature of the

5 J.R. Harris, “Neferneferuaten Regnans,” AO 36 (1974), p. 13 (1a); Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 178-83, 162-66 and pl. 24a. On the stela, the dual cartouches of Neferneferuaten are carved over an original single cartouche of Nefertiti and a column of text identifying a daughter of Akhenaten, probably Meritaten: J.P. Allen, “Two Altered Inscriptions of the Late Amarna Period,” JARCE 25 (1988), pp. 117-21; M. Gabolde, “Le droit d’aînesse d’Ânkhesenpaaton (À propos de deux récents articles sur la stèle UC 410),” BSEG 14 (1990), pp. 33-47. See also W.J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 173-75. Fig. 2 here is based on Gardiner’s hand copy, available at http:// www.ashmolean.museum/gri/carter/001k-c001k-3.html. 6 Davies, Amarna II, pl. 11; Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 178-83. Gabolde argues that the names of Neferneferuaten and Meritaten on the box denote the same person, but a reference to two individuals remains the simplest and most transparent interpretation of the evidence: see W.J. Murnane, “The End of the Amarna Period Once Again,” OLZ 96 (2001), col. 18. 7 See Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, pp. 21315. 8 P.E. Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law Ankhkheperurē,” JEA 14 (1928), p. 8 Fig. 3. 9 Newberry, JEA 14 (1928), p. 8 Fig. 4. For the seated woman at the end of the queen’s cartouche, cf. Harris, AO 36 (1974), pp. 13 (1a) and 17 (2a, 2d). 10 The scene seems to depict the king presenting a building to the Aten: see, however, B. Löhr, “Ahanjāti in Memphis,”

SAK 2 (1975), p. 158. If so, it is unlikely that he was facing another figure of comparable size on the other side of the Aten. 11 J. Málek, “The ‘coregency relief’ of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare from Memphis,” in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, ed. by P. Der Manuelian (Boston, 1996), vol. II, pp. 553-59. The identification of the smaller figure as a woman was suggested by B. Löhr, SAK 2 (1975), pp. 156-57. 12 Berlin 17813: here Fig. 3, reproduced from Gabolde, BSFE 155 (2002), p. 38. Berlin 20716: here Fig. 4 (author’s drawing). The sex of the junior king was first noted by J.R. Harris, “Nefertiti Rediviva,” AO 35 (1973), pp. 5-9. On the “Coregency Stela” (UC 410 + Cairo JE 64959), the secondary addition of Neferneferuaten’s cartouches over that of Nefertiti (see n. 5, above) seem to refer to the figure below them: R. Krauss, “Neues zu den Stelenfragmenten UC London 410 + Kairo JE 64959,” BSEG 13 (1989), pp. 83-87; Allen, JARCE 25 (1988), pp. 117-21; Gabolde, BSEG 14 (1990), pp. 33-47, and D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 162-66. Nothing but the figure’s rear lower leg is preserved, but it presumably represented Nefertiti in the original and therefore a female king in the altered version of the stela. See the drawing in Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pl. 24a. 13 M. Gabolde, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges: Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit, eds. A. Grimm and S. Schoske, Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 10 (Munich: Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001), pp. 29-30; idem, “La parenté de Toutânkhamon,” BSFE 155 (2002), pp. 38-39.

Fig. 1. Inscription on Jar 405 from the Tomb of Tutankhamun.

the amarna succession

11

Fig. 3. Stela Berlin 17813.

Fig. 2. Inscription on Box 1k from the Tomb of Tutankhamun.

Fig. 4. Unfinished Stela Berlin 20716.

12

james p. allen

interaction between the two individuals indicates that they were depicted as living. It is therefore likely Neferneferuaten’s reign was at least partly contemporary with that of Akhenaten. Akhenaten’s reign probably ended in his Regnal Year 17, to judge from two jar labels with that date: one was found in the king’s burial complex in the Royal Tomb at Amarna; on the other, the higher date was replaced by Regnal Year 1 of another king.14 The highest date known for Neferneferuaten is Regnal Year 3, in a graffito from the tomb of Pairi at Thebes (TT 139).15 The sole date associated with Smenkhkare—Regnal Year 1, in a label on a jar of wine from “the house of Smenkhkare”—could come from the reign of Tutankhamun; even if it is Smenkhkare’s, it is doubtful that he ruled for more than a year.16 Depending on the length of Neferneferuaten’s coregency with Akhenaten, the accession of Smenkhkare could have occurred as early as the year of Akhenaten’s death or at most three years later. The graffito dated to Regnal Year 3 of Neferneferuaten was written by a “lay-priest and scribe of god’s offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheperure in Thebes.” The existence of offerings to Amun in this structure—perhaps her mortuary temple—has long been seen as evidence that her reign extended for a time beyond that of Akhenaten, in whose final years the name of Amun had been proscribed.17 Further indications of her sole reign may exist in a few of her cartouches that bear unique epithets not associated with Akhenaten: mr jtn “desired of the Aten” and pA m At-jtn “the incarnation of Akhetaten,” in the prenomen; and  A “ruler,” in the nomen.18

If Smenkhkare also served as Akhenaten’s coregent, however, then Neferneferuaten’s reign must have coincided completely with that of Akhenaten. Given the probable length of Smenkhkare’s reign, any coregency between him and Akhenaten could not have lasted for more than a few months, since he appears in place of Akhenaten in the tomb of Merire II. The data therefore indicate that Neferneferuaten became king sometime in the period of Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 15-17 and that she was succeeded by Smenkhkare, who ruled less than a year. This gives a maximum of three to four years and a minimum of one year or less between the death of Akhenaten and the accession of Tutankhamun. Tutankhamun’s age at death has been estimated as young as 16-17, but the most recent examination of his mummy seems to confirm the usual estimate of nineteen years.19 With a reign of nine years, he must have become king at the age of ten or eleven.20 Depending on the length of time between Akhenaten’s death and his accession, this places his birth between Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 7 at the earliest and 11-11 at the latest. Smenkhkare’s age at death is less certain and can only be estimated if the body buried in Tomb 55 of the Valley of the Kings is his—a vexed question. Two physicians who examined the body shortly after its discovery identified it as female, but they seem to have been influenced by the fact that the tomb’s excavator, Theodore M. Davis, believed the burial to be that of Akhenaten’s mother, Queen Tiya; subsequent examinations have consistently identified the remains as those

14 G.T. Martin, The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna, Part VI: The Royal Tomb at El-Amarna, vol. II: The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Architecture, ASE 39 (London: EES, 1989), p. 27, p. 60 no. 522 and n. 3; J.D.S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten, Part III: The Central City and the Official Quarters, EEM (London: EES, 1951), vol. II, pl. 95, no. 279. The latter jar was originally labeled rnpt-sb 17 bjt [ … ] “Regnal Year 17: honey [ … ]”; this was erased and the label rnpt-[sb] 1 j[rp … ] “Regnal Year 1: w[ine … ]” added beneath it. 15 A.H. Gardiner, “The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere,” JEA 14 (1928), pp. 10-11 and pls. 5-6. 16 Pendlebury, City of Akhenaten III, vol. II, pl. 86, no. 35. For the probable length of Smenkhkare’s reign, see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 219-21. 17 Neferneferuaten is also associated with gods of the traditional pantheon on a pectoral from the tomb of Tutankhamun, Carter 261p(1), which depicts Nut and mentions Onnophris: see Gabolde, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, p. 29. 18 Allen, GM 141 (1994), p. 9; Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 157-61. The epithet At n h(j).s

“effective for her husband” might also date from a time after Akhenaten’s death: parallels for its phraseology, noted by Gabolde (op.cit., pp. 156-57), concern Isis’s relationship to her deceased husband, Osiris: see Gabolde, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, p. 28, and BSFE 155 (2002), p. 39. In at least one instance, however, Neferneferuaten’s nomen with this epithet follows the prenomen identifying her as “desired of Neferkheperure” (Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 154). 19 F.F. Leek, “How Old Was Tutankhamūn?,” JEA 63 (1977), pp. 112-15; SCA press release dated March 8, 2005: http://guardians.net/hawass/press_release_tutankhamun_ ct_scan_results.htm. 20 The length of Tutankhamun’s reign is based on winejar dockets from his tomb: J. Černý, Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tutankhamūn, TTS 2 (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1965), pp. 3 and 23-24, nos. 19 and 23-24. For the docket of Regnal Year 10, see P. Tallet, “Une jarre de l’an 31 et une jarre de l’an 10 dans la cave de Toutânkhamon,” BIFAO 96 (1996), pp. 375-82. For Tutankhamun’s age at accession, see also Gabolde, BSFE 155 (2002), pp. 35-36.

the amarna succession

13

of a man, who died probably between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five.21 Royal attributes on the coffin and mummy indicate that the body was that of a king. Since it is male, the king cannot have been Neferneferuaten and must therefore have been either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare. Substantial epigraphic evidence seems to favor Akhenaten. Canopic jars and magic bricks found in the Theban tomb were intended at one point for him, though his name was later expunged.22 The coffin itself bears pharaonic titularies but was long thought to have been made for Kiya, Akhenaten’s junior wife, and subsequently altered for the burial of a king.23 A recent examination, however, has demonstrated that it was intended originally for Akhenaten himself, and later altered primarily by excising the names within the pharaonic cartouches.24 The burial would therefore seem to be that of Akhenaten, removed from his original resting place in the Royal Tomb at Amarna and reinterred in the Valley of the Kings. The body’s probable age at death, however, argues against this identification. If Akhenaten died between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five in his seventeenth regnal year, he would have been one to eight years old at his accession. The earliest dated mention of his eldest daughter, Meritaten, occurs in the Early Proclamation on boundary stelae K and X at Amarna, dated to Month 4 of Regnal Year 5. If this coincides with her birth, she must have been conceived at the latest in Month 7 of Regnal Year 4, when Akhenaten himself would have been five to twelve years old. At the higher of

these two ages he may just have reached puberty, but it seems unlikely that he would have fathered children at so early an age. Moreover, talatat from Karnak with the image of Meritaten are almost certainly earlier than Regnal Year 5.25 Despite the clear association of the coffin and burial equipment with Akhenaten, the body itself must therefore be that of another male pharaoh, who can only have been Smenkhkare.26 Its age at death places his birth some eight years before Akhenaten’s accession at the earliest (assuming that he succeeded Akhenaten within a year and died at twenty-five) and in Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 2 at the latest (assuming that he came to the throne three years after Akhenaten and died at eighteen). Tutankhamun is attested before his accession as zA-nswt n t.f mry.f twt-nw-jtn “king’s son of his body, his desired, Tutankhuaten,” on a block found at Hermopolis (Fig 5).27 In general use, the term zA “son” can denote not only a first-generation male child but also a grandson, great-grandson, or son-in-law.28 The inscription could have referred to Tutankhamun as “son-in-law” of Akhenaten if he had already been married to Akhenaten’s daughter, Ankhesenpaaten, before his accession. The association of these two royal children, if not their marriage, at that time is probably attested by the left half of the block, which records her titulary: zAt-nswt n t.[f mr]t.f zyt At n nb tAwj [n.s-n-pA]-jtn “king’s daughter of [his] body, his desired, the greatly blessed one of the lord of the Two Lands, [Ankhesenpa]aten.”29 Since the two

21 R. Germer, “Die Mumie aus dem Sarg in ‘KV 55’,” in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, pp. 58-61. See also Murnane, OLZ 96 (2001), col. 22. Davis was also influenced by the arrangement of the body in the coffin, with one arm on the chest and the other by the side, normally the posture of a female mummy. In the face of the consistent identification of the body as male, this anomaly remains unexplained. 22 For the canopic jars, see M. Gabolde, “Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky,” in the present volume; for the bricks, H.W. Fairman, “Once Again the So-Called Coffin of Akhenaten,” JEA 47 (1961), p. 37. 23 As argued by R. Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Neue Veröffentlichungen und Studien, HÄB 2 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1978), pp. 171-74 and 195. 24 A. Grimm, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, pp. 101-120. The inscription on the foot was originally addressed to Akhenaten by Nefertiti and was changed so that the deceased himself addressed “My father Re-Harakhti.” This supersedes my arguments in JARCE 25 (1988), 121-26. 25 For the talatat, see D.B. Redford, Akhenaten, the Heretic King (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 79. 26 It is nonetheless possible that the coffin originally contained the body of Akhenaten when it was moved to KV 55. The alteration of the text on the foot, changing an address to Akhenaten by Nefertiti into one of Akhenaten himself to

Re-Harakhti (see n. 24, above) could have been made at that time, prompted by the removal of the coffin from the royal sarcophagus, on whose corners Nefertiti is depicted. The excision of Akhenaten’s names from the coffin’s cartouches, as well as their erasure on the magic bricks, could have been done subsequently, when these items were appropriated for the burial of Smenkhkare. 27 G. Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis 1929-1939, ed. R. Hanke, Pelizaeus-Museum zu Hildesheim, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung 6 (Hildesheim: Verlag Gebrüder Gerstenberg, 1969), pls. 105 (56–VIIIA) and 106 (831-VIIIC). For the join of the two halves, see Gabolde, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, p. 26, and BSFE 155 (2002), p. 40, from which Fig. 5 here is adapted. Gabolde’s drawing indicates traces of an earlier text under the three righthand columns, but Roeder’s photograph shows only incidental damage and no signs of erasure. 28 D. Franke, “Verwandschaftsbezeichnungen,” LÄ VI, col. 1033. 29 The third column shows only j[t]n. Roeder restored Akhenaten’s cartouche in the lacuna above, and read the name as mr[t]-j[t]n. Ankhesenpaaten, however, is the only Amarna princess with whom Tutankhamun is associated, and the lacuna suits the first part of her name. The space

14

james p. allen

Fig. 5. Block from Hermopolis naming Tutankhamun and [Ankhesenpa]aten.

titularies face one another closely, the figures associated with them must have done the same, in an intimate interaction of some sort. Despite this relationship, however, in the context of Amarna the additional phrase n t.f mry.f “of his body, his desired” probably indicates a more direct, lineal descent from a king. Akhenaten’s daughters are regularly called zAtnswt nt t.f mrt.f “king’s daughter of his body, his desired,” where the phraseology refers to a child sired by the king himself. The same wording also precedes the names of his granddaughters; in that case it may indicate merely lineal descent from the king, unless Akhenaten fathered his own grandchildren, as has been suggested. The latter possibility will be examined below; in any case, the terminology on the Amarna block identifies Tutankhamun as at least a direct lineal descendant, if not the son, of a king rather than merely the son-in-law of one. If the term zA “son” was meant literally, the king in question would seem to be either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare. Neferneferuaten is also a possibility, even though the Hermopolis block uses the masculine pronoun f “his” in referring to this king. She would then have been Tutankhamun’s mother rather than his father, but the inscriptions of Hatshepsut provide a precedent for the use of masculine pronouns to refer to a female pharaoh. Akhenaten’s father, Amenhotep III, could have sired Tutankhamun only if he lived on after Akhenaten’s accession. Once a central theory in the history of Amarna, such a

coexistence, if not coregency, is now generally considered improbable. Although it was revived a few years ago on artistic grounds,30 the theory has now been disproved decisively by analysis of the decoration of the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192).31 Aya calls Tutankhamun zA.f “his son” on blocks of a structure in Karnak begun by Tutankhamun and completed by Aya.32 This reference cannot have denoted literal parentage, because the Hermopolis block identifying Tutankhamun as a king’s son was carved before either man came to the throne; nor was Aya the father-in-law of Tutankhamun. He could have been Tutankhamun’s grandfather or great-grandfather—most likely maternal, since he came to the throne only after Tutankhamun— but this possibility is unenlightening because no children of Aya are known. The reference to Tutankhamun as “his son” may merely reflect Aya’s pre-pharaonic title jt-nTr “god’s father” (retained in his pharaonic nomen), which commemorated his role as mentor of Akhenaten—a function he may also have exercised for Tutankhamun. Among Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, and Smenkhkare, the first seems a priori the likeliest candidate for Tutankhamun’s parent, and is generally considered as such. He could certainly have sired Tutankhamun in his Regnal Year 7, since he had already produced at least two daughters by that time. The chief difficulty with this theory, however, is Akhenaten’s appointment of a female coregent before his death. Egyptian history demonstrates that the son of a pharaoh had first claim to the throne—if not the son of the chief queen,

beneath j[t]n probably contained a seated figure, comparable to that at the end of Tutankhamun’s name on the right. 30 W.R. Johnson, “Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some New Considerations,” JEA 82 (1996), pp. 65-82. 31 P. Dorman, “The Long Coregency Revisited: Architectural and Iconographic Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef,”

pp. 65-82. For Tutankhamun’s use of the term “father” in reference to Amenhotep III, see D. Redford, “Once Again the Filiation of Tutankhamun,” JSSEA 9 (1978-79), pp. 111-15. 32 O.J. Schaden, “Report on the 1978 Season at Karnak,” NARCE 127 (1984), p. 46 and pls. 2-4.

the amarna succession then one by another woman within the immediate royal family. It is possible that Akhenaten deliberately repudiated this tradition in appointing Neferneferuaten as coregent, but in the absence of any evidence to that effect such a motive is mere speculation. Neferneferuaten’s coregency therefore most likely indicates that Akhenaten was not the father, nor the grandfather, of Tutankhamun, and the same is true for his relationship with Tutankhamun’s predecessor, Smenkhkare. In fact, the history of Amarna suggests a determined but frustrated effort on the part of Akhenaten to produce a male heir. With his chief queen, Nefertiti, he had six daughters by Regnal Year 12. His marriage to Kiya, which occurred before the name-change of the Aten between Regnal Years 8-12, can be understood as partly if not primarily motivated by the need to beget a son, even by a wife other than the chief queen; she too, however, gave him only a daughter.33 In a final attempt to sire a male successor, Akhenaten may then have turned to his oldest daughters, at least two of whom produced daughters before the end of his reign: Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten, who appear with their daughters, respectively Meritaten Jr. and Ankhesenpaaten Jr., in altered reliefs from Amarna that originally depicted Kiya with her daughter.34 The parentage of Akhenaten’s granddaughters seems clear from their titles but has been the subject of debate nonetheless. The granddaughters are regularly identified as zAt-nswt nt t.f mrt.f N tA Srjt ms.n zAt-nswt nt t.f mrt.f N “King’s daughter of his body, his desired, N Jr., born of King’s daughter of his body, his desired, N,” 33

Kiya’s name occurs in conjunction with the early name of the Aten on a vase in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA 20.2.11): Fairman, JEA 47 (1961), p. 29. For her daughter see Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pp. 190-92. Her name is lost, but Gabolde has suggested she was the “king’s daughter” named Baketaten, who appears with Queen Tiya in the tomb of Huya at Amarna: M. Gabolde, “Baket aton fille de Kiya?,” BSEG 16 (1992), pp. 27-40; N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna, Part III: The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes, ASE 15 (London: EEF, 1905), pls. 4, 6, 9, and 17-18. 34 Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pp. 142-45 and 150-53. The term “Jr.” is used here as a translation of the phrase tA-Srjt “the younger,” always appended to the eponymous names of the daughters’ daughters. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 285, regards the granddaughters as “phantom children,” invented to replace Kiya’s daughter in the altered reliefs. This is based primarily on the belief that the daughters were too young to have had children before Akhenaten’s death, but the altered reliefs must be regarded as prima facie evidence to the contrary. This question will be addressed in what follows. 35 E.g., Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pls. 19

15

sometimes with the king identified as Akhenaten and occasionally with the additional specification ms.n jmt-nswt wrt (nfr-nfrw-jtn nfrtj-j.tj)| n.tj “born of Chief Queen Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, alive” (and variants).35 These titles traditionally have been understood as a statement that Akhenaten sired his own granddaughters.36 Since Nefertiti is clearly cited in the granddaughter’s titularies only as parent of the senior Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten, however, the same could be true for Akhenaten, and it has been argued that the junior daughters were fathered not by Akhenaten but by his sons-in-law Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun, or were Akhenaten’s daughters by Kiya.37 The suggestion that Meritaten Jr. and Ankhesenpaaten Jr. were daughters of Kiya is improbable, since one or the other of their names replaces that of Kiya’s daughter in scenes where Kiya’s own name was altered to that of Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten. Moreover, the name of Nefertiti’s fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten Jr., indicates that daughters designated as “Jr.” were named after their own mother. The possibility that Akhenaten’s granddaughters were fathered by Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun depends in part on when the reliefs naming the daughters were recarved. Decoration of the monuments to which the altered reliefs belonged was begun in the first half of Akhenaten’s reign but largely completed after the name-change of the Aten.38 The recarving to honor the junior daughters must then be somewhat later still, certainly no earlier than the second half of Akhenaten’s reign.39 The altered (234-VI) and 106 (451-VIIA). See D. Redford, “Studies on Akhenaten at Thebes, II,” JARCE 12 (1975), pp. 11-12. 36 E.g., H. Brunner, “Eine neue Amarna-Prinzessin,” ZÄS 74 (1938), pp. 104-108; J.A. Wilson, “Akh-en-aton and Nefert-iti,” JNES 32 (1973), pp. 235-36; R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Neuen Reiches, HÄB 7 (Hildesheim, Gerstenberg Verlag, 1978), pp. 114-17. 37 W. Helck, “Die Tochterheirat ägyptischer Könige,” CdE 44 (1969), pp. 24-25; idem, “Tochterheirat,” LÄ VII, cols. 15-16; J.R. Harris, “Kiya,” CdE 49 (1974), p. 30 n. 6. See also Redford, JARCE 12 (1975), p. 12; G. Robins, “mt nsw wrt Meritaton,” GM 52 (1981), pp. 75-81. 38 J.D.S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten, Part I: Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at El-Amarneh, EEM 38 (London: EES, 1923), pp. 148-56. Of 79 instances, Pendlebury recorded 25 with the early name and 64 with the later name (in 10 instances the early name was changed to the later). The blocks from Hermopolis show a similar ratio (23 early vs. 55 late): Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pls. 1-201. 39 The reliefs could not have been recarved until after the death—or disappearance—of Kiya, whose name and image in them were replaced by those of Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten.

16

james p. allen

scenes depicted Akhenaten with his daughters and granddaughters, and the complex from which most of the reliefs derive was evidently abandoned before his death.40 Tutankhamun therefore could not have fathered Ankhesenpaaten Jr., since he did not reach puberty until after his accession. This in turn makes it unlikely that Smenkhkare sired Meritaten Jr., even though he would have been old enough to do so in Akhenaten’s final years; in any case, he and Meritaten are not attested as husband and wife before he became king. The weight of evidence thus indicates that Akhenaten himself was the father of his two granddaughters. The altered reliefs showing him with Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten and their daughters suggest as much in the hieroglyphic filiations of the granddaughters. The scenes themselves originally depicted Akhenaten with his wife and daughter;41 the altered reliefs can be read in the same manner, despite the fact that they identify the senior women only as zAt-nswt “king’s daughter” rather than jmt-nswt “king’s wife.”42 Akhenaten’s final attempts to father a male heir may not have been limited to his relationship with Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten. Scenes in Room gamma of the Royal Tomb at Amarna depicting the death of their sister, Meketaten, indicate that she died in childbirth.43 No husband of hers is known; apart from mere speculation, the likeliest candidate for the father of her child is also Akhenaten. The child itself is also unknown, although it has often been identified as the one shown on Wall A of Room gamma being carried by a nurse

away from the chamber in which Akhenaten and Nefertiti are depicted mourning the body of Meketaten.44 In front of the nurse and child, two partly-destroyed columns of hieroglyphs give the name [ … ]t ms.n [ … ] (nfr-nfrw-j[tn] nfrtj-j.tj)| n.tj Dt n (Fig. 6).45 Despite the usual assumption that this identified a grandchild of Nefertiti, the lacuna in the first column has room enough only for the titulary of one of her children.46 Moreover, the hieroglyphs face right and therefore pertain to the nurse, who faces in the same direction, and not to the child, who is turned to the left.47

No clear evidence exists for the date of that event. The pr tA Spst “house of the noblewoman” cited in a wine-jar docket of Regnal Year [1]6 cannot be linked with certainty to Kiya, despite arguments to the contrary: e.g., Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 169. Gabolde (loc.cit.) also dates the recarving after the death of Meketaten, which occurred after her last dated appearance in Regnal Year 12, because she does not figure in the altered reliefs. This has some validity, though it is an argument from silence. 40 Pendlebury, City of Akhenaten I, p. 165. 41 E.g., Roeder, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis, pl. 29. 42 As noted by G. Robins, GM 52 (1981), p. 75. The reasons for this discrepancy are unclear. Since Akhenaten’s concern was to produce a male heir, he could have tried to do so with his daughters without naming them “king’s wife,” since they were already allied to the royal line as “king’s daughters,” a relationship closer than that of “king’s wife.” For a son born to such a union, his status as zA-nswt n t.f “king’s son of his body” would have been enough to secure his succession. 43 Martin, Royal Tomb II, pp. 42-48, pls. 63-71. The primary evidence for this interpretation is the booth in which Meketaten is shown being mourned by the royal family (ibid., pls. 68-69), which has been most plausibly interpreted as a birth pavilion (ibid., pp. 45-48). Fragments from the Royal

Tomb at Amarna have been reconstructed (on paper) as part of her sarcophagus, with an interior width of 50 cm (1 ft. 7 in.) and a maximum interior length of 3½ feet, probably too small for a woman capable of childbirth: Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 132-34 and pls. 16-17. It is possible, however, that the fragments belonged to Meketaten’s canopic chest (ibid., p. 132 n. 1059); the long inscription on the side of the lid reconstructed on Gabolde’s pl. 17b could have turned the corner at each end (cf. his pl. 17a) on the shorter lid of a canopic chest. 44 Martin, Royal Tomb II, pp. 43-45, pls. 63-65. 45 Martin, Royal Tomb II, pls. 63-64; Fig. 6 here is reproduced from Martin’s pl. 63. The name in the first column ended in the determinative of a seated person. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 118-19, has interpreted the t before this sign as the feet of a quail-chick w, but Martin’s pl. 63 shows a t and the sign seems clear in Bouriant’s photograph (Martin’s pl. 64), as does the head of the determinative, pace C. Vandersleyen, “Les scènes de lamentation des chambres alpha et gamma dans la tombe d’Akhénaton,” RdE 44 (1993), p. 193. 46 As pointed out by Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 119, pace Martin, Royal Tomb II, p. 44. 47 Cf. Martin, Royal Tomb II, p. 44 n. 6, pace op.cit., p. 44. The orientation of the remaining signs is clear in the

Fig. 6. Nurse and Child from Room Gamma.

the amarna succession

17

The inscription here is virtually identical to that which identifies the figure of Akhenaten’s eldest daughter on Wall B in the same room and can be restored on that basis as [zAt-(n)swt n t.f mrt.f [mr]t-[jtn] ms.n [jmt-nswt wrt … ] (nfr-nfrwj[tn] nfrtj-j.tj)| n.tj Dt n “[King’s daughter of his body, his desired, Meri]t[aten], born of the [Chief Queen … ] Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, alive forever continually.”48 Since Meritaten is shown nursing the child on Wall A, it is probably her own daughter, Meritaten Jr. Similar figures of a nurse and child, without accompanying text, appear in the earlier reliefs of Room alpha, in which the nurse is shown walking away from a chamber in which Akhenaten and Nefertiti are mourning.49 Martin has interpreted the scenes in this room as those of Kiya’s death in childbirth, but Gabolde has made a more plausible case that they depict the deaths (from other causes) of the two youngest and Nefertiti, Neferneferure and Setepenre, who are not depicted with their sisters in the reliefs of Room gamma.50 If the nursing woman here is also Meritaten, as seems likely, the death of Meketaten must have occurred not long after theirs. Meketaten’s child remains unknown, and presumably died with its mother.51 The events depicted in Rooms alpha and gamma are not dated but must have occurred after Month 2 of Regnal Year 12, the last dated appearance of the three deceased daughters alive. The scenes in Room gamma suggest that Akhenaten first attempted to produce an heir with Meritaten (who had given birth to a daughter), then impregnated Meketaten (who died in childbirth), and had yet to turn to Ankhesenpaaten (who would produce a daughter in turn). Since his union with Meketaten probably occurred only

after the birth of Meritaten Jr., the latter must have been at least some nine months or so old by the time of Meketaten’s death—and probably even older, if the woman and child in the earlier scene of Room alpha are also Meritaten and her daughter. She could not have been more than three years old, however, since she is shown nursing: Egyptian children were weaned by the age of four.52 To all appearances, the “durbar” scene of Regnal Year 12 shows Akhenaten’s two oldest daughters before either became pregnant. Meritaten Jr. was therefore born at the earliest nine months later, in Month 11 of Regnal Year 12. Her birth could not have occurred much later than this, since Meketaten’s pregnancy, the birth of Ankhesenpaaten Jr., and the recarving of Kiya’s reliefs to depict the granddaughters with their mothers all had to take place before the end of Akhenaten’s reign. Akhenaten’s granddaughters were probably born not long after their mothers reached puberty. Egyptian women usually married at thirteen,53 and it seems likeliest that Akhenaten would have turned to each of his three oldest daughters as they reached that age. The date of those events can only be estimated. It is often assumed that the daughters first appeared on Akhenaten’s monuments at their birth, but this cannot have been the case at least with Meketaten, the daughter whose first appearance can be dated most closely. Only Meritaten is mentioned in the text of the Early Proclamation on the Amarna boundary stelae, dated to Month 4 of Regnal Year 5; the Later Proclamation of Regnal Year 6, Month 4, mentions Meketaten as well.54 If Meketaten was born sometime in the interval, she would have reached thirteen at the earliest after Akhenaten’s death,

photograph on Martin’s pl. 64 and is reproduced correctly in Martin’s pl. 63. 48 The parallel text is on Martin, Royal Tomb II, pl. 68. Both inscriptions are characterized by the determinative following the daughter’s name and the position of the final t before it, features absent from the names of the other two daughters on Wall B; the determinative may reflect Meritaten’s seniority among the daughters, but it could also derive from her status as a mother, unique among Akhenaten’s daughters at the time when the reliefs in Room gamma were carved. In the parallel text Nefertiti has the titles jmt-nswt wrt mrt.f nbt tAwj “Chief Queen, his desired, lady of the Two Lands.” The lacuna above her name on Wall A has room enough only for mrt.f “his desired” or nbt tAwj “lady of the Two Lands” but not both. 49 Martin, Royal Tomb II, pls. 58-60. 50 Martin, Royal Tomb II, pp. 39-40; Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 107-110. 51 The evidence advanced here indicates that the nursing

child shown in Rooms alpha and gamma is unrelated to the cause of the deaths depicted there. It may then have been included as an affirmation of life in the midst of death; significantly, in both instances the nurse carries her child away from the death scene, in the direction opposite to that of the deceased and mourners: see Murnane, OLZ 96 (2001), pp. 15-16. 52 To judge from the Instruction of Ani: tw.k msw.tw m t jbdw.k … mnd.s m r.k m 3 rnpwt “you were born after your months (of gestation) … and her breast was in your mouth for three years”: J.F. Quack, Die Lehren des Ani, OBO 141 (Freiburg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), p. 315. 53 E. Feucht, Das Kind im Alten Ägypten (Frankfurt and New York, 1995), pp. 32-33. 54 See W.J. Murnane and C.C. Van Siclen III, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten, Studies in Egyptology [19] (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1993), p. 175.

james p. allen

18

and her younger sister Ankhesenpaaten would have come of childbearing age even later. Since the latter bore a daughter during the reign of her father, she must have reached thirteen at the latest in Regnal Year 16-17. This places Ankhesenpaaten’s birth no later than Regnal Year 3-4, and that of her older sisters even earlier.55 If Meketaten’s first dated appearance in the Later Proclamation of Regnal Year 6 does not indicate that she was born sometime in the preceding year, it must reflect some other important event in her early life; it is hardly feasible that her omission from the text of the Early Proclamation was merely arbitrary. The event that best suits the other evidence is her weaning.56 Celebrating her fourth birthday between Month 4 of Regnal Years 5 and 6, she would have reached the age of thirteen in Regnal Year 14 or 15 and subsequently died in childbirth no later than the first month of Regnal Year 16. On that basis, the birth of Meritaten Jr. can be dated between the end of Regnal Year 12, at the earliest, and the beginning of Regnal Year 15, at the latest. In the most likely sequence of events, Meritaten Jr. was born in Regnal Year 14 or 15, Meketaten died in childbirth in Regnal Year 15, and Ankhesenpaaten Jr. was born in Regnal Year 16 or 17.57 The final stage in Akhenaten’s efforts to plan for his succession was the appointment of a coregent, probably also in Regnal Year 16-17. The identity of this female ruler has been the subject of intense debate. Speculation has centered on two women from Akhenaten’s immediate family, Nefertiti and Meritaten. First proposed in 1973,58 Nefertiti’s candidacy was in the ascendant for a time until the publication of a shawabti of hers, evidence

55

This makes it impossible for the body from KV 55 to be Akhenaten’s. He could not have fathered his three older daughters before Regnal Year 4 and died thirteen years later at the age of twenty-five or less. 56 The significance of this event can only be surmised: perhaps it was seen as the beginning of her existence as an independent individual. The onset of puberty is also possible but less likely, since Meritaten would have reached that stage before Meketaten yet did not bear a child until some six years later, at the earliest in Regnal Year 12. 57 This scenario places the birth of Meritaten within the first two years of Akhenaten’s rule, if not before his accession. During that period, Nefertiti does not appear in his reliefs. Her absence, however, does not necessarily indicate that she was married to Akhenaten only later. It may be conditioned instead by the traditional character of the reliefs, which stress the new regime’s continuity with the preceding one. Nefertiti is only attested in reliefs carved in the later, innovative Amarna style. 58 J.R. Harris, “Neferneferuaten,” GM 4 (1973), pp. 15-17,

that she died as a queen, not a pharaoh.59 General opinion now seems to favor Meritaten; for what it is worth, Manetho’s tradition that a king of the late Eighteenth Dynasty was succeeded by “his daughter Akenkherēs” points to a daughter rather than Nefertiti.60 The chief difficulty with Meritaten’s candidacy is the fact that her cartouche appears with the title jmt-nswt wrt “Chief Queen” in conjunction with those of both the coregent Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare (in the latter instance also with their figures). The first juxtaposition seems clearly to identify Meritaten and Neferneferuaten as two different individuals, while the second would involve an unprecedented— and for the Egyptians, perhaps unthinkable— “demotion” of a pharaoh if Meritaten had indeed served as Akhenaten’s coregent.61 Overlooked in the discussion of the coregent’s identity is the significance of her nomen, Neferneferuaten—although this was adduced by proponents of Nefertiti as evidence for her candidacy, since she used that name as part of her own from at least Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 5 onward. Insofar as can be determined, the primary element in the nomen of a pharaoh always corresponds to the name he (or she) bore before coming to the throne; from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward, epithets were usually added to this name in the pharaoh’s cartouche, but Akhenaten provides the only example of a complete and consistent change of the nomen’s primary element, and even he used his birth name, Amenhotep, at his accession. The evidence of this tradition argues that the coregent bore the name Neferneferuaten before her coronation, and since it now seems clear that the coregent was not Nefertiti, she must have been the

and “Nefertiti Rediviva,” AO 35 (1973), pp. 5-13. 59 C.E. Loeben, “Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen Gemahlin Nofretete in Amarna? Die Totenfigur der Nofretete,” MDAIK 42 (1986), pp. 99-107, and most recently, “Une inhumation de la grande épouse royale Néfertiti à Amarna? La figurine funéraire de Néfertiti,” Égypte Afrique et Orient 13 (1999), 25-30. A recent article has proposed that the two pieces reconstructed by Loeben as a single shawabti of Nefertiti belonged instead to two separate shawabtis, one of Nefertiti and the other of Meritaten: J.-L. Bovot, “Un chaouabti pour deux reines amarniennes?,” Égypte Afrique et Orient 13 (1999), 31-34. 60 First proposed by R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, pp. 43-53, and argued more recently and extensively by M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 147-85. “Akenkherēs” is evidently the Greek form of the coregent’s throne name Ankh(et)kheperure. 61 See n. 6, above. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 187-226, explains the “demotion” of Meritaten as political expediency, but this is unconvincing.

the amarna succession

19

only other woman known by that name: Akhenaten’s fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten Jr.62 To judge from the epithet “effective for her husband,” Neferneferuaten served as Akhenaten’s wife as well as his coregent.63 Meritaten, in turn, filled the role of the coregent’s (or coregents’) chief queen, while Ankhesenpaaten acted as senior “king’s daughter,” the function formerly exercised by Meritaten.64 Akhenaten’s motive for the promotion of his youngest surviving daughter over her two older sisters can only be the subject of speculation. If she was in fact his wife, he may yet have hoped to produce a male heir, which neither Meritaten nor Ankhesenpaaten had given him; her status as coregent would also enhance the claim of any son born to such a union. Should he succeed Akhenaten while still a child, the presence of a senior coregent would serve to safeguard that right, as Hatshepsut’s coregency had done for Thutmose III earlier in the dynasty. If the union produced no son, however, Akhenaten could still count on a successor from his own direct lineage. The calculations argued above indicate that Neferneferuaten Jr.’s three older sisters were born by Regnal Year 4. If she was born within a year of them, as seems likely,65 she would have turned thirteen in Regnal Year 16-17, allowing her to

serve as the prospective mother of Akhenaten’s heir. Her appointment as coregent probably dates to the same one- or two-year period. Part of her three-year reign must then have occurred after the death of Akhenaten. It is undoubtedly within that period of sole rule that her association with the traditional gods appeared, along with her Osirian epithet At n h(j).s “effective for her husband” and her less common “Akhenaten-less” cartouches. This in turn places the short reign of Smenkhkare after that of Akhenaten (and her).66 Since Smenkhkare probably ruled less than a year, Tutankhamun’s accession can therefore be dated more narrowly to sometime between one and two years after the death of Akhenaten, and his birth to Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 9 or 10. On the basis of the arguments advanced here, neither Smenkhkare nor Tutankhamun could have received their right to the throne by descent from Akhenaten or any of his wives or daughters. Tutankhamun’s status before his accession as the son of a king can therefore derive only from Smenkhkare. The probability that the body from KV 55 is that of Smenkhkare enhances this relationship, since physical examination has indicated that its owner was a close relative of Tutankhamun.67

62 The absence of tA Srjt “Jr.” from the coregent’s cartouche does not necessarily argue against this identification. It may have been considered inappropriate for a king’s nomen but could also have been otiose after the death of the senior Neferneferuaten. The date of Nefertiti’s death is unknown; her last appearance is in the scenes in Room gamma described above, sometime after her last dated appearance in Regnal Year 12. It has been argued that she survived until the end of Akhenaten’s reign or even beyond (see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 171) but the evidence is unclear and she could have died before the appointment of Neferneferuaten as coregent: see n. 64, below. 63 Neferneferuaten Jr. and another daughter are attested earlier with the title jmt-nswt zAt n t.f, but these do not necessarily indicate that they were “king’s wife” at the time: see Robins, GM 52 (1981), pp. 75-76. If they are not simply errors, they are perhaps to be read as “daughter of the king’s wife and of his body.” 64 See M. Gabolde, BSEG 14 (1990), 45. Meritaten’s service as chief queen may also be reflected in her apparent designation as “mistress” of the royal house in Amarna Letter EA 11: see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 175. Together with her role as chief queen, this seems clear evidence that Nefertiti had already died. 65 Since her name reflects the initial epithet of her mother’s cartouche, she must have been born after the epithet was adopted. Its first dated appearance is in the Early Proclamation of Regnal Year 5, but it also appears in reliefs at Karnak, which are probably earlier: R.W. Smith and D.B. Redford, The Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. I: Initial Discoveies (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1976), p 80. 66 Some of the material used for Tutankhamun’s burial

was originally made for Neferneferuaten as king, most notably her four royal canopic coffins: J. Allen, “The Original Owner of Tutankhamun’s Canopic Coffins,” to appear in the forthcoming Festschrift for David P. Silverman, ed. by Z. Hawass and J. Houser-Wegner; see also Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 185. The appropriation of this and other elements of her burial equipment indicates that Smenkhkare denied her a pharaonic burial. Whether she or Ankhesenamun was the queen of the notorious daamunzu episode—for which, see Gabolde, op.cit., pp. 187-212—is a question outside the parameters of the present article. It should be noted, however, that if it was she, her request for a Hittite prince—“To me he will be husband, but in Egypt he will be king”—does not necessarily imply her “demotion” from pharaoh to king: she could have had in mind a coregency like that she had just shared with Akhenaten. This is different from the case of Meritaten, who clearly served as queen to Smenkhkare after the death of her father, a “demotion” improbable if she, rather than Neferneferuaten Jr., had been Akhenaten’s coregent. 67 D.E. Derry, “Note on the skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten,” ASAE 31 (1931), pp. 115-19; R.G. Harrison, “An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten,” JEA 52 (1966), pp. 113-116; R.C. Connolly et al., “Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun affirmed by Serological Micromethod,” Nature 224 (1969), pp. 325-26; R.C. Connolly et al., “Serological evidence for the parentage of Tutankhamūn and Smenkhkarē,” JEA 62 (1976), pp. 184-86. Cf., however, E.S. Meltzer, “The parentage of Tutankhamūn and Smenkhkarē,” JEA 64 (1978), pp. 134-35; R, Germer, Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, p. 60.

20

james p. allen

Smenkhkare’s adoption of the primary element of Neferneferuaten’s prenomen and of her chief queen, Meritaten, as his own, as well as the juxtaposition of his name with Akhenaten’s on the vase from Tutankhamun’s tomb, all seem clearly designed to enhance the legitimacy of his claim as Akhenaten’s successor. Tutankhamun followed the same course by taking Ankhesenpaaten as his chief queen. The right of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun to the succession, however, may not have been based merely on these marriages. Although Tutankhamun’s designation of Amenhotep III as “his father” is not a literal statement of his parentage, it does indicate that he regarded that king as an ancestor. The model coffin found in his tomb, containing a lock of hair from Amenhotep III’s queen, Tiya, looks like a family heirloom and suggests that the term “his father” had more than just religious meaning.68 Tutankhamun’s ties to the family of Amenhotep III are underlined by a surveying instrument dedicated to Amenhotep’s father, Thutmose IV.69 Inscriptions on both sides of the object describe Tutankhamun as

“he who renews the monument of …, Lord of the Two Lands, Menkheperure.” Only two interpretations of the signs preceding nb tAwj 68 For the coffin, see A. Rowe, “Inscriptions on the Model Coffin Containing the Lock of Hair of Queen Tyi,” ASAE 40 (1940), pp. 623-27. 69 J.A. Larson, “The Tutankhamen Astronomical Instrument,” Amarna Letters 2 (1992), pp. 77-86. 70 jtw.f “his fathers” is impossible in the context, which refers only to Thutmose IV. The term might also be read as jtwj.f “his dual father,” meaning that Tutankhamun had descended from a son and daughter of Thutmose IV, but this too implies an improbable nonsingular reference to Thutmose IV. 71 For the daughters of Thutmose IV, see B. Bryan, The

“Lord of the Two Lands” seem possible: jt jt.f “his father’s father” or jt jt jt.f “his father’s father’s father.”70 The former would identify Thutmose IV as Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and the latter as his great-grandfather. The epithet’s unusual character suggests that it was meant literally: had Tutankhamun merely intended to honor Thutmose IV as an illustrious ancestor, he would undoubtedly have used the more common term jt.f “his father.” Of the two readings, the first is ruled out by the evidence that Tutankhamun’s father was probably Smenkhkare, who was born at the earliest thirty years after the death of Thutmose IV; by the same measure, his mother is not likely to have been a daughter of that king. The inscription therefore honors Thutmose IV as Tutankhamun’s great-grandfather. This in turn identifies his grandfather or grandmother as a child of Thutmose IV, who must be either Amenhotep III or one of that king’s siblings. Although Amenhotep III had several sisters (or half-sisters), and possibly also brothers (or half-brothers),71 any of whom could have been grandparents of Tutankhamun, the lock of Queen Tiya’s hair buried with Tutankhamun argues that Amenhotep III himself was Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and Tiya his grandmother. His father, Smenkhkare, was therefore a son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiya, and a younger brother of Akhenaten.

Reign of Thutmose IV (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 120-23. Three or four brothers of Amenhotep III may be represented as children on the lap of the owner of TT 226: N. de G. Davies, The Theban Tomb Series V: The Tombs of Menkheperresonb, Amenmosĕ, and Another (Nos. 86, 112, 42, 226) (London: EES, 1933), pl. 30 (E). These are usually seen as sons of Amenhotep III, but the fact that tomb dates to his Regnal Years 1-2 makes it more likely that they were his brothers, and perhaps himself as a child. The only two names preserved, in part, were compounded with the throne name of Thutmose IV’s father, Amenhotep II.

architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak

21

NOTE ARCHÉOLOGIQUE ET ÉPIGRAPHIQUE SUR LES ARCHITRAVES DE LA GRANDE SALLE HYPOSTYLE DU TEMPLE D’AMONRÊ À KARNAK Michel Azim Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, CEPAM–CNRS et Vincent Rondot Section française de la Direction des Antiquités du Soudan On sait l’importance capitale que revêt, pour la connaissance des sites antiques, l’étude des documents anciens—gravures et photographies notamment—ce dont William J. Murnane, bien entendu, avait une conscience parfaitement claire. Lorsqu’il sut, en 2000, grâce à Luc Gabolde, que je travaillais sur les clichés rassemblés ou pris naguère par Georges Legrain à Karnak, il me contacta, naturellement intéressé, renouant ainsi avec l’époque où nous fîmes connaissance à Louqsor dans les années soixante-dix. Je me réjouissais de pouvoir examiner avec Bill, en France, les clichés réunis ; le dialogue studieux et amical espéré, certes, ne devait pas avoir lieu, mais j’ai un peu le sentiment, néanmoins, de l’ouvrir aujourd’hui au travers de cette note que Vincent et moi-même lui dédions ; relative à des éléments d’un monument dont il contribua tant à développer la connaissance, elle exploite des documents photographiques illustrant des épisodes encore mal connus de l’histoire récente des travaux de la salle hypostyle et ajoute un passage inédit à l’établissement de ses textes. 1

Cf. V. Rondot, La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak. Les architraves (Paris : ERC, 1997), Fig. 2, p. 5 ; M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Karnak dans l’objectif de Georges Legrain (Paris : CRA Monographies, 2004), vol. I, Fig. 9 p. 135 ; ces deux figures font la synthèse des connaissances actuelles sur l’état archéologique des architraves et l’histoire récente de leur ruine. 2 V. Rondot, Les architraves, pl. 55. 3 Les architraves naviformes sont celles qui présentent en plan le contour d’un petit bateau : l’une de leurs extrémités est taillée en prisme droit à 45° pour pouvoir s’intégrer, au-dessus d’une colonne, à une ligne d’architraves perpendiculaire creusée en « V », l’assemblage étroit de ces éléments assurant ainsi une surface d’appui suffisante à chacun d’eux. Les figures citées supra n. 1 montrent que ces architraves, comme celles qui les reçoivent, sont les seules à ne pas être constituées de deux blocs parallèles ; elles sont au contraire faites essentiellement d’un énorme monolithe,

Les architraves naviformes du quart sud-ouest de la salle hypostyle1 Au sud de la salle hypostyle et l’ouest de la cour du VIIe pylône, au bord de l’ancienne route venant de Louqsor, demeure de nos jours un magasin en plein-air que Vincent Rondot a désigné par le sigle SB2 (Fig. 1) ; il regroupe des éléments architectoniques retirés de la salle, dont quatre architraves naviformes provenant de son quart sud-ouest3. Au départ de notre recherche, nous espérions pouvoir utiliser les photographies d’archives existantes pour déterminer leur position d’origine dans le monument, qui pose problème pour deux d’entre elles, celles qui jadis reliaient les colonnes de la nef sud 24 et 33 d’une part, 25 et 34 de l’autre4. Ces photographies, hélas, se sont avérées insuffisantes, et il manque toujours le cliché, s’il existe, qui fournirait une preuve décisive ; on a jugé intéressant, toutefois, de commenter la question et faire le point des connaissances sur les différentes étapes qui ont amené le quart sud-ouest de la salle

qu’une « feuille » de pierre composée de deux plaques longitudinales accolées surmonte, détail qui a trompé S. Clarke, R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry (ouvrage réédité en 1990 sous le titre Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture) (London : Oxford University Press, 1930), Fig.203 après p. 171, où elles n’associent à tort que deux grands blocs seulement sur toute leur épaisseur. Chacune des architraves naviformes complète pèse plus de 40 tonnes. 4 Blocs SB4 et SB12, V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 110, SB4 côté. La numérotation des colonnes utilisée ici est celle de G. Legrain, Les temples de Karnak (Bruxelles : Vromant, 1929, p. 160 ; lorsque nécessaire, on donnera également celle de H.H. Nelson, Key Plans showing Locations of Theban Temples Decorations, OIP 56 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), pl. III. 5 Cf. M. Azim, « La structure des pylônes d’Horemheb à Karnak », Karnak 7 (Paris : ERC, 1982), p. 127-134.

22

michel azim et vincent rondot

Fig. 1. Plan du magasin SB au sud de la salle hypostyle (relevé V. Rondot, mai 1983).

hypostyle à son état actuel, et de chercher à établir ce qu’il s’est passé entre l’effondrement du IIe pylône et la constitution du magasin d’architraves SB. Le IIe pylône, on le sait, est un immense édifice qui, victime de sa propre structure5, s’est effondré de longue date, son môle nord s’écroulant vers l’ouest dans la grande cour, son môle sud à la fois vers l’ouest et vers l’est entraînant, dans la salle hypostyle, la chute de six colonnes et l’inclinaison de deux autres6. Si l’état récent du monument, vu depuis la grande cour ou le Ier pylône, a été illustré par de nombreuses gravures ou photographies depuis la Description de l’Égypte7, il en a été tout autrement de l’éboulis ayant affecté la salle hypostyle, malaisé à dessiner ou photographier et surtout singulièrement dénué d’intérêt aux yeux des visiteurs du passé, éblouis ailleurs par la grandeur et la majesté de l’ensemble monumental de Karnak. C’est dire si les rares photographies retrouvées dans les archives de Legrain sont précieuses du point de vue de l’archéologie : elles constituent les seules sources permettant de visualiser l’impact de l’écroulement du IIe pylône

sur la nef sud de la salle hypostyle et d’envisager ce que fut le destin des quatre architraves naviformes qui jadis furent hissées dans sa moitié occidentale, SB4, SB5, SB11 et SB12, retrouvées au sol de nos jours dans le magasin SB8. L’emplacement initial de SB11 a pu être déterminé sans erreur possible par l’étude épigraphique9 : c’était l’architrave la plus proche du IIe pylône. Celui de SB5 ne fait aucun doute non plus, puisque ses blocs furent arrachés à leur position d’origine par Legrain au début de 190910; SB5 occupait la quatrième position vers l’est à partir du IIe pylône. Ce sont donc les deux architraves intermédiaires, SB4 et SB12, que l’on avait eu l’espoir de pouvoir replacer11. Les photographies pertinentes sont au nombre de sept12 : six dues à Legrain (4-3/19, 4-3/142, 4-3/143, 4-3/144, 4-3/145, 4-3/146) et une plus ancienne, à Beato (4-3/147), mais, sur cette série de clichés, une seule architrave naviforme tombée est visible. Le cliché Beato, pris vers 1870-1880, montre l’allée transversale de la salle hypostyle barrée vers le sud par une énorme masse de blocs tombés provenant de la chute de la colonne 35, qui

6 M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol. I, p. 168-171 et Fig.11. 7 Description de l’Egypte, Antiquités, vol. III (Paris : Imprimerie Impériale, 1812), pl. 19. 8 Elles sont vierges de tout martelage, et si elles avaient connu des placages de boue avant leur chute, celle-ci les aurait à l’évidence fait disparaître ; sur cette question, voir V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 4-5. 9 Ibid., p. 192 ; textes N°63, 64, 65 p. 77-78 et pl. 34, 35, 44.

10 M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, p. 171-172 ; V. Rondot, Les architraves, textes N°54, 55, 56, p. 72-73, et pl. 31, 32, 43. 11 V. Rondot, ibid., p. 110 et pl. 52, J (SB4) ; p. 111 et pl. 52, K (SB12). 12 Nous conservons ici les numéros qui leur ont été attribués dans M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, chap. 4-3, vol.I, p. 130, 170-171, vol.II, p. 44, 80-81.

architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak

23

marque aussi—ou presque—la limite orientale de l’éboulis du IIe pylône et des éléments architectoniques emportés dans son naufrage à l’intérieur de la salle ; il donne déjà une idée de ce formidable chaos que l’on est bien en peine, en simple promeneur de Karnak aujourd’hui, d’imaginer. Les six autres photographies constituent un état des lieux avant travaux enregistré par Legrain, en précurseur qu’il fut de ce qui est systématiquement réalisé aujourd’hui avant toute intervention sur le monument. Le cliché 4-3/19 illustre l’aspect du contrefort antique érigé entre le IIe pylône et la première des grandes colonnes de la rangée axiale sud avant son démontage en 1912 ou 1913 ; au-dessus de cet élément, aucune des architraves de la salle hypostyle n’apparaît dans l’éboulis du pylône. En revanche, sur la photographie 4-3/146 montrant sa seconde travée nord-sud à partir de ce même pylône, on constate qu’une architrave, à l’arrière-plan, s‘est écroulée sur l’amas des blocs tombés. Elle est visible également, vue depuis l’est cette fois et beaucoup plus nettement, sur le cliché 4-3/143, avec sa pointe dressée vers le ciel et les deux queues d’aronde ménagées à sa partie supérieure. Il s’agit de la pierre qui reliait les colonnes 14 et 23 de la nef sud, soit le bloc SB11. On retrouve ce bloc quelque temps plus tard, au début de 1909, pendant son déplacement : Legrain en a publié une photographie en 1914 dans son ouvrage Louqsor sans les pharaons13, qui montre des équipes d’ouvriers affairés à le tirer dans un premier temps vers l’est sur une plateforme de manoeuvre ménagée à environ mi-hauteur des colonnes. Une fois sorties du quart sud-ouest de la salle hypostyle, les quatre architraves naviformes furent laissées par Legrain immédiatement au sud du monument, devant sa porte méridionale, comme l’a confirmé Maurice Pillet en 1923 : « Tout l’espace compris entre la Salle Hypostyle au nord, le temple de Ramsès III à l’ouest, la route au sud et la cour de la Cachette à l’est était encombré d’une

masse de décombres provenant, pour la plupart, du déblaiement de la partie centrale du temple. Au-dessus, quatre grands linteaux de l’Hypostyle avaient été tirés là par M. Legrain. Ils sont tous en mauvais état et il n’y avait pas à songer à les remettre en place ; ils furent donc rangés plus au sud, en bordure de la route. »14 Ces « linteaux » sont visibles, en compagnie de quelques autres pierres descendues par Legrain, sur un cliché pris en février 1912 par Pillet lors de sa toute première visite de Karnak sous la direction de Legrain (Fig. 2), notamment l’architrave qui reliait initialement les colonnes 17 et 26, toujours recouverte de la feuille de pierre en deux parties qui la surmonte (soit le bloc SB5)15 ; ils apparaissent encore sur une photographie aérienne prise par la Royal Air Force le 7 mai 1921, avant les travaux de Pillet.16 Legrain, toutefois, fut bien à l’origine de la création du magasin SB où, dans la foulée de ses travaux de 1909-1910, il avait déjà transporté plusieurs blocs ; l’embryon du dépôt apparaît clairement sur la photo aérienne précitée. Les architraves naviformes, quant à elles, furent amenées au magasin SB par Pillet, du 4 au 6 janvier 1923. Une série de photographies conservées dans ses archives rend compte de l’opération17, et l’une d’entre elles a été publiée 18, qui montre les préparatifs de déplacement de deux naviformes. La première est en train d’être tirée vers le sud, c’est le bloc SB12, reconnaissable à la cassure caractéristique que présente son « nez » 19 ; l’autre, SB11, retournée, est encore sur cales (ses queues d’aronde apparaissent au bas du bloc, et son texte de soffite à sa face supérieure20). L’architrave descendue par Legrain (SB5), surmontée de sa « feuille » en deux plaques de grès juxtaposées, est déjà arrivée au magasin SB, de même que SB4 rangée immédiatement à l’ouest de SB5. En conclusion, ni les textes qu’elles portent, ni les documents d’archives n’ont permis, jusqu’à présent, de trancher l’alternative quant à la position d’origine des architraves SB4 et SB12 ; seul l’argument épigraphique avancé par Vincent

13 Fig.77 après p. 194 (la Fig.76, elle, montre le déplacement du bloc SB12). 14 M. Pillet, « Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (19221923) », ASAE 23 (1923), p. 111. 15 Cf. M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.I, p. 171172. 16 M. Pillet, Thèbes, Karnak et Louqsor (Paris : Laurens, 1928), Fig.11 p. 16 ; p. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1962), pl. I. 17 Boîte B089, clichés n°08 à 14 ; les archives égyptologiques de Maurice Pillet sont désormais conservées à la

Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée-Jean Pouilloux (MOM), CNRS, Université de Lyon 2, France. Les dates de l’opération sont portées sur les plaques photographiques elles-mêmes. 18 Cliché B089-10, Fig.33 p. 42 dans M. Pillet, Thèbes, Karnak et Louqsor : « Karnak. Déplacement des linteaux de la Salle hypostyle ». 19 Cassure visible sur la Fig.76 de G. Legrain, Louqsor sans les pharaons : légendes et chansons populaires de la Haute Égypte (Paris : Vromant, 1914). 20 Bloc illustré par la Fig.77 du même ouvrage.

michel azim et vincent rondot

24

Fig. 2. La salle hypostyle vue depuis le sud en 1912 avec, devant sa porte latérale, plusieurs des grands blocs descendus par Legrain ; on notera, au premier tiers gauche de la photographie, la présence des deux dernières demi-architraves reposant sur le mur sud (Collection M. Pillet, CNRS-MOM, 1912, inv. . B028-16).

Rondot est, pour l’instant, susceptible de fournir un indice21. Au-delà, le seul moyen, peut-être, d’acquérir une certitude relèverait de l’observation archéologique : il consisterait à comparer un relevé minutieux des pointes des deux monolithes au sol—qui prendrait en compte tous leurs détails significatifs, dimensions exactes, angles de taille, position des queues d’aronde, cassures, traces de plâtre de liaison …—, et l’observation attentive des zones d’encastrement des pierres au sommet des colonnes comme de leurs anciennes surfaces d’appui22, ce qui demanderait le montage sur place d’un échafaudage.

21

Cf. V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 110, SB4 côté (pl.52, J). 22 Il en existe des photographies dans les archives de M. Pillet, insuffisantes toutefois pour que le but recherché puisse être atteint. 23 Voir l’état des connaissances résumé par les plans donnés dans V. Rondot, Les architraves, Fig.2 p. 5, et M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.1, Fig.9 p. 135. V. Rondot, Les architraves p. 6, indique que les pierres in situ ne représentent

Des architraves récemment disparues Si, au fil des siècles, la majeure partie des architraves de la salle hypostyle ont été malheureusement détruites, particulièrement dans la nef nord23, quelques documents d’archives montrent que certaines d’entre elles, jusqu’à une date relativement récente, étaient encore visibles. Outre celle que Vincent Rondot étudie ci-après, on signalera : – Un bloc abandonné jadis au sommet du montant nord de la porte du IIe pylône, illustré par une photographie de la fin du XIXe siècle publiée par Mariette24 ; après l’intervention de

plus aujourd’hui que 43% du total initial, et seulement 13,5% dans la nef nord. 24 Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte (Le Caire : Mourès, 1878, réédité chez Paris : Errance, 1999), pl. 41 ; V. Rondot, J.-C. Golvin, « Restaurations antiques à l’entrée de la salle hypostyle ramesside du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak », MDAIK 45 (1989), p. 249-259, Fig.1 p. 250 et Taf.29 (bloc B).

architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak Legrain sur le monument, en 1907 semble-t-il, ce bloc n’apparaît plus sur aucun document et n’a pu depuis être repéré sur le site 25, ce qui fait donc craindre qu’il n’ait été détruit26. – Un des deux blocs constituant l’une des grandes architraves est-ouest de l’allée centrale, côté sud, entre les deux premières grandes colonnes à compter du IIe pylône27, a vu sa chute s’arrêter contre le montant sud de la porte de ce monument ; il est visible sur une photographie de Francis Frith prise à la fin des années 1850 28, et avait auparavant été dessiné par Edward William Lane dans les années 182029 ; il fut détruit selon toute vraisemblance vers l’année 1860, n’apparaissant plus sur aucun cliché après cette période. – De toutes les architraves qui joignaient les rangées extrêmes de colonnes aux murs latéraux de la salle hypostyle, au nord comme au sud, une seulement était encore en place en 191230, bien que les deux blocs qui la composaient se soient affaissés vers le sud à la suite de la dégradation de leur mur porteur, comme on le constate sur la figure 2. Cette architrave fut descendue peu après par Legrain ; son bloc occidental pourrait être SB131, alors que son compagnon oriental, lui, n’a pas été retrouvé. (M.A.)

Une architrave perdue de la nef nord et son texte C’est à Michel Azim que je dois la connaissance de la photographie d’archives qui me fournit la

25 V. Rondot, J.-C. Golvin, MDAIK 45 (1989), n.2 p. 249. 26 M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.1, p. 127-128. 27 Colonnes n°1 et 2 de Legrain, n°7 et 8 de Nelson ; cf. V. Rondot, Les architraves, pl. I, deuxième texte de soffite, en 5, d. 28 A. Grimm, Ägypten, Die photographische Entdeckung im 19. Jahrhundert (München : Edition Photographica, Laterna magica, 1980), p. 66 ; J. Vercoutter, L’Égypte à la chambre noire. Francis Frith, photographe de l’Égypte retrouvée (Paris : Gallimard, 1992), p. 31, 125-126. 29 E.W. Lane, Description of Egypt, éd. J. Thompson (Cairo : American University in Cairo Press, 2000), Fig.81 av. p. 177. 30 M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, vol.I, Fig.9 p. 135, architrave 59 sud, p. 169-170, vol.II, cliché 4-3/152. 31 V. Rondot, Les architraves, pl. 53, L.

25

matière de cette note offerte à Bill. Tous deux furent, lorsque je me proposais de faire les relevés des textes des architraves de la Grande salle hypostyle du temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak, les collègues irremplaçables que tout étudiant souhaiterait pouvoir rencontrer au moment où il fait ses premières armes sur le terrain. L’accueil confiant de Bill et ses conseils avisés ont été décisifs dans le succès de cette entreprise et c’est un plaisir que de pouvoir signer avec Michel cet article à sa mémoire32. Les archives Lacau, conservées au Centre Vladimir Golénischeff, contiennent une photographie de G. Legrain datable du début de l’année 1899 et représentant des ouvriers au milieu du désordre des colonnes tombées dans la moitié nord de la grande salle hypostyle33. La photographie est publiée34 et, sur mes indications, M. Azim avait proposé comme position d’origine la volée entre les colonnes 53 et 6235, côté ouest. Un réexamen plus approfondi des indices me fait penser aujourd’hui que sa position d’origine est beaucoup plus certainement la volée d’architrave entre les colonnes 54 et 6336. L’intérêt de ce cliché est qu’il documente un bloc d’architrave qui a aujourd’hui disparu et qui fournit un fragment de texte inconnu de moi lorsque je travaillais à l’établissement du corpus. Publier un texte à partir d’une photographie d’archives est toujours une entreprise délicate, et celle-ci n’échappe pas à la règle. Il m’a cependant paru possible de prendre le risque à nouveau, comme j’avais déjà été amené à le faire pour plusieurs extraits des textes des architraves37, dans la mesure où nous pouvons raisonnablement tenir pour acquis que des blocs aussi gros, lorsqu’ils sont introuvables, ont selon toute probabilité définitivement disparu.

32 Pour une présentation générale des travaux de publication de la Grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, W.J. Murnane, p. J. Brand, J. Karkowski, R. Jaeschke, « The Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project : (1992-2002) », ASAE 78 (2004), p. 79-127. 33 Archives Lacau A XX 12. Tous mes remerciements à Christiane Zivie-Coche et à Ivan Guermeur pour les facilités qui m’ont été faites lors de l’examen du tirage original. 34 M. Azim, G. Réveillac, Legrain, photo 4-3/56, vol.II p. 57, et commentaire, vol.I p. 146-147. 35 Ou 120 et 129 (numérotation Nelson). 36 121 et 130 de Nelson. 37 Grâce à des clichés inédits ou publiés, V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 187 sq. Les textes des architraves concernés sont : N° 1, sup. et inf. ; N° 2, Sud ; N° 19, Est ; N° 19, Ouest ; N° 22, Est ; N° 33, inf. ; N° 35, Ouest et Est ; N° 37, sup. et inf. ; N° 38, Ouest et Est ; N° 39, inf. ; N° 43, sup. ; NA28+NA29+NE20 côté, sup. et inf.

michel azim et vincent rondot

26

Fig. 3. Nouvel établissement des textes des architraves N° 31, sup. et 31, inf. (d’après V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 18*).

Ainsi replacé selon les critères archéologiques fournis par la photographie, ce bloc permet de compléter l’établissement des textes N° 31, sup. et N° 31, inf.38. Je donne en Figures 4 et 5 le détail agrandi du bloc d’architrave visible sur la photographie et le fac-similé schématique des signes encore lisibles, sur lequel ne figurent que les informations qui me paraissent assurées. Même ainsi incomplet et imparfait, cet établissement du texte présente plusieurs intérêts pour notre connaissance du corpus des textes des architraves. Le premier tient dans le fait que ce fragment complète deux des textes décorant les architraves placées sur l’axe secondaire nord-sud de la salle c’est-à-dire à une position remarquable dans le plan général des architraves. Le second est que le texte de la ligne supérieure (N° 31, sup.) contient une formule de dédicace que notre fragment vient compléter par un développement, alors que dans l’établissement antérieur, la lacune interrompait brutalement ce texte. Le troisième enfin tient à ce que ce fragment ajoute au vocabulaire des architraves deux mots et une expression jusqu’à présent non attestés dans notre corpus. 38

Ibid., Rondot, p. 18* et pl. 10.

La Fig. 3 ci-dessous donne le nouvel établissement des deux textes. La traduction de N° 31, sup. est désormais la suivante : (Vive) l’Horus : Taureau puissant, celui qui apparaît dans Thèbes celui qui fait vivre les Deux Terres. Roi puissant, Aux grands monuments dans le domaine de (son) père Amon-Rê, […] ? […] ? pour lui. Le roi de Haute et Basse-Égypte : Menmaâtrêl’élu-de-Rê. Il a fait comme mémorial personnel pour (son) père Amon-Rê, roi des dieux, l’acte de faire pour lui un temple auguste et grand […] […] il irradie et il s’en (du temple) réjouit. En récompense à [ce]la, [il donne ?] vie-et-pouvoir […].

Ps est l’un des mots nouveaux dans le vocabulaire des architraves, à ajouter à wbn, déjà attesté par deux fois (N° 29, inf. et NE 40 côté, sup.), seul autre verbe qui décrive dans nos textes le dieu investissant de sa lumière le nouveau temple construit39. 39

Les deux autres verbes, en effet, s et n, sont réservés au roi qui fait resplendir le temple, Ipet-Sout, Thèbes

architraves de la grande salle hypostyle du temple d’amon-rê à karnak

27

Fig. 4. Photographie G. Legrain 1899. Archives Lacau A XX 12. Détail agrandi de l’architrave.

Fig. 5. Fac-similé schématique du texte lisible sur la photographie d’archives Lacau A XX 12.

Il n’est pas exclu, alors, que le fragment NE40 (pl. 48, W) ait pu appartenir à notre texte, sur l’argument de son contenu, mais également parce qu’il appartient lui aussi à une ligne supérieure dont les hiéroglyphes ont été martelés systématiquement, selon la même technique que N°31 comme du bloc de notre photographie d’archives. Nous aurions dans ce cas un long développement tout entier consacré à la brillance du dieu dans le temple.

Les martelages rendent la suite du texte difficile à établir avec certitude. La forme qu’ils prennent autant que la présence du r au bas du cadrat invitent à restituer un r dans le cadrat suivant40 dans une phrase tp r.s décrivant la joie du dieu pour le temple construit (wt-nr wrt), repris par le pronom suffixe .s. Le verbe jusqu’alors le plus largement attesté dans nos textes pour décrire cette joie divine est ἰ (N° 1, inf., n. b),

ou les Deux-Terres ou dont l’éclat est étincelant à l’instar des dieux solaires (ibid., Les architraves, Index I, p. 162 et 164), à l’exception toutefois d’une attestation de s dans un texte qui dit du temple qu’il est « resplendissant comme le disque du soleil » (N° 1, sup.).

40 Pour d’autres exemples de r intégralement martelés et en ne débordant pas ou que très peu la silhouette du signe, pl. 3 (N° 4, sup.), pl. 4 (N° 6, sup.) et pl. 9 (N° 15, inf., trois fois). Le contour que j’ai donné aux martelages sur la Fig. 3 n’est pas assuré.

28

michel azim et vincent rondot

l’expression tp r étant quant à elle réservée au roi, dans un total de seulement trois attestations il est vrai, dont deux épithètes royales41. Ainsi « découpée », cependant, la phrase reprend par l’expression r ἰsw, alors que l’on attendrait plutôt un nouveau verbe, avec pour sujet le dieu ou le pronom suffixe le désignant. Peut-on proposer, sans être trop conjectural, que le verbe prenne place plus loin, dans la lacune après le démonstratif nn dans une phrase qui serait r ἰsw n[n rdἰ.f] nh-wAs [… n sA R cartouche] ? Le mot ἰsw est déjà employé deux fois dans nos textes (N° 9, sup., n. j) et c’est ici la troisième attestation, dans une graphie nouvelle42. Les autres termes utilisés sont mtn « récompense » et l’expression nm sw m (N° 9, sup., n. e). Les textes en place comme les fragments font apparaître que cette réjouissance divine pour la fondation royale, suivie des récompenses accordées au roi, est l’un des thèmes fondamentaux du corpus des textes des architraves. Ce sont les mots mêmes du dieu, rapportés par les discours divins placés symétriquement sur l’axe majeur, l’un adressé aux dieux de l’Égypte (N° 9, sup.), l’autre au roi (N° 10, sup.), qui le manifestent de la façon la plus directe et la plus étendue. Il semble bien que, dans les textes de la partie nord de la salle (ceux de Séthi Ier), cette réjouissance suivie d’une récompense divines aient été l’une des clausules les plus utilisées, ce que l’état fragmentaire des textes ne laisse plus voir aujourd’hui. La traduction de N° 31, inf. est désormais la suivante : Les Deux Maîtresses : Celui qui répète les naissances, celui dont le glaive est puissant, celui qui repousse les Neuf Arcs ; L’Horus d’Or : Celui qui répète les couronnements, celui dont les arcs sont puissants dans tous les pays. 41 V. Rondot, Les architraves, Index I, p. 161 et Index III, p. 172. 42 Comparer, pour la salle hypostyle, avec KRI I, p. 210, 13 (discours d’Amon au-dessus de la barque processionnelle). 43 A. Erman et H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, II, Die Belegstellen, 4e édition (Berlin : AkademieVerlag, 1992) cite Urk. IV, p. 424 et Abyd. Mar. I, 19b (= KRI I, p. 161, 13). Je renvoie à nouveau à Chr. Desroches Noblecourt, Ch. Kuentz, Le petit temple d’Abou Simbel I (Le

Roi [qui fait un mé]morial dans le domaine d’Amon, [détermi]né [à construi]re pour celui qui l’a mis au monde. Le roi de Haute et Basse-Égypte : Men-[maât]rê[l’él]u-de-Rê. Prince parfait, le bien-aimé, fils aîné de Horakhty, celui qui construit les temples […] […] ses rayons. C’est le roi lui-même […]

Le mot mAwt et l’expression nswt s.f sont tous deux nouveaux dans nos textes. Le contexte est beaucoup trop lacunaire pour qu’il soit utile ou possible d’établir plus avant ce passage. On remarquera cependant que les « rayons » dont il est question sont divins selon toute vraisemblance, agissant d’une façon ou d’une autre sur les temples construits par le roi et dont il est fait mention43. L’expression « C’est le roi lui-même » conclut la série d’épithètes qui précède en décrivant le souverain « à l’œuvre » lorsqu’il s’agit de donner les instructions pour la construction du temple44. Voici donc les informations supplémentaires fournies par ces deux fragments de textes. Elles sont à la fois nouvelles, pour le vocabulaire, et attendues, pour la phraséologie. Il faut rappeler ici que selon mes calculs, nous ne connaissons qu’une partie très réduite des textes ayant décoré la partie nord de la salle (sculptés sous le règne de Séthi Ier) puisque j’avais pu estimer à 13,5 % le pourcentage des blocs en place ou rétablis à leur position d’origine45. On retiendra ici surtout la place particulièrement importante donnée à la radiance divine, dans ces deux lignes de textes placées sur l’axe secondaire nord-sud de la salle. (V. R.)

Caire : Centre de documentation et d’étude sur l’ancienne Égypte, 1968), p. 142-145. J’avais remarqué que pour l’épithète mrwty « le bien-aimé », lorsque le roi est comparé à des divinités, ce sont les divinités solaires qui reviennent le plus souvent, V. Rondot, Les architraves, N° 31, inf., n. e. 44 N° 4, sup., n. d avec le recours deux fois dans nos textes à l’expression équivalente ἰn m.f « C’est Sa Majesté qui… ». Comparer, pour la salle hypostyle, avec KRI I, 207, 5-6 (fête d’Opet). 45 V. Rondot, Les architraves, p. 5 sq. et Fig. 2.

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

29

USURPED CARTOUCHES OF MERENPTAH AT KARNAK AND LUXOR Peter J. Brand University of Memphis

It is an honor to dedicate this article to my late friend and mentor Bill Murnane. I have the fondest memories of hours we spent together at Karnak pouring over epigraphic conundrums on the walls of the Great Hypostyle Hall. I count myself highly fortunate to have been trained in the arcane art of epigraphy from a master of the craft. So too in the disciplines of Egyptian history and historiography I benefited immeasurably from his tutelage during countless hours of exposure to his vast knowledge and incisive reasoning skills both in formal class sessions and stimulating discussions outside the classroom as a student in Memphis and later during our work at Karnak. His death left a great void in my own life professionally and personally, and not a day passes when I do not think about him or speak about him to my colleagues and my own students.

Introduction: Usurped Cartouches in the New Kingdom At Karnak and Luxor temples one often finds the cartouches of Seti II carved secondarily over the erased titulary of one of his Ramesside predecessors in wall reliefs, statuary and bandeau texts. The usurpation of royal inscriptions, especially in the Nineteenth Dynasty, is a common enough phenomenon in the New Kingdom, but one can 1 P.J. Brand, “Methods used in Restoring Reliefs Vandalized during the Amarna Period,” GM 170 (1999), pp. 37-48. 2 E.g., Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions from Luxor Temple, Volume 1: The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994), passim; idem, The Facade, Portal, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998), passim. 3 K.C. Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and the Date of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pp. 7-8 and Figs. 1-2. 4 Ibid, pp. 7-8; W.J. Murnane, “Ramesses I and the Building of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak Revisited,” VA 10 (1995), pp. 163-168; W.J. Murnane† and P.J. Brand,

often find vestiges of the earlier ruler’s name as a palimpsest beneath the surcharger’s. Although this is not always the case, especially with inscriptions carved in hard stone like granite,1 enough traces usually remain to credit the original authors of whole series of usurped wall reliefs on limestone and sandstone monuments. Examples are numerous, including reliefs of Hatshepsut at Karnak and Deir el-Bahari, Tutankhamen’s reliefs surcharged by Horemheb in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor,2 Ramesses I’s usurpations of Horemheb on the Second Pylon at Karnak,3 Ramesses II’s replacements of his three immediate predecessors’ cartouches on the Second Pylon4 and in the Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall,5 as well as Ramesses VI’s appropriation of Ramesses IV’s reliefs in the Hypostyle Hall6 and elsewhere at Karnak.7

Usurped Cartouches Naming Seti II at Karnak Among the cartouches usurped by Seti II at Karnak, however, only rarely do any traces of the original author remain. In a few instances it is clear that Merenptah’s name had occurred earlier, as with the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak and some blocks from its walls, where faint traces of Merenptah’s titulary occasionally surive “The Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project (1992-2002),” ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 100-101. 5 W.J. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and his Coregency with Sety I,” JNES 34 (1975), pp. 180-183; P.J. Brand, The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), pp. 193-196. 6 Murnane† and Brand, ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 106-107 and Figs. 12A-B. 7 E.g., the bandeau texts inside the Cour de la Cachette (PM II2, p. 132 [490]; KRI IV, pp. 40-42) and on the obelisk of Thutmose I (PM II2, p. 75 [D]; KRI IV, pp. 31-32). See K.A. Kitchen, “The Twentieth Dynasty Revisited,” JEA 68 (1982), p. 122; A.J. Peden, The Reign of Ramesses IV (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994), p. 38.

30

peter j. brand

Fig. 1. Cartouches of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II from a war scene at the north end of the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. The surface of the cartouche has not been cut back as have others on this wall. Location. PM II2, p. 132 (491).

(Figs. 1-2, 14-15). The original date of these surcharged reliefs on the west wall of the Cachette court—especially the war scenes—has been the subject of great controversy and some maintain that they were first authored by Ramesses II and usurped in turn by Merenptah, Amenmesse and finally Seti II.8 No sign of Ramesses II’s titulary and no reliable trace of Amenmesse has ever been found in this court.9 Vestiges of Merenptah’s monikers are occasionally found in some of the cartouches from the Cachette war scenes, but many betray no sign of their previous owner although it is obvious they have been recut. Unfortunately this is true of most of the cartouches inscribed 8 D.B. Redford, “The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and the Israel Stela,” IEJ 36 (1986), p. 193; H. Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989), p. 150; S. Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,” (PhD dissertation, New York University, 2002), p. 318. 9 So K.A. Kitchen, “Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of Ramesses II,” JEA 50 (1964), p. 68, n. 9; idem, RITANC II, pp. 72-73.

secondarily for Seti II at Karnak. The telltale smooth depression where the primary name was erased, while clearly betraying that Seti’s name is not original, was typically accomplished so well that the identity of the original author is often unrecoverable (Figs. 3-4). Reliefs and marginal inscriptions of this type occur all over central Karnak, including on the Fourth Pylon10 and on a gateway south of the main axis between the Fifth and Sixth Pylons.11 It has long been suspected that Amenmesse’s hand lay beneath the cartouches surcharged by Seti II, either as their original author or as the usurper of Merenptah’s titulary. It is all the more 10

PM II2, pp. 78-79 (202). PM II2, p. 81 (210a); H.H. Nelson, Key Plans Showing Locations of Theban Temple Decorations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), KC 34; C. Loeben, “La porte sud–est de la salle–wAjt,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), pp. 207-223. 11

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

31

Fig. 2. Drawing of the same cartouche. No trace of Amenmesse’s name as claimed by Yurco was found after repeated collations.

puzzling, therefore, that direct evidence of Amenmesse’s presence on the monuments at Karnak and elsewhere has rarely been detected. A group of silicious sandstone statues from Karnak reinscribed for Seti II are probably to be assigned to Amenmesse based on historical and stylistic criteria, although the original monikers have been thoroughly erased leaving only a few indeterminate traces of the primary edition.12 KV 10 can also be confidently assigned to Amenmesse. Although his reliefs were largely hacked out, his protocol is still legible in several examples from the tomb.13

Amenmesse is often suspected to have been responsible for deleting Merenptah’s names from the walls of Karnak and Luxor. It is generally assumed, too, that he simultaneously placed his name in their stead. Frank Yurco claimed to have found slight traces of Amenmesse’s names in a couple of cartouches from the war scenes on the west wall of the Cour de la Cachette,14 but subsequent inspections have shown these to be phantoms (Figs. 1-2).15 Elsewhere at Karnak, only a handful of Amenmesse’s cartouches have ever been detected as palimpsests beneath usurpations by Seti II or even Ramesses III.16 In those

12 F.J. Yurco, “Amenmesse: Six Statues at Karnak,” MMJ 14 (1980), pp. 15-31.The fact that silicious sandstone, often called quartzite, is a hard stone and was left unpainted necessitated the thorough erasure of the original text prior to usurpation since paint and plaster could not have been used to mask the original inscription. See Brand, GM 170 (1999), pp. 37-48. 13 E.L. Ertman, “A First Report on the Preliminary Survey of Unexcavated KV-10 (The Tomb of Amenmesse),” KMT 4.2 (1993), pp. 38-46; O.J. Schaden, “The Tomb of Amenmesse (KV-10): The First Season,” ASAE 63 (1998), pp. 116-155; idem, “KV-10: Amenmesse 2000,” ASAE 78 (2004), pp. 129147; idem, “Some Observations on the Tomb of Amenmesse (KV -10),” in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke, eds. B.M. Bryan and D. Lorton (San Antonio, Texas: Van Siclen Books, 1994), pp. 243-254.

14 F.J. Yurco, “Merenptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 189-215. 15 I have inspected these cartouches on three separate occasions in the past few years: in the company of Bill Murnane and Samah Iskander (February 2000), alone (March 2001) and with my graduate students Robert Griffin, Louise Cooper and Heather Sayre (December 2004). On each occasion, we all agreed that only the names of Merenptah and Seti II were visible amid chisel marks. No traces suited Ramesses II or Amenmesse. See Murnane† and Brand, ASAE 78 (2004), p. 104. 16 A handful of usurped cartouches at Karnak have been attributed to Amenmesse. These include: a bandeau text from the eastern temple of Ramesses II (PM II2, p. 211 [30-31]; P. Barguet, Le Temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak, [Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale,

32

peter j. brand

Fig. 3. Cartouches of Seti II carved over thoroughly erased originals from a gateway in central Karnak. Location. PM II2, p. 95 (272). The original author in this case was Amenmesse based on traces from another cartouche in the same series identified by Roy Hopper.

Fig. 4. Bandeau text from central Karnak usurped by Seti II. No trace of the original name can be detected, although its original author is probably Merenptah. Location. PM II2, p. 88 (237).

cases where Amenmesse’s name can be detected beneath Seti II’s, it seems likely that Amenmesse was the original author of the inscription since in no case have traces of both Merenptah and Amenmesse been detected in cartouches usurped by Seti II. From a historical point of view, however,

it seems less plausible that Seti II would have usurped cartouches of Merenptah left untouched by Amenmesse as Seti was Merenptah’s son and legitimate heir. But what if Amenmesse, instead of usurping these cartouches, had merely erased them?

1962], p. 229, n. 2); on the gate of the Fourth Pylon (PM II2, 79 [202c-d]; ibid., Barguet, p. 90, n. 3); on a gate in the Akhmenu (ibid., Barguet, p. 204); a gateway with adjoining wall space in central Karnak south and west of the Sixth Pylon (PM II2, p. 95 [269-273]); and the south-east gateway of the so-called wAyt-hall of Thutmose I and Hatshepsut (PM II2, p. 81 [212d]; Barguet, p. 104, n. 5; Loeben, Karnak 8 [Paris: ERC, 1987], pp. 213 and 217). I was able to inspect most of these cartouches in 2004 and 2006. Of these, the bandeau text from the eastern temple I found no discernable traces of an earlier name, only chisel marks from where the surface was cut back. The palimpsest traces on the

south-east gate of the wAyt-hall clearly suit Amenmesse. On the facade of the Fourth Pylon, vertical lines in the palimpsest might correspond to elements of Amenmesse’s nomen. I was unable to locate the text from the Akhmenu cited by Barguet. However, my doctoral student Mr. Roy Hopper, who is preparing a dissertation on Amenmesse and Seti II, has now confirmed that there are indeed traces of Amenmesse’s titulary in some of these locations, including the gateway south and west of the Sixth Pylon and on one of the colossi at the entrance to the Akkhmenu (PM II2, p. 112 [343]).

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

33

Of pharaonic chronology after Merenptah’s death, we can only be certain that—in the Theban area at least—Amenmesse held sway before Seti II, regardless of whether Seti enjoyed some brief control over the region immediately after Merenptah’s death. We shall not consider here the geographical range of Amenmesse’s authority, his origins, the length of his tenure, nor his blood relationship with either Merenptah or Seti II, if any, all of which are being investigated in a new study of Seti II’s and Amenmesse’s reigns by my doctoral student Roy Hopper of the University of Memphis.17 Instead, the aims of this study are limited to investigating the alteration of Merenptah’s reliefs at Karnak and Luxor by Amenmesse and Seti II. The treatment of the cartouches reinscribed by Seti II is telling. Before his name was placed in them, the original titulary had been thoroughly erased by cutting back and carefully smoothing down the surface, a process, we have seen, that often left no sign of the original text (Figs. 3-4). In every case we are dealing with sunk relief, but the most common practice in the Ramesside era when usurping a sunk relief cartouche was simply to plaster over the original name and incise the new text over it without shaving the original surface down.18 This method was applied, inter alia, to a cartouche of Merenptah usurped by Amenmesse from an isolated bandeau text at the Ramesseum (Figs. 5-6).19 When the aim was damnatio memoriae, however, it was common practice simply to hack the name away as with reliefs vandalized by Akhenaten or many defacements of Hatshepsut’s

monuments.20 Sometimes, however, a damnatio memoriae was perpetrated by carefully erasing a name while leaving the attendant surface of the monument otherwise unblemished, especially in the case of raised relief which could be sliced off. This process was also employed to usurp raised relief inscriptions, which were typically replaced by sunk relief in the Ramesside era. Slicing away raised relief cartouches generally left engraved traces behind caused by the method employed in carving raised relief. These traces have allowed the original authors of many usurped 18th Dynasty and early 19th Dynasty reliefs to be identified.21 The thorough erasure of earlier names that leave no trace whatsoever, however, is less common, especially with sunk relief. Even with proscriptions of Tutankhamen and Ay on the dismantled temple called the “Mansion of Nebkhepurure at Thebes,” Horemheb erased raised and sunk relief cartouches of these kings, but not so completely that they cannot still be read, sometimes easily (Figs. 7-9).22 By contrast, the care applied to erasures of cartouches secondarily inscribed for Seti II is remarkable and this is all the more frustrating for the epigraphist seeking a palimpsest. Fortunately, there are some revealing exceptions. A handful of altered inscriptions of Merenptah at Karnak and Luxor shed much light on the rest. In a few places at Karnak and Luxor, Merenptah’s name escaped erasure. Aside from some marginalia,23 the most prominent survivors are in the Great Historical Inscription on the south half of the east wall inside the Cour de la Cachette.24 In both the text and some accompanying triumphal

17 For recent scholarship on the reign, see most importantly: R. Krauss, “Untersuchungen zu Konig Amenmesse (1. Teil),” SAK 4 (1976), pp. 161-99; idem, “Untersuchungen zu Konig Amenmesse (2. Teil),” SAK 5 (1977), pp. 131-74; A. Dodson, “Amenmesse in Kent, Liverpool, and Thebes,” JEA 81 (1995), pp. 115-28; C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte 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, 1995), pp. 575-81; A.J. Spalinger, “Review of Die Elephantine-Stele des Sethnakht und ihr historischer Hintergrund, by Rosemarie Drenkhahn,” BiOr 39 (1982), pp. 272-88. 18 Examples include reliefs of Horemheb on the facade of the Second Pylon usurped in turn by Ramesses I and II (Seele, Coregency, Figs. 1-2; Murnane† and Brand, ASAE 78 [2004], Fig. 54). Ramesses II used the same methods on the exterior walls of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak as did Ramesses VI in usurping Ramesses IV throughout Karnak. Traces of plaster masking can still be found in some instances. (ibid., Murnane† and Brand, Fig. 12A; P.J. Brand, “Veils, Votives, and Marginalia: The Use of Sacred Space at Karnak and Luxor,” in Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes, eds. P.F. Dorman and B.M. Bryan [Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2006], p. 53 and Fig. 5.6).

19 C. Leblanc et al., Le Ramesseum IX-1, Les piliers “osiriaques” (Cairo: Organisation égyptienne des antiquités, 1980), pp. 45, 167, j. 20a and pl. 96. 20 For the various methods of defacement of Hatshepsut’s monuments see A.M. Roth, “Erasing a Reign,” in Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh, ed. Catharine H. Roehrig (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 277-281. 21 Bill Murnane was responsible for some of these discoveries. See n. 4. 22 O. Schaden, “Report on the 1978 Season at Karnak,” NARCE 127 (1984), pp. 44-64; idem, “Tutankhamun-Ay Shrine at Karnak and the Western Valley of the Kings Project: Report on the 1985-1986 Season,” NARCE 138 (1987), pp. 10-15. 23 So in the negative space between the legs of some of the colossi in the Ramesside court at Luxor (PM II2, pp. 311-312). 24 PM II 2, pp. 131-132 (486-488); C. Manassa, The Great Karnak Inscription of Merenptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century BC (New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, 2003); F. Le Saout, “Reconstitution des murs de la cour de la cachette,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1982), pp. 213258.

34

peter j. brand

Fig. 5. Bandeau text of Merenptah usurped by Amenmesse from a pier in the second court of the Ramesseum. Location. PM II2, p. 435, pillar E(b); Leblanc et al., Le Ramesseum IX-1, pl. 9.

Fig. 6. Detail of figure 5. the prenomen cartouche usurped by Amenmesse. Traces of plaster used to cover Merenptah’s titulary remain.

scenes, Merenptah’s titulary was never mutilated. Elsewhere in the court, we know that the war scenes on the west exterior wall had once been inscribed for him—originally or secondarily—as well as an isolated scene at the north end of the east interior wall of the Cachette court showing the king between the paws of a criosphinx (Figs.

10-11).25 On the west interior wall, the original royal names in a series of ritual scenes have been erased and replaced with those of Seti II (Figs. 12-13).26 Although they have been attributed to Ramesses II,27 they are more likely the work of Mereptah.28 Even more fierce is the debate concerning the initial author of the war scenes on

25 PM II2, p. 131 (482) where it is wrongly attributed to Ramesses IX: Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), p. 198, Fig. 12; H. Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, pp. 149150 and Fig. 11. 26 PM II2, p. 132 (490), which wrongly labels them “Sethos II usurped by Ramesses II”(!) The original names were so thoroughly erased here that, to date, no trace of any name

prior to Seti II’s has been discovered in this series ritual scenes. 27 Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 229 and n. 98; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, pp. 143 and 150. 28 Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 189-215.

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

35

Fig. 7. Architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nepkhepurure at Thebes” found at Karnak. The prenomen of Ay was carefully erased by Horemheb while that of Tutankhamen was left intact. O. Schaden, NARCE 127 (1984), p. 57, Fig. 25-2.

Fig. 8. Another erased cartouche of Ay. Distinct traces of his prenomen can still be made out.

Fig. 9. Another architrave fragment from the “Mansion of Nebkhepurure at Thebes.” The distinctive epithets of Ay’s Horus and Two Ladies names have been erased though traces remain. O. Schaden, NARCE 127 (1984), p. 56, Fig. 7-2.

36

peter j. brand

Fig. 10. Scene of Merenptah kneeling between the paws of a criosphinx from the north end of the east interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Location. PM II2, p. 131 (482).

Fig. 11. Detail of figure 10. Merenptah’s names have been subject to hacking, but the damnatio memoriae was never completed and no other royal names were carved in their stead.

Fig. 12. Seti II driving the four calves before Amen-Re in a scene from the west interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Location. PM II2, p. 132 (490, II.5).

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

37

Fig. 13. Detail of figure 12. cartouches and Horus name of Seti II carved over erased originals on the west interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak.

the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette. It has been claimed by Redford, Sourouzian, Iskander and Lurson that the cartouches in these war scenes were inscribed and reinscribed by as many as four kings, viz. Ramesses II–Merenptah– Amenmesse–Seti II,29 while Yurco would eliminate only Ramesses II from this list.30 Yet in just a couple of the war scenes (Figs. 1-2),31 and a small number of loose blocks stemming from this section of the wall (Figs. 14-15),32 the only traces of an earlier name beneath Seti II’s final edition belong to Merenptah alone.33

Measurement of the depressions in which the final version of Seti II was carved shows that it is impossible for four or even three separate royal names to have been carved successively in any of them.34 Are we to believe that three or four sets of sunk relief carvings were inserted in these confined spaces, yet aside from the final version of Seti II, in only a handful of the dozens of usurped cartouches do we find even a few traces of any earlier name and these always belonging to Merenptah? Moreover, since the usurped cartouches from the Cour de la Cachette have

29 Redford, IEJ 36 (1986), p. 193; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, p. 150; S. Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,” p. 318; B. Lurson, “Israël sous Merenptah ou le sort de l’ennemi dans l’Égypte Ancienne,” in Étrangers et exclus dans le Monde Biblique. Colloque International à l’Université Catholique de l’Ouest, Angers, les 20 et 21 février 2002 (Théolarge 3), (Angers: Université Catholique de l’Ouest, 2003), 45-62 . 30 Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 197-198. 31 Ibid., pp. 196-201 and Figs. 10-11, 13 and 15. 32 Ibid., pp. 201-204 and Figs. 17-20. 33 As noted above, traces of Amenmesse’s name in some of these cartouches have proved illusory after repeated examination in the field. So contra Yurco, ibid., pp. 196ff. and Figs. 10, 13 and 15. His evidence for Amenmesse’s name in these cartouches is very slim, consisting of a few scratches against very distinctive traces of Merenptah’s titulary in his Fig. 10. His figures 13 and 15 are somewhat misleading. Only the mἰ-sign in the text over the horses’ backs is said to remain, but this is in a severely damaged part of the inscription, yet the “second version” is rendered without indicating that even he saw almost none of this phantom cartouche. So too the “possible second version” of Amenmesse’s nomen

in Fig. 15 is likewise virtually impossible. 34 Measurements of cartouches from the battle scenes made in 2000 by the late William J. Murnane and the author, and augmented in 2001 and 2004 in a check of other usurped cartouches naming Seti II from the Cour de la Cachette and central Karnak, confirmed that the depressions in these cartouches were quite shallow. The depth to which the original surface was cut back varies from 0.7 to 1.5 cm. It is impossible that three successive sunk relief cartouches could have been carved and then erased inside these cartouches, leaving no trace behind when a fourth one was carved. The reading of palimpsests is taxing, but not impossible and we need not succumb to a council of ignorance and declare that it is too difficult to decipher such inscriptions and that “no one can tell whether the name of Merenptah is original, or whether it was carved secondarily in a blank cartouche” (Redford, Israel Exploration Journal 36 [1986], p. 193). Moreover, to posit that Ramesses II’s name once existed here but has been obliterated by multiple subsequent usurpations constitutes an argument ex silento. So contra: Redford, ibid., p. 193; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, p. 150; Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,” p. 318.

38

peter j. brand

Fig. 14. Erased cartouche of Merenptah surcharged by Seti II on a loose block from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris. ERC, 1987), p. 231.

Fig. 15. Drawing of figure 14. My own collation did not find as many traces of Merenptah’s prenomen as Le Saout’s did. Cf. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris. ERC, 1987), p. 231.

been shaved back to the same degree as other cartouches reinscribed by Seti II in various bandeau texts, marginal inscriptions and a gateway from the central part of Karnak, we would have to conclude that Merenptah had usurped these, too, from his father while ignoring many other reliefs of Ramesses II at Karnak. Finally, if Merenptah had started this orgy of usurpation by appropriating the war reliefs on the west wall of the Cour de la Cachette from Ramesses, why did he not annex the adjoining ones on the south wall of the Great Hypostyle Hall or the decorative titulary on the pilasters of the Hittite Peace Treaty stela? It would seem that Merenptah did not engage in a large program of usurping Ramesses II’s decoration on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette or elsewhere at Karnak where his own name itself was subsequently erased. Instead,

Merenptah’s original relief decoration at Karnak was subjected to erasure. Amenmesse would seem to be the most likely candidate responsible for this proscription, yet we find no trace of his name in these erased cartouches. Rather it is Seti II, Merenptah’s rightful and eventual heir, who placed his names over his father’s deleted ones. An examination of some erased inscriptions from Luxor temple and a second look at some of the Karnak examples resolves this conundrum.

35 In the later stages of preparing this essay I chanced across a brief article where Bill Murnane had already reached the same conclusions about Amenmesse and the inscriptions of Merenptah at Luxor Temple which I discuss here. W.J. Murnane, “Les cartouches trompeurs du temple de

Louqsor,” in Égypte: Louqsor temple du Ka royal, Dossiers histoire et archéologie 101 (1986), pp. 48-49. 36 Located at PM II2, pp. 307-309 (27-31) but omitted there. See Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pls. 143, 200 and 204.

Erased Marginal Decoration of Merenptah at Luxor Temple35 At Luxor temple, bandeau texts and other marginal inscriptions from the later Nineteenth Dynasty can be found in the Ramesside

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

39

Fig. 16. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west interior wall of the Ramesside forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s daughters. Location. PM II2, p. 308 (28).

forecourt,36 the Colonnade Hall37 and the solar court of Amenhotep III.38 Despite the poor condition of the lower course of the eastern and western walls of the Ramesside and solar courts, we may confidently reconstruct this program of marginal texts as having encompassed most of the interior dados of all three structures. In addition, decorative friezes of cartouches and strings of titulary have been added to the columns in the Colonnade Hall.39 All of this marginalia was subsequently altered in some fashion to eliminate the name of its original author, but the treatment of specific inscriptions varies throughout the temple. Inside the Ramesside forecourt, a series of bandeau texts cut in sunk relief along the base of the interior walls has been deliberately, if not thoroughly, erased. The texts probably once encompassed the south, west and east interior walls of the court. The lower courses of the masonry are often so poorly preserved that only fragments of the western text remain and no such inscriptions—if they ever occurred—survive along the base of the eastern wall (Fig. 16). Along the dado of the better preserved south wall, corresponding in part to the facade of the Colonnade Hall, substantial remains of these erased texts persist (Figs. 17-18).40 On both wings of the facade, Merenptah’s texts were carved over the horizontal lines of a dado pattern. In each case, after the phrase n r kA nt, the rest of the inscription and the earlier dado lines were

deleted.41 Extensive traces of the suppressed text can still be made out, such as the phrase sA R nb w on both sides and nsw-bἰty on the western one. More exacting was the treatment applied to the cartouches. Even here, though, enough survives to peg Merenptah as the unfortunate victim of these efforts. On the east wing, his nomen Mr-nPt-tp-r-MAt can be detected (Figs. 19 and 21). A prenomen cartouche on the west wing is more damaged, although the mr-hoe, the head of the Re hieroglyph and the distinctive ram-glyph of BA-n-R-Mr-’Imn leave no doubt as to Merenptah’s authorship of the original text (Fig. 20 and 21). On the west wall proper, a bandeau text below a procession of Ramesses II’s daughters has been shaved down in a similar manner, almost certainly to the detriment of Merenptah (Fig. 16). It is clear that whoever altered these reliefs had no intention of usurping them, but rather he preferred instead to obliterate them. The only likely candidates are Amenmesse and Seti II. Votive inscriptions of the High Priest Pinudjem were later imposed over some of the erased texts on the east wing of the south wall.42 In the Colonnade Hall, marginal texts of Merenptah were arrayed along the bottom of the east and west walls but were erased in a manner similar to those in the Ramesside forecourt. Ramesses IV later carved new bandeau texts in the same location, but he was certainly not

37 Ibid., Epigraphic Survey, pls. 155-159, 172-173, 194195 and 224. 38 PM II2, p. 317 (93-98, 101). Some are listed as “texts of Sethos II,” the rest are omitted. 39 Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pls. 178, 194-195. 40 Ibid., pls. 143, 199-200.

41 The Epigraphic Survey suggests that Seti II was responsible for the erasures and had originally intended to reuse these for a new series of inscriptions that were never carved. Ibid., pp. 6-7. This now seems unlikely, see below. 42 Ibid., pls. 199-200, 204.

40

peter j. brand

Fig. 17. Erased marginal inscription of Merenptah along the base of the west half of the south wall of the Ramesside forecourt at Luxor Temple beneath a procession of Ramesses II’s sons. A statue may have once stood in front of the unerased segment in the middle of the photo. Location. PM II2, p. 308 (30).

Fig. 18. Part of an erased marginal inscription of Merenptah below an intact one of Ramesses II from the west wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor. The phrase sA R nb w has been incompletely erased. More thorough was the treatment of the king’s nomen cartouche on the right, although the mr-hoe and MAt-figure are discernable. Location. PM II2, p. 309 (31); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A.

Fig. 19. Erased nomen cartouche of Merenptah from the east wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143B.

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

41

Fig. 20. Part of a damaged and erased prenomen cartouche of Merenptah from the west wing of the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143A.

Fig. 21. Facimile drawings of erased cartouches of Merenptah on the facade of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple, after Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 143. Cf. Fig.s 19-20.

peter j. brand

42

Fig. 22. Erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the dado of the west interior wall of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. Ramesses IV later carved another bandeau text in its place. The partially erased ram-glyph of Merenptah’s prenomen is visible beneath the -cobra at the left end of the photograph. Location. PM II2, p. 314 (78); Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 173.

responsible for deleting Merenptah’s (Fig. 22).43 Merenptah also clad the shadow of the door inside the main entrance of the hall with masonry to which he added ritual scenes, replacing decoration of Ramesses II that his new masonry covered, and here, too, his cartouches were subsequently erased and replaced by Seti II’s protocol.44 Looking to the columns, the culprit might seem to be Seti II whose name has been inserted over erased cartouches of Merenptah (Figs. 23-24).45 In the solar court, Merenptah’s dado texts once encompassed the entire east wall, the east wing of the north wall and southern portions of the west wall (Fig. 25). The rest of the west wall and the west half of the north wall is missing today, but it is likely that his marginalia also included these areas. In every case, the bandeau inscriptions were wholly erased. Along the base of the eastern portico behind the double row of columns, the texts were never replaced. Elsewhere, on the east half of the north wall, and on both the east and west walls 43

Ibid., pp. 25-26 and pls. 172-173, 224B. Ibid., p. 16 and pls. 155-159. According to the Survey, the recesses in the thickness of the doorway were clad to erect a smaller doorway here. The cartouches of Merenptah on the cladding have been usurped, but marginal texts of Ramesses II on either side were left intact, indicating that Merenptah’s purpose in covering his father’s reliefs in the 44

of the thicket of columns at the south end of the solar court, an entirely new set of bandeau texts was carved by Seti II. Prima facie, the treatment of Merenptah’s marginal decoration at Luxor temple appears to be a “typical” case of Ramesside usurpation on the part of Seti II.46 If so, Seti went to a great deal of trouble to remove his father’s inscriptions, often without replacing them. In fact, the erasures at Luxor Temple have all the hallmarks of a damnatio memoriae. Evidence from Karnak and elsewhere indicates that Seti II himself was not responsible for Merenptah’s proscription.

The Proscription of Crown Prince Seti at Karnak Among a dozen or more blocks stemming from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette which now lie in the yard nearby is a unique representation of a prince

recesses was not antagonism towards his father. 45 Ibid., pls. 178 and 194. These traces were recorded by the Epigraphic Survey but not shown in their published drawings except for an erased marginal text on the base of column 2 (ibid., pl. 195). 46 So Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pp. 6-7.

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

43

Fig. 23. Large cartouches of Seti II surcharged over erased ones of Merenptah on a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. A tp-sign is discernable beneath the group Pt of Seti’s nomen on the left. None of these traces are shown in the Epigraphic Survey’s drawings of the columns. Cf. Epigraphic Survey, RILT 2, pl. 194.

riding in a chariot while enjoying the protection of a sunshade (Fig. 26).47 The figure of the prince is intact, but his name has been erased.48 His titulary is ἰry-pt Swty sA-nsw n t.f (Fig. 27). Less affected is his title ἰry-pt while the phrase sA nsw n t.f was left untouched.49 Clearly, the intention 47

Fig. 24. A nomen cartouche of Seti II surcharged over an erased cartouche of Merenptah from marginal decoration on a column in the Colonnade Hall at Luxor Temple. A diagonal line between the two reed leaves may stem from a squatting deity figure in Merenptah’s nomen.

Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 232, 4c and pl. 9, 4c; Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 204-205. 48 This erasure is certainly not the result of a Late Period proscription of heiroglyphs of the god Seth. In all such cases in the Theban region, when the Seth-ideogram was removed from the protocols of kings and princes named Seti, it was hacked out, not erased. Further, only the offending ideogram was attacked, not the rest of the name. This is even true in cartouches of Seti II which themselves were inscribed in earlier cartouches usurped by that king. Cf. Figs. 3, 13, 23, and 24. So contra Lurson in Étrangers et exclus dans le Monde Biblique, 57 who maintains that the prince’s name was erased by iconoclasts in the Late Period offended by the Seth element. 49 Yurco, Sourouzian and Lurson have argued that the phrase sA nsw n t.f was the beginning of the titulary of another prince, the one pictured under the sun shade, and that the figure of the ἰry-pt Seti was before him on an adjoining block with his name spilling over onto the present one. Ibid., Yurco, p. 205; Souruzian, Les Monuments du roi Merenptah, 14, n. 84; Lurson, in Étrangers et exclus dans le Monde Biblique, 57. Lurson even maintains that the arragement of the prince’s titulary requires three princes to have once been represented in these war scenes, viz. Khaemwaset, Seti and “Prince X.”

44

peter j. brand

Fig. 25. An erased bandeau text of Merenptah from the base of the east interior wall of the solar court at Luxor Temple. Location. PM II2, p. 317 (96).

Fig. 26. Block from the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette showing Crown Prince Seti riding in a chariot. The first part of the Prince’s titulary has been erased. Le Saout, Karnak 8 (Paris. ERC, 1987), p. 232.

was damnatio memoriae, not usurapation, despite the seemingly imperfect execution. Of course, incomplete erasures could have been disguised further with plaster and whitewash. The identity of the prince has been subject to debate.50 He is most probably the Crown Prince and future king Seti II. As I have argued elsewhere in a study of

the war scenes from the Cour de la Cachette and their relationship to those of Ramesses II on the south wall of the Hypostyle Hall, Yurco’s identification is certainly right.51 At present, I would note that while the title ἰry-pt need not always refer to the Crown Prince in the Ramesside age, it usually does.52 Moreover, the other named prince

I have challenged these observations elsewhere: “The Date of Battle Reliefs on the South Wall of the Great Hypostyle Hall and the West Wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak and the History of the Later Nineteenth Dynasty,” in Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, eds. M. Collier and S. Snape, (Bolton: Rutherford Press, forthcoming). Here I would only note that the title ἰry-pt + personal name often precedes the phrase sA nsw n t.f and this usage is common

with other inscriptions naming Crown Prince Seti (the future Seti II), in sources from the reign of Merenptah. 50 Ibid., Yurco, p. 205; Kitchen, RITANC II, p. 74; Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,” pp. 57-58. 51 Brand in Ramesside Studies. 52 M.M. Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001), pp. 85 and 125.

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

Fig. 27. Detail of fig 26. The erased protocol of Crown Prince Seti, ἰry-pt Swty.

53 Debate on the identity of this prince Khaemwaset in the war scenes has been more contentious than that over the Crown Prince Seti from the loose block. Yurco and Kitchen maintain that the name is a common enough Ramesside moniker that it could belong to an otherwise unattested son of Merenptah, especially as it belonged to his own illustrious elder brother (Yurco, JARCE 23 [1986], p. 206; Kitchen, RITANC II, pp. 73-74). Others would identify the prince from the Karnak war reliefs as Ramesses II’s celebrated son Khaemwaset (Redford, IEJ 36 [1986], p. 196; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, p. 150; Iskander, “The Reign of Merenptah,” pp. 59-60). 54 Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II, vol. 1, pp. 109-110; vol. 2, pp. 151-154; KRI II, p. 900; RITANC II, pp. 603604. A prince Seti with the title ἰry-pt is attested once on a column drum from Cairo (JE 36652; TN 16/2/25/8; SR 13959*) as ἰry-pt. Both Kitchen and Fisher identify him as the son of Ramesses II and Fisher believes he may have served briefly as Crown Prince between the tenures of Khaemwaset and Merenptah (ibid., Fisher, vol. 1, p. 110; vol. 2, p. 153, no. 9.14). The prince on this drum is shown standing before his father, a king whose cartouches have been hacked out. Kitchen’s hand copy records traces of a sun disk at the top of the prenomen cartouche and of an Amun-glyph and a Re-glyph at the top of the nomen, the rest of both monikers he placed in brackets. Without further direct observation of the piece in Cairo, it is not clear whether any of these traces are reliable, but Kitchen clearly expected to find Ramesses II in them. But could these defaced cartouches have named

45

on the wall, the “king’s son Khaemwaset,” does not hold this title.53 If Crown Prince Seti is not the future Seti II, then he would presumably be the ninth son of Ramesses II.54 But it seems highly unlikely that this synonymous son of Ramesses, who died years before his father, would have ever been singled out as the target of persecution in the later Nineteenth Dynasty.55 If, however, the Cour de la Cachette war scenes are the work of Merenptah and featured his eldest son Seti, then the latter’s suppression alongside his father at the hands of the Gegenkönig Amenmesse accounts for the epigraphic data.56 That Amenmesse suppressed the names and titles of Merenptah and his intended successor Seti II on monuments in Thebes seems hard to escape. Rather than hack them out or carve his own protocol in their stead, Amenmesse preferred to erase Merenptah’s titulary. These deletions occasionally included whole bandeau texts. Nor did an isolated ocurrance of Crown Prince Seti’s name in his father’s war scenes on the west wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak escape proscription. It is not clear why Amenmesse never carved his name over Merenptah’s, but to date no reliable evidence for the former usurping the latter has been found at Karnak or Luxor. In fact, it may be the case that Amenmesse never completed his program of erasures. Merenptah? Fisher’s photograph shows the cartouches at a partially oblique angle, due to the curvature of the column, and it is impossible to tell from it anything other than the fact that they were clearly defaced. The king in this instance—but not his son Seti—was the target of a damnatio memoriae by a later king who did not seek to usurp the monument for himself. Why would this be Ramesses II? Are there any other examples of such deliberate violence to Ramesses’ cartouches, as opposed to usurpation of them? A more likely scenario is that they belonged to Merenptah and were hacked out at the behest of Amenmesse whose agents were looking for Merenptah’s titulary but overlooked the name of his Crown Prince, and their own lord’s rival for the throne, the future Seti II. We do know that Merenptah was proscribed elsewhere. Until the column is carefully examined again, it need not be taken difinitively as a monument of Ramesses II’s like-named son and could just as likely belong to the future Seti II as Crown Prince of Merenptah. Under this scenario, the prince’s name could have been overlooked by the chisel men who were mainly seeking Merenptah’s cartouches which occurred much more frequently than the prince’s titulary. 55 Kitchen, RITANC II, p. 74. The hacking out of the Sethglyph in the name of Ramesses II’s ninth son in inscriptions at Luxor Temple and the Ramesseum occurred in the Late Period, and is not germane to the question. Its defacement in instances of Prince Seti’s name is consistent with removal of the Seth-glyph from the royal nomen cartouches of Seti I and II on Theban monuments. See n. 48. 56 Cf. Kitchen’s similar conclusions in RITANC II, 74.

peter j. brand

46

The Incomplete Damnatio Memoriae of Mernptah inside the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak Among the handful of usurped cartouches bearing Seti II’s name in the war scenes on the west exterior wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak— including loose blocks stemming from them—by far the best preserved instance of Merenptah’s titulary beneath that of Seti is from the northernmost scene (Figs. 1-2). It was here, too, that Yurco thought he detected a phantom trace of Amenmesse.57 Substantial vestiges of both Merenptah and Seti II are evident. Still, this cartouche is unlike the rest in other respects. There are some chisel marks inside the ring, but the background surface has not been cut back or smoothed down and is still largely intact despite light scoring with a chisel.58 Seti II’s names were cut over Merenptah’s in a manner similar to many Ramesside usurpations but without the erasure of Merenptah’s cartouches as in other cases on the west wall of the Cachette court and throughout Karnak. The conclusion to which these observations are leading is that these particular cartouches may have only been partly erased or perhaps not at all by Amenmesse and that they are unlike the others reinscribed for Seti II in the war reliefs because his father’s names were still largely intact in this one instance. Since Merenptah’s name had been systematically erased from the other scenes on this wall, Seti may not have felt remorse about appropriating what might have been the only instance where his father’s name still survived there. Yurco seems to have mistaken this pair of cartouches as being typical of the method used to surcharge Merenptah’s cartouches elsewhere in the Cachette court. His reconstruction of the process was as follows. Merentpah’s name was only partially removed with a chisel and the cartouche was plastered over. Amenmesse’s titulary was inscribed over them, but much of it was cut into the plaster, not the stone. Next, Seti II removed this plaster, all but obliterating Amenmesse’s protocol, and replaced it with his own. Supposedly, vestiges of Merenptah, (although partly erased), remained beneath the plaster and survived all this,

57

Location: PM II2, p. 132 (491). Yurco, JARCE 23 (1986), p. 197. 58 Yurco interprets light chisel marks inside the cartouche as keying for plaster used to usurp the cartouche. If this be the case, then this was done only once by Seti II and not also by Amenmesse as he suggests. Ibid., p. 197. I suspect

while Amenmesse’s monikers, (carved in stucco), did not. Yurco’s understanding of the epigraphic sequence of these usurpations was based largely on the one aforementioned set of cartouches from the north end of the Cachette court. As we have seen, however, these are not like the rest. They lack the smooth depressions of the others and contain far more substantial traces of Merenptah than their fellows precisely because they have not been cut back! It may be that Amenmesse’s program of damnatio memoriae was never completed in the area of the Cour de la Cachette. Confirmation of this hypothesis can be found inside the court. As was noted earlier, Merenptah’s ritual scenes on the west interior of the court were usurped in toto but his name often survives intact on the east side. While his monikers were untouched in the Great Historical Inscription and adjoining scenes at the south end of the wall,59 the same cannot be said of an isolated tableau at the north end (Fig. 10). Here Merenptah is depicted as a young king wearing the youthful side-lock and kneeling between the paws of a great ram-headed sphinx.60 The relief is entirely intact and the wall surface smooth and even, except for the interior of the cartouches which show hacking. Despite this, the royal names are clearly legible and there is no indication that they were ever usurped or that they are not the original work of Merenptah (Fig. 11). This strange case has long puzzled me, but I believe that a solution may now be offered. We have here a damnatio memoriae left unfinished. Examination of a loose block now in the south yard at Karnak steming from the Cour de la Cachette also shows the deletion of Merenptah’s cartouches in media res with some hacking prior to their final erasure (Fig. 28). Elsewhere Merenptah’s cartouches were fully erased by smoothing down the surface. As they were all sunk relief, it was first necessary to chisel away the projecting background matrix around the sunk relief glyphs after which the scooped-out cartouches were polished smooth with a sandstone buffer. This process would leave few and very often no traces of the original name once completed. The few chisel marks persisting on

that this hacking stems from the incomplete deletion of Merenptah’s cartouches by Amenmesse, see below. 59 Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, pl. 26b. 60 Ibid., pl. 27a.

usurped cartouches of merenptah at karnak and luxor

47

Fig. 28. partly hacked cartouches of Merenptah from a Cour de la Cachette block. The relief was later plastered over by Seti II who cut a new inscription over it. The pattern of hacking to Merenptah’s cartouches is consistent with an uncompleted damnatio memoriae by Amenmesse rather than keying for plaster by Seti II prior to carving a new relief in its place. Cf. Figs. 10-11.

the smooth surfaces of other erasures, like those at Luxor and inside the cartouches usurped by Seti II, show this to be the case. The criosphinx scene at the north end of the east interior wall of the Cour de la Cachette preserves the first stage of this process. The mason was in the midst of chipping away at the background surface of the cartouche and the incised hieroglyphs remained mostly untouched when the work was abandoned. Elsewhere, Amenmesse’s erasures of Merenptah were largely complete and so thorough that Seti II was free to carve his own name in their place. Presumably, Amenmesse’s agents completed their work on the west wall before moving on to the east. They had started with the criosphinx scene at the north end of the wall when the project came to an end, leaving Merenptah’s cartouches in the Great Historical Inscription and attendant triumph and ritual scenes at the south end of the east interior wall still intact.

61

See Brand in Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes, pp. 52-58; By the end of the Ramesside era, Herihor was forced to employ the bases of the columns and the wall dados in the Karnak Hypostyle Hall as virtually all

Conclusions: Programs of Marginal Decoration and Damnatio Memoriae in the Late Nineteenth Dynasty The picture that emerges from all this is that neither the addition of marginal decoration and bandeau texts on Theban monuments by Merenptah nor their erasure and usurpation, respectively, at the hands of Amenmesse and Seti II were carried out in a piecemeal or episodic fashion. Instead, as with wall reliefs depicting rituals or battles, Ramesside pharaohs often took a systematic approach to their decoration of standing monuments, even when they were merely filling in the limited blank spaces such as the dados of walls or the gaps between earlier reliefs on columns.61 Amenmesse’s damnatio memoriae against Merenptah at Karnak and Luxor was comprehensive if not exhaustive. At Luxor, some marginalia

the available space had already been used by his predecessors. See A.M. Roth, “Some New Texts of Herhihor and Ramesses IV in the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak,” JNES 42 (1983), pp. 43-53.

48

peter j. brand

were overlooked.62 Merenptah’s image was not targeted and his cartouches were rarely usurped by Amenmesse. Inside the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak, erasures of Merenptah’s cartouches were underway when they finally ceased, perhaps abruptly, at the end of Amenmesse’s brief reign. The complete obliteration of Merenptah’s bandeau texts inside the Ramesside court at Luxor indicates that usurpation was not the motive for targeting his monuments. The deletion of the name of a Crown Prince Seti alongside that of his father confirms that Amenmesse was the author of this systematic damnatio memoriae. Amenmesse himself may have been more concerned with removing his predecessor’s titulary

from the Theban temples than with adding his own name to them. Amenmesse’s own original inscriptions at Karnak and elsewhere would likewise be erased and usurped by Seti II, and determining the original author of many cartouches reascribed by Seti has been a complex and difficult problem.63 Yet in no case have traces of both Merenptah and Amenmesse been detected in any cartouches reinscribed by Seti II. When Seti became the sole master of Egypt, he chose to bolster his own position by replacing his father’s erased cartouches and inscriptions with his own while respecting Merenptah’s texts where they had survived Amenmesse’s purge.

62 E.g., inscriptions added by Merenptah to the negative space bewteen the legs of some of the colossi of Ramesses II in the Luxor temple forecourt. These were overlooked by Kitchen and remain unpublished (PM II2, pp. 311-312).

63 See the special note by Kitchen in KRI IV, p. 194. Here he states that many inscriptions of Seti II may have been originally carved for Amenmesse or earlier kings.

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

49

QUANTIFYING REGALIA: A CONTEXTUAL STUDY INTO THE VARIATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF EGYPTIAN ROYAL COSTUME USING RELATIONAL DATABASES AND ADVANCED STATISTICAL ANALYSES Amy Calvert Institute of Fine Arts—New York University

The hundreds of scenes at the temple of Medinet Habu usually feature the king in a variety of contexts (ritual, ceremonial, battle, etc.) and allocate to him regalia involving an array of attributes. For example, in many scenes he wears a prš-crown. In others, he wears a t-crown, a šnjt-kilt and a royal beard (the šnjt and the beard seemingly never appear with the prš). Do these and other attributes form significant clusters of spatial distribution and association that would enhance our understanding of the various levels of meaning potentially embedded in the scenes? But how would we study such patterns of clustering and association given the massive number of attributes and the variability of the contexts/ scenes involved? Thanks to generous awards from the American Research Centre in Egypt, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and the Institute of Fine Arts of New

York University, I hope to be in a position to help answer such questions and much more. With their assistance, I was able to spend January to May 2006 in Egypt gathering essential data for my Ph.D. dissertation, The Regalia of Ramses III: A Contextual Study into the Variations and Significance of Royal Costume. This dissertation is under the astute direction of Dr. David O’Connor and aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the contextual importance of select royal regalia in the New Kingdom through detailed examination of depictions of the pharaoh in a variety of settings.1 The mortuary temple of the king at Medinet Habu, with its abundance of wellpreserved relief, is the focus of this project. The primary goals of this dissertation project are: 1) to create a total digital color photographic record of Medinet Habu, of which approximately 90% is completed; 2) to develop a relational database to track all Medinet Habu scene attributes (and those of comparative data sets); 3) through advanced statistical analyses, to discover pairs and/or triads of correlated attributes of royal regalia; and 4) to provide a methodology which would be valuable for similar studies by others in the future. Using the visual data assembled during my field season, individual elements of royal dress, as well as attributes and signifiers appearing in association with the king (such as chariot equipment or insignia), are being examined in conjunction with accompanying texts and epithets. This will facilitate an exploration into the ways in which those elements interact with each other and with the body of the king, as well as how they function together as a whole to provide him with a visual projection of royal power, divine strength, and apotropaic protection. The communicative aspect of royal regalia and the ways in which items of

1 For his sage advice and focused direction, I am also most grateful to Dr. Ogden Goelet. In addition, this project

has benefited greatly from discussions with Dr. Ann Roth and I would like to thank her for her guidance.

During my time at the University of Memphis, I had the great privilege to study with Dr. Murnane. Those seminars, one on Amarna history and the other focused on Egyptian imperialism, were some of the most stimulating I have experienced. Dr. Murnane’s sharp mind, depth of knowledge, and probing questions made each meeting a beautiful challenge. His unfettered generosity with his time, always happy to provide guidance, references, and suggestions made a huge impression. So too did his absolute passion for Egypt and his drive to record her endangered monuments as thoroughly as possible. It is with this in mind that I dedicate this article, an initial presentation of my dissertation project, to the memory of Dr. Murnane.

Introduction

50

amy calvert

pharaonic costume impacted audiences will also be explored. For this particular project, rather than attempting to examine all of the depictions of Ramses III and the contexts in which he appears at Medinet Habu (a daunting task to say the least), a reduction of focus depth to a more manageable amount of material was clearly necessary. While an entire dissertation could certainly be written on an examination of the variations in royal regalia that are seen within a single genre of scenes, a more productive and interesting angle is a comparative study of the regalia that appears in the battle cycles and the festival reliefs.2 There are several reasons to approach the topic in this way. Both types of scenes display the king engaged in terrestrial interactions—quite unlike the cultic and mortuary scenes where he is focused solely on the divine realm. Both groups portray the pharaoh as ‘facing off’ against chaotic forces, albeit forces of differing types. Both are also venues where pharaoh had a human audience, although those audiences were disparate in nature. Additionally, the reliefs themselves would have had a living, if limited, audience. This audience points to the importance of the communicative aspect of royal regalia and the ways in which items of pharaonic costume interacted with and conveyed information to those who saw his image, whether in the flesh or etched in stone. The physical locations of the festival and war reliefs also speak of an implied connection, especially in the courtyards of Medinet Habu where they are directly juxtaposed. By comparing the two ‘public’ venues of warfare and festival, selected patterns of regalia related to the particular powers to be emphasized and/or different levels and different types (i.e. physical vs. cultic) of vulnerability the pharaoh experienced may become discernible. Within each broad group of war and festival and in each individual

cycle (e.g. Sokar festival, First Libyan war, etc.), I will be searching for regalia patterns of geographical, temporal and seasonal elements. Patterns may emerge of certain elements being used in scenes with specific enemies at particular times of the year, or discernible shifts in selected elements may be visible over a span of time (e.g. First vs. Second Libyan wars). Differences in costume related to the type of audience, how they would have seen the king, and how they were intended to view the king could be most telling. These data should be most revealing in terms of the selection of particular attributes, or combinations thereof, for specific contexts and duties. Individual components will be carefully examined in an attempt to determine their distinct natures and the powers they suggest. Ensembles will be investigated to ascertain how individual accoutrements symbolically integrate to provide support and divine strength to the king while outwardly projecting different aspects of those powers. The role of regalia as an apotropaic unit functioning to shield him from any potential danger, terrestrial or otherwise, will be explored. Now that fieldbased research is completed, detailed analyses of the symbolic, historical, and ideological associations of select elements of royal regalia is currently under way. ‘Regalia’ applies to more than headgear, and this project will also examine the contextual interactions of dress, jewelry, apron, sandals, scepters, and many other elements. Previous research into pharaonic costume has tended to focus on individual aspects or has approached the topic from a more technical standpoint.3 Useful information has emerged as a peripheral result of research on specific rulers in specialized contexts, but is by its very nature limited in scope.4 While a number of studies have been written about crowns and other items of pharaonic dress, they are generally examined in isolation.5

2 By ‘battle cycle’ I refer to the entire sequence that begins with the commission from the gods to carry out a military action and finishes with the presentation of spoils to the gods, following (most recently) Susanna Heinz, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001). 3 Such as G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing (Leiden–New York–Köln: E.J. Brill, 1993), Studies in Ancient History, p. 2. 4 For one example, see W.R. Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign, eds. D. O’Connor and E. Cline (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998), p. 84, where he discusses the

elaboration of costume that accompanies the deification of the living king. 5 For a few instances, E.L. Ertman, “More Comments on New Kingdom Crown Streamers and the Gold Temple-band They Held in Place,” JSSEA 23 (1993), pp. 51-55; S. Collier, The Crowns of the Pharaohs: their Development and Significance in Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Ph.D. Dissertation: University of California Los Angeles, 1996). K. Goebs, “Some Cosmic Aspects of the Royal Crowns,” Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Egyptologists, ed. C. Eyre, OLA 82 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 447-60. One very useful study that examines the related attributes of a specific royal costume is D.C. Patch, “A ‘Lower Egyptian’ Costume: Its Origin, Development, and Meaning,” JARCE 32 (1995), pp. 93-116.

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

51

Fig. 1. Detail of Medinet Habu Epigraphic Survey plate 121.

To date, no analysis has attempted to investigate comprehensively all elements of royal costume to determine how they function together as a whole. There is good reason for this. Put simply, tracking thousands of variables across hundreds of scenes, and more importantly being able to actually utilize that data, would be quite impossible without current technology. Even the core task of acquiring these images in the field would have been time and cost-prohibitive before the recent advent of affordable, high-resolution digital photography. The questions of why particular attributes were selected for certain contexts and what their specific functions have understandably not been quantifiably addressed. During the research season, my primary goal was to collect high-quality color digital photographic documentation of several royal monuments from the New Kingdom that have either not been entirely published or have been published only in grayscale.6 My photographic documentation supplements the irreplaceable work of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey at many of these sites.7 For my project, it was not only necessary to fully photograph the painted scenes of my core monument, Medinet Habu, but also to document in 6

For his generosity and support in Luxor, I would like to sincerely thank Dr. W. Raymond Johnson, director of Chicago House. In Abydos, I was warmly welcomed and greatly aided by Dr. Matthew D. Adams. In addition, I must mention the extraordinary support given by my Supreme Council of Antiquities inspector, Salah el Masekh Ahmed

Fig. 2. Photograph of same showing preserved paint.

color other locations of great comparative value. Many elements of royal costume were rendered exclusively in paint and, thus, are not generally discernible in epigraphic drawings, which do not always record painted details and rarely indicate color (Figs. 1 and 2). The color of specific elements of regalia is clearly significant for this project and, therefore, even full black and white documentation was insufficient for my research. Due to the well-preserved state of his monuments and their rich variety of scenes, this project focuses on depictions of Ramses III (c. 1184-1153 bce). Often called the last great pharaoh of the New Kingdom, the costumes of Ramses III can be viewed as representative amalgams of the period. It is well known that he had strong affinities for his eminent namesake, Ramses II, but he was also heavily influenced by Amenhotep III, as evidenced Mohamed. He was a great asset to my project and I am extremely grateful to the Council for their choice. 7 Especially at Medinet Habu. Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, 8 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930-1970).

52

amy calvert

Fig. 4. Detail of Ramses III wearing falcon shirt in battle.

Fig. 3. Detail of Ramses III wearing feathered back apron.

by the many statues of that king found re-used at Medinet Habu.8 Much of the regalia utilized by Ramses III was also worn by his powerful predecessors of Dynasty Nineteen, while other attributes were more commonly seen in the later Eighteenth Dynasty. Falcon clothing, which usually identifies the king with Horus or Montu, depending on the context, became particularly prominent during the Eighteenth Dynasty.9 Amenhotep III, for instance, made extensive use of falcon-garb at Luxor temple;10 one example being the feathered back apron well known from the quartzite image of the king found in the Luxor Cachette.11 8 As Johnson (Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign, p. 73) points out, none of the statuary found at Medinet Habu appears to belong to the time of Ramses III, but rather seems to have originally come from monuments of Amenhotep III. 9 For some discussion of falcon costume, see T. Podgórski, “Royal Plume Dress of XVIII Dynasty,” MDAIK 40 (1984), pp. 103-121. Note that he discusses a specific ceremonial garment, not the falcon-jacket.

Fig. 5. Ramses III wearing a falcon shirt.

Ramses III also wears such an attribute, in the Sokar festival at Medinet Habu (Fig. 3).12 Falcon shirts appear on many images of the king (Figs. 4 and 5). Often seen on Dynasty Eighteen kings, especially at Deir el-Bahri where there are a number of well-preserved relief examples, 10 Podgórski, “The Horus dress as represented in the temple of Amenhotep III in Luxor,” Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 4 (Kraków, 1992), pp. 27-31. 11 J838—now on display at Luxor Museum. This type of apron also appears on Thutmosis IV, in the relief scenes on his chariot (Cairo CG 46097). 12 Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, pl. 223.

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

Fig. 6. Detail of Ramses III in QV 55 wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon shirt.

this ‘falcon-jacket’ appears on blocks belonging to Amenhotep III that were reused at Medinet Habu.13 These shirts certainly continued to be worn by rulers of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Although they may not seem to be as common on Seti I or Ramses II in their mortuary temples in Thebes, this is likely due to the level of preservation.14 With very few exceptions, these falcon 13 C. Van Siclen, “Three blocks of Amenhotep III from Medinet Habu,” VA 2 (1986), pp. 189-206. The scenes on the blocks show Amenhotep kneeling and receiving a series of crowns from the gods. 14 There is at least one certain example of a falcon shirt at the Ramesseum, in the ished-tree scene of the hypostyle hall. Several other images from the same temple preserve hints that a falcon shirt was originally depicted. 15 Such as Amun-her-hepershef (QV 55) and Kaemwaset (QV 44) where he interacts with (among others) Isis, Hathor and Geb. 16 Prominently appearing in the painting of the princesses from the King’s House now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (1983.I-41). 17 See L.P. Brock, “The Amarna ‘Royal Red Fabric’, JSSEA 25 (1995), pp. 7-14. She also links the material (possibly leather) with the military, foreigners (specifically Syrians), and strongly suggests a connection with the diamond-patterned heb-sed robe. Personally, I find the military aspect more viable—note, for example, that the

53

shirts are executed entirely in paint; with any image stripped of paint where pharaoh appears to be bare-chested, the potential exists that he was originally depicted wearing one of these attributes. In the tombs of his sons, Ramses III is also frequently depicted in elaborate falcon-garb (Fig. 6),15 often combined with another intriguing garment—a shirt apparently made of a material known primarily from the late Eighteenth Dynasty, and most famously from Akhetaten.16 This textile, known as ‘royal red fabric,’ was particularly prominent during the Amarna period and has been suggested to have strong solar connections.17 It appears used as an element of regalia, specifically as an under-kilt, in a royal tomb from the end of Dynasty Eighteen before seeming to vanish from the pictorial record.18 However, besides the numerous occurrences in QV 44 and 55, I have cataloged several additional instances where the fabric ‘reappears’ through the photographic survey of Medinet Habu performed this season (Fig. 7).19 For such reasons, Ramses III was an ideal subject for this topic, since he is often portrayed wearing complex costumes displaying a combination of elements which in many cases had their origins and/or symbolic significance grounded in the heights of New Kingdom power. More so than his predecessors, Ramses III faced civil unrest and enemy attacks on Egypt itself. This tangible threat may have exerted a discernable influence on the appearance patterns of certain regalia elements, particularly those that are strongly apotropaic or embody the ‘rage’ of the divine king. Hypothetically speaking, if an attribute appeared rarely under Seti I (falcon shirts Nubian archers on the Dynasty Eleven wooden model of Mesehti from Asyut (Cairo JE 30969) wear red loincloths embellished with blue diamonds. 18 Brock, JSSEA 25 (1995), p. 7. 19 This fabric also appears (among numerous other instances) as a shirt on Ramses II, layered underneath a falcon shirt, on the facade of the temple of Seti I at Abydos. Seti I wears the red fabric shirt and falcon shirts, albeit independently, inside the temple. There is but a single occurrence of the pairing preserved at the temple of Ramses II at Abydos (Figure 8). Additionally, I. Rosellini depicts the pairing in his record of the reliefs from the temple of Ramses II at Abu Simbel and Baltzar Cronstrand likewise shows traces of the two shirts together at Karnak, in the Great Hypostyle Hall; my thanks to Dr. Peter Brand for bringing these instances to my attention. See I. Rosellini, I Monumenti dell’Egitto e Della Nubia, pl. 79; B. George and B. Peterson, Die KarnakZeichnungen von Baltzar Cronstrand, Medelhavsmuseet Memoir 3 (Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet, 1979), p. 21.

54

amy calvert

a

Fig. 8. Ramses II wearing red textile shirt topped by a falcon shirt at his temple at Abydos. b Fig. 7. Details of Ramses III at Medinet Habu showing preserved sections of red textile shirts.

Methodology

worn in battle scenes, for example) but was very common on Ramses III, this might indicate that the more vulnerable the office of pharaoh became, the more the symbols of power were emphasized.20 A parallel could be made to the extreme elaboration of the regalia of Amenhotep III after his jubilee—all designed to visually solidify the identity of the king with the solar deity.21 A concentration of regalia elements connected with the physical and military prowess of the king under Ramses III might have served a similar purpose in exemplifying the ideal pharaoh for a dangerous and chaotic time.

The technical goal of this relational database will be to identify attributes with the strongest correlations. Correlation (values range between –1.0 for a perfect negative correlation to 1.0 for a perfect positive correlation) is defined as a mutual relationship or connection between two or more variables. Imagine finding correlations between weather-related variables. Although the appearance of rain and the appearance of umbrellas are connected, rain does not cause umbrellas. Neither is the reverse true, which is why correlation studies are not about cause and effect, but rather are intended to discover significant patterns and tendencies. Negative correlation means when you

20 However, it is highly likely that there were many more instances of these attributes and it is problematic to make any historiographical arguments based on the whims of preservation.

21

p. 88.

Johnson in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign,

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

55

Fig. 9. Example of high positive correlation: horns, feathers, and multiple uraei with nms.

Fig 10. Example of high negative correlation: fans and divine interaction.

see one variable, you usually do not see the other —such as how rain and sunglasses rarely appear together. Such a relationship can be just as telling as a positive correlation. Basic correlation results from the current data set (Figs. 9 and 10) shows, for example, that the headgear elements horns, feathers, and multiple uraei have a high positive correlation with one type of crown, the nms, while fans are shown to rarely appear inscenes where the king interacts with divine beings. Instead of randomly picking scenes or blindly choosing an element of regalia on which to focus, by utilizing a combination of FileMaker Pro, Microsoft Excel, and SPSS, this suite of technological facilitators allows for an open, unfiltered approach. Through its powerful analytical capabilities, this custom tool will instantly identify statistically significant attributes in need of further study from the pool of thousands of images and attributes. During the season I was able to amass more than 15,000 high-quality color digital images.22 This documentation includes a full photographic survey of several monuments from the reign of Ramses III, including his tomb (KV 11) and those of his sons (QV 42, 43, 44, 52, and 55). Only

portions of Ramses III’s temple to Amun at Karnak were photographed since it has little preserved paint and is fully published in epigraphic form and grayscale photographs.23 I photographed the mortuary temple of the king at Medinet Habu in its entirety, except for a few inaccessible areas including the interior of the Eastern High Gate. In addition to the monuments of Ramses III, it was very important for me to photograph other royal monuments where color is preserved. This comparative data will be absolutely essential in my study of how elements of regalia change (or remain the same) in function and form over a span of time. Of particular importance in this regard are the Dynasty Nineteen temples of Seti I and Ramses II at Abydos, both of which retain a great deal of paint and preserve scene types comparable to those at Medinet Habu. The interior of the temple of Seti I was photographed in its entirety (excepting the column reliefs in the hypostyle halls), as was the facade and the exterior pillars. Portions of the interior walls surrounding the two courtyards were also documented, although their ruinous state, dearth of paint and existence in epigraphic publication made them less essential.24 The more destroyed but still vibrantly painted

22 Photographs were captured with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT (8-megapixel), a telephoto lens where appropriate, and a polarized filter for exterior images. Where possible, a tripod was utilized (my sincere thanks to Sandro Vannini for allowing me to borrow one of his tripods after mine was damaged by a tourist). Much of the painted relief at Medinet Habu was shot from atop a ladder generously loaned by Dr. W. Raymond Johnson of Chicago House.

23 Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak I: Ramses III’s Temple Within the Great Enclosure of Amon, part 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), and part 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Pres, 1936). 24 A.M. Calverley and M.F. Broome, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos, 4 vols (London and Chicago: Egypt Exploration Society, 1933-1958).

56

amy calvert

temple of Ramses II was completely documented, including the exterior walls. Through special permission,25 I was also able to photograph relevant comparative sections of several other royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings. These were the tombs of Merenptah (KV 8), Seti II (KV 15), Siptah (KV 47) and Tausret and Sethnakht (KV 14). Also greatly appreciated was the permission I received directly from Dr. Zahi Hawass during his March 10 visit to the Valley. He generously allowed me to photograph in the tomb of Ramses VI (KV 9), since it contains several well-preserved images of unusual royal costumes that will be important comparanda. Now that the research season is completed, the images are being used in conjunction with the invaluable work of the Epigraphic Survey to form an extensive relational database. I am building the database with the skilled help of D. Craig Calvert, using a combination of FileMaker Pro, Microsoft Excel, and SPSS. This suite of tools is designed to track an unlimited range of points in each relief image, including not only all costume elements but also body position, interactions, wall placement, epithets, and key textual markers, to name but a few. The custom database is an absolutely essential tool for this project, and its high level of complexity has required more than a year of development. The first stage of designing and populating the database for this project was an exhaustive study of the approximately 6,000 high-resolution digital images of Medinet Habu acquired during my season. During this stage, I compiled a comprehensive list of scene attributes, more than 1,600 in number. Once the list was completed, each scene was marked with all of the attributes it contained. Now that the current group of data entry is completed, analysis has begun, looking for any and all correlated connections within and/or between any of the scenes across the complete range of attributes (‘variables’). There are two main layouts now in use. One of these is designed to hold all the variables in the scene, and I have termed it my ‘Main Layout.’ In order to handle such an expanse of data, this is designed as a tabbed layout with each tab representing a different focus. Along the top of the

layout is the static data that stays visible regardless of which tab is displayed. This includes the record number, the plate number and the scene title. The top tab, ‘Pharaoh’ (Fig. 11),26 contains fields to track all items in direct association with the king, such as all his costume attributes, his body position, the king’s actions and items held in his hands. I have also included a key plan with the appropriate plate highlighted for ease of visual location identification. For the next tab, ‘Text,’ (Fig. 12), I have separated some of the text into sections using structural divisions, such as marginal texts and the name block.27 However, spoken text directed at the king is tracked based on who is doing the speaking; bound enemies calling out praise clearly should be recorded separately from deities who address the king. The Text tab is for general text, names and epithets, and the speech of the king, while actual interaction between the king and deities or humans is tracked in the ‘Context’ tab. ‘Context,’ as always, is very important (Fig. 13). It contains fields related to practicalities such as location, scene orientation, and relief type, but more of the layout deals with the king’s appearance and actions. The position, type, and number of fans and sunshades held in association with pharaoh are tracked here. Also cataloged are elements that hover above the king, such as the sun discs, vultures, and falcons, taken along with their textual identifiers. In addition, I am tracking the many variations in the specific wording of the lines of protective text that appear behind the king. One of the most potentially productive lines of questioning in terms of regalia selection is “with whom is the king interacting and what are they saying to each other?” This is tracked here on the ‘Context’ tab (Fig. 14 shows a record with both divine and human actors). They have been separated into Divine and Human actor groups, for obvious reasons. Each actor listed in the ‘Context’ tab has a separate dedicated layout (Figs. 15 and 16). The actor layouts are accessed through the ‘Context’ tab (see Fig. 14) by clicking on the small grey button at the end of the ‘actor’ field, which brings up the layout for that individual actor. On these

25 My sincerest thanks go to Ali Ibrahim Alasfar, the General Director of Qurna, and Dr. Mohamed Adb el Aziz, Chief Inspector of North Qurna, for allowing this access. 26 The record for Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu I, pl. 19, is used in the following series of figures.

27 This phrase is used here to refer to the discrete grouping of text which includes the cartouches of the king, associated epithets, titles, and sometimes, as in the case of the plate in Figure 11, additional elements.

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

Fig. 11. Main Layout. Pharaoh tab.

Fig. 12. Main Layout. Text tab.

Fig. 13. Main Layout. Context tab.

57

58

amy calvert

Fig. 14. Main Layout. Context tab with both types of actors.

related layouts, I can keep track of the actor’s titles, actions, accoutrements, and their words to the king. In addition to the fields tracking the individual’s (or group’s) speech, all of the actor layouts contain a text field with the entire text of the scene in which they appear. This is simply to provide ease of data entry, and though duplicative, this also allows their comments to be viewed in context. A separate layout was also necessary to deal with the royal chariot (Fig. 17). The ‘Chariot’ tab allows the collection of data such as the type of horse headdress and chariot body, the names of the royal span, and whether they are rampant or not. The number and types of bow cases, quivers, and staff-cases shown attached to the chariot of pharaoh are also tracked. The ‘Visual’ tab (Fig. 18) allows for a number of details to be easily accessed; clicking the small button in the corner of each image brings up a full-sized version of that image. The ‘Preservation’ tab, which is still under development, deals with the surviving amount of paint, percentage and types of damage to the relief surface, such as intentional destruction of relief during the Coptic period and the countless grooves worn into the walls by centuries of local inhabitants rubbing sand from the stone for ritual use. In addition, this tab will record any special treatment, such as inlay or sections of relief that were originally veiled.

As one can discern, this layout is extremely detailed in the number and variations of the attributes tracked. When I first showed this database to Adam Soran, an experienced research analyst who initially assisted me with the statistical side of this project,28 he was rather overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the data. In order to perform the first level of analysis, he suggested that I pull from this layout approximately 30 pointed ‘yes/ no’ questions and analyses would begin there. Clearly, use of this new layout does not ignore all the data in the full layout just discussed. This dichotomous approach simply allows larger patterns to be perceived in a more efficient manner while the ‘Main’ layout will be used in the second research phase to permit focused analysis of greater detail. The current version of the ‘Dichotomous’ layout (Fig. 19) contains 132 questions, divided up into the same general groups as the ‘Main’ layout: things worn by the king, objects in the hand, his immediate context, textual markers, interactions, and scene location and type. Note that there are currently two basic ‘types’ of scene in this layout—all relief is considered either one or the other. ‘Battle’ refers to the full sequence of battle narrative scenes, not simply to depictions of actual battle. Scenes of hunting at Medinet Habu are also considered ‘Battle,’ due primarily to parallels in their placement, the king’s posture, and immediate context. ‘Ritual’ is obviously much

28 Since Mr. Soran’s return to his homeland of Turkey last year, this project has been taken up by another talented professional research analyst, Li Li Gerrard, who has been

absolutely invaluable. My sincerest gratitude also to Justin Musterman and Andy Gage for their efforts.

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

Fig. 15. Main Layout. Divine actor screen (related to Fig. 14).

Fig. 16. Main Layout. Human actor screen (related to Fig. 14).

Fig. 17. Main Layout. Chariot tab.

59

60

amy calvert

Fig. 18. Main Layout. Visual tab.

Fig. 19. Dichotomous Layout.

broader. This heading covers festival, offering and ‘smiting’ scenes as well, although they are also tracked separately. This is the layout currently being used to calculate attribute correlations. Organizing the thousands of photographs from the research season and database construction took more than a year after my return from Egypt. As the reader can discern simply from glancing at it, entering a record in the ‘Main’ layout takes

considerable time. Currently, I have 125 scenes from Medinet Habu entered in this exhaustive manner, and the remaining pertinent reliefs will soon join them. One of the great boons of this second, ‘Dichotomous,’ layout is the speed with which the ‘big’ questions about a scene can be entered. Since designing this layout in March 2007, I have entered the ‘yes/no’ data for the same 279 scenes currently recorded in the ‘Main’ layout,

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

61

and have also answered these questions for an additional 232 scenes, for a current total of 511. Most of the 511 scenes (357 of the current set) are from Medinet Habu. These appear on the exterior walls and in the first and second courtyards and, thus, could conceivably have been viewed by humans other than the pharaoh and temple staff during times of festival. Of these 357 scenes, 41 are considered ‘Battle’ scenes and 316 ‘Ritual’ scenes. Since one of the foci of this dissertation is the communicative facet of regalia, it is because of their ‘public’ aspect that these scenes represent the main study set. Currently, the remaining 154 scenes are from Karnak. Specifically, these include the war sequences of Seti I and the reliefs from the temples of Ramses III, all recorded by the Epigraphic Survey.29 These data sets are being used as comparanda; one set because of subject matter and the other due to similarity of scenes and date. I plan to continue to add further comparative data of different types. For instance, including relief from Ramses III’s tomb or those of his sons would provide well-preserved examples of some of the costumes appearing in Medinet Habu. Karnak and Habu are fundamentally different types of temples and it is problematic, though potentially interesting, to directly compare sections of them. However, by adding relief from the other royal mortuary temples such as the Seti I temple at Gurna, the Ramesseum, and Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahri, comparisons of their iconographic programs may elucidate details that shift in usage or meaning over time. After months of data entry, a basic paired correlation analysis was performed on all records from Medinet Habu, as well as an additional analysis on the entire data set, comprised of all recorded scenes from Medinet Habu and Karnak. We serendipitously discovered that the suite of tools also provided solid error checking abilities. For example, a slip of the wrist at the end of a long day of entry, which dropped a ‘Yes’ instead of a ‘No’ in one field, was immediately caught when a correlation analysis was run. Another odd relationship that confounded us for a few days was a .76 correlation between variables that should have been total opposites—interior and exterior. We searched the data set, but there was no overlap

in ‘yes’ answers. Then we realized there was an overlap in ‘no’ answers—location has three fundamental possibilities in data entry: all scenes are exterior, interior, OR portal. The instances where the scenes were located within a portal, and thus ‘No’ was the answer in both interior and exterior, created false connections. Therefore, of course, one must always look at the data with a trained eye. Just because a computer insists that there is a correlation does not mean that there is a true connection through causality. As an example, the results of one search showed scenes where horns and feathers appear together atop the nms. There are 21 other examples of this combination, from a variety of contexts, in the complete data set, which suggests that the connection is worth investigating. The search results for scenes with aggressive enemies and horses appearing together, unlike the above combination, show that this has no likely causal relationship—it is no surprise to find horses in battle. Thus, for any perceived relationship, the custom suite of tools allows rapid retrieval of all possible images to study and immediately investigate the viability of their connection. In short, if I want to know which scenes from the entire data set have Pharaoh wearing a nms and a beard while facing right, it takes no more time using this suite than it would take to use an internet search engine like Google (Figs. 20 and 21). While waiting for advanced statistical analyses to be carried out by the professional analyst, I have been working with the data set directly in FileMaker and have noticed a number of interesting attribute patterns (Table 1). For instance, of the 85 occurrences of the nms in the Medinet Habu set, only two appear on the exterior of the temple, and both of these are on the main portal. A sole nms appears in one of the battle narrative scenes; that of the king’s presentation of Sea Peoples to Amun and Mut located on the east face of the second pylon. It is likewise the only nms appearing at any point in a battle sequence in the entire current data set.30 Another suggestive pattern is related to the apron, or sporran, of the king. Of the 375 Habu records, in 290 of them he wears one of two basic types of apron; these I have grouped into ‘multi’

29 Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak IV: The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). 30 This scene appears on the south tower of the pylon

and is balanced on the north tower by an inscription of year 8 (Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu I, pl. 46), where the Sea Peoples event is recorded. The presentation of spoil to the gods provides a visual completion of the sequence.

62

amy calvert

Fig. 20. Search for images of the king wearing selected attributes.

Fig. 21. Results of search.

and ‘flanking,’ referring to the number and placement of the uraei (Figs. 22 and 23). Of the 290 found, 54 were ‘multi,’ with 20 of those being ‘Battle’ and 34 ‘Ritual.’ In contrast, the remaining 236 ‘flanking’ were primarily ‘Ritual’, with only 9 examples appearing in ‘Battle’ scenes. Another search of the entire data set brought out that the ‘multi’ apron never occurs with any of the crowns related to Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, or the unified lands (the t, dšrt, or smty), but appears in 26 of its 54 occurrences at Habu with the prš.

It is important to point out that, to date, only the most basic of analyses have been applied to the data set. The suggestive patterns noted above are likely but a hint of what lies hidden in the visual record. Currently, this dissertation project is focused on continued analyses of the current Medinet Habu data set. In early fall, advanced analyses began for selected potentially significant attribute correlations. To date, several factor analyses have been performed which demonstrate succinct groupings of related attributes.

variations and significance of egyptian royal costume

63

Fig. 22. Example of a ‘multi’ apron.

Fig. 23. Example of a ‘flanking’ apron.

Table 1. Initial results from database searches of Medinet Habu set.

These analyses are in turn leading to other, more intensive search methods which will include: covariance, cluster analysis, and multiple logistical regression. As analyses progress, additional questions inevitably emerge. When this occurs, changes can be made to the database layouts to track the new attribute—compare, for example, the first and most recent versions of the ‘Dichotomous’ layout (Figs. 24 and 19). With each addition or change, of course, new analyses must be run. The final product of this dissertation will likely be a thorough study of one set of correlated attributes with high statistical significance. However, this research will continue long after the dissertation is completed. I plan to constantly expand the database, focusing first on temples from the late New Kingdom, but I expect to eventually include royal images in funerary art and also those captured in sculpture and other media. It is my (decidedly) long-term goal to use this database to capture and analyze royal depictions from all periods of ancient Egypt. Many elements of royal regalia appeared at the very inception of Egyptian civilization.31 By means 31 Clearly evidenced by the Narmer palette (Cairo JE 32169), to name just one example.

64

amy calvert

Fig. 24. Early version of the Dichotomous Layout.

of such a thorough study, larger patterns of attribute usage related to Egypt’s relative strength at the time, her interconnections or interactions with foreign powers, or even the individual desires of pharaoh may become evident. It is my intention to make this project fully digital, web-based, and permitting user interaction with the database—allowing others to investigate for deeper levels of correlation in line with their own research interests. In addition, I hope that this project will provide a framework for future interdisciplinary studies. Far from being purely Egyptological, the model developed here can easily be adapted for any study of any image or group of images from any time period. Different ensembles of regalia were necessary to support the king in different roles, to provide a physical embodiment of his myriad royal powers, and clearly communicate that information to the deities and people who interact with him, while simultaneously protecting him from malevolent forces. Through this examination of the variations of the king’s regalia in what could be considered publicly accessible wall reliefs, a more complete

picture of the public image of pharaoh may be achieved. Unlike the mortuary cult reliefs or those of the temple proper, where the king interacts only with the divine, the scenes in the main data set portray pharaoh also surrounded by a human audience. The enemies of Egypt who flee in terror at his appearance and the people of Egypt who rejoice at it both do so in response to the dazzling and intentionally created image of divine kingship in their midst. By delving into this topic through the use of this newly assembled corpus of images and by analyzing these data with such powerful analytical tools, a greater comprehension of the various roles of the ruler, and of kingship itself, in ancient Egypt may be achieved. Through this study we should gain further insight into not only the selections made to design such an image of pharaoh, but also the reasons behind the choices. By adding to our understanding of the purpose of the individual elements of royal regalia, we will develop an enhanced perception with which to view depictions of pharaoh.

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef

65

THE LONG COREGENCY REVISITED: ARCHITECTURAL AND ICONOGRAPHIC CONUNDRA IN THE TOMB OF KHERUEF* Peter F. Dorman Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

A generation of young scholars has been introduced to the complex issue of Egyptian coregencies through Bill Murnane’s seminal dissertation on the topic, published by the Oriental Institute in 1977. Of all the coregencies discussed by Murnane, none has been debated with more passion than the one alleged between Amenhotep III and his son. The long coregency of ten or eleven years is far more than a chronological quibble: it has serious implications for the structure of royal administration, the determination of foreign relations, the management of economic resources, the promulgation of art styles, the coexistence of apparently conflicting religious cults, and the reconstruction of the genealogy of the royal family at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This present revisitation of a subject that Bill Murnane himself addressed several times is affectionately dedicated to his memory, in admiration of his scholarship and out of gratitude for his unfailing personal generosity—and with the hope that he would have found the argument of interest.

Long one of the bones of contention around which the coregency debate has swirled, the tomb

of Kheruef (TT 192) has never been considered to be the primary crux in the coregency controversy, but just one of a myriad pieces of evidence, thus far more or less inconclusive, brought forth to support or refute the possibility of joint rule.1 Each of these fragments of the coregency puzzle tends to turn on a single question of interpretation, whether it be a reading of a regnal year, the juxtaposition of cartouches, or the significance of the presence, attire, or pose of various royal figures. Those readers familiar with the situation of Kheruef’s tomb in the coregency debate, however, will recall the unusually rich variety of criteria offered by TT 192: to wit, the portrayals of both kings as well as Queen Tiye in various parts of the unfinished wall reliefs, the intact preservation of the early name of Amenhotep IV, and the depiction of certain dated events in two of the historic jubilees celebrated by the elder king. This fortuitous combination of personalities and criteria should, at first glance, serve to delimit certain datable parameters pertaining to the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaton, according to which the phenomenon of joint rule might be persuasively demonstrated or definitively denied. Such has not proved to be the case: scholars on both sides of the argument have happily embraced the tomb of Kheruef to promote their own opinions

* This article is partly based on presentations given, in different versions, in Tucson, Arizona (annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt), and Grenoble (9th International Congress of Egyptology) in 2004. The author is grateful to Professor Edward Wente, one of the members of the epigraphic team to have documented TT 192, who read a draft of the article and made a number of thoughtful observations that have been incorporated here. 1 Certain pieces of evidence have been deemed more diagnostic or pertinent than others, but most have ultimately been judged inconclusive, like the tomb of Kheruef. Even the general amalgam of ambiguous data has been proposed as persuasive in itself; see F. Giles, The Amarna Age: Egypt, Australian Center for Egyptology Studies 6 (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 2001), pp. 55, 81, 252. The essential points of evidence have long been known and have been treated by D. Redford, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty

of Egypt: Seven Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1967), pp. 88-169; W. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 123-69, 231-33; Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, pp. 25-137; and M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, Collection de l’Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité, vol. 3 (Paris: Université Lumière-Lyon 2, 1998), pp. 62-98. The debate on these points cannot be addressed in full here. Two more criteria, brought into play recently, include a graffito found at Dahshur (see J. Allen, “Further Evidence for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV?” GM 140 [1994], pp. 7-8; and J. Allen, W. Murnane, and J. van Dijk, “Further Evidence for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV? Three Views on a Graffito Found at Dahshur,” Amarna Letters 3 [1994], pp. 26-31, and especially p. 152), and a boat scene from the tomb of Maya at Amarna (Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, pp. 78-79).

The Tomb of Kheruef in the Coregency Debate

peter f. dorman

66

Fig. 1. Plan and section of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 3.

while rarely convincing those whose views differ. The purpose of this article is not to revisit the entire question of the coregency, but only to examine the problem in light of the limited evidence incorporated in the tomb of Kheruef, through a chronological assessment that employs the deification iconography of Amenhotep III2—which adds a useful new dimension to the material from TT 192—the development of the didactic protocol of Ra-Horakhty-Aton, and the architecture of the tomb itself. Even for the reign of Amenhotep III, the tomb is both impressive and unusual in its layout (Fig. 1). Carved into the floor of the Asasif valley, Kheruef’s monument is approached by a ramp descending into the earth and terminating in a doorway that gives access, by means of a short passageway, to a large open court measuring approximately 24 meters square and carved 5.5 meters below ground level. The court was to have been provided with columns on all sides, but these were only finished to varying degrees before the tomb was abandoned. At the center of the western portico, a second doorway leads into a pillared hall, then into an axial chamber and finally into 2

For these iconographic traits, see below, with note

3

Redford, History and Chronology, pp. 113-17; the

19.

the burial apartments, which were carved at much deeper levels. Few of these areas ever received their decoration before the tomb was abandoned: only the entrance doorway and its passageway; the walls of the western portico and its doorway and reveals; and two of the pillars of the columned hall, carved with vertical offering texts. The most convenient starting point for Kheruef’s tomb as it impinges on the coregency question is the masterful chapter by Donald Redford, who critiqued previous commentary on the tomb and presented a host of insightful observations, even at a time when the full publication of the monument was not yet available.3 At the time Redford was writing, two arguments using the tomb of Kheruef had been brought forth to support a long coregency. The first argument centered on a badly damaged relief carved into the south wall of the short passageway just inside the entrance door of the tomb, showing Amenhotep IV pouring a libation onto an offering stand before the figures of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, and on the question of whether all three persons were living at the time the wall was decorated (Fig. 2). While several earlier scholars had considered this grouping publication of the tomb appeared twelve years later: the Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef

67

Fig. 2. Amenhotep IV offers a libation to his parents. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 13.

to be purely a posthumous hommage, Fairman believed that Amenhotep III was depicted as both alive and deified, and that the scene in Kheruef might be compared to reliefs at the Temple of Soleb in which Amenhotep IV makes offering to his still-living father, Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia.4 On the other hand, Redford maintained that the costume, royal insignia, and the lack of a pedestal in the Kheruef scene are typical of similar representations of the deified Amenhotep I, and

observed that the entire passageway of the tomb— including the adjacent depiction of Amenhotep IV reciting a hymn to the rising sun—is devoted to a context that is “timeless,” without reference to historical reality. But even more, “the essence of the offering ritual precludes that the recipient should be a living person.”5 The second argument hinged on the progress of tomb decoration, carefully set forth by Cyril Aldred.6 It has long been recognized that the

4 H.W. Fairman, “The Inscriptions,” in The City of Akhenaten, vol. 3, EEM 44, ed. J.S. Pendlebury (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1951), pp. 155-56. The damage to the scene was sufficient at the time to lead Fairman to describe the figure of Amenhotep III as “seated,” when in fact all three figures are standing. See also the remarks, supportive of Fairman’s view, of C. Aldred, Akhenaten, King of Egypt (London: Thames and Hudson, 1988), pp. 174-75. 5 Redford, History and Chronology, p. 116. The debate over whether Amenhotep III was alive or dead when the scene was carved is only peripheral to the concerns of the present article: regardless of the validity of this observation,

we shall proceed on the basis of other criteria. 6 C. Aldred, Akhenaton, Pharaoh of Egypt: A New Study (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968), pp. 107-09. Similar reasoning was put forward by F. Giles in his Ikhnaton: Legend and History (London: Hutchinson, 1970), pp. 80-81, apparently following an independent train of thought, since he does not cite Aldred’s slightly earlier work. In his later study, Akhenaten, King of Egypt, Aldred does not discuss the reliefs of Kheruef in depth (see p. 92), stating simply that “their sequence and completeness are problematical” (p. 163).

peter f. dorman

68

decoration of Theban tombs was normally initiated before the excavation had been completed, with the draftsmen and painters set to work in the outer portions of the tomb before the stonemasons within had fully achieved their task of quarrying out the deepest extremities. If the same sequence holds true for TT 192, one would expect that the entrance of the tomb was the first section excavated and decorated, with the western side of the court following only later. Aldred remarked that when the entrance was adorned Amenhotep IV had already been crowned, but the historical first and third jubilees of Amenhotep III are depicted only further inside, in the western portico of the open court.7 He was thus led to conclude that the distribution of these scenes demonstrate that the son was already on the throne of Egypt, as a junior coregent, even before his father’s jubilee of year 30 and thus before the death of Amenhotep III, necessitating a long coregency. In responding to these arguments, Redford noted that Kheruef’s tomb exhibits a number of anomalies in terms of its construction: not only does the carved decoration appear limited to the entrance areas and the western portico, but work seems to have been abandoned in all parts of the tomb at once. And since these areas had received their final painted coats—at least in part—he asserted that the draftsmen and stonecutters had not conformed to the expected progression of work exhibited in other Theban tombs (that is, east-to-west), but had been engaged in both inner and outer areas at the same time.8 In a review of Redford’s book,9 Edward Wente professed himself “not quite prepared to endorse Redford’s statement regarding the sequence of its decoration,”10 and provided a more nuanced description of the state of the tomb decoration. Specifically, he noted that the southern wing of the western portico (where the first jubilee is depicted) is architecturally less advanced than the entrance doorway and that the carving of the southernmost reliefs was never completely finished; by comparison, the northern wing (third jubilee) had been brought to completion and the upper portions painted as well. Wente also pointed out that the entrance doorway had been carved and 7

Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pls. 24 and 47. Redford, History and Chronology, pp. 116-17. 9 E. Wente, “review of History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies, by Donald Redford,” JNES 28 (1969), pp. 273-80. 10 Ibid., p. 275. 11 Ibid. 8

painted, but that inside the passageway only the acrostic hymn had received its pigment, perhaps “because of the extremely delicately incised relief of the inner wall containing the scene of Amenhotep IV offering to his parents.”11 Nor did he entirely discount the east-to-west progression of construction. Wente further noted that one of Kheruef’s titles, “Steward of the Estate of Amun,” appears only in the pillared hall beyond the western portico, implying that it may have been an office conferred on him later in life, and that its occurrence only relatively deep within the tomb might reflect a chronological datum for tomb construction.12 William Murnane’s later analysis of the work in Kheruef, in his monograph on Egyptian coregencies, conceded that it is possible that the progress of the decoration flowed from east to west, but if so, there must have been a significant chronological gap between the entrance doorway—which represents some of the earliest relief work executed under Amenhotep IV—and the western side of the open court, “since the portico is all of a piece and the events of the third jubilee are portrayed there.”13 Murnane estimated this lapse of time at “about ten years,” but did not otherwise believe the evidence to compel a decision either for or against a coregency. In The Amarna Age: Egypt, Frederick J. Giles has recently returned to the substance of Aldred’s (and his own) earlier position, reasserting that “the scenes of the first and third jubilees, dated to Amenhotep’s Year 30 and 37 respectively, are within the tomb on the western wall of the forecourt, and therefore probably to be dated later than the scenes of Ikhnaton on the façade.”14 He quotes extensively from Wente’s careful remarks on the carving and painting of the Kheruef reliefs, which, although useful as clarification, in point of fact skirt the fundamental question of whether work in the tomb flowed strictly from east to west. Giles does accede to Murnane’s deductions concerning a time lag before the jubilee scenes were carved, with one caveat: “the intervening period was long or short depending on whether the scenes in the first court were executed in one group, in or after Regnal Year 37, or in two groups, the first after Year 30, and the second 12 For a cautionary remark, see C. Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 15, n. 52. 13 Murnane, Coregencies, p. 149, with n. 192, which indicates the concurrence of Charles Nims, field director of the Epigraphic Survey during the years Kheruef was being recorded; see further below. 14 Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, p. 111.

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef group in Amenhotep III’s last year.”15 Thus, he leaves open the question of whether each of the jubilee scenes was cut at the time the celebrations were respectively observed. If this question is answered in the affirmative, however, it greatly complicates the interpretation of the quarrying of the court and preparation of the portico: are we to understand that the southern wing of the portico was decorated with the portrayal of the first jubilee seven years before the northern wing was carved with scenes of the third jubilee? Why then was it left (as Wente noted) “architecturally at a less advanced stage” than the northern wing, and its reliefs never painted? Are we then to assign the decoration of the central doorway of the portico to a time part way between years 30 and 37, or closer to the former date?

A Timeline for the Supposed Long Coregency Let us accept for a moment the premise of a long coregency. To illustrate how the decoration of the tomb of Kheruef might be fit into the chronological limits of such a scheme, a diagram may be created with four correlative timelines that compare the reigns of the assumed coregents against the tomb of Kheruef itself (Fig. 3). The uppermost line represents the recurring cycle of the civil year against which all other dates are entered, with 1 A.t 1 marked by a star and the seasons following in a purely schematic fashion. The second timeline shows the reign of Amenhotep III from years 26 onward, with his three jubilees prominently noted, as well as his highest attested year date. As Charles Van Siclen III has shown, each of the three jubilees of the elder king took place over the identical range of dates, to 15

Ibid., p. 115. C. Van Siclen III, “The Accession Date of Amenhotep III and the Jubilee,” JNES 32 (1973), pp. 290-300. 17 Ibid., pp. 294-96. J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten. MÄS 46 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997), p. 201, chooses the option of early 3 šmw (“Anfang XI”), just a month later, which does not materially affect the arguments here. 18 W. Hayes, “Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III,” JNES 10 (1951), pp. 35-40, Fig. 11, no. 143. Jar label 143A, presumptively year 38 but missing its year date, mentions msw.t r. Von Beckerath, Chronologie, pp. 110 and 201, assigns the month 2 pr.t as the highest approximate date within year 38, to account for the fact that jar label 62 (Hayes, JNES 10, Fig. 7) refers to new wine of “year 38,” which must have been harvested in mid-summer. 19 The initial study, which outlines three major phases, is W.R. Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: Styles 16

69

judge from the relatively voluminous documentation from each of these celebrations: from 4 pr.t 26 of one regnal year to 3 šmw 2 in the succeeding year, or sixty-seven days for each jubilee.16 Within this span of time fell the anniversary of the king’s accession, probably on 2 šmw 1.17 The highest attested date of Amenhotep III is a jar docket from Malkata: sb.t 38 sw.w 5 ry.w-rnp.t msw.t Wsἰr, one of the two epagomenal days mentioned in the palace corpus, which occurred only three months into the king’s 38th year.18 Another vital chronological characteristic has been developed in a series of seminal articles by W. Raymond Johnson on the progression of royal art styles and the deification iconography of Amenhotep III.19 Johnson has characterized the style of the third decade of the king’s reign as “mature naturalism,” basing his observations on certain relief blocks extant from the king’s mortuary temple at Kom el-Heitan on the west bank at Luxor—in particular the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris complex—and from the sun court at Luxor Temple.20 This phase, indicated on the timeline as “naturalistic,” is distinguished by a more relaxed, softer formality, of which the hallmark is light-raised and light-sunk relief, with emphasis on a more detailed rendering of the ear. According to Johnson’s studies, “mature naturalism” ends with the first jubilee, when the final, “baroque,” phase asserts itself for the remainder of the reign. The new royal style is characterized by very high, rounded relief.21 In both three-dimensional sculpture and relief, the hallmark is “exaggerated youthfulness,” with the king’s face almost orb-like, the eyes overlarge, the nose made smaller and the lips enlarged. At the same time, the royal insignia are infused with solar symbolism implying the deification of and Intentions,” in The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. L.M. Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990), pp. 26-46. An expanded scheme, with four phases that largely correspond to each of the decades of the king’s reign, is presented in idem, “The Deified Amenhotep III as the Living Re-Horakhty: Stylistic and Iconographic Considerations,” in Atti del Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia, vol. 2, ed. Silvio Curto et al. (Turin: Società Italiana per il Gas p.A., 1993), pp. 231-36; and idem, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign, eds. D. O’Connor and E. Cline (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1998), pp. 80-85. 20 For other relief monuments to be placed in this category, see Johnson, “Deified Amenhotep III,” n. 7 on pp. 233-34. 21 For a range of examples, see ibid., n. 9 on p. 234.

70

peter f. dorman

Fig. 3. Schematic timeline for a hypothetical long coregency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton.

Amenhotep III: the king’s sporran is often adorned with multiple uraeus serpents and, on occasion, a leopard skin; the sashes of the kilt are tied with an elaborate double loop, and pendant streamers are tipped with papyrus or sedge umbels; and a shebyu collar often adorns the royal neck. On the timeline, the “baroque” phase extends from the first jubilee until the end of Amenhotep III’s reign.22 The major chronological points of Akhenaton’s reign are shown in the lowermost timeline. His accession fell within the very narrow range of 1 pr.t 1-8,23 situating this event almost exactly six months distant from the accession day of his father in terms of the calendar year. In other words, the correlation of the two reigns in any proposed core-

gency does not offer an indefinite sliding scale of possibilities, but only one in which the accession anniversaries of Akhenaton fall halfway through the regnal years of his father; accordingly, they can only be adjusted (to the right or left) by wholeyear increments. One relatively early datum is a series of graffiti in the Wadi Hammamat referring to a quarrying expedition undertaken under the auspices of the High Priest of Amun May, dated to year 4, 3 A.t 11, implying at least an outward tolerance of the chief god of Karnak.24 The date at which the younger king changed his name to Akhenaton is of special note: the alteration took place in his 5th regnal year, between the 19th day of 3 pr.t, the date of a letter in which the steward Apy addresses the king according to his

22 In a more recent commentary, Johnson (in “The Setting: History, Religion, and Art,” in Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, eds. R. Freed, Y. Markowitz, and S. D’Auria [Boston, New York and London: Bulfinch/ Little, Brown and Co., 1999], pp. 46-47) observes that the final decade is further distinguished by a variety of other styles as well: “the youthful ‘deification style’ of Amenhotep III’s last decade existed side by side with statuary and relief work carved in a totally different style, that of the Old Kingdom private sculpture,” noting also the influence of statuary of the late Middle Kingdom (Sesostris III and Amenemhat III) on sculpture of Amenhotep III and opining that many of the known examples originated at Amarna rather than the Theban area. 23 W. Murnane, “On the Accession Date of Akhenaton,” in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente, SAOC 39 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute

of the University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 163-67; and W. Murnane and C. Van Siclen III, The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1993), pp. 149-55. See also von Beckerath, Chronologie, pp. 111, 201; and Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 14-16, who asserts a preference for 1 pr.t 2. 24 For the two primary graffiti, see G. Goyon, Nouvelles inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat (Paris: Libraire d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1957), pp. 106-07, pls. 25 and 31; and W. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 68 and 248. 25 For the letter (pGurob 1.1 and 1.2), which also invokes the protection of Ptah on pharaoh, see ibid., pp. 50-51 and 247.

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef birth name,25 and the 13th day of 4 pr.t, the date of the “earlier proclamation” on the boundary stelae at Amarna, where “Akhenaton” appears for the first time26—a span of only 24 days. The boundary stelae also furnish three other dates (in years 6 and 8), and the reception of foreign tribute, shown in the Amarna tombs of Huya and Meryra II, bears the notation “regnal year 12, 2 pr.t 8,” in juxtaposition with the later didactic name of the Aton.27 Other events may be more loosely positioned within the early years of Amenhotep IV. One is the construction of the sandstone Ra-Horakhty structure at Karnak, where the Aton is still portrayed as a falcon-headed anthropomorphic deity and his early didactic name is written without cartouches; though not precisely dated, this shrine must have been under construction in the younger king’s first years.28 The lengthy overlap between the two king’s reigns shown in Fig. 3 is essentially predicated on the observations of Aldred, who suggested that the three jubilees of Amenhotep III might be closely matched with the changes in the didactic name and epithets of the Aton, resulting in a long core26

Murnane and Van Siclen, Boundary Stelae, pp. 11-

68. 27 For Meryra II: N. de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part II, ASE 14 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., 1905), pl. 38; for Huya: idem, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part III, ASE 15 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., 1905), pl. 13. The hieratic docket on Amarna letter EA 27 is not shown on this timeline; nonetheless, it is one of the essential chronological anchors that have been used to justify a long coregency of at least eleven years. For a recent examination of the tablet and its docket, advocating a reading of “year 2,” see W. Fritz, “Bemerkungen zur Datierungsvermerk auf der Amarnatafel Kn. 27,” SAK 18 (1991), pp. 207-14; for a rebuttal (unpersuasive, in the opinion of this writer) and reading of year 12, see Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, pp. 30-34. The docket was added in 1 pr.t, but unfortunately the day is lost; it could have been written either during the very first days of regnal year [1]2 or during the very last. See also n. 31, below. 28 For the Ra-Horakhty temple, see J.-L. Chappaz, “Le premier édifice d’Aménophis IV à Karnak,” BSEG 8 (1983), pp. 13-45. 29 C. Aldred, “The Beginning of the El-Amarna Period,” JEA 45 (1959), pp. 19-33. The numbers cited are Aldred’s; in fact, Akhenaton’s year 11 would have begun in his father’s year 38. The long coregency is often referred to as eleven or twelve years long, but there is no reason for such imprecision: one can be quite definite about the chronological options available. Note that the schematic timeline in Fig. 3 shows the reign of Amenhotep IV beginning in year 27 of his father, not year 28, for reasons expounded below. 30 Johnson has proposed that the appearance of the Aton as a sun disk—just prior to, or exactly coincident with, the first jubilee of Amenhotep III—contains crucial theological overtones, equating the elder (and newly deified) king with

71

gency that begins in the elder king’s year 28 (year 1 of Amenhotep IV) and ends in year 39 (year 11 of Akhenaton [sic]).29 Although Aldred’s theory that the Aton itself celebrated three historic jubilees synchronized with those of the elder king has not been widely embraced, other grounds have been found to reinvigorate this suggested synchronism. Johnson has noted close and convincing similarities between the “mature realism” of Amenhotep III’s third decade and the restrained relief carving of the Ra-Horakhty sanctuary at Karnak.30 Not only would the first appearance of the Aton (year 2 of Amenhotep IV in such a scheme) coincide nicely with the elder king’s first jubilee, but the death of Amenhotep III, probably in year 39, would correspond neatly to a restored docket of year [1]2 on Amarna letter EA 27, which (it has been claimed) contains a reference to a royal funeral.31 The death of Amenhotep III has also been linked to the onset of the proscription of Amun in year 12.32 It is unlikely, however, that the earliest appearance of the Aton as a rayed solar disk can be set as early as year 2. As Jean-Luc Chappaz has shown, the Aton’s new iconic form is inextricably the Aton itself, and that this syncretism lies at the very heart of a proper understanding of the Aton religion. For these views, see Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III,” pp. 43-45; idem, “Monuments and Monumental Art,” pp. 91-93; and idem, “The Deified Amenhotep III,” pp. 232-33. 31 Proponents of the long coregency uniformly support this double synchronism with the reign of Amenhotep III in years 2 and 12; see, for example, Aldred, Akhenaten, King of Egypt, pp. 169-82; W.R. Johnson, “Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some New Considerations,” JEA 82 (1996), pp. 81-82; idem, “Images of Amenhotep III,” p. 43; Giles, Amarna Age: Egypt, p. 136; and C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil, tome 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire, Nouvelle Clio (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1995), pp. 402-07. For EA 27, see n. 27, above. The internal reference in EA 27 to a “festival of mourning,” however, was already cast into doubt by Murnane, Coregencies, pp. 124-25; and see now W. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp. 89-90, with n. 19, who disavows any connection of the “kimru-feast” with the funeral of Amenhotep III. 32 For this historical reconstruction, see Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III,” pp. 45-46; idem, “Monuments and Monumental Art,” p. 93 with n. 171; and idem, “The Setting: History, Religion, and Art,” pp. 47-48. For the persecution of Amun, see below. 33 There is no example of the name of the solar disk employed without cartouches. On the other hand, Chappaz, BSEG 8 (1983), pp. 18, 33-34, cites five examples in the RaHorakhty temple at Karnak in which the cartouches of the anthropomorphic god were added later; in these cases, the (original) raised relief was shaved down and the didactic name merely incised, this time within cartouches. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, n. 202 on p. 26, also notes, “l’apparition des cartouches autour du protocole d’Aton

72

peter f. dorman

linked to its didactic name framed in cartouches.33 The time span for the setting of Aton’s protocol within cartouches seems to be provided by two pieces of linen that were entwined around divine statues found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. One linen wrapping displays the didactic name without cartouches in conjunction with the notation “year 3,” and the second shows the name inside cartouches along with the date “year 4, 2 šmw.”34 In order for the first appearance of the rayed disk to correlate with the first jubilee of Amenhotep III, the junior king would have had to ascend the throne no later than the middle of his father’s 27th regnal year, as shown in the present timeline, not his 28th.35 Placed between these concurrent reigns, the decoration of Kheruef’s tomb occupies two restricted spans of time, as Murnane pointed out. The lintel of the entrance doorway to the tomb bears the figure of Amenhotep IV accompanied by his mother, Tiye, in paired offering scenes in which the king offers wine to Ra-Horakhty and Maat, “daughter of Ra,” on the left side, and incense to Atum and the “chieftainess of Thebes” on the right (Fig. 4). The passage just within the doorway bears the well known scenes of Amenhotep IV offering a libation to his parents (Fig. 2) and reciting an acrostic hymn addressed to RaHorakhty and Amun. The iconography evident on the figure of Amenhotep III—who wears a leopard skin and broad streamers on his sporran, and is referred to only by his prenomen, Nebmaatre—is typical of the solar insignia added to his costume only after his deification during the first jubilee. The entrance doorway and passage, therefore, must have been carved at some point after the first jubilee but before Amenhotep IV changed his name: at most a period of less than two years.

With the completion of these elements of the entrance, work on the decoration of Kheruef’s tomb must have been brought to a halt for over six years. Those advocating a long coregency would hold that the great courtyard was in the process of excavation during this period, as well as the rooms beyond; the construction of the tomb is further addressed below. The second phase of decoration in Kheruef’s tomb would have been initiated after the third jubilee of Amenhotep III (and in the 11th year of his son), according to the long coregency scheme, and it is of uncertain duration. The carving of the scenes could scarcely have begun prior to the completion of the third jubilee (unless the reliefs are to be considered anticipatory). Realistically, the creation of the third jubilee reliefs can scarcely be made to fit into the reign of Amenhotep III at all. Since his highest known day date falls barely three months after the completion of the third jubilee, it is entirely possible that these reliefs were carved only following the king’s death. Work on the tomb was apparently terminated after a catastrophic collapse that forestalled further carving or repair, a least in the innermost rooms.36 Two of the pillars in the columned hall closest to the central door, however, received their dedication texts before the roof fell in, and a fragment from the top of one of the pillars still contains the intact name of Amun, here actually compounded with the name of Ra-Horakhty.37 As it was not defaced during the Atonist proscription, the name provides a clue that, even in the scheme of the long coregency, the collapse of the columned hall must have preceded the desecration of the figure and name of Amun by Akhenaton. On our theoretical time line, the persecution of Amun is generously indicated at year 13, allowing for approximately two years for the decoration of the western portico and its adjacent spaces.38

a, en fait, précédé de très peu la nouvelle iconographie du dieu d’Amenhotep IV,” and cites two other monuments on which the hieracocephalic Ra-Horakhty displays his didactic name inside cartouches. 34 These pieces of linen (JE 62705 and JE 62703, respectively) were first noted by D. Redford (“The Sun-Disc in Akhenaten’s Program: Its Worship and Antecedents, I,” JARCE 13 [1976], p. 55) as pertinent to this question. See now Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 27 with n. 211, citing H. Beinlich and M. Saleh, Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1989), pp. 131 (Carter 281a) and 133 (Carter 291a). 35 The difference of a year does not greatly affect the arguments offered here in regard to TT 192. If the beginning

of the coregency is correlated to Amenhotep IV’s year 2 rather than year 3, each construction phase of the tomb would be expanded by a year, and the hiatus between them lessened by a year. 36 Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 15. 37 Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 80F. Numerous mentions of Kheruef’s title as ἰmy-r pr m pr-ἰmn, with “Amun” left intact, occur on the column fragments as well. 38 It seems clear that the name and figure of Kheruef were attacked sometime during the reign of Akhenaton, but only after the accumulation of debris that helped to preserve a least one of his depictions in the lowermost register of the portico; see Nims in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pp. 14-15. The fall of the portico roof may not have occurred simultaneously with the collapse of the columned hall.

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef

73

Fig. 4. Lintel and upper jambs of the entrance doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 8.

Given the severe constraints of the long coregency scheme on the decoration of TT 192, the entrance area of Kheruef’s tomb offers a proliferation of discordant data, foremost of which is the presence or absence of certain royal figures. Amenhotep III, newly deified in his first jubilee, a ceremony in which Kheruef himself participated, seems to have been banished from the entrance lintel in favor of his son and the queen mother.39 The primary female presence throughout is Queen Tiye, whom Kheruef served as steward; but while Nefertiti was already deemed of sufficient importance to be the sole officiant in her own w.t-bnbn across

the river at Karnak,40 she appears nowhere in the tomb of Kheruef, either in name or in figure. Religious anachronisms abound. At a time when Amenhotep IV was building temples to his new deity at Karnak, replete with its fully developed representation of the Aton as a disk with animate rays, the king apparently had himself depicted on Kheruef’s tomb entrance in front of an anthropomorphic Ra-Horakhty and Atum (see Fig. 4). In the case of the former deity, Ra-Horakhty is provided with the epithet nr A nb p.t, a protocol abandoned by Amenhotep IV in his own third year or earlier, by which time the didactic name of the Aton was already fully elaborated.41 In the offering text to Ra-Horakhty on the door

39 The reason for this absence given by Aldred in Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt, pp. 108-09, is hardly compelling: that Amenhotep III donated the tomb to Kheruef about the time of his first jubilee, but that Kheruef simply “associated the son of his patroness with her husband, particularly as he had recently been made co-regent.” 40 See D. Redford, in R. Smith and D. Redford, The

Akhenaten Temple Project, Vol. 1, Initial Discoveries (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1976), pp. 79-82, pls. 20-23. 41 See n. 34, above; and I. Munro, “Zusammenstellung von Datierungskritierien für Inschriften der Amarna-Zeit nach J.J. Perepelkin ‘Die Revolution Amenophis’ IV.’, Teil 1 (russ.), 1967,” GM 94 (1986), pp. 81-82; and Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 24-25, with references.

Iconographic and Chronological Conundra

74

peter f. dorman

jamb of the entrance (who is not provided with any epithet in this instance), it seems clear that the deity is viewed as an entity quite separate from the Aton: Ra-Horakhty is invoked in order “that he (the god) may grant observation of the solar disk (ἰtn). . . (to Kheruef).”42 Such references cannot be easily reconciled with purportedly contemporary icons at Karnak that depict Ra-Horakhty-Aton as the physical disk of the sun. The plethora of other deities invoked in such proximity to Amenhotep IV is also problematic for the coregency scheme, to wit, Osiris, Isis, Thoth, and Anubis, to say nothing of Amun pAwty tA.wy and Amun-Ra nb nsw.t tA.wy.43 Moreover, the prominent occurrence of the name of Amun in the acrostic hymn of the passageway, adjacent to Amenhotep III’s portrayal in jubilee garb, ensures that this area must have been decorated together with the lintel and jambs of the entrance.44 The resultant contradictions within the long coregency scheme are irreconcilable with the textual evidence.45 The long coregency poses two more puzzles on the lintel of the second doorway, which leads into the unfinished columned hall (Fig. 5). The lintel is laid out in a manner identical to that of the entrance doorway, but the damage is such that only the lower portions of the scenes remain, so that the identity of the royal and divine figures cannot be determined. The door jambs contain ten vertical offering texts, rather than eight, invok-

ing the following gods: Amun, Ra-Horakhty,46 Khepri, Atum, Osiris Ptah, Anubis, Wepwawet, Min, Djehuty, and Hathor. By analogy with the entrance, the damaged lintel—presumably carved along with the adjacent jubilee reliefs of year 3747 and thus concurrent with the junior coregent’s year 11—should contain figures of Akhenaton and Tiye, offering to seated male deities with goddesses standing behind their thrones.48 The reverent mention of a multitude of such deities, four represented in human form, in juxtaposition with Akhenaton in his 11th or 12th regnal year, as the long coregency requires, cannot be explained away.49 Perhaps, then, it was Amenhotep III who was portrayed on the lintel with Tiye, and whose sensibilities required the inclusion of traditional gods that were, by that time, anathema to his son? But this again raises the question: why should the elder coregent have been portrayed on the lintel of the second doorway with his wife, while the son was depicted on the tomb entrance with the queen mother? Even the supposition that Amenhotep III is indeed the king portrayed on the lintel of the second doorway begs the question of what was not happening at the entrance of the tomb: in a monument still being actively decorated in the younger king’s 11th and 12th year, why was no attempt made—at the very least—to alter the nomen of Amenhotep IV to “Akhenaton,” as had been done consistently at Karnak and elsewhere?50

42 Following the translation of E. Wente, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 33. 43 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 25-26, assigns Amenhotep IV’s prohibition against using the name of Amun—rather than active persecution itself—to a time prior to the enclosure of the Aton’s name in cartouches, that is, by year 3, even before the time at which work on Kheruef’s entrance could have commenced: “Le dieu de Thèbes n’est pas encore proscrit, mais il (Amenhotep IV) n’est plus fait allusion à lui que très discrètement dans les inscriptions officielles, notamment dans le nom du roi.” 44 E. Wente, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pp. 35-37, with pls. 14-15. 45 A number of the discrepancies thus far noted could be resolved by assigning the inception of the coregency to the middle of regnal year 29 of Amenhotep III. This rearrangement would break the neat synchronicity between the first jubilee of the elder king and the first appearance of the Aton (delaying the latter by two years), and the year 12 of Akhenaton would then start midway into the 40th year of his father; but see further below. 46 The god is again mentioned here without the didactic protocol and without the cartouches that, by year 11 of Akhenaton, had become numbingly de rigeur for the Aton at Amarna; nor is the accompanying text compatible with Atonist theology: “that he (Ra-Horakhty) may grant entry into his mountain of the righteous and voyaging in front of the stars that are wont to go up to the sky,” after Wente, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 68.

47 For the suggestion—and rejection—that the dates referring to regnal year 37 in the Kheruef reliefs were later additions, see B. Bryan, in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, eds. A. Kozloff and B. Bryan (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), n. 6 on pp. 205-06; and Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 69. 48 It is generally agreed that Akhenaton was probably the king portrayed on the lintel of the second doorway; see Aldred, Akhenaten, King of Egypt, p. 92; Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 13; and A. Radwan, Die Darstellungen des regierenden Königs und seiner Familienangehörigen in den Privatgräbern des 18. Dynastie, MÄS 21 (Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1969), p. 94. 49 Again, Amun and Ra-Horakhty are especially problematic. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 25 with n. 200, asserts that, on the basis of monuments dated to the early years of Amenhotep IV, Amun (though not yet actively persecuted) was no longer mentioned in royal texts of that king from his regnal year 4 onward. To be sure, even after the first several years of Akhenaton’s reign, a number of deities other than the Aton were tolerated and even honored, at least in specific contexts; see S. Bickel, Untersuchungen im Totentempel des Merenptah in Theben III: Tore und andere wiederverwendete Bauteile Amenophis’ III, BÄBA 16 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1997), pp. 92-94. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 32-34, delineates the extent of the sporadic and inconsistent attacks against Amun and other deities outside of the Theban area. 50 For the Aton temples, see D. Redford in Smith and

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef

75

Fig. 5. Lintel and upper jambs of the second doorway of the tomb of Kheruef. From Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pl. 67.

Second, there is the artistic convention of the “near foot,” a criterion that can be applied to the one of the few pertinent iconographic elements preserved on the lintel in question. Edna Russmann has demonstrated that the representation of the near foot in Egyptian art, with all of its five toes indicated, originated in painted form in certain Theban tombs of pre-Amarna date, but during the reign of Akhenaton became virtually a “royal prerogative” extended to the king and immediate members of the family.51 It is noteworthy, then, that the convention of the near foot, a motif that Akhenaton deliberately adopted as a feature of his personal royal presentation and extended to immediate family members,52 is avoided everywhere in TT 192, although it was otherwise consistently applied on private and royal monuments of the younger king for much of his reign. Redford, Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. 1, p. 76; for the Ra-Horakhty shrine, see Chappaz, BSEG 8 (1983), p. 33, who notes eleven examples, all executed in incised carving. 51 E. Russmann, “The Anatomy of an Artistic Convention: Representation of the Near Foot in Two Dimensions Through the New Kingdom,” BES 2 (1980), pp. 57-81. 52 Ibid., pp. 70-71.

Textual and iconographic anomalies such as these can only be accounted for, in the context of a long coregency, by the dubious presumption of conflicting but separate artistic and religious sensibilities, practiced according to geographic location or at the whimsical discretion of the coregents while Amenhotep III was still alive.53 Such a presumption would, a priori, vitiate any attempt to trace in reasonable fashion the consistent development of artistic and religious trends during the presumed coregency period, or to formulate a viable chronological framework on the basis of them. Finally, the erasure of the name of Amun throughout the tomb is only possible, in the coregency scenario outlined here, if its inception is dated roughly no earlier than Akhenaton’s year 13, after the decoration of the several offering texts in Kheruef’s columned hall. Susanne Bickel’s 53

The suggestion that Akhenaton was motivated, in the decoration of the second doorway, to embrace traditional religious and artistic conventions out of consideration for his father is a priori unsatisfactory. In any case, it has already been pointed out that dated records suggest that Amenhotep III was, in all likelihood, deceased at the time this part of Kheruef’s tomb was decorated.

76

peter f. dorman didactic name of the Aton, seemingly confirming these rough parameters.60

study of the northern monumental gateway of Amenhotep III’s mortuary complex, however, raises certain arguments for assigning the beginning of the persecution of Amun to the period directly following Akhenaton’s own name change and his removal to Amarna: year 5 or shortly thereafter.54 Bickel has noted that Amun was not merely eradicated from the scenes of the gateway, but shortly thereafter his figure was recarved as a deified form of Nebmaatre, probably as part of a prearranged process of cultic transformation.55 The figures of the deified Nebmaatre are provided with various epithets, one of which (nr nfr) seems only to be employed by Akhenaton in the years preceding the change in the didactic name of the Aton, after which it is replaced by hqA nfr.56 The alterations of the monumental gateway must therefore be assigned to a time preceding the revision of the Aton’s cartouches.57 Bickel observes that scholarly consensus assigns the final manifestation of the Aton’s didactic protocol to years 8 or 9, providing a fairly narrow range (between years 5 and 9) for the alterations to have been effected at the mortuary temple gateway.58 Such a dating would also make it impossible for the name of Amun to be used in the tomb of Kheruef in year 11 or later: it could hardly have been employed in the innermost reaches of the tomb while it was being excised at the entrance.59 In addition, on the occasion of the presentation of foreign tribute, shown in the tombs of Huya and Meryra II at Amarna and bearing the date of year 12, 2 pr.t 8, the royal couple are enthroned beneath the later

The presumption that Kheruef’s tomb was excavated and decorated in the usual Theban manner, proceeding from east to west, not only offers firm support for a long coregency, but is essential to it, demonstrating the rise of Amenhotep IV to the throne before the death of his father. In fact, far from representing a typical example of the Theban tomb genre, TT 192 is an innovation in private mortuary architecture, notably by reason of its large open court, sunk into the floor of the Asasif valley. Moreover, the condition of its walls at the time of its abandonment directly contradicts the assertion that work began at its entrance and proceeded inexorably toward its innermost rooms (see Fig. 1). The main descending ramp was completed and its walls smoothed, and of course the doorway and entrance leading into the court were carved with their reliefs and even partially painted. In the next area directly adjacent to the entrance, within the court itself, the columns of the eastern portico had only reached the stage of roughing out; two sections of the wall behind the columns had been smoothed, but this work had not progressed far. As for the courtyard, the northern and southern porticos were largely unquarried; only two columns in the

54 Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 91-94. If these changes were indeed effected in year 5 or 6, the portrayal of Nebmaatra in the entrance passage of Kheruef’s tomb preceded them by just one or two years. Her position on the early persecution of Amun is supported by Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 29-30, who also examines, and dismisses, the arguments that Aldred has proposed for assigning a later date of year 12 to the proscription. That Amun was still tolerated in year 4 of Amenhotep IV is indicated by the series of graffiti in the Wadi Hammamat that refer to an expedition sent there on 3 A.t 11, a date that falls toward the end of the king’s fourth regnal year (see Fig. 3); see ibid., Gabolde, p. 26. 55 Not to be confused with Nebmaatra lord of Nubia, or the deified Amenhotep III in Luxor Temple; see Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 89-90. Bickel (p. 89) is further of the opinion that the recut figures of Nebmaatra on the gateway cannot be concurrent with the last decade of Amenhotep III, as they are inconsistent with the proportional canon of that period and lack the expected solar iconography associated with Amenhotep III in his final years. 56 Ibid., p. 93, citing Munro, GM 94 (1985), p. 85. 57 That is, the final manifestation of the Aton’s protocol, which was subject to numerous minor alterations, for which

see Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 105-06. 58 Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 92-93. The year 8 or 9 datum derives largely from the early study of B. Gunn, “Notes on the Aten and His Names,” JEA 9 (1929), pp. 168-76. 59 Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 29, also views the persecution of Amun to have begun more or less concurrently with Akhenaton’s name change in year 5: “C’est vraisemblablment de cette époque que date le début des remplacements du nomen «Amenhotep» par le praenomen «Nebmaâtre» dans les cartouches d’Amenhotep III et les martelages du nom d’Amon sur les parois des temples thébains: il serait paradoxal que le roi censurât les références à Amon jusque dans son proper nom de naissance si c’était pour laisser intactes partout ailleurs.” 60 Gabolde, ibid., pp. 110-18, has recently urged a reconsideration of the first appearance of the later didactic name to year 14. His conclusions rest on a statistical parsing of the variants of the Aton’s names at Amarna; on the differing number of princesses in the two scenes of foreign tribute; and on the caution that the carving of the tribute scenes may both be retrospective by a year or two. Nonetheless, it is not the appearance of the Aton’s later didactic name that is of concern here: it is the date of the active proscription of Amun; these phenomena are not necessarily linked.

The Quarrying and Decoration of the Tomb of Kheruef

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef northwestern corner were in the process of being roughed out. The western portico, by contrast, is in a state of advanced completion. It had received its jubilee scenes (the third jubilee had been partially painted as well), with the pillars of the northern wing fully carved, while the pillars of the southern wing had been left only in rough condition. The walls of the large columned hall, yet farther in, had been completely smoothed, with its pillars architecturally finished, but just a few of the texts on the columns had been drafted and carved. The final rectangular chamber, with its double row of columns, had been roughed out, but only the eastern half of the walls of the room had been smoothed. There is no demonstrable east-to-west progression here, but rather a more complicated distribution of labor. Nor does it make practical sense to claim that TT 192 was quarried from its entrance doorway alone, with draftsmen and painters following on the heels of the stonemasons. The proposition that this vast tomb was excavated from its entrance alone would imply that the open court, carved into the bedrock of the Asasif, was created essentially by tunneling from below, a procedure that is simply not credible from a logistical point of view. Such a scenario mandates laborers engaged in removing over 5000 cubic meters of quarried chip, taken from all parts of the subterranean tomb, solely through an entrance doorway measuring 1.4 m wide. For a time the doorway would have been inaccessible due to sculptors engaged in carving the delicate reliefs of Amenhotep IV performing a libation to his parents, and for years thereafter these scenes would have been exposed to gangs of men hauling debris. The Epigraphic Survey realized the essential problem and came to different conclusions, based on the fact that the open court itself contains so many unfinished features, including porticos whose columns had never been fully cut: With quarrying going on simultaneously in the front of the tomb and more than thirty meters away in the rear, the disposal of the debris from the rear without interference with the work in the front makes probable the use of a ramp or ramps in the area of the court, which would have delayed the quarrying there.61

61

Nims, in Kheruef, p. 6. Ibid., p. 4. 63 Very few of these observations are new. The reader will note what a large debt is owed to Redford’s early chapter 62

77

The problem of access and movement in the unfinished tomb led to an obvious deduction: Indeed, it may be that more than one ramp was used so that quarrying could be done more rapidly. Besides the present ramp at the entrance, one or more could have been started in the area where the court eventually was quarried. A possible point for the start of another ramp is a depression that ran north and south through the area of the court, evidences of which are shown on plates 3A and 6A.62

The most likely scenario, then, is that the cutting of TT 192 was initiated in the area of the open court by means of at least two construction ramps (one of which was the entranceway itself) leading from ground level into the ever-deepening court, with the access ramps left in place until the court had been fully roughed out to its present dimensions. Such organization would enable work to proceed on a much broader and faster scale, and without damage to the completed decoration. The quarrying of Kheruef’s tomb using the open court as the starting point vitiates the need to view the excavation (and thus decoration) of its various parts in the usual east-to-west sequence. However, the tomb does otherwise conform to the usual exigencies of mortuary construction, in that decoration was begun on wall surfaces as soon as they could be made available to the draftsmen. Presumably, once the entranceway, court, and the two inner halls were roughed out in their basic dimensions (aside from the columns of the northern and southern portico), draftsmen were set to work at the front of the tomb (the entrance doorway) and the western portico simultaneously, and both teams began working from the east gradually westward. Such a presumption accords with the sequence of finished areas of the tomb itself, and there is therefore no need, on architectural grounds at least, to postulate a chronological gap between the entrance and western portico of the tomb.63 Moreover, it is remarkable how similar in style and technique the carved decoration of the western portico is to that of the entrance of the tomb. By itself, the passage of five or six years would hardly make a great difference in terms of a promulgated and monolithic royal style, but the years

on the coregency (History and Chronology, pp. 113-17), where his percipient observations, recorded years before many of the details were confirmed in the publication of Kheruef, have stood the test of time.

78

peter f. dorman

in question are those that span the full flowering of Amenhotep III’s deification iconography, the founding of Akhetaton, and probably also the moderation of the earliest and most extreme stylistic experiments of the Amarna period. Aside from the outward trappings of Amenhotep III’s solar insignia (such as the leopard-skin sporran and shebyu collar) the tomb of Kheruef seems to have been utterly untouched by any of the rampant artistic innovations or revisions promulgated, in very different ways, by Akhenaton and by his father: its decoration is surprisingly immune to the turbulent and fecund artistic milieu of a long coregency.64 As Murnane observed, advocates of a long coregency must embrace a gap in the decoration of Kheruef’s tomb, though his estimate of ten years should be shortened to six.65 If the architecture of the tomb fails to support such an interpretation, other features of the tomb decoration similarly fail to demonstrate a total suspension and subsequent resumption of work. In its documentation of Kheruef’s tomb, the Epigraphic Survey was keenly aware of the importance of the reliefs in illuminating aspects of the coregency question, and its epigraphers closely examined the style of carving at different points in the tomb. Regarding the entrance doorway, the inner door to the first columned court, and the passages attached to those doors, Nims states that

Simultaneous work on the tomb decoration is reflected also by the evidence of its abandonment, in every area of the tomb, prior to its completion. Although the tomb entrance has often been characterized as finished, a smoothed area to the south of the entry jambs was left only with a painted red grid, as if in expectation of some scene to balance the existing relief on the north, but it was left without a draft cartoon. 67 The north wing of the western portico (third jubilee) was fully carved as far as it had been drafted, but a smoothed area at the northernmost extremity of the wall had been left blank. The upper registers had been painted, while the lower register had not, perhaps because it had been carved later; the ceiling inscriptions had never been completed.68 The reliefs of the south wing (first jubilee) had been largely carved, except for the southernmost extremity of the drafted scenes, where the stern of the bark and the steersman are incomplete. There remains sufficient stone to have added a lower register to match that of the north wing, but further work was not undertaken; no pigment was added here, but a portion of the wall was whitewashed as if in anticipation of the event.69

Conclusions

the work in these areas seems to have been carried out concurrently; a study of the style of the reliefs shows similarities and, in some cases, identity in treatment. A striking example of the latter is the consistency in the details of the hieroglyph of the owl … Note the design on the upper wing coverts; the crosslines on the primary and secondary feathers of the wing; the chevron pattern of the feathers of the breast, abdomen, legs, and undertail; and the lines on the rectrices…. The consistency of treatment of the details in the reliefs suggests that those reliefs were carved by the same sculptor or by sculptors of the same school at approximately the same time.66

The architecture of the tomb of Kheruef argues for an atypical progression of work by stonecutters and draftsmen, and various epigraphic and stylistic criteria also point toward the simultaneous decoration of the reliefs of the entrance and those of the western porticos. If we take these indicators at face value and suspend the dogmatic insistence on an east-to-west sequence of labor in TT 192, the decorated surfaces of Kheruef’s tomb must be seen as having been completed at roughly the same time. If this conclusion is correct, none of the carved reliefs can significantly predate the latest chronological indicator contained within them, namely regnal year 37 of

64 Compare, for example, the tombs of Ramose (N. de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose, Mond Excavations at Thebes vol. 1 [London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1941], pls. 32-38) and Parennefer (idem, “Akhenaten at Thebes,” JEA 9 [1923], pls. 24,1 and 25), in which the innovations wrought by the Atonist revolution were freely employed; an argument may be made that both traditional and new styles were used simultaneously, at least in private tombs. See also Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon,

p. 13, n. 75, and pp. 70-73. 65 Murnane, Coregencies, p. 149. 66 Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, pp. 5-6. 67 Pointed out initially by Redford, History and Chronology, p. 117; confirmed by Nims, in Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 11. 68 Nims, ibid., p. 10, observes that no paint drips are evident on the bare stone of the lower register. 69 Ibid.

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef

79

Amenhotep III. The argument for a long coregency is therefore impossible to sustain. Similarly, the iconographic and textual contradictions noted in the paragraphs above can only be resolved by the conclusion that Amenhotep IV succeeded Amenhotep III on the throne following his death, probably in his 38th regnal year, with little or no overlapping coregency period. The relief decoration in Kheruef’s tomb, the excavation of which may have begun in the last years of Amenhotep III, belongs to the very early period of Amenhotep IV, doubtless to his first two years, before Ra-Horakhty became associated with the protocol that was to develop into the Aton’s early didactic name, 70 and thus while Nefertiti’s rise to unusual ritual stature had not yet taken place (nor, perhaps, had the union of the royal couple). Thus it is Amenhotep IV, the new sole reigning king, who was commemorated on both of the doorways of the tomb along with the queen mother, whose steward Kheruef was. On the other hand, the elder king was celebrated as a deceased ancestor (Nebmaatre) in the entrance passageway, as well as in the retrospective wall reliefs of the western portico, where his jubilees are commemorated. Unlike the former commemorative scene, the latter reliefs depicted historical ceremonies, in which Amenhotep III is appropriately referred to by both his nomen and prenomen, celebrations in which Kheruef figured prominently and arranged to have recorded on the walls of his tomb. The plethora of standard deities that appears on the jambs of the two doorways of the tomb was still palatable to the new king in the first year of his reign, while the adoption of the “near foot” as a distinctive iconographic feature for the royal family, along with many other Amarna innovations, still lay in the future. The unaltered state of Amenhotep IV’s nomen in the entrance of tomb is understandable if the tomb was abandoned as

unusable well before the adoption of his later name.71 In the damaged entrance passageway, the space in front of the elder king’s figure is sufficient to accommodate only his prenomen, written in a single column of text (just below the name and epithet of Wadjet), which the Epigraphic Survey was at a loss to reconstruct (Fig. 2).72 The text is probably to be understood as [nr nfr] Nb-mA.t[-R], an abbreviated protocol that appears frequently at Soleb in connection with representations of Amenhotep III garbed in the sed-festival robe, and with the deified Nebmaatre of the northern gateway of the king’s mortuary complex. In the tomb of Kheruef, this titular formation may adumbrate the changes Akhenaton effected at that latter monument in conjunction with the effacement of the god Amun.73 The monument may have been abandoned when the roof of the columned hall collapsed around year 2 and, doubtless because of its ruined condition, no effort was made to alter the cartouches of Amenhotep IV when the king changed his name to Akhenaton.74 This did not save the tomb from the later attentions of the Atonists, who attacked the name of Amun wherever they could find it, nor from the persecutions aimed against Akhenaton (inconsistently achieved) and Kheruef himself. Admittedly, the architectural and decorative features of Kheruef’s tomb are but one part of the complicated coregency debate, but it is not within the scope of this paper to pursue other points of the controversy. The debate over the existence of a long coregency is, in the opinion of this writer, one that is of markedly diminished scholarly value, and one that can be answered in the negative.75 But having argued here for the accession of Amenhotep IV only following the death of his father, the present writer might note

70 Perepelkin’s observation regarding Amenhotep IV’s titulary—summarized by Munro, GM 94 (1985), p. 84—that the king’s epithet A-m-=f is included within cartouche only from the last third of regnal year 3 is apparently incorrect. On the lintel of Kheruef’s entrance, the king’s nomen reads ἰmn-tp nr  A WAs.t A-m-=f, and yet Ra-Horakhty is not referred to by his early didactic name, which was already in use in year 3, as the linen from the tomb of Tutankhamun attests. 71 This reconstruction of events is largely consistent with Gabolde’s view, in D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 12-13, 70. 72 Epigraphic Survey, Kheruef, p. 35, with pl. 13. 73 See Bickel, Untersuchungen, pp. 86-90, in particular

the textual variants given on p. 86. One difference in the tomb of Kheruef is that Nebmaatra is adorned with the trappings of solar symbolism accorded the king during his jubilees, while the deified Amenhotep III in the mortuary temple is not portrayed in such a manner. 74 Nor was any effort made to alter the nomen of Amenhotep III, which during the reign of Akhenaton was frequently recut as a paired “Nebmaatra” to the prenomen, or erased with care and simply left blank; for the latter phenomenon, see ibid., p. 83. 75 Within the context of the tomb of Kheruef, at any rate, an argument might be made for a short coregency, if there be any who perceive a necessity for it.

peter f. dorman

80

that other interesting avenues offer themselves for exploration. Not the least of these stems from Johnson’s keen observations regarding the stylistic conventions adopted by Amenhotep IV at the inception of his reign, which are clearly not a continuation of the final phase of Amenhotep III’s reign, but can be viewed as a deliberate reversion to the “naturalism” of that king’s third decade. That is, Amenhotep IV chose to spurn the “baroque” characteristics of his father’s deification phase—developed for idiosyncratic reasons by Amenhotep III—and embraced instead an older idiom associated with the deceased king that may have been regarded by him and his contemporaries as “pre-jubilee,” and which provided the baseline for experimentation in royal and divine iconography along very different lines.

Addendum The preceding article has conscientiously focused solely on the monument of Kheruef to reconstruct a time line that illustrates the unlikely possibility of a long coregency. With the appearance of all three volumes on the architecture and decoration of the temple of Soleb,76 authored by Michela Schiff Giorgini and edited by Natalie Beaux, an irresistible opportunity arises, however, to make one further observation on the essential utility of the timeline in Figure 3 in establishing firm chronological parameters to the coregency debate. The magnificently detailed publication of the Soleb Temple outlines the gradual construction of the temple complex, beginning with the very earliest structures: a large open enclosure with sixteen gates (actually, nonfunctioning doorways, or “portes-chapelles”) and an early peripteros shrine located inside, not centered within the enclosure but positioned on the axis of the future temple. Although the peripteros shrine was soon dismantled (and later, the enclosure as well), it served 76 Michela Schiff Giorgini, in collaboration with Clément Robichon and Jean Leclant, prepared and edited by Nathalie Beaux, Soleb III: Le temple: description (Cairo: IFAO, 1998); idem, Soleb IV: Le temple: plans et photographies (Cairo: IFAO, 2003); idem, Soleb V: Le temple: bas-reliefs et inscriptions (Cairo: IFAO, 2002). 77 Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb III, pp. 24-29; Soleb IV, Figs. 8-20. 78 Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb III, pp. 31-33. 79 The concomitant assumption seems to be that the temple was built in a location that was sure to be flooded by annual waters, and indeed was flooded each year during its construction.

as the core for a double sanctuary dedicated to Amun and a new local god, the deified Nebmaatra of Nubia, to which was then added a hypostyle hall, two courts built sequentially, an outer pylon, and finally an entry porch. The excavators were able to follow these multiple stages of construction by means of distinct strata of beaten earth painted with whitewash, clearly associated with each of the phases of temple development.77 These sequential layers, of which thirty-two were ultimately identified, are referred to in the publication as “sols blanchis” and provide a sound basis for relative site chronology.78 The temple publication assumes that each “sol blanchi” represents a new sedimentary deposit of a Nile inundation, so that the temple must have been built over the course of thirty-two years.79 Since the excavators associated the twenty-eighth “sol” with the arrangements for the first jubilee of year 30,80 they therefore concluded that Soleb Temple must have been founded in the king’s third regnal year.81 Problems abound with this reconstruction of events. To mention just one difficulty: among the reliefs of the first jubilee, carved in the first court at Soleb, one large panel depicts Amenhotep III and his officials making the rounds of the great sixteen-gated precinct, performing rituals of “striking” each doorway as part of the jubilee festivities.82 Yet the enclosure itself is associated archaeologically only with “sols” 1 through 16, ostensibly years 3 through 18, after which it was demolished. The excavators’ interpretation of the stratigraphy implies that the “striking” ceremonies had to have been conducted eleven years before the first jubilee was actually observed, surely a dubious interpretation of the evidence.83 More importantly, several decorated blocks from the earliest peripteros shrine of Soleb temple, which were recovered in the course of excavation, belong to the final, or “baroque,” phase of Amenhotep III’s reign, as outlined by W. Raymond Johnson:84 the scenes are rendered 80 The date is given in a text from the first court, showing the king carried on a palanquin as the jubilee ceremonies unfold; Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb IV, pl. 97. 81 Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb III, pp. 29-30. 82 Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb IV, pls. 34-60. 83 Clearly, the assumption that each “sol blanchi” can be equated with a separate Nile innundation must be rethought: doubtless these levels were laid down in much more frequent sequence. 84 See note 19.

architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of kheruef

81

Fig. 6. Usurped cartouches on the cornice of the doorway of the first pylon of Soleb Temple. From Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb V: Le temple: bas-reliefs et inscriptions, pl. 23.

overall in markedly high relief, and the king is depicted with a rounded, youthful-seeming face, with a large eye set at a noticeable angle in his face. Hence, art-stylistic analysis also supports a much later date for the founding of the temple than that suggested by the excavators of Soleb, a date probably tied to the creation of the cult of the deified king in conjunction with the first jubilee. The “striking” rites shown taking place within the sixteen-gated enclosure may be assumed to have transpired when that monument was still standing and were later commemorated, after the enclosure was dismantled, in the scenes adorning the first court of the temple. The entire course of 85

W.J. Murnane, “Soleb Renaissance: Reconstructing the Nebmaatre Temple in Nubia,” Amarna Letters 4 (2000), pp. 18-19. The article presents a summary of papers delivered at a symposium held in Cairo in April 1999, organized to

construction must be ascribed to the last eight or ten years of Amenhotep III’s reign. Implications for the postulated long coregency are to be found in the entry porch attatched to the first pylon, where several scenes and lintel cartouches originally ascribed to Amenhotep III have been usurped for Amenhotep IV. As William Murnane has pointed out,85 in at least one instance traces in the prenomen cartouche are to be reconstructed as “Nebmaatra,” while in the nomen they are to be read as ’Imn-tp nr- A-WAst, which is not the name of Amenhotep III but of his son, prior to his adoption of the name “Akhenaton” (Fig. 6).86 The current

address certain issues pertaining to Soleb Temple; these papers are presently being edited and should appear shortly as Soleb VI. 86 Schiff Giorgini, et al., Soleb V, pl. 23.

82

peter f. dorman

version of the nomen, A-n-ἰtn, therefore represents a double usurpation, the first occurring in the first five years of the younger king’s reign and the second after his move to Amarna, when the name “Akhenaton” is first attested. If one were to plot these salient chronological indicators on the double time line in Figure 3, certain impossibilities immediately spring to light. The temple of Soleb would have to be founded around years 28-29 of Amenhotep III (corresponding to the first years of the purported long coregency) in preparation for the first jubilee; the sixteen-gated enclosure would have been utilized for those rites in year 30 (the middle of Amenhotep IV’s regnal year 3); and the usurpations within the entry porch attached to the first pylon must have been accomplished before the change in Amenhotep IV’s name, at the beginning of his own regnal year 5 (his father’s year 31). Most of the work on Soleb Temple, then—the demolition of the great jubilee enclosure and the building of the double sanctuary, the hypostyle hall, the second court, the first court and the entry porch, in addition to all the decoration—would

have to be telescoped into about eighteen months, and certainly less than two years—hardly a feasible task, no matter how large and talented the workforce. Even more to the point, the archaeological and architectural evidence from Soleb, compressed thus onto the coregency timeline, requires Amenhotep IV to be actively engaged in usurping his own father’s reliefs no later than his own regnal year 5, while the elder king was still alive, as much as seven years before his death. Indeed, any coregency theory advocating a duration of more than five years would have to deal with this unwelcome datum from Soleb Temple. The strongest evidence for a coregency of any length is the art-historical argument that links the refined relief style of the first years of Amenhotep IV’s reign with that of his father’s pre-jubilee years (and thus the concurrence of the first jubilee of Amenhotep III with that of the Aton at Karnak); yet this equation leads to irreconcilable contradictions with the architecture and chronology at Soleb. In the opinion of this author, a coregency of any length can no longer be supported.

the death of meketaten

83

THE DEATH OF MEKETATEN Jacobus van Dijk Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Back in 1979, Bill Murnane was one of the first Egyptologists I met in the field, if the bar of the old Luxor Hotel can be counted as such. We kept in regular contact over the years and his premature death came as a great shock. Bill’s epigraphic acumen and the lucid style of his brilliant writings on the history of New Kingdom Egypt have always been an inspiration to me, and I gratefully dedicate the following article to his memory. Among the many controversial problems of the Amarna Period is the interpretation of the so-called birth scene in Room γ in the Royal Tomb at Amarna. In fact, there is a second, very similar scene in Room α, but for the time being we shall concentrate here on Room γ. The scene (Fig. 1) occupies the East wall (A) of a room in the Amarna royal tomb which appears to have been specially designed for the burial of Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s second daughter Meketaten.1 On

the left a chamber is depicted; inside, Meketaten, identified by an inscription, is lying on a bed. Her parents are standing at the head end of the bed and although the scene is very damaged here it is clear from the parallel in Room α (Fig. 2) that they are mourning the death of their daughter. Two other unidentified, but nonroyal, persons are mourning at the foot end of the bed. Outside the chamber are two registers with further figures, both male and female, all displaying various gestures of mourning; among them is the vizier. All of these figures face the entrance to the chamber, except three females in the lower register. The first of these is a woman holding a newborn baby in her arms and breast-feeding it. She is followed by two other females, each of whom holds a bht fan or sunshade. The whole context of this scene strongly suggests that there is a connection between the events inside the bedchamber

Fig. 1. The so-called birth scene in Room γ of the Royal Tomb at Amarna.

1

Granite fragments belonging to her sarcophagus or perhaps her canopic chest have been found within the royal tomb, see G. Daressy, “Tombeaux et stèles-limites de HagiQandil,” RecTrav 15 (1893), p. 62; G.T. Martin, The Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna I: The Objects (London: EES, 1974), p. 29 (no. 103), p. 104; M.J. Raven, “A sarcophagus for Queen Tiy and other fragments from the Royal Tomb at el-Amarna,” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van het Oudheden 74 (1994), p. 8. Of the four

additional fragments (Martin nos. 251, 303, 592, and 699) mentioning an unidentified princess which Martin tentatively assigned to Meketaten, only nos. 303 (joined to the named fragments by Raven) and 592 probably belonged to her. No. 592 writes the mr-sign with N36, like the Meketaten fragments, whereas nos. 251 and 699 use the Amarna form N37, as does the fragment no. 218 which is inscribed for Merytaten.

84

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 2. A parallel scene in Room α of the Royal Tomb at Amarna.

of Meketaten and this group of three women with the baby; the logical conclusion seems to be that Meketaten has just given birth to a child, but has died in the process, and this is indeed the almost universally accepted interpretation. Although the inscription above the body of Meketaten on her deathbed is clear enough, the text inscribed in two columns in front of the woman holding the child has only partly survived, that is, it did until 1934, when what was left of the text and indeed of much of the decoration was almost entirely destroyed by vandals. This means that we have to rely on old photographs and handcopies, foremost of which is the photograph taken in 1893/94 by Gustave Jéquier and published by Bouriant, Legrain and Jéquier in their Monuments pour servir à l’étude du culte d’Atonou en Égypte.2 The traces visible on this photograph include a seated person determinative followed by what looks like a ms-sign at the end of the first column and the cartouche of Queen Nefertiti followed by the usual ‘may she live for ever and ever’ in the second column. This leaves us Egyptologists literally with room for speculation. What was in the missing portion of the text? And to whom does it refer? In the drawing of the scene3 the inscription is omitted, but in the letterpress of the volume Legrain, who was responsible for the description 2 U. Bouriant, G. Legrain and G. Jéquier, Monuments pour servir à l’étude du culte d’Atonou en Égypte, MIFAO 8 (Cairo: IFAO, 1903), Pl. IX.

Fig. 3. A reconstruction by Legrain of the two columns of text inscribed in front of the woman holding the child in Room γ.

of the scenes and the commentary on the inscriptions,4 provides it in printed hieroglyphs together with his reconstruction of the missing parts (Fig. 3, reversed). Legrain rightly remarks that the orientation of the text conforms to the orientation of the woman holding the child and not to that of the child itself, and he therefore bases his restoration on the assumption that the text identifies the nurse, not the child. Because of the fact that Nefertiti is mentioned in col. 2 Legrain concludes that this nurse 3 4

Ibid., pl. VII (Fig. 1 above). Ibid., pp. iii and 23 n. 1.

the death of meketaten

85

Fig. 4 G.T. Martin’s reconstruction of the same columns of text.

Fig. 5 Martin’s drawing of the scene, including the two columns of text.

has to be a princess. The group preceding the mssign at the end of col. 1 he identifies as a t plus a seated woman determinative; the presence of the t, about which he expresses no doubt whatsoever, leads him to suggest that the name is either that of Merytaten, the eldest daughter, or Baketaten. Since Baketaten had clearly not yet been born at this stage, Merytaten is left as the only possibility (and of course we now know that Baketaten was not a daughter of Nefertiti5). However, looking at Legrain’s reconstruction of the text, one cannot help feeling that the damaged area is simply too large for just the signs he wants to read in it. Even if we insert mrt=f between sAt nsw n t=f and the name, as one would expect, the text is still not long enough to fill the available space. Legrain’s restoration is therefore problematic. This was also the opinion of Geoffrey Martin, whose seminal publication of the Royal Tomb contains an alternative reconstruction of the inscription.6 Unlike Legrain, he thinks that the text refers to the child, although he does so on the erroneous assumption that the signs in the text face left, like the child, which is clearly not the case. He then rightly says that

column are very widely spaced, and there is clearly room in the area available to accommodate the customary titulary of Meketaten as well as the name of the child.”

“in Bouriant’s [i.e. Legrain’s, JvD] reconstruction the signs in the second [actually the first] 5

M. Gabolde, “Baketaten fille de Kiya?,” BSEG 16 (1992), pp. 27-40. 6 G.T. Martin, The Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna II: The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Architecture (London: EES, 1989), p. 44, Fig. 10. 7 Ibid., pl. 63. 8 Ibid., p. 45. Cf. R. Krauss, in Tutanchamun, eds., R. Krauss and R. Wagner (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1980), pp. 51-2.

He gives his own reconstruction in a handcopy, which, however, is marred by an unfortunate reversal of both the hieroglyphic signs and the order of the columns. In corrected form, Martin’s reconstruction appears as shown in Fig. 4 above. However, when one actually tries to insert the signs of Martin’s proposed reconstruction in the available space on his drawing7 (Fig. 5), one soon discovers that his reconstruction is far too long. Here even shortening the phrases by taking out mrt=f does not help. I have tried several possibilities, but the text simply will not fit the available space. Martin does not suggest a name for the child, although he briefly considers the idea, also suggested by Rolf Krauss,8 that the child is male and that it is Tutankhaten whose birth is shown here. Whatever the merits of Martin’s reconstruction, however, it is important to note that he does not question the t plus seated female which Legrain saw at the end of col. 1; in fact, those are the only signs beside the group ms (or ms.n) which appear in col. 1 on his drawing. 9

First published in popular form in “La postérité d’Aménophis III,” Égyptes Histoires et Cultures 1 (1993), pp. 29-34 (reprinted in Akhénaton et l’époque amarnienne, eds. T.-L. Bergerot and B. Mathieu [Paris: Éditions Khéops / Centre d’Égyptologie, 2005], pp. 13-33), then in more detailed form in his D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon (Lyon: Université Lumière—Lyon II, Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité; Paris: Boccard, 1998), pp. 118-24. See also his “Das Ende der Amarnazeit,” in Das Geheimnis des

86

jacobus van dijk

More recently, Marc Gabolde has come up with an entirely new and startling solution.9 After identifying the elements in the text which he considers to be beyond doubt, i.e. the group ‘born of’ at the end of col. 1 and the cartouche of Nefertiti in col. 2, he rightly remarks that the text therefore must have contained the customary phrase ‘king’s son/ daughter of his body, his beloved’ and that the usual titles ‘great king’s wife, his beloved’ must have preceded the cartouche of Nefertiti in col. 2. He also correctly states that in col. 1 there is room for one name only, not for the two suggested by Martin. Here, however, Gabolde unfortunately leaves the field of epigraphy and turns to hypothetical historical arguments. The child, he says, because it is depicted in a scene showing the death of Meketaten, must have been born before Meketaten’s death. Three of her sisters, Meryaten, Ankhesenpaaten and Neferneferuaten-ta-sheryt, are depicted elsewhere in Room γ and can therefore be ruled out. The youngest two daughters of Nefertiti, although not shown in Room γ, must also be ruled out because they were already old enough to participate in ritual events in Akhenaten’s Year 12, when Meketaten was still alive. This, according to Gabolde, leaves only one other possibility: the infant is a seventh child of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and since we do not know of a seventh daughter but we do know of a king’s son called Tutankhaten, the child in Room γ must be Tutankhaten, son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Before we return to the epigraphy, it is as well to ask ourselves what the reason might be for showing a newborn baby in the arms of its nurse in a scene depicting the death of a princess. If this child is Tutankhaten, why are not the other surviving children of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Meketaten’s sisters, depicted in this scene?10 After all, the daughters are virtually omnipresent in Amarna tomb and temple scenes, whereas Tutankhaten is almost never depicted. And why is the group of the nurse with child and the two women holding the fans orientated facing all the other figures shown in the two registers outside the

death chamber of Meketaten, as if they have just left that room? That this is indeed what they have just done is evident from the parallel in Room α, where the nurse and child are shown just outside the door of the death chamber, while the attendant holding the open fan over the child is still inside the chamber.11 Surely these facts must have some significance. Nefertiti herself is present in the scene in both Rooms α and γ, and in both scenes her purported child is shown as a newborn baby. In Gabolde’s reconstruction of the events this would mean that two or even three12 of Nefertiti’s daughters died within very short succession of each other shortly after Nefertiti herself had given birth to a male heir to the throne. This is not in itself impossible, but the presence of the child in the actual death chamber of his purported sisters is inexplicable. In my opinion, a close scrutiny of the remains of the inscription in Room γ makes Gabolde’s reconstruction of the text (Fig. 6) highly questionable, and serious doubts have also been expressed by C. Vandersleyen, although the latter did not suggest an alternative reading.13 Gabolde gives the sign preceding the group ms in col. 1 as a seated man holding a flail; the traces in front of the face of this sign he interprets as the feet of a quail w.

goldenen Sarges: Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit, eds. A. Grimm and S. Schoske (München: Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001), pp. 9-41 (especially pp. 24-7). 10 C. Vandersleyen, “Les scènes de lamentation des chambres alpha et gamma dans la tombe d’Akhénaton,” RdE 44 (1993), pp. 192-4. 11 Bouriant et al., Monuments, pl. VI (Fig. 2 above); Martin, Royal Tomb II, pls. 58-59. 12 Gabolde believes that the newly born Tutankhaten

is depicted in both Rooms α and γ, and that the scene in Room α depicts the demise of Neferneferure and Setepenre, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 107-10. Vandersleyen also assigns Room α to Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s two youngest daughters. 13 Vandersleyen, RdE 44 (1993), p. 193; cf. also M. EatonKrauss and R. Krauss, Review of D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, by Marc Gabolde, BiOr 58, no. 1-2 (2001), p. 93, who call Gabolde’s reconstruction ‘methodically unsound.’

Fig. 6. M. Gabolde’s reconstruction of the same columns of text.

the death of meketaten On the photograph published by Bouriant c.s., however, this latter sign is clearly a t, as expressly stated by Legrain and confirmed by Martin. The seated man with flail as given by Gabolde has a form that is unattested before the Ramesside period, i.e. with knees pulled up instead of squatting on the ground (A52) or seated on a chair (A51). Seated king signs (A42) have their knees pulled up like Gabolde’s hieroglyph, but they wear a royal headdress with uraeus; moreover, the child was not a king, and princes, even crown princes, were not depicted with royal regalia. The published photograph would appear to confirm the seated female sign (B1) read by Legrain and by Martin and Vandersleyen. These two crucial signs are in my opinion beyond reasonable doubt and are a clear indication that the child held by the nurse is female, not male. Further confirmation of this comes from the fact that male children who are depicted nude are almost without exception shown with a clear indication of their male genitalia, and these are absent in this relief, also in Gabolde’s drawing of it. Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that in the only instance we have of the name of Tutankhaten as a prince, the famous block from Hermopolis, his name is spelled Twtnw-ἰtn, with an additional w not found in later spellings of his name as king, and, incidentally, with the elements twt, nw, and ἰtn in a different order than in the form used in Gabolde’s drawing. Because we do not have any other occurrences of Tutankhaten’s name from Amarna we do not know whether the form Twt-nw-ἰtn was an exception rather than the rule, but if it was the normal form of the name at Amarna, it would no longer fit in Gabolde’s reconstruction. So, if the child is a daughter of Nefertiti, as seems clear from the remains of the inscription, who can she be? Here we can return to Legrain’s original discussion of the text. The only names of princesses which fit, he stated, were those of Merytaten and Baketaten, but neither of these two can be meant here for reasons which have already been discussed. This leaves us with only one option: the missing name is that of Meketaten herself. Inevitably this means that the newborn baby which is shown leaving the death chamber in the arms of a nurse is the reborn Meketaten herself. This conclusion may seem just as startling

14 Martin, Royal Tomb II, p. 39 n. 6. For the significance of the fan and its association with the royal ka see now L. Bell, “Aspects of the Cult of the Deified Tutankhamun,” in

87

Fig. 7. New reconstruction of the same columns of text.

as the one we have just rejected, but, unlike all the other options we have discussed, the name Meketaten fits both the traces and the available space exactly (Fig. 7). In fact, although I do not want to stress this point too much, enlarging a high-resolution scan of the inscription in the published photograph on the computer reveals not only the indisputable presence of the t, but also appears to suggest the contours of a k above the t and the seated female sign (Fig. 8). Further arguments in favor of the hypothesis that the child is the reborn Meketaten may be found in the nature of the scene itself. In a burial chamber the death and resurrection of the occupant is the main subject to be expected in the decoration, which is much more likely to be of a symbolic nature rather than depicting an historical event. An indication of the symbolic nature of the scenes in the burial chamber is provided by the scene on the adjacent wall in Room γ, which shows a statue of the deceased Meketaten in a shrine entwined with plants usually found in connection with birth and rebirth. In a footnote in his Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna, Geoffrey Martin recorded a suggestion made by Lanny Bell in connection with the death chamber scene in Room α, that “the presence of a child in connection with the fan might symbolize the rebirth of the deceased ruler,” adding that “this does not seem to be the correct interpretation here.”14 I am sure Lanny Bell’s suggestion is correct, however, although it is not the rebirth of the deceased king

Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I, ed. P. Posener-Kriéger (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), pp. 31-59.

88

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 8. Detail of G. Jéquier’s photograph of the scene reconstructed in Fig. 7.

here, but the rebirth of a princess. In an essay in the book accompanying the exhibition on The Royal Women of Amarna in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1996, Dorothea Arnold commented on the scene in Room γ as follows: “It has been suggested that she [i.e. Meketaten] died in childbirth, but she seems too young—ten years old at most—to have borne a child, even at a time when women matured early. Considering her youth and the well-known unwillingness of Egyptians to depict anything like the cause of death, this scene probably expresses, in symbolic terms, a wish for her rebirth rather than the fact that she died in childbirth.”15

Such an interpretation would also explain why this scene is depicted not once, in Room γ, but again in Room α. Of course one might object that there is no parallel elsewhere in Egyptian tomb representations for this kind of scene, but this applies equally to any alternative explanation of the scene, including an historical one. Amarna iconography is unique in many other respects and the absence of a parallel from more traditional Egyptian funerary 15 Do. Arnold, “Aspects of the Royal Female Image during the Amarna Period,” in The Royal Women of Amarna: Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996), pp. 85-119. The quote is on p. 115. See for a rare depiction of a deceased mother feeding a baby on a funerary stela D. Wildung and S. Schoske, Nofret, die Schöne. Die Frau im Alten Ägypten (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1984), No. 9, and F. Dunand, “Les

scenes is not in itself surprising. On the other hand, we know that the traditional Osirian beliefs about the underworld were no longer adhered to at Amarna and that the deceased were thought to live again on earth under the beneficial rays of the Aten in whose temple they received their daily food offerings. An instant rebirth at the moment of death, as appears to be depicted in the scenes in Rooms α and γ does not seem at all inconceivable within the new Atenist religion. In fact, one wonders whether the child may not actually be a representation of the deceased princess’s ka. It is the ka, often depicted as a person’s double, which lives on and which receives food offerings in the deceased’s renewed co-existence with the Aten on earth.16 Whatever the exact nature of the newborn child, however, I would propose that the scene in Room α is a symbolic representation of the death and rebirth of Meketaten and that neither this scene nor its parallel in Room γ have anything to do with the actual birth of a royal child, let alone that of Tutankhaten.

Postscript The above article is a slightly expanded version of the paper I read during the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists in Grenoble, 6-12 September 2004. Not long after the congress, Dr. Lise Manniche wrote to me informing me that Prof. John Harris was about to publish an article with much the same interpretation as the one I had suggested in the Grenoble paper. The article, entitled “En sag om forveksling,” has now been published in the Danish Ægyptologisk Tidsskrift Papyrus 24 no. 2 (December 2004), pp. 4-13. Harris too reads the name of Meketaten in the scene in Room γ and identifies the child as one of the stages of transformation (prw) in the renewal of life of the deceased princess. enfants et la mort en Égypte,” in Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité, ed. V. Dasen (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 13-32, esp. pp. 13-6. 16 In Akhenaten’s religion ‘the living Aten’ and at least the royal ka were identical, see the texts quoted by L. Bell, Mélanges Mokhtar I, p. 50 n. 122.

images of amenhotep iv and nefertiti

89

IMAGES OF AMENHOTEP IV AND NEFERTITI IN THE STYLE OF THE PREVIOUS REIGN* Earl L. Ertman University of Akron

There is no doubt about the great scholarship of Bill Murnane as his publications speak for themselves. Few Egyptologists outside of the members of the Karnak Mission that he led were around Bill on a daily basis. For several years Bill and his staff also stayed at the Windsor Hotel in Luxor, during their field seasons. We of the Amenmesse Project also stayed there for some years during our early work in the Valley of the Kings. This put us into contact on several levels with him from breakfast to some evening meals and at times some after working hours discussions of many of the same issues and topics published in this commemorative volume. Bill was a quiet, thoughtful man immersed in many periods in ancient history, especially those in Egypt. He was willing to share his insights with anyone who asked or cared to discuss an issue. He is obviously missed as a beloved individual, but also to many, he is missed for the loss of insight into problems left unstudied and unpublished that will not now be investigated by this brilliant scholar. To him and his memory this brief article is dedicated. (And, thanks again for all the good bakery bread you often brought to breakfast.) When one speaks of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Amarna style representations often come to mind. These images are ‘mannered’ and apparently distorted since later renderings of these two historic individuals show them in a less artificial style with ‘near-normal’ proportions and features.

Representations of Amenhotep IV are known from early in his reign. These images are in the style used by the carvers who decorated for his father, Amenhotep III. None of the distortions so familiar from what Cyril Aldred has termed the ‘Early Period’ of the Amarna Style1 are shown in a few renderings of him like an example from Theban Tomb 55 of Ramose, Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten’s southern vizier.2 A description of this tomb indicates that:

* This article is based on my presentation in Tucson, Arizona at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, April 17, 2004. It has been enlarged since then. 1 C. Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti (New York: The Brooklyn Museum / Viking Press, 1973), pp. 48-57 and passim. 2 K. Lange and M. Hirmer, Egypt: Architecture, Painting, Sculpture in Three Thousand Years (New York: Phaidon, 1968), p. 449. This scene of the king and Maat is illustrated in W.S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, revised with additions by W.K. Simpson (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1998), Fig. 256 and in a larger

format in the 1958 edition, pl. 115. For a line drawing see N. de G. Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1941), pl. XXIX. 3 Lange and Hirmer, Egypt, p. 449. 4 Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Fig. 30, and R. Freed, Y. Markowitz and S. D’Auria, Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts / Bullfinch Press/Little, Brown and Co., 1999), Fig. 75 and no. 20. 5 The Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, Theban Tomb 192 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980), pls. 8-9.

“The north-west wall of the great hall of pillars has reliefs dating from the years immediately following the death of Amenhophis III on both sides of the doorway… Of these reliefs, those on the left of the door clearly belong to the earliest period of the reign of Amenhophis IV, certainly no later than the third regnal year. The king is shown seated on a throne beneath a canopy with the goddess Maat seated behind him. The whole of the scene is executed in the style of the reign of Amenhophis III.”3

A sandstone block (Berlin 2072) with the god Re-Harakhty facing left and the king facing right is another example of Amenhotep IV’s image in the style of his father’s reign.4 The king wears a khepresh crown and his features are not distorted. The images are in raised relief. The scenes from the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192)5 show Amenhotep IV on both ends of a lintel along with his mother Queen Tiy. They make offerings to Re-Harakhty

90

earl l. ertman

Fig. 1. Akhenaten kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1.

and Maat on the left while on the right they offer to Atum and Hathor, all in the style of Amenhotep III. Another relief (Louvre E 13482) portrays the king with the baby-face features found in the reign of his father, but with the additional feature of a protruding belly.6 After a discussion of the two scenes in different styles in the tomb of Ramose of Amenhotep IV in a pavilion with the goddess Maat behind him and the king with Nefertiti in the window of appearances, Cyril Aldred indicated, “We cannot say whether Nefertiti’s appearance underwent a comparable change, since no representation of her is known before the advent of the new style, but it seems likely.”7 Aldred was correct when he wrote this statement and his belief that representations of Nefertiti in the style of Amenhotep III were likely. This can now be confirmed, for at least one representation is preserved and one or more are probable based on surviving evidence. A scene on the north-west wall in the tomb of Ramose is considered to have been carved early in the ‘new’ style just coming into vogue with the name change of the king from Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten. Here we see Nefertiti (Fig. 5)

behind her husband in a window of appearances.8 What remains of Nefertiti’s distorted features9 mimic many of those of the king from this scene. This distortion is also true of her image on the majority of the talatat that we are familiar with from Thebes where her extended jaw and angular features, while not as prominent as those of her husband, are never-the-less distinctive. On lesser known blocks from Karnak, Amenhotep IV and Nefertiti both face left with the queen behind her husband as they bow to kiss the ground:10 scene number A 0081 (Figs. 1-2, 6). A cartouche inscribed with Nefertiti’s name and placed in front of her image between the soles of the king’s feet and her head makes this identification certain.11 Both the king and queen have long spindly fingers which are more mannered than naturalistic. Similar finger shapes are known from earlier dynasties, but during the reign of Amenhotep III, they are seldom found on royal images. In scenes of dancers in the tomb of Kheruef (TT 192) the dancers’ hair hangs down vertically, their hands are ‘cupped’ near the ground line with curved, but jointless thumbs and fingers.12 The rays of the Aten, in early representations like

6 Freed, Fig. 38 and p. 207, no. 21; R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), p. 93. I thank Joann Fletcher for calling this book to my attention. Talatat blocks pictured in this book are not as well known in the United States as are those blocks excavated and published by Donald Redford and his team from the Akhenaten Temple Project or those illustrated in G. Roeder, Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis (Hildesheim: Gebrüder Gerstenberg, 1969). 7 Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, p. 54. 8 For a drawing of this scene, see Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose, pl. XXXIII; Lange and Hirmer, Egypt, Fig. 38. 9 Also visible in Johnson’s close-up photograph are the dual uraei on Nefertiti’s brow, each wearing horns, with

one possibly wearing a sun disk. 10 Vergnieux and Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil, p. 43, top. I thank both E.C. Brock for his help and Alain Arnaudiès, in charge of the documentation of Karnak for the French Egyptian Centre in Luxor, for his assistance in obtaining the photograph of Nefertiti as well as permission to publish it. 11 Ibid., p. 73 where the talatat blocks which make up the larger scene are assembled. 12 The Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, pls. 24, 33-4 and Lange and Hirmer, Egypt, pl. 168. The fingers of some other individuals in this same tomb also exhibit this boneless structure of their hands from the knuckles to the finger tips.

images of amenhotep iv and nefertiti

91

Fig. 2. Nefertiti kissing the ground: Karnak talatat assemblage A 0081, after R. Vergnieux and M. Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil. Ahkénaton retrouvé (Paris: Arthaud, 1997), pp. 170-1.

those in the tomb of Ramose (see Johnson’s photograph, Fig. 5) also are without bone structure for all the digits, except the thumb. In the complete talatat scene under study,13 the king wears a khepresh crown. On the right hand side of A 0081, block number 34-118, the queen wears a tripartite wig surmounted by an undecorated modius and two tall plumes—she is obviously dressed as a goddess (Figs. 2 & 6). Two uraei, each topped by sun disks are held in place by a band around her deeply cut wig.14 A gold browband is present, visible from the front of her heavy wig to her ear. She may wear a very small circular earring.15 Her face, often angular in representations from Theban talatat,16 is more rounded here with little emphasis on her cheek bones or extended jaw. This is in stark contrast to the representation of King Amenhotep IV in front of her whose sharp angular features and prominent jaw recall many other similar representations from this early time in the reign prior to the move by the king and court to Akhetaten. There are two relief portraits of Queen Tiy which are quite similar to the talatat image of Nefertiti under review. One is the queen from

the right end of the Kheruef lintel (Fig. 3) mentioned earlier (see note 5 supra). There are many similarities to the Nefertiti image. Tiy’s modius (on both ends of the lintel) is plain and undecorated. A heavy circlet is placed over her wig. A distinctive and pronounced gold browband extends from brow to ear with the ‘tab’ of this browband showing under her wig. Individual sections of the wig (locks or curls) are rendered in a similar fashion. A portrait of Queen Tiy on a relief17 (Brussels E2157) from the tomb of Userhet (TT 47) also compares well, including those features cited for the Kheruef lintel (right side). A drawing by Elaine Taylor of this image (Fig. 4) compares well to the talatat carving under study. The overall shape of the faces of each are closer than any other two images of these queens in their rounded softer forms. Returning to the talatat image of Nefertiti (Fig. 6), what would account for this difference in rendering the king’s and queen’s faces in different styles and why is the queen’s image in the style of the previous reign?18 One possibility would be that while the king’s image followed a new canon

13 Vergnieux and Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil, pp. 73-5, 170-1. 14 See this author’s comments on dual uraei wearing sun disks in “An Amarna Icon Reconsidered: Berlin Relief 15000,” KMT 15.4 (2004-05), pp. 41-2. 15 It is difficult to determine if a small earring is present or not. A larger earring is seen in the later statuette of Nefertiti (Berlin 21 263). See D. Arnold, The Royal Women of Amarna (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996), Figs. 68-9, 71. The yellow quartzite head of this queen from the Thutmosis workshop at Amarna (Berlin 21 220), shows double piercing of the ears in this later work, Figs. 66-7. 16 For examples see Aldred, nos. 23-25, 31 and other especially early works.

17 C. Aldred, New Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt (London: Alec Tiranti, 1961), pl. 85. 18 P. Dorman’s comments related to Nefertiti in “The Long Coregency Revisited: Architecture and Iconography: Conundra in the Tomb of Kheruef,” in this volume. Dorman suggests that the status or iconography for Nefertiti may not have been established when Kheruef’s lintels were carved and this could support the idea that Nefertiti is shown as a goddess on the talatat under study (similar to ways Queen Tiy was at times depicted) in terms of form at the earliest time of Amenhotep IV’s reign. Dorman’s comments in reference to Kheruef’s tomb decoration are, “The relief decoration in Kheruef’s tomb … belongs to the very early period of Amenhotep IV, doubtless to his first two years … and thus

92

earl l. ertman

Fig. 3. After the Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef, pl. 9.

there may not have been a new canon yet designed for images of the queen so she was sculpted as her mother-in-law Queen Tiy had been. Another possibility is favored by this writer, that obviously two different draftsmen/sculptors, carving in different styles, created this scene. Seemingly against this scenario, Cyril Aldred, referring to the two different styles in the tomb of Ramose, indicated regarding the scene of the king with the goddess Maat: “This scene had not been completed before the companion relief was drawn and partly cut in the new style and with the new subject of Akhenaten and Nefertiti at their Window of Appearances … albeit by the same craftsman responsible for the traditional style of work.”19

It is possible that the work in Ramose’s tomb followed this formula, but as far as the talatat

Fig. 4. Brussels E 2157, relief of Tiy from the tomb of Userhet. Drawing by Elaine Taylor.

while Nefertiti’s rise to unusual ritual status had not yet taken place…” Therefore she may not yet have had her own personal symbols to distinguish her from other queens,

but used those of the last reigning queen (Tiy) or at least the sculptors did. 19 Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, pp. 50-51.

images of amenhotep iv and nefertiti

Fig. 5. Nefertiti in the Window of Appearances, TT 55, Tomb of Ramose. Photograph courtesy of George Johnson.

scene under study is concerned this writer’s view is that the carver of the king’s image on the left worked in the ‘new’ style while the carver of the queen’s face, on the right, worked in the style of Amenhotep III with which he was probably more familiar. It would seem that no time interval elapsed between the carving of each of these figures since they are placed side by side and it is thought that the carved decoration was cut only after the wall blocks were set in place. If Aldred’s assumption is correct that the carver of Ramose’s tomb (if indeed there was only one master involved) was one craftsman working in both styles, it does not seem to follow that both images, those of the king and queen on the talatat, would be created in different styles. The fact 20

Confirmed in an e-mail conversation with Don Redford whom I thank for his assistance. 21 A point of interest while noting the facial structure of Nefertiti on this talatat, it may be that we should not so hurriedly exclude Nefertiti as a possible candidate for the ownership of Metropolitan Museum 26.7.1396 (the famous yellow jasper head) if it was in fact not from Amarna, but from Thebes. See Aldred’s remarks, Akhenaten and Nefertiti, p. 107. “Probably from Tell el Amarna.” The similarity of

93

that Queen Nefertiti’s face does not resemble any of the later inscribed representations of her on talatat nor those features of her known images from the studio of Tuthmosis at Akhetaten does not mean that this talatat image is the earliest known representation of Nefertiti as queen. At this time it is the only image of her in the style of Amenhotep III’s reign. Since the construction of the Aten temple complex in Thebes commenced around the second year of her husband’s reign, as Donald Redford believes,20 images like that seen in Ramose’s tomb may actually have been carved earlier in the reign, but they are carved in the ‘new’ style. Important, however, is the fact that this talatat image of Nefertiti has to be early in date, surely within the first year or two of the reign, since a craftsman familiar with the previous style (that of the reign of Amenhotep III) had not yet assimilated the newly desired structure of images for Akhenaten’s radical decorative plan. Surprising is the fact that the king appears much more harshly, with angular features and that Nefertiti has a soft serene appearance. The sculptor who had worked for Amenhotep III created an image more like those seen in Amenhotep III’s reign, but he did include two features found in other late representations of Nefertiti. I have commented on these in other presentations and papers. These are: virtually an unbroken profile line from the top of the forehead to the tip of the nose without a noticeable depression for the bridge of the nose and a ball-like chin.21 Until more images of Nefertiti in the style of Amenhotep III are recognized, this talatat proves that she along with her husband were portrayed early in Amenhotep IV/Akheanten’s reign with more examples of his image surviving that her own. Susan Redford, who has cleared the tomb of Parennefer, has indicated to me in personal communication that, “I agree that there were probably some traditional style representations in the tomb…” Charles Nims had inferred this in an article in 1973 stating, “From the style of the decoration in the tomb [Parennefer] it is almost the talatat image here under study of Nefertiti to relief carving of some representations of Queen Tiy could suggest a similarity in the earliest years of the reign also in three-dimensional representations of Nefertiti, depending on the sculptor’s experience. See Arnold, The Royal Women of Amarna, Figs. 27, 29 and her comments on this head included in the chapter, “An Artistic revolution: The early years of King Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten,” pp. 35-39.

earl l. ertman

94

Fig. 6. Nefertiti talatat ©CNRS/CFEETK—A. Bellod.

certain that the king and queen were conventionally represented.”22 From the present evidence, Susan believes that: “There is only one scene in the hall that I can say once depicted Nefertiti and it is my belief that she and her husband are depicted in the Amarna art-style on this wall… On the outside façade, Akhenaten and Nefertiti were shown in the usual Amarna art style offering scene to the sun-disk.”

Although this tomb may have been started early in the reign of Amenhotep IV, the sculptors of this tomb may not have relied on any forms from the previous reign, at least not for images of Nefertiti.

22

C. Nims, “The Transition from the Traditional to the New Style of Wall Relief under Amenhotep IV,” JNES 32 (1973), p. 184.

The talatat block under study depicts Nefertiti in the earlier style of her father-in-law, but the king, Amenhotep IV, was carved in the ‘new’ style, an unusual circumstance at best. In a similar, but heavily damaged scene, we can see Nefertiti again bowing to kiss the ground apparently in the same style as the undamaged example we have been reviewing.23 So originally there were at least two and possibly more examples like this of Nefertiti in the style of her father-in-law, Amenhotep III. Once more Theban talatat blocks with their decoration are published and studied we will possibly see more ‘early’ representations of Queen Nefertiti in the style of the previous reign, but perhaps not juxtaposed with those of her husband in the ‘new’ style. 23

Vergnieux and Gondran, Aménophis IV et les Pierres du soleil, p. 172.

two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut

95

TWO SEMIERASED KUSHITE CARTOUCHES IN THE PRECINCT OF MUT AT SOUTH KARNAK Richard A. Fazzini Brooklyn Museum

William Murnane is perhaps best known for his work in New Kingdom Egypt, but his interests were more far ranging than that. For example, in the 1990s he became involved with the question of the name of Taharqa in the entrance way of the Second Pylon of the Temple of Amun at Karnak.1 Much earlier, soon after I began work in the Precinct of Mut at South Karnak in 1976, I benefited from conversations with Bill concerning Ptolemaic inscriptions at the site. At the time, Bill was also engaged in attempting to establish the date of a much damaged stela in the first court of the Amun Temple before the south wing of the Second Pylon (Fig. 1).2 This stela had been attributed first to Dynasty XXV and Taharqa3 and then to a much later time.4 Bill had come to believe that it could be dated to Dynasty XXV on the basis of its style and asked me, as an art historian, what I thought of his attribution. I told him that I thought that he was correct, and advised him not to worry that he was not trained in art history: paleography, after all, is a variant of art history. Not long thereafter Bill got confirmation

of his theory: Claude Traunecker and Françoise Le Saout of the Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak arranged for a latex cast to be made of the cartouche on the stela, and both they and Bill agreed that the traces must belong to Nefertumkhure, the prenomen of Taharqa.5 The same prenomen exists in a crypt in the Mut Temple (Fig. 2). Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay reported that they uncovered crypts in “Room f,” which is the Mut Temple’s central bark shrine (Fig. 3) and another chamber which they did not specify. They described these as “small stone-lined vaults, too low to stand upright in, and had probably been used for safe-guarding treasure.”6 The bark shrine does not seem to have such a chamber, but one of these “crypts” could possibly be the room just northwest of Benson and Gourlay’s “Room e” (Fig. 3), whose south wall seems to have had a sliding panel and where the space between the edge of the Tuthmoside platform of the temple and the foundations of a later expansion of the temple could have been seen as a crypt. 7

1 W.J. Murnane, “Egyptian Monuments & Historical Memory: New Light on the Ancients’ ‘Uses of the Past’ from the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak,” KMT 5.3 (Fall 1994), pp. 14-24 and 88. See also the later comments of E. Russmann and Bill Murnane as cited by her in “Two Bracelets with Anachronistic Cartouches, with Remarks on Kushite Royal Jewelry and on the Commemoration of Kushite Kings in Egypt,” BES 13 (1997), pp. 47-58. 2 This is described in PM II2, p. 24 as “Stela, unfinished, two figures of Amun, back to back, and text with erased cartouche, granite, in front of south wing of the Second Pylon.” 3 H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (19301931),”ASAE 31 (1931), p. 85, where he said that “Dans tout le déblai, nous n’avons trouvé qu’une stèle en granit noir… La stèle, où ne subsistent plus que les figures d’Amon et du roi [sic: the figures of Amun and the king are actually back to back figures of Amun], est entièrement martelé. Elle date, je pense, de l’époque éthiopienne: le cartouche, dont l’intérieur seul est martelé, est très petit, permet de l’attribuer à Taharqa.” For good images of the stela’s figures, see B. de Gryse, Karnak, 3000 Jahr ägyptischer Glanz, trans. N. Hiltl and H. Weber (Liège: Éditions du Perron, 1985),

unnumbered pages 66-67, where it is also attributed to Dynasty XXV. 4 J. Lecant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne, BdE 36 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1965), p. 15, E, where he says “Si le martelage des cartouches pouvait faire envisager de la considerer comme éthiopienne, le style de sa gravure, exagérément maniérée, exigé, nous semble-t-il, qu’on la rejette à l’époque ptolémaïque ou peu auparavant.” 5 Letter in the files of the Brooklyn Museum from William Murnane to Bernard V. Bothmer, who had agreed with Leclant’s dating. 6 M. Benson, J. Gourlay and P. Newberry, The Temple of Mut in Asher. An account of the excavation of the temple and of the religious representations and objects found therein, as illustrating the history of Egypt and the main religious ideas of the Egyptians (London: Murray, 1899), p. 75, with plan of Mut Temple opposite p. 36. 7 R. Fazzini, “Some Aspects of the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in the New Kingdom,” in Leaving No Stones Unturned. Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen, ed. E. Ehrenberg (Winona Lake,

96

richard a. fazzini

Fig. 1. Detail of a Dynasty XXV stela found in front of the south wing of the Second Pylon of the Amun Temple at Karnak. Photograph by B.V. Bothmer.

Fig. 2. The prenomen of Taharqa in the crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut. Drawing by J. van Dijk and R. Fazzini.

chamber to hold ritual images or equipment but could be a sort of serdab8 or wt-kA.9 However, it does contain an image of Taharqa labeled with both his prenomen and nomen. The cartouche with Taharqa’s prenomen in Fig. 2 is in what is both the one definite crypt that Benson and Gourlay identified and a structure that has normally been ignored in discussions of crypts.10 It is located under the central shrine of the Mut Temple (Fig. 3). Benson and Gourlay described it and its discovery as follows:11

Another structure in the Mut Temple identified as a crypt is that called the Crypt of Taharqa or Montuemhat (Fig. 3). As the author has stated elsewhere, this is not necessarily a crypt or

…the man who was clearing out the earth in front of it perceived that under its pavement was a hole large enough for a little boy to crawl into. We began to work out the hole, and found that it extended inwards from the top of a narrow door, through which, when the earth was removed we

Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 72-73, and p. 64, Fig. 1, 11. 8 R. Fazzini, Egypt, Dynasty XXII-XXV, Iconography of Religions, Section XVI, Egypt 10 (Leiden: Institute of Religious Iconography, State University of Groningen / E.J. Brill, 1988), pp. 16-17 and 33, and pl. XXX. For this “crypt” see also PM II2, p. 258; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI: A Growing Picture,” JSSEA 11 (1981), pp.115-116; R. Fazzini, “Report on the 1983 Season of Excavation at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut,” ASAE 70 (1985), p. 294, and pl. IV, a. 9 For a wt-kA of Nesptah, son of Montuemhat, that was built into one of the Mut Temple’s XXVth Dynasty porches, see R. Fazzini, “The Precinct of the Goddess Mut at South Karnak 1996-2001,” ASAE 79 (2006), pp. 85-94. This monument will be dealt with in greater depth in R. Fazzini, Aspects of the Art, Iconography and Architecture of Late

Dynasty XX-early Dynasty XXVI (with Special Emphasis on the Temple Precinct of the Goddess Mut at Karnak), forthcoming. 10 For some recent publications of crypts, their decoration and contents, see S. Cauville, “Les statues cultuelles de Dendera d’après les inscriptions parietals,”BIFAO 87 (1987), pp. 73-117; C. Traunecker, “Cryptes décorées, cryptes anépigraphes,” in Hommages à François Daumas (Montpellier: Université de Montpellier, 1986), pp. 571-577; C. Traunecker, “Cryptes connues et inconnues des temples tardifs,” BSFE 129 (1994), pp. 21-46; W. Waitkus, “Zum funktionalen Zusammenhang von Krypta, Wabet und Goldhaus,” in 3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Hamburg, 1-5 Juni 1994. Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration, ÄAT 33, ed. D. Kurth (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995), pp. 283-303. 11 M. Benson, J. Gourlay and P. Newberry, The Temple of Mut in Asher, pp. 50-52.

two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut

97

Fig. 3. Schematic plan by C. Van Siclen of the rear half of the Temple of Mut. The dotted line indicates the Tuthmoside platform.

descended into a tiny underground chamber, measuring 4 feet 4 inches in breadth by 5 feet 6 inches in length, and too low to allow one to stand upright…The door or hole at which one got in was broad enough to admit the shoulders of the average person but not more than two feet high, and its top being on the same level as the top of the chamber there was thus a drop of about three feet inside. From the top of the doorway outwards masonry extended for a short way, the blocks of stone being ingeniously placed in such wise that two more stones dropped between them would have filled up the space and completely hidden the little door… when on having cleared out the earth and rubbish with which the chamber was choked we found that in the paved floor there was a hole extending from the north-east corner to halfway below the door. There is probably but one paving-stone missing, and the hole seemed

to have been deliberately made, for it was filled not with earth but with rubbish… We worked at the hole in the floor through rubbish, finding nothing but some scraps of pottery, half a Hathor head in earthenware, a broken bit of blue glaze, until we came to the sand. Even then we did not despair of finding a deposit in the sand, and worked through it until we came to layers of earth that were wet with infiltration from the lake…

The Brooklyn Museum’s investigation of the crypt (Fig. 4) indicated that it was a rectangle 157 cm. deep and 135 cm. wide (slightly different from Benson and Gourlay’s measurements) and 155 cm. tall. The short shaft leading to it was almost centrally located, being 39.5 cm. from the crypt’s east wall and 42.5 cm. from the west wall. The preserved portion of the shaft is 94 cm. tall, 52

richard a. fazzini

98

Fig. 4. The crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut and the shaft before it. Photograph by M. McKercher.

cm. wide, 50 cm. deep, its floor sitting 61 cm. above the crypt’s floor. A line of text that ran around the interior of the crypt except for the space left by the opening has been almost completely erased. However in one area, Jacobus van Dijk and the present writer were able to make out remains of an inscription that could be read as nr nfr nb tAwy nb w, followed by the traces of the cartouche with the name Nefertumkhure illustrated in Fig. 2.12 A fragmentary and not easily datable offering table13 (Fig. 5) was found at the bottom of the shaft. However, as Benson and Gourlay did not mention it, one cannot be sure that it was there when they conducted their excavation of this entrance. Moreover, the length and width of the preserved portion of the table suggest that it was too large to fit in the bottom of the shaft. If the offering table was originally associated with this part of the temple it could have been placed inside the crypt or have fallen down from the paving of the sanctuary. Be this as it may, the crypt’s entrance seems only to have been accessible by pulling up paving stones of the floor above.

12

The few readable elements of decoration of this crypt will be published in R. Fazzini, Aspects of the Art, Iconography and Architecture of Late Dynasty XX-early Dynasty XXVI. Suffice it to say here that one group of signs could be restored to read “Beloved of the Mistress of the Gods.” 13 Expedition Number 6M.14. Length 41.5 cm.; width 45.5 cm.; height 13 cm. 14 C. Traunecker, “Observations sur le décor des temples

In an interesting article, C. Traunecker discussed a number of types of cult images. Among his tentative classifications of these images were: (1) images used in the “culte manifesté,” i.e. images of the god(s) of the temple and of temple equipment with specialized functions, such as sacred barks; and (2) “images de culte latent,” defined as: “les effigies divines conservées en des lieux discrets tel les cryptes, les cénotaphes ou les salles cachées d’un temple où par leur seule présence elles remplissent leurs fonctions.”14 If images were contained in the crypt under the main shrine of the Temple of Mut, they would certainly only be accessible with considerable effort and of Traunecker’s “latent cult” type. Temple A in the northeast sector of what became the Precinct of Mut also contains some badly damaged cartouches, probably or definitely of Dynasty XXV. The most important and only readable one of these is on a stray block found in the north side of the Inner Hall by the door to the North Sanctuary.15 Badly damaged, this front part of a horizontal cartouche was read first by Jacobus van

égyptiens,” in L’Image et la production du sacré. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (20-21 Janvier 1988) organisé par le Centre d’Histoire des Religions de l’Université de Strasbourg II. Groupe «Théorie et pratique de l’image cultuelle», eds. F. Dunand, J.M. Speiser and J. Wirth (Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck, 1991), pp. 85-86. 15 PM II2, pl. XXVI.

two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut

99

Fig. 5. Fragmentary offering table found at the bottom of the shaft before the crypt under the main sanctuary of the Temple of Mut. Photograph by M. McKercher.

Dijk and then confirmed by this writer as ŠbA … (Fig. 6).16 From the Third Pylon (called Second Pylon in the plan cited in n. 15) to the rear of the building, Temple A was built as a whole. The style of those of its reliefs that were not recarved in later times is that of Dynasty XXV17 and much more likely of the reign of Shabaqo than Shebitku. The reasons for this attribution are simple. We do not have any large-scale construction of Shebitku and the few well-preserved faces in relief in this part of the temple (Fig. 7) resemble

more closely known faces in relief of Shabaqo18 than of Shebitku.19 Nevertheless, these faces are examples of a main style of the art of the Third Intermediate Period, one with roots in Dynasty XXI and which continued into early Dynasty XXVI.20 Unfortunately, the birth and circumcision scenes on the north wall of Temple A’s First Court (called simply “Court” in PM II2) cannot be dated by inscription because their cartouches are entirely erased.21 Nevertheless, the faces in these

16 The Mut Expedition’s reading of this cartouche was already reported by K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa: Ritual Function and the Role of the King,” JARCE 37 (2000), p. 39 with n. 163. 17 P. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak. Essai d’exégèse. Recherches d’Archéologie, de Philosophie et d’Histoire 21 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1962), pp. 9-10; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,” pp.115-126; R. Fazzini, “A Monument in the Precinct of Mut with the Name of the God’s Wife Nitocris I,” in Artibus Aegypti. Studia in Honorem Bernardi V. Bothmer a Collegis, Amicis, Discipulis Conscripta, eds. H. De Meulenaere and L. Limme (Brussels: Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, 1983), pp. 51-62. 18 E.g., K. Myśliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI-XXX (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1988), pls. XXVII, a-d; XXXI, b-d; XXXIII, b and d; J. Leclant, in R. Parker, J. Leclant and J.-C. Goyon, The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, Brown Egyptological Studies 8 (Providence: Brown University Press, 1979), pls. 2, E and 3, A-B.

19 K. Myśliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXIXXX, pls. XXXIV and XXXV, b. 20 R. Fazzini, “Sculpture, Third Intermediate Period,” in The Dictionary of Art 9, ed. J. Turner (London and New York: Grove, 1996), pp. 886-888; and R. Fazzini, “The Chapel of Osiris Ruler-of-Eternity and the Art of the Third Intermediate Period,” in The Twenty-Third Dynasty Chapel of Osiris Ruler of Eternity at Karnak, eds. G. Kadish and D. Redford (Mississauga, Ontario: Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Publications, forthcoming), with references to E. Russmann, The Representation of the King in the XXVth Dynasty, Monographies Reine Élisabeth 3 (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth; Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, l974); S. Wenig, Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan II: The Catalogue (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1978); C. Aldred et al., L’Égypte du crepuscule. De Tanis à Meroé, 1070 av. J.-C. - IVe siècle apr. J.-C., Le monde égyptien. Les pharaons 3 (Paris: Gallimard, 1980). 21 A decent published photograph of the best preserved cartouche is W. J. de Jong, “De tempel van Chonsoe-het-kind (vervolg),” de Ibis 8, no. 4 (1983), Afb. 37 on p. 115.

100

richard a. fazzini

b

a

Fig. 6a-b. Photograph and drawing of the front part of a cartouche of ŠbA… found in the rear of Temple A. Drawing by R. Fazzini. Photograph by M. McKercher.

Fig. 7. Two well-preserved faces in relief in the rear of Temple A. Photograph by M. McKercher.

scenes22 have significant similarities to reliefs of the reign of Taharqa, who was responsible for other significant work in south Karnak,23 and this writer believes the attribution of these reliefs to Taharqa is relatively safe.

As we and others have also argued elsewhere, during the Third Intermediate Period and later Temple A functioned as a mammisi,24 and the attribution of this building to Shabaqo and Taharqa leads to another point worth mentioning.

22 See, e.g., W. J. de Jong, “De tempel van Chonsoe-hetkind (vervolg),” p. 105, afb. 30; p. 107, afb. 32. 23 See, e.g., K. Myśliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI-XXX, pl. XL; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,” pp. 115-126; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “Excavating the Temple of Mut,” Archaeology 36 (1983), pp. 16-23. 24 H. De Meulenaere, “Isis et Mout du mammisi,” OLA 13 (1982), pp. 25-29; R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,”

pp. 122-126; R. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers (London: Rubicon Press, 2002), p. 244. For publications of the decoration of Temple A see PM II2, pp. 270272, especially the references to M. Pillet, “Les scènes de naissance et de circoncision dans le temple nord-est de Mout à Karnak,” ASAE 52 (1952), pp. 77-104; and G. Nagel, “Décoration d’un temple de Mout à Karnak,” Archiv Orientální 20 (1952), pp. 90-99. See also W. J. de Jong, “De tempels van Karnak, 4: De tempel van Chonsoe-het-kind,” de Ibis 8, no. 3 (1983), pp. 66-96 and W. J. de Jong, “De tempel van

two semi-erased kushite cartouches in the precinct of mut

101

The Lake Edifice of Taharqa by the sacred lake of the Amun Precinct at Karnak had strong links to solar-Osirian ideas of divine and royal renewal.25 Equally important, it may also be a structure originally built by Shabaqo but then rebuilt by Taharqa.26 If so, and admitting that ideas of divine and royal rebirth/justification are also known in the Lake Edifice and other Theban structures in Dynasty XXV, it seems reasonable to see Temple A, apparently just brought into the Mut Precinct

at the beginning of Dynasty XXV,27 as a structure devoted to mammisiac royal renewal/justification that served as a counterpoint to the Lake Edifice, site of solar-Osirian royal renewal/justification.28 Be this as it may, it is important to keep in mind that the rise of both the mammisiac and the solarOsirian ritual of Djeme began no later than late Dynasty XX,29which is the time by which Temple A appears to have changed from a “Temple of Millions of Years” of Ramesses II to a mammisi.30

Chonsoe-het-kind (vervolg),” pp. 98-119. Without referring to the articles by De Meulenaere or Fazzini and Peck just cited, de Jong argued (p. 118) that Temple A “…can be tentatively identified as a ‘missing link’ between the temple halls of Deir el Bahri and Luxor…” He also suggested (p. 119) that the Khonsu Temple shows “the merging of the ancient royal birth reliefs with the, already existing, separate child-god temple,” which led to the later mammisis. As we have already indicated, the identification of Temple A as a temple of Khonsu is not necessarily correct and there is reason to believe that it was a mammisi by Dynasty XXV (R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI”). This has been accepted by other scholars (e.g., D. Arnold, The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture, trans. S. Gardiner and H. Strudwick [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003], p. 33). In “A Monument in the Precinct of Mut with the Name of the God’s Wife Nitocris I,” p. 58, I stated my belief that the presence of certain female images in Temple A was related to the presence in the temple of scenes of the birth of a king. Here I will add that it probably also reflects the relationships among Mut, queens and God’s Wives of Amun. If this is accepted, I wish to briefly note here two errors in that article on topics with which I will deal in more detail elsewhere. First, at the time of writing the article I was not certain that the Nitocris I lintel belonged to the small structure near which it was found; after further study, there seems no reason to doubt that it does. Secondly, I stated that the base of a statue of a queen, inscribed for a queen of Taharqa (p. 57 and Fig. 7a-b), was original to Dynasty XXV. This statue was also attributed to a queen of Taharqa by R. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs, p. 244, possibly on the basis of my article. However, and as first noticed by Jacobus van Dijk, the sculpture appears to be an earlier work usurped by her, such a usurpation being unusual in Dynasty XXV royal statuary. After studying the object further and examining

a parallel piece at the Ramesseum to which Jacobus van Dijk kindly referred me, it appears to me that Queen Tiye is a potential candidate for original ownership of the statue. For another possible fragmentary statue of Tiye in the Precinct, see R. Fazzini, “Some New Kingdom Images,” in Studies in Honor of James F. Romano (=BES 17 [2007]), ed. J. Allen, pp. 83-96. 25 J.-C. Goyon, in R. Parker, J. Leclant and J.-C. Goyon, The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, pp. 11-86; K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” pp. 27, 34, 39, 41. 26 J. Leclant, in R. Parker, J. Leclant and J.-C. Goyon, The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, pp. 5-10; K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” p. 17. 27 R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,” p. 119. 28 R. Parker, J. Leclant, J.-C. Goyon, The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak, pp. 30, 33-35, 82; K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” pp. 21, 27, 34, and 39. For the importance of the solar-Osirian cycle in the earlier Third Intermediate Period, see A. Niwiński, “The Solar-Osirian Unity as principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amen’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 30 (1987-1988) (1989), pp. 89-107. 29 On the mammisiac see, e.g., R. Fazzini, “Four Unpublished Ancient Egyptian Objects in Faience in the Brooklyn Museum of Art,” JSSEA 28 (2001) = Papers Presented in Memory of Alan R. Schulman, pp. 55-66. On the ritual of Djeme see R. Fazzini, Egypt, Dynasty XXII-XXV, pp. 22-24, with its numerous references, and K. Cooney, “The Edifice of Taharqa,” pp. 26-37. 30 R. Fazzini and W. Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI,” pp. 122-124. This subject will be discussed in more detail in R. Fazzini, Aspects of the Art, Iconography and Architecture of Late Dynasty XX-Early Dynasty XXVI.

102

richard a. fazzini

un assemblage au nom d’amenemhat ier dans les magasins du temple de louxor 103

UN ASSEMBLAGE AU NOM D’AMENEMHAT Ier DANS LES MAGASINS DU TEMPLE DE LOUXOR

Luc Gabolde Centre Franco-Égyptien pour l’étude des Temples de Karnak En 1999, Bill Murnane, en réponse à une question que je lui posais sur l’ancienneté du temple de Louxor, m’avait révélé l’existence des documents jusqu’alors inédits que j’ai le privilège de présenter ici en hommage à sa science et à son humanité. Il s’agit d’un lot de blocs en calcaire décorés en bas-reliefs et portant des éléments de la titulature d’Amenemhat Ier (Fig. 1). Conservés dans le magasin sud du temple de Louxor, ils ont été minutieusement documentés en 1996 par le Dr. R. Johnson et l’équipe de l’Oriental Institute 1 et portent aujourd’hui les n° d’inventaire ES 393 (situé à l’est de 123 E) et n° 875 (situé en 122 W, extrémité sud). L’assemblage est composé de deux très longs blocs—chacun brisé en deux parties— qui se raccordent quasi directement pour former les restes d’une scène. Ce format est étrange et résulte apparemment du débitage du ou des blocs primitifs en longs moellons, débitage qui doit avoir été effectué à la scie après le démantèlement de l’édifice auquel ils avaient appartenu.2 Le bloc supérieur comporte en outre la trace d’une sorte d’échancrure, réalisée à coups de ciseaux et de scie,

comme si une pièce d’encastrement y avait été primitivement insérée. Quoi qu’il en soit, le bloc d’origine était assez peu épais et devait former une sorte de placage de pierre plutôt qu’une maçonnerie pleine. Il faudrait donc imaginer un édifice originel constitué d’un noyau de maçonnerie en grès ou en briques crues et recouvert d’un placage de calcaire portant la décoration.3

1 Avec une libéralité dont je lui suis profondément reconnaissant, le Dr. Raymond Johnson, directeur du Chicago House de Louxor, a accepté de m’en confier les photos assorties de l’autorisation (de ses encouragements, devrais-je dire) de les publier ici. Son recensement des blocs du Moyen Empire conservés dans les magasins de Louxor comporte 22 autres blocs, parmi lesquels on relève un élément avec un cartouche de Sésostris III et deux autres avec le simple nom de Sésostris. 2 Le débitage en long blocs, sans doute pour obtenir des éléments de linteau, de jambages ou de seuil, est encore attesté pour des blocs du Moyen Empire conservés dans le magasin du Cheikh Labib à Karnak : 87 CL 57 ; 87 CL 59 ; 87 CL 61 ; 87 CL 300. Un élément similaire—sur lequel on reviendra plus bas—a été retrouvé à Tôd : L. Postel, « Fragments inédits du Moyen Empire à Tôd (mission épigraphique de l’IFAO) », dans J.-Cl. Goyon, Chr. Cardin (éd.), Actes du IXe Congrès international des égyptologues, Grenoble, 6-13 septembre 2004, OLA 150, (Louvain : Peeters, 2006), p. 1539-1550. 3 À Éléphantine, plusieurs monuments de la XIe dynastie avaient ainsi été constitués de briques crues plaquées de

parois en grès, voir W. Kaiser et alii, « Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 19./20. Grabungsbericht », MDAIK 49, 1993, p. 148-152 ; idem. « Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 25./26. Grabungsbericht », MDAIK 55 (1999), p. 90-94. 4 Sur le calcaire employé par de Sésostris Ier, à Karnak, voir Ch. Karlshausen et Th. De Putter, « Provenance et caractères distinctifs des calcaires utilisés dans l’architecture du Moyen et du Nouvel Empire à Karnak », Karnak 11 (Paris : ERC, 2003), p. 373-386. 5 Pour les blocs d’Amenemhat Ier trouvés à Ermant voir R. Mond, O.H. Myers, Temples of Armant I-II, EEM 43 (Londres : Egypt Exploration Society, 1940), pl. LXXXVIII et les dessins pl. XCVIII. C’est mon propre examen visuel des pierres d’Ermant qui m’a conduit à la conclusion qu’il s’agissait d’une roche locale. Des analyses plus poussées seraient les bienvenues pour confirmer ou infirmer cette estimation. 6 Un bloc en calcaire avec une représentation d’Atoum, remployé dans la plate-forme en grès de la « cour du Moyen Empire », doit appartenir au décor du temple d’Amenemhat Ier . Il s’agit apparemment d’un calcaire local (voir L. Gabolde, J.-Fr. Carlotti, E. Czerny, « Aux origines de

Le matériau Les blocs sont taillés dans une pierre calcaire. La nature exacte du matériau utilisé n’est pas facile à déterminer sur les seules indications données par un examen de la photo et il ne m’a pas été possible de procéder à un examen de visu de la roche. Sa cassure paraît grumeleuse et l’apparente en cela au calcaire de Tourah extensivement employé plus tard par Sésostris Ier.4 Les constructions d’Amenemhat Ier à Ermant avaient toutefois été réalisées dans un calcaire local5 tout comme celles qui lui sont attribuables à Karnak.6

luc gabolde

104

Fig. 1. Assemblage de blocs d’Amenemhat Ier dans les magasins du temple de Louxor.

Le style

Le style et l’épigraphie sont sobres et dépourvus des abondants détails que l’on rencontre sur les décors d’Amenemhat Ier à Ermant, sur ceux de Mentouhotep III à Tôd ou, plus tard, sur ceux de Sésostris Ier à Karnak.

Le bloc est traité en bas-relief très peu saillant, difficilement comparable, de ce point de vue, aux décors en relief dans le creux du même Amenemhat Ier à Ermant7 et notablement distinct des décors en méplat assez saillant de Sésostris Ier à Karnak. Ce style en relief très peu marqué se rattache à la tradition de l’Ancien Empire, mais aussi aux styles en cours à la fin de la XIe dynastie comme celui des reliefs raffinés de Mentouhotep III-Seânkhkarê à Tôd, Ermant et Éléphantine.8 On relève que ce sera encore la tradition de l’atelier d’artisans qui a réalisé les bas-reliefs de Sésostris Ier à Éléphantine.9

Les éléments fragmentaires dont on dispose permettent de restituer une scène où le roi, coiffé de la couronne rouge, se dirigeait vers la gauche, précédé d’une enseigne d’Oupouaout10, comme c’est souvent le cas lors des sorties solennelles, lors des « montées royales »11 ou encore pendant

Karnak : les recherches récentes du Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak dans la “ cour du Moyen Empire ” », BSEG 23 (1999), p. 40, Fig. 8-9-11). Les pierres utilisées à Karnak au Moyen Empire ont été, on l’a mentionné, étudiées par Ch. Karlshausen et Th. De Putter (« Provenance et caractères distinctifs des calcaires utilisés dans l’architecture du Moyen et du Nouvel Empire à Karnak », Karnak 11 (Paris : ERC, 2003), pp. 373-385). L’échantillonnage examiné ne comportait pas d’élément d’Amenemhat Ier mais du règne suivant, celui de Sésostris Ier, lequel emploie exclusivement le calcaire de Tourah. 7 Supra n. 5. 8 F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd 1934 à 1936, FIFAO XVII (Le Caire : Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1937), pls. XXI,2-XXVII et R. Mond, O.H. Myers, Temples of Armant, pl. LXXXVIII (Éléphantine) et XCIVXCVII (Ermant).

9 L. Habachi, « Building Activity of Sesostris I in the Area South of Thebes », MDAIK 31 (1975), pl. 12 a-b. Voir encore W. Kaiser et alii, « Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine, 13/14. Grabungsbericht », MDAIK 43 (1986), p. 84-88 et pl. 8. 10 Sur cette enseigne, qui représente le nom d’Horus du roi, voir P. Barguet, « Un groupe d’enseignes en rapport avec les noms du roi », RdE 8 (1951), p. 9-19. 11 Voir, sous Sésostris Ier, l’introduction du roi dans la chapelle d’Anubis, ou un des rituels préludant à l’érection du mât de Min, P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une chapelle de Sésostris Ier à Karnak (Le Caire : Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1956-1969), pl. 13, scène 3 ; pl. 31, scène 8’, ou bien, pour des occurrences plus communes et plus récentes, H.H. Nelson, W. Murnane, The Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, vol. I, part 1, The Wall Reliefs, OIP 106 (Chicago : Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1981), pl. 50 ; 51.

La scène

un assemblage au nom d’amenemhat ier dans les magasins du temple de louxor 105 les cérémonies jubilaires.12 Il serait hautement spéculatif d’essayer ici de la reconstituer plus complètement.

Les textes Devant le roi, sa légende :

[1] [2]

r Wm L’Horus « qui renouvelle les mswt créations »a, le fils de Rê zA-R ’Imn-m- Amenemhat, [At] dἰ n t gratifié de vie éternellement.

[3]

Au-dessus de la déesse vautour (dont on aperçoit l’extrémité des plumes) : Nbt

Nekhbetb.

[4]

a—Il s’agit du second nom d’Horus du roi, adopté apparemment après quelques années de règne.13 Il faut peut-être comprendre que ce nomprogramme signale la mise en œuvre d’un vaste projet de construction du roi, le mot mswt (« ce qui a été créé = création ») pouvant, en effet, signifier sporadiquement « création(s) architecturale(s) ».14 La titulature viendrait ainsi faire écho à la trace architecturale laissée par les blocs, lesquels constituent par eux mêmes des indices de cette refondation proclamée. b—On remarquera que le nom et l’image de la déesse n’ont pas été attaqués par les agents d’Akhenaton, contrairement à ce que l’on constate globalement sur le territoire thébain, ce qui montre que ces blocs étaient hors d’atteinte au Nouvel Empire (parce que sans doute remployés).

12 F.W. F. von Bissing, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-woser-re (Rathures) II (Leipzig : Hinrichs, 1923), pl. 1, 10, 11 et particulièrement 13. 13 J. von Beckerath, « Zur Begründung der 12. Dynastie durch Ammenemes I. », ZÄS 92 (1966), p. 7 ; idem., Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49 (Mayence : Philip von Zabern, 1999), p. 83 et p. 82, n. 1. 14 Chr. Wallet-Lebrun, « Contribution à l’histoire de la construction à Karnak », dans L’égyptologie, histoire, résultats et perspectives (Grenoble : Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1994), p. 227-229 ; voir les mentions éloquentes

La provenance des blocs et la question de l’ancienneté de Louxor La présence de ces vestiges au nom d’Amenemhat Ier conduit naturellement à s’interroger sur leur provenance exacte et, subséquemment, sur l’ancienneté des sanctuaires de Louxor. Ces blocs mis à part, les plus anciens témoins historiques exhumés du site du temple sont constitués d’une table d’offrandes de Sésostris III, usurpée par Apopi,15 d’une seconde table d’offrandes, au quadruple nom d’un Sésostris indéfini, trouvée dans le village16, enfin d’éléments de porte de Sobekhotep II.17 Comme le soulignait déjà G. Daressy, la table d’offrandes de Sésostris III pourrait bien avoir été apportée d’Hérakléopolis en raison des divinités qui y sont mentionnées (et ce, bien après le Moyen Empire). Les éléments trouvés dans le village peuvent, quant à eux, provenir aussi bien des ruines de Karnak que de celles de Louxor, sans compter qu’on a pu encore les transférer de la rive gauche. Les deux fragments architecturaux en granit rose de (Sekhemrê-khoutaouy)-Sobekhotep II qui furent exhumés dans la cour d’Amenhotep III sont peut-être plus significatifs, mais ils sont bien incapables de garantir une ancienneté du site allant au-delà de leur époque. S’il est vraisemblable, malgré tout, que la fondation des sanctuaires de Louxor remonte au moins au Moyen Empire, compte tenu du conservatisme théologique des anciens égyptiens, force est, cependant, de constater qu’aucun vestige n’en a jamais été trouvé in situ, et donc que l’hypothèse demeure une pure, quoique séduisante, conjecture.

Un matériau de récupération amené d’ailleurs ? Compte tenu du débitage qu’ont subi les blocs, on est tenté d’y reconnaître un matériau de récupération, amené sur le site après l’abandon des

dans les récits de refondation de temples de Thoutmosis III : Urk. IV, p. 817, 10 et 17 ; 820, 17 ; 830, 8. 15 PM II2, p. 339 = CG 23009, A.B. Kamal, CGC, Tables d’offrandes (Le Caire, 1906-09), pl. V, p. 8-9 et E. Grébaut, « Fouilles de Louqsor », BIE X (1889), p. 335-6. 16 PM II2, p. 339 = K. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, Text III (Genève : Editions des Belles-Lettres, 1975), p. 89. 17 PM II2, p. 338 = G. Daressy, « Le voyage d’inspection de M. Grébaut en 1889 », ASAE 26 (1926), p. 8.

luc gabolde

106

cultes.18 Ce genre de transfert est bien attesté pour la plupart des sites de la région thébaine : des talatates de Karnak se sont ainsi retrouvées au temple de Tôd,19 d’autres ont rejoint Ermant.20 À Louxor, c’est encore de Karnak que provient l’essentiel des blocs arrachés d’un autre site. On recense ainsi dans les magasins de Louxor la série d’éléments suivants originaires du grand temple d’Amon-Rê : 1°) un fragment d’obélisque en granit rose de Thoutmosis Ier provenant de l’obélisque nord du IVe pylône de ce roi (inédit) ; 2°) plusieurs fragments des obélisques orientaux d’Hatchepsout (avec notamment les figures des Amon ithyphalliques), généralement remployés en meules (inédits) ; 3°) des talatates d’Akhenaton dont les thèmes permettent de les raccorder aux talatates remployées dans les murs des cours des IXe-Xe pylônes (et d’une manière générale toutes les talatates retrouvées à Louxor) ; 4°) une table d’offrandes de Thoutmosis III provenant manifestement de l’Akhmenou.21

L’éventualité d’une origine à Karnak Or, à Karnak, les vestiges au nom d’Amenemhat Ier sont, justement, bien attestés, montrant que l’activité architecturale de ce roi y avait été loin d’être négligeable. Il y a tout d’abord le très important socle de naos en granit rose destiné à recevoir le tabernacle de la vénérable statue d’Amon.22

18

Dans le magasin dit du « Cheikh Labib » à Karnak sont conservés des blocs du Moyen Empire en calcaire dont le format actuel, très allongé, peu haut et peu épais, semblable à celui des blocs d’Amenemhat Ier traités ici, semble indiquer qu’ils avaient été débités pareillement, dans la perspective d’une réutilisation. Voir leur liste, supra n. 2. 19 M. Etienne dans G. Pierrat et alii, « Fouilles du Musée du Louvre à Tôd, 1988-1991 », Karnak X (Paris : ERC, 1995), p. 490-492. Les blocs proviennent assurément de Karnak et ont probablement été amenées à Tôd à l’époque ptolémaïque ou romaine. 20 Comme l’a rappelé A. Eggebrecht (« Armant », LÄ I, col. 437), l’éventualité que les quelques fragments du règne d’Amenhotep IV trouvés à Ermant (R. Mond, O.H. Myers, The Temple of Ermant ; Idem, Bucheum II, EEM 41 (Londres : Egypt Exploration Society, 1934), p. 46) puissent effectivement attester l’existence d’un temple primitif d’Aton dans cette ville et que celle-ci ait eu un rôle particulier dans l’essor de la nouvelle théologie a été mise en doute avec des arguments de fond par H. Kees (« Ein Sonnenheiligtum im Amonstempel von Karnak », Orientalia 18 (1949), p. 433 et 439). 21 PM II2, p. 339 = L. Habachi, « Clearance of the Area to the East of Luxor Temple and Discovery of Some Objects », ASAE 51 (1951), pl. V, Fig. 12 et p. 464-68 [IX]. 22 PM II2, p. 200 (23) = A. Mariette, Karnak : étude topographique et archéologique (Leipzig : Heinrichs, 1875),

Aujourd’hui remployé au temple de Ptah, il ne fait guère de doute qu’il avait à l’origine été installé dans le sanctuaire qui s’était dressé dans la « cour du Moyen Empire ». À ce très ancien temple d’Amon appartient sans doute le fragment de bloc décoré en relief dans le creux qui avait été remployé dans la plate-forme en grès. Représentant une scène d’allaitement du roi en présence du dieu Atoum, il pourrait, en effet, remonter au règne d’Amenemhat Ier.23 Le second élément d’importance est un groupe statuaire fragmentaire, une dyade, en granit gris ayant originellement figuré Amon et le roi.24 On peut encore suspecter que le groupe statuaire à six personnages trouvé près de l’autel solaire au nord de la « cour du Moyen Empire » lui soit redevable.25 Ces documents font d’Amenemhat Ier un des souverains les plus actifs sur le site de Karnak avant le règne de Sésostris Ier ; il n’y aurait rien d’extraordinaire à ce que des parois de placage en calcaire décorées en bas relief aient orné les murs du temple primitif où il avait installé son naos.26 Démontés par Sésostris Ier, ces éléments auraient ensuite pu servir à garnir les fondations de son nouveau temple. Réapparus après la désaffection des cultes et le démantèlement du temple par les chaufourniers médiévaux, les placages de calcaire auraient ensuite été apportés, entre autres, à Louxor et débités en éléments longs, constituant ces éléments mêmes qui ont été retrouvés et documentés par l’équipe de l’Oriental Institute.

p. 10, 41-42, pl. 8 e ; E. Hirsch « Die Kultpolitik Amenemhets I. im Thebanischen Gau », dans Ägyptische Tempel-Struktur, Funktion und Programm, HÄB 37 (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg Verlag, 1994), p. 137-142, notamment p. 139. 23 Supra, n. 6. 24 PM II2, p. 107 ; G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein (Munich : Bruckmann, 1929), p. 95, § 634, p. 22, ill. 4 et pl. II, ill. 35 ; A. Mariette, Karnak, p. 41, n° 4, pl. 8 d ; G. Legrain, « Notes prises à Karnak », RecTrav 23 (1901), p. 63 ; M. Seidel, Die Königlische Statuengruppen I, HÄB 42 (Hildesheim : Gerstenberg Verlag, 1996), p. 65-66 (doc. 31). 25 PM II 2, p. 103, (307) ; M. Seidel, Die Königlische Statuengruppen I, doc. n° 32, p. 67-68 et pl. 23 a-c et L. Gabolde, Études sur la genèse des temples de Karnak et du culte d’Amon-Rê, à paraître. Il pourrait se raccorder à un élément similaire acheté par Mond et Myers à Tôd. 26 Les fouilles récentes du CFEETK dans le secteur des cours nord et sud du VIe pylône ont confirmé l’existence de structures de briques crues contemporaines ou de très peu antérieures aux aménagements de Sésostris Ier et ont montré aussi que la stratigraphie du lieu ne pouvait guère remonter au-delà de la fin de la PPI ou du début de la XIe dynastie (G. Charloux, J.-Fr. Jet, E. Lanoë, « Nouveaux vestiges des sanctuaires du Moyen Empire à Karnak. Les fouilles récentes des cours du VIe pylône », BSFE 160 (2004), p. 26-46).

un assemblage au nom d’amenemhat ier dans les magasins du temple de louxor 107 Des blocs isolés ?

Résumé en Anglais

Une ultime interrogation demeure : l’assemblage de blocs d’Amenemhat Ier conservé dans les magasins de Louxor est-il seul de son espèce ? En fait, un bloc des magasins du temple de Tôd, dépourvu de nom royal, mais pareillement décoré en bas-relief, présente des dimensions, un style de décor et pour finir un type de retaille en forme de longue poutre, extrêmement similaires à ce que l’on observe sur l’assemblage qui nous occupe27 ; peut-être a-t-il été lui aussi arraché à Karnak, comme l’ont été bien d’autres éléments retrouvés sur ce site.28

Two broken limestone slabs, stored in the Luxor temple magazine and carefully documented by the team of the Chicago Oriental Institute, bear fragments of the titulatury of king Amenemhet I. As the blocks have apparently been sawn and recut, they can be considered as reused material, and may have been brought from other sites in the Theban area. It is a matter of fact that several pieces found in the vicinity of Luxor Temple precisely originate from Karnak. It is also well known that Amenemhet I worked at Karnak and, significantly, dedicated a granite naos there for the sacred sanctuary of the god Amun-Râ. On the other hand, no archeological element can guarantee that the temple of Luxor could be older than the reign of Sobekhotep II, and nothing there can, of course, be related to Amenemhat I. I would consider it plausible that the two blocks published here in memory of Bill Murnane—who had mentioned their existence to me—constitute the remains of one of the oldest temples dedicated to Amun at Karnak. They would have reappeared after the dismantling of the sanctuary and the subsequent recovery of the building material, which was then brought to the site of Luxor.

Conclusion provisoire Les blocs isolés au nom d’Amenemhat Ier trouvés sur le site de Louxor et enregistrés dans les magasin du CSA, de par leur format et du fait qu’ils montrent des traces de débitage, ont sans doute été apportés comme matériau de construction depuis un autre site de la région, comme ont, par exemple, été apportés à Louxor les talatates qui y ont été découvertes. Compte tenu des traces conséquentes de l’activité architecturale d’Amenemhat Ier à Karnak, ce dernier site constitue probablement le meilleur candidat pour leur provenance et ils en constitueraient quelques uns des plus anciens vestiges. 27 N° d’inventaire : Tôd 310. Ma gratitude va à L. Postel qui publie ce bloc avec les autres trouvailles du site (« Fragments inédits du Moyen Empire à Tôd (mission épigraphique de l’IFAO) », dans J.-Cl. Goyon, Chr. Cardin (éd.), Actes du IXe Congrès international des égyptologues, Grenoble,

6-13 septembre 2004, OLA 150 (Louvain : Peters, 2006), p. 1539-1550) et qui m’a permis de faire état ici, en primeur, de son existence. 28 Supra n. 19.

108

luc gabolde

under a deep blue starry sky

109

UNDER A DEEP BLUE STARRY SKY Marc Gabolde Université Paul Valéry—Montpellier III

As one of the last authors reviewed by W.J. Murnane who kindly sent me his final comments a few days before his death, I am delighted to present this tribute to his memory, a roving walk in the company of one of his favorite pharaohs, under a deep blue starry sky.1 Among the finds from KV 55 recently exhibited in Munich and then returned to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo there was an inlay fragment of the ‘sky’-sign, slightly convex, in deep blue glass, adorned with yellow stars (Fig. 1).2 This object was previously published by Reeves, and I have commented on its possible original location in tomb KV 55.3 The possibilities are: A) the coffin, B) an unknown or destroyed object from KV 55, C) the canopic jars.

The coffin may be ruled out. Only one ‘sky’-sign was inserted at the end of the inscription and the inlay is still visible. It is made of deep blue glass without stars.4 Another possibility may have been the top of the same column where such a sign might be expected, but there is no room for it now and the fact that the starry fragment is slightly curved strongly suggests that it was not placed there. Moreover, it would have been surprising to find two identically-shaped inlays with such different details.

1 I wish to express my thanks to Amanda Dunsmore for her precious advice and improvements to the translation. 2 A Grimm and S. Schoske, Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges (Munich: Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, 2001) [Munich 2001 hereafter], p. 75, Kat. 63, Abb. 39, cf. p. 78. 3 C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal Necropolis, Studies in Egyptology (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1990), pl. III; M. Gabolde, D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, Collection de l’Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité, vol. 3 (Lyon: Université Lumière—Lyon II, 1998) [D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon hereafter], pp. 239-240, ns. 1713-1715, pl. XXX (f). 4 Munich 2001, front cover. 5 Munich 2001, p. 75, Kat. 63. The possibility that the nomen of Akhenaten was written Amenhotep in the emended

Option B: An unknown or destroyed object, is hardly plausible despite the fact that some inlays recovered from the tomb apparently belonged to items other than those already known. Since, as the authors of the catalog suggest, the deep blue signs formerly in Munich were part of the nomen Amenhotep,5 I believe the fragment of the hieroglyph6 comes from the end of the right horizontal inscription on the outside under part of the coffin (inscription ‘C’). There, in the lacuna, was perhaps the formula to which the hieroglyph probably once belonged.7 The symmetrical formula gives however “Son of Re, living by Maat, lord of the crowns.”8 In the same way, the fragment of a clypeus from a ‘scarab’-sign is from part of a royal praenomen, despite the fact that its scale is slightly larger than expected for the known inscriptions from the coffin.9 However, all of these inlays and fragmentary inlays are easy to insert in the already known inscriptions from KV 55, opposite the starry ‘sky’-sign. This means that option C: the canopic jars must be considered seriously. The problem, however, is that on each jar, in the location where this inlay should have been, there is a fragment of calcite that fills the channel of the right end part of the ‘sky’-sign. As Krauss

part of the coffin is not to be completely discounted if this last change occurred during Tutankhamen’s reign. However, the inlaid signs newly executed in the altered parts of the coffin present a wide range of materials and colors, opposite the signs belonging to the nomen Amenhotep apparently only worked in a deep blue, glazed material. 6 Munich 2001, p. 75, Abb. 37. 7 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pl. XXXII, b, missing in δ. In the restored underside of the coffin, fragments of gold foils suggest the title “lord of the crowns” at the end of the formula, just before the cartouche, cf. Munich 2001, p. 104, Abb. 59. 8 Ibid., pl. XXXII, a. 9 Ibid., pl. XXX (g). Another possibility is that it belonged to a ‘heart-scarab’ composed of various elements.

110

marc gabolde

has convincingly demonstrated, this fragment of calcite comprises part of a more ancient ‘sky’hieroglyph.10 There is no evidence that the original ‘sky’-sign was inlaid, yet the channel looks too deeply cut for a hieroglyph to have been simply engraved. If this was the case, it would have been easier to sand back completely the inscription of Kiya, including the ‘sky’-sign, rather than replace it with a sliver of calcite. If it had been filled in such a way, it was probably because the original sign was also inlaid. If one compares the dimensions of the items, the results are as follows: starry fragment:11 Length: 5.55 cm, Width: 1.1 cm (0.68 cm for the ‘sky’ without the ‘corner’), Thickness: 0.25 cm calcite fragment:12 Length: 3.6 cm (but, Martin adds: “The channel was not continued for the entire length of the ‘heaven’ sign, but only for a distance of approximately 5.4 cm from its right end.”13), Width: 0.6 cm

The difference between the dimensions are at odds if one supposes that the space for the calcite inlay was the original location of the fragment. Nevertheless, it seems that all the calcite inlays vary in width from one jar to another and moreover, it seems that the plaster join is also of some thickness. If one allows a thickness of 0.04 cm for this join on both the upper and the lower sides, then the channel is about 0.68 cm high which may fit with the starry inlay. As for the length, it is noteworthy that the channel in which the calcite fragment was originally laid was about 5.4 cm, hence not so far from the 5.55 cm of the starry fragment. The remaining calcite inlays have apparently all been broken a few centimeters along the left side, probably when the colored inlays on the left were removed, leaving the channel empty there. If we accept the possibility that the starry inlay comes from one of these jars, a scenario then arises: the removal of the right side of the ‘sky’sign and its replacement with a calcite inlay, contemporaneous with the erasure of the titles and name of Kiya underneath, was carried out in the tomb and one fragment of the original inlay was 10 R. Krauss, “Kija—ursprüngliche Besitzerin der Kanopen aus KV 55,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 42 (1986), p. 75. 11 Munich 2001, p. 78. 12 G.T. Martin, “Notes on a canopic jar from King’s Valley 55,” in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II, ed.

‘left’ in the tomb by the workers. Such a scenario seems hardly possible. Tomb KV 55 was not the best place for such work, even if hastily done. Moreover, logically speaking, the other changes to the funerary equipment of Kiya must also have been undertaken in KV 55. It is hard to imagine the insertion of a new uraeus on the jar stoppers and coffin, the cutting of a new false beard, new scepters, new inlays (items not immediately available in the Valley of the Kings) and the new engraving on gold foil inside the coffin, in such an inappropriate place. All these factors suggest that the changes to the canopic jars and coffin of Kiya, in order to adapt them for a king, were done in a workshop and not in the tomb. We must then consider another scenario. The starting point is the shape of the right end of the starry fragment. Here, the ‘corner’ of the ‘sky’-sign is visible. If the ‘sky’-sign had only been cut out and replaced with a calcite inlay, this essential part of the hieroglyph would have been missing over the remaining inscription. It would have been necessary to add this ‘corner’ with another material (paint for example). It is then very possible that the workers preferred to re-insert this part of the hieroglyph with its starry decoration and to cut another fragment corresponding in length, in the middle part of the ‘sky’-sign rather than to bungle the work. The care they took in filling the empty space at the right end of the sign with a fragment of calcite, instead of simply filling it with some plaster, indicates that their intention was to perform a high quality change and not simply the erasure of Kiya’s hieroglyphs. Making a new ‘sky’-sign with parts of the former one, i.e., its ‘corner’ elements, was presumably the obvious solution. In this case, the presence of the starry inlay fragment among the items from KV 55 can only be explained by considering that the defacement of the remaining inscription (i.e., that which involved Akhenaten’s and the Aten’s names) and the sanding back of the ‘sky’-sign above it took place in KV 55. This possibility has, however, been challenged by Dodson, following a suggestion of Eaton-Krauss: “This erasure is normally linked with the removal of cartouches from the coffin P. Posener-Kriéger, Bibliothèque d’Étude 97/2 (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1985), p. 113. 13 Ibid., p. 113. In fact, the channel had been cut all along its length, but was later sanded back, except for 5.4 cm on the right end.

under a deep blue starry sky and shrine found in KV 55, but I would prefer to see it as simply the final elimination of texts that were irrelevant to the jars’ final owner.”14 He also states that: “Regarding the erasures from the coffin and shrine, I am persuaded by Marianne Eaton Krauss that they did not take place within KV 55, but before they came to rest within that tomb.”15 It is clear that if the deep blue sky from KV 55 actually belongs to one of the canopic jars, then Dodson’s theory falls short. It also becomes obvious that the defaced panel on the jars represents the last phase of the changes to this canopic equipment and that no other name was ever intended to be engraved. Moreover, in such a case, it would have been useless to remove the ‘sky’-sign and the Aten’s names. Once again, Dodson has a brilliant explanation for another succession of events: “It is clear that their (i.e. canopic jars) inscriptions had been excised of portions relating to their former ownership by Kiya at an early stage; less certain is the date of the removal of the remainder of the panel of text, which bore the names and titles of Akhenaten and the Aten. It is not impossible that this could have been associated with the erasures seen on other items from KV 55, but the fact that the whole panel was removed, and not just the cartouches of Akhenaten, suggests that it was part of the preparation of the vases for their new owner. Perhaps new decoration was intended, but never carried out, or else inscribed in paint which has long since disappeared.”16

111

suggest. If only the names of Akhenaten had been erased and the Aten names preserved, then, from the Egyptian point of view, this canopic set would have been attributed to the Aten himself and the viscera inside would have necessarily belonged to him. One presumes that the ancient Egyptians were sadly less imaginative than Dodson and preferred simply to avoid any inconsistency by removing the whole text. The complete erasure of the panel appears in this way to be a successful attempt at depriving the jar’s owner of his names and status. I am more persuaded to think that the Egyptians succeeded in making the last owner anonymous rather than to believe that they failed to attribute the set to an alleged new owner. As a diagram is often more illuminating than any statement, Figures 2-7 show the different steps of work on the inscribed panel, as suggested above. We can be quite sure that the original owner of the canopic jars with stoppers was Kiya.17 It is also almost certain that the coffin was originally made for Kiya.18 It is now also highly probable that the last owner of these items was Akhenaten and no other. For the canopic jars, if the starry fragment of ‘sky’-sign actually belonged to one of the panels, it is now strong evidence. Concerning the coffin, it is also possible to argue that it belonged to Akhenaten, on the basis of two points: 1) the epithet “great in his lifetime” after the defaced cartouche of the king in bands (B) and (C) and 2) the reading “Waenre” instead of “beloved of Waenre” on band (D).

It would seem, however, slightly paradoxical to erase the panel so carefully yet fail to engrave it, even roughly with a new name or to re-inscribe it so carelessly that the name has completely disappeared. It is furthermore stretching the eye of faith to deduce the existence of such a name from its complete absence. Nevertheless, the fact that the whole panel has been defaced is not as surprising as Dodson would

1) The formula “great in his lifetime,” inscribed on re-cut areas of inscriptions (B) and (C) on the coffin19 concerns only Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten and is never found in original inscriptions after the name of another pharaoh.20 It must be remembered that Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten included this epithet in his own cartouche in the tomb

14 A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1994), p. 59. 15 Ibid., p. 59, n. 67. 16 A. Dodson, “On the Origin, Contents and Fate of Biban el-Moluk Tomb 55,” GM 132 (1993), p. 22. 17 R. Krauss, MDAIK 42 (1986), pp. 67-80. The comments of A. Dodson (GM 132 [1993], pp. 22-23 and n. 17) following an observation by G.T. Martin (BdE 97/2 [1985], p. 112) about the poor fit of the stoppers on the jars is unconvincing. This is often the case and as he acknowledges, there is often ancient and modern confusion in attributing the

stoppers to the jars. Given the very constant iconography of Kiya and making allowances for the fact that the faces are thin, these masterpieces may actually belong to the early stages of Amarna art and depict very probably Kiya in her youth, despite A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt (1994), p. 58, based on presupposed views of the Amarna style. 18 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 237-255. 19 G. Daressy, “Le cercueil de Khu-n-Aten,” BIFAO 12 (1916), pp. 145-149; D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 245. 20 There are only three cases where Amenhotep III is

112

marc gabolde

of Kheruef21 and that this king is sporadically described simply as “the one who is great in his lifetime.”22 The fact that this formula has been inserted in an emended part of the inscription on the coffin from KV 55 demonstrates indisputably that it refers to the last addressee of the coffin. 2) After checking with May Trad, and thanks to the authorization of Dr. Mamdouh Al-Damaty and the kind collaboration of Mr. Sabri from the Cairo Museum, the fragment of inscription ‘D 6’ from the inside part of the coffin lid from KV 55 appears to bear the following signs, (Fig. 8), which corresponds to the formula:

Fig. 8. Schematic drawing of traces from the gold sheet fragment ‘D 6’ from the coffin from KV 55.

Despite the poor state of preservation, it is , with the clear that the last two signs are simply written as a streak, as in all other parts of this text. Unfortunately, the gold sheet , but the space is scrunched up over the

and the body of the -sign is between and about twice as high as that between the . This indicates that something existed the . A -sign over the rectangular part of the -sign may be ruled out as no trace of and a them can be seen there. The more plausible solution for filling the space is the now illegible seal and tie of the papyrus-sign that G. Daressy saw

supposed to be A(w) m w=f “great in his lifetime”: 1) the legend of a statue depicted in the tomb of Huya at Amarna (C.E. Loeben, “No Evidence of Coregency—Two Erased Inscriptions from Tutankhamen’s Tomb,” Amarna Letters 3 (1994), p. 108, n. 30), 2) the door of the gilded shrine from KV 55, 3) some reliefs at Soleb. The case for 1) is, in fact, a misinterpretation by C.E. Loeben and the statue concerned, whose cartouches are defaced, actually depicts Akhenaten, despite the fact that it looks isolated among other statues of Amenhotep III. The king is n(w) m MA.t and queen Tiyi, depicted to the side, is called “king’s mother,” which is not the case when she is depicted along with Amenhotep III who is never n(w) m MA.t, cf. N. de G. Davies, The Rock tombs of El Amarna, Part III, The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes, with an appendix on the Greek Graffiti by S. de Ricci, Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoir 15 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1905), pl. X. 2) On the door of the gilded shrine from KV 55 the name of Amenhotep III, written with the goddess Maat in the praenomen and with the nomen Amenhotep, is clearly a secondary emendation in red ink (cf. T.M. Davis [G. Maspero, G.E. Smith, E.R. Ayrton, G. Daressy and E.H. Jones (coll.)], The Tomb of Queen Tîyi [London: Constable and Co., Ltd., 1910], pp. 13-14). Despite the fact that Daressy forgot to mention the emendation (p. 14), it is clear from his reading of it on p. 13 where he claims that the praenomen of Amenhotep III, written with the goddess Maat, occurs only on reworked parts. 3) At Soleb too, it appears that the names of Amenhotep III have been recut over that of Amenhotep IV after the death of the last pharaoh. M. Schiff-Giorgini, J. Janssen and J. Leclant have been misdirected by the fact that the nomen has been corrected twice and the praenomen once. It is clear

from the published photographs that the first names were Neferkheperure-Waenre Amenhotep netjer-heqa-Waset, emended to Neferkheperure-Waenre Akhenaten during Akhenaten’s reign and changed to Nebmaatre Amenhotep heqa Waset after the restoration, cf. M. Schiff-Giorgini, “Soleb,” Kush 6 (1958), pp. 82-97; J. Janssen, in M. SchiffGiorgini, “Soleb, Campagna, 1958-59,” Kush 7 (1959), p. 168; M. Schiff-Giorgini, C. Robichon and J. Leclant, Soleb I, 1813-1963 (Firenze: Sansoni, 1965), p. 131, n. 3 (see too pp. 78-79, doc. 11, G; pp. 103-104, doc. 20, I; pp. 105-106, doc. 20, L and n. 18; p. 113, doc. 20, M); J. Leclant, mentioned in W.J. Murnane (Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40 [1977], pp. 154-155); J. Leclant, “Soleb,” LÄ V (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1984), col. 1076. In one of his last e-mails, W.J. Murnane told me that he had reached the same conclusion. 21 Epigraphic Survey [The] (in cooperation with the Department of Antiquities of Egypt), The Tomb of Kheruef— Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980), pls. 8-9. 22 M. Sandman, Texts from the time of Akhenaten, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 8 (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1938), p. 31, line 14; p. 40, line 4; p. 66, line 14; p. 171, line 9 and, probably, p. 79, line 9. For the three texts where this epithet seems to concern Amenhotep III, see D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 232, n. 1675. A.H. Gardiner, in “The so-called Tomb of Queen Tiye,” JEA 43 (1957), p. 21, n. 3, suspected that the epithet A(w) m w=f was inscribed once after the cartouches of the Aten. Unfortunately, his reference: “Amarna I, pl. 7,” does not show any evidence of that. The only other king whose “duration of life” was referred to in the literature is the pharaoh Sisebek of Papyrus Vandier, see G. Posener, Le Papyrus Vandier, Bibliothèque Générale 7 (Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1985), passim.

under a deep blue starry sky in 1910.23 It is noteworthy that all the signs are very spaced out, excluding the possibility of any short writings of words, and giving the feeling that the engraver tried to enlarge the length of the inscription to fill the whole space. Looking at the phrase from a grammatical point of view, the only possible solution is the last reading: (A) Daressy 1910

(B) Daressy 1916

(C) Engelbach 1931

(D) Gabolde 1998

(E) Idem & M. Trad 2003

My suggestion of 1998 to read the end of the formula mA-rw is clearly wrong and I must apologize for having misled the authors of Munich’s exhibition catalog who accepted my can be proposal. Engelbach’s reading explained by the fact that the two horizontal lines pass slightly over the vertical edge of the of the sign on the left hand side, but actually less than one millimeter. The various translations give the following results: A) W(w)(~n) R A: “Wa(en)re the Great” makes no real sense and supposes the absence of (~n). (Such an absence occurs only in one of the papyri from Ghurob, but the close similarity of and in hieratic explains it fully.24 B) W(w) R š/mr(y) tA makes no sense either and, here too, the absence of (~n) should be noted. C) Mr(w)~n W(w)(~n)-R appears to make sense and is generally accepted, but it presents one incorrect writing: W(w) R instead of W(w)~n R, and an unattested relative form Mr(w)~n which is never encountered with the epithet of “king” 23

G. Daressy, in T.M. Davis (G. Maspero, G.E. Smith, E.R. Ayrton, G. Daressy and E.H. Jones [coll.]), The Tomb of Queen Tîyi (London: Constable and Co., Ltd., 1910), p. 19. 24 A.H. Gardiner, “Four papyri of the 18th dynasty from Kahun,” ZÄS 43 (1906), p. 29, l. 14 and l. 20. 25 For the misreading Mr(y)~n A(w)~n Jtn instead of A(y).t~n-h(j)=s, see n. 68 below. 26 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 248. This reconstructed epithet on band (D) is to be emended on pp. 252253 of the same publication as well as in Das Geheimnis

113

Ankh(et)kheperure … Neferneferuaten … The epithets of this ruler are always written without ~n: Mr(y)(.t) W(w)~n-R or Mr(y)(.t) Nfr-pr.w-R (and never Mr(y)~n A(w)~n ’Itn). 25 The fact that one (~n)–sign is missing and another is unnecessary strongly suggests another solution. D) W(w)(~n) R mA-rw is clearly to be ruled out after checking the original, despite the fact that the formula mA-rw is encountered twice in the foot end inscription after the name of the king.26 E) W(w)~n R makes sense, is grammatically correct and presents no mistakes. The only peculiarity is the unusual writing of W(w) with a rare ‘arm’-sign as phonetic complement27 and a ‘papyrus-roll’-sign unattested until now for the nickname of Akhenaten, but found sometimes in Middle Kingdom literature.28 Such a developed writing can be explained here by the noticeably wide spacing between glyphs due to the need to fill extra space. The end of the inscription (D) reads then: “(O) Lord of heaven, I am one whose heart is living in its (right) place. May thou contemplate Waenre every day without ceasing!”

Such a text unequivocally makes Akhenaten the last owner of the coffin. The fact that Akhenaten is referred to once in the first person singular, and another time in the third person singular is simply due to the fact that the relationship of Akhenaten/Kiya in the original inscription has been adapted, with some difficulty, to the relationship of the Lord of Heaven/Akhenaten in the emended text. To sum up, the changes in the inscriptions on both the coffin and canopic jars strongly suggest that the last owner of these items was Akhenaten and no other. Some indirect evidence is also to be found in the text of the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamen (CGC 34183). In line 26 it is writ-

des goldenen Sarges (Munich, 2001), p. 39, p. 108, and “La parenté de Toutânkhamon,” BSFE 155 (2002), p. 47. 27 For this writing in hieroglyphic inscriptions, see N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part IV, The Tombs of Penthu, Mahu and others, Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoir 16 (1906), pl. XXI. 28 R. van der Molen, A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts, Probleme der Ägyptologie 15 (Leiden, Boston and Köln: E.J. Brill, 2000), p. 87, where the writing is specifically associated with the qualitative verb wj “(to) be alone/unique.”

114

marc gabolde

ten concerning Tutankhamen and after claiming that this king is the real, eldest son of Amun, that “taking care of the father who bore him, his kingship is the kingship of (his) father Osiris.”29 This allusion to the god Osiris is completely isolated in the text. The formula translated here as “taking care of,” n r in Egyptian, is obviously related to the pious behaviour of a son, considered to be Horus, toward the body of his dead father Osiris. It is exactly the role of Harendotes whose name includes the same wording.30 Reading the text literally, this indicates that Tutankhamen buried his actual father who became Osiris and consequently inherited the kingship of his father. As some seals from tomb KV 55 were stamped with the name of Tutankhamen31 and given that Tutankhamen is most probably the son of Akhenaten,32 it is logical to deduce that the king buried in KV 55, and significantly entitled “Osiris Neferkheperure” on at least two of the magical bricks, is Akhenaten, the father of Tutankhamen. Such a scenario provides a possible answer to the pertinent question of Dodson: “Why was a king of the Amarna Period placed in an elaborately altered woman’s coffin rather than his own?”33

This is not an isolated case as another king of the XVIIIth Dynasty was buried in a sarcophagus previously cut for a woman and later altered for him, namely Thutmosis I. The strange story of the mummy of Thutmosis I is in many points directly parallel to that of the king from KV 55.34 Thutmosis I was first buried by Thutmosis II in an unidentified tomb.35 Later, during Hatshepsut’s reign, his body was re-buried in tomb KV 20 of Hatshepsut.36 It is noteworthy that for this second burial Hatshepsut altered her own sarcophagus for her father and ordered a new one to be cut for herself.37 A few years later, Thutmosis III decided to remove Thutmosis I from KV 20 and to bury him in a new tomb, KV 38,38 with a new sarcophagus,39 a new coffin,40 a new canopic chest41 and, apparently, non-royal canopic jars adapted by adding uraei to the stoppers,42 as in KV 55. The motivation to remove this mummy is obvious: It was to strengthen the legitimacy of the ruling king by acting as Horus acted for Osiris.43 For Hatshepsut, it was a good way to legitimate her claim to the throne and for Thutmosis III it was an opportunity to annul the legitimacy of Hatshepsut and to assert his own rights. It is interesting to note that, in each case, part of the funerary equip-

29 Cf. H.W. Helck, Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums IV. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984), 2031, 6-7, with complements of R. Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet ou la fin d’une dynastie, Éditions de Belles-Lettres (Genève: Imprimerie la Sirène, 1964), pls. XXIb, XXII and XXIIIg from the fragment found at Karnak north (A. Varille, Karnak I, FIFAO 19 [Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1943], p. 19 and pl. 48 [line x+11]) :

36 C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, tome 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire, Nouvelle Clio—l’Histoire et ses problèmes (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1995), pp. 263-264. 37 C.E. Loeben and P. Der Manuelian, JEA 79, pp.121155, pls. V-XIV. 38 C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings, pp. 17-18. 39 Cairo Museum JE 52344. 40 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 269; C.E. Loeben and P. Der Manuelian, ibid., p. 128, Fig. 3. The dedication text, with masculine pronoun, reads: “[…] for his father, the good god, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, [Aakheperka]re.” As the text on the lid clearly mentions Thutmosis I as the owner and, as this coffin, 2.32 m long, was too large for the sarcophagus from KV 20 but suitable for the sarcophagus from KV 38 (2.33 m inside), its attribution to Thutmosis I by Thutmosis III appears inescapable. 41 A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1994), p. 119, n° 28. 42 C. Lilyquist, “Some Dynasty 18 Canopic Jars from Royal Burials in the Cairo Museum,” JARCE 30 (1993), p. 112 and p. 114, Fig. 9. 43 M. Gabolde and L. Gabolde, “Les temples “mémoriaux” de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkamon,” BIFAO 89 (1989), pp. 177-178; D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 59-62, p. 270 and n. 1911. The inheritance is clearly attributed to the heir who performed the burial with special reference to the “law of pharaoh,” in Papyrus Boulaq X, even this use was mainly a way to cover the cost of the burial, cf. J.J. Janssen and P.M. Pestman, “Burial and Inheritance in the Community of the Necropolis Workmen at Thebes,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 11, no. 2 (1968), pp. 137-170; A. Théodoridès, “Les ouvriers-‘magistrats’ en

. 30

D. Meeks, in LÄ II (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1977), pp. 964-965. 31 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 262-263 and Fig. 8(b) p. 262. 32 M. Gabolde, BSFE 155 (2002), pp. 32-48. 33 Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia—Atti, vol. 1, International Association of Egyptologists (IÆ) (Torino: Società Italiana per il Gas p.A.), p. 135. 34 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 267-270. 35 Probably the tomb cut by Ineni, cf. Urk. IV, 57, 3-5. For the discussions about the tomb of Thutmosis I, cf. J. Romer, “Tuthmosis I and the Bibân El-Molûk: Some Problems of Attribution,” JEA 60 (1974), pp. 119-133; L. Gabolde, “La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II, ses consequences sur la datation des momies royales et leurs répercutions sur l’histoire du developpement de la Vallée des Rois,” SAK 14 (1987), pp. 78-80; C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal Necropolis, Studies in Egyptology (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1990), pp. 13-19; C.E. Loeben and P. Der Manuelian, “New Light on the Recarved Sarcophagus of Hatshepsut and Thutmose I in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” JEA 79 (1993), pp. 122-128. For the material associated with this burial, cf. D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 267, ns. 1893-1894.

under a deep blue starry sky

115

ment had to be renewed, presumably because the original equipment was considered as ‘corrupted’ by the rites performed previously.44 In any case, a new sarcophagus or coffin and a new canopic equipment appeared necessary. The post-mortem adventures of Thutmosis I provide an ideological backdrop to the burial in KV 55. Here again, the most persuasive explanation is that Tutankhamen buried his father to annul the legitimacy of Akhenaten’s female successor, probably Merytaten,45 who originally buried her father in the Royal Tomb at Amarna46 and to strengthen his own claim to the throne. The only obstacle to such a reconstruction of events is the alleged age at death of the body found in the coffin. More recent studies propose an age between 18-25 years at death,47 necessarily ruling out Akhenaten. The discrepancy between epigraphic data and forensic ones had already been discussed by Germer48 and Robin.49 Strangely, egyptologists are generally more likely to consider the coroner more reliable than the epigraphist. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the methods used for assessing age at death for ancient Egyptian bones clearly shows the great uncertainty of the forensic data. The results are hampered by three major problems:

tograph published by Harrison50 seems to confirm Filer’s results, but still there is some reluctance to accept that Elliot Smith was completely wrong in stating that the bones were fully fused as he paid great attention to these details. Regarding the second point, it must be remembered that the standards used for comparison are mostly modern and European. There are no reliable standards for the ancient Egyptians as there is not, for the 15-30 year old population, one mummy whose age at death is indisputably known through epigraphic data or strong deduction. We have no idea about the impact of diet, climate, genetic inheritance, diseases or social status on the growth curves of ancient bones. These aspects are generally dismissed—probably to avoid a difficult interpretation—by scientists as indicated in the following text:

1) the subjective nature of data collection. 2) the appropriateness of standards used for comparison. 3) the statistical value of the method.

However the problem of assessing secular changes in the rate of maturation was apparent to Smith in 1912 when he reflected upon his earlier assignment of 25 years as the age at death for Thutmosis IV. Smith states:

Concerning the first point, a remarkable example is provided by Filer in her description of the body from KV 55: “Elliot Smith states that the limb bones are fully fused and consolidated, but as noted above, this is definitely not the case.” As this is a question of direct observation, it is impossible for the non-specialist to obtain the facts. The pho-

Égypte: à l’époque Ramesside,” Revue International des Droits de l’Antiquité, 3rd ser., 16 (1969), pp. 139-165, especially pp. 147-148. 44 The destruction of the sarcophagi of Akhenaten, Tiyi and Maketaten in the Royal Tomb at Amarna has been generally misinterpreted as a case of damnatio memoriae which makes no sense in the case of Tiyi. It seems more plausible that smashing this monument into such tiny pieces was a way of preventing any re-use, and hence it should be considered a pious act rather than an offending one. 45 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 147-185. 46 G.T. Martin, The Rock tombs of El Amarna, Part VII/i, The Royal Tomb at El-‘Amarna I: The Objects, Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoir 35 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1974), pp. 105-106. 47 Study of Nasri Iskander and Eugen Strouhal reported

“There is no reason to believe that today’s standards are not generally applicable to any sample of Homo sapiens, making due allowance for environmental influences such as nutrition, health and disease, endocrinic balance, and so on; in effect it may be concluded that the ancient Egyptian aged in bone and tissue much as today; it may be assumed that they experienced the same maturational changes in essentially the same order as present-day populations.”51

“But during the eight years that have elapsed since I examined this mummy, and, on the assumption that the data given in all text-books of Anatomy in reference to this matter were reliable, estimated his age as 25 years, I have examined the epiphysis of the iliac crest in several thousands of Egyptian

by J. Leclant and A. Minault-Gout, “Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1997-1998,” Orientalia 68 (1999), p. 387: 18-22 years old; J. Filer, “The KV 55 Body: The Facts,” Egyptian Archaeology 17 (2000), pp. 13-17: 20-25 years old at most. 48 R. Germer, “Die angebliche Mumie der Teje,” SAK 11 (1984), pp. 85-91. 49 G. Robins, “The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence,” GM 45 (1981), pp. 63-68. 50 “An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten,” JEA 52 (1966), pl. XXI, 3. 51 W.M. Krogman and M.J. Bear, in An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, eds. J.E. Harris and E.F. Wente (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 189.

116

marc gabolde skeletons. In the course of this investigation I have discovered that in the Ancient Egyptians it was not an uncommon event for the union of the posterior end of the epiphysis cristae to be delayed; and that the corresponding part of the sulcus often persisted well on into the middle age. Hence at the present moment I feel much less certain of the youth of Thutmosis IV than I did in 1903 before I had learned to distrust the data given so positively in treatises on Anatomy.”52

This conclusion is notably in conflict with the opinion of Harrison: “(…) the epiphyseal union has been found generally to occur earlier in Egypt than modern European and American standards dictate.”53 In many cases, when the forensic data is in total disagreement with the epigraphic data, the estimated age at death is younger than what can be deduced from historical sources, giving some support to the opinion of Smith. The following cases are of peculiar interest: –Thutmosis III, whose mummy is clearly identified by the original funeral shroud made by Amenhotep II, and who reigned for 54 years is credited with 35-40 years at death.54 –Amenhotep III, whose mummy is identified by a label on the shroud, and who certainly reigned for 38 years, is credited with 30-35 years at death.55 –Ahmes-Nefertary, whose mummy is not clearly identified (in her huge coffin, another mummy, that of Ramses III, was also found, but the mummy attributed to her clearly dates from the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty), gave birth to a child before year 18-22 of Ahmosis and she also outlived Amehotep I.56 If we assume that she was 14 years old in year 20 of Ahmosis’ reign (more recently a year 22 has been attested, but this is not necessarily his last), she was at least 52

G.E. Smith, The Royal Mummies, CGAE, n° 6105161100 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1912), pp. 44-45. 53 JEA 52 (1966), p. 111. 54 W.M. Krogman and M.J. Bear, in An X-Ray Atlas, table 6.4, no. 47. 55 Ibid., no. 22. 56 Stela of Thutmosis I, Urk. IV, 80, 3-4. 57 C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, tome 2, De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire, Nouvelle Clio—l’Histoire et ses problèmes (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1995), p. 240. 58 W.M. Krogman and M.J. Bear, in An X-Ray Atlas, table 6.4, no. 60. 59 A case of complete distrust of epigraphic evidence can be seen in E.F. Wente and J.E. Harris, “Royal Mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty: A Biological and Egyptological Approach,” in After Tutankhamūn, Research and excavations

37 years old at the death of Amenhotep I, who reigned for 21 years.57 Her mummy is credited with 30-35 years at death.58 –Ramses III, whose mummy is positively identified by the inscription on the shroud, was at least 15 years old in year 5 of his own reign, while going to war against the Libyans. Most egyptologists believe that he was in fact more than 30 at his accession to the throne. He reigned for 30 years and his mummy is estimated to be 30-35 years old at death. (Ibid., no. 64) –For other mummies, like that of Amenhotep II, estimated to be between 35-45 years at death, the textual evidence gives a date at the very end of his estimated age (18 years at his accession and year 26 on a docket from his funerary temple, hence he must have been at least 44 years old). These examples show that the age at death is very often under-estimated when compared to historical evidence. Currently, egyptologists prefer to consider that the ancient Egyptians confused the mummies during the re-wrapping and re-burial.59 But those who re-buried these royal mummies had at their disposal more information than the modern scientists and it is methodologically unwise to question first their reliability. As there are now good reasons for suggesting that Amenhotep IV was about 9-10 years old at his accession to the throne and looked like a very fat young boy,60 unmarried and chaperoned by his mother,61 he was probably 26-27 years old when he died. Given the unreliability of statistics for bone growth, we can be certain that, although the estimated age of 18-25 years is the most probable case, the same statistics also suggest that estimates as low as 16 years or as high as 27 years cannot be discarded. They are simply less probable. An error of five years in the estimation of age at death of in the Royal Necropolis of Thebes, ed. C.N. Reeves, Studies in Egyptology (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1992), pp. 2-20. 60 Forthcoming article “Ce bon gros Amenhotep IV.” The main arguments are: the most ancient reliefs of Amenhotep IV depict him as a fat young boy with a short, wide neck and double chin (blocks from the X pylon at Karnak and Tomb TT 55 of Ramose). These characteristics are very recognizable on plaster portrait Berlin inv. no. 21299 from Amarna which, due to the shape of the mouth, cannot represent Amenhotep III “rejuvenated” as currently claimed, but depicts Amenhotep IV at the very beginning of his reign. The change in Amenhotep IV’s iconography in years III-IV reveals three phenomena: 1) characteristics of Barraquer and Simon’s syndrome, 2) elongation of the body and new sensual marks by the time of puberty, and 3) exaggeration of these characteristics due to the baroque style. 61 Tomb of Kheruef; Amarna Letters EA 26-EA 29.

under a deep blue starry sky these very old and poorly preserved bones seems more probable than that the ancient Egyptians who buried the body in KV 55 were neglectful, careless or inconsistent in their work. Looking at the alternative proposal for the body from KV 55, namely that it belongs to Semenkhkare, it becomes clear that this identification is not supported by any epigraphic evidence. This name has never been found in the tomb, and the formula “beloved of Waenre” which was thought to concern him clearly reads in fact only “Waenre.” Dodson’s theory, that Akhenaten buried his coregent Semenkhkare with ideologically atonist burial equipment in KV 55 because the traditional burial equipment of that king, later usurped by Tutankhamun, appeared too traditional, is based on prejudiced views. In fact, after alterations, the coffin in KV 55 was not atonist at all: – The name of the Aten is carefully avoided on the re-cut parts, and when a god is alluded to, he is called nb p.t “Lord of Heaven” (inscription D) or R-r-Aty, without cartouche (inscription F). This last mention is very significant as R-r-Aty was excluded from the name of the god after year 1462 and, after a temporary phonetic writing, was replaced by R-qA-Aty to avoid the possible reading r “Horus,” of the falcon.63 It is clear then that it was impossible for this writing to be used between year 14 and year 17 of Akhenaten (lapses of time foreseen by Dodson for the burial in KV 55) and so it necessarily post-dates Akhenaten’s death. – MA-rw legible on the foot end inscription of the coffin and on the magical bricks, is almost 62 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 110-118. This suggestion was acknowledged by W.J. Murnane, “The End of the Amarna Period Once Again,” OLZ 96, no. 1 (2001), p. 14: “Since these changes in the Aten’s titulary can be more-or-less fixed in time by association with the persons buried in these sections (pp. 110-118), there emerges a date for the change to the Aten’s final name that is later than what has been assumed previously—i.e., between years 12 and 14, instead of years 9 and 11. Gabolde makes a plausible case for this new dating, which in turn can shed valued (and sometimes startling) light on other members of the royal circle and their monuments.” It is also considered with interest by M. Eaton-Krauss and R. Krauss in their review of D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, by Marc Gabolde, BiOr 58 (2001), p. 92: “Er (Gabolde) macht wahrscheinlich, dass die jüngste Namensform erst nach Jahr 12 eingeführt wurde, und erschüttert damit eine scheinbare ägyptologische Sicherheit.” 63 It is clear that the last change in the name of the Aten was undertaken to avoid the mention of r, which may allude to the god Horus and Šw which may allude to the god Shu. But the words chosen in replacement were phonetically closer to the former ones: qA with the same initial  and the same metric value, and šwty jj(=y) (semi-cryptographic

writtng

) for šwty) sounds nearly like šw nty.

117

always avoided at Amarna for the king.64 – The magical bricks, which are a set with the coffin and canopic jars, mention the “Osiris king Neferkheperure true of voice” on two of the inscriptions.65 As these items were prepared at the time of burial (and not prepared in advance and stored),66 it is clear that Osirian beliefs had already been restored when the burial in KV 55 occurred, and consequently that Akhenaten was dead. Confirmation of this is to be found in the presence of seals mentioning Tutankhamen which indisputably attribute the burial to his reign. – As Dodson acknowledges, the cartouches of the Aten, as well as those of Akhenaten were defaced on the panel of the canopic jars. Such defacement makes no sense if the panel had to be altered in an atonist way. It is totally paradoxical that the only visible traces of the alleged change on the canopic jars ordered by Akhenaten to make this equipment “atonist” is precisely the defacement of Akhenaten’s names and the Aten’s names.

Finally, there is one more point that makes Dodson’s reconstruction implausible. This is the fact that the royal funerary equipment altered for Tutankhamen never mentions Semenkhkare but only refers to the female pharaoh Ankh(et) kheperure … Neferneferuaten … This is clear by looking carefully at the pectoral Carter 261 p 1. The iconography of this object, with the goddess Nut deploying her arms and wings, is typically Osirian and the text, adapted from Pyramid Texts 777b and 1654, ensures that it was exclusively part of the funerary equipment. This object is 64 The exceptions are four shabtis of Akhenaten for which I gave an explanation in D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 254-255. 65 Despite H.W. Fairman’s comment (“Once Again the So-called Coffin of Akhenaten,” JEA 47 [1961], p. 37), the name of Akhenaten is legible on the two bricks he published. The signs for nfr-pr(.w)-R are indisputable and those for W(w)~n-R are not so hard to deduce from the traces as Fairman claimed they were. Only the three plural strokes are hard to find on one brick. 66 It is clear that the magical bricks and the cutting of the niches were not part of the funerary equipment, but were part of the funerary ritual. For the niches, this is obvious by the fact that the decoration on the walls was often damaged by their cutting. For the bricks this is evident through their poor material and the rough character of the inscriptions. That they were molded, inscribed and consecrated as part of the ritual performed during the burial, is obvious by reading Chapter 137 of the Book of the Dead which is devoted to theses bricks, cf. now A.M. Roth and C.H. Roehrig, “Magical Bricks and the Bricks of Birth,” JEA 88 (2002), pp. 121-139. A. Dodson acknowledged that the presence of Akhenaten’s bricks was “less easy to explain in terms of (his) reconstruction,” and his complicated reconstruction failed to be convincing, GM 132 (1993), p. 27, n. 56.

118

marc gabolde

consequently part of the burial equipment of a king who turned back to the traditional religion, as the scarab (Carter 256a), the golden mummy bindings (Carter 256b), the coffinettes (Carter 266g1-4), and the quartzite sarcophagus attest. The pecularly legible enlargement of Carter 261 p 1 published recently67 allows a reading of the praenomen as n(.t)-pr.w-R mr(y.t)-w(w)~n-R. The feminine ending is confirmed by the feminine epithet MA.t-rw following the cartouche. The nomen itself reads Nfr-nfr.w- Jtn A.t-n-h(j)=s “Neferneferuaten—Beneficial for her husband (Fig. 9).”68 These praenomen and nomen show indisputably that this king was a female pharaoh other than the husband of Merytaten, Semenkhkare, who is doubtlessly male.69 As it is now certain that this queen-pharaoh returned to the polytheistic beliefs, it seems reasonable to identify her with the king mentioned in the graffito from the tomb of Pare (TT 139) dated from year III of Ankh(et)kheprure–Mer(yt)aten Neferneferuaten-Mer(ytaten), with a significant prayer to Amun.70 That this female pharaoh is also the original owner of the coffinettes 266g1-4 is proven by the (rare) occurrence of the feminine ending71 and, moreover, by the presence of the nomen Nfrnfr.w-Jtn A.t-n-h(j)=s in at least the coffinette

of Selkis (Carter 266g, Selkis = JE 60691, line 7) (Fig. 10). The recent interpretation of this cartouche by Dodson,72 entirely inspired by the publication of Saleh and Beinlich73 is clearly wrong. Dodson failed to recognize the top of the second and fourth nfr-signs which can be clearly seen on both parts of the top of the n-sign, and so he wrongly placed the only nfr -sign that he identified. His alleged n-sign on the left part of his misplaced nfr-sign is then actually another misinterpretation, as only traces of a nfr-sign are clearly readable there. The same inaccuracies can be seen in Dodson’s interpretation of the cartouche in line 9 of the same coffinette where the alleged n-sign (in the horizontal stroke of the n-sign, so unrecognisable itself) and ‘solar-disk’-sign underneath are actually invisible. It follows that the alleged Jtn-hieroglyphs in the middle of the cartouche appear to be non-existent in both nomina of lines 7 and 9. The reconstruction of the epithet Mr(y)-A(w)~ n- Jtn becomes consequently very uncertain. Moreover, this epithet never existed in the cartouche of any king and the formula used as a reference by A. Dodson from stela UC 410 is actually ill-timed.74 Besides the different order of the signs at the end of the cartouche,75 it is noticeable that the assumed hieroglyphs for Jtn are lacking in this text as well as in the other texts

67 T.G. H. James and A. De Luca, Toutankhamon (Paris: Gründ, 2000), p. 227, Carter 261 p 1 = JE 61944. 68 M. Eaton-Krauss, OLZ 98 (2003), p. 47: “Enlargements of details that exceed the actual size of an object can sometimes be illuminating for specialists; a case in point is the detail of the pectoral Obj. no. 261p1 (p. 226) where traces of the original hieroglyphs in the cartouche now reading Tutankhamun confirm for sceptics Marc Gabolde’s reading of the epithet A.t n hj.s (‘beneficial for her husband’) for Neferneferuaten, the original owner of this piece of jewellery.” 69 D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 213 and ns. 15311535. 70 Ibid., p. 161 with references. It is noteworthy that the name “Semenkhkare” is always associated with the “Aten” cult and is never encountered with the material that postdates the restoration of the traditional cults. 71 Carter 266g Neith, line 13, cf. H. Beinlich and M. Saleh, Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1989), p. 110. In the text from chapter 130 of the Book of the Dead, the

(Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2002), pp. 275-284 and particularly p. 277 and p. 285, c. 73 H. Beinlich and M. Saleh, Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1989), p. 116. The traces “seen” by A. Dodson are none other than those published by H. Beinlich and M. Saleh whose accuracy has already been questioned, particularly concerning the re-engraved inscriptions, cf. M. Eaton-Krauss, “A Falsely Attributed Monument,” JEA 78 (1992), p. 335, comment on Carter 48h. It is noticeable that A. Dodson suggests no improvement to readings from this publication. The reconstruction of A. Dodson is hampered overall by his method of identification: the dotted line overlying the poor quality enlargements of the photograph actually hinders the reading rather than illuminating it. 74 A. Dodson, ibid., p. 276, n. 5. For the reading, see D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, p. 155. 75 On UC 410 the alleged -sign precedes the alleged -sign which would suggest a reading Mr(y)~n-A(w)~n. There Jtn. But both signs are more likely to read and -sign (written ) is placed is only one case where the at the bottom of the cartouche, a stamped handle from Palestine, cf. O. Goldwasser, “A Cartouche of Semenkhkare from Canaan,” GM 115 (1990), pp. 29-32. It would have -sign preceding Akhenbeen very strange to find the aten’s nickname in the praenomen of “king” Ankhkheperure -sign is following and, as on the same text, the same Akhenaten’s alleged nomen in the nomen beginning by Neferneferuaten. This is another good reason to discard the readings Mr(y)~n-A(w)~ n-Jtn and Mr(y)-A(w)~ n-Jtn.

king is in the formula “Turmoil is the abomination of the Osiris king Tutankhamen, Ruler of Southern Heliopolis, may she (sic) live for ever.” The context makes clear that n=t(j) is a 3rd fem. sing. ending and not a 2nd masc. sing. ending. 72 A. Dodson, “The Canopic Coffinettes of Tutankhamun and the identity of Ankhkheperure,” in Egyptian Museum Collections around the World, eds. M. Eldamaty and M. Trad

under a deep blue starry sky where this supposed name was suspected to have taken place (Carter 620 (41) and 620 (42)).76 More seriously, the apparent failure of Dodson to recognise the nomen Nfr-nfr.w-Jtn A(y).t~n-h(j)=s instead of the erroneous Mr(y)-A(w)~n- Jtn 77 is surprising as this new name is fully discussed in D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon, pp. 153-15778 and this reading has been acknowledged by Murnane,79 Krauss and Eaton-Krauss80—three references that are conveniently ignored by Dodson. On the other hand, the reading of Semenkhkare’s nomen in the coffinette of Nephthys, line 26, is only based upon the fact that an indisputable ‘solar disk’-sign is observable at the beginning of this cartouche and on the assumption that “Since elsewhere nomina overlie nomina, one must assume this to be true in this case as well.”81 This last statement of Dodson’s, which apparently works for coffinettes is clearly untrue for other usurped objects: Carter 48h (JE 61517), where the

119

engraved, the nomen occurs on one object and the praenomen appears in the same place on the other.84 This clearly demonstrates that there were no strict rules for the positioning of nomina and preanomina in the fragments from this funerary book and that n.t-pr.w-R + epithets could have been placed where Twt-n-Jmn qA Jwnw šm is now engraved. Lastly, the possibility that the nomen of Neferneferuaten was written with the rare writing of the object Kansas City 67-21, 5-6: 85

(sic).83 on the left: Interestingly, on two other objects from the tomb of Tutankhamen where this extract from Chapter 134 of the Book of the Dead is

cannot be totally ruled out. This means that the presence of the ‘solar disk’-sign at the beginning of the cartouche does not necessarily indicate that “Semenkhkare” was once written there. The fact that no traces of the s-sign, the mn-sign, or the kA-sign, have ever been recognized by Dodson, encourages the author to remain very dubious of Dodson’s imaginative reconstructions of nomina since he fails to give traces of A-sign, n-sign and mr(y)-sign and is able to concoct a non-existent Jtn group in the alleged epithet Mr(y)~n- A(w)~ n- Jtn, of his false reconstruction of the end of the cartouche.86 From the epigraphic evidence it now appears that the king buried in KV 55 is none other than Akhenaten whose age at death was approximatively 26-28 years. He was buried there by his son Tutankhamen to strengthen the rights of the last king to the throne. Semenkhkare has nothing to do with this burial nor with the usurped funerary

76 R. Krauss, Das Ende der Amarnazeit, HÄB 7 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1978), p. 88, (h). 77 A. Dodson, “The Canopic Coffinettes”; J. Von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptologischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999), pp. 144-145, 11.E.2. These texts are now attributed to “king” Nfr-nfr.w-Jtn A.t n h(j)=s. 78 That this publication was known to A. Dodson is attested by his comment: “Marc Gabolde has, in D’Akhenaton à Toutankhamon (Lyon, 1998), 214-5, attempted to dismiss these conclusions, but in doing so fails to address the totality of the traces. This paper is not the place to further address Dr Gabolde’s novel conclusions regarding Ankhkheperure.” I prefer to let the reader make up his own mind regarding the facts and “novel conclusions” in our respective publications, but the case for the royal name in the Selkis coffinette (Carter 266g = JE 60691) line 7 published here (Fig. 10) shows clearly which author actually failed to address the totality of traces. 79 OLZ 96 (2001), p. 16. 80 BiOr 58 (2001), p. 94 and OLZ 98 (2003), p. 47 [M. Eaton-Krauss]. 81 A. Dodson, ibid., p. 276. 82 W. McLeod, Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tutankhamūn, Tutankhamūn’s Tomb Series 3 (Oxford: Griffith

Institute, 1970), p. 11 and pls. IV, XVII and XX, despite the opinion of J.R. Harris, “Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten in the tomb of Tutankhamūn,” in After Tutankhamūn, Research and excavations in the Royal Necropolis of Thebes, ed. C.N. Reeves, Studies in Egyptology (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1992), p. 61 and n. 82. 83 J.R. Harris, ibid., p. 61 and n. 97. 84 Cf. A. Piankoff, Les Chapelles de Toutankhamon, MIFAO 72 (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1952), p. 15, column 13 Nb-pr.w-R and p. 59, column 30 Twt-n-Jmn qA Jwnw šm. 85 R. Krauss, “Einige Kleinfunde mit Namen von Amarnaherrschern,” CdÉ 65, fasc. 130 (1990), p. 210, Fig. 3, [1]. 86 During a friendly discussion in Grenoble (2004), A. Dodson told me that the very careful analysis of J.P. Allen of the cartouches first engraved in the coffinettes has convinced him that the traces of the name of “Semenkhkare” are now less probable than he formerly claimed and are possibly non-existent. For a retractatio see now A. Dodson and D. Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson, 2004), p. 285, n. 11. Strangely, the discovery of the epithet A(y).t~ n-h(j)=s is credited to J.P. Allen while in fact Allen’s examination of the coffinettes simply confirmed all my correct readings previously denounced fiercely by Dodson.

(sic) replaces probacartouche bly the nomen Neferneferuaten,82 and on pectoral Carter 261 p 1 (3) where one can find on the right: (sic) and

120

marc gabolde

equipment from KV 62 which concerns, as far as the inscriptions are legible, only the female king n(.t)-pr.w-R mr(y.t)-W(w)~n-R Nfr-nfr.w-Jtn

A.t~n-h(j)=s who is probably none other than Merytaten herself.

the festival on which amun went out to the treasury

121

THE FESTIVAL ON WHICH AMUN WENT OUT TO THE TREASURY Helen Jacquet-Gordon Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale

Karnak temple and its environs were among Bill’s special interests. I am happy to make a small contribution towards the understanding of its history in this volume devoted to his memory. Festivals during which the bark of Amun was carried out of his temple of Karnak in order to visit neighboring sanctuaries played a considerable role in the annual religious calendar at Thebes from the beginning of the New Kingdom onward. The best known of these outings are those which conducted the god southwards from Karnak towards the temple of Luxor on the festival of Opet, and that which took him to the west, across the river to Deir el-Bahari, during the Beautiful Feast of the Valley. If the latter of these festivals may already have been celebrated as far back as the Eleventh Dynasty,1 the former appears not to have existed before the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.2 It is about a third festival of this nature during which the bark of Amun traveled northwards from Karnak in the direction of the temple of Ptah, at that period situated outside the enclosure wall of the Amun precinct, that we are here concerned. This festival, like the festival of Opet, appears to have been instituted at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In 1902, when Legrain cleared the Temple of Ptah at Karnak, a stela of Tuthmosis III was discovered in situ in the forecourt of the temple,3 the text of which had been partly erased during the Amarna period and summarily restored by Seti I.4 It relates how his majesty ordered the Temple of 1

H. Altermüller, “Feste,” LÄ II, col. 181. D. Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Montuhotep von Deir el-Bahari, Band I, Architektur und Deutung, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo) 8 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1974), pp. 78-80. 3 G. Legrain, “Le temple de Ptah Rîs-anbou-f dans Thèbes,” ASAE 3 (1902), pp. 107-111. CG 34013: P. Lacau, Stèles du Nouvel Empire I (Cairo: IFAO, 1909), pp. 27-30, pl. IX. 4 The renewal formula of Seti I is placed in the center of the vignette at the top of the stela. 5 Urk. IV, p. 765: 7-11. 6 Urk. IV, p. 770: 3. 2

Ptah to be (re)built to serve as a way-station for his father Amun “during the festival on which he went out to the Treasury of the Head of the South.”5 A list of offerings to be presented to Ptah on the occasion of this festival, among them “white bread from the bakeries of the Treasury,” is followed towards the end of the text by a statement of the precise date on which this particular festival of Amun was celebrated, namely: the 26th day of the first month of the inundation season.6 No mention of this festival date has been noted elsewhere, but a certain number of circumstances connected with the building and functioning of the small temple and bark shrine included in the temenos of the Treasury of Tuthmosis I at Karnak North suggest that a close association existed between this temple and the above mentioned festival. The temple built by Tuthmosis I at Karnak North was dedicated to Amun, as is indicated from what remains of the decoration of its walls.7 It was originally a free-standing building preceded by a bark shrine and surrounded by a peripteral colonnade,8 an architectural ensemble of which this appears to be the earliest example known to us.9 That the temple was endowed with a regular clergy is indicated by the discovery in the fill over the bakeries attached to the Treasury of a small stela dedicated to the sacred geese of Amun by a priest whose name has been erased but whose title remains intact. He was “hem-netjer of Amun in the Treasury.”10 7 H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VI. Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. La Décoration, FIFAO 32 (Cairo: IFAO, 1988). 8 J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V. Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. Etude Architecturale (Cairo: IFAO, 1983), pp. 29-45. 9 The same plan was later adopted by Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III for their sanctuary at Medinet Habu as well as for their bark shrine situated in front of the Mut Temple at Karnak (in its original form), and survived in variously modified versions at least until the time of Amenhotep III in his temple at Kuban. 10 H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VIII, Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. Statues, Stèles et Blocs Réutilisés. FIFAO 39 (Cairo: IFAO, 1999), No. 170, p. 269.

122

helen jacquet-gordon

Pursuing his program of construction, Tuthmosis I included the already existing temple together with its bark shrine within the perimeter of the stone enclosure wall built to protect his newly completed per hedj.11 This complex of buildings, whose remains are still visible directly north-east of the Temple of Ptah, can with certainty be identified with the Treasury named by Thutmosis III on his stela “The Treasury of the Head of the South.” It was the destination towards which the bark of Amun was carried on the feast that brought him north from Karnak to stop on the first lap of his journey before the Temple of Ptah and to come to rest finally in the bark shrine prepared for him in front of the sanctuary of Tuthmosis I within the Treasury complex itself. The bakeries situated along the southern side of the treasury enclosure12 were those where the bread for the offerings to Ptah was baked. The reference on the stela of Tuthmosis III to the occasion when the bark of Amun, after halting at the Ptah Temple, proceeded out to the Treasury of the Head of the South, indicates clearly that such a festival was regularly celebrated during the reign of that King. But it is evident that the bark shrine situated in front of the sanctuary of Tuthmosis I was destined from its inception to receive the sacred bark of the god to whom it was dedicated on the occasion of such a festival. It may therefore very well have been Tuthmosis I himself who inaugurated this festival although we cannot exclude the possibility that it existed even earlier. Fragments of wall decoration bearing the name of Ahmose, found during the excavation of the Treasury of Tuthmosis I in a context which suggests that they had been intentionally preserved there, may have belonged to an older bark sanctuary located in the same general area.13 Evidence that this festival continued to be celebrated at least until the time of Amenhotep II is provided by the inscription on a block from the latter’s bark shrine for Amun reused in the foundations of the temple of Amenhotep III at Karnak North. It clearly mentions the festival “when (Amun) proceeds (from) his temple to the Treasury of the Head of the South,” using the same expressions as on the Tuthmosis III stela.

11

J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V, pp. 45-73. Ibid., pp. 82-84. 13 H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VI, §6.2.5, pp. 90-92. 14 Ch. van Siclen, “Amenhotep II’s Bark Chapel for Amun 12

The shrine of Amenhotep II appears to have been erected approximately where the Amenhotep III temple now stands.14 It would have constituted a second way-station for the bark on its way to the treasury. During the Amarna period, all the festivals of Amun were, presumably, in abeyance, and it is apparent from what remains of the decoration of Tuthmosis I’s temple and bark shrine that the latter underwent rough handling on the part of Akhenaten’s agents of destruction. The festival when Amun went out to the Treasury, therefore, like Amun’s other festivals, was probably suspended. But there is reason to suppose that it was reinstated, at least for a short time, during the reign of Seti I or possibly earlier. Spallinger, who briefly mentions this feast in his study of the Amun festivals,15 points out that the date mentioned on Tuthmosis III’s Ptah Temple stela is situated in that part of the inscription which was restored by Seti I and does not necessarily reproduce the exact text as it originally stood and whose reading is very uncertain. This may very well be so, but for our purposes is not of primary importance. What interests us most here is the fact that the festival was still (or again) celebrated at the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty, whether it was on the traditional date or on a new date fixed by Seti I. That it was so celebrated is guaranteed not only by the fact that the festival is mentioned in Seti’s restoration of the text of the Tuthmosis III stela, but also by archaeological evidence observed in the bark shrine of Tuthmosis I itself. Nothing much remains in situ of this building apart from its foundations and the sill of its southern doorway. However, the pavement of the narrow passageway which led from the bark shrine via this doorway to the chapels of the small temple behind it still remains in place. It was very much worn and had been repaired with a number of talatat and with two paving slabs cut from a pillar on the face of which the cartouches of Tutankhamun could be deciphered.16 The necessity for making such repairs can only be attributed to the renewed celebration of the festival on these premises, which required that the buildings be renovated and put

at North Karnak,” BIFAO 86 (1986), p. 356, pl. LV. 15 A. Spalinger, Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and their Chronological Implications (Baltimore: Halgo, Inc., 1992), p. 14, n. 50 and p. 20. 16 J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V, p. 32, pl. XXVIII/B.

the festival on which amun went out to the treasury

123

into condition worthy of receiving the sacred bark of the god. Such renovations could, of course, have been made by any one of the successors of Tutankhamun, but since no trace of activity on the part of Ay, Horemheb or Ramses I have been detected in the Treasury whereas a cartouche of Seti I was found recut over an erased royal name on one of the fragments of wall relief,17 it seems probable that it is indeed Seti I to whom can be attributed the work of restoration. The dismantling of the entire Treasury complex of Tuthmosis I by Ramses II18 necessarily put an end to the celebration of this particular feast leaving a lamentable lacuna in the festival calendar. But it should be remarked that the days following those on which this festival had been celebrated, namely the 28th and 29th of Thoth, the first month of the inundation season, are known to have been the dates of one of the festivals dedicated to the cult of Amenhotep I and Ahmes-Nefertari.19 This cult, very widely celebrated in the Theban area during the Ramesside period, was particularly important on the west bank. As Černý has pointed out, there existed at Deir el-Medina several forms

of this cult corresponding to the statues, each of which had a particular name, housed in the various sanctuaries established there.20 Now the brick sanctuaries built by Ramses II and his successors down to the time of Pinedjem I on the emplacement of the Treasury of Tuthmosis I appear likewise to have been dedicated to the cult of King Amenhotep I and Queen Ahmes-Nefertari.21 A small statue found in the fill above the Treasury may even have mentioned the name of the particular form of Amenhotep’s statue which was worshipped there.22 Unfortunately the inscription on the dorsal pillar is badly broken and all that one can recognize of the title inscribed there is: “First Prophet of Amenhotep of the ….” Traces which follow do not correspond to the writing of any of the known names of the king’s cult statues. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to attribute it to the form of Amenhotep worshipped in the successive sanctuaries erected on this spot at the end of the New Kingdom. The fact that these sanctuaries were located at Karnak North may possibly be attributed to the association of this area with memories of the Sanctuary first established there by the early Eighteenth Dynasty kings.

17 H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VI, pp. 166, 171; pl. XLIII/C, XLV(C26/1). 18 J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord VII. Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. Installations antérieures ou postérieures au monument. FIFAO 36, fasc. 1 (Cairo: IFAO, 1994), p. 150.

19 J. Černý, “Le culte d’Amenophis Ier chez les ouvriers de la nécropole thébaine,” BIFAO 27 (1927), p. 182. 20 Ibid., pp. 162-163. 21 J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord VII, p. 64, §5.9. 22 H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak-Nord VIII, Statue No. 80 (KN Inv. No. A378), p. 132.

124

helen jacquet-gordon

a sandstone relief of tutankhamun in the liverpool museum

125

A SANDSTONE RELIEF OF TUTANKHAMUN IN THE LIVERPOOL MUSEUM FROM THE LUXOR TEMPLE COLONNADE HALL W. Raymond Johnson Epigraphic Survey

It was my good fortune to join the Epigraphic Survey based at Chicago House in Luxor during the spring of 1978 when Bill Murnane was working as senior epigrapher there. I started as apprentice epigraphic artist, graduated to full-time in 1979, and began what was to become my life-long career with the Survey. I owe a tremendous debt to Bill and former director Lanny Bell for initiating me into the rigors and discipline of epigraphic documentation and life “in the field.” Bill was particularly patient with this enthusiastic greenhorn, and I will always remember his encouragement, his humor, his dignity, and his delight in talking with everyone about the work (his and theirs). His encyclopedic memory was astonishing; I long even now for just a fraction of it. His enthusiasm infected us all, and does to this day. Bill taught me that expedition life did not have to be deprived of culture; I learned more about opera in Luxor listening with him to his incredible library of cassette tapes than anywhere else in the world. No one could write the way Bill wrote, or analyze other people’s work more cogently, or in a more gentlemanly fashion. Just before his death he was producing some of the most thoughtful and insightful writing of his career, particularly concerning the Amarna period, which makes his untimely passing doubly tragic. There is not a day that goes by in Luxor that I do not think of him, and wonder what he might have to say about this or that. At the time I started work in Luxor, the Epigraphic Survey was documenting the great Colonnade Hall of Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun at Luxor Temple.1 This astonishing edifice—80 feet tall, almost 200 feet long, and supported by 14 open papyrus columns—in its day may have

been the largest free-standing stone structure in the ancient world. But by the first century AD seismic activity had caused the great stone roof blocks to fall, and systematic quarrying of the side walls throughout the medieval period has left us only the 14 papyrus columns and architraves standing to their original height (still one of the most impressive sights in the modern world). Part of the first register of decoration—the famous Opet water procession reliefs—survives today, out of the four registers of decoration that originally reached all the way up to the roof line (although I was to discover later that fragments of all four registers do survive). One of my first tasks for the Survey, suggested by Bill (for which I will be forever grateful), was to trace the several dozen inscribed, fragmentary sandstone wall fragments that the Epigraphic Survey had identified as having been quarried from the Colonnade Hall in later antiquity. These beautiful wall fragments, identifiable by the distinctive low raised relief carving style of Tutankhamun, had been culled by the Survey from the blockyard storage areas around the temple where tens of thousands of inscribed fragments found in medieval foundations around the temple precinct had been stored. Little did anyone know at that time that I would end up specializing in the analysis and reassembly of this fragmentary material, a project that is ongoing to this day, 30 years later! At current count, 50,000 inscribed fragments from all periods of Luxor Temple (over 1500 from the Colonnade Hall alone) and even parts of Karnak are being documented and analyzed by the Epigraphic Survey. The blockyards recently have become the focus of our growing conservation and restoration programs designed to

1 Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple Volume 1: The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 112 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994); Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs

and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple Volume 2: The Façade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 116 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1998).

126

w. raymond johnson

protect the material and make it accessible to the public.2 I cannot pass through the Colonnade Hall without thinking of Bill, with whom the Chicago House team and I worked for many seasons documenting the beautifully inscribed wall surfaces. While it is clear that Amenhotep III began the construction of the Hall at the end of his reign to commemorate his deification while alive, he sadly did not reign long enough to complete it. This was largely accomplished only at the end of Tutankhamun’s reign; the evidence of unfinished reliefs at the southern end of the Hall, later carved by Sety I, indicates that Tutankhamun died before he could finish inscribing the walls. This suggests that the young king was obliged to finish the Hall’s construction first, at a time when the Egyptian work force was spread rather thin during the restoration of Amun’s cult throughout Egypt. Except for one doorjamb scene on the exterior facade of the Colonnade Hall that was started by Amenhotep III in paint, the entire facade appears to have been carved solely by Ay after Tutankhamun’s death. Both Tutankhamun’s and Ay’s reliefs were ultimately usurped by Horemheb who erased and reinscribed their cartouches with his own name, often not very carefully. The plaster and paint which concealed traces of the earlier kings’ names is now gone, and the palimpsest of the sets of names is quite clear, especially in raking light.3 Analysis of the standing wall remains and the fragmentary material from the missing wall sections indicates that all four registers of Tutankhamun’s decoration in the Hall documented rites associated with the annual Opet festival, the processions which were part of that festival, and the coronation of the king (or reenactment of same) at the culmination of the rites. There are a number of iconographic and stylistic anomalies in the decoration that suggest Tutankhamun utilized 2

These programs have been funded by an ARCE/EAP grant, BP Egypt, USAID Egypt, and the World Monuments Fund (Robert Wilson Challenge grants), and numerous contributions from private individuals. For reports on the Epigraphic Survey’s conservation activities at Luxor Temple since 1995, see The Oriental Institute Annual Report, from 1995-1996 to the present. The results of the first seven seasons’ conservation activities will be published in a forthcoming ARCE/EAP publication series volume. An epigraphic volume dedicated to facsimile drawings and photographs of Colonnade Hall upper register fragments and joined groups will published in the RILT series. 3 For a review of the sequence of carving in the Colonnade Hall, see the prefaces for each of the two volumes cited above, RILT 1 and 2. 4 For a more detailed examination of this question, see

a pre-existing program for the relief decoration of the Hall which had been drawn up during Amenhotep III’s reign. The presence of the bark of the king for the first time among the barks of the Theban triad, and figures of Amenhotep III which Tutankhamun includes behind the cabin sanctuaries of the divine barges and in all of the processions might not be simply hommages to the king who started the Hall, but might actually reflect Amenhotep III’s original program which commemorated the deified Amenhotep III taking his place among the Theban pantheon.4 A scene which may shed some light on this question can be found in Amenhotep III’s solar court at Luxor Temple. Here Amenhotep III is shown presenting an enormous offering pile to Amun’s bark set up in the center of the court. Standing behind the bark is another figure of Amenhotep III accompanied by his ka, which implies that Amenhotep III and Amun are one and the same, with both benefiting from the offerings.5 In the Colonnade Hall, the placement of figures of Amenhotep III at the rear of each divine barge behind the cabin sanctuaries; behind the barks of Amun in the bark processions; and behind the Amun-ReKamutef procession in the second register west wall all indicate identification of Amenhotep III with Amun, and would have been an appropriate part of his program for the Hall. Since Amenhotep III was deceased at the time Tutankhamun executed the reliefs, there was no need to change the program.6 Amenhotep III’s great water procession scene (also Opet-related) on the eastern face of his 3rd pylon at Karnak shows the king offering incense and a bouquet to the cabin (within which was enshrined the bark of Amun), but a figure of Amenhotep is also depicted on the stern of the barge helping to steer with a long-handled oar.7 In Tutankhamun’s divine riverine barge scenes in this author’s, “Honorific Figures of Amenhotep III in the Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall,” in For His Ka: Essays in Memory of Klaus Baer, SAOC 55, ed. D.P. Silverman (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994), pp. 133-144. 5 For a preliminary drawing of this scene, the upper section of which has been partly restored from fragmentary material, see this author’s, “Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: Styles and Intentions,” The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. L.M. Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art and Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 30, drawing 2. Restoration of this fragmentary group to the original wall will be finished by the Epigraphic Survey in 2009 6 See note 4 for details of these scenes. 7 PM II2, p. 61 (183). The sunk relief bark of Amun

a sandstone relief of tutankhamun in the liverpool museum

127

Fig. 1. Liverpool Museum 1967.35. Courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum).

the Colonnade Hall, the placement of a figure of Amenhotep III on the stern of each barge made it awkward to squeeze in the traditional figure of the king holding the steering oar. Instead, the two Tutankhamun figures were depicted backto-back on the prow, the figure on the left holding a steering oar, and the figure on the right offering incense and flowers to the cabin. In the preserved wall reliefs and fragmentary material from the Colonnade Hall this arrangement of elements on the riverine barges of the divine triad of Thebes is consistent: back-to-back Tutankhamun figures (whose cartouches have been usurped by Horemheb) on the prow, and a figure of Amenhotep III at the stern. All preserved royal figures on the barges wear khepresh crowns.8 A sandstone relief in the Liverpool Museum, Inv. #1967.35 shows this same detail, back-toback small-scale figures in shallow raised relief,

of Tutankhamun wearing the khepresh crown (Fig. 1).9 The Tutankhamun figure on the left is intact from head to shoulder with text above and in front, and the king’s upraised hand grasping the steering oar pole is preserved at the break. A streamer attached to the base of the king’s crown falls over his shoulder and is partly hidden by the streamer of the right-hand king. Tutankhamun’s prenomen cartouche Nebkheperure, is carved slightly above the leftmost king’s face and has been rather crudely recarved into Horemheb’s prenomen, Djeserkheperure Setepenre, with traces of the original prenomen visible.10 To the left of the cartouche read: “the Good God,” and over the king’s head read “given life like [R]e.” The whole group, including cartouche, reads “The Good God, Nebkheperure, given life like [R]e.” There are traces of an inscription above the cartouche and epithets, too broken to read, from a

visible today in the Amun Barge’s main cabin was carved in the later Ramesside period, possibly by Sety II who also added a renewal inscription below the scene. In the time of Amenhotep III, divine riverine barge cabins were depicted closed within a shrine. The divine riverine barge representations in the Colonnade Hall represent the first time in Egyptian art that the cabins of such barges are depicted open and their contents—the bark of the god or goddess within—visible. 8 RILT I, pls. 17 (west wall), and 68 (east wall). 9 The relief is a shallow piece of sandstone 38 cm in width and approximately 20 cm in height, acquired by the Liverpool Museum in 1967 from J. Moger in Holland. I would like to thank Gary Brown, Assistant Curator of

Antiquities, National Museums Liverpool for permission to publish 1967.35, and for the photograph of the relief published here, courtesy of National Museums Liverpool (Liverpool Museum). I would also like to thank Margaret Warhurst, Head of Humanities, National Museums Liverpool for information about the acquisition of the piece. See also P. Bienkowski and A.M. J. Tooley Gifts of the Nile, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1995), p. 27, Fig. 28. This relief can also be viewed online at: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org. uk/wml/humanworld/egyptian/sandstone_relief.aspx. 10 The sun disk is original and was utilized for both names.

128

w. raymond johnson

Fig. 2. The barge of Mut (detail of prow) being towed by the barge of the queen, Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall western wall. photo by Ray Johnson.

separate text above the two kings. To the left of the leftmost king and cartouche is a larger-scaled, vertical column of text in reverse orientation, facing the king, “... born of Mut.” The rightmost Tutankhamun figure is mostly broken away except for the back of his khepresh-crowned head, streamer, and upper left section of his shoulder. Between the heads of the two kings read “protection, life.” Part of a quail chick over the rightmost king’s head is part of an epithet that follows his (broken away) cartouche. Having spent a good deal of time drawing the Tutankhamun barges in the Colonnade Hall, and reconstructing almost an entire divine barge from fragments (that of the god Khonsu from the eastern wall), I believe that Liverpool Museum 1967.35 is actually a piece of the Colonnade Hall. In fact, the style, scale, surface treatment, paleography, and textual reference to Mut makes it certain that 1967.35 comes from the divine barge of Mut scene on the Colonnade Hall western wall. This section of the water procession, which featured the divine barges of the Theban triad being towed by towboats and the barges of the king

(Amun) and queen (Mut), still preserves the better parts of the barge of the queen, in full sail, towing the barge of Mut (Fig. 2).11 Mut’s barge is well preserved at the prow and stern, but the central section is very decayed, and only vestiges of the cabin remain. Today all that remain of the two back-to-back figures of Tutankhamun at the prow are the feet. Photos from 1912 published in RILT 1 show more of the legs and lower bodies preserved. Earlier photos taken by Georges Daressy in the 1890s seem to show both kings intact.12 Liverpool fragment 1967.35 must have fallen off the badly fractured Colonnade Hall wall and had been recovered sometime after the 1890s but before 1912. Comparison of the breaks of the wall and graining on 1967.35 supports the match. It is always sweet to run into old friends in unexpected places, and this is how I feel about Liverpool 1967.35; an old friend, long lost, and now found again. It is with deep gratitude, and a sense of great loss that I dedicate this study to a dear friend we have lost, but whose name will always live. Thank you, Bill. 13

11 RILT 1, pl. 17, far right for the wall context; pls. 27 (photo) and 28 (drawing) for details. The published photo dates to 1912 and still shows the feet of the right-hand king figure, but the upper part is already gone. 12 “La Procession d´Ammon dans la temple de Louxor,” MMAF 8 (Paris: Leroux, 1892).

13 A reconstruction of the wall scene with restored fragment Liverpool 1967.35 will appear in Epigraphic Survey, RILT 3, Upper Register and Miscellaneous Wall Fragments from the Colonnade Hall, forthcoming.

egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists

129

EGYPTIAN NEWKINGDOM TOPOGRAPHICAL LISTS: AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE WITH “LITERARY” HISTORIES Kenneth A. Kitchen University of Liverpool

Bill Murnane always showed a clear, incisive grasp of the various epigraphic and historical matters that he dealt with; in his published works, he left an invaluable deposit of useful studies and observations that will long be of service to us all. I have happy memories of our rare meetings long since. I hope that this brief tribute may be found fitting.

Introduction Lists of foreign place-names (so-called topographical lists) have long been recognized as a potential resource for historical, geographical and archaeological purposes in the study of Syria-Palestine in the Late Bronze age, and less usefully (in southern lists) for the Nile Valley and adjoining terrain south of Egypt proper (from Aswan). However, the varying types (and hence, equally variable nature) of such lists is not well understood by most people attempting to use them, and this matter is deserving of clearer definition for the general benefit of all who wish to utilize such lists in their studies. Non-egyptologists in particular need to know that one cannot pick names indiscriminately out of these lists, to use as instant history-pegs for the study of any given place in the Near East or NE Africa.

Classification A. Types of Record: Physically Defined. These lists were included in several different types of context. 1. In Triumph-Scenes. From the 1st Dynasty to Roman times, the most persistent icon of pharaonic victory was that of the victorious king, striding forward with weapon upraised to bring it down on the heads of hapless, defeated foes half-kneeling confusedly before him. In NewKingdom times, opposite the king, there stood a

welcoming deity who (in Ramesside times) might hold forth the scimitar-sword of victory. He (or else a lesser deity) also held the ends of cords that ran along and bound the hands and heads of rows of foes behind the deity/ies and below the entire scene; each foe was but a head upon a vertical oval containing the appropriate place-name, with bound arms and hands hanging down behind. A rhetorical superscription runs along over the main full-width rows of names. On the twin towers of pylon-gateways, it was normal to feature northern foes (Syria-Palestine and beyond) and southern foes (Nubia and southward) and their lists respectively on one tower each (e.g., Tuthmosis III, Pylons VI, VII, Karnak), especially if the gateway faced east/west, so that a northerners’ triumph-scene could be placed on the north tower, and a southerners’ scene on the matching south tower. It became standard Ramesside practice also to have two different introductory triumphal texts, one for each of the two matching scenes. One was created by using the triumph-hymn of Amenophis III from his memorial temple, plus a linking text, plus the triumph-hymn of Tuthmosis III at Karnak. The other was a fresh composition on related themes. But in some pairs of scenes (e.g., those of Sethos I and Ramesses II flanking the north and south side-doorways of the great hall at Karnak), even though northern wars were the cause of celebration, some southern names were also included in the lists, as a reflex of Pharaoh’s claim to universal dominion. Special cases of single triumphal reliefs are two by Merenptah (one, now destroyed) north of Pylon VII, and the unique one by Shoshenq I adjoining the Bubastite Gate, all three at Karnak. Triumphal scenes, however, were not the sole context for these lists as the following will show. 2. Similar Scenes & Lists in Lunettes of Major Stelae. On major stelae, such as those of the “Blessing of Ptah” of Ramesses II and III, a full triumph-scene occupies the uppermost part of the stela, along with name-ovals (as described

130

kenneth a. kitchen

above) behind the deity and at times below the full scene, just as on a temple pylon-tower or wall. On most others (like those of the viceroy Setau at Abu Simbel), lists are not included. 3. Row of Names along the Base-panels of Temple Walls. So, around all four interior walls of the hypostyle hall of Ramesses II at Amarah West temple in Nubia; above, on three sides, warfare and other scenes occupy the main areas; but matching triumph-scenes flank the rear doorway into the inner temple. At Abydos, in the Temple of Ramesses II, short lists appear on the south façade of the IInd Pylon (below prisoners led to the king), and on the north and south end-walls of the forecourt portico (context above them, now lost). 4. Sets of Names inscribed around Lower Parts of Columns & Door-passages. This is most prominent in the runs of names around columns in the main hypostyle hall of the vast temple of Amenophis III at Soleb in Nubia. In Upper-Egyptian Abydos, two short lists (engraved as if on royal sphinxbases) adorn the door-thicknesses of the King’s chapel of the Temple of Sethos I. 5. Lists inscribed around the Base-blocks of Royal Statues & Sphinxes. A far commoner usage than Nos. 2-5, attested (e.g.) for Amenophis II and III, Haremhab, Sethos I, Ramesses II, Ramesses III and Taharqa. Such statues and sphinxes can occur just in isolated pairs, or else in a whole series, as in a temple court. 6. Brief “heraldic” lists. These are usually short, and set as decoration in royal contexts. So, in scenes in private tomb-chapels on the thronebase below the king; once, on a chariot, that of Tuthmosis IV from his tomb. Plus the two sets of labeled foreign chiefs high on the façade of the front ‘high gate’ of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. To these may finally be added: 7. Series of place-names in non-list contexts, such as the six registers of captured towns in the reliefs of Year 8 of Ramesses II at the Ramesseum; and much earlier, the set of personified Syrian places on jambs of a gateway of Amenophis I at Karnak. 8. Series of place-names in sets of battle-reliefs, which are not lists in any sense, but do contain collocations of place-names in warfare contexts; so, for Sethos I, Ramesses II, Merenptah and Ramesses III. B. Types of Record: Textually Defined. The nature of each list (and type of list) has to be defined

by inspection of the contents, and with the aid of such identifications with known places as are beyond doubt. Not all relate to wars, it should be emphasized. We may distinguish the following types: 1. Encyclopedic. Such lists can be long, and cover all manner of distant places that Egypt’s rulers knew about, even if contact might be more tenuous than real (e.g., as remote as Uruk in southern Babylonia); such lists are not limited to places under Egyptian control, but serve to illustrate the concept that Egypt’s gods held universal rule, and the pharaoh was their deputy as potentially lord of “all lands,” pantocrator. 2. Regional Lists. (a) Limited to either Nubia and the south, or to Western Asia and northern environs. (b) Mainly one region or the other, but including names from other regions, out of a sense of universalism, or to fill up the number of names required by the layout on the wall, base, or whatever. 3. Lesser Lists. (a) Abregés of longer listings; (b) ‘heraldic’, often limited to traditional names (e.g., Nine Bows) or to major entities beyond Egypt. Exemplification A. African/Southern Lists. We turn first to the lists for southern lands, because they show very clearly most phenomena found also in the more heavily used (and abused) lists for northern lands. For the New Kingdom, our ‘foundation documents’ are the three copies of basically 116 names (conventionally listed as “1-117,” with [accidentally!] no No. 6), plus a supplementary list of 152 additional names (“118-269”), left to us at Karnak by Tuthmosis III (mid-15th-century BC) on Pylons VI and VII in Karnak temple in Thebes. These great lists include seven regions over which the Egyptian Empire actually ruled (e.g., Kush, names Nos. 1-10, Wawat, 24-47), or sought to control, but incompletely (e.g., Irem, 11-23, Libya, 88-116), or probably notionally (e.g., Medja, 78-85, Kenset, 86-87; desert zones), or simply traded with, they being independent throughout (e.g., Punt, 48-77). Once Egypt’s rule was firmly established along the Nile from the 1st to the 4th Cataract under Tuthmosis I and III, incorporating Wawat and Kush, subsequent wars were limited to the crushing of local revolts every two or three decades, or to attempts to cow marginal powers such as Irem, or fend off attacks from such quarters. As a

egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists

131

result, later pharaohs requiring to celebrate their ascendancy in the south had few new places to boast of subduing—so, it was found convenient simply to recopy larger or lesser extracts from copies of the great Tuthmoside lists, with or without minor more current additions. So, the subsequent history of these lists sees them transformed (effectively and functionally) from historical into literary sources, for most of the rest of the New Kingdom. Examples will best illustrate this. Between the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Sethos I, the lesser lists of Amenophis II and Haremhab are mainly little more than brief extracts from such sources as the great lists of Tuthmosis III. Only with Amenophis III at Soleb and Kom el-Hettan do we again find longer lists of original content, but for the North rather than for Africa. Some African names survive at Soleb, but hardly so far at Kom el-Hettan. The major lists that accompany the triumphscenes of Sethos I at Karnak (north wall of the Great Hypostyle Hall) are instructive in this regard. Originally, these lists were of a series of Asiatic names, complemented with a set of African names; subsequently, the second set of African names at the base of the scene was plastered over, and recut with Asiatic names, as the Chicago Epigraphic Survey was able to establish.1 The African names in the upper part o Abydos f the scene were kept intact, such that the final lists continued heraldically to proclaim the universal dominion of the pharaoh over all lands, both northern and southern. For the southern/ African names, as long known, the scribes made selections from the great lists of Tuthmosis III at Karnak. Thus the upper, clear section (after Upper Egypt) began with ‘Kush,’ i.e., Upper Nubia (No. 2), and Nos. 3-10 (E Side list; 3-9, W Side, omitting E.5), copying directly the Nos. 2-10 names that constituted ‘Kush’ in the original Tuthmosis III list. Then comes ‘Irem’ (No. E. 11/W. 10), the next territory, but here the scribes added only the first three places in the Irem list (E. 12-14/W. 11-13, from Tuthmoside Nos. 12-14), cutting it drastically short for their more limited purposes. In the second (overwritten) Nubian list,

at the base of the twin scenes, the scribes chose to omit Wawat (Lower Nubia) entirely (Th. III, Nos. 24-47). Instead, they headed it with the far more prestigious ‘Punt’ (Th. III, No. 48), and included practically the entire Punt list (Th. III, Nos. 49-77), in proper order in Sethos I’s Eastern list (Nos. E. [40-41], 42-64, , then [66-68]), but in some disorder2 and with further omissions in the Western version of the list. Thereafter, Medja is listed, with just one other name of its group (E. 69-70/W. 56, 65, from Th. III, Nos. 78, 84). Kenset and Tjehenu (Libya) were omitted entirely from this sequence. This gives us already an insight into scribal methods in editing existing lists for fresh use in a more limited context. They drew extensively upon the more prestigious Kush and not Wawat, but only in part, then from Irem, a smaller extract, then almost the whole of exotic and prestigious Punt, with a final glance at the desert Medja. Faithfully so, in the East Side scene, but with curious ‘scrambling’ of ordering of names in the West Side scene, probably partly as a result of editorial vacillation over what to include/not include. Under Ramesses II, at Karnak (Great Hypostyle Hall, South Wall), almost all the emphasis in the lists there is on Western Asiatic names, in keeping with that theatre of war in the adjoining warscenes. Only in the East Side list is there a brief concession to wider horizons. After Upper Egypt, as with Sethos I, we have the heading ‘Kush’ (at No. 2), but followed by only its first three toponyms (Nos. 3-5) rather than by its first eight as Sethos I had done. Then at No. 5 comes Irem on its own, then Tjehenu (Libya) as first of 7 out of the Nine Bows (Nos. 7-13), before continuing with Levantine toponyms. But in his Nubian temples, Ramesses II’s scribes had to provide Southern lists. Here the Aksha temple Nubian list is closely paralleled by the 1st Nubian list at Amarah West.3 Both begin with a double heading: Kush and Irem (Nos. 1-2), followed by three toponyms from Kush (Nos. 3-5; Th. III, Nos. 2-4). Then Gurses (No. 6) is from Irem, Tywrrk may also be from Irem (Th. III, No. 14?), but Srnyk is back to Kush (Th. III, No. 8).

1 See Epigraphic Survey, The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I, RIK IV (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1986), pp. 49-50, 56-57. 2 Existing sequence: W. 44-45, 50, 49, 37(!), 40(?), 41, 39, 38, (E. 49 omitted), 46, (E. 51 omitted), 47-48, 51-53; 55, 54, 58-59, 57, (E. 62-63 omitted), 63, 62, 64, 61, 60. 3 K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and

Biographical II (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979), pp. 218-220; idem, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated and Annotated: Translations II (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 76-77; and remarks, idem, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments II (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1999), p. 130.

132

kenneth a. kitchen began as reflections of historical events and/or administrative records of these regions became (by recopying and editing) a “literary” and symbolic phenomenon, at first by copying and adding new data (Amenophis III), and then simply by recopying/editing/rearranging with nothing new added—except scribal errors in copying (often through misreading of hieratic copies used).

This ties up with the remains of the set of Nubian toponyms on column-bases in the south wing of the hypostyle hall of the great temple of Amenophis III at Soleb. 4 However, as for the very strange lists not only of Th. III, Nos. 118-269, of Amenophis III passim with Ramesses II at Aksha (Nubian), Nos. 10-27, and parallel at Amarah West, Nubian Lists I-II, Nos. 10-95,—these all remain mutually unparalleled (Th. III vs. Am. III/R. II) at present. In turn, the scribes of Ramesses III massively reused older sources in compiling the vast lists at his Medinet Habu temple. Nubian/African names are included in the North Tower list. Already, long since, Edgerton and Wilson pointed out the links between Ramesses III’s list and the great lists of Tuthmosis III.5 The order of names and in groups is erratic, and includes reduplications. Short runs of names recur, from the great list, including from the long second part (Nos. 118-269). It is needless to list all these scattered bits here; they can be well observed from Edgerton-Wilson. What was happening in the African lists is that we probably possess in the great lists of Tuthmosis III a conspectus of places gleaned from various sources for each region cited. Tax-lists for villages along the Nile in Wawat and Kush; places encountered in invading Irem; the many little villages and hamlets met with by Punt-expeditionaries going inland (as with Hatshepsut’s expedition) from the Red Sea coast deep westward to reach the aromatics terraces within the borderlands of Sudan, Eritrea/Ethiopia. The second, obscurer list (Nos. 118-169) may have drawn upon expeditions that went beyond normal limits in the south. And so on. Under Amenophis III, old names were kept, but new ones added; possibly in the wake of that king’s own expedition deep into southern regions by his claim, in Year 5. Haremhab, Sethos I and Ramesses II drew upon these lists (Th. III; Am. III) in abbreviated form. Interestingly, with emphasis on the more distant areas: Kush, which they ruled; Irem which they periodically fought with; Punt to which their trading expeditions went; and Medja as representing the great eastern deserts. And then Ramesses III’s scribes simply put extracts regarding all these places in existing sources pell-mell into his North pylon-tower list. What

B. Northern/Western Asiatic Lists. Here, we can utilize what we have begun to glean for a betternuanced study of what happened to lists that reflect the northern arc of Egyptian interests. Here we have the advantages (i) of a good many well-established identifications of foreign lands, states and settlements, and (ii) of considerable knowledge of the local history and geography of a variety of such places, from their own (nonEgyptian) records. Here, Tuthmosis III’s superscription to the main part of his triply inscribed great list identifies the 119 places listed as those of the “330” chiefs besieged in Megiddo on his 1st campaign (Years 22/23, 1458/57 BC). Significantly, in two copies, this prior list begins with Qadesh (No. 1) and Megiddo (No. 2). The superscription would thus imply that, aided by a large number of lesser Central and North Syrian rulers (as well as the local Palestinian ones), the ruler of Qadesh had headed the coalition and been based in Megiddo on the occasion—which is also clearly stated in the Annals (Urk. IV, 649:5-6). In subsequent years, Tuthmosis III reached north, subdued Qadesh itself (6th campaign, Year 30, 1450 BC), and then proceeded in his 33rd year (1447) and 8th campaign to invade as far north as Carchemish (Amenemhab’s text) and across the Euphrates into Mitanni itself. It is with these more northern raids that the second major list (Nos. 120-359) is concerned. With the publication of the archives from Alalakh, it became possible to identify in those texts over 30 place-names from this later phase of the pharaoh’s campaigning, as was long since established by Albright and Lambdin.6 The layout of these places on the map, however, cannot be systematically established, although some segments may be part of land routes in North Syria. However, it is improbable

4 New publication, J. Leclant et al., Soleb III (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2002), pp. 142ff; Soleb V (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1998), pls. 236-239. Older sources, in Soleb I (Firenze: Sansoni, 1965), pp. 64-102, passim.

5 In their Historical Records of Ramses III (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 114-115. 6 In “New Material for the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography,” Journal of Semitic Studies 2 (1957), pp. 119-122, items (12)-(42e) passim, followed up by others since.

egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists that such segments can all be joined-up to map the campaigns of Years 30, 33, as attempted by Helck; the results are too eccentric and bizarre to permit of this. Thus the historical/geographical realities behind the northern great lists should be accepted, but do not necessarily yield actual campaign-routes. Compare the narrative of the real march-route through Canaan to Megiddo in the Annals with a variety of places in the main great list—some of the same places can be found, but not necessarily in marching-order. When we come to the published Kom el-Hettan lists of Amenophis III (north half of the temple court only), what is striking is the wide variety of places touched upon. List A covers major powers and places from Assur, Sangara (Babylonia) and Naharin (Mitanni) in the east through Syrian Carchemish, Aleppo and Nuhasse to Anatolian Arzawa in the far west. List B is south-Syrian (Takhsi) to south-Palestinian areas. Lists C and F are too damaged to be useful. List D has Babylon (city), Assur again, and then Aram from more westerly zones. Finally, List E is strikingly a record of Aegean locations: Knossos, Lyktos, Amnisos, Phaistos in Crete; nearby Cythera, and mainland Nauplia, Mycenae, Messenia, Cydonia, plus Wilios (Troad) in NW Asia Minor. What we have in this combined group of lists is an encyclopedic representation of the wide world over which the god Amun and his pharaoh were ideally considered to be in principle supreme. In no way did Egypt rule politically over Mesopotamia, Asia Minor or the Aegean. Links here could only be through diplomacy and/or trade. Topographical lists are NOT exclusively lists of physical conquests, still less lists of places destroyed outright (though in some cases, some might be). Haremhab’s lists are more ‘heraldic’, being anthologies of places in the Syro-Palestinian realm deemed subject to Pharaoh. But already the move from active history to literary record is beginning to show. He includes Qatna in his ideological realm, as later do Sethos I and Ramesses II. But Qatna no longer existed as a viable entity so late as Haremhab. It was a great central-Syrian city-state down to Akhenaten’s time. But then, in battle with Mitanni over Syria, the Hittite armies of Suppiluliuma I destroyed it totally, and it never recovered its greatness again. The Karnak and Qurnah lists of Sethos I take us further down the road of the move from history to 7

133

heraldry. At Karnak, in both triumph-scenes east and west of the north door of the Great Hypostyle Hall, the first set of northern places begins with the traditional Nine Bows series, then moves on to the great powers of Hatti, “Naharin” (Mitanni), and Sangara (Babylonia), before coming to Syria: “Wunum” is a scribal corruption of uni“p” in both lists, Qatna had been destroyed half a century before and no longer existed, while Asy was a misunderstood form of (Al)asiy(a), probably Cyprus, picked up from texts of Tuthmosis III, the sole pharaoh to use Asy as a “live” entity. Mennus is an obscure traditional name from Middle-Kingdom times, while Iqpt is obscure, Barna is corrupt for Barga, and Artun a similar error for Ardukka. In short, this pharaoh’s scribes were copying names already becoming ‘traditional’ from older hieratic copies and in places misreading them. The second part of the list (at the bottom of the scene) is more interesting. Here, traditional African names had been included, from the great list of Tuthmosis III, as noticed above. But then, new orders came to superimpose a set of Levantine names instead. And this time, they were contemporary. Pahil, Hammath, Beth-Shan, Yenoam (close together) had been involved in local troubles in Jezreel with Galilee in the opening years of Sethos I himself. So, their inclusion here marked his recapture and reoccupation of these places. (NOT their final destruction!) Even more so, inclusion here of Accho, Tyre and Uzu and Ullaza illustrated his renewed contact with Phoenicia, as shown by the scene of their hewing timber in the pharaoh’s relief-scenes. Hazor, too, was simply one more strongpoint, not a smoking ruin this early; it was still operative down to the last decades of Ramesses II, whose vizier [Prehotep] left a statue there.7 So, here, these names illustrate the sovereignty of Pharaoh, not his destructive force. His lists at Qurnah are similar. Again, there are “traditionalized” northern names (Ardukka, miswritten; but Tunip, correctly), and also the “contemporary” set; and both Asy and Alasiya, no longer known to be simply the same place. In the case of Ramesses II, we have twin lists at Karnak and another pair at Luxor, in paired triumph-scenes. Here, they accompany battle-scenes of wars in Syria (later than the Qadesh-conflict of Year 5). Names of places in the actual war-scenes recur solidly in the West list at Karnak; it is historical as the scenes are. But in the East list, for

For which see Kitchen, “An Egyptian Inscribed Fragment from Late Bronze Hazor,” IEJ 53 (2003), pp. 20-28.

134

kenneth a. kitchen

variety (so to speak), the Levantine component is taken from the ‘new’ part of the lists of his father Sethos I. Down at Luxor, the twin triumph-scenes (so far as preserved) again copy Sethos I, but add in one or two names from Ramesses II’s own wars, such as Dalat-Silul (“Door of the Locusts”). On the bases of colossi at Luxor, the S. lists are traditional Tuthmosis III, while the N. lists are a mix of traditional names, Sethos I names, and occasional new entries (such as Moab, from Ramesses II’s own wars). Thus, Ramesses II alternated lists in his temples, some of original data from his own wars, some using older material, especially taken from his father’s lists. This is halfway history, halfway to a “literary” tradition, as had long been the case with African names. Under Ramesses III, things go still further. The first 69 Asiatic names (S. tower) do not seem to appear in any other known list, while Nos. 70-78 include central Syrian items like Hernam (Hermel, S. of Qadesh), Qarmiyan from Ramesses II, Shabduna (ditto), and the commonly-attested Yenoam in or close to Galilee. Of Nos. 1-69, few have been universally identified except No. 2, certainly Pitru (biblical Pethor), at a crossing of the westernmost stretch of the Euphrates. Astour attempted to show that most of these names come from Upper Mesopotamia, from Pitru eastward to beyond the Tigris.8 This is tempting, but needs careful testing. After No. 78, Nos. 79-101 (with omissions), and 108-110 derive in reversed groups from the West Karnak-list of Ramesses II (or its tradition). A few more are unplaced. There is no reason to believe that Ramesses III actually reached Pitru, still less that he ever invaded Upper Mesopotamia. However, his scribes most likely ransacked copies of “encyclopaedic” lists from some previous reign, plus the more original list of Ramesses II as at Karnak. Significantly, none of the data in the front Pylon lists has any connection with the king’s own wars, so far as we can determine currently. For that, one must go to the heraldic scenes of vanquished chiefs on the façades of the Eastern High Gate, with chiefs of Sea Peoples, etc. Thus, the big lists of Ramesses III have become a “literary” triumphal record, re-employing the historical detritus of former reigns. Wholly different is the final great list from Egyptian pharaonic history—that of Shoshenq I, engraved at Karnak c. 925 bc, some 250 years 8

M. C. Astour, “Mesopotamian and Transtigridian Place Names in the Medinet Habu List of Ramses III,” JAOS 88

later than Ramesses III. While cast in the fully traditional heroic mold, this piece differs radically from all its predecessors in several respects. Firstly, in its triumphal text above the scene. In the Ramesside period, it was firmly customary to use here either a text made up from the triumphhymns of Amenophis III plus Tuthmosis III (in that order), or else a pendant text; or one of each, in a pair of matching scenes. Not Shoshenq I; his text begins in triumphal form, reusing much good traditional phraseology, but NOT copies of the two texts used under the Ramessides; and in his case, triumph then passed over into a buildingtext—a wholly original and unparalleled development. Secondly in its list of place-names (so far as preserved), after the obligatory Nine Bows, we find a list (so far as extant) which is 90% original, corresponding to no previous list whatsoever. Thirdly in orthography. His scribes no longer stayed with the old ‘syllabic orthography’, but largely adopted their own version. Fourthly, his set of names certainly contains route-segments (of the kind found in P. Anastasi I), and from these, reasonable suggestions can be made as to the course of his campaign. Thus, this scene is a document of very great interest, and of considerable historical value. It is no mere pastiche. But it was the last of its kind. Taharqa’s brief list is mundane; the Graeco-Roman lists reflect only late priestly learning, and attempts to adapt old, largely-forgotten names to the conditions of their day.

Conclusions We must now sum up. Egyptian topographical lists occur in various contexts (usually monumental), and show some change in nature through their history in the New Kingdom. There are short, ‘heraldic’ lists that merely symbolize the might of Pharaoh; these usually offer us nothing else, except names known at the time of inscription, whether derived from previous reigns or still current or new. But much more important, we have very extensive lists, commonly as part of triumph-scenes, but by no means always. Under Tuthmosis III, the great lists probably reflect the knowledge of his time, particularly in Western Asia; no other pharaoh had penetrated as far (or (1968), pp. 733-752 with map.

egyptian new-kingdom topographical lists further) than he, except Tuthmosis I—of whose time, no such records have so far been recovered, and who reigned very closely before Tuthmosis III in any case. It is important to compare lists with war-narrations (annals, stelae, etc.) and sets of war-scenes, as a form of control as to the contemporaneity and nature of other records and lists. Segments of routes as used by travellers (be it merchants, diplomats or armies) may be detectable—but this is not necessarily the same as actual campaign-records of routes used in particular wars. Route-marches would commonly have to go by recognized routes; but this has to be worked out separately. With time, as wars ebbed and flowed, it was not felt necessary to produce complete new up-to-the minute lists every time some temple needed heraldic triumph-scenes with lists. So, older material could simply be used to fill the need; new, current data could be used also if desired (so, Sethos I, Ramesses II). Particular sequences might be

135

repeatedly reused/recopied, and scribal miscopying sometimes deform names (e.g., Tunip > Wunum!) The appearance of town names in these lists (even highly original, up-to-date ones) does NOT necessarily imply that the places concerned had been wiped off the map by a warring pharaoh. That could happen on occasion; Tuthmosis III once mentions reducing settlements to ‘reddened mounds.’ But normally, the astute pharaohs preferred to defeat foreign/hostile places, and leave them alive, more profitably to become tributepaying vassals. To vanquish a foe or town does not automatically mean kill/destroy, unless explicitly stated. So, a place might indeed suffer damage, or partial destruction, then, be allowed to rebuild and get on with becoming Pharaoh’s profitable vassal. Thus, all of us, including archaeologists, need to be careful in interpreting Egyptian written data and site destruction levels alike.

136

kenneth a. kitchen

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak

137

A RECONSTRUCTION OF SENWOSRET I’S PORTICO AND OF SOME STRUCTURES OF AMENHOTEP I AT KARNAK François Larché CNRS

Outline 1. Senwosret’s Limestone Portico 1.1. The Limestone Radier is too Short Westward to Place Senwosret I’s Portico The north-west corner block of the radier The slicing of the radier’s west edge 1.2. The Original Decoration on the South Outer Face of the Hatshepsut Suite 1.3. The Hypothetical Superimposition of Two Similar Scenes with Different Proportions 1.4. The Change in Direction of Senwosret I’s Portico The new placement of the Osirian pillar n°11 The new placement of the Osirian pillar n°15 Eastward orientation like the contra temple of Tuthmosis III Placement of the portico 1.5. The Existence of a Double Portico 1.6. The Date and Reason for the Dismantling of Senwosret I’s Portico 1.7. Blocks of Senwosret I’s That Do Not Come from the Portico’s Facade Two limestone chapels Two large limestone gates probably embedded in a stone wall Small limestone doorways probably built into mud brick walls Elements of a wall Elements of a sandstone portico 1.8. The Furniture in Senwosret I’s Name Naos in diorite Socle with steps in calcite Altar with a cornice in hard limestone 1.9. Conclusions 2. Senwosret I’s Sandstone Colonnade 3. The New Kingdom Foundations in the So-Called “Middle Kingdom” Courtyard 3.1. The Limestone Radier The radier’s dimensions The radier’s top face

3.2.

3.3.

3.4. 3.5. 4. 4.1.

4.2.

The four granite thresholds The slicing of the radier’s west side The channel embedded beneath the radier’s top face The hypothetical plan of the walls built on the radier The reused blocks inside the radier The blocks found scattered on the radier The particular case of the calcite socle with steps in Senwosret I’s name The Brick Structures Predating the Limestone Radier Around the radier Below the radier Below the 6th Pylon’s courtyards Conclusions The Platform Built into the Limestone Radier Its elevation Its pebble foundations The low mud brick wall encasing the pebble fill The Connection Between the Radier and the Platform A Hypothetical Drainage System Proposed Plan of Amenhotep I’s Monuments First Stage: The Constructions Built On and Around the Limestone Radier (in gold on the plan) The sanctuary The enclosure wall C+C’ The wall D+D’ The wall A+A’ Second Stage: The Constructions Built to the West of the Limestone Radier (in yellow on the plan) The bark shrine R+R’ The enclosure wall around the bark shrine B+E and B’+E’ The two lines N+S of 16 niches, the predecessor of the 6th Pylon The chapels G and P for the royal cult

138

françois larché

The chapel of Ahmes-Nefertari The copy of Senoswret I’s White Chapel 4.3. The Stages of Deconstruction The first stage of deconstruction under Tuthmosis I The second stage of deconstruction, during the coregency of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III The third stage of deconstruction under Amenhotep III DEFINITIONS: These architectural terms will be defined as follows: “+”: altitude above sea level. Header: a stone block occupying the entire thickness of a wall, that is to say with two visible faces. Face: The visible surface of a wall. Doorframe: The slight projection of the doorjambs and the lintel on a gateway which forms a frame around the doorway. Reveal: The inner reveals are between the rebate and the inner face. The outer reveals are between the rebate and the outer face. Rebate: A projection of the reveal in order to receive the edges of the doorleaf. Socle: A raised platform supporting another structure. Colonnade: A line of columns and their roofing. Peristyle: A colonnade on the perimeter of a building or courtyard which completely or almost completely surrounds it. Portico: An open gallery at ground level, but which is not necessarily bordered by a colonnade. DESIGNATIONS: These designations for architectural structures will be defined as follows: Senwosret I’s portico: This formed the facade of Senwosret I’s temple, “le Grand Château d’Amon,” of which there remains no certain vestiges. So-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard: The empty space bounded by Hatshepsut’s suite to the west and the storerooms surrounding this courtyard to the east, north and south. No Middle Kingdom remains are visible, and it would have been better to name it the “New Kingdom” courtyard. Since, however, this space has long been known as the “Middle Kingdom,” it will be designated here as the socalled “Middle Kingdom” courtyard.

Limestone radier: A stone foundation platform covering the entire surface to be built upon. The limestone radier refers to the thick foundation (height: 3 cubits) made of thin courses of small limestone blocks, which is buried under the surface of the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. The blocks are all reused and were produced by cutting off the faces of larger blocks. Platform: A foundation made of flat blocks of sandstone, limestone and granite, which occupies a small surface of less than 100 m2, and built at the west side of the limestone radier. The blocks are all reused and at least two limestone blocks are decorated. Storerooms surrounding the radier: A group of 10 storerooms was built around the east, north and south sides of the limestone radier from which they are separated by a U-shaped corridor. Set on a thick layer of sand, their foundations are made of two green sandstone courses surrounding the limestone radier. Enclosure tied to the 5th Pylon: This enclosure is made up of four perpendicular walls delimiting a wide rectangular space, the west one being divided by the Pylon. Each half of this west wall is bonded to the Pylon and to the north or south enclosure walls, while the east wall is perpendicular to both the north and south ones. The Akh-menu abutts the east face of this east enclosure wall. Service corridor: The north side of this corridor borders the outer wall of the storerooms surrounding the limestone radier. Its south side is bordered by a range of rooms with or without columns. The corridor leads to the south door of the Akh-menu. Enclosure tied to the 4th Pylon: This enclosure consists of three perpendicular walls delimiting the courtyard between the 5th and 4th Pylons, with the west one being bisected by the 4th Pylon. Each half of the wall is bonded to this Pylon and to the north or south enclosure walls. Hatshepsut’s podium: Similar to a high platform and accessed by several steps, Hatshepsut’s podium is the massive structure built three cubits above the pavement of the temple in order to elevate the superstructures (of the Chapelle Rouge + her north and south suites). The east side of Hatshepsut’s podium abutts both the limestone radier and the platform. Hatshepsut suite: These rooms were built by the queen to either side of the Chapelle Rouge.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak Enclosure tied to the 6th Pylon: This enclosure is made of three perpendicular walls delimiting the space bounded by the 6th Pylon and the limestone radier, the west one being divided by the Pylon. Each half of this west wall is bonded to the Pylon and to the north or south enclosure walls, these last two walls being simple veneers leaning against older walls. Annals’ courtyard or axial courtyard of the 6th Pylon: This courtyard is delimited on the west by the 6th Pylon, on the east by Tuthmosis III’s vestibule with pillars, and by the cross walls closing the south and north courtyards of the 6th Pylon. From 2001 to 2007, the Franco-Egyptian center has undertaken new archaeological excavations in the central area of Karnak, between the Akhmenu to the east and the 3rd Pylon to the west. The numerous mud brick walls we discovered are giving new insights into the vast complex which spread across this area before the New Kingdom. These ancient structures allowed us to establish that in this area of the temple, the New Kingdom monuments could only have been built after earlier monuments were demolished. A shrewd expert on the temples of Karnak, William Murnane would have been fascinated by all these new discoveries which were made possible after the lowering of the water table successfully implemented by the SCA. During his many seasons in the Ramesside Hypostyle Hall, he constantly shared his knowledge of the temple with me. He taught me never to discard even the tiniest clues, and the example of his meticulous study of the monuments has inspired me to propose these new hypotheses on Senwosret I’s and Amenhotep I’s monuments.

1. Senwosret’s Limestone Portico The sounding1 made in 2003 at the north-east corner of the podium on which Hatshepsut’s suite is set has revealed the limestone corner block of 1

G. Charloux, “Karnak au Moyen Empire, l’enceinte et les fondations des magasins du Temple d’Amon-Rê,” Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-204. 2 L. Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon” de Sésostris Ier à Karnak (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1998). 3 Ibid., pl. I. 4 The Osirian pillar n° 11 was discovered by G. Legrain buried below the south courtyard of the 5th Pylon, very close to the sandstone elements of Senwosret I’s colonnade,

139

the first course of the radier that is still buried under the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. This block is actually placed 7 cubits (1 cubit = 52.5 cm) east of the location proposed in a recent hypothesis2 which identified the limestone radier with the foundation of Senwosret I’s temple, the “Grand Château d’Amon.” This temple, of which there remains very few dismantled remnants of the facade’s portico, will henceforth be named more modestly as “Senwosret I’s portico.” In Gabolde’s hypothetical reconstruction, the portico is placed 7 cubits west of the joint between Hatshepsut’s podium and the limestone radier, but the north-west corner of this radier should have been located at the base of the left anta of the facade’s portico and not 3.7 m further east. In reality, the block discovered at the northwest corner of the limestone radier bonds the north side of the first course of the radier’s foundations to the west side of this first course of the same radier (Fig. 24a-b). In Gabolde’s hypothesis, whereby the limestone radier should be the foundation of Senwosret I’s temple, shifting the radier’s west side to the east would then oblige the portico on its facade to line up with the northwest corner block of the radier. Therefore, this move challenges some of the arguments on which Gabolde’s hypothetical reconstruction of the “Grand Château d’Amon” are based, and it was essential to reexamine the remnants previously discovered in the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard in connection with the architectural vestiges of Senwosret I’s portico. 1.1. The Limestone Radier is too Short Westward to Place Senwosret I’s Portico In Gabolde’s hypothesis for the placement of Senwosret I’s temple, the facade’s portico is set at the location of the eastern part of Hatshepsut’s suite3. He has also argued that Hatshepsut would have dismantled the Osirian pillars4 of the portico’s facade in order to attatch the east face of her suite to the portico’s back wall.5 According to the latter having been reused in the foundations of Tuthmosis I’s colonnade. The clearing by O. de Peretti and Emmanuel Lanoë of the pit where this pillar was buried seems to show that it was reused at the same time as other elements of Senwosret I, but not during the construction of the 6th Pylon and its enclosure. This indicates that the latest possible date that Senwosret I’s portico could have been dismantled was under Tuthmosis I.

140

françois larché

this hypothesis, the construction of Hatshepsut’s podium would have required the destruction, to a depth of seven cubits, of six courses forming the west side of the limestone radier. Therefore, while the observation of the vestiges of this west side does not confirm this destruction to such a depth (3.7 m), it nevertheless shows that ~ 50 cm of the edge of the west side was sliced off, with this excision stopping exactly at the base of the west face of the original structure that rested on the radier. The north-west corner block of the radier (Fig. 24a-b) The actual position of the limestone block forming the north-west corner of the first course6 of the radier which occupies the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard, is incompatible with Gabolde’s proposed placement7 of the facade of Senwosret I’s temple.8 Indeed, in order to set this corner block in place, (and probably the whole first course), the builder had to level a former mud brick structure. This destruction was made only under the surface of the block to be placed, since the vestiges of the brick structure are still visible against the west and north faces of the corner block. These in situ bricks indicate that, well before the construction of Hatshepsut’s podium, the radier’s first course did not spread further west of the corner block or further to the north. The slicing of the radier’s west edge Observation of the cross joint that separates the east face of the north half of Hatshepsut’s podium from the west side of the limestone radier (Figs. 36-37) has shown that Hatshepsut had cut a slice (50 cm deep) away from the radier’s west face while keeping its first course intact. Although the podium is built against the radier, vestiges of the radier’s west side make it possible to see traces of this excision. A photograph of the east face of

5 The east side of Hatshepsut’s podium has, at the base of its setting course, a horizontal groove carved at different levels. On the north half, this groove is lined up with the granite threshold n°1, while on the south half, it is cut much lower (giving it the appearance of “stairs” at different levels) but not along the entire length of the course. Between the south half of Hatshepsut’s podium and the red sandstone blocks, the limestone blocks of the 5th course of the radier are still in place. Their layout shows that the groove (with “stairs”) was carved intentionally in order to join the podium to the courses of the limestone radier. This irregular groove could not have been used to attach Hatshepsut’s podium to an hypothetically projected dado

the north half of Hatshepsut’s podium (Fig. 25) shows that the east edge of the bed face of the sandstone blocks of the podium’s first course rests on the west end of the top face (+73.09 m) of the limestone blocks of the radier’s first course. This overlap of about 50 cm has been confirmed on the north-west corner block of the first course of the radier, where this limestone block is partially covered by a sandstone block that forms the north-east corner of the podium’s first course (Fig. 24). Hatshepsut’s podium having thus been built slightly inside (~1 cubit and not 7 cubits as in Gabolde’s reconstruction) the west side of the limestone radier, it is not possible to shift Senwosret I’s portico westward and therefore outside the radier which was supposed to be its foundation. In another hypothesis,9 whereby the portico would be effectively placed plumb with the radier’s west side, it becomes difficult to imagine how Hatshepsut’s suite could have leaned against a line of Osirian pillars of which no traces exist on the suite’s back face on either side of the the axis. 1.2. The Original Decoration on the South Outer Face of the Hatshepsut Suite Several anomalies have appeared in the hypothetical reconstruction which joins to Senwosret I’s portico a representation of this king, carved in sunk relief at the east end of the outer face of the south wall of the Hatshepsut suite, in continuity with Tuthmosis III’s Texte de la Jeunesse (Fig. 1). Traces of Hatshepsut’s original decoration are still visible on two of the three outer faces of the suite she built. This decoration was in sunk relief on the north side where its has been erased, except for its west end which was hidden by a doorjamb of Tuthmosis III.

that would have adorned the base of the back wall of Senwosret I’s portico. F. Larché, “Nouvelles observations sur les monuments du Moyen et du Nouvel empire dans la zone centrale du temple d’Amon à Karnak,” Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 407- 499, pls. 24, 34. 6 G. Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191204, pl. 16, Fig. 22. 7 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pl. I; ibid., Charloux, pp. 191-204, pl. 19, Fig. 27. 8 Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 407- 499, pl. 20. 9 Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-204, pl. 20, Fig. 28.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak On the west face, the original decoration has been replaced by a new one in sunk relief, and it is impossible to determine if the original was raised or sunken relief. South of the bark chapel, the present decoration is sunk relief in Tuthmosis III’s name,10 while to the north it is also sunken but seems to date from Sety I.11 This later decoration has clearly replaced an older one, also sunken, remnants of which are still visible along the north face of the north wall of the Annals’ courtyard. No clue permits their attribution to either Hatshepsut or Tuthmosis III, who could have also erased an older decoration by Hatshepsut. To the north, the only clue for this erasure is the trace of its thickness which is delimited by the facade’s building-line, well incised on the podium’s edge. The 4 centimeters (5 near the north-west corner) which separates this building-line from the present face, indicates a thin excision of the facade made after its construction. Unlike the north side, the decoration of the south was in raised relief.12 At its west end, an Amun figure is still visible carved in raised relief, although partially covered with Tuthmosis III’s throne in sunk relief. The representation of this seated king marks the beginning of the Texte de la Jeunesse.13 It seems impossible, then, to connect this original decoration with the sunk relief decoration of the outer face14 of the anta of the limestone portico (as L. Gabolde has reconstructed it) in order to form the facade of Senwosret I’s temple because the original decoration is in raised relief and is laid out on several registers. 1.3. The Hypothetical Superimposition of Two Similar Scenes with Different Proportions The figure of Senwosret I, carved on Hatshepsut’s sandstone wall surface, is larger than the one decorating the limestone anta that it is supposed

10

Urk. IV, 852; P. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale), p. 127. 11 Ibid., Barguet, pp. 121-122. 12 The original decoration being in raised relief on the west end of the wall, it is tempting to reconstruct this style of decoration on the whole south face. However, one cannot definitively dismiss the hypothesis that Senwosret I’s figure was carved in sunk relief by Hatshepsut on the east half of the south face or that both styles of relief appeared on the same wall. 13 The Texte de la Jeunesse having replaced Hatshepsut’s earlier decoration, it is likely that this text was carved after the Chapelle Rouge was dismanted. 14 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” §51: “La paroi

141

to have replaced. The hieroglyphs carved in the limestone version are more tightly spaced than those carved in the sandstone edition. The king’s feet are not placed at the same level in relation to the text. The cut of the blocks on the right joint of the sandstone face does not fit exactly with the one on the left joint of the limestone anta.15 Together, these four discrepancies make the proposed superimposition of the two scenes representing Senwosret I seated under a canopy impossible in reality (Figs. 2-3). Tuthmosis III carved this representation of Senwosret I followed by an important text of which only two columns remain. The rest of the text should not have covered the whole face of the missing limestone wall, whose east end probably showed Amun accompanied by other divinities. The Berlin leather roll (3056, verso, VIII, 4-5) evokes a similar scene where Amun and Thoth are shown on the wall named “Kheperkare is pure in Amun’s temple.”16 1.4. The Change in Direction of Senwosret I’s Portico The new placement of the Osirian pillar n°11 (Fig. 4) The white crown of the Osirian pillar17 n°11 (Cairo Museum JE 48851) allows it to be placed on the south half of the portico as has already been proposed.18 However, the scenes on the three decorated faces of this pillar do not permit its placement at the east end of the portico, facing the south anta, as Gabolde suggests. Whereas the left face of the Osirian pillar and its back face are decorated with the king facing Amun, its right face shows a walking figure of a lone king wearing the atef-crown (Fig. 7). Representations of this type are always found framing passages for processions, as can be seen all along the east-west

sud présentait une grande scène d’audience royale. Elle était bordée à droite par un grand texte qui se prolongeait sur le mur sud de la cour du Moyen Empire, selon une composition reproduite à trois reprises par Tuthmosis III ” and §59: “Les blocs en calcaire de Sésostris Ier n’en conservent qu’une partie de la première colonne, tandis que la copie à l’Est du texte de la jeunesse n’a gardé en plus que quelques bribes peu exploitables de la seconde…Toute la suite a disparu avec le reste du temple du Moyen-Empire.” 15 Ibid., pp. 28, §38-39. 16 Barguet, Karnak, p. 156, n. 4. 17 PM II2, p. 89; Cairo Museum (JE 48851) and Gabolde’s numbering: n°11 (Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 63, n. 92). 18 Ibid., Gabolde, pl. I.

142

françois larché

axis of the temple, from the 2nd Pylon to the Akhmenu. The lone king always holds his walking staff obliquely on the right of the passage, while the staff is vertical on the left19 as it has been verified in the following passages (Figs. 12-13): – the reveals of the doorways of the 2nd (Fig. 12.4) and 5th Pylons (Fig. 12.3),20 – the opposite faces of the two axial pillars of the bark chapel’s vestibule, (Fig. 13.6),21 – the opposite faces of the four axial pillars of the Akh-menu,22 – the outer doorframe of the north door of Tuthmosis IV’s calcite chapel,23 – the west doorframe of the inner door of the Chapelle Rouge,24 – the west doorframe of the east door of the southern WAyt-hall, (Fig. 12.1) – the doorframe, turned towards the axis, of the two doors opened in the walls linking the socalled “granite arch” to the 6th Pylon.25

therefore be moved to its true place alongside the only passageway of Senwosret I’s portico, that is to say to the left of the axial passage. This new position of the Osirian pillar n°11 orients the colossus’ white crown to the left side of the passage, and prevents the placement of the left half of the portico to the north of the axis. The white crown indicates clearly that the position of this Osirian pillar is to the south of the passage, and excludes a westward facing orientation for the portico. At El-Lisht, six Osirian pillars in limestone leaned against the walls of a large courtyard in front of Senwosret I’s pyramid. Their position north and south of the courtyard was indicated by the red or white crown, and it is very likely that at Karnak red crowns, of which no vestige remains, topped the Osirian colossi abutted against the pillars placed north of the portico’s axis.

One can also observe this layout on the third terrace of Deir al-Bahari, on the doorframe of the sanctuary’s door as well as on the door of the Hathor shrine. With passages located on the north-south axis as well as on the east-west one, it is not possible to identify the position of the staff (vertical or oblique) with a geographical direction (north or south). In fact, this position (vertical on the left of the passage and oblique on the right) seems linked to the gesture that the king is making with his right hand while the left one holds the staff and a mace. According to Gabolde’s hypothesis, no door opened in the back wall of the portico, next to its angle with the right anta. Such a door would have justified the position of the Osirian pillar n°11 facing the south anta if the anta’s inner face was also decorated with a lone walking king, facing a matching scene on the pillar. As this is clearly not the case, because the anta is decorated with a completely different scene, this pillar should

The new placement of the Osirian pillar n°15 (Fig. 7) A fragment of the face of a pillar is decorated with the lower part of the oblique staff of a lone walking king. His direction allows its hypothetical attribution to the left side of the fragmentary Osirian pillar (MBAIL 17, n°15, pls. XXIV-XXXV) and its placement to the right of the axial passage,26 facing the Osirian pillar n°11. The lone king holds his staff vertically on the Osirian pillar n°11, while the staff is oblique on fragment n° 15 facing it. The face-to-face orientation of these two pillars on both sides of the axis thus seems well confirmed by the position of the staff in the hand of the lone king.

19 Cl. Traunecker, Fr. Le Saout, O. Masson, La chapelle d’Achôris à Karnak II (Paris: Éditions ADPF, 1981), p. 53: in his observations concerning the consecration of meat offerings, Cl. Traunecker remarks that the obliquity of the staff results from the ritual liturgy which requires the king to speak with one hand extended outwards. 20 Barguet, Karnak, pp. 54 and 110. 21 Ibid., p. 131. 22 J. –Fr. Pécoil, L’Akh-menou de Thoutmosis III à Karnak (Paris: ERC, 2000), pls. 45, 47, 49. Near the solar chamber, the fifth pillar is decorated with a lone walking king. B. Letellier showed me that this lone king was recarved above an earlier scene where Tuthmosis III faced a deity, as on the other faces of this pillar.

23 N. Grimal, F. Larché, “Karnak 1994-1997,” Karnak 11 (Paris: ERC, 2003), p. 59, pl. VIIb. 24 P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une chapelle d’Hatshepsout à Karnak (Cairo: IFAO, 1977), p. 395, §708; F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge d’Hatshepsout, vol. 2 (Paris: ERC, 2008), pp. 272-273. 25 E. Arnaudiès-Montelimard, “L’arche en granit de Thoutmosis II et l’avant porte du VIe pylône,” Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2008), pp. 148-149. 26 The existence of a double portico, (explained further below), allows a second placement for fragment n°15 in the median pillar under the portico to the right of the axis.

Eastward orientation like the contra temple of Tuthmosis III On the antas of the portico, the king always seems to wear the double-crown, to the north as well as to the south (Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pls. V, VI, XIII, XIV). This crown is

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak still visible on the outer face of the right anta and on the facade of the left anta (Figs. 2, 15). At Karnak, the position of the crowns of kings not facing west allows Senwosret I’s portico to face either eastwards or northwards but certainly not southwards. Osirian pillars facing east are not rare at Karnak, especially to the east of the temenos, where they can be observed in the temple of “Amun who hears prayers” as well as in Tuthmosis III’s contra temple which abuts the east wall of the Akh-menu. The contra temple originally consisted of a portico of six free standing Osirian pillars without the low walls that linked them later (Figs. 10-11).27 The three decorated faces of each pillar display scenes similar to the ones carved on Senwosret I’s Osirian pillars. Unfortunately, the Roman restorations made to the reveals of the axial passage, that is to say the face-to-face sides of the two Osirian pillars framing it, prevent us from seeing the original decoration which should have been a lone walking king. On the other hand, the king’s direction on the back face of each of the pillars located south of the axis corresponds exactly with the king’s direction on the back face of pillar n°11 that has been replaced to the left of the axis. The direction of the walking king proceeds towards the back of the portico, following the perimeter of the pillars until it returns to the axis of the portico (Fig. 11).28 The similarity of the decoration of Senwosret I’s Osirian pillars to those of Tuthmosis III’s contra temple incitates that Senwosret’s pillars also faced east.

143

does not permit a connection between the limestone portico and the sandstone colonnade. 1.5. The Existence of a Double Portico

Placement of the portico It is still impossible to determine if the original building site of Senwosret I’s portico was close to the findspot of Osirian pillar n°11, which was found below the 5th Pylon’s south courtyard with sandstone drums and architraves of the same king (Figs. 20-23). Their reuse by Tuthmosis I indicates that Senwosret I’s temple no longer existed during his reign. It should be noted that all the other limestone fragments of Senwosret I’s portico were discovered further west. At present, the evidence

The two preserved headers of the upper part of the portico’s right anta are joined and are perpendicular to the facade’s corner architrave.29 These three blocks supported the roof of the portico’s corner. On both inner faces of the joined headers, the horizontal frame which supports the Khekerfrieze, turns at a right angle to go down along the two vertical edges (Figs. 8-9). To the right, the frame runs vertically along the inner face of the facade’s architrave before turning at 90° to border horizontally the soffit of the same architrave. To the left, the frame runs vertically along another face,30 like the same type of border seen in the porticos of Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir alBahari. In this temple, the double range of architraves of the portico which forms the vestibule of the Anubis chapel is directly embedded into the side wall without the support of abutted pilasters (Fig. 9). The embedding of the middle architrave into the wall is framed, along its soffit and both vertical faces, by the frame which supports the Kheker-frieze. A similar layout probably existed in Senwosret I’s portico where the vertical frame carved to the left of the two joined headers lets us suppose the existence of a second range of architraves supported by pillars rather than by a back wall as has been reconstructed at this location in Gabolde’s hypothesis. Moreover, the embedding of an intermediary architrave at this location is confirmed at the top face of the side wall by the layout of the left header.31 The left cross joint of this header is cut to the shape of a right angle and its top face is hollowed out with a mortice in order to receive a bonding clamp with a perpendicular block (Fig. 9). If such a deep excision of the cross joint is unusual for the simple need to bond the course of a perpendicular wall, it can be perfectly justified

27 A. Varille, “Description sommaire du sanctuaire oriental d’Amon-Rê à Karnak,” ASAE 50 (1950), pp. 137-172, pl. XLI. Barguet, p. 221: “Les six piliers osiriaques renouvelés par Séti Ier, ont été usurpés par Ramsès II. La porte d’entrée a été ornée d’un texte par Domitien, où l’on peut reconnaître une sorte d’hymne au soleil levant.” 28 In Sety I’s temple at Abydos, the portico facade is

different since it consists of only one row of pillars without attached Osirian colossi. On the inner face of each pillar, the king walks towards the axis of the temple. 29 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pl. IX. 30 L. Gabolde sees this as proof of the portico’s depth (3.03 m), and therefore, the position of its back wall. 31 Ibid., block n°5, pls. X and XL; CFEETK neg. 43091-5.

144

françois larché

to embed an architrave perpendicular to the anta (Figs. 8-9). Parallel to the facade, this second range of architraves could be supported by simple square pillars that Gabolde’s hypothesis reconstructed inside a courtyard placed behind Senwosret I’s portico (Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pls. XXXVIII-XXXIII). Each square pillar (height: 8 cubits) would then stand behind each Osirian pillar (height: 9 cubits) of the facade (Figs. 5-6, 14-17).32 Each Osirian pillar is one cubit higher than the square one, but this difference is easily explained because the Osirian colossi abutting the pillars of the fadade stand on socles (height: 1.5 cubits). On the other hand, the blank dado across the four faces of each square pillar, from its base to the start of the decoration, is about 90 cm high while it reaches 140 cm on the Osirian pillars. This 50 cm difference (1 cubit) corresponds to the height of the podium on which the portico (and the square pillars) was built. Since the socle (height: 1.5 cubits) supporting each Osirian colossus is higher than the podium (height: 1 cubit), the feet of the colossi were placed only half a cubit above the podium. A staircase of four steps equal to the podium’s height was necessary to reach the double portico’s floor. It is not impossible that the whole complex stood on another higher podium like Montouhotep II’s funerary temple at Deir el-Bahari. In adding the architrave (height: 2 cubits) and the cornice (height: 1 cubit) to the Osirian pillar

32 M. Boccon-Gibod, “Le grand temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak reconstruit par l’ordinateur,” Les dossiers de l’archéologie 153 (October 1990), p. 12: two ranges of pillars are proposed here as a hypothesis. 33 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 78, §115: “Un des piliers de Sésostris Ier présente, par ailleurs, une double retouche particulièrement révélatrice: dans un premier temps, l’espace compris entre ce pilier et son voisin fut comblé par une maçonnerie, puis une scène, de module plus réduit que l’original et placée beaucoup plus haut, fut regravée tant sur le pilier que sur le mur de comblement qui avait été élevé tout contre. Comme cette maçonnerie, que l’on est bien obligé de restituer pour compléter la scène, était fatalement venue masquer la face adjacente, bien décorée, elle, dans le style de Sésostris Ier, on est amené à conclure que le comblement de l’entrecolonnement et la gravure de la nouvelle scène sont selon toute vraisemblance postérieurs à son règne. Quoi qu’il en soit ce décor de petit module fut à son tour arasé, de manière assez sommaire, à coups de ciseaux grossiers. Après un lissage au plâtre, une nouvelle représentation de roi, cette fois-ci de grand module—ce dernier est identique à celui adopté pour les figure humaines sur les autres faces—lui fut substituée.

(height: 9 cubits), the height of the facade reached 12 cubits (Figs. 14-17). 1.6. The Date and the Reason for the Dismantling of Senwosret I’s Portico Although the Osirian pillar n°11 was most probably reused by Tuthmosis I to fill in the 5th Pylon’s south courtyard, L. Gabolde attributes to Hatshepsut the dismantling of the portico’s pillars, at the time of the construction of her podium which supported the Chapelle Rouge, between the Queen’s north and south suites. Among his arguments, one33 relies on the re-carving of a king’s figure on one face of the square pillar n° 20 (Fig. 6). He recognizes Tuthmosis II’s profile, although the shape of the nose, which is straight and short, does not seem to be a convincing enough criteria to attribute the relief to this king, whose portrayals are rare.34 It may well be the case that this modification of pillar n° 20 was made prior to or at the very beginning of the 18th Dynasty. Since the lack of a royal beard is very common in reliefs on Amenhotep I’s limestone blocks,35 it is tempting to attribute the profile to him, since he could have easily reused some of Senwosret I’s pillars in his new sanctuary. In fact, at least ten blocks of Amenhotep I are in hard limestone, of which three show palimpsest traces of older relief decoration. Two limestone patches were, moreover, inserted into one face of pillar n°20, witness to the incautious handling of the monolith.

Comme cette nouvelle intervention remettait plus ou moins cette face en conformité avec les autres et reprenait une composition du pilier, il faut supposer que cette phase correspondit à la réouverture de l’entrecolonnement. Les caractéristiques du nouveau relief, très plat—très différent, en cela, des canons artistiques d’Amenhotep Ier—et des particularités des traits du visage, avec, notamment, un nez court et droit—permettent d’attribuer avec beaucoup de vraisemblance la retouche à Tuthmosis II: le monument était donc encore debout pendant son règne.” 34 The recent discovery, at the base of Hatshepsut’s north obelisk, of a niche with two statues of Neferhotep, a king of the XIIIth dynasty, has shown a certain flexibility to stylistic characteristics. Indeed, before Neferhotep’s cartouche was exposed, the iconography of the kilt and (except for the ears) the style of the face, seemed to indicate that the niche dated from the beginning of the 18th dynasty. For Tuthmosis II’s reliefs, see K. Myśliwiec, Le portrait royal dans le bas–relief du Nouvel Empire (Warsaw, 1976), pp. 42-45 and Figs. 39-41, 45-46. 35 Amenhotep I never wears a beard on his calcite bark shrine now restored in the Karnak open air museum.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak The state36 of preservation of the portico’s blocks indicates a the rising water table was probably one of the reasons for dismantling the Middle Kingdom monuments,37 of which the lower part of the walls were very damaged and weakened. This idea seems justified, although another cause could just as well explain the destruction of the lower part of the White Chapel. Indeed, one would expect a socle, slightly larger than the base of the main structure, under the first preserved course of the chapel’s limestone blocks, but this is missing. It is possible to reconstruct a foundation system similar to that of Hatshepsut’s Chapelle Rouge, which was standing on her podium. Here too, one could have had two superimposed podiums, the upper one being the only one preserved. Two large blocks forming the sides of another small chapel of Senwosret I that were retrieved from the 9th Pylon give confirmation that the Middle Kingdom edifices had been flooded: a graffito from the beginning of the 18th Dynasty mentions that “in year 5, 2nd month of Akhet, day 12, the level of the Nile inundation” had been observed by “the chancelor of the king of Lower Egypt, the 36 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 137-138, §214: “La base des quatre faces du pilier à colosse osiriaque, tout comme la partie inférieure du pilier carré du Musée du Caire sont profondément rongées. Par ailleurs, dans la ‘Cour de la Cachette,’ le moignon de pilier dressé verticalement est encore largement attaqué à la base. Les deux premiers de ces monolithes retrouvés couchés horizontalement sous le sol du temple, n’ont pas pu subir les dommages qu’ils présentent pendant la période où ils sont demeurés enfouis, car toute la surface aurait alors été atteinte. Au contraire, le remblai qui les recouvrait constituait un milieu suffisamment sain pour que leurs couleurs aient résisté jusqu’à leur mise au jour par G. Legrain (BIE 4/3, 1902, p. 162). Il est donc clair que les dégradations sont antérieures à l’enterrement des blocs et donc antérieures au règne de Tuthmosis III. On relève encore qu’à peu près aucun des blocs de la base des parois n’a subsisté, comme si cette partie des murs avait particulièrement souffert. Seul le relief avec la ‘montée royale’ appartient à une première assise. Il présente justement, à sa partie inférieure, des zones de desquamation et des taches dues aux migrations salines, qui sont accompagnées d’un écaillage de la pierre (n. 120: Cette dégradation apparaît sur tous les clichés anciens …On remarquera encore que les parties basses de la chapelle blanche de Sésostris Ier ont presque entièrement disparu. A l’inverse, les parties supérieures des parois et les architraves sont en relativement bon état et ne montrent en tout cas aucune des desquamations observées sur les parties basses de l’édifice…§216: Que l’eau soit responsable des dégâts est évident à l’examen des vestiges…Un texte de Sobekhotep VIII rapporte ainsi que le flot avait atteint sous son règne la cour même du temple d’Amon: ‘Sa Majesté se rendit dans la cour de ce temple pour regarder le grand Nil venu pour sa Majesté. La cour de ce temple étant remplie d’eau, sa Majesté se mit à patauger en compagnie de ses courtisans’ (L. Habachi, “A High Inundation in the Temple of Amenre at Karnak in

145

general-in-chief Ah[mès],” and that it had reached the base of the chapel’s walls.38 1.7. Blocks of Senwosret I’s That Do Not Come from the Portico’s Facade A number of other blocks naming Senwosret I’s that were found at Karnak have no direct connection with the portico’s facade.39 Two limestone chapels – The White Chapel was almost entirely reused in the 3rd Pylon’s foundations, except for the pillars which were discovered under the Hypostyle Hall.40 – A bark shrine was found reused inside the 9th Pylon’s fill.41 Two large limestone gates probably embedded in a stone wall – Lintel: 7 fragments of a limestone lintel42 have been reassembled in the Open Air Museum near Amenhotep I’s calcite shrine. They form the upper half of a doorway lintel, decorated with a scene depicting Senwosret I enthroned above the Semathe Thirteenth Dynasty, ” SAK 1 [1974], p. 209 et W. Helck, KÄT, pp. 47-47, n° 63).” 37 In an unpublished study, Cl. Traunecker remarks that a similar situation happened at Coptos, as the work of Sennucheri shows: see I. Guermeur, “Glanures,” “La statue d’Esnou(n),” BIFAO 103 (2003), p. 286, line x+18). The passage in question relates to problems with the water table. The evidence indicates that during the 17th Dynasty and at the beginning of the 18th, it was essential that action be taken to deal with the problem of damage to the temple caused by high annual innundations and the water table. 38 Cl. Traunecker, “Rapport préliminaire sur la chapelle de Sésostris Ier découverte dans le IXe pylône,” Karnak 7 (Paris: ERC, 1982) , pp. 121-123. 39 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” pp. 119-120, § 189. 40 H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak,” ASAE 28 (1928), p. 123: “Ce fut ensuite un pilier de Sésostris Ier, en calcaire, découvert [dans la salle hypostyle] à côté du grand linteau de l’an passé…Sous le mur Est, au droit d’une niche de mât, on a découvert un autre pilier qui se trouve être le voisin de celui découvert dans le IIIe pylône sous l’autre mur de parement. ” It is possible that the blocks of the White Chapel discovered in the foundation of the 3rd Pylon were buried here before the construction of the Pylon. It is also possible that these elements were already reused inside the fill of Tuthmosis II’s vanished Pylon and that they were reused a second time in the 3rd Pylon. In both hypotheses, the White Chapel would have been dismantled at the beginning of the New Kingdom as Senwosret I’s other monuments were. 41 Traunecker, Karnak 7 (Paris: ERC, 1982), pp. 121126. 42 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 120, n. 41; PM II2, p.135; H. Chevrier, ASAE 53 (1956), p. 41; G. Björkman, Kings at Karnak (Uppsala: BOREAS, 1971), p. 128, 3.

146

françois larché

tawy between Horus and Seth. When the lintel was dismantled, it was cut up into blocks which were then turned 180° and then reused inside a lintel of Amenhotep I built into a battered stone wall, as the well planed side joints seem to indicate. At the level of the lintel, the doorframe’s length was 3.10 m (6 cubits) under Senwosret I, but was 3.46 m under Amenhotep I. This allows us to reconstruct the width of the vertical doorframe as 1.5 cubits, and of the doorway as 3 cubits under Senwosret I and Amenhotep I, while the height of the doorway can be estimated as being 7 to 9 cubits. The decoration of both lintels (Senwosret I and Amenhotep I) represents the king wearing the red crown on the left. In the hypothesis where both doorframes would be exterior ones and not interior ones, this king would be to the north, implying that the door itself faced south or west. Although one does not know if this lintel was really found inside the 3rd Pylon, two reconstructions can be proposed: either this lintel belonged to the doorway of the structure that the 6th Pylon replaced, or it belonged to a doorway on the southern axis. The blocks from Amenhotep I’s doorjambs and counter-lintel have now been identified (Fig. 40: the 2 lines N+S of 16 niches).43 – Counter-lintel (length: 364 cm; height: 136 cm; passage: 187.6 cm): carved in sunk relief, this counter-lintel was found in the foundations44 of the south courtyard between the 4th and the 5th Pylon, and not in the Cachette courtyard. Rebuilt in the Open Air Museum, behind the White Chapel, this counter-lintel was built into a battered stone wall, as its perfectly planed side joints indicate. At the level of the counter-lintel, the doorframe’s length (7 cubits) implies a doorway width from 3 to 4 cubits. The stars decorating the soffit of the counter-lintel indicate that this block belongs to the inner face of the door, since this type of starry decoration is only found above the inner doorway but never above the outer one. To 43 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pgs. 326-7. 44 PM II2, p. 135; A. Fakhry, “A report on the Inspectorate of Upper Egypt,” ASAE 46 (1947), p. 30: the lintel of Senwosret I found broken into three fragments by Abou el-Naga Abdallah in 1946 beneath the southern courtyard between the 4th and 5th Pylons seems to correspond perfectly to this lintel of Senwosret I. See Fr. Le Saout, A. el-H. Ma’arouf, Th. Zimmer, “Le Moyen-Empire à Karnak: Varia 1,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), pp. 302-305, pl. VI. 45 On the north-south axis, the red crown is usually placed to the left of the door, that is to say to the west, when moving northwards and to the east when moving southwards.

the right, the king, wearing the red crown,45 stands before Amun who gives him life, which permits us to orientate its decorated face either eastward or northward. This doorway could be placed on the east-west axis, with the counter-lintel facing east, or on the north-south axis, with the counter-lintel facing south. Could it have been the inner face of the main gate to Amun’s temple, the ancestor of the 5th Pylon? Small limestone doorways probably built into mud brick walls – Small lintel:46 This fragment of a limestone lintel was discovered in the Cachette courtyard and is exhibited in the Open Air Museum. – Small lintel:47 This fragment of a limestone lintel of unknown provenance is lost today. Th. Zimmer remarks that H. Chevrier48 had entioned a fragment of a Senwosret I lintel which could be one of those he found not far from the structure with six columns standing north of the courtyard between the 3rd and 4th Pylons. – Small lintel:49 A limestone fragment carved with a nomen cartouche of Senwosret is epigraphically identical to Senwosret I’s other doorways. Because no monument of any other Senwosret is known at Karnak, it is likely that this lintel belongs to Senwosret I. This fragment is perhaps also one of those found by H. Chevrier not far from the structure with six columns standing north of the courtyard between the 3rd and 4th Pylons. – Doorjambs:50 Some fragments (87CL 340, 95CL 331) belong to two doorways built into a mud brick wall. This could be the wall discovered below the northern part of the sandstone foundations surrounding the limestone radier. – Doorjamb: A fragment of doorjamb naming Senwosret, in hard limestone, was reused in the “horned altar,” east of Karnak (CFEETK neg. 42793/9).

46 Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 9 (Paris, ERC, 1993), pp. 223-225, 234, Fig. 1: archives Lacau n° A IX-a4 and a4d. 47 Ibid., pp. 225-226, 234, Fig. 2a. 48 H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1937-1938),” ASAE 38 (1938), p. 598. 49 Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 9 (Paris, ERC, 1993), p. 226, Fig. 2b. 50 Le Saout, Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), pp. 297-302; for their dimensions see E. N. Hirsch, “Bemerkungen zu Toren in den Tempeln des Alten und Mittleren Reiches,” in Wege öffnen. Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 65. Geburtstag Festschrift, ÄAT 35, ed. Mechthild SchadeBusch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), pp. 88-97.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak Elements of a wall – Doorjamb in hard limestone: Two opposite faces are decorated, one with three superimposed scenes representing Senwosret I making offerings to Amun and the other with a cartouche which is part of a larger text. These faces were cut up during the transformation of the block into a stela by Kamose. The depth of the block (1.12 m) is too great and its decoration is inappropriate for a pillar.51 Instead, it must be from a doorjamb which could come from an edifice modified or dismantled by Kamose or one of his predecessors. This doorjamb could have come from the axial doorway of Senwosret I’s portico. Reused in the foundation of the north colossus attributed to Ramesses II, in front of the 2nd Pylon’s gate, the stela is today exhibited in the Luxor Museum52 (J 43, CFEETK negs. 53139-53143). – Large block53 with a niche in hard limestone: This block carved in raised relief was discovered in the Cachette courtyard and is exhibited in the Open Air Museum. It has been reconstructed on the south axis, either in a wall, by Th. Zimmer, or in a doorway, by Ch. Van Siclen, while L. Gabolde places it on the east-west axis inside the “Grand Château d’Amon.” It seems to me that this block could come from the back wall of Senwosret I’s portico or from the rear facade (the one facing west) of the monument of which the portico served as entrance. The carving in raised relief indicates a roofed space, perhaps one behind this rear facade that one could reconstruct as the sandstone colonnade whose elements were reused on either side of the 5th Pylon. – Block in soft limestone:54 Decorated in raised relief, this block (87CL 315) shows the remains of two large superimposed registers (Fig. 7). On the lower one, there remains only the king’s red crown without uraeus and topped with the vestiges of spreading wings of the Behdetite falcon,

51

Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” § 13. PM II2, p. 37; M. Hammad, “Découverte d’une stèle du roi Kamosé ,” CdÉ 30 (1955), pp. 198-208; L. Habachi, “Preliminary report on Kamose Stela and other Inscribed Blocks found reused in the Foundations of two Statues at Karnak,” ASAE 53 (1956), pp. 195-202, pl. I; idem, The Second Stela of Kamose and the struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and His Capital, ADAIK 8 (Glückstadt: Verlag J. J. Augustin, 1972), pp. 28-29 and 51; Björkman, Kings at Karnak, p. 56 and 128; B. V. Bothmer, Catalogue du Musée d’art égyptien ancien de Louxor (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), p. 21, Fig. 32 and 33; Chr. Wallet-Lebrun, “Contribution à l’étude de l’histoire de la construction à Karnak,” in L’égyptologie et les Champollion, eds. in M. Dewachter & A. Fouchard (Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1994), p. 230, n. 20. 52

147

and with Senwosret I’s cartouche being perfectly legible. Decorated with a row of stars, the skyline of this scene is placed under the groundline of the upper register, of which only one foot of a running king is preserved. Contrary to all Senwosret I’s other blocks, this one is in soft limestone which could be an argument against its belonging to the “Grand Château d’Amon.” Moreover, although the quality of the details is very close to Senwosret I’s style, the carving is flatter and the raptor’s feathers are less detailed that on Senwosret I’s monuments. The lack of a uraeus on the crown is very rare in reliefs of Senwosret I’s, while the three figures of Amenhotep I preserved on the lintel of the monumental south gate have none on their crowns. One potential hypothesis would be to link this block with those of Amenhotep I, this one having posthumously represented Senwosret I whose temple Amenhotep had just destroyed, even while copying his decorative style. However, architectural elements55 in soft limestone have already been attributed to the Middle Kingdom, therefore one cannot exclude block 87CL 315 from Senwosret I’s temple so easily. The direction of the red crown prevents its placement under the facade’s portico, so a second hypothesis would reconstruct this block either in the chapels behind the portico, or in the rear facade (facing west) of the monument to which the portico served as entrance. In this last hypothetical position, this block should be located in the north half of this rear facade like the previous large block with a niche. – Fragment in soft limestone: This fragment (87 CL 490) shows part of Senwosret I’s cartouche carved in sunk relief. As with the previous block, the nature of the limestone throws some doubt on a Middle Kingdom attribution, although architectural elements in soft limestone have been already dated to the Middle Kingdom (cf. note 55).

53 PM II2, p. 135; P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une chapelle de Sésostris Ier à Karnak (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale, 1956), p. 209, § 584: this blocks mentions a chapel which is known from the list on the White Chapel; Ma‘arouf, Zimmer, Karnak 9 (Paris, ERC, 1993), pp. 227-232, Fig. 3 and 4; Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” § 125-128. 54 This block was identified by L. Coulon, on April 4, 1994, in fiche 87CL 315 of the “Cheikh Labib” database (CFEETK neg. 25 883, 29 026). The red crown has no uraeus. The block is not mentionned in Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon.” 55 Fr. Le Saout, “Un magasin à onguents de Karnak et le problème du nom de Tyr: mise au point,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), p. 328.

148

françois larché

– Fragments of decoration, in the name of one Senwosret, were discovered in the courtyard between the 7th and 8th Pylons. Elements of a sandstone portico56 – At least two sandstone polygonal columns with 16 faces: Column drums and their fragments were unearthed in the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. One face is inscribed with a column of text in Senwosret I’s name, on which Amun’s name was defaced. According to Th. Zimmer, the carving is characteristic of the 18th Dynasty but this hypothesis can be challenged by a similar style of carving on Senwosret I’s sandstone architraves found reused on both side of the 5th Pylon. – Sandstone architraves: Two fragments carved on both faces in sunk relief were found by A. Mariette around 1870 in the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. The first fragment mentions a “20th regnal year” and reports a “renewal,” the text of one of the faces having being recarved over an older inscription. The second fragment shows a cartouche of Senwosret I, while Amun’s name has been hacked out and then recarved. These architraves seem to belong to the aforementioned polygonal columns, discovered in the same location. According to Th. Zimmer, the dedication of a “renewal” (that could have happened during the reign’s 20th year) would be later than Senwosret I and could date between the beginning of the 18th Dynasty and Akhenaten. However, this hypothesis can be challenged after the discovery of another sandstone colonnade, in Senwosret I’s name, on both sides of the 5th Pylon.57

1.8. The Furniture in Senwosret I’s Name Naos in diorite (Fig. 18: height 175 cm; width 77 cm; depth 93 cm) This naos58 was discovered in the later fill which covered the courtyard between the 7th and 8th Pylons, just like the block from the left anta of 56 PM II2, p. 108; A. Mariette, Karnak: étude topographique et archéologique (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1875), pp. 32-33 and 41, pl 8 (a-b-c); LDT, pp. 28-29; H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1947-1948), ” ASAE 46 (1947), p. 176; Barguet, Karnak, 1962, p. 154, n. 3; J.-M. Kruchten, Les annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XXIIIe dynasties) et autres textes contemporains relatifs à l’initiation des prêtres d’Amon, OLA 32 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), p. 8: Th. Zimmer dates these columns and architraves to the reign of Tuthmosis III. 57 Larché, Karnak 12 (2007), pp. 421-422, pls. XVIXIX.

Senwosret I’s portico. It is crowned with a cornice and its facade is framed by a torus moulding resting on a dado (height: 5 cm). The back face of the naos was neither decorated nor even polished, so it must have stood against a wall. Each side face is decorated with two superimposed registers made up of two scenes representing Senwosret I making offerings to Amun. The king wears the white crown on the left side and the red one on the right. The location of the royal crowns shows that the naos faced to the east or the north. The god’s figures and names were defaced under Akhenaten and then later recarved. It is still unknown if the statue that sheltered inside the naos represented Senwosret I or Amun. The naos’ inner volume (height: 129 cm; width: 54 cm; depth: 68 cm) limits the scale of the statue to 2/3 of human size, similar to the Ka-statue of king Hor standing inside a wooden naos in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.59 Socle with steps in calcite (Fig. 19) Early photographs shows that fragments of a calcite socle were found, very deeply buried, east of the granite threshold n°4 in the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. This socle has often been identified as the base of a wooden naos. However this function does not fit with the design features of its upper surface, since the rectangular grooves carved around its perimeter have a slope (around 5 cm/m) indicating that they are channels for the flow of liquids rather than slots to secure the wooden panels of a naos to the socle. The liquid would have then been directed toward steeply sloping, narrow channels cut on both sides of the steps at the front of the socle. The right channel can be reconstructed through the much damaged side elevation of the stairway. On the other hand, no doorhinge sockets are found on the socle, making it impossible to have functional doorleaves on any wooden naos placed on the socle. Nevertheless, such sockets are clearly visible on the large quartzite socle which supported 58 M. Pillet, ASAE 23 (1923), pp. 143-158: “Cette pièce capitale a été trouvée à Karnak, à quelques pas au sud de l’obélisque occidental du VIIe pylône, le 29 janvier 1922. Elle était enterrée au milieu d’une petite pièce faisant partie des habitations élevées dans cette cour à une basse époque et devait servir de bassin, le rebord de sa face faisant une saillie de quelques centimètres seulement au-dessus du sol de cette époque.” 59 Cairo CG 259, JE 30948. The statue is 170 cm high, 27 cm wide, 77 cm deep; its naos is 207 cm high, 70 cm wide, 105 cm deep.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak the naos from the Akh-menu, and likewise on the small diorite socle discovered north of the granite threshold n°3. These sockets permitted installation of a wooden naos (Fig. 19e). This impressive calcite socle looks more like a stepped altar60 similar to the one that once stood in the Akh-menu’s axial sanctuary.61 The socle’s facade is carved with a text in Senwosret I’s name, which was defaced under Akhenaten and then restored later. Its back face is vertically levelled but roughly polished, in order to lean it against a wall. The stairway is not centered on the socle since three columns of text are carved on its left front and only one on its right. This asymmetry is also noteworthy on its top face, where the two parallel grooves are not equidistant from the outer sides. It probably lacks a very thin calcite block that must have abutted the south side in order to restore its symmetry. Altar with a cornice in hard limestone62 Three large fragments and several smaller ones have been pieced together, in front of the “Cheikh Labib” storeroom, to form 3/4 of this altar’s top course (3 x 4 cubits). The support for a ramp or a stairway (width: 2 cubits) is visible in the middle of one face, while on the opposite one, a recess has been carved to fit a patchstone. A shallow rectangular depression (width: 152 cm; depth: 95 cm; height: 7 cm) is cut into the altar’s upper surface. It has probably been used to support a heavy offering table as seems to be indicated by lever cavities dug on one edge of the depression. It is framed with a badly damaged vertical projection (width: 15 cm), placed 13 cm behind the level of the fillet topping the cavetto cornice. This projection could be the start of cross-steps, like 60

Ch. Van Siclen suggests that a naos with its own floor could have been placed on this socle. This arrangement would not require door hinge sockets to be carved into the socle. This, I propose, is also the case with Senwosret I’s naos. 61 N. Beaux, Le cabinet de curiosités de Tuthmosis III. Plantas et animaux du “Jardin Botanique” de Karnak, OLA 36 (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), p. 10. 62 2001 report of the franco-egyptien committee, p. 20: the study of L. Gabolde concerns blocks 87CL 338+344+398+429, 92CL 344+645, 94CL 1108. He reckons that the inscription is in Senwosret I’s name. According to M. Azim, some blocks would have come from beneath the courtyard of the 8th Pylon and others from the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. 63 Burgos, Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2 (Paris: ERC, 2008), p. 202b. 64 Larché, Karnak 12 (2007), pl. XC. 65 The known temples of the Middle Kingdom have small dimensions. See E. Bresciani, “Le temple double de Sobek sur la colline de Medinet Madi,” Dossier de l’archéologie 265

149

those seen on the “horned altar,” on the representations of Tuthmosis III’s “Great Offering,”63 or on two blocks of Amenhotep I.64 In the inscription carved in sunk relief on the cornice’s fillet, the name of Amun remains intact and pristine, indicating that the altar was not visible under Akhenaten. One should be certain that these fragments really came from the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard before advancing the hypothesis that, since Amun’s name was not defaced, the altar was perhaps reused inside the limestone radier. 1.9. Conclusions (Figs. 14-17) From the “Grand Château d’Amon,” there remains only the sparse vestiges of a double portico with pillars lining up in front of a wall.65 Like Tuthmosis III’s contra temple, this portico could have faced east, allowing us to think that Tuthmosis III may have copied Senwosret I’s portico but on a smaller scale.66 The reconstruction of the text carved on Senwosret I’s missing architraves allows a range of at least eight Osirian pillars in antis, standing in front of an equal number of square pillars built under the portico. Behind this facade, its is still impossible to determine if Senwosret I’s naos, facing eastward, was simply leaning against the portico’s back wall or if it was displayed in a room en suite whose door opened through the axis of the back wall. M. Pillet thought that the calcite socle with steps could have been used to support the diorite naos,67 a hypothesis that is compatible with the observations made on its top face. If the naos sheltered Senwosret I’ s statue, the portico would be the facade of a contra temple, but if it was an Amun statue, the temple’s main entrance did not face west, but must have faced east. (2001), pp.132-140; R. Naumann, “Der Tempel des Mittleren Reiches in Medīnet Mādi, ” MDAIK 8 (1939), pp. 185-189; D. Arnold, The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2003), figure p. 156 (short note on the temple p. 145); M. Bietak, “Kleine ägyptische Tempel und Wohnhäuser des späten Mittleren Reiches. Zur Genese eines beliebten Raumkonzeptes von Tempeln des Neuen Reiches,” Hommages à Jean Leclant vol.1, Bibliotheque d’Étude 106/1 (Cairo, IFAO, 1994), pp. 413-435.8.3. 66 Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” §21: “À Karnak même, le temple adossé de Tuthmosis III, avec ses six piliers à colosse osiriaque adossé en façade, s’est à l’évidence inspiré du modèle de Sésostris Ier…” 67 M. Pillet, ASAE 23 (1923), p. 155: “le point où fut découvert le naos ne fournit aucun renseignement sur son emplacement primitif, mais à l’endroit que je viens d’indiquer se trouve un bloc d’albâtre gravé au nom de Sésostris Ier et qui, croyons-nous, put servir de socle au naos. ”

150

françois larché 2. Senwosret I’s Sandstone Colonnade

was found below the 5th Pylon’s south courtyard by G. Legrain.74 The large pit cleaned75 (Fig. 23) in 2004 outside the west enclosure wall of the 6th Pylon, corresponds to the negative space where the pillar once lay. This pit is clearly independent from the foundation trench of the west enclosure wall built by Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III. This disconnection of the trench from the pit invalidates the hypothesis that the Osirian pillar n°11 was put here by Tuthmosis III. On the contrary, it seems very likely that it was buried as a votive deposit by Tuthmosis I when he reused the fragments of Senwosret I’s sandstone colonnade in the foundations of his own colonnade in the 5th Pylon’s courtyards. Because all of these architectural elements of Senwosret I were reused so close to each other, it is tempting to think that they come from the dismantling of the same architectural complex. The addition of these archaelogical facts clearly demonstrates that Senwosret I’s temple was dismantled at the latest by Tuthmosis I. Furthermore, other evidence will permit us to identify his predecessor, Amenhotep I, as the individual most likely responsible for dismantling the Midlle Kingdom monuments.

Two architraves, one fragment of a polygonal column drum and one column base were reused under the pavement alongside the west face of the 5th Pylon’s north wing68 when the latter was built (Figs. 20-21). They come from a sandstone colonnade of Senwosret I. More column bases of this colonnade were reused in the foundations of most of the Osirian colossi leaning against the east face of the 4th Pylon.69 Five other fragments of similar architraves as well as 14 fragments of polygonal sandstone column drums with 16 faces70 (Ø: 1.5 cubit) were reused in pairs, below the 5th Pylon’s courtyard, as the foundation of Tuthmosis I’s colonnade which is still partially standing (Figs. 20-23).71 All of these sandstone elements belonged to a colonnade that existed before the 5th Pylon’s construction. Its partial reconstruction is possible thanks to the symmetry of the text carved on the two corner architraves, symmetry which allows the placement of the colonnade on an axis of the temple.72 The sandstone was covered with a plaster coating and the sunk relief decoration was painted yellow. Traces of scratching on Senwosret I’s drums indicate that Amun’s temple had endured a period of negligence before the 18th Dynasty’s reconstruction. To date, there is no indication that Senwosret I’s colonnade can be restored as standing near the place of its discovery, where it could, very hypothetically, have been built at a lower level (+73.45 m) close to the floor linked with the two calcite column bases buried between the 5th and the 4th Pylon.73 The limestone Osirian pillar n°11 (Fig. 4), representing Senwosret I wearing the white crown,

In the light of archaelogical excavations inside76 and archival photographs of the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard, new observations have been established concerning this empty space bounded by Hatshepsut’s podium to the west and the sandstone foundations of the rows of storerooms to the east, north and south. A vast radier made of

68 In november 2005, R. Le Bohec discovered, between the foundations of the north wing of the 5th Pylon and the foundations of the north obelisk, three sandstone elements reused as pavement that were placed on a sand layer filling the space between the two foundations. Two elements belonged to architraves (length: 75 cm) each decorated on one face only. The third one is an upside down column base. Their dimensions, decoration and the fact that they are sandstone, link them to elements of Senwosret I’s colonnade reused in the foundations of Tuthmosis I’s portico in the courtyards of the 5th Pylon. 69 They were discovered in april 2007 by R. Le Bohec. 70 Barguet, Karnak, p. 109, n. 3. Fragments of this colonnade were partially seen in 1985 by M. Azim during the clearing of the south courtyard, before being discovered in their entirety during the 2003-2004 excavations by J.- Fr. Jet, E. Lanoë and O. de Peretti. 71 H. Chevrier, ASAE 49 (1949), p. 261: “À l’Ouest (plutôt à l’Est) [of the side room of the 6th Pylon], nous avons

nettoyé jusqu’à un niveau mettant au jour les fondations des colonnes centrales. Sous deux de celles-ci nous avons vu des tambours de colonnes de seize pans remployés pour leurs fondations.” 72 O. De Peretti, E. Lanöe in La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 144-150: 7.3, “Les fouilles des cours du 5e pylône.” These architraves and some fragments of the column drums were removed to be displayed on a mastaba built between the 3rd Pylon and the Ptah temple. 73 See n. 68. 74 G. Maspero, Guide du visiteur au Musée du Caire (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1915), pp. 8-9, n°11; PM II2, p. 89. 75 O. De Peretti, E. Lanöe in La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 144-150: 7.3. Les fouilles des cours du 5e pylône. 76 Excavations by H. Chevrier in 1946 (ASAE 47 [1947], pp. 176-177); J. Lauffray in 1976-79; M. Azim in 1982-83; L. Gabolde and J-Fr. Carlotti in 1998; G. Charloux and R. Mensan from 2004 to 2007.

3. The New Kingdom Foundations in the So-Called “Middle Kingdom” Courtyard

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak limestone courses built of small and thin blocks is buried under the surface of the courtyard. A smaller platform composed of sandstone, limestone and granite blocks, is embedded in the radier’s west side. 3.1. The Limestone Radier (Figs. 26, 33) The radier’s dimensions A vast radier (hight: ~ 3 cubits) was made up of at least six superimposed courses (Fig. 28), built by means of an irregular assembly of flat limestone blocks which do not seem to come from either the Gebelein quarries, or from Tura or Ma’asara in northern Egypt.77 This radier is founded at a lower level (+72.82 m to the west, +72.69 m at its center and +72.76 m to the south of the platform)78 than the green sandstone foundation of the storerooms around its perimeter (bed face +73.46 m and bottom of the trench +73.04 m). The vestiges of these small and flat limestone blocks, well organized in courses, still occupy a square space (72 x 72 cubits) where they have often been discovered in place among other disturbed ones (Fig. 31). This radier is the only limestone subfloor known at Karnak, the foundations of this site being nearly always made of sandstone apart from a few scattered limestone blocks used to fill joints. If it was logical to quarry hard limestone blocks from northern Egypt in order to build temple superstructures, it seems strange to transport them all the way to Karnak only to hide them inside a radier. On the contrary, the many smoothen faces79 of these small limestone blocks (Figs. 28-29) prove that, in fact, they were produced by slicing up much larger blocks which belonged to dismantled monuments. It will be explained below why the radier was built on the site of earlier structures that had been torn down, without digging any foundation pit for the radier.

77 This cream white limestone shows irregular cracks but it seems to the naked eye quite different from the limestone from the Tura or Ma‘asara quarries. Unfortunateley, its origin could not be established since the blocks of the radier were not examined in the study of Th. De Putter and Chr. Karlshausen, “Provenance et caractères distinctifs des calcaires utilisés dans l’architecture du Moyen et du Nouvel Empire à Karnak,” Karnak 11 (Paris: ERC, 2003) pp. 373383. 78 This platform, which will be described further below, is contiguous with the axis to the east side of Hatshepsut’s podium.

151

The radier’s top face The sounding80 made along the east face of the southern half of Hatshepsut’s podium (Fig. 28) revealed four superimposed courses built of small limestone blocks, on which rests—parallel to the podium—a line of three long red sandstone blocks. Two limestone courses are missing to reach the level of the top surface (+74.44 m) of these sandstone blocks. This top surface is leveled with the granite threshold n°1, which is now used as a step to the eastern axial door of Hatshepsut suite, the one named “Door of the food offerings” (Figs. 24-28). 81 Like the three red sandstone blocks, this threshold n°1 rests on the radier’s third course, which extends the platform’s lower course (see below, 3.3). The building-guidelines incised on the top face of the west threshold n°1 (Figs. 24, 26) and also on the red sandstone block contiguous to its south edge, indicate that the south doorjamb of the previous axial gate rested astride both blocks. This clue is confirmation that these three red sandstone blocks belong to the setting course of a vanished monument. While distinctly marking the radier’s west edge, it is possible that this line of long red sandstone blocks continued around the radier’s four sides. In framing the radier’s setting course, this line of blocks could have thus formed a kind of chain giving greater stability to the walls built on its superstructure. Dovetail mortices carved on the eastern top edge of the red sandstone blocks show that they were firmly clamped to the radier’s upper course. The four granite thresholds (Figs. 26, 31, 34) The radier’s top surface can be determined by the four granite thresholds (n°1 to 4 from west to east) which are aligned on the east-west axis, the westernmost one (n°1) being one step lower (15 cm) than the other three82 (n°2, n°3, n°4). These are the only vestiges of the floor of a vanished monument. Resting on the radier’s third

79 M. Azim, CFEETK Report n° 1599 on the project made to developp the central part of the temple of Amun in 1983-1984: “Ce mur d’enceinte peut avoir entouré un temple de pierre fondé sur un radier général de calcaire, dont les blocs sont des remplois.” These reused blocks were observed during the dismantling of the east side of the radier. 80 J. Lauffray’s sounding was cleared in the spring of 2004. 81 Barguet, Karnak, p. 153. 82 Thresholds n°1: +74.44; n°2: +74.57; n°3: +74.61; n°4: +74.59: threshold n°1 is at the level of the present pavement of the 6th Pylon courtyard. This threshold was cut in two,

152

françois larché

course, the four granite thresholds were embeded in the three uppermost courses (Fig. 33). Each of these four thresholds has a sliding channel carved perpendicular to the door reveals for the placement of the door leaves. This transversal layout is characteristic of Middle Kingdom thresholds, while in New Kingdom, this channel is usually parallel to the door reveals. Nevertheless, there are several exceptions to this practice, which limit the importance of the channels’ direction as a dating criteria for thresholds: – At Medamud,83 there are vestiges of a granite doorway of Senwosret III’s with its threshold resting on a limestone course. The sliding channel is parallel to the door reveals as in the New Kingdom. – At north Karnak,84 channels perpendicular to the door reveals, as in the Middle Kingdom, are still visible in Tuthmosis I’s Treasury. Threshold n°1, which marks the radier’s top face (Figs. 24-27): – is placed 11 cm above the setting course of the green sandstone foundations around the radier; – is level with the setting course of the east wall of the enclosure linked to the 5th Pylon; – is six cm lower than the granite threshold of Akh-menu’s southern entrance.

In the event that these four thresholds of a Middle Kingdom type are still in their original locations, one must admit that the Middle Kingdom floor was 11 cm higher than the one at the beginning of the New Kingdom85 (+74.33 m for the top face of the foundation around the radier). In fact, the floor of structures previous to New Kingdom seems to have risen slightly from west to east: across its length, along the transversal sliding groove, at the time of the construction of Hatshepsut’s podium. See H. Chevrier, ASAE 53, p. 16, Figs. 3-5. 83 M.F. Bisson de la Roque, Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud: (1925) (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925), p. 24. It remains to be confirmed whether or not this doorway was rebuilt after the Middle Kingdom. 84 J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord V. Le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. Étude architecturale, FIFAO 30 (Cairo: IFAO 1983), p. 37, Fig. 5: the occasional use of sliding grooves perpendicular to the reveals seems, however, to have continued after the Middle Kingdom since two perfect examples were identified in the thresholds of rooms 1 and 2 of Tuthmosis I’s treasury. 85 J. Lauffray, “Les travaux du Centre Franco-Egyptien d’étude des temples de Karnak de 1972 à 1977,” Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 24: “il est un fait constant dans tous les lieux de culte et sous toutes les latitudes, les abords des temples s’élèvent avec le temps plus rapidement, surtout pendant les périodes troublées, que les sanctuaires mieux entretenus.”

– to the west of the temple, this floor was at +73.37 m as the remains of the pavement attached to both calcite bases embedded below the 4th Pylon’s courtyard indicates;86 – to the east of the temple, this floor could be at +73.50 m as the top of brick structures still in place87 under the storerooms surrounding the radier seems to show. The top of the pebble fill on which the platform rests reaches +73.41 m in some places (Figs. 34-35).

Since the four granite thresholds are built into a radier made of reused blocks (older than the New Kingdom), it is likely that these thresholds were also reused and that they also came from an earlier, dismantled, construction.88 Given the position of the sliding channels for the door leaves, it is very likely that these thresholds date to the Middle Kingdom although the example from Medamud casts some doubt on this dating criterion. It was probably during their removal from the original monument to which they belonged, or during their placement in the radier, that fissures developed in thresholds n°2 and n°3. The widening of each crack was averted by fitting one or two wooden clamps (Fig. 33). The bed face of threshold n°2 was strengthened with two horizontal clamps, while on threshold n°3, one clamp was fitted vertically to its western cross joint and a second one horizontally on its top face, exactly under the north doorjamb.89 Since they were probably removed from their original locations in the Middle Kingdom sanctuary at the beginning of the New Kingdom, these thresholds could have only been reused within a new structure dating to the beginning of New Kingdom, namely, the six limestone courses of the radier. 86 87

Ibid., Lauffray, p. 25. Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC 2007), pp. 191-

204. 88

This reuse was already proposed by Th. Zimmer in J.-M. Kruchten, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak, p. 9: “Les récents travaux dans cet espace, menés par Azim et l’auteur de ces lignes, ont conduit à contester le fait que ces seuils soient en leur place originelle et à penser qu’ils ont été déplacés après le Moyen Empire, s’il s’agit bien de leur date de construction. See M. Azim et Th. Zimmer, “La cour du Moyen Empire: quatrième campagne de travaux dans la zone centrale,” forthcoming); J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 24; Leclant, Orientalia 47, p. 288; idem., Leclant, Orientalia 54, pp. 371-372. 89 H. Chevrier, ASAE 49, p.13; ASAE 53, p. 16, Fig. 3-5 and J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 24, n. 1: “Chevrier croyait que la fondation des seuils avait été enlevée partiellement en sape par des chercheurs de dépôts. Nous avons constaté que le seuil le plus à l’Ouest repose au Nord sur deux assises de pierre et que sa partie médiane est placée sur du sable jaune très homogène. Ce ne peut être le résultat d’un comblement hâtif.”

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak The slicing of the radier’s west side (Figs. 24, 28, 36, 37) At the base of the cross joint marking the support of the east face of the south half of Hatshepsut’s podium against the west side of the limestone radier, the first course of the two contiguous structures seems to rest on a thick layer of yellow sand shared by both (Fig. 28). However, since it is nearly impossible to distinguish separate layers of sand, this shared criteria does not prove that the podium is contemporary with the radier. On the contrary, the joint separating Hatshepsut’s podium from the limestone radier (Figs. 35-37) shows that Hatshepsut had cut a slice (width: 50 cm) away from the radier’s west face while keeping its first course intact (Fig. 24; see supra. 1.1). – The technical reason for this slicing Hatshepsut built the east face of her sandstone suite against the west face of a now vanished earlier structure. The sandstone east face, which is still in place, seems to be counter-battered which would indicate that it leaned against an earlier structure. This tight joint is confirmed by the narrow channels for pouring plaster cut vertically into the abutted sandstone face. In order to allow two contiguous constructions to react independently to possibly differential rates of subsidence, it was essential that the east wall of the Hatshepsut suite rested only on the podium without overlapping the limestone radier which, like every other foundation, protruded slightly beyond its original superstructure. The only possible way to maintain the tight joint between the two structures was to slice off the edge of the limestone radier where it projected beyond its now vanished superstructure. – The unusual arrangement in the middle of the radier’s west side The excision of this projection reveals an unusual arrangement under the granite threshold of the east door of Hatshepsut’s suite (Figs. 36-37). This large granite slab was inserted by Hatshepsut astride the radier and her podium. To place this slab, it was necessary to modify the radier by cutting the earlier threshold n°1 and by dismantling the upper three courses of the radier along the entire length of Hatshepsut’s new granite threshold. The central section of the 90 The west half of the original threshold n°1 and the original outer doorjambs were dismantled by necessity. However, the east half of the threshold stayed in place, as did, probably, the inner doorjambs. However the reveals of

153

radier’s original projection remains intact where the west half of threshold n°1 was removed. Here the podium clearly bypassed the projection: – Just to the north of the remaining east half of threshold n°1, a long limestone block equiped with a channel running east-west, was cut at a right angle in order to slide Hatshepsut’s new threshold into place (Fig. 37). This long block continues westwards for approximately 50 cm beyond the western limit of the present limestone radier, that is to say 50 cm west of the visible joint between the podium and the radier. The channel’s western joint could belong to the radier’s original face which is thus lined up with the north-west corner block of its first course (Fig. 24a). – Just to the south of the remaining east half of threshold n°1, the radier also extends westwards for approximately 50 cm before touching Hatshepsut’s podium. The excision of the projection is obvious at this location (Fig. 36).

The removal of the radier’s projection was not necessary on the axis (Fig. 26) where the earlier narrow doorway (+74.44 m) was almost entirely dismantled by Hatshepsut,90 to be replaced by a wider one (+74.10 m). The new granite threshold was inserted astride the limestone radier and the podium, and supported new doorjambs in sandstone and granite which were embedded in the earlier structure while probably leaning against the original inner doorjambs. The channel embedded beneath the radier’s top face (Figs. 27, 36, 37) Next to the north side of the threshold n°1, is a long limestone block (length: 245 cm; depth: 66 cm; height: 45.5 cm) belonging to the radier’s fifth course into which a channel running east-west has been carved (top face +74.05 m; channel’s bottom +73.89 m; width: 12 cm; depth: 14 cm), which was covered by the sixth and upper course of the radier. The cutting of its east joint indicates that the channel (Fig. 27) continued inside the radier while its westward extension was destroyed when Hatshepsut built her podium. The west joint of the block seems to have been in line with the radier’s west face, before this one was chopped off at a point about 50 cm to the north and south of the axial door along the entire length of the west face except beneath the granite threshold. these inner doorjambs should have been cut back in order to widen the passage to the same width as Hatshepsut’s new doorway.

154

françois larché

A similar channel, but in sandstone and oriented north-south, was cut to the north of Hatshepsut’s podium91 by the foundation pit of this last one. This channel continued northwards beyond Tuthmosis III’s enclosure wall which surrounds the Akh-menu and the north storerooms. It is likely that these two channels were once connected through a manhole that would have been destroyed when Hatshepsut built her podium. Another channel still exists along with its basin, both in red sandstone, buried below the pavement at the east end of the corridor which borders the south side of Hatshepsut’s podium.92 Since the recent excavations have not yet shown this channel entering the south side of Hatshepsut’s podium, it would be unwise to put forward the hypothesis that the channel could be the extremity of the one dug in the pavement of the Chapelle Rouge’s sanctuary.93 The hypothetical plan of the walls built on the radier (see infra 4. Proposed plan of Amenhotep I’s monuments) The two lower courses of the limestone radier are made of a very loose assembly of blocks separated by thick horizontal and vertical joints, filled with sand (Figs. 28, 34, 35).94 The blocks are set discontinuously in order to form a very irregular casing filled with sand. The preserved courses above the two lower ones are much better bonded, having tight joints filled with a mortar made of plaster and limestone chips.

91

Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 261284, pl. 4-7. 92 H. Chevrier: “Les fouilles furent poursuivies vers l’Ouest, jusque dans le couloir (of the “Texte de la jeunesse”) entre le mur de la construction de la Reine. On trouvait là une rigole aboutissant à un petit bassin creusé dans une pierre et on apercevait des pierres remployées qui ont été laissées en place” (see ASAE 49, p. 259); Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pl. 7, Fig. 14. 93 Cl. Traunecker identifies these channels with the drainage systems used in the courtyards of the upper/mortuary temples of Old Kingdom pyramid complexes. Oral communication. 94 R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary Report, 2005: the sounding to the south of the platform. 95 From M. Azim’s work to developp the central part of Amun temple in 1983-1984, CFEETK Report n° 1599: “Ce mur d’enceinte peut avoir entouré un temple de pierre fondé sur un raft général de calcaire, dont les blocs sont des remplois.” M. Azim observed these reuses during the dismantling of the south side of the radier. 96 PM II2, p. 108; H. Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de

The lower course is irregularly placed, but is often replaced by a very thick sand layer. This course seems, however, to form lines at the radier’s perimeter and around the platform. If this lower course also existed underneath and in the extension of the granite thresholds n°2, 3 and 4, it would be tempting to reconstruct the plan of the missing walls plumbed with the lines followed by the blocks of the lower course. The sand casings framed by the lines of this lower course would then correspond to the spaces delimited by the walls. We hope to confirm this hypothesis by future excavations, but it is still too early to assert that the walls rested where the radier is built of six courses or that the spaces between the walls correspond to the places where sand replaces the lower course of the radier. The reused blocks inside the radier – Limestone blocks: the flat limestone blocks of the radier are reused.95 Their perfectly smooth faces, (Figs. 34-35) but often incised with lines, are still visible on the west side of the radier as well as other faces with tool marks characteristic of cross joints. These blocks were made by cutting up much larger blocks. – Boundary stela:96 a photography of H. Chevrier illustrates the discovery, on March 13th 1949, of a limestone boundary stela in the name of Senwosret I, which was reused as a block in the north-west part of the radier, most probably in its second course (Fig. 32). Although it has often been cited, this obvious reuse of a block inscribed

Karnak (1948-1949),” ASAE 49 (1949), pp. 257-258, Fig. 3: “Le lendemain, on trouvait les premières pierres en place, parmi d’autres très bousculées: le 14, une autre table d’offrande, en calcaire celle-ci, de Sésostris Ier avec très peu de texte très effacé et du même type que la précédente…Le 13.[04.49], vers l’Ouest, on découvrait en place dans les fondations une pierre qui avait la silhouette d’une stèle retournée: on se trouvait en présence d’une stèle frontière de Sésostris Ier, la seule que nous connaissions de cette époque. ” Cairo Museum JE 88802 (56 x 27 x 147 cm); J. Leclant, “Compte rendu des fouilles et travaux menés en Égypte durant les campagnes de 1948-1950,” Orientalia 19 (1950), p. 364; P. Montet, Géographie de l’Égypte ancienne, vol. 2 (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1961), pp. 38-39, Fig. 3; L. Habachi, “Building activities of Sesostris I in the Area to the South of Thebes,” MDAIK 31 (1975), pp. 33-37, Fig. 5 (he refers to figure 4 while the stela is represented in figure 5); Barguet, Karnak, p. 155, n. 5; Gabolde, Le “Grand château d’Amon,” p. 115, §185 et 188: “Une stèle-frontière de Sésostris a été exhumée de la “cour du Moyen Empire” où elle était remployée en assise de fondation.”

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak for Senwosret I’s in the heart of the radier 97 has not led to the logical conclusion—which should have been imperative—that the construction of the radier was accomplished by some later king through the systematic reuse of limestone blocks from dismantled pre-New Kingdom monuments (including those of Senwosret I, among others). – Four granite thresholds: on the other hand, the perpendicular position of the sliding channels for the door leaves relative to the door reveals on the four granite thresholds has previously misled observers, resulting in the prevailing, but still unconvincing hypothesis that Senwosret I dismantled his own monuments in order to reuse them in the radier of his new temple. However, it is a fallacy simply to date all thresholds with doorleaf sliding channels perpendicular to their reveals to the Middle Kingdom, because two thresholds of this type were used by Tuthmosis I in his Treasury at North Karnak,98 while at Medamud, the granite threshold of Senoswret III’s door has a sliding channel parallel to the reveals, a format usually found in New Kingdom thresholds (assuming this doorway was not rebuilt after the Middle Kingdom). The blocks found scattered on the radier Many stone temple furnishings of Middle Kingdom date were discovered during the successive excavations of the courtyard:99

97 A second stele of the same kind stored in the Cairo Museum (Temp. Reg. 10/4/22/7) may come from Karnak. 98 J. Jacquet, Karnak-Nord 5, p. 37, Fig. 5: thresholds of rooms 1 and 2. 99 For Cl. Traunecker, the findspot of the pieces from Karnak brought to the Louvre by Mariette should be viewed with suspicion, since these antiquities were mixed in the Opet storeroom (See J.-J. Fiechter, La moisson des dieux (Paris: Éditions Julliard, 1994). 100 H. Chevrier, ASAE 49: “le 14, une autre table d’offrande, en calcaire celle-ci, de Sésostris Ier avec très peu de texte très effacé et du même type que la précédente.” 101 PM II2, p. 108; ibid., Chevrier, p. 258; Leclant, Orientalia 19 (1950), p. 36. 102 PM II2, p. 110; Barguet, Karnak, p. 155, n. 5. 103 Barguet, Karnak, p. 154, n. 3: “Voir aussi des fragments de montant de porte et d’architrave (encore visibles sur place), au nom de Sésostris Ier, dans L. D., Text, III, 28 a et 29, et mentionnant l’année 20. Une statue-groupe de Sésostris Ier et Hathor fut aussi retrouvée à cet endroit (G. Legrain, Statues et Statuettes de rois et de particuliers, I, CGC 42001-42138 [Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1906], pl. IV, pp. 6-7; CG Caire 42008). “Deux statues en quartzite rouge (actuellement au Nord de la cour) représentant deux personnages assis en

155

Offering tables:100 – A limestone offering table 101 was found by H. Chevrier on March 14th 1949. Pedestals: (currently displayed on the top face of the south foundations of the storerooms surrounding the radier) – The granite pedestal102 n°1, discovered in 1950, is perhaps one of the two on display; – the granite pedestal n°2; – the diorite socle for a naos was found to the north of the granite threshold n°3 (Fig. 15).

Statues:103 – A granite dyad104 representing Amenemhat I sitting next to another figure (now destroyed), that P. Barguet identifies as Amun. If this destruction was the work of Akhenaten, it would cast doubt on the reuse of this group inside the limestone radier. This dyad is stored in one of the rooms attached to the south enclosure wall bound to the 5th Pylon. – Two quartzite statues105 dating to the time of Senoswret III. The eastern one represents an official seated as a scribe, while the western one appears to be a kneeling vizier. Both figures are enveloped in long cloaks. These statues are now displayed on the top face of the north foundations of the storerooms surrounding the radier. – A diorite dyad106 representing Hathor seated next to a standing figure of Senwosret I was found in 1897 and is stored in the Cairo Museum (CG 42008, JE 32751). – A fragment of a throne107 with the name of king Wegaf, discovered by G. Legrain in 1897, is nowstored in the Cairo Museum (JE 33740). – A granite statue108 was found by A. Mariette. Its current location is unknown. scribe, enveloppés d’une longue robe, ont été laissées à l’endroit où elles furent trouvées; elles sont de l’époque de Sésostris III (Mariette, Karnak, pl. 8s).” 104 PM II 2, p. 107; Mariette, Karnak, p. 41, pl 8(d); G. Legrain, “Notes prises à Karnak,” RecTrav 23 (1901), p. 63; Barguet, Karnak, p. 115, n. 2. 105 Mariette, Karnak, pl. 8s; Barguet, Karnak, p. 154, n. 3; Fr. Le Saout, “Deux statues en quartzite du Moyen Empire,” Karnak 8 (Paris: ERC, 1987), pp. 308-312. 106 PM II 2, p. 108; G. Legrain, Statues et statuettes, I, pp. 6-7, pl. III; G. Maspero, Guide du visiteur du Musée du Caire, pp. 113-114; H. G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein vol. 2 (München: Bruckmann, 1929), p. 92, Fig. 24; A. Scharff, “Gott und König in Aegyptischen Grafftenplastiken,” Studi in memoria di Ippolito Rosellini nel primo centenario della morte (4 giugno 1843—4 giugno 1943) (Pisa: Industrie grafiche, 1949), p. 310. 107 PM II2, p. 110; G. Legrain, “Notes d’inspection: Le roi Ouga-f ,” ASAE 6 (1905), p. 130; W. V. Davies, A Royal Statue Reattributed, British Museum Occasional Paper 28 (London: British Museum, 1981), n° 1. 108 PM II2, p. 109; Mariette, Karnak, p. 45, pl. 8 (m); H. Gauthier, Le Livre des Rois d’Égypte, vol. 2, MIFAO 18 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1912), p. 19 [III].

156

françois larché

– A headless diorite statue109 of king Sobekhotep (I or IV) shows him seated with his arms crossed over his chest and his feet crushing the Nine Bows. It is stored in the Louvre Museum (AF 8969). – A granite statuette110 of a seated king, discovered by A. Mariette, is stored in the Louvre Museum (A. 121 [E 7824]).

Scattered architectural elements: – A sandstone block111 inscribed with the names of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I was discovered by A. Mariette. Its current location is unknown. – Six decorated limestone fragments, one carved with a cartouche of Senwosret, were probably stored inside the Caracol in 1975, and then likely moved to the “Cheikh Labib” in 2007. – A fragment of a granite doorjamb and several sandstone fragments,112 inscribed with a text in crude relief mentioning Senwosret I and Tiberius. The fragment with Tiberius’ restoration text was photographied in the “Cheikh Labib” (CFEETK neg. 44343, doc. 43402). These fragments that were once seen to the south of the granite threshold n°4, cannot be found today.

* The findspots of some stone furnishngs of Senwosret I, like his limestone stela and his calcite socle with steps, are clearly identifiable in archival photographs as well as the anonymous granite socle for a naos. It is possible that, as with 109 PM II2, p. 109; Mariette, Karnak, p. 44-45, pl 8 (k); Ibid., Gauthier, Livre des Rois, vol. 2, pp. 32-33, n. 3; Davies, A Royal Statue, p. 28, n° 6; J. von Beckerath, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1964), p. 248; É. Delange, Musée du Louvre—Catalogue des statues égyptiennes du Moyen Empire (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1987), pp. 48-50; H. Sourouzian, “Inventaire iconographique des statues en manteau jubilaire,” Hommages à Jean Leclant, vol.1, Bibliotheque d’Étude 106/1 (Cairo: IFAO, 1994), p. 513. 110 PM II2, p. 109; ibid., Mariette, p. 45, pl. 8(l); ibid., Gauthier, Le livre des rois d’Égypte, vol. 2, p. 49 [45,I]; ibid., von Beckerath, p. 255; ibid., Davies, n° 37; ibid., Delange, pp. 22-23. 111 PM II2, pp. 109, 180, 293; ibid., Mariette, p. 45, pl. 8 (n-o): he incorrectly attributes the block to Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep III; ibid., Gauthier, vol. 2, p. 25 [XIII] and 32 [V]; W. Helck, Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975), p. 30, n° 35; ibid., von Beckerath, p. 244. 112 PM II2, p. 110; G. Legrain, “Notes prises à Karnak— Une restauration de Tibère au sanctuaire d’Ousertesen Ier à Karnak,” RecTrav 22 (1900), pp. 63-64; G. Legrain, “Rapport sur les nouveaux travaux exécutés à Louqsor à l’Ouest du temple d‘Amon, octobre 1916—mars 1917,” ASAE 17 (1917), p. 51; Barguet, Karnak, p. 155, n. 3. 113 A. Varille, Karnak-Nord vol. 1 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1943). 114 See 1.9 and L. Gabolde, “Le problème de l’emplacement

the limestone stele, several of these objects were reused within the radier during its construction. This radier may have served as reliquary for these consecrated, but now obsolete, temple furnishings. This pattern of votive reuse is common at Karnak during every era. One can cite the substratum of the south courtyard between the 4th and 5th Pylon, where Osirian statues and a lintel of Senwosret I were buried within the sand layer supporting the foundations of the pavement. In the north courtyard, a niche containing two statues of Neferhotep was also buried within the sand layer to the north of the foundation of Hatshepsut’s obelisk. Neither should one forget the so-called Monthu temple at North Karnak, whose base is composed of reused decorated blocks.113 The particular case of the calcite socle with steps in Senwosret I’s name114 (Fig. 19) This pattern of reuse inside the radier does not account for the presence of the calcite socle with steps115 (supra. 1.8). Although archival photographs show fragments of the socle buried very deeply to the east of the radier’s threshold n°4, the defacement of Amun’s name proves that this socle was still visible under Akhenaten.116 If the calcite socle was really in situ on the limestone radier—to the east of threshold n°4—its large dimensions would have obliged the builders primitif du socle de calcite de Sésostris Ier,” Karnak 10 (Paris: ERC, 1995), pp. 253-256. 115 H. Chevrier, ASAE 49, pp. 12-13: “Continuant les fouilles de l’année passée, nous avons exploré la partie orientale de ce qui est maintenant une cour, avec d’autant plus d’intérêt que P. Lacau avait remarqué qu’un bloc affleurait le sol…, nous avons tout de même mis au jour trois fragments intéressants. Le bloc d’albâtre affleurant le sol comporte ce qui reste d’un escalier à degré de faible hauteur, comparable à celui du monument de Sésostris Ier, à sa gauche se trouvent deux colonnes de texte de ce roi; un autre bloc, cassé presque au ras de l’escalier, porte une seule colonne. Enfin un troisième bloc, d’angle celui-là, fut mis au jour à proximité. Ces trois blocs se raccordent d’une part entre eux, d’autre part avec les deux blocs qui se trouvaient sur le sol, à cet emplacement même et que j’avais dû faire repousser sur l’arasement du mur de l’est pour effectuer les fouilles… L’emplacement des fragments prouve qu’il était là, derrière le dernier seuil en granit …” 116 Nevertheless, it will be explained below why the monuments which occupied the location of the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard could have been, in part, demolished by Amenhotep III. This king could have also begun the dismantling of the limestone radier that supported them, in order to remove the reused blocks on which Amun’s names and images were later hacked out by his successor. This would explain the defacement of the god’s name on Amenhemat I’s statue and on the calcite socle, but this hazardous hypothesis is still impossible to confirm.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak to place it on the radier’s top face before the construction of the superstructure. Indeed, the width of the four doorsways (two cubits, according to measurements on the four granite thresholds from the radier) is too narrow to bring the calcite socle through any of them. This socle could only have been installed, therefore, after the radier’s completion but before the construction of the walls through which these doors were opened. The back face of the socle, flat but roughly polished, indicates that it should have abutted a wall. 3.2. The Brick Structures Predating the Limestone Radier All of the different architectural phases presently visible between the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard and the 3rd Pylon date to the New Kingdom. They rest on the remains of more ancient mud brick structures which had been levelled beforehand.117 The preservation of these mud brick structures is quite uneven, which makes it very difficult to reconstruct a general plan of the temple prior to the New Kingdom. However, the systematic drawing of these remains reveals a certain architectural coherence. Recent soundings have disclosed the massive scale of their design and have allowed us to propose a date for their construction. These vestiges extend out from both sides of Hatshepsut’s podium: westward in front of the 4th, 5th and 6th Pylons; eastward into the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard and; to the north and the south, as far as Tuthmosis I’s enclosure walls. Around the radier – a large enclosure wall in mud brick surrounding the temple Below the wide corridor separating the north enclosure wall attributed to Tuthmosis I from the storerooms surrounding the limestone radier, a large mud brick wall, oriented east-west, was cleared to a length of 12.65 m and a width of 3.76

117 Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 191-204, pls. II, IV; Mensan, La Chapelle Rouge vol. 2, 7.1.4. Les aménagements en brique crue, pp.126-127. 118 G. Charloux, CFEETK report on operation 128, 2005: “Deux sondages dans le second déambulatoire sud de la Zone Centrale du Grand Temple d’Amon-Rê,” to be published by Soleb in a collective work on the mud brick structures previous to the New Kingdom at Karnak. 119 G. Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 198, pl. II.

157

m. Its south face is preserved to a height of 90 cm while its north one was cut by the sandstone foundation of the enclosure wall. Both its location and exceptional width make it very likely that this is an enclosure wall. To the south, another sounding118 dug below the service corridor has revealed the continuation of the remains visible on photographs of the clearance made in 1984. Here, a mud brick wall is placed symmetrically to the one observed to the north. – between the green sandstone foundations surrounding the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard Outside of the north-east corner of Hatshepsut’s podium and below Tuthmosis III’s eastern chapel, (the one that is leaning against the right angle made by two of the green sandstone foundations), G. Charloux discovered the well preserved remains of two perpendicular mud brick walls in 2004.119 Their bases rest upon another brick structure described as a “pavement.”120 These walls can now be connected with those discovered to the west of the Hatshepsut podium. More soundings were dug by R. Mensan in 2007121 between the green sandstone foundations surrounding the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard in order to reexamine mud brick vestiges discovered by M. Azim in 1984122 during a drainage operation. Photographs show the presence of brick everywhere inside the grid pattern formed by these parallel and perpendicular foundations. – the sand layers The very thick layer of sand (~ 80 cm), on which the green sandstone foundations of the storerooms surrounding the radier rest (Fig. 29), would appear to extend, at the same level, to the radier’s first course, also laid on a sand layer, if these two layers were not vertically separated by a thick stack of limestone chips as an archival photograph of the radier’s north half shows (Figs. 31- 32). This common level (+72.75 m), on which both subjacent layers of sand were poured, gives the impression that the whole surface of the

120

Ibid., Charloux, pp. 191-204, pl. X. R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2007: to be published by Soleb in a collective work on mud brick structures at Karnak predating the New Kingdom. 122 M. Azim, to be published by Soleb in a collective work on mud brick structures at Karnak predating the New Kingdom. 121

158

françois larché

so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard was uniformly leveled (infra 4.1). It is therefore important to establish whether this levelling was made everywhere at the same time. Below the radier (Figs. 28-29) The radier’s first course rests on a thick yellow sand layer123 (~10 cm to the south of the platform) under which is a horizontal crust made of sand hardened by contact with the subjacent layer of mixed silt and clay124 (+72.75 m). On the radier’s edges, this crust seems to rise on levelled remains of mud bricks. An archival photograph (Fig. 30) of the southeast corner of the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard shows a few aligned limestone blocks forming the first course of the radier’s south side.125 This limestone course seems to have cut through mud bricks at a level close to the upper face of the large mud brick wall observed to the north of the courtyard,126 below the parallel foundations of the storerooms surrounding the radier. The tiny mud brick platforms that H. Chevrier called “landmarks,” probably belong to these levelled structures.127 Everywhere else below the radier, the elevations of mud bricks seem to have been planed down to their lowest level, although we must await the result of the micro-morphological analysis of the mixed silt and clay substratum to know whether or not this results from the compression of mud bricks compacted by successive floods.

123 J. Lauffray, “Les travaux du Centre Franco-égyptien de 1972 à 1977,” Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 21: “Comme l’a justement noté H. Chevrier, avec aussi, par place, du sable gris de rivière bien distinct de celui dont le fouilleur a recouvert le fond de son sondage en fin de chantier.” R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005: “La base de ce radier repose sur un substrat limono-argileux recouvert d’une fine croûte de sable cristallisé. La surface est parfaitement horizontale. Il s’est avéré impossible de déterminer si ce sédiment est un limon apporté par la crue ou s’il est d’origine anthropique. La texture macroscopique évoque plutôt de la brique crue mais aucune structure de ce type ne permet de corroborer cette hypothèse.” This is also the opinion of archaeological specialists in mud brick, like M. Millet and J. Domer. A team of British geologists who examined a core drilled below the southwest corner of the radier identified this substratum as a geological formation consisting of layers of silt. South of the platform, R. Mensan excavated a small area (1.5 x 1.5 m) to a depth of 70 cm through this silt and clay layer, reaching a level +72.05. Since this layer is perfectly homogenous and contains no intrusions, only a micro-morphological analysis will permit us to determine whether or not it consists of compacted mud bricks. 124 Ibid., J. Lauffray: “Presque partout, jusqu’à la couche

Further west, these brick structures extend below the corridor bordering the north and south sides of the Hatshepsut suite. This suite rests on a podium built of three courses, the lowest of which cut through a mud brick wall that appears to be contemporary with another one, described earlier, under the foundation of the storerooms surrounding the radier (Fig. 24). Below the 6th Pylon’s courtyards An earlier building with mud brick foundations was identified below the 6th Pylon’s courtyards, occupying a space 39 m in length. Its walls are perfectly symmetrical on both sides of the eastwest axis of the temple, under which were found, between the 6th Pylon’s threshold and the granite ramp to Philip Arrhideus’ chapel, the foundations of a large platform in mud brick (length: 4.30 m). This platform forms the axis of symmetry of these foundations prior to the New Kingdom.128 On each side of this platform, a series of parallel and perpendicular walls (thickness: 2 cubits) are regularly spaced out. Finally, the grid pattern formed by these thin walls is framed by two thicker ones (thickness: 4 cubits), oriented east-west. Conclusions Because most of these mud brick vestiges are badly preserved, it is quite difficult to differentiate the several phases of construction. On the other hand, a recurrent feature of all these walls is the fact that they all cut through or rest on a

cristalline, on trouve des intrusions de tessons romains et des fragments de la chapelle de granit de Philippe Arrhidée, même dans des zones laissées intactes par H. Chevrier. Les carriers et les chercheurs de trésor ont tellement bouleversé les stratifications que le matériel mobilier ne peut servir à établir une chronologie absolue des structures in situ dont nous constatons la succession.” 125 G. Charloux’s observation on photographs (n° 100695 to 100697) of H. Chevrier’s sounding. 126 Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191226; R. Mensan, to be published by Soleb in a collective work on mud brick structures at Karnak predating the New Kingdom. 127 H. Chevrier, ASAE 49 (1949), p. 259, pl. XIII: “À l’angle nord-est, on mettait au jour deux petits massifs carrés de briques crues (pl. XIII), dont la face extérieure correspond à l’alignement interne du mur de la XVIIIe dynastie… Mais le travail fut repris au nord le long du mur de la XVIIIe dynastie, pour voir si de semblables jalons existaient également là. On en a trouvé en effet, mais pas disposés de la même façon.” 128 G. Charloux, “The Middle Kingdom temple of Amun at Karnak,” Egyptian Archaeology 27 (2005), 20-24, offered the hypothesis that this mud brick platform could have supported a ramp leading up to the House of Amun.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak

159

layer of fill containing ceramics dating from the end of the 11th Dynasty to the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. This fact permits us to determine that the mud brick walls are possibly contemporary with or at least subsequent to the Middle Kingdom. The excavations made between the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard and the 3rd Pylon, have shown that this area was very likely occupied since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The first inhabitants settled here in order to establish a sanctuary whose vestiges are preserved as mud brick walls that are cut through and levelled by the foundations of the stone monuments of the 18th Dynasty. The stratigraphy shows that the architectural phase directly subsequent to these earlier occupants is still in situ. One can therefore point out that the limestone radier is surrounded by two parallel deep trenches which very likely once contained an ancient foundation that was a continuation of the five sandstone courses observed below the south wall of Tuthmosis III’s south chapels. After the removal of these five courses, both trenches were half filled with a very thick layer of sand on which the green sandstone foundations that supported the now vanished limestone construction of Tuthmosis I still rest. The discovery of a sandstone channel, contemporary with these last foundations, reveals the existence of a building that required the draining of liquids. The fact that this channel was cut through by the construction of Hatshepsut’s podium suggests that this earlier building, now destroyed, should have stood in the same location as the Chapelle Rouge. It also reveals the continuity of the architectural plan of

Its elevation (Figs. 34-35) On its edges, the platform is built of two thin courses (height: ~30 cm) made from blocks of varied size while inside one can observe three thin courses in place. The visible face of its lower course shows that it is made of sandstone blocks130 except for a long granite block which is reused (top face +73.78 m). Its upper course has its perimeter built of long red sandstone blocks framing slabs either in limestone or red sandstone131 (top face +74.05 m). The existing top face of the platform could not have been used as the setting course for any superstructure since it has many projections and wide open joints, along with construction details that are usually hidden, like a mortice for a clamp. This platform was, in fact, entirely covered by the fifth and sixth limestone courses, the last one serving as the pavement and the setting course for the superstructures.132 Thus, the platform seems to have served only to recycle elements reused from dismantled

129 L. Gabolde, J.-Fr. Carlotti, E. Czerny, “Aux origines de Karnak: les recherches récentes du Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak dans la ‘cour du Moyen Empire’” BSEG 23 (1999), pp. 35-36: “Cette plate-forme en grès a été signalée en 1904 par L. Borchardt, qui semblait l’assigner au Moyen Empire. Elle fut ensuite fouillée une première fois par H. Chevrier qui, lui, ne la datait pas puis, en 1976-1979, par J. Lauffray qui en réalisa un nouveau dégagement et en fit alors effectuer un relevé minutieux. Il la considérait comme postérieure au Moyen Empire, mais antérieure au Nouvel Empire. L’examen de Lauffray semblait révéler plusieurs strates visibles de remblais. Enfin, des structures très anciennes de briques crues—déjà mentionnées, du reste par H. Chevrier—paraissaient avoir été aperçues au plus profond des sondages. Plus récemment, Th. Zimmer supposait que la plate-forme était l’élément le plus récent de la cour mais ne lui donnait pas de date précise.” R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005, pp. 3-6: “les sondages autour de la plate-forme,” to be published

by Soleb in a collective work on the mud brick structures previous to the New Kingdom at Karnak. 130 Ibid., Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, p. 38: “Qu’il s’agisse de remplois ou de blocs apparemment neufs, tous sont taillés dans un même grès de couleur gris-rose à rouge sombre. C’est le grès de la colonnette au nom d’Antef II, celui utilisé au temple de Mentouhotep à Deir el-Bahari ou encore celui employé au temple primitif de Médinet Habou. Il est totalement distinct du grès jaune ou brun employé au Nouvel Empire.” 131 J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 21: “Ces dalles incluent des remplois: au centre une double table à libations, vue par H. Chevrier; au Nord, une partie d’une figure royale et un fragment de texte. ” 132 Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), p. 39, n. 17: “C’était déjà plus ou moins l’avis de H. Chevrier (ASAE 47, p. 176) qui y voyait seulement des fondations et dans une certaine mesure, celui de Lauffray (Karnak 6, pp.18-26) qui reconnaissait dans l’assise du haut une

the temple from the beginning of the 18th Dynasty onward. 3.3. The Platform Built Into the Limestone Radier129 (Figs. 25-27) A kind of platform is embedded in the center of the west side of the limestone radier. It is located just behind the east door of the Hatshepsut suite. Twenty cubits long from north to south and nineteen cubits wide from east to west, the platform is placed slightly northwards of the true central axis of the temple.

160

françois larché

older monuments, including some with peculiar characteristics:133 – A soft limestone tablet134 is decorated in relief with a figure looking back and whose head is carved just below the horizontal frame that supports usually a Kheker-frieze. The nature of the soft limestone as well as the style of the carving— which is much flatter than reliefs of Senwosret I— suggests that this tablet stems from an early New Kingdom monument (Figs. 37-38); – A soft limestone tablet is decorated in sunk relief with the kilt of a god.135 The soft limestone differs from the hard limestone used in Senwosret I’s monuments; – Two column bases in red sandstone (Ø105 cm) once supported octagonal columns (Ø 57cm); – A limestone offering table for double libation136 (Fig. 25).

same level and has an identical composition to the one onto which the sand layer supporting the first course of the limestone radier was poured. – A layer (depth: 5 to 20 cm) of grey and fine alluvial sand, containing very few tiny shards, rests on the former fill whose top does not appear to have been levelled. This sand layer was used to wedge the blocks of the lower course of the platform, since those blocks had their bed faces at different levels.

Its pebble foundations (Figs. 34-35)137 The platform exactly covers an area of fill poured into a kind of casing. On three sides of the platform, (east, north and south), a regular stratigraphy consisting of two superimposed layers has been observed to a heigth of about 70 cm, that is to say from the bottom upwards:138 – A fill (height: ~ 60 cm) containing few shards139 is composed of a mix of grey muddy sand and irregular small pebbles (Ø 0.5 to 4 cm) which appear to come from the bed of a wadi.140 This fill rests on a flat, but not quite horizontal, substratum (+72.71 m below the north-west corner of the platform, +72.91 m below its south-east corner) of a mixed silt and clay. This substratum is at the

The low mud brick wall encasing the pebble fill (Figs. 34-35) A fill of small pebbles was poured inside the perimeter delimited by a low wall in mud brick, which predates the radier, and whose north, east and south sides were examined. It had already been described by H. Chevrier as a low wall.141 Its likely function was to prevent the effluence of the pebbles, since this material can only be contained inside a pit or casing. There appears to be a kind of casing here, delimited by three low walls of mud brick, (the fourth wall ought to exist under Hatshepsut’s podium), which so closely resembles a rough “roll” of soil that it is difficult to compare them with the mud brick walls which appeared at the same level (+73.84 m) below the sand layer on which the green sandstone foundations of the storerooms surrounding the radier rest. 142 This resemblance to an irregular “roll” results from man-made damage to the faces of the low wall, as tool marks on the bricks show. The inner face was cut before the pebbles were poured while the

superstructure du fait que ses faces latérales avaient été soigneusement dressées.” 133 Ibid., pp. 39-45. 134 This tablet was embedded in plaster in the upper course of the platform, along the north half of Hatshepsut’s podium. Numerous fragments of the tablet were reassembled by the conservator Sa’adi. The upper frame is oversimplified since it shows only two lower lines, wheras there are usually four. The two reeds are also very schematic with no detail. N. Grimal and M.-D. Martellière attribute the style of carving to the beginning of the New Kingdom, and it would be useful to re-examine the other tablet (stored inside the “Cheikh Labib”) which is carved in sunk relief with the belt of a god. 135 Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), pp. 40—44: the god is identified as Atum. 136 J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC, 1980), p. 22, Fig. 7. 137 Ibid., Lauffray, pp. 21, 22, Fig. 7; Ibid., Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), pp. 35-36. 138 Ibid., Lauffray, p. 21; Ibid., Gabolde, Carlotti, Czemy, pp. 45-46; R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005. 139 R. Mensan, CFEETK preliminary report, 2005. North

of the channel, four limestone blocks carefully joined with plaster were removed. Visible at a level of +73.41, the pebble fill was sifted on a small grid (30 x 60 cm) and to a depth of 70 cm until silt and clay substratum was reached at a level of +72.71. A. Masson and M. Millet examined the very few pottery shards that were found, which they tentatively date, subject to further examination, to the end of Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. 140 The thin plaster layer, observed by L. Gabolde and J-Fr. Carlotti, in which the pebble fill was embedded, does not exist to the south of the platform. The biggest pebbles were deposited naturally by gravity on the bottom of the casing. The pebble fill could have served both to drain water flowing from the surface and to limit the capillary action of the water table. 141 H. Chevrier, ASAE 47, p.177: “Sous l’assise inférieure de la plate-forme, soit que toute l’infrastructure soit en briques crues, soit qu’un muret ait été établi pour éviter que le sable ne coule.” 142 Charloux, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 191-204. Mud brick remains were observed around the courtyard, below the sandstone foundations of the storerooms surrounding the radier.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak outer one was cut before the first course of the radier was built (Figs. 34, 39).143 3.4. The Connection between the Radier and the Platform (Fig. 39) The first course of the radier carefully surrounds the “roll” that appears to contain only the lower part of the pebble fill on which the platform rests. It is difficult to determine if the roll was already this low before the construction of the radier or if it had been planed down in order to place the second course of the radier upon it. The limestone blocks of this second course actually appear to be embedded into the perimeter of the upper part of the fill,144 although a thin sand layer separates them. It is probably when this second course of the radier was embedded into the fill that some of the pebbles spilled over the low wall, into which a few pebbles were compressed under the weight of the upper couses of the radier. Although the first two courses of the radier surround the three visible sides of the pebble fill, they never pass under it.145 To the north of the platform, the roll appeared, although very levelled, beneath the two limestone blocks of the radier’s first course, that were lifted during the excavations. The roll also appears to continue westwards below the first sandstone course of Hatshepsut’s podium where poor vestiges in mud brick appeared. However, the possible turning of the roll southwards at a right angle, in order to form the west side of the casing containing the pebble fill, was not accessible to the excavators. The tight joint between Hatshepsut’s podium and the platform was cleaned to examine the cut that was made by Hatshepsut inside the pebble fill in order to set in the first sandstone course of the podium. This pebble fill appears to continue further west below the podium. Three small quartzite foundation deposit stones inscribed with Hatshepsut’s prenomen Maatkare were discovered in this excision, and were nearly plumb with Hatshepsut’s large granite threshold. 143

J. Lauffray, Karnak 6 (Paris: ERC,1980), p. 21. The fill could have been cut to place the second course of the radier. The pebbles may have been poured in two stages: the first one flush with the top of the “roll,” and the second one after the the second course was laid. There also seems to be a thin layer of yellow sand inside the vertical joint separating the course from the fill. 145 Gabolde, Carlotti, Czerny, BSEG 23 (1999), p. 38. 146 The micro-morphological analysis of the silt and clay 144

161

As one can see to the south and east of the platform, the limestone blocks preserved around it were superimposed in a corbelled fashion so that the third and fourth courses of the radier are contiguous with the first and second courses of the platform. This layout indicates that the platform could not have been built after the limestone radier, which covers the platform. Instead, they are contemporary. In fact, the space occupied by the pebble fill under the platform corresponds to the combined height of the first two courses of the radier and of the layer of sand inserted between them. Thus the platform sealed a casing filled with pebbles and surrounded by a mud brick “roll” which appears to be the only visible remains of an earlier settlement (Figs. 34-35). Everywhere else below the radier, the elevations of the older mud brick structures seem to have been planed down to their lowest level.146 Although they are too few to be conclusive, pottery shards were found by sifting the pebble fill on which two of the limestone blocks, carefully joined with plaster, that were lifted from platform rested. These ceramics range in date from the end of the Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period, which seems to rule out a Middle Kingdom date for the platform. We shall see, moreover, that the whole radier, including the platform, probably served as a reliquary for the dismantled elements of an older sanctuary. This same type of reuse of pre-New Kingdom architectural elements is found beneath the courtyards of the 5th Pylon, where Tuthmosis I’s columns are founded on the architraves and column drum sections of a colonnade of Senwosret I (supra 2: Senwosret I’s sandstone colonnade). Likewise, the Osirian pillar n°11 of Senwosret I was discovered alongside the south colonnade of Tuthmosis I at the level of its foundations. Finally, in the courtyard between the 4th and 5th Pylons, pre-New Kingdom147 elements were carefully buried under the 18th Dynasty foundations.

substratum will let us know whether or not it is made of mud bricks compacted by the successive floods. 147 Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 493: Osirian statues of sandstone and a limestone lintel of Senwosret I were buried in the sand layer supporting the foundations radier under the pavement of the south courtyard. A niche with two statues of Neferhotep was also buried in the sand layer north of the foundation of the obelisk in the north courtyard.

162

françois larché

3.5. An Hypothetical Drainage System Although the water table is very close to the ground today, it is hard to know if such was the case during the Antiquity. If it was high in antiquity, the pebble layer should have served as a drainage system to prevent the water from rising too high.148 At Karnak, this implementation of a pebble fill is unique, since sand is used everywhere else in foundations. The use of pebbles under the platform was a deliberate choice, since it would have been easier to substitute the continuation of the two first courses of the limestone radier in place of the pebble fill. These pebbles seem, then, to give an exceptional importance to this tiny surface, where they could have only served to prevent the rise of the water table. This underground drainage system suggests there was a specific need to protect the ancient ground which once existed beneath the platform. This drainage system could be linked to the use, on the surface, of wooden furniture, a material sensitive to humidity. As the portable bark inside its wooden naos149 would usually have been protected from humidity by a hard stone socle, a sounding near the socle located inside the bark sanctuary of Philip Arrhideus would allow us to discover if the pebble fill extends that far westwards. According to this hypothesis, the pebbles would have served to drain the water used during cult rituals, which could also explain why there is a wide open joint between the bark socle and the pavement of Hatshepsut’s Chapelle Rouge.150

4. Proposed Plan of Amenhotep I’s Monuments Dating the radier to the beginning of the New Kingdom opens up new prospects for the location of Amenhotep I’s dismantled monuments. Since Amun’s names and images were not attacked on the king’s limestone blocks, his monuments (Fig. 40) were torn down before Akhenaten’s reign. The display of the recovered blocks from 148

In Amenhotep III’s temple at Kom al-Hetan, H. Sourouzian has cleared a thick layer of pebbles inserted between the lower and the intermediate foundation courses of the walls and of the colonnades. 149 C. Graindorge, “Les monuments d’Amenhotep Ier à Karnak,” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 (2000): the decoration carved on the inner faces of the walls R and R’ shows a wooden naos sheltering the portable bark. 150 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, 1.2.5. Le dallage du sanctuaire. 151 The walls A, B, C, D, E, N, R are placed north of

these monuments on new mastabas built to the south of the “Cheikh Labib” storeroom, where they have been restored, permit their classification into eleven sets of walls characterized by the letters A, B, C, D, E, G, M, N, P, R, and S151 (Fig. 40). Ten of these eleven sets were already described by C. Graindorge152 while J. Fr. Carlotti has proposed a sequence of three reconstructed plans.153 However, my examination of all the faces of these blocks during their transport suggests to me that they should be reconstructed according to a completely different plan, even though it uses the same architectural elements. Two stages of construction can be proposed, from east to west. 4.1. First Stage: the Monuments Built on and around the Limestone Radier (in gold on the plan, Fig. 40) The sanctuary Since no architectural elements in Amenhotep I’s name have been identified, the sanctuary was, perhaps, built by one of his predecessors. Its schematic reconstruction relies solely on the location of the four granite thresholds and of the calcite socle. The enclosure wall C+C’ (three cubits thick at its base) The thickest of Amenhotep I’s walls (Fig. 40)154 fits the traces incised astride threshold n°1 and on the red sandstone block bordering the west edge of the top face of the radier.155 The east side of Hatshepsut’s suite abutted this enclosure wall C (Fig. 41; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 6 ). Around 50 blocks belonging to the south half C’ of the enclosure are presereved, along with seven more that are attributed to its north half C. A horizontal line of text in relief, topped with a torus moulding and a cornice, runs along the upper part of its outer battered face, while its lower face is smooth and lacks decoration. The battered face of four superimposed blocks of the the axis while the walls A’, B’, C’, D’, E’, R’, S’ are placed south of the same axis. 152 C. Graindorge, Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 (2000), pp. 25-36. 153 Ibid., pp. 27, 29 and 34. 154 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, p. 329. 155 The blocks of the structure 3 (Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2) in fact come from wall C (N° 6), from which they cannot be separated (see pl. 40; ibid., Burgos, Larché, p. 329).

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak north half C (1C + 2C + 3C + 4C)156 shows superimposed registers with small scenes identical to the antas of Senwosret I’s portico. Since the south joints of these blocks are vertically aligned, they could have abutted the north doorjamb, probably in granite, of the axial door (the ancestor of the present “Door of the food offerings”). This doorjamb was edged with a vertical torus moulding as the vertical groove (1/4 cylinder shaped) incised to the right of the west face of the four superimposed blocks shows. This support is also confirmed on the vertical inner face of the same four blocks whose decoration stops along the usual vertical frame. This inner face shows bulls walking towards an abattoir and facing the axial door on either sides C and C’ (block 1C).157 The inner face of the south half C’ is vertical and, above a blank dado, is decorated in raised relief with two registers on which the ritual liturgies of Amun at Karnak unfold. On the lower register, Amenhotep I pays homage to Amun and consecrates new monuments, while on the upper one he presents offerings to the Ennead and consecrates altars. The wall D+D’ (two cubits thick at its base) The outer face of wall D is battered and topped with a line of text. Above a blank dado, the lower register shows Amenhotep I running the ritual race around boundary stones in the presence of Amun-Kamutef, while the upper one depicts his coronation by Amun. The wall’s inner face is vertical and is also decorated with two registers above a blank dado: the lower one represents an episode of the Heb-Sed, and the upper one the montée royale in front of Amun. Wall D is clearly delimited (length: 4.78 m) on both faces by two vertical frames bordering the blank reveals of two door openings. Along the left edge of the battered face, the reveal is cut with a vertical groove which was very likely used to embed a wooden doorpost. This wall D cannot be placed as in Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 (2000), Fig. 34, plan 4, N° 3. A new location is now proposed between the axial sanctuary and the north wall of enclosure C. Only a few blocks from a symmetrical wall D’, to the south, are identified (1D’ to 4D’-240A1).

156 157

Ibid., p. 329. Ibid., p. 329, Fig. c.

163

The wall A+A’ (81 cm thick at its base) C. Graindorge considers wall A to be the facade of an abattoir, pierced by at least three doorways, of which some elements of doorjambs and lintels were identified. One cannot say if these doors gave access to the temple interior either for live cattle coming from outside or for prepared cuts of meat after the animals were butchered. The outer battered face of the wall is decorated with a single register carved in raised relief above a dado, while its inner vertical face is blank except for a horizontal line of text carved at mid-height in sunk relief. Wall A is reconstructed to the east of the limestone radier, plumbed with the ancient foundation trenches reused for Tuthmosis I’s storerooms (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 11). Block 4A (271A1) should abutt the north doorjamb, probably in granite, of an axial door. This doorjamb was framed with a vertical torus moulding as the vertical groove (1/4 cylinder shaped) that cut through the left edge of the battered face of block 4A indicates. Six other blocks also come from this north half A, while 19 blocks from the south half A’ have been identified. 4.2. Second Stage: The Constructions Built to the West of the Limestone Radier (in yellow on the plan, Fig. 40) The constructions built to the west of the limestone radier were replaced, first by a monument that has since vanished, the Netchery-menu and its bark chapel in hard limestone, and later by Hatshepsut’s podium and its superstructures. The blocks from these dismantled constructions were buried below the Cachette courtyard or they may have been reused in the foundations of Ptah temple, but this must be confirmed by future excavations. The bark chapel R+R’ This bark chapel consists of two parallel walls (R and R’) with battered outer faces158 and vertical inner ones.159 Both faces are entirely decorated with two registers above a dado. Described by C. Graindorge as “two screen walls surrounding a wooden bark shrine,” R and R’ do, in fact, form the two side walls of a chapel opened at

158 159

Ibid., p. 328, Fig. a. Ibid., p. 328, Fig. b.

françois larché

164

each end. The doorframe of the eastern facade is decorated with two large columns of text. The battered western facade has two doorjambs with vertical reveals (width: 90 cm). Each side of the doorframe is decorated with at least four small registers (1R-5R),160 each one showing Amenhotep I facing the two alternate forms of Amun. Three limestone blocks (175A1+249A1+ 87CL56) are now joined on a mastaba161 next to three other blocks from the facade’s doorframe (87CL42, 87CL183, 183A1). Perpendicular to the north doorframe, the outer face of R starts with a blank surface (two cubits long) which was used to fold back the doorleaf of a side door. This blank surface ends near the west facade with a chiselled rough protuberance which looks more like a destroyed rebate than the result of the removal of a vertical torus moulding. On the other side of the opening, the doorleaf could be fixed to the doorpost embbeded inside the groove cut in the south reveal of wall B, which is same width as the blank surface (two cubits, Fig. 40). The decoration of the inner faces of both walls R and R’ starts alongside the two rebates of both axial openings. Though there are no expected blank surfaces to fold back the doorleaf, this is not sufficient proof that these openings had none. Six blocks from the upper course which supported the roof slabs were found: the four southern ones are decorated with a Kheker-frieze carved inside and painted outside, while the two northern ones show a different pattern; outside, the painted frieze is replaced by a horizontal line of text which was topped by a course of cornice blocks having a horizontal torus moulding. The disposition of the west facade of Amenhotep I’s bark chapel between two openings was later copied in the Chapelle Rouge and then later in Tuthmosis III’s granite bark sanctuary. The proposed location of Amenhotep I’s bark chapel is on the site of the Philip Arrhideus chapel (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 27, plan 1, N° 4 and p. 29, plan 2, N° 4).162

160 161 162 163 164 165

Ibid., p. 328, Fig. c. Ibid., p. 328. Ibid., p. 328. Ibid., p. 324, Fig. b. Ibid., p. 325, Fig. b. Ibid., pp. 324-325.

The enclosure wall around the bark shrine B+ E and B’+E’ – The two symetrical right corners of two perpendicular walls (B+E and B’+E’) are decorated in raised relief with small scenes similar to the reliefs on Senwosret I’s portico. Three blocks163 form the corner (north-west) of the walls B and E while four other blocks and two fragments164 belong to the symmetrical corner (south-west). Three details prevent the reconstruction of a portico with free standing supports linked by architraves between these corners (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 8):165 * The small size of the blocks, as well as their irregular bonds, do not permit the seatting of architraves whose soffits should be lined up between both corners of the portico; * The horizontal frame, carved under the upper line of text, seems incompatible with the decoration of an architrave on which this frame might possibly have been painted but never carved; * The decoration on the face bordering the superimposed small scenes differs from Senwosret I’s portico, which shows only the king facing Amun. The remains of tiny, superimposed female figures suggests that this was a much longer scene whose right end is carved on a block from wall B, on which there appears the foot of a figure on an equally small scale (13B). – Wall B (two cubits thick at its base): both faces are decorated in raised relief. Battered, its outer one has a single register showing, on its right half, a large figure of Amenhotep I smitting his Asiatic enemies, and topped with a horizontal line of text.166 Like the large figure of Tuthmosis III carved on the 6th Pylon’s west face, Amenhotep I faces away from the temple’s axis. Block 19B (87CL384) being placed on the wall’s left half, the raptor’s direction indicates a king moving rightwards, in the opposite direction of the smitting king. Vertical, its inner face is decorated with two registers showing the king, the god’s wife Ahmes-Nefertari, and the priests entering the

166 It seems impossible to assign to wall B the two small limestone blocks which were reused inside the north wing of the 5th Pylon, and which belonged to the frame of a flagpole niche. Other niches had probably decorated the eastern face of the 5th Pylon’s ancestor.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak temple. They are purified in basins before moving towards the courtyard where they sing in front of the Ennead, accompanied by Thoth. Both perpendicular ends of wall B are preserved: * the south end of wall B (to the right of the outer face) is dressed as a smooth reveal (87CL 477+355+123+497). A vertical groove is cut into the angle of the reveal with the outer face, probably to fix a wooden doorpost. A doorleaf allowed the passage that opened on both sides of the west facade of the bark chapel to be closed off (Fig. 40). * the north end of wall B (left of the outer face) is framed on both sides of the corner with superimposed registers of small scenes167 which are duplicates of those on Senwosret I’s portico. Wall B is reconstructed north of the bark shrine R, aligned with its west facade, and separated from it by an opening whose doorleaf must have been fixed to a wooden doorpost (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], pl. 34, plan 4, N° 2). – Wall B’ (2 cubits thick at its base): eight blocks from this wall, reconstructed south of the bark shrine’s wall R’, were identified (two blocks are still not placed).168 In particular, an assembly of three blocks shows: * On its battered face,169 a fragmentary horizontal text is carved under the horizontal torus moulding; * On its vertical face,170 the remains of two successive scenes separated by a vertical frame. In the left scene, the king moves leftwards in the direction of the south-west corner, while in the very fragmentary scene on the right, only a brief segment of a horizontal frame where it meets the vertical frame remains. This horizontal frame is topped with a Kheker-frieze. Below it, a skyline surmounts a Nekhbet-glyph, indicating the raptor’s position and that the scene was very narrow.171 The north cross joints of both superimposed blocks line up vertically and are perfectly smooth. These two anomalies prove that these cross joints once abutted a monolithic element that was already standing here. This may have been an Osiran pillar of Senwosret I, whose two parallel faces have the same depth as wall B’. Indeed,

167

F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pg. 324. 168 Ibid., p. 325, Fig. c. 169 Ibid., p. 324, Fig. b and p. 325, Fig. b. 170 Ibid., p. 325, Fig. a. 171 Observation made by Ch. Van Siclen.

165

the face of one such pillar stored in the “Cheikh Labib” storeroom has been recarved twice (Fig. 6): on the first occasion, the new king was placed much higher, in front of a wAs-sceptre held by a figure of Amun that was partly carved on an adjoining wall; in the second edition, a lone king is shown with a highly arched eyebrow characteristic of Amenhotep I’s relief portraits, although the nose is shorter. Because the orientation of this second king is incompatible with the inner face of wall B’, this pillar (Fig. 6) was probably incorperated into the symmetrical wall B. Given the difficulty in reusing these pillars, it seems likely that they were still in place when walls B and B’ were constructed. – Wall E (two cubits thick at its base and 95 cm under the torus): both its faces are decorated in raised relief. The inner one is vertical, and carved with two registers depicting the daily ritual of Amun. Battered, the outer one is smooth except for the line of text carved under the horizontal torus moulding supporting the cornice (block 87CL 483). 172 Block 87CL 84 (CFEETK neg. 109364) forms a reflex right angle, whose one face has no vertical frame. This wall E (N° 9) cannot be placed symmetrically to wall C (N°6) as was proposed (see Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], pl. 29, plan 2, N° 9), since wall E (N° 9) is thinner at its base (2 cubits) than the wall C (N°6) (3 cubits). Wall E is, in fact, perpendicular to wall B at the level of the corner previously described, viz. the one with decoration which duplicates that of Senwosret I’s portico.173 This wall E constitutes, then, the north wall of the courtyard located north of the bark chapel R+R’ (Fig. 40). – Wall E’: only one top block of this wall E’, which formed the south continuation of the enclosure C’, was identified.174 The two lines N+S of 16 niches, the predecessor of the 6th Pylon These two series of eight niches were lined up on both sides of an axial door (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 13),175 each one (height: 4 cubit) likely sheltered a royal statue.176 On both side faces of each niche, Amenhotep I sits enthroned in front of an offering list

172

F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pg. 324, Fig. b. 173 Ibid., p. 324, Fig. b. 174 Ibid., p. 325, Fig. b. 175 Ibid., pp. 326-78. 176 These niches are not high enough (4 cubits) to have

166

françois larché

– In the north wing, it is possible to place block 357A1 (CFEETK neg. 115996) between the axial door and the first niche. Unlike the other vertical ones, the torus moulding of block 357A1 is not carved alongside the doorframe of the niche, but is set 15.5 cm apart. To the left of the torus, the face of the block is smooth, probably as far as the doorframe of the axial door. Two superimposed blocks, 63A1 (CFEETK neg.115705) and 288A1, are placed to the right of the last niche. To the left of the vertical torus, the face is decorated with the right doorframe of the niche while to its right, the face is smooth, probably until the north-east corner of the Pylon. – In the south wing, block 87CL 465 (CFEETK neg. 104987) is placed to the left of the niche, at the farthest point from the axial door. To the right of the vertical torus, the face is decorated

with the left doorframe of the niche, while to its left the face is smooth probably until the southeast corner of the Pylon. – Flagpole niche: the existence of at least one flagpole niche in each wing is proved by the thin depth (60 cm) of header 1S5-6 (345A1) which belongs to the back of the fourth niche of the southern range. Smooth and vertical, the outer face of this block is set ~ 65 cm back from the west face of the Pylon. This layout is characteristic of a flagpole niche facing west. – Decoration: a few limestone fragments in sunk relief were found in the foundation trench reused for the 6th Pylon and its west enclosure wall.177 They belonged to a line of text similar to the one topping the walls of the open air passages delimiting the small chapels P. It is possible that the original trench was dug under Amenhotep I to receive the foundations of a thin Pylon with battered faces (Fig. 40). The west face was blank but maybe have been topped by a line of text while its east face had 16 niches. – An axial door: this door separated the two rows of eight niches. It is possible that a limestone lintel of Amenhotep I,178 with texts that mentionned construction work in Karnak temple179 and which consists of blocks reused from a hard limestone lintel of Senwosret I, was placed here. Seven reused fragments come from the upper half of the original doorframe and from the face above it which shows Senwosret I sitting enthroned between Horus and Seth.180 These blocks were cut up and rotated before Amenhotep I reused them as a lintel embedded in a battered stone wall, as their perfectly flat cross joints indicate. On the lintel, the doorframe was wider under Amenhotep I (width: 3.46 m, projection: 7 cm)

sheltered the sandstone Osirian statues (6 are preserved, height: 3.15 m, CFEETK neg.1720) which were reused in the foundations of the south courtyard between the 5th and the 4th Pylon. 177 R. Mensan in La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 137-141: 7.2.3. La chapelle occidentale de Thoutmosis III: opération 161 with Fig. pg. 294. 178 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pg. 326. It is also possible that this door comes from Amenhotep I’s Pylon that was replaced by the 5th Pylon. According to this last hypothesis, Amenhotep I probably reused Senwosret I’s lintel in its original location. 179 Chr. Wallet-Lebrun, 18/2C (in press by Soleb): “[Ame] n[ho]tep Ier doué de [vie] qui [compte parmi son oeuvre en faveur de son père] Amon, seigneur-des-trônes-des-deuxterres, la construction de son domaine, l’agencement de son temple et l’érection de la porte Sud Seqa-hotep de vingt coudées en [belle pierre blanche de calcaire]…” 180 The direction of this lintel from an axial door is very likely defined by the position of the heraldic plants crushed

by the feet of the divinities. Seth, here referred to as the god of Ombos, is the Lord of Upper Egypt. He is placed to the left, on the lilly of the South, while Horus is placed to the right, on the papyrus of the North. This allows the lintel to face east, and not west as one might think even though the king’s red crown faces Amun, behind Seth. Unfortunately, behind Horus, the crown of the symmetrical king facing Amun has disappeared. The missing crown may have also been red, as one can see in the representation of Karnak’s 3rd Pylon, shown in a relief from the walls of the Colonnade Hall at Luxor temple (see Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions from Luxor Temple, Volume 1: The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall [Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994], pl. 100). Indeed, on the lintel of the axial door, (which is supposed to face west here), the opposing kings running towards Amun both wear the red crown. This strange symmetry of identical crowns does not seem to be a sculptor’s mistake since another relief, to the south of this one on the same wall, the exit gateway of Luxor temple is shown with

and a table laden with offerings, while a priest carries out the cult ritual. Both lines N and S seem to come from the east face of a Pylon which is reconstructed as the ancestor of the 6th Pylon and its western enclosure (Fig. 40; Égypte, Afrique et Orient 16 [2000], p. 29, plan 2, N° 5). At its base, the width of the Pylon reached six cubits, a figure computed through the addition of the niche depth (2.5 cubit) to the depth of the headers (125.5 cm) which form, at their top, the back face of the niches. The visible faces of both headers (87CL 404 and 405) show that the battered outer one is blank, while the vertical inner one is decorated. Two blocks belonging to the facade of the niches have vertical torus mouldings marking the end of the decoration. This particular feature allows them to be placed at the extreme ends of each wing:

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak

167

than under Senwosret I (width: 3.10 m). The few blocks belonging to the inner and outer doorjambs (passage: 3 cubits) show different widths of the vertical doorframes:181 * The narrowest doorframes (77.5 cm)182 have a slightly battered face that belonged to the inner doorframe.183 They are decorated with a column of text consisting of large hieroglyphs which permits the height of the passage to be reconstructed as nine cubits. One reveal is smooth, in order to fold the single doorleaf, while the other one is decorated with two columns of text which probably preceded a figure of the king striding into the temple (now missing).184 * The widest doorframes (96 cm)185 are more battered than the former ones and come from the outer doorframe.186 They are decorated with several superimposed scenes showing the king facing Amun. The door rebate seems to be preserved on block 156A1. * The counter-lintel: two blocks187 in hard limestone, very likely belonged to the counterlintel of the earlier doorway of Senwosret I,188 since one block (87CL 122) is clearly reused. Its top face shows an excision made at a right angle with reliefs depicting stars which is typical of the decoration on the soffit of a lintel.189 From the dimensions of the lintel and of the doorjambs, it is possible to reconstruct the doorway as being ~9 cubits high with a passage three cubits wide. Amenhotep I wears the red crown on the left side of the lintel, and the white one on the right, indicating that his door faced either south or west. The chapels G and P for the royal cult Foundations perpendicular to the western enclosure of the 6th Pylon also supported the north and south side chapels of Amenhotep I that Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut later replaced. – The long chapels G and G’ (~ 67 cm thick, two vertical faces): at least six long chapels have scenes depicting the offering ritual made to the

royal statue and its ka, by priests who are displayed on two registers. A few blocks from the side walls still retain partial projections of the back walls of these chapels. This bonding confirms that the main back wall (north for G, south for G’) was dismantled at the same time as the chapels. Their proposed reconstruction is in the same location as the later chapels of Tuthmosis III, which border the north and south sides of the Hatshepsut suite (Figs. 40-41; Égypte n°16, p. 27, plan 1, n° 3). – The short chapels P and P’ (~ 59 cm thick, two vertical faces): at least five short chapels have decoration on their side walls nearly identical to that of the long ones, but without the ka behind the royal statue. A few blocks of the side walls have kept the projection of the facade, but never of the back wall, as though the back walls had stayed in place when the rest was dismantled. Their proposed reconstruction is in the same location as Tuthmosis III’s chapels which border the north and south courtyard of the 6th Pylon (Figs. 40-41; Égypte n°16, p. 29, plan 2, n° 1). – The chapels at the extremities surrounding small passageways: altogether, there are six passageways, three on the north and three on the south. On the north side, from west to east: – the first passageway separates the wall with the range of niches S and N from the westernmost chapel of P – the second passageway separates the range of chapels G from the range of chapels P – the third passageway separates the easternmost chapel of G from the two parallel walls surrounding the limestone radier. Blocks from three walls (P1, P5, G0) have a different decorative scheme on one face, which is blank except for a horizontal line of text carved at its top in sunk relief. These particular faces were adjacent to small passageways which gave access to the outside (Fig. 40).

the scene on its lintel showing the two kings run towards Amun but wearing different crowns this time: red to the left (North) and white to the right (South). Epigraphic Survey, RILT 1, pl. 56. 181 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 326-327. 182 Ibid., p. 327. South doorjamb: 97CL 125 (CFEETK neg. 109227), 190A1 (CFEETK neg. 115851)—b. North doorjamb: 182A1 (CFEETK neg. 115851), 298A1+67A1. 183 Ibid., p. 327. 184 Ibid., p. 327d. Reveal of the doorway: 298A1 (CFEETK neg. 116016). 185 North doorjamb: 126A1 (CFEETK neg. 115836),

87CL 439 (CFEETK neg. 105214), 87CL 3+354A1 (CFEETK neg. 109065), Ibid., p. 326a. South doorjamb: 274A1, 87CL 190 (CFEETK neg. 105166), 94A1 (CFEETK neg. 115813), Ibid., p. 326b. 186 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, p. 326. 187 See pl. 50d. A lintel in hard limestone, reused from an earlier lintel: 87CL 122 (CFEETK neg. 109230), 237A1 (CFEETK neg. 11583). 188 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, p. 327. 189 Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), p. 417 and pl. XCII: block 87CL122.

françois larché

168

The chapel of Ahmes-Nefertari At least 13 blocks of the M-series have the same thickness. The salts covering them indicates that they lay buried under the groundwater table, probably below the Cachette courtyard. The Kheker-friezes which are found on both sides of one block are not at the same level, indicating that the roofs on each side of the wall were at different levels. A corner block with a vertical torus moulding is decorated with two cartouches of Ahmes-Nefertari. There is no clue as to the original location of this structure anywhere within the sanctuary. The copy of Senoswret I’s White Chapel More than 30 blocks (architraves, pillars, low walls, dados, roof slabs) come from a chapel whose dimensions and decoration are identical to Senwosret I’s White Chapel. The low walls placed in between the pillars are slightly thinner (35 cm) than those of the White Chapel (44 cm). On all these monuments, the facial features of Amenhotep I appear remarkably consistent, with a long curved nose, a falling chin and, most of the time, a highly arched eyebrow joining the tip of the eye. These portraits differ from the profiles of Amun, which have a much shorter nose above a flatter mouth and smaller chin, and are astonishingly similar to the profile of Senwosret I. 4.3. The Stages of Deconstruction All these blocks of Amenhotep I were found in several locations at Karnak: in the so-called Montu Temple at north-Karnak,190 below the Cachette courtyard,191 in the 3rd Pylon,192 in the foundations of the storerooms surrounding the limestone radier and, very likely, in the foundations of the Ptah temple. Because of these many findspots, three successive stages of the dismantling of Amenhotep I’s monuments can be envisaged.193

190

FIFAO 19, p. 16, pl. 41-44; FIFAO 25, pp. 23-65,

191

ASAE 4, pp. 1-40, 193-226; ASAE 5, pp. 1-43, 265-

62. 280. 192

ASAE 22, pp. 235-260; ASAE 23 pp. 99-138; ASAE 24, pp. 53-88; ASAE 26, pp. 119-130; ASAE 28, pp. 114128; ASAE 29, pp. 133-149; ASAE 31, pp. 81-97; ASAE 32, pp. 97-114; ASAE 37, pp. 173-200; ASAE 38, pp. 567-608;

The first stage of deconstruction under Tuthmosis I This first destruction concerned the two parallel enclosure walls (inner enclosure wall: 2 cubits thick, outer enclosure wall: 3 cubits thick) that were successively built by Amenhotep I around the limestone radier on which the main sanctuary rested (Fig. 40). Continued probably by Tuthmosis II and certainly by his successor, the dismantling process included the north and south ranges of short and long chapels P/P’ and G/G’ (Fig. 40) which were eventually replaced by similar chapels of Tuthmosis III, of which vestiges still stand. The only preserved foundations of Amenhotep I were discovered below the westward extension of the outer enclosure wall against which Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut abutted the south chapels of the 6th Pylon. These foundations consist of five courses, in green sandstone, built in the same manner as the courses of the limestone radier. Elsewhere around the radier, and below the north extension of the outer enclosure, this foundation of five courses was removed by Tuthmosis I. He replaced them by one made of two or three thin courses, in green sandstone, set on a very thick sand layer poured into Amenhotep I’s original trench. The sand thus replaced the two first courses of the original foundation. A few of Amenhotep I’s limestone blocks194 were also reused in this new foundation, at its connection joint with the old one. The second stage of deconstruction, during the coregency of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III The second stage of the destruction of Amenhotep I’s monuments was the removal of his narrow Pylon with 16 niches (S+N). Its western foundations (Fig. 41) were reused in the construction of the 6th Pylon and its western enclosure. The third stage of deconstruction under Amenhotep III The third phase of destruction removed nearly everything that Amenhotep I had built on the

ASAE 39, pp. 553-570; ASAE 46, pp. 147-161; ASAE 47, pp. 161-183; ASAE 49, pp. 1-15, 241-267; ASAE 50, pp. 429442; ASAE 51, pp. 549-572; ASAE 52, pp. 229-242; ASAE 53, pp. 7-19, 21-42. 193 Larché, Karnak 12 (Paris: ERC, 2007), pp. 487-488: 8.4. 194 F. Burgos, F. Larché, La Chapelle Rouge, vol. 2, pp. 235, 238, 247-251.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak

169

eastern foundations, that is to say at the location of the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard. Amenhotep III preserved the storerooms of Tuthmosis I which surround the limestone radier. Later restorations to these magazines prove that they remained in use until the cult stopped. Since the east face of Hatshepsut’s suite has remained very rough, it would seem natural that Amenhotep III kept in place the enclosure wall built along the perimeter of the limestone radier, against which this rough face abutted. However, the reconstruction of wall C+C’ as the

west side of this enclosure and the reuse of its blocks in the 3rd Pylon invalidates this hypothesis. It is difficult to imagine what Amenhotep III had planned to do in the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard, since it seems to have remained nearly empty until today.195 Like Amenhotep I, Amenhotep III would thus have been the instigator of vast disruptions inside the temple of Amun by simultaneously dismantling all the monuments built west of the 4th Pylon as well as part of the sanctuary of Amun that occupied the so-called “Middle Kingdom” courtyard.

195 H. Chevrier, ASAE 47 (1947), p. 177: “La thèse généralement admise de l’exploitation du calcaire pour la

fabrication de la chaux semble ici être en défaut, car de nombreux blocs de ces matériaux sont restés sur le terrain.”

170

françois larché

Addendum: La destruction comparée des temples du Moyen Empire à Tôd, Médamoud et Karnak Au temple de Tôd, de nombreux détails rendent bien improbable la chronologie des étapes de construction du temple telle que l’a proposée Bisson de la Roque1. S’il a bien remarqué le mur en calcaire de Sésostris Ier (h : 3,87 m), qui a été partiellement conservé dans le vestibule ajouté par Ptolémée Évergète II, il n’a pas vu que la fondation en calcaire de ce mur était indépendante du radier, celui dont le démontage a révélé un trésor d’Amenhemat II, le fils2 de Sésostris Ier, ainsi que de nombreux remplois du Moyen Empire. Pour faciliter la description des éléments d’architecture, l’orientation du temple sera simplifiée par rapport au Nord géographique : l’entrée ptolémaïque sera dite à l’ouest, le naos supposé à l’est, le trésor au nord et l’accès moderne au sud. 1. Les quatre déconnections visibles entre le radier et le mur de Sésostris Ier La porte détruite au sud du mur en calcaire de Sésostris Ier Une ancienne porte a été partiellement détruite à l’extrémité sud du mur en calcaire3 de Sésostris Ier afin d’y appuyer l’angle sud-ouest de l’ajout ptolémaïque. Le jambage sud de cette porte a disparu alors que son jambage nord est resté intact à l’exception de la feuillure de butée du vantail, qui a été soigneusement arasée (l : 36 cm) de façon à pouvoir y appuyer les assises ptolémaïques. La destruction partielle de ces assises en grès a fait apparaître l’embrasure lisse du jambage nord ainsi que l’orifice du loquet4 aménagée le long de la feuillure arasée. En restituant une largeur minimale au passage disparu de cette porte, le jambage sud aurait dû se trouver au moins 2 coudées plus au sud, ce qui le place bien au-delà de l’alignement du radier démonté par Bisson de la Roque. L’angle sudouest du temple de Sésostris Ier devant être alors

1 F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd (1934 à 1936), FIFAO 17 (Le Caire: IFAO, 1937). 2 Que le trésor soit au nom d’Amenhemat II rend aberrant l’attribution, par Bisson de la Roque, du radier à son père Sésostris Ier. 3 F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd (1934 à 1936), p. 13, fig. 9 et Pl. I. 4 Observation d’Antoine Garric. Un orifice semblable

restitué encore plus au sud, tout semble indiquer que la fondation du mur en calcaire est complètement indépendante du radier comme le montre d’ailleurs son appareil beaucoup plus soigné. Les photographies publiées montrent que cette fondation est placée uniquement à l’aplomb du mur en calcaire sans aucun lien apparent avec le radier5. La marque de l’appui d’un dallage est nettement ravalée sur le parement visible des parpaings en calcaire de cette fondation. On peut y restituer de minces dalles en calcaire d’épaisseur constante et parfaitement ajustés sur un remblai, identiques à celles du temple de Sésostris Ier à Éléphantine où une dizaine ont été réutilisées, sous Hatshepsout et Thoutmosis III, dans la fondation du temple de Satet. Le dallage en grès du radier Le schéma6 de Bisson de la Roque indique qu’un dallage en grès recouvrait le radier. Le sol du temple le plus récent est ainsi placé 37 cm audessus de celui qui était associé au mur conservé de Sésostris Ier, ce que montre la trace de l’appui du dallage contre l’assise de réglage en calcaire. Comme le constate très justement Bisson de la Roque, le dallage en grès est ainsi postérieur au mur de Sésostris Ier. Cependant, il fait l’hypothèse que le dallage associé au mur de Sésostris Ier aurait été l’assise en calcaire qui supporte le dallage en grès alors que les photographies montrent que cette assise est construite de blocs remployés (même s’ils ne sont pas décorés), plus ou moins bien appareillés, et dont le lit d’attente n’est pas assez bien ravalé pour avoir été un sol7. Ces blocs n’ont rien en commun avec les belles dalles en calcaire du temple de Sésostris Ier à Éléphantine. Rien n’assure donc que cette 3e assise du radier ait fait office de dallage au Moyen-Empire. L’alignement du côté ouest du radier Le plan et une photographie8 montrent clairement que le côté ouest du radier, en particulier son angle nord-ouest , n’est absolument pas aligné avec la fondation du mur de Sésostris Ier, cette

est visible sur un jambage de la porte de Médamoud reconstruite au musée en plein air de Karnak. Ibid., F. Bisson de la Roque, pl. III. 5 Ibid., p. 6, fig.4 et Pl. XIV. 6 Ibid., p. 11, fig. 7. 7 Ibid., p. 12, fig. 8 et Pl. XIV-1. 8 Ibid., pl. I et XIV-1.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak dernière étant installée beaucoup plus à l’ouest. Cet indice montre que, encore une fois, le mur et le radier sont structurellement déconnectés. Le sectionnement de la fondation du mur en calcaire de Sésostris Ier Toujours visible, l’assise de réglage de cette fondation est construite d’épais parpaings traversants, en calcaire, parfaitement joints et débordant de part et d’autre du mur épais de 2 coudées. Un sondage permettrait de mieux étudier cette fondation et d’en compter les assises. L’extrémité sud conservée du mur de Sésostris Ier tourne à angle droit vers l’est ce qui est confirmé également sur l’assise de réglage de la fondation. Ce mur perpendiculaire ne conserve qu’une très petite surface de son parement nord où l’on voit la bordure segmentée du décor et la queue d’un personnage, probablement le dieu si l’on reste cohérent avec la décoration du parement perpendiculaire. Comme l’indique les traces de coins éclateurs, la fondation du refend a été sectionnée à moins d’un mètre de l’angle avec le mur conservé. La logique constructive imposant que cette fondation ait été démantelée après les assises en élévation qu’elle supportait, il est certain que ce refend a été volontairement détruit à un moment de l’histoire du temple. Aucun sondage stratigraphique n’ayant été réalisé entre le radier et cette fondation, il n’est alors possible d’estimer la date de cette destruction que par un raisonnement sur les vestiges architecturaux. 2. L’élévation conservée du mur en calcaire de Sésostris Ier Le mur conservé de Sésostris Ier a été largement découpé dans sa partie médiane sous Ptolémée Évergète II qui y fit installer une nouvelle porte axiale. La décoration primitive de Sésostris Ier a alors disparu de la partie centrale des deux parements mais les vestiges conservés des parties latérales, au nord et au sud de cette nouvelle porte, permettent de la reconstituer partiellement. Le parement ouest Une grande inscription gravée en creux, en colonnes, couvrait la partie du parement actuellement au sud de la porte axiale. Le sommet du mur conservé correspond au haut du texte qui aurait dû

9

Observation de Ch. Van Siclen.

171

logiquement être couronné d’un tore surmonté d’une corniche. Cependant, la frise de Khekerou, gravée à ce niveau sur le parement opposé, couronne une décoration en creux qui n’incite guère à y poser une couverture. Peut-on alors imaginer une assise supplémentaire sculptée d’un tore surmonté d’une corniche sur ses deux parements opposés ? L’extrémité sud de l’inscription en colonnes est bordée par le motif vertical du cobra s’enroulant autour de la tige centrale d’une plante héraldique9, ce motif décorant ainsi le chambranle gauche de porte démantelée qui a été décrite plus haut. Au nord de la porte axiale, le parement en calcaire est beaucoup moins lisible mais on observe10, au niveau du dallage ptolémaïque, un alignement de ankh et de was, surmonté d’un lion couché qui pourrait fort bien avoir supporté le trône du roi assis sous son dais, comme on le voit à Karnak deux fois sur le mur du texte de la Jeunesse et également sur l’angle du portique de Sésostris Ier. On aurait alors ici l’habituelle scène du roi assis devant un grand texte en colonnes. Le parement oriental Il y avait au moins six scènes sur lesquelles le roi Sésostris Ier se dirige vers le nord. Ces scènes sont couronnées d’une frise de Khekerou indiquant le sommet du mur mais la décoration en creux n’incite pas à y faire reposer une couverture. Seules quatre scènes sont partiellement conservées dont deux de fondation : – sur la scène 1, à gauche, coupée par une petite porte ouverte à l’époque ptolémaïque, seules les jambes du roi apparaissent ; – sur les scènes 2, le roi face au dieu creuse la fosse de fondation du temple ; – sur la scène 3, le roi face au dieu jette des grains dans la fosse ; – les scènes 4 et 5 ont été détruites par la nouvelle porte axiale, à l’exception de la queue du dieu de la scène 5 ; – sur la scène 6, le roi consacre des offrandes au dieu ; – on ne sait si d’autres scènes suivaient, le mur étant détruit. Il faudrait faire un sondage vers le nord, dans l’alignement du mur, pour observer les vestiges d’une éventuelle fondation ou de sa tranchée.

10

Observation de Ch. Van Siclen.

172

françois larché

La direction du roi Au sud de la nouvelle porte axiale, le sens de la marche de Sésostris Ier est à l’inverse de celle de Ptolémée Évergète II sur les assises en grès ajoutées au-dessus du mur en calcaire : Sésostris Ier se dirige vers la porte comme pour sortir alors qu’il devrait aller dans le sens contraire, vers le sud. Curieusement, il se dirige vers le nord de part et d’autre de l’axe est-ouest, ce qui proscrit l’existence d’une porte axiale sous son règne. Cette disposition indique que, au Moyen Empire, Sésostris Ier arrivait du sud pour se diriger vers le nord où devait se trouver le naos. Cependant, ce dernier aurait pu aussi être à l’est car aucun indice d’architecture ne permet encore d’affirmer que le naos se trouvait à l’aplomb du trésor d’Amenhemat II découvert dans le radier. Le refend perpendiculaire aux assises en grès Les assises en grès, ajoutées sur la partie sud du mur en calcaire, possèdent l’accroche d’un refend perpendiculaire dont aucune trace n’existe sur le mur de Sésostris Ier puisque la décoration des scènes de fondation 2 et 3 est continue à l’aplomb du refend disparu. Invisible sur le mur en calcaire, ce refend contre lequel le mur ptolémaïque en grès s’est appuyé, s’il est obligatoirement postérieur à Sésostris Ier, ne peut être qu’antérieur à Ptolémée Évergète II. De nombreux blocs épars de la 18e dynastie ayant été découverts, souvent remployés dans les fondations ptolémaïques, il est probable qu’au Nouvel Empire un temple avait déjà remplacé celui du Moyen Empire. Ce remplacement n’a pu intervenir qu’au moment de la construction du radier. 3. Nouvelle datation du radier Bisson de la Roque a publié un inventaire précis des remplois qu’il a découvert au moment du démontage du radier. Ainsi, il a décompté 28 blocs aux noms de Montouhotep III et Montouhotep V. Du premier, il a des éléments en grès (fragments de colonnes octogonales Ø 45 cm, trois portes avec deux linteaux), en calcaire (parements en relief dans le creux et un élément de porte) et un socle de statue en granite. Du second, il décrit les éléments de deux monuments en calcaire décoré en relief, dont une dalle de plafond permettant de restituer une chapelle large de 3 11 F. Bisson de la Roque, Tôd (1934 à 1936), p. 64 et 104, inv. 2138.

coudées. Il a également extrait une architrave en calcaire d’Amenhemat Ier, ce qui lui fait conclure que le radier est l’œuvre de son fils Sésostris Ier. Ce dernier aurait ainsi remployé les éléments démantelés des monuments de ses prédécesseurs, dont son père, dans un radier de fondation sur lequel il aurait construit son nouveau sanctuaire. Cependant de nombreuses incohérences apparaissant dans cette hypothèse, il est indispensable d’évaluer à nouveau la date de construction du radier qui, s’il n’est certainement pas l’oeuvre de Sésostris Ier pour les évidentes raisons d’architecture qui viennent d’être expliquées, peut difficilement lui être antérieur pour plusieurs raisons : – d’abord, le trésor découvert sous le côté nord du radier est au nom d’Amenhemat II, le fils de Sésostris Ier, et il semble bien en place, soigneusement enfoui sous une dalle en calcaire ; – ensuite, comme le radier ne peut être l’oeuvre de Sésostris Ier, comment expliquer le remploi dans le radier de deux blocs au nom de son père Amenhemat Ier sans ajouter un remaniement intermédiaire entre les deux règnes. En effet, il faut bien qu’un roi ait remployé, dans l’assise inférieure du radier11, l’architrave en calcaire d’Amenhemat Ier (h : 40cm, L : 174cm) et posée sur l’assise inférieure la base d’une statue en granite de ce roi ; – enfin, rien n’empêche les éléments des 12e et e 13 dynasties découverts sous l’église ou dans son dallage de provenir du radier. Ainsi, les jambages et le linteau en granite d’une porte de Sésostris Ier (h : 4,10m L : 2,80m, l passage: 1,35 m) ont été remployés dans le dallage de l’église avec de nombreux fragments en calcaire et granite au nom de ce roi. Deux fragments seraient peut-être même au nom d’Amenhemat II (calcaire inv. 1337 et granite inv. 1647). – un fragment en calcaire est remployé en fondation d’un mur ptolémaïque12. Il semble désormais beaucoup plus logique de dater ce radier du Nouvel Empire et, dans cette perspective, il serait intéressant d’examiner à nouveau l’outil en fer trouvé dans le sable de fondation (inv. 2108) avec un petit taureau en calcaire probablement doré. D’autre part, le tracé du temple observé par Bisson de la Roque, dessiné dans le limon et répété sur les assises du radier, semble bien trop ténu pour ne pas être subjectif. 12

Ibid., fig. 65.

senwosret i’s portico and of some structures of amenhotep i at karnak Une hypothèse plus raisonnable serait de proposer une clôture (en raison de la décoration en creux sur ses deux parements) en calcaire construite par Sésostris Ier pour entourer un ensemble de petites chapelles construites par ses prédécesseurs. La porte en granite serait alors restituée dans l’axe du mur perpendiculaire à celui encore en place. L’accès principal au temple pourrait être la porte dont le jambage nord est encore en place dans le mur conservé de Sésostris Ier. Le temple de Satet construit par ce roi à Éléphantine possède une disposition identique, sa porte d’accès n’étant pas axiale mais placée à droite de la façade, après un grand texte en colonnes. À Tôd, la clôture et ses chapelles auraient alors été détruites à la 18e dynastie, à l’exception du mur toujours en place, et un nouveau temple avec une nouvelle orientation vers le Nil aurait été construit comme le laisse supposer les nombreux blocs épars de cette période. Le radier aurait ainsi été construit au Nouvel Empire avec le trésor d’Amenhemat II pieusement conservé à l’aplomb probable de l’ancien naos.

13

173

4. Conclusion Une situation similaire existe à Médamoud où deux radiers de fondations ont été identifiés par Bisson de la Roque13. Celui du Moyen Empire a conservé sa première assise posée sur un lit de sable et l’angle sud-est de la seconde et dernière assise ainsi qu’une porte en granite au nom de Sésostris III, dont le seuil est encore en place. Ce radier est constitué de blocs en calcaire dont aucun ne semble être en remploi, contrairement au radier du Nouvel Empire dont les blocs constitutifs sont tous des blocs du Moyen Empire remployés. Comme à Tôd, le temple du Nouvel Empire à Médamoud s’ouvre à l’ouest vers le Nil alors que celui de Sésostris III s’ouvre au nord, c’est-à dire à l’inverse de celui de Sésostris Ier à Tôd, comme si les naos des deux temples tournaient le dos à Karnak. Cette inversion est peut-être liée à la position de Karnak entre Tôd et Médamoud, sur la rive orientale du Nil, Tôd étant au sud et Médamoud au nord. Grâce aux exemples des radiers des trois temples de Karnak, Tôd et Médamoud, on peut conclure que les radiers et les fondations supportant les temples du Moyen Empire étaient faits de blocs en calcaire sans aucun remploi, alors que ceux du Nouvel Empire n’étaient faits que de blocs provenant du démontage de sanctuaires plus anciens.

F. Bisson de la Roque, Medamoud, FIFAO 8, (Le Caire: IFAO, 1931), pl. IV

174

françois larché

the land of ramesses

175

THE LAND OF RAMESSES Donald B. Redford Pennsylvania State University It is with a sense of great personal loss that I dedicate this short piece to the memory of one who was more than a colleague—a friend with whom I shared so many interests, not least the love of opera. May his soul find eternal rest. The appearance of the name “Raamses” in the Biblical account of the Sojourn and Exodus presents us with a conundrum.1 The original pronunciation, Ri-a-ma-se-sa, betrays an N(1) + N(2) syntactic pattern, viz. Re-it-is-that-hasfashioned-him.2 The active participle in N(2) position bears a stressed long -a- between the first and second radicle, thus CVCCe.3 In the 19th Dynasty the ayin is strong and was reinforced by a pathah furtive, as well as, in one case, a preformative -alif.4 But Greek transcriptions, such as Ραμεσσῆ, ΡαμέσσηϚ, ΡαμεσήϚ and ΡαμεσσήϚ5 show that by the mid-First Millennium bc the accent had shifted from the participial form to

word-final position with the resultant reduction of the -a- to a shewa, “ĕ”.6 Moreover the gravitation of the stress has reduced the secondary stress on the first syllable, and has occasionally introduced a euphonic–p–.7 This is the distorted vocalization which the Hebrew reflects, not that of the original Bronze Age pronunciation. In the Bronze Age the equivalence of Egyptian š/s with West Semitic ‫ ש‬is standard, as one would expect; and the entry of loanwords into the dialects of the latter can be virtually dated by the adherence to this standard.8 The rendering of Egyptian ś (sin) by ‫( ס‬samekh), however, demonstrates that the form of the name R-ms-sw entered Hebrew and other West Semitic languages no earlier than the end of the 8th Cent. bc,9 as no certain examples of the equivalence ś/š with Hebrew samekh occur before this time.10

1 The commentaries are legion. Most take it for granted that the name, whether applied to a city or a “land,” derives ultimately from Pi-Ramesses. See in particular J. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte (Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1959), pp. 183-87; C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1982), pp. 190-92; M. Bietak, “Comments on the ‘Exodus,’” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai, ed. A.F. Rainey (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987), pp. 163-71; C. Houtman, Exodus I (Kampen: Kok Publishing House, 1993), pp. 126-27; J.K. Hofmeier, Israel in Egypt. The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 117-19; J.D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), pp. 125-29; R. Krauss, Moïse le Pharaon (Paris: Editions du Rocher, 2005), pp. 196-99. 2 H. Ranke, Die altägyptische Personennamen I (Gluckstadt: Verlag J.J. Augustin, 1939), p. 218:6. 3 A. Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 87. 4 E. Edel, Der Vertrag zwischen Ramses II von Ägypten und Hattusili III von Hatti (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1997), p. 18 and n. 4. 5 See W.G. Waddell, Manetho (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 108, 112, 148, 236. 6 K. Sethe, “Die Vokalisation des Ägyptischen,” ZDMG 77 (1923), p. 190. 7 Cf. Ραμψής: Waddell, Manetho, pp. 150, 244; Ραμψίvιτoς in Herod. ii.121, on which see A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II, a Commentary II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), p. 52. 8 Cf. KAš > ‫ ;כוש‬zššn > ‫ ;שושן‬Tsy > ‫( תחש‬Gen. 22:24); skἰwt >‫( שכיות‬Isa. 2:16);

Su-si-in-qu > ‫ ;שישק‬Sheshy (?) > ‫( ששי‬Num. 13:22); šsr > ‫ ;שש‬Š-r > ‫ שיחור‬cf. From the root NS > ‫ ;נחשתן‬if the PN ‫ משה‬does derive from the Egyptian root msἰ, the choice of the sibilant is an interesting criterion of date of entry. 9 The interchange of Egyptian č and West Semitic s (samekh) survives into the 25th Dynasty (J. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994], p. 368 no. 548); but thereafter samekh is used to render Egyptian ś (R. Zadok, BiOr. 48 [1991], 38): cf. C.R. Krahlmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary (Louvain: Peeters, 2000), pp. 65, 67 (‫ =אס‬Isis; ‫=אסר‬Osiris); J.B. Segal, Aramaic Texts from North Saqqara (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), no. 6, 61a, (‫=חרסיס‬ r-sA-’Ist; ‫= פטובסת‬PA-dἰ-BAst); H. Ranke, Die altägyptische Personennamen, 272:4 ‫=ענחחבס‬n-A-bA.s; the appearance of the equivalence Egyptian s = Hebrew ‫ ס‬in the second quarter of the First Millennium helps date the fixing of the following forms: ‫( פינחס‬PA-n sy, “the Southerner”), ‫( תחפנחס‬Jer. 43:7-9 etc; TA- wt-pA-n sy, “the Mansion of the southerner”), ‫( סוא‬2 Ki. 17:14; SAw, “Sais”), ‫( תחפנס‬1 Ki. 11:19-20; TA- wt-pA nsw, “the king’s mansion,” [but perhaps a garbling of TA mt-nsw, “king’s-wife”]), ‫( חנס‬Isa. 30:4; wt-nn-nsw, “Mansion of the king’s child”), ‫( סתרוס‬Gen. 10:14, Isa. 11:11 etc.; pA tA rsy, “the Southland”), ‫( סין‬Ezek. 30:15, Sin, “Syene [Pelusium]”), ‫( פיבסת‬Ezek. 30:17, Pr-BAst, “House of Bast”). The continued vacillation between the two sibilants in Biblical Aramaic (cf. J.D. Bing, American Journal of Ancient History 10 [1985], 118 n. 54) shows that the distinction had been lost. 10 J. Hoch, Semitic Words, p. 270; cf. pp. 432-33.

176

donald b. redford

In Exod. 1:11 the name is applied to a city; in Gen. 47:11 to a land. While there is nothing inherently impossible in a royal name occurring in the designation of a settlement—in fact it is extremely common—the result is a name compounded with another element in a bound construction, e.g. nw, “residence,” pr, “house,” wt, “mansion, plantation,” ἰnbw, “walled fort,” and so on. In the case of Pr-R-ms-sw A-ntw, “The House of Ramesses, Great of Victories,” with which the city of Exod. 1:11 is often identified,11 one would expect pr, “house,” to survive in the pronunciation, and in the vast majority of cases in which the town is cited this is indeed the case. It used to be maintained12 in defense of the identification with Pἰ-R-ms-sw that the latter dropped out of usage after the Ramesside era; and that therefore its presence in the Exodus tradition must prove historical authenticity. But that is not strictly true: “Ramesses” does appear sporadically in the 22nd Dynasty and later. Occurrences fall under three heads: (a) in the expression “King’s-son of Ramesses,” (b) in the compound Pr-R-ms-sw, “House of Ramesses,” and (c) in the expression “God X of Ramesses.” In the first it is not immediately apparent, nor necessary to conclude, that the allusion is to a (Pr)-R-ms-sw. The dozen or so examples of this title occur in the epithets of military officers,13 but they are too few and isolated to permit us to see in their bearers the literal descendants of Ramesses the Great. Might it be that the Ramesside war

reliefs which give prominence to royal sons on the battlefield,14 has given birth to an honorific military title?15 “God X of Ramesses”16 occurs with Re, Amun17 Ptah, 18 and Arsaphes.19 A text of the early 4th Century BC locates temples of Re of Ramesses and Ptah of Ramesses on the eastern river, i.e. the Pelusiac branch of the Nile.20 One inscription of the same period significantly links “Amun of Ramesses” with Pr-R-ms-sw.21 Archaeologically it is impossible that the reference here is to the 19th Dyn. Residence; but the god’s qualification “... of Ramesses” shows a surviving cult form, of royal patronage which may well go back to the city of Ramesses the Great, and the specific divine forms honored within it. The presence of “Ramesses” in a compound indicating a place is of some importance. In the Late Period Pr-R-ms-sw does indeed occur with the variant wt (nsw) R-ms-sw “the Mansion (i.e. temple) of King Ramesses.”22 It is uncertain whether a specific cult seat dedicated to the memory and worship of the king existed somewhere in Egypt in the Late Period, or whether the king enjoyed a “guest cult” in several temples. The fact is that TA wt R-ms-sw, “the Mansion of Ramesses,” was a known form in the six centuries from the 24th Dynasty to Ptolemaic times. Now during this span of time tA wt yielded a pronunciation θω,23 while “land,” tA in Egyptian was pronounced to in Sahidic, θo or θω in Old Coptic and Bohairic.24 What has happened is clear: an original TA wt R-ms-sw, “The Mansion of Ramesses,” has

11 See Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 116-19 and passim. 12 H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 33, n. 1. 13 P-M. Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiennes de la Basse Époque (Paris: n.p., 1985), pp. 258-59. 14 S.C. Heinz, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des neuen Reiches (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001); cf. E. Feucht, Das Kind im alten Ägypten (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1995), pp. 446-47. 15 See the extended discussion with references in P. Collombert, “Les ‘fils royaux de Rameses’: une nouvelle hypothèse,” GM 151 (1996), pp. 23-36. 16 Cf. A. Moret, Annales du Musée Guimet XXXII (1909), p. 142, pl. 64. 17 Berlin 6764 (Günther Roeder, Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, [Leipzig: J.C. Heinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1924], p. 307). 18 Ibid. 19 P. Tresson, “L’inscription de Chechanq Ier au Musée du Caire : un frappant exemple d’impôt progressif en matière religieuse,” Mélanges Maspero I (Cairo: IFAO, 1934), p. 820, line 28.

20 E. Naville, Bubastis (London: Kegan Paul, 1891), pl. 46B. 21 Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiennes de la Basse Époque, 166f, no. 239; C. Zivie-Coche, Tanis. Statues et autobiographies de dignitaires (Paris, 2004), pp. 114-16 (n). 22 Cairo 22054 (= A. Kamal, Stèles ptolemaïques et romaines, [Cairo: IFAO, 1904-05], pl. 17). For wt R-ms-sw alone, see E. Brugsch, Dictionnaire géographique de l’Égypte ancienne (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1879), p. 1135; M.-L. Buhl, The Late Egyptian Anthropoid Stone Sarcophagi (Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet Skrifter, 1959), pl. V and Fa 16 (from Abydos and Saqqara), and the “Athens” stela of Tefnakhte: J. Yoyotte, “Les principautés du Delta au temps de l’anarchie libyenne (Études d’histoire politique),” Mélanges Maspero IV (Cairo: IFAO, 1961), end plate. 23 Cf. Wb. III, 1; W. Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1954), p. 284; W. Westendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag , 1977), p. 352; A. Calderini, Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’ Egitto Greco Romano Suppl. 2 (Bonn: Habelt, 1996), p. 74: Θῷλθις (< wt-Adwy), Θῷσβις (< tA wt-ἰsbt): P. Wilson, Ptolemaic Lexikon, [Louvain: Peeters, 1993], p. 627). 24 Westendorf, ibid., 219.

the land of ramesses given rise in the Delta to a false back-formation through Hörfehler, viz. tA R-ms-sw, “the Land of Ramesses,” both pronounced T(h)o-Ramesses. The

177

alleged “Land of Ramesses” in Genesis has no more historicity than the “Land of Oz.”

178

donald b. redford

bibliography of william j. murnane

179

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM J. MURNANE 1969 With E. Brovarski. “Inscriptions from the Time of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II at Abisco.” Serapis 1: pp. 11-33. 1970 “Further Light on the Conspiracy of Sejanus: Suet Tib xlviii, 2.” Serapis 2: p. 36. “The Hypothetical Coregency Between Amenhotep III and Akhenaton: Two Observations.” Serapis 2: pp. 1721. 1971 “Once Again Dates for Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II.” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University, New York 3: pp. 1-7. 1972 “The ‘King Ramasses’ of the Medinet Habu Procession of Princes.” JARCE 9: pp. 121-131. 1975 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I.” JNES 34: pp. 153-190. “A Note on the Personnel of the Sinai Expeditions in the Reign of Amenemmes III.” GM 15: pp. 27-33. 1976 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II: Two Addenda.” GM 19: pp. 41-43. “A Hitherto Unpublished Funerary Cone.” GM 19: pp. 3940. “The Accession Date of Sethos I.” Serapis 3: pp. 23-33. 1977 Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. SAOC 40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “On the Accession Date of Akhenaton.” In Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes. January 12, 1977, eds. J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente, pp. 163-167. SAOC 39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “Tutankhamun and the Fall of the Eighteenth Dynasty.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 48.4 (April 1977): pp. 6-18. Review of E. Edel and S. Wenig. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Ne-user-re. JNES 36: p. 76. Review of G.T. Martin. The Royal Tomb of El-Amarna. Vol. 1. The Objects. JNES 36: pp. 306-308. Review of P.H. Schulze, Herrin beider Länder, Hatschepsut. BiOr 34: pp. 177-178. 1978 Review of J.L. Foster. Love Songs of the New Kingdom. JNES 37: pp. 363-365. Review of L. Habachi. The Second Stela of Kamose and His Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and His Capital. JNES 37: pp. 277-278. 1979 “The Bark of Amun on the Third Pylon at Karnak.” JARCE 16: pp. 11-27. Review of K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. JNES 38: pp. 140-141.

Review of M. Vallogia. Recherches sur les “messagers” (wpwtyw) dans les sources égyptiennes profanes. JNES 38: pp. 305-306. Review of R.D. Anderson. Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum. Vol. 3. Musical Instruments; L. Manniche. Musical Instruments from the Tomb of Tutankhamūn; and L. Maniche. Ancient Egyptian Musical Instruments. JNES 38: pp. 304-305. Review of W. Helck. Das Bier im alten Ägypten. JNES 38: pp. 137-138. 1980 United with Eternity: A Concise Guide to the Monuments at Medinet Habu. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. “Unpublished Fragments of Hatshepsut’s Historical Inscription from Her Sanctuary at Karnak.” Serapis 6: pp. 91-102. Review of E.A. Ibrahim. The Chapel of the Throne of Re of Edfu. JNES 39: p. 326. Review of R. Hanke. Amarna Reliefs aus Hermopolis. BiOr 37: pp. 47-50. Review of E. Hornung. Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen (Sonnenlitanei) nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches. JNES 39: p. 174. 1981 With H.H. Nelson. The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Volume I, Part 1. The Wall Reliefs. OIP 106. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “In Defense of Middle Kingdom Double Dates.” BES 3: pp. 73-82. “Paintings from the Tomb of Nakht at Thebes.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 52, No. 10 (November 1981): pp. 13-25. “The Sed Festival: A Problem in Historical Method.” MDAIK 37: pp. 369-376. Review of D. Wildung. Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt. JNES 40: pp. 142-143. Review of H. Rosellini. Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia. JNES 40: pp. 67-68. Review of Oriental Institute. The 1905-1907 Breasted Expeditions to Egypt and the Sudan: A Photographic Study. JNES 40: pp. 68-69. 1982 With L. Bell, and B. Fishman. “The Epigraphic Survey (Chicago House).” NARCE 118 (Summer 1982): pp. 3-23. With L. Bell and B. Fishman. “The Epigraphic Survey (Chicago House). Part 2: The Institute Function of Chicago House (With Special Reference to the 1980-81 Field Season).” NARCE 119 (Fall 1982): pp. 6-13. “Opetfest.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4, ed. W. Helck, pp. 574-579. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Review of B. Van de Walle. La Chapelle funéraire de Neferirtenef; G.T. Martin. The Tomb of Hetepka and Other Reliefs and Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara, 1964-1973; and M. Bietak and E. Reiser-Haslauer. Das Grab des Anch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris, Vol. 1. JNES 41: pp. 236-237.

180

bibliography of william j. murnane

Review of H. Goedicke. The Protocol of Neferyt (The Prophecy of Neferti). JNES 41: pp. 144-146. Review of H.D. Schneider. Shabtis: An Introduction to the History of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes with a Catalogue of the Collection of Shabtis in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. JNES 41: pp. 237-238. Review of J. Samson, Amarna, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Key Pieces from the Petrie Collection; and H.M. Stewart, Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection. JNES 41: pp. 141-146. Review of S. Ratié, La Reine Hatchepsout, sources et problèmes. BiOr 39: pp. 54-56. Review of W. Decker. Annotierte Bibliographie zum Sport im alten Ägypten. JNES 41: p. 237. 1983 The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Review of A. Barucq and F. Daumas. Hymnes et prières de l’Egypte ancienne. JNES 41: p. 78. Review of D. Wildung. Fünf Jahre: Neuerwerbungen der Staatlichen Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst München, 1976-1980; A. Niccacci and G. Kloetzli. Hyksos Scarabs; and J. Bulté. Catalogue des collections égyptiennes du Musée National de Céramique à Sèvres. JNES 42: pp. 322-323. Review of K. Martin. Reliefs des Alten Reiches, Teil 1; E. Martin-Pardey. Plastik des Alten Reiches, Teil 2; and K. Martin. Reliefs des Alten Reiches, Teil 2. JNES 42: pp. 232-233. Review of K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. Vol. 2, 24 fascs.; Vol. 3, 28 fascs.; Vol. 4, 15 fascs. JNES 42: p. 323. Review of R. David. The Mysteries of the Mummies. JNES 42: p. 78. Review of R. David. The Macclesfield Collection of Egyptian Antiquities. JNES 42: pp. 156-157. Review of R. Krauss. Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Orientalia 52: pp. 274-284. Review of R.A. Parker, J. Leclant, and J.-C. Goyon. The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak. JNES 42: p. 233. 1984 “The El-Amarna Boundary Stelae Project: A Preliminary Report.” NARCE 128 (Winter 1984): pp. 40-52. “The Princess Who Never Was.” Oriental Institute News and Notes 93: pp. 1-4. Review of A. El-Sayed Mahmud, A New Temple for Hathor at Memphis. JEA 70: pp. 168-169. Review of E.B. Pusch. Das Senet-Brettspiel in alten Ägypten, Teil 1.1-2. JNES 43: p. 168. Review of H.M. Stewart. Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection. Pt. 2. Archaic Period to Second Intermediate Period. JNES 43: pp. 167-168. 1985 The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Seti I at Karnak. SAOC 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “False Doors and Cult Practices Inside Luxor Temple.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II, ed. P. Posener-Kriéger, pp. 135-148. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire. “Tutankhamun on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak.” VA 1: pp. 59-68. Review of D. Valbelle. Satis et Anoukis. JNES 44: p. 244.

Review of E. Martin-Pardey, Eingeweidengefässe; and K. Martin. Reliefs des Alten Reiches und Verwandte Denkmäler. Vol. 3. JNES 44: p. 163. Review of S. Amer el-Fikey. The Tomb of the Vizier Re-wer at Saqqara. JNES 44: p. 244. 1986 “Colossal Statue of Tutankhamun from West Thebes (Oriental Institute 14088).” Oriental Institute Museum Featured Object 5 (Pamphlet series). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Égypte: Louqsor Temple du Ka Royal. Dossiers Histoire et Archeologie 101 (January 1986): “La grande fête d’Opet,” pp. 22-25; “Pour Visiter le Temple,” pp. 12-16; “Redecouverte et degagement du temple,” pp. 16-20; “Les cartouches trompeurs du temple de Louqsor,” pp. 48-49; “Le mystere de la naissance divine du roi,” pp. 54-57; with L. Bell. “La presence divine à Louqsor,” pp. 60-61. “James Henry Breasted.” In Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 47: American Historians, 1866-1912, ed. C.N. Wilson, pp. 53-64. Detroit: Gale Research Company. Review of D. Arnold. The Temple of Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari; and D. Arnold. Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari. Vol. 3. Die königlichen Beigaben. JNES 45: pp. 307-308. 1987 With B. Williams and T.J. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery Before Narmer, Appendix C: The Gebel Sheikh Soleiman Monument: Epigraphic Remarks.” JNES 46: pp. 282-285. “The ‘First Occasion of the Discovery’ of Akhet-Aten.” SAK 14: pp. 239-246. Review of C. Andrews. Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum. Vol. 6. Jewellery I: From the Earliest Times to the Seventeenth Dynasty. JNES 46: pp. 143-144. Review of H.M. Stewart. Egyptian Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection. Pt. 3. The Late Period, with a Supplement of Miscellaneous Inscribed Material. JNES 46: p. 160. Review of H. Wild. La Tombe de Nefer-hotep (I) et Neb-nefer à Deir el Medina [No. 6] et autres documents les concernant. Vol. 2; and A.-P. Zivie. La Tombe de Pached à Deir el Medineh [No. 3]. JNES 46: pp. 236-237. 1988 Review of D.B. Redford. Akhenaten: The Heretic King. JNES 47: pp. 47-48. Review of H. Jaritz, H. Maehler, and K.-T. Zauzich. Elephantine. Vol. 3. Die Terrassen vor den Tempel des Chnum und der Satet: Architektur und Deutung. JNES 47: p. 48. Review of H. Ricke, L. Habachi, and G. Haeny. Untersuchungen im Totentempel Amenophis’ III. BiOr 45: pp. 119-120. Review of J. Osing, M. Moursi, D.O. Arnold, O. Neugebauer, R.A. Parker, D. Pingree, and M.A. Nur-el-Din. Denkmäler der Oase Dachla aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry. JNES 47: p. 51. Review of J. van Seters. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. JNES 47: pp. 131-133. Review of K. Sethe and W. Helck. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. JARCE 25: pp. 243-244.

bibliography of william j. murnane Review of K.P. Kuhlmann. Materialien zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. JNES 47: pp. 50-51. Review of M. Bietak, E. Reiser-Haslauer. Das Grab des Anch-Hor. JNES 47: p. 48. Review of K.P. Khulmann. Materialien zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. JNES 47: pp. 50-51. 1989 “Rhetorical History? The Beginning of Thutmose III’s First Campaign in Western Asia.” JARCE 26: pp. 183-189. Review of A.J. Spalinger. Aspects of the Military Documents of Ancient Egypt. JEA 75: pp. 259-261. Review of B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, and A.B. Lloyd. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. JNES 48: pp. 226-227. Review of M.-A. Bonhême. Les livre des rois de la troisième periode intermédiaire I, XXIe Dynastie. BiOr 46: pp. 52-53. Review of W.A. Ward. Essays on Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and Related Subjects. JNES 48: pp. 225-226. Review of L. Balout, C. Roubet. La momie de Ramses II. JNES 48: p. 74. 1990 The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Seti I at Karnak. 2nd Edition, Revised. SAOC 42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Review of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Études des Temples de Karnak. Cahiers de Karnak VIII, 1982-1985. BiOr 47: pp. 89-90. 1991 With M. Eaton-Krauss. “Tutankhamun, Ay, and the Avenue of Sphinxes Between Pylon X and the Mut Precinct at Karnak.” BSEG 15: pp. 31-38. “Amenhotep, called Huy, Son of Hapu, Servant, Seer, Saint.” KMT 2.2 (Summer 1991): pp. 9-13, 56-59. Review of C. Aldred. Akhenaten, King of Egypt. JAOS 111: pp. 388-390. Review C. Hobson. The World of the Pharaohs: A Complete Guide to Ancient Egypt. JNES 50: pp. 159-160. Review of G.T. Martin. Corpus of Reliefs of the New Kingdom from the Memphite Necropolis and Lower Egypt. Vol. 1. JNES 50: p. 306. Review of H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord IV: Le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier. La décoration. BiOr 48: p. 482. 1992 With F. Yurco. “Once Again the Date of the New Kingdom Pylon at Edfu.” In The Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944-1990, eds. R. Friedman and B. Adams, pp. 337-346. Oxford: Oxbow Press. “Taking It With You: The Problem of Death and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt.” In Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions, ed. H. Obayashi, pp. 35-48. Contributions to the Study of Religion 33. New York: Greenwood Press. “Two Stelae from Nubia.” In Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, Vol. VI, New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, K, S, and W at Qustul and Adindan, ed. B.B. Williams, pp. 103-109. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “Egypt, History of the New Kingdom.” In Anchor Bible

181

Dictionary vol. 2, ed. D.N. Freedman, pp. 348-353. New York: Doubleday. Review of L.L. Giddy. Egyptian Oases: Bahariya, Dakhla, Farafra and Kharga during Pharaonic Times. JNES 51: pp. 304-305. 1993 With C.C. Van Siclen. The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. London: Kegan Paul International. “Dans le domaine d’Amon: l’oeuvre d’Amenophis III a Karnak et à Louxor.” Amenophis III: L’Égypte à son apogée. Dossiers Histoire et Archeologie 180 (March 1993): pp. 28-39. Review of D. Jones. A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms. JNES 52: pp. 234-235. Review of K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical. JNES 52: p. 235. Review of L. Manniche. The Wall Decoration of Three Theban Tombs (TT 77, 175, and 249). JNES 52: pp. 235-236. 1994 With J.P. Allen and J. van Dijk. “Further Evidence for the Coregency of Amenhotep III and IV. Three Views on a Graffito Found at Dahshur.”Amarna Letters 3: pp. 26-31, 152. “Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory.” KMT 5.3 (Summer 1994): pp. 15-24, 88. “Nature of the Aten: Akhenaten and his God, Problems and Perspectives.” Amarna Letters 3 (Winter, 1994): pp. 33-40. “Too Many High Priests? Once Again the Ptahmoses of Ancient Memphis.” In For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, ed. D.P. Silverman, pp. 187196. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Review of B. Davies. Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. JARCE 31: p. 225. 1995 Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press. “Ramesses I and The Building of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak Revisited.” Iubilate Conlegae: Egyptological Studies in Memory of A.A. Sadek. VA 10: pp. 163168. “The History of Ancient Egypt: An Overview.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East vol. 2, ed. J.M. Sasson, pp. 691-717. New York: Scribners. “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution,” In Ancient Egyptian Kingship, eds. D. O’Connor and D. Silverman, pp. 185-215. Probleme der Ägyptologie 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Review of J. Vercoutter. L’Égypte et la vallee du Nil, Vol. 1: Des origines à la fin de L’Ancien Empire, 12000-2000 av. J.-C. JAOS 115: pp. 528-529. 1996 The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. 2nd edition revised. Harmondsworth: Penguin. “Medinet Habu.” In The Dictionary of Art vol. 30, ed. J. Turner, pp. 695-696. London: Grove Press. “Thebes.” In The Dictionary of Art vol. 30, ed. J. Turner, pp. 688-690. London: Grove Press. Review of M. Schade-Busch, Zur Königsideologie Amenophis’ III. BiOr 52: pp. 340-341. 1997 “‘Overseer of the Northern Foreign Countries’: Reflections on the Upper Administration of Egypt’s Empire in

182

bibliography of william j. murnane

Western Asia.” In Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman Te Velde, ed. J. Van Dijk, pp. 251-258. Groningen: Styx Publications. “Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak.” In Essays in honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipińska, eds. A. Niwinsky and A. Majewska, pp. 107-117. Warsaw Egyptological Studies vol. 1. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences. “Three Kingdoms and Thirty-Four Dynasties.” in Ancient Egypt, ed. D. Silverman, pp. 20-39. London: Duncan Baird. Review of C. Obsomer. Les campaignes de Sésostris dans Hérodote. JNES 56: pp. 304-305. Review of J. Zandee. Der Amunhymnus des Papyrus Leiden I 344, Verso. Vols. 1-3. JNES 56: p. 306. Review of R. Chadwick, First Civilizations: Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Biblical Archaeologist 60.3: pp. 187188. 1998 “The Organization of Government.” In Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, eds. D. O’Connor and E. Cline, pp. 173-221. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Review of C. Vandersleyen. L’Egypte et la vallee du Nil vol. 2. De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire. JNES 57: pp. 294-298. 1999 “Luxor, Temple of.” In Encyclopedia of Egyptian Archaeology, ed. K. Bard, pp. 449-453. London: Routlage. “Medinet Habu.” In Encyclopedia of Egyptian Archaeology, ed. K. Bard, pp. 481-485. London: Routlage. “Thebes, Royal Funerary Temples.” In Encyclopedia of Egyptian Archaeology, ed. K. Bard, pp. 814-818. London: Routlage. “Observations on Pre Amarna Theology During the Earliest Reign of Amenhotep IV.” In Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, eds. E. Teeter and J. Larson, pp. 303-316. Chicago: Oreintal Institute. “The Return to Orthodoxy.” In Pharaohs of the Sun, eds. R. Freed, Y. Markowitz, and S. D’Auria, pp. 177-185. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Review of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Études des Temples de Karnak. Cahiers de Karnak IX; and idem. Cahiers de Karnak X. BiOr 56: pp. 83-84. Review of B.G. Davies. Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fasc. 4-6; and K.A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated. Vol. 2. Ramesses II: Royal Inscriptions. JNES 58: pp. 210212.

Review of P. Grandet. Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999). JAOS 119.4: pp. 679-680. 2000 “Imperial Egypt and the Limits of Power.” In Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations, eds. R. Cohen and R. Westbrook, pp. 101-111. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. “Soleb Renaissance: Reconsidering the Nebmaatre Temple in Nubia.” Amarna Letters 4 (Fall 2000): pp. 6-19, 160. Review of S. Bickel. Untersuchungen im Totentempel des Merenptah in Theben. III: Tore und andere wiederverwendete Bauteile Amenophis’ III. BiOr 57: pp. 59-61. Review of S. Ikram and A. Dodson. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity. JAOS 120: pp. 97-98. 2001† “A Forest of Columns: The Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project.” KMT 12.3 (Fall 2001): pp. 50-59. “The End of the Amarna Period Once Again.” OLZ 96: pp. 9-22. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald B. Redford. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press: “Battle of Kadesh,” pp. 166-167; “Coregency,” pp. 307311; “Kadesh,” pp. 219-221; “Luxor,” pp. 309-312; “Medinet Habu,” pp. 356-358; “New Kingdom: An Overview,” pp. 519-525. Review of A.A. Amer, The Gateway of Ramesses IX in the Temple of Amun at Karnak. JNES 60: pp. 300-305. 2003† “Millennium Debate: Response to D.B. Redford.” In Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo 2000, Vol. 2, History and Religion, eds. Z. Hawass and L.P. Brock, pp. 15-19. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Review of R. Caminos. Semna-Kumma. JNES 62: pp. 5253. 2004† With P.J. Brand, J. Karkowski, and R. Jaeschke. “The Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project (1992-2002).”ASAE 78: pp. 79-127. In Preparation† With P.J. Brand. The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 1, Part 2. The Wall Reliefs: Translations and Commentary. With P.J. Brand. The Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Vol. 2. The Gateways.

PLATES

184

william j. murnane, 1945–2000

At the wall 1: Bill Murnane collating the Opet Festival reliefs of Tutankhamun in the Colonnade Hall of Luxor Temple.

Bill Murnane reading a newspaper in the courtyard of Chicago House in Luxor.

At the wall 2: Bill Murnane collating inscriptions in the Colonnade Hall of Luxor Temple.

marc gabolde

185

Fig. 1. An inlay fragment of the ‘sky’-sign discovered among the finds from KV 55 (Egyptian Museum in Cairo).

Fig. 2. Original inscription from the canopic jars of KV 55 with the titulary of Kiya (drawing by the author based upon the reconstruction of Krauss, MDAIK 42 (1986), p. 72, Abbildung 7).

Fig. 3. First step of the erasure of the name of Kiya. Her titulary is hacked out and the ‘sky’ sign is cut.

186

marc gabolde

Fig. 4. Second step of change: the right corner of the ‘sky’-sign is moved to the left and a calcite fragment is inserted in its place.

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the inscribed panel of the canopic jars from KV 55 in accordance with the identity of the last owner.

marc gabolde

187

Fig. 6. Last step of change, the remaining royal cartouches are erased and the ‘sky’-sign removed. Part of the calcite inlay is broken during the process. The names of the god were removed as well to prevent any confusion (the Aten could not have viscera).

Fig. 7. View of the panel after the last change. A fragment of the ‘sky’-sign was left in the tomb and recovered later by the excavators.

188

marc gabolde

Fig. 9. Nomen from pectoral Carter 261 p 1: top, from left to right: enlarged detail scanned from the photography of T.G.H. James and A. De Luca, Toutankhamon (Paris: Gründ, 2000), p. 227; traces of defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; bottom, from left to right, drawing of traces of both defaced and re-engraved cartouches; traces of re-engraved cartouche; traces of defaced cartouche; reconstruction of original cartouche.

Fig. 10. Cartouche in Selkis coffinette (Carter 266g = JE 60691) line 7: top: scan from catalogue The Treasures of Tutankhamun, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, cat. no. 45, between plates 26 and 27; middle left: traces of both first and second engraved names; bottom left: traces of second engraved name; middle right: traces of first engraved name; bottom right: reconstructed first name taking advantage of the reading of Carter 261 p 1.

189

Fig. 1.

françois larché

190

françois larché

Fig. 2.

françois larché

Fig. 3.

191

192

françois larché

Fig. 4.

françois larché

Fig. 5.

193

194

françois larché

Fig. 6.

françois larché

Fig. 7.

195

françois larché

Fig. 8.

196

197

Fig. 9.

françois larché

198

françois larché

Fig. 10.

françois larché

Fig. 11.

199

françois larché

Fig. 12.

200

201

Fig. 13.

françois larché

françois larché

Fig. 14.

202

203

Fig. 15.

françois larché

204

françois larché

Fig. 16.

françois larché

Fig. 17.

205

françois larché

Fig. 18.

206

françois larché

Fig. 19.

207

françois larché

Fig. 20.

208

209

Fig. 21.

françois larché

françois larché

Fig. 22.

210

françois larché

Fig. 23.

211

212

françois larché

Fig. 24.

françois larché

Fig. 25.

213

214

françois larché

Fig. 26.

françois larché

Fig. 27.

215

216

françois larché

Fig. 28.

217

Fig. 29.

françois larché

218

françois larché

Fig. 30.

françois larché

Fig. 31.

219

220

françois larché

Fig. 32.

françois larché

Fig. 33.

221

françois larché

Fig. 34.

222

223

Fig. 35.

françois larché

françois larché

Fig. 36.

224

225

Fig. 37.

françois larché

françois larché

Fig. 38.

226

françois larché

Fig. 39.

227

228

françois larché

Fig. 40.

françois larché

Fig. 41.

229

françois larché

Fig. 42.

230

index

231

INDEX Abu Simbel 53 n. 19, 130 Abydos 51, 176 n. 22 Temple of Ramesses II, 54-55, 130, 143 Temple of Seti I 53, 55, 130, 143 n. 28 Accho 133 Aegean 133 Ahmes. See under Ahmose Ahmes-Nefertari. See under Ahmose-Nefertari Ahmose 122 Ahmose-Nefertari (Queen) 116, 123, 164, 168 Ahmosis. See under Ahmose Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) 1-3 accession date 3 age at accession 13 artistic styles & iconography 18 n. 56, 64 n. 78, 75, 78, 80, 82, 89-94, 111 n. 17, 116 n. 60 Barraquer & Simon’s Syndrome 116 n. 60 burial 13 & n. 26 chronology 65-66, 68-72, 75, 77-78, 80, 82 coregency with Amenhotep III 3, 14, 65-82 coregency with Neferneferuaten 12, 15, 19 n. 66 coregency with Nefertiti 18 coregency with Smenkhkare 9-10, 12 death 10, 12 epithets waenre 9, 111, 112 n. 20, 113, 117 “great in his lifetime” (aA m aHaw=f) 79 n. 70, 111-112 father of his own granddaughters 14-15 iconoclasm 71-72, 74 nn. 43 & 49 & KV 55 coffin 13 n. 26 proscription of Amun 71-72, 74-76, 79, 149, 155 receipt of foreign tribute (durbar) 9, 17 royal tomb. See under Akhetaten (royal tomb) shabtis 117 n. 64 succession 3, 9-20 usurpations by 81-82 See also: Akhetaten (El-Amarna); Amenhotep III; Amun (Amun-Re); Ankhesenpaaten (Princess); Aten; Baketaten (Princess); coregency; Karnak (Aten Temples); Kings Valley (KV 55); Kheruef (official); Kiya (Wife of Akhenaten); Meketaten (Princess); Meritaten (Princess); Nefertiti (Queen); Smenkhkare; Soleb; Tiy/Tiya/Tiye (Queen); Tutankhamun Akenkherēs 18 Akhetaten (El-Amarna) 9, 10, 12, 14-15, 53, 70 n. 22, 71, 74 n. 46, 76, 78, 82, 91, 112 n. 20, 117 boundary stelae 1-2, 5 earlier proclamation 13, 17, 71 later proclamation 9 n. 2 plaster portraits from 116 n. 60 royal tomb 3, 12-13, 16 n. 43, 83-88, 115 room alpha 84, 88 room gamma 16, 83-84, 86, 88 sarcophagi 13 n. 26, 16 n. 43, 83 n. 1, 115 n. 44 vandalism 84 studio of sculptor Thutmose 93 See also: Akhenaten; Aten; Ay/Aya (official); Huya (official); Meryre II (official) Akkadian, 3 Aksha 131-132 Alalakh 132 Alasiya 133 Aleppo 133

Amarah West 132 Amarna. See under Akhetaten (El-Amarna) Amarna Letters 3, 71 Amen-(Re). See under Amun (Amun-Re) Amenemhab (official) 132 Amenemhat. See under Amenemhet Amenemhet I 4, 103-107, 155, 156 n. 16, 172 Amenemhet II 170, 172-173 Amenemhet III 70 Amumherkhepeshef (Prince) 53 n. 15 Amenhotep I 4, 116, 144 n. 35 deification 67, 123 Karnak monuments 144, 146, 147, 149-150, 163-169 topographical lists 130 Amenhotep II 20 n. 71, 116, 122, 131 Amenhotep III 3, 14, 39, 74-75, 116, 129-130, 144 n. 35, 105, 111 n. 20, 112 n. 22, 116 n. 60, 121 n. 9, 122, 125-126 age at death 116 artistic styles & iconography 3, 51-54, 70 n. 22, 71, 80, 89-90, 93-94 brothers 20 n. 74 cartouches usurped by Akhenaten 81, 112 n. 20 chronology of reign 69-72, 74, 78-79, 81-82 coregency with Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten 3, 14, 65-82 cult of 66-67, 76 n. 55 death 68, 71, 75 n. 53, 79 deification & deification iconography 50 n. 4, 66-67, 69-70, 71 n. 30, 72-73, 76 n. 55, 78-81, 126 deconstruction of older monuments 156 n. 116, 168-169 highest regnal year date 69, 78-79 honorific figures of 126-127 monuments usurped by Akhenaten 81-82 mortuary temple. See under Kom el-Heitan mummy 116 nomen changed to Nebmaatre by Akhenaten 76 Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia 67, 76 n. 55 sculpture 52, 72 n. 22 Sed festivals (jubilees) 54, 65, 68-74, 77-82 & Smenkhkare 20 topographical lists 129-134 & Tutankhamun 14, 20, 125-126 See also: Akhenaten; coregency; Karnak; Kom el-Hettan; Luxor; Nebmaatre; Soleb; Tiy; Tutankhamun Amenhotep IV. See under Akhenaten Amenmesse 4, 30-34, 37-39, 45-48, 89 See also: Karnak; Luxor; Merenptah; Seti (Prince); Seti II Amenophis. See under Amenhotep Amnisos 133 Amon. See under Amun (Amun-Re) Amun (Amun-Re) 4, 12, 26, 36, 45 n. 54, 55, 61, 68, 70, 74, 80, 95 nn. 2-3, 96, 107, 114, 118, 121, 126, 133, 141, 146-149, 163-168, 176, 180 barge 127-128 bark 122, 126 festivals 121-122 Kamutef 126, 163 proscription by Akhenaten 71-72, 74-76, 79, 122, 148-149, 155-156 See also: Karnak; Khonsu; Luxor; Mut Anatolia. See under Asia Minor Ankhesenamun (Queen) 19 n. 66 See also: Ankhesenpaaten (Princess)

232

index

Ankhesenpaaten (Princess) 9, 10 n. 5, 13-20, 86 Ankhesenpaaten Jr. (Princess) 15-18 Ankh(et)kheperure (Royal Prenomen) 12, 117-129 See also: Akhenaten; Neferneferuaten; Smenkhkare Antef II 159 n. 130 Anubis 74, 143 Apopi 105 Apy (steward) 70 Aram 133 Ardukka 133 Armant 103-104, 106 Arsaphes 176 Arzawa 133 Asasif 66, 76, 177 Asia Minor 133 Assur 133 Asy 133 Aten/Aton 10 n. 10, 12, 74, 88, 90, 93, 106 n. 20, 111 didactic name cartouches of 10, 71 n. 33, 72, 74 nn. 43 & 46, 110, 111, 117 changes to 15, 76, 117 nn. 62-63 earlier form 15 n. 33, 73, 79 later form 9, 71, 76 earliest appearance 71 & n. 30, 74 n. 45 iconography 71, 73 jubilees of 71 Karnak temples of 3, 19 n. 65, 73-74, 82, 93, 116 n. 60 Ra-Horakhty-Aton 66, 74 See also: Akhenaten; Akhetaten; Ra/Râ/Re Atum 72-74, 90, 160 n. 135 See also: Ra/Râ/Re Ay/Aya (official, later King) 14, 33, 35, 123, 126 Baketaten (Princess) 15 n. 33, 85, 87 Bast 175 n. 9 Barga 133 Behdetite 147 Beth-Shan 133 Blessing of Ptah 129 Bohairic (Coptic) 176 Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. See under Akhetaten (El-Amarna) (boundary stelae) Canaan 133 Carchemish 132-133 Chariots 43-44, 49, 52 n. 11, 58-59, 130 Cheikh Labib. See under Karnak Chicago House. See under Epigraphic Survey Coptic 58, 176 Coregency 2, 5 Amenhotep III & Akhenaten 3, 14, 65-82 chronology 65, 66, 68-72, 75, 77-78, 80, 82 contradictions 74, 79, 82 Akhenaten & Neferneferuaten 12, 15, 19 n. 66 Akhenaten & Smenkhkare 9-10, 12 coregency stela 10 n. 12 Hatshepsut & Thutmose III 19, 168 Crete 133 Cydonia 133 Cythera 133 Daxamunzu 19 n. 66 Dalat-Silul (Door of the Locusts) 134 Damnatio Memoriae 33, 36, 38, 42-48, 115 n. 44 Ay 33, 35, 126 Amun (Amun-Re) 12, 71-72, 76 nn. 54 & 60 Hatshepsut 33 n. 20 Kushite kings 95-101 Merenptah 38, 42-48

Seti (Prince) 42-45 Tutankhamun 33 See also: usurpation Deir el-Bahari 121 Hatshepsut Temple 29, 52, 61, 101 n. 24, 142-144 Monthuhotep II Temple 159 n. 130 Deir el-Medina 123 Djehuty. See under Thoth Djeme 101 n. 29 Durbar 9, 17 Elephantine 103 n. 3, 104, 170 Ennead 163, 165 Epagomenal days 69 Epigraphic Survey (Chicago House) 1-6, 39 n. 41, 42 n. 45, 51, 55 n. 22, 56, 61, 68 n. 13, 77-79, 103 n. 1, 107, 125-126, 131 Eritrea 132 Ermant. See under Armant Ethiopia 132 Euphrates 132, 134 Galilee 133 Geb 53 God’s Wife of Amun 99 n. 17, 101 n. 24, 164 See also: Ahmose-Nefertari; Nitocris I Gurnah 1, 61 Great Hypostyle Hall Project. See under Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project Hammath 133 Haremhab. See under Horemheb Hathor 53 n. 15, 74, 90, 97, 142, 155 Hatshepsut 2, 14, 29, 61, 114, 121 n. 9, 141, 143, 170 coregency with Thutmose III 19, 168, 121 n. 9 damnatio memoriae 33 n. 20 Karnak monuments 32 n. 16, 106, 143-144, 150, 153, 156, 161, 167-168 Chapelle Rouge 2, 138, 141 n. 13, 142, 144-145, 154, 159, 162, 164 obelisks 106, 144 n. 34, 150 n. 68, 156, 161 n. 146 podium 138-141, 144-145, 150-154, 157-161, 163 suite 138-141, 144, 145 n. 40, 151, 153, 158-159, 162, 167, 169 Punt expedition 132 Re-burial of Thutmose I 114 See also: Deir el-Bahari; Karnak; Thutmose I; Thutmose II; Thutmose III Hatti (Hittites) 3, 19, 38, 133 Hazor 133 Hebrew 4, 175 Heb-Sed. See under Sed Festival Herakleopolis 105 Herihor 47 n. 61 Hermel 134 Hermopolis 13-15, 87 Hittites. See under Hatti Horemheb 3, 123 damnatio memoriae & usurpations of Tutankhamun & Ay 29, 33, 35, 126-127 topographical lists 130-133 Hor (King) 148 Horus 52, 114, 117 & n. 63, 146, 166 & n. 180 Huya (official) 15 n. 33, 71 & n. 27, 76, 112 n. 20 Hypostyle Hall Project. See under Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project Ikhnaton. See under Akhenaten Ineni (official) 114 n. 35 Intef II. See under Antef II

index Irem 130-132 Isis 12 n. 18, 53 n. 15, 74, 175 n. 9 Jezreel 133 Jubilee. See under Sed festival Ka (kA) 87 n. 14, 88 & n. 16, 119, 126, 148, 167 Kadesh 132-134 Kamose 147 Karnak 1-2, 4-5, 70, 105 Akhmenu 32 n. 16, 106, 138-139, 142-143, 149, 152, 154 Amenemhat I’s constructions 103-107, 155, 156 n. 116 Amenhotep I’s monuments 4, 130, 144-147, 149-150, 163-169 Annals of Thutmose III 3, 132-133, 135, 139, 141 Aten temples 3, 19 n. 65, 73-74, 82, 93, 116 n. 60 Hwt-bnbn 73 Ra-Horakhty shrine 71, 74 talatat 13, 89-94 Bubastite gate 129, 134 calcite bark shrine of Amenhotep I 144 n. 35 Chapelle Rouge bark shrine of Hatshepsut 2, 138, 141 n. 13, 142, 144-145, 154, 159, 162, 164 “Cheikh Labib” storeroom 103 n. 2, 106 n. 18, 147 n. 54, 149, 156, 160 n. 134, 162, 165 Cour de la Cachette 23, 29-31, 33-34, 36-38, 42, 44-48, 145 n. 36, 146-147, 163, 168 Cour du Moyen Empire. See under Middle Kingdom Court (so-called) eastern temple of Ramesses II 31 n. 16 excavations 139, 150, 154-155, 158-159, 161 flooding 145 gateway of Amenmesse 32 n. 16 Le Grand Château d’Amon 138-139, 142, 144, 147, 149 Great Hypostyle Hall 1-2, 4-7, 25 n. 32, 29, 33 n. 18, 53 n. 19, 89, 139 architraves 21-28 columns 21-25 marginal inscriptions 47 n. 61, monuments reused in 145 topographical lists 131, 133 war reliefs of Ramesses II 38, 44 war reliefs of Seti I 3 See also: Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project; Ramesses II; Ramesses IV; Ramesses VI; Seti I; Seti II Hatshepsut suite 138-140, 144, 151, 153, 158-159, 162, 167, 169 Hittite Peace Treaty Stela 38 Khonsu Temple 5, 101 n. 24 Lake Edifice of Taharqa 101 Mansion of Nebkhepurure in Thebes 14, 33, 35 Middle Kingdom Court (so-called) 103 n. 6, 106, 138-140, 148-150, 156 n. 116, 157-159, 169 Mut Temple Precinct 4, 95-101, 121 n. 9 crypt 95-99 mammisi 100-101 Netchery-Menu 163 obelisks I 29 n. 7, 106 origins of Karnak Temple 106-107, 144 n. 34, 148 n. 58, 150 n. 68, 156, 161 n. 147, Philipp Arrhideus bark shrine 158, 162, 164 portico of Senwosret I 138-145, 147-149, 163-165 Ptah Temple 106, 121-122, 150 n. 72, 163, 168 Pylons Pylon I 22 Pylon II 22-25, 29, 33 n. 18, 95-96, 130, 134, 142, 147 Pylon III 2, 126, 139, 145-146, 150 n. 72, 157, 159, 166 n. 180, 168-169 Pylon IV 30, 32 n. 16, 106, 138, 146, 150, 152, 157, 161, 166 n. 176, 169

233

Pylon V 138, 139 n. 4, 142-144, 146-148, 150 & nn. 68, 72 & 75, 152, 155-157, 161, 164 n. 166, 166 n. 178 Pylon VI 30, 32 n. 16, 106 n. 26, 129-130, 139, 142, 146, 150, 157-158, 164-168 Pylon VII 21, 129-130, 148 n. 58, 148 Pylon VIII 2, 148, 149 n. 62 Pylon IX 106, 145 Pylon X 106, 116 n. 60 radier 138-140, 146, 149-163, 167-169, 173 Ramesses III temple 23, 55, 61 Temple A 98-101 Thutmose I monuments 4, 121-123, 138, 139 n. 4, 143-144, 150, 157, 159, 161, 168-169 Thutmose III granite barl chapel 164 Thutmose IV bark chapel 142 Treasury of Thutmose I 4, 121-123, 155 WADyt-hall 32 n. 16, 142 White Chapel of Senwoseret I 145-146, 147 n. 53, 168 See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep I; Amenmesse; Amun-(Re); Hatshepsut; Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project; Ramesses II; Senwosret I (Karnak monuments); Luxor; Thutmose I; Thutmose III; Topographical Lists; Seti II Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project 1-2, 4-7, 25 n. 32, 29, 89, 139 Kenset 130-131 Khaemwaset (Prince) Son of Merenptah 43 n. 49, 45 & nn. 53-54 Son of Ramesses III 53 n. 15 Khepri 74 Kheruef (official) 3, 14, 65-69, 72-80, 89-92, 112, 116 n. 61 Theban Tomb 192: acrostic hymn 68, 72 artistic style 77-78 collapse of roof 72 construction 68, 76-78 decoration of 66-69, 72, 74 Sed Festival scenes 68-69, 72-74, 77-80 See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep III; coregency Khonsu 128 See also: Karnak (Khonsu Temple) Kings’ Valley (KV) 31, 56, 89, 110 KV 8 (Merenptah) 56 KV 9 (Ramesses VI) 56 KV 10 (Amenmesse) 31 KV 11 (Ramesses III) 55 KV 14 (Sethnakhte) 56 KV 15 (Seti II) 56 KV 20 (Hatshepsut) 114 KV 38 (Thutmose I) 114 KV 47 (Siptah) 56 KV 55 (Amarna Cache) 3-4, 12-13 age of mummy 115, 117, 119 canopic jars 109-111, 114 golden coffin 3, 13, 109-110, 112, 117, 119 identity of mummy 13 n. 26, 18 n. 55, 19, 114-115, 117 magic bricks 13, 114, 117 seals 114 shrine of Queen Tiy 111-112 See also: Akhenaten; Kiya (Wife of Akhenaten) Neferneferuaten; Smenkhkare; Tiy/Tiya (Queen) KV 62 (Tutahkhamun) 118-120 Kiya (Wife of Akhenaten) 13, 15, 16 n. 39, 17, 110-111, 113 burial equipment reused 13, 110-111, 113 See also: Kings Valley (KV 55) Knossos 133 Kom el-Heitan/Kom al-Hetan (Amenhotep III Mortuary Temple) 69, 75-76, 79, 129, 131, 133, 162 n. 148 Kuban 121 n. 9 Kush 95-102, 130-132 See also: Nitocris I; Shabaqo; Shebitku; Taharqa

234

index

Levant 131, 133 Libya (Libyans) 50, 116, 130-131 See also: Tjehenu Louqsor/Louxor. See under Luxor Luxor Temple 4-6, 21 29, 31, 33, 52, 76 n. 55, 101 n. 24, 121 blockyards & magasins 103-107, 125 cachette of statues 52 Colonnade Hall 29, 39-43, 125-128 colossi 33 n 23, 48 n. 62, 134 Merenptah’s inscriptions in 29, 31, 33, 38-43, 45, 47-48 Opet festival reliefs origins 105-106 Ramesside forecourt 38-40 reused blocks from 4, 103-107 solar court of Amenhotep III 39, 42, 44, 69, 126 Triple Shrine 2 topographical lists from 133-134 See also: Amenhotep III; Amun-(Re); Epigraphic Survey (Chicago House); Karnak; Merenptah; Tutankhamun Lyktos 133 Ma’asara 151 Maat 72, 89, 90, 92, 109, 112 n. 20 Malkata 69 Mammisi 100-101 Manetho 18 May (High Priest of Amun) 70 Maya (official) 65 n. 1 Médamoud/Medamud 152, 155, 170-173 Medinet Habu 4-5 Eastern High Gate 55, 133, 134 Eighteenth Dynasty temple 121 n. 9, 159 n. 130 iconography of Ramesses III 49-64 temple of Ramesses III 49-56, 58, 60-63 topographical lists 130, 132, 134 war scenes 50, 52, 54, 58, 61-62 Medja 130-132 Megiddo 132-133 Meketaten (Princess) 3, 16 & n. 43, 17-18, 83-88, 115 n. 44 Memphis (Egypt) 10 Memphis (Tennessee) 1-6, 29 Mentouhotep III. See under Monthuhotep III Merenptah 4, 56, 129-130 cartouches usurped 29-48 damnation memoriae 33, 36, 46-48 Merire/Meryra II (official) Amarna tomb 9-10, 12, 71 & n. 27, 76 Meritaten (Princess) 9-10, 13, 15-20, 83, 85, 87, 115, 118, 120 See also: Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV); Ankh(et)khepurure; Neferneferuaten; Smenkhkare Meritaten Jr. (Princess) 15, 17-18 Merytaten. See under Meritaten Mesopotamia 133-134 Messenia 133 Min 74, 104 n. 11 Mitanni 132-133 Moab 134 Monthu/Montu 52 See also: Karnak (Monthu Temple) Monthuhotep III-Seankhkare 104, 172 Monthuhotep V 172 Montuemhat (official) 96 & n. 9 Murnane, William J. 1-7, 9, 21, 29, 31 n. 15, 33 n. 21, 37 n. 34, 38 n. 35, 95 n. 5, 107, 112 n. 20, 119, 125-126, 128, 139, 175 academic career 1, 5-6 Amarna studies 2-3, 83 anecdotes about 1, 6-7 bibliography 179-182 coregency studies 2, 65, 68, 72, 78, 81

death 1, 5-6, 29, 83, 109 education 5 & Epigraphic Survey 1-4, 125-126 Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project 1-2, 4, 6, 29, 139 love of opera 1, 7, 125, 175 personal qualities 1, 5-6, 9, 21, 29, 49, 65, 89, 103 professional service 6 sayings 1, 5-7 scholarship & intellect 1-3, 5-6, 29, 49, 65, 83, 89, 95, 103, 125, 129 sense of humor 1, 6-7, 125 teaching & mentoring 1, 5-6, 29, 49, 125 See also: Akhetaten (Boundary stelae); Coregency; Epigraphic Survey; Karnak (Great Hypostyle Hall); Karnak Great Hypostyle Hall Project Mut 61, 128 See also: Karnak (Mut Precinct) Mycenae 133 Naharin 133 Narmer Palette 63 n. 31 Nebmaatre (Amenhotep III) 72, 76, 79-81, 112 Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia 67, 76 n. 55 Neferhotep (official) 1 Neferhotep I 144, 156, 161 n. 147 Neferneferuaten (King) 3, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 18-20, 113, 117-120 burial equipment reused 12 n. 17, 19 n. 66, 117, 118-120 coregency with Akhenaten 9-12, 15, 18-19 epithets 9, 12, 19, 113, 118-120 See also: Akhenaten; King’s Valley (KV 55); Meritaten; Neferneferure-ta-sheryt “Jr.” Neferneferuaten (epithet of Queen Nefertiti) 15, 18 Neferneferuaten (Princess) 19 n. 62 Neferneferuaten-ta-sheryt “Jr.” (Princess) 9, 15, 19, 86 See also: Akhenaten; Akhetaten (Royal Tomb); Neferneferuaten (King) & (Princess); Tiy/Tiya (Queen) Neferneferure (Princess) 86 n. 12 Nefertari (Queen) 1 Nefertiti (Queen) 9, 10 nn. 5 & 12, 13 nn. 24 & 26, 15-18, 73, 79 artistic representations 3, 13 n. 26, 89-94 coregency with Akhenaten 18 daughters 9, 15, 17, 83-87 death 19 nn. 62 & 64 mother of Tutankhamun 86 shawabtis of 18 n. 59 See also: Akhenaten; Karnak (Aten temples) Nekhbet 105, 165 Nesptah (official) 96 n. 9 Nile 80, 83, 129-130, 132, 145 n. 36, 173, 176 Nitocris I 101 n. 24 Nubia in topographical lists 129-132 Nubian archers 53 n. 17 See also: Abu Simbel; Irem; Kush; Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia: Soleb; Wawat Nuhasse 133 Nut 12 n. 17, 117 Onnophris 12 n. 17 Opet Festival 28 n. 44, 121, 125-126 Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) 5, 51, 65, 103, 106-107 See also: Epigraphic Survey; Murnane, William J. Osiris 12 n.18, 74, 99 n. 20, 114, 117, 118 n. 71, 175 n. 9 See also: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Oupouaout. See under Wepwawet Pahil 133 Pairi/Pare (official) 12, 118

index Parennefer (official) 78 n. 64, 93 Pelusiac (Nile branch) 176 Pelusium 175 n. 9 Phaistos 133 Philipp Arrhideus 158, 162, 164 Phoenicia 133 Pinudjem (High Priest) 39, 123 Pethor (134) Prehotep (vizier) 133 Proscription. See under Damnatio Memoriae Ptah 70 n. 25, 74, 106, 121-122, 176 See also: Karnak (Ptah Temple) Ptah-Sokar-Osiris 69 Ptolémée Évergète II 170-172 Punt 130-132 Qadesh. See under Kadesh Qarmiyan 134 Qatana 133 Ra/Râ/Re 28, 39, 45 n. 54, 69 n. 19, 105, 109, 175-176 Ra-Horakhty 13 nn. 24 & 26, 71-74, 75 n. 50, 79, 89 Ra-Horakhty-Aton. See under Aten See also: Amun-Re; Aten; Atum Ramesses, Land of 175-177 Ramesses I 33 n. 18, 123 Ramesses II 31 n. 16, 40, 42, 44, 48 n. 62, 51, 53-56, 101, 123, 147 alleged usurpation of his cartouches 30-31, 34, 37-38 daughters 39 Karnak war scenes 2 n. 3, 30, 44 sons 40, 45 topographical lists 129-135 usurpations by 29, 33 n. 18, 143 n. 27 See also: Karnak; Merenptah; Ramesseum Ramesses III 5, 23, 31, 49-55, 61, 166 topographical lists of 130, 132, 134 See also: Medinet Habu (Temple of Ramesses III) Ramesses IV 33 n. 18, 39, 42, 47 n. 61 Ramesses VI 33 n. 18, 56 Ramesseum 33-34, 45, 53 n. 14, 61, 101 n. 24, 130 Ramses. See under Ramesses Ramose (official) 78 n. 64, 89-93, 116 Re. See under: Ra/Râ/Re Red Sea 132 Saqqara 176 n. 22 Satet 170 Sea Peoples 61, 134 Sed festival (jubilee) 53 n. 17, 79, 163 of Amenhotep III 54, 65, 68-74, 77-82 of Aten 71 Semenkhkare. See under Smenkhkare Sennucheri (official) 145 Senwosret I 4, 103-104, 106, 170-173 Karnak monuments 138-150, 154-156, 160-161, 165-168 See also: Amenemhet I; Karnak Senwosret III 70 n. 22, 103 n. 1, 105, 155 n. 103, 173 Sesostris/Sésostris I-III. See under Senwosret I-III Setau (Viceroy) 130 Setepenre (Princess) 9, 17, 86 n. 12 Séthi. See under Seti Seth 43 n. 48, 45 n. 55, 146, 166 Sethnakht 56 Sethos. See under Seti Seti (Prince) 42-45 See also: Seti II Seti I 28, 45 n. 55, 53, 55, 61, 121-123, 126, 141, 143 n. 28 topographical lists 129-135 war reliefs 3, 61

235

Seti II 56, 127 n. 7 Crown Prince of Merenptah 44 usurpations by 4, 29-34, 36-39, 42-43, 46-48 See also: Amenmesse; Karnak; Luxor; Merenptah; Seti (Prince) Seti (Prince) 42-45 Sety. See under Seti Shabaqo 99-101 Shebitku 99, 101 Shebyu collar 70, 78 Shoshenq I 129, 134 Shu 117 n. 63 Siptah 56 Smenkhkare 3, 9-10, 12-16, 18-20, 117-119 age at death 12 burial 13 coregency with Akhenaten 9-10, 12 father of Tutankhamun 19-20 length of reign 12 & Neferneferuaten 12, 19 son of Amenhotep III 20 See also: Akhenaten; Ankh(et)khepurure; coregency; Meritaten (Princess); Neferneferuaten (King) Sobekhotep I 156 Sobekhotep II 105, 107 Sobekhotep III 156 n. 111 Sobekhotep IV 156 Sobekhotep VII, 145 n. 36 Sokar Festival 50, 52 See also: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Soleb (Amenhotep III temple) 3, 67, 79-82, 112 n. 20, 130-132, See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep III; Nebmaatre, Lord of Nubia Sudan 132 Suppiluliuma I 133 Syene 175 n. 9 Syria (Syrians) 53 n. 17, 129-130, 132-134 Taharqa 95-96, 100-101, 130 Takhsi 133 Talatat 3, 13, 90-94, 106-107, 122 Tauseret (Queen) 56 Tefnakhte 176 n. 22 Texte de la Jeunesse 140-141, 154 n. 92, 171 See also: Thutmose III Thoth 74, 123, 141, 165 Thutmose I 116 n. 56, 122, 134, 143 treasury (Karnak) 4, 121-123, 152 Karnak monuments 29 n. 7, 32 n. 16, 150, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 169 dismantles older monuments 139 n. 4, 168 reburials of 114-115 reuse of older monuments 139 n. 4, 144, 150 Thutmose II 114, 144 n. 33, 145, 168 Thutmose III 3, 114, 121 n. 9, 122, 139-140 age at death 116 coregency with Hatshepsut 19, 168 damnation memoriae of Hatshepsut 33 n. 20 Karnak monuments 141-143, 145, 148 n. 56, 149-150, 154, 157, 159, 164, 167-168 reburial of Thutmose I Texte de la Jeunesse 140-141, 154 n. 92, 171 topographical lists 129-135 See also: Amenhotep II; Hatshepsut; Karnak; Thutmose I; Thutmose II Thutmose IV 20, 52, 115-116, 130, 142 Thutmose (sculptor) 91 n. 15, 93 Thutmosis. See under Thutmose Tiberius 156

236

index

Tigris 134 Tiy/Tiya/Tiye (Queen) 12, 15 n. 33 & Akhenaten 72-74, 89, 91-93, 112 n. 20 Artistic representations 65-66 Mother of Smenkhkare 20 Sarcophagus 115 n. 44 Statuary 101 n. 24 & Tutankhamun 20 See also: Akhenaten; Amenhotep III; Kheruef; Kings Valley (KV 55) Tjehenu 131 See also: Libya Tod/Tôd 103 n. 2, 104, 106-107, 170-173 Topographical Lists 129-135 Tourah/Tura 103-104, 151 Tunip 133 Tutankhamun 2-4, 14-16, 35, 109 n. 5, 114-115, 117, 122-123, 125-128 accession 9, 12, 19 age at accession 12 n. 20 age at death 12 & Ay 14 damnatio memoriae 33 inscriptions usurped 29, 117, 119-120 length of reign 12 n. 20 parentage & ancestry 14-15, 19-20, 85-88, 114-115, 119 restoration stela 113-114 tomb & burial equipment 9-11, 12 n. 17, 19 n. 66, 20, 72, 79 n. 70, 117-120 See also: Ay/Aya (official, later King); Damnatio Memoriae; Karnak (“Mansion of Nebkhepurure”); Kings Valley (KV 62); Tutankhaten Tutankhaten 13, 85-88 See also: Tutankhamun Tuthmosis. See under Thutmose Twoseret. See under Tauseret Tyre 133 Userhet (official) 91-92 Usurpation of monuments 1, 3-4, 29, 33, 46 by Akhenaten 81-82 by Amenmesse 30-32, 34 of Ay 126 of Hatshepsut 29 by Horemheb 29, 126-127 of Merenptah 29-48 by Nitocris I 101 n. 24 by Ramesses I 29, 33 n. 18 by Ramesses II 29, 33 n. 18, 34 n. 26, 143 n. 27 of Ramesses IV 29, 33 n. 18 by Ramesses VI 29, 33 n. 18 of Senwosret III 105 by Seti I 123 by Seti II 29-48 by Tutankhamun 29, 117, 119-120 of Tutankhamun 126-127 See also: Damnatio Memoriae Ullaza 133 Uzu 133

Museum Objects Berlin 17813: 10 n. 12, 11 20716: 10 n. 12, 11 21220: 91 n. 15 21263: 91 n. 15 21299: 116 n. 60 Brussels E 2157: 92 Cairo Catalogue Général (CG) 259: 148 n. 59 22054: 176 n. 22 23009: 105 n. 15 34013: 121 n. 3 34183: 113-114 42008: 155 46097: 52 n. 11 Journal d’Entre (JE) 30948: 148 n. 59 30969: 53 n. 17 32169: 63 n. 31 32751: 155 33740: 155 36652: 45 n. 54 36809: Larché fig. 5 42008: 155 n. 103 48851: 141, Larché fig. 4 52344: 114 n. 39 60691: 118, 119 n. 78, M. Gabolde fig. 10 61517: 119 61944: 118 n. 67 62703: 72 n. 34 62705: 72 n. 34 64959: 10 n. 12 88802: 154 n. 96 Special Register (SR) 13959*: 45 n. 54 Temporary Register (TR) 16/2/25/8: 45 n. 54 10/4/22/7: 155 n. 97 Luxor J838: 52 n. 11 London, Petrie Museum UC 410: 10 n. 12 New York 20.2.11: 15 n. 33 26.7.1396: 93 n. 21

Valley of the Kings. See under Kings’ Valley

Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1983.I-41: 53 n. 16

Wawat 130-132 Wadi Hammamat 70, 76 n. 54 Wadjet 79 Wepwawet 74, 104 Wilios 133

Paris, Louvre A.121: 156 AF 8969: 156 E 13482: 90 E 7824: 156

Yenoam 133

index Tutankhamun’s Tomb Carter’s Object Numbers

Theban Tombs

1k: 9, 11 48h: 118 n. 73, 119 256a-b: 118 261p(1): 12 n. 17, 117-119, M. Gabolde fig. 9 266g: 118, M. Gabolde fig. 10 281a: 72 n. 34, 291a: 72 n. 34, 405: 9-10 620 (41-42): 119

TT 47 (Userhet) 91 TT 55 (Ramose) 93, 116 n. 60 TT 139 (Pairi) 12, 118 TT 192 (Kheruef) 14, 65-78, 89-90 TT 226 (Anonymous) 20 n. 71

237

238

index

238

index

238

index