The Rise of “Private” Rule in Upper Egypt: The Transition of the Theban Government from the Twentieth to the Twenty-First Dynasty By Emily R. Drennan B.A., CUNY Hunter College, 2013 A dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Egyptology and Assyriology at Brown University Providence, Rhode Island May 2019 © Copyright 2019 by Emily R. Drennan This dissertation by Emily R. Drennan is accepted in its present form by the Department of Egyptology and Assyriology as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date ______________ __________________________________ Laurel Bestock, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date _______________ _________________________________ James Allen, Reader Date _______________ _________________________________ Graham Oliver, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date _______________ _____________________________________ Andrew G. Campbell, Dean of the Graduate School iii Curriculum Vitae Emily R. Drennan was born and grew up in Connecticut. She attended CUNY Hunter College in New York, New York with a four-year scholarship and received a Bachelor of Arts in Ancient Near Eastern Studies (summa cum laude) in the spring of 2013. While at Hunter, Emily joined the Thomas Hunter Honors Program and created her own major to focus her studies on the ancient world. In 2012, she joined the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and was also awarded the Ernst F. Hoffmann Memorial Award from the Hunter College German Department. Emily interned at the American Museum of Natural History, New York from 2011 to 2013, assisting the Curatorial Associate of African Ethnology. In the fall of 2013, Emily began her studies at Brown University, with a focus on Egyptian history. While at Brown, she organized a lecture series and assisted in planning a graduate student conference. In the spring of 2018, she completed the Brown Executive Scholars Training Program, which helps graduate students develop skills related to higher education administration. In the fall of 2018, Emily was awarded the Academic Administration Proctorship in the University’s Writing Center, where she implemented a dissertation workshop series, created and oversaw a peer observation program, and ran dissertation writing groups. iv Acknowledgments There are many people that I need to thank for helping me during the dissertation process. Firstly, thank you to the Department of Egyptology and Assyriology for taking a chance on me, despite my lack of experience. Thank you to the Graduate School, the Joukowsky Institute, and the Writing Center for helping me along the way. A huge thank you to my committee: my readers—Professor James Allen and Professor Graham Oliver, and especially my advisor— Professor Laurel Bestock, who never stopped pushing me to be more confident and ask more questions. Thank you to all of the graduate students of my department and related fields that I met along the way, for building such a supportive community. There are a few that I would like to thank individually—Maggie Geoga, for being there for me since orientation—Pinar Durgun, for always listening to me ramble and being a beacon of positivity—and Julia Troche, for taking me under your wing when I started and helping me become the scholar I am today. Thank you to my entire extended family, for always asking about my research even though you didn’t always understand my answers. Thank you to my parents, Jim and Julie, for the work ethic you instilled in me and your unquestioning support of my passion for Ancient Egypt, from childhood to graduate school. Thank you to my sister, Megan, for showing me the way. Thank you to my Aunt Kathleen, for understanding exactly what I was going through and giving me advice. Thank you to my in-laws and the whole Puente family for being my cheerleaders through this long process. Finally, thank you to my husband, Oscar, who picked up his whole life and moved to Providence with me so I could pursue this dream. You always believe in me, especially when I don’t believe in myself, and I couldn’t have done this without you. v Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1 § 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 § 1.2 RESEARCH AIMS AND VALUE OF STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 2 § 1.3 PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP ......................................................................................................................................... 3 § 1.4 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 9 § 1.4a Categories of Evidence .............................................................................................................................. 9 § 1.4b Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 10 § 1.5 ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................................. 11 § 1.5a Organization of Evidence ........................................................................................................................ 11 § 1.5b Organization of Chapters ........................................................................................................................ 12 § 1.5c Omission of Later Twenty-First Dynasty High Priests and Tanite Kings................................................... 13 § 1.6 POWER IN THE ANCIENT WORLD ............................................................................................................................ 14 § 1.7 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER TWO: GENERALS, VIZIERS, AND HIGH PRIESTS OF AMUN IN THE NEW KINGDOM ........................................................................................................................ 17 § 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 17 § 2.1a Organization and Ideology of the Egyptian Government........................................................................ 19 § 2.2 EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY ......................................................................................................................................... 21 § 2.2a Generals .................................................................................................................................................. 21 § 2.2b Viziers ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 § 2.2c High Priests of Amun ............................................................................................................................... 41 § 2.3 NINETEENTH DYNASTY ......................................................................................................................................... 45 § 2.3a Generals .................................................................................................................................................. 45 § 2.3b Viziers ...................................................................................................................................................... 51 § 2.3c High Priests of Amun ............................................................................................................................... 55 § 2.4 TWENTIETH DYNASTY .......................................................................................................................................... 58 § 2.4a Generals .................................................................................................................................................. 58 § 2.4b Viziers ...................................................................................................................................................... 59 § 2.4c High Priests of Amun ............................................................................................................................... 61 § 2.5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER THREE: THE BEGINNING OF “PRIVATE” RULE IN THEBES ................. 65 § 3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 65 § 3.2 AMENHOTEP, PANEHESY, AND THE TURBULENCE SURROUNDING THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD .................................................. 66 § 3.3 WHO CAME FIRST? CHRONOLOGICAL DEBATE SURROUNDING PIANKH AND HERIHOR ...................................................... 72 § 3.4 PIANKH ............................................................................................................................................................. 80 § 3.5 HERIHOR ........................................................................................................................................................... 85 § 3.5a Herihor under Ramses XI ......................................................................................................................... 85 § 3.5b Herihor as King ........................................................................................................................................ 89 § 3.5c Lack of Royal Presence ............................................................................................................................ 95 § 3.5d King or Private Ruler?............................................................................................................................ 100 § 3.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 106 CHAPTER FOUR: LEADERSHIP IN UPPER EGYPT DURING THE TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTY .................................................................................................................................. 107 vi § 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 107 § 4.2 TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTY HIGH PRIESTS OF AMUN ................................................................................................... 108 § 4.2.1 Pinedjem I ............................................................................................................................................ 108 § 4.2.1a Pinedjem I without Royal Titles .......................................................................................................... 108 § 4.2.1b Pinedjem I with Royal Titles ............................................................................................................... 114 § 4.2.2 Masaharta ........................................................................................................................................... 117 § 4.2.2a Masaharta without Royal Titles ......................................................................................................... 119 § 4.2.3 Menkheperre........................................................................................................................................ 121 § 4.2.3a Menkheperre without Royal Titles ..................................................................................................... 122 § 4.2.3b Menkheperre with Royal Titles .......................................................................................................... 127 § 4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TANIS AND THEBES .......................................................................................................... 130 § 4.3a Wenamun ............................................................................................................................................. 132 § 4.3b Smendes’ Gebelein Inscription .............................................................................................................. 133 § 4.3c Psusennes I ............................................................................................................................................ 134 § 4.3d El-Hibeh ................................................................................................................................................. 136 § 4.4 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 138 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 140 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................... 149 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Dedicatory Inscription of High Priest Herihor and High Priest Herihor Bringing Flowers to Amon-Re and Mut. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. Figure 2. High Priest Herihor Thurifying and Libating Before the Barks of the Theban Triad. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. Figure 3. King Herihor Presenting Lettuce to Ithyphallic Amun and King Herihor Presenting A Royal Offering to Amon-Re. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. Figure 4. King Herihor Seated Between Edjo and Nekhbet while being crowned by Seth and Harsiese. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1979. Figure 5. Painutem I Bringing Flowers to the Theban Triad. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. Figure 6. Painutem I Kneeling with an Offering of Ointment. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION § 1.1 Introduction The period labeled by scholars as the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt was a time of both continuity and change. The kingdom split into two politically separate areas following the death of Ramses XI, the king scholars accept as the last pharaoh of the New Kingdom. More traditional kings ruled Lower Egypt from Tanis in the Delta, while the high priesthood of Amun in Thebes wielded control over Upper Egypt. This period differs from previous Intermediate Periods in that, instead of many nomarchs fighting over smaller territories, there were only two rulers at a time who seem to have maintained continuous control over their respective territories. However, the scholarly approaches to these two lines of rulers have varied significantly. The terminology alone raises questions about the nature of Egyptian leadership and government during this era; why do we attribute a dynasty to one group and call them “kings” and relegate the other to a subsection of “high priests”? The high priests of Amun are too often analyzed through a framework of modern expectations and interpretations of leadership, kingship, and the priesthood. Any study of the Third Intermediate Period suffers from an unfortunate lack of evidence compared to other periods, especially the New Kingdom, but new approaches to the limited information 1 available can help us reach valuable conclusions and ideas about this innovative time in Egyptian history. § 1.2 Research Aims and Value of Study Relative to other periods of Egyptian history, the Third Intermediate Period is understudied. This is partly due to a long-standing modern bias against the Intermediate Periods in general as periods of instability, weak leadership, and a decline in culture, but also because of the limited amount of evidence compared to previous eras, especially the New Kingdom. Much of the research on this period focuses on chronology, both absolute and relative, which has left less room for theorizing about the political, religious, and administrative implications of the rise of the high priests of Amun in Thebes. Prior expectations and approaches frequently affect the conclusions drawn from Third Intermediate Period material in relation to the rulers of Upper Egypt at this time. This dissertation attempts to step away from the biases of the field and add to previous chronology-focused studies of the Third Intermediate Period by instead examining the way in which the high priests were portrayed in art and text. Analysis of these representations and the evidence of the activities of these men can tell us about how leadership changed after the New Kingdom, in the wake of the state splitting into two separate power centers. A careful examination of the evidence shows that we need to reconsider what it meant to be a legitimate leader in Egypt at the end of the New Kingdom and the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period. Restricting it to a “traditional king,” as understood by modern scholars, does not allow for the possibility of changes and development. It can also lead to attempts to fit evidence into what is expected to be true. This dissertation will demonstrate that it was possible for Upper Egypt to have been ruled by legitimate leaders who did not conform to traditional kingship, but instead held on to their private status throughout their reigns while taking on royal attributes and 2 titles when desired. This change, beginning with Herihor, was a major shift in power, government, and rulership, but it did not appear out of nowhere. Some scholars attribute these changes to a Libyan influence, claiming that the high priests of Amun of the Twenty-First Dynasty must have been Libyan themselves to have introduced such radical shifts. It cannot be ruled out that they were of Libyan descent, but this dissertation will show that Egyptian origins can be found by tracing ideological and administrative trends. Rather than viewing this innovation as a foreign structure imposed from above, it can be understood as a domestic idea developed from the evolving culture of elite officials. § 1.3 Previous Scholarship The publication of several compilations of art and texts over the last century have created a foundation for detailed studies on this unique period of Egyptian history. Černý’s Late Ramesside Letters (1939), Kitchen’s Ramesside Inscriptions (1975-1990), Jansen-Winkeln’s Inschriften der Spätzeit (2007), and Ritner’s The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (2009) have made the documents of the end of the Twentieth Dynasty and the Third Intermediate Period easily accessible for the scholarly community. The unparalleled work of the Epigraphic Survey of University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute has proven vital for many Egyptologists and their publications of the Temple of Khonsu (1979-1981) in particular are an essential tool of anyone studying the Theban high priests of Amun. Dominant themes in secondary publications that focus on the transition from the end of the New Kingdom to the Third Intermediate Period, and the Twenty-First Dynasty more generally, are the loss of an empire, weakening power structures, relative lack of large-scale building projects, and religious shifts that emphasized the power of the gods rather than the king. A popular issue addressed in most of these works is that of dating, both in relative and absolute terms, as the 3 evidence for the chronology of this period is not clear cut. However, most of the attention paid to the shift of power structures at the highest level at the end of the New Kingdom and into the Third Intermediate Period suffers from trying to fit these changes into the traditional form of Egyptian kingship and long held views of Egyptian history. The common belief of modern scholars that Egyptian kingship was a fixed, unchangeable idea and Intermediate Periods were times of crisis and chaos permeate the previous scholarship surrounding the Third Intermediate Period, some more obviously than others. Barwik, in his 2011 book, The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt, claims in his preface that “the very end of the 20th Dynasty marked the end of the glorious epoch of the New Kingdom and the devastating collapse of the political and social order in Egypt.”1 However, though significant cultural, political, and governmental changes occur, this devastating collapse is not supported upon studying the evidence of the early part of this period. In a 2009 publication, Kitchen rejects Herihor’s leadership as legitimate because it “is not identical in form or function with the ruling Egyptian kingship of this epoch (or any other epoch…).”2 Ritner’s 2009 book, The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period, describes the Third Intermediate Period as a time of “political fragmentation (or decentralization) that perverts traditional notions of a united Egyptian kingship.”3 Even the title of the book, which Ritner seems to have chosen as a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the negative view of foreign influence,4 perpetuates such an approach to this era without a careful reading of the introduction. These quotes highlight a troubling trend in Egyptological scholarship, that is, viewing deviations from the expected norm as failures or impossibilities rather than evolutions and progressions of earlier Egyptian thought. 1 Barwik 2011, iv. 2 Kitchen 2009, 194. 3 Ritner 2009, 2-3. 4 Ritner 2009, 1. 4 Research on the Third Intermediate Period at large is often heavily dedicated to the relative and absolute chronology of the period, the evidence of which is scattered and frustratingly vague. In the attempt to establish timelines, the religious, political, and cultural implications of the changes seen in this period are sometimes not given enough attention or analysis. The focus on chronology and expectation of consistency with previous periods has had a major impact on the scholarly community’s approach to early Third Intermediate Period year dates. The majority of year dates from this time are unspecified, appearing simply as “Year X” rather than the traditional “Year X of King X.” This is further complicated by the introduction of a new, non-regnal dating system at the end of the reign of Ramses XI, the wḥm msw, or “repeating of births.” Most scholars attribute unspecific year dates in Theban records to either the wḥm msw, in the case of Herihor, or to the Tanite kings in the north, despite the fact that the evidence points to Upper and Lower Egypt operating as separate political and administrative entities beginning at some point during Herihor’s tenure. This assumption can be seen in Dodson’s Afterglow of Empire: Egypt from the Fall of the New Kingdom to the Saite Renaissance, Kitchen’s Third Intermediate Period in Egypt and his article, “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact and Fiction,” Lull’s Los sumos sacredotes de Amón tebanos de la wḥm mswt y dinastía XXI, and many more. The justification for these attributions is unsatisfying and sometimes nonexistent. Both Dodson’s and Kitchen’s reasoning for ruling out the possibility of the high priests of Amun in Thebes having their own year dates is simply that it was impossible for a non-royal person to have their own year dates as it was not done before. This conviction is upheld despite Kitchen himself pointing out that some Twelfth Dynasty nomarchs did exactly this.5 This has led to many complicated and convoluted theories about the relative chronology of this period, such as Dodson’s idea that Herihor was displaced as high priest by Piankh and then reinstated after “Piankh’s demise,” which 5 Kitchen 2009, 192. 5 is not explained further and does not seem to fit with any evidence I have encountered.6 Scholars also occasionally explain the use of Tanite regnal years by likening the high priests to co-regents, despite the fact that there are no other signs of co-rulership in the available evidence.7 Any attempts to outline a chronology of this period need to be built upon a study and understanding of the nature of power, how it is portrayed, and the shifting ideas of how power was accumulated and represented in both imagery and text. The building of such a chronological picture, which cannot be separated from the changing notions of power, is often hampered by the fact that the conception of what makes a “legitimate” leader is heavily influenced by the expectations of modern scholars and the fundamentals of the ideology of kingship. Most scholars seem to only accept a king as a legitimate leader in ancient Egypt. The lack of an obvious king, such as during Masaharta’s tenure or depictions of high priests performing kingly duties with no mention of a monarch, is therefore viewed as a problem. Year dates (and by extension acknowledgement) of Tanite kings and coregencies are offered as solutions. The possibility of sons being promoted to the position of high priest after their father took on royal titles has also been presented.8 Kitchen imagines the high priests to be “governors of Upper Egypt” subservient to the Tanite kings, rather than separate political leaders themselves,9 even going so far as to say, The line of kings in Tanis in the East Delta is paralleled by the line of army- commanders and high priests of Amun at Thebes as lords of the southland. One might say of these two regions (the north and south halves of the land--delta and valley) that one half (north) ruled as overlord of the whole only by agreement with the other half (south).10 6 Dodson 2012, 21. 7 Barwik 2011, 112. 8 Lull 2009, 242; James and Morkot 2013, 234-235; Dodson 2012, 25. 9 Kitchen 2009, 191. 10 Kitchen 1986, 3. 6 However, the systematic lack of acknowledgement between Tanite and Theban rulers does not support this interpretation. Even when studying examples of high priests taking on royal titularly, epithets, and regalia, scholars have difficulty accepting them as true leaders. Barwik, for example, seems to superficially accept Herihor and Pinedjem I as true leaders, but continually refers to their “kingship,” in quotation marks, which appears to question the legitimacy or, at least, the effectiveness of their rule.11 He concludes that Herihor’s kingship was not incomplete, but the lack of consistency with which royal titularly appears indicates that his rulership was weak.12 The use of quotation marks around the words king and kingship also appears in Kitchen’s Third Intermediate Period when he discusses Pinedjem I’s tenure.13 Kitchen rejects Herihor’s kingship altogether, claiming that it cannot be taken seriously because it did not fit into the traditional idea of Egyptian kingship,14 once again highlighting the pervasiveness of the harmful view that Egyptian culture was monolithic and unchanging. Some scholars who do not accept the high priests as kings subscribe to the theory of a theocracy in Upper Egypt after the death of Ramses XI, which can be seen in works such as Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt (1992) and Assmann’s The Mind of Egypt: history and meaning in the time of the pharaohs (2003). These scholars maintain that Herihor established a theocracy through serving Amun directly, leaving the worldly throne unoccupied, with simply a high-level priest to interpret the god’s wishes.15 However, this description is remarkably similar to the role of a traditional king and his responsibilities, with Herihor representing himself in new ways. In his book, Herihor in Art and Iconography: kingship and the gods in the ritual landscape of Late New Kingdom Thebes (2014), Gregory refutes these claims and states that Herihor should 11 Barwik 2011, 146. 12 Barwik 2011, 147. 13 Kitchen 1986, 259. 14 Kitchen 2009, 194. 15 Grimal 1992, 292; Assmann 2003, 287-290. 7 be called a king without issue because, though the details may have changed, Herihor fulfilled the same functions that a king would. However, he also claims that Egypt “would require a king, not a deputy in the form of ḥm-nṯr-tpy n Imn, or “high priest,” to fulfill the ideological requirements relating to the maintenance of world order.”16 While it seems likely that the high-priests sometimes adopted royal status as a way to uphold the proper order of the universe, there is also evidence of them performing rituals to ensure this without any kingly titles or regalia. Personal, societal and scholarly biases are impossible to avoid and even the awareness of what biases we might hold is not always enough to overcome them. This is compounded when studying ancient cultures, whose beliefs and worldviews might differ greatly from our own with no living members to bridge the gaps. However, we must attempt to move away from examining evidence through the lens of previous traditions, knowledge, or scholarly interpretations, and see what conclusions can be made after examining the evidence without the assumptions of a static definition of power in ancient Egypt. Accepting that we do not, and cannot, have all the answers and will not always understand the motivations of people removed in both time and culture from us will strengthen our arguments and allow for more valuable research. Broekman states that, "it appears that Pinudjem uses throughout his various monuments his royal, high-priestly, civil, and military titles completely arbitrarily and at random."17 It is vital to remember that a lack of recognition on our part of a discernable pattern or reason does not mean the Egyptians themselves made decisions randomly or without reason. The question of how the change in government style occurred and was accepted by the elite officials is often ignored in the previous literature on this period. However, one possible explanation that has been offered by scholars is that the high priests, beginning with Piankh and 16 Gregory 2014, 146. 17 Broekman 2012, 204. 8 Herihor, were of Libyan descent. Scholars, such as Broekman and Jansen-Winkeln, view this supposed foreign origin as the source of the idea for the separation of the kingdom, the changing idea of kingship, and the brother to brother succession that occurred.18 This can lead to viewing all of the evidence through a Libyan lens as though it is a given, rather than considering the possibility of the influence of an Egyptian private tradition. This is especially problematic, given that the main piece of evidence for the Libyan origin of Piankh and Herihor is the Libyan character to some of the names of their sons. § 1.4 Methodology § 1.4a Categories of Evidence This dissertation will use three categories of evidence: textual, artistic, and archaeological. Various types of textual sources will be examined. Inscriptions, stelae, letters, and literature related to generals, viziers, and high priests of Amun in the New Kingdom will be studied in order to explain the organization of these areas of government before the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. Inscriptions, stelae, and letters of high-status individuals based in Thebes at the end of the Twentieth and into the Twenty-First Dynasty will be analyzed for information regarding their status, responsibilities, major accomplishments, career path, family relations, and connection to the kings established at Tanis. Carved reliefs will contribute to the understanding of the power and responsibilities of the high priests in Thebes, mostly coming from temple contexts. These temple decorations hold examples of the high priests presented as private individuals as well as royal with their adoption of kingly titles and attributes. Statues of known prominent individuals and their context will be studied as well. Archaeological remains, such as building materials and 18 Broekman 2012, 197. Jansen-Winkeln 2016, 388. 9 funerary artifacts, will be studied when available, although the evidence of this period is meager in comparison to other periods of Egyptian history. The evidence presented in this dissertation was gathered from combing through previous publications of archaeological excavations, primary texts, epigraphic surveys, and museum catalogues. This is by no means a comprehensive collection of every piece of evidence related to the high priests. However, the material chosen provides a representation of the types of visual and textual portrayals of these officials that have been preserved and I have attempted to discuss examples of each variation to help build a thorough picture of the leadership of Upper Egypt. § 1.4b Methods In this dissertation, I will use a variety of methods to interpret and analyze the available evidence. Iconography, an art historical method, will be used to analyze the contents, rather than the style, of images and their parts to understand the larger themes and ideas expressed using certain culturally based visual clues.19 This technique will be used in conjunction with hermeneutics to interpret those ideas and consider the forces behind the creation of these signifiers, both in image and text.20 I will focus on hermeneutical theory of conception, identifying the original intent, rather than modern reception to attempt to understand the actions of the high priests of Amun at Thebes. I will also engage in textual analysis and source criticism of primary source materials, including literature, formal inscriptions, and personal correspondence. 19 Müller 2015. 20 Angenot 2015. 10 § 1.5 Organization § 1.5a Organization of Evidence The chapters of this dissertation are arranged chronologically, rather than by type of evidence or title. If the chapters were organized by type of evidence (archaeological, textual, artistic) or sphere of influence (military, religious, administrative), there is a strong chance that the comparisons and the time frames would get muddled and confused. This dissertation attempts to trace the development of high-level officials possessing a single high-ranking title to multiple, which gradually progressed over the course of the New Kingdom. The high priests of the Twenty- First Dynasty would not have risen to such heights without the actions of Herihor at the very end of the New Kingdom. Therefore, arranging the chapters chronologically will allow for the consolidation of private power to be made clear and demonstrate Herihor’s lasting influence over his successors. However, using a chronological structure could potentially give the impression that the changes seen are merely a straightforward, uncomplicated progression and the various contexts and meanings gained from the differing types of evidence could be overlooked. Additionally, there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the chronology of this period, including order and overlap, and the chronological presentation in this dissertation is not presented as absolute truth. However, some chronological progression must be adopted to present the evidence clearly and enable discussion. Explanations for the specific chronology followed will be discussed. In an attempt to mitigate these potential shortcomings, each chapter progresses chronologically but breaks down the evidence by more thematic categories. The study of New Kingdom titles in Chapter Two examines generals, viziers, and high priests separately within each dynasty. Chapters Three and Four look at the individual high priests chronologically but differentiate between evidence of royal status and that of private status. 11 § 1.5b Organization of Chapters Chapter Two focuses on the state of the Egyptian administration in the New Kingdom up to the reign of Ramses XI. The discussion of the roles of earlier upper level officials within administrative, military, and religious spheres will set up the comparison to the Third Intermediate Period and highlight the changes that occurred at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. The careers, responsibilities, and activities of generals, viziers, and high priests of Amun from the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Dynasty will be discussed chronologically to trace officials over the course of the New Kingdom. When viewed as a whole, a strong trend of officials consolidating high level titles in the three areas of government emerges. This internal development paved the way for the Third Intermediate Period leaders of Upper Egypt and likely allowed the high elite to accept the new style in leadership as, at its core, it was not very new at all. Chapter Three addresses the most crucial moment in the development of the Theban government. The careers of Herihor and Piankh were the clear turning point, where the High Priest of Amun became an even more powerful figure, holding very important titles of military and administrative natures, and demonstrates a marked departure from earlier New Kingdom royal tradition. The “suppression” of Amenhotep not much earlier demonstrates that there was open conflict surrounding the office of the High Priest at the end of the dynasty, indicating turmoil and changes around the position itself. Piankh is the first known official to hold the titles of jmj-r mšc wr, ṯ3tj, and ḥm nṯr tp n Jmn simultaneously. Herihor emerged from the uncertainty, getting rid of the pretense of serving another, and controlled the South himself through the power he had accumulated from a wide range of offices. Chapter Four studies the reigns of several high priests of the early Twenty-First Dynasty to demonstrate that this new trend of culminated power in a single individual was not merely a brief experimentation at a time of transition but a long-term change in the organization of the 12 government in Upper Egypt. By examining the high priests of Thebes and attempting to reconstruct the relationship they had with the kings in Tanis, the power that these men held at Thebes can be more thoroughly understood. Their influence over Southern Egypt was not something that stemmed from the kings in the north but instead was a result of their control over various branches of government. § 1.5c Omission of Later Twenty-First Dynasty High Priests and Tanite Kings This majority of this dissertation focuses on the high priests of Amun centered at Thebes from the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty into the Twenty-First. I studied three specific high priests of the Third Intermediate Period: Pinedjem I, Masaharta, and Menkheperre. These are three of the first four high priests of the era, with Djedkhonsuefankh only being briefly mentioned due to the severe lack of evidence regarding his tenure. I have chosen to omit the careers of the last three high priests of the Twenty-First Dynasty, Smendes II, Pinedjem II, and Psusennes III, as there is much less evidence related to them in comparison to the earlier leaders. Their lives, especially Smendes II and Psusennes III, are very poorly documented and there is little to indicate what occurred during their occupation of the office. Additionally, this dissertation largely focuses on evidence from Upper Egypt with texts and artifacts from Lower Egypt being interpreted through the lens of the Theban leadership. Though examination of the material related to the Tanite kings and the northern government would prove valuable for more overarching discussions on the nature of power and leadership during this period, this dissertation has limited its scope to the internal expression of authority and governance in Upper Egypt specifically. As such, Lower Egyptian evidence will only be examined in relation to the high priests of Amun at Thebes. 13 § 1.6 Power in the Ancient World An important type of evidence for this dissertation is titles. An issue with using titles as the foundation of research is the question of how much titles can be trusted. The possession of a title does not necessarily equal actual influence in the area associated with it. Additionally, even if a particular office is intended to grant an individual a certain level of control, the effectiveness of implementation will vary from person to person. However, the titles of high priest, general, and vizier are not honorary titles, as shown by the evidence of activities related to these positions, and represent the highest level of official in each of their respective areas. The possession of such significant titles must reflect a level of power and influence over their fellow officials, even if the exact amount cannot be discerned. Also, the obvious hereditary nature of these offices during this time period indicate the ability to retain control over these branches of government by a specific family. Trying to piece together what level of power an individual possessed in actuality versus the amount they intended to imply they had can be difficult. How can we discern if an individual has realized power? One simple but worthwhile way of judging whether an individual has power is if they have the ability to organize people, resources, and labor and use them for their benefit.21 This ability is communicated in the inscriptions, reliefs, and stelae of the high priests. Additionally, the construction done at Thebes, El Hibeh (including large defensive walls), Luxor, and Gebelein during this time by the Theban leaders shows a high level of control over a significant workforce and resources. There is a possibility of these officials simply taking credit for efforts of others, such as community-based decisions and projects. However, the web of familial ties in the Theban 21 Abrams 1989, 47-87; Wolf 1990, 586-596. 14 administration, the appointment of officials by these leaders, and the private examples of deference to them indicate that leadership still centered around a single high-ranking individual. § 1.7 Conclusion The powerful, influential figures that arose in Thebes holding a mixture of elite military, administrative, and religious titles at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty and continuing into the Twenty-First show a break from the tradition of the New Kingdom. In the beginning of the period, being a military official had become a career path separate from religious or strictly administrative ones. Highly regarded titles were more spread out between various elite men, providing a more substantial community of officials with influence. These various titles, and the power that came with them, were much more consolidated at the end of the New Kingdom and into the Third Intermediate Period, which led to a handful of individuals with a high level of control of military, religious, and administrative operations. This dissertation will show that this evolution of high-level officialdom, combined with the splintering of the kingdom into two power centers, resulted in a departure from the traditional pharaonic rule in Upper Egypt, as the high priests gained control over the south seemingly without needing to declare themselves kings first. Even their adoption of kingly attributes might not have been attempt at royal legitimization as previously thought. These men were based in Thebes and had a sphere of definitive influence over Upper Egypt, both when displaying royal or private status, while the kings of the Twenty-First Dynasty ruled separately from Tanis. This dissertation will establish that the high priests of Amun ruled Thebes in their own right, not in deference to the Tanite kings, and approached leadership and governance in a way that deviated from what scholars consider to be the ideological norm of the traditional kingship system. This change at the very top 15 of the political, religious, and social hierarchy was made possible by the influence of the trends seen amongst private officials, which were maintained by those in power rather than being completely replaced by royal customs. 16 CHAPTER TWO: GENERALS, VIZIERS, AND HIGH PRIESTS OF AMUN IN THE NEW KINGDOM § 2.1 Introduction The New Kingdom period of Egypt’s history is often referred to and thought of as its golden age. This is due to the increased monumental building, the copious amounts of artifacts discovered, the works of literature preserved, and the expansion of the state’s influence into the foreign lands to the south and northeast. It is also viewed, for the most part, as an era of strong centralized rule with a powerful leader and a well-organized administrative system. In order to effectively demonstrate and contextualize the changes that occurred in this system in Upper Egypt at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty and into the Twenty-First, the offices of general, vizier, and high priest of Amun during the three dynasties of the New Kingdom will be examined. These three offices, the highest ranks achievable in each of the three main areas of governance, were held by single individuals at the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty and into the Twenty-First, who controlled Upper Egypt through the influence that accompanied these titles. Longer literary and instructive texts (“Capture of Joppa” and “Duties of the Vizier”) will be considered in terms of how they can shed light on the reality of the inner workings of the kingdom. More significantly, evidence of specific officials, including their additional titles and indications of government-related activities, will be discussed to analyze overarching themes, responsibilities, and connections of and between 17 these three major areas of governance of the state during the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth dynasties. The purpose of this chapter is to present data gathered on office holders during the New Kingdom and how the three different spheres of government—administrative, military, and religious—overlapped through specific individuals. How officials emphasized their relationship to the king and the ways in which they acknowledged the king as their source of power will also be analyzed. Through the study of various officials, a trend amongst private individuals will become clear. As will be discussed in detail below, there were no clear boundaries between areas of governance in ancient Egypt and individuals often held titles that modern scholars would classify as belonging to different realms of administration. However, over the course of the New Kingdom, non-royal officials began to gain higher-ranked titles related to more than one main area of governance, which reflects the increased blurring of the lines between these various state responsibilities. Examining the offices held by individuals in the New Kingdom and tracing the increase of title consolidation over time will give a more informed context for Herihor’s powerful position in Upper Egypt at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. Additionally, examining the connections between the reigning king and private officials through titles and epithets in previous dynasties will highlight the stark difference seen in Herihor’s rule in Thebes. Presenting this data chronologically by dynasty, rather than examining the evolution of each office through the New Kingdom, will demonstrate this chronological progression in a clearer, more streamlined manner. I have not been able to discover any officials of the Eighteenth Dynasty that held more than one of the three major titles, namely jmj-r mšᶜ wr, ṯ3tj, and ḥm nṯr n Jmn. Viziers did not hold military titles, and the religious titles they did possess were vague and not related to a specific temple complex. The high priest of Amun held a variety of religious positions as well as administrative ones related to the running and maintaining of the Karnak 18 complex, such as overseer of the granaries or treasuries of Amun. In the Nineteenth Dynasty, there was an increase in the number of officials who held titles in more than one state domain. Military officials started to gain religious administration positions during this time period. There were even two high priests of Amun who also served as jmjw-r mšᶜ. Viziers gained high religious appointments, including high priest of Amun and high priest of Ptah. A significant decrease in evidence of Twentieth Dynasty officials makes analysis more difficult but it appears that trends were similar to that seen in the previous dynasty. § 2.1a Organization and Ideology of the Egyptian Government Before presenting the data, two topics need to be briefly discussed: the organization of the government and how ideology translated into reality. In theory, the king was the government. He was the source of all power and the main decision maker. However, this was not sustainable for the ruling of a kingdom and the Egyptian state was maintained through a centralized administrative force based out of the king’s palace in the capital as well as a locally run system that deferred to it. The palace served as a visual representation of the power of the king but also functioned as a place of business where the king, or his staff, could meet with officials and dignitaries. The layers of walls and guarded gateways restricted access to the king and ensured both his safety and mystique.22 In the Egyptian worldview, the universe was constantly on the brink of destruction. Chaos and disorder threatened to unravel the proper state of creation and these forces could only be held back by ma’at, a concept that encompassed truth, justice, righteousness, and order. Ma’at needed to be upheld by the gods’ representative on earth: the king, himself a direct manifestation 22 Lloyd 2014, 137-139. 19 of Horus.23 This was the primary duty of the king and the ideological reasoning behind the existence of the kingship. There were three main ways for the king to uphold ma’at and ensure the proper functioning of the universe: interacting with the divine, through offerings and worship as the theoretical high priest of all gods, keeping the administration of the state organized and efficient, and protecting Egypt from foreign entities, which were seen as agents of chaos.24 These three obligations are reflected in the organization of the government of the state. They were not created as three clearly defined and separate branches as they were all institutionalized extensions of royal authority. It will be shown that viziers acted as deputies of the king and therefore technically had the ability to oversee all operations of the kingdom, on behalf of the king, but in reality, they seem to have primarily concerned themselves with the running of the civil administration. This accorded the military and temple administration a certain level of independence, though always connected back to the king. This lack of clear distinctions between avenues of state governance allowed for the growing trend throughout the New Kingdom of officials who participated in more than one of these institutions and the blurring of the lines between them. While examining the following data, the issue of ideal versus reality must be kept in mind. Many of the sources analyzed, including tomb scenes and inscriptions as well as didactic writings, present an idealized picture of how the state should have been organized and the role various offices should have played within that system. These, of course, can help us understand how the Egyptians conceived of their government in a more theoretical manner and the way in which they strove to conduct the central administration. However, reality rarely lives to up ideological expectations and we cannot assume that these idealized versions of how the government operated 23 Quirke 1992, 70. 24 Lloyd 2014, 69-70. 20 perfectly reflected real political situations. They can, nonetheless, give us an idea of the administrative systems on the state level and provide context for more concrete types of evidence for active participation in the government. § 2.2 Eighteenth Dynasty § 2.2a Generals The growth of the Egyptian kingdom into an empire was only possible because of the changes to the military that occurred during the Second Intermediate Period and beginning of the New Kingdom. The introduction of the horse and the chariot during the Second Intermediate Period had a profound effect on the Egyptian military. Current evidence points to the Hyksos and the Egyptians adopting this new military technology at the same time, from an unspecified Near Eastern source, and developing an already strong tradition of archery in tandem with this new form of movement.25 Egypt already had a well-established tradition of boat building and naval warfare but the need arose for an enlargement of its infantry and the incorporation of the chariot in order to attempt an inland expansion into the Levant.26 Additionally, a standing army that was always ready for mobilization replaced the earlier model of raising troops from local elites on an as-needed basis.27 The majority of these soldiers were still probably part-time and likely worked on their own farms in times of peace. However, they were meant to be constantly prepared in case the king called them to arms, responding directly to the state rather than a local noble. Additionally, the state lent them the equipment they needed, including horses, though charioteers had to pay for their own chariots. The number of regiment divisions increased over time, likely reflecting a 25 Genz 2013, 101. 26 Spalinger 2010, 439. 27 Spalinger 2013, 403; Spalinger 2005, 6; Kadry 1982, 1. 21 growth in size, from two recorded during the Eighteenth Dynasty to four during the reign of Ramses II.28 The concept of kingship became increasingly militarized during this transition into the New Kingdom as well. The early Eighteenth Dynasty looked to the Middle Kingdom as an example of a strong time of centralized government to emulate after a period of multiple power centers and violent interactions between local leaders. It is in the violent rhetoric of the preserved texts of the Eleventh Dynasty that the beginnings of the ideology of the warrior king can be seen, but this comes to full fruition in the New Kingdom with the growth and expansion of the military capabilities of the state.29 While he did not invent the idea, Thutmose III is a prime example of the ideal warrior king, both in art and text, once he assumed the sole rule of the kingdom after the disappearance of his co-ruler, Hatshepsut. For the first time, detailed, descriptive accounts of a pharaoh leading his troops out on campaign were recorded. These can be found inscribed in the Temple of Amun at Karnak and describe Thutmose’s forays into the Levant, most famously the Battle of Megiddo.30 Additionally, Thutmose III shows the beginning of what will become a strong tradition in the New Kingdom of demonstrating his physical prowess through monumental reliefs that depicted him in domineering, victorious glory.31 During the New Kingdom, as in some other periods, the king was the commander of the military in ideological terms and sometimes lead the army on the battlefield, as in the case of Thutmose III. The king did not possess any titles of generalship, no matter his private background, once he assumed the throne. Any private military appointments previously collected were discarded for kingly epithets, the same as with other non-royal titles. As previously mentioned, the 28 Lloyd 2014, 116-117. 29 Redford 1995, 159-161. 30 Urk IV 645-754. 31 Schwaller de Lubicz 1982, Pl. 368. 22 king was a manifestation of Horus on earth. He was not fully divine nor fully human but existed somewhere in between these two categories. In his role of the preserver of ma’at, he protected and ruled over humanity but existed outside of it.32 Silverman explains, Yet there existed distinctions also between the new king and the rest of the living population. He was addressed differently than were others; his designations were changed; his persona was distinct; and his ultimate future lie in a world separate from that of humankind--one with the deities.33 Though the king was born fully human, he transcended this status upon his coronation. He took on new names, epithets, and regalia that reflected this change, which infused him with some level of divinity. It seems likely that this also required the shedding of his distinctively human aspects, such as the administrative, militaristic, and religious titles that could be achieved by any official. However, the reality of rule meant that the king alone could not be present for every instance of physical engagement or handle the task of the administration of an entire army by himself. Others were needed to head the troops when the pharaoh himself was not available and assist him in the bureaucratic aspects of maintaining a constant military force. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, the eldest prince and heir typically filled this role with the title of jmj-r mšᶜ wr (“chief overseer of the army”).34 This title is often translated into English by scholars more colloquially as “Generalissimo.” In this work, the transliteration of the title or the direct English translation (“chief overseer of the army”) will be used. The first person with this title in the New Kingdom was Amenmose, the eldest son of Thutmose I, whose full title was jmj-r mšᶜ wr n jt.f, “chief overseer of the army of his father.” The addition of n jt.f was a new development.35 Princes present a difficulty in interpreting evidence in this context as their status is not clear cut. They are of royal blood and therefore cannot be considered private individuals but were allowed, and 32 Baines 1995, 9-12. 33 Silverman 1995, 67. 34 Gnirs 2013, 639-643. 35 Gnirs 1996, 4-5. 23 perhaps expected, to hold offices within the government. It is unknown whether they were treated similarly to high status private officials but the consistency with which they are given non- honorary titles seems to indicate some level of participation. At some point in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, jmj-r mšᶜ wr became a title that could be achieved by non-royals.36 For example, Merimose, a non-royal official under Amenhotep II, held a variation of the title, jmj-r mšᶜ wr n ḥm.f (“chief overseer of the army of his Majesty”). The combination of the trend of training future kings in the military arts and appointing non-royal officials in the highest military position paved the way for the non-royal chief overseers of the army who became kings at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the beginning of the Nineteenth; namely Horemheb and Paramessu. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of evidence on jmjw-r mšᶜ wr, other than titles, that dates to the Eighteenth Dynasty. For example, Nakhtmin served as a chief overseer of the army during the reign of Tutankhamun but not much is known about him beyond his list of titles. He does, however, have many honorary titles that seem connected to the palace and Gnirs has suggested that he might have been involved in military administration centered there.37 Either way, it is clear from Nakhtmin’s titles that he was closely connected to the king. The pharaoh was the source of his power and there are reminders of that origin throughout his many titles. He possessed the titles jmj-r mšᶜ wr and also jmj-r mšᶜ n nb t3wj.38 Additionally, he was a seal bearer of king, and was described as ḥswt m ᶜḥ n nsw, “praised one in the palace of the king” and ḥ3tj n wrw sᶜ3 n nsw, “head of the officials, made great by the king.”39 This is a theme of the titles of chief overseers in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Additions of n jt.f, n ḥm.f, and n nb t3wj stressed the idea that while these 36 Gnirs 1996, 646. 37 Gnirs 1996, 41. 38 Urk IV 1910, 3, 9. 39 Urk IV 1909, 16. 24 overseers might have been leaders of the army, this authority was given to them by the king and the troops were ultimately his. Beyond titles, what evidence do we have that might indicate the role jmjw-r mšᶜ wr played in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt? Perhaps some light can be shed by examining a somewhat unlikely source: a literary work known as The Capture of Joppa.40 This text tells the story of a chief overseer of the army named Djehuti, who tricks the leaders of the city of Joppa, a Levantine site, into thinking that he has surrendered. He sends two hundred baskets as “tribute,” which the city accepts. Once inside the city gates, the Egyptian soldiers hiding in the baskets emerge and overtake Joppa. Djehuti then sends a letter to his king, informing him of the campaign’s success. Though this is a fictional story, which is only known from a Nineteenth Dynasty copy dating to the reign of Ramses II,41 it is known that there was an jmj-r mšᶜ wr named Djehuti who served under Thutmose III.42 A tomb of an official Djehuti was discovered in 1824 but its location is now unfortunately lost.43 Some grave goods still remain, however, and these have helped to identify the tomb owner as the likely subject of the Capture of Joppa. One artifact has survived with the title of jmj-r mšᶜ wr on it: a gold bowl in the Louvre.44 Thutmose III conducted many campaigns into the Levant during his solo reign, described in his annals inscribed at the temple of Amun-Re in Karnak. The siege of the city of Joppa is not mentioned in those texts but the context of the tale is certainly believable as the city is included in the topographical lists that enumerate the foreign cities supposedly conquered by Thutmose III.45 Additionally, excavations at Joppa (modern-day Jaffa) have revealed ceramic evidence of Egyptian occupation in the Late Bronze Age lasting about 250 years, which 40 Gardiner 1932, 82-85. 41 Manassa 2010, 254. 42 Lilyquist 1988. 43 Manassa 2013, 70. 44 Louvre N713. 45 Manassa 2013, 74. 25 likely began in the reign of Thutmose III.46 We cannot assume that this story gives us an accurate picture of an ideal leader of the army of the Thutmosid era as its sole copy dates to the early Nineteenth Dynasty. However, the fact that that name of a specific jmj-r mšᶜ wr was kept in the cultural memory and a heroic tale with a historically grounded premise was centered around him proves that they could hold an exalted position and were prominent enough in elite culture that an entire literary work could be focused on one of them, though the scope of the audience for such a tale is unknown. From a more concrete historical perspective, information about the activities and prominence of jmjw-r mšᶜ wr at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty can be collected from the private tomb of Horemheb. Built before he ascended to the throne, Horemheb’s Memphite tomb gives insight into his responsibilities and power through inscriptions and some reliefs. Several variants of the title of chief overseer of the army appear in this tomb: the standard jmj-r mšᶜ wr (“chief overseer of the army”), jmj-r mšᶜ wr n nb t3wj (“chief overseer of the army of the Lord of the Two Lands”), and jmj-r jmjw-r mšᶜ wr n nb t3wj (“chief overseer of the overseers of the army of the Lord of the Two Lands”).47 The last title is unique to Horemheb. This military title, and its variants, does not appear in every list of titles given in the tomb but it is frequent and, when it does appear, it is directly before Horemheb’s name. An inscription from of the tomb reads, smr wpwty nsw r ḥ3t mšᶜ.f r ḫ3st rsj mḥt n k3 n jmj-r mšᶜ wr Ḥr-m-ḥb m3ᶜ ḫrw...stp n nsw ḫntj t3wj r jr sḫr jdbwy jmj-r jmjw-r mšᶜ n nb t3wj n k3 n sẖ nsw m3ᶜ mrj.f Ḥr-m-ḥb...shrj r m t3 r-ḏr.f ḥry sšt3 n pr nsw wᶜ ḫw.f ḥsb.f mnf3t n k3 n jmj-r pr Ḥr- m-ḥb m3ᶜ ḫrw...smr jry rdwy nb.f ḥr prj rᶜ pn n sm3 Sttwy n k3 n jmj-r mšᶜ wr Ḥr- m-ḥb48 royal companion, messenger of the king at the front of his army to the southern and northern lands, for the ka of the chief overseer of the army, Horemheb, true of voice...chosen by the king who presides over the Two Lands to govern the Two Banks, overseer of the overseers of the army of the Lord of the Two Lands, for the 46 Burke and Lords 2010, 10. 47 Attestations of these variants can be found in Martin 1989, Pl. 22, 57, and 23 respectively. 48 Martin 1989, Pl. 57, Jamb 57. 26 ka of the true royal scribe, his beloved Horemheb...mouth that makes peace in the entire land, master of the secrets of the palace, one who counts the troops, for the ka of the steward, Horemheb, true of voice...royal companion, one who accompanies his lord on the battlefield on this day of killing the Asiatics, for the ka of the chief overseer of the army, Horemheb. These show Horemheb’s high status, as one who can both closely accompany the king and also act as his representative in foreign lands. However, they also tie his authority directly to the king, as with his various military titles. There is a constant reminder that the source of his power lies outside his own person, much like Nakhtmin’s. Horemheb’s many honorary titles indicate his proximity and value to the king. Additionally, he had several titles that seem to be connected to the palace, such as “royal scribe,” “overseer of overseers of scribes of the King,” “overseer of the house,” and “master of the secrets of the palace,” and he claimed that he was “chosen by the king who presides over the Two Lands to govern the Two Banks,” as seen above. He is also described as having “authority over the robing room,” which might mean that he was one of the few officials allowed to touch the king when he dressed. It seems likely that this was an honorary authority, as Horemheb surely would not have been able to be at the king’s beck and call but the fact that it is listed is telling. Though many of these titles are likely honorary ones, the fact that many of them are closely associated with the palace and more functional titles, such as steward, indicate that Horemheb was involved in some high-level state administration outside the military. In addition to military and administrative titles, Horemheb is known to have possessed a single priestly title. He is said to be the “overseer of the priests of Horus, lord of Seby,” jmj-r ḥmw nṯr n Ḥr nb sby, though this particular location has not been identified with any known towns.49 Even though it is only a sole priestly title, it shows that there were high-level officials at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty who had a combination of 49 Martin 1989, 59, Plate 57. 27 military, religious, and administrative titles, even if they only possessed high ranking ones in a single governmental sphere. Parts of these same inscriptions hint that Horemheb acted as an intermediary between other officials, presumably of lower status, and the king himself. Beyond just being the king’s delegate, he says that he was the “mouth who makes peace in the entire land”. Another inscription demonstrates not only his involvement in administration, but also the role he replayed among other officials of the king. sšt3 n w3ḏyty tp ḥr m pr dw3t...s3b ᶜḏ sp3t tp ḥr m sḥ ḥmww tp ḥr m pr mḏ3t jmj-r n jmjw-r sšw nbt n nsw...wḥm r bity n smrw sḏm sḏmt wᶜw50 Master of the secrets of the two serpent goddesses of the Double Crown, head of the house of morning...dignitary of the desert edge of the nome, head of the pavilion of the craftsmen, head of the library, overseer of all the overseers of the scribes of the king...one who repeats the speech of the King of Lower Egypt to the companions and listens to the confessions of the unique ones. Direct access and communication with the king likely would have been restricted to higher status officials and these inscriptions indicate that Horemheb was not only one of those people, but a way of indirectly getting messages to and from the king. He implied that the king informed him of any news or orders relevant for other officials and that he was responsible for getting that information to them. Presumably, Horemheb not only listened to officials but also relayed their messages to the king if they could not get an audience. This type of access reflects a powerful position in the kingdom, as the king was the source of all power and Horemheb would have been part of a small circle that could approach him directly. Two particularly important administrative titles that Horemheb held were r-pᶜt and mr pr wr. Traditionally, the mr pr wr was in charge of administering the king’s property and overseeing foreign trade along with the ships made for such expeditions. However, the second half of the 50 Martin 1989, Pl. 65. 28 Eighteenth Dynasty saw a rise in the power wielded by this office as officials with this title began to carry out the king’s orders and enforce them.51 R-pᶜt previously was held by “tribal leaders” to mean “mouth of the people” and reflected their judicial responsibilities, but by the Eighteenth Dynasty seems to have become an honorific title. Helck suggests that this changed when Horemheb was granted the title. Horemheb already had a lot of administrative power, some of that stemming from the office of mr pr wr, and Helck suggests that the title of r-pᶜt was merely a formality to make the power he already held official. This move might have been to indicate his role as the next king.52 Horemheb in turn passed this title onto Paramessu to declare him as his successor, which Helck theorizes eventually led to the string of titles usually given to Ramesside princes; s3 nswt r-pᶜt jmj-r mšᶜ (“king’s son, prince, overseer of the army”).53 A few reliefs in Horemheb’s Memphite tomb also demonstrate some of his responsibilities in his capacity as a military commander. There are incomplete scenes of a campsite that appear to be military in nature, though its location and purpose is not clear.54 This potentially supports the idea that jmjw-r mšᶜ wr at this time were expected to lead troops, not just administratively, but on the battlefield as well. This is difficult to prove, however, due to the common lack of historicity in Egyptian art and textual sources, especially in tomb contexts. Unfortunately, better evidence of overseers of the army being actively involved with warfare and preparations for it is not available until the Twentieth Dynasty. This relief indicates that chief overseers of the army were at least meant to be viewed as the active leaders on the battlefield, whether or not that reflected the reality of war at the time. 51 Kadry 1982, 51-52. 52 Helck 1939, 80. 53 Helck 1939, 82. 54 Martin 1989, Pl. 28-29. 29 Another scene in his tomb depicts a very large Horemheb receiving prisoners with an accompanying inscription that includes this description of his success; jry h3b.tw m wpwty nsw r r-ᶜ wbn n jtn jw hbnw.n.f [...f] ḫpr.f nn ᶜḥᶜ t3 nb r ḥ3t.f 3ᶜy.f st m km n 3t dm rn.f ḥr t3 ḫ3st n Ḫt355 He was sent as the messenger of the king to the limit of the rising of the sun disk, to return when he had triumphed, when [...] had happened. Not any land could stand before him. He overpowered them in the space of a moment. His name was proclaimed in the foreign land of the Hittites(?). Again, we see Horemheb representing the king while out on campaign in foreign lands. However, we also get the added information that Horemheb himself, not the king, was said to be famous among the Hittites and he is given credit for his victory rather than the crown. This shows that, even as early as the Eighteenth Dynasty, high ranking officials could be given credit for their accomplishments rather than deferring automatically to the king. § 2.2b Viziers Another title held by the ruling high priests of Amun of the Third Intermediate Period was that of vizier, which was closely connected to the realm of civil administration. Once again, the terminology for this office must be discussed. The term “vizier” is anachronistic and yet it is the only translation given for the word ṯ3tj in Egyptian dictionaries. As a way to try to avoid modern bias that might be attached to the word “vizier,” the transliteration of the Egyptian word, ṯ3tj, will be used in this dissertation. The ṯ3tj was the highest civil official in the kingdom’s administration and, therefore, it was an important and renowned position. Though ṯ3tjw are known prior to the New Kingdom, an Eighteenth Dynasty example of the title does not appear until Imhotep, who 55 Martin 1989, Pl. 91. 30 served under Thutmose I.56 There seems to have been a strong hereditary claim on the position in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, as Imhotep’s successor Ahmose-Aametu was followed by his son, Useramun, who in turn was followed by his nephew, Rekhmire.57 Bryan describes the role of the ṯ3tj as the administrative equivalent of a high priest, in so far as the ṯ3tj acted on behalf of the king and carried out administrative duties in his stead, as high priests did for rituals in temples.58 It is believed that there were often two ṯ3tjw serving simultaneously during the New Kingdom, one in the north and one in the south, due to overlap and some specificity in titles.59 For example, an inscription from one of the Theban tombs of Useramun, who served during the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, describes the tomb owner as, m33 jpw n ḫ3 n ṯ3tj n [...] ḫntjm gbtyw [mḥ]t r S3wt,60 “Overseeing the counting by the office of the ṯ3tj...first with Coptos and then north to Assiut.” This implies that his primary domain was in Upper Egypt. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to determine the relationship between these two officials and, as the result of poorer preservation conditions in the north, most of the ṯ3tjw known to us in any detail are usually assumed to have been based in the south. One of the most critical sources for studying the position of ṯ3tj in the New Kingdom is a text that is referred to as “The Duties of the Vizier.” It was originally found in the tomb of Rekhmire in Thebes but versions also exist in the Eighteenth Dynasty tombs of Useramun and Amenemope and the Nineteenth Dynasty tomb of Paser.61 This text outlines the duties and responsibilities of a ṯ3tj and essentially describes the ideal operations and obligations of the office. As this text was included in tombs of both the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, its information 56 Shirley 2010, 83. 57 Shirley 2010, 83. 58 Bryan 2006, 69. 59 Bryan 2006, 71. 60 Dziobek 1994, Pl. 87. 61 Van den Boorn 1988, 1. 31 will be applied to both eras. Van den Boorn classifies the duties of the ṯ3tj into three separate categories; managing the pr-nsw, overseeing the civil administration, and acting as the king’s deputy. The description of the ṯ3tj and his duties in “Duties of the Vizier” is, of course, an idealized version of what this official should have done and how he should have acted. It cannot be assumed that all of these rules were followed or that every ṯ3tj acted in the same capacity and wielded the same amount of power. However, I am confident that they can be used a guideline for the general duties of the ṯ3tj, due to appearances of these officials in judicial situations, personal letters, and tomb reliefs. “The Duties of the Vizier” shows that the ṯ3tj’s main domain was the pr-nsw. He cooperated with the overseer of the treasury to manage the pr-nsw on a daily basis. smj.tw n.f ḫtm ḫtmw r nw wn.st r nw smj.t(w) n.f ḫrt mnnww rsy mḥt pr prrt nbt m pr nsw smj n.f ᶜq ᶜqt nbt r pr nsw smj n.f jr grt ᶜqt nbt prrt nbt r s3tw n ẖnw ᶜq.sn prj.sn jn wpwty.f djdj ᶜq prj smj n.f jmjw-r šnt šntw jmjw-r w ḫrt.sn62 Reported to him is the closing of the gateways at the proper time and their opening at the proper time. Reported to him is the condition of the southern and northern guard houses and the going of everything leaving the pr-nsw. Reported to him is the entry of everything entering the pr-nsw. Also reported to him is everything entering and everything leaving the property of the Residence. When they enter and leave, his messenger lets (them) enter and leave. The overseers of policemen, the policemen, and the overseers of the district report their affairs to him. As evidenced by the selected text above, the ṯ3tj was meant to keep track of people and goods that went in and out of the pr-nsw and make sure that everything was secure. He also screened any messages to or from the pr-nsw.63 Essentially, very little happened in the pr-nsw without the knowledge of the ṯ3tj. As part of his duties as the chief civil official, the ṯ3tj was the official judge for any crime or infraction made by an official in the administration.64 62 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 1, 3-4. 63 Van den Boorn 1988, 310-314. 64 Van den Boorn 1988, 316. 32 m rdj sḫm sr nb m wḏᶜ rt m ḫ3.f jr ḫpr sk r wᶜ m n3 n srw jmy ḫ3.f ḫr.f dj.f jn.t(w).f r [ᶜ]ryt [j]n ṯ3tj ḫsf n.f r ḏ3yt jw.f65 Do not let any official have power over the judgement of his office. If an accusation occurs against one of the officials within his office, then he (ṯ3tj) will see that he is brought to the gateway. The ṯ3tj will respond to the transgression of his wrong- doing. Departmental officials did not have any official authority over the handling of misdemeanors or mistakes by the workers under their charge. Any issue was meant to be brought before the ṯ3tj so that he could judge the severity of the crime, and presumably the guilt of the official in question, and decide on a punishment. In reality, the ṯ3tjw probably only served as judges for important issues or perhaps for officials of the pr-nsw, with most legal proceedings being handled by local officials. Though the ṯ3tj was in charge of punishment and was informed of daily performance, the departments of the civil government seemed to have a lot of freedom in how they ran their everyday operations. Officials called “hearers,” who got their power from the ṯ3tj, would keep track of the activities of the departments and compile reports which were then given to the ṯ3tj to review, as can be seen in the following quote.66 jr sšw nb h3bw ṯ3tj [...] ḫ3 nb m ntj nn st ḥbs ḫr jṯ.t n.f ḥnᶜ šfdw jryw jrw ḥr ḫtm n sḏmw sẖw jrw m-s3.sn67 As for any documents which the ṯ3tj sends [...] any office, that which is not covered, will be taken to him with the registers, being under the seal of the hearers and the scribes after them. Additionally, the ṯ3tj appointed the local officials to their positions and had control of the hiring of at least some of the pr-nsw staff.68 Part of the “Duties” mentions this, saying ntf jrr ntj m srwt 65 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 1, 8-9. 66 Van den Boorn 1988, 318. 67 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 2, 15-16. 68 Van den Boorn 1988, 320. 33 šmᶜw mḥw tp rsj ṯ3w wr, “It is he who appoints those officials of Upper and Lower Egypt and the Thinite nome, head of the south.”69 Being in control of who held certain administrative offices would have given the ṯ3tj significantly more regulation of the running of the civil government. The ṯ3tj’s last duty was operating as the king’s deputy and essentially a personal assistant to the king. He was tasked with making sure the king was informed about what was happening in his government and collected all the relevant information for him.70 The “Duties” makes it clear that this was a daily responsibility for the ṯ3tj; ᶜq.f grt r nḏ-ḫrt nb l.p.h. jw smj n.f ḫrt t3wj m pr.f rᶜ nbt,71 “Also he will enter in order to greet respectfully the Lord l.p.h. when the affairs of the Two Lands have been reported to him in his house every day.” Audiences with the king would have been restricted, as mentioned before, and as one of the high-status officials with access to the crown, the ṯ3tj would have been another intermediary. The text reads, smj.t(w) n.f sprw nb n nb r- s3 jrr.f m sšw,72 “Every petitioner to the Lord will be reported to him (the ṯ3tj) after it has been made in writing.” Any petition that was submitted to the king went through the ṯ3tj first and most likely was only brought to the king’s attention if it was deemed crucial.73 As the deputy of the crown, the ṯ3tj was also meant to enforce any royal decrees and ensure the kingdom was operating to the king’s satisfaction. It is stated that sḏmt.f sprw nb ḫft hp pn ntj m-ᶜ.f,74 “he will hear every petitioner in accordance with the decree which is under his supervision.” This shows that, although the king was the one who made the decrees, the ṯ3tj was one of the people responsible for enforcing the king’s wishes. This included the allocation of land and spoils of war; ntf jrr s3ḥ m šdwt nb,75 69 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 2, 22. 70 Van den Boorn 1988, 321. 71 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 2, 5. 72 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 2, 21. 73 Van den Boorn 1988, 321. 74 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 2, 19. 75 Van den Boorn 1988, Pl. 2, 20. 34 “it is he who allows the movement of every plot of land.” This was a very important role as the king had to trust this official immensely to accurately report to him and carry out his decisions. A brief aside is needed on the word hp, which is usually defined as “law,” but can also be translated as “regulation” or “statute.”76 From the current evidence available, most Egyptian legal practices were conducted orally, with legal texts essentially acting as a record of the resolution.77 This makes any attempts to put together a theoretical legal code quite difficult, especially given that there are no recorded mentions of written legal texts.78 Instead of judging a case according to a set of established laws, each case seems to have been approached on an individual basis and solved according to the will of those presiding over it. The majority of documents related to the judicial system of the New Kingdom come from the workmen’s village at Deir el-Medina.79 These documents are, of course, specific to this town, which would have had an abnormally high literacy rate, and the existence of this level of documentation at other sites is unlikely. However, most of these texts date to the Twentieth Dynasty and the phrasing and procedures recorded indicate that there was previously an oral tradition of the legal system.80 Therefore, these texts can be used to understand how “laws” would have been viewed in Egyptian society and the relationship between hp and ṯ3tjw. There was clearly a system of courts with some element of hierarchy. Most cases from Deir el-Medina do not have indications of who made a ruling. However, there are a few colophons that contain a list of witnesses and several cases present what appears to be a judicial committee.81 The people mentioned in these situations are usually villagers, some workmen and 76 Lesko 2002, 287. 77 David 2010, 4. 78 Haring 2003, 260. 79 David 2010 gives a detailed account and analysis of these documents. 80 Haring 2003, 253. 81 Haring 2003, 264. 35 some officials, but rarely one of a high status. This supports the idea that most disputes were actually settled on a local level. Examining some of the documents closely allows for insight into how people viewed ma’at and its rules, beyond social norms. Ultimately, everything related to justice, how one should act, and what was considered a crime led back to the king, at least on an ideological level. Papyrus Boulaq 10 details a case about a man’s will. The man states that, ḫr j.dj.tw 3ḫt n qrs ḫr p3 hp n pr ᶜ3 p3y.j nb,82 “It is the one who buries to whom the possessions should be given, according to the hp of the Pharaoh, my lord.” From this statement, it is clear that children who buried their parents properly were supposed to inherit their belongings because that was what the king decreed. Whether an actual king ever made such a decree is largely irrelevant for this dissertation; legal precedents were framed as rulings of the king, which themselves were meant to be enforced by the ṯ3tj. Another example of a property case preserved in Papyrus Turin 2021 demonstrates this same concept; the individual’s justification for changing his will is given as, ḫr ḏd pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. jmj jry s 83 nb 3bwtw.f m 3ḫttw.f, “As the Pharaoh, l.p.h, says: Let every man do what he desires to his possessions.” During legal proceedings, oaths were often sworn in the name of the king; jw.f r dj.t jr.t ᶜnḫ n nb l.p.h.,84 “He will cause her to make an oath of the Lord, l.p.h.” These excerpts demonstrate that the “legal code” was that which was done according to ma’at, which the king decreed. Though it is not common, there are some attestations that show the ṯ3tj in action as the chief judge of the state. One of the best examples is a stele found in the funerary chapel of Wadjmose, a son of Thutmose I. It dates to Year 21 of Thutmose III’s reign and describes a legal case pertaining the will of Wadjmose’s tutor, Senimose. The stele records the original text of his 82 KRI V 450, 4-5. 83 KRI VI 740, 4-5. 84 KRI VI 431, 7-8. 36 will, the arguments made by Senimose against a contestation of the will, and the decision made by a judicial court at Thebes.85 The details of the case are not relevant to our interests, but the end of the text mentions the ṯ3tj, Useramun, also known as User. mk rdjt m ḥr ṯ3tj Wsr r jrt ḏdt nbt ᶜnḫ [nsw] mn-ḫpr-rᶜ [ᶜnḫ Jmn ḫntj jpt-swt]86 Behold, the ṯ3tj User made everything which was said done. May [the king] Menkheperre live! [May Amun, foremost of Karnak, live!] Spalinger interprets this quote as the ṯ3tj being “asked to ratify the decision of the court.”87 It would appear then that the ṯ3tj was not a part of the judicial court that decided on the case of Senimose. However, he does seem to have had final say on the ruling and, presumably, could have rejected or changed it if he had deemed it necessary. The end of the text confirms the ṯ3tj’s approval; [ḫtm] jn ḫ3 n ṯ3tj [m] hrw pn m-b3ḥ jmj-r njwt ṯ3tj,88 “Sealed by the office of the ṯ3tj [on] this day in the presence of the overseer of the city and the ṯ3tj.” The writer of the text makes a point to mention that the decision was not just approved by the ṯ3tj’s office but that User himself was there in person to oversee this. It is also reminiscent of the phrase “sealed in the presence of the king” and its use to legitimize documents. There is also an example of a case presided over by a ṯ3tj from Deir el-Medina, recorded in Papyrus Turin 2021, which was previously mentioned. The ṯ3tj questioned the heirs involved and made sure they understood the new terms of their father’s will. djw ṯ3tj m ḥr n wᶜb sẖ n tm3 Ptḥ-m-ḥbw n t3 qnbt t3 ḥwt Wsr-m3ᶜt-rᶜ Mrr-Jmn l.p.h. r ḏd jmj mn p3y sḫrw j.jr.j ḥr ᶜrw nt ḏmᶜ m t3 ḥwt Wsr-m3ᶜt-rᶜ Mrr-Jmn l.p.h. jw.tw jry m mjtt t3 qnbt ᶜ3t n njwt89 The ṯ3tj ordered the priest and scribe of the mat Ptahemhebu of the court of the temple of Usermaatre Meriamun, l.p.h., saying: Cause these plans which I have 85 Spalinger 1984, 631. 86 Urk IV 1069, 15-16. 87 Spalinger 1984, 639. 88 Urk IV 1070, 19. 89 KRI VI 741, 16-742, 3. 37 made to be recorded on a papyrus roll in the temple of Usermaatre Meriamun, l.p.h., and have one made likewise for the Great Court of the city (Thebes). This once again shows that the ṯ3tj’s decision is the final verdict, but this text depicts the vizier as actively involved in the proceedings of the case. The mention of a Great Court in Thebes indicates a hierarchy of courts, with the Great Court perhaps acting as an archive for significant legal documents and the location of high-profile trials. It must be noted that the will in question belonged to a man named as jt nṯr Jmn-ḫᶜw, “god’s father, Amenkhau.” It seems likely that viziers only took part in legal proceedings if there was a person of high enough status involved. Another text, known as the “Installation of the Vizier,” from the tomb of Rekhmire, ṯ3tj of Thutmose III, stresses the importance of the office and points to the judicial aspects of the ṯ3tj’s duties as being the most vital for the kingdom. In this text, the king speaks directly to Rekhmire about his responsibility in taking on this title; ḏd jn ḥm.f ḫft.f [m33].n.k r p3 ḫ3 n ṯ3tj rs ḥr jr[t nbt j]m.f m-dj.k smn pw t3 r-ḏr.f90 So his Majesty said to him: Look at the office of ṯ3tj. Be vigilant about everything done in it, as it is the fixing of the whole land. The king stresses the importance of the office of the ṯ3tj, which makes it clear that the ṯ3tj is the highest administrator in the land besides the king himself. The king also tells Rekhmire that he must make his decisions based on royal decrees, rather than personal feelings. The emphasis on the ṯ3tj upholding the edicts of the king and defending justice can be found throughout the king’s speech. He says, jḫ m33.n.k n.k jrt ḫt nbt mj ntt r hp,91 “So you should see that everything is done according to that which is in the decree”. Later on in the text, the king says to Rekhmire, m-dj.k 3bbt jrt m3ᶜt m [pry n ṯ3tj],92 “So what is desired is the doing of justice by [the utterance of the 90 Urk IV 1087, 3-5. 91 Urk IV 1088, 5. 92 Urk IV 1092, 2. 38 ṯ3tj]” and ḫr wp m3ᶜt ẖr ḥ3t rmṯ nbt ṯ3tj p3,93 “As for the one who decides justice before all people, it is the ṯ3tj.” There is a small piece of gold foil with ṯ3tj jr m3ᶜt, “vizier who makes truth/executes justice,” inscribed on it associated with Ay, the late Eighteenth Dynasty king. It does not contain Ay’s name but it was found in the shaft of a tomb in the Valley of the Kings along with several other objects with his name so it is likely that it was one of his titles as a private individual before he came to the throne.94 It is possible that this title is honorific, as is suggested by Habachi, and it is the only attestation of the title of ṯ3tj associated with Ay. However, for our purposes, it reinforces the idea evidenced in the “Duties of the Vizier” that the office of the ṯ3tj was the judicial authority in the government. The tomb of Ramose, an official under Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, at Thebes also shows this connection between the office and administering justice. Above a relief depicting Ramose and his family before a feast reads an inscription, jnk 3ḫ jb jr m3ᶜt {...} nsw n rk.j ḥsj wj ḥr.sn rdj.n.f wj m ḥ3t smrw r jrt sḫrw nw t3 pn šndytw nbt dhn.n n.j sᶜr mdw [...] ᶜḥ n rᶜ nb95 I had a good spirit, doing justice [for] the king in my time. You rewarded me for it. He put me at the head of the companions in order to make plans for this land. All the kilts bowed down for me when I presented disputes to [...] the palace every day. Ramose stresses that he upheld justice for his king and, in turn, was granted a position at the head of many officials for this task. We also once again see emphasis on having direct access to the king and the palace. Rekhmire’s tomb, which provided copies of both the “Duties of the Vizier” and the “Installation of the Vizier” texts, also contains relief scenes related to his office. He is seen acting as the king’s deputy, accepting gifts of tribute from foreign emissaries from many regions. Detailed 93 Urk IV 8. 94 Habachi 1979, 35-36. 95 Davies 1941, Pl. 11 and 12. 39 depictions show dignitaries from Punt,96 the Levant,97 Nubia, and possibly Crete.98 The accompanying text explains that Rekhmire is, šsp jnw n ḫ3st rsj m-ᶜb jnw n Pwnt jnw n rṯ[n]w jnw kftyw m-ᶜb ḥ3qw n ḫ3swt nbt jnnw n b3w ḥm.f nswt-bjt mn-ḫpr-rᶜ99 Receiving the tribute of the southern lands along with the tribute of Punt, the tribute of Retjenu, the tribute of Keftiu (Crete?) along with captives of every foreign land, brought for the power of his Majesty, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkheperre. User’s tomb contains several similar reliefs, confirming that this was a duty that fell within the realm of the office of the ṯ3tj. Other scenes in Rekhmire’s tomb hint at the administrative duties of the ṯ3tj. The collection of taxes from both northern100 and southern towns101 are shown, along with Rekhmire ensuring that state temples received the food and furniture they needed.102 The titles of these ṯ3tjw point to their close relationships with the crown as well as some other administrative, and sometimes religious, duties. Ramose’s titles stress his proximity to the king. They include, smr tkn m nb.f mrr nb t3wj ḥr bj3t.f ᶜq r ᶜḥ prj ẖr ḥswt hrw ḥr pr jw n r.f bjt ḫtm jmj- r njwt ṯ3tj rᶜ-ms103 royal companion who had access to his lord, beloved of the Lord of the Two Lands for his character, one who enters the palace and leaves with praises daily, going and coming by his speech, seal bearer of the king of Lower Egypt, overseer of the city, the ṯ3tj, Ramose. Most are only honorary epithets that emphasize Ramose’s close relationship with the king and titles associated with the administration. User’s titles connect him both to the administration and 96 Davies 1941, Pl. XVII. 97 Davies 1941, Pl. XXI-XXIII. 98 Davies 1941, Pl. XVIII-XX. 99 Davies 1941, Pl. XVI, 1-4. 100 Davies 1943, Pl. XXXIII-XXXV. 101 Davies 1943, Pl. XXIX-XXXII. 102 Davies 1943, Pl. XXXVI-XXXVIII. 103 Davies 1941, Pl. XXVIII. 40 the religious sphere. He is jmj-r ḫtmw n Jmn, “overseer of the seals of Amun,” jmj-r pr ḥḏ nbw, “overseer of the treasury,” jmj-r njwt, “overseer of the city,” and jmj-r ḥwwt ᶜ3t 6, “overseer of six temples.”104 There is also a single attestation of the title jmj-r njwt mr, “overseer of the pyramid city,” associated with his name.105 It is possible this means he was involved in the building of the royal tomb, which would explain his ability to use the Amduat in his own tomb.106 It will be shown that ṯ3tjw of the Nineteenth Dynasty were certainly connected to the royal tombs so this instance of a title related to a royal burial might be an indication that this responsibility can be traced back to the Eighteenth Dynasty. There are no military connections indicated for these two men, either in their titles or tomb decorations, which reflects the Eighteenth Dynasty tendency of more division, though not rigid, between the three main spheres of the state. § 2.2c High Priests of Amun As previously mentioned, the king was the theoretical high priest of every temple in the kingdom and part of his duty as the ruler was to ensure the continual worship and appeasement of the gods. The king, of course, could not actually be present for all of these daily rituals at every temple and delegated this vital responsibility to the priesthoods. This, in turn, gave the priests a large amount of power on an ideological scale. At the beginning of the New Kingdom, there was a change in the priesthoods and temple administrations. Before the Eighteenth Dynasty, priests were part-time and only worked in the temples for a few months at a time. While the large majority of the religious workforce continued in this vein in the New Kingdom, a class of officials who 104 Dziobek 1994, 52, 56. 105 Dziobek 1994,61. 106 Bryan 2006, 73. 41 dedicated their time solely to the temples developed in the bigger complexes of the kingdom.107 This shift in the relationship between the state and the temples is likely reflected in state sponsored architecture. During this era, the biggest focus of monumental building was temples that mainly functioned to house the gods, where previously it had been temples associated primarily with the king. A lot of this New Kingdom construction revolved around Thebes. The size and splendor of the temple of Amun at Karnak exploded, the Luxor temple was built, and the mortuary temples on the West Bank, though at least categorized by modern scholars as being for the kings, heavily incorporated the worship of Amun. It appears that the size and grandeur of temples increased in this period, although that cannot be confirmed as archaeological evidence for temples of earlier eras is scant and not well-preserved. It is unclear why the Amun priesthood emerged as the most powerful. The kings who ushered in the New Kingdom rose out of Thebes and, as the local deity, Amun would have been an important god to them. However, Thebes had several local gods and it is unknown why Amun evolved into the king of gods. Once the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty began to establish the Egyptian empire, the wealth they gathered during campaigns was dedicated to Amun, usually at the Karnak complex, supplementing the large estates donated to the temples. This naturally led to an increase in the power of the Amun priesthood as they were the ones responsible for maintaining the temple and its estates.108 The development of the Theban cosmology put Amun in the center of creation as the source for everything and the origin of all the gods, positioning him as the king of the gods.109 The titles associated with the high priests of Amun throughout the New Kingdom, starting in the Eighteenth Dynasty, make it clear that they were the most powerful religious figures of the time and had authority over the vast amounts of wealth and resources associated with 107 David 2002, 200. 108 David 2002, 183. 109 David 2002, 184. 42 Amun’s name. It cannot be confirmed how much of the priesthood and temple resources were directly under the purview of the high priest of Amun but the fact that only a few families dominated the position throughout the New Kingdom and placed their relatives in other offices within the temple administration indicates a high level of control over the whole Karnak complex.110 The titles and texts associated with the high priests of the Eighteenth Dynasty give a glimpse into the responsibilities of the office and the way in which these men overlapped with other areas of governance. Hapuseneb was a high priest of Amun during the reign of Hatshepsut. In addition to being jmj-r ḥmw nṯr nw šmᶜw mḥw111 (“the overseer of the priests of Upper and Lower Egypt”), which demonstrates the position of the Amun temple within the state temple system, he is credited for constructing a temple on the king’s behalf. He claims, [jw jr m33.n.j] sᶜḥᶜ ḥwt nṯr m jnr ḥḏ nfr n ᶜnw m3ᶜt-k3-rᶜ, “[I oversaw] the building of a temple of good, white stone for the beautiful Maatkare (Hatshepsut).”112 The building of religious monuments at the Karnak complex was one of the most frequent tasks assigned to high priests during the New Kingdom. Thutmose III was served by two high priests, both named Menkheperreseneb.113 The decorative scenes from Menkheperreseneb I’s tomb (TT86) illustrate some aspects of the relationship between the king and the priesthood. Menkheperreseneb is shown, presumably acting as a representative of Amun himself, overseeing the delivery of many spoils won from a victory abroad that Thutmose had given to Amun.114 He also receives tribute directly, mostly gold, which 110 Kemp 2006, 299. 111 Urk IV 477, 3. 112 Urk IV 476, 7-8. 113 See Dorman 1995,150-154 for a convincing argument that there were two separate Menkheperresenebs, the first, the owner of tomb TT86, followed by his nephew, owner of TT112. 114 Davies 1933, Pl. VI and VII. 43 is probably on behalf of the temple, but the depiction of Menkheperreseneb accepting the tribute demonstrates his power.115 In addition to these scenes, the inscriptions that accompany his tomb scenes emphasize his authority in the realm of the temple administration and his success in pleasing the king. Craftsmen of Amun are depicted working116 and the associated text details that it is “an inspection of the crew of the workmen of the temple of Amun,” (jr m33 js n k3wt nw ḥwt nṯr J[m]n)117 and describes Menkheperreseneb as, mḥ jb n nsw m smnḫ mnw.f ḥry tp jmjw-r ḥmwt jmj-r k3wt m ts-ḫ3w-Jmn ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn mn-ḫpr-rᶜ-snb118 Confidant of the king, one who perfected his monuments, the chief commander of the overseers of the craftsmen, the overseer of the works of Thes-khau-Amun, the high priest of Amun, Menkheperreseneb. Though this inscription, and others we have seen, implies that Menkheperreseneb was acting on behalf of the king, the high priests seem to emphasize their relationship to the king the least out of these three offices. This also demonstrates that, in addition to ritual duties, the high priest during this time was also in charge of building activities that related to the god and point to him actively being involved in the running of the temple in a concrete and visible way. His successor, Menkheperreseneb II, possessed the titles of jmj-r ḥmw nṯr nw šmᶜw [mḥw]119 (“the overseer of the priests of Upper and Lower Egypt”), jmj-r pr 2 nbw ḥḏ120 (“the overseer of the double treasury of gold and silver”), and jmj-r šnwt 2 [n Jmn]121 (“the overseer of the double granaries [of Amun]”). Being the overseer of the treasuries and granaries of Amun would have meant having access to enormous amounts of wealth that, although in theory was probably for the king’s use, 115 Davies 1933, Pl. IX. 116 Davies 1933, Pl. XI and XII. 117 Davies 1933, Pl. X, 1. 118 Davies 1933, Pl. X, 5-10. 119 Davies 1933, Pl. XV, 2. 120 Davies 1933, Pl. XIV, 3. 121 Davies 1933, Pl. XVII, 5. 44 was likely controlled by the priesthood, given their locations and the frequency of high priests possessing titles of the treasuries and granaries. The high priests that followed, prior to the Amarna period, seemed to operate similarly, as evidence by a list of titles of Mery, from the reign of Amenhotep II, jmj-r ḥmw nṯr nw šmᶜw mḥw ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn mry jmj-r pr n Jmn jmj-r šnwt n Jmn mry jmj-r prw 2 ḥḏ jmj-r prw 2 nbw n Jmn mry jmj-r k3w n Jmn mry122 The overseer of the priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, the high priest of Amun, Mery, the overseer of the house of Amun, the overseer of the granaries of Amun, Mery, the overseer of the double treasuries of silver, the overseer of the double treasuries of gold, Mery, the overseer of the works of Amun, Mery. The high priests of Amun at this time wielded a large amount of power due to their dominance in the religious realm and their access to vast treasuries and land holdings. However, they appear to have been somewhat isolated from the rest of the royal government, as their administrative titles were restricted to the temple system and they did not hold any military ranks. § 2.3 Nineteenth Dynasty § 2.3a Generals The previously mentioned Late Egyptian story, “The Capture of Joppa,” focuses on the victory of an jmj-r mšᶜ wr named Djehuti, set in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty. Djehuti was an actual, historical figure who served during the reign of Thutmose III, as mentioned above. The actual historicity of the story is not particularly relevant here but the actions of the main character can give insight into the ideal army commander of the Nineteenth Dynasty, as this is when the papyrus containing the story dates. 122 Urk IV 1414, 12-15. 45 Further indication that Djehuti is the true focus of the story is that he is the only named character who takes an active part in the text; Thutmose III is named as well but he is only referenced. The chief overseer of the army leads troops on a campaign in the Levant by himself on behalf of the king and very clearly was the man in charge. He is not only presented as brave, but intelligent as well. He manages to conquer the city without prolonged battle or siege by coming up with a clever trick. There is a moment of both humor and physical dominance that displays Djehuti’s strength as well. The leader of Joppa asks to see the staff of the pharaoh and Djehuti responds by striking him on the forehead with the very same staff. jw.f ḥr jrt m mjtt jw.f ḥr jnt t3 ᶜwnw n nsw Mn-ḫpr-rᶜ l.[p.h. ...m] p3y.f sḏj jw.f ḥr ᶜḥᶜ m dwn.f ḥr ḏd jj nw jm.j p3 ḫry n [Ypw…] nsw Mn-ḫpr-rc l.p.h. p3 m3jw ḥs3w s3 Sḫmt jw dj n.f Jmn p3y.f […] jw.f ḥr f3j ḏrt.f [j]w.f ḥr ḥwj ḥr m3ᶜ n p3 ḫry n Ypw jw.f ḥr h3yt m jrt m b3ḥ.f123 He acquiesced and brought the staff of King Menkheperre l.[p.h….out of] his apron. And he stood straight up and said “Look at me, rebel of [Joppa! …] King Menkheperre l.p.h., the fierce lion, son of Sekhmet, to whom Amun has given his [...]” and he raised his hand and struck the temple of the rebel of Joppa and he collapsed before him. This is reminiscent of a typical warrior king pose of the pharaoh smiting an enemy on the head, often with a mace or sword. In the New Kingdom, these can be found on temple walls, stelae, weapons, statues, amulets, and more and the trope itself dates back to the Predynastic Period. The smiting pose can be found in many contexts, such as in fishing and fowling scenes in private tomb paintings, to show triumph over chaos but typically only kings were shown smiting people.124 The text even describes Djehuti as an extension of the king, acting in his stead. It says jw p3 ḫpš tnr pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. ḥr mḥ m p3 dmj,125 “the strong arm of Pharaoh l.p.h. captured the town.” The king himself was clearly not physically in attendance but Djehuti was not acting on his own accord but on behalf 123 Gardiner 1932, 82-85, 1,10-2,1. 124 Hall 1986, 4. 125 Gardiner 1932, 3,4-3,5. 46 of his lord. However, by conjuring the image of the jmj-r mšᶜ wr working as the arm of the king, the story stresses the close relationship and trust between the two men. Once the capture of the city is complete, Djehuti writes to the king directly to inform him of his victory. sḏr Ḏḥwtj jw h3b.f r Kmt n nswt Mn-ḫpr-rᶜ l.p.h. p3y.f nb r ḏd nḏm jb.k djw n.k Jmn p3y.k jt nfr p3 ḫry n [Y]pw ḥnᶜ rmṯ.f nbt mjtt p3y.f dmjt jmj jw rmṯ r jṯ3.w m ḥ3qw mḥ.k pr n jt.k Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw m ḥmw ḥmwt jw ḫrw ẖry rdw.k r nḥḥ ḏt126 At nighttime, Djehuti sent a message to Egypt to King Menkheperre l.p.h., his lord, saying “Rejoice! Amun, your good father, has given you the rebel of [Jo]ppa and all his people as well as his town. Send people to take them as captives so that you may fill the temple of your father, Amun-Re, king of the gods, with male and female slaves, who have fallen before your feet for all eternity.” Djehuti’s ability to send a message addressed to the king himself indicates a close relationship between the overseer and the crown. However, though he has that distinction, Djehuti does not actually take credit for his victory but attributes the success to Amun-Re. All the focus is on how the victory relates to the king. The captives are said to have prostrated themselves before the king, even though it was Djehuti to whom they surrendered. This, once again, emphasizes that all of Djehuti’s actions are on behalf of and for the king. From this text, we can discern that as the hero of the story, Djehuti displays bravery, competence, intelligence, and strong leadership. He was entrusted with the command of troops for a foreign operation by the king and acted on the king’s behalf. His close, personal relationship to the king is demonstrated by the fact that he wrote a letter addressed directly to the pharaoh. Additionally, his physical prowess was shown in his interaction with the rebel of Joppa, who he took down with a single blow. That all of these qualities are included in a literary story of a well- known historical jmj-r mšᶜ wr who is portrayed as an Egyptian hero indicates that they are all characteristics that an ideal chief overseer of the army should possess. It is possible that the ideals 126 Gardiner 1932, 3,6-3,13. 47 presented in an informal story to a more general, private audience might have differed from those valued in a military official’s tomb. Any nuances are lost due to lack of enough evidence for large scale comparisons and cultural norms. However, physical dominance, leadership, bravery, and skill also seem to be stressed in the inscriptions from Horemheb’s tomb, which might point to common values across different contexts. Attempting to analyze how this idealistic portrayal of a military commander translated into the reality of governance and warfare is difficult. During the Nineteenth Dynasty, there was a return to the earlier New Kingdom tradition of princes being given the title of jmj-r mšᶜ wr. As there really is no evidence of non-royal jmjw-r mšᶜ wr at this time, interpreting the evidence associated with princes through the lens of this position is problematic. Royal individuals were often awarded titles, given responsibilities, and depicted performing activities based on their status as family of the king. Even in scenes related to warfare, the role of princes can be ambiguous. When they accompanied their father on campaign, were they fulfilling their duties as jmjw-r mšᶜ wr or as princes? This means that we can study the evidence as it pertains to each individual but cannot assume that the same authority and obligations could be applied to a non-royal individual, if they held this office during this dynasty. It is clear, however, that princes of the Nineteenth Dynasty were heavily associated with warfare. The positions entrusted to them and their portrayal in state commissioned art stress this connection. Whether they actively participated in battle, however, is unclear from the surviving evidence. Ramses II is shown as a prince in reliefs related to Seti’s battles at the temple of Amun at Karnak, but he is not given any specific military titles.127 Additionally, the figure of Ramses was not original to these reliefs but was, in fact, recarved, presumably by Ramses II himself.128 127 Epigraphic Survey 1986, Pl. 6 and 29. 128 Epigraphic Survey 1986, 19-20. 48 The older sons of Ramses II provide examples of princes with the title of chief overseer of the army. Amenherkhepshef and Ramses, the two eldest sons, both possessed the title of jmj-r mšᶜ wr.129 This title seems especially important to Ramses, as it frequently appears in his list of titles, even shorter captions. Amenherkhepshef, as Amenherwenemef,130 and Khaemwaset, another well- known son, are shown in chariots at a skirmish against Nubians in a series of reliefs at Beit el- Wali. Additionally, within the same set of reliefs, Amenherkhepshef is depicted standing over prisoners, but the associated text focuses on him lauding the accomplishments of his father rather than his own involvement.131 Amenherkhepshef, Ramses, and Pareherwenemef follow their father in chariots while he attacks a Syrian fortress in battle scenes at Abu Simbel132 and, along with Khaemwaset, present captives to him at Luxor.133 Even if we take these images at face value and assume the princes did accompany their father on campaign, it cannot be definitively determined whether they actively participated or merely joined the camp as part of their duties as members of the royal family. There are some indications that Amenherkhepshef and Pareherwenemef might have had actual roles to play during Ramses II’s campaigning. In the scene of the sons presenting captives, the captions include the king specifically ordering Amenherkhepshef to round up the captives, have his troops keep them under guard, and bring them back to Egypt so that Ramses can dedicate them to Amun.134 This gives the impression, whether factual or not, that Amenherkhepshef was active and trusted enough to take charge of handling prisoners of war on behalf of his father. Also, in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, Amenherkhepshef is described as ṯs psḏt sḥy m r-ḏ3w ᶜḥ3 ḥr 129 Fisher 2001, Pl.1. 130 For the equation of Amenherkhepshef with Amenherwenemef and Sethherkhepsehf, see Fisher 2001, 50 and 60- 61. 131 Fisher 2001, Pl.78 and 81b, respectively. 132 Fisher 2001, Pl.67. 133 Fisher 2001, Pl.115. 134 Fisher 2001, 55. 49 rdwj.f n mjtt.f, “commander of the bow, one with good counsel in battle, who fights on his feet without equal.”135 At Luxor, Ramses’ eldest son is shown acting as an intermediary between the king and Moabites.136 In the text, it is clear that he is relaying messages from Ramses II. Though it is not known whether this specific scene is historically accurate, there are three letters of diplomatic correspondence between Amenherkhepshef and a Hittite king wherein they discuss peace with Egypt.137 Therefore, it seems quite likely that Amenherkhepshef had the ability to act on the king’s behalf when negotiating with military rivals, much like Horemheb seemed to at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Pareherwenemef is depicted bowing behind Ramses II at Luxor in a relief showing the king attacking fortresses.138 The caption describes him as, jmj-r ssmw n nb t3wj kḏn tpj n ḥm.f, “overseer of the horses of the lord of the Two Lands, first charioteer of his Majesty.” These more specific military titles, combined with several depictions of Pareherwenemef in a chariot, such as in the camp scene of Kadesh at the Ramesseum,139 might indicate the prince’s active participation in the chariotry. It seems likely that this trend continued in the rest of the Nineteenth Dynasty, as Merenptah, the thirteenth son of Ramses II and ultimate successor, was also given the title of jmj-r mšᶜ wr, as seen on a block from Tell Atrib.140 He, in turn, passed on the title to his own son and the future Seti II. A statue of Merenptah from the Faiyum refers to Sety-Merenptah as a chief overseer of the army.141 Unlike Horemheb at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the jmjw-r mšᶜ wr of the Nineteenth Dynasty do not seem to have had administrative or religious titles, though it is unclear whether this is due to their role as jmjw-r mšᶜ wr or as princes. 135 KRI II 510, 9 136 Fisher 2001, Pl.108. 137 Fisher 2001, 51-53. 138 Fisher 2001, Pl.110. 139 Fisher 2001, Pl.99. 140 Fisher 2001, Pl.144. 141 KRI IV, 56.4, JE 66571. 50 § 2.3b Viziers As a version of the “Duties of the Vizier” appears in the tomb of Paser, as previously mentioned, the general responsibilities and associations with the office of the vizier presumably remained somewhat similar to the Eighteenth Dynasty. The evidence that is available for non-royal officials serving as vizier at this time supports this idea. Paser, who served under Seti I and Ramses II, is the vizier with the most relevant evidence for this period. He possessed titles related to administrative and religious duties, continuing the trend seen in the Eighteenth Dynasty of viziers being involved in other spheres of government. In his tomb biography, Paser recounts his service and promotion under both kings; he explains, jw wḏw n nb.j ts b3k m smr tpj n ᶜḥ dhn.n.f sw r jmj-r jmyw-ḫnt ḥm nṯr tpj nt wr ḥq3142 My lord ordered that his servant be promoted to first companion of the palace and appointed him as overseer of the courtiers and high priest of Great-of-Magic. Here, he refers to promotions he received from Ramses II, emphasizing that he was specifically chosen for these roles by the king himself. Later in the same text, Paser details that he was ordered “to receive the tribute of the southern and northern foreign lands for the treasury of the king,” (r šsp m jnw n ḫ3swt rsj mḥt r pr ḥḏ n nsw) as part of his duties as vizier.143 This falls in line with the scenes depicted in the Eighteenth Dynasty tombs of Useramun and Rekhmire. The far reaching power of Paser is reinforced by the idea that he was destined to obtain a high status position in the administration, as seen in a statue from Deir el-Bahri, where he is described as “one who commanded Western Thebes while he was in his mother’s womb,” (wḏ.n.f jmnt w3st jw.f m ẖt n mwt.f).144 In addition to the title of “high priest of Great-of-Magic,” the vizier also was a festival 142 KRI III. 9, 6. 143 KRI III, 9, 7. 144 KRI III, 18, 10. 51 leader of Amun (sšm ḥb n Jmn),145 which seems to be quite a common religious title amongst viziers during this dynasty. His handful of other religious titles included ḫrp ḥwwt dšrt (“commander of the temples of the Red Crown”),146 sẖ ḥtpw nṯt n Jmn (“scribe of the divine offerings of Amun”),147 and ḥry sšt3 m Njt (“master of secrets of Neith”).148 Additionally, he is said to be s3b nb t3wj (“the judge of the Lord of the Two Lands”),149 which indicates that viziers of the Nineteenth Dynasty were still associated with judicial activities. There is evidence of the reality of Paser’s position in the form of personal letters, which connect him to the daily operations of the necropolis and the pr-nsw. Both are reports sent to the vizier from lower officials. A necropolis scribe wrote to Paser saying, ky swḏ3-jb n p3y.j nb r ntj swḏ p3 ḥtrw n p3 ḫr jw.f mḥ m sšr,150 “Another message to my lord referring to the delivery of the wages of the necropolis which have been filled properly.” This not only proves that Paser was in charge of the necropolis workers, and actively received reports to keep updated on its affairs, but also had a strong connection to the state treasuries. A second report from another scribe informed Paser that, mr šnwty ẖr-jw r sjpt n3 n mḏwt pr pr ᶜ3,151 “The overseer of the granaries Kheru inspected the stalls of the estate of the Pharaoh.” This lends believability to the close connection between the office of the ṯ3tj and the king’s residence. The surviving attestations of other Nineteenth Dynasty ṯ3tjw confirm the evidence provided by Paser without adding many revelations. Khay, from the reign of Ramses II, was an overseer of the pr-nsw, a royal herald, and a master of secrets.152 A fragment from his tomb chapel at Thebes 145 KRI III, 18. 146 CG 42164 as seen in Legrain 1909, 31. 147 CG 42179, Legrain 1909, 45. 148 Liverpool World Museum 24.9.00.92 149 Liverpool World Museum 24.9.00.92 150 KRI III 29, 11-12. 151 KRI III 30, 13-14 152 KRI III 37, 14-16. CG 42165 52 gives him the title of ṯ3tj nw sm3w mḥw (“vizier of Upper and Lower Egypt”),153 which is slightly unusual as it seems likely that there were two viziers at a time, one for each of the Two Lands. Both Khay and Neferronpet, another vizier of Ramses II, possessed the title of “festival leader of Amun.”154 Similarly to Paser, personal letters confirm Khay’s position as the head of the king’s estate and his direct line of communication with the pharaoh. A leader of the Medjay wrote to him saying, ky ḥr swḏ3-jb n p3y.j nb r ntj t3 st ᶜ3 l.p.h. ntj r nḫt p3y.j nb m sšr,155 “Another message to my lord referring to the Great Place of the Pharaoh, l.p.h., which is under the strength of my lord and in excellent condition.” Khay himself wrote to a workman at the palace and gave proof of his ability to approach the king on behalf of other officials. He said, ḫr jw.j r šmt m-ḫd r p3 ntj tw jm mtw.j dj ᶜm pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. m t3y.tn ẖrt,156 “Now I am proceeding north to the place which the king is in and I will inform the Pharaoh, l.p.h., of your needs.” Neferronpet also held the significant religious title of jmj-r ḥmw nṯr n nṯrw nbw šm3w mḥw (“overseer of the priests of all the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt”) and wr ḫrp ḥmt Ptḥ, which is a title of the high priest of Ptah at Memphis.157 Overall, the tradition of viziers holding religious titles continued, as did their tendency to stress their relationship with the king. The 400 Year Stele might also shed some light on viziers of the late Eighteenth and beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Discovered in Tanis, the stele dates to the reign of Ramses II and mentions two viziers, Paramessu and Seti, who are father and son respectively. There is much debate as to the identity to these two officials and whether they can be equated with Ramses I and Seti I.158 The titles of the two officials are rich with information and the implications for the 153 KRI III 39, 5. 154 KRI III 39, 10 and 47, 7. 155 KRI III 41, 7-8. 156 KRI III 46, 2-4. 157 KRI III 50, 1. 158 For a brief but thorough discussion of the various arguments and possibilities of the identities of these two men, see Fisher 2001, 6-9. 53 responsibilities of heirs during the Ramesside era are massive, if they truly are meant to be the first two kings of the Nineteenth Dynasty. The relevant section of the text for this work is as follows, jwt pw jr.n rpᶜt jmj-r njwt ṯ3tj ṯ3y-ḫw ḥr wnmj n nsw ḥry pḏt jmj-r ḫ3swt jmj-r ḫtm ṯrw wr n mḏ3w sẖ nsw jmj-r ssmw nb n b3 nb ḏdwt ḥm nṯr n tpj n Stḫ ẖry-ḥbt wḏt wpt-t3wj jmj-r ḥm nṯr n nṯrw nbw Sty m3ᶜ ḫrw s3 rpᶜt jmj-r njwt ṯ3tj ḥry pḏt jmj-r ḫ3swt jmj-r ḫtm ṯrw sẖ nsw jmj-r ssmw P3-rᶜ-mss, m3ᶜ ḫrw159 The prince came, the overseer of the city, the vizier, the fan bearer on the right side of the king, the leader of bowmen, the overseer of foreign lands, the overseer of the fortress of Tjaru, the great one of the Medjay, the royal scribe, the overseer of horses, lord of the ram, lord of Mendes, high priest of Seth, lector priest of Wadjet- Opet-Tawy, the overseer of the high priests of all the gods, Seti, true of voice, son of the prince, overseer of the city, the vizier, the leader of bowmen, the overseer of foreign lands, the overseer of the fortress of Tjaru, the royal scribe, the overseer of horses, Paramessu, true of voice. The stele itself dates to the reign of Ramses II and it recounts a personal anecdote of Seti I about asking Seth to grant him a good life in return for his service. Though the date of this tale (Year 400, fourth day of the fourth month of Shemu) is emphasized, Goedicke points out that there is no actual evidence that the Year 400 is connected to an anniversary of the Seth cult, as has been proposed by other scholars.160 It is possible that the choice of Year 400 was meant to connect the story into a larger history and tie the Ramesside family into tradition of kingship even before they actually took the throne. Goedicke believes that, year aside, the fourth day of the fourth month of Shemu was still an important date to Seti, one that occurred before he was king, and suggests it might have been the day of Horemheb’s death. There is a graffito in Horemheb’s mortuary temple that says the king “entered” (cq jr.n) in Year 27, the ninth day of the first month of Shemu. Goedicke proposes that this meant Horemheb became ill on that day and perhaps died a few months later.161 It also might be possible that this graffito date refers to the day Horemheb’s body was brought to his mortuary temple to begin the mummification process and the 400 Year stele date 159 Mariette 1865, Pl. IV. 160 Goedicke 1981, 37. 161 Goedicke 1981, 40. 54 was the day he was buried. Both interpretations explain why Ramses I did not yet have royal titles; either Horemheb has only just died or Ramses’ coronation had not occurred yet. If this text does refer to Ramses I and Seti I before they came to the throne, it is proof that heirs apparent were appointed to the office of vizier and involved in the administration of conquered areas, in addition to being high status military officers and, sometimes, priests. § 2.3c High Priests of Amun Amun and his priesthood were restored after the Amarna period and still managed to wield a lot of power. Though there is not much evidence for high priests of this dynasty, what remains indicates that the overlapping of areas of governance in a single individual was still occurring. Nebwenenef, who likely began at his post during the reign of Seti I and definitely continued holding this office under Ramses II, was impressive enough to warrant his own small mortuary temple at Thebes.162 A text from his Theban tomb (TT157) tells us of his appointment to the office of high priest, jst sw m ḥm nṯr tpj n Jn-Ḥrt m ḥm nṯr tpj n Ḥwt-Ḥr nbt Jwnt jmj-r n nṯrw nbw rsj.f r Ḥrj-ḥr-Jmn mḥw.f r Ṯnw ḏd.jn.f ḥm.f twk m ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn pr ḥḏ.f šnwt.f ḥr-ᶜ ḫtm.k twk m r ḥry n r pr.f sḏf3w nb r ḫt.k...dhn r ḥm nṯr tpj n Jm[n] prw 2 ḥḏ nbw jmj-r šnwty163 He was the high priest of Onuris, the high priest of Hathor, lady of Dendera, overseer of all the gods of Upper Egypt from Hau-her-Amun to the north to Thinis. His Majesty said to him: You are the high priest of Amun. His treasury and granaries are under your seal. You are the chief mouth of his house. All the endowments are under your charge...[He] was appointed high priest of Amun and the two houses of silver and gold, the overseer of the granaries, the overseer of the army. 162 Petrie 1909, 14. Pl. XLVII shows the foundations of Nebwenenef’s temple. 163 Sethe 1907, Pl. 1, 3-6, 22. 55 In this recounting, the king deems Nebwenenef worthy of appointing him to the post himself. Whether this is factual cannot be determined, but it does seem likely that the king would have final say over who received such an important office. This text simply but clearly illustrates the responsibilities and power of the high priest. He is the spokesperson of the temple, and by extension the god himself, and in charge of everything connected to the temple and its estates, as we have seen before. A part of Nebwenenef’s titles that should not be overlooked is that of overseer of the army. While not as highly ranked as jmj-r mšᶜ wr, Nebwenenef still attained an influential position in the army. This is reflective of a trend in the Ramesside period. Building on the changes of the Eighteenth Dynasty, more military officials were given administrative temple titles. While it is not clear whether these men were actively participating in both spheres concurrently, the result was a stronger connection between the military and the temples.164 In fact, families with both high- ranking military and religious officials became the norm in this period, strengthening this entanglement of two administrative realms, which had previously been more separate and perhaps even competitors for power.165 Though not much is known about the religious duties of Nebwenenef’s successor, we can identify him as the ṯ3tj, Paser, who was discussed in the previous section. There is a statue (CG 42156) which preserves his titles of jmj-r ḥmw nṯrw nbw ḥm nṯr tpj Jmn166 (“overseer of priests of all the gods, the high priest of Amun”). In this figure, there was an official who possessed two of the three highest ranking titles for the first time. There is more evidence of the activity for his successor, Bakenkhonsu. On a statue in Munich, he describes his involvement in overseeing construction at the temple of Amun at Karnak. 164 Kadry 1982, 165. 165 Kadry 1982, 164. 166 KRI III 293, 4. 56 jry.j n.f sḥ nṯr Rᶜ-ms-sw mrj-Jmn sḏm nḥt m p3 sbḫt ḥry n pr Jmn ᶜḥᶜ.n.j tḫnw jm.s m jnr n m3ᶜt nfrw.sn ḥr tkn ḥry ḏ3ḏ3w mtt.s m jnr m ḫft ḥr n W3st bᶜḥ k3mw srd m šnw jry.j trj ᶜ3 2 m ḏᶜm nfrw.sn ḥr ẖmn pt167 I built for him the divine shrine of Ramses-who-hears-prayers at the upper gateway of the Temple of Amun. I raised granite obelisks in it, whose beauty reached the sky. Near them, a portico of stone opposite Thebes and irrigated land and gardens planted with trees. I made two great doors (plated) with electrum, whose beauty reached the sky. This makes it clear that during the Nineteenth Dynasty, the high priests were still in charge of building projects associated with the temple, and presumably using the temple resources. His tomb gives evidence that he, like his predecessors, held a title that implied his control over a large number of priests; jmj-r ḥmw nṯr n nṯrw n nbw W3st ḥm nṯr tpj Jmn168 (“the overseer of the priests of all the gods of Thebes, the high priest of Amun”). Another statue (CG 42155) demonstrates that the trend of high priests occupying a high position in the army continued throughout the reign of Ramses II as Bakenkhonsu is said to be jmj-r mšᶜ.169 There is not much known about the last attested high priest of the Nineteenth Dynasty but Roma-Roy, who served until Seti II, began his career in the lower ranks of the Amun priesthood. A statue from Karnak (CG 42186) says, ḫpr.n.j m ḥwn m pr Jmn jw.j m wᶜb jqr,170 “I grew up as a youth in the temple of Amun where I was an excellent wab priest.” He also implies that he was promoted to the office of high priest due to his merit by the king himself, dj.f wj m rḫ n nsw ᶜš[.tw] rn.j m-b3ḥ šnyt,171 “he (Amun) made me known to the king and my name was called before the royal court.” 167 KRI III 298, 12-15. 168 KRI III 294, 5-6. 169 KRI III 295, 13. 170 KRI IV 209, 3. 171 KRI IV 209, 6. 57 § 2.4 Twentieth Dynasty The Twentieth Dynasty, particularly after the reign of Ramses III, is much more obscure than the rest of the era, in terms of high-level officials. Less individual office holders are known and most of the men identified are known only by a couple of examples of titles. Due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence available, it is difficult to accurately say whether the Twentieth Dynasty officials acted in similar capacities to their Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty counterparts. We can, however, glean some clues as to the roles and trends of these offices. § 2.4a Generals There is evidence that the strong New Kingdom trend, with a few notable exceptions, of sons of the reigning king taking up the mantle of jmj-r mšᶜ wr continues, at least in part, in the Twentieth Dynasty. Prince Ramses, son of Ramses III and the future Ramses IV, is mentioned in a graffito from the temple of Amenhotep III at Soleb. There, he is given the title of jmj-r mšᶜ wr.172 Towards the end of the dynasty, prince Ramses Montuherkhepeshef, son of Ramses IX, served as a chief overseer of the army for his father. His tomb in the Valley of the King lists jmj-r mšᶜ wr tpj n ḥm.f (“the chief chief overseer of the army of his Majesty”) as one of his titles.173 With these two pieces of evidence, it seems safe to assume that princes becoming jmjw-r mšᶜ wr was not an uncommon occurrence throughout the Twentieth Dynasty. We do know, however, that at least one chief overseer during this time was not a son of the king and therefore possibly a non-royal individual, as seen previously with Horemheb and Ramses I. Heqmarenakht, an official of Ramses V, is known to have been jmj-r mšᶜ wr n nb t3wj (“the chief overseer of the Lord of the Two 172 KRI V 372, 16. 173 KRI VI 463, 10. 58 Lands”) from a stele from Qurna.174 Unfortunately, we cannot say much about the activities or responsibilities of these figures. It does not seem like much of a stretch to assume they were similar to what we have seen for the earlier dynasties but, until more evidence is found, we can only theorize. One jmj-r mšᶜ wr that there is more evidence for is Piankh, who will be discussed in the following chapter. He was the first official to hold all three high ranking titles. § 2.4b Viziers There is some evidence of a more substantial nature when it comes to the ṯ3tjw of the Twentieth Dynasty. Ṯ3tjw seem to have held the same types of titles as in previous eras, as will be demonstrated briefly. However, whereas in previous dynasties, ṯ3tjw emphasized that the king himself chose them for the office, it appears that oracles were involved in appointing new ones in the Twentieth Dynasty. This can be seen on an ostraca from Deir el-Medina (ostraca Florence 2619), which reads as follows, ntj jy jr ḥr--wr-n.f [n] ḫnsw r mḥ.j ẖry jrw smj p3 rḫ ᶜnw jw.f sḥḏ t3 jst jw.f m ḏdt n.k jrw.s smj.j dj.j pr ᶜ3… pw nb nfr dj.j n.f ṯ3tj pw ḥr-wr-n.f...ḏd.f dj(w).j n.f Jmn175 [on the day] which Hewernef has come to Khonsu in order to charge me with the saying of what the beautiful cult-statue had proclaimed. He explained to the crew: It is as what has been said to you, that it may be said as I have proclaimed; “As I have appointed the Pharaoh, I…the good Lord, so I have appointed for him this ṯ3tj, Hewernef...He said: I was appointed for him, Amun. This demonstrates that Herwernef, an official of Ramses III, was appointed as ṯ3tj by an oracle of the god, which was announced to the workmen of the village. Though Hewernef’s position is inherently tied to the king and the oracle claims he is appointing the official on the king’s behalf, it is still conveyed as the god making the decision rather than the king. This might be an indication 174 KRI VI 232, 5. 175 Wolterman 1996, fig. 2, lines 4-8, 10. 59 of changing views on kingship, the king’s relationship with officials, and the role of the god in administrative decision making. The ostraca’s location of Deir el-Medina, the home of the workmen who built the royal tombs, implies that ṯ3tjw of this time period were still involved in overseeing the construction of the king’s tomb. This is further supported by Ostraca Cairo 25274, which mentions an inspection visit to Deir el-Medina by the ṯ3tj Neferronpet during the reign of Ramses IV.176 Additionally, the ṯ3tj of Ramses IX, Khaemwaset, was a significant part of the inquiry into the robberies of royal tombs in the late Twentieth Dynasty. The Papyrus Abbott details the intensive investigations conducted by a committee made up of several high-ranking Theban and court officials. The case began when an official brought the issue to the attention of the authorities; jw ḏdw ḥ3t-ᶜ p3-sr n njwt smj jm.f n mr njwt ṯ3tj ḫᶜ-m-w3st,177 “The mayor of the city, Paser, reported it (the robbery) to the overseer of the city, the ṯ3tj, Khaemwaset” along with other officials. This launched the investigation and led to an inspection of the allegedly robbed tombs in the Valley of the Kings. ḏdw ḥ3t-ᶜ ḥry mᶜḏ3jw p3-wr n p3 ḫr ᶜ3 špsj ḥnᶜ ḥryw mᶜḏ3jw mᶜḏ3jw rwḏw n p3 ḫr p3 sẖ n ṯ3tj p3 sẖ n p3 mr pr ḥḏ wn jmy r mᶜw.sn smy jmw.sn n mr njwt ṯ3tj ḫᶜ-m- w3st 178 The mayor and chief of the Medjay, Pawer, of the great and noble necropolis with the chiefs of the Medjay, the Medjay, the inspectors of the necropolis, the scribe of the vizier, and the scribe of the treasury, who were with them, reported on them (the tombs) to the overseer of the city, the ṯ3tj, Khaemwaset. Khaemwaset, along with a court made up of various other officials, put the accused criminals on trial and determined their punishments. This proves that, during the Twentieth Dynasty, viziers were still acting as the highest judicial authority in the land and were closely connected to the royal tombs. 176 KRI VI 145, 12-13. 177 KRI VI 469, 14. 178 KRI VI 473, 6-9. 60 Neferronpet also held some religious titles in addition to being the ṯ3tj, much like the ṯ3tjw of the earlier dynasties. On a statue in Leiden (D44), he holds the titles of sm n Ptḥ (“sem-priest of Ptah”) and rwḏ m ḥwt Ptḥ (“administrator of the temple of Ptah”).179 Hori, who was ṯ3tj at the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty into the beginning of the Twentieth, also occupied religious offices that were often associated with those of earlier periods. On his statue from Deir el-Medina, he is noted to be sšm ḥb n Jmn (“festival leader of Amun”) and ḥry sšt3 m ᶜḥ n Njt (“master of secrets of the temple of Neith”).180 These two men point to the tradition of viziers being involved with religious administration continuing throughout the New Kingdom with no indications of military involvement. § 2.4c High Priests of Amun Not as much is known about the high priests of Amun of the Twentieth Dynasty. However, it is clear that the power of the priesthood itself had not waned. The temple of Amun at Karnak still had a very large workforce and it is thought that it might have had more people in its employ than the king directly. According to the Papyrus Harris, during the reign of Ramses III, 80,000 people worked there and the temple-owned lands were in excess of 2,000 square kilometers (roughly 772 square miles).181 Bakenkhonsu II, from the beginning of the dynasty, is known from 179 KRI VI 78, 10 and 15. 180 KRI V 377, 6-8. 181 David 2002, 202. Though it is unclear exactly how accurate these numbers are, other administrative documents of the New Kingdom indicate that it is likely that temples did own vast amounts of cultivatable land. Janssen explains that the Wilbour Papyrus, from the reign of Ramses V, confirms that temples own many different types of plots, which were rented out to various socio-economic classes (Janssen 1975, 142). The entries for each plot of land are accompanied by the name of the cultivators and numbers, which likely either record taxes or revenues (Janssen 1975, 147). The Wilbour Papyrus also mentions khato-lands, which were owned by the king but managed by temple (Kemp 2006, 256). Papyrus Amiene of the reign of Ramses VII records the shipment of grain from the Xth and XIth Upper Egyptian nomes to Karnak on 21 ships (Janseen 1975, 147). The amount of specific detail and administrative nature of the documents gives support these numbers reflecting reality. Additionally, the size of granaries in New Kingdom temples indicate the capabilities of their land holdings. The Ramesseum, which has the most well-preserved granaries, has the capacity for 226,328 khar of grain. This number could support 17,000-20,000 people for a year. The granaries 61 a few statues from Karnak. He was the high priest of both Amun and Amun-of-Opet,182 that is, the version of the god associated with the Luxor temple, as well as jmj-r ḥmw nṯr n nṯrw nbw.183 Ramsesnakht, a very long serving high priest, held a very standard set of titles relating to the temple, such as jmj-r šnwt prw 2 n Jmn jmj-r pr ḥḏ n Jmn184 (“the overseer of the double granaries of Amun, the overseer of the treasury of Amun”). A statue dedicated by his son Nesamun (CG 42162) lists jmj-r k3wt n mnw nb n ḥm.f185 (“the overseer of craftsmen of all the monuments of his Majesty”) as one of his titles, which falls in line with previous high priests and their involvement in building projects. His tomb (K93.11) at Dra’ Abu el-Naga is known. It originally dates to the very end of the Second Intermediate Period or the early New Kingdom and was reused and remodeled by Ramsesnakht. There was a good amount of wall decorations found but, unfortunately, most of it is very fragmentary.186 He was mentioned in a somewhat unusual source as well. A stele of Ramses IV in Wadi Hammamat speaks of a large-scale quarrying expedition. It includes a list of high-ranking officials who were ordered by the king to accompany the expedition, the first being ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn jmj-r k3wt, “the high priest of Amun, overseer of works,” Ramsesnakht.187 It is unexpected for a high priest of Amun to join a quarrying expedition but it seems to have been a significant one, as 8,368 men were recorded as a part of the party.188 It is possible that the expedition was explicitly for a construction project associated with the temple. On the eighth pylon at Karnak, Ramsesnakht is mentioned and given the title of jmj-r pr wr m ḥwt of the temples would not have expected to be full and could have been used for various other purposes but that fact that they built in such capacity can support the idea of temples owning a large amount of cultivatable land (Kemp 2006, 257). 182 KRI V 397, 9. 183 KRI V 398, 9. 184 Abder-Raziq 1985, 14. 185 KRI VI 531, 11. 186 Polz 1998, 259, 268. 187 KRI VI 14, 1. 188 KRI VI 14, 9. 62 nsw189 (“the overseer of the great house of the enclosure of the king”), which might indicate that he was involved with the building of a king’s mortuary temple. § 2.5 Conclusion From this overview of the offices of jmj-r mšᶜ wr, ṯ3tj, and high priest of Amun in the New Kingdom, two general, overarching trends become clear. Firstly, the highest officials in all three of the main branches of the state tended to relate their positions back to the king, framing their actions as being conducted directly on behalf of the king or in order to honor the king and please him. This tendency seems to have been slightly stronger with chief overseers of the army and ṯ3tjw than the high priests. Additions to titles such as n nb t3wj and n ḥm.f reiterated that the king was the source of power for the officials. Epithets describing the closeness of the official to the king and emphasizing being chosen by the king were also common. The ability of an official to communicate directly with the king, especially on behalf of others, was particularly valued, as this demonstrated their inclusion in a very small, prominent group of individuals. This can be seen in Horemheb’s tomb, where he is described as “one who repeats the speech of the King of Lower Egypt to the companions and listens to the confessions of the unique ones,” as well as Ramose’s, where he is proudly said to be a “royal companion who had access to his lord.” This type of consistent mention of the pharaoh and his role in the selection and strength of officials highlights the change that occurs during the time of Herihor, where mentions of a king all but disappear except for holdovers in some titles. Secondly, when studying the individual officials occupying these three positions in a chronological order, it can be seen that there was an increase of high officials having titles in 189 KRI VI 88, 5-6. 63 multiple spheres of the state government over time. Ṯ3tjw being associated with religious offices seems to have been the most common with jmjw-r mšᶜ wr often being associated with palace administration. Several ṯ3tjw held the title of sšm ḥb m Jmn, which shows how common it was for the office be involved with some aspect of religious life. Starting in the Nineteenth Dynasty, some held high ranking religious titles as well, though this was less common, such as jmj-r ḥmw nṯr n nṯrw nbw or high priest of Ptah. There was, however, no real overlap between ṯ3tjw and the military until the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty. A strong connection between the military and the civil administration can be seen in the figure of Horemheb, who was the chief overseer of the army while holding several titles related to the palace. In the Ramesside period, military officials began to get involved with religious administration, which began to blur the lines between these two different institutions. During the Twentieth Dynasty, there were even two high priests of Amun who had reached the position of jmj-r mšᶜ, a rank just below chief overseer of the army. Occasionally, there are individuals who hold two of the highest positions, such as Paser being both a ṯ3tj and a high priest, or one who has titles related to all three branches, such as Horemheb. However, there is not a single example of an individual who served as a jmj-r mšᶜ wr, a ṯ3tj, and a high priest of Amun until Piankh at the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty. This is vital to keep in mind when studying the transition into the Third Intermediate Period. The careers of Piankh and Herihor, which will be discussed in detail in the following chapter, seem much less abrupt and un- Egyptian when examined in this New Kingdom private context. 64 CHAPTER THREE: THE BEGINNING OF “PRIVATE” RULE IN THEBES § 3.1 Introduction Though decidedly different than traditional Egyptian rulership, Herihor’s reign in the Theban region was not a completely abrupt shift from what had preceded. Evidence from the end of the New Kingdom, during the reign of the last king of the Twentieth Dynasty, points to conflict and unease surrounding the office of the high priest of Amun as well as possible distance and discontent brewing between the highest officials in the kingdom and the king himself. The development of the style of Herihor’s leadership in Upper Egypt can be traced all the way back to the early New Kingdom, both politically and ideologically. In this chapter, I will demonstrate how the trends in New Kingdom officialdom traced in Chapter Two and the upheaval within the priesthood and Thebes at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty paved the way for Herihor’s rise in the south. Additionally, I will present and discuss the evidence surrounding Herihor’s tenure as high priest under Ramses XI, the nature of his rule after the separation of the kingdom, and the motivation behind the adoption of royal characteristics in the declaration of the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak. This chapter will outline how the growing, consolidated power of private individuals during the New Kingdom, along with weakening relations with the crown and the end of a ruling family, allowed for the control of Southern Egypt by a non-royal official and innovative changes in the ideology of rule at the cusp of the Third Intermediate Period. 65 66 § 3.2 Amenhotep, Panehesy, and the Turbulence Surrounding the High Priesthood The leadership of the Amun priesthood towards the end of the Twentieth Dynasty presents a confusing picture to scholars, due to lack of preservation of evidence and the Egyptian tendency not to record negative events related to royalty or the government. However, this time period was far from typical and there is evidence of a series of disturbances in the kingdom, including famine, violent conflict, theft from temples, and tomb robberies.190 Amidst this atmosphere, the conflict that involved Amenhotep, a high priest of Amun, and Panehesy, a general, was the first real sign of growing unrest and confusion that surrounded the position of the High Priest of Amun and the changes in the relationship between the Amun priesthood and the throne that would eventually allow for Herihor’s rule. Amenhotep was the high priest of Amun during the reigns of Ramses IX through Ramses XI. An event took place shortly before the establishment of the wḥm-mswt, which corresponds with Year 19 of Ramses XI and is explained further below, that is traditionally referred to as the suppression of Amenhotep. Before discussing the evidence of the event itself, the term typically translated as “suppression,” thj, must be addressed. In English, the word “suppress” has negative connotations of forcefully repressing or ending something or someone. However, there is no inherent indication of whether the action is justified in the word itself. The Egyptian word d3r has a similar meaning, though not very common.191 Due to the determinatives that often appear with thj, the leg and the walking legs in addition to signs that imply negativity, Ridealgh has proposed that thj should be translated as “to transgress, to violate, to injure, to lead astray.”192 This changes the tone of how the event was spoken about after the fact, which is when this phrase appears, and 190 Thijs 2003, 289. Detailed investigations into the unrest of this period can be found in Barwik 2011, 77-110. 191 Ridealgh 2014, 365. 192 Ridealgh 2014, 368. 66 67 might indicate both a conflict with implied violence and a sense of wrongdoing against Amenhotep. This idea will be explored more with specific pieces of evidence. Though no appointment text is known, Amenhotep was already serving as high priest of Amun in Year 10 of Ramses IX, as can be seen in an inscription dated to that year at Karnak. In the text, Ramses IX says to his officials, jmj ḥst qnw fq3w ᶜš3t m nbw ḥḏ ḥḥ m ḫt nb nfr n ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw Jmn- ḥtp m3ᶜ ḫrw ḥr n3 mnw 3ḫw qnw j.jr.f m pr Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw ḥr rn n nṯr nfr193 Give many favors and a multitude of rewards of gold and silver and millions of all good things to the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Amenhotep, true of voice, because of the many excellent monuments that he made in the house of Amun-Re, king of the gods, in the name of the young god. From other inscriptions at the temple, some of Amenhotep’s titles are known; ḥrj sšt3 m ḥwt sr sm ḫrp šndt nb m st ḏsr,194 “master of secrets of Officials Compound, sem-priest and controller of the kilts of the lord in the sacred place,” wr-m33 n rᶜ-Tm m w3st jmj-rᶜ ḥmw nṯr n šmᶜw mḥw,195 “chief of seers of Re-Atum in Thebes, overseer of the priests of Upper and Lower Egypt,” jmj-rᶜ k3t wr m pr n Jmn,196 “chief overseer of works of the house of Amun.” These titles fit in with the New Kingdom trend discussed in the previous chapter, covering administrative responsibilities within the Amun complex as well as other religious titles outside of the Amun priesthood. These titles, along with scenes depicting Ramses IX rewarding Amenhotep on the exterior east wall at Karnak, make the high priest seem quite typical and unremarkable.197 193 Lefebvre 1929, 63, 1-3. 194 KRI VI 539, 16. 195 KRI VI 540, 1-2. 196 KRI VI 536, 14. 197 An example of one of these reliefs can be seen in Lefebvre 1929, Pl. 2. The reliefs are slightly unusual as Amenhotep and Ramses IX are depicted at roughly the same scale. 67 68 Panehesy was a high official with ties in both the administrative and military organizations, particularly in regard to Nubia. He can be traced back to at least Year 12 of Ramses XI, as he is mentioned in the Turin Taxation Papyrus; ṯ3j ḫw ḥr wnmj nswt sẖ jmj-r mšc jmj-r šnwtj 2 [n pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. s3 nsw] n kš jmj-r ḥ3swt rst ḥ3wtj p3-nḥsj n n3 pḏt198 fan bearer on the king’s right side, overseer of the army, overseer of the double granaries [of Pharaoh, l.p.h., king’s son] of Kush, overseer of the southern foreign lands, Panehesy, leader of the archers. There are hints of issues with maintaining order in Upper Egypt in a letter Ramses XI sent to Panehesy, the king’s son of Kush and military leader. Papyrus Turin Cat. 1896 preserves the king’s letter, dated to Year 17, wḏ-nsw n s3 nsw n sẖ sš nsw n p3 mšᶜ jmj-r šnwt ḥ3wtj p3-nḥsy n n3 pḏt pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. r-ntj jn.tw n.k wḏ-nsw pn {n} r-ḏd wḏ.j Yn-s3 p3j ᶜ3-n-pr wb3 n pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. dd jwt.f m n3 sḥnw n pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. p3y.f nb wḏy.f r jr.w m-ᶜ rsj wnn p3 wḫ3 n pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. p3y.k nb spr r.k jw.k jr-wᶜ-jrm.f r djt jry.f n3 sḥnw n pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. p3y.k nb wḏy.f jm.w mtw.k ptr t3j f3yt n t3j nṯrt ᶜ3t mtw.k ᶜrᶜr.s mtw.k 3tp.s r jmw mtw.k djt jn.tw.s r ḥ3t.f r p3 ntj twtw jm mtw.k djt jn.tw ḥrst ḫnmt jnḫwr jsm3r ḥwrwrj k3ṯ3 ḥwrwrj ḫsbd qnw sp 2 r p3 ntj twtw jm r mḥ ḏrt n3 ḥmwt jm.w m jr nny n p3j sḥn h3b.j n.k ptj h3b.j r mtr.k199 A royal decree to the king’s son of Kush, royal scribe of the army, overseer of the double granaries, leader of the Pharaoh’s archers, Panehesy, saying; This royal decree has been brought to you to say I have sent Yenes, this majordomo and cupbearer of Pharaoh, l.p.h. He has been sent with these commands of Pharaoh, l.p.h., his lord, which he has set forth to do in to the South. As soon as the letter of the Pharaoh, l.p.h., your lord, reaches you, you will cooperate with to let him do the commands of Pharaoh, l.p.h., your lord, with which he has set forth. And you will see to this carrying stand of this great goddess and finish it and put it on board a ship and you will send it under his supervision to the place in which the One is. And you will send carnelian, red jasper, crystal, corundum, and many more saffron flowers and flowers of lapis lazuli to the place in which the One is, in order to supply the craftsmen with them. Do not be neglectful about this command which I have sent to you. See, I wrote to inform you. 198 RAD 36, 4-5. 199 KRI VI 734, 10-16; 735, 1-7. 68 69 It is possible that the strong tone of the letter and the fact that the king sent along one of his men to ensure the commands were followed might indicate some tensions between the two men. Papyrus BM 10052 also contains a reference to Panehesy capturing Cynopolis,200 which confirms that he took troops north into Lower Egypt, though whether this was under the king’s orders is unknown. All of the clear references to the so-called suppression are dated after its occurrence and are all found in administrative or private texts. Several come from documents that record legal proceedings surrounding temple and tomb robberies. Papyrus Mayer A contains the testimony of a workman named Ahanefer in relation to a stolen chest; jn k3mw cḥ3-nfr s3 Jmn-ḫcw dj.tw.n.f ᶜnḫ n nb l.p.h. tm ḏd ᶜḏ3 sḏm r.f ḏd.f n3 3ᶜᶜw jw j.w mḥ m t3 ḥwt jw.j m-s3 nhw n ᶜ3t n p3y.j jt.j jw p3-h3-tj wᶜ 3ᶜᶜ mḥ m jm.j jw.f jṯ3.j r Jpjp jw jr.tw th3 Jmn-ḥtp wnw m ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn r-š3ᶜ 3bd 6 jw ḫprw j.jr.j jy 9 3bd n hrw th3 j.jr.tw Jmn-ḥtp wnw m ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn jw jrw h3w p3y pr-n-sṯ3 jw dd.tw ḫt m jm.f201 The workman Ahanefer, son of Amenkhau, was brought. He took an oath of the Lord, l.p.h., to not speak falsehood and his speech was heard. He said, “The foreigners came and they captured the temple while I was tending some of my father’s donkeys and Pahati, a foreigner, captured me and carried me off to Ipep when Amenhotep, who was high priest of Amun, had been suppressed for 6 months. When it happened that I returned 9 full months after the transgression of Amenhotep, who was high priest of Amun, the portable chest had been disposed of and set on fire. It appears that Ahanefer is using the conflict involving Amenhotep and Panehesy as a time marker. This is not the only example of a private individual using the event as a time marker. Papyrus BM 10382 also seems to refer to Amenhotep and the dispute over his office. The text, another legal document, records the speech of someone involved in a trial. The man describes his whereabouts; j.jr.j pr m pr n p3 pr-ᶜ3 l.p.h. m-ḏr jw p3j-nḥsy jw.f th3 p3y.j ḥry jw mn th3 m jm.f,202 “I left the 200 KRI VI 790, 7-8. 201 KRI VI 815, 4-11. 202 KRI VI 835, 7-9. 69 70 house of Pharaoh, l.p.h., only after Panehesy came and transgressed my superior, when there was no transgression of him.” In another legal text, Papyrus BM 10052, a woman claims, jr m-ḏr jry.tw p3 ḫrwy n p3 ḥm-nṯr tpj jw p3 rmṯ jṯ3 ḫwt n p3y.j jt,203 “After the one made the war of the high priest, the man stole my father’s things.” Though not mentioned in royal sources, this event was clearly significant, enough so that private individuals used it as a reference point. This indicates that it was well-known among the Theban public, as such a marker is only effective if most people understand the reference. Many scholars believe that Panehesy was the one who suppressed Amenhotep at the request of Ramses XI, reading “my superior” of BM 10382 as a reference to Amenhotep.204 Barwik suggests that Panehesy took over Thebes with his Nubian troops, removed Amenhotep from office, and occupied some of Upper Egypt without permission from Ramses XI and that, after Panehesy’s eventual defeat, Amenhotep was restored.205 Barwik views Ramses XI’s letter to Panehesy as dating to after the war and thinks the harsh tone of the letter, along with the accompanying official to ensure the commands are followed, was an attempt to keep Panehesy in line after his rebellion.206 Wente, on the other hand, interprets the evidence as Panehesy restoring order to Thebes on behalf of Ramses XI after an insurrection against Amenhotep, reading “my superior” as a leader of the forces against the high priest rather than referring to Amenhotep himself.207 This theory was also suggested by Von Beckerath, who also claimed that this Theban military takeover allowed Ramses XI, by way of Panehesy, to take back control of the Theban area from a too powerful priesthood.208 At some point after the conflict between Panehesy and Amenhotep, the former fell from favor. After the wḥm mswt era began, Panehesy’s name was written with a fallen enemy 203 KRI VI 797, 4-6. 204 Dodson 2012, 14-15. 205 Barwik 2011, 80. 206 Barwik 2011, 105. 207 Wente 1966, 84-85. 208 Von Beckerath 1951, 93. 70 71 determinative, which tells us that, by Year 19, he was no longer supported by the king.209 This supports Ridealgh’s idea of thj expressing some sort of wrongdoing, which implies that Panehesy’s actions were thought of as unjustified by those writing the documents. It is unclear whether Ramses XI turned his back on Panehesy after ordering him to move against the high priest or the king punished him for stepping outside his bounds. Either way, as recorded in Amenhotep’s supposed autobiographical inscription, which may have been written after his death, Ramses XI was the source of Panehesy’s downfall. Located on one of the exterior walls of Thutmose III’s shrine at Karnak, the text reads, [...] jṯ3.s jw.f jr 8 3bd n hrw jm.st jw.j šnn ẖr.f r jqr [sp 2] jw.j [...] [p3]y.j nb jnk p3.k b3k tw.j ᶜḥᶜ.k ḏnn n.k […] Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw sḏm ḫrw.j 3s jw bwpwy.f djt wḏf [...] [jw Jmn-rᶜ ḥr m3].j m p3 th3.j jw.j smj n pr ᶜ3 p3y.j nb210 [...] seized it. He spent 8 full months in it. I suffered under it exceedingly and I […] my lord. I am your servant, who stood tormented for you. [...] Amun-Re, king of the gods, heard my voice right away and he did not allow a delay [...] [and Amun- Re saw me] in this transgression of me and I reported to the Pharaoh, my lord. According to this text, Panehesy, who is unnamed as fitting of an enemy of the kingdom, was in control of the Amun priesthood for eight months. During these months, the troop leader most likely had soldiers stationed in Thebes. In Ahanefer’s statement, given above, he mentions that foreigners captured the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu during the sixth month of the transgression of Amenhotep. Wente strongly supports the idea that these foreigners were Nubian troops of Panehesy. This is due to the use of the word 3ᶜᶜw, rather than ḫ3styw, which often referred to Libyan groups at this time, the fact that it took place during the time period where Panehesy was administering Thebes, and that the foreigners were organized and led by ḥrjw-pḏt, “archery leaders.”211 If this is true, the actions of Panehesy’s Nubian troops might have added to the negative 209 Lull 2006, 333. 210 KRI VI 537, 16; 538, 1-3. 211 Wente 1966, 84. 71 72 view of his actions by private individuals after he was forced out of Egypt. Amenhotep credits Amun-Re for supporting him and his pleas to the king and implies that he had done nothing to warrant this attack. Later on in the text he says, ḥmw nṯr tpj n Jmn nty jw.w jj ḥr s3.j m jr nnj [...] jry.j n.f 3ḫ th3.f p3 th3 wj 3s,212 “high priests of Amun who will come after me, do not neglect [...] I acted effectively for him and he transgressed the one who transgressed me right away.” He appears to be advising future high priests to be loyal to the king so that he will protect them in times of need. He does not, however, explain why it took the king eight months to remove Panehesy from Thebes. It is not clear whether Amenhotep returned to his position of high priest after Panehesy had been removed, but, at the very least, his name was cleared. Though neither Piankh or Herihor seem to have had any connections to Amenhotep, the events surrounding his term have significant implications for the political climate in Thebes at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. In addition to the famine and robberies of sacred places that must have created an uneasy atmosphere in Thebes, the office of the high priest was being contested and soldiers occupied the city in an attempt to maintain order. If the removal of Amenhotep from office was ordered by the king himself, it reveals tension and active conflict between the crown and the priesthood well before Herihor’s appointment. If Panehesy acted of his own accord, the turmoil surrounding Amenhotep’s tenure demonstrated that the area was not fully under the king’s control and Thebes had the potential to pull away from the kingdom. § 3.3 Who Came First? Chronological Debate Surrounding Piankh and Herihor Amongst studies of the end of the Twentieth Dynasty and the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, the focus often centers on issues of dating, particularly, the chronology of 212 KRI VI 538, 5-6. 72 73 Herihor and Piankh. This must be discussed before examining material associated with these two men, as it affects the interpretations of them. If Herihor followed Piankh as the high priest, the consolidation of the three main titles discussed, the unrest between the priesthood and the throne, and the influence of Piankh directly led to Herihor taking over Upper Egypt. If Piankh followed Herihor, then the latter’s rule can be viewed as a bold step forward that was retracted to a certain degree by Piankh and revived by Pinedjem I. Traditionally, the order of Herihor followed by Piankh and then Pinedjem I, son of Piankh, as the high priest of Amun has been widely accepted.213 In this section, I will discuss the evidence of the timeline and demonstrate why Piankh-Herihor- Pinedjem I is a more likely scenario. It was originally thought that Piankh was Herihor’s son, due to a block at Karnak which depicts a procession of Herihor’s children. A male figure with only part of a name preserved, [...]ᶜnḫ, was identified as Piankh, but it is now thought to be Ankhefenmut, a known son of Herihor.214 The genealogical relationship between Piankh and Herihor is never referred to directly in any primary sources. Additionally, much of the confusion stems from the dating system used in this time period. During Year 19 of Ramses XI, a new era was created, the wḥm-mswt or “Repeating of Births.” The reason for this new era was not recorded and several scholars have equated this change with the beginning of Herihor’s tenure as high priest.215 When using the wḥm- mswt dating system, the king’s name was not always mentioned, unlike the traditional Year X of King X dating used previously. This can make it difficult to ascertain who was in power when documents and inscriptions were created. In contrast to the traditional chronology, Jansen-Winkeln has presented a theory that reversed the order, suggesting instead a succession of Piankh-Herihor-Pinedjem I as high priests 213 James and Morkot 2010; Dodson 2012; Barwik 2011. 214 Haring 2012, 145. 215 Taylor 1998, 1143. 73 74 in Thebes. Piankh is very much present in the early records of the wḥm-mswt, particularly with regards to the conflict with Panehesy, as seen previously. In fact, Piankh appears in several of the letters that make up the Late Ramesside Letters corpus, while Herihor is notably absent.216 Piankh’s titles are very similar to those of Panehesy, which could possibly point to him taking over Panehesy’s titles after defeating him. The leaders of Thebes who followed Piankh and Herihor, however, hold titles that are closely connected to those of Herihor, rather than Piankh. When examining their specific titles, which will be presented in detail in the following sections, it becomes apparent that Piankh’s titles often refer back to the king, his source of power, whereas Herihor’s connection to the ruler seems less emphasized and eventually most likely becomes a holdover from the titles traditionally given to certain offices. 217 Pinedjem I immediately follows Herihor in the decoration of the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak, with no evidence of any activity of Piankh. Piankh is also the only high priest of this era (end of Twentieth Dynasty and the Twenty-First) whose name does not appear on any of the materials related to the re-burying of the royal mummies that occurred during this time. Jansen- Winkeln interprets these last two points as evidence that the continuing of the decoration of the Khonsu temple and the relocation of the royal mummies did not take place until after Piankh died.218 It is possible that this is due to a short reign between Herihor and Pinedjem that did not give Piankh enough time to participate in these activities but fits comfortably with a Piankh- Herihor order. Two ostraca from Thebes offer a glimpse into the chronology of this time period as well. The ostraca preserve two letter drafts from necropolis scribes to Herihor and Piankh. CG 25744 was addressed to Herihor and written by the scribe Butehamun. Černý believed that 216 Haring 2012, 146. 217 Jansen-Winkeln 2006, 226. 218 Jansen-Winkeln 2006, 226. 74 75 Butehamun also wrote CG 25745, which was addressed to Piankh but indicates no sender.219 However, it has been reasonably shown that the handwriting of p3 in 25745 is different from Butehamun’s handwriting, of which there are many examples, and is much more similar to that of his father, Dhutmose. Those who are convinced that Herihor ruled first suggest that Butehamun was promoted to necropolis scribe alongside his father at some point before Herihor’s death, but Egberts maintains that the simpler and more logical interpretation is that Dhutmose served first under Piankh and was succeeded by his son during the time of Herihor.220 The evidence presented can be used to support the Piankh-Herihor theory, but there are two key issues that must be addressed here; year dates and father-son successions. The wḥm-mswt era began in Year 19 of Ramses XI so it can be established that this king was still alive at the beginning of this period. Herihor is not mentioned in sources before the wḥm-mswt so all attestations related to him, both as a private individual and a king, must be placed after this year. He appears in the decoration of the Khonsu temple, that is dated to Ramses XI, as the high priest of Amun several times; therefore the beginning of his career as high priest overlapped with the king’s reign. How then do we contextualize Herihor’s adoption of kingly attributes? James and Morkot suggested a sharing of power, essentially a co-regency, with Ramses XI; “We might assume that Herihor’s royal status was approved by Ramesses XI, in a power-sharing arrangement, with Ramesses XI surely remaining the senior partner.”221 Co-regencies with an heir were not unusual in ancient Egypt, and co-regents were frequently depicted performing activities together, even in the unprecedented case of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. However, once Herihor displayed himself as king, he no longer mentions Ramses XI at all. There is no indication of power-sharing or a second ruler. It seems highly unlikely that Ramses XI would allow his subordinate to take on 219 Egberts 1997, 23. 220 Egberts 1997, 24-25. 221 James and Morkot 2010, 251. 75 76 kingly trappings while ignoring the existence of his senior ruler in his series of reliefs and inscriptions. Kitchen proposed that Herihor “donned royal style (like theatrical dress!)” because Ramses XI was less active in the south.222 This hypothesis seems weak when one considers that kings were never actually actively participating in daily temple rituals of all the temples of Egypt, as that is physically impossible, but nevertheless were depicted performing these duties on the temple walls as a way of symbolically representing the king and his vital role as a mediator between humanity and the gods. A much more simple and plausible explanation is that Herihor took control of the south following Ramses XI’s death and completed the Khonsu temple decoration in the image of a king. A text that presents a large problem for the traditional Herihor-Piankh order is the Nims oracle. Located on the north exterior wall of Amenhotep II’s festival hall at Karnak, this oracle mentions the appointment of Piankh to high priest of Amun. The inscription is dated as follows, Rnpt-ḥsb 7 wḥm-msw 3 šmw sw 28 ḫr ḥm nswt bjt mn-m3ᶜ-rᶜ stp-n-ptḥ s3 rᶜ rᶜ-ms- ss ḫc-m-w3st mrj-Jmn nṯr-ḥq3-jwnw hrw sḫᶜ ḥm nṯr pn šps Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw r tr n dw3t m ḥb.f nfr n jpt ḥmt.s223 Year 7 of the wḥm-msw third month of Harvest day 28 under the Majesty of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menmaatre Setepenptah, son of Re, Ramses Khaemwaset Memriamun Netjerheqaiunu, the day of the manifesting of the majesty of the noble god, Amen-Re, king of the gods, at the time of the morning in his beautiful feast of jpt ḥmt.s. If Piankh was appointed by Ramses XI and Herihor finished decorating the temple of Khonsu after Ramses XI’s death, then Piankh could not have been high priest after Herihor. However, if we examine the year dates associated with Herihor, another option arises. The “Story of Wenamun,” a piece of historical fiction set during this time that will be discussed in detail later, is dated to rnpt-ḥsb 5 4 šmw 16 224 or Year 5, fourth month of Harvest, sixteenth day. 222 Kitchen 2009, 194. 223 Nims 1948, Pl. VIII, 10-13. 224 Gardiner 1932, 61, 1. 76 77 Dockets on the royal mummies in the Deir el-Bahri cache that mention Herihor are dated to Years 5 and 6. An inscription on the coffin of Seti I reads, ḥsbt 6 3bd 2 3ḫt sw 7 ḫrw n wḏ.tw jr.n ṯ3[tj] ḥm nṯr tp n Jmn-rc nsw nṯrw Ḥr-Ḥr r wḥm qrs n nsw (Mn-m3ct-rc)|,225 “Year 6, second month of the Innundation, day 7, on this day, a decree was made by the ṯ3[tj], high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Herihor, to renew the burial of king Menmaatre.” The coffin of Ramses II has a very similar inscription, with the date ḥsbt 6 3bd 3 prt sw 15.226 Many scholars have assumed that these dates refer to the wḥm-mswt era.227 However, these dates do not reference any specific dating system, either of a king or the wḥm-msw. There is simply not enough evidence to assume these texts predate Piankh’s oracle. If, on the other hand, Herihor succeeded Piankh in the office of high priest, the issue of year dates no longer presents such a problem. Piankh, appointed in Year 7 of the wḥm-mswt, served under Ramses XI until the priest’s death, whereby Herihor was promoted in his stead in the service of the king. After Ramses XI’s death, Herihor became the reigning ruler of Southern Egypt and proceeded to complete the temple of Khonsu with himself in the role of the king while using his own regnal dating. This idea was presented by Jansen-Winkeln and received some criticism, though no convincing arguments against a Herihor regnal year system have been offered. Dodson writes, the notion that a high priest might use his own ‘regnal’ years is ultimately reliant on a single later example, which is itself problematic. In this context it is worth noting that even such genuinely kingly figures as Hatshepsut, Neferneferuaten, and Tawosret use (or in the last case continued) the years of their associated kings, rather than superposing a sequence of their own. In this connection, it is important to emphasize that the Year 5 and 6 documents simply mention Herihor as high priest--not as the king he later became.228 225 Maspero 1889, 553. 226 Maspero 1889, 557. 227 James and Morkot 2010, 234. Barwik 2011, 135. 228 Dodson 2012, 19. 77 78 There are several issues with this reasoning, which reflect larger problems in Egyptology more generally. Dodson implies that the only way to be a legitimate ruler is to be “genuinely kingly” and that Herihor, as a high priest of Amun, could not properly fill this role in the south. A comparable attitude is Kitchen’s view of Herihor’s adoption of royal attributes, which he perceives as a failed attempt at kingship because it “is not identical in form or function with the ruling Egyptian kingship of this epoch (or any other epoch…).”229 While it is apparent that Herihor’s leadership does not neatly fit into the idea of what could be considered traditional Egyptian kingship, which itself was a constantly evolving concept, dismissing the feasibility of a legitimate ruler outside the norm denies the possibility of change. Similarly, the idea that a high priest regnal year system is not an acceptable theory because there are no other concrete examples is not persuasive and reveals a tendency to reject explanations that do not conform to the familiar. While having no other known occurrences of such a trend makes Herihor’s dating system far from certain, it does not rule it out. The existence of the wḥm-mswt dating system is proof that, at the very least, dating without using a king’s name was possible. Accepting the Piankh-Herihor-Pinedjem I succession still leaves a question of why Herihor interrupted a father-son pairing. If Herihor had usurped the office from Pinedjem after Piankh’s death through his already established position, he had the backing of Ramses XI, as Herihor is shown performing rituals alongside the king. However, if that was the case, why did one of Herihor’s nineteen known sons not succeed him? Taylor’s proposed solution hinges on the identity of Nedjmet, Herihor’s wife. She has been widely accepted as Herihor’s wife as she appears with him both before he took on royal titles and after, and he is present on her funerary papyri. Nedjmet’s titles establish her as a king’s wife, king’s mother, and king’s sister. The kings in questions are unfortunately never named, but her mother is identified as Herere, a king’s mother. 229 Kitchen 2009, 194. 78 79 Herere has been assumed to be the wife of Piankh but this is far from certain.230 An inscription at Luxor mentions Pinedjem’s mother but the name is almost totally lost, with only the very beginning of a first sign. It was read by Daressy as ḥ.231 This led to the idea that it originally read Herere, but Taylor suggested that it could be nḏm instead. The inscription also shows that Pinedjem’s mother was a wrt ḫnrt n Jmn-rᶜ, “principal musician of Amun-Re,” which is a title that Nedjmet held.232 Nedjmet outlived Herihor and was buried in the reign of Pinedjem, with a coffin is very similar to those of the high priest and his wife, Henuttawy, which might point to a close relationship between Nedjmet and Pinedjem.233 This strengthens the theory that Nedjmet was Pinedjem’s mother, which would in turn make her Piankh’s wife. Taylor also points out that Piankh wrote a letter to Nedjmet while he was on campaign in Nubia and included a warm greeting, which was a common part of many letters but not typically Piankh’s style.234 The letter is addressed as follows, p3 mr mšᶜ n pr ᶜ3 l.p.h n wrt ḫnrt pr n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw špst nḏmt,235 “The overseer of the army of the Pharaoh, l.p.h., to the principal musician of Amun-Re, king of the gods, the noble lady, Nedjmet.” Within this letter, Piankh instructs Nedjmet to find two Medjay who have made an unspecified accusation, question them, and then have them killed. p3j ḏd j.jr.t t3j mdt p3j mḏ3 2 j.ḏd.t dḏ.w jrt wᶜ jrm p3y-šw-wbn ṯ3-ry p3j sẖ mtw.t djt jn.tw p3j mḏ3 2 j pr.j mtw.t jnnt pḥ.tw n3y.w mdt m sšr sp sn mtw.t djt ẖdb mtw.t djt ḫ3ᶜ.w p3 mw m grḥ236 As for the statement you made about the matter of those two Medjay that you said they said, join up with Payshuweben and Tjaroy, the scribe, and have those two Medjay brought to my house and get to the bottom of these matters very excellently, and have (them) killed and thrown (into) the water at night. 230 Taylor 1998, 1146-1147. 231 Daressy 1910, 185. 232 Taylor 1998, 1149-1150. 233 Taylor 1998, 1148. 234 Taylor 1998, 1151. 235 Černỳ 1939, 54, 5-6. 236 Černỳ 1939, 54, 9-13. 79 80 These instructions are reiterated in letters to the two officials mentioned.237 This was a highly sensitive matter involving secret interrogations and murder. Including a woman in the execution of this plan indicates a close and trusting relationship between Nedjmet and Piankh. If Nedjmet was the wife of Piankh and the mother of Pinedjem I but married Herihor after Piankh’s death, the succession of Piankh’s son after Herihor would make more sense. Ramses XI could have appointed Herihor as high priest to take on the responsibilities of the office if his stepson was not old enough. Given the evidence and its possible interpretations discussed above, I find it more likely that Piankh preceded Herihor than the other way around. If we accept that, the implications for my study are that Herihor gained the titles of high priest, ṯ3tj, and chief overseer of the army by succeeding Piankh and then took this inherited power a step further once Ramses XI died by becoming the sole ruler of Upper Egypt and using his own dating system. § 3.4 Piankh Now that the most probable order of the high priests has been established, further evidence of Piankh can be discussed. He was the first known official to hold all three of the major titles discussed in the previous chapter: jmj-r mšᶜ wr, ṯ3tj, and high priest of Amun. Though Thebes, and more broadly Upper Egypt, did not break away as a political entity until Herihor’s rule, Piankh’s tenure shows hints of the fractures that were growing in the relationship between the priesthood and the throne. In the Nims oracle previously mentioned, we can observe some of Piankh’s most important titles around the time he was appointed to the position of high priest. They are as follows, 237 Černỳ 1939, 36, 53. 80 81 ṯ3 ḫw wmnj [nsw]s3 nsw n kš ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw jmj-r mšᶜ ḥ3wtj P3j-ᶜnḫ m3ᶜ ḫrw238 The fanbearer on the right side of [the king], the king’s son of Kush, the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, the overseer of the army, the leader, Piankh, true of voice In ostraca CG 25745, jmj-r njwt ṯ3tj is included in the list of Piankh’s titles.239 Late Ramesside Letter 28, which links Piankh to activities in the royal necropolis in his duties as ṯ3tj, gives a more detailed list. The necropolis scribes greet him in the body of the letter as, ṯ3y ḫwy ḥr wnmj nsw sẖ nsw jmj-r mšᶜ ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn-rᶜ [nswt nṯrw] s3 [nsw] n kš jmj-rᶜ ḫ3swt rs jmj-r šnwtj n šnwt pr-ᶜ3 l.p.h. [ḥ3wtj p3j] ᶜnḫ n mšᶜ pr-ᶜ3 l.p.h.240 fan-bearer on the king’s right hand side, royal scribe, overseer of the army, high priest of Amun-Re, [king of the gods, king’s] son of Kush, overseer of the southern foreign lands, overseer of the granaries of the Pharaoh’s granaries, [leader] of the army of the Pharaoh, l.p.h. The address of the letter refers to Piankh simply as p3 jmj-r mšᶜ n pr-ᶜ3 l.p.h.,241 “the overseer of the army of the Pharaoh.” Though Piankh was undoubtedly a powerful official of this period, and specifically in a military capacity, there is only one known reference to him holding the title of jmj- r mšᶜ wr, in Papyrus Prakhov, dated to Year 7.242 This is unusual, given how often he is referred to as jmj-r mšᶜ and the clear importance placed on his military role. In the Nims oracle, Piankh asks the barque of Amun to appoint someone as sẖ n šnᶜt n pr [Jmn],243 “scribe of the storehouse of the house [of Amun].” Piankh is serving as “the spokesman of Amun-Re” during this festival, as befits a high priest.244 This is the only surviving evidence of Piankh performing in his role as the head of the Amun priesthood. However, several letters, both 238 Nims 1948, Pl. VIII, 1-2. 239 Černý 1935, 90. 240 Černỳ 1939, 44, 3-5. 241 Černỳ 1939, 48, 6. 242 Berlev 1997, 5. 243 Nims 1948, Pl. VIII, 25. 244 Gregory 2013, 10. 81 82 written to and by him during a campaign in Nubia, give us some insight on his involvement in military and administrative affairs. He wrote to the necropolis scribe, Tjaroy, with a request, wnn t3y.j šᶜt spr r.k jw.k djt jn.tw nh3y n ḥbsw js m šᶜd qnw [...] jw m dy ws.w jw jw.tw jr.w m prw r wt rmṯ jm.w twk rḫ.tw p3j mšᶜ ntj tw.j m nᶜy r jr.f j.3s st n.j245 When this letter reaches you, you will send some cloth and many cut-up rags [...] Do not let them go to waste, for they will be made into bandages to wrap men with. You know the expedition which I am going to make. Hasten them to me. This letter demonstrates that, in his role as chief overseer of the army, Piankh was personally leading his men on an expedition. It is possible that he expected it to be dangerous for his soldiers and the bandages were for battle wounds, but this cannot be confirmed. It also shows that he was concerned with the smaller details of managing an army, such as securing supplies, which indicates a very active role. Piankh organized military equipment as well, which can be seen in the following, wnn t3y.j šᶜ sprw r-r.tn jw.tn jn p3 mn n n3 ᶜw n mrk3bwtj ntj m t3 st j.jn n.j šd-sw- ḥr n3 ᶜw jm.w j.jr.tn gm.(j) sw[n.j] j.w jm w3ḥ n bnr w3t m t3y.tn st m p3y.j jj ḥr rsj246 When my letter reaches you, you will fetch the remainder of the chariot poles which are in the place where Shedsuhor fetched the poles for me. Let (me) find them there lying outside your place on my return from the south. Though we cannot take this evidence as proof that earlier jmjw-r mšᶜ wr actively led troops in person, it is clear that Piankh was a leader on the battlefield and involved in the managing of supplies. The same set of letters also give evidence of the Piankh acting in his role as ṯ3tj, connecting him to the state’s granaries and the necropolis, two areas that had frequently been associated with ṯ3tjw earlier. In same letter mentioned above, the two foremen of the necropolis wrote to Piankh 245 Černỳ 1939, 35, 12-16. 246 Černỳ 1939, 50, 8-12. 82 83 saying, ḫr ptr h3b.k r ḏd wn wᶜ st m n3 st ḥ3wtj.w mtw.tn s3w t3y.st ḫtm j.jrtw(.j) jj j.n.f p3y.n nb,247 “Now see, you have written, saying: “A tomb has been uncovered in the place of the ancestors and you are to guard its seal until (I) return,” so said our lord.” Piankh’s authority over the granaries is mentioned in passing in two letters. One is concerned with receiving the correct measurement of grain and reads, t3y.k šᶜy spr.tw r p3 ntj ṯ3tj jm jw.f wḏ sẖ s3-r-y jrm p3 ḫ3y,248 “Your letter reached the place in which the ṯ3tj is. He sent the scribe Saroy together with the measurer.” Clearly, Piankh needed to give permission for this measurement to take place. Another letter demonstrates that the ṯ3tj received reports concerning the granaries; ntk j.ptr p3 j3 [...] jt ḫr ntk j.jrw.k ᶜn smj n ṯ3tj ḥr.w,249 “It is you who sees the [...] grain and it is you who will render a report to the ṯ3tj about it.” These letters show that Piankh’s titles of jmj-r mšᶜ wr and ṯ3tj were not positions that he held in name only. He was actively involved in the offices and running the army and administration, even while abroad on campaign. Piankh’s campaign to Nubia connects him back to Panehesy and Amenhotep. Though the circumstances surrounding Panehesy’s fall from grace and expulsion from Egypt, apparently ordered by Ramses XI, are unclear, it is known that Piankh followed him to Nubia in an attempt to completely eliminate him as a threat. In another Late Ramesside Letter, the scribe Dhutmose wrote home, saying, tw.j spr.k r p3y.j ḥrj y3 j.jr.j gm jw dj.f jw wᶜ tsmw jmw r ṯ3y.j j.w gm.j m mt n Ḏbw jw.j pḥ.f r dmj 3bw,250 “I have reached my superior [Piankh]. Indeed, I found that he had sent a tsm- boat to take me and they found me in Edfu. I reached him in the city of Elephantine.” A few lines later, Dhutmose records what Piankh said to him while at Elephantine; ḫr sw ḏd jw.j ṯsy r ḥr r pḥ p3j-nḥs r p3 ntj sw jm.f,251 “now he says: I will go upwards [south] to reach Panehesy at the place 247 Černý 1939, 47, 12-14. 248 Černý 1939, 57, 11-12. 249 Černỳ 1939, 70, 14-15. 250 Černỳ 1939, 7, 10-13. 251 Černỳ 1939, 7, 16-8, 1. 83 84 in which he is.” Given his letter asking for spare rags for bandages, Piankh might have expected, or at least was prepared for, this trip to result in a violent clash with Panehesy’s forces. Comparisons of their titles shows that they shared four key appointments of both administrative and military nature: king’s son of Kush, overseer of the southern foreign lands, overseer of the granaries, and leader of the soldiers/troops. It seems that the jmj-r mšᶜ wr was not only sent to dispose of Panehesy but was also his eventual replacement.252 It seems that relations between Piankh and Ramses XI were not without discord, however, as the overseer of the army expressed his negative feelings toward the king in the same letter to Tjaroy that mentioned the unsanctioned killing of the two Medjay. He wrote to the necropolis scribe, saying, jr pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. j.jr.f pḥ p3j t3 mj-jḫ sp-sn ḫr jr pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. ḥrj njm m-r-ᶜ,253 “As for Pharaoh, l.p.h., how will he ever reach this land? Furthermore, whose superior is Pharaoh anyway?” It is possible that the highly secret situation involving the two Medjay was a part of activity against, or at least concealed from, the king. The clandestine nature of the interrogation and disposal of the Medjay is unusual and perhaps “suggests the Medjay knew and had said something Piankh wanted to hide from Pharaoh, the king being his only real superior in the entire country.”254 Piankh’s dismissive comments about the king might have been meant to reassure Dhutmose that his actions would not have negative consequences, which would reaffirm that Piankh was operating on his own authority without regard to the king. Another piece of evidence that might point to Ramses XI’s diminished authority over Piankh is that, although he is mentioned by name in the text of the Nims 252 There is a graffito on a column of the Northern Temple at Buhen that shows a figure of a high official in adoration before cartouches of Ramses XI, labelled as s3 nswt n kš…st-ms, “king’s son of Kush…Sethmose” (Bohleke 1985, 14). Bohleke 1985 believes that this Sethmose was the predecessor of Panehesy (18) while Dodson 2012 claims Sethmose succeeded him (16). Either way, Piankh seems to have taken over the titles Panehesy possessed within a short time after Panehesy’s defeat. 253 Černỳ 1939, 36, 11-12. 254 Thijs 2003, 301. 84 85 oracle, the king is not depicted in the accompanying relief, making Piankh the highest-ranking authority figure portrayed. § 3.5 Herihor § 3.5a Herihor under Ramses XI The ultimate fate of Piankh is unknown as there is no evidence of him after Year 10 of the wḥm mswt. It seems likely that Herihor took over the positions left vacant by Piankh, as they held similar titles when Herihor was still under the authority of Ramses XI. An oracular decree of Herihor from the Temple of Khonsu within the Amun precinct at Karnak is not dated but there is enough of the text preserved to make out the remains of the name of Ramses XI, indicating it came from the earlier part of Herihor’s career. It lists Herihor’s titles as ḥm [nṯr] tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw s3 nsw n kš jmj-r šnwt,255 “the high priest of Amun, king of the gods, king’s son of Kush, the overseer of the granaries.” As will be shown below, Herihor also possessed the highest military and administrative titles and therefore was the leader of the king’s armies and bureaucracy as well. In terms of titles, he succeeds Piankh in all of his most important offices, resulting in Herihor being the most powerful man in the south and, at least ideologically, second most powerful in all of Egypt after the king. From what remains of the above oracle text, it is clear that Herihor approached an oracle of Amun, asking for the god’s blessing. He says to the oracle, s[r n].j ᶜnḫ wḏ3 snb nfrw qnw m ẖn njwt p3.k dmjt,256 “Foretell for me life, prosperity, health, and many good things in the city, your 255 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 132, 2. 256 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 132, 8. 85 86 town [Thebes].” Herihor’s wish for the city of Thebes to prosper shows how important the location was to him, the city that would later become his power center. It also shows him acting in the capacity of the spokesman of Amun as a high priest should. This role seems to have been very significant to Herihor, as he is most frequently referred to with this title and depicted performing ritual activities, similar to the way in which Piankh put more stress on his role as overseer of the army. Following in line with the typical duties of a high priest of Amun during the New Kingdom, as outlined in the previous chapter, Herihor was involved with construction related to the Karnak temple. Some of the decoration of the Hypostyle Hall and the First Court of the Khonsu temple was done during the reign of Ramses XI. There are a few inscriptions that point to Herihor carrying out some of the decoration by the king’s instruction. ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw jmj-r mšᶜ wr nw šmᶜw mḥw ḥ3wtj Ḥr-Ḥr m3ᶜ ḫrw jr.n.f m mnw.f n ḫnsw m w3st nfr ḥtp jr.n n.f ḥwt nṯr m m3wj m snn r 3ḫt nt pt swsḫ r pr.f m k3t nḥḥ sᶜ3 mnw.f r jmj ḫr ḥ3t dj.f ḥ3w ḥr jmnyt qb.f wn m-b3ḥ psḏt w3st ẖnm.w rš ḥwt sr m ḥb pr ḫnsw wḥm.n.f špss m mnw wrw nfrw [m jr]t s3 3ḫ [...] msw sw nb t3wj mn-m3ᶜt-r stp.n-Ptḥ nb ḫᶜw rᶜ-ms-s ḫc-(m)-w3st mrr-Jmn nṯr-ḥq3- Jnw dj ᶜnḫ jst jb n ḥm.f r sᶜ3 pr jt.f ḫnsw-m-w3st nfr-ḥtp n mrwt n sḥ3pw sḥ-nṯr.f m jrt 3ḫw n k3.f jr.n n.f s3 rᶜ mn-m3ᶜ-rᶜ stp-n-Ptḥ rᶜ-ms-s ḫ-m-w3st mrr-Jmn nṯr-ḥq3- Jnw mr ḫnsw257 The high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, the chief overseer of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt, the leader, Herihor, true of voice; he made as his monument to Khonsu-in-Thebes Neferhotep the making for him of the god’s compound anew in the image of the horizon of the sky, extending his temple in eternal work, and enlarging his monument more than it has been before, increasing the [...] daily offerings and multiplying that which existed before. The Ennead of Thebes is joined in joy, the Official’s Compound is in festival, the house of Khonsu has become splendid again with great and beautiful monuments as is done by a son who is effective [...] who made him: Menmaatre Setepenptah, Lord of Crowns, Ramses Khaemwaset Meriamun Netjerheqaiunu, given life. For the mind of his Majesty was toward the enlarging of the house of his father, Khonsu-in-Thebes Neferhotep, in order to cover his shrine in excellent works for his ka and the son of Re, Menmaatre Setepenptah Ramses Khaemwaset Meriamun Netjerheqaiunu, beloved of Khonsu, did (it) for him. 257 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 195, 1-6. 86 87 Though it seems Herihor oversaw the work, Ramses XI is given the credit for the decoration of the temple. This deference to the king shows that Herihor did not immediately attempt to separate Upper Egypt from the kingdom once he had risen to the head of the administration, priesthood, and army. Additionally, there are two scenes that depict Herihor and an unidentifiable figure offering to the gods with an inscription above them explaining that it was created under Herihor’s supervision by order of the king, as seen in Figure 1. jr ẖr ᶜ sb3.n ḥm.f jrj-pᶜt ḥ3tj-ᶜ mḥ jb ᶜ3 mnḫt n nb t3wj ṯ3 ḫw ḥr wmnj nswt s3 nswt n kš […] ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw m Jpt-swt jmj-r k3t wr m pr ḫnsw qb ḥtp nṯrw n nbw w3st jmj-r mšᶜ [wr…ḥr-ḥr]258 Done under the charge of the one whom His Majesty instructed, member of the elite, high official, trusted one, great of ability for the Lord of the Two Lands, the standard bearer on the right side of the king, the king’s son of Kush, […] the high priest of Amun Re, king of the gods, in Karnak, the chief overseer of works of the Temple of Khonsu, who doubles the divine offerings of the Lords of Thebes, the [chief]259 overseer of the army […Herihor]. This level of involvement in construction and decoration of the Amun complex has been a part of the responsibilities of the high priest throughout the New Kingdom and therefore fits with the expectations of an official of Herihor’s status. However, these inscriptions are not quite typical of someone in Herihor’s position. The king is often absent in the inscriptions, replaced by Amun. Herihor does not pacify the Two Lands for Ramses XI, but for the god, who is referred to as “his lord.” It is Herihor who is said to have “taken possession of every land,” not the king. Similarly, in the second dedicatory inscription, Herihor describes his building activities in a way comparable to how Ramses XI did in his first inscription, but without mention of a king, giving the credit to himself. If Ramses XI was still alive, Herihor was purposefully choosing to bypass the king as an intermediary to Amun and focus on his own power and connection to the divine. If the scribal statue and second inscription were commissioned before the death of Ramses XI and the 258 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 153 A, 1-2. 259 The inscription breaks just after mšᶜ, so it is unclear if wr was included in this version of his military title. 87 88 assumption of kingly attributes by Herihor, they are atypical and could demonstrate an increasing distance between the Amun priesthood, and the Theban area, and the king that was first hinted at during Piankh’s lifetime. This would indicate a more gradual separation of power over years, rather than an abrupt seizing of control after the death of the king. In addition to overseeing monuments, there is also evidence in the Khonsu temple of Herihor’s religious activity under Ramses XI in a more ritual sense, many of which are reliefs of activities typically shown being performed by kings. It is clear from the accompanying inscriptions that Ramses XI was still alive and ruling, which makes Herihor’s dominating visual presence puzzling. Given the cultural weight of the depicted size of individuals and focal points of scenes in art, the replacement of the king with his subordinate supports the idea of shifting power structures in the Theban region. One relief from the hypostyle hall depicts Herihor, wearing the traditional priestly leopard skin, offering incense to the barques of Amun, Mut, and Khonsu, as seen in Figure 2.260 Though Herihor is performing the ritual and is the only large-scale figure in the scene, the gods’ words are directed towards Ramses XI, despite his only (assumed) appearance being small kingly figures performing rituals on the barques themselves. It is unclear why Herihor is shown in lieu of the king. Another scene in the same temple shows a very similar picture with Herihor, once again donning the leopard skin, offering incense before the barques of the Theban triad, which hold small figures of a king, presumably Ramses XI.261 In another scene, Herihor presents a broad collar to Khonsu and is the only human figure in the scene, but the accompanying inscription lists the titles and epithets of Ramses XI.262 These reliefs, as with the previous inscriptions, might be a precursor to Herihor and Thebes separating from the north. Ramses XI was still technically the king at this time, but the high priest was clearly influential and distant 260 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 185. 261 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 166. 262 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 188 A. 88 89 enough to depict himself in the role of the king, even though he was giving the minimum credit to Ramses. § 3.5b Herihor as King At an unidentifiable point during Herihor’s tenure, though likely after the death of Ramses XI and around the same time that Thebes split away from the northern kingdom, the high priest progressed from reliefs and inscriptions that emulated royal standards to fully adopting kingly attributes. These attestations of Herihor’s kingship are almost exclusively found in the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak. Herihor took on both visual aspects of kingship in decorative reliefs and titles and epithets. Herihor himself is captioned as, ᶜnḫ nṯr nfr s3 Jmn nb t3wj nb ḫᶜw (ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn)| (s3-Jmn Ḥrj-Ḥr)| dj ᶜnḫ tjt rᶜ ḫnt t3wj stp.n Tm ḏs.f263 Living Young God, son of Amun, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of the Crowns, High Priest of Amun, Siamun-Herihor, given life, the image of Re at the fore of the Two Lands, whom Atum chose himself. These typical kingly epithets demonstrate the partial divinity of the king, label him as the son of the king of the gods, and associates him with Re. The unusual part of his titulary comes in the form of his throne name. Herihor retained the title of high priest of Amun and merely enclosed it in a cartouche, instead of choosing a new, more traditional throne name. It is unclear why he decided to keep this title as one of his king’s names, as traditionally newly appointed kings dropped their previously held private titles. Though the motivation behind the name was not recorded, it nonetheless highlights the importance that the role of high priest of Amun played in the Theban area and the significance it held to Herihor.264 He is also referred to as the son of Re and s3 Jmn n 263 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 8, 8-12. There are two previous New Kingdom precedents for Herihor’s continued use of this title. During his short reign, 264 Ay used his title jt nṯr as a royal name encased in a cartouche (Schaden 1984, fig. 23). On the south wall of the 89 90 265 ẖt.f, “Amun’s son of his body,” implying the divine birth typical of New Kingdom and later kings. In a sailing scene decorating the Khonsu temple, it is said that Herihor will be “apparent in glory on the throne of Horus of the living like his father Re, forever,” ḫᶜw ḥr st Ḥr nt ᶜnḫw mj jt.f rᶜ ḏt.266 Beyond titles and epithets of a traditional king, Herihor’s kingship is explicitly referred to in the reliefs of the temple, both in the texts and visually through Herihor’s garments and actions. As follows the Egyptian conception of kingship as a divine institution granted to humanity by the gods, Herihor is said to have been given the kingship by various deities. In one scene, Herihor presents an offering to Amun-Re wearing a cap crown with a uraeus and a bull’s tail, as can be seen in Figure 3. The god tells him, dj.(j) n.k ᶜnḫ w3s nb...dj.(j) n.k nsyt...dj.(j) n.k t3w m ḥtp,267 “I give you all life and domination...I give you kingship...I give you lands in peace.” In another scene, Herihor offers bouquets to Khonsu-Re, wearing again a cap crown with a uraeus and an intricate kilt with a line of uraei lining the bottom of the garment. Khonsu-Re says to Herihor, dj.n.(j) n.k nsyt t3wj,268 “I have given you the kingship of the Two Lands.” Herihor is also depicted offering ma’at to Khonsu, in a cap crown with uraeus, a heavily pleated kilt, and a bull’s tail.269 As previously mentioned in Chapter Two, one of the primary functions of kingship, and therefore responsibility of each king, was to maintain the ma’at/order of the universe by appeasing the gods. Here, Herihor is shown performing one of the most vital actions of a king. Though not visually Hypostyle Hall at the Temple of Amun at Karnak, there is a relief of a procession of the Theban barques with two figures of Ramses II (Nelson 1981, Pl. 53). The first is a traditional depiction of him censing the barques. The second shows the king in front of the barque of Amun, wearing a priestly leopard skin and a cap crown with a uraeus. The inscription labels him as ḥm nṯr tpj n Jmn nswt bjt (Wsr-m3ct-rc)| s3 rc (Mrj-Jmn Rc-ms)|. Though the title is not used as a royal name, the assignment of the office of high priest to a king is unusual and could reflect that, even before the Third Intermediate Period, the possibilities of kingship were malleable. 265 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 15, 8. 266 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 31, 13. 267 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 192 C. 268 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 8, 3. 269 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 15. 90 91 shown, Herihor inscribed a depiction of the facade of the second pylon at Karnak with descriptions of his building activities in the name of Amun, stating jr.n.f m mnw.f n jt.f Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw sm3wj n.f sḥḏ w3st m m3w ntj rn.f Jmn m rwšw smnḫ n.f pr ḫnsw-m-w3st nfr-ḥtp r ḏt270 He made as his monument to his father, Amun-Re, king of the gods, the restoring for him of “Illuminating Thebes” anew, the name of which is “Amun is in Joy” and the perfecting for him of the house of Khonsu-in-Thebes Neferhotep forever. Herihor is not only shown performing activities of kingship but receiving the royal status and the rewards that accompany the institution. The act of coronation of kingship itself is depicted in a mythological style, with Horus and Seth bestowing the Double Crown to Herihor, who sits on a throne and holds the crook and flail while wearing an intricate kilt and a false beard, as seen in Figure 4.271 Hathor is portrayed giving uraei, one crowned with the Red Crown and the other with the White Crown, and two cartouches with Herihor’s name, Siamun-Herihor and High Priest of Amun.272 Herihor is also shown receiving life and dominion from Atum, who is said to give him nsyt rᶜ j3wt Tm pḥtj nbwj,273 “the kingships of Re, the office of Atum, and the strength of the Two Lords,” and Hathor says to him, dj.n.(j) n.k qnj r rst [n]ḫt r mḥw t3w nbw ḫ3swt nb dmḏ [ẖr] ṯbwtj.k,274 “I have given to you valor against the South and force against the Delta and all the lands and foreign countries united [under] your sandals.” In addition to the more typical, everyday ritual activities, Herihor also depicted himself participating in the Opet Festival. The Opet Festival was a ritual procession of the barques of the Theban triad from the Karnak complex to the Luxor temple in southern Thebes. The purpose and theme of the Opet festival can be understood through the study of the decoration of the Luxor 270 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 52, 3-5. 271 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 57 B. 272 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 59 A. 273 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 71, 3. 274 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 102, 10. 91 92 temple. Much of it relates to the story of Horus and his succession to the throne, showing the birth of Horus (i.e. the king), the acceptance of his kingly status by the gods, the coronation, and jubilee festivals.275 This connection of the king to Horus and the focus on Horus’ kingship reveals the primary function of the Luxor temple, and by extension the Opet festival, a site of the cult of the royal ka.276 The royal ka is the divine aspect of kingship, bestowed on each king by the gods, which marks the ruler as the rightful ruler. At his coronation, the king “becomes one with the royal ka, when his human form is overtaken by this immortal element.”277 Many of the royal names inscribed in the decoration at Luxor are not specific to a king but instead are a more generalized royal ka name, “Foremost of All the Living Kas.”278 This shows that the Opet festival was meant to uphold kingship more broadly, with a focus on the office itself rather than the individual. It was through the coronation that the king becomes both divine and human, rising above the rest of humanity, and that status was maintained through the celebration of the Opet. The same ka was passed down and inherited by each king. This made kingship as an institution immortal, even though each individual possessor eventually succumbed to their human nature and passed away. By depicting himself participating in the Opet festival, Herihor was ensuring that the bedrock of Egyptian society, kingship itself, endured. Above the barque of Amun-Re, an inscription reads, rᶜ-ḥr k3 nḫt s3 Jmn nbtj sḥb w3st m mnw wr nsw-bjt nb t3wj se-Jmn Ḥry-Ḥr nṯr nfr ᶜnḫ mjtt rᶜ sḥḏ t3wj mj 3ḫt[j] nb s[twt] mj [jtn]ḥᶜcwj n.f t3w nbw nb ḫcw mrr rᶜ qm3.n jt.f Jmn r ḥq3 n šn nb Jtn nsw kmt ḥq3 dšr jtj wᶜf pḏt 9 jst ḥm.f m nswt m k3 rnp pr c ḫpšy nḫt ᶜ mj [mnṯ] nswt nṯrj nb wrr nfr ḥr ḫc […] wr pḥtj mj mnṯw m sḫm.f pḥtj nbswj [m r]-cwj.f hb prj mj [nbwj] mk [wsr.f jm]t jr.n n.f jt.f rᶜ t3š.f ḏr[w] bjk nṯrj [s3b] šwt ḏ3 pt mj ḥm n rᶜ rdj n.f jt.f Jmn nḫt r ḫ3st nb279 Re-Horus, strong bull, son of Amun, he of the Two Ladies, who causes Thebes to be festive with great monuments, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Siamun Herihor, Living Young God, the likeness of Re, brightening the 275 Bell 1985, 255. 276 Bell 1985, 252. 277 Bell 1985, 258. 278 Bell 1985, 267. 279 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 20, 8-34. 92 93 Two Lands like him of the horizon, Lord of rays like [the sun disk], for whom all the lands are excited, Lord of the Appearances, whom Re loves, whom his father, Amun, created in order to be the ruler of everything the sun disk encompasses, king of the Black Land, ruler of the Red Land, sovereign who supresses the [Nine Bows]. For his Majesty is a king like an active, strong armed young bull, forceful of arm like Montu, divine king, Lord of the Crown, gracious one who appears [...] great of strength like Montu in his control, in whose actions is the Two Lords’ strength, who gouges the battlefield like [the Ombite, whose power] protect Egypt, whose boundary his father, Re, has made for him to the limits, divine falcon [of dappled] plumage, who crosses the sky like the majesty of Re, to whom his father, Amun, gave victories over every foreign land. In this inscription, every epithet and description relates to Herihor’s role as king, through comparison to the gods and Herihor’s relationships with them. The high priest is not just portrayed fulfilling a king’s duties but is also taking on all the divine trappings that accompanied the position. This connection between the divine realm and the kingship was a vital one that allowed the king to be a conduit between humanity and the gods. Here, Herihor demonstrates his divine qualities as king and stresses his close, personal relationships with the gods who maintain the cosmos. In another inscription over the barque of Amun-Re, in a very similar scene, Amun-Re speaks to Herihor, jw mnw.k ḫᶜw m Jpt-swt s3.j bnr mrt nb t3wj s3-Jmn Ḥr-Ḥr wbn.j m Jpt-swt ḥr.k nfr r djt jr.k ḥḥw m rnpwt mj tm dj.j psḏ mnw.k jr.k n.j m-ẖnw Jpt-swt ḏt bj3t n ḥ3t.j n ḥr.k nfr snsn jcrt n [ḥrt-tp].k rdj n.k rswt mj mḥw jry.j njnj n ḥr.k mrytj swsḫ.j wsr.k r t3 nb m wsḫ ḫbyt ᶜ3t mr ḥr sr n.k nḫtw r ḫ3st nb dm3 wrw.sn ẖr ṯbwtj.k jw.k jmj ḥ3t.j jb.k 3w mn m Jpt-swt nb nḫt dj.j n.k t3 nb dmḏ pḏt 9 m ks n šfyt.k swsḫ.n.k pr.j m m3wj st wrt mj 3ḫt nt pt280 Your monuments are apparent in Karnak, my son, sweet of love, Lord of the Two Lands, Siamun-Herihor. I rise in Karnak to your beautiful face to make you have millions of years like Atum. I make your monuments, which you made for me inside of Karnak, shine forever. The wonder of my countenance is for your beautiful face and the uraeus associates with your headgear. Given to you are the southern ones and the Deltan ones. I make greetings before you, beloved one. I extend your power against every land in the great festival court, beloved one, predicting for you victories over every foreign land, their chiefs bound under your sandals, while you are before me, your heart rejoicing and enduring in Karnak. Strong lord, I give to you every land united and the Nine Bows with obeisance in awe of you, for you expanded my house anew, a great place like the horizon of the sky. 280 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 21, 1-17. 93 94 This text not only demonstrates a close relationship with Amun, but also confirms that Herihor was completing the significant tasks of keeping the gods appeased, through the building of magnificent monuments for them, and keeping chaos at bay by conquering foreign powers that represented a threat to Egypt’s safety and order. Herihor’s kingship is not only mentioned in relation to himself, but with his family as well. A relief in the court of the Khonsu temple depicts a procession of his wife, Nedjmet, his sons, and his daughters. They are given honorary titles typical of a king’s immediate family and several hold administrative and religious offices, which follows New Kingdom conventions described in the previous chapter. Nedjmet is labeled as ḥnwt šmᶜw mḥw, “Mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt,” and ḥmt nsw wrt, “Great King’s Wife.” In addition to other epithets, she is said to be wrt ḫnrt n Jmn-rᶜ, “principal of the harem of Amun-Re.”281 The relief is not very well preserved, and it is difficult to determine what type of headdress the queen wears, though she is depicted in a long, flowing, pleated garment. His eldest son is referred to as, s3 nsw n ẖt.f [...] jmj-r pr wr n Jmn ḥm nṯr n Mwt ḥm nṯr 2 nw Jmn jmj-r ssmwt n nb t3wy ᶜnḫ[f-n-mwt],282 “king’s son of his body [...] chief steward of the house of Amun, priest of Mut, second priest of Amun, the overseer of the horses of the Lord of the Two Lands, Ankh[efenmut].” The phrase s3(t) nsw n ẖt.f, which identifies Ankhefenmut and the rest of his children as actual offspring of Herihor, rather than the honorific title of s3 nsw, was a common honorary epithet for in the New Kingdom. Herihor’s son, Ankhefenamen, also held several religious offices, such as ḥm nṯr 3 nw Jmn, “third priest of Amun,” ḥm nṯr n Jn-Ḥrt, “priest of Onuris,” and ḥm nṯr n Ḥr bḥdt,283 “priest of Horus of Edfu.” Another relief from the same court depicts Nedjmet, holding an infant, and a princess before a 281 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 26, 1. 282 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 26, 2. 283 Epigraphic Survey 1979, 5. 94 95 shrine of Mut. Both women wear long, flowing dresses with decorative trim and don almost identical dresses composed of tall feathers and stalks of rosettes that share some similarities with the typical headdress of Anuket. The queen is described as ḥmt nswt wrt n nb t3wy wrt ḫnrt n Jmn- rᶜ nswt nṯrw ḥrt mnᶜwt n Mwt,284 “Chief King’s Wife of the Lord of the Two Lands, principal of the harem of Amun-Re, king of the gods, superior of the nurses of Mut.” Nedjmet is not only shown dressed as a queen, but is clearly associated with the, Mut, the consort of Amun and a goddess frequently equated with queens. The princess, Shesebeke, is also a wrt ḫnrt n Jmn-rᶜ.285 § 3.5c Lack of Royal Presence Understanding Herihor’s career and his displays of kingship are made especially difficult by several pieces of evidence that do not mention any specific king, most of which are undated. A seated scribal statue of Herihor discovered in Karnak (CG 42190) gives a list of his titles. The inscription does not mention a date nor does it reference Ramses XI directly, which makes placing this statue within the chronology of Herihor’s career difficult. Part of the text inscribed on the scroll in his lap reads, ḥm-nṯr tpj [n] Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw jmj-r njwt ṯ3tj [s3 nswt] n kš jmj-r mšᶜ [w]r nw šmᶜw mḥw sḥtp t3wj n nb.f Jmn286 The high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, the overseer of the city, the ṯ3tj, king’s son of Kush, the chief overseer of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt, who pacifies the Two Lands for his lord, Amun. Herihor has reached a stage in his career where he is the leading official in the three categories of governance but Amun is mentioned as his lord, not Ramses XI. The “king” is mentioned, but in a 284 Epigraphic Survey 1979, Pl. 28 B, 6-7. 285 Epigraphic Survey 1979, 9. 286 KRI VI 843, 16. 95 96 more general sense (nsw) as part of Herihor’s titles and does not provide enough evidence that Ramses XI was still ruling in the south as the word nsw had simply become part of the title of the administrator of Nubia by this point. In fact, the action of pacifying the Two Lands for Amun is a very kingly act to attribute to a private individual and yet Herihor gives no signs of having become king. Around the base, the inscription reads, jmj-r ḫ3swt rsj jr 3ḫw m pr Jmn ḫrp n.f t3 nb dmḏ ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw Ḥry-Ḥr m3ᶜ ḫrw287 The overseer of the southern foreign lands who has done excellent things in the house of Amun and manages for him every land united, the high priest of Amun- Re, king of the gods, Herihor, true of voice. Again, Herihor is credited for serving Amun, rather than Ramses XI, and implies control of foreign lands with phrases typical reserved for a king without using kingly titles. Another example of an undated piece of evidence that does not mention a king is an inscription from that the Temple of Khonsu that describes Herihor’s building activities that please the gods, psḏt ᶜ3t m ḥb n m3.f wḥm ms tjt šps m nbw nfr ᶜ3t nb m3ᶜt mj [rᶜ] wḥm.n.f msw wḏḥw ᶜš3t m ḥḏ nbw r sḥtp k3.f rc nb288 The Great Ennead is in festival at seeing him refashion the august image in fine gold and true precious stones like [Re], having refashioned many offering tables in silver and gold in order to satisfy his ka every day. Once again, Herihor is not given any kingly titles, and there is no accompanying scene which might give clues through presentation and decoration, but the wording of the inscription is evocative of a king. Ramses XI is absent, despite similar texts carried out under his orders, as seen above. It is impossible to know whether these examples date to before or after Ramses XI’s death. Either way, they have significant implications for the level of control Herihor had over the Theban 287 KRI VI 844, 1. 288 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 196, 4-5. 96 97 region at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. If Ramses XI was still ruling, Herihor was powerful enough to defy the king and decorate the Khonsu temple on his own without any mention of his superior without any known reproach, effectively ruling the south on his own. If, however, Ramses XI was no longer the official king of the southern regions of Egypt, then Herihor was the leader of the Theban region, stepping in the role of ruler in the wake of Ramses XI without taking on the mantle of kingship. This type of leadership would be a stark deviation from the traditional model of Egypt government seen through the New Kingdom. The Story of Wenamun might give credence to the theory of Herihor ruling the South as a private, non-royal individual. The papyrus containing the story was discovered in el-Hibeh in the early 1890s and brought to Moscow, where it is now known as Papyrus Pushkin 120.289 It is set during the very beginning of the Twenty-First Dynasty and is dated to “Year 5, fourth month of Harvest, sixteenth day,” rnpt-ḥsb 5 4 šmw 16,290 but whose Year 5 is not specified. Linguistic interpretations put the date of composition at the mid-Twenty-First Dynasty, possibility the beginning of the Twenty-Second.291 This is also supported by paleographic analysis. Baines suggests it was composed roughly 50 years after the actual setting of the story.292 Wenamun, the main character, travels to Tanis in the north, presumably from Thebes, given the references of Amun. Wenamun explains, hrw n sprw j.jrw.j r ḏᶜnt r p3 [ntj nsj-sw-b3-nb-]ḏd tj-nt-jm jm jw.j djt n.w n3 wḫ3 n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw293 On the day of my arrival at Tanis, at the place which Nesubanebdjed (Smendes) and Tentamun are in, I gave to them requests of Amun-Re, King of the Gods. 289 Winand 2011, 541. 290 Gardiner 1932, 61, 1. 291 Winand 2011, 547-549. 292 Baines 1999, 210. 293 Gardiner 1932, 61, 4-5. 97 98 Wenamun sets out from Thebes on the orders on Amun, conveyed to him by Herihor as it will be seen later, in order to gather wood for a new barque of the god. He stops in Tanis in the Delta and seems to appeal to Smendes and his wife for assistance in reaching Byblos through a mutual desire to keep Amun appeased. Immediately, this story makes clear that Smendes rules in the north and Herihor controls the south, making the setting of the story after the death of Ramses XI apparent. Despite the establishment of stable rulers in both regions of Egypt, there is no indication in the text that either man is a king. No cartouches appear in the text and no royal titles or epithets are given to any of the named characters. Smendes and Tentamun are given the strange title of n3 snntjw t3 j.djw Jmn n p3 mḥw n p3y.f t3,294 “the land-organizers that Amun has given to the north of his land.” As seen in the excerpt below, following a robbery of his ship, Wenamun refers to Herihor simply as nb.j, “my lord,” and it is Amun who is said to be nb t3wy, “Lord of the Two Lands.” y3 jr p3 ḥḏ ns Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw p3 nb n n3 t3w ns sw ns-sw-b3-nb-ḏd n sw Ḥr-Ḥrwj p3y.j nb295 Indeed, as for the payment, it belongs to Amun-Re, king of the gods, Lord of the Two Lands. It belongs to Nesubanebdjed. It belongs to Herihor, my lord. Herihor is connected directly to Wenamun, as the one he serves, not Smendes, which supports the interpretation of Herihor ruling independently, separate from the north. The only official title Herihor is associated with in the text is that of high priest of Amun. When holding an audience with Wenamun, the prince of Byblos questions the messenger, Mk mntk m3ᶜ.tw sw tn p3 wḫ3 n Jmn ntj m ḏrt.k sw tnw t3 šᶜ n p3 ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn ntj m ḏrt.k jw.j ḏd n.f dj.j st n ns-sw-b3-nb-ḏd tjnt-Jmn296 Look, you are in the right. Where is the request of Amun, which was in your hand? Where is the letter of the high priest of Amun, which was in your hand? I said to him: I gave them to Nesubanebdjed and Tentamun. 294 Gardiner 1932, 70, 10-11. 295 Gardiner 1932, 62, 6-9. 296 Gardiner 1932, 66, 8-11. 98 99 While Herihor’s supremacy in the Theban area seems to be understood within the story, he is still viewed, even by foreign leaders, as Amun’s high priest. The overall impression is that Herihor is the conduit for Amun’s orders, ensuring that the god’s commands are obeyed. Wenamun demonstrates this relationship when he explains why he has made the trip to Byblos, [y]3 j.n.f n Jmn-rᶜ nswt nṯrw ḏd n Ḥr-Ḥr p3y.j nb wḏ sw jw.f djt jw.j ẖr p3j nṯr ᶜ3297 “So,” said Amun-Re, king of the gods, speaking to Herihor, my lord, “Send him,” and he made me come with the great god. Herihor is the one who issued the directive to Wenamun, but at the will of the god. Even more unusual is that specific past kings are not given royal titles. Wenamun refers to a man named Khaemweset sending messengers to Byblos in previous years.298 The most likely candidates are Ramses IX and XI, both of whose nomens contained the name, but no title or cartouche is given. Long lists of titles are not common in literary text but Baines theorizes that the lack of any official titles for Smendes, Tentamun, and Khaemwaset might indicate a familiarity with these figures with the audience.299 This is certainly a possibility but, given the literary nature of the work, it is also feasible that the specific nature of identity of these characters was not central for the story and thus not given in detail. The existence of kingship is not denied, however, as the prince of Byblos recalls relations with Egypt during the time of his father and grandfather, saying, y3 j.jrw n3y.j jrj p3j sḥnw jw djw pr ᶜ3 l.p.h. jn.tw 6 bry j.w 3tp n 3ḫt n kmt,300 “Indeed, my people conducted this business only after the Pharaoh, l.p.h., had sent six ships laden with goods from Egypt.” Wenamun himself replies, jr p3y.k ḏd wnw n3 bsyt ḥ3wtj djt jn.tw ḥḏ nbw hnn wnw dj.w ᶜnḫ snb wnw bn j.w djt jn.tw n3 ḫwt,301 297 Gardiner 1932, 69, 9-10. 298 Gardiner 1932, 72, 6. 299 Baines 1999, 213. 300 Gardiner 1932, 67, 14-16. 301 Gardiner 1932, 69, 14-16. 99 100 “As to your saying, the former kings sent silver and gold; if they had life and health, they would not have sent those things.” With these lines, both a foreigner and an Egyptian acknowledged that Egypt previously had kings, which makes the lack of royalty in the current time period of the story all the more unusual. A possible explanation for this is offered by Winand, who explains that to “strip the characters of their title reinforces by contrast the superiority of Amun, who appears as the real king, acting on earth through his delegates.”302 This would explain the lack of royal titles for any human character in the story, the epithet “Lord of the Two Lands” being applied to Amun, and the comfort of Wenamun with referring to previous kings. § 3.5d King or Private Ruler? In much of the literature that has previously been discussed, Herihor is either painted as a fully legitimate king or a private official who failed in his attempt to become a true king. This assumption that Herihor must have been attempting to be a king and fit into a mold based on the long tradition of Egyptian leadership limits the interpretation of the available evidence. In discussing the “Year 5” mentioned in Wenamun, Thijs assumes it must refer to a regnal year of a king. He writes that it “cannot have been Herihor himself: in the story Herihor seems to be portrayed as the Theban High Priest of Amun, not as king...We can perhaps not entirely exclude the possibility that Herihor as a high priest counted regnal years of his own, but the natural assumption with any High Priest is that he served under a king, accepting the royal monopoly on eponymy.”303 Though he says possibility of the years of a high priest cannot be ruled out, he immediately dismisses this idea. This assumption, and the unspecified Year 6 from the coffins of 302 Winand 2011, 552. 303 Thijs 2005, 79. 100 101 Ramses II and Seti I, are the driving force behind his theory of another unknown king after Ramses XI, which seems unlikely and results in a convoluted and confusing presentation of the evidence. Thijs cannot conceive of a ruler who is not also a king but this is his own bias limiting his interpretations. This was a period of upheaval and change, which makes it all the more likely that the unusual was possible. If we put aside the idea that a leader in Egypt must have been a king, we can start to look at the evidence of Herihor’s rule and its origins with more objectivity. The only attestations of Herihor himself presenting himself as king are found in the decoration at Karnak, mostly in the Temple of Khonsu. No other evidence has been found with Herihor displayed as a king, and there even exists examples of temple decoration that do not seem to mention any king at all, as seen above. If we do not burden ourselves with the idea that every political leader had to be a king, or must have wanted to be considered one, we can begin to entertain the theory that Herihor was not trying to be an actual king in the traditional sense. This theory is one supported by Jansen-Winkeln, who maintains that Herihor was meant to be understood as a servant to the true king, Amun.304 It has already been shown that Herihor referred to Amun as “the Lord of the Two Lands,” and “my lord,” epithets traditionally given to the king of Egypt. Amun is also presented as the decision maker in the story of Wenamun, with Herihor acting as his translator on earth. Amun is the one who is credited with the idea of Wenamun going to Byblos to fetch wood. This would also help contextualize Herihor’s throne name. If Amun was the only real king, a throne name of “High Priest of Amun,” even as part of a royal titularly and enclosed in a cartouche, would have highlighted Herihor’s true position and purpose as a servant to the god and his human deputy on earth. The throne name, or praenomen, was an especially important part of the royal titular; it was usually the one chosen when a king was mentioned by only one name, such as king lists. Given 304 Jansen-Winkeln 2001, 164. 101 102 that the phrase nsw-bjt likely refers to the divine institution of kingship and also the human individual occupying the throne, the throne name was a significant decision that set the tone for the king’s reign.305 Jansen-Winkeln believes that after the end of the New Kingdom, Libyans took over the government of Egypt, leading to the restructuring of the country into two power centers. He interprets the indications of Amun being the true king as a political move by Libyan leaders in the South to make foreign rule more palatable to the native Egyptians in Upper Egypt.306 Jansen- Winkeln views the shift in ruling style that occurred with Herihor as too abrupt to be Egyptian in nature and therefore supposes it must have been a result of new foreigner ideas and ruling practices. The foundation to Herihor’s new style of governance is twofold: ideological and administrative. I will demonstrate how both of these elements can be traced back to earlier Egyptian trends in the New Kingdom and give a native origin for this unusual form of ruler. The ideological beginnings of Amun as king can be seen in the New Kingdom, before the rise of Herihor in the South. Jansen-Winkeln briefly acknowledges this but dismisses its importance relatively quickly.307 Throughout the New Kingdom, Amun-Re is referred to as nswt nṯrw, “king of the gods,” as can be seen in many of the inscriptions translated in this work. The concept of Amun being a king is not restricted to this epithet. A hymn to Amun-Re preserved on Papyrus Cairo 58038, also known as Papyrus Bouloaq 17, contains descriptions of the god in relation to kingship. It has been dated paleographically to the Eighteenth Dynasty, specifically the reign of Amenhotep II.308 The god is said to be nb nst t3wy,309 “Lord of the Throne of the Two 305 Leprohon 2013, 17. 306 Jansen-Winkeln 2001, 173-174. This idea is supported in Broekman 2012, 195-209. 307 Jansen-Winkeln 2001, 162. 308 Luisell 2004), xv. 309 Luiselli 2004, 41, A 1.2. 102 103 Lands,” nswt-bjt (rᶜ)| m3ᶜ ḫrw ḥrj tp t3wj,310 “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Re, triumphant, superior over the Two Lands,” and jty l.p.h. nb nṯrw nbw,311 “sovereign, l.p.h., and Lord of all gods.” In addition to these epithets, a passage of the hymn imagines him as the possessor of several traditional kingly symbols and regalia; qmytj jmj ᶜḥ sḫmtj nms ḫprš nfr ḥr šsp.f 3tf mryw šmᶜ.s ḥnᶜ mḥw.s nb sḫmtj šsp.f 3ms nb mks ẖrj nḫḫ ḥq3 nfr ḫᶜ m ḥḏt312 Anointed one who is in the palace, with the double crown, the nemes, and the Blue Crown, beautiful one receiving the atef crown, he whom the crowns of the South and North wanted, Lord of the Double Crown who receives the scepter, lord of the mks, bearer of the flail, good ruler appearing in the White Crown. Though this is a religious text and not an administrative or historical one, these epithets and descriptions make clear that Amun-Re was already being conceived of as a king in some form as far back as the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Papyrus Leiden 350 also closely associates Amun with both the establishment of kingship and the upkeep of it. Assmann translates the relevant section as, “erschienen auf seinem Thron, nach dem Wunsch seines Herzens, er trat die Herrschaft an über alles Seiende mit seiner [Kraft]. Er knüpfte das Königtum, von Ewigkeit zu Unendlichkeit, bleibend als Einherr.”313 This text was originally thought to date to after the reign of Akhenaten, but a version was found in a tomb from the reign of Amenhotep III.314 This trend continues into the Ramesside period, as evidenced by hymns to Amun found in Theban tombs of the time. One hymn, versions of which appear in four Ramesside tombs, assigns the title “King of Upper and Lower Egypt” to Amun and implies he is, and forever will be, the king; “Dein Königtum ist die unendliche Zeit, dein Herrschaftsgebiet ist die unwandelbare Dauer, König von Ober- und 310 Luiselli 2004, 49, A 2.2. 311 Luiselli 2004, 67, A 5.2-3. 312 Luiselli 2004, 56, A 3.3-58, A 3.5. 313 Assmann 1999, 330, 11-14. 314 Baines 1991, 188. 103 104 Unterägypten.”315 Though Amun was not thought of as the “true” king in place of the human counterpart at this time, the ideological foundations for Amun as the one true king were clearly forming from the beginning of the New Kingdom. If Herihor ruled in the Theban area based on this idea, it would have been heavily rooted in the developing Egyptology solar theology of the recent times, though an extreme version of it. Ideologically, Herihor’s approach to ruling seems to be based on the New Kingdom conception of Amun as a king. Administratively, Herihor’s reign can be interpreted as a natural progression of the evolution of officialdom in the New Kingdom. As I demonstrated in Chapter Two, over the course of the New Kingdom, it became more common for officials to hold titles across multiple spheres of the kingdom, namely administrative, religious, and military. Towards the end of the Ramesside period, several officials who held the highest possible titles in two of these areas of society became to appear. This culminated in the figure of Piankh at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, who served as high priest of Amun, chief overseer of the army, and ṯ3tj concurrently. Given that Herihor was already in a place of power in the Theban area, possessing the same three titles, at the time of the death of Ramses XI, it seems like a logical development for him to have stepped into a leading role as control of the kingdom as a united whole was faltering. These interdisciplinary officials had been steadily growing their influence in the Theban area and evidence from Piankh and Herihor points to a growing independence and separation from the king. Herihor ruling as a non-royal individual, gaining and maintaining his power through the control of the three main branches of society, is ultimate expression of this administrative trend. Though a possible influence from Libyan culture cannot be fully ruled out, there is ample evidence of Egyptian origins for the ideological and political changes that occur during Herihor’s rule, stemming from government trends and religious thought in the New Kingdom. 315 Assmann 1999, 235, 24-26. 104 105 If Herihor did not intend to be a traditional king, but recognized Amun as the true Lord of the Two Lands, as I have shown is the most likely interpretation of the evidence, why did he decorate the Temple of Khonsu in the style of a king? The answer to this question can perhaps be found by focusing on the context of these reliefs and inscriptions: a divine temple. As discussed previously, the main role of kingship as an institution was to keep order in the universe and defend Egypt against the forces of disorder. This was not merely tradition but believed to be necessary to keep the cosmos functioning properly.316 One of the main ways to ensure order triumphed on a daily basis was to keep the gods appeased, through temple ritual, decoration, and maintenance. Each temple was a representation of the first moment of creation and operated as a point of contact and intersection of the divine and earthly realms.317 Shafer explains, “Because of order’s ongoing vulnerability to chaos, Egyptians needed to conceive of creation not as a single past event but as a series of “first times,” of sacred regenerative moments recurring regularly within the sacred space of temples through the media of rituals and architecture.”318 In traditional Egyptian ideology, the king was the only true priest, a status available to him alone due to the combination of human and divine natures within him. This was obviously not the case in reality, as the entire priestly system existed to fulfill this role on behalf of the king. For this reason, however, the king himself was always shown leading the temple rituals, both daily and festival, within the decoration of the sacred places.319 Even though the true king was Amun, it would be highly unusual to show the king of the gods worship and be subservient to himself and other gods, especially within his own temple complex. Humans, not gods, were meant to keep the deities appeased through rituals in the temple so a divine king would complicate matters. However, as discussed, the king had been established 316 Baines 1995, 11. 317 Shafer 1997, 8. Eaton 2013, 15. 318 Shafer 1997, 2. 319 Shafer 1997, 9. 105 106 as the champion of order and the key to keeping the divine realm satisfied for thousands of years. A simple solution to this issue was decoration portraying Herihor acting as a human surrogate to Amun. The institution of kingship could therefore be properly maintained to protect humanity and the universe without changing the very nature of the roles played by the living and the divine. Human participation was still a vital part of the process of the renewal of kingship, which allowed for the “cyclical regeneration of Amun-Re himself,”320 and the best candidate for such a role would be the highest ranked private individual. § 3.6 Conclusion Most scholars have interpreted Herihor’s reign as an attempt at “legitimate,” traditional Egyptian kingship, whether failed or successful. However, this chapter has demonstrated that the most likely explanation of the attestations of this “king” is one that deviates from the typical approach of Pharaonic material in Egyptology. By setting aside modern biases on what it meant to be an Egyptian leader, the nature of kingship, and the possibility for change and innovation, Herihor’s tenure can be understood as a new form of “private” rule. The ideological, political, and administrative precursors to this shift in Upper Egypt can be traced to the beginning of the New Kingdom. Though the innovations and changes that occurred at the start of the Third Intermediate Period were, in a way, unprecedented, it is clear that they grew out of the culture of private officials in the previous era and the developing religious views surrounding the divine realm, and Amun specifically. The events involving Amenhotep and Panehesy during the reign of Ramses XI and the career of the powerful Piankh combined to create a vulnerable atmosphere in the Theban area that allowed for the birth of this “private rule.” 320 Bell 1985, 290. 106 107 CHAPTER FOUR: LEADERSHIP IN UPPER EGYPT DURING THE TWENTY-FIRST DYNASTY § 4.1 Introduction The split between Upper and Lower Egypt seems to have finally occurred during the reign of Herihor, though indications of unrest with the political situation can be seen in one of Piankh’s private letters. With the kings of the Twenty-First Dynasty establishing themselves at Tanis in the Delta, the high priests of Amun in Thebes continued to exert their control over Upper Egypt. Scholars have debated over the nature of the relationship between Tanis and Thebes, which will be discussed in detail below. Some maintain that the high priests were never truly “legitimate kings” and therefore could not have been the rulers of the south. Others suggest two separate lines of kings, one in the north and one in the south, but did not know how to explain the high priests who do not eventually take on royal status in some capacity. In this chapter, I will focus on three high priests of Amun that postdate Herihor: Pinedjem I, Masaharta, and Menkheperre. Through examining texts, art, and evidence of building activity during this period, I will show how the high priests of the first half of the Twenty-First Dynasty followed in Herihor’s footsteps. If we accept the theory that the Upper Egyptian rulers in the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period were not concerned with whether they were “legitimate kings” as they were granted their power ideologically through Amun and, in reality, the private 107 108 governmental offices they held, the unusual mixture of royal and non-royal portrayals becomes less befuddling. If presenting themselves as traditional kings was not necessary for maintaining control and the position of high priest was highly respected in the Theban area, they could vacillate between the two without issue. § 4.2 Twenty-First Dynasty High Priests of Amun § 4.2.1 Pinedjem I Pinedjem I was the first son of Piankh to hold the office of high priest of Amun. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the likely reason for Pinedjem succeeding Herihor, rather than one of the latter’s own sons, is based on the identity of Pinedjem’s mother. As explained in Chapter Three, it seems likely that Piankh’s wife and Pinedjem’s mother, Nedjmet, married Herihor after Piankh’s death. If Pinedjem was too young to hold this important office, which was usually hereditary at this time, the king would have needed to appoint someone in the child’s place. The child’s step-father, a prominent official himself, would have been a logical choice. Pinedjem’s assumption of the office after Herihor’s death would then have simply been him taking up the mantle that was always meant for him. In addition to being the son of a previous high priest of Amun at Thebes, Pinedjem created family ties with the Tanite kings to the north by marrying the daughter of Smendes and Tentamun, Henettawy.321 § 4.2.1a Pinedjem I without Royal Titles 321 Kitchen 1986, 49-50. 108 109 Pinedjem’s titles follow the tradition of Herihor and Piankh, demonstrating his authority in the three sections of government. Several examples of this are found in restoration inscriptions from the small temple at Medinet Habu. Pinedjem is described as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw jmj-r njwt ṯ3tj jmj-r mšc wr nw šmcw mḥw,322 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, overseer of the city, ṯ3tj, chief overseer of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt.” This shows that Pinedjem followed the example of previous leaders in Thebes and possessed the highest titles possible in the three areas of government simultaneously. In the same inscriptions, he is described as jmj-r k3t m mnw nb n Jmn-m-jpt,323 “overseer of works of all monuments of Amenopet.” Again, it was very typical of high priests at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty to possess a variation of the jmj-r k3t title. Like Herihor before him, most of the evidence of Pinedjem’s tenure as High Priest of Amun comes from the decoration of the Khonsu temple at the Karnak complex. Unfortunately, many of the reliefs and accompanying inscriptions of Pinedjem are not fully preserved. However, what remains allows us to get a sense of his approach to leadership, the status of kingship in Thebes during his tenure, and his relationship with Amun. As detailed in the previous chapter, Herihor’s early stage decoration does not contain any royal titles or physical attributes but portrays Herihor performing kingly duties with little or no mention of Ramses XI with rhetoric that seems better suited for a king rather than a private individual. Similarly, Pinedjem’s contribution to the décor of the Khonsu temple does not involve royal titles and stresses his office of high priest. However, he performs ritual kingly duties and occasionally dons royal attire, while the accompanying inscriptions speak of his kingship without ever giving him the title of king. This gives the 322 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 18. 323 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 20. 109 110 impression that Pinedjem was ruling Upper Egypt with the same authority level of a traditional king, even though he was not taking on the role officially. A relief scene of Pinedjem presenting flowers to the Theban triad324 is a perfect example of the complex nature of his presence as shown in the Khonsu temple, as seen in Figure 5. Scenes of offering directly before a god(s) were typically restricted to members of the royal family but Pinedjem himself wears a leopard skin, the traditional garb of an Egyptian priest. The three deities speak to Pinedjem directly in the accompanying inscription and the high priest is presented as the son of Amun and Mut. The goddess says to Pinedjem, jnk mwt.k,325 “I am your mother,” and speaks of her milk (jrṯt.j,326 “my milk”). The full line is not preserved, but this mention of her milk is most likely a reference to Pinedjem nursing from her breast, a scene often shown to highlight the close relationship between a king and a goddess. Khonsu explicitly states that Pinedjem occupies the throne and is the ruler, saying dj.j n.k j3wt.j st.j nst.j nsyt […] m ḥq3 t3wj,327 “I give to you my office, my seat, my throne, the […] kingship as ruler of the Two Lands.” Pinedjem is referred to as “Lord of the Two Lands” by Amun, but the god himself is also given kingly epithets. Part of the inscription near the god reads, ḏd mdw jn Jmn-rc nb nswt t3wj ḫnty jpt-st s3 n ẖt.j mr.j nb t3wj […] P3y-nḏm m3c ḫrw nfrwy mnw jr.k n.j jb.j ḥtp ḥr r.sn328 Words spoken by Amun-Re, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, foremost in Thebes: my bodily son, whom I love, Lord of the Two Lands […] Pinedjem, justified, you have made beautiful monuments for me. My heart is pleased with them. This combination of kingship and priesthood is further highlighted by the fact that Pinedjem’s string of titles is given simply as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm […] Jmn-rc nb nswt t3wj 324 Epigraphic Survey 1981, Pl. 113. 325 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 113, 11. 326 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 113, 12. 327 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 113, 14-16. 328 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 113, 1-4. 110 111 ḫnty jpt st,329 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem […] Amun-Re, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, foremost in Thebes.” This apparent dissonance of the language of the gods and the actions performed by Pinedjem with his priestly appearance and titles frequently emerges in his decoration of the Khonsu temple. A second relief depicting Pinedjem offering to the gods labels him simply as ḥm- nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3-[nḏm]330 while Khonsu explains, dj.n(.j) n.k nsyt t3wj ḏt ḥr bḥdw gb,331 “I gave to you the kingship of the Two Lands and eternity on the throne of Geb.” Immediately next to this relief, Pinedjem is shown offering oil to Amun and Amunet. The goddess says to him, dj.n(.j) n.k cnḫ w3st nb dj.j jw n.k ḫ3swt m hms 3tp ḥr psd.w r bw r.k m3c.j n.k wrw.sn ẖr ṯbw.k332 I gave to you all life and dominion. I will make foreign lands to come to you in humility, laden on their backs to where you are. I offer their great ones to you, under your sandals. Pinedjem wears the priestly leopard skin and is labelled as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm m3c ḫrw s3 P3j-cnḫ m3c ḫrw,333 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem, justified, son of Piankh, justified.” This short description occurs frequently, emphasizing only his title of high priest and the identity of his father, Piankh.334 Pinedjem is also depicted presenting ma’at, an extremely kingly action and responsibility, but he is shown once again wearing the leopard skin of a priest.335 329 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 113, 26-28. 330 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 114 A, 18. 331 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 114 A, 16. A similar sentiment is offered by Khonsu pl. 117 A, line 4 where the god says dj.n(.j) n.k nḥḥ m nsw t3wj, “I gave to you eternity as king of the Two Lands.” Unfortunately, the figure of Pinedjem is not preserved. 332 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 114 B, 9-12. 333 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 114 B, 13-14. 334 E.g. Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 116, 7, pl. 117 A, 5-6, pl. 125 A, 6-7. 335 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 122 B. 111 112 Out of all the Pinedjem inscriptions discussed thus far, there has been only one use of a royal epithet, that of “Lord of the Two Lands.” This makes the following dedicatory inscription highly unusual, as it contains a string of royal epithets and names Pinedjem as the king of Upper and Lower Egypt. It reads as follows, c nḫ Rc-Ḥr3ḫtj k3 nḫt Jmn […] nswt-bjt sḥtp nṯrw jrt 3ḫwt n k3.sn ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn- rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm m3c ḫrw s3 P3j-cnḫ m3c ḫrw jr.n m mnw.f n jt Ḫnsw jr n.f bḫnt m m3wt336 “Living Re-Horakhty, strong bull, […] of Amun, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who satisfies the gods and makes benefactions for their kas, the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem, justified, son of Piankh, justified, who has made his monument to his father, Khonsu, renewing a pylon for him. Here Pinedjem is labelled as the king and given two common royal epithets, yet he is still referred to as the high priest of Amun without any cartouches. In addition to being shown in priestly attire, there are a few reliefs located in the Khonsu temple that show Pinedjem in elements of traditional royal garb. In a scene where the high priest offers ointment, the majority of his figure is missing but enough is preserved to show that he wears a kilt with two uraei decorating the bottom of the garment, as seen in Figure 6.337 Pinedjem wears a similar kilt in a scene before Khonsu.338 Though damage to the relief obscures what type of headdress he wears, there are traces of a false beard on his chin and he holds a small mace in his left hand. While the mace is not exclusively a royal symbol, the king was frequently depicted using it as a weapon against his enemies while a false beard was worn only by gods and kings. In another scene where Pinedjem is seen with a false beard, he wears the khat headdress,339 a common piece of attire for kings. He is depicted with a cap crown in front of Khonsu, while wearing a leopard skin.340 The cap crown was worn by kings as far back as the Middle Kingdom and typically kings 336 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 121-125, 1. 337 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 119 B. 338 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 120 A. 339 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 121 B. 340 Epigraphic Survey 1981, pl. 121 A. 112 113 “wearing the cap-crown are acting in the role and/or priest of a deity…to emphasize his dedication to and worship of the gods.”341 The choice of this specific headdress is appropriate given his interaction with a god, highlighted by the choice of priestly attire. However, the cap-crown is a royal prerogative, making his lack of royal titles unusual. In all the above reliefs, where a title is preserved, Pinedjem is labelled as high priest of Amun without a cartouche. The most extreme example of Pinedjem’s adoption of royal regalia without royal titles is a kneeling statue found in the Karnak cache.342 Part of his legs are missing as well as his right hand, but the left hand clearly holds a nw pot. He wears the nemes headdress with a uraeus and a pleated kilt. An inscription, presented identically on both upper arms, reads, ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn P3y-nḏm s3 P3j-cnḫ, “high priest of Amun, Pinedjem, son of Piankh,” without cartouches or royal epithets. Pinedjem also usurped a colossal statue of Ramses II at Karnak, which shows the leader wearing typical royal regalia, but the Third Intermediate Period inscription simply reads, says ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y- nḏm s3 ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3j-cnḫ,343 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem, son of the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Piankh.” During his tenure as high priest, Pinedjem was responsible for moving some of the royal bodies to the cache at Deir el-Bahri. This is evidenced by texts preserved on the burials of some of the kings’ mummies discovered in the cache. A wrapping of Thutmose II reads, ḥsbt 6 3bd 3 prt sw 8 hrw pn wḏ.n ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm s3 n ḥm- nṯr tpj n Jmn P3j-cnḫ jmj-r pr-ḥḏ wr P3y-nfr-ḥr r wḥm sm3w n nsw (c3[ḫpr]-n- rc)|344 Year 6, third month of Peret, day 7. On this day, the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem, son of the high priest of Amun, Piankh, sent the chief overseer of the treasury, Pineferher, to renew the burial of the king, Aa[kheper]enre. An inscription on the coffin of Amenhotep I reads, 341 Ertman 1976, 64. 342 Legrain 1909, Pl. LIII. 343 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 5. 344 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 21. 113 114 ḥsbt 6 3bd 4 prt sw 7 hrw pn wḏ.n ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm s3 n ḥm- nṯr tpj n Jmn P3y-nḏm s3 P3j-cnḫ r wḥm qrs n nsw (Ḏsr-k3-rc)| s3 rc (Jmn-ḥtp)| l.p.h. jn jmj-r pr-ḥḏ P3[y-nfr-ḥr]345 Year 6, fourth month of Peret, day 7. On this day, the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem, son of the high priests of Amun, Pinedjem, son of Piankh, made a decree to renew the burial of the king, Djeserkare, son of Re, Amenhotep, l.p.h., by the overseer of the treasury, Pi[neferher]. Very similar texts are written on the mummy sheath of Ramses III and the mummy wrappings of Ramses II. The first is dated to Year 13 and the second to Year 15, both unspecified.346 Ritner dates these texts to the reign of Smendes, insisting that year dates can only belong to a king and therefore must refer to the northern leader.347 § 4.2.1b Pinedjem I with Royal Titles Pinedjem did take on royal titles at some point in his tenure as high priest, though it is not clear when that occurred. Given that there are depictions of him as both high priest and king at the Khonsu temple, some scholars have interpreted this as an indication that he was high priest of Amun under the reign of Herihor and then rose to the level of king after Herihor’s death. Dodson, however, states that the locations of the reliefs point to them all being created after Herihor and proposes that Pinedjem came to the office of high priest after the death of Herihor and then became king at a later date.348 While this is certainly conceivable, Dodson, nor any other scholars that I have come across, does not consider the possibility of Pinedjem using royal and non-royal titles and depictions interchangeably without issue. If Pinedjem was not concerned with establishing himself as a “legitimate” king, as I have suggested was the case for Herihor, oscillating between 345 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 21. 346 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 22. 347 Ritner 2009, 115. 348 Dodson 2012, 29-30. 114 115 the two might not have been problematic. Another example in which this explanation might be the simplest occurs in the Colonnade Hall of the Luxor temple. A relief shows Pinedjem in traditional priestly gear, presenting incense to Amun. Pinedjem is labeled as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm s3 P3j-cnḫ.349 However, there are three female figures behind him; two are his wife, Henettawy, and his daughter, Mutnedjmet, but their accompanying inscriptions are not particularly well preserved. The third figure, his daughter Maatkare, is said to be s3t nsw n ẖt.f mr.f ḥmt nṯr n Jmn nb[t] t3wj (M3ct-k3-rc)|,350 “king’s bodily daughter whom he loves, God’s Wife of Amun, Lady of the Two Lands, Maatkare.” In addition to the royal epithets, her name is enclosed in a cartouche. On this unusual combination of perceived royalty, Dodson writes, “There seems to be two options here: one is that these filiations actually mean ‘king’s female descendant’; the other is that they were the actual offspring of someone other than Pinedjem—with Herihor in particular springing to mind.”351 However, he admits that Maatkare and Mutnedjemt are most likely daughter of Pinedjem I, and we know that Henettawy was his wife. He suggests that Maatkare is claiming royal heritage through her mother, independent of her father’s status, as there is an instance of Henettawy using a cartouche while Pinedjem does not.352 This occurs on a golden chalice from the burial chamber of Psusennes I at the Temple of Amun at Tanis. The inscription reads, ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw P3y-nḏm m t3 s3 P3j-cnḫ m3c ḫrw s3t nsw wrt ḫnrt n Jmn nb[t] m3ct (Ḥnt- t3wj)|,353 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinedjem, in the earth, son of Piankh, justified, king’s daughter, principle of the harem of Amun, Lady of Truth, Henettawy.” However, if Pinedjem was comfortable switching between his high priest title and royal names, this would not present an issue. 349 Epigraphic Survey 1998, Pl. 200, 14-15. 350 Epigraphic Survey 1998, Pl. 200, 16-17. 351 Dodson 2012, 43. 352 Dodson 2012, 45. 353 Montet 1951, Figure 41. 115 116 Pinedjem’s royal titles can be found in some funerary contexts as well. A shabti figurine with the throne name of Pinedjem I is a part of the Liebieghaus collection in Frankfurt. It was purchased in 1882 and was said to be from a grave in Thebes, but the provenance is essentially unknown.354 Pinedjem is labeled nsw and his throne name, Kheperkhaure Setepenamun, is written in a cartouche. The shabti figure itself wears a long robe and a nemes headdress with a uraeus on the brow. Pinedjem’s coffin features his name in cartouches and the title nsw is used repeatedly. However, the coffin was usurped from Thutmose I.355 Though Pinedjem’s specific choice of reusing a king’s coffin has potential implications for how he meant his position to be interpreted, the frequent reuse of coffins in the Third Intermediate Period should be kept in mind when assigning significance to the use of cartouches and the title nsw. The only known occurrence of Pinedjem using with ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn as a royal name can be found in the Tomb of Ramses XI (KV4), sketched on a wall within a larger text, alongside his typical nomen. He might have originally planned to usurp the tomb, but this sketch is the only progress that was made.356 In addition to the texts without royal titles amongst the reburials of the royal mummies, there is also evidence of Pinedjem as king. A bandage from the mummy of Ahmose I reads, ḥsbt 8 3bd 3 prt sw 29 jw wḏ n nswt-bjt nb t3wj (Ḫpr-ḫ3c-rc Stp-n-Jmn)| l.p.h. (P3y- nḏm Mrr-Jmn)| l.p.h. rdt Wsjr n Wsjr nsw (Nb-pḥ-rc)| l.p.h.357 Year 8, third month of Peret, day 29. The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Kheperkhare-Setepenamun, l.p.h., Pinedjem-Meriamun, l.p.h. sent a decree to give Osiris to the Osiris, King Nepeh(ty)re, l.p.h. Ritner dates this text to Year 8 of Psusennes.358 However, if Pinedjem has taken on royal titles, why would he continue to use the regnal years of another king? This issue is not addressed by scholars who support assigning year dates to the Tanite kings. 354 Beck 1991, 66. 355 Daressy 1909, 50. 356 Dodson 2012, 49-50. 357 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 22. 358 Ritner 2009, 116. 116 117 A stele from the Cairo Museum (J. 71902) preserves a rare private mention of Pinedjem as king. The stele was reused by Wennefer, a second prophet of Min at Coptos, who had the front of stele removed and re-carved.359 The obverse of the stele depicts Pinedjem wearing a wig with a uraeus on the forehead, a bull’s tail, a long kilt, and a broad collar while offering to Osiris. His wife is depicted behind him wearing a vulture headdress with a uraeus and long pleated dress, holding a sistrum.360 Pinedjem is referred to as nṯr nfr (Ḫpr-ḫ3-rc Stp-n-Jmn)| s3 rc (Mrr-Jmn P3y- nḏm)|, “the young god, Kheperkhare Setepenamun, son of Re, Meriamun Pinedjem,” while his wife is labelled as s3t nsw wrt hnrt n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw hrt nswt mwt nsw nbt t3wj (Dw3t-Ḥwt-Ḥr Ḥnt-t3wj)|,361 “king’s daughter, chief of the harem of Amun-Re, king of the gods, chief of the royal women, king’s mother, Lady of the Two Lands, Duat-Hathor Henettawy.” The stele itself is a typical offering stele, with the text asking that the king give offerings to the deceased. It seems appropriate that Pinedjem would be presented as a king in this context, as the king was often a prominent figure in the funerary culture of private elites, helping with the transition to the afterlife. Overall, Pinedjem’s use of royal titles and regalia is not consistent and leads to many questions. Why have no official king of Upper Egypt for years, and then suddenly present himself as a king? Why portray himself looking and acting like a king with no royal titles, unless clearly establishing himself as an “official” king was not a concern? As will be shown below, these questions can be asked of his successors as well. § 4.2.2 Masaharta Masaharta was the first son of Pinedjem I to become high priest of Amun. Several scholars support the theory that Pinedjem passed on the office of high priest of Amun to Masaharta after he 359 Abdallah 1984, 65. 360 Abdallah 1984, Pl. XVI 2. 361 Abdallah 1984, Figure 1. 117 118 took on royal titles, meaning Masaharta rose to the office while his father was still alive.362 Lull’s evidence for this theory is circumstantial and relies on potentially problematic assignments of year dates. As discussed in the previous chapter, unspecified year dates of this period are typically assigned to the Tanite kings in the north, or to Ramses XI in Herihor’s case, by modern scholars as the idea of a non-royal individual having their own dating system is viewed as impossible. This issue appears again in Lull’s argument for Pinedjem’s kingship occurring at the same time as his sons’ pontificates. A linen bandage from the mummy of Ramses II, moved from its original burial place during the Third Intermediate Period, contains a label of Pinedjem dated to an unspecified Year 15 with no royal titles.363 A label of Masaharta found on the mummy of Amenhotep I is dated to Year 16.364 Once again, the year date is not assigned to a particular individual. Here, Masaharta is referred to as both the high priest of Amun and the son of King Pinedjem. Lull assumes these two year dates belong to Smendes. He concludes that Pinedjem took on royal titles in during or after Year 15 of Smendes and, at the same time, passed down the office of high priest to his first son.365 There are several issues with this argument that must be addressed. It cannot be assumed that unspecified year dates must refer to the reigns of northern kings as no names are mentioned and Upper Egypt appears to be functioning independently from Lower Egypt. As mentioned in Chapter Three, though a non-royal possessing their own regnal years would be unusual in Egypt, it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. Additionally, even if Pinedjem did not use his own regnal years while presenting himself as a non-royal leader, after adopting his own set of royal titles, there would be no reason to use the dating system of another king. Lull also points to Masaharta’s successor, Djedkhonsefankh, being his brother rather than a son as more evidence 362 Jose Lull 2015-2016, 181; Carlotti and Chappaz 1995, 167. 363 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 22. 364 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 57. 365 Lull 2015-2016, 181. 118 119 that Pinedjem was alive when Masaharta become high priest.366 If Pinedjem was alive, the succession line would continue down his own line of sons, rather than switching to a grandson. However, there are currently no known sons of Masaharta in the evidence available. If Masaharta died with no male heirs, it is likely that the office would have been passed to a brother, regardless of whether Pinedjem was deceased. Additionally, Pinedjem’s occasional use of ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn- rc as a royal name presents a problem to this theory, which Lull himself recognizes.367 § 4.2.2a Masaharta without Royal Titles One of the few pieces of evidence for the activity of Masaharta within the Karnak complex is a doorway located to the east of the Tenth Pylon of the Temple of Amun. It is made of sandstone blocks and contained in a wall of bricks along the eastern wall of the courts of the Ninth and Tenth Pylons.368 The exact function of the door is unclear, but it gives access to a small courtyard to the east of the two larger ones, acting as a passageway between the “secular” world outside the temple walls and the “sacred” inside.369 Only the western face of the doorway is decorated, with the eastern side remaining blank. These reliefs depict Masaharta, as high priest, performing activities that traditionally were reserved for the king, as I have shown is typical of this time. The first register of the northern jamb shows Masaharta dressed in a long kilt, sandals, and a broad collar. 370 There is no indication of a bull’s tail and the head of the figure is not preserved so any use of royal headdresses is unknown. Masaharta presents an offering to Amun-Re and is labeled as ḥm- nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw nb, “high priest of Amun-Re, king of all gods.” In the second register 366 Lull 2015-2016, 179. 367 Lull 2015-2016, 179. 368 Carlotti and Chappaz, 168. 369 Carlotti and Chappaz, 174. 370 Carlotti and Chappaz, Pl. III. 119 120 of the north jamb, Masaharta offers two pieces of lettuce to an ithyphallic Amun-Re.371 Again, the priest wears a long kilt and either a headdress or wig, though the forehead is not preserved. The first register of the southern jamb depicts Masaharta offering food to Amun-Re, though only his arms are preserved, and the label contains the same title as in the first register of the northern jamb.372 The second register of the southern jamb portrays Masaharta anointing an ithyphallic Amun-Re with his right pinky finger.373 He wears a long kilt and a wig or headdress with no indication of a uraeus. Masaharta also participated in the reburial of royal mummies. An inscription on the coffin of Amenhotep I gives evidence of a second reburial, ḥsbt 16 3bd 4 prt sw 11 jw wḏ n ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw M3-s3-h3-r-tj s3 n nsw (P3y-nḏm)| r wḥm qrs n nṯr pn jn sẖ pr-ḥḏ sẖ ḥwt nṯr Pn- Jmn s3 Swty,374 “Year 16, fourth month of Peret, day 11. The high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Masaharta, son of king Pinedjem, sent a decree to renew the burial of this god by the treasury scribe and temple scribe Penamun, son of Suty.” Though he did not take on royal status, as far as we know, Masaharta still continued the trend of depicting himself performing kingly duties. If his father was still alive and king, why would Masaharta not include Pinedjem in his reliefs? He is only mentioned in reference of Masaharta’s genealogy, with no indication that Masaharta was working with or under his father. Given the lack of appearance by Pinedjem I, or any Tanite kings, in such a capacity, it seems most likely that Masaharta was ruling Upper Egypt on his own as a private individual. Masaharta’s coffin (CG 61027) does not contain any royal titles, though it does give examples of the high- ranking titles he possessed. The exterior coffin’s lid labels him as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw 371 Carlotti and Chappaz, Pl. IV. 372 Carlotti and Chappaz, Pl. VI. 373 Carlotti and Chappaz, Pl. VII. 374 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 28. 120 121 jmj-r mšc wr,375 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, chief overseer of the army.” The head of the body of the exterior coffin also contains the title, nb c3 n kmt,376 “great lord of Egypt,” and a variation of his military title, jmj-r mšc wr nw šmcw mḥw,377 “chief overseer of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt.” The left side of the body of the exterior coffin includes yet another variation of the military title, jmj-r mšc wr t3wj ḏr.f,378 “chief overseer of the army of the entire Two Lands.” These versions differ from earlier, New Kingdom attestations as there are no mentions of the king or his father. Though there is no reference to Masaharta holding the title of ṯ3tj, it is certainly possible he held his title as well and followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, as Pinedjem only occasionally includes this office in his string of titles. § 4.2.3 Menkheperre Menkheperre was the third son of Pinedjem I to serve as high priest of Amun and succeeded his brother, Djedkhonsefankh, whose tenure was brief. Lull suggests that Menkheperre was stationed at El-Hibeh, a fortified palace at the border with Lower Egypt, as an army overseer while his older brother, Masaharta, was high priest.379 A letter (Papyrus Strasbourg 21) from the so- called El-Hibeh archive380 might explain how Menkheperre came to the office of high priest. The beginning of the letter is not preserved and there is no sender indicated in the address line. However, what remains might indicate the cause of death of Masaharta. It reads, Mr ḏd šdj sw snb sw j.srwj mr nb ntj jm.f nfr ṯw m-b3ḥ P[n]-p3-jh3y p3y.j nb m p3y.f šdj M[3]-s3-h3-r-tj mtw.f snb.f mtw.f djt n.f cnḫ wḏ3 snb cḥc(w) q3 j3wt c3t 375 Daressy 1909, 67. 376 Daressy 1909, 69. 377 Daressy 1909, 70. 378 Daressy 1909, 71. 379 José Lull 2009, 242. 380 The El-Hibeh archive consists of about 150 texts and two thousand fragments, of which only 10% has been published. They are housed at various museums and archives around the world and are generally dated to around the time of the tenure of HPA Menkheperre. The origins of the majority of the texts are not clear as most were bought by collectors in the late 1800s. For a longer discussion of this archive, see Müller 2009, 253-256. 121 122 mtw.f sḏm n ḫrw M3-s3-h3-r-tj p3y.f ẖrd p3y.f sḫpr mtw.f šdj sn[.j?] p3y b3k s3wy mtw.f snb.f mtw.f dj.tw.f n.j m sprw mj qd mdt nb nfr j.jr [n.j p3]y.j nb381 …sickness. Saying: save him, heal him, remove all the sickness that is in him so that he is well in the presence of “He-of-the-Camp,” my lord, by his saving of Masaharta. He should heal him and give him life, prosperity, health, a long lifetime, and a great old age. And he should listen to the plea of Masaharta, his son, his child. And he should save [my?] brother, this servant of his, and heal him and give him to me on account of this petition just as […] every good thing my lord has done [for me]. The letter is addressed to ḥm nṯr pn šps pn-p3-jh3y, “this noble priest of ‘He-of-the-Camp.’” The identity of this god is unclear but is likely a local god of the city in which the “camp” is located. It has often been assumed that this is the god of El-Hibeh.382 Due to the use of the word “brother,”383 it seems likely that a brother of Masaharta wrote to a priest of “He-of-the-Camp” in an attempt to heal the high priest of whatever sickness ailed him. It has been suggested that this mysterious illness was the cause of death for Masaharta and could have possibly infected Djedkhonsefankh as well, given the extremely short duration of his tenure as high priest.384 Djedkonsefankh, in fact, is only known from a now lost of coffin of his son that named him as high priest.385 § 4.2.3a Menkheperre without Royal Titles Regardless of the situation surrounding Menkheperre’s succession to the office of high priest, his ascension was presented as a direct appointment by Amun. The Banishment Stele claims that Amun-Re chose Menkheperre to be the high priest. It reads, smn.f sw r st jt.f m ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw jmj-r mšc wr nw šmc mḥw,386 “he established him on the throne of his father as 381 Spiegelberg 1917, 13, 2-13. 382 Spiegelberg 1917, 3. 383 There is no suffix attached to the word sn but an implied first-person suffix is the most likely interpretation. 384 Lull 2009, 241. 385 Dodson 2012, 57. 386 Von Beckerath 1968, 10, 6-7. 122 123 high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, chief overseer of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt.” Though he is said to be “on the throne,” Menkheperre does not possess any royal titles or epithets. The beginning of the text lists his titles as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw jmj-r mšc wr Mn-ḫpr-rc m3c ḫrw s3 nswt (P3y-nḏm Mrr-Jmn)|,387 “high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, the chief overseer of the army, Menkheperre, justified, son of King, Pinedjem Meriamun,” while Amun-Re himself is referred to as nṯr pn šps Jmn-rc nb nswt t3wj,388 “this noble god, Amun-Re, king of the thrones of the Two Lands.” The text also appears to describe the arrival of Menkheperre to the city of Thebes for his appointment; jw.f r rsy m qny nḫt r shr jb t3 dr rqy.f rdj.f wnn […] wnn.sn m rk rc,389 “He came south in valor and strength in order to pacify the land, expel his foes, and make [things] be […] as they were in the time of Re.” It is unusual to use such strong language, typically applied to accounts of war and conquering, to describe the arrival of an Egyptian in an Egyptian city. Therefore, it is possible that there was some sort of upset surrounding the rapid turnover of the office of high priest with the death of Menkheperre’s two older brothers. The main section of the text records an oracle given by Amun-Re to Menkheperre. The priest approached the god to ask about a legal case involving banishment to an oasis, the details of which are not clear. Menkheperre appears to interact directly with the god through his statue as a high priest typically would, but the language used and the authority given to Menkheperre through the god reads more like a king. A key line says, p3 nṯr c3 hnn r wr sp 2 jsk jmj-r mšc pn cwy.f m j3w ḥr dw3 nb.f m jt ḥr wḥm n s3.f ḏs.f,390 “the great god nodded exceedingly, exceedingly, while the overseer of the army, hands in praise, worshipping his lord, like a father reporting to his own son.” Though Menkheperre is still referred to by private titles, in this line his military rank, his relationship with the god is presented as similar to one between a father and son, which is much 387 Von Beckerath 1968, 10, 5. 388 Von Beckerath 1968, 10, 4. 389 Von Beckerath 1968, 10, 6-7. 390 Von Beckerath 1968, 11, 11-12. 123 124 more suited for a king than a priest. As a result of this oracle, Menkheperre makes a decree in Amun’s name that people should no longer be banished to the oasis. He appears to be acting as a deputy, but subservient to the god rather than a king. A copper alloy plaque discovered at the site of the Treasury of Shabaqa at Karnak alludes to religious festival activity during the tenure of Menkheperre.391 One side of the plaque depicts a standard of Amun, with a ram’s head wearing a solar disk, and the other shows a barque of Amun above text.392 The text itself lists the genealogy of a priest of Amun, Horemakhbit. The label above the main text says jr n ḥm nṯr n Jmn Mn-ḫpr-rc m3c ḫrw, “made by the high priest of Amun, Menkheperre, justified.” The function of the plaque is unclear; Licitra speculates it might have been to commemorate a procession for Amun in which Horemakhbit participated.393 Whatever the original function, it shows that there were processions occurring under the supervision of Menkheperre. There is no indication of which procession it was specifically, if indeed it represents a specific event, but the major festivals of Amun, such as the Beautiful Feast of the Valley and the Opet Festival, were typically led by the king. This could be another example of Menkheperre acting like a king, while still only maintaining a private status. Müller and Lefevre were able to assemble part of a letter mentioning Menkheperre from the Aberdeen fragments belonging to the El-Hibeh archive. The fragments themselves have not been published, but Müller has provided an English translation of the text. […] the one who will further come perfectly into existence in the presence of Penpaihay [He-of-the-Camp]. You shall preserve Menkheperre, your son and ward. You shall make him well. You shall grant him life, prosperity and health, a long lifetime, a great and strong kingship and victory of his sword against every country and every foreign country. You shall kill all bad people who are not on his path. You shall throw them onto the ground.394 391 Licitra 2016, 33. 392 Licitra 2016, Figure 1. 393 Licitra 2016, 46. 394 Müller 2009, 263. 124 125 Here, Menkheperre is given no titles, perhaps due to the informal nature of the text as a personal letter. Even beyond the wish for a “great and strong kingship” for Menkheperre, the wording echoes traditional royal sentiments, in which any people or country outside of Egypt is an enemy that must be struck down by the king’s might. Another papyrus assigned to the El-Hibeh archive, now housed in the Moscow Museum, was published by Posener. The list of titles associated with Menkheperre is of significant interest. He is described as, ḥm-nṯr tpj [n Jmn]-rc nswt nṯrw jmj-r mšc wr šmcw mḥw ḥ3tj Mn-ḫpr-rc ntj ḥ3t n3 mšcw c3y n kmt ḏrw,395 “high priest [of Amun]-Re, king of the gods, chief overseer of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt, the leader, Menkheperre, who is at the front of the great armies of all of Egypt.” Not only does this give the highest possible military title to Menkheperre, it specifies that this role encompasses both Upper and Lower Egypt, which has appeared before in the oracle text. However, the addition of the phrase, ḥ3t n3 mšcw c3y n kmt ḏrw, reads like an attempt to emphasize Menkheperre’s military power and the extent of his influence over the entirety of Egypt. The truth of this assertion cannot be verified, but the intent to create an image of someone with the ability to command the armies of all of Egypt is clear. Even when not adopting royal titles for himself, Menkheperre frequently imbued himself with a sense of royal authority by referencing his father, Pinedjem, as king. On the west exterior wall of the court of Amenhotep III at the Luxor temple, Menkheperre ordered the re-cutting of a relief of ithyphallic Amun-Re and added a restoration inscription to record his actions; sm3wy mnw jr.n n ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw Mn-ḫpr-rc m3c ḫrw s3 nswt nb t3wj (Mrr-Jmn P3y-nḏm)| m pr jt.f Jmn-jpt396 the renewal of monuments done by the high priest of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Menkheperre, justified, son of the king, Lord of the Two Lands, Pinedjem- Meriamun, in the house of his father, Amenopet. 395 Posener 1982, 134-135, 2-5. 396 Brand 2004, Figure 1. 125 126 However, even while acknowledging his human father, who is given both a royal epithet and a cartouche, Menkheperre claims to be the son of Amun as well. This emphasizes his own relationship with the divine, rather than only relying on his father’s, and was a status typically only given to kings. Archaeological excavations across Egypt have yielded evidence of building activity undertaken by Menkheperre, illustrating his possession of a level of power and influence high enough to order construction rather than just decoration. Redford discovered many fired bricks with Menkheperre’s name stamped on them in his excavations at East Karnak. They were reused in later periods, so their original location and purpose is unknown, but their existence indicates building activity in the Karnak area.397 None of the bricks found on these excavations contain royal titles associated with Menkheperre. The Cairo Stele (3/12/24/2) records the construction of a new enclosure wall around the northeast section of Karnak.398 Menkheperre explains that the nearby town was encroaching on the temple complex and a barrier to protect the temple was needed. This stele is dated to an unspecified Year 48 and Menkheperre is described as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw jmj-r mšc wr tp n ḥḥw Mn-ḫp-rc s3 [nb t3wj] (Mrr-Jmn P3y-nḏm)|,399 “high priest of Amun- Re, king of the gods, chief overseer of the army, chief of millions, Menkheperre, son of [the Lord of the Two Lands] Meriamun Pinedjem.” Ritner claims that this Year 48 belongs to Psusennes I.400 However, if we examine this with the theory that all instances of royal titulary occur after an official switch to kingship and therefore predate any non-royal titles, this would mean Menkheperre did not adopt royal titles until very late in his career, which likely began slightly before Psusennes.401 Given the evidence for multiple building projects across Upper Egypt with 397 Redford 1981, 17; Redford 1983, 221. 398 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 74-78. 399 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 74. 400 Ritner 2009, 136. 401 Dodson 2012, Appendix 3, 195-196. 126 127 royal titles, discussed below, it seems unlikely that Menkheperre began so many projects in a short time frame. If we accept the possibility that the southern rulers at this time were not overly concerned with establishing a “true” leader, had their own regnal years, and could weave in and out of royal titles with ease, then this Year 48 does not present such a problem. More evidence of building activity without royal titles comes from Jebel Barkal in Nubia. The temple of Taharqa, labeled B 200 and located at the western edge of the temple complex, re- used stone blocks in the pylon foundation. The temple was excavated by Reisner but some of these blocks were left in situ.402 One of these blocks had a figure inscribed with the label Mn-ḫpr-rc m3c ḫrw. The style of the figure was determined to be more reminiscent of late New Kingdom artistic trends, rather than Eighteenth Dynasty ones, leading more recent excavators to suggest that it dates to Menkheperre, the high priest of Amun, rather than a Thutmosid king.403 This implies that Menkheperre’s influence extended south into Nubia. § 4.2.3b Menkheperre with Royal Titles A steatite statuette of Nefertum in the Durham Oriental Museum (EG1933) is an example of Menkheperre employing a cartouche.404 The statuette likely dates to the Ramesside period, due to its artistic style. However, the inscriptions on the base of the figure seem to have been usurped by Menkheperre.405 The image inscribed on the base depicts a figure worshipping two cartouches. The left side of the base reads, (Wsjr-m3ct-rc Stp-n-Jmn)| nṯr nfr sn t3 nb šmcw mḥw mj rc dj cnḫ s3, “Usermaatre Setepenamun, young god, kiss the earth, Lord of Upper and Lower Egypt, like Re given life and protection.” The right side reads, (Mn-ḫpr-rc)| ḥm nṯr nb t3wj […] dj cnḫ s3, 402 Kendall, et. al. 2017, 165. 403 Kendall, et. al. 2017, 187. 404 Durham Oriental Museum 2014. 405 Spieser 2002, 47. 127 128 “Menkheperre, priest, Lord of the Two Lands […] given life and protection.” The left cartouche is likely from a Ramesside king, as this royal name is not one otherwise associated with Menkheperre. It seems that he added his own name and the title of priest, presumably a shortening of his high priestly title, to the inscription on the right. It is a testament to the importance of the office of high priest that he includes this title next to his cartouche, even with the small space on the statuette’s base. The phrase sn t3, “kiss the earth,” refers to a private person in devotion,406 which explains the figure worshipping the cartouches. Given that there is no evidence of cult ritual to living high priests, the decision to usurp an object that has elements of royal cult activity points to the high priests of Amun operating on the same power level of kings. Another source of evidence for Menkheperre’s use of royal titles comes in the form of a unique type of funerary object; mummy braces. Mummy braces are straps of leather that were wrapped across a mummy’s shoulders. Sometimes leather pendants, in the shape of a menat- counterweight or a menkhet-tassal, were placed on the neck or chest of the mummy and strapped on as well. Both the pendants and the tabs on the end of the straps were embossed with texts, scenes, or both.407 A large amount were found in the Bab el-Gasus burial at Deir el-Bahri, which contained mummies of priests of Amun and Mut and was discovered in 1891 by Lieblein.408 Forty- eight hand-copies of tabs and pendants, which are now in the Cairo Museum, were made by Černy in a personal journal.409 Since these were all unpublished artifacts, Luigi Prada scanned Černy’s drawings and created a catalogue for them.410 This type of funerary artifact is known only from the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty to the mid-Twenty-Second Dynasty, with the majority being dated to the Twenty-First. The examples from the end of the Twentieth Dynasty and those of the 406 Spieser 2002, 52. 407 Prada 2017, 370. 408 Georges Daressy 1896, 74. 409 Prada 2017, 372-373. 410 Prada 2016. 128 129 Twenty-Second almost exclusively mention a king. The Twenty-First Dynasty examples almost exclusively feature a high priest of Amun and, when there is a king mentioned, the high priest is given more of the space on the object.411 The text usually is comprised of the title, and perhaps an epithet, of the king or high priest, followed by their name and sometimes the name of their father. These objects give insight into the use of cartouches and titles of the high priests and kings of this time period, and occasionally provide evidence of high priests using royal regalia. Two tabs, categorized as MSS 17.125.8 H1 and H2,412 both show Menkheperre offering ma’at to Montu but he wears no royal regalia. However, he is labelled as ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn (Mn-ḫpr-rc)|, “high priest of Amun, Menkheperre,” using both his religious title and a cartouche. Černy MSS 17.125.10 F1 and F2,413 also both tabs, have the same label but depict Menkheperre wearing a kilt with a bull’s tail. The scene in F1 shows him anointing the forehead of ithyphallic Amun-Re and wearing a cap crown with a uraeus. It is significant to note that even when presenting his name in a cartouche and depicted himself in a fully royal outfit, Menkheperre keeps the title of high priest present as a signifier of the office itself and not as another royal name. In addition to building at Thebes, there is evidence of Menkheperre undertaking construction projects in other areas of Egypt. On a tell named Kom esh-Sheikh Mobarak, on the right bank of the Nile to the north of Minya in Middle Egypt, there are remains of a fortress. Excavations at the site discovered bricks stamped with double cartouches of Menkheperre; (ḥm- nṯr tpj n Jmn)| (Mn-ḫpr-rc)|.414 This indicates that Menkheperre either built a new fortress at this spot or did some sort of construction work there, perhaps restoration or enlargement. The same two cartouches appear on bricks from Gebelein East and Luxor. Menkheperre’s wife, Isetemkhab, 411 Prada 2017, 376. 412 Prada 2016, 17. 413 Prada 2016, 21. 414 Chabân 1907, 223. 129 130 also has her name inscribed a cartouche on bricks from Gebelein West and Luxor.415 Some of the previously mentioned reused blocks at the Taharqa temple at Jebel Barkal were inscribed with the throne name Mn-[ḫpr]-rc. Reisner dated these to the reign of Thutmose III or IV because the name of Amun was not destroyed; he assumed they must have been inscribed and taken down before Akhenaten’s reign.416 However, given the site’s more recent excavators’ theory about the Menkheperre figure belonging to the Third Intermediate Period priest, it is possible that the throne name refers to the same person.417 This would mean one of three things; Menkheperre undertook more than one building project in Jebel Barkal, began a project before taking on royal titles that was completed after assuming royal titles, or concurrently inscribed his name with and without a cartouche. These bricks show that Menkheperre’s influence extended much further than just Thebes and was actively restoring and/or building new construction projects, not just maintaining things as they were. § 4.3 Relationship Between Tanis and Thebes After the death of Ramses XI, the Egyptian kingdom split into two power centers, based out of Tanis and Thebes, as was previously discussed in Chapter Three. Various interpretations of the relationship between these two ruling cities have been offered with no universally agreed upon frontrunner. Some scholars view the high priest of Amun in the South as having been subservient to the Tanite kings, such as Kitchen, who described the Twenty-First Dynasty as kings in the north and “governors of Upper Egypt cum high priests of Theban Amun.”418 Ritner insists that the year dates of the Third Intermediate Period high priests must refer to the Tanite kings in the north, 415 Spencer 1979, Pl. 34 and 35. 416 Kendall, et. al. 2017, 165. 417 Kendall, et. al. 2017, 187. 418 Kitchen 2009, 191. 130 131 because he cannot envision anyone other than a “legitimate” king using their own dating system.419 Kitchen also rejects the idea of the high priests having their own regnal years, as he views them as lower-status regional leaders who were acting under the authority of the Tanite kings in some capacity.420 James and Morkot, however, acknowledge that the traditional assignment of unassigned year dates to Tanite kings must be questioned when examining the actual evidence; there is “no scrap of real evidence so far” to ascribe any Theban year-dates in the first half of the dynasty to Tanite kings. There is thus every reason to re-evaluate the old idea that the year-dates we have from bandage epigraphs, etc., from the earlier part refer to the regnal years of Theban kings. Effectively we are seeing a return to the idea of earlier Egyptologists that the 21st Dynasty should be seen as two lines of kings, a northern one at Tanis and a southern one of “priest-kings” based at Thebes.421 James and Morkot are still limited by their view of what makes a legitimate leader, namely, the degree of kingliness. Though there is an overwhelming focus by the high priests of Amun on their religious office, presented with sporadic and sometimes inconsistent royal status, James and Morkot still label the southern leaders as “priest-kings.” When it comes to high priests of whom we have no evidence of royal status, such as Masaharta, they believe “there is no question of them having had any regnal years,” because they were not kings.422 Several questions remain unanswered with the interpretation that the high priests of the Twenty-First Dynasty used the regnal years of Tanite kings for their dating system. Why would they portray themselves as kings and take on royal titles if they already had one? Why would they leave year dates unspecified, instead of simply using the Tanite king’s name? Even if we attribute regnal years to the high priests who take on royal regalia, why would Masaharta not mention a Tanite king, if he was merely a “governor of Upper Egypt”? None of the surviving evidence definitively supports the idea that any of the high priests were subservient to the Tanite kings. The 419 Ritner 2009, 115. 420 Kitchen 2009, 192. 421 James and Morkot 2013, 227. 422 James and Morkot 2013, 226. 131 132 following evidence indicates that Thebes and Tanis had a cordial relationship, likely strengthened by a mutual dedication to Amun, with each having their own independent leaders. As has been discussed above, there seems to have been less emphasis on royalty in Upper Egypt and leaders possibly switched between royal and private portrayals as desired. § 4.3a Wenamun The Story of Wenamun, discussed earlier, might shed some light on the nature of the relationship between these two power centers at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period. Though linguistic analysis points toward a mid-Twenty-First to Twenty-Second Dynasty date for the text, it takes place in the very early stages of the Twenty-First Dynasty. Given the text’s temporal distance from the setting and its literary nature, the politic situation presented in the story cannot be taken as fact. However, the Story of Wenamun is not a fanciful, mythical text but a believable story rooted in the real world. At the very least, a peaceful rapport between Smendes and Herihor, as well as a cosponsored expedition to Byblos on behalf of Amun, was a believable premise for the story. Wenamun acknowledges the legitimacy of Smendes and his wife, Tentamun, as rulers in the north, describing them as n3 snnty t3 j.djw Jmn n p3 mḥw n p3y.f t3,423 “the organizers which Amun has given to the north of his land.” However, he does not indicate any relationship with Smendes in particular, beyond that of a messenger to another leader, and refers to Herihor alone as nb.j, “my lord.” This indicates that Wenamun views Herihor as his earthly leader— with Amun being the nb t3wj, “Lord of the Two Lands,”—but not Smendes, leading to the conclusion that the text represents two separate governments interacting. While it is unclear how 423 Gardiner 1932, 62, 6-9. 132 133 accurately the Story of Wenamun reflects the reality of the early Twenty-First Dynasty, it might reveal how the next generation viewed their own recent history. § 4.3b Smendes’ Gebelein Inscription Another text that gives a glimpse into the state of affairs between Upper and Lower Egypt at the beginning of the Twenty-First Dynasty is Smendes’ Gebelein inscription. It was discovered at a quarry site near Gebelein, on the base of a broken pillar of limestone.424 Smendes is given a list of titles and epithets expected of a traditional Egyptian king; nṯr nfr nb t3wj (Ḥd-ḫpr Stp-n-Rc)| s3 rc nb ḫcw (Mrr-Jmn Ns-b3-(nb-ḏdt)|,425 “Young god, Lord of the Two Lands, Hedjkheperre Setepenre, son of Re, Lord of Diadems, Smendes Meriamun.” It is certainly interesting to note that Smendes is referred to as Lord of the Two Lands and the son of Re in this text, but not in the Story of Wenamun. It is possible that this divergence stems from the varying emphasis and importance of kingship in Upper and Lower Egypt. The setting of the text gives some insight into the daily operations of the northern king; jst ḥm.f n dmj Ḥwt-k3-Ptḥ ẖnw.f šps n qn nḫt mj Rc…jst ḥm.f snḏm m w3[ḫy],426 “Now His Majesty was in the city of Memphis, his noble residence of valor and victory like Re...Now His Majesty was seated in the columned hall.” This shows that the Tanite kings were still using Memphis as an administrative center after the kingdom split in two as Smendes seems to be holding court there. The text also makes clear that Smendes has been staying appraised on some of the temples in Upper Egypt as messenger comes to tell him about an issue at Luxor temple. The man reports, jw c jn[b]t wn mḏrw n Jpt-rsyt jr.n.n nsw (Mn-ḫpr-rc)| w3[y…] wn mḥy c3t jqḥw wr m-[ẖnw].f r 424 Daressy 1888, 135. 425 Daressy 1888, 135. 426 Daressy 1888, 135, 3-4. 133 134 s3tw c3t n ḥwt-nṯr,427 “The canal wall that created the protective walls of Luxor temple, and was made by King Menkheperre (Thutmose III), has fallen […] There is a great flood and strong current with[in] it on the great pavement of the temple.” The rest of the text explains that Smendes sent an expedition to the quarry near Gebelein, where the text itself was inscribed to record the event, who fetched stone to repair the canal wall. There is no mention of a high priest of Amun, though Herihor would have likely been ruling in Thebes at this point as their reigns mostly overlapped. However, Smendes’ men did not seem to have any trouble travelling through Upper Egypt and the text indicates that the repair work was carried out in Luxor. Such an allowance on the part of Herihor seems reminiscent of Smendes assisting Wenamun on his journey to retrieve cedar wood for the barque of Amun. This inscription takes the Tanite-Theban relationship a step further as it seems that Smendes had the ability to not just assist Upper Egypt but to carry out expeditions and repairs on Upper Egyptian sites on his own. § 4.3c Psusennes I Psusennes I, one of Smendes’ successors in the north, was buried in a tomb within the complex of the Amun temple at Tanis. This rich burial has provided many high-quality artifacts that shed some light on this period. A collar clasp of a necklace found in Psusennes’ tomb includes ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc as one of his titles, though not in a cartouche.428 A block found in the Sacred Lake at Tanis includes another example of the use of the priestly title; nswt-bjt ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn-rc nswt nṯrw (Mrr-Jmn P3-sb3-ḫcj-n-njwt)|,429 “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, high priest of Amun- Re, king of the gods, Psusennes Meriamun.” There is also at least one example of Psusennes using 427 Daressy 1888, 136, 5-6. 428 Montet 1951, pl. CXI. 429 Montet 1966, Pl. IV, 14. 134 135 this priestly title in a cartouche. A bracelet found in his tomb had a long cartouche embossed on it; (ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn P3-sb3-ḫcj-n-njwt)|.430 His use of this title calls into question the idea of Thebes being subservient to Tanis at this time. Though possible, it seems unlikely that Psusennes would name himself as the high priest of Amun while also appointing an official to this office. However, it is also a possibility that this title refers to a separate Amun priesthood based at the Amun temple complex in Tanis, perhaps due to decreased access to Karnak. This, in turn, would support the theory that the two cities were ruling as separate governments. It highlights that importance of the priesthood, that of Amun specifically, and the piety of leaders permeated throughout Egypt, not just the south. It also demonstrates that the title of high priest of Amun could be used as a “legitimate” royal name, by someone whose kingship is not in question by modern scholars. In addition to ruling the north at the same time as some of the high priests in the south, Psusennes himself was the son of Pinedjem I. This is known through the identification of Psusennes’ mother. The bracelet mentioned above had another cartouche embossed on it; mwt nsw (Dw3t-Ḥwt-ḥr Ḥnt-t3wj)|,431 “king’s mother, Duathathor Henettawy.” Henettawy appears on another grave good of her son, a pot with four cartouches at the top. Psusennes is given two king’s names, (Mrr-Jmn P3-sb3-ḫcj-n-njwt)| (c3-ḫpr-rc Stp-n-Jmn)|, and Henettawy is referred to as (Dw3t- Ḥwt-ḥr Ḥnt-t3wj)| (Mwt nṯr n Ḫnsw)|.432 This second cartouche is not a personal name but an unusual title, “God’s Mother of Khonsu.” This title was also held by another Henettawy, Pinedjem I’s wife. It appears on her interior coffin433 and multiple times in her funerary papyri. Papyrus Cairo CG 40005 (Boulaq 22) is a good example that shows the many roles she played; s3t nsw ḥmt nswt mwt nsw mwt n p3 ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn mwt n dw3 nṯr n Jmn mwt n ḥmt nswt…mwt nṯr n Ḫnsw p3 ẖrd,434 430 Montet 1951, 152, fig. 56. 431 Montet 1951, 152, fig. 56. 432 Montet 1951, 98, fig. 39. 433 Daressy 1909, p.66. 434 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 85. 135 136 King’s daughter, king’s wife, king’s mother, mother of the high priest of Amun, mother of the Divine Adorer of Amun, mother of the king’s wife…God’s Mother of Khonsu the Child Given the fact that these two women share the same name and an unusual title, it seems most likely that they are one and the same, meaning Psusennes was the son of Henettawy and Pinedjem I. The appearance of the golden chalice of Pinedjem I in Psusennes’ tomb then is not surprising. However, though Psusennes claims Henettawy as his mother, I have not found any reference to Pinedjem being his father. This is a departure from Pinedjem’s other prominent sons, Masaharta and Menkheperre, who repeatedly called themselves “son of (King) Pinedjem.” This omission is clearly not due to a conflict of human father versus divine father (Amun) as previous kings acknowledged both and the high priests of Amun referred to both Amun and their biological parents as “father.” Masaharta and Menkheperre, brothers of Psusennes, did not refer to their brother in the north either. Given the extremely close family ties between Psusennes and the high priests of Amun, it is notable that there is no acknowledgment of the relationships in surviving evidence. If Thebes was part of the kingdom ruled over by Tanis, you would expect at least some references to the Tanite king, especially one so closely related. § 4.3d El-Hibeh El-Hibeh is a fort in Middle Egypt that is said to have been the border of the Theban and Tanite regions. The majority of research related to the site revolves around the documents of the archive. Archaeological excavations at site have mostly focused on Ptolemaic, Roman, and Coptic layers, as well as the Twenty-Second Dynasty temple.435 However, there are indications that the site reached its largest size during the Twenty-First Dynasty.436 The majority of evidence of 435 Redmount 2007, 307-309. 436 Redmount 2007, 304. 136 137 building activity on behalf of the high priests at the town of El-Hibeh comes from bricks. A brick with inscribed with the title ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn P3y-nḏm, “high priest of Amun, Pinedjem” and two bricks with his wife’s name, Isetemkheb, were discovered at the site.437 This proves that the site was already established during the tenure of Pinedjem. Kitchen points out that the discovery of the Story of Wenamun at El-Hibeh indicates the site goes back at least to the end of the New Kingdom to the time of Herihor.438 Construction on this fort continued during the reign of Menkheperre as well. Some simply had Menkheperre’s name in cartouches, with his wife’s name enclosed in one as well.439 Another brick adds the title (nswt-bjt šmcw mḥw)|,440 “king of Upper and Lower Egypt.” While this title certainly did not reflect reality, it is another piece of evidence that supports the idea of two separate ruling entities. It is not completely clear what role El-Hibeh played during the Twenty-First Dynasty but there is evidence for it being fortified. A letter to a captain of shield bearers named Shepti is preserved on P.Strassburg 33 from the El-Hibeh archives. Shepti is instructed thus, ḫr m-dj cn ptr n3 cḥ3wty Nš(?) ntj ḥms dhnt jr bjn nbt jm.w jmj-jw rsw-tp r n3 sbty y3 jn.w n.n wc rnw ḏd m-jr djt ḥn rmṯ nb sḫwt jw.f wc cḥ3 jw.f sḫty jw.f r rmṯ wnḏw441 Now still regarding, see to those warriors of Nesh(?) who dwell [in] the Promontory.442 Treat them with all harshness. Send watch to the ramparts since a name list has been sent to us, saying: Do not send anyone [to] the fields, whether he is a fighter, a weaver, or a person of any group. This letter shows that El-Hibeh was a fortified city with troops dedicated to enforcing order, guarding the city, and monitoring who entered and left the town. Additionally, the ancient 437 Spencer 1979, Pl. 33. 438 Kitchen 1986, 248, n.32. 439 Spencer 1979, Pl. 34. 440 Spencer 1979, Pl. 35. 441 Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 199. 442 Wente 1990 claims “the Promontory” is a reference to El-Hibeh, 207. 137 138 nickname for the site was Teudjoi, “their walls,”443 presumably a reference to the fortified walls surrounding the town. Another text from the El-Hibeh archive, P. Berlin 8524, might be evidence of contact between the two governments. Most of what is preserved are small phrases that cannot reveal much as to the content of the message. However, one line reads, h3b pw r djt rḫ.k ntj pr nsw l.p.h…,444 “This is a message in order to inform you that the house of the king, l.p.h…” The heavy use of the divine determinative and similarities to known royal decrees at the end of the New Kingdom have led Lefevre to the conclusion that P. Berlin 8524 is a royal decree from Tanis. Another letter in the archive asks about the wḫ3, “dispatch,” that Pharaoh sent, which Lefevre interprets as referring to the Berlin papyrus and the use of the term wḫ3 indicated to him that it was a diplomatic correspondence.445 This cannot be proven but, if it is true, this letter would be evidence of the Tanite administration giving royal updates to the closest Theban ruled fortification. § 4.4 Conclusion When looking at the evidence of Pinedjem I, Masaharta, and Menkheperre, it is clear that Herihor’s reign, and his innovative approach to leadership, influenced his successors. Pinedjem and Menkheperre presented themselves both as high priests and kings at various times. They also sometimes used the title ḥm-nṯr tpj n Jmn as a royal name, enclosed in a cartouche, as Herihor did. All three commissioned temple reliefs that showed them performing traditionally kingly duties while maintaining the appearance and titles of a priest. Their uncommon leadership style points to a separate government and ruler in Upper Egypt, independent of the Tanite kings. The evidence of 443 Kitchen 1986, 269; Redmount 2007, 304. 444 Lefevre 2012, 41. 445 Lefevre 2012, 46. 138 139 the relationship between the two power centers also supports this conclusion. The Story of Wenamun portrays the early Twenty-First Dynasty as being separated into two areas with different leaders. Psusennes I, one of the early kings of the Tanite Dynasty, was the son of Pinedjem I and brother of Masaharta and Menkheperre, and yet their official documents do not contain any references to each other. Psusennes claims Henettawy as his mother but makes no mention of his human father. The jointly sponsored expedition to Byblos in the Story of Wenamun and the repairs done by Smendes at Luxor temple imply a peaceful and allied relationship between the two cities, likely strengthened by their shared devotion to Amun. However, the existence of the fortress at El- Hibeh, likely built at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty by Piankh or Herihor and expanded by Pinedjem and Menkheperre, suggests a readiness to defend Upper Egypt from any northern threats. All of this evidence points to the high priests of Amun ruling Upper Egypt independently with less emphasis or concern for traditional kingship. It seems possible that the high priests switched between portraying themselves as royal rulers and private individuals as desired, perhaps depending on the message they wanted to convey or the specific situation. It certainly seems that a private individual with enough power, mostly gained through the office of high priest of Amun but also the control of the military, could lead the south without having to be a traditional king. 139 140 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION This dissertation focused on the very end of the New Kingdom and the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, when the kingdom split into two power centers with kings at Tanis ruling Lower Egypt and the high priests of Amun at Thebes ruling Upper Egypt. Though this period of history was unlike the First and Second Intermediate Period in that two rulers maintained control over large territories, rather than many warlords fighting over small areas of influence, the Third Intermediate is often viewed as a period of weakened power and a departure from the ideal. This has the tendency to color the interpretations of evidence from this period, especially in relation to the high priest leaders. This dissertation aimed to take a fresh approach to the way that these high priests visually and textually represented themselves and how those portrayals might shed light on changes to the ideology of leadership that occurred during this era. This dissertation contains four research outcomes. Firstly, I examined the disbursement of high-ranking military, administrative, and administrative titles in the New Kingdom and tracked the trends. New Kingdom officials made sure to connect their positions back to the king, who was the source of their power. There was particular stress placed on their ability to 140 141 communicate directly with the king, as this type of access demonstrated the significance of their positions. A clear chronological increase in individuals holding high-ranking titles in multiple spheres of governance was traced throughout the New Kingdom. Ṯ3tjw more frequently held religious offices while military commanders became more involved in palace administration. During the Twentieth Dynasty, a connection between military and religious officials appeared, as overlap between the two areas becoming more commonplace. Occasionally, a very prominent official possessed titles related to all three domains, such as Horemheb, who was jmj-r mšc wr, jmj-r pr, and jmj-r ḥmw nṯr n Ḥr nb sby. Secondly, I demonstrated the connection between the trend of consolidation of New Kingdom titles and the high priests of Amun ruling in Thebes in the Third Intermediate Period. In addition to officials with influence across all three major realms of societal influence, like Horemheb, it was possible to identify rare individuals who held two of the three highest offices. Paser, an official of the early Nineteenth Dynasty, was both high priest of Amun and ṯ3tj. A single official uniting all three of the highest offices was the next logical step in this trend of consolidation, which makes the leap to Piankh and Herihor’s set of titles must less abrupt than it might have previously appeared. Thirdly, I analyzed the visual and textual representation of the high priests of Amun at the very end of the New Kingdom and the first half of the Third Intermediate Period and examined how that compared to “traditional Egyptian kingship.” In many ways, the high priests appeared to function in the same way as traditional kings; they depicted and described themselves performing the major activities and responsibilities of a king, built and decorated as kings did previously, consulted Amun, handed down decrees, appointed officials to positions, oversaw important festivals related to kingship, and were referenced in private funerary contexts. Most of them even took on royal titles and regalia some of the time. The difference, however, was that they were not 141 142 always portraying or labeling themselves as a king while doing these things. Sometimes, they visually represented the office of high priest while performing kingly duties. Some instances show them in all the physical regalia of a king, but the accompanying inscriptions contain no royal titles. Many of them used the title of ḥm nṯr tp n Jmn as a royal name, rather than renouncing all ties to nonroyal life. It seems likely that the high priests used their own regnal years for a dating system, and very clearly ruled Upper Egypt on their own merit and not in deference to the Tanite kings. Lastly, I explored a possible interpretation of these changes and their effect on the ideology of leadership in Upper Egypt. From the evidence that remains, it seems that in Thebes there was less emphasis placed on royal status and legitimacy through royalty. The power of the Upper Egyptian leaders at the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty and continuing into the Third Intermediate Period stemmed from their control of the civil administration, military, and priesthoods, rather than through status achieved through the occupation of the throne. Therefore, rising to the position of ruler did not necessitate giving up the private, civilian titles held before assuming leadership. This reduction of the importance of royal status and increase in the relevancy of private offices likely evolved out of the relative ineffectiveness of the kings at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, the slowly developing trend of title consolidation amongst officials starting in the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the burgeoning religious view of Amun as the true king. There was, however, continuity with the previous era, as the ruling of Upper Egypt was still centered on a single individual who controlled all areas of governance. The expressions and realities of power were largely the same but the combinations of the various ways to express that power and the precise ideology of it shifted in this period. This study stepped away from the preoccupation with chronology and dating, in an effort to focus more on the ideological changes that can be gleaned from the evidence of the ruling high priests of Amun in Thebes. I analyzed the visual and textual representations of these leaders on 142 143 their own merit, without forcing them to fit the modern scholarly ideal of “traditional Egyptian kingship.” Rather than question whether these high priests were legitimate leaders, a question which is often based on our own cultural and temporal definitions, I explored why these clearly influential figures did not continue to rule in the same manner as their New Kingdom counterparts. I was able to put forth a new interpretation of this approach to leadership that put much less emphasis on royal status. By accepting that Egyptian culture and ideology were constantly shifting, and evolving processes, I proposed a domestic trend of consolidation of titles throughout the New Kingdom as the background that allow this type of “private” rule rather than looking to a foreign influence to explain deviation from the expected norm. I recommend that future studies of the Third Intermediate Period use a similar approach to scholarly assumptions surrounding power and leadership. The view that Intermediate Periods were times of darkness and chaos when the state was crumbling without a unified leader has begun to change amongst modern scholars but there is still much work to be done in challenging this well ingrained bias. Instead of looking down on the Third Intermediate Period as a lesser successor to the glory of the New Kingdom, it must be studied on its own merit and approached with an open mind, with scholars willing to accept the conclusions that fit the evidence best. More work can be done extending this study alone; a deep analysis of the Tanite kings and the Twenty-First Dynasty from the Northern perspective, an investigation of the latter half of the high priests of Amun at Thebes and the kings of the Twenty-Second Dynasty to see if the ideology of leadership changed once again, and how the ideological developments affected lower ranked religious, military, and administrative officials are a few possibilities. Additionally, I believe this looser interpretation of kingship as a malleable concept that could be adjusted to fit individual and societal values should be applied to leadership throughout Egyptian history. Viewing kingship as a fixed, unchangeable 143 144 institution, limits our own ability to understand the past and does not do justice to the nuances and inventions of Egyptian culture. 144 145 FIGURES Figure 1. Dedicatory Inscription of High Priest Herihor and High Priest Herihor Bringing Flowers to Amon-Re and Mut. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. Figure 2. High Priest Herihor Thurifying and Libating Before the Barks of the Theban Triad. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. 145 146 Figure 3. King Herihor Presenting Lettuce to Ithyphallic Amun and King Herihor Presenting A Royal Offering to Amon-Re. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. 146 147 Figure 4. King Herihor Seated Between Edjo and Nekhbet while being crowned by Seth and Harsiese. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1979. 147 148 Figure 5. Painutem I Bringing Flowers to the Theban Triad. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. Figure 6. Painutem I Kneeling with an Offering of Ointment. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 1981. 148 149 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdallah, Aly O. A. 1984. “An Unusual Private Stela of the Twenty-First Dynasty from Coptos.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70, 65-72. Abder-Raziq, Mahmud. 1985. “Die Granitstatue des Ramsesnacht aus Hod Abu El-Gud.” Annales du service des antiquités de l'Égypte 70, 13-17. Abrams, Elliot M. 1989. “Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective.” Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 47-87. Angenot, Valerie. 2015. “Semiotics and Hermeneutics.” In Hartwig, Melinda K. (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 98-119 (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell). Assmann, Jan. 1999. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz). --- 2003. In Jenkins, A. (ed.), The Mind of Egypt: history and meaning in the time of the pharaohs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Baines, John. 1991. “Society, Morality, and Religious Practice.” In Shafer, Byron E. (ed.), Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, 123-200 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). --- 1995. “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation.” In O’Connor, David and Silverman, David P. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship, 3-47 (Leiden: Brill). --- 1999. “On Wenamun as a Literary Text.” In Assmann, Jan, et al. (ed), Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten: Vorträge der Tagung zum 149 150 Gedenken an Georges Posener 5.-10. September 1996 in Leipzig, 209-233 (Le Caire: Institut francais d'archeologie orientale). Barwik, Miroslaw. 2011. “The so-called war of the High Priest Amenhotep,” in The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt: Studies on the History of Egypt at the End of the Ramesside Period (Warsaw: Agade), 77-110. Beck, Herbert. 1991. Ägyptische Bildwerke: Wissenschaftliche Kataloge Band II (Melsungen: Gutenberg). Bell, Lanny. 1985. “Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44: 4, 251-294. Berlev, Oleg. 1997. “The Date of pPrakhov,” Göttinger Miszellen 160, 5-15. Bohleke, Briant. 1985. “An Ex Voto of the Previously Unrecognized Viceroy Setmose.” Göttinger Miszellen 85, 13-24. Brand, Peter J. 2004. “A graffito of Amen-Re in Luxor Temple restored by the high priest Menkheperre.” In Knoppers, Gary N. and Hirsch Antoine (ed.), Egypt, Israel, and the ancient Mediterranean world: studies in honor of Donald B. Redford, 257-266 (Leiden: Brill). Broekman, Gerard P. F. 2012. “The Theban High-Priestly Succession in the First Half of the Twenty-First Dynasty.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 98, 195-209. Bryan, Betsy M. 2006. “Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III.” In Cline, Eric H. and O’Connor, David (ed.), Thutmose III: A New Biography, 69-122 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Burke, Aaron A. and Krystal V. Lords, 2010. “Egyptians in Jaffa: A Portrait of Egyptian Presence in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age.” Near Eastern Archaeology 73, 2-30. 150 151 Carlotti, Jean-François and Jean-Luc Chappaz, “Une porte de Masaharté à l'est du IXe pylône.” Cahiers de Karnak 10, 167-204. Černỳ, Jaroslav. 1935. Catalogue Général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire No. 25675-25832, Ostraca hiératiques (Cairo: Institut francais d’archéologie orientale). --- 1939. Late Ramesside Letters. (Bruxelles: Édition de la Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth). Chabân, Mohammed Effendi. 1907. “Fouilles à Achmounein.” Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 8, 211-223. Daressy, Georges. 1888. “Les Carrieres de Gebelein et le Roi Smendes.” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philology et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 10, 133-138. ---1896. “Contribution a L’Étude de la XXIE Dynastie Égyptienne.” Revue Archéologique 28, 72-90. --- 1909. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire N° 61001- 61044: Cercueils des cachettes royales (Cairo: L’Institut Français d’Archaéologie Orientale). --- 1910. “Le Décret d’Amon en Faveur du Grand Prêtre Pinozem.” Recueil de traveaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 32, 175-186. David, Arlette. 2010. The Legal Register of Ramesside Private Law Instruments. Gӧttinger Orientforschungen IV Reihe Ägypten 38 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). David, Rosalie. 2002. Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt (London: Penguin). Davies, N. de Garis. 1933. The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another (London: The Egypt Exploration Society). --- 1941. The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London: Egypt Exploration Society). --- 1943. The tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art). 151 152 Dodson, Aidan. 2012. Afterglow of Empire: Egypt from the Fall of the New Kingdom to the Saite Renaissance (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press). Dorman Peter. 1995. “Two Tombs and One Owner.” In Assmann, J., et al (ed.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen: Neue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.013.6.1993, 141-154 (Heidelberg:Heidelberger Orientverlag). Durham Oriental Museum. 2014. “Statuettes (limestone, bronze) Nefertem statuette.” Durham Collections. Dziobek, Eberhard. 1994. Die Gräber des Vezirs User-Amun: Theben Nr. 61 und 131 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern). Eaton, Katherine. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Temple Ritual: Performance, Pattern, and Practice (New York: Routledge). Egberts, Arno. 1997. “Piankh, Herihor, Dhutmose and Butehamun: a fresh look at O. Cairo CG 25744 and 25745.” Göttinger Miszellen 160, PP. Epigraphic Survey, The. 1979. The Temple of Khonsu Volume I: Scenes of King Herihor in the Court OIP 100 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute). --- 1981. The Temple of Khonsu II: Scenes and Inscriptions in the Court and the First Hypostyle Hall OIP 103 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute). 152 153 --- 1986. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak, Volume IV: The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I OIP 107 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute). --- 1998. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple Volume II: The Façade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall OIP 116 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute). Ertman, Earl L. 1976. “The Cap-Crown of Nefertiti: Its Function and Probably Origin,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 13, 63-67. Fisher, Marjorie M. 2001. The Sons of Ramesses II, Volume I: Text and Plates (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Gardiner, Alan H. 1932. Late Egyptian Stories (Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth). Genz, Hermann. 2013. “The Introduction of the Light, Horse-Drawn Chariot and the Role of Archery in the Near East at the Transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Ages: Is there a Connection?” In Veldmeijer, Andre J. and Ikram, Salima (ed.), Chasing Chariots: Proceedings of the First International CHariot Conference (Cairo 2012), 95-105(Leiden: Sidestone Press). Gnirs, Andrea M. 1996. Militӓr und Gesellschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches (Heidelberg: Heidelberg Orientverlag). --- 2013. “Coping with the Army: The Military and the State in the New Kingdom.” In García, Juan Carlos Moreno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Administration, 639-717 (Leiden: Brill). Gregory, Steven R. W. 2013. “Piankh and Herihor: art, ostraca, and accession in perspective.” Birmingham Egyptology Journal 1, 5-18. 153 154 --- 2014. Herihor in Art and Iconography: Kingship and the Gods in the Ritual Landscape of Late New Kingdom Thebes. (London: Golden House Publications). Grimal, Nicolas. 1992. A History of Ancient Egypt. (Oxford: Blackwell). Habachi, Labib. 1979. “Unknown or Little-known Monuments of Tutankhamun and of his Viziers.” In Ruffle, John, et. al. (ed.), Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H. W. Fairman, 32-41 (Warminster: Aris and Phillips). Hall, Emma Swan. 1986. The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag). Haring, Ben. 2003. “From Oral Practice to Written Record in Ramesside Deir el-Medina.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 46:3, 249-272. --- 2012. “Stela Leiden V 65 and Herihor’s Damnatio Memoriae.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 41, 139-152. Helck, Hans-Wolfgang. 1939. Der Einfluss der Militärführer in der 18. Ӓgyptischen Dynastie (Leipzig: J. C. Hindrichs). James, Peter and Robert Morkot. 2010. “Herihor’s Kingship and the High Priest of Amun Piankh.” Journal of Egyptian History 3, 231-260. --- 2013. “Two Studies in the 21st Dynasty Chronology I: Deconstructing Manethos’ 21st Dynasty II: The Datelines of High Priest Menkheperre.” Journal of Egyptian History 6:2, 219-256. Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. 2001. “Der thebanische ‘Gottesstaat.’” Orientalia 70, 153-182. --- 2006. “Relative Chronology of Dyn. 21.” In Hornung, Eric, et. al. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 218-233 (Leiden: Brill). --- 2007. Inschriften der Spätzeit-Teil I: Die 21. Dyanstie (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). 154 155 --- 2016. “Kingship and priesthood at the dawn of the Third Intermediate Period, a new political model?” In Giovetti, Paola and Picchi, Daniela (ed.), Egypt, Millenary Splendour: The Leiden Collection in Bologna, 382-389 (Milan: Skria). Janssen, Jacob J. 1975. “Prolegomena to the Study of Egypt’s Economic History during the New Kingdom.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 3, 127-185. Kadry, Ahmed. 1982. Officers and Officials in the New Kingdom, Studia Aegyptiaca 8 (Budapest). Kendall, Timothy, El-Hassan Ahmen Mohamed, with Heather Wilson, Joyce Haynes, and David Klotz. 2017. “Jebel Barkal in the New Kingdom: An Emerging Picture.” In Spencer, Neal, et. al. (ed.), Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous traditions, 159-192 (Leuven: Peeters). Kemp, Barry. 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London: Routledge). Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C. (Warminster: Aris and Phillips). --- 2009. “The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact and Fiction.” In Broekman, G. P. F., et. al. (ed.), The Libyan period in Egypt: historical and cultural studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007, 161-202 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten). Lefebvre, Gustave. 1929. Inscriptions concernants les grands prètres d’Amon Romê-Roy et Amenhotep (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner). Lefevre, Dominique. 2012. “Archives et diplomatique à la XXIe dynastie: à propos d’un papyrus ‘d’el-Hibeh.’” Egyptian and Egyptological Documents, Archives, Libraries 3, 25-47. 155 156 Legrain, Georges. 1909. Catalogue General Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire: Statues et Statuettes de Rois et de Particuliers II (Cairo: L’Institut Francais D’Archaeologie Orientale). Leprohon, Ronald J. 2013. The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). Lesko, Leonard H. 2002. A Dictionary of Late Egyptian, Second Edition: Volume I (Fall River: Fall River Modern Printing). Licitra, Nadia. 2016. “Une Plaque en Alliage Cuivreux aux Noms du Premier Prophète Menkhéperrê et du Prêtre Horemakhbit.” Revue d’égyptologie 67, 33-53. Lilyquist, Christine. 1988. “The Gold Bowl Naming General Djehuty: A Study of Objects and Early Egyptology.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 23, 5-68. Lloyd, Alan B. 2014. Ancient Egypt: State and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Luiselli, Maria Michela. 2004. Der Amun-Re Hymnus des P. Boulaq 17 (P. Kairo CG 58038) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verla). Lull, José. 2006. Los sumos sacredotes de Amón tebanos de la wḥm mswt y dinastía XXI (ca. 1083-945 a.C.) (Oxford: Archaeopress). --- 2009. “Beginning and End of the High Priest of Amun Menkheperre.” In Broekman, G. P. F., et. al. (ed.), The Libyan Period in Egypt—Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007, 241-249 (Leiden: Nederlands Unstituut voor Het Nabije Oosten). --- 2015-2016. “Masaharta, hijo del PSA y rey Painedjem I.” Isimu: Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antigüedad 18/19, 175-190. 156 157 Manassa, Colleen. 2010. “Defining Historical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt.” In Melville, Sarah and Slotsky, Alice (ed.), Opening the Tablet Box, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 42, 245-269 (Leiden: Brill). --- 2013. Imagining the Past: Historical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Mariette, Auguste. 1865. “La Stele l’An 400.” Revue Archéologique II, 169-190. Martin, Geoffrey Thorndike. 1989. The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun: The Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary (London: Egypt Exploration Society). Maspero, Gaston. 1889. Les momies royales de Deir El-Bahari (Paris: Mission Archéologique Française). Montet, Pierre. 1951. La Nécropole Royale de Tanis, Tome II: Les Constructions et le Tombeau de Psousennès a Tanis (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). --- 1966. Le Lac Sacré de Tanis (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). Müller, Matthias. 2009. “The “El-Hibeh” Archive: Introduction and Preliminary Information.” In Broekman, G. P. F., et. al. (ed.), The Libyan Period in Egypt—Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties: Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007, 251-264 (Leiden: Nederlands Unstituut voor Het Nabije Oosten). Müller, Maya. 2015. “Iconography and Symbolism.” In Hartwig, Melinda K. (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, 78-97 (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell). Nelson, Harold Hayden. 1981. The Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak Volume I, Part I: The Wall Reliefs OI 106 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute). Nims, Charles F. 1948. “An Oracle Dated in ‘The Repeating of Births.’” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7:3, 157-162. 157 158 Petrie, William M. F. 1909. Qurneh, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account 16 (London: School of Archaeology in Egypt). Polz, Daniel. 1998. “The Ramsesnakht Dynasty and the Fall of the New Kingdom: A New Monument in Thebes.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 25, 257-293. Posener, Georges. 1982. “Un Papyrus d’El-Hibeh.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68, 134- 138. Prada, Luigi. 2016. “Hand-copies of embossments from sets of Third Intermediate Period mummy braces, chiefly from the Bab el-Gasus cache and now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, made by Jaroslav Černy.” The Griffith Institute, University of Oxford, --- 2017. “A contribution to the textual and iconographical study of embossments from Third Intermediate Period mummy braces, chiefly from the Bub el-Gasus Cache and now in the Cairo Museum.” In Amenta, Alessia and Guichard, Helene (ed.), Proceedings First Vatican Coffin Conference 19-22 June 2013, Volume I, 369-396 (Vatican City: Ediziono Musei Vaticani). Quirke, Stephen. 1992. Ancient Egyptian Religion (London: British Museum Press). Redford, Donald B. 1981. “Interim Report on the Excavations at East Karnak, 1977-1978.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 18, 243-262. --- 1983. Interim Report on the Excavations at East Karnak (1981-1982 Seasons).” Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 13:4, 203-223. --- 1995. “The Concept of Kingship During the Eighteenth Dynasty.” In O’Connor, David and Silverman, David P. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship, 157-184 (Leiden: Brill). 158 159 Redmount, Carol A. 2007. “El Hibeh: A Brief Overview.” In Hawass, Z. and Richards, J. (ed.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O'Connor, Vol. II, 303-311 (Cairo: Conseil Supreme des Antiquites de L'Egypte). Ridealgh, Kim. 2014. “A Tale of Semantics and Suppressions: Reinterpreting Papyrus Mayer A and the So-called ‘War of the High Priest’ during the Reign of Ramesses XI.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 43, 359-373. Ritner, Robert. 2009. The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). Schaden, Otto J. 1984. “Clearance of the Tomb of King Ay (WV-23).” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 21, 39-64. Schwaller de Lubicz, R. A. 1982. The Temples of Karnak (Rochester: Inner Traditions). Sethe, Kurt. 1907. “Die Berufung eines Hohenpriesters des Amon unter Ramses II.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 44, 206-217. Shafer, Byron E. 1997. “Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview.” In Shafer, Byron E. (ed.), Temples of Ancient Egypt, 1-30 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Shirley, JJ. 2010. “Viceroys, Viziers and the Amun Precinct: The Power of Heredity and Strategic Marriage in the Early 18th Dynasty.” Journal of Egyptian History 3, 73-113. Silverman, David P. 1995. “The Nature of Egyptian Kingship.” In O’Connor, David and Silverman, David P. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship, 49-92 (Leiden: Brill). Spalinger, Anthony. 1984. “The Will of Senimose.” In Junge, Friedrich (ed.), Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ӓgyptens: zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westendorf, überreicht von seinen Freunden and Schülern 1, 631-651 (Gӧttingen: Junge). --- 2005. War in Ancient Egypt (Malden: Blackwell). 159 160 --- 2010. “Military Institutions and Warfare: Pharaonic.” In Lloyd, Alan B. (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt: Volume I, 425-445 (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell). --- 2013. “The Organization of the Pharaonic Army (Old to New Kingdom).” In García, Juan Carlos Moreno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Administration, 393-478 (Leiden: Brill). Spencer, A. J. 1979. Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt (Warminster: Aris and Phillips). Spiegelberg, Wilhelm. 1917. “Briefe der Dynastie aus El-Hibe.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 53, 1-30. Spieser, Cathie. 2002. “La titulature du grand-prêtre d’Amon Menkheperré de la statuette N43 du Musée de Durham.” Chronique d’Egypte 77, 47-54. Taylor, John H. 1998. “Nodjmet, Payankh and Herihor: The End of the New Kingdom Reconsidered.” In Eyre, C. J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995, 1143-1155 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters). Thijs, Ad. 2003. “The Troubled Careers of Amenhotep and Panehsy: The High Priest of Amun and Viceroy of Kush under the Last Ramessides.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 31, 289-306. --- 2005. “In search of King Herihor and the penultimate ruler of the 20th Dynasty.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 132, 73-110. Van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom (London: Kegan Paul International). Von Beckerath, Jûrgen. 1951. Tanis und Theben: Historische Grundlagen der Ramessidenzeit in Ägypten (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin). --- 1968. “Die ‘Stele der Verbannten’ im Museum des Louvre.” Revue d’Égyptologie 20, 7-36. 160 161 Wente, Edward F. 1966. “The Suppression of the High Priest Amenhotep.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25, 73-87. --- 1990. Letters from Ancient Egypt (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Winand, Jean. 2011.“The Report of Wenamun: A Journey in Ancient Egyptian Literature.” In Collier, Mark and Snape, Steven (ed.), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen, 541-559 (Bolton: Rutherford Press). Wolf, Eric R. 1990. “Distinguished Lecture: Facing Power - Old Insights, New Questions.” American Anthropologist 92, 586-596. Wolterman, Carles. 1996. “A Vizier of Ramses III Visits an Oracle of Amun and Deir el- Medina.” Revue d’Égyptologie 47, 147-170. 161