War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep: The archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga

Helmut Buske VerlagHamBurg

Studien zurAltägyptiSchen

Kultur

Band 43 | 2014

Herausgegeben vonJochem kahl und

Nicole kloth

SAK-43_Druck_x3_2014-12-15.pdf 3 Dezember 15, 2014 13:50:52

Die Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur (SAK), gegründet 1974, erscheinen jährlich in ein bis zwei Bänden. Manuskripte erbeten an die Herausgeber oder an den Verlag:

Helmut Buske Verlag GmbHRichardstraße 47D-22081 [email protected]

Herausgeber:

Beirat:

Prof. Dr. Hartwig Altenmüller (Hamburg)Prof. Dr. Manfred Bietak (Wien)Prof. Dr. Angelika Lohwasser (Münster)Prof. Dr. Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg)

Alle Manuskripte unterliegen einer anonymisierten Begutachtung (peer review); über die An-nahme oder Ablehnung des Manuskripts entscheiden die Herausgeber. Über die Internetseite http://studien-zur-altaegyptischen-kultur.de sind die Formatvorlage sowie weitere Hinweise zur Erstellung von Manuskripten für die SAK zu finden.

ISSN 0340-2215 (Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur)

ISBN 978-3-87548-692-6

© Helmut Buske Verlag GmbH, Hamburg 2014. Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugsweisen Nach-drucks, der fotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, vorbehalten. Dies betrifft auch die Vervielfältigung und Übertragung einzelner Textabschnitte durch alle Verfahren wie Speiche-rung und Übertragung auf Papier, Filme, Bänder, Platten und andere Medien, soweit es nicht §§ 53 und 54 URG ausdrücklich gestatten. Bildbearbeitung, Druckvorstufe: Da-TeX Gerd Blumenstein, Leipzig. Druck: Strauss, Mörlenbach. Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Schaumann, Darmstadt. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier: alterungsbeständig nach ANSI-Norm resp. DIN-ISO 9706, hergestellt aus 100% chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff. Printed in Germany.

Prof. Dr. Jochem KahlFreie Universität BerlinÄgyptologisches SeminarAltensteinstr. 33D-14195 [email protected]

Dr. Nicole KlothSondersammelgebiet ÄgyptologieUniversitätsbibliothekPlöck 107-109 D-69117 [email protected]


War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep: the archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga

Ute Rummel (Taf. 13-15)

Abstract The historical events at the end of the New Kingdom that constitute the prelude to the wHm-mswt-era have been the subject of extensive scientific debate. So far, only textual sources have been available to evaluate this politi-cally turbulent period, which was marked by a civil war against the High Priest of Amun, Amenhotep. By pre-senting the relevant findings obtained in the double tomb complex K93.11/K93.12 at Dra’ Abu el-Naga, the archaeological perspective is added to the discussion. One central concern is the date of Amenhotep’s death and burial and the destruction of K93.11/K93.12 in relation to the conflict with Panehsy. Moreover, the hypothesis of Amenhotep’s exile in the Great Oasis and the chronological placement of his brother’s Nesamun tenure as High Priest are also re-evaluated.

1 Introduction: the conflict and its central figure The end of the 20th Dynasty and the transition to the wHm-mswt-era is a much debated problem in Egyptology1. The existing textual sources indicate a politically and economical-ly troubled period under the last three Ramesside kings2. The crucial episode of this time is the so-called “war of the High Priest” or “suppression of Amenhotep”, which occurred during the reign of Ramses XI and eventually induced an era of political “rebirth”/wHm-mswt in year 19 of that king.3 According to the texts, the High Priest of Amun (HPA), Amenhotep, was attacked/suppressed for a period of 8 or 9 months, most probably by the viceroy of Kush, Panehsy, and this conflict apparently triggered a civil war, that spread beyond the Theban region. Although this topic has received much scholarly attention, a number of questions concerning the chronology, the sequence of events, and the biography of the main protagonist(s) still remains open, and suggested answers are, in part, entirely conjectural. Previously, only textual evidence has been at hand to discuss and evaluate this problematic period of Egyptian history. The ongoing excavations of the German Archaeo-

I would like to thank Catherine H. Jones for proofreading the English manuscript. 1 The extensive debate will not be recapitulated here. For further reference see T. E. Peet, The Great Tomb-

Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, Oxford 1930 (reprint Hildesheim 2006); E. Wente, The Suppres-sion of the High Priest Amenhotep, in: JNES 25, 1966, 73–87; J. Černý, Egypt: from the death of Ramesses III to the end of the twenty-first Dynasty, in: The Cambridge Ancient History II,2, Cambridge 31975, 626-634; K. Jansen-Winkeln, Das Ende des Neuen Reiches, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 22–31; A. Niwinski, Bürgerkrieg, mili-tärischer Staatsstreich und Ausnahmezustand in Ägypten unter Ramses XI., in: I. Gamer-Wallert/W. Helck (eds.), Gegengabe: Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut, Tübingen 1992, 235–262; id., Le passage de la XXe à la XXIIe Dynastie: Chronologie et histoire politique, in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 329-360; A. J. Morales, The Sup-pression of the High Priest Amenhotep: A Suggestion to the Role of Panhesi, in: GM 181, 2001, 59–73; A. Thijs, The Troubled Careers of Amenhotep and Panehsy: The High Priest of Amun and the Viceroy of Kush under the Last Ramessides, in: SAK 31, 2005, 289–306; J. Lull, El problema de la supresión del Primer Sacer-dote de Amón Jmnw-Htp: documentacion y consideraciones cronológicas, in: Aula Orientalis 22, 2004, 211-228; M. Barwik, The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt. Studies on the History of Egypt at the End of the Ramesside Period, Warsaw 2011, 77-110.

2 These sources, above all the tomb robbery papyri, have been intensively discussed and analyzed, see e.g. the compilation of the relevant text passages by Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 27; Lull, in: Aula Orienta-lis 22, 2004, 211-228. See also Morales, in: GM 181, 2000, 74f., tables 1, 2.

3 Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 31; Niwinski, Bürgerkrieg, 240; id., in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 340-342.


2014 War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep 377

Three more objects were formerly ascribed to the HPA Amenhotep, namely two wooden coffins15 and a funerary cone16, but in fact they belong to different persons of the same name.17 It has recently been suggested that the owner of a stela fragment found at Medinet Habu, a priest named Amenhotep, should be identified with the HPA in his early career when he was a sem-priest in the temple of Ramses III.18 However, despite certain analogies between the known titles of the HPA Amenhotep and the ones attested on the stela, it is doubtful that the Medinet Habu stela (of which, unfortunately, only very little is preserved) dates to the 20th Dynasty at all since the style suggests an earlier date.19 In addition to the new Amenhotep-material (see chapter 2.2.1) the archaeological and stra-tigraphical observations in K93.11/K93.12 are also of particular interest regarding the ques-tion of the High Priest’s conflict. The findings at the site indicate a deliberate destruction of both Ramesside tomb-temples at the end of the New Kingdom (see chapters 2.1, 2.2.2). In light of the relevant textual information available at present, it appears plausible that the archaeological findings are connected with the “war” against Amenhotep and that Panehsy was the person responsible for the monuments’ destruction (see chapter 3). However, the altogether rich and instructive archaeological information is not able to provide definite answers to all the prevailing historical and chronological questions with regard to the prel-ude to the wHm-mswt. It is, in fact, a difficult task to correlate archaeological observations with historical events of which we are only vaguely informed. And yet the results obtained in K93.11/K93.12 are of great importance to the scientific debate as they enrich the basis for discussion by adding a new factor, namely the archaeological perspective.20

15 Louvre E.13028, 13030, 13041 (outer coffin); Musee de la Castre, Cannes, AF.1666 (inner coffin), cf. G.

Fecht, Der Moskauer „literarische Brief“ als historisches Dokument, in: ZÄS 87, 1962, 20, n. 2 and 23, n. 2. The attribution to the HPA has already been doubted by G. Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres d'Amon de Karnak, Paris 1929, 202-204.

16 A. Wiedemann, Die altägyptischen Grabkegel, in: Actes du sixième congrès international des orienta-listes tenu en 1883 à Leide (4ème partie, section 3), Leiden 1885, 141, Nr. 13 (Louvre S. h. 397); Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres, 269. Cf. N. de G. Davies/M. Macadam, A corpus of inscribed Egyptian funerary cones, Oxford 1957, Nr. 123.

17 See A. Niwinski, 21st Dynasty Coffins from Thebes. Chronological and Typological Studies, Theben 5, Mainz 1988, 164, no. 329; U. Rummel, Grab oder Tempel? Die funeräre Anlage des Hohenpriesters des Amun Amenophis in Dra’ Abu el-Naga (Theben-West), in: D. Kessler et al. (eds.), ThebenTexteTonfragmente. Festschrift für Günter Burkard, ÄAT 76, Wiesbaden 2009, 352f. with notes 28-31.

18 J. Schmied, An Early Stela of the High Priest Amenhotep of the 20th Dynasty?, in: E. Bechthold et al. (eds.), From Illahun to Djeme: papers presented in honour of Ulrich Luft, Oxford 2011, 241-245. This priest named Amenhotep holds amongst others the title sm m Axt nHH; cf. below n. 59.

19 E. Hofmann dates the piece to the early 19th Dynasty, personal communication. 20 An archaeological perspective on the Theban conflict with Panehsy is, however, not entirely new:

Hölscher ascertained severe demolitions at Medinet Habu dating to the late 20th Dynasty which he related to the war of Amenhotep (see below p. 387f. with n. 70). Cf. also Niwinski, Bürgerkrieg, 246, 251, and id., in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 336; similarly J. Lull, in: Aula Orientalis 22, 2004, 214; Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 28.


378 U. Rummel SAK 43

Fig. 1: Ground plan of the double tomb complex K93.11/K93.12

(© DAI Kairo, J. Goischke, G. Heindl, U. Rummel; status April 2014)



2 The tomb-temples of the High Priests Ramsesnakht and Amenhotep at Dra’ Abu el-Naga (K93.11/K93.12)

2.1 Archaeological and chronological overview The double tomb complex K93.11/K93.12 lies in the central part of Dra’ Abu el-Naga just below the hill’s summit. With a courtyard surface area of ca. 1,600 m2, it is one of the larg-est rock-cut tomb complexes in Western Thebes (fig. 1). Its investigation was initiated in 1993 in the frame of the DAI’s long-term project at Dra’ Abu el-Naga21 and, apart from a five-year-long interruption, is still ongoing today. Work first started in the northern tomb, K93.11, where, amongst others, the remains of the destroyed tomb-temple of the HPA Ramsesnakht were discovered.22 More than 4,000 sandstone fragments, both of wall dec-oration and architectural elements, came to light in the open forecourts. Ramsesnakht chose a special site for the construction of his monument: both rock tombs and also a large fore-court terrace supported by an enormous dry-stone wall were conceived and built in the ear-ly 18th Dynasty as a double tomb complex.23 No epigraphic sources are preserved in the tomb complexes to indicate their original owners. However, on the basis of various obser-vations we can infer that the tombs were constructed for Amenhotep I and his mother, Ah-mose Nefertari, whereby several indications suggest that the northern complex, K93.11, should be attributed to Amenhotep I.24 Ramsesnakht’s building activity in K93.11 was mostly restricted to the open forecourt area which he remodelled into two colonnaded courtyards each equipped with their own pylon. The tomb’s interior remained undecorated throughout all its use-life. K93.11 apparently did not serve as the actual burial place of Ramsesnakht. The utter lack of remains of portable tomb equipment suggests that the High

21 For a comprehensive overview of the scope, results and perspectives of the DAI’s project at Dra’ Abu el-

Naga as well as a newly surveyed topographical map see D. Polz, U. Rummel, I. Eichner, Th. Beckh, Topo-graphical Archaeology at Dra’ Abu el-Naga. Three Thousand Years of Cultural History, in: MDAIK 68, 2012 (2014), 115-134.

22 D. Polz, The Ramsesnakht Dynasty and the Fall of the New Kingdom: A new Monument in Thebes, in: SAK 25, 1998, 257-293; id., Bericht über die 4. und 5. Grabungskampagne in der Nekropole von Dra’ Abu el-Naga/Theben-West, in: MDAIK 51, 1995, 211-223; U. Rummel, Die ramessidischen Sandsteinfragmente aus K93.11, in: D. Polz et al., Bericht über die 6., 7. und 8. Grabungskampagne in der Nekropole von Dra’ Abu el-Naga/Theben-West, MDAIK 55, 1999, 350-364; ead., A late-Ramesside sanctuary at western Thebes, in: Egyp-tian Archaeology 14, 1999, 3-6; ead., Die Arbeiten im Ramsesnacht-Komplex K93.11, in: D. Polz et al., Bericht über die 9. bis 12. Grabungskampagne in der Nekropole von Dra’ Abu el-Naga/Theben-West, MDAIK 59, 2003, 319-334.

23 The dating of the first phase is based on the analysis of ceramic material, considerations relating to tomb typology as well as observations with regard to the chronology of the terrace wall’s construction, D. Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende, SDAIK 31, Berlin 2007, 179-183; U. Rum-mel, Der Tempel im Grab: Die Doppelgrabanlage K93.11/K93.12 in Dra’ Abu el-Naga, in: I. Gerlach/D. Raue (eds.), Sanktuar und Ritual: Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund, MKT 10, Rahden/Westf. 2013, 223.

24 One constitutive factor of the overall interpretation is the obvious spatial interrelation between Meniset, the temple of Amenhotep I and Ahmose Nefertari on the edge of the floodplain, and the two tombs. This interre-lation also played an important role in the context of the site’s reutilization during the Ramesside period, Polz, in: SAK 25, 1998, 259-276; id., Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 172-197; U. Rummel, Ramesside tomb-temples at Dra’ Abu el-Naga, in: Egyptian Archaeology 42, 2013, S. 14-17; ead., in: MDAIK 68, 2012 (2014), 123-127. Another indication is a cult installation dedicated to the deified Amenhotep I, which can be recon-structed in the inner court of K93.11. Rummel, in: EA 42, 2013, 16; ead., Tempel im Grab, 231, fig. 18.



Priest was buried elsewhere.25 The findings raised a series of questions regarding the inter-pretation of his monument which, on the one hand, clearly follows the tradition of the Ramesside “sacralized tomb”.26 On the other hand, innovative architectural details such as Hathor columns (unprecedented in a New Kingdom tomb context), and the absence of the High Priest’s burial emphasize the sophisticated temple-character and thus the distinctly cultic purpose of the site. The central question which arose from the results obtained in K93.11 was whether the southern half, K93.12, was also incorporated into the Ramesside reutilization of the site and, if so, by whom? The latter question is of particular interest as a hieratic ostracon found in K93.11 mentioning “two works of the HPA Ramsesnakht” suggests two (concurrently executed?) building projects at the site.27 According to the initial assumption based on ob-servations made in K93.11, the Divine Adoratrice Isis28, daughter of Ramses VI and head of the female Amun clergy in Thebes, was considered a potential owner of K93.12. She was a contemporary of Ramsesnakht and her name is attested in the relief material from K93.11.29 In 2006, excavation work was started in K93.12 and did not provide the evidence of Isis’ presence at the site30 but revealed instead that the tomb was re-used by the HPA Amenhotep.31 However, the Divine Adoratrice most probably figured in Amenhotep’s dec-oration programme: although the identity of the female sistra-player wearing a vulture

25 The autobiographical inscription on the Thutmoside shrine at Karnak attributed to his son Amenhotep reveals that Ramsesnakht “went to rest in Thebes”, see above note 13; cf. A. Thijs, in: DE 60, 2004, 90-95. It is possible that he was buried in TT 148, a nearby tomb belonging to his son-in-law, Amenemope, which was evidently prepared as a family burial site. In addition to five stone sarcophagi, several faience shabtis of Ram-sesnakht’s wife, Adjedet-aat, were also discovered here, B. Ockinga, Use, Reuse, and Abuse of “Sacred Space”: Observations from Dra Abu al-Naga, in: P. F. Dorman/B. M. Bryan (eds.), Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes, SAOC 61, Chicago 2007, 145–146 and Fig 9.29; id., Macquarie University Theban Tombs Project: TT 148 Amenemope. Preliminary Report on 1991/92 and 1992/93 Seasons, in: BACE 4, 1993, note 9, and cf. D. Polz, Ramsesnakht, 272 with note 42.

26 The term “sacralization of the tomb” was coined by Jan Assmann, see J. Assmann, Das Grab des Amen-emope (TT 41), Theben 3, Mainz 1991, 7f.; id., The Ramesside tomb and the construction of sacred space, in: N. Strudwick/J. Taylor (eds.), The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, London 2003, 51f.; id., Die Konstruktion des sakralen Raums in der Grabarchitektur des Neuen Reiches, in: ARG 6, 2004, 1618. Cf. Rummel, Tempel im Grab, 230-233.

27 A. Piccato, A Ramsesnakht Limestone Ostrakon, in: Polz et al., MDAIK 55, 1999, 365-370, fig. 11, pl. 59a. 28 T. Bács, A note on the Divine Adoratrix Isis, daughter of Ramses VI, in: GM 148, 1995, 7-11; C. Traun-

ecker, La divine adoratrice Isis, fille de Ramsès VI: un document nouveau, in: Les divines adoratrices: homma-ges à Jean Yoyotte, Egypte, Afrique et Orient 56, 2010, 23-32.

29 U. Rummel, Two re-used blocks of the God’s Wife Isis at Deir el-Bakhit/Dra’ Abu el-Naga (Western-Thebes), in: S. Snape/M. Collier (eds.), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen, Bolton 2010, 428, fig. 8; ead., Grab oder Tempel?, 349f. Moreover, the fragment of a lid belonging to the granite sarcophagus of a female individual showing the remains of a vulture-headdress that was found in the court of K93.11 (un-published) seemed to support the hypothesis that Isis was linked to the site, cf. Polz, in: SAK 25, 1998, 288f.

30 The tentative hypothesis of two potential Ramesside usages/owners of K93.12 (Isis and Amenhotep) as expressed in the Ramesside Studies reflects the status of work in 2006, cf. Rummel, Two re-used blocks of the God’s Wife Isis, 428-431. According to the current state of research, the tomb of Isis should be located in the area of Deir el-Bakhit, U. Rummel, Gräber, Feste, Prozessionen: Der Ritualraum Theben-West in der Ramessidenzeit, in: G. Neunert et al. (eds.), Nekropolen: Grab – Bild – Ritual. Beiträge des zweiten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 2), 2.12. bis 4.12.2011, GOF IV/54, 2013, 222 with n. 97. In the tomb of Imyseba (TT 65), Isis and Amenhotep are attested in the same context: they both appear in the offer-ing/processional scenes of the broad hall, Bács, in: GM 148, 1995, 7-11.

31 Rummel, Tempel im Grab, 221-233.



headdress attested on two fragments from the tomb’s interior (fig. 2; Taf. 13) cannot be ascertained it can be presumed that the scene depicted Isis.

Both tombs were surmounted by a mud-brick pyramid above the façade. While remains of the ascending walls of the southern pyramid did survive, the northern pyramid was only traceable by a dark layer of melted mud bricks.

Fig. 2: K93.12: Sistrum-player, presumably the Divine Adoratrice Isis,

originally from a scene in the corridor of the tomb’s interior (drawing A. Hilbig)

If Amenhotep’s Karnak inscription commemorating his being rewarded in year 10 of Ram-ses IX is considered as a historiographic source, the actual decoration of K93.12 cannot have been executed before this date as the scene which depicts him receiving the gold of praise was reproduced in the decoration programme of the inner court.32 The earliest date that Amenhotep is attested as the HPA is year 9 of Ramses IX33, and it is quite possible that

32 Rummel, Grab oder Tempel?, 351, 359f., figs. 7-8. For the Karnak scene see above note 14. 33 Bács, in: GM 148, 1995, 9f.; and cf. W. Helck, Der Anfang des Papyrus Turin 1900 und “Recycling” im

Alten Ägypten, in: CdE 59, 1984, 245 (pTurin 1900). Ramsesnakht is last attested in year 2 of Ramses IX but it cannot be excluded that he held his office beyond this date. Wente suggests that Amenhotep took over his office in year 4 of Ramses IX by supposing “that the five and a half years mentioned in line 16 [of the autobiograph-ical text on the Thutmoside shrine] correspond to Amenhotep’s first years from the time he became High Priest until his being rewarded in Year 10 of Ramses IX”, Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 83, n. 27. Amenhotep’s latest attestation dates to year 2 of Ramses X, KRI VI 686.4 (pTurin 1932+1939); cf. Černý, CAH II,23, 629 n. 4.



he took office only shortly before that date. Following the model of his father in K93.11, Amenhotep had his inner court furnished with a peripheral colonnade which partly consist-ed of Hathor columns. Contrary to K93.11 where no decoration of the tomb’s interior could be detected, the south wall of the corridor leading to the four-pillar-room was evidently decorated with wall scenes: it was cased with sandstone slabs and decorated with a sunk, painted relief (figs. 2, 3; Taf. 13). Another noticeable difference between both tomb-temples is the poorer quality of craftsmanship which can be observed in K93.12. Both the wall reliefs and also the architectural components (e.g. the in situ preserved column bases) are executed with less accuracy and skill than in K93.11. This observation could reflect the situation that while Ramsesnakht had a pool of artisans at his disposal during the reign of Ramses VI including some of the best craftsmen available at the time, the situation had changed by the time Amenhotep decorated his inner court. It is quite possible that after year 10 of Ramses IX the overall availability of high-quality artisans in Western Thebes was limited as a consequence of the ensuing socio-economic crisis which affected the reigns of the last Ramesside kings.34 The reduced number of premium workmen and artisans might have been reserved for royal projects such as the construction of the tombs of Ramses IX (KV 6) and his son Mentuherkhepeshef (KV 19) in the Valley of the Kings35, or at Medinet Habu36, and K93.12 was, as a consequence, executed by the “second-rate” craftsmen.37

34 Černý, in: CAH II,2, 617f.; Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 243-254; and cf. K. M. Cooney, in:

JARCE 47, 2011, 3-44. 35 KV 6 remained unfinished, http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_tomb_820.html; KV 19

may have originally been intended for Rameses VIII, but was abandoned. It was adopted by Men-tuherkhepeshef, http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_tomb_833.html.

36 U. Hölscher, The Excavation of Medinet Habu III. The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III, Part II, OIP 55, Chicago 1951, 8-11, pl. 26D; cf. Bács, in: BMAES 16, 2011, 5.

37 According to E. Hofmann’s study, the decoration of the 20th Dynasty tombs is characterized by a re-duced, graphic style: the period’s simplified visual language is characterized by a loss of natural proportions, a degeneration of forms and negligence of the rendering of details, E. Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel. Die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber, Theben 17, Mainz 2004, 49-64. To what extent the observed discrepancies in the High Priests’ relief material correspond to an overall stylistic development or whether they reflect a lack of resources during the reign of Ramses IX can only be conclusively evaluated after the systematic study of the corpus of reliefs. In light of the prevailing economic situation it is interesting to note that the wooden coffin of Amenhotep (probably manufactured during the reign of Ramses XI) imitates granite, see below note 47.



Fig. 3: K93.12: Plan of the tomb’s interior (drawing G. Heindl)

According to the archaeological findings, both tomb-temples came to a sudden end at the close of the New Kingdom, and their demise was caused by deliberate destruction. The chronology of the complex’ use phase during the Ramesside period can be summarized as follows: Ramsesnakht, who is attested in office for at least 25 years38, built his tomb-temple (or executed its decoration) during the reign of Ramses VI (year 5?).39 The time span from the construction of the tomb-temple and his last attested date (year 2 of Ramses IX) thus amounts to approx. 15 years. Amenhotep took office at some point between years 2 and 9 of Ramses IX (cf. above) when the monument designed by his father already existed and functioned as a cultic place for at least 15 years. Assuming that Amenhotep started the work on his own tomb-temple in K93.12, i.e. remodelling its inner courtyard, upon or shortly after his instalment as High Priest, a period of more than 30 years (37 years if the count is started from year 2 of Ramses IX) passed until the presumed end of the entire tomb-temple complex in year 18 of Ramses XI (see below). The entire life-span of the High Priests’ impressive monument can thus be calculated at approx. 53 years (year 5 of Ramses VI to year 18 of Ramses XI). During the course of this long endurance the complex under-went several structural changes, mainly with regard to the layout of the forecourts and the shape of the mud-brick pylons. Furthermore, a section of the processional causeway’s fill,

38 See L. Bell, Only one High Priest Ramessenakht and the Second Prophet Nesamun his younger son, in:

Serapis 6, 1980, 18, note 129; Polz, in: SAK 25, 1998, 276-281. 39 The dating is based on a representation of the reigning king, Ramses VI, and a relief fragment found in

its immediate vicinity that mentions a year 5, Rummel, in: MDAIK 59, 2003, 330f., figs. 5-6. However, it can-not be established with absolute certainty if the fragment with the HAt-sp 5 was part of an inscription referring to the depicted king.



which consisted of white limestone debris, revealed up to five different Ramesside floor levels thus indicating regular use and multiple repairs. The results of seven excavation seasons in K93.12 allow us to gradually form a comprehen-sive picture of the entire complex and its history. Ramsesnakht and Amenhotep created a funerary monument with an unprecedented layout. In terms of innovative architectural de-tails, monumentality, and its elaborate religious decoration programme, their sophisticated temple tomb concept represents the peak of the “sacralization of the tomb” during the New Kingdom. The two-axes system that incorporates the processional causeway, which ascends from the south (fig. 1) was already laid out by Ramsesnakht with the intention of adopting and monumentalizing an existent spatial concept provided by the 18th Dynasty tombs and their relation to the Meniset temple.40 The High Priests’ monuments are an impressive ex-ample of the re-use of space, albeit, of course, not for economic reasons.41 The site encom-passing two ancient royal tombs, was consciously selected because of its significance as a sacred land mark in Dra’ Abu el-Naga, which also occupies a prime location within the “forecourt of Amun”, as the area was perceived throughout the New Kingdom.42 By means of their specific architectural concept, which reveals their central religious, resp. ritual func-tion, the tomb-temples were ideally and topographically linked to the festival processions that passed through Dra’ Abu el-Naga. As a result of their significance, their widely visible monumentality, their interrelated spatial conception and their absorption of parts of the festival rites43, the tomb-temple complex determined if not dominated the local ritual land-scape in the 20th Dynasty. Thus, to a certain albeit comparatively modest extent the entire complex constitutes a small-scale model of what Ramses IV tried to achieve with his gigan-tic but unfinished Asasif-temple.44

40 See above note 24. Another aspect of Ramsesnakht’s extensive building project, which incorporated the

entire site from the outset, might have been the motivation to prepare the second tomb for his eldest son and potential successor.

41 Cf. K. M. Cooney, Changing Burial Practices at the End of the New Kingdom: Defensive Adaptions (...), in: JARCE 47, 2011, 3-44.

42 E. Otto, Topographie des thebanischen Gaues, UGAÄ 16, Berlin 1952, 47f.; G. Hollender, Amenophis I. und Ahmes Nefertari: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung ihres posthumen Kultes anhand der Privatgräber der thebanischen Nekropole, SDAIK 23, Berlin 2009, 40f., and cf. Rummel, Ritualraum, 208 with n. 6, 217f.

43 The site probably received a procession of litters carrying cult images of the deified Amenhotep I and Ahmes-Nefertari from Meniset or another local sanctuary of Amenhotep I, Rummel, in: EA 42, 2013, 14-17; ead., in: MDAIK 68, 2012 (2014), 123-127.

44 Cf. M. Ullmann, König für die Ewigkeit. Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren. Eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten, ÄAT 51, Wiesbaden 2002, 529-536; J. Budka, The Ramesside Temple in the Asasif, in: R. Preys (ed.), 7. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Structuring religion. Leuven, 28. September–1. Oktober 2005, KSG 3/2, Wiesbaden 2009, 42f.; ead., Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruk-tur im Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Ergebnisse der österreichischen Aus-grabungen in den Jahren 1969–1977, UZK 34, Wien 2010, 59f.



2.2 The tomb-temple of the HPA Amenhotep (K93.12)

2.2.1 The archaeological material The most important archaeological finding regarding the HPA Amenhotep is the discovery of his tomb-temple at Dra’ Abu el-Naga as well as the evidence of his burial in the subter-ranean chamber of K93.12. This constitutes irrefutable proof that he was buried in Thebes which ultimately invalidates the, though not widely accepted, hypothesis of Amenhotep’s death in the north following an alleged period of exile (see chapter 3.1). As mentioned above, no remnants of a tomb equipment attributable to Ramsesnakht were found in K93.11. The opposite is the case in K93.12 where extensive remains of the plundered burial equipment of his son were discovered. The most important archaeological material of Amenhotep from K93.12 includes the following:

- a corpus of several thousand sandstone fragments, both relief and architectural objects45

- 18 wooden shabtis inscribed with his name and HPA title46 - fragments of his wooden coffins47 - fragments of a limestone stela with his name and title (plus fragments of at least one more stela probably belonging to Amenhotep)48 - funerary pottery including two amphorae inscribed with his name and HPA title49 - a set of cultic pottery and objects associated with the Osiris-bed in the inner forecourt.50

45 Rummel, Grab oder Tempel?, 359f., figs. 6-8; ead., Tempel im Grab, 223, fig. 2, 225, figs. 4-7; ead., in:

EA 42, 2013, 14-17; also see fig. 2 and pls. 11, 15 of this article. Besides the corpus of sandstone fragments one piece of a limestone wall casing slab (FN 2448) came to light that is plastered and inscribed with black ink: [Hm nTr tpj n Jmn-Ra njswt] nTrw [J]mn-Htp [mAa-]xrw sA (n) Hm nTr [tpj n Jmn Ra-mss-nxt].

46 Rummel, Tempel im Grab, 227, fig. 12; ead., in: EA 42, 2013, 14. Due to the discovery of a fragment of wood depicting part of a head and face, a small wooden statuette must also have been part of Amenhotep’s burial equipment. The fragment shows the same bitumen coat and yellow painting (details of the eyes) as the shabtis.

47 Among the several hundred wooden coffin fragments (of mostly Third Intermediate Period date) from the burial chamber, 124 pieces could be identified as belonging to the coffin(-set?) of the HPA Amenhotep. On one large fragment, his name is preserved. It shows a very distinctive red surface colour imitating granite; the sunk hieroglyphs are painted in blue, U. Rummel/S. Fetler, The coffins of the 3rd Intermediate Period from tomb K93.12 at Dra’ Abu el-Naga: aspects of archaeology, typology, and conservation, in: A. Amenta et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First Vatican Coffin Conference, Musei Vaticani (in press), pl. 5. In the 2014 spring season a further but differently decorated wooden coffin fragment came to light in the first forecourt that bears the remains of Amenhotep’s name and title.

48 These fragments will be presented in a volume of the entire corpus of stelae from Dra’ Abu el-Naga which is currently being prepared by Daniel Polz.

49 Rummel, Tempel im Grab, 228, fig. 13; S. Michels, Cult and funerary pottery from the tomb-temple K93.12 at the end of the 20th Dynasty (Dra‘ Abu el-Naga/Western Thebes), in: B. Bader et al. (eds.),Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Univer-sity of Vienna 14th-18th of May 2012, OLA (in press).

50 In the area of the Osiris-bed, which is located in front of the entrance to K93.12 (see map in fig. 1), ca. 45 jars with cylindrical necks were found (pl. 14 B) associated with a similar amount of red-rimmed dishes, Rummel, Tempel im Grab, 226, figs. 9-10; Michels, Cult and funerary pottery, in press. These vessels together with two miniature gypsum objects (a model sarcophagus and a jar) and botanical remains are the remnants of the funerary rites performed for the HPA Amenhotep at his burial in the open forecourt.



A wooden box with ivory inlay could also have been part of Amenhotep’s burial equip-ment. The burnt remains of at least two boxes were discovered in the debris of the first court of K93.11 comprising hundreds of ivory fragments, bone knobs and a square-shaped copper encasement of one of the boxes’ legs.51 One of the ivory pieces, a disc with an in-cised rosette, shows the truncated cartouche of Ramses VI on its reverse side which indi-cates the reuse of the material later than the reign of this king, possibly at the end of the 20th Dynasty (fig. 4). The mummy of Amenhotep could not be identified among the human remains from the subterranean burial chamber of K93.12 due to the heavy plundering and partial burning of the material. According to the anthropological study which identified a total of 19 individuals in the burial chamber, only three cases show features of a mummifi-cation technique that can be dated to the late New Kingdom.52 Among the buried individu-als are the remains of a senile male (age 60+) who, theoretically, could be considered as Amenhotep. However, this identification cannot be ascertained unequivocally.

Fig. 4: Ivory disk with rosette showing the truncated cartouche of Ramses VI

on its reverse side found in the first court of K93.11 (drawing S. Michels)

2.2.2 Evidence of destruction An important observation which directly touches the issue of a “war” or an aggressive ac-tion against Amenhotep is the layer of sandstone debris that covers almost the entire surface of both forecourts (Taf. 14A). These several thousands of sandstone fragments (pieces of wall decoration, architectural elements, and a large amount of undecorated/uninscribed material) are the remains of his demolished tomb-temple, and testify to a deliberate destruc-tion of the monument at the end of the New Kingdom. The same observation was made in

51 Rummel, in: MDAIK 59, 2003, 325-329, fig. 3a-f. One of the boxes was made for a nbt-pr wr(t) xnrwt

whose name is lost, ibid. fig. 3g. Also cf. the box of Ramses IX in the Cairo Museum (JE 26171): the legs are equipped with similar copper encasements as the one found in K93.11, A. Dodson/C.N. Reeves, A casket frag-ment of Ramses IX in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge, in: JEA 74, 1988, 223-226, fig. 1.

52 Linen pads were placed under his eyelids, see S. Lösch et al., Morphologic-anthropological investiga-tions in tomb K93.12 at Dra’ Abu el-Naga (Western Thebes, Egypt), in: Anthropologischer Anzeiger 71/1-2, 2014, 105-122.



K93.11 in the tomb-temple of his father, Ramsesnakht.53 In both cases, the destruction layer extended immediately above the bedrock or the Ramesside floor level respectively. In K93.12, it covered the above-mentioned Osiris-bed and the associated ritual remnants in front of the tomb’s entrance without any significant strata in between, thus indicating that the monuments were demolished shortly after the burial ritual had been carried out. The ritual vessels were shattered and even crushed in part by the pressure upon them, and the fragmented sherds were pressed into the compacted soil surrounding the bed (Taf. 14B). Approximately 3 m away from the Osiris-bed in the forecourt designated as VH2, a group of plundered coffins of the late 21st/early 22nd Dynasty was found discarded there by tomb robbers.54 The coffins lay directly on top of the layer of sandstone debris which indicates that only a short period of time elapsed between the destruction of the site and the first oc-currences of looting. The entire feature, i.e. the destruction layer and the plundered coffins, was practically “sealed” by Coptic structures which covered the northern portion of VH2 with only ca. 50 cm of unspecific, heterogeneous strata in between. Hence, this area was not disturbed by modern activity.55 Furthermore, a large number of the sandstone fragments from both tomb-temples show clear traces of destruction (Taf. 13, 15; fig. 2). One example (KS 2433) found in K93.11 even seems to testify to the intentional deletion of a name (fig. 5). On this fragment, the titles of one of Ramsesnakht’s sons are mentioned: |1 jt nTr Hrj sStA |2 n Jmn-Ra njswt nTrw sm nt |3 tA Hwt nt HHw n rnpwt [...] mAa xrw |4 sA n Hm nTr tpj |5 [n Jmn Ra-mss-nxt ...]

Fig. 5: Sandstone relief fragment from K93.11 (KS 2433) with the eradicated name of one of Ramsesnakht’s sons

53 Polz, in: SAK 25, 1998, 259-276; Polz, in: MDAIK 55, 1999, 348f.; Rummel, in: MDAIK 59, 2003,

319-334. 54 Rummel/Fetler, The coffins of the TIP from tomb K93.12 (in press), pl. 3. 55 The site was inhabited in early Islamic times, and the main burial chamber was apparently intruded, al-

though not for the first time, in the late 11th or early 12th century, cf. Rummel/Fetler, op. cit.



As becomes clear by the chisel marks, the name was hacked out. Daniel Polz has suggested that Usermaatrenakht could have been the son mentioned here based on the fact that he is attested to have held the title jmj-rA pr-wr in the temple of Ramses III.56 It is however equally possible that Amenhotep was named here, his name having been eradicated in the course of the destruction of the entire complex. His father, his grandfather (Merybastet I)57, and his brothers (Usermaatrenakht, Nesamun and Merybastet II) are known to have held offices in the temple of Ramses III58, and the same holds true for Amenhotep.59 However, it cannot be determined beyond all doubts, which son was mentioned on the fragment. It can only be ascertained that the obvious deletion must have occurred at a time when someone had a reason to erase the name of Amenhotep or one of his brothers.

3 The date of Amenhotep’s death and burial in relation to the conflict with Panehsy A plausible reconstruction of the events at the end of the 20th Dynasty as indicated by the textual sources has been suggested by Jansen-Winkeln.60 According to his evaluation, the time frame of Amenhotep’s suppression and the war is marked by the years 17 and 19 (= year 1 wHm-mswt) of Ramses XI, and the era of “rebirth” is to be considered as an answer to this crisis: it designates the restoration of order after a period of violence and political dissolution.61 Year 19/year 1 wHm-mswt marks the terminus ante quem for this crisis as the dated texts (years 1 and 2 of the wHm-mswt), which mention the attack against the High Priest and the assaults by Panehsy, refer to past events.62 Two documents explicitly name the HPA Amenhotep as the object of an aggressive act: in pMayer A, a witness speaks of a nine-month-long “suppression of Amenhotep” (thj Jmn-Htp)63, and pBM 10052 mentions the “war of the High Priest” (xrwyw n pA Hm nTr tpj).64

56 Polz, in: SAK 25, 1998, 269f. 57 KRI VI, 88,6-7; Statue Cairo CG 42162; Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres, 264f.; Polz, in: SAK 25,

1998, 283f. 58 For Usermaatrenakht cf. note 56. The Second Prophet Nesamun is attestated as a sem-priest in the temple

of Ramses III, J. Capart/A. H. Gardiner/B. van de Walle, New light on the Ramesside Tomb-Robberies, in: JEA 22, 1936, pl. X, 2,1-2, p. 171 (pLeopold II); Peet, Tomb-Robberies, 48, pl. V.6 (pAmherst), cf. Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 17, n. 124, 125. The inscription on the Thutmoside shrine at Karnak mentions Merybastet II in associa-tion with a temple „in the Estate of Amun in the West of Thebes“, presumably the temple of Ramses III, Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 79, fig. 3, line 30. It seems more reasonable to identify this Merybastet with Amenhotep’s brother rather than his grandfather, cf. also Wente, ibid., 81.30a; Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 33.

59 Amenhotep is attested as stm m Axt nxx which probably refers to the temple of Ramses III, B. Haring, Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes, EgUit 12, Leiden 1997, 449, n. 5; KRI VI, 534.5, 540.12. Furthermore, in his autobiographical inscription in Karnak, reference is made to the mansions of millions of years of Ramses III and VI (lines 3-5) which could also indicate that he held an office at these temples, Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 78f. and fig. 1.

60 Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 22-34. 61 Similarly Niwinski, Bürgerkrieg, 241f.; id., in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 340f.; cf. also A. Gnirs, A. Gnirs, Mili-

tär und Gesellschaft. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches, SAGA 17, Heidelberg 1996, 193-195; P. Vernus, Affaires et scandales sous les Ramsès. La Crise des Valeurs dans l'Égypte du Nouvel Empire, Paris 1993, 644.

62 Cf. note 2. 63 pMayer A, 6, 4-9, E. T. Peet, The supposed revolution of the High Priest Amenhotpe under Ramses IX, in:

JEA 12, 1926, 254-259. In pBM 10383, II, 5, the wab priest Payseny reports that his superior (pA=j Hrj) has been attacked (thj) by Panehsy. This anonymous „superior“ has often been identified with the HPA Amenhotep, cf. Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 27; J. Lull, in: Aula Orientalis 22, 2004, 217f.; Černý, in: CAH II,2, 631. According to Wente, pA=j Hrj refers to a member of the higher clergy at Medinet Habu, in: JNES 25, 1966, 84.

64 pBM 10052, Peet, Tomb-Robberies, 155, pl. XXXIII, 13.24.



The most eloquent, but unfortunately rather mutilated text is the autobiographical Karnak-inscription published by Wente, which can with some certainty be ascribed to Amenhotep.65 It also refers to the thj made against him, namely an eight-month-long siege or occupation as described in line 18:

“[...] seized it. He spent 8 whole months in it and I suffered exceedingly under him”.

In lines 20-21 we learn that Amenhotep addressed his god and appealed to the king for help:

“Amun-Re, king of the gods, heard my plea immediately without his having permitted delay [...] [Amun-Re] saw me in the transgression (thj) done against me, and I appealed to Pharaoh, my lord, the one who caused [...]”

Apparently, an opponent (whose name is lost but can be presumed as Panehsy) intruded on Amenhotep’s sphere of authority by means of hostile actions and occupied it for 8 or 9 months.66 According to the text, this period was extremely troublesome for the HPA and most probably led to a heavy conflict. This was eventually settled and order was restored with the aid of the king, Ramses XI, whom Amenhotep appealed to, and also with the suc-cour of Amun-Re, who “attacked (thj) him who attacked (thj) me” (line 24). The final sec-tion of the text deals with the ideal of sacerdotal duties which Amenhotep was eventually able to take up again. The correlation between the textual evidence as provided by the Kar-nak-inscription and the observations made in K93.11/K93.12 seems, at first glance, prob-lematic. The text describes a „happy ending“ to the story according to which the transgres-sor is overcome. However, the archaeological findings at Dra’ Abu el-Naga suggest other-wise: the archaeological record shows a deliberate destruction of both Ramesside tomb-temples at the very end of the New Kingdom. Based on the underlying hypothesis that the demolition was effected by Panehsy and his forces the following conclusion can be drawn: the war (xrwyw) triggered by the thj-suppression was not yet over when Amenhotep had this inscription engraved at Karnak. The aggressor Panehsy might have been expelled from Amenhotep’s sphere of authority, i.e. from Thebes, presumably with the aid of royal troops, but he was possibly still active in the north: pMayer A speaks of a war in Lower Egypt (a-mHtj)67, and from a witness account in pBM 10052, we also learn that Panehsy destroyed Hardai/Kynopolis in Middle Egypt.68 Hence, it can be concluded that Amenhotep died and was buried after the (unknown) date of the Karnak-inscription which indicates the end of the suppression, but before the final expulsion of Panehsy and his troops from Egypt. Their withdrawal from Lower Egypt to Nubia obviously brought about a wave of destruction in

65 Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 73-87, and see note 13 above. 66 The problem of having two different figures regarding the length of the suppression has been solved by

Jansen-Winkeln who has suggested that one document rounds up, the other one down, Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 27; cf. also Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 82.

67 According to Jansen-Winkeln, the war spread into the Delta and he hypothesizes that Pi-Ramesse could have been destroyed during the course of Panehsy’s war in Lower Egypt, and that this destruction of the site is also the reason why it was necessary for the 21st Dynasty to establish a new residence at Tanis, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 27, 30f.

68 pMayer A, 13, B, 2-3; Hardai was situated in the 17th Upper Egyptian nome, W. Helck, Die alt-ägyptischen Gaue, TAVO 5, Wiesbaden 1974, 112-116.



the Theban area69 which is attested in the archaeological record in K93.11/K93.12 and also at Medinet Habu where Uvo Hölscher found traces of severe destruction dating to the end of the 20th Dynasty: the western fortified gate as well as parts of the enclosure wall were demolished, and the administration buildings outside the temple house were destroyed.70 Hölscher already related the archaeological findings to the war of Amenhotep whom he, however, presumed to have been the instigator of the conflict.71 The incidents proper and their chronological sequence are shrouded by many uncertainties. Moreover, as a piece of official propaganda, the historiographic value of Amenhotep’s autobiographical inscription is questionable.72 Nevertheless, an attempt shall be made to reconstruct the sequence of events in terms of Amenhotep’s suppression, death and burial, and the demolition of the High Priests’ temple-tomb complex at Dra’ Abu el-Naga which, as shown above, was a widely visible symbol of Theban power. Year 19 of Ramses XI/year 1 wHm-mswt constitutes a chronological benchmark of Panehsy’s career since by this date he had definitely been declared an enemy of the state, and his name was determined with in official documents.73 However, he began his ca-reer as a high-ranking official in Thebes, possibly as early as year 9 of Ramses XI.74 In year 12 he is securely attested as overseer of the royal granaries (jmj-rA Snwty n pr-aA) and as such responsible for local taxation.75 Year 17 (IV. akhet 25) is the latest attested date for Panehsy exercising an official mandate: he was ordered by the king to assist in the transport of material for a piece of temple furniture.76 It is commonly considered a logical conse-quence that the suppression cannot have happened at or before the date of this royal decree as Panehsy is still persona grata. However, it cannot be ruled out that he entered Amenho-tep’s sphere of competence disputing his authority, and yet received an official order from the king who resided in the distant Delta – after all, it can be assumed that Panehsy and his troops had been appointed as a security force in Thebes initially by the king due to the un-

69 It is quite possible that Panehsy’s army was also responsible for the looting of the royal tombs in the

Kings’ Valley, see C. Aldred, More light on the Ramesside Tomb Robberies, in: G. A. Gaballa et al. (eds.), Glimpses of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of H.W. Fairman, Warminster 1979, 92-99; Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 31. However, Jansen-Winkeln revises his view in ZÄS 122, 1995, 62-78.

70 U. Hölscher, Medinet Habu. Ausgrabungen des Oriental Institutes der Universität Chicago, Leipzig, 1933, 27, 32f., 49-51; id., The Excavation of Medinet Habu V. Post-Ramessid remains, OIP 66, Chicago 1954, 1f. Assaults on the temple of Medinet Habu are also attested in the tomb robbery papyri: pBM 10383 documents the trial that dealt with stolen temple property (gold and silver), Peet, Tomb-Robberies, 122-127, pl. XXII, I.1-3, and pMayer A indicates that Medinet Habu was seized (Sd) by foreigners (Aaaw) in the sixth month of Amen-hotep’s suppression, Peet, in: JEA 12, 1936, 255.

71 Based on Peet, in: JEA 12, 1936, 254-259, Hölscher dates these events to the reign of Ramses IX, see note 70.

72 Cf. Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 194f. On the historicity of New Kingdom „historical“ texts see L. Popko, Exemplarisches Erzählen im Neuen Reich? – Struktur einer Ereignisgeschichte, in: M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Das Ereignis. Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Vorfall und Befund, IBAES 10, 2009, 211-222.

73 pBM 10052, 10, 18; pBM10383, II,5; pMayer A, 13, B3, cf. Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 26, n 48. 74 Panehsy is named in a damaged passage in the verso of pBM 10053, which documents a robbery trial,

probably as a member of the investigation committee, Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 85f.; Gnirs, Militär und Ge-sellschaft, 194.

75 Turin Taxation Papyrus, A. H. Gardiner, Ramesside Administrative Documents, London, 1948, 36. 76 KRI VI, 734,10 (pTurin Cat. 1896).



stable situation.77 The incident(s) later defined as thj in the official documents could have happened in or before year 17.78 At some point between the years 12 and 17, Panehsy and Amenhotep came into conflict, presumably over competences79, in the course of which the High Priest was “suppressed” for 8 to 9 months. The conflict could have started as a local dispute between two high officials or two institutions initially without the intervention of the king. The situation must have escalated, and Panehsy was eventually driven out of Thebes. His expulsion could have still occurred during year 17 which was only in its first season when Ramses XI issued the aforementioned decree. The autobiographical text on the Thutmoside shrine at Karnak could have been commissioned by Amenhotep to commemo-rate the end of the thj and Panehsy’s expulsion from Thebes. The subsequent war in Lower and Middle Egypt, and the Nubian army’s withdrawal to the south, which led to the de-structions in Thebes, should then be dated to year 18 of Ramses XI since these historic events are referred to in retrospect in the tomb robbery papyri of year 19/1 wHm-mswt.80 However, it is also conceivable that the autobiographical text was executed posthumously.81 The favourable outcome of the conflict would thus be mere propaganda, a demonstration of the superiority of Maat, ignoring „real“ historical facts.82 Maybe it was commissioned as a restoration text by the successor of Amenhotep after the latter had died and been buried, and after the destruction of his tomb by Panehsy. A possible candidate for this would be Amenhotep’s brother, Nesamun, who presumably took over the office of High Priest when Amenhotep died (see chapter 3.2). In the end, it cannot, of course, be entirely excluded that the destruction of K93.11/K93.12 has got nothing to do with Panehsy or his war against Amenhotep. But then the damage at the site would have to be linked to another cause, per-haps a hitherto unknown conflict during the transition to the wHm-mswt era or in the early years of this era, and thus to another opponent who was motivated enough to smash the High Priests’ monuments to pieces.

3.1 Amenhotep: Exile in the north? Gerhard Fecht has suggested reading pPushkin 127 (“Moskauer literarischer Brief”, “Tale of Woe”) as a historiographic document which describes the suppression of Amenhotep and his banishment from Thebes in a literary guise.83 In the form of a letter, the text narrates the

77 Cf. Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 30; Niwinski, in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 330-334; Morales, in: GM 181, 2000, 72f. The idea that Panehsy officially acted on behalf of the king is rejected by M. Barwik. He pre-sumes that the viceroy had imposed a military administration in Thebes thereby diminishing the sovereignty of both king and HPA, and that he was defeated by Ramses XI prior to year 17 (i.e. the date of the decree), Bar-wik, The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt, 80-82, 105.

78 Similarly Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 195 with n. 23; cf. also Wente, JNES 25, 1966, 86, who dates the suppression “somewhat before Year 9 of Ramesses XI”.

79 Jansen-Winkeln has suggested that disputes concerning the provision of Panehsy’s troops possibly acted as one trigger, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 30.

80 The same date for the war is suggested by Niwinski, in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 336, 338; Lull, in: Aula Orien-talis 22, 2004, 220.

81 This possibility has also been considered by Niwinski, Bürgerkrieg, 253f., and Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 33. Cf. also Barwik, The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt, 108f.

82 Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 194f., and cf. Popko, Exemplarisches Erzählen im Neuen Reich?, 216-219. 83 G. Fecht, Der Moskauer „literarische Brief“ als historisches Dokument, in: ZÄS 87, 1962, 12-31.



misfortunes of a god’s father from Heliopolis named Wermai, son of Huy, who was ex-pulsed from his office, deprived of all his possessions, and cast out of his city. After an arduous odyssey through Egypt he ends up in the “Great Oasis” (Kharga or Dakhla) where he spends a meagre life. The text ends with a plea for help addressed to an unnamed foreign saviour.84 According to Fecht’s understanding, Wermai’s story is an “encrypted” version of Amenhotep’s fate, i.e. his banishment and exile inflicted on him by Panehsy. This interpre-tation has been supported by Andrzej Niwinski, who reconstructs the final stage of Amen-hotep’s life based on the Wermai-narrative: Panehsy and his army headed northward in pursuit of the fugitive High Priest, who had fled from Thebes via the oases of the western desert to hide in Lower Egypt.85 During the course of Panehsy’s thrust to the north, Hardai was destroyed by his troops. Niwinski presumes that the High Priest, although eventually restored to office by the king, never returned to his city alive but was transferred back to Thebes by his successor, Herihor.86 Ad Thijs likewise considers pPushkin 127 as a literary adaptation of historical events, and uses the text as a primary source to discuss Amenho-tep’s situation during the time of the conflict, i.e. his period of exile in the Great Oasis, and his restoration to office.87

However, the historical interpretation of Wermai’s odyssey is challenged by analyses with a literature theoretical approach such as the study made by Gerald Moers. The author underlines the fictional character of the text which he classifies as a travel narrative. As Moers points out, the odyssey of Wermai exhibits an essential feature of fictionality that characterises this particular genre: the motif of crossing borders.88 The protagonist leaves his usual environment behind him and enters an entirely new space of experience outside the reality model of his everyday life. He enters an “intermediate world” which lies beyond socio-cultural norms.89 In the case of Wermai, it is the loss of his (social) identity and his

84 The papyrus was published by R. A. Caminos, A Tale of Woe: From a Hieratic Papyrus in the A.S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, Oxford 1977; cf. the translations by G. Moers, Der Brief des Wer-mai. Der Moskauer literarische Brief, TUAT 3, Gütersloh 1995, or J. F. Quack, Ein neuer Versuch zum Mos-kauer literarischen Brief, in: ZÄS 128, 2001, 167-181.

85 Niwinski, in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 337. 86 Niwinski, Bürgerkrieg, 252-255; id., in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 338-341. He assumes that Amenhotep eventually

received help from the king, who offered him a high-ranking position in a Lower Egyptian temple, either Heliopo-lis or Memphis, id., Bürgerkrieg, 253. As to the question of Amenhotep’s successor, see below chapter 3.2.

87 A. J. Thijs, „I was thrown out from my city“ – Fecht’s view on Pap. Pushkin 127 in a new light, in: SAK 35, 2006, 307-326; id., The Second Prophet Nesamun and his claim to the High-Priesthood, in: SAK 38, 2009, 350f. Thijs even considers the text of pPushkin 127 as a counterpart to the autobiographical Karnak-inscription: „the papyrus expressing Amenhotep’s confidence in Pharaoh during the darkest days of his plight, the stone wall his gratitude afterwards“, in: SAK 35, 2006, 323. Also J. Lull, albeit more cautiously, discusses the text as a mirror of the historical events, in: Aula Orientalis 22, 2004, 227f.

88 G. Moers, Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Grenzüberschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität, PdÄ 19, Leiden/Boston/Köln 2001, 38-79; 101-105, 273-279. According to Moers the travel motif proves to be the ideal and preferred tool of literary fictionality: „Es ist das Reisemotiv selbst, welche den in der Gattung Ägyptische Reiseerzählung zwischen Autor und Rezipient geschlossenen fiktionalen Vertrag markiert und das die Reiseerzählungen zum Paradigma ägyptischer literarischer Fiktionalität macht“, ibid., 104f. Cf. however Quack, who questions the methods Moers applied to discern literary texts, J.F. Quack, in: WdO 33, 2003, 151-156 (review of Moers, Fingierte Welten).

89 “In den Texten dieser Gattung [Reiseerzählung] verlassen die Protagonisten die semantischen Räume, an die sie als die Träger dekomponierter Bezugssysteme zunächst gebunden sind, um in sogenannte Gegenfelder einzutreten”, Moers, Fingierte Welten, 281. The protagonist thus reaches areas which can be determined as „imaginäre Zwischenreiche zwischen Leben und Tod“, ibid., 282.



cultural frame of reference that results in complete isolation. pPushkin 127 fulfils yet an-other criterion of literariness: H.-W. Fischer-Elfert was able to detect clear signs of intertex-tuality90. He succeeded in identifying a possible donor source (“literarisches Spenderma-terial”) for the odyssey or, as he calls it, the “passion”of Wermai, namely the execration formula of the stèle de l’apanage from Karnak.91 Fischer-Elfert convincingly proposes that the odyssey of Wermai can be considered as a divine execration in praxi, and that the narra-tive served as a deterrent by demonstrating the consequences of violating a divine decree.92

The analyses of Moers and Fischer-Elfert clearly show the literary nature of pPushkin 127, and thus invalidate the text as a historical source.93 Consequently, the hypothesis of Amenhotep’s exile in the north or even a temporary absence from Thebes lacks any solid basis. The HPA was most probably present in Thebes until the day he died: indeed there is no reason to assume otherwise. Also the archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga has not yielded any results concerning the situation of Amenhotep during the 8 to 9 months when he was subjected to the transgressions of Panehsy. In fact, there is no specific information at all about this period, about what actions exactly are meant by the term thj, or where and how the HPA spent the time of his suppression. We only know that he “suffered exceeding-ly” during this time. If Amenhotep actually “languished at home, shorn of the trappings of power, deprived of his accustomed wealth, politically isolated” as Toby Wilkinson imagi-nes in his novelistic description of that time94, remains conjectural.

3.2 The priesthood of the HPA Nesamun A short overview will now be given on yet another topic of debate connected to the period in question, namely the priesthood of Amenhotep’s brother, Nesamun. He is attested as Second Priest of Amun (2PA) from year 13 of Ramses IX95 to year 25 of Ramses XI/7 wHm-mswt96, and thus spent a large part of his tenure serving under the HPA Amenhotep. There are, however, two attestations of Nesamun as the HPA: one on the scribal statue of his father Ramsesnakht from Karnak (Cairo CG 42.162)97 and the second one on an un-published papyrus fragment in Philadelphia (pPhiladelphia University Museum 49.11), which has only been recently introduced to the discussion by Thijs.98 While the apparently

90 On intertextuality as a marker of fictionality, see Moers, Fingierte Welten, 106-154. 91 H.-W. Fischer-Elfert, Vom Fluch zur Passion. Zur literarischen Genese des „Tale of Woe“ (Pap. Pushkin

127), in: G. Burkard et al. (eds.). Kon-Texte. Akten des Symposions „Spurensuche – Altägypten im Spiegel seiner Texte“, ÄAT 60, Wiesbaden 2004, 80-89; id., Abseits von Ma’at. Fallstudien zu Außenseitern im Alten Ägypten, Wahrnehmungen und Spuren Altägyptens Bd. 1, Würzburg 2005, 215-223. Antonio Loprieno also infers „intertextual echoes“, since the „richness of topographical details [in Wermai’s account] reminds of Sinuhe’s journey to Asia“, A. Loprieno, Travel and space in Egyptian literature, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Mensch und Raum von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, München und Leipzig 2006, 16.

92 Fischer-Elfert, Vom Fluch zur Passion, 89; id., Abseits von Ma’at, 224-232, 236f. 93 In a similar vein, see Quack, who designates the attempt to link the odyssey of Wermai to the fate of the

High Priest Amenhotep as “adventurous”, J. F. Quack, in: ZÄS 128, 2001, 172. 94 T. Wilkinson, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, London 2010, 378. 95 pLeopold II, J. Capart/A. H. Gardiner/B. van de Walle, New light on the Ramesside tomb-robberies, in:

JEA 22, 1936, 171, pl XII, 1,15-2,1; see above note 58. 96 Date of the oracle text of a priest Nesamun at Karnak, see below note 107. 97 KRI VI, 531.14. 98 A. Thijs, The Second Prophet Nesamun and his claim to the High-Priesthood, in: SAK 38, 2009, 352f.

However, according to Barwik, the name on the fragment reads Nesymut, and not Nesamun, Twilight of Ramesside Egypt, 109, n. 187.



secondarily added99 line of inscription on the socle of CG 42.162 cannot be chronologically fixed, the papyrus fragment can be dated to year 2 of the wHm-mswt as it constitutes the lower part of pBM 10383.100 Different suggestions have been made as to when Nesamun held the office of the High Priest. Černý placed his tenure between the years 2 and 10 of Ramses IX, i.e. Ramsesnakht’s last attested year and the date of Amenhotep’s reward sce-ne.101 But a priesthood, which predated that of Amenhotep, is highly unlikely since this would imply that Nesamun stepped down from the HPA’s office to clear the position for his brother, himself taking on the part of 2PA. However, from the evidence in the tomb of Imyseba (TT 65) we know that in Amenhotep’s first years as HPA, the office of 2PA was held by a person named Tjanefer.102 It seems to be more likely that Nesamun only initially entered the service of Amun at Karnak between years 9 (by this time the decoration of TT 65 had been finished) and 13 of Ramses IX: in any case after Amenhotep had become High Priest. Besides the aforementioned considerations, the inscriptions of Amenhotep’s reward scenes at Karnak include the information that he followed his father Ramsesnakht in office: Jmn-Htp mAa xrw r st jt=f (...) Ra-mss-nxt, which, if understood literally, excludes the possi-bility that Nesamun became High Priest before his brother.103

Thijs has proposed that Nesamun held the office of the High Priest during the tenure of Amenhotep.104 Based on the hypothesis that Amenhotep fled from Thebes due to the sup-pression by Panehsy and spent 8 to 9 months in the Great Oasis (see previous chapter), he presumes that Nesamun took over the position, or was chosen by “loyalists” to do so, while his brother was in exile. Acting merely as a “war-time HPA”, he stepped down when Amenhotep returned to Thebes, an event, which, according to Thijs, only occurred shortly after the proclamation of the wHm-mswt.105 However, as indicated above, the theory of Amenhotep’s exile is not tenable. Moreover, it can be assumed that the entire institution of the pr-Jmn was affected by the encroachment of Panehsy (even though Amenhotep as its superior probably “suffered” the most), and consequently any replacement of the HPA would have likewise been subjected to the thj. In view of the foregoing, it seems most likely that Nesamun succeeded his brother in office as the HPA after Amenhotep had died. It is also possible, that he was the person, who pro-vided for Amenhotep’s burial in K93.12. As mentioned above, it is not inconceivable that the autobiographical Karnak inscription was engraved posthumously and that Nesamun could have been the one who commissioned it for Amenhotep, as a kind of restoration text that marked the end of the crisis. His involvement with the burial and the autobiographical

99 Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 17, 25f. 100 Thijs, in: SAK 38, 2009, 352; cf. Peet, Tomb-Robberies, 122-127. 101 CAH II,23 628. Kees and also Helck raised doubts as to whether Nesamun’s claim to the office of HPA

was ever fulfilled. The inscription on the socle of CG 42.162 might, according to Helck, express Nesamun’s „hope“ for the office (in: JARCE 6, 1967, 139), or, as considered by Kees, indicate a short transition period before the actual tenure of Amenhotep, H. Kees, Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit, PÄ 1, Leiden, Köln 1953, 126-128. Cf. Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 16.

102 Kees, Priestertum, 128; Bács, in: GM 148, 1995, 9; Thijs, in: SAK 38, 2009, 346f. 103 Lefebvre, Inscriptions, 55 (34), 62 (41); cf. Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 17. 104 Thijs, in: SAK 38, 2009, 350f. 105 Ibid. According to Thijs, the „five and a half years“ mentioned in line 16 of the autobiographical Kar-

nak-inscription refer to Amenhotep’s remaining tenure under Ramses XI following the suppression, ibid. 351.



text could have been supported by his brother, Merybastet, whose name is preserved at the end of the text.106 However, Nesamun’s tenure as High Priest was apparently on a tempo-rary basis only. He is attested as 2PA in year 25 of Ramses XI/7 wHm-mswt in the famous oracular inscription of a priest with the same name at Karnak107, which would imply that he had, at some point, resigned from the High Priesthood and returned to his former position as 2PA. This „demotion“ has led to some discussion where it has been repeatedly noted that it is, indeed, Nesamun who is acting in the place of the HPA in front of the divine bark despite his title as 2PA in the oracular ceremony.108 The figure actually titled as HPA is the General Piankh, who is depicted at the upper right edge of the scene. He appears in a secu-lar robe whereas Nesamun wears the ritual garment of the leopard skin, common to the HPA and 2PA alike. The unusual constellation exhibited in the scene in fact gives rise to a number of questions concerning the roles and sacerdotal biographies of Piankh and Nesamun. It has been repeatedly stated that Piankh is simply referred to as „General“ (jmj-rA mSa) in the main text below the depiction of the divine bark’s depiction. This led Bell to assume that he had not yet become High Priest at the time when the oracle ceremony took place, but only assumed the office in the short time span after the occurrence of the oracle and before its recording on the temple wall.109 However, as has been pointed out by Jansen-Winkeln, Piankh’s personal background was an entirely military one. Accordingly, his sta-tus as a general was of overriding significance, the title jmj-rA mSa thus determined his per-son, while the HPA title, even in the context of a religious ceremony, only played a subor-dinate role.110 This relation in terms of the significance of offices was inverted during the tenure of his successor Herihor: in his case the office of the High Priest is clearly predomi-nant whereas his military rank is only of minor importance.111

Given the available information about his tenure as 2PA, it can be assumed that Nesamun held the office of the HPA merely on an interim basis. Nesamun was possibly never in line to become High Priest, but after the death of his brother Amenhotep he might have been chosen by the new Theban decision-makers to take over the office.112 As an off-spring of the powerful Ramsesnakht family and a longstanding 2PA, he was accepted as an interim solution at the head of the Estate of Amun as long as the designated HPA, the Gen-eral Piankh, had not yet been initiated into his sacerdotal office due to his ongoing in-volvement in the combats against Panehsy in Nubia.113 Piankh’s initiation and Nesamun’s

106 Wente, in: JNES 25, 1966, 79, fig. 3, lines 30-31, and see above note 58. 107 Ch. Nims, An Oracle dated in „The Repeating of Births“, in: JNES 7, 1948, 157-162. 108 Cf. Nims, in: JNES 7, 1948, 157-162; Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 18-24; Thijs, in: SAK 38, 2009, 347-350. 109 Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 23. Due to the assumption that Piankh did not yet hold the office of HPA at the

time of the ceremony, it required, according to Bell, the mediation of the 2PA Nesamun in order to transmit the oracular petition to the god, ibid; see also K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, Warminster 1973, 18-20.

110 Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 23f.; Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 18, n. 75. James and Morkot explain Piankh’s in their view „muted“ High-Priesthood by suggesting that he „respectfully stressed his title as general more, given that Herihor still held the title of ‘First Prophet of Amun’“, P. James/R. Morkot, Herihor’s Kingship and the High Priest of Amun Piankh, in: JEH 3, 2010, 250.

111 Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 22-26; Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 195-211. 112 On the new Theban elite, which replaced the Ramsesnakht Dynasty, see Gnirs, ibid.; Bell, in: Serapis 6,

1980, 25f. 113 Concerning Piankh’s campaigns against Panehsy, see Jansen-Winkeln, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 30f.; Gnirs,

Militär und Gesellschaft, 208-211. Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 24f., argues in a similar vein regarding Piankh’s



resignation must have taken place at some point before year 7 of the wHm-mswt, the date of the oracle. The ritual constellation in the oracle might be interpreted to the effect that Nesamun, despite being only 2PA (yet a ritual function in itself), could act as the main offi-ciant of the ceremony, as he had already been initiated into the office of the High Priest and was therefore still entitled to perform in this capacity. If his agency in this particular cere-mony was due to a “benevolent gesture” or “granted privilege” of Piankh, as Thijs pre-sumes114, cannot be determined. Perhaps the oracular scene simply does reflect the actual situation of religious service at that time: Piankh was the Theban head of state, who offi-cially held the title of the HPA (which in his case had probably more political than religious significance), while Nesamun as a long-serving and competent priest was the person who actually officiated in the temple ritual. Such an arrangement was all the more necessary since the campaigns against Panehsy held Piankh occupied at least until year 10 of the wHm-mswt.115 In light of the considerations presented above, the tenure of Nesamun as High Priest can be placed in the time span from year 18 (the death and burial of Amenhotep; demolition of his tomb-temple) to Piankh’s undated sacerdotal initiation which took place before year 25 of Ramses XI/7 of wHm-mswt. After his appointment as the HPA, Nesamun added the dedica-tion inscription to the statue of Ramsesnakht (CG 42.162) “to revive his (father’s) name”, which presumably had already been part of the temple equipment during the latter’s tenure. This gesture might have been motivated by the desire to restore Ramsesnakht’s memory in the aftermath of the events that inflicted damage on his family and entailed the complete destruction of his father’s and brother’s tomb-temples at Dra’ Abu el-Naga.116 The unusual, non-linear career of Nesamun is definitely a special case in New Kingdom history. His interim tenure as High Priest must be considered as a provisional solution owing to the exceptional circumstances at the end of the 20th Dynasty.

4 Conclusion The archaeological results obtained in the double tomb complex K93.11/K93.12 at Dra’ Abu el-Naga proved to be revealing with regard to both Amenhotep’s biography and also the office of the High Priest in the 20th Dynasty, the latter particularly regarding the hold-er’s power and agency as becomes, amongst others, evident in the far-reaching command

frequent absence, but he rejects the idea of Nesamun’s direct succession to Amenhotep. Because the latter might have “proven so ineffectual in controlling the deteriorating situation and military presence (...) was required”, the instalment of a further member of the Ramsesnakht family was avoided, and the General Herihor was ap-pointed as High Priest instead, ibid., 26. After Herihor’s death, Nesamun was considered to be a “prime candi-date” for the office since he was a “distinguished member of one of the great priestly families of the Ramesside period”, and was subsequently appointed High Priest in order to fill the position while Piankh was preoccupied in Nubia, ibid., 25f.

114 Thijs, in: SAK 38, 2009, 350. 115 LRL, 7,16-18,1 (pTurin 1972); see Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 209f. 116 Cf. Bell, in: Serapis 6, 1980, 25. In accordance with Bell, it can be assumed, that Nesamun, along with

applying the dedication formula, also had Ramsesnakht’s statue reset in a more prominent place at Karnak.



over (sacred) space.117 On the basis of the widely debated written sources which provide glimpses of the political situation at the close of the Ramesside period, the findings in K93.11/K93.12 were considered in light of the historical events that can be deduced from the texts. Stratigraphical observations enable us to propound a connection between the ob-vious destruction of the site and Panehsy’s war/aggression against Amenhotep mentioned in the tomb robbery papyri. Along this line of argumentation it is not surprising that both Amenhotep’s and his father’s tomb-temples were a focus of the deliberate destruction by Panehsy and his forces as they were widely visible, monumental symbols of the local High Priests’ power. The fact that the monuments were demolished sheds light on their actual significance and symbolic character118, especially in view of Hölscher’s findings of destruc-tion in the temple precinct of Medinet Habu which he likewise linked to the attacks under-taken by Panehsy. Both places were closely related to the Estate of Amun thereby incorpo-rating supreme Theban power, and as such, they were presumably „ideologically charged“: Medinet Habu as the centre of its administration in Western Thebes119, K93.11/K93.12 as the site of the tomb-temples of the pr-Jmn’s highest representatives. Drawing a detailed picture of the late 20th Dynasty and the beginning of the wHm-mswt remains a challenging task since a set of important parameters are still unknown. The same holds true for practically every period of Ancient Egypt. But in view of the comparatively high number of written sources, which mention the historical events of this specific time period, it is tempting to overestimate the actual scope of factual knowledge thereby neglect-ing the fact that we draw our information for the most part merely from allusions made in the relevant texts, and not from direct statements. Consequently, history sometimes tends to be created rather than reconstructed (at times even including speculations on the protago-nists’ state of mind). In spite of all the open questions concerned with it, the conflict of Amenhotep and Panehsy can be considered as a historical fact. The archaeological record from K93.11/K93.12 adds one more component to the overall picture of the period as well as Amenhotep’s biography, and provides, amongst others, the material evidence of destruc-tion, which renders the previously abstract notion of war and aggression into a tangible result.

117 The scope of agency becomes even more evident in view of Amenhotep’s use of sacred space in Kar-

nak, Bács, in: BMAES 16, 2011, 11. 118 Furthermore, it highlights the tomb-temples as being a vital part of their owners’ identities which equal-

ly stood in the focus of the destruction. 119 Medinet Habu was not only the most important temple in Western Thebes in economical terms but, ac-

cording to pWilbour, also the „most important land-holder in Egypt“, Haring, Divine Households, 28, 30-35; cf. also Jac J. Janssen, The Role of the Temple in the Egyptian Economy during the New Kingdom, in: E. Lipinski (ed.), State and Temple Economy in Ancient Near East II, OLA 6, Leuven 1979, 506-507.


2014 U. Rummel Tafel 13

A

B K93.12: Two fragments of a mutilated scene from the tomb’s interior showing the vulture head-dress, wig (A) and parts of the upper body (B) of a sistrum-player, presumably the

Divine Adoratrice Isis. Similar to the wall decoration of the open forecourts, the scene was deliberately destroyed

(© DAI Kairo, P. Windszus).


Tafel 14 U. Rummel SAK 43

A) K93.12: Destruction layer of sandstone debris in the first forecourt; to the right a row of five depressions for column bases

(© DAI Kairo, U. Rummel).

B) K93.12: Shattered pottery vessels in the area of the Osiris-bed in the inner courtyard

(© DAI Kairo, U. Rummel).


2014 U. Rummel Tafel 15

A

B

K93.12: Two sandstone fragments with secondary chisel marks resulting from the tomb-temples’ destruction: fragment A with the name of Amenhotep’s mother, the wrt xnrwt n

Jmn Adjedet-aat (© DAI Kairo, U. Rummel)


Inhaltsverzeichnis

Abdel-Raziq, Abdalla Three Late Middle Kingdom Stelae from Al-Salam School Museum, Assiut (Taf. 1-3) ........................................................... 1-16 Antoine, Jean-Christophe Social position and the organisation of landholding in Ramesside Egypt. An analysis of the Wilbour Papyrus ......................................................................... 17-46 Breyer, Francis Vorlagen zur ›Punthalle‹ von Dair al-Baḥrī aus dem Alten Reich. Philologisch-epigraphische, textkritische und ikonographische cruces im Zusammenspiel von Darstellungen und Inschriften ................................................. 47-91 Di Biase-Dyson, Camilla Multiple Dimensions of Interpretation. Reassessing the Magic Brick Berlin ÄMP 15559 (Taf. 4) ....................................... 93-107 Díaz Hernández, Roberto A. The Role of the War Chariot in the Formation of the Egyptian Empire in the Early 18th Dynasty .................................................... 109-122 Hellum, Jennifer Toward an Understanding of the Use of Myth in the Pyramid Texts ....................... 123-142 Hsu, Shih-Wei Pharaos Körper: Tiere als bildliche Ausdrücke in den Königsinschriften ............... 143-157 Kahl, Jochem Assiut – Theben – Tebtynis. Wissensbewegungen von der Ersten Zwischenzeit und dem Mittleren Reich bis in Römische Zeit ............................................................... 159-172

Klotz, David Hibis Varia (§1-3): Diverse Liturgical Texts from Hibis Temple ............................ 173-207 Lapp, Günther Totentexte der Privatleute vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zur 1. Zwischenzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Sargkammern und Särgen ......................... 209-222 Malaise, Michel Le calathos sur la tête d’Isis: une enquête ................................................................ 223-265


VI Inhaltsverzeichnis SAK 43 (2014)

Metawi, Dina The False Door of WDa-©ri (Cairo Museum, without number) (Taf. 5-7) ............... 267-276 O’Rourke, Paul F. The Book of the Dead of Ankhefenkhonsu in Brooklyn (Taf. 8-12) ....................... 277-315 Ramcke, Rainer Der Sothis-Zyklus und die zwei Anfänge des altägyptischen Verwaltungskalenders. Eine astronomische Simulation .......................................... 317-358 Ridealgh, Kim 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 ......... 359-373 Rummel, Ute War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep: the archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga (Taf. 13-15) .................................... 375-397 Spalinger, Anthony John Eleventh Day, Twelfth Night: Further Remarks Concerning Three Feasts in Egyptian Civil Tooth ....................... 399-415 Stefanović, Danijela The overseer of mSa of the section of nfrw (stela London BM EA 1822) (Taf 16) ...................................................................... 417-421 Theis, Christoffer Zu den an der Pyramide Lepsius XIII gefundenen Namen. Die Frage nach Nfr-k# und B#-k# ............................................................................... 423-438 El-Tonssy, Mohamed A. / Mohamed, Yossef Two Unpublished False Doors from Saqqara (Taf. 17-18) ...................................... 439-455 Anschriften der Autorinnen und Autoren ................................................................. 457-458 Tafeln 1-18


War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep: The archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga

Documents

Transcript of War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep: The archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga