Royal Authority in Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty 9781407303086, 9781407333205
This study highlights and debates the evidence for the king's personal authority and power within three major spher
195 78 4MB
English Pages [154] Year 2008
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PREFACE
CHAPTER ONE: ROYAL APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS: EVIDENCE
CHAPTER TWO: ROYAL APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS: ANALYSIS
CHAPTER THREE: THE USE OF ROYAL COMMANDS (wD-nsw): EVIDENCE
CHAPTER FOUR: THE USE OF ROYAL COMMANDS (wD-nsw): ANALYSIS
CHAPTER FIVE: THE KING’S ROLE AS MILITARY LEADER:EVIDENCE
CHAPTER SIX: THE KING’S ROLE AS MILITARY LEADER: ANALYSIS
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Recommend Papers
- Author / Uploaded
- Garry J. Shaw
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
BAR S1822 2008
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty
SHAW
Garry J. Shaw
ROYAL AUTHORITY IN EGYPT’S EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY
B A R
BAR International Series 1822 2008
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Garry J. Shaw
BAR International Series 1822 2008
ISBN 9781407303086 paperback ISBN 9781407333205 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303086 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
BAR
PUBLISHING
ABSTRACT Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Garry J. Shaw This study highlights and debates the evidence for the king’s personal authority and power within three major spheres of influence: 1) the appointment of officials, 2) the making of commands; and 3) military leadership. The extent to which this evidence can be used to create a historically accurate picture of government practice is a major issue throughout this study. The evidence collected dates to the 18th Dynasty from the reign of Ahmose to the end of the reign of Amenhotep III. Chapter one deals with evidence for the appointment of officials by the king as evidenced by the words dhn, rdi m/r, and sxnt. For each official who explicitly records that he was appointed by the king a family history is provided in an attempt to chart whether offices moved within the same family lines throughout the period. Chapter two analyses this data. The meaning of the different words typically translated as ‘to appoint’, or ‘to promote’ is discussed. This is followed by a discussion of the extent of hereditary offices among the high elite. Discussions follow of the evidence for officials buying and selling offices, career progression, and the king removing officials from office. Any evidence for the king appointing those who could be considered his friends or those not from established family lines is also discussed. It is concluded that there is some evidence to suggest that the king could appoint whomever he wished, without interference from powerful families. Chapter three presents all evidence of the king making commands, as evidenced by the word wD. Chapter four is an analysis of this evidence. The commands are divided into categories, and a discussion of their physical context is made. Who the king gave commands to, and the presentation of the formulation of decrees is discussed. It is tentatively concluded that the king did have extensive personal authority, but that this is not presented explicitly in the majority of the preserved evidence. Chapter five presents evidence for the king making military decisions and fighting alongside his army. This evidence is analysed in Chapter six in which it is divided according to whether the king was present on the military campaign or not. The king’s role in making military decisions is then discussed, as well as whether he actually fought on campaign. Ideological themes, found both in texts and images of the king in battle, are then discussed in an attempt to decide whether the evidence presents a true picture of the king’s role as military leader. It is concluded that the king likely did not fight alongside his army, and that the evidence does not allow the king’s role as decision maker to be ascertained. The final chapter puts into context the difficulties of drawing clear boundaries between the ideological and the real in such material, but emphasises the necessity of such attempts at understanding the role of the king.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………….
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………….
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………..
ix
PREFACE………………………………………………………………………….
xi
CHAPTER ONE: ROYAL APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS: EVIDENCE……………………
1
1.1 Introduction and Method…………………………………………………
1
1.2. Evidence for Appointment by the King…………………………….
1
1.2.1.
An Anonymous King’s Son of Kush………………….
1
1.2.2.
The Steward of the King’s Wife Nebamun A…………
2
1.2.3.
The Overseer of the Granary of Amun Ineni…….. .….
2
1.2.4.
The Overseer of the Treasury Djehuty………………..
3
1.2.5.
The High Steward Senenmut………………………….
3
1.2.6.
The High Steward Amenhotep A……………………..
4
1.2.7.
The First Royal Herald Iamunedjeh…………………..
4
1.2.8.
The Foreman of Works in Sinai, Nakht……………....
5
1.2.9.
The Vizier Useramun…………………………………
5
1.2.10. The High Priest of Amun Menkheperreseneb A………
8
1.2.11. The Overseer of the Granary Menkheperreseneb C......
8
1.2.12. The Viceroy of Kush Nehy……………………………
9
1.2.13. The Chief of Medjay Menkheperreseneb D…………..
9
1.2.14. Crown Prince Amenemhat A………………………….
9
1.2.15. The Soldier May………………………………………
10
1.2.16. The Overseer of Works Minmose…………………….
10
1.2.17. The Vizier Rekhmire………………………………….
10
1.2.18. The High Priest of Amun Amenemhat B……………..
12
1.2.19. The High Steward Kenamun………………………….
13
1.2.20. The Mayor of Thebes Sennefer……………………….
16
1.2.21. The High Steward Duarneheh…………………………
17
1.2.22. The Viceroy of Kush Usersatet……………………….
17
1.2.23. The Chief of Police Nebamun B………………………
18
nd
1.2.24. The 2 Priest of Amun Amenhotepsaese……………..
19
1.2.25. The High Steward Tjenuna……………………………
19
1.2.26. The Chancellor Sobekhotep…………………………..
20
1.2.27. The Vizier Ptahmose A……………………………….
20
1.2.28. The Vizier Ramose……………………………………
20
1.2.29. The High Steward in Memphis Amenhotep B………..
21
1.2.30. The Scribe of Recruits Amenhotep Son of Hapu……..
22
ii
1.2.31. The Steward of the Property of Tiye, Kheruef………..
23
1.2.32. The Overseer of the Palace Nefersekheru…………….
23
1.2.33. The Granary Official Nebnefer……………………….
23
1.2.34. The High Steward Amenemhat Surer…………………
24
1.2.35. The Chancellor Ptahmose B…………………………..
24
1.2.36. The High Priest of Ptah Ptahmose C………………….
25
1.2.37. The Steward of the Northern Lands Khaemwaset……
25
1.3. The Appointment of Foreign Princes………………………………..
26
CHAPTER TWO: ROYAL APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS: ANALYSIS…….........................
27
2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………
27
2.2. Ideology: Hereditary Office and Meritocracy………………………
27
2.3. The Terminology of Appointment………………………………….
28
2.4. Offices the King Appointed…………………………………………
30
2.4.1.
‘To place’ (rdi) a Person into (m/r) a Position………..
30
2.4.2.
To ‘nod/bow’ (dhn) a Person into a Position…………
31
2.4.3.
Analysis of this Evidence……………………………..
32
2.5. Royal Control Over Hereditary Succession…………………………
32
2.6. Analysis of Hereditary Succession Evidence………………………
33
2.7. Selection by the King……………………………………………….
34
2.8. Career Progression………………………………………………….
35
2.9. The Buying and Selling of Offices…………………………………
35
2.10. The King’s Personal Influence Over Appointments………………..
36
2.10.1. Evidence for the King being Free to Appoint…………..
36
2.10.2. Evidence for the King Removing an Official from Office
38
2.10.3. Evidence of the King being Forced to Make Appointments
38
2.11. Conclusion………………………………………………………....
39
CHAPTER THREE: THE USE OF ROYAL COMMANDS (wD-nsw): EVIDENCE………………..
40
3.1. Introduction and Method……………………………………………
40
3.2. Evidence for the King Making Commands (wD)……………………
40
3.2.1.
Temple Endowment…………………………………..
40
3.2.2.
The Storm Stele……………………………………….
41
3.2.3.
Inscription of an Un-Named King’s Son of Kush…….
42
3.2.4.
Titulary Announcement…………………………….....
42
3.2.5.
Sehel Inscription of Turi………………………………
43
3.2.6.
The Abydos Stele……………………………………..
43
3.2.7.
Aswan Philae Stele……………………………………
44
3.2.8.
The Overseer of the Granary of Amun Ineni………....
45
iii
3.2.9.
Aswan Inscription of Senenmut………………………
45
3.2.10. The Donation Stele of Senenmut……………………..
45
3.2.11. Berlin Statue of Senenmut…………………………….
46
3.2.12. The Overseer of the Treasury Djehuty………………. .
46
3.2.13. The High Priest of Amun Hapuseneb……………….. .
46
3.2.14. Inscriptions at Deir el-Bahri…………………………. .
46
3.2.14.1. The Punt Reliefs……………………………..
46
3.2.14.2. Coronation Inscription………………………
47
3.2.15. Two Inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim……………
48
3.2.16. The Appointment of Useramun……………………… .
48
3.2.17. Nomination of Tuthmosis III to the Throne…………. .
48
3.2.18. Seventh Pylon Inscription……………………………..
49
3.2.19. Royal Statue at Karnak’s Eighth Pylon……………….
49
3.2.20. Temple of Ptah at Karnak……………………………..
50
3.2.21. Dedication Text within the Temple of Ptah at Karnak..
50
3.2.22. Sehel Inscription…………………………………….. .
51
3.2.23. Fragmentary Stele from Buhen………………………..
51
3.2.24. The High Priest of Osiris Nebwawy…………………..
51
3.2.25. Inscription from Heliopolis……………………………
52
3.2.26. Black Granite Stele from Karnak……………………. .
52
3.2.27. Inscription of Nehy at Semna………………………….
53
3.2.28. Royal Inscription at Temple of Dedwen…………….. .
53
3.2.29. Inscription of Nehy at Sai……………………………..
53
3.2.30. The Sai Pillar Stele……………………………………
53
3.2.31. The Festival Hall Inscriptions at Karnak………………
54
3.2.32. The Buto Stele……………………………………….. .
55
3.2.33. The Annals of Tuthmosis III at Karnak…………….....
55
3.2.33.1. Introductory and Endowment Texts…………
55
3.2.33.2. Commands from a Military Context…………
56
3.2.34. The Autobiography of Rekhmire……………………..
57
3.2.35. A ‘Health Decree’……………………………………..
57
3.2.36. The Elephantine Stele………………………………….
58
3.2.37. The Western Karnak Stele…………………………….
58
3.2.38. An Offering List for Khonsu…………………………..
59
3.2.39. Letter to the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet……………….
59
3.2.40. Stele of the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet from Amara West
59
3.2.41. The High Steward in Perunefer Kenamun……………
60
3.2.42. The Standard Bearer Nakht………………………….. .
60
3.2.43. The Overseer of Works Minmose…………………….
61
3.2.44. The Lateran Obelisk…………………………………..
61
3.2.45. The Chief of Police Nebamun……………………….. .
61
iv
3.2.46. The 2nd Priest of Amun Amenhotepsaese……………..
61
3.2.47. Medamud Stele of Tuthmosis IV……………………..
62
3.2.48. The Konosso Stele…………………………………….
62
3.2.49. Two Inscriptions at Tura………………………………
62
3.2.50. The Bubastite Fragment……………………………….
62
3.2.51. The Lake Scarab………………………………………
63
3.2.52. The Wild Cattle Hunt Scarab………………………….
64
3.2.53. Unknown Courtier of TT 226…………………………
64
3.2.54. The Vizier Ramose………………………… …………
64
3.2.55. The Steward of Queen Tiye Kheruef………………….
65
3.2.56. The Overseer of the Harim Userhat…………………..
65
3.2.57. The Appointment of Nebnefer………………………. .
65
3.2.58. The Steward of Amun Nakhtsobek………………….. .
66
3.2.59. The High Steward Amenemhat Surer……………….. .
66
3.2.60. The High Priest of Ptah Ptahmose (III)……………… .
67
3.2.61. The Mortuary Temple Decree of Amenhotep Son of Hapu
67
CHAPTER FOUR: THE USE OF ROYAL COMMANDS (wD-nsw): ANALYSIS…………………
68
4.1. Specific Reference to Royal Command…………………………….
68
4.2. Reception of Royal Commands…………………………………… .
69
4.3. General References to Royal Commands…………………………..
70
4.4. When and Where Royal Commands were Given…………………..
72
4.5. The Formulation of Royal Decrees……………………………….. .
72
4.5.1.
The King Alone……………………………………… .
73
4.5.2.
The King and Divine Guidance…………………….....
74
4.5.3.
Evidence for the King Consulting Courtiers…………..
75
4.5.4.
Royal Teaching………………………………………..
80
4.6. Who was Given Royal Commands?................................................. .
82
4.6.1.
No Executor Named…………………………………..
82
4.6.2.
Executor Named……………………………………….
83
4.7. ‘Placing in the Face’………………………………………………..
83
4.8. Conclusion………………………………………………………… .
85
CHAPTER FIVE: THE KING’S ROLE AS MILITARY LEADER: EVIDENCE……………… .
87
5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………….. .
87
5.2. The Wars of Ahmose……………………………………………….
87
5.2.1.
War Against the Hyksos…………………….………..
87
5.2.2.
Nubian Campaign……………………………………..
88
5.2.3.
Depictions……………………………………………..
88
v
5.3. The Wars of Amenhotep I…………………………………………. 5.3.1.
88
Depictions…………………………………………….
89
5.4. The Wars of Tuthmosis I……………………………………….......
89
5.4.1.
Nubian Campaign……………………………………..
89
5.4.2.
Syrian Campaign………………………………………
90
5.4.3.
Depictions……………………………………………..
90
5.5. The Wars of Tuthmosis II…………………………………………..
90
5.5.1.
Nubian Campaign……………………………………. .
90
5.5.2.
Depictions…………………………………………… .
91
5.6. The Wars of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III………………………. .
92
5.7. The Wars of Tuthmosis III………………………………………….
92
5.7.1.
The Annals of Tuthmosis III at Karnak……………….
92
5.7.1.1. The First Campaign (Year 23)…………….. .
92
5.7.1.1.1.
War Conference at Yehem…….
92
5.7.1.1.2.
The Aruna Pass………………..
94
5.7.1.1.3.
The Battle of Megiddo…………
96
5.7.1.1.4.
The Aftermath of the Battle……
97
5.7.1.2. Campaign of Year 25……………………… .
97
5.7.1.3. Sections V – VI of the Annals…………….. .
98
5.7.1.3.1. 5.7.2.
The Tenth Campaign………….
98
The Gebel Barkal Stele………………………………..
98
5.7.2.1. First Reference to the Battle of Megiddo…...
98
th
5.7.2.2. Reference to the 8 Campaign (Year 33)…..
99
5.7.2.3. Second Reference to the Battle of Megiddo...
100
The Armant Stele……………………………………. .
101
5.7.3.1. The Battle of Megiddo…………………….. .
101
5.7.4.
Seventh Pylon Inscription at Karnak………………… .
102
5.7.5.
The Karnak Ptah Temple Stele………………………..
102
5.7.6.
Buhen Temple Inscription…………………………… .
103
5.7.7.
The Buto Stele……………………………………….. .
103
5.7.8.
Karnak Room III (East Wall)………………………….
103
5.7.9.
The Overseer of Works and Butler Minmose………….
104
5.7.10. The Butler Montuiywy…………………………………
104
5.7.11. The Soldier Amenemhab…………………………….. ..
104
5.7.12. The Royal Herald Djehutymose……………………….
104
5.7.13. Depictions……………………………………………...
105
5.8. The Wars of Amenhotep II………………………………………….
105
5.7.3.
5.8.1.
The Campaign of Year 3…………………………….. .
105
5.8.2.
The Campaign of Year 7…………………………….. .
106
5.8.2.1. Capture at Shamash-Edom…………………. .
106
5.8.2.2. Crossing the Orontes………………………. .
106
vi
5.8.2.3. Niy and Itaktj………………………………..
107
5.8.2.4. Capture at Hashabu………………………….
108
5.8.2.5. Capture of a Messenger……………………..
108
5.8.3.
The Campaign of Year 9…………………………….. .
108
5.8.4.
Depictions……………………………………………..
109
5.9. The Wars of Tuthmosis IV……………………………………….. .
110
5.9.1.
The Konosso Stele…………………………………… .
110
5.9.2.
Depictions……………………………………………..
112
5.10. The Wars of Amenhotep III……………………………………….. .
112
5.10.1. First Campaign (Year 5)……………………………... .
112
5.10.2. Second Campaign……………………………………. .
114
5.10.3. Architrave Inscription at Luxor………………………..
114
5.10.4. Amenhotep Son of Hapu………………………………
114
5.10.5. Depictions……………………………………………..
115
5.11. Physical Evidence of the Pharaohs………………………………….
115
CHAPTER SIX: THE KING’S ROLE AS MILITARY LEADER: ANALYSIS………………..
116
6.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………
116
6.2. Leadership of the Army when the King was not on Campaign……
116
6.2.1.
Evidence for the King Being Absent from Campaigns.
116
6.2.2.
Royal Decision Making and Planning………………..
116
6.3. Leadership of the Army when the King was Present on Campaign..
117
6.3.1.
Royal Decision Making and Planning………………...
117
6.3.2.
The King on the Battlefield………………………….. .
118
6.4. Common Textual Themes and Decorum………………………….. .
119
6.5. Interplay between Text and Imagery……………………………….
121
6.6. Conclusion………………………………………………………….
121
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….. .
123
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………...
126
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this study could not have been achieved without the advice, help, and encouragement of many people. First, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Professor Christopher Eyre, for his continuing support, valuable advice, patience, and his unparalleled knowledge of ancient Egypt which he has used to guide me to the completion of this work. My thanks also go to Prof. John Baines for advice on approaching the evidence for royal appointment, and to Dr. Andrew Bednarski for information regarding the Description de l’Égypte. I must also thank Prof. Alan Lloyd and Dr. Ian Shaw for their valuable comments and suggestions on the original draft of this study. The School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool has always supported and encouraged my work; each person there has contributed to the completion of this study in their own way, but special thanks must go to Dr. Mark Collier and Dr. Steven Snape for their insightful advice. The work on this thesis could not have been achieved without the generous scholarship awarded to me by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I am grateful to the libraries of the American University in Cairo; the American Research Center in Egypt; University College London; and the University of Manchester for allowing me access to their collections. Thanks also go to the organisers of the Current Research in Egyptology conference in Oxford 2006 for allowing me to present my preliminary research, and the valuable comments I received from those present as a result. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends for their continuous encouragement and help during the creation of this work: Campbell Price, Gina Criscenzo-Laycock, Jenny Cromwell, Keiko Tazawa, Emi Shirakawa, Cordula Werschkun, Sean McKenna, Daniel Boatright, Georgia Xekalaki, Glenn Godenho, Keli Alberts, Sarah Fortune, Claire Malleson, Eltayeb Abass, Joanna Kyffin, Joseph Medhurst, Oli Smith, and Michael Plant. Deep and special thanks go to Julie Patenaude, with all my heart. Thank you all for being there. I owe my greatest debt of gratitude and my eternal thanks to my parents, Kathleen and Rodney Shaw, for supporting and encouraging the bizarre craving of a young teenager to delve deep into the lives and history of a people who died thousands of years ago, and for not panicking when he decided to follow it as a career. I dedicate this study to them. Garry J. Shaw th
4 December, 2007 Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Bibliographical Abbreviations ActOr
Acta Orientalia, Copenhagen.
ANMW
Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Wien.
ASAE
Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Cairo.
BES
Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, Missoula.
BIFAO
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo.
BMMA
Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
BSFE
Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie, Paris.
CG
Catalogue Général des Antiquitiés Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo.
CdE
Chronique d’Égypte, Brüssels.
EES
Egypt Exploration Society, London.
GM
Göttinger Miszellen, Göttingen.
JAOS
Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven.
JARCE
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, New York.
JE
Journal d’entrée, The Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
JEA
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London.
JESHO
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Leiden.
JNES
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago.
JSSEA
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Toronto.
KRI
Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical by Kenneth Kitchen. 1969 – 1990. 8 Vols. Oxford.
Kush
Kush. Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service, Khartoum.
LÄ
Lexikon der Ägyptologie, edited by W. Helck, E. Otto, & W. Westendorf. 1972 – 1992. 7 Vols. Wiesbaden.
LD
Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, by Richard Lepsius. 1849 – 1858. 6 Volumes of plates. Berlin.
MDAIK
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Wiesbaden.
PM
Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings by Bertha Porter and Rosalind L. B. Moss, with Ethel W. Burney and Jaromír Málek (from 1973). 1927 – 1952. 7 Vols. 2nd Edition 1960 - . Oxford.
PSBA
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, London.
RdE
Revue d’Égyptologie, Paris.
Rec. de Trav.
Recueil de Travaux Relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes, Paris.
SAK
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg.
TT
Theban Tomb.
Urk IV
Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, by K. Sethe. 1906 – 1909. Fascicles 1 -16, Leipzig; continued by W. Helck. 1955 – 1958. Fascicles 17 – 22, Berlin.
ix
VA
Varia Aegyptiaca, San Antonio.
Wb
Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, by Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow. 1926 – 1963. 7 Vols. Leipzig and Berlin.
WZKM
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Wien.
ZÄS
Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Berlin.
ZDPV
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Weisbaden.
Other Abbreviations col(s).
column(s)
fig(s).
figure(s)
no(s).
number(s)
P.
Papyrus
Pl(s).
Plate(s)
TT
Theban Tomb
[…]
lacuna/ possible restoration in the translation
enclose words or parts of words omitted in the original text
()
enclose additions to the English translation
(?)
follows words or phrases of which the translation is doubtful
x
achieved greater wealth than any other people, and adorned their lands with monuments and buildings never to be surpassed, and their cities with costly dedications of every description.’4
PREFACE “It may be said that the burden of proof does not rest on the sceptical scholar but on the scholar who accepts the statements of his source as credible evidence.”1
Fourier, in his ‘Préface historique’ to the ‘Description de l‘Egypte’, regarded Egypt as a utopia in which the ‘morals of man’ and principals of order and justice dominated. He states that these revered ancient laws were based on the example given by the wisest ancient princes.5 The ancient monarchy were thus characterised as the wise maintainers of an ordered perfect state, the exact opposite of the contemporary Ottoman regime in the eyes of the French expedition. As Egyptology grew as a discipline, more developed theories regarding the role of the king were published, notably by Frankfort,6 and later by Posener,7 both of whom made arguments concerning the extent of the king’s divinity. Indeed, discussions on the authority of the Pharaohs often debate their ideological portrayal, or their religious role.8 Discussions on the king’s personal role as a human being in government have been brief, and lack detailed argumentation: Hayes, in his history of Egypt, presented the New Kingdom kings as being all powerful. He states that at this time royal authority no longer rested on the fiction of the king’s divinity, but was evident in his tight military control of every branch of government, which had a ‘tight chain of command through which the will of the ruler was imposed upon every department and activity of the kingdom and was transmitted ultimately to each of its subjects.’9 Hayes further praises the king, ‘To maintain a government so organised at peak efficiency and free from corruption required the king’s personal supervision to an extent never before demanded of an Egyptian ruler…’10 Edgerton stated, ‘There is no doubt that the Pharaoh’s rule was absolute in the strictest sense of that word. The law was merely his formalised expressed will…the really solid base of his power was the control of the machinery of government, including the army and the police…legislation seems to have been a function of the Pharaoh alone.’11 Edgerton also assumed that the king had the right to appoint and remove officials, although he acknowledges the existence of hereditary succession; however, ‘A strong Pharaoh normally controlled the priesthoods as completely, and by essentially the same methods, as he controlled his household or his army.’12
Describing the role of the king in ancient Egypt Diodorus Siculus presents a man ruled by ritual, ‘In the first place, then, the life which the kings of the Egyptians lived was not like that of other men who enjoy the autocratic power and do in all matters exactly as they please without being held to account, but all their acts were regulated by prescriptions set forth in laws, not only their administrative acts, but also those that had to do with the way in which they spent their time from day to day, and with the food which they ate. In the matter of their servants, for instance, not one was a slave, such as had been acquired by purchase or born in the home, but all twenty years old and the best educated of their fellowcountrymen, in order that the king, by virtue of his having the noblest men to care for his person and to attend him throughout both day and night, might follow no low practices; for no ruler advances far along the road of evil unless he has those about him who will minister to his passions. And the hours of both day and night were laid out according to a plan, and at the specified hours it was absolutely required of the king that he should do what the laws stipulated and not what he thought best. For instance, in the morning, as soon as he was awake, he first of all had to receive the letters which had been sent from all sides, the purpose being that he might be able to despatch all administrative business and perform every act properly, being thus accurately informed about everything that was being done throughout his kingdom. Then, after he had bathed and bedecked his body with rich garments and the insignia of his office, he had to sacrifice to the gods.’2 Diodorus continues, ‘For there was a set time not only for his holding audiences or rendering judgements, but even for his taking a walk, bathing, and sleeping with his wife, and, in a word, for every act of his life, even the king’s diet was restricted….the kings were not allowed to render any legal decision or transact any business at random or to punish anyone through malice or in anger or for any other unjust reason, but only with the established laws relative to each offence.’3
4
Oldfather 1933: 247. Fourier 1821 - 1830: vi, xii – xiii. 6 Frankfort 1947. Frankfort suggested that the vizier was the true power in the country with the king being ‘at one remove’ from the details of government (Frankfort 1947: 53). 7 Posener 1960. 8 The recent volume on ancient Egyptian kingship follows this trend (O’Connor & Silverman 1995). Notably, they do not even suggest a study on the true historical role of the king as a man in government among their suggestions for future research into kingship (O’Connor & Silverman 1995: XXVI – XXVII). 9 Hayes 1962: 3 – 4. 10 Hayes 1962: 4. 11 Edgerton 1947: 154. 12 Edgerton 1947: 156. 5
By living under these restrictions they made fewer mistakes than ordinary men and lived a happier life, ‘Consequently…they maintained an orderly civil government and continued to enjoy a most felicitous life, so long as the system of laws described was in force; and, more than that, they conquered more nations and 1
Björkman 1965: 11. Oldfather 1933: 241 – 243 = Diodorus Book I, 70. 3 Oldfather 1933: 245 – 247. 2
xi
Wen-Peng, in a study on the extent of royal authority, states, ‘the Egyptian despotism developed into its zenith in the New Kingdom’.13 He constructs a picture of royal despotism based on an uncritical reading of the Egyptians’ own statements on royal authority; for example, he states that the king commanded the army directly, ‘Pharaoh himself led the strong standing army to make campaigns and the despotic authority developed into its zenith.’14 Furthermore, he states that the king could appoint and remove officials at all levels, and that the king was in charge of all administrative departments. Finer, in his history of world governments, states that the New Kingdom kings ‘were so personally dominant…that they imposed themselves on their court, not the other way round.’15 Then, writing on the 18th Dynasty up to the reign of Akhenaten, he states, ‘it would be hard to find any absolutism more completely in command, more ab legibus solutus, in the history of government.’16 Faulkner, writing on the military leadership of Tuthmosis III, wrote:
government propaganda, intended mainly, if not solely, to propagate the royal myth.’20 Eyre has questioned the extent to which the available data for Pharaonic Egypt allows the writing of actual history, ‘not simply chronology, lists of names, titles and monuments, but work that ‘a historian’ would recognise as part of his discipline, with discussion of cause, motivation, and the relationship between historical processes and the human behaviour of individuals or groups.’21 Eyre has also stated, ‘For the Egyptian, the past was a source of authority…yet an Egyptian audience assumed that all narrative contained at least an element of fiction, and not a literal truth…suspension of disbelief is…crucial in reading royal inscriptions. Typically they provide a narrative of the direct interaction – often a personal conversation – between the king and god. This provides a quasi-fictional peg of authority for the discourse between ‘author’ and audience, in the use of literary presentation for ideological purposes.’22
‘…for the first time in recorded history we meet a commander who was not only a brave soldier but also an able general, who not only had the courage to accept a calculated risk in order the more readily to achieve his purpose, but who displayed a tactical skill in the face of the enemy the merit of which is not diminished by the fact that the enemy played into his hands.’17
Baines has acknowledged the problem of reconstructing the king’s true role and authority as viewed through the inscriptions of his courtiers, ‘…the sources can too easily be seen as claiming factually for the king capacities that were anciently envisaged in metaphorical terms.’23 Baines further argues that presentations of royal activity were affected by ideological conventions which he calls ‘decorum’; ‘A consequence of decorum is that, in addition to the universal tendency to ascribe actions of subordinates to leaders, practice and belief might be presented in terms of the king when its ultimate referent was different.’24
It is clear that Faulkner took the descriptions of Tuthmosis III’s military skill at face value. In the above overview of discussions on the king’s personal authority the authors are united by the bias and assumptions they brought to the evidence. However, when dealing with evidence for royal activity it is necessary to resist being seduced by the bombastic descriptions given by the ancient scribes, as Baines has noted, ‘Too often, scholars have tended to accept what the ancient sources say almost at face value and to become champions of ancient rulers and the social order that served them…’18 Björkman argued for the need for scepticism in dealing with ‘historical texts’ arguing that more source criticism was needed.19 On royal texts, Schulman has stated,
Still, while analysing this evidence one must ensure that the statements of the ancient authors are not simply dismissed out of hand, as Parkinson states: ‘Respect the integrity of the text; assume that the text makes sense in its present form; take the wording of the text seriously; take the historical and social context seriously; ask whether the text is to be read literally or metaphorically; decide which features of the text are hermeneutically significant and how they are to be used in the interpretive process.’25
‘The recording of historical facts was only incidental to the purpose of royal documents. More important and central to them was that they emphasized the role of the king, to glorify his persona, to magnify his acta and dicta. In short, we should understand that the royal historical document was a piece of controlled
Similarly, Hoffmeier has argued that it is possible to be over critical of textual sources.26 He follows Kitchen in stating that it is up to the investigator to prove a text’s
13
20
Wen-Peng 1993: 271. Wen-Peng 1993: 271. 15 Finer 1997: 182. 16 Finer 1987: 188. 17 Faulkner 1942: 15. 18 Baines 1996: 342. 19 Björkman 1965. Schulman made similar arguments more recently, see Schulman 1987.
Schulman 1987: 22. On the ‘royal myth’ see Wilson 1956. Eyre 1994: 107. 22 Eyre 1996: 415 – 416. 23 Baines 1998: 17. 24 Baines 1998: 18; also see Baines 1985: 277 – 305; Baines 1990: 1 – 23. 25 Parkinson 2002:37, summarising the comments of Berlin 1996. 26 Hoffmeier 1992.
14
21
xii
untrustworthiness.27 Hoffmeier argues, ‘while the Egyptian scribes probably did not write about events for the same reasons a modern historian might, that does not mean we should reject their claims or dismiss the texts as sources for the study of history…’28 He continues, that if a text is approached, ‘understanding the genre, why and for whom it was written, one can use texts as sources for reconstructing Egyptian history even if a specific historiographic genre was not developed by Egyptian scribes.’29
offerings. The events of a person’s life are thus boiled down to a series of clichéd statements of excellence followed by extensive strings of titles. The conscious selection and manipulation of facts can also be seen in tomb decoration. If a person operated within the state administration he would emphasise his connection to the king, while a person of the ‘temple class’ would emphasise a connection to the gods35 – irrespective of the nuanced reality of their roles. Clearly then, accounts of courtiers’ lives are not accurate ‘historical’ descriptions, but are highly formalised in their descriptions, especially with regard to interaction with royalty. Similarly, royal inscriptions exhibit idealisation, affecting the historical value of the content. The king was shown and described as the defender of Egypt, the one person who could defeat and kill all enemies, make all offerings, and talk with the gods – he is central to events, presented as performing good acts for the people and the gods. Generally, in the majority of royal texts, there is little detail on the king’s action: it is simply stated that the king undertook such acts as making offerings, rebuilding a temple, or making a command. He does this alone; courtiers are hardly ever mentioned. However, on occasions the account is extended with narrative detail in order to portray the king as a hero and decision-maker, who interacts with the court and performs actions for the gods. These accounts of royal bravery and heroics are typically grouped together under the genre of Königsnovellen.36 Sub-genres of this category include ‘Royal-Sittings’ in which the king is presented in audience before his court issuing decrees and making decisions,37 and iw.tw formula texts in which a messenger is presented as coming to the king to inform him of a problem.38 The problem, typically a rebellion, upsets the state of order throughout Egypt after which the king must set about restoring the balance. In iw.tw texts the king is portrayed as defender of maat, as the one who restores Egypt to a state of perfection whenever forces from the outside create chaos. Issues of genre and decorum forced the ancient scribes to place the facts at their disposal within a fictional, ideological framework. Consequently Egyptian texts must be approached with a knowledge and awareness of genre and decorum when an attempt at extracting ‘historical reality’ from them is made.
The evidence from Egypt is not a pure record of events; it has been distorted both consciously and unconsciously by the ancient writers. Unconscious distortion occurs whenever a person attempts to describe past actions; in order to describe events a person must be selective in what they report. This will occur no matter how honest they are attempting to be. Every attempt at description is a further simplification of the actual ‘event’ – the map is not the territory.30 Past events are further distorted through conscious manipulation of facts. As noted above, the Egyptians placed their experiences and events into a system of order, based around specific rules of presentation known as ‘decorum’.31 The concept of decorum dictated what could be shown or described in different contexts. Thus, in temple scenes, the king is the only human that can be shown offering to the gods - all offerings are ideologically regarded as having been made by him; while evidence for clothing does not match that shown in tomb scenes.32 There is formality in modes of presentation, and in patterns of action described, and ‘such parallels do not help us to understand how far what was shown on the monuments resembles what happened in life.’33 By imposing the rules of decorum upon the pure ‘facts’, the Egyptians idealised events and brought order to the chaotic events of reality. As well as employing consistent rules of presentation in their inscriptions and images, the Egyptians also used narrative frameworks in which to place information. Again, this placed order upon the ‘facts’. These genres can most broadly be divided according to whether the text was commissioned by a king (a ‘royal text’), or by a private individual - typically a court official. Lichtheim has divided the content of private tomb autobiographies into three parts, ‘An account of achievements in a man’s career or profession. A self-description as a person of moral worth. An appeal to visitors of his monument for offerings or prayer.’34 Such texts are repetitive in content, repeatedly emphasising the courtier’s good actions for the king, and listing the titles he had held during his career. The texts serve a religious function, portraying the courtier as having had a perfect life in the service of the king, in order to show him as worthy of funerary
As it is clear that past studies on royal authority have been influenced by the assumptions brought to the evidence by uncritical scholars, this study will provide a critical analysis of the historical evidence for the king’s role and personal authority in 1) appointing officials 2) formulating royal decrees, and 3) leading the army on campaign. A constant issue throughout these discussions will be the extent to which historical evidence for the king’s role in actual governmental practice within these spheres of influence can be found. In this manner it is not just a study of royal authority, but a study of the extent to
27
Hoffmeier 1992: 295; Kitchen 1966: 29. Hoffmeier 1992: 295. 29 Hoffmeier 1992: 296. 30 Korzybski 1948: 58, 750 - 751. 31 Baines 2007: 3 – 30. 32 Baines 2007: 23, 25. 33 Baines 2007: 25. 34 Lichtheim 1992: 409. 28
35
Hartwig 2003. Most recently see Hofmann 2004; Loprieno 1996; Jansen-Winkeln 1993. 37 Redford 2003: 101 – 151. 38 For which see Spalinger 1982: 1 – 33. 36
xiii
which historians of ancient Egypt can create ‘history’ from the available evidence. Evidence will only be admitted if it refers to the particular areas of royal authority under discussion. Furthermore, only evidence that explicitly refers to the king’s involvement, or in which the king’s involvement is virtually definite will be included. Each piece of evidence will be translated and subjected to thorough close reading in an attempt to establish the veracity of the content. The purpose for which the text was commissioned will be discussed, along with issues of genre, decorum, thematic repetition, and reception. Essentially, for each piece of evidence, the primary areas of concern will be (1) those individuals by and for whom the text was written, (2) where the text was inscribed, (3) what the text says, and (4) why it is presented in a particular manner. The data will then be analysed in relation to one another in order to question whether they are reliable as sources for the reconstruction of the extent of royal authority. All evidence, unless otherwise noted, is limited to the 18th Dynasty from the reign of Ahmose to the end of the reign of Amenhotep III. This restriction allows the analysis to be focussed within a particular timeframe, providing a more detailed examination than would be possible in a chronologically wider ranging study. The Amarna Period and the end of the 18th Dynasty are not included in this study. The accession of Akhenaten marks a break in Egyptian tradition, introducing religious and cultural changes, as well as altered rules of presentation. Although this period perhaps displays clearly the limits to which royal authority could be pushed, it is not representative of how a king typically used his authority in the 18th Dynasty, or the restrictions that he may have had placed upon it. In order to understand the extent of the personal ‘historical’ authority of Akhenaten, or his successors, a separate study would be required, one which would need to set out and analyse the rules of presentation within the context of this particular period. As the rules of presentation and philosophy of kingship from the reign of Ahmose to Amenhotep III are generally homogeneous, to bring in the Amarna Period evidence would only serve to complicate this analysis. The extent of, and attitude to, royal authority probably changed over time, and could be more emphatic during strong dynasties than weaker ones. The 18th Dynasty is a typical example of a politically strong dynasty, and a period for which there is a large quantity of data relating to royal activity. It is thus an exceptionally suitable period for an analysis of royal authority. It must be noted, however, that even within this confined timescale the extent that a king used his authority may have fluctuated according to his individual personality and own particular interests.
xiv
recorded by this official was under King Ahmose, but the detail of the appointment is lost.44 The text continues:
CHAPTER ONE ROYAL APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS: EVIDENCE
wHm Hst in sA=f
“Do not distinguish between the son of a man of rank and a com[moner], take a man on account of his actions.”39
nsw bity nb tAwy [Dsr-kA]-rA [rdi.n=f wi r imy-rA] Snwty
1.1. Introduction and Method The extent of a king’s freedom to appoint an individual to office reflects on potential limitations to his authority that may have existed.40 Factors, such as the influence of powerful families and hereditary rights to offices, may have limited his freedom to choose the members of his court. In order to elicit whether these factors are evidenced in the 18th Dynasty record it is first necessary to present all evidence of the king appointing a person to office, as expressed by the Egyptian words dhn, rdi m/r and sxnt – all translated with the meaning of appointment or promotion. As officials were also capable of making appointments,41 any example which does not explicitly reference the king as the one who made the appointment will not be included. Reconstructed examples will only be included if the restoration seems certain. This will create a list of all individuals the king is said to have appointed, as well as all offices he is said to have appointed them to. For each of these individuals a family history will also be provided. There are two reasons why this is necessary. First, such evidence would show if these offices were hereditary. If high level offices stayed within the same family line, the king would not be choosing those who served in his administration, but would simply be confirming them in a merely ceremonial role. It would thus show that his authority was restricted. Secondly, it would chart whether those the king appointed were descended from the same important family lines, or whether he was choosing ‘new men’, or even those with whom he could be regarded as friends, over members of established families – indicative of personal royal power. The aim is thus not to produce a detailed account of all family connections and histories of the 18th Dynasty,42 but to detail the families of those who were appointed by the king, their influence and whether they controlled the offices they held, rather than the king. Any reasons for appointment given by the courtiers themselves will also be presented. This data will then be analysed in Chapter Two.
n [imn] r sxm kAt m ipt-swt
Favours were repeated by his son, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands [Djoserka]ra; [he placed me to be Overseer] of the Double Granary of [Amun] and to be Director of Work in Karnak.45
Later in the same inscription: […] nsw bity aA-xpr-kA-rA rdi.n=f wi r sA nsw
[…] the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Aakheperkare46 he placed me to be King’s Son (of Kush).47
Reasons are also given for the king’s favours. This man was: tm sDwy] m st sHtp-ib pH.n=f iAwt n[n gm.tw wn=f]
[one who did not slander] in the place of contenting the heart. He reached old age with[out fault being found with him].48
Family Although it is not certain which Viceroy of Kush these inscriptions were made for, the most likely candidates are Nehy, Turi or Seni.49 Caminos argued that Seni is the most likely, although he acknowledges that this cannot be proven.50 Consequently, details of Seni’s family will be presented here. There is no evidence that Seni was related to the family of the two previous Viceroys of Kush, Ahmose-Tayit and Turi (who were father and son).51 At Kumma Seni is recorded as holding the title Mayor of Thebes.52 As a result, Habachi identifies Seni with the Mayor of Thebes Senires known from the tomb of his son the Scribe who Counts the Corn in the Divine Offerings of Amun, Djehutynefer at Thebes.53 The ‘res’ element in his name may then further connect him with the family of Tetikey and others that may equally have been related to
1.2. Evidence for Appointment by the King 1.2.1. An Anonymous King’s Son of Kush (Ahmose – Tuthmosis II) Evidence Inscriptions on the façade of the temple of Tuthmosis III at Semna West43 record the appointments of an anonymous King’s Son of Kush. The first appointment
44 The courtier states, rdi.n=f wi r imy-rA […] ‘He placed me to be Overseer […]’ (Line 1, Caminos 1998: 28, pl. 19). 45 Lines 3 – 4, Caminos 1998: 28, pl. 19; Urk IV 40, 7 – 9. 46 Tuthmosis I. 47 Line 6, Caminos 1998: 28, pl. 19; Urk IV 40, 14. 48 Line 11, Caminos 1998: 28, pl. 19; Urk IV 41, 7 – 9 – unreconstructed. This can be compared to Urk IV 1538, 7 – 8. 49 See Caminos 1998: 31 ns. 2, 3, 4 for references. 50 Caminos 1998: 31. 51 For these two Viceroys see Habachi 1959. 52 Habachi 1980b: 631; Urk IV 142. 53 Habachi 1980b: 631; Urk IV 135, 15 – 17, regarding TT 317.
39
Teachings for Merikare; Helck 1977: 36; Quack 1992: 38 – 39. For a recent discussion on appointment see Eichler 1998. 41 See section 2.2. 42 For which see Whale 1989. 43 Caminos 1998: 27 – 31, pls. 14, 18, 19. 40
1
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty that family.54 A new Viceroy of Kush, unrelated to Seni, was installed under Hatshepsut.55 It is unknown when Seni died; he may have already been in old age under Tuthmosis I.56 In any case, it is likely that he was already deceased when his biographical inscription was inscribed under Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.57
or two.66 Further family connections are based on pure speculation.67 1.2.3. The Overseer of the Granary of Amun Ineni (Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III) Evidence In his tomb at Thebes,68 Ineni states that:
1.2.2. The Steward of the King’s Wife, Nebamun A (Tuthmosis II – III) Evidence Nebamun of TT 2458 relates his appointments:
[dh]n.n=f w(i) r xrp kAt imy-rA [Hry nt H]rt [nt nsw]69
wHm.[n] n(=i) nb(=i) Hswt My Lord repeat[ed] favours for me, nsw bity the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, aA-xpr-n-ra Aakheperenre mAa-xrw justified; rdi.n=f wi he placed me as imy-rA xA n nsw Overseer of the Office of the King saA.n=f wi and he magnified me59 r wn r-HAt more than (I) was before. rdi.n=f wi He placed me m imy-rA pr as Steward n Hmt-nsw nbtw of the King’s Wife Nebtu, mAa-xrw justified. wHm.n n=i nb=i Hswt My Lord repeated favours for me, nsw bity the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, mn-xpr-rA di anx Menkheperre, given life; rdi.n=f wi he placed me r imy-rA dpt nb n nsw to be Overseer of all Boats of the King. n iw-sp=i No fault of mine came out, n gm.tw wn=i and fault was not found with me.60
He (the king) [appo]inted me to be Controller of Works, Overseer, and [Chief for the royal tomb].70
Ineni makes further references to his appointments, but does not explicitly state that the king was involved in the process.71 Family Ineni’s family is well documented in his tomb.72 His wife was the Lady of the House Iahhotep called Tuiu, and he had a sister called Ta-aamethu who appears to have been the wife of the Vizier Ahmose-Aamethu.73 A number of Ineni’s brothers held priestly and administrative positions:74 Pahery was Steward of the High Priest of Amun, Userhat was a Wab-Priest of Amun and Scribe, Ken was a Priest of Mut, and Anitef was a Director of aprw and Scribe. Of Ineni’s remaining seven brothers, four were scribes. Ineni’s mother had been the Royal Ornament (Xkrt nsw) and Lady of the House (nbt-pr) SatDjehuty. His father was a sAb,75 but also seems to have
66
Whale 1989: 77. Whale has suggested that the High Priest of Amun(?) Minmontu called Senres was possibly a grandfather of Nebamun, based on the ‘res’ element which is found in both the names of Nebamun’s wife and father (Whale 1989: 77). If the ‘res’ element is taken as a signifier of filial relations Resti and Tetires may also have been connected to the family of Seni (See under the family of 1.2.1.). However, there is no evidence to back this up. Also, it is possible that a son of the official Tetikey, called Tetires (Davies 1925: 18), can be identified as Nebamun’s father. The numerous members of the family of Tetikey all make use of both the elements ‘teti’ and ‘key’ in their names (Davies 1925.), making a relationship highly likely. It is thus possible that these recurrent name elements provide evidence of a relationship between the families of Tetikey, Seni and Nebamun; all influential at Thebes in the early 18th Dynasty. This is all, however, speculative. 68 TT 81, published by Dziobek 1992. Also see Urk IV 53, 6 – 74, 2. 69 Following Dziobek 1992: 55, 57, 58. 70 Dziobek 1992: 55, 57, 58; Urk IV 63, 10. 71 Urk IV 55, 13 – 14; Dziobek 1992: 51, 53; a further appointment is recorded at Urk IV 63, 16, Dziobek 1992: 58. 72 For an overview of Ineni’s family and their positions see Dziobek 1992: 142 – 144, with references to scenes and texts within his publication. 73 Dziobek 1992: 142 – 143. 74 Dziobek 1992: 142 – 143. 75 A title discussed by Whale: although it has been suggested that this title simply denotes a man without title (Lansing & Hayes 1937: 16) Whale notes that sAb does not have this meaning. She provides two examples: Nakhtmin refers to his father as a sAb at Gebel es-Silsilah (shrine no. 23), but a statue, probably of his father gives further titles for him. Sennefer refers to his father as sAb in TT 99, but this man hold full titles on a statue (Whale 1989: 297). 67
Family Nebamun’s wife was Resti.61 A stele records the names of Nebamun’s father, Tetires,62 and mother, Ipu,63 but there is no reference to them in what remains of the tomb inscriptions.64 Their titles, if indeed they possessed any, are unknown. Two scenes in the tomb depict a son of Nebamun, but no detail is provided.65 As Whale has noted, it is impossible to know if they are the same son, 54
See below under the Steward of the King’s Wife Nebamun (1.2.2). Habachi 1980b: 631. 56 As it is in this section of his biography that he mentions reaching old age, Caminos 1998: 31, pl. 19, line 11. 57 Caminos 1998: 31. 58 This tomb has not been published; however, see Bouriant 1897: 95 – 99; Urk IV 145, 14 – 153, 17; PM I(2): 41 – 42; Whale 1989: 76 – 78. 59 See section 2.3. for the meaning of saA and its connection to siqr and sxnt. 60 Urk IV 150, 12 - 151, 3. 61 Urk IV 153, 17. 62 Urk IV 153, 6. 63 Urk IV 147, 5; Bouriant 1897: 96. 64 Whale 1989: 76. 65 PM I(2): 41 (3) – (4); 42 (8). 55
2
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence had a connection to the Temple of Amun.76 There is no evidence that Ineni had children.77
The statement that Hatshepsut recognised Senenmut’s excellence should not be treated with special significance, due to it being a stock phrase of praise.87 Statues Berlin 2296 and Chicago 173800 make similar references to Senenmut’s appointments.88 However, on these statues the female pronouns have been replaced by male ones:
1.2.4. The Overseer of the Treasury Djehuty (Hatshepsut) Evidence Djehuty’s biographical stele, cut into the rock of the courtyard of his tomb at Dra Abu el-Naga78 records: rdi.n=f wi r sSm aH
ink saH mr nb=f
He placed me as Leader of the palace.79
aq Hr biAt n nbt tAwy
Later in the same inscription: wD Hm=f rdit=i r Sntw
saA.n=f wi xnt tAwy
His Person commanded my placing as policeman.80
rdi.n=f wi r r-Hry n pr=f
I am a dignitary beloved of his lord, who entered concerning marvels for the mistress of the two lands. He magnified me before the Two Lands, he placed me as Chief of his House and Judge in the entire land.89
Other appointments are recorded, but there is no explicit reference to the king’s involvement.81
wDA-aryt m tA mi-qd=f
Family Little is known about Djehuty’s family: his mother was the Lady of the House (nbt-pr) Dedu82 while his father was a sAb.83 His family may have originated in Hermopolis.84 There is no evidence that he had children.
Van den Boorn has argued that this final title gave Senenmut the power to usurp the authority of the vizier’s office.90 Further evidence also suggests that Senenmut was given power and status beyond that shown by his rank; his statue from the Temple of Mut91 records that he was:
1.2.5. The High Steward Senenmut (Hatshepsut) Evidence Details of Senenmut’s career are recorded on numerous monuments.85 He records on a block statue now in the British Museum: wHm.n n=i H[…] Hsw Hmt-nTr HAt-Spswt anx.ti saA.n wi siqr.n wi sxnt.kw r-HAt smrw rx.n=s mnx=i Hr-ib=s di.n=s wi r r-Hry n pr=s iw pr-nsw a.w.s. Xr-st-Hr=i wDa-ryt m tA mi-qd=f
r nxn mAat Hm-nTr
The mouth of Nekhen,92 and Priest of Maat.93
Both of these titles are typically held by Viziers.94 On the same statue Senenmut boasts:
[…] repeated favours for me, the god’s wife, Hatshepsut, may she live; she magnified me, and distinguished me; I was sxnt-ed to the front of the courtiers, she knew my excellence in her opinion. She placed me as Chief of her house, the palace, l.p.h., under my authority, and a judge in the entire land.86
ink [is smi]w n=f xrt tAwy I am [indeed one to whom] the affairs of the two lands are [reported].95 Family Senenmut’s parents were reburied following his success at court.96 The poorness of his family has been overstated97 - they at least had some form of burial initially and were later moved, but the lack of a rich burial for them shows that they were not among the upper 86 Block statue BM 1513; Hall & Lambert 1914: 9, pl. 29; Dorman 1988: 116 – 118, 189; PM II(2): 279; Meyer 1982: 29, 112 – 120. 87 See Chapter Two section 2.3. for further examples of these stock phrases often found together. 88 For the full text of Berlin 2296 see Urk IV 403, 14 – 406, 17. For Chicago 173800 see PM(2) II: 286. For a discussion of both statues see Dorman 1988: 123 – 124. 89 Urk IV 404, 17 – 405, 4. 90 van den Boorn 1988: 80. 91 Cairo CG 579, for the text see Urk IV 407, 1 – 415, 17; also see Benson & Gourlay 1899: 300; Dorman 1988: 126 – 127, 190. 92 Hierakonpolis. 93 Urk IV 411, 3 – 4. 94 Bryan 2006: 94, citing Urk IV 404 – 5 and 411. See for example Urk IV 1039, 9, 13, 17 (Useramun); 1096, 1 (Rekhmire); 1780, 2, 15 (Ramose); 95 Urk IV 412, 2. 96 Dorman 1988: 167 – 168; Original publication in Lansing & Hayes 1937: 12 – 39. Senenmut is depicted with both parents on stele in his Deir el-Bahri tomb, Lansing & Hayes 1937: 22, fig. 25. 97 Lansing & Hayes comment on the ‘poverty’ of his burial (Lansing & Hayes 1937: 18).
76
Dziobek 1992: 142. A text records ‘[… of] Amun.’ Dziobek 1992: 143 with n. 668. TT 11 (for the tomb see PM I(2): 21 – 24, for the stele see PM I(2): 22 (5)). It is commonly referred to as the ‘Northampton stele’ after the Marquis of Northampton who opened the tomb in the late 19th Century, see Northampton, Spiegelberg & Newberry 1908: pl. I. 79 Urk IV 429, 4. 80 Urk IV 436, 3. A Sntw is the closest title we have to what would be a real policeman (Guillemette 1980: 1068 – 1071). 81 So, for example, he states that he was sxn[t] st=f m aH […] ‘advanc[ed] to his place in the palace […]’ (Urk IV 449, 12). 82 Urk IV 441, 9; PM I(2): 21 – 24 (10, 15); Whale 1989: 38. 83 PM(2) I: 21 – 24 (6, 10) 84 Helck 1958: 397. 85 The standard work on the life of Senenmut is Dorman 1988. However, see his recent comments in Dorman 2006. 77 78
3
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty echelons of Egyptian society. Hatnofer, Senenmut’s mother,98 was given a relatively rich burial near that of Senenmut. She had been carefully wrapped in linen and provided with other luxury grave goods given by the royal estate.99 However, Senemut’s father Ramose100 appears to have died much earlier and been reburied with his wife. Also there were six further mummies (three young women, three children), all decayed to the point of partial dislocation by the time of Hatnofer’s death.101 It is quite clear that Ramose died before Senenmut’s rise to power. Dorman sees the six further mummies as relatives of Senenmut, as ‘there seems no other possible reason for their inclusion in such a crowded chamber.’102 This illustrates the extent of young deaths in a family, and shows why an office was often unlikely to pass down a family line. Dorman notes that Ramose was around 50 to 60 years old when he died, while Hatnofer was ‘elderly’. As the burial provisions for both differ so greatly it would appear to show that Senenmut’s rise to power was indeed rapid103 and gained by year 7 of Hatshepsut, as that is when Hatnofer died.104 It would seem likely that Hatshepsut gave Senenmut his influential positions. Senenmut does seem to have had some form of early career in the military,105 but his early career is little known.
1.2.6. The High Steward Amenhotep A (Hatshepsut) Evidence A reference to appointment by the king is found in Amenhotep’s tomb at Thebes.112 This records that he was one: sxn[t.n ity] st=f
whom the [Sovereign] sxn[t-ed] to his position.113
Family The family of Amenhotep is discussed below in relation to his son, the High Steward in Perunefer Kenamun.114 1.2.7. The First Herald Iamunedjeh (Hatshepsut Tuthmosis III) Evidence Iamunedjeh of TT 84,115 makes two references to his appointment by the king, he is one: sxnt.n nb tAwy Ds=f
whom the Lord of the Two Lands himself sxnt-ed.116
And also one: sxnt.n nb tAwy st=f
There is no evidence that Senenmut had children. He had three brothers,106 Amenemhat,107 the Wab-Priest Minhotep, and Pairy. Only Minhotep is known outside of TT 71 and 353 – from an inventory on the lid of a chest found in the burial chamber of Ramose and Hatnofer.108 Hatshepsut’s favour does not appear to have extended to Senenmut’s brothers. Senenmut also had two sisters, Ahhotep and Nofrethor.109 Meyer has argued, and Dorman agrees, that Senenmut was a batchelor – he is portrayed only with parents in funerary stelae in his tombs, depicted alone rather than with a wife in vignette of chapter 110 if his book of the dead, funerary rites executed by a brother not a son.110 Senenmut’s maternal grandmother is Satdjehuty known from Hatnofer’s funerary papyri.111
whom the Lord of the Two Lands sxnt-ed to his position.117
A further reference to Iamunnedjeh having been sxnt on account of his excellence (mnx) does not make explicit reference to the king;118 however, it is followed by the statements that the king chose (stp) him before the Two Lands, and that the king searched him out (Dar) from among millions of people.119 There are further references to appointment, but these do not explicitly mention the king.120 Family In the tomb of Iamunedjeh the only titles attributed to his parents are sAb for his father Sa-Djehuty121 and Lady of the House (nbt-pr) for his mother Resy.122 Whale notes that Iamunedjeh’s father plays a prominent role in the tomb suggesting that he had power or family importance.123 Iamunedjeh was married to a Royal 112 TT 73, see Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 1 – 10; PM I(2): 143 - 144. The name of the tomb owner is lost in the inscriptions; however, Habachi (1957) convincingly argued that that it should be attributed to the High Steward Amenhotep based on a graffito at Sehel. 113 Urk IV 460, 10. 114 1.2.19. 115 For the tomb see PM I(2): 167 – 170. For inscriptions relating to this man see Urk IV 937, 5 – 962, 17. The career of Iamunedjeh has recently been discussed by Polz 1991. 116 Urk IV 962, 4. 117 Urk IV 962, 10. 118 Urk IV 945, 7. 119 Urk IV 945, 8 – 9. 120 Such as [s]xnt.kw r wHm-nsw tpy m Hyr-tp n tA r-Dr=f ‘I was sxnt to be First Royal Herald, and as Chief of the Entire Land’ (Urk IV 940, 15); and, sxnt.n mnxw=f st=f ‘his excellence sxnt-ed his position’ (Urk IV 957, 4). 121 Urk IV 957, 7; Polz 1991: 283. 122 Urk IV 955, 18; 957, 7. 123 Whale 1989: 117.
98
Urk IV 402, 11; 414, 6. Lansing & Hayes 1937: 18 – 31. 100 Urk IV 402, 10; 414, 6. 101 Dorman 1988: 168; Lansing & Hayes 1937: 31 – 32. 102 Dorman 1988:168. 103 Dorman 1988: 170 – 171. 104 Dorman 1988: 171. 105 Dorman 1988: 169; Urk IV 399, 4 – 13. 106 Senimen is not Senenmut’s brother, see Dorman and Roehrig 1987. 107 Dorman 1991: 57, text 32, with filial association to Senenmut intentionally hacked out. 108 Dorman 1988: 165 n. 5. 109 Dorman 1988: 165 – 166. 110 Meyer 1982: 8 – 9; Dorman 1988: 166. 111 Dorman 1988: 166. 99
4
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence Ornament (Xkrt-nsw) called Henutnofret.124 Whale has suggested further family connections, but these are entirely speculative.125
Hr srw [r=i] Hr irt n=i rmn hAb.n wi Hr Ds=f r irt [m]rrt kA=f
Polz has stated that no evidence can be found for sons or daughters of Iamunedjeh in Iamunedjeh’s tomb, and that even though it is badly damaged he suggests that Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret did not have children. He states this is why Iamunedjeh’s brother is shown performing the funerary rituals in three places within the tomb texts.126 However, both Whale and Virey state that a son named Djehutymose is found in the tomb scenes. This man is not recorded as holding a title.127 Consequently, Whale argues that this son died young, explaining why Iamunedjeh’s brother is depicted performing the funerary rites in the tomb.128 A further son, attributed to Iamunedjeh, perhaps by another wife, is mentioned on the Marseille Stele (No. 34);129 this records the Royal Scribe Mery, while also referring to the WabPriest Mery and Lector-Priest Mery.130 The details of this relationship are not of concern here, and as there seems to be no consensus over whether a son existed at all, it is best to simply state that that there is no evidence that Iamunedjeh passed his office onto his children.
[s]mn.n=f wi iw=i xnt s HH Dar.k[w] mm s Hfnw nis=f (w)i r wpwty-nsw sxnt.kw [mm] Snyt r-ntt Hs wi Hwt-Hr nbt mafkt Hr irt.n=i nbt n=s [Hr in]t mafkt m Xrt-hrw nt ra nb
Family Although there are no details about Nakht’s family, he is recorded as being from Thinis.133
1.2.8. The Foreman of Works in Sinai, Nakht (Hatshepsut - Tuthmosis III) Evidence This text, from a round topped stele found in the Hall of Sopdu at Serabit el-Khadim in Sinai, is dated to year 20 of Tuthmosis III.131 iw Sms.n=i nTr nfr rx.n nb tAwy i[qr] Sm.kw Hr mTn tri.kw
and the officials bent the arm [to me]. Horus himself sent me out in order to do that which his ka desires. He [est]ablished me when I was foremost among millions of men and was sought out from among hundreds of thousands of men. He summoned me to be royal messenger and I was sxnt [among] the entourage, to the effect that Hathor, Lady of Turquoise praised me on account of all that I had done for her [present]ing turquoise in the course of the day, every day.132
1.2.9. The Vizier Useramun (Hatshepsut – Tuthmosis III) Evidence Useramun makes reference to his appointment to Vizier on a number of his monuments.134 On one such monument, now known as the Uriage Stele,135 Useramun states:
I followed the Good God the Lord of the Two Lands knew that I was exce[llent], I went forth on the (right) road and I was respected.
sxnt.n iqr(=i) st(=i)
124
Polz 1991: 283; Whale 1989: 115. Whale notes a possible family connection with the family of the Chancellor Senneferi (of TT 99) as Senneferi’s mother was called SatDjehuty (Urk IV 547, 5) and his wife was Ta-Iamu (Urk IV 539, 2): both names have elements found among the family of Iamunedjeh. Iamunedjeh may also have been related to the Deputy of the Army Amenemhab (Again, according to Whale 1989: 124. Amenemhab is the owner of unpublished TT 85, see Urk IV 890 – 897; PM I(2): 170 – 175). Their tombs adjoin, and there are common name elements among family members: Amenemhab’s mother was Teti-res (PM I(2): 170), which could link her to Iamunedjeh’s mother Resy. Also, Iamu is the name of Amenemhab’s son (this man was a Child of the Kap (Urk IV 916, 14) and Chief of the Followers of His Person (Hry Smsw n Hm=f) (Urk IV 914, 13)) and is an element present in the name of Iamunedjeh. On the basis of this evidence Whale suggests that the two mothers may have been sisters or cousins (Whale 1989: 128). Furthermore, the name of Teti-res could be a sign of a connection to the early 18th Dynasty family of Tetikey (Along with the Viceroy of Kush Seni (1.2.1.) and Nebamun A (1.2.2.)). As with other family relations suggested by Whale (See the family of Nebamun A above, 1.2.2.), these are all speculative, and require more evidence to prove. 126 Polz 1991: 283. 127 Whale 1989: 115; Virey 1886: 42. 128 Whale 1989: 116. 129 Maspero 1890: 120 -121. 130 Whale 1989: 118 – 119. 131 For the full text see Urk IV 1377, 1 – 1378, 19; Gardiner & Peet 1952: pl. 57 no. 181.
bs.kw r iAwt Tn mnxt
125
r imy-rA nwt TAty wsr
my trustworthiness sxnt-ed my position, so that I was inducted to this excellent office, to Overseer of the City and Vizier, User.136
Thus, Useramun emphasises that it was his ability that led him to become Vizier; his excellent performance of his priestly duties, rather than his family line. A far more detailed account of Useramun’s appointment to the Vizierate is described in his tomb at Thebes (TT 131),137 in a text now known as the Appointment of the Vizier.138 The audience is described as a ‘sitting of the king’ (Hmst-nsw) in the DAdw, a word translated as
132
Urk IV 1377, 11 – 1378, 3. Urk IV 1378, 19. For the monuments of Useramun see Dziobek 1998. 135 Urk IV 1029, 15 - 1033, 7; Duringe 1903; Dziobek 1998: pl. 12 136 Urk IV 1031, 15 – 16. 137 Published by Dziobek 1994. 138 Dziobek 1998: 3 – 15, pl. 1; Urk IV 1380, 12 – 1383, 19. 133 134
5
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty ‘audience hall’.139 Various officials are admitted before finally the elderly vizier enters, ‘to take counsel about the affairs of the Two Lands’.140 This indicates that the audience was intended to be a typical daily meeting141 during which the king, the vizier, and other notables would discuss matters. However, following a break in the text it is apparent that the vizier’s age has become a concern. This is brought to the attention of the king by the courtiers who request that he appoint a staff of old age.142 The king does not respond by immediately announcing a candidate, rather he proclaims that the courtiers choose one from among them. They then consider their options.143 Their decision is presented as a long laudatory speech of the king’s right to rule and authority ending with the suggestion that the king appoint Useramun: di=k is sA=f wsr rn=f m sS xtmt nTr m Hwt nTr n imn ntf m HAw(?) (n) it=k nsw bity aA-xpr-kA-ra mAa-[xrw]
informed the elderly vizier that his son was to act as his ‘staff of old age’. At no stage in this text is Useramun himself present. The text is accompanied by two scenes on the north side of the east wall in the hall of the tomb.149 The first episode depicts the king in audience.150 Here Tuthmosis III sits at the far right (facing left) in a baldachin wearing the Atef-crown, his royal ka stands behind him. Before the king is the Chamberlain (imy-xnt), two companions of the king, and Useramun who is described at the time as a Scribe of the Treasury of the god in the Temple of Amun. The elderly vizier, Useramun’s father, is also present. The appointment text is above this scene. The second scene continues the first in the direction that the king faces;151 thus to the left is the escorted procession of the king and co-vizier, possibly to Karnak temple to ratify the act before the gods. The king is brought in a palanquin carried by eight porters, a fanbearer is by his side, an attendant in front holds a sunshade over the king. Useramun walks in front of them. Soldiers and musicians are depicted.
Now, you should place his son, named User: the Scribe and Sealbearer of the God in the Temple of Amun, as he had been at the time of your father, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperkare, justified.144
An addition to this record is Papyrus Turin 1878152 dated year 5, month 1 of Akhet under Tuthmosis III.153 Here Useramun is brought before the king for his appointment. In the text the king asks how many years it had been since Useramun had been circumcised,154 to which he replies 30. Dziobek suggests that Useramun was therefore approximately 40 years of age on the basis that in modern times, as well as a depiction in the tomb of Ankhmanhor, children are between the age of 6 and 12 when they are circumcised.155 A lacuna ends with Useramun stating that he had performed a certain office in the time of the king’s father, but the title of the office is lost. His father then states that Useramun has been found by men to be full of ideas (mHw m xnw), and that this is the reason why he should be appointed.
Up to and including this point the appointment had been described as a ‘placing’; Useramun is ‘placed’ as a staff of old age145 and ‘placed’ in his position by the king. Now, however, the king, in agreement with his courtiers, issues a decree confirming the appointment: [iw rdi.tw] n=f wDw m aH The command [was given] to him in the palace sar.tw smi=f x[f]t-Hr and his report was presented in the presence.146
Family - Parents Useramun inherited the vizierate from his father AhmoseAmethu.156 Both worked together for an unknown amount of time with the son acting as staff of old age for his elderly father. It is unlikely that Ahmose-Amethu had inherited the office himself from his father as there is no known family connection between him and his presumed predecessor Imhotep.157 However, there is evidence that Ahmose-Amethu had connections with other important family lines: Dziobek has argued that Ahmose-Amethu’s wife, Taametu, was the sister of the Overseer of Works
The exact meaning of the ‘report’ is unclear, it may be a reference to a presentation of Useramun’s good character, as this is referred to later in the text: the king addresses the Vizier stating that he has ‘witnessed’ his son Useramun as excellent (mnx)147 and as one who had learnt from his father’s teachings.148 It appears then, that the king was presented with evidence of Useramun’s ability by the courtiers. He accepted their choice and 139
WB V: 527. Urk IV 1380, 17. 141 The vizier is said to meet the king every morning in order to inform him of important matters (see The Duties of the Vizier, van den Boorn 1988: 54 – 55, R5; also the Vizier Ramose, Urk IV 1785, 10 – 11). 142 However, it is possible that the king was the first to show concern and that his comments are lost in the lacuna. 143 Urk IV 1381, 16 – 17. 144 Following Dziobek 1998: 7, 14, pl. 1; Urk IV 1382, 10 – 11. 145 A reference to supporting his father, the elderly vizier, in his work. 146 Dziobek 1998: 14, plate 1; Urk IV 1382, 13 – 14. 147 Urk IV 1383, 4. 148 Urk IV 1383, 5. It is interesting that one of the long texts in the tomb of Useramun is the Teachings of Ahmose-Amethu, his father – see Dziobek 1998: 23 - 54. 140
149
Dziobek 1994: pl. 72. Dziobek 1994: pl. 72; 1998: pl. 1; Davies March 1926: 48. 151 Dziobek 1994: pl. 83; Davies December 1926: 9 fig. 5. 152 Urk IV 1384, 3 – 20; Dziobek 1998: 98 – 99. 153 Meaning the joint reign of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III. Urk IV 1384, 3. 154 Urk IV 1384; Dziobek 1998: 99. 155 Dziobek 1998: 101. 156 For the evidence relating to this man see Dziobek 1998: 103 - 110, 111; Helck 1958: 289 – 290. 157 See Helck 1958: 285, 433 for references to this man. 150
6
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence under Tuthmosis I, Ineni.158 If so her father will have held a position in the Amun administration while her mother had been a Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw).159 Furthermore, the King’s Son of Kush Turi160 is depicted leading a procession of Ahmose-Amethu’s children in Useramun’s shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah.161 Although the connection between the two families is not made clear it is unlikely that Turi would be depicted here if there were not some family connection.162 It is also possible that the family of Ahmose-Amethu were already influential during the 17th Dynasty.163
Vizier for a short time,170 while Amenmose had been a scribe of the Treasury (pr-HD) of Amun.171 Family - Children As with Useramun’s brothers, his children also held important positions across Thebes.172 Sa-Menkhet was a Wab-priest of Amun and also a Scribe of the Divine Treasury of Amun.173 This latter office was held by Useramun himself174 and thus may have passed from father to son. Another son, Merimaat, was a Priest of Amun in Dsr-Dsrw,175 Wab-priest of Amun, Second Priest of Amun, God’s Father of Amun, Scribe of the Divine Treasury, and Wab-priest in Karnak.176 Amenemhat was a Wab-priest of Amun,177 while no title is recorded for a final son.178 It is not always clear whether the religious offices held by these individuals were at mortuary temples or the Temple of Amun at Karnak.
Family - Brothers Useramun’s brothers all held influential appointments in the Theban area, being spread among a number of important temples.164 One brother was a Wab-priest in the temple of Mut,165 another was 2nd priest in the temple of Montu at Karnak,166 while another was a 1st Lector Priest in the Mortuary Temple of Tuthmosis I.167 At Karnak temple a brother named Neferhotep was Scribe of the God’s Treasury of Amun, Overseer of the Storehouse (Sna) of Amun, Wab-Priest and potentially 2nd Priest of Amun at Karnak or at Deir el-Bahri.168 Another brother was Overseer of the Prison (xnrt)169 which shows the family’s presence in the state administration. Neferweben was a Wab-Priest and may have been a
Comments It is possible to attempt a reconstruction of Useramun’s career; however, as many of the offices he held are undated any such reconstruction must be treated with some caution.179 His earliest title appears to have been Wab-priest;180 he then became a scribe and worked in the God’s Treasury of Amun. There is a single reference to him being Overseer of the Granary of Amun (imy-rA Snwty nt imn),181 but it is not clear whether he held this position before or after becoming Vizier. Another problem is that in TT 131 Useramun is recorded as holding the title Overseer of the Treasury of Amun (imyrA xtmt nt imn)182 – being the Overseer as opposed to simply the scribe as other evidence indicates he was. This is confusing because in his Appointment scene Useramun is simply given the title Scribe of the God’s Treasury, rather than Overseer. It is possible that the Overseeing of this position was given to him when he became Vizier; in scenes of his work as Vizier Useramun states that he was in charge of sealing all valuables (Spss) in Karnak. Similarly, Useramun may have only become Overseer of Scribes of Amun, a title he holds in both TT 131 and 83, when he became vizier.183 Useramun then became Vizier
158
Dziobek 1987: 70; 1992: 142, Text 1 ‘f’; 1998: 110, 111. For evidence in the tomb of Ineni see Dziobek 1992: 142; for evidence in the tomb of Useramun see Dziobek 1998: 110 – 111. 160 For the career of this man see Habachi 1959. 161 Caminos & James 1963:59 – 60, pl. 46. For the shrine as a whole (shrine 17) see Caminos & James 1963: 57 – 63, pls. 7, 33, 34, 45, 46, 47. 162 Murnane has noted that although family ties are often identified on private monuments, they are just as frequently not identified, with only the name being recorded. Consequently, it may have been the norm for the reader/viewer to assume a family connection between the person named and others described or depicted on the monument (Murnane 1994: 192, n. 21). 163 Dziobek notes that a stele in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, belongs to a Herald of the King’s Mother Aamethu (PM I(2): 624; Dziobek 1998: 111). However, he notes that they were not the parents of Ahmose-Amethu because this Aamethu’s wife was called Iahmose and had a son called Senbu(?). Also they can be placed in the 17th Dynasty making them far too early (Dziobek 1998: 111). However, Dziobek does note the possibility that this Aamethu is related to the family, due to the rarity of the name Aamethu. If the 17th Dynast Aamethu is indeed related to the later Vizier it would show a connection with the royal family from an early time. 164 For an overall discussion of Useramun’s brothers and their offices see Dziobek 1998:115 – 119. 165 Nakht. See Caminos & James 1963: 59, pl. 46; Davies 1943: pl. 9; Dziobek 1998: 113. 166 Aakheperkare, Dziobek 1998: 112. 167 Hor is only recorded as being a Wab-priest at Gebel es-Silsilah (Caminos & James 1963: 59, pl. 46), but in TT 61 and TT 131 of Useramun he is First Lector Priest of Aakheperkare (Tuthmosis I) (Dziobek 1998: 112, 115). 168 Dziobek 1998: 118 – 119. Also see Dziobek 1998: 113 – 114, 117; Kees 1953: 20, 317; Caminos & James 1963: 59, pl. 46. This man may have been the owner of TT 122, see Whale 1989: 58 – 60 for arguments and a description of the surviving scenes. 169 Amenemhat, see Caminos & James 1963: 59, pl. 46; Dziobek 1998: 112. 159
170 Caminos & James 1963: 59, pl. 46. The vizieral connection is based on a statue of a Vizier called Neferweben, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 29.728, see Dunham 1929: 164 - 5. However, Rekhmire never refers to his father, Neferweben, as a Vizier in his tomb, only as a Wab-Priest making it most unlikely that both men are the same. For a recent summary of the evidence for this man see Dziobek 1998: 114. 171 This man is the owner of TT 228, see PM I(2): 327 – 328; Kampp 1996: 505 - 506. 172 For an overall discussion of the careers of the sons of Useramun see Dziobek 1998: 126 – 127. 173 Dziobek 1998: 120. 174 Dziobek 1998: 88, 159; Davies & Macadam 1957: No. 370. 175 The Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri (Dziobek 1998: 126 – 127). 176 Dziobek 1998: 120 – 122. 177 Dziobek 1998: 123. 178 Userhat, see Dziobek 1998: 123. 179 Dziobek 1998: 100. 180 Recorded on his Uriage stele and funeray cone 358, Kees 1960: 45 56. 181 Dziobek 1998: 89. 182 In TT 131, Dziobek 1998: 163. 183 Dziobek 1998: 100.
7
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty in year 5 of the coregency between Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.
Nebetta, Menkheperreseneb B was the nephew of Menkheperreseneb A. These men, therefore, provide the only 18th Dynasty evidence of the office of High Priest of Amun moving through a family line. In this reconstruction it is Menkheperreseneb A who held the position of 2nd Priest of Amun before his promotion. However, even this is not definite. The office of 2nd Priest of Amun is only linked to Menkheperreseneb A by a statue in the British Museum191 which cannot be proven to definitely belong to the same man. Only two of the titles found on the statue correspond with titles in TT 86. The British Museum statue may therefore come from an earlier period in the career of Menkheperreseneb A. However, it is equally likely that the statue is unrelated to the Menkheperreseneb under discussion. The evidence for a progression from 2nd priest to High Priest is therefore not on firm ground and should be used with caution. Irrespective of these details it is likely that both Menkheperreseneb A and B gained their influence through the relationship their mothers had with the royal family.192 There is no evidence that either Menkheperreseneb had children.193
As Useramun inherited the office of Vizier from his father it is reasonable to question whether he was actually suitable for the position. It is clear that Useramun only gained his position after a significant amount of time working in the administration of Karnak temple. He thus had the administrative skill that the vizierate required. However, there is no evidence that he had contact with the king during this time184 - his titles do not link him with the palace administration, nor is there evidence that he spent his youth in the palace. As noted above, Useramun’s family were extremely influential in Thebes, and were themselves related to further important families. It is then at least possible that Hatshepsut had to appease such an important family by giving the most suitable member the office of southern vizier. 1.2.10. The High Priest of Amun Menkheperreseneb A (Tuthmosis III) Evidence In TT 86,185 Menkheperreseneb states that he was:
1.2.11. The Overseer of the Granary Menkheperreseneb C (Tuthmosis III) Evidence Menkheperreseneb of TT 79194 states that he was:
one whom the Lord of the Two Lands searched out,186 Hr qd=f on account of his character, sxn[t].n=f m-[qAb] smrw and he sxn[t]-ed from [among] the courtiers stp.n=f m-ab Hfnw and chose amidst hundreds of thousands. He mag[nif]ied him sa[A].n=f sw187 ti sw m wDH when he was a weaned child sxnt.n=f m aH and he sxnt-ed him in the palace.188
Dar.n nb tAwy
sxnt.[n] nsw [Hr] mnx-ib=f ir.n iqr=f st=f
one whom the king sxnt[-ed] [on account of] his excellence. His trustworthiness made his position195
Family Menkheperreseneb inherited the office of Overseer of the Double Granary from his father Nakhtmin.196 Only one of Menkheperreseneb’s sons is known by name, Nebenmaat, who held the office of Scribe in the Temple of Henketankh.197 As far as the evidence shows Menkheperreseneb did not pass the office of Overseer of the Double Granary to Nebenmaat, although both father and son held positions in the Temple of Henket-ankh.198
Family It had long been assumed that there was a single Menkheperreseneb who held the office of High Priest of Amun under Tuthmosis III or Amenhotep II.189 However, a recent re-evaluation of the evidence by Dorman190 has shown that there were in fact two Menkheperresenebs (labelled A and B). Menkheperreseneb A was the owner of TT 86 and the son of the Royal Foster Sister Nebetta and an unknown father. Menkheperreseneb B is the owner of TT 112, the son of the Chariot-Soldier Hepu and the Royal Nurse Taiunet. As Hepu was the son of
Menkheperreseneb had been a Child of the Kap.199 This could have provided him with the right connections that would enable him to receive his father’s office.
184 Although all references to his appointment state that Tuthmosis III was the king, the Turin papyrus is dated to year 5 of the king’s reign, the period when Hatshepsut held power. 185 Published by Davies 1933: 1 – 17; Urk IV 926, 1 – 935, 17; PM(2) I: 175 – 178. Also see the recent discussion by Dorman on the owner of this tomb (Dorman 1995). 186 For examples of the king Dar ‘searching out’, and stp ‘choosing’ officials see Guksch 1994: 112 – 113. 187 Sethe states this should not be read as sw (Urk IV 926, 16), but see the comment of Guksch 1994: 118 n. 246. 188 Urk IV 926, 13 – 927, 1. 189 Lefèbvre 1929: 82 – 89; Davies 1933: 1 – 26; Urk IV 926 – 936; Kees 1953: 121, 299; Farid 1964: 98; Whale 1989: 100 – 104; Murnane 1998: 208. 190 Dorman 1995: 148 – 154.
191
BM 708. Dorman 1995: 154. 193 Whale 1989: 101. 194 The tomb has recently been published by Guksch 1995. Also see Virey 1891; Whale 1989: 122 – 123; PM I(2): 156 – 157; Urk IV 1190 – 1205. 195 Guksch 1995: 158, 159; Urk IV 1191, 17; 1203, 16 - 17. For the reconstruction of both examples see Guksch 1995: 158 text 9, 1; 153 fig. 77 line 10. The same phrase is found in TT 96 of Sennefer; see Urk IV 1428, 7 – 9. 196 Owner of TT 87, see Guksch 1995. For an overview of the four generations of this family see Guksch 1995: 15 – 16. 197 Guksch 1995: 16. 198 Guksch 1995: 122. 199 Guksch 1995: 122. 192
8
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence 1.2.12. Viceroy of Kush Nehy (Tuthmosis III) Evidence Near the north end of the exterior face of the east wall at the Temple of Dedwen at Semna200 Nehy describes himself as: mH wDA wsx Snwt […] …. [sp-tpy] n Hs=i nsw nsw bity nTr pn nfr [rdit=f w]i r [wHm-nsw tpy201]
sxnt.n nsw siqr.n bity
Family Little is known about the family of Menkheperreseneb. His father, Nefer-khat, is known from his own stele, now in Budapest,211 as well as a reference on the stele of Menkheperreseneb.212 Nefer-khat held the titles Overseer of Foreign Countries213 and Chief of Medjay,214 the same titles held by his son,215 suggesting that the titles passed along the family line.216 He also accompanied the king on campaign in the north and south.217 Sethe suggests that an un-named man recorded as holding these titles in the tomb of the High Priest of Amun Menkheperreseneb may be Nefer-Khat.218 Menkheperreseneb’s mother was the Lady of the House, Ruiu-res.219 No details concerning Menkheperreseneb’s children, if any indeed existed, is given on the stele.
one who filled the storehouses and expanded the granaries […] …. [The first occasion] of my being favoured by the king, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, this Good God, [he placed m]e to be [First Royal Herald].202
Later a second favour of the king is recorded: [sp] nw-2 n [Hst=i nsw nsw bity] nTr pn nfr rdit=f mH-ib n ib=f [r sA nsw imy-rA] xAswt rsy
one whom the King of Upper Egypt sxnt-ed and whom the King of Lower Egypt distinguished.210
The 2nd [occasion] of [my being favoured by the king, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt], this Good God, he placed the trusted one of his heart [to be King’s Son, Overseer] of Southern Countries.203
1.2.14. Crown Prince Amenemhat A (Tuthmosis III) Evidence On the outer wall on the south side of the Festival Hall at Karnak a number of decrees are recorded,220 among them is the appointment of the crown prince to office: [iw grt] wD.n Hm=i rdi.tw sA nsw wrw [imn]-m-HAt r imy-rA kAw n tA i[ryt] […]
Family There is no evidence for the family of Nehy. Comments Nehy became Viceroy of Kush in year 23 of Tuthmosis III.204 This man had been a Royal Herald205 and Overseer of the Gate (rwt),206 accompanying the king on his first campaign in Syria. He was later buried at Thebes.207 It is unclear whether Nehy was immediately succeeded by the Viceroy Usersatet or whether another man took the office between them.208 However, it is clear that Usersatet was not a son of Nehy, and thus it is likely that he did not pass his office down his family line.
[Furthermore], My Person commanded that the eldest King’s Son, [Amen]emhat221 be placed as Overseer of Cattle of the [milch cows] […]222
It was not unusual for royal princes to hold positions in the temple administration,223 Tuthmosis III himself had been a Priest (Hm-nTr), before he acted as ‘Pillar of his Mother’.224 It is not clear whether this was a career progression or a role played during specific ceremonies.225 Little is known about the activities of royal princes in the 18th Dynasty.226 210
Urk IV 992, 14. Urk IV 989, 13 – 991, 3. 212 Urk IV 994, 17. 213 Urk IV 991, 1. 214 Urk IV 990, 7. 215 Urk IV 993, 12; 994, 13 – 14. 216 A similar passage of Medjay offices among family members is also seen in the family of Nebnefer (B), see 1.2.23. 217 Urk IV 990, 17. 218 Discussion by Sethe, Urk IV 991, 4 – 12, in reference to Urk IV 931, 12 – 14. 219 Urk IV 994, 17. 220 Gardiner 1952; es-Sabban 2000: 22 – 31; Redford 2003:127 – 137 (focuses on the military campaigns); Urk IV 1251, 1 – 1275. 221 This prince is otherwise unknown, see Dodson & Hilton 2004: 132 – 133. 222 Urk IV 1262, 1 – 2. 223 Although the title is not explicitly linked to the temple of Amun, all other commands recorded during this audience do relate to the temple. 224 Urk IV 157, 11. 225 The same progression is found in the career of the High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose (see below). However, in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon the Iwnmutef Priest does not appear to have been a permanent 211
1.2.13. The Chief of Medjay Menkheperreseneb D (Tuthmosis III) Evidence Known from Cairo statue 547,209 the Overseer of Foreign Countries and Chief of the Medjay, Menkheperreseneb, states that he was:
200
See Caminos 1998: 61 – 65, pls. 30 – 31. Following Sethe Urk IV 987, 15. Caminos chooses to leave the title unrestored (Caminos 1998: 62). 202 Caminos 1998: 62, pl. 30; Urk IV 987, 11 – 15. 203 Caminos 1998: 62, pl 30; Urk IV 988, 9 – 10. 204 Der Manuelian 1987: 155. 205 Urk IV 983, 3, 5. 206 Urk IV 983, 6; 984, 15. 207 See Habachi 1980. 208 Der Manuelian 1987: 155. 209 Urk IV 991, 14 – 994, 17. 201
9
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty 1.2.15. The Soldier May (Tuthmosis III) Evidence The soldier May states on Berlin statue 19286227 that he was: saA.n nsw siqr.n bity sxnt.n nb tAwy st=f …. Tnw r rmTw saA.n=f mm iryw=f
pH iAw n gm.tw wn=f ir Ddt nb=f
one who the King of Upper Egypt magnified, who the King of Lower Egypt distinguished, and who the Lord of the Two Lands sxnt-ed to his position.228 .... one distinguished more than the people and whom he magnified among his comrades.229
Family A group statue of the family of Minmose239 shows Minmose’s wife, the Royal Ornament sitting to his right, while his daughter the Royal Nurse Sharti sits to his left. Minmose’s son, Minmose, a Priest of Osiris, dedicated the statue. Another statue of Minmose from Nebesheh records that his father was the sAb Nay and his mother the the Lady of the House (nbt pr) Rennefer. It is possible that the family originated from this location.240 Comments Minmose accompanied Amenhotep II on his foreign campaigns,241 and it is perhaps here that he became close to the king. Like Suemniut242 he was a military man and Royal Butler.
Family There are no details concerning the family of May. 1.2.16. The Overseer of Works Minmose (Tuthmosis III – Amenhotep II) Evidence On a statue from Medamud230 Minmose relates that the taxing of Retjenu was placed under his charge by the king231 and that he assessed the taxes once they had been placed under his authority in the Treasury (pr-HDwy).232 He also relates his work for the king on various temples across Egypt,233 before referring to his appointments: tr.n [wi Hm=f n aAt n mnx=i] [sxnt.n=f] wi xft smrw
1.2.17. The Vizier Rekhmire (Tuthmosis III – Amenhotep II) Evidence In his tomb, TT 100 at Thebes,243 Rekhmire makes reference to his appointments. The text known as the Installation of the Vizier244 begins with the statement that the vizier has been appointed in the palace: Instructions ‘placed in the face’ of the Vizier, Re[khmire]. The council is admitted (dragged) r wAxy n [pr-aA a.w.s.] into the columned hall of [Pharaoh l.p.h.] rdit m msw TAty [rx-mi-ra] causing the [newly] appointed vizier, dhnw [m-mAwt] [Rekhmire], to be presented.245 tp-rd rdy m Hr n TAty r[x-mi-ra] sTA qnbt
[His Person] respected [me because of my excellence] [he sxnt-ed] me in front of the courtiers.234
Minmose then records the gifts given to him by the king,235 before making further reference to appointment;236 however, neither of these further references explicitly mention the king as being involved in the appointment process. On a further statue237 Minmose states that he was one: sAa.n nsw Dr Xrdw=f
who reached old age with no fault of his having been found, who did that which his lord said.238
This was a set text found in the tombs of viziers of the New Kingdom.246 It is not known whether this was a text composed solely for a tomb context, or if it was actually read aloud following the installation of the new vizier. In his autobiography Rekhmire also makes reference to the changes that had occurred to him since his appointment:
whom the king has magnified since his childhood,
priestly title but a role that was played on specific occasions. Thus when Osorkon comes before the oracle of Amun he comes as an Iwnmutef-Priest even though he is already the High Priest of Amun. In this context it seems that the person approaching the oracle had to act as Iwnmutef (see Caminos 1959; and Gardiner 1953: 27, n. 2). 226 See Schmitz 1980: 628 – 629; Dodson 1990. 227 Urk IV 1370 – 1371. 228 The same phrase is used by the Vizier Rekhmire; see Urk IV 1172, 9 – 10. 229 Urk IV 1371, 9 – 10, 12 – 13. 230 Urk IV 1441, 1 – 1445, 12. 231 Urk IV 1442, 12. 232 Urk IV 1442, 15. 233 Urk IV 1443, 1 – 1444, 5. 234 Urk IV 1444, 6 – 7. 235 Urk IV 1444, 8 – 10. 236 Urk IV 1444, 11, 14. 237 Possibly from Karnak, see Urk IV 1447, 1 – 20.
SsAw=i nn sw mi wn.n=f qmA=i n sf 238
My wisdom was not as it had been, my appearance of yesterday
Urk IV 1447, 9 – 11. EA 2300; see Meulenaere 1981: 315 – 319. 240 Petrie 1888: pl. X; Meulenaere 1981: 318. 241 Urk IV 1441 – 1442; Redford 2003: 173 - 174. 242 Owner of TT 92, see Urk IV 1449, 1 – 1452, 20. 243 Published by Davies 1943; PM I(2): 206 – 214. 244 For the text see Urk IV 1086-1093, also Faulkner 1955. 245 Urk IV 1086, 11 – 14. 246 In addition to the edition found in the tomb of Rekhmire the text is also found in the tomb of Useramun (TT 131), and that of Hapu (TT 66). 239
10
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence Tn.n=f sw Dr prt=i m Xkrw [nw TAty] […].kw m Hm-nTr mAat
after Rekhmire.257 This argument does not stand up against scrutiny; only one Scribe of the God’s Treasury of Amun became vizier – Useramun. It is thus far too speculative to suggest that other members of the family who held the same office were intended to follow the same career path. Another of Rekhmire’s sons, Menkheperreseneb, was a Scribe of the Divine Offerings of Amun;258 this office also ran in the family. It thus appears that the family held hereditary scribal posts in both the God’s Treasury and in offices related to the God’s Offerings.259 Both would ensure a good education and prospects, but would not automatically make one eligible to become vizier. It is possible that the most gifted son was awarded one of these hereditary posts in order that he could gain the best chance of furthering his career quickly.
had altered itself since I had come in the adornments [of the Vizier], […]247 as Priest of Maat.248
Rekhmire also states that it was the king: di sw m tp n smrw Hry-tp n tA r-Dr=f siA.n=f sw m irw Axt
who placed him as Head of the Courtiers, and as Chief of the entire land; he recognised him as one who does what is excellent.249
Rekhmire further states that he was: saA.n nsw siqr.n bity sxnt.n nb tAwy st=f
In addition to the two sons already discussed, Rekhmire possibly had a further five, taking his total number of sons to seven. Of these only three are are known by name: Mery was an Overseer of the Storehouse of the God’s Treasury (imy-rA Sna xtm-nTr),260 Senwosret was a Scribe;261 while a further son called Kenamun does not have a title recorded.262 One scene in Rekhmire’s tomb263 shows a procession of seven men greeting Rekhmire. They are led by Menkheperreseneb, the final man is Kenamun. Whale notes that as it is unlikely that other male relatives would take precedence over a son they are most likely all sons. In this scene the names of the sons have been erased although that of Kenamun survives; damage to the images and names of the sons are frequent in the tomb,264 which may indicate a fall from grace. Amenhotep is the most prominent son in the tomb.265
one who the King of Upper Egypt magnified, who the King of Lower Egypt distinguished, and who the Lord of the Two Lands sxnt-ed to his position.250
Family Rekhmire was the third member of the family of Ahmose-Amethu to inherit the vizierate.251 He was the nephew of the previous vizier, Useramun, rather than a son.252 It is unclear why the office was not directly inherited by one of Useramun’s sons if it were to stay within the family. Dziobek has suggested that perhaps they were too ‘mediocre’ and may have been an impairment to the dynasty.253 If correct, a compromise may have been that the office could stay within the family, but was awarded to the most promising member the expertise, and therefore the training, to be vizier perhaps went to the most deserving member of the family as an apprenticeship. Before his appointment to the vizierate Useramun had been a Scribe of the Divine Treasury of Amun.254 This led Davies to wonder whether Useramun’s second(?) son Samenkhet, who also held this office, was intended to succeed him, rather than Rekhmire.255 Similarly, Rekhmire’s son, Amenhotep, was a Scribe of the God’s Treasury of Amun.256 Davies thus suggested that this son was the intended heir to the office
Rekhmire’s wife, Meryt, was a Royal Ornament (Xkrtnsw) and Lady of the House (nbt-pr) and was thus important at court.266 His mother Bet was also a Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw);267 she is more prominent in the tomb than his father, but Meryt is even more prominent than her,268 suggesting that she had a greater influence over Rekhmire’s career. It has been argued that Rekhmire’s father, Neferweben, briefly became vizier before Rekhmire gained the position,269 but that he is 257
Davies 1943: 14 n. 1. Davies 1943: 14, 15, pls. IX; XXXVIII; LXXIII, I; LXXV; CXV. 259 The office of Scribe of the God’s Offerings of Amun is held by a number of members of the family of the Viceroy of Kush Turi (Schmitz 1978: 180), who were connected to the family of Ahmose-Amethu (see Caminos & James 1963: 59 – 60, pl. 46). The office is then held by Rekhmire, followed by his son Menkheperreseneb. The office of Scribe of the God’s Treasury of Amun was held by Useramun, followed by his sons Sa-Menkhet (Dziobek 1998: 120, and Merimaat (Dziobek 1998: 121 - 122). 260 Davies 1943: 15, pls. XXXVIII; LXXVII. 261 Davies 1943: 15, pls. CIII; CIX. 262 Davies 1943: 15, pl. LXXI. 263 Davies 1943: pls. LXX, LXXI. 264 Whale 1989: 133. 265 Whale 1989: 133. 266 Davies 1943: pls. LXXV, LXXVII, LXXXV; CIII, CVIII; Whale 1989:132. 267 Davies 1943: pl. LXIV, XCV, CIII; Whale 1989: 132. 268 Whale 1989: 134. 269 Whale 1989: 287 n.112; Dunham 1929: 164 – 166. 258
247
Sethe restores dhn.kw ‘being appointed’ here (Urk IV 1073, 11), but Gardiner notes that the remaining traces do not point to dhn (Gardiner 1925: 65); however, he accepts that a word of similar meaning must have been found here (Gardiner 1925: 65). 248 Lines 6 – 7; Gardiner 1925: 64; Gardiner in Davies 1943: 80. 249 Urk IV 1094, 17 – 1095, 1. 250 Urk IV 1172, 9 – 10. The same phrase is used by the soldier May, see Urk IV 1371, 9 - 10. 251 See under The Vizier Useramun above, 1.2.9. 252 He was the son of Neferweben, a brother of Useramun. See the family of Useramun, 1.2.9. above. 253 Dziobek 1998: 126 – 127. 254 Dziobek 1998: 100; Davies 1943: 14. n.1. 255 Davies 1943: 14. 256 See TT 121; Davies 1943: 14, 15; pls. X; LXIX, 2; LXXXV; XCV.
11
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty virtually ignored in Rekhmire’s tomb because Hatshepsut had appointed him.270 However, this ignores that fact that Useramun was also appointed during the co-regency of Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut, presumably by Hatshepsut due to Tuthmosis III’s youth at this time.271 Furthermore, although Rekhmire’s father is called Neferweben there is no evidence from the tomb of Rekhmire to show that he had been a Vizier;272 it is thus possible that two separate men named Neferweben are involved. It has been suggested that Neferweben had been northern Vizier273 and thus did not pass on his office to his son. However, even if Neferweben were northern Vizier at the time it could simply be a coincidence that he had the same name as Rekhmire’s father.
[iqr].kw Hr-ib n ity iw=i bs.kw r sDm sDmwt wabw [m waw] [iw] it=i Hr sAw=i [i]m […] tmm r=i xft […] [HAp Xt=i Hr mAt.n] irtwy=i n pr=i Xr bs StA[t] rxt.n
Comment Following Rekhmire the office of vizier passed to a new family who had close connections to Amenhotep II. There is no evidence that this change caused problems with the established nobility for the new king, although the possible fall from grace of Rekhmire’s children could indicate that they expected the office to stay within their own family.
nn tS=i […] […] [n dmd]=i Hna Xr(y) Sat n smA=i Hna Dw qd
1.2.18. The High Priest of Amun Amenemhat B (Tuthmosis III - Amenhotep II) Evidence The High Priest of Amun, Amenemhat, left a long autobiographical inscription in his tomb (TT 97) at Thebes.274 Further details about his life come from his shrine at Gebel es-Silsila.275 In his autobiography Amenemhat states that he began his career as a WabPriest, and staff of old age to his father, being under his command until his father’s death.276 He remained a Wabpriest, Sandalmaker of the God (Tbwy-nTr), Overseer of the Storehouse (imy-rA st) and Chief of his subordinates (Hry smdtw=f) until he was 54 when he began his rise to power.277 He relates the reasons why he was eligible for appointment during his service under Tuthmosis III:278
I was [trustworthy] in the heart of the sovereign, when I was installed, in order to hear that which a pure man hears [in private]. My father was my guardian [the]rein […] my mouth was closed when […] [I kept silent about that which] my eyes [saw], I did not go out with a hidden secret which I knew, and I did not spit out […] […] I [did not associate] with the violent man, I did not associate with one of bad character.280
However, it was not until Amenhotep II had taken the throne that Amenemhat truly gained influence: [He appoint]ed me to be God’s Father and [Ch]ief Mouth m i[pt-swt] in Ka[rnak].281 Due to the loss of the text it is unknown whether Amenemhat went on to describe his appointment to High Priest of Amun. [dhn].n[=f] wi r it-nTr r-[H]r[y]-tp
Family Amenemhat’s father, Djehutyhotep, had been a sAb282 and Overseer of the Sandalmakers of the [House of Amun] (imy-rA Tbw n [pr imn]).283 The name of Amenemhat’s mother is unknown.
I entered to perform my office I closed my face279 in the privy council-chamber tr.kw and (I) was respected. sxn[t] [Hst] n nb tAwy rn=i The [favour] of the lord of the Two Lands sxn[t] my name.
aq=i r irt iAt=i tmw Hr=i m st waaw
Amenemhat’s wife was the Lady of the House (nbt-pr) Mymy.284 Amenemhat’s son Amenemweskhet is only recorded as holding the rank of Wab-priest of Amun.285 As this person is not known from further evidence it could illustrate how the success of one generation in a family did not necessarily mean the success of the next, or that the shrine at Gebel es-Silsila was decorated before Amenemweskhet’s career had progressed far. It is not clear if further children were depicted in the shrine due to
270
Davies 1943: 101. See recent discussion of the age of Tuthmosis III at this time in Dorman 2006. 272 He is only referred to as a Wab-priest in the tomb (Davies 1943: pl. X; Dziobek 1998: 114); similarly in shrine 17 at Gebel es-Silsilah (Caminos & James 1963: 59, pl. 46; Dziobek 1998: 114). 273 van den Boorn 1988: 369. 274 PM I(2): 203 – 204; Gardiner 1910; Urk IV 1408 – 13; Kees 1953: 17 – 18; Funerary Cone Oriental Institute 8636 = Urk IV 1413 – 14; Bryan 1991: 267; Whale 1989: 180 – 181. 275 Shrine no. 25, see Caminos & James 1963: 79 – 85 276 Urk IV 1409, 3 – 17. 277 Urk IV 1409, 18 – 20. 278 On the basis that this part of the biography precedes the reference to the accession of Amenhotep II (Urk IV 1410, 17 – 1411, 2). 279 Discreet? 271
280
Urk IV 1410, 1 – 14. Urk IV 1411, 5. 282 Helck omits sAb here, Urk IV 1412, 17, but it is restored by Whale 1989: 181. 283 Urk IV 1412, 17. 284 Urk IV 1413, 11; Caminos & James 1963: pls. 64, 65. 285 From the north wall of Amenemhat’s shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah, see Caminos & James 1963: pl. 64. 281
12
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence a lack of inscriptions describing the relationships between the figures.286
iw=i m iry rdwy=f ir.n=f n=i wrrwt aSAt bAkw m nbw Hr xsbd
Comment A funerary cone gives Amenemhat the epithet iry [rdwy],287 translated by Faulkner as ‘one in attendance on’.288 Kees, acknowledging the military aspect of this title, suggested that Amenemhat began his career as a soldier under Tuthmosis III, in an attempt to explain why he was still only a Wab-priest at the age of 54.289 However, in a recent study of the epithet iry rdwy, Guksch has argued that although the epithet is closely associated with Sms ‘following (the king)’, and that it can refer to accompanying the king during a military campaign,290 it also has the more general meaning of one who could come close to the king, without any military connotation.291 As there is no evidence that Amenemhat had a military career, it would seem best to ascribe this latter meaning of the epithet to Amenemhat’s usage of it.
iw=i m Sms=f m rTnw saA.kw sxnt.kw spr=i r wrw nw DAhy tw tw Xr inw=sn wnn=i Hr Htr wa Hna=f Dd=f n=i wp=f di=f wi m tp tA r-Dr=f nn ir n=i snnw di=f n=i Htrw aSAw m anxw nfrw nHb.tw n=i 50 iw=i m Sms Hm=f
1.2.19. The High Steward Kenamun (Amenhotep II) Evidence A shabti coffin recently discovered at Abydos provides details on the early career of Kenamun:292 saA.n wi nsw nxt nb xpS ptpt pDt-9 di=f wi m tp n smrw Spss.n=f st=i m aH=f aS.t(w)=i m HAt srw m-bAH nsw tni hrw di=f wi TAi sryt n wrw=f aS.tw=i m HAw.ti ink mdw n mnfyt=f m Ddt nbt ir.n=f n=i kftiw aSAw Xr Swt nbwt m pH(wy) Sms=i Hm=f m snnw n nsw
di=f n=i iAwt nbt mnxt
The strong king, Lord of Strong Arm, who tramples the 9 bows, magnified me; He placed me as first of the Friends, He enriched my place in his palace, I was summoned with the ‘Foremost of the Great Ones’ in the presence of the king every day (because) he placed me as Standard Bearer for his Great Ones. I was called on first It is I who is spokesman for his troops in all that is said He made for me many Keftiu-boats which carried golden shades in the rear, I followed His Person as Second of the King
m stpw n tA kmt ptr wi wrw=f r wSd=i r sn-tA m-bAH iw=i Hna=f bnr.kw r sA=f ptr=f wi r rSt imy-rA iHw qn-imn di.n=f n=i iAwt aSAwt m stpw nw kmt TA-xw aA n pr Hry iHw n nsw HAty-a imy-rA [iHw] n Sma mHw wHmw-nsw tpy m st nbt iw=i mnx.kw Hr ib=f
when I was in attendance on him. He made for me many chariots wrought in gold and lapislazuli. When I was in his following in Retjenu I was magnified and made foremost. I came to the Chiefs of Djahy assembled with their tribute. When I was in a chariot, alone with him, he told me his commission, and he placed me as Chief in the entire land; there was none who acted for me as second. He gave to me many horses, living and perfect, 50 were harnessed for me when I was in the following of His Person. He gave to me every excellent office from the pick of this Egypt. His Great Ones saw me to greet me, to kiss the earth in the presence when I was with him. I was more welcomed than his son when he saw me, with pleasure: the Overseer of the Cattle Kenamun. He gave to me many offices from the pick of Egypt: Standard Bearer, great one of the (king’s) house, Chief of the Cattle/Stables of the King, Mayor, Overseer of the [Cattle] of Upper and Lower Egypt, First Herald of the King in all places, and I am excellent in his heart/opinion.
As is typical of 18th Dynasty autobiographies Kenamun describes his career in terms of his relationship with the king. As Pumpenmeier notes, Kenamun’s own actions are largely ignored with the text reading more as an account of the actions of the king.293 Overall the text emphasises that Kenamun’s excellent work for the king led to his success described in terms of royal reward and
286
Whale 1989: 181. Urk IV 1413, 15. 288 Faulkner 1962: 25. 289 Kees 1958: 8; also cited by Bryan 1991: 267. 290 Guksch 1994: 65. 291 Guksch 1994: 65 – 66. 292 K1042, see Pumpenmeier 1998: 5 – 27. See Pumpenmeier 1998: fig. 6, for a translation and commentary see p. 17 – 25 287
293
13
Pumpenmeier 1998: 23.
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty the king’s wisdom.303 The king then makes the actual appointment:
appointment, and his eventual authority over all offices. He emphasies his closeness to the king both in the palace and on campaign and even refers to being closer to the king than the king’s own son. It is notable that Kenamun refers to being appointed personally by the king when both were in a chariot together, emphasising their personal relationship.294
[wn.in Hm=f Hr dhn sw r imy-rA imy-rA]w wrw imy-rA xtm Xnm bAt sm
The text known as the Installation of Kenamun,295 from the Theban tomb of that official (TT 93),296 describes a royal audience in which the king and his courtiers select a new Royal Steward, and subsequently install Kenamun into the position. The king addresses the courtiers stating that since he had been a child: Ab Hm(=i) rdit dhn.tw [imy-rA pr m prw-nfr] [ti wi] m inpw Tsw=f sw m[-mAwt] […]
xrp xrpw imy-rA imy-rAw […] it-nTr Xnm [nTr-xa] i[ry]-nfr-HAt m Sxkr nsw Hry sS[tA n wADyty]
My Person desired to cause a [High Steward] be appointed [in Perunefer] [when] I was an inpw (so that) he would organise it a[new] […].297
[…]
[And so His Person was appointing him to be Overseer of the] great [Overseer]s Chancellor, Xnm bAt, SemPriest Controller of Controllers Overseer of Overseers […] God’s Father, united with the [God’s Body] Keeper of the Diadem, with the royal adornments, Keeper of Secr[ets of the two serpent goddesses] […].304
Following his appointment Kenamun’s abilities as a courtier are enhanced:
He then relates the desired characteristics of this man, including that he posess no shortcomings and be loyal.298 Thus, as in the Appointment of the Vizier from the tomb of Useramun, the king is asking the court to suggest a potential candidate from among them. The courtiers then eloquently state the wisdom of the king in such matters, effectively avoiding making the decision themselves.299 Following a break in the text it is described that Kenamun was found ‘to be entering the doorway in accord with that which came forth from the mouth of the king’.300 It is thus apparent that the king made the decision without the help of his court and commanded Kenamun be brought. The king then continues to address the court:
ir aHa=f m-bAH kAt xpr Ds=s […]
If he stands in the presence of works, it happens itself.305
This royal ability to improve a man had already been mentioned by the courtiers earlier in the text.306 Family Kenamun’s mother had been a nurse of Amenhotep II.307 Her name is generally given as Amenemopet, but due to the almost complete destruction of her name in the tomb of Kenamun this cannot be stated with certainty.308 Roehrig notes that the importance of Kenamun’s mother to the king is shown in a scene from TT 93 in which Amenemopet sits with the king on her lap, acting as nurse.309 Here she is depicted larger than any image of the king in the tomb, breaking from traditional rules of decorum. Roehrig speculates that as this image must have been authorised by the king and Kenamun it shows the king’s special fondness for her.310 Still, it is certainly conceivable that the king knew nothing of the decoration scheme. Kenamun was a Foster-Brother of the King;311 a title most certainly bestowed on him because of his mother’s role as nurse. It is thus clear that Kenamun had
wD.n=i I have commanded [di.tw qn-imn r imy-rA pr] [that Kenamun be placed as High Steward] m prw-nfr in Perunefer […] […] Hr-ntt sw m nxb because he is as stipulated.301 However, this is simply the king’s announcement that Kenamun is to be appointed, not the appointment itself. The king then addresses Kenamun at length in the form of a teaching on proper behaviour.302 The court applauds
303
Urk IV 1388, 19 – 1389, 2. Urk IV 1389, 12 – 19. Urk IV 1390, 9. 306 See Urk IV 1386, 10. 307 For a discussion of Amenemopet’s career see Roehrig 1990: 111 – 121; for references to Amenemopet in the tomb of Kenamun see Davies 1930: 19, 35 n. 2, 36 n.2, 39 n.1. 308 Roehrig 1990: 111. 309 Davies 1930: pls. IX; Roehrig 1990: 117. 310 Roehrig 1990: 117. 311 Davies 1930: 15, n. 2; Pumpenmeier 1998: 15; Roehrig 1990: 122; Bryan 1978. For the references to this epithet see Urk IV 1403, 14, 18; 1404, 2, 5. This title is known from at least 8 of Kenamun’s monuments, but not from his tomb (Bryan 1978: 117). 304 305
294
Pumpenmeier 1998: 24 – 25. See Davies 1930: 17 – 19, pl. 8; Urk IV 1385, 6 – 1390, 14. 296 Published by Davies 1930; PM I(2):190 – 194. 297 Urk IV 1385, 13 – 15. 298 Urk IV 1386, 18 – 1385, 1386, 2. 299 Urk IV 1386, 10; 1386, 13 – 14. 300 Urk IV 1386, 16. 301 Urk IV 1386, 20 – 1387, 1. 302 Urk IV 1387, 18 – 1388, 15; including an odd reference to ‘[…] it is bitter as gall’ (Urk IV 1387, 18), perhaps ‘borrowed’ from the Installation of the Vizier. 295
14
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence a close friendship with Amenhotep II, a result of the role played by his mother in his youth.
argued against this identification on the basis that there is no evidence that Min lived into the reign of Amenhotep II, and also that the name of the figure in the tomb of Kenamun said to be Min has been effaced and there is no reason why Min’s name would be removed.324 There is also no textual evidence of a family link.
Kenamun’s father has recently been identified as the High Steward and owner of TT 73, Amenhotep.312 This connection had been assumed in the past because the owner of the tomb was married to a Royal Nurse named Amenemopet,313 and also because in Kenamun tomb his father is given the title High Steward.314 However, it was only with the publication of shabti K1042 that Amenhotep was explicitly named as Kenamun’s father.315 It is notable that even though Amenhotep’s monuments were affected by Damnatio Memoriae his wife and son continued to be among the king’s closest companions; it is apparent that the downfall of a family member does not affect the fortunes of other family members.316
The names of Kenamun’s children have been erased in his tomb, as Whale notes, this may have been due to Amarna Period erasure because they contained the word ‘Amun’.325 The number of sons named in the tomb is unknown, but there were at least two, one of which was a Wab-Priest of Amun.326 Similarly, little is known about Kenamun’s wife, except that she was the Musician of Amun (Smayt nt imn) Tadedetes.327 Comments Although it is clear that Kenamun enjoyed a special friendship with the king, his inscriptions emphasise his excellence in his work and give little indication of special treatment. It is possible that Kenamun began his military career as a TAy sryt ‘Standard-bearer’,328 this was not a particularly low rank – they could command troops and levy men for expeditions329 – but it was clearly not a high office. Similarly he became a Hry pDt ‘Troop Commander’.330 This was a high military position – above Standard-bearer, but below General.331 He was also a Fortress Commander (imy-rA xtmt),332 and Overseer of all Northern Foreign Countries (imy-rA xAswt nbt mHty).333 Clearly Amenhotep II did not place his close childhood friend into one of the highest offices in the land immediately. However, even though Kenamun emphasises that his relationship with the king was reciprocal - hard-work and excellence in return for rewards and promotion - his appointment to Chief of the Entire Land when alone with the king in his chariot betrays special favour and is unique among the examples collected here. Kenamun later became High Steward in Perunefer, following his father into the office of Royal Steward. Again, it is his achievements which are said to have made him the right choice for the position, his relationship to the king is not even mentioned in the Appointment text.
A number of individuals have been suggested as brothers of Kenamun, but there is no clear evidence for a family connection.317 Roehrig has argued that Pesukher, a man known from his own tomb at Thebes318 was a brother of Kenamun owing to a depiction of him bringing offerings in the tomb of Kenamun.319 However, Pumpenmeier has noted that there is no mention of Kenamun in the tomb of Pesukher as a relative.320 There is thus not enough evidence to prove a family connection. Similarly, although the 3rd Priest of Amun Kaemheribsen is depicted in Kenamun’s tomb,321 Roehrig has argued that he is not actually related to Kenamun.322 There is no textual evidence to prove such a link, while the nursing title given for Kaemheribsen’s mother is a rare variation of the title not found attributed to Kenamun’s mother. Another alleged relative of Kenamun is Min of TT 109 - tutor to the young Amenhotep II.323 Once again Roehrig has 312 From the evidence provided by shabti coffin K1042. See discussion by Pumpenmeier 1998: 12, 80. 313 The name of Kenamun’s father is erased throughout TT 97; however, it was known that he had been a High Steward (Davies 1930: pl. XXXVIII E) and that he had been married to a woman (likely) named Amenemopet, from the remaining inscriptions. Similar details are given in TT 73, a tomb owned by the High Steward Amenhotep (see SäveSoderbergh 1957: 1 – 10; Whale 1989: 39 – 40; Habachi 1957), which made the connection highly probable. However, the reference on the shabti coffin is the first explicit reference to Kenamun’s father being called Amenhotep. 314 Davies 1930: 1930: 12, pl. XXXVIII, E. 315 Pumpenmeier 1998: 80. 316 Dziobek 1998: 142 n. 169. 317 For Kenamun’s brothers see Pumpenmeier 1998: 81 and Roehrig: 132. 318 TT 88, PM I(2): 179 – 181. 319 Davies 1930: 20, pl. IX; Roehrig 1990: 132 – 133. 320 Roehrig herself also acknowledges that chronological problems with placing Pesukher as a brother of Kenamun, see Roehrig 1990: 178 – 179. 321 Davies 1930: 39, pl. XXXVIII, who notes that Kaemheribsen is the owner of nearby tomb TT 98, that this man’s wife’s daughter is called Amenemopet (as is Kenamun’s mother) and is very likely named after her. This is why he proposes the relationship. 322 Roehrig 1990: 118 – 120. Davies suggested that Kaemheribsen was a brother of Kenamun (Davies 1930: 19 n. 3, 39. 323 According to Roehrig 1990: 118 – 120, citing Davies as the source of this suggestion. However, Davies does not actually explicity refer to Min as a brother of Kenamun, he just suggests that the man given the titles of Mayor This and Superintendent of of the Priests of Onuris is likely Min due to the titles being unusual and them being known to be
associated with Min on funerary cones (Davies 1930: 39 n. 2). For the tomb scene providing this evidence see Davies 1930: pl. XXXVIII 324 Roehrig 1990: 131. However, Roehrig accepts Van Siclen’s arguments that this man may be Amenhotep of TT A 19 (Roehrig 1990: 130 – 132, see Van Siclen 1979; 1985. However, there is still no evidence that he should be seen as a brother of Kenamun. 325 Whale 1989: 155. 326 Davies 1930: 39 – 40; Whale 1989: 155. 327 Davies 1930: 39, 44, 55, pls. XXV C, XXXVII; Whale 1989: 154. 328 From shabti coffin K1042, Pumpenmeier 1998: 17. 329 Bryan 1991: 286; Schulman 1964: 69 – 71. 330 From the tomb of Kenamun, see Davies 1930: 14, title no. 29. Here it is stated that the title is found on the ceiling of the passage of the tomb. 331 Schulman 1964: 53 – 56; Gnirs 1996: 54, 68 332 Found on a shabtis from Zawiyet Abu Mesallam, see Wild 1957: 225 no. 12. 333 Found on a shabtis from Zawiyet Abu Mesallam, see Wild 1957: 225 no. 12.
15
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty 1.2.20. The Mayor of Thebes Sennefer (Amenhotep II) Evidence In his Theban tomb Sennefer334 relates a long list of offices that Amenhotep II appointed him to; however, they are all likely linked to his appointment as Mayor of Thebes and thus were given at the same time. He states: rdi.n=f (wi) r Hry Hryw Hry-tp aA m niwt rsyt imy-rA Snwty n [imn] imy-rA AHtw n [imn] imy-rA xnt S [n imn] Hm-nTr tpy n [imn] m [mn]-stw HAty-a
siqr.n bity
Family Sennefer’s father, Ahmose-Humay, was a Steward of the God’s Wife, Overseer of the Temple Estate of the God’s Wife, Overseer of the Harim, Overseer of the Audience Chamber, Overseer of Cattle and Father-Tutor,340 who owned a tomb at Thebes.341 He may have served the palace as early as Amenhotep I.342 Ahmose-Humay’s own parents, Senwosret and Taidy,343 are not recorded as holding any titles; it is therefore likely that the family’s power stems from the role played at court by AhmoseHumay and his wife, the Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw) Nub.344 As the child of a royal tutor Sennefer will have had the opportunity to forge close bonds with Amenhotep II from a young age.345 Under that king Sennefer became became Mayor of Thebes and his brother, or cousin,346 Amenemopet, was appointed to the vizierate.
He placed (me) to be Headman of Headmen, and Great Chief in the Southern City,335 Overseer of the Double Granary of [Amun], Overseer of the Fields of [Amun], Overseer of the Garden/Lake [of Amun], and as High Priest of Amun in Mensetu, and Mayor.336
In the tomb of Ahmose-Humay Sennefer is identified as a nephew,347 while in Sennefer’s tomb Ahmose-Humay is identified as his father.348 It is possible that AhmoseHumay adopted Sennefer as a son.349 Another couple identified in Sennefer’s tomb are also referred to as his parents. These are the 2nd Priest of Horus the Elder of Qus, Nu and his wife Henutiry.350 As Sennefer held the office of Overseer of Priests of Horus (var. the Elder) Lord of Qus,351 it appears that he inherited it from his father.
He also relates why the king chose him for these positions: iw=i mH-ib n nb tAwy mnx rx.n st nsw rx.n=f ir=i Axt m iAwt rdi.n=f m Hr=i Dar.n=f Hr wAt nbt n gm.n=f sp Xsy m a=i
I filled the heart of the Lord of the Two Lands, the king knew about my excellence, he knew that I acted excellently in the functions that he ‘placed in my face’. He investigated in every way, but he did not find an occasion of wrongdoing in my hand.337
Sennefer appears to have married two wives, one of which was a Royal Nurse.352 He was also granted a burial in the Valley of the Kings (KV 40), as was Amenemopet (KV 48). Sennefer had two daughters: Nefertiry, who was buried by royal favour,353 and the Singer of Amun 339
Urk IV 1429, 11 -12. Urk IV 1432, 19 – 1433, 11; Roehrig 1990: 189 – 193. Unpublished tomb TT 224, see PM I(2): 325. For a description of the tomb see Roehrig 1990:189 - 193 342 Bryan 2006: 98; PM I(2), I: 337. 343 PM I(2): 325. 344 Urk IV 1432, 16; Roehrig 1990: 189. 345 Although it is clear that Amenhotep was not the intended heir to the throne as Crown Prince Amenemhat is referred to in the Festival Inscription of Tuthmosis III, see 1.2.14. 346 Roehrig has argued that Sennefer was in fact Amenemopet’s cousin based on inscriptional evidence in TT 224 (Roehrig 1990: 192), see below. 347 ‘His (Humay’s) sister’s son’ (sA=f snt=f), see Roehrig 1990: 192. 348 Urk IV 1432, 10. 349 Roehrig 1990: 192. 350 Urk IV 1433, 15 – 18; Roehrig 1990: 154 – 155. Whale has argued that these individuals were in fact the parents of Senetnay (Whale 1989: 150). 351 Urk IV 1422, 7; 1427, 20. 352 Senetnay was a Lady of the House and Royal Nurse (Urk IV 1422, 15; 1435, 10; 1036, 11; 1437, 18; 1438, 2; 1438, 7). Her name is copied incorrectly by Sethe as Senemiah (Urk IV 1434, 4) and also Senemay (Urk IV 1434, 5 – 6); see Roehrig 1990: 149 – 150. It is likely that another name in the tomb, that of Senetnefer (Urk IV 1434, 8 – 9), is also another mis-writing, or is possibly a nickname of Senetnay (Roehrig 1990: 150 – 151). Another wife of Sennefer was the Singer of Amun, Praised One of Mut in Asheru and Lady of the House, Meryt (Urk IV 1434, 1 – 2). 353 Urk IV 1423, 8; 1436, 19; 1438, 4.
Sennefer makes further reference to his appointment in his tomb: sxnt.n nsw Hr mnx-ib=f ir.n iqrw=f st=f
340 341
One whom the king sxnt-ed on account of his excellence; whose trustworthiness made his position.338
Also he states that he was: saA.n nsw
and who the king of Lower Egypt distinguished.339
one who the king of Upper Egypt magnified,
334 TT 96, Urk IV 1417, 1 – 1439, 19; Desroches-Noblecourt 1985; Gundlach 1988; PM I(2): 197 - 203. 335 The title Hry-tp aA is an archaic title from the Middle Kingdom; it designated a local governor/nomarch/district headman. It would usually be used as Great Hry-tp of a particular nome. As such, Sennefer is simply stating in an archaic way the normal New Kingdom title of HAty-a – and is referring to his appointment to Mayor of Thebes. The titles that follow were all likely given at the same time as this appointment. 336 Urk IV 1425, 17 – 1426, 2. 337 Urk IV 1425, 11 – 15. 338 Urk IV 1428, 8 – 9.
16
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence Mutnofret, also known as Muttuy.354 Mutnofret married Kenamun,355 the man who succeeded Sennefer as Mayor of Thebes.356 As such the office may have passed to him through her.357 There is currently no evidence that Sennefer had any sons.358
rdi.n=f wi r HAt smrw
Comments It is clear that both Sennefer and Amenemopet owe their positions to bonds made with Amenhotep II during their youth in which their parents had important roles at court. However, little is known about their careers before their appointment to high office, and the long list of offices held by Sennefer is hard to put in a chronological order.359
Family Usersatet’s father was the sAb Sa-Amun,368 but nothing further is known of him. His mother was the Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw) Nenhermentes (nn-Hr-mnt=s).369 This lady is called the Royal Ornament and Lady of the House Nenwenhermentes in shrine 11 at Gebel esSilsilah,370 although it is clear through the context that this is the same woman. At the back of this shrine five statues are found in a niche, preserved from the waist down. Although inscriptions remain there is no detail concerning the relationship between the individuals. On the far left, the Royal Nurse Henetawy’s hieroglyphs face right, to those of the King’s Son of Kush Usersatet. Usersatet’s hieroglyphs also face to the right, to that of his mother (the central figure), the Royal Ornament (Xkrtnsw) Nenwenhermentes. The hieroglyphs which identify her face to the left, to Usersatet, emphasising the connection between them both. To the right of Nenwenhermentes is the Wab-Priest of Amun in the 1st Phyle Seninefer, the likely owner of the shrine, whose identifying hieroglyphs face to the right, to the Royal Nurse Hatshepsut. Her hieroglyphs are lost, but as the final figure on the right it is likely that her signs faced to the left, to Seninfer.
saA.n=f wi r wrw pr-[nsw]
1.2.21. The High Steward Duarneheh (Amenhotep II) Evidence On stele UCL 14462,360 the Steward Duarneheh states that he was one: dhn.n nsw Hr mnx-ib=f r irt mXrw Tstw=f …. n iw sp im stp-sA ir.n=i Ddt.n=f mnx sxnt.kw r mity=i nb rdi.kw m-HAt smrw=f
whom the king appointed on account of his excellence to perform (his) business and utterances. …. No fault of mine came out m stp-sA,361 I did what he said excellently, (so) I was sxnt more than all my equals and was placed at the front of his courtiers.362
He placed me at the front of the courtiers he magnified me more than the great ones of the palace.367
From additional pictorial evidence in the shrine it is likely that Seninefer and Hatshepsut were husband and wife,371 a relationship emphasised by the organisation of their hieroglyphs. It is also known that Nenwenhermentes was the mother of Usersatet. However, all further relationships between the figures are speculative.372 One interpretation sees Seninefer as the son of Usersatet and Henettawy. However, Henettawy could just as easily be Usersatet’s sister or aunt.373 Another possible interpretation would see Usersatet and Seninefer as both sons of Nenwenhermentes, sitting either side of her. Seninfer and Hatshepsut’s marital bond is emphasised through their facing hieroglyphs, whereas Usersatet’s signs face those of his mother, rather than Henettawy’s. It is possible that Henettawy was Usersatet’s daughter, with his own signs facing his mother’s due to her seniority.
Duarneheh accompanied the king on campaign;363 it is here that he may have come to the king’s attention. Family Duarneheh’s stele depicts his parents seated next to an offering table. Here they are named as his father Benia and his mother Mesuti, but no titles accompany them.364 1.2.22. The Viceroy of Kush Usersatet (Amenhotep II) Evidence On a stele inscription from western Amara365 Usersatet366 states: 354
For references to Mutnofret see Urk IV 1435, 12; 1436, 15. For Mutnofret and Muttuy being the same person see Roehrig 1990: 164; Helck 1958: 439. 355 See Bryan 1984: 21 - 22. 356 Kenamun is the owner of TT 162, see PM I(2): 275 – 276; Murnane 1998: 194. 357 Bryan 2000: 270. A similar passage of Mayor of the Faiyum from the daughter of a mayor to her husband is seen in the family of Sobekhotep; see Bryan in Dziobek 1990. 358 See discussion in Whale 1989: 148. 359 For a list of his offices see Der Manuelian 1987: 118; for a discussion of his career see Der Manuelian 1987: 160 – 162. 360 From Thebes, see Petrie 1897: 5, 28, pl. 15; Urk IV 1480, 8 – 1481, 19. 361 For the meaning of stp-sA see section 5.4.2. 362 Urk IV 1480, 20; 1481, 9 – 12. 363 Urk IV 1481, 8. 364 Urk IV 1480, 13 – 14; Petrie 1897: pl. 15.
365
Urk IV 1484, 12 – 1486, 3; for the original publication see Fairman 1939: pl. XVI, I. 366 A brief overview of the life and career of Usersatet is provided by Der Manuelian 1987: 154 – 158. 367 Urk IV 1485, 18 – 19. 368 Urk IV 1487, 8. 369 Urk IV 1487, 11. 370 Caminos & James 1963: 30 – 34, pls. 22 – 25. 371 Roehrig 1990: 183; Caminos & James 1963: pl. 25, 23. 372 See the discussion of Roehrig 1990: 182 – 186. 373 As Roehrig notes 1990: 185.
17
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Commments Usersatet had been a Child of the Kap374 and appears to have had a close connection to the king, as evidenced by the stele he erected at Buhen recording a letter written to him by the king.375 Usersatet had also been Steward in Meidum.376
AHt=f mrt=f xt=f nbt Hr mw Hr tA nn rdit DA tA r=s in rwDw nb n nsw TAw [imn-mry]
1.2.23. The Chief of Police Nebamun B (Amenhotep II – Tuthmosis IV) Evidence Nebamun’s appointment to Chief of Police is recorded in his tomb, TT 90, at Thebes.377 It reads: rnpt-sp 6 wD Awyt m Hm n stp-sA a.w.s. m hrw pn n HAty-a Tswty aHaw nw Sma mHyt tA wD m Dd wD.n Hm=i a.w.s. Ssp iAwt nfrt m Hsw [nt xr] nsw r irt xrt n TAyw sry[t] [imn]-nb n nsw dpt [imn]-mry wn pH.n=f iAwt iw=f Hr Sms pr-aA a.w.s. m mty ib=f iw nfr sw m pA hrw r sf m irt rdiy m Hr=f n srx=f n gm wn iw srx.tw n=f aHa.n wD.n Hm(=i) a.w.s. rdi.n=f m Hry mDAy Hr imnty niwt m st Tmbw m st aA bAw r pH=f imAx Hna rdit Hn-pr=f mnmn=f
[Tn]i n p[Ay] m[Sa imn-nb maA-xrw]
his fields, his servants and all his property on water and on land, without allowing interference against him by any agent of the king. The Standard Bearer (of the ship) ‘Beloved of Amun’ and [eld]er of t[he] ar[my, Nebamun, justified.]380
A scene in the tomb depicts Nebamun receiving the gazelle standard (the symbol of his police force) and the ‘warrant of his appointment, contained in a little tube’, given by the Royal Scribe Iuny.381 The remaining registers of the scene depict soldiers and police in procession. Running below the entire scene are images of Nebamun’s servants bringing gifts to the king in return for his appointment. It seems that the king was not present at the moment when Nebamun received his decree of appointment, and that the appointment did not occur in the palace. As such Eichler argues that a nearby scene of the king enthroned is not related to the scenes of appointment.382 Nebamun’s appointment therefore has more in common with the appointment description of Nebnefer,383 who was also appointed by royal decree delivered by scribe. However, in the case of Nebamun the decree is delivered to him personally. The decree of Nebnefer’s appointment is given to the High Priest of Amun, his superior. This procedural difference is likely due to Nebamun’s greater importance.
Year 6. A command issued m Hm n stp-sA378 l.p.h. on this day to the mayor, Commander of the Fleet of Southern and Northern Egypt. The command as said: “My Person, l.p.h. commands the receiving of a good old age in favours [before the] king in order to settle the affairs of the Standard Bearer Nebamun of the king’s boat ‘Beloved of Amun’. He has reached old age when following the Pharaoh l.p.h. in the exactness of his heart. He being perfect on (this) day more than yesterday in doing what is placed in his face. He was not complained against, fault was not found. He was not accused. Then My Person l.p.h. commanded he be placed as Chief of Police in the west of the city in the place of Tjembu and the place of Aabaw until he reaches justification379 together with providing his household, his cattle,
Family384 Nebamun’s parents are unknown, but he had two wives – both depicted in his tomb.385 He had at least seven sons and six or seven daughters.386 Whale comments that the daughters are more prominent than the sons in the tomb.387 One daughter was a Royal Ornament.388 Every son followed his father into military service, except one who became a Wab-priest.389 One son held his father’s highest rank - Chief of Police in Thebes (Hry mDAw Hr WAst),390 while six sons were Standard-bearers (TAw sryt).391 A brother was also Chief of Police in Western
380
Urk IV 1618, 1 – 1619, 5; Davies 1923: pl. XXVI. Gaballa 1967: 197. 382 Eichler 1998: 52 n. 10 commenting on Davies 1923: 34 – 37, pls. XXVI – XXVII. 383 See 1.2.33. 384 The family of Nebamun is discussed by Davies 1923: 27 – 33. 385 One wife, the Lady of the House Sensenebtu can be seen on Davies 1923: XXIII; the older wife, the Lady of the House, Ty on Davies 1923: XXI, XXII. 386 According to Davies. For the sons and daughters see Davies 1923: 22 – 23, XX - XXIII, XXVII. Whale states that there are eight daughters and nine sons Whale 1989: 215. 387 Whale 1989: 218. 388 Davies 1923: 28, pl. XXIII 389 Amenemopet; Davies 1923: 21, 23; Whale 1989: 215, 217. 390 Davies 1923: 23, 25, 29, pl. XXIII. 391 Davies 1923: 23. The sons: Amenmose (Davies 1923: 22, 25, 27, pl. XXI, XXIII); Khaemwaset (Davies 1923: 22, 25, 27, 29, pl. XXI, XXIII); Sennefer (Davies 1923: 22, 29, pl. XXI, pl. XXIII); 381
374
Urk IV 1486, 2. Morchauser 1997. 376 Urk IV 1487, 2. 377 Published by Davies 1923; PM(2) I: 183 – 185. For the monuments of this man see Urk IV 1618, 1 – 1629, 20. 378 For a discussion of this phrase see my forthcoming article, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘What was Said/Commanded m Hm n stp-sA’’ 379 Meaning death. 375
18
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence 1.2.25. The High Steward Tjenuna (Tuthmosis IV) Evidence Tjenuna refers to his appointment to High Steward in his tomb inscriptions;405 however, he does not explicitly attribute the appointment to the king:
Thebes (Hry mDAw Hr imnt wAst), although it is possible that this man may be another son.392 1.2.24. The 2nd Priest of Amun Amenhotepsaese (Tuthmosis IV) Evidence Amenhotepsaese was buried in TT 75 at Qurna.393 He states: gm.n=f wi m Ax n nb=f
He (the king) found me as excellent for his (Amun).394
sDm Hm=f nDwt-r Tn […] His Person hears your counsel […] [dh]n.[t]w aA n pr having appointed you Great One of the House406 r imy-rA xtm […] over the Chancellor […] […] di=f sw m xtm=f […] he placed him in his Treasury.407
lord
He later states: dhn.kw m Hm-nTr nw-2
Bryan sees this as Tjenuna being granted responsibilities normally associated with the Chancellor’s office, as is also seen under Kenamun.408 This was part of a continuing rise in prominence in the office of High Steward that had begun under Senenmut.409 Later in his tomb inscriptions, Tjenuna states that he was one:
I was appointed as 2nd Priest (of Amun).395
The accompanying scene originally depicted Amenhotepsaese in the presence of the king.396 A second scene depicts Amenhotepsaese’s visit to the temple following his appointment.397 Although there is no explicit reference to the king appointing him, it is likely that the king chose Amenhotepsaese for the position based on the earlier reference to the king finding him to be excellent for Amun.
saA.n nb tAwy m pr=f
whom the Lord of the Two Lands magnified in his house.410
And again:
Family Little information about Amenhotepsaese’s family can be reconstructed due to damage to the tomb scenes.398 Amenhotepsaese’s mother’s was the Lady of the House (nbt-pr) Pa-aa.399 His father’s name is hacked out on two occasions in his tomb.400 His wife was a Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw) and Singer (Smayt) of Amun named Ray.401 It is difficult to know how many sons were depicted as the scenes are too damaged.402 Two sons were depicted in a scene of Amenhotep inspecting objects to be given to Amun, they are Menkheperreseneb and Amenhotep.403 Amenhotepsaese’s daughters were Singers (Smayt) in the Temple of Amun; three are depicted greeting him at the temple following his appointment to office.404
saA.n nsw Hr mnx-ib=f …. saA n nsw wr.n bity sxnt Hr m [aH] […]
whom the king magnified on account of his excellence …. magnified for the King of Lower Egypt, and a great one for the king of Upper Egypt, whom Horus sxnt in [the palace] […].411
Family Only the transverse hall of the tomb was decorated. Images in this area of the tomb have been attacked.412 It is possible that Tjenuna was the recipient of Damnatio Memoriae, but whether this was initiated by an angry monarch or personal enemies is unknown. Due to the damage information regarding Tjenuna’s family is fragmentary. The names of his parents are lost, but his wife was called Nebettawy.413 Nebettawy’s father had been Overseer of the Cattle of Amun;414 as Tjenuna also
Djehutymose (Davies 1923: 29, pl. XI, pl. XXIII); Ptahmose (Davies 1923: 22, pl. XX); Nebseny (Davies 1923: 23, pl. XX). 392 Davies suggests that he was a brother (Davies 1923: 29), but as Whale notes, there is no clear kinship term associated with him in the tomb (Whale 1989: 215). 393 PM I(2): 146 – 149; Davies 1923: 1 – 18; Urk IV 1208, 1 – 1216, 11; Bryan 1991: 269; Whale 1989: 186 – 188. 394 Urk IV 1208, 6; Davies 1923: 8 – 9. 395 Urk IV 1208, 16; Davies 1923: pl. XIII. 396 Davies 1923: 8. 397 Davies 1923: 8 – 10, pls. XIII – XIV. 398 Davies 1923: 2. The tomb is incomplete and has suffered later damage. The figure of Amenhotepsaese has been removed from every place it was found, as has the majority of images of his wife. 399 Davies 1923: 17, pl. XVI. 400 Bryan 1991: 269. 401 Davies 1923: pl. IV, XIV; Whale 1989: 186. 402 Whale 1989: 187. 403 Davies 1923: 10 – 11, pl. X. Davies states that Menkheperreseneb may have been a ‘Father of the God’ (Davies 1923: 11 n. 1), but there is no evidence for this in the plate. 404 Davies 1923: 9, pl. XIV.
405 TT 76; one scene from the tomb was published by Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 50 - 51. Also see PM(2) I: 149 – 150; Bouriant 1899: 156 – 161; Urk IV 1577, 6 – 1581, 19; Whale 1989: 194 – 195. 406 A variant of High Steward. 407 Urk IV 1577, 14; translation following in part Bryan 1990: 86 – 87; Bryan 1991: 256. Also see Helck 1958: 81 – 82. 408 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 86 – 87. 409 Bryan 1991: 256 – 257. 410 Urk IV 1578, 15. 411 Urk IV 1581, 7, 13 – 14. 412 Whale 1989: 194 – 195. 413 Urk IV 1581, 15; PM I(2): 149; Ranke 1935 - 1977 (vol I): 189.20. 414 Whale 1989: 195.
19
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty held this title415 he may have inherited it from his fatherin-law. The name of Nebettawy’s father is lost; as such he could have been any of the four men known to have held this title in roughly this period.416 There is no evidence that Tjenuna had children; however, a man depicted offering a bouquet to Tjenuna and his wife in the tomb may have been a son.417
been a favourite location of Tuthmosis III428 and his successors and may be why Sobekhotep and his wife became responsible for royal children.429 Sobekhotep’s son Paser inherited the office of Mayor of the Faiyum and was in office at least until year 30 of Amenhotep III.430 He did not inherit the office of Chancellor. Another son was the First Priest of iaH Djehuty.431
1.2.26. The Chancellor Sobekhotep (Tuthmosis IV) Evidence On a statue from Memphis,418 Sobekhotep419 states:
1.2.27. The Vizier Ptahmose A (Tuthmosis IV – Amenhotep III) Evidence The High Priest of Amun, Mayor of Thebes, and Vizier Ptahmose states on a shabti432 from Abydos that he was:
ir.n=i n=f biAt iqr Hss sw Hm=f Hr=s sxnt=f sw n-Xnw msw-nsw n aAt n [b]iA[t]=f iqr
I performed for him excellent wonders and His Person praised him (sic) concerning it and sxnt him within420 the royal children because of his excellent [won]de[rs].421
dhn.n nb tAwy Ds=f r irt sxrw idbwy Ssp.n=f saHw imy-rA nwt Xkrt nw nTr Sps
Family Sobekhotep’s father was the Chancellor Min422 who was in office late in the reign of Tuthmosis III and may have originated in the Delta.423 As Sobekhotep became Chancellor himself, it is clear that he inherited the office of his father. Furthermore, Sobekhotep gained the title of Mayor of the Faiyum from his brother-in-law after marrying Meryt,424 a Royal Nurse who also held further important offices in the Faiyum. Meryt’s father, Kapu, had been Mayor of the Faiyum, and had passed the office to his son Sobekhotep. This Sobekhotep had no wife, and no children;425 thus the family holding of the office of Mayor of Faiyum passed through his sister, Meryt, to her husband - Sobekhotep.426 Sobekhotep thus not only inherited the office of his father, but also the office of his brother-in-law.
ir.n.tw n=f n iqr=f n aAt n mnx=f n nsw
one whom the Lord of the Two Lands has himself appointed to perform the policies of the Two Banks. He has received honours – overseer of the city, and the insignia of the august god. One has acted for him because of his trustworthiness, due to the greatness of his excellence for the king.433
Family Ptahmose was married to the Great One of the Harim of Amun (wr xntw n imn) Ipeny.434 He had two sons and five daughters, all depicted and named on Stele Lyon 88.435 They stand in procession before Ptahmose and his wife. One son is the High Priest of Horus Tuthmosis,436 while another named Huy is not given a title. Ptahmose’s five daughters were all Singers (Smayt) of Amun.437 1.2.28. The Vizier Ramose (Amenhotep III) Evidence The Vizier Ramose states in his tomb:438
Although it is likely Sobekhotep grew up at court due to his father’s position, his relationship with the royal family will have been made more prominent during his time as Mayor because of the royal palace at Gurob in the Faiyum built under Tuthmosis III.427 This seems to have
rdi.n=f wi m HAt smrw r irt sxrw nw tA pn
415
Urk IV 1581, 9. Kenamun, Mery, Sennefer and Horemheb (Roehrig 1990: 248 with n. 786). 417 Whale 1989: 195. 418 Cairo 1090, Urk IV 1585, 1 – 17. 419 For the career and family of Sobekhotep see Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 81 - 88. 420 Bryan takes n-Xnw as a mis-spelling of m-Xnw, see Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 85, n. 33. 421 Urk IV 1585, 15 – 17; Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 85. 422 For an overview of his career see Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 81 – 82 423 On the basis of a statue of himself dedicated at Tell Mokdam Urk IV 1029; Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 81 n. 7. 424 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 83. 425 This Sobekhotep is known from statues Marseille 208 and Berlin 11635 both of which can be stylistically dated to the reign of Amenhotep II (Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 83). 426 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 83. 427 Kemp 1978; Lacovara 1997: 36 - 38; the palace site is currently under investigation by Dr. Ian Shaw of the University of Liverpool.
SnDty nbt dhn=sn n=i
416
He placed me as Foremost of the Courtiers in order to perform all the policies of this land. all the kilt-wearers bow to me
428 A different Sobekhotep who was also Mayor of the Faiyum is known to have accompanied the king on a hunt in the region, see Marseille 208 in Charles 1960: 1 - 7. 429 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 84. 430 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 83, 84. 431 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 84. 432 For the full shabti text see Urk IV 1915, 6 – 17. For this man see Lefebvre 1929: 241 – 243 (12); Helck 1958: 299 – 302, 441 – 442 (14). Murnane 1998: 194; 202 – 203, 209. Bryan 1991: 244, 268 who argues that Ptahmose was vizier and High Priest of Amun under Tuthmosis IV. 433 Urk IV 1915, 10 – 14. 434 Urk IV 1915, 5; Varille 1930: 502. 435 Varille 1931: 502 – 503, 508. 436 Eichler 2000: 274. 437 Eichler 2000: 274. 438 TT 55, PM(2) I: 105 – 111. Published by Davies 1941.
20
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence when I forward matters [to the Lord] of the palace during the course of every day.439
my staff being (over) the heads of the rxyt.452 On the same statue, Amenhotep also relates another occasion on which the king appointed him:
Family Ramose was the half-brother of the High Steward in Memphis Amenhotep.440 The father of Ramose was the Mayor of Memphis Heby.441 His mother was the Favoured One of Hathor and Lady of the House (nbt-pr) Ipuia.442 Ramose married the Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw) and Singer (Smayt) of Amun Meryt-Ptah.443 But there is no detail concerning any children he had. His half brother, the High Steward in Memphis, was born of Heby and another wife, Tjutjuia.444 He thus came from an influential family; his father held many offices while his grandfather was Scribe who Counted the Cattle of Amun.445
He appointed me to direct the works m Hwt=f nt HHw m rnptw on his temple of millions of years.453
[Hr] sra=i mdw [n nb] aH m Xrt n hrw nb
mdw=i Hr-tp rxyt
dhn=f wi r xrp kAwt
This is in reference to the king’s Memphite mortuary temple in the region of Ankh-Tawy.454 In the tomb of his brother Ramose, it is said that Amenhotep was an: mH-ib mnx n ity saAt.n nsw r wrw r=f ir iqrw=f st[=f]
A number of additional individuals are named in the tomb of Ramose: the Overseer of Horses of the Lord of the Two Lands, and Royal Messenger in every foreign country, Maya,446 and his wife the praised one of Mut, Lady of Isheru and Lady of the House (nbt pr), Wernuro.447 Helck has argued that these may have been the parents of Ramose’s wife Merytptah. With an additional figure, the Overseer of Hunters of [Amun] (imy-rA nw n [imn]),448 Keshy being a brother-in-law.449 There is no evidence that Ramose had sons to pass his office to. His nephew Ipy continued to be High Steward in Memphis under Akhenaten.450
Family Amenhotep’s father Heby was the Mayor of Memphis,456 sAb, 457 Scribe,458 and (with variants) Overseer of the Cattle of Amun in the North;459 Scribe who Counts the Cattle of Amun in the north and south,460 and Overseer of the Double Granary of Amun in the districts of the north and south.461 Heby’s father, Senmose, had held the title Scribe who Counts the Cattle of Amun,462 a title he passed onto Heby from which the family seems to have built its power. Amenhotep’s mother was the Lady of the House (nbt-pr) Tjutjuia,463 his grandmother was the Lady of the House Ruia.464 Amenhotep’s wife was the Singer of Amun, [Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw)], Lady of the House, May.465 Amenhotep’s daughter is the Singer of Amun, Lady of the House, Meryptah.466 His son Ipy also became High Steward.467 Amenhotep is the half-brother of the Vizier Ramose.468
1.2.29. The High Steward in Memphis Amenhotep B (Amenhotep III) Evidence On a statue from Memphis451 the High Steward in Memphis Amenhotep states: Hs.n=f wi biAt(=i) iqrt dhn[=f w]i (r) imy-rA pr wr
He Praised me (on account of trustworthiness. [He] appointed me to High Ste[ward],
excellent confidant of the sovereign, whom the king magnified more than than his chiefs, and whose trustworthiness made [his] position.455
my)
Amenhotep states that he had been a youth (nxn) with no associate/family, implying that he lacked status when young. 469 However, the fact that his father was Mayor of 452
Urk IV 1794, 16 – 18. Urk IV 1795, 5. 454 Urk IV 1795, 6. 455 Urk IV 1785, 20 – 1786, 2. 456 Urk IV 1793, 10. 457 Urk IV 1812, 8. 458 Urk IV 1784, 9. 459 Urk IV 1784, 7; 1788, 12; Helck 1958: 368. 460 Urk IV 1792, 8. 461 Urk IV 1784, 8; 1788, 11. 462 Urk IV 1792, 9. 463 Urk IV 1812, 9. 464 Urk IV 1792, 10. 465 Urk IV 1784. 2; 1786, 9 - 10. 466 Urk IV 1786, 7 - 8. 467 Urk IV 1812, 14. He continued in this function under Akhenaten; there is a letter from Ipy in Memphis to Akhenaten dated to year 5 of the king’s reign (Wente 1990: 28 -29; also see Wente 1980; Murnane 1998: 214). 468 Helck 1958: 302. 469 Urk IV 1794, 12 – 15. 453
439
Urk IV 1785, 9 – 10. Urk IV 1784, 1; Davies 1941: pls. VIII, XI. 441 Urk IV 1784, 9; Davies 1941: pls. VIII, XI; Helck 1958: 302. Davies argued that Amenhotep and Ramose were cousins, one with a father called Heby and the other a father called Neby (Davies 1941: 3); however, as Helck has convincingly argued, this is a misinterpretation of the evidence based on an artistic error which left the internal design of the ‘Hb’ symbol unpainted, thus leaving it to be read as ‘nb’ (Helck 1958: 302). 442 Urk IV 1784, 10; Davies 1841: pls. VIII, XI. 443 Urk IV 1780, 3; Davies 1941: pl. XVIII. 444 Urk IV 1812, 8 – 9. 445 Helck 1958: 443. 446 Urk IV 1784, 13 – 16; Davies 1941: pls. VIII, XI. 447 Urk IV 1784, 17; Davies 1941: pls. VIII, XI. 448 For this title see Anthes 1930; Davies 1994: 89 n. 27. 449 Urk IV 1784, 19; Davies 1941: pls. VIII, XI; Helck 1958: 303. 450 Helck 1958: 303. 451 Urk IV 1793, 13 – 1801, 5; Petrie 1913: pls. 79 – 80. 440
21
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Memphis and Overseer of the Cattle of Amun in Upper and Lower Egypt shows that Amenhotep was born into status.
dhn.kw r sS nsw
Comments Amenhotep records that:
A final reference to appointment follows in the text:
rdi.n=f wabw Hmw-nTr m msw bwAw nw inbw
Xry-tp
diw nb=i (w)i r imy-rA kAt nbt
He (the king) placed Wabpriests and Priests from the children of the notables of the Walls (Memphis).470
iw rdi.n wi nsw r imy-rA kAwt m Dw n biAwt r xrp mnw
1.2.30. The Scribe of Recruits Amenhotep Son of Hapu (Amenhotep III) Evidence Amenhotep Son of Hapu makes a number of references to appointment on his many monuments.472 On a statue from Karnak473 it is stated:
spd-r hr Tsw imy-ib [t]kn m nb=f wa mnx nty nsw=f sxntw Hr mnx sxrw=f stnn nsw r mity=f rx tAwy iqr tbi=f aq ib n nsw mAa mr=f sxnt sA=f rmT=f
n it=f imn m ipt-st
nb-mAat-ra sa smsw n Hr-Axty
The king has placed me to be Overseer of Works in the mountain of gritstone, in order to undertake the monuments for his father Amun in the Temple of Karnak.478
On another statue from Karnak479 Amenhotep continues: rdi.n wi nsw r snhy
He is elevated among the entourage, one skilled of speech and pleasing of phrase, one who is in the heart, who can come near to his Lord; unique and excellent, without equal, who is sxnt on account of the excellence of his policies, and one whom the king distinguished beyond his equals. One whose qualities the Two Lands know to be excellent; a true intimate of the King, his beloved, whose wisdom has sxnt his family.474
pr-imn di=i wabw m st[=sn] …. [dhn].n wi nsw r sSm Hb n imn m Hbw=f nbw mH.n=i aAbt nbt Xrt nt hrw nb
The king placed me to record the house of Amun I have placed Wab-priests in their places. …. the king [appointed480] me as leader of the festival of Amun in all his festivals. I have completed all his offerings in the course of every day.481
Family Amenhotep’s father was Hapu of Athribis,482 who is also referred to as sAb,483 making it impossible to know what official positions, if any, he did indeed hold. His mother was the Lady of the House Itu of Athribis.484 There is no evidence that he had children. It is known that he reburied his father after he had attained high office,485 while he also notes that it was his wisdom which advanced his family.486
This example states that Amenhotep was distinguished by the king, but does not explicitly state that the king sxnt him. Again, from the same statue: sxnt ity a.w.s. kA=f Hs.n wi nTr nfr nsw bity
My Lord placed me as Overseer of all Works.476
Another statue from Karnak477 records:
He adds that it was ‘His Person’ who filled all offices of this temple (r-pr).471
sar.tw=f mm Snyt
and I was appointed to be Royal Scribe and Chamberlain.475
The sovereign l.p.h., sxnt his ka The Good God, King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nebmaatre, eldest son of Horakhety, favoured me,
475
Urk IV 1820, 9 – 11. Urk IV 1822, 10. Urk IV 1832, 9 – 1833, 19. 478 Urk IV 1833, 1 – 2. 479 From the 10th pylon at Karnak, see Urk IV 1834, 1 – 1835, 9. 480 The head which serves as the determinative of dhn is visible in Helck’s transcription. 481 Urk IV 1834, 14 - 15, 17 – 18. 482 Urk IV 1830, 18. 483 Urk IV 1828, 11. 484 Urk IV 1828, 12. 485 Urk IV 1825, 4. 486 Urk IV 1817, 5. 476 477
470
Urk IV 1796, 3 Urk IV 1796, 7. 472 For the monuments of Amenhotep Son of Hapu see Varille 1968. 473 Cairo 583, Urk IV 1813, 1 – 1826, 18; Varille 1968: 32 – 45. 474 Urk IV 1816, 16 – 1817, 5. 471
22
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence called Nebked, was a Scribe of the Army of the Lord of the Two Lands.498 A graffito at Konosso records ‘Scribe of the army,…, Pennesiutepua, son of Siked, son of Kher(u)ef.’499 As Siked held this title, and because Siked is a rare name, and also because Egyptians were often named after their grandfathers, it is likely that the Kheruef mentioned in the graffito is the grandfather of the Kheruef under discussion, making Pennesiutepua a brother of our Kheruef.500 It is also possible that a Chantress of Amun, Henutnofret, was a sister of Kheruef.501 There is no evidence that Kheruef had children.
1.2.31. The Steward of the Property of Tiye Kheruef (Amenhotep III) Evidence In his tomb487 Kheruef states that he is: sxnt.n nsw r wrw r=f hrr nb tAwy Hr biA=f
one whom the king sxnt-ed, more than the Chiefs compared to him. one who pleases the Lord of the Two Lands on account of his character.488
The relationship between Kheruef and the king is emphasised in two statue inscriptions. On the first of these, from Bubastis,489 Kheruef is described as one [Sd nTr-Ha] sxm aH n nb tAwy ib imy aA n nb=f aq ib=f n wn-mAa …. sxpr.n=f m-Xnw aH=f
1.2.32. The Overseer of the Palace Nefersekheru (Amenhotep III) Evidence Nefersekheru refers to his appointment by the king in his tomb at Thebes.502 He is one:
whom the divine person brought up], the director of the palace of the Lord of the Two Lands, great favourite one of his Lord, a really intimate friend …. whom he brought up in his palace.490
[sxn]t.n nb tAwy m Hwn saA.n=f mm [srw] stp.n nsw xnt HH r irt sxrw nw tA pn
On a second statue491 Kheruef adds that he is: sbA.n ity Ds=f
one whom the himself taught.492
sovereign
whom the Lord of the Two Lands [sxn]t-ed as a young man, and whom he has magnified amongst [the noblemen], and whom the king has chosen out of millions to conduct the policies of this land.503
Family His tomb insciptions refer to his father as the sAb Neby, while his mother is the Lady of the House Hapu.504
In this case it can be reasonably assumed that the king selected Kheruef as a promising youth.
1.2.33. The Granary Official Nebnefer (Amenhotep III) Evidence The lower part of this seated statue was found within the Temple of Wadjmose at Thebes.505 It is now in Brussels.506 The command is recorded as issued from the palace and sent by Royal Scribe to the High Priest of Amun:
Family The Mother of Kheruef is Ruiu who was a Royal Ornament, Singer of Isis, the God’s Mother and Chantress of Amun.493 She appears behind Kheruef in a scene of adoring Ra. Normally a wife would be shown in this position.494 This has led to the suggestion that he was not married and that he owed the start of his career to his mother’s position at court.495 The same has been said of Amenemhat-Surer – whose mother appears in tomb scenes in which one would expect a wife to be depicted.496 Both men are thus assumed to have been unmarried, although it is also possible that the mother was shown due to her great power at court. Thus it is still possible they were married.497 His father, Seqedu, also
[wD.tw] m pr-aA a.w.s. imi Ssp.tw Hry xAyt n Snwt Htp-nTr nb-nfr […]
[A command was given] in the palace, l.p.h: “Cause that the Chief of Measurements of the Granary of the God’s Offerings, Nebnefer be received,507
487
TT 192 published by The Epigraphic Survey 1980; also see Urk IV 1858, 1 – 1873, 17. 488 Urk IV 1859, 17 – 18. 489 Statue base Cairo 897, see Urk IV 1876, 5 – 12; Naville 1891: pl. 35, H. 490 Urk IV 1876, 7 – 9, 11; Habachi 1980: 21. 491 Berlin 2293, see Urk IV 1874, 1 – 1876, 4. 492 Urk IV 1876, 3; Habachi 1980: 21. 493 Habachi 1980: 25; The Epigraphic Survey 1980: pls. 72, 73. 494 Habachi 1980: 25. 495 Habachi 1980: 25. 496 Habachi 1980: 25 n. 55. For the arguments around AmenemhatSurer see Save-Soderbergh 1957: 35. 497 Habachi 1980: 25.
498
The Epigraphic Survey 1980: pl. 70; Habachi 1980: 25. Habachi 1980: 24; De Morgan et al 1894, vol I: 69, 10. Habachi 1980: 24. 501 Habachi 1980: 25. 502 TT 107, see Urk IV 1881, 1 – 1885, 18; PM I(2): 224 – 225. 503 Urk IV 1882, 12 – 14. 504 Urk IV 1883, 16 – 17). 505 For the location of this temple see PM II(2): Plan XXXIII. 506 Mus. Roy. E1103, published by Capart & Spiegelberg 1903; Speleers 1923: 60 n. 250; PM(2) II: 444. See Urk IV 1884, 1 – 1886, 11. 507 The meaning of the hieroglyph here is unclear. It may be an uncommon writing of Ssp, as has been adopted here. Capart and Spiegelberg read it as Tai suggesting ‘elevez’ (Capart & Spiegelberg 499 500
23
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty m Hr itw […] Hwy diw r st=f m Snwt Htp-nTr n imn
Comment The decree is read out by the royal scribe making it known that Nebnefer is to be placed in his position by royal command. Nebnefer does not speak; rather the High Priest of Amun speaks in response for him.516 Eichler speculates that in cases of letters being sent, it is the highest official present who must place an official into his new position in place of the king. In the case of Nebamun517 it appears that the letter of appointment was given directly to him. Additional discussion on the appointment text of Nebnefer is made in Chapter Three, section 3.2.57.
in the sight of the fathers, […],508 Huy, and placed in his position in the Granary of the God’s Offerings of Amun.”509
The command is carried out according to all that was said. Although presented as a command of the palace, the text later clarifies that this was indeed a decree made by the king: [Dd.in Hm-nTr tpy n im[n] [And so the High Priest of Amu]n, mr-ptH mAa-xrw Meryptah, justified, xft sS-nsw imy-rA pr said to the Royal Scribe and Steward xa-m-pt Khaempet: iry it=k imn nb nst tAwy “Your (Khaempet’s) father Amun, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, has acted m wDwt=f nbt (in accordance) with all that he (the king) has commanded.
1.2.34. The High Steward Amenemhat Surer (Amenhotep III) Evidence Amenemhat called Surer is the owner of TT 48.518 However, his only reference to royal appointment is found on statue Louvre A 51:519 sxnt.n nb tAwy kA=f
The Lord of the Two Lands sxnt-ed his kA.520
Family Amenemhat’s father was the Overseer of the Cattle of Amun, Itj-Tawy;521 a title that Amenemhat inherited. His mother was the Royal Ornament (Xkrt-nsw) Mut-tuy.522 His father is only mentioned once on all the monuments owned by Amenemhat, while his mother is referenced frequently. Amenemhat and his mother are depicted offering to the sun at the entrance to his tomb.523 It is typical for the tomb owner to be depicted with his wife in this position. This, and the fact that no wife is mentioned on any of Amenemhat’s monuments, suggests that Amenemhat was a batchelor.524 Furthermore, no children are associated with Amenemhat on any of his monuments, suggesting that this was indeed the case. Säve-Soderbergh attributes Amenemhat’s success to the influence of his mother.525 Amenemhat is known to have had one brother, Setau, who was 2nd Priest of Neith.526
Officals are then listed who witnessed the appointment.510 Family Little is known about the family of Nebnefer as the statue under discussion is the only source for his life and career. Contrary to the reconstruction of Helck,511 and the record in Porter and Moss,512 there is no evidence concerning the identity of Nebnefer’s father. All that remains on the statue base is a reference to a man called Huy following a lacuna; it is only a possibility that this was a reference to his father; Huy could simply be the person that Nebnefer was to replace.513 Two women are depicted on the statue base; one is Nebnefer’s daughter Nefer.514 The other may be his wife.515 1903: 25), while Speleers read saH suggesting ‘approche’ (Speleers 1923: 151 no. 250). Helck suggests ‘Befördere’, but does not give his transliteration (Helck 1961: 301). The basic meaning is clear through its context; the priesthood are to recognise/receive/accept/elevate Nebnefer into the position. 508 Here Helck restores [m iwa n it=f Hry xAyt] Hwy [as the heir of his father, the Chief of Measurements] Huy. As there is no justification for this restoration (the text is entirely lost), and it provides a family and career connection for which there is no evidence, it is left un-restored here. 509 Urk IV 1885, 16 – 1886, 1. 510 Urk IV 1886, 6 - 11. 511 Helck restores a lacuna to read that Nebnefer was inheriting the office of his father, Huy (Urk IV 1885, 19); there is no justification for this relationship or the reconstruction. 512 PM II(2): 444 states that Nebnefer’s father was Nakhtsobek, following Ranke PN: 211. 13. Ranke cites Spleers 1923: 60 no. 250 as his source, but this reference simply leads to the transcription of the statue base which does not record the name of Nebnefer’s father. As a Nakhtsobek is recorded as being a witness to Nebnefer’s appointment on the statue (Urk IV1886, 11), it appears there has been some confusion. 513 As Capart and Spiegelberg suggest (1903: 26). 514 Speleers 1923: 60, within no. 250 see no. 22; Capart & Spiegelberg 1903: 21 fig. 1, 22. 515 Speleers 1923: 60, within no. 250 see no. 23; Capart & Spiegelberg 1903: 21, fig.1, 22.
1.2.35. The Chancellor Ptahmose B (Amenhotep III) Evidence A statue in Florence527 records that Ptahmose (B) was: sxnt nsw iw=f m Hwn
516
one whom the King sxnt when he was as a young man,
Eichler 1998: 61. See above 1.2.23. Published by Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 33 – 49. 519 Urk IV 1900, 10 – 1904, 6. 520 Urk IV 1902, 6. The exact same phrase is found on a statue of Amenemhat in the British Museum (BM 421; Urk IV 1904, 12). 521 Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 35, pl. LX. 522 Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 35, pl. LX. 523 Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 45, pl. LI. 524 Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 35. 525 Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 35. 526 Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 35. 527 Florence statue no. 1791, published by Schiaparelli 1887: No. 1506. Also see Urk IV 1916. 517 518
24
Royal Appointment of Officials: Evidence pH.n=f iAw m Hst=f
as a Priest (Hm-nTr).541 Ptahmose’s son is the High Priest of Ptah (wr-xrp-Hmww), Pahemnetjer.542 It is this man who dedicated statue Florence 1505 to his father. It is likely he directly succeeded his father as High Priest of Ptah.543
and has reached old age in his favour.528
The Chancellor Ptahmose was in the Cattle Administration before gaining his position.529 Ptahmose was also Chancellor, Brave One for the King (qn n nsw),530 and one who fills the divine offerings of all the gods.531 He also refers to himself as sAb tAyty ‘the dignitary and shrouded one’,532 titles typically held by viziers. Helck sees this as an honorific designation.533
The upper part of a false door in Leiden544 depicts the family of a High Priest of Ptah, identified as Ptahmose V.545 The father of this High Priest of Ptah was the Vizier Tuthmosis. Another son of Tuthmosis, and brother of Ptahmose V, is the Steward of Amenhotep III’s mortuary temple, Meriptah. Ptahmose III is depicted on this family monument and described as the Master Craftsman, son of the Priest Menkheper. Murnane has argued that a family connection between the family of Ptahmose III and Meriptah/Ptahmose V existed546 and that the depiction celebrated the transistion of the office of High Priest of Amun from one ‘dynasty’ of the family to another.547 The family holding of the office was interrupted by the appointment of the royal prince Tuthmosis who appears to have been High Priest of Ptah during the middle of Amenhotep III’s reign.548
Family There is only evidence for one son of Ptahmose, a man named Khay who is referred to on Florence statue 1791.534 He is said to have caused the name of his father to live; it was therefore he who dedicated the statue. 1.2.36. The High Priest of Ptah Ptahmose C (III)535 (Amenhotep III) Evidence On one of his tomb statues536 the Memphite High Priest Ptahmose records his appointment to High Priest of Ptah:
If Murnane’s connection between the family of Ptahmose V and III is accurate the office of High Priest stayed within the same family for three generations, only interrupted by the tenure of the Crown Prince in the middle of Amenhotep III’s reign. If Murnane is wrong this is still evidence for the passage of the office of High Priest of Ptah from father to son.
The Good God commanded that I be placed to do excellent offices. rdi.n=f wi r wr-xrp-Hmwt He has placed me to be the Master Craftsman537 r tit n iwn-mwt=f pw which is in the image of ‘Pillar of His Mother’, rx.n=f sxrw he knew the policies iqr mdwt being one excellent of speech, …. …. n aq.tw r Hwt-anx Nobody (else) entered the Mansion of Life.538 iw wD.n nTr nfr rdi.tw iry iAtw mnxw
1.2.37. The Steward of the Northern Lands Khaemwaset (Amenhotep III) Evidence Cairo 87085, a seated dyad statue of a man and his wife from Bubastis,549 states that the Overseer of Northern Foreign Lands Khaemwaset was a:
Family Florence statue 1505 records that the father of Ptahmose was the High Priest (Hm nTr tpy) Menkheper.539 Menkheper is also known from the upper fragement of a false door in Leiden,540 although here he is only described
iqr nb qdnw mty HAty wAH ib qbH tkA Sw m grg sxnt.n nsw ti sw m Hwn
528
Urk IV 1916, 11 – 12. He has the title one who ferries(?) the cattle of Amun (Urk IV 1916, 14; Murnane 1998: 215). 530 Urk IV 1916, 13. 531 Urk IV 1916, 15; Helck 1958: 470. 532 Urk IV 1916, 10. 533 Helck 1958: 353. 534 Schiaparelli 1887: 208. 535 Following the numbering of the Priests known as Ptahmose given by Wildung (LA II: 1259 – 1260); Anthes 1936 designates this man Ptahmose no. 5. For a discussion of the succession and family history of these high priests see Murnane 1994. 536 This statue is now in Florence Musuem, cat. no. 1505. It has recently been discussed by Kozloff, Bryan and Berman 1992: 241 – 242 (37) – it is dated to the last decade of Amenhotep III (Murnane 1994: 193). 537 As Ptah was associated with craftwork the High Priest of Ptah is commonly given the title ‘Master Craftsman’ (Faulkner 1962: 170). 538 Urk IV 1918, 16 – 18, 20. See Gardiner 1938: 83; Helck 1979: 957 – 958. 539 Urk IV 1918, 8; Anthes 1936: 62. 540 See discussion that immediately follows. 529
pH iAw Hst=f mn.ti
541
Possessor of trustworthy character, precise of heart, a patient one, who cools the flame, and is free of falsehood, whom the King sxnt-ed as a young man, who attains old age, (with) his favours established.550
Urk IV 1911, 18. Urk IV 1919, 3. 543 Murnane 1994: 194. 544 The bottom half is in UCL (UC14463), see Murnane 1994: 189 n. 11 for further refs. For the text see Urk IV 1910 – 1912. 545 Most recently see Murnane 1994: 189 – 194. 546 Murnane 1994: 192 n. 21. He argues that Ptahmose III would not have been depicted here if such a connection had not existed. 547 Murnane 1994: 194. 548 Murnane 1994: 193. Ptahmose V can be dated to the start of the reign of Amenhotep III, Ptahmose III to the end. 549 Cairo 87085, Habachi 1957: 95 – 97, pls. XXVIII, XXIX. 550 Urk IV 1932, 11 - 17 542
25
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty new vassal rulers as he saw fit, and that he also held the right to withdraw juridical status.560 Further evidence for the king’s control of vassal appointment comes from the Amarna letters. EA 51, 4 – 9 records that Tuthmosis IV or possibly Tuthmosis III,561 placed a king on his throne and performed a ceremony during which the Pharaoh poured oil on the foreign ruler’s head. In EA 286, 9 – 13 and 288, 13 – 15, the king of Jerusalem states that it was the Egyptian king who placed him on his throne and not his own parents.562 In contrast EA 59 relates that the Pharaoh had refused a king the throne of Tunip for twenty years.563
Family The statue text describes the wife of Khaemwaset as the Lady of the House, praised one of Sekhmet, great one of the harim of Bastet, Khebunes,551 with a similar inscription on her side of the throne.552 However, another statue,553 also from Bubastis, of the same man refers to his wife as the Lady of the House and Musician of Bastet, Manuna.554 This second statue records the same titles for Khaemwaset as the first,555 but makes an additional reference to a role played during the first Sed-festival of Amenhotep III.556 As this information is missing in the first statue it is likely that this second one is later. Thus, Khaemwaset appears to have married a second woman prior to the first sed-festival of Amenhotep III, likely after the death of his first wife.
Chiefs of Kush were selected by the King’s Son of Kush as evidenced by the Usersatet stele;564 here the king advises Usersatet to choose chiefs for him to deal with carefully, there is no indication that royal approval was required before the selection was confirmed.565 Dziobek has argued that as the Viceroy’s job was to maintain peaceful Egyptian control of Nubia any uprising that led to the need for military intervention can be seen as him failing to perform his function properly. This could be why so many Viceroys of Kush fell from grace. Once order had been restored a new Viceroy would be appointed.566
1.3. The Appointment of Foreign Princes In two examples from the 18th Dynasty we find evidence of the king appointing people into foreign positions. Thus, following the battle of Megiddo and after the ‘princes of the foreign region’ had brought tribute (inw) before Tuthmosis III: Now, His Person was appointing wrw m-mAwt n [dmi nb] the chiefs anew for [every town].557 ist Hm=f Hr dhn
Similarly, regarding Amenhotep II: spr Hm=f hw-akt.ti iw.tw Hr int wr n qb-aA-sw-min qA-qA rn=f Hmt=f Xrdw=f Xr=f nb r-mity iry dhnw k(y) wr m st=f
His majesty arrived at HwAketiti. The chief of Kebasumin was brought off, Kaka was his name; his wife, his children and all his underlings likewise; another chief was appointed in his place.558
Lorton argues that because the latter text does not record any fighting the prince must have been replaced due to an uncovered conspiracy, or perhaps his ‘troublesome or incompetent nature’.559 It is not explicitly stated that the king performed this appointment, but the evidence collected here makes it possible that he decided who would replace the captive chieftain. Lorton suggests that the unconditional surrender of the princes under Tuthmosis III meant that the king had the right to appoint 560
Lorton 1974: 148. For a discussion as to which king the Amarna letter is referring to see Bryan 1991: 341. Bryan suggests that it was Tuthmosis IV, while Moran proposes that the king was Tuthmosis III (Moran 1992: 122 n. 1). 562 Moran 1992: 331, 326; Lorton 1974: 148. 563 This may simply have the meaning of a long time and so perhaps should not be taken literally (Moran 1992: 131 n. 5). 564 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston No. 25.632. See most recently Morschauser 1997, also see discussion in Chapter Three, section 3.2.39. 565 Morschauser 1997: 220. 566 Dziobek 1993: 32.
551
561
Urk IV 1931, 19 – 20; Habachi 1957: 96. 552 Habachi 1957: 96 – 97. 553 Cairo JE 87911, Habachi 1957: 104 – 107, pls. 39, 40, 41 (A). 554 Urk IV 1931, 11. 555 The epithets and wishes inscribed are also similar (Habachi 1957: 106 n.1). 556 He is referred to as the Petitioner in the First Jubilee of His Person (Urk IV 1932, 19). 557 Urk IV 663, 2; Lorton 1974: 147. 558 Urk IV 1308, 11 – 14. 559 Lorton 1974: 148.
26
shown in a 17th Dynasty text which relates that the descendents of a disgraced temple worker may not inherit his office.572 It is thus clear that hereditary succession was expected, or at least wished for. However, the Teachings for King Merikare states:
CHAPTER TWO ROYAL APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIALS: ANALYSIS 2.1. Introduction Scholars have commented on the possible origins and career paths of the men who occupied the highest positions in government and have tried to show trends in the king’s decision making process in relation to these appointments.567 So, for example, Helck has commented that Amenhotep III had a policy of appointing officials from Memphis into the highest government offices,568 while Bryan has argued that Tuthmosis IV was placing ‘his own men’ within the Temple of Amun hierarchy.569 Such oversimplifications of the data are likely to be inaccurate due to the biased preservation of evidence – the incomplete information available for the career path of the individuals studied, the lack of data concerning family connections, the relationship with the king, and other pressures that might ‘force’ the king to make appointments. In order to understand the role played by the king in making appointments and the pressures that he may have been under it is first important to survey the Egyptians’ view of official appointment as presented in wisdom texts and private autobiography. The terminology used must also be clarified. Finally, the evidence for family control over offices will be examined, along with evidence for personal relationships with the king, in order to ascertain the extent of private influence over his assumed decision making process.
m Tnt sA s r n[Ds] in n=k s Hr r-awy.fy
Merit, with no acknowledgment of social status, was thus seen as a way of career advancement. The Teachings of Amenemhat states: m mH-ib=k m sn m rx xnms m sxprw n=k aqw nn km iry
m Hswt nTr niwty nb
Do not trust in a brother, do not know a friend, do not raise up for yourself ‘ones who have entrée’574 there is nothing complete therein.575
The appointment of those closest to the king was thus advised against. The Teachings of Ptahhotep aims its advice at courtiers: in nTr sxnt st n ir.tw rdiw qaH
2.2. Ideology: Hereditary Office and Meritocracy A common feature of tomb autobiographies is the statement that a son should succeed his father in office. A typical example is the statement made on the stele of Menkheperreseneb: aq=sn r is=i swAS=sn Hr=f Sd=sn m wD=i sxA=sn rn=i Hs tn [nTr=tn] swD=tn iAwt=tn n [Xrdw=tn m-xt iAwt wAH] mn sA Hr nst it=f
Do not distinguish between the son of a man of rank and a com[moner], take a man on account of his actions.573
It is the god who advances a position one who uses elbows does not achieve/succeed.576
Thus, the ideal expressed by the Egyptians is that a person should be appointed purely on merit without any attention being paid to his social background. The king should not appoint those closest to him as they are unlikely to be of use. A courtier should wait to be appointed; he should not force his appointment. It must be noted, however, that a system that simultaneously supports the ideal of meritocracy along with the seemingly contradictory ideology of hereditary succession need not exist in conflict. It would be perfectly reasonable for the son of a vizier to be the most
Enter my tomb and worship in it read my stele and remember my name [your god] will favour you, you will pass your office to [your children after old age]. A son is established on his father’s seat in the favour of every town god.570
16 (Amenemhat); 1610, 12 (Djehutynefer). Another phrase with a similar sentiment is ‘you will be placed on the seat of your fathers’, see (with variants), Urk IV 967, 3 (Antef); 1045, 13 (Amenemhat); 1078, 7 (Rekhmire). 572 Cairo JE 30770, known as the Antef Decree (most recently see Goebs 2003). 573 Helck 1977: 36; Quack 1992: 38 – 39. 574 Meaning those who are close. 575 I.e. ‘it is worthless’, as Quirke translates (Quirke 2004: 127). For the quote see Griffith 1896: 39; Helck 1969. 576 Žába 1956: line 229, 231. With regard to this final example Lichtheim has commented that the meaning is similar to ‘rubs shoulders’ i.e. that one should refrain from forging social bonds purely for the purpose of advancing one’s career (Lichtheim 1973: 77 n. 26). Eichler has noted that because the meaning of qaH is elbow as well as shoulder, the meaning could also be that one should not elbow others out of the way in order to gain a position (Eichler 1998: 69 n. 104). However, she notes that both interpretations have the same essential meaning, namely that a person should not attempt to gain promotion through unfair means (Eichler 1998: 69 n. 104).
Many other private biographies make similar statements.571 The further importance of this wish is 567 Eichler 2000 – on the Temple of Amun administration; Bryan 1991: 269, 279; Helck 1958: 353. 568 Helck 1958: 353. 569 Bryan 1991: 269, on the basis that the 2nd Priest of Amun Amenhotepsaese states that he was given his position by the king because of his trust/excellence (smnx). 570 Urk IV 1197, 11 – 17; Lichtheim 1992: 174. 571 For the phrase ‘you will pass your office to your children’, see Urk IV 66, 4 (Ineni); 133, 12 (Djehuty); 451, 14 (Djehuty); 965, 17 (Antef); 1032, 9; 1035, 1; 1036, 16 (Useramun); 1197, 16 (Menkheper); 1223,
27
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty suitable candidate to replace his father due to the special understanding he would have gained of the position.577
is indicated in the autobiography of Ahmose Son of Ibana, who links his rewards with implied promotions.585 Nebamun A states that the king repeated Hsi for him and places his appointment in this context.586 Amenhotep Son of Hapu refers to his appointments by the king as ‘favour of the king’.587 However, a full investigation of the relationship between Hsi and appointment is beyond the scope of this investigation.
The extent to which these statements of morality reflect actual court philosophy and practice is hard to judge. However, the need to make such statements shows that the opposite situation must have existed. There is thus the likelihood that if a courtier states that he was appointed on merit it can mean either that in reality he was not, or that other people were not promoted on merit (but he was). It is also important to be aware that not only the king had the power to appoint officials. The Duties of the Vizier makes reference to the vizier making appointment decisions.578 Viceroys of Kush were expected to appoint the Chiefs of Kush.579 Also, Amenhotep Son of Hapu states that he placed children in the positions of their fathers as staffs of old age.580 Furthermore, he states: [dhn].n(=i) s[w] m HAt wrw
There has been little discussion concerning the different usage of the words dhn, sxnt and rdi in relation to appointment. Goedicke argues that dhn ‘has the connotation of selectivity and of honor’588 as opposed to rdi m which is simply to place someone in an office. This is surely incorrect as a number of high level appointments are referred to using rdi.589 Still, dhn is the least used word for appointment when used explicitly with reference to the king590 which may suggest connotations of higher prestige. Although dhn is used in a number of different constructions,591 it is typically associated with an explicit function or title:
I have appointed him in front of the Chiefs.581
All of this adds to a complicated picture when it comes to royal appointment.
He appointed me to direct the works m Hwt=f nt HHw m rnptw on his temple of millions of years.592 dhn=f wi r xrp kAwt
2.3. The Terminology of Appointment The three most common words translated with the meaning of ‘appointment’ or ‘promotion’ are sxnt lit. ‘caused to be foremost, put in a prominent position’, dhn which has the literal meaning of ‘to nod/bow’, and rdi.n=f wi m or r which is used when the king is ‘placing’ a person into a position. These different terms can be used within the same text.582 Other less common words for appointment are also found.583 There is a possible connection between appointment and royal favour as expressed through the word Hsi. The 6th Dynasty official Nekhebu undertook a number of construction works at the command of the king. Each time he returns to the court he is Hsi-ed. He then continues to list the offices that the king appointed him to, stating that the king appointed him because the king favoured him greatly.584 In the 18th Dynasty the link between Hsi and appointment
The High Priest of Amun and Vizier Ptahmose A states that he was: dhn.n nb tAwy Ds=f r irt sxrw idbwy
585
one whom the Lord of the Two Lands has himself appointed to perform the policies593 of the Two Banks.594
Urk IV 1, 16 – 11, 14. 1.2.2. See the three phases of appointment described by Amenhotep Son of Hapu on his limestone block statues now in Cairo (Cairo 583 & 835) (Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 46 – 47). 588 He cites the following evidence in favour of this: The Berlin Leatherroll uses dhn to describe the attainment of royal office; Urk VII 30, 10 uses dhn parallel to rdi Hst ‘to grant favour’; a person asked to execute a will is dhn, showing an honoured position in P. Kahun 11, 19; dhn is used to refer to the appointment of foreign princes in Urk IV 663, 2 and 1086, 14. Finally he cites Urk IV 114, 5 as referring to the selection of jurors. For all of this see Goedicke 1974: 37 – 38. 589 Notably a Viceroy of Kush (1.2.1) and a Mayor of Thebes (1.2.20). 590 Only 9 courtiers refer to dhn: Ineni (1.2.3.); Kenamun (1.2.19); Amenemhat B (1.2.18.); Duarneheh (1.2.21.); Amenhotepsaese (1.2.24.); Tjenuna (1.2.25.), Ptahmose A (1.2.27.); Amenhotep B (1.2.29.); Amenhotep son of Hapu (1.2.30.). There is also one reference to Tuthmosis III appointing foreign chiefs in the Levant (1.2.3.). 591 So, for example: [dh]n.n=f w(i) ‘He (the king) [appo]inted me’ (Ineni, 1.2.3.); dhn.kw ‘I was appointed’ (Ineni, 1.2.3.); Ab Hm(=i) rdit dhn.tw [imy-rA pr m prw-nfr] ‘My Person desired to cause a [High Steward] be appointed [in Perunefer]’ (Kenamun, 1.2.19.); [wn.in Hm=f Hr dhn sw r imy-rA imy-rA]w wrw ‘[And so His Person was appointing him to be Overseer of the] great [Overseer]s’ (Kenamun, 1.2.19.); dhn.n nsw Hr mnx-ib=f ‘Whom the king appointed on account of his excellence’ (Duarneheh, 1.2.21.); [dhn].n wi nsw r sSm Hb n imn ‘the king [appointed] me as leader of the festival of Amun’ (Amenhotep Son of Hapu, 1.2.30.). dhn.n nb tAwy Ds=f ‘One whom the Lord of the Two Lands has himself appointed’ (Ptahmose A; 1.2.27.). 592 The High Steward, Amenhotep B, 1.2.29. 593 For the meaning of sxrw see 4.5.3. in Chapter Four. 586 587
577
For an overview see Strouhal 1997: 31 – 37. Following the typical division of the sections of the Duties into rows: R22 – ntf irr nty m srwt [m] Smaw tA-mHw which van den Boorn translates as ‘It is he who appoints the (leading) member(s) of the magistracy [in] Upper and Lower Egypt’ (van den Boorn 1988: 208). Followed later by: R25 - ntf irr imy-rA Snt m xA n pr-nsw which van den Boorn translates as ‘It is he (the Vizier) who appoints the overseer of policemen in the bureau of the palace’ (van den Boorn 1988: 250). In these two examples van den Boorn translates irr as ‘appoint’. This translation may not be accurate. It could perhaps be taken with the sense of ‘deals with’. However, in R27 - R28 the Duties makes clear when an appointment is meant by using the word dhn, so: ntf dhn dhnw nb r aryt ‘It is he who appoints anyone to be appointed to the aryt’ (van den Boorn 1988: 276). 579 See 1.3. 580 Urk IV 1821, 2 – 3. 581 Urk IV 1838, 11. 582 See Amenhotep Son of Hapu, Urk IV 1834, 14, 17. 583 Ineni refers to having been ‘brought’ to be Mayor (Urk IV 55, 13 – 14; Dziobek 1992: 51, 53). Amenemhab has office placed in his face (Urk IV 897, 1 – 17; Der Manuelian 1987: 163). 584 Published by Dunham 1938: 1 – 8. Lichtheim 1988: 11 – 13; PM III(2): 90; Urk I 215 – 221. 578
28
Royal Appointment of Officials: Analysis In contrast, on a monument of Amenhotep Son of Hapu the king states: [dhn].n(=i) s[w] m HAt wrw
saA.n wi siqr.n wi sxnt.kw r-HAt smrw
I have [appointed] him in front of the Chiefs.595
rx.n=s mnxw=i Hr-ib=s
In this case dhn is not used in association with an explicit office. Similarly, Duarneheh does not refer to a particular office, simply stating that he was one: dhn.n nsw Hr mnx-ib=f
Similarly, the High Steward Amenhotep A states that he was one: sxn[t.n ity] st=f
whom the king appointed on account of his excellence.596
sxnt.n nb tAwy st=f
The second most common phrase used to refer to appointment is rdi.n=f wi m or r.598 A typical example being that of the Steward of the Royal Wife, Nebamun:
nis=f (w)i r wpwty-nsw
He placed me as Steward of the King’s Wife Nebtu.599
sxnt.kw [mm] Snyt
r irt sxrw nw tA pn
He placed me at the front of the courtiers.600
He placed me as Foremost of the Courtiers in order to perform all the policies of this land.601
dhn.n nsw Hr mnx-ib=f r irt mXrw Tstw=f
Kenamun states: di=f wi m tp n smrw
He summoned me to be royal messenger and I was sxnt [among] the entourage.607
Due to the lack of reference to an office sxnt does not appear to have the specific meaning of ‘appoint’, rather it should be taken in its more literal sense of ‘put in a prominent position’. As such, it is more likely a reference to royal favour; connected to a sense of ‘promotion’ in rank rather than in actual office, with significance for standing both hierarchically and literally in the royal presence.608 This meaning is illustrated by the juxtaposition of the usage of dhn and sxnt in a text of Duarneheh:
Similarly, the Vizier Ramose states: rdi.n=f wi m HAt smrw
whom the Lord of the Two Lands sxnt-ed to his position.606
The Foreman of Works Nakht states:
In the majority of cases an explicit title is referenced; however, as with dhn, there are examples that do not refer to a specific office, Usersatet states: rdi.n=f wi r HAt smrw
whom the [Sovereign] sxn[t-ed] to his position.605
Iamunedjeh states that he was one:
It must be noted, however, that four of these nine examples have the word dhn reconstructed.597
rdi.n=f wi m imy-rA pr n Hmt-nsw nbtw
She magnified me, and distinguished me; I was sxnt-ed to the front of the courtiers, she knew my excellence in her opinion.604
….
He placed me as first of the Friends.602
whom the king appointed on account of his excellence to perform (his) business and utterances. ….
603 Twenty courtiers make reference to being sxnt: the High Priest of Amun Menkheperreseneb (1.2.10.); Iamunedjeh (1.2.7.); Senenmut (1.2.5.); Amenhotep A (1.2.6.); the granary official Menkheperreseneb (1.2.11.); the Chief of Medjay Menkheperreseneb (1.2.13); Rekhmire (1.2.17.); the Soldier May (1.2.15.); Amenemhat B (1.2.18.); Sennefer (1.2.20.); Minmose (1.2.16.); Tjenuna (1.2.25.); Sobekhotep (1.2.26.); Amenhotep son of Hapu (1.2.30.); Kheruef (1.2.31.); Nefersekheru (1.2.32.); Amenemhat Surer (1.2.34.); Ptahmose B (1.2.35.); Khaemwaset (1.2.37.); Nakht 1.2.8.) 604 1.2.5. 605 1.2.6. 606 1.2.7. 607 1.2.8. 608 On the importance of hierarchical ordering see, for example, the Berlin Trauer relief (Schulman 1965), or the Duties of the Vizier which refers to the courtiers standing in two rows before the vizier, ‘one has to be heard after the other without allowing the low (ranking official) to be heard before the high (ranking official)’ (van den Boorn 1988: 13, 39 40). The Maxims of Ani states: ‘Stand according to your rank, “Who’s there?” So one always says, Rank creates its rules; A woman is asked about her husband, A man is asked about his rank.” (Lichtheim 1976:140).
Both dhn and rdi are typically used in association with explicit titles; however, sxnt is invariably found without reference to a specific office,603 as Senenmut states: 594
1.2.27. 1.2.30. 596 1.2.21. 597 Ineni (1.2.3.), Amenemhat (1.2.18.); Tjenuna (1.2.25.); Amenhotep Son of Hapu (1.2.30.). 598 17 courtiers make reference to this construction: an anonymous King’s Son of Kush (1.2.1.), Nebamun A (1.2.2.), Djehuty (1.2.4.), Senenmut (1.2.5.), Nehy (1.2.12.), Amenemhat (royal son) (1.2.14.), Useramun (1.2.9.), Rekhmire (1.2.17.), Kenamun (1.2.19.), Sennefer (1.2.20.), Usersatet (1.2.22.), Tjenuna (1.2.25.), Nebamun B (1.2.23.), Ramose (1.2.28), Amenhotep son of Hapu (1.2.30.), Nebnefer (1.3.34.), Ptahmose C (1.2.36.). 599 1.2.2. 600 1.2.22. 601 1.2.28. 602 1.2.19. 595
29
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty n iw sp=i m stp-sA ir.n=i Ddt.n=f mnx sxnt.kw r mity=i nb rdi.kw m-HAt smrw=f
been connected to the acquisition of a higher office, but may have done so in some cases. In all cases they imply greater wealth, and an increase in personal authority marked by the power and personal interest of the king.
No fault of mine came (out) m stp-sA, I did what he said excellently, (so) I was sxnt more than all my equals, and was placed at the front of his courtiers.609
2.4 Offices the King Appointed Excluding those examples which refer to the king having sxnt a person on the basis that sxnt does not have the meaning of appointment to a particular office,618 the following offices are recorded as having been conferred upon a person by the king:
Here dhn is associated with a particular function, whereas sxnt is associated with the increase in prestige that the courtier gained as a result of this appointment.610 sxnt is often found in association with the stock construction: sxnt.n nsw siqr.n bity
2.4.1. ‘To place’ (rdi) a person into (m/r) a position Name Reign Office(s) appointed Anonymous King’s AI Overseer of the Son of Kush619 Double Granary of Amun AI Director of Work in Karnak TI King’s Son (of Kush)
one whom the King of Upper Egypt sxnt-ed and whom the King of Lower Egypt distinguished.611
These stock phrases are sometimes expanded to include a section using saA ‘cause to be great, magnified’.612 It is common for officials to state that they were saA by the king; an unnamed King’s Son of Kush states: [aA-xpr-n-ra] saA.n=f wi m Hr-ib [srw=f]
[Aakheperenre] he magnified me in the midst officials…].613
of
Nebamun A620
TIII
[his
Similarly Nehy states that he was: […] [saA].n=f m Hry-ib sr=f
TII
[…] one whom he [magnifi]ed614 in the midst of the officials.615
Djheuty621
H
Leader of the Palace Policeman
Senenmut622
H
Chief of his House Judge in the Entire Land
Useramun623
H
Courtiers ask King to place him as Vizier
Nehy624
TIII
First Royal Herald King’s Son, Overseer of Southern Countries
Amenemhat A625
TIII
Overseer of Cattle of the Milch(?) Cows
Rekhmire626
TIII
Head of the Courtiers Chief of the Entire Land
Levantine Chiefs627
TIII
Chiefs of towns
Kenamun628
AII
First of the Friends (smrw)
Amenhotepsaese states that he was one: saA.n nsw Hr smnx.n=f
whom the king magnified on account of his excellence.616
The High Stewards Amenhotep B and Kenamun make similar statements.617 saA appears to have a similar meaning to sxnt in such contexts; both compliment each other. All three words, sxnt, siqr and saA are related to an elevation in status. Such a rise need not necessarily have 609
Duarneheh (1.2.21.). 610 Amenhotep Son of Hapu (1.2.30.) states that his wisdom sxnt his family, showing that the status of his family increased as a result of Amenhotep’s ability. 611 Menkheperreseneb D (1.2.13.). 612 For example see Rekhmire, Urk IV 1172, 9 – 10 (1.2.17.). The same phrase is used by the soldier May, see Urk IV 1371, 9 – 10 (1.2.15.). 613 Line 14, Caminos 1998: 28, pl. 19. Reconstruction following Caminos 1998: 31. It is not clear whether this final example refers to a ceremony involving officials, or whether he was brought to be among the officials. 614 Sethe chose to restore stp.n=f ‘one whom he chose…’ (Urk IV 988, 15). 615 Following Caminos 1998: 62, pl. 30. 616 Urk IV 1214, 1. 617 Amenhotep: Urk IV 1809, 6; also see Urk IV 1802, 12. Kenamun: Urk IV 1391, 5; 1394, 6; 1399, 15; 1402, 17.
618
See 2.3. 1.2.1. 620 1.2.2. 621 1.2.4. 622 1.2.5. 623 1.2.9. 624 1.2.12. 625 1.2.14. 626 1.2.17. 627 1.3. 628 1.2.19. 619
30
Overseer of the Office of the King Steward of the King’s Wife Nebtu Overseer of all Boats of the King
Royal
Royal Appointment of Officials: Analysis Ptahmose C637
Standard Bearer for his (the King’s) Great Ones Chief in the Entire Land Standard Bearer Great one of the (King’s) House Chief of the Cattle/stables of the King Mayor Overseer of the [Cattle] of Upper and Lower Egypt, First Herald of the King in All Places High Steward in Perunefer Sennefer629
AII
Chief of Chiefs Great Chief in the Southern City630 Overseer of the Double Granary of [Amun], Overseer of the Fields of [Amun] Overseer of the Garden/Lake [of Amun] and as High Priest of Amun in Mensetu Mayor
Usersatet631
AII
Placed to front of the Courtiers – no specific office referenced.
Nebamun B632
TIV
Chief of Police in the West of the City (Thebes)
633
Tjenuna
Ramose634
TIV AIII
of
Amenemhat B639
AII
God’s Father and [Ch]ief Mouth in Karnak.
Kenamun640
AII
King desires to have an official dhn-ed to be High Steward in Perunefer. Overseer of the] great [Overseer]s Chancellor, Xnm bAt Sem-Priest Controller of Controllers Overseer of Overseers God’s Father, united with the [God’s Body] Keeper of the Diadem, with the royal adornments Keeper of Secr[ets of the two serpent goddesses]
Duarneheh641
AII
No office referenced
Amenhotepsase642
TIV
2nd Priest of Amun
Tjenuna643
TIV
Great One of the House
Ptahmose A644
AIII
To Perform the Plans of the Two Banks.
Amenhotep B645
AIII
High Steward (in Memphis) Direct the Work on Temple of Millions of Years
Amenhotep Son of Hapu646
AIII
Royal Scribe Chamberlain
the
Amenhotep Son of Hapu635
AIII
Overseer of all Works Overseer of Works in the Mountain of Gritstone
Nebnefer636
AIII
Chief of Measurements of the Granary of the Divine Offerings of Amun
King commands he be placed to do ‘excellent offices’ High Priest of Ptah
2.4.2. To ‘nod/bow’ (dhn) a person into a position Name Reign Office(s) appointed Ineni638 H Controller of Works Overseer Chief for the Royal Tomb
Placed in his (the king’s) treasury Foremost Courtiers
AIII
637
1.2.36. 1.2.3. 1.2.18. 640 1.2.19. 641 1.2.21. 642 1.2.24. 643 1.2.25. 644 1.2.27. 645 1.2.29. 646 1.2.30. 638
629
639
1.2.20. An archaic form of referring to the office of Mayor of Thebes. 631 1.2.22. 632 1.2.23. 633 1.2.25. 634 1.2.28. 635 1.2.30. 636 1.2.33. 630
31
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Leader of the Festival of Amun in all his Festivals Appointed in front of the chiefs.
explicit example of a king approving of hereditary succession from father to son is that of Useramun.649 The remaining seven courtiers are known to have held the office of their father, but do not refer to the king as having given them that specific office. Useramun became vizier as a result of being appointed ‘staff of old age’ for his father who had become physically unable to perform his duties. Other texts make reference to ‘staffs of old age’, notably the Teachings of Ptahhotep.650 One version (L2C) of the Teachings suggests that the king had to give his permission for a vizier to appoint his son as staff of old age.651 A property transfer document (imyt-pr) from Kahun (P. Kahun vii. I) relates in regard to a staff of old age, ‘cause him to be appointed immediately’.652 The Middle Kingdom Nomarch Amenemhat states that a man replaces his elderly father through the favour of the King’s House, and his being beloved in the palace.653 From this evidence it would seem that permission had to be sought from a higher authority for a son to inherit the office of his father - the process was not automatic. Among the lower offices such hereditary holding of office was no doubt more frequent due to the greater amount of positions available.654
2.4.3. Analysis of this Evidence The king is described as appointing people to the highest offices in Egypt: he places people in the palace administration, as well as in the administration of the Temples of Amun at Karnak and Ptah at Memphis. He appoints those who do construction work in his name: at places such as Karnak, his own mortuary temple, and his own tomb. The king also appoints people in the civil administration, such as the vizier, Mayor of Thebes, and members of the police force. With regard to foreign administration, there is evidence of the king appointing the Viceroys of Kush, as well as vassal chiefs in the Levant. There is a general lack of reference to the king appointing high officials in the civil administration. There is also no evidence of him appointing senior military officials. It is impossible to know whether this is due to a lack of survival of evidence, or whether the king simply did not make these appointments. There is only evidence for a king appointing one royal prince to an official position.647
There are three examples of offices passing from an office holder to his son-in-law.655 There is no evidence that the king was involved in approving these successions. Furthermore, there are two examples of office transmission from office holder to nephew - both are high level appointments.656 Of the remaining courtiers
The list of offices that the king explicitly appointed men to is small and quite restricted in scope. Assuming for a moment that the king did indeed choose these men, it would seem that he would appoint those at the highest tier of the civil, temple and palace administration and then leave these men to make subsequent appointments, unless he had a personal interest in the individual. This could be why Kenamun presents the only example of a king appointing a Standard Bearer. This position was not relatively high ranking and could therefore show that the king could make appointments at lower levels in the administration if he so wished.
High Steward in Memphis Amenhotep passed his office to his son Ipy (Urk IV 1812, 14; 1.2.29). Useramun inherited the office of Vizier from his father Ahmose-Amethu (1.2.9.). The office of High Priest of Amun passed from Ptahmose C to his son Pahemnetjer (1.2.36.) 649 For the Appointment of Useramun, see 1.2.9. 650 Lichtheim 1973: 63. 651 di.tw aHa sA=i m st=i (Blumenthal 1987: 84). 652 Blumenthal 1987. 653 Lichtheim 1988: 138. 654 The High Priest of Amun Amenemhat B (1.2.18.) began his career as staff of old age to his father Djehutyhotep, a Wab-Priest, sAb and Overseer of Sandalmakers of the [House of Amun]. He remained in this capacity until the death of his father. There is no indication of the administrative mechanism by which Amenemhat gained this appointment. He remained relatively low ranking until the age of 54 when Amenhotep II appointed him to be God’s Father and Chief Mouth in Karnak, and eventually, although his appointment text does not record the event due to damage, to High Priest of Amun. Amenemhat did not pass any of his high offices to his son, Amunemweskhet; however, Amunemweskhet is recorded as holding the title Wab-Priest of Amun, the same as his father and grandfather. However, as this office is quite common it cannot be firmly regarded as an example of hereditary transmission. Also see discussions of the families of Useramun and Rekhmire for their holding of positions in the Temple of Amun (1.2.9. and 1.2.17.). 655 The Mayor of Thebes, Sennefer, under Amenhotep II passed his office to his son-in-law (1.2.20.). There is no evidence that the king was involved in this appointment. The Chancellor Sobekhotep appears to have inherited the office of Mayor of the Faiyum from his father-inlaw, and then passed it to his son perhaps upon his appointment to Chancellor (1.2.26.). Again, there is no evidence for the king’s involvement in these successions. Finally, the High Steward Tjenuna perhaps inherited the title of Overseer of the Cattle of Amun from his father-in-law (1.2.25.). There is no evidence that the king was involved in this appointment. 656 Dorman has convincingly argued that the office of High Priest of Amun passed from Menkheperreseneb A to his nephew, the like named,
2.5. Royal Control Over Hereditary Succession Among the evidence base there is reference to passage of office from father to son in eight examples.648 The only 647 There is evidence that a son of Amenhotep III became High Priest of Ptah, but no evidence that the king made the appointment. 648 The Overseer of the Granary Nakhtmin under Tuthmosis III passed his office to his son Menkheperreseneb C (1.2.11.). There is a clear passage of the office of Chancellor (imy-rA xtm) from Min to his son Sobekhotep (1.2.26.). The situation is more complex with that of the High Steward Amenhotep A and his son Kenamun (1.2.6. and 1.2.19. respectively). Although the father/son relationship between the two now appears to have been confirmed (Pumpenmeier 1998), it does not appear to be a real case of office succession i.e. one in which a father passed his office directly to his son. Although Amenhotep is known to have been High Steward, Kenamun had a long military career before his appointment to High Steward in Perunefer. As there is no evidence that his father held a position in Perunefer, both offices cannot be classed as the same. There is also no mention of Kenamun’s father in his appointment account. Almost all members of Nebamun B’s family held offices in the Theban police force; one son inherited the office of Chief of Police in Thebes from Nebamun, as did one of Nebamun’s brothers (1.2.23.). The High Steward Amenemhat Surer held the office of Overseer of the Cattle of Itj-Tawy, as his father had done (1.2.34.). The
32
Royal Appointment of Officials: Analysis included in this study fifteen show no evidence of having had children and thus could not have passed their office directly to a son, or did not pass the office on at all.657 Nine courtiers are known to have had children, yet provide no evidence that they passed their office on.658 There are many reasons why a son might not inherit the office of his father, beyond that of state control - the son may have predeceased his father, he could be the wrong age, or could have been too incompetent. There is no evidence for the average age that a person would be when gaining high level office.659
that office turnover at the highest level was sufficiently quick for inheritance of office to be meaningless. This would mean that if an official held an office for a few years it might not pass directly to his son, but the son might still inherit it later. However, as far as the evidence shows, there is only one example of an office held within a family line being interrupted by the appointment of an outsider - the Royal Prince Tuthmosis held the office of High Priest of Ptah between members of the family of Ptahmose C.663 As far as the evidence shows, when an office leaves a family, it does not return under a later descendant.
The success of a courtier did not necessarily mean the success of his brothers660 or children.661 Also, it would seem that the ‘fall from grace’ of a courtier did not necessarily mean that his children would be out of favour at court.662
These interpretations are based on the evidence as presented; however, it likely does not relate an accurate picture of the relations between important families, and how offices passed between them. The Egyptian elite comprised a small proportion of the overall population. Such highly born families would likely not have wanted to marry those hierarchically below them. Yet, as the evidence currently stands, the majority of courtiers were not related to their predecessors or successors in office,664 implying a lack of hereditary succession. However, as Roehrig notes, although a man’s family is often mentioned in private tombs, the family of the wife is rarely mentioned.665 Also, it may have been conventional at this time for a man’s wife to be omitted from his tomb inscriptions if he were employed by a woman.666 Furthermore, it was not traditional at this time to provide extensive genealogies.667 Officials may not have brought attention to important ancestors unless they formed part of the immediate family. Extended genealogical references only proliferate at the end of the New Kingdom;668 as Redford notes, this does not mean that such detailed family records were not kept before.669 From the 19th Dynasty tomb of Nebwenenef alone there is no evidence that he came from a lineage of regional
2.6. Analysis of Hereditary Succession Evidence There is little evidence for the king’s personal involvement in approving or disapproving hereditary inheritance of office. Of those who state that the king appointed them to a position, few passed their office onto another member of their family. The evidence shows that offices could pass through family lines from office holder to son, son-in-law, or nephew. As this provides a number of routes for an office to stay within the same family line it is strange that there is so little evidence of hereditary succession. It would seem that those the king is said to have appointed did not have the right to automatically pass the office to further members of their family. This shows that important families were not controlling offices over long periods of time. One interpretation of this evidence would be that someone, or a group of people, controlled office succession. This is also hinted at in the evidence for staffs of old age. Another interpretation is Menkheperreseneb B (1.2.10)). The office of vizier is also known to have passed from Useramun to his nephew Rekhmire (see 1.2.9. and 1.2.17.), the third generation of that family to hold the office. It is notable that the office did not pass to one of the sons of Useramun. All held middle ranking positions across Thebes, notably in the temple of Amun. It is unlikely that all of these sons would have predeceased their father. 657 Ineni seemingly had no children, there is no evidence that his office went to another family member (1.2.3.). A similar situation exists for Nebamun A (1.2.2.), Djehuty (1.2.4.), Senenmut (1.2.5.), Nehy (1.2.12.), Nakht (1.2.8.), May (1.2.15.), Duarneheh (1.2.21.), Ramose (1.2.28.), Amenhotep Son of Hapu (1.2.30.), Kheruef (1.2.31.), Nefersekheru (1.2.32.), Nebnefer (1.2.33.), Amenemhat Surer (1.2.34.), Ptahmose A (1.2.27.), Khaemwaset (1.2.37.). 658 Iamunedjeh (1.2.7.), Rekhmire (1.2.17.), Kenamun (1.2.19.), Minmose (1.2.16.), Amenhotepsaese (1.2.24.), Usersatet (1.2.22.), maybe Tjenuna (1.2.25.), Ptahmose A (1.2.27), Ptahmose B (1.2.35). 659 Taking the vizierate as an example, the age at which Useramun became vizier has been debated, but these rely on modern comparisons and tomb decorations for circumcision; the evidence may not be wholly reliable. Useramun was clearly middle aged when he became Staff of Old Age to his father. As he appears to have been active in the administration of the temple of Amun, it would seem likely that he had gained experience in actual work (rather than simply being the holder of an empty office and the income that came with it); however this could be disputed. 660 Senenmut (1.2.5.). 661 Amenemhat B (1.2.18) 662 Kenamun (1.2.19.) continued to be in royal favour even after the fall from grace of his father Amenhotep A (1.2.6.).
663
See 1.2.36. Of the highest offices there is only one example of a Chancellor passing his office down his family line (1.2.7.), one example of a Viceroy of Kush passing his office to his son (Ahmose Tayit to his son Turi, see 1.2.1.), and only one example of a High Priest of Amun passing his office to his nephew (1.2.10). There are two examples of vizieral succession (1.2.9. and 1.2.17.). There is also evidence for family control over the office of High Priest of Ptah (1.2.36.). If true, this example is notable because the family control is interrupted by the placement of a royal son in the office. However, there is no explicit evidence that the king made the appointments in this last example, thus this evidence is not included among that presented in Chapter One. However, this example could be seen to show that the king allowed hereditary succession, but could interfere and place his own choice if he so desired. Although it is also possible that the royal son was important enough to force his own way into the position without the king’s help. 665 Roehrig 1990: 151 n. 484. A notable exception being the family of the Royal Nurse Senetnay whose parents are named in the tomb of her husband Sennefer (Roehrig 1990: 151). 666 Roth 1999. 667 Only the families of Useramun and Ineni were certainly connected by marriage, with an additional likely connection to the family of the Viceroy of Kush Turi (see 1.2.3 and 1.2.9); while other suggested intermarriages, based around common name elements (such as in 1.1.2. and 1.2.7), are pure speculation. Typically only the names of the tomb owner, his wife, parents and children are found. 668 See Ritner 1994. 669 Redford 1986: 62, n. 226. 664
33
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty appointing a new vizier as staff of old age to the king.684 The king then asks the courtiers to choose a suitable candidate from among them. They then consider their options.685 After praising the king they suggest that he appoint Useramun. Thus, the King, in agreement with his courtiers, issues a decree confirming the appointment. At no stage in this text is Useramun himself present.
distinction. The only relatives mentioned in his tomb are his wife, son, daughter and sister.670 However, it is clear from the genealogy given by his descendant Basa, that Nebwenenef’s five paternal antecedents all held the offices of First Priest of Hathor, Lady of Dendera, Overseer of Cattle, Overseer of Fields, and Overseer of the Granary.671 It seems that Nebwenenef himself passed the office of High Priest of Hathor, Lady of Dendera to his son.672 As one ancestor is named Amenhotep, it would appear that his family importance at Dendera goes as far back as the mid or early 18th Dynasty.673 Such considerations help explain the lack of evidence for intermarriage between the elite families referenced in Chapter One, but make it difficult to trace whether offices were passing along obscure family lines, especially the female line. It still may be the case then that the king was simply confirming, as opposed to choosing, the candidates for high office as the offices passed between the branches of an inter-married elite.
In contrast, in other examples the king is presented as the sole decision maker, either with no reference to the court, or without their advice. The main example of this is the Appointment of Kenamun to High Steward in Perunefer. As with Useramun’s appointment, the text begins by describing the king in audience before his courtiers. The king then announces his desire that a High Steward be appointed, but the courtiers refuse to make any suggestions because the king is a god, and therefore does not need to be given advice. The king decides to appoint Kenamun without their advice. This contrasts with the example of Useramun, but follows the presentation of personal royal dominance over official selection in tomb biographies. So for example, the Overseer of the Palace Nefersekheru under Amenhotep III states that he was one:
2.7. Selection by the King Courtiers could present the reason for their appointment as a royal favour,674 or as a result of no wrongdoing being found.675 Nebamun B records that no complaint and no fault was found with him in a text that appears to be a copy of an actual decree of appointment delivered to him.676 It therefore associates such statements of investigation and right action with reasons for appointment in an official document. As such, some assertions that ‘no fault was found’ could be used by courtiers as justification for their appointment, and could indicate some form of actual investigation before a position was formally given. Other courtiers refer to being appointed because they were excellent (mnx-ib677 or mnx678), trustworthy (iqr679), or their character (qd).680 Useramun states that he was appointed because he was mHw m xnw ‘full of ideas’.681 The appointment accounts of Useramun682 and Kenamun683 present the king as choosing his officials while in discussion with his high courtiers. Both present the process in a slightly different manner. In the Appointment of Useramun the courtiers bring the issue of
[sxn]t.n nb tAwy m Hn saA.n=f mm [srw] stp.n nsw xnt HH r irt sxrw nw tA pn
whom the Lord of the Two Lands [sxn]t-ed as a young man, and whom he has magnified amongst [the noblemen], and whom the king has chosen out of millions to conduct the affairs of this land.686
Officials could also state that the king personally sought them out.687 Further officials state that they were selected by the king personally during their youth. The Chancellor Ptahmose B, states that he was: sxnt nsw iw=f m Hwn pH.n=f iAw m Hst=f
670
Ritner 1994: 221. Ritner 1994: 221. 672 Ritner 1994: 222 with references. 673 Ritner 1994: 222. 674 Unknown Viceroy of Kush, (1.2.1). 675 Unknown Viceroy of Kush (1.2.1.); Nebamun A (1.2.2.); Sennefer (1.2.20.); Minmose (1.2.16.). 676 1.2.23. 677 Menkheperreseneb C (1.2.11.); Sennefer (1.2.20.); Duarneheh (1.2.21.); Tjenuna (1.2.25.) 678 Senenmut (1.2.5.); Useramun (1.2.9.); Minmose (1.2.16.); Kenamun (1.2.19.); Sennefer (1.2.20.); Tjenuna (1.2.25.); Ptahmose A (1.2.27.); Amenhotep Son of Hapu (1.2.30.) 679 Useramun (1.2.9.); Menkheperreseneb C (1.2.11.); Amenemhat B (1.2.18); Sennefer (1.2.20.); Ptahmose A (1.2.27.); Amenhotep B (1.2.29.); Amenhotep Son of Hapu (1.2.30.) 680 Senenmut (1.2.5.); Menkheperreseneb A (1.2.10.); Khaemwaset (1.2.37.). 681 See Eichler 1998 for a discussion of these different terms. 682 1.2.9. 683 1.2.19. 671
one whom the King sxnt when he was as a young man, and has reached old age in his favour.688
Similarly, Khaemwaset states that he was: sxnt.n nsw ti sw m Hwn pH iAw Hst=f mn.ti
one whom the King sxnt-ed as a young man, who reaches old age, (with) his favours established.689
684 However, it is possible that the king was the first to show concern and that his comments are lost in the lacuna. 685 Urk IV 1381, 16 – 17. 686 Urk IV 1882, 12 – 14. 687 Menkheperreseneb A (1.2.10.). 688 Urk IV 1916, 11 – 12. 689 Urk IV 1932, 11 - 17
34
Royal Appointment of Officials: Analysis Menkheperreseneb A states: sa[A].n=f sw690 ti sw m wDH sxnt.n=f m aH
Usersatet and Nehy were Royal Heralds before becoming Viceroy of Kush, showing a similar career path.702 There is some evidence then, that officials were expected to progress through the ranks of their profession, and that these were not simply empty titles held by rich aristocrats who delegated the real work to those below them. Competence may have been as important as the ideological presentation suggests. So, although the vizierate stayed within the family of Useramun for three generations, it may have gone to the most deserving and capable member of that family; in this case Useramun’s nephew Rekhmire. This indicates that Rekhmire had to actually perform the functions of his office. Also, officials could continue in office under successive kings, they were not replaced immediately upon the accession of the new monarch in favour of personal royal favourites.703 This perhaps indicates that their expertise and knowledge were valued.
He (the king) mag[nif]ied him when he was a weaned child and he sxnt-ed him in the palace.691
Officials also emphasise the king’s personal interest in the careers by stating that they grew up at the palace, and were educated by the king himself.692 It appears there are two presentations here, one in which the king is an autocrat, selecting officials, even in their youth, without any help from the court, and another in which decisions are reached by consensus following debate and made official by the king. Both are ideologically motivated and may not represent true practice.
2.9. The Buying and Selling of Offices If offices could be bought and sold without royal consent it would suggest that the king had little control over who gained important positions. There is only one reference to an office being sold in the 18th Dynasty, found on the Donation Stele of Ahmose-Nefertari.704 Here the office of 2nd Priest of Amun is given to the queen; however, the role of the king is unclear because the initial decision to sell the office is presented as m Hm n stp-sA.705 In any case, it appears that the queen was given ownership of the office. Whether the queen as God’s Wife of Amun was responsible for choosing the appointees to 2nd Priest of Amun from that moment on is unclear; however, as one 2nd Priest under Amenhotep III, Anen, was the brother of Queen Tiye,706 it seems likely.707 The Stèle Juridique708 records the sale of the office of Mayor of el-Kab between two families during the 17th Dynasty.709 The first section of the stele records a
2.8. Career Progression It is difficult to chart career progression in the evidence as the order in which a courtier gained his appointments is not always clear. However, Both Useramun and Kenamun show clear signs of a career progression, they were not simply placed immediately into high office.693 Career progression is also broadly seen in the order in which officials present their appointments.694 Notably, Amenemhat B appears to have progressed from a relatively low ranking family background to become High Priest of Amun;695 similarly, Senenmut696 and Amenhotep Son of Hapu697 had relatively humble origins. Additionally, Tjenuna followed Merire698 into the office of High Steward. It is evident from Merire’s scribal palette699 that Tjenuna had been Scribe for the Chief Steward [of the King] before his appointment. It thus appears that Tjenuna was Merire’s immediate successor showing that he moved up the ranks of the Steward’s office. The Chancellor Sobekhotep was followed in office by Merire II who was himself followed by a man named Ptahmose. Ptahmose had been Steward of the Chancellor (imy-rA pr imy-rA xtm) under Sobekhotep.700 As such a career progression can be seen based on experience, rather than the king simply placing an untrained friend into office. Education via apprenticeship was typical in ancient Egypt.701 Finally, it can be noted that both
brother’s apprentice, and shows that he earned his appointments through training and experience rather than simply inheritance alone (Dunham 1938: 7). For a general picture see Strouhal 1997: 31 – 37. 702 1.2.22. and 1.2.12. respectively. 703 Bryan 1991: 279. Rekhmire operated under Amenhotep II for at least a short time – only then did power go to royal favourites. Bryan cites Tjenuna, Sobekhotep and Nebamun A as officials who served, or had family importance, under earlier kings. 704 For this text see Helck 1975: 100 – 103. Originally published by Chevrier 1936: 137 pl. II. Previous studies of this text have argued either that the queen is selling the office of 2nd Priest of Amun (Gitton 1976; 1979) or that the king is purchasing the office for her (Menu 1977). Also see Logan 2000: 63 - 64; Vandersleyen 1971: 194; Harari 1959; Kees 1954; Spalinger 1996: 218 – 222; PM(2) II: 73. 705 For the problems surrounding this phrase, and this text in particular , see my forthcoming article, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘What was Said/Commanded m Hm n stp-sA’’. The phrase need not always indicate royal presence, or involvement in the decision making process. 706 Tiye appears to have had some political influence over decisions – One Amarna letter is addressed to her from Tushratta, the king of Mitanni. While two further letters from Tushratta are addressed to Akhenaten yet advise him to consult Tiye (EA 26, Moran 1992: 84 – 86; EA 28, Moran 1992: 91; EA 29, Moran 1992: 92 – 99; also see Chapter Four, section 4.5.1. 707 As Murnane 1998: 210 suggests. 708 For a recent translation see Logan 2000: 60 – 63. For the original publication see Lacau 1949. 709 Spalinger 1986: 6 – 7.
690
Sethe states this should not be read as sw (Urk IV 926, 16), but see the comment of Guksch 1994: 118 n. 246. 691 Urk IV 926, 16 – 927, 1. 692 Menkheperreseneb D states that he followed the king since his youth (xrd), grew up as a youth (nxn) at the palace and was taught by the Lord of Ritual because of his excellence in the king’s opinion (1.2.13.; Urk IV 993, 15 – 17). Kheruef is emphatic that the king himself brought him up at the palace and that the sovereign taught him (see 1.2.31.). 693 See 1.2.9. for Useramun; 1.2.19. for Kenamun. 694 Nebamun A (1.2.2.); Nehy (1.2.12.). 695 Amenemhat B (1.2.18) 696 1.2.5. 697 1.2.30. 698 For a discussion of the career of this man see Bryan 1991: 255. 699 BM 5512; Glanville 1932: 56 – 57; Urk IV 1615. 700 Bryan in Dziobek 1990: 88. 701 Notably, the Old Kingdom official Nekhebu inherits each office of his brother upon his brother’s promotion. He appears to have been his
35
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty property transfer (imyt-pr)710 made by a man named Kebsy who had inherited the office from his father,711 who in turn had inherited it from his brother. It records that Kebsy is to pass the office of Mayor of el-Kab to a man named Sobeknakht, from whom it will pass down his family line. The imyt-pr is witnessed by a number of important officials, including the vizier. The original document was placed in the xA ‘Office/Bureau’ of the Herald of the Northern Waret. The second section records the original sale (swnt-document) of the office; here it is related that Kebsy sold the office to Sobeknakht because he owed him the equivalent of sixty deben of gold.712 This document was kept in the office of the vizier. Although high officials were present to witness the transaction there is no indication that the king was consulted as to whether he wanted this man to hold the office of Mayor of el-Kab. Rather, the office was seen as property owned by the individual, seemingly outside the king’s authority. However, it is apparent that these individuals were related to the royal family of the 13th and 17th Dynasties.713
succession and a cut of income), and the execution of an office’s function. The king may have had the power to endow the function of an office to a family, which might then pass along that family line until the endowment were retracted by the king and given to another family. Whether the king would be free to retract such an endowment would, however, be affected by the extent to which the king would have to appease powerful families of influence. 2.10. The King’s Personal Influence over Appointment 2.10.1. Evidence for the King being Free to Appoint In order to ascertain whether the king himself was personally involved in appointment decisions it is necessary to ask if there is any evidence of him appointing those that could be regarded as his friends, or people of ability without family importance, rather than officials who appear to have no connection to him, but who might be descendants of powerful family lines. The strongest evidence for this comes from the reign of Amenhotep II. At this time a number of key positions were filled with officials who were the sons of royal tutors and nurses:719 Ahmose-Humay720 had been a Steward of the God’s Wife, Overseer of Cattle and Royal Tutor whose own parents are not recorded as having titles. Also, as far as the evidence shows, they had no connection to other, potentially more influential, families of the period. Ahmose-Humay’s role as tutor meant that it is likely his sons Sennefer and Amenemopet grew up with Amenhotep II. Following Amenhotep’s accession to the throne Sennefer became Mayor of Thebes and Amenemopet took over the vizierate from the powerful family line of Rekhmire. Their relationship with the king is also emphasised by their burial in the Valley of the Kings.721 As it would not have benefited the established elite to allow these relative nobodies to gain high level appointments it would seem best to ascribe their rise to the personal influence of Amenhotep II; and see it as result of close friendship. Similarly, Kenamun722 was the son of a High Steward and Royal Nurse who rose to power under Amenhotep II. He clearly grew up with Amenhotep II because he held the title ‘Foster-Brother of the King’. The close relationship between the two is also made explicit by a reference to the king being more welcoming to Kenamun than his own son. Kenamun began his career in the army, being a Fanbearer of the King and Troop Commander. He then spent some time as a Fortress Commander and eventually became High Steward in Perunefer. This final appointment is described as the sole decision of Amenhotep II. Although there is no evidence for the career path of Amenemopet and Sennefer, it is interesting that Amenhotep II did not immediately place Kenamun in high office. One interpretation is that the king was training up his friend
In a 19th Dynasty document from the workman’s village at Deir el-Medina,714 the office of Foreman of the Gang had passed from Nebnefer to his son, Neferhotep. Upon Neferhotep’s death the office was expected to stay within the family line, passing to Neferhotep’s brother Amennakht, as Neferhotep had no son. However, the workman Paneb bribed his way into the position instead by giving the vizier five servants. From this evidence Vernus suggests that hereditary succession of office was a custom that did not have the weight of law, and had to be confirmed by the central power.715 However, it must be noted that Paneb had been brought up by Neferhotep, which must have given him some claim to the office.716 The lack of evidence for hereditary succession717 indicates that families did not hold offices as property in the 18th Dynasty. This lack of family control of offices is in some ways surprising because of the evidence of control of property rights, especially among priesthoods.718 This evidence, along with the Ahmose Nefertari Donation stele and the Stèle Juridique, suggests that offices could be seen as property. It is possible that with the reunification of Egypt under Ahmose the king took ownership of all high offices, and had the right to pass them to others – as in the Ahmose Nefertari Donation stele. This highlights the difference between ownership of an office (which might imply control over 710
See Logan 2000 for a discussion of imyt-pr. A man who also held the office of Vizier (Spalinger 1980: 110). 712 Spalinger 1986: 7. 713 Spalinger 1986: 7; 1980: 110 – 112. 714 P. Salt 124.11, original publication by Černy 1929; KRI IV: 408 – 414. 715 Vernus 2003: 71. 716 Vernus 2003: 72. 717 See 2.5. and 2.6. above. 718 The Saite P. Rylands IX records that local priests reacted violently to the royal appointment of an outsider (Vittmann 1998: 12). Also note the rivalries and hereditary offices evidenced at Karnak during the 3rd Intermediate Period (Kruchten 1989: 266 - 269). 711
719
On royal tutors and nurses under Amenhotep II see Roehrig 1990: 198 – 206. 720 1.2.20. 721 KV 40 and KV 48. 722 1.2.19.
36
Royal Appointment of Officials: Analysis High Steward Duarneheh,729 and most notably Ahmose Son of Ibana.730 Ahmose began his career as the son of a simple soldier, but ended it the owner of land, slaves, and a tomb.731 Such men found themselves being appointed to higher positions than their family origins may have originally led them to. The military is the characteristic profession for promotion on merit; this meant that men of ability could eventually rise up the ranks and probably come to the personal attention of the king. It is not hard to imagine that the king would have formed close bonds with people he campaigned with and would wish to reward them. Such appointments may be regarded as ‘new men’.732 It is difficult to identify ‘new men’ in the record, as in most cases key evidence for marriage connections and family lines is lacking. The elite stratum of society was quite small and likely inter-married frequently.733 A courtier who presents little genealogical data may just as likely be a member of a long established family as much as a ‘new man’. It is also obvious that any person who achieved success at court would require a scribal education; such realities would exclude those on a lower social layer from attaining success. Thus, those who might be regarded as ‘new men’ must have come from families who were already established in the bureaucracy at some level.734 However, it must be noted that a scribal position did not necessarily indicate a high level in society. Such men of lower status could have included men such as Ahmose Son of Ibana. The appearance of new men was clearly not unheard of, the Teachings of Ptahhotep states:
until he was ready. Another is that the king was unable to, perhaps showing a limit to his power. Before Amenhotep II it is less clear why people were chosen - many officials do not have such an obvious connection to the king himself. Some, notably the Viziers, appear to have spent their time in the administration of the Temple of Amun before reaching high office, rather than the palace administration.723 However, looking to this period before Amenhotep II, there are certain courtiers whose background show them not to be from established noble families, and appear to have been chosen due to their personal connection to the king. An obvious example is Senenmut724 who is sometimes cited as a man who owes his success entirely to the favour of Hatshepsut. The lack of a rich burial for his parents shows that they were not among the upper echelons of Egyptian society. Senenmut himself states that Hatshepsut appointed him, while the authority he wielded appears to go beyond that shown by his titles. Senenmut states that it was his ability that led to his appointment; and, although it is typical of private biography for a courtier to laud his abilities and relationship with the king, it does appear that his social background did not help him. His lack of connections shows that he could not pressure anybody into appointing him and there was no real benefit in him holding power to any of the established families. In the absence of any other person who could be responsible for Senenmut’s rise, it is best to attribute the decision to appoint him to the personal initiative of Hatshepsut.725
‘If you are poor, serve a man of worth, that all your conduct may be well with the god. Do not recall if he once was poor, don’t be arrogant toward him for knowing his former state; respect him for what has accrued to him, for wealth does not come by itself. It is their law for him whom they love, his gain, he gathered it himself; it is the god who makes him worthy and protects him while he sleeps.’735
Currently it is understood that there were two successive High Priests of Amun called Menkheperreseneb,726 both connected to royal nurses, under Tuthmosis III. The first had a mother who was Foster-Sister of the King and an unknown father. His nephew, Menkheperreseneb B, was the son of a chariot soldier and a royal nurse. Judging from the titles held by his parents, his branch of the family were the less powerful. Both Menkheperresenebs only appears to be influential as a result of their mothers’ connections to the royal family. As the family appear to be ‘new’, it is likely that royal favour gained these men their appointments. It is thus more than likely that the king made the decision in these cases. It would seem unlikely that someone other than the king, such as a member of the high elite, would have selected them.
However, poverty is relative. The poverty referred to in Ptahhotep is unlikely to refer to the lowest strata of Egyptian society who realistically had no chance of reaching high office; rather it refers to the lower echelons of the middle class. Due to their high position – dictated by birth - nobles in any society are typically unreceptive
A final example is that of Military Men. These are men who began their careers in the army and accompanied the king on campaign, such as the Overseer of Works Minmose,727 the Chancellor Ahmose-Pennekhbet,728 the
728
Urk IV 32, 1 – 39, 8. 1.2.21. 730 El-Kab tomb 5 – Urk IV, 1 – 11. A description of the text and the history of the tomb is provided by Vandersleyen 1971: 17 – 21. Translations can be found in Breasted 1906: 3 – 9; Gunn and Gardiner 1918: 48 – 54; Wilson in Pritchard 1955: 233 – 234; Vandersleyen 1971: 17 – 87; Goedicke 1974: 31 – 41; Lichtheim 1976: 12 – 15. 731 For the original text see Urk IV 1 - 11; for a translation see 1973: 12 – 15. 732 The subject of ‘new men’ has been studied by Vernus 1970. 733 See 2.5. and 2.6. above. 734 An interesting problem is presented by foreigners who came to Egypt and became established in an official position as they cannot have passed through the Egyptian education system. 735 Lichtheim 1976: 66. 729
723
Such as Useramun (1.2.9.) and Rekhmire (1.2.17.). See 1.2.5 for the evidence discussed here. Dorman 2006: 47. Dorman notes that none of Senenmut’s monuments can be dated with certainty to the reign of Tuthmosis II and states that the earliest statues date to the period of regency under the first year of Tuthmosis III (Dorman 2006: 63 n. 60). He thus does not appear to have been in the favour of earlier monarchs, while Tuthmosis III would have been too young to influence Senenmut’s career. 726 See discussion in 1.2.10. 727 1.2.16. 724 725
37
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty to ‘new men’.736 It would seem strange if this situation did not exist in ancient Egypt.737 Following the New Kingdom, officials from important families tried to exclude new men from gaining influence: Wadjahoresnet refers to the provision of an education for the sons of ‘men of quality’, but not for those who were from low ranking families.738 Records from Karnak show strong hereditary lines among the priesthood of Amun, causing the exclusion of non-priestly families from entering the priesthood.739 This evidence would seem to present a more truthful picture of society than that portrayed by the idealised Teachings of Ptahhotep.
royal decree commands that Teti be ‘put upon the ground’, removed from the temple, and that none of his descendants could inherit his position. Furthermore, it commands that Teti’s food be taken away, his name not remembered, and that any future king who would be merciful to him would not be a true king. Similarly, any person who was to petition the king about him would be punished. There is little evidence for removal from office; however, such evidence would not be recorded on tomb walls – the main source for details on courtiers’ careers – currently little else can be stated on this.
2.10.2 Evidence for the King Removing an Official from Office740 Explicit evidence for a king removing an official from office is meagre; although a few examples exist none date to the 18th Dynasty. A major example of removal from office is provided by the Ramesside Papyrus Salt 124.11 which relates how Neferhotep and the workman Paneb had a dispute in the village of Deir el-Medina.741 Here Paneb is said to have attacked nine men during the night. The Foreman Neferhotep reported the attacks to the Vizier Amenmose who subsequently had Paneb punished. In retaliation, Paneb complained to a man called Mose that the vizier had hit him. Mose then punished the vizier by removing him from office. As only the king is thought to have had the power to remove a vizier from office Mose has been identified as either king Amenmessu,742 or Seti-Merenptah.743
2.10.3. Evidence of the King being Forced to make Appointments In comparison to the evidence for the king’s personal control over the appointment process, the evidence for officials forcing a decision upon the king is rather weak. The longest hereditary holding of an office among the high elite was that of the three generations of the family of Ahmose-Amethu745 who held onto the vizierate between the reigns of Amenhotep I and the early reign of Amenhotep II. It could be argued that as an important Theban family they were perhaps given control of the office in return for loyalty. However, with the exception of possibly two746 members of the family, only those who became vizier built tombs. This is a major sign of the level of the family’s influence; if they were indeed powerful enough to force themselves into the vizierate by influencing the king surely more family members would have held important government positions and had the ability to make tombs for themselves. As such it would seem likely that the vizierate stayed in the family line for other reasons: perhaps the sons simply had the ability, were the right age at the right time, and had learnt the requisite skills from their fathers. Such an explanation can easily be transferred to the few remaining examples of high level hereditary succession in the 18th Dynasty.747
Inscribed on a doorway of Senwosret I at the temple of Min at Coptos, but dating to the 17th Dynasty, is the record of an official named Teti being removed from office as punishment of wrongdoing in the temple.744 The 736 Compare to the situation immediately before the French revolution in which the nobility and royal family saw their place as god given and thus divinely ordained as higher than other people in society. This caused conflict with the emerging bourgeois class, eventually leading to the first revolution. 737 On the importance to the elite class of keeping access to high culture exclusive see Baines & Yofee 1998: 236. 738 See Lloyd 1982: 173; Vernus 1970: 44; Posener 1936: 29. 739 Kruchten 1989: 266 – 267. 740 Excluding examples of Damnatio Memoriae; a subject that would require a thesis of its own due to the difficulty in interpreting the evidence. 741 Černy 1929; Vernus 2003: 74 – 75. 742 Černy argues that Mose must have been a valid king at the time of the incident, but not at the time of writing - the name Mose is written with the determinative for ‘enemy’ (see Krauss 1976: 186). Černy thus argues that Mose must have been the usurper King Amenmessu, and that Amenmose must have been a vizier of his. See Černý 1929: 255; Habachi 1978: 65. Also see Krauss 1977: 161 – 199; 1978: 131 – 174); but with reservations made by Osing 979: 253 – 271. On Amenmessu also see Kitchen 1987: 23; and Dodson 1990: 151. 743 Habachi states that we know nothing of Amenmesse before he became king, adding that as usurpers must be in a high position to seize power they are usually well known. He has thus argued that Mose can perhaps be equated with King Seti-Merenptah, while the disgraced Vizier Amenmose can perhaps be identified as the usurper king Amenmessu who briefly took the throne on the death of the king. See Habachi 1978: 65 – 66. 744 Cairo JE 30770. This text is often referred to as the Antef Decree, after the king who issued it. For a summary of discussions on this text with references see Goebs 2003. Lorton has argued that the crime
2.11. Conclusion The king is presented as appointing those in the highest positions in the land, though there is a lack of evidence for his involvement in the civil and military administrations. Not all courtiers state that the king appointed them, and not all use the same terminology committed was the harbouring of a criminal within the temple (Lorton 1976: 18). This interpretation has not met with wide acceptance. Generally it is thought that a member of the temple staff had stolen one of the cult statues of the temple: so, for example in Wente 1991: 25 – 26. For further references see Goebs 2003: 29 with notes 11 and 12. However, this interpretation has recently been questioned on the basis that a person would find it impossible to sell on such an expensive item, and the comparatively weak punishment for such a huge crime; rather, according to Goebs, it is likely that some other type of temple property was stolen, perhaps cattle (Goebs 2003). However, it was quite clear that expensive items could be sold on – one only need consider the robbery of the royal tombs in the 20th Dynasty. 745 See comments at 1.2.9. 746 One of Useramun’s brothers may have had his own tomb (TT 122). Another, Amenmose appears to be the owner of TT 228 (Dziobek 1998: 112) 747 See section 2.5. above.
38
Royal Appointment of Officials: Analysis when referring to their appointments, although the reasons for this are not clear. The system of ethics as set down by wisdom texts emphasises that a person should be appointed purely on merit. This is reflected in the statements made by officials in their autobiographies. Here they relate success entirely in terms of royal attention following the excellent execution of their duties and their personal ability, rather than importance gained through established, hereditary family power.748 This could reflect reality, as there is indeed a lack of evidence for hereditary succession. However, the lack of family data - due both to the loss of evidence and the lack of detailed genealogies at this time,749 especially among the female lines - may result in this lack of evidence. The need to conform to the meritocratic ideal combined with the deficient family data leaves it impossible to determine the extent to which the king may or may not have controlled the movement of offices. Also, the real criteria by which a courtier was chosen is probably not apparent in the evidence.750 Still, as the evidence stands, the lack of evidence for hereditary succession indicates control over the movement of offices among officials. Also, the appearance of men with no known family connections in high office, yet with close connections to the king, indicates personal royal power over official appointment. This also suggests a level of reality to the ideals set down in the wisdom texts. There is no clear explicit evidence of powerful families influencing appointment decisions. Thus, it can tentatively be concluded that the king did indeed have authority over who was appointed to high office, and that these decisions were free from the influences of the established nobility.
748 The High Steward of Memphis Amenhotep B states that he had been a youth with no associates/family even though his family were established and powerful (1.2.29.). His intention was to emphasise his own ability and competence in the eyes of the king, rather than his family line. Kenamun makes no mention of his father having been High Steward in his appointment text; rather his ability is commented on repeatedly. However, this may be due to the ‘fall from grace’ of his father (1.2.19.). 749 Something which had changed by the Ramesside Period see 2.6. above. 750 As Eichler has noted, we lack the necessary data to see what set a courtier apart from his peers in day to day work. There is no significant evidence for how a person was evaluated or chosen for a particular role, or how they progressed in their careers. Eichler comments that it is likely that the king was made aware of potential courtiers through his high courtiers praising them (Eichler 1998: 69, n. 107). However, this assumes that the kings were indeed making such decisions.
39
the palace as institution issues wD.760 Examples which mention the command of the Hm n stp-sA are to be discussed in a separate article,761 as it is unclear if these refer to commands of the king or not. Thus, because wD could be issued by individuals or institutions other than the king, examples which are referred to in the passive without specific reference to the king are not included. As well as the specific reference to royal wD, detail concerning the textual and physical context of the decree will also be provided, as will any setting or occasion given for the making of the decree, and any recipient of the command described. This evidence will then be analysed in Chapter Four, in an attempt to determine why these commands were recorded and whether they allow an accurate picture of the king’s true historical role and authority in formulating and issuing royal decrees to be made.
CHAPTER THREE THE USE OF ROYAL COMMANDS (wD-nsw): EVIDENCE “Be skilful with words, and you will be victorious. The strong arm of the king is his tongue. Words are stronger than any weapon.”751 3.1. Introduction and Method The primary written documentation available for the study of royal authority, and source for the assessment of the reality of the role of the king in making government decisions, are records of orders, in the widest sense of the term, issued by the king. The key term used for these is wD-nsw, normally translated as ‘royal decree’ or ‘royal command’.752 These survive on stelae, temple walls, as letters to courtiers, administrative papyri, and in private tomb autobiographies. Ideologically this implies that all high level government commands originate with the king, and not on the primary authority of officials or courtiers.
3.2. Evidence for the King making Commands (wD) 3.2.1. Temple Endowment (Ahmose) This Royal Stele (CG 34001)762 was found south of the 8th pylon at Karnak.763 The original provenance may have been the façade of the early 18th Dynasty temple. Legrain notes that the stele was found with the text facing downwards at a lower level than the base of the 8th Pylon764 and the socles of the colossi. The 8th Pylon was erected by Hatshepsut and completed by Tuthmosis III,
A group of administrative wD of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period have survived in their original form either on papyrus or copied directly onto stelae.753 They display a formulaic construction and layout.754 Fundamentally, the decrees contain the name of the king and the addressee presented as a letter.755 The names and titles of the addressee(s) are laid out above the text in a horizontal line. The Horus name of the king is in a vertical line at the beginning of the document.756 The content as wD-nsw then follows. Inscriptions end with the separate statement that it was sealed at the side of the king, presented to the left of the text.757 However, the bulk of surviving commands are incidental in texts from royal and private monuments. It is such incidental commands that provide the major evidence collected together in this chapter.
760 The Old Kingdom official Sabni of Aswan records that ‘the command (wD) of the vizier arrived…’ (Strudwick 1985: 331; Urk I 140, 4). The Middle Kingdom stele Louvre C12 relates how the vizier gave Amenysoneb a command to cleanse the temple of Abydos (Lichtheim 1988: 81). A second stele of Amenysoneb also states that commands were given to him to perform work at Abydos, but this time the text does not refer to the person who gave the commands (Lichtheim 1988: 82). As it is clear from both of these stelae that the king did not make the command, examples which simply refer to a wD, without explicit referene to the king, are not likely royal. In the 18th Dynasty, Senenmut states that he commanded m stp-sA (Dorman 1991: 39 – 40, fig. 7); this is a more accurate copy than that found in Urk IV 400, 11 – 14. Kenamun is possibly described as the ‘one giving commands to the courtiers’ in his tomb, but it is not clear from the remaining text (Davies 1930: 16, pl. LXVII, A). Kheruef refers to a command having been made concerning ‘the lake of His Person’ (Urk 1867, 17). Although a royal ceremony is the context - in which officials are rewarded during the Sed-festival –it is not clear if the command was made by the king himself or one of his high officials in charge of the ceremony. Tjenuna commands to the Hmt-people (Urk IV 1581, 5). The Vizier Ramose refers to his own command (Urk IV 1782, 19). In The Duties of the Vizier it is stated ntf sDm wDt nb(t) ‘It is he (the vizier) who hears every decree’ (van den Boorn 1988: 276 – 277, 280 – 281). Van den Boorn assumes that this is in reference to decrees of the king (van den Boorn 1988: 280). However, in the Duties the person of the king is repeatedly referred to as nb ‘Lord’ (van den Boorn 1988: 204, 218, 65 – 266). Thus, when the vizier is is referred to as the one who dispatches everyone who will circulate (pXr) all commands (wDyt) of the palace (pr-nsw) (adapted from van den Boorn 1988: 202), it is likely a clear distinction is being made between commands of the palace as institution and those of the king himself. 761 See my forthcoming article, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘What was Said/Commanded m Hm n stp-sA’’. 762 See Klug 2002: 25 – 34; Urk IV 14 , 1– 24, 6; PM II(2): 179-80; Beylage 2002: 315 – 327. Original publication is Legrain 1903: 27 – 29. 763 Klug 2002: 25. 764 This pylon was erected by Hatshepsut and completed by Tuthmosis III, with some inscriptions later reassigned to (Tuthmosis II PM II(2): 174, 175 (520)).
Previous studies of wD have provided a general discussion of the evidence for royal command,758 encapsulating all periods and thus by necessity being selective in their use of evidence, or have focused on decrees of the Old Kingdom and 1st Intermediate Period.759 In this chapter all evidence for kings making commands from the reign of Ahmose to the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, as evidenced by the word wD, will be presented. Evidence is given in chronological order; commands that lack detail of any kind have been omitted. Examples in which a wD is said to be issued by a high courtier are not included, nor are examples in which 751
Teachings for Merikare; Parkinson 1997: 218. Wb I: 394 – 397; Faulkner 1962: 73 – 74. 753 Pantalacci 1985; Posener-Kriéger 1985; Goedicke 1967. 754 Posener-Kriéger 1985: 206. 755 Compare to the layout of an Old Kingdom letter, see Smither 1942: 17. 756 Goedicke 1967: 9. 757 Two examples of this can be found in the edict of Pepi II from the Mortuary Temple of Menkaure (Goedicke 1967: 150; fig. 12.) and Coptos B (Goedicke 1967: 89; fig. 8), although both examples are damaged. 758 Valbelle 2000; Trapani 1993; Vernus 1991. 759 Hays 2000; Goedicke 1967. 752
40
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence with some inscriptions later reassigned to Tuthmosis II.765 Legrain suggests that the stele may been buried here under Tuthmosis III, perhaps with the intention it be used as pavement.766 Assuming that the stele was originally erected in the immediate area in which this pylon was built, it will have been erected far from the most exclusive parts of the contemporary temple in the time of Ahmose.767 Consequently, it may have been placed in the outer enclosure wall.
that it was erected in this area, in a court either in front of or behind the location at which Tuthmosis I would build the 4th pylon. It is difficult to be more specific as pylons 4, 5, and 6 were all built by Tuthmosis I, leaving the appearance of this area under Ahmose unknown. The command recorded in the text appears to have been given in the palace as it follows the statement: snDm pw ir.n Hm=f m-Xnw pr-aA a.w.s.
A long eulogy to the king is followed by the statement: iw grt wD.n Hm=f irt mnw n it(=f) imn-ra
Moreover, His Person commanded to make a monument for his father Amun-Ra.768
The king is then reminded about the destruction caused by a recent storm and makes his command: aHa.n wD.n Hm=f srwd r-prw ntyw wA r wAsy m tA pn r-Dr=f smnx mnw nw nTrw
No setting is given for this command. The text then lists numerous items for the god, followed by: iw [wD].n Hm[=i] irt wiA aA n] tp iTrw imn-wsr-HAt rn=f m aS mAa n tp xtw r irt Xnt[=f nfrt nt tp rnpt]
What His Person did was to rest in the palace…776
[My] Person [command]ed the making of a great boat of] the best of the river, called Amun-Userhat, of real ash-wood769 of the best of the terraces, in order to make [his perfect annual] waterprocession.770
Tst inbwt=sn rdit Dsrw m at Spst HAp st StAt saqt sSmw r kArw=sn wnw m ptx r tA sS axw saHa xAwt
The stele is a record of the king’s endowments for Amun.
smnt pAt=sn qAb aqw n iAwt
3.2.2. The Storm Stele (Ahmose) This royal stele771 was found broken in the fill of the 3rd pylon at Karnak.772 This pylon was built by Amenhotep III at the point where the axis facing Luxor temple, and the axis facing the Nile meet.773 It replaced the 4th pylon, built by Tuthmosis I, 774 as the monumental entrance to the main axis of the temple. The 3rd pylon was found to contain a number of monuments from earlier reigns,775 while the court between the 3rd and 4th pylons contains obelisks of Tuthmosis I. Clearly, the area on which the 3rd pylon was built was a major hub of monuments from the early 18th Dynasty. As stone stelae are large and heavy it is likely that the Storm Stele would not have been moved far from its original location. It would thus seem probable
rdit tA mi tpt=f-a ir.in.tw mi wDt.n nbt Hm=f [irt]
Then His Person commanded to make firm the temples that had fallen to ruin in this entire land: to make functional the monuments of the gods, to erect their enclosure walls, to put the sacred things in the special room, to hide the secret places, to cause the processional images to enter their shrines there that had fallen to the ground, to set up the braziers, to erect the altars and fix their offering-loaves, to double the income of offices – to put the land like its original situation Then it was done like everything that His Person commanded to do.777
The audience at which the command was given is not described. The text celebrates the king’s role in restoring Egypt after a period of chaos. However, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the events described in the text.778 The
765
PM II(2): 174, 175 (520). Legrain 1903: 27 – 29; Björkman 1971: 56 – 57; Klug 2002: 25. 767 PM II(2): 75. 768 Urk IV 22, 3. 769 Cedar. 770 Urk IV 23, 10 – 13. 771 Weiner and Allen 1998; Klug 2002: 35 – 46; PM II(2): 73; Vandersleyen 1967; 1968. 772 Klug 2002: 35. 773 PM II(2): 59. 774 PM II(2): 78. 775 Notably including the White Chapel of Senwosret I (PM II(2): 61 – 63); a bark shrine of Amenhotep I called Menmenu (PM II(2): 63 – 64); the ‘Chappelle Rouge’ of Hatshepsut (PM II(2): 64 – 71); a shrine of Amenhotep II (PM II(2): 71); and a bark-shrine of Tuthmosis IV (PM II(2): 71 – 72). 766
776
Adapted from Weiner and Allen 1998: 6. Translation adapted from Weiner and Allen 1998: 6. 778 Weiner and Allen have linked the description of the storm with similar events in modern times when major downfalls have occurred in Upper Egypt and even affected Cairo (Weiner and Allen 1998: 18). By looking at the words used to detail the destruction of the tombs and temples, they have shown that the tombs were destroyed by human hands, probably as a result of battling the Hyksos, and the temples had simply been neglected (Weiner and Allen 1998: 20). This has led them to the conclusion that both temples and tombs were in a state of ruin before the storm, the god’s demanded cult service, and created a storm to get the king’s attention which ended up being more powerful than they had intended. The gods thus remind the king, as is noted in the passage quoted above, of his need to restore the temples and tombs. Weiner and Allen thus see the storm as an actual event, but one which 777
41
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty onto stelae found at Buhen (Wadi Halfa),788 Kuban,789 and Aswan.790 However, the exact original context of these monuments is unknown, only the find spots. The text reads:
command recorded is a direct result of the king wanting to put Egypt back in order. Ahmose is presented as interpreting the storm as a sign from the gods that the temples and tombs of Egypt had been neglected; it may thus be a rationalisation for the powerful storm that hit Egypt.779 However, the stele was not erected to record the catastrophic storm, but to record the king’s reaction to it.780 The royal command was thus inspired by divine intervention in the life of the king.
A royal command to the King’ Son, imy-rA xAswt rsyt twri Overseer of Southern Lands, Turi. mk in.n.tw [wD] pn n nsw Look, this [decree] of the king was brought r rdit rx=k to cause you to know ntt Hm=i a.w.s. xa that My Person l.p.h. has appeared m nsw bity as King of Upper and Lower Egypt Hr st Hr nt anxw on the Horus throne of the living. nn wHmty=fy Dt There will never be the like again. ir nxbt=i m Make my titulary as follows: Hr kA-nxt mry-mAat Horus: Kanakht Merymaat, nbty xa-m-nsrt aA-pHty Two Ladies: Khaemneseret Aapehty, Hr-nbw Golden Horus: nfr-rnpwt sanx-ibw Neferrenput Sankhibu, nsw bity aA-xpr-kA-ra King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Aakheperre, sA ra DHwty-ms Son of Ra: Tuthmosis, anx Dt r nHH living for ever and ever. ix dd=k Therefore, you shall cause di.tw mAa Htp-nTr divine offerings to be presented n nTrw tp rsy Abw to the gods of the head of the south, Elephantine; m irt Hsswt Hry-tp a.w.s. in doing what is favoured, on behalf of the l.p.h., nsw bity of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, aA-xpr-kA-ra di anx Aakheperkare, given life. ix dd=k di.tw mn anx Therefore, you shall cause the oath791 m rn n Hm=i to be established in the name of My Person, a.w.s l.p.h., ms.n mwt-nsw born of the King’s Mother sn=i-snb Seniseneb, snb.ti may she be healthy. hAb pw r rdit rx=k st It is a communication to cause you to know it, ntt pr-nsw aD wDA that the King’s House is safe and well. [spXr im] rnpt-sp 1 [Registered in] year 1, Abd 3 prt sw 21 third month of Peret, day 21, wD-nsw n sA-nsw
The stele records for eternity Ahmose’s work for the gods and thus his right to rule as king of a united Egypt. The actual decree as recorded is very general, it affects every temple that had fallen to ruin in Egypt. Such an operation will have come at extreme cost. It is probable that a number of decrees were issued naming the specific temples to be renovated and that the decree as recorded in the Storm Stele is a simplification of events. 3.2.3. Inscription of an Un-Named King’s Son of Kush781 (Amenhotep I) This private inscription comes from a fragmentary biography inscribed on the façade of the temple at Semna.782 The courtier describes an occasion on which the king rewarded him for the second time: [wD.n=f] rdit n nbw SAb nbw awaw 2 mxtbt […] […] [sTn.n]=f wi r srw aH
[He commanded] the giving of gold, necklaces(?),783 gold - 2 rings, and an ornament […] […] he [honoured] me more than the (other) officials of the palace.784
The purpose of this text was to record (and emphasise) that the courtier’s reward was greater than that of his contemporaries; the reference to royal command links the courtier with the king and shows his personal connection. However, as the command is a restoration this evidence should be treated with caution. Caminos does not attempt to reconstruct the lacuna as Sethe had done, and there appears to be no trace of wD on the temple wall.785 3.2.4. Titulary Announcement (Tuthmosis I) A royal decree was sent from Tuthmosis I to inform the Viceroy of Kush, Turi,786 of his full titulary787 following his accession to the throne. This decree was then copied
was interpreted by the Egyptians as a manifestation of the gods (Weiner and Allen 1998: 21). 779 Weiner and Allen 1998: 21. 780 Weiner and Allen 1998: 21. 781 The King’s Son of Kush in question could be Nehy, Turi or Seni, although Caminos cites Seni as the most credible identification with caution (Caminos 1998: 31). 782 See Caminos 1998: 27 – 31, fig. 19. 783 Following Caminos 1998: 29 note for column 8. 784 Urk IV 41, 1 – 2. 785 Caminos 1998:28, pl. 19. 786 Details of Turi’s career can be found in Habachi 1959; 1961: 210 – 214. 787 On royal titulary see Bonhême 1978.
788 Cairo CG 34006 and Buhen ST 9, see Klug 2002: 66 – 70, 504 for references. For the text see Urk IV 79, 5 – 81, 8. Translations in Wente 1990: 27; Beylage 2002: 413 – 415. 789 Berlin 13725, see Klug 2002: 65, 503 for references. PM VII: 84. 790 Urk IV 79. 791 For oaths in Egypt see Wilson 1948.
42
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence hrw n Hb n xaw
the day of the festival of coronation.792
rnpt sp 3 Abd 1 Smw sp 22 xr Hm n nsw bity
As a standard circular letter made to inform relevant courtiers of information they needed to know, this decree is presented in the first person as written by the king using phraseology common to letters.793 This formulaic presentation, lacking in individual personality, suggests that it could have been written by the king himself, dictated by the king, or written by a scribe with no input by the king. No setting is explicitly provided for the location or event at which the king made the decree, although it was likely made during the king’s coronation ceremony.794 As a stone copy of an administrative document795 this was not inscribed to benefit Turi,796 rather it was likely his duty to publicise the decree in a durable form797 - he is the ‘executant’ of the decree.798 As such this is a form of indirect command to a wider audience; the king commands Turi who must ensure that others receive the command.
aA-xpr-kA-ra di anx wD Hm=f Sad mr pn m-xt gmt=f sw [DbA] m inrw n sqd.[n dpt Hr=f xd].n=f Hr=f ib=f [Aw smA.n=f xftw=f] sA-nsw [tw-r]
Years 3, Month 1 of Shemu, day 22, under the Person of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperkare, given life. His Person commanded to dig out this canal after he found it [stopped up] with stones, (so) no [ship] could sail [upon it.] He sailed [downstream] upon it, his heart [joyous having killed his enemies.] The King’s Son [Turi].802
A virtually identical text from the reign of Tuthmosis III was also found here.803 Both are similar to a text made under Senwosret III at the site.804
There are two interpretations regarded the purpose of this decree. Firstly, it is possible that it was made in order for the royal titulary to be known by local officials for the oath, done in the king’s name, during legal hearings. Another interpretation is that the oath referred to is one of loyalty to the crown upon the accession of the new king. It is possible that when a king died the relationship between the crown and courtiers ended, and that the courtiers then had to swear allegiance to the new king upon his accession. Turi may have placed this decree on stone so that further courtiers under his authority could take the oath of allegiance themselves, perhaps under his own supervision. This would also explain why multiple copies were needed.
3.2.6. The Abydos Stele805 (Tuthmosis I) Mariette records that this stele was found on the road to the portal of Ramesses II at Abydos.806 Excavations in this area suggest that it was the location of the enclosure wall of the Osiris temple,807 northwest of the portal temple. The wall is, however, from a later period than the stele which suggests that the stele was not originally from this exact location, but from an area more associated with the building activity of Tuthmosis I.808 The specific original context can therefore not be ascertained with any certainty. The opening of the text is lost, but it is likely that a date was given, followed by a description of a royal sitting (Hmst nsw)809 as setting. The surviving text begins with an address of the priests in praise of the king in which they make statements in reference to the king’s ability to command. First, the priests state that Osiris created the king so that the king would do what the god once did on earth.810 They later state:
3.2.5. Sehel inscription of Turi (Tuthmosis I) This rock inscription at Sehel, on the south eastern bank of the island,799 was made during the king’s return journey from a campaign in Nubia.800 There are a large number of royal and private inscriptions here, dating from the 6th Dynasty to the 20th Dynasty.801 It is a large rocky area at the south eastern side of the island.
802
Urk IV 89, 10 – 90, 8. See 3.2.22. below for comments. 804 PM V: 250; Wilbour 1890: 202; De Morgan et al 1984: 86 (20). 805 Cairo CG 34007. For the text see Urk IV 94, 10 – 103, 4; Klug 2002: 59 – 64; PM V: 44; Beylage 2002: 11 – 20; Mariette 1880a: 376 no.1048. 806 Mariette 1880: 54. PM V: 44. For the ‘portal’ temple see Silverman 1988: 270 – 277. 807 For this temple see Kemp 1968: 138 – 155. 808 Klug 2002: 59. 809 The text conforms to the Hmst-nsw (‘Sittings of the King’) genre in which a formal royal audience is described. Typically a date and setting is provided followed by an announcement of the king. The courts’ adulatory response follows. Generally, there is no discussion between court and king, the latter simply states what is to be done. Redford has argued that this form of royal self presentation is related to private biographical statements. The king promotes his right action for his people and gods, just as courtiers show their worthiness for funerary offerings in their tomb inscriptions. For a general discussion of this genre and examples from the reign of Tuthmosis III see Redford 2003: 101 – 151. 810 Urk IV 96, 1 – 3. 803
792
Urk IV 80, 7 – 81, 4. 793 It refers to the palace being safe and well, it is a communication/ command sent ‘in order that you should know’ – similar phrases are used in letters from the Middle Kingdom, Lahun papyri for example. Also in the 18th Dynasty – for an overview of such letters see Wente 1990. 794 This is suggested by the date within the document itself. The coronation accounts of both Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III also describe the king as having his titulary set during these occasions. 795 Klug suggests that it was originally sent to Turi in hieratic (Klug 2002: 69), as was typical of administrative documents. 796 For example, by showing Turi’s connection to the king. 797 Make reference to the Coptos decrees, especially the one that states the decree must be copied onto stone and displayed. Although no such stipulation is included here, it may simply have become normal procedure by this period. 798 Bonhême 1978: 354. 799 PM V: 250; Wilbour 1890: 202; De Morgan et al 1894: 85 (13). 800 Similar graffiti referring to this campaign is also found nearby, see section 5.4.1. in Chapter Five. 801 See De Morgan et al 1894: 75 – 103.
43
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty SA xpr wD ir.tw
Ordain and it happens! Command and it is done!811
irt=sn
The text consists of two major sections: the first has the king relating his command to the Chancellor and the successful completion of the task, the second consists of generic praise for the king and elements of private tomb autobiography.
Tuthmosis then makes a speech: wD Hm=f n imy-rA xtmt xrp kAwt m rdit Sm […] spd nb n smdwt=f tpy n wnwt=f rx tp-rd SsA m rxt.n=f iwty thh=f rdiwt m Hr=f [ir] mnw [n] it=f [Asir]
His Person commanded the Chancellor: “Direct the work in causing to go […] every skilled one of his workmen, the best of the priesthood, who know the instructions, and are conversant with what he knows, and who do not disobey what is ‘placed in his face’.” A monument [was made] for his father [Osiris].812
The command is recorded in order to show that Tuthmosis was acting as a true king for the benefit of Osiris. As such it is possible that the decree is entirely fictitious. However, it is possible that the scribe commissioned with composing the inscription used a royal decree given to the Chancellor to initiate the work as the main source for the inscription. The royal audience need not be considered factual as scribes commonly added a setting to administrative documents.817 There is no explicit evidence that the king was present at Abydos when making his command or his address to the priests; both could simply have been sent by messenger (or with the Chancellor) to the priesthood of Abydos.
The scribe then describes that the royal command was fulfilled. Further commands follow: iw grt [w]D.n Hm[=i] mst psDt aAt imy AbDw
3.2.7. Aswan Philae Stele (Tuthmosis II) The Aswan Philae stele818 of Tuthmosis II is a rock cut inscription found on the east side of the ancient road between these two locations, facing east,819 roughly 1500m away from Aswan itself.820 The text describes an occasion on which the king sent the army to stop a rebellion in Nubia.
Moreover, [My] Person [com]manded to shape (the statues of) the Great Ennead who are in Abydos.813
A list of different gods then follows, followed by the king’s reason for making these commands:
Following information presented to him by a courtier the king makes an oath in the palace (aH) stating that no Nubian male will be left alive. Later in the text this royal oath is interpreted as a royal wD:
My Person did this for my father Osiris n aAt n mrr=i sw on account of my loving him r nTrw nbw more than all (other) gods, n mrwt on account of the desire that mn rn=i my name be established, rwD mnw=i and my monuments be enduring m pr it=i in the house of my father, Asir xnty-imnty nb AbDw Osiris Khentyimntu, the Lord of Abydos nHH Hna Dt for ever and ever.814 ir.n Hm=i nn n it=i Asir
wn.in mSa pn n Hm=f and so this army of His Person Hr sxrt nn xAstyw felled these foreigners. [n] di=sn A anx m TAyw=sn Indeed, they did [not] leave any one alive among their males, mi wDwt n nbt Hm=f according to all that His Person commanded.821 The hieroglyphs are most irregular and badly engraved. De Morgan notes that the stele is so high that it is difficult to read the hieroglyphs on its surface.822 Other rock cut royal stelae are grouped closely together here823 – one cut under Ramesses II, and two dating to the reign of Amenhotep III. Clearly this was a site of importance
A plea that the king’s name be remembered, that his monuments endure and that offerings be made to him follows. This is comparable to the mortuary appeal to the living found inscribed in the tombs of courtiers.815 A list of the king’s good deeds for the country and his universal achievement then follows; here the king states: di=i rx wabw
their duties.816
816
Urk IV 102, 5. The letter sent to Usersatet by Amenhotep II had a setting added to it when inscribed on a stele (Urk IV 1343, 11; Amarna Letter EA 29 has a hieratic note beside the cuneiform text stating that the king was in the Southern City and providing a date (Urk IV 1995, 17 – 20). On the importance of the setting see Spalinger 1982: 104 – 114. 818 Urk IV 137 – 141; PM V: 245; Lorton 1990; Beylage 2002: 21 – 27; Klug 2002: 83 – 87. 819 Klug 2002: 83. See Delia 1993: 83; see page 81 map IV for the location. 820 de Morgan et al 1894: 3. 821 Urk IV 140, 9 – 11. 822 de Morgan et al 1894: 3. 823 See image before page 1 in de Morgan et al 1894. 817
I caused the Wab-priests to know
811
Urk IV 96, 14 – 15. Urk IV 97, 2 – 8. 813 Urk IV 99, 3. 814 Urk IV 100, 2 – 7. 815 See Urk IV 100, 10 – 101, 13 for example. 812
44
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence for advertising royal activity. De Morgan states that the ancient road was the route taken by the Egyptian army en route to Nubia.824 In this context the inscriptions likely reflected the Egyptians’ power and dominance over Nubia at the border. As the stelae were difficult to read it must have been their presence more so than their specific content that was important. Seidlmayer has argued that such clusters of rock cut inscriptions were important points in ritual procession.825 The location of the Aswan Philae stele may have played a role in such ritual activity; however, the militaristic theme of the texts might suggest a ritual location for the troops during the march into Nubia rather than a spot at which an important event involving the statue of a god occurred. It may have been an important location to inspire the troops with the divine authority of the king and his dominance over all lands.
xpr.n n bAw Hmt=s
Senenmut records his fulfilment of a royal command; a success which he attributes to the ‘divine power’ (bAw) of Hatshepsut. This evidence is quite marginal as it does not explicitly state that Hatshepsut made the command, but relates it to her powers. 3.2.10. The Donation Stele of Senenmut (Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III) Senenmut’s Donation Stele834 from north Karnak, was found in situ against the rear wall of the most western of three small mud brick chapels west of the Mut enclosure, north of the gate of Tuthmosis I.835 It is not clear why the stele was erected here, but it records a royal decision that relates to an endowment to the temple. The stele is dated to Year 4,836 month 1 of Shemu, day 16.
3.2.8. The Overseer of the Granary of Amun Ineni (Hatshepsut) In his autobiography inscribed on a rock cut stele on the south wall of the transverse hall of his tomb at Thebes,826 Ineni makes reference to the power of Hatshepsut’s command: nbt wD-mdw mnxt sxrw=s Hrrt idbwy xft mdw=s
Command announced in regard to the Temple of Amun m hrw pn m [Hst] mrwt on this day in [favour] and love. wD Hm=i My Person commands ir.tw spr that the petition be carried out/granted nt imy-rA pr n imn of the Steward of Amun sn-n-mwt Senenmut, xft spr nsw Ds=f at the (very) time of petitioning the king himself.837 imi wD[.tw n bAk i]m Cause to be commanded, [for the servant th]ere,838 ir.t(w) imyt-pr Hr-xrt[=i] the making of a property transfer839 concerning [my] possessions, [Dr]-ntt irw [sin]ce it has been done m wsxt n nsw in the court of the king Hr-tp a.w.s. on behalf of the l.p.h. nsw-bity of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, mn-xpr-ra a.w.s. Menkheperre, l.p.h. iw pAy=i nb m rdit My Lord allows (it) [m]n r nHH to be [establ]ished for eternity. A long list of endowments follows.840 wD Aw r Hwt-nTr n imn
Lady of Commands, whose plans are excellent. By whose words the Two Banks are made content.827
Another example of wD is found in the autobiography of Ineni, but the detail of the text is lost.828 3.2.9. Aswan Inscription of Senenmut (Hatshepsut) Three of Senenmut’s monuments record explicit royal commands. The first of these to be presented is a rock cut inscription829 found on the west side of the ancient road between Mahatta (north of Philae) and Aswan. It is one of many rock cut inscriptions along this route.830 Senenmut records that he erected two obelisks at the command of Hatshepsut: iit … r stt kAt Hr txnwy wrwy nw HH xpr.in mi wDdt r xt nb
It happened because of the bAw832 of Her Person.833
Coming … in order to inspect(?)831 the work on the two great obelisks of (the festival of) millions (of years). It then happened according to what was commanded in relation to everything
The main speaker here is the king who issues a command to the Temple of Amun giving his permission for 832
See Borghouts 1982 for a discussion of the meaning of bAw. Urk IV 396, 14, 397, 1 – 3; Habachi 1957: 94 fig. 3, 95. 834 PM II(2): 17; Christophe 1951: pls. xiv (12), xv and pages 86 – 89; Dorman 2006: 44 – 45; Helck 1960; Dorman 1988: 29 – 31. 835 Christophe 1951: 85 – 86; Helck 1960: 23. 836 This date has been the subject of considerable debate; see Dorman 1988: 29 – 31 for a summary and references. 837 Following Dorman 2006: 44. Regarding this sentence Dorman states, ‘the import of this phrase is that the king did not hesitate for a moment in granting the wish.’ (Dorman 2006: 62 n. 38). 838 Senenmut himself. 839 For a recent discussion of imyt-pr see Logan 2000. 840 Helck 1975: 122 – 127; Helck 1960; Dorman 1988: 29 – 31; 2006: 44 – 45. 833
824
de Morgan et al 1894: 2 – 3. Seidlmeyer 2002. 826 TT 81, Dziobek 1992: 44, fig. 21; PM I(2): 159, see no. 2 on plan of TT 81 on p. 160. 827 Urk IV 60, 9 – 11; Dziobek 1992: 52, 54. 828 Urk IV 54, 6. 829 See Habachi 1957a: 94, fig. 3; PM V: 248; Urk IV: 396 – 397; de Morgan et al 1894: 41 (181). 830 de Morgan et al 1894: 29. 831 The symbol copied as stt by Sethe (Urk IV 397, 1) could possibly be taken as wbA ‘to open’ in the epigraphy shown by Habachi 1957: 94 fig. 3. In either case the meaning is clear. 825
45
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Senenmut to endow land to the temple. The land in question was given to Senenmut by the king as a gift (m fqAw), or more likely assigned to him as property, when Tuthmosis III was young (an inpw). However, as it was technically still owned by the king Senenmut’s transfer required royal permission.841 Seemingly, the petition was passed instantly. There is thus the implication that such decisions were not normally taken this quickly, otherwise there would be no significance to the statement.842
xft-Hr n tA r-Dr=f
It is possible that this is a reference to the measuring of the goods from Punt. Djehuty also makes a later reference to being ‘excellent of plans that are commanded to him’,848 but does not specifically mention the king as being the one who makes the commands. The same inscription also provides an example of the king commanding an appointment be made:
3.2.11. Berlin Statue of Senenmut (Hatshepsut) Berlin statue 2296843 is recorded by Lepsius as coming from a niche in TT 71 – one of the two tombs of Senenmut - but is likely from Karnak.844 The text states that Senenmut acted as Chief of Chiefs, Overseer of Overseers of Work: iw=i m tA pn Xr wD=f Dr xprt mni tp awy=f iw=i m anx xr nbt tAwy nsw bity mAat-ka-ra
wD Hm=f rdit=i r Sntw
when I was in this land under his command, since the death of his predecessor, I being in life under the mistress of the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Maatkare.845
A command of the Person of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt aA-xpr-n-ra di anx […] Aakheperenre,852 given life […] […] rwdt […] hard m aAt nb Spss in every dignified costly stone rdi Smswt nTrw and put the followers of the gods, imn-ra nb nswt tAwy […] Amun-Ra, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands […]853 wD Hmt n nsw bity
3.2.12. The Overseer of the Treasury Djehuty (Hatshepsut) Djehuty’s biographical stele846 was cut into the rock on the north eastern wall of the courtyard of his Theban tomb (TT 11), to the right of the entrance. The reference to wD reads:
m Dam n tpw xAswt m-Xnw wsxt Hbt xA m HqAt [n imn]
His Person commanded my placing as policeman.849
3.2.13. The High Priest of Amun Hapuseneb (Hatshepsut) A granite statue found in Karnak, but now in the Louvre,850 is said to have been given to Hapuseneb as a favour of the king.851 No specific original provenance appears to have been recorded. Hapuseneb records that:
Royal command is used here to portray Senenmut as a loyal courtier to the gods and to potential vistors who had access to the statue within the temple.
wD Hm=f irt […]
in the presence of the whole land.847
The broken command appears to have recorded a commission to Hapuseneb to build something for AmunRa. The statue was likely given to Hapuseneb as reward for the fulfilment of this royal command.854 Hapuseneb’s good character is displayed to the gods through his service to the king and the rewards given to him. The command is only recorded as part of this presentation of good character. A further broken command follows later in the text, but little can be gleaned about its content.855
His Person commanded to make […] in electrum from the best of the foreign lands, within the festival hall, measured by the Hekat [for Amun]
3.2.14. Inscriptions at Deir el-Bahri (Hatshepsut) 3.2.14.1. The Punt Reliefs This royal inscription is inscribed on the wall at the southern half of the middle colonnade of the Mortuary
841
Helck 1960: 32. Senenmut was also given permission to inscribe his name on the walls of the temple at Deir el-Bahri and in any temple in Egypt. This inscription is found on both sides of the doorway leading into the northwest Hall of Offerings at Deir el-Bahri (see Hayes 1957: 80 - 84, with p. 83 and 85 for figs. 2 and 3 of the inscription respectively). This permission is not expressed as a royal command; rather it is given as royal favour as said by the king (Hayes 1957: 84 n. 3). 843 Urk IV 403, 14 – 406, 17. Although Chicago 173800 has a similar text, the reference to royal command is not found on that statue. 844 LD III: 25 (h - m), Text, III: 259; PM II(2): 280. 845 Urk IV 405, 5 – 9. 846 For the tomb see PM I(2), 21 – 24; for the stele see PM I(2): 22 (5). It is commonly referred to as the ‘Northampton stele’ after the Marquis of Northampton who opened the tomb in the late 19th Century; see Northampton, Spiegelberg & Newberry 1908: pl. I. 842
847
Urk IV 429, 9 – 12. Urk IV 424, 14. 849 Urk IV 436, 3. A Sntw is the closest title we have to what would be a real policeman (Guillemette 1980: 1068 – 1071). 850 Statue A 134, see Delvaux 1988 with further references; PM II(2): 290; Urk IV 471 – 478; Newberry 1900: 31 – 36. 851 Urk IV 471, 10. The text originally made reference to Hatshepsut, but has been changed to Tuthmosis II (PM 2(2): 290. 852 Hatshepsut’s cartouche has been replaced with that of Tuthmosis II. 853 Urk IV 471, 12 – 15. 854 The inscription relates that the statue was made as a favour of the king (Urk IV 471, 10). 855 Urk IV 473, 5. 848
46
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri.856 A royal audience is described, at which the formal announcement of the success of the expedition to Punt is made: rnpt-sp 9 xpr Hmst m DAdw nsw xa.t(i) m atf Hr st wr nt Dam m-Xnw Dsrw nw aH=f sTA srw smrw nw stp-sA r sDm sSm n wDt wD-nsw n Spsw=f it-nTrw smrw-nsw sHD=i nHH m Hrw=Tn m ntt mrt.n it=i
The text here is presented as a speech given by Hatshepsut to the assembled courtiers during a royal audience. It shows the hierarchy of command passing from god to king to courtiers, who themselves are ordered to verbally pass the command on to others. There is no indication that a discussion occurred with the courtiers; the command is simply given and must be carried out. Logistical discussions are not described. We are thus ignorant of the role the king played in planning the expedition.
Year 9, a sitting (of the king) happened in the audience hall, the king appeared in the Atef crown upon the great throne of electrum, within the seclusion of his palace. The officials and the companions of stp-sA were dragged in, in order to listen to the guidance of what was commanded. A royal command to his noblemen, God’s Fathers and Royal Companions: “I shine eternally in your faces through that which my father has desired.”857
3.2.14.2. Coronation Inscription (Hatshepsut) Within the description of Hatshepsut’s coronation, inscribed on the northern half of the middle colonnade at Deir el-Bahri,861 are further statements which laud the power of the king’s word. Thus, when Tuthmosis I announces Hatshepsut as his successor: He, His Person said before them: sAt(=i) pn “This my daughter, Xnmt-imn HAt-Spsst anx.ti Khnemet-Amun Hatshepsut, may she live. di=i [sy] m st=i I place [her] in my seat, tw is Hrt nst=i pw she is one who is upon my throne, swt Hm pw Hmst=s Assuredly, it is she who shall sit Hr xnd=i pw biA upon this my heavenly throne. wD=s mdw n rxyt She shall command to the people m st nbt nt aH from all places of the palace. swt Hm sSm=s Tn Assuredly, it is she who shall guide you; sDm=Tn mdw=s you shall hear her words, dmd=Tn Hr wDt=s and be united at her command.”862 sw Dd Hm=f xft=sn
A further command is found on the north wall of the middle colonnade:858 mTn rf wD.n Hmt=i sDsr ab nw ms=i saA m Dt [nTr-Ha SAt.n(=i) n=f]
Look, My Person commanded to consecrate offerings of the one who begat me increased in terms of the unguent [of the divine body which I have ordained for him].859
Tuthmosis I then extols Hatshepsut’s divinity before the assembled dignitaries:
This is later followed by: [iw grt wD.n] Hmt=i rdit m Hr r sbt r xt antyw wbA wAt=f Hry-tp Dt=f rx pXr=f snt mTnw=f xft wD it=i imn
“[Moreover,] My Person [commanded] a ‘placing in the face’ in order to send to the myrrh terraces, to explore its roads which are upon its body, to know (how to) traverse it, to open its roads. according to the command of my father, Amun.”860
Listening by the Royal Noblemen, saHw HAt rxyt the nobles, and the foremost of the people, wD-mdw tn nt sxnt nt saH to this command for the advancement of honour, n sAt=f for his daughter, nsw bity the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, mAat-kA-ra anx Dt Maatkare living eternally. sn.in=sn r tA r rdwy=f And so they were kissing the ground at his feet, xr mdw nsw im=sn when the royal word fell upon them.863 sDm in nsw Spsw
856 PM II(2): 347 (14, 15), see nos. 14 and 15 on Plan XXXV; Naville 1898: pls. LXXXIII (right), LXXXIV; Urk IV 341 – 348. 857 Urk IV 349, 10 – 350, 1. 858 Naville 1898: pls. LXXXV, LXXXVI; PM II: 118 (18 – 19); Urk IV 349 – 355. 859 Urk IV 351, 14 – 15. 860 Urk IV 352, 2 – 7.
861 Naville 1898: LX – LXIII; PM II (2): 348 (19), see no. 19 on Plan XXXV; Urk IV 255 – 262. 862 Urk IV 257, 5 – 13. 863 Urk IV 259, 1 – 5.
47
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Here the king’s authority over the officials is emphasised. A fictional command is then related, as made by Tuthmosis I:
[w]D.in Hm=f ir.tw
His Person commanded the Lector Priests to be brought, to proclaim her great names on receiving her honours of King of Upper and Lower Egypt along with the insertion in all works and seals.864
Xrtyw-nTr iswt imyw-rA kAt m xrpw […] [r int] biAtw xAswt m-a mwt=f Hwt-Hr nbt mafkt
wD Hm=f in.n.tw Xryw-Hbt r mAT rnw=s wrw nw Ssp saH=s nsw bity Hna wdw m kAt xtm nbt
DbA n sbt mSaw
The original version of the text was composed in the name of Hatshepsut, with a later virtually identical version made under Tuthmosis III. However, this need not mean that Tuthmosis III simply copied the inscription without good reason. It is likely that the text neatly describe his own royally decreed expedition to Sinai. In many cases the same inscription is employed when there is no obvious need for originality.872
Throughout her inscriptions Hatshepsut restates again and again the power of the royal word: n hD.n pr n r=i
Nothing fails that comes out from my mouth.865
And: aHa=Tn pw m anx imt r=i
It is your lifetime that is in my utterance.866
3.2.16. The Appointment of Useramun (Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III) This inscription, from the tomb of the Vizier Useramun,873 describes the appointment of this official in detail. Various different classes of courtiers enter to greet the king in the audience hall ([DAdw]) on the east side (of the Nile).874 After discussion with the courtiers it is decided that Useramun should be appointed to the position of vizier as staff of old age to his father. It is then stated that:
A final example reads: wD-mdw=k n rxyt
And so His Person commanded to be made the provisioning of a military expedition, stone-masons, sailors, overseers of work as directors […] [in order to bring] the marvels of the foreigns lands from his mother, Hathor, Lady of Turquoise.871
You command to the common people.867
Although making frequent reference to royal command, this text is ultimately fictional; the aim was to portray Hatshepsut as a legitimate king, as one of an uninterrupted line of legitimate kings.868 She is presented as commanding all people; her words are guidance which never fails. The purpose of the courtiers is to listen and perform her wishes.
[iw rdi.tw] n=f wDw m aH The decree875 [was given] to him in the palace sar.tw smi=f x[f]t-Hr and his report was presented in the presence.876
3.2.15. Two Inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim (Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III) A large inscribed block from the reign of Tuthmosis III relates an expedition commanded by the king to Sinai. It was probably from one of the walls in the Temple of Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim in Sinai. No more specific provenance is known as it was found broken in the Hall of Sopdu869 within the temple. It has a close resemblance to a text of Hatshepsut, on the north (interior) wall of the Hall of Sopdu in the same temple,870 although the version of Tuthmosis III is better preserved. Due to its better preservation the version of Tuthmosis III is translated here.
3.2.17. Nomination of Tuthmosis III to the Throne (Tuthmosis III) This royal inscription is found on the southern exterior wall of the rooms surrounding the granite sanctuary at Karnak.877 This area was built in the vicinity of the shrine of Amun and was thus likely inaccessible to the majority of temple visitors/staff. However, as it was on the exterior wall, accessibility may have been exclusive but not absolutely restricted.
871
Gardiner-Peet-Černy 1955: pl. 61 no. 200. The canal inscriptions at Sehel (see 3.2.5. and 3.2.22.) are found written in a virtually identical fashion three times. Similarly there are four virtually identical versions of a text describing the opening of the quarry at Tura (see discussions 3.2.43. and 3.2.49.). 873 TT 131, published by Dziobek 1998; PM I(2): 245 - 247. The appointment scene is found on the south eastern wall of the transverse hall, see Urk IV 1380, 8 – 1384, 20; Dziobek 1998: 3 – 15, pl. 1; PM I(2): 246 (8). 874 Urk IV 1380, 12. 875 A roll determinative is clearly visible, showing that ‘decree’ is a more appropriate translation than ‘command’. 876 Dziobek 1998: 14, pl. 1; Urk IV 1382, 13 – 14. 877 See PM II(2): 106 (328), see 328 on Plan XII(1). 872
864
Urk IV 261, 2 – 5. Urk IV 351, 6. 866 Urk IV 351, 10. Breasted suggests this latter phrase implies that the Queen’s commands controlled the courtiers’ lives (Breasted 1906:121). 867 Urk IV 292, 5. 868 Kemp 1989: 200. 869 Gardiner-Peet-Černy 1955: 162 (no. 200), pl. 61. 870 Gardiner-Peet-Černy 1955: 153 (no. 182), pl. 56. Both texts are also published by Helck 1975: 116 – 120. 865
48
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.889 The commands recorded are incidental to the overall purpose of the text, which was to portray Tuthmosis III as a legitmate king, selected and aided by the gods.
Sethe reconstructed the fragmentary introduction to the text in which a sitting of the king is described; a royal command is found here, but the detail is lost.878 In the better preserved body of the text the the king recalls how he had been a youth in the temple before his promotion to priest (Hm-nTr)879 and that he held the position of ‘Pillar of his Mother’.880 During a ceremony in which the god processed around the hall Tuthmosis found himself at the ‘station of the king’;881 Tuthmosis was then crowned. A number of good deeds the king performed for Amun is then recounted:
3.2.18. Seventh Pylon Inscription (Tuthmosis III) The seventh pylon at Karnak was built by Tuthmosis III and is located on the axis facing Luxor Temple.890 An inscription above the doorway records construction work within the temple: wD Hm=f xws(t) inr
iry=i mnw=i smn=i [wD]=i r rd nt ipt-st n qmA wnnt nb ntt mn xt nbt nHH pw grt wnn im nn Tnt nt Hm=i r nTr
I made my monument I recorded my commands at the steps of Karnak for the creator of that which exists, the Lord of that which is, and establishing every thing. He is eternity, then, the one who is there There being no difference between My Person and a god.882
diw [m Hr n] […]
His Person commanded to build in stone. Placing [in the face to] […].891
The specifics of the text are unknown due to damage, but it is possible that the pylon itself is being referred to. A broken command follows later in the text.892 Generally, the text describes Tuthmosis’ victories and activities during his Levantine campaigns and the offerings he established for Amun following these successes: [iw] grt wD.n Hm=i wAH [Hbw] m-mAwt n it=i [imn]
The response of the court is then given. The narrative section of the text ends and is followed by a list of the new constructions made by the king for the temple. Further commands follow: the king commands divine offerings anew,883 to make an offering,884 and again to institute divine offerings anew.885
Moreover, My Person commanded to institute [festivals] anew for my father [Amun].893
A final broken command is reconstructed by Sethe,894 but there is not enough text remaining to understand the content. 3.2.19. Royal Statue at Karnak’s Eighth Pylon (Tuthmosis III) A colossus sitting to the west of the entrance of the south side of the 8th pylon at Karnak is still in situ.895 It was originally erected by Tuthmosis II, but bears an inscription of Tuthmosis III on the back which records a royal command:
Although this text is composed as a narrative, with an introduction framed as a sitting of the king886 and announcements to the assembled courtiers,887 the sections relating the commands are presented as a straightforward list. Regardless of whether ‘the sitting’ should be regarded as factual or not, it appears that the scribe who composed the text decided to simply list Tuthmosis’ constructions and endowments for the temple following the narrative section. Many of these are simply described as having been done by the king, some with added emphasis on his personal action: the king does not simply command the erection of the pylon, or chapels etc…, rather he is described as erecting them. Similarly, he is described as presenting the smaller objects to Amun, and even credited with having designed one of the objects himself under the divine guidance of Ptah.888 However, it is clear that a number of the constructions referred to in this text were in fact made during the joint rule of
[wD Hm=f snfr twt pn] […] [xft iwt]=f r niwt rsy m rnpt-sp 42 tpy Axt sw 22 […] n mrt wnn rn n it=f nTr nfr 889
878
[His Person commanded to make perfect896 this image] […] [when] he [came] to the Southern City in year 42, first month of Akhet, day 22 […] through the desire of causing that the name of his father the Good God,
Spalinger 1997: 274. PM II(2): 169 – 170 (498 c), see no. 498 on Plan XIV; Legrain 1902b: 274 – 279; 1903: pl. III; Urk IV 180, 7 – 191, 4. 891 Urk IV 183, 3. 892 Urk IV 185, 14. 893 Urk IV 187, 14. 894 Urk IV 190, 5. 895 PM II(2): 176 - 177 (O), for the exact location see O on Plan XIV. 896 For the word snfr see recent Laskowski 2006: 222 - 223. He argues that ‘making perfect’ is a reference to completion of the monument of a royal predecessor by a faithful son.
Urk IV 156, 15. Urk IV 157, 6 – 9. 880 Urk IV 157, 11. 881 Urk IV 159, 1. 882 Urk IV 164, 10 – 16. 883 Urk IV 170, 17. 884 Urk IV 171, 11. 885 Urk IV 172, 16. 886 See above. 887 Urk IV 156, 13 – 15. 888 Urk IV 173, 15 – 17.
890
879
49
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty aA-xpr-[kA]-ra mAa-[xrw] [mn] [wA]H [m pr-imn r nHH Hna Dt]
Aakheper[ka]re, justified shall be [established and endur]ing [in the House of Amun for ever and ever.]897
iw grt wD.n Hm=i wAH aAbt m-mAwt n it=i imn m ipt-swt …. iw grt wD.n Hm=i
The statue text is heavily reconstructed by Sethe. 3.2.20. Temple of Ptah at Karnak (Tuthmosis III) This royal stele (Cairo CG 34013, JE 34642)898 was found incorporated into the northern side of the fourth gate in the Temple of Ptah at Karnak alongside three further stelae of different rulers. This area may have been the outer limits of the temple under Tuthmosis III. As the gate dates to the reigns of Shabako and Tiberius899 this cannot have been its original context. However, it is more than likely that the stelae was originally placed close to this spot.900 The reference to command reads: wD Hm=i qd Hwt-nTr nt ptH rsy inb=f m wAst ntt m wAHyt nt it=i imn-ra nb nswt tAwy di [ib=f] im=s
wAH Htp-nTr m-mAwt n it[=i] ptH rsy inb=f m wAst
The text ends with the statement that the king commanded everything be done for the temple: [iw wD.n Hm]=i [My Person commanded] ir.tw irrwt nb m r-pr pn everything to be done in this temple be done m tA At in this instant. nfr pw mAa tkAw im It is a true beauty, the torch therein. in Hm=i ir m-mAwt […] It is My Person who built anew […].905
My Person commanded the building of the temple of Ptah, ‘South of His Wall’ in Thebes, which is in the domain of my father, Amun-Ra, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, putting [his heart] in it.901
The stele was erected in the temple itself, recording for eternity Tuthmosis’ good work for the temple and Ptah. There is emphasis on his personal involvement in the process - it is he who found the temple in ruin and resolves to repair it, it was ‘My Person’ who made the new doorways,906 and made the temple greater than before;907 however, there is no evidence that he performed the stretching of the rope ceremony himself, only that he commanded it be done.
The king then describes the ruinous condition he found the temple in before announcing rebuilding: ist gm.n Hm=i Hwt-nTr tn Now, My Person found this temple m qd m Dbt built in brick wxAw(=s) sbAwy=s its columns and doors were fallen to ruin. m xt wA r wAs902 wD Hm=i pD Ss My Person commanded the ‘stretching of the cord’ Hr Hwt-nTr m-mAwt on this temple anew, saHa.ti m inr HD nfr rwdt which was caused to be raised in fine hard stone.903
3.2.21. Dedication Text within the Temple of Ptah at Karnak (Tuthmosis III) A command relating to the construction of the Temple of Ptah at Karnak is also recorded on the north-eastern wall908 in the double columned hall within the temple itself: ist gm.n Hm=f r-pr pn
Further commands in the text state how Tuthmosis established new offerings for the temple of Ptah: iw wD.n Hm=i sDfA Htp=f m xt nb nfrt
Moreover, My Person commanded the establishment of divine offerings anew for my father Amun in Karnak. …. Moreover, My Person commanded the establishment of divine offerings anew for [my] father Ptah, ‘South of his Wall in Thebes’.904
m Dbt […] m sxt n imyw-HAt wD Hm=f irt n=f Hwt-nTr tn m inr rwdt smnx.ti m kAt Dt m srD mnw mnx
My Person commanded the provisioning of his offering table with every good thing.
897
Urk IV 606, 4 – 8. Urk IV 763, 12 – 772, 7; 604, 6 – 9; Legrain 1902; Beylage 2002: 451 – 463 (for CG 34013); Klug 2002: 137 – 145. PM II(2): 198 (6), for the exact location see no. 6 on Plan XVI.4. 899 PM II(2): 197. 900 Klug 2002: 137. 901 Urk IV 765, 7 – 9. 902 The ‘m’ owl present in the original text is due to scribal confusion with Dam (see Faulkner 1962: 55) 903 Urk IV 765, 12 – 15. 898
904
When His Person found this chapel in brick […] as a mould of what was before. His Person commanded to make this temple for him in hard stone, ennobled as a work of eternity, in erecting excellent monuments.909
Urk IV 767 16 – 768, 5; 769, 7 – 8. Urk IV 772, 4 – 7. Urk IV 765, 17. 907 Urk IV 766, 5 – 6. 908 PM II(2): 199 – 200 (15), for the exact location see no. 15 on Plan XVI.4. 909 Urk IV 879, 7 – 9. 905 906
50
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence stele will have been erected in the area of the south temple at which work from the reign of Tuthmosis III is known.916 The text records construction projects and endowments at the temple:
3.2.22. Sehel Inscription (Tuthmosis III) This inscription was left at the south eastern bank of the island of Sehel:910 Years 50, First (Month) of Shemu, hrw 22 day 22, xr Hm n under the Person of nsw bity the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, mn-xpr-ra di anx Menkheperre, given life. wD Hm=f Sad mr pn His Person commanded to dig out this canal m-xt gmt=f sw DbA after he found it stopped up m inrw with stones, n sqd n dpt Hr=f and no ship could sail upon it. xd.n=f Hr=f He sailed downstream upon it, ib=f Aw his heart joyous, smA.n=f xftw=f having killed his enemies. rn n mr pn The name of this canal is: wn tA wAt m nfrt mn-xpr-ra “Open the way in Perfection Menkheperre, di anx Dt given life eternally.” in nA n wHaw n Abw It is the fishermen of Elephantine Sd=sn mr pn Tnw rnpt who shall dig out this canal every year.”911 rnpt sp 50 tpy Smw
wD Hm=f mst […] […] [wTs-n]frw m Dam HD Hmt km
His Person commanded to form […] […] processional barque in electrum, silver and black copper.917
The detail of a later command is damaged: wD Hm=f […] [m-HAw] Hr aqw=f
His Person commanded […] [in excess] of his provisions (from before).918
A final command refers to the construction of the temple itself: [wD Hm=f] qd n=f Hwt-nTr m inr HD nfr n rwdt
[His Person commanded] the building of a temple for him in fine white hard stone.919
3.2.24. The High Priest of Osiris Nebwawy (Tuthmosis III) This private stele (EA 1199),920 of unknown provenance921 but likely from Abydos due to internal references, records the career of Nebwawy in detail. The text is of considerable interest as it weaves together instances of official appointment and royal command:
This is a virtually identical copy of an inscription left by the Viceroy of Kush Turi at Sehel under Tuthmosis I,912 which itself was a copy of an inscription dating to the reign of Senwosret III.913 The month and day are the same as that under Tuthmosis I, although this inscription adds an additional instruction to the local fishermen. Clearly, the canal had become blocked again by the time of Tuthmosis III, prompting the king to make an additional stipulation that it was to be cleared every year. The inscription would record this command for all travelling on the route to see. It is not stated how the fishermen would be punished if they did not follow the orders. This command was recorded here as a durable reminder of the king’s wishes.
iw ir.n=i iAt tpt m pr it(=f) Asir rdi.kw r r-Hry m r-prwy pn r idnw nw Hwt-nTr wD nsw Hr spr tp-im=i m Xrt nt ra nb iw [ir.n=i sA mr=f] m sSm n Hwt-nbw
3.2.23. Fragmentary Stele from Buhen (Tuthmosis III) This fragmentary stele was found at Buhen (EA 1021, CG 34014),914 but no more specific provenance is known. A fragment now in the British Museum is reported to have come from Wadi Halfa,915 while a fragment now in Cairo has no reported provenance. As Klug notes, a reference to Horus of Buhen in the text indicates that the
m sStA n nb AbDw ink abA [awy m sXkr nTr sm] wab Dbaw 916
I performed (my) first office in the temple of his father, Osiris, and I was placed to be Chief in this chapel, and to be deputy of the temple. A royal command came before me during the course of every day. [I acted as His Beloved Son] in the ritual of the Mansion of Gold, in the mysteries of the Lord of Abydos. I am the one who presents [arms in adorning the god, a Sem-priest] pure of fingers.
Klug 2002: 186. Urk IV 820, 1 – 2. 918 Urk IV 821, 3. 919 Urk IV 821, 9. 920 This stele is now in the British Musuem. Published by Frood 2003. Two further stele can be attributed to this Nebwawy, Cairo 34017 (Urk IV 1496) and Cario 34018 (Urk IV 1494 – 1495). Both are discussed by Frood 2003. The former stele is associated with the Nebwawy under discussion with some caution, see Frood 2003: 62 – 63. 921 Spiegelberg made a copy of the text in the shop of an antiquity dealer in Luxor. It was later purchased by the British Museum (Frood 2003: 59).
910
917
Wilbour 1890: 202 – 203; Urk IV 814, 10 – 815, 2; PM V: 251; De Morgan 1894: 85 (18). 911 Urk IV 814, 10 – 815, 2. 912 See 3.2.5. above. 913 PM V: 250; Wilbour 1890: 202; De Morgan et al 1984: 87 (39), 86 (20). 914 See Klug 2002: 515 for references, p. 186 – 190 for details and translation. Also see Caminos 1974: 11, and Beylage 2002: 465 – 467. 915 According to Budge who states that the fragment was given to the British Museum by Major-Gen Sir C. Holled Smith – see Budge 1909: 107; Klug 2002: 186.
51
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty iw=i m mH-ib n nTr nfr Hmt nbt […]=i iw xpr m-a=I
I was a confidant of the good god, every craft […] my […] It occurred because of me.922
nsw Ds=f wD-mdw irt m sSw xft Ddt nDwt-r nt sSmt mnw m Hrw-tpw tA
Nebwawy’s reference to a royal command coming before him every day is difficult to interpret. It would seem unlikely that his work at the temple would require a new directive to be sent each day. It is possible that a continually applicable royal decree is meant. Nebwawy states that he acted as the king’s ‘beloved son’ in the ritual activity at the temple immediately after his reference to royal decree. It is possible that this action required royal permission and thus necessitated a decree that would be applicable daily.
n Hn […]w iw931 Ab.n Hm=i irt mnw n it=i imn-ra m ipt-st saHa iwnn sDsr Axt
The king is recording that everything he did was according to the words of the oracle – thus the king is presented as having consulted the god, but not his courtiers. This event was so important that he commanded the words be inscribed on a stele. Subsequent statements emphasise that the king’s actions are in accord with the desire of Amun. The king then states that he found this part of the temple in bad condition and commanded to have it repaired; however, the specific reference to wD is restored:
3.2.25. Inscription from Heliopolis (Tuthmosis III) This royal stele (Berlin 1634), bought by Lepsius in 1843,923 has no specific provenance.924 Internal evidence suggests that it was erected in the temple of ReHorakhety at Heliopolis; Klug suggests that it was probably from the enclosure wall of the Re-Horakhety temple as it is the construction of this wall that is mentioned in the text.925 In year 47 of his reign: wD Hm=f pXr r-pr pn m sbty n wmtt m kAt rwd n it=f ra-Hr-Axty m Awt Dt xft swab iwn pr [ra] [ist gm.n Hm=f r-]pr pn wA r mrH
The king himself commanded to make in writing, according to what the consultation930 said when executing monuments before those who are upon the earth for […]s. My Person desired to make monuments for my father Amun-Ra in Karnak, causing to erect a sanctuary, sanctifying the horizon.932
His Person commanded the surrounding of this temple with a thick wall, as an enduring work for his father, Ra-Horakhety, in perpetuity, at the time of the purification of Heliopolis, and the house of [Re]. [Now, His Person found] this [te]mple fallen into a condition of decay.926
ist gm.n Hm=i Snw m Dbt Now, My Person found the enclosure in bricks, sAtw wAi r HA[p] inbw the soil having begun to cover the walls. [wD Hm=i] int sAtw=s r=s [My Person commanded] its soil be brought from it. wsx.n r-pr pn This temple was widened.933 The work on the temple is described, before the king commands the stretching of the cord: My Person commanded the preparing of the cord while awaiting the day of the new moon, r pD Ss Hr mnw pn in order to strech the cord on this monument m rnpt-sp 24 Abd 2 prt in year 24, month 2 of Peret, arqy last day of the month, hrw Hb mH hrw 10 n imn the day of the tenth day of the feast of Amun m ipt-swt in Karnak.934 wD Hm=i sspd Ss Hr sAwt hrw n psDntyw
3.2.26. Black Granite Stele from Karnak (Tuthmosis III) This royal stele927 was found in the north court behind the 6th pylon at Karnak, broken in five pieces928 among debris. This was likely not the stele’s original location according to Klug, although her arguments for why this is so are not convincing.929 The text reads: 922
Translation follows Frood 2003: 65; but also see Urk IV 208. LD, Text I, 6. 924 See Klug 2002: 106 for details and p. 508 for further references. The stele has been published by Radwan (1981), but he does not comment on the provenance of the object. 925 Klug 2002: 106. 926 Urk IV 832, 12 – 16. 927 CG 34012, JE 27491 and possibly JE 27491; Klug 2002: 121; PM II(2): 94, see room labelled VI behind the 6th pylon on Plan XI. For a detailed discussion see Beckerath 1981. Also see Beylage 2002: 87 – 97. 928 Beckerath 1981: 41; Klug 2002: 121. 929 Klug 2002: 121 n. 938. She suggests that the Black Granite stele and the Poetical Stele were erected together due to both referring to the construction of the Akh-Menu and the mention of biA of the god for the king. She then suggests that the stelae could have been originally 923
erected in situ where they were found, a room associated with the Annals hall, before the 4th Pylon, before the 6th Pylon, or before the 7th Pylon (Klug 2002: 111 – 119). Her arguments are based heavily on assumptions. Due to the lack of evidence it is best to assign the original place of erection as the find spot. 930 This is oracular consultation. 931 See von Beckerath 1981: 45 n. c. 932 Urk 833, 15 – 834, 3. 933 Urk IV 834, 14 – 17. 934 Urk IV 835, 17 – 836, 3. This passage has been the subject of a number of debates concerning the establishment of an absolute chronology, for a discussion of these issues with further references see Der Manuelian 1987: 7 – 10.
52
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence The god himself then intervenes and demands to stretch the cord himself.935
dd m Hr n […]
Beckerath argues that the text almost certainly refers to the construction of the ‘Festival Hall’ (Ax-mnw)936 of Tuthmosis III as the temple being built is described as in the east of the holy district, an area in which no king had built.937 It would seem that this identification is correct even though there is no reference to the Festival Hall by name in the text.
3.2.28. Royal Inscription at Temple of Dedwen (Tuthmosis III) On the exterior face of the east wall of the Temple of Dedwen at Semna944 a statement is recorded as having been made m Hm n stp-sA945 to the Viceroy of Kush Nehy to have the divine offerings of Senwosret III re-carved on the Temple of Dedwen. This statement is not explicitly linked to the king. However, later in the text, in relation to the divine offerings to be given, it is stated:
3.2.27. Inscription of Nehy at Semna (Hatshepsut or Tuthmosis III) This private inscription was found on the lower east corner of the façade of the temple of Dedwen at Semna.938 It reads:
wD.n st Hm=f Hr HAty-aw HkA Hwt nw tp rsy Abw
A royal command [‘placed] in the [face’ n sA-nsw imy-rA xAswt rsy of the King’s Son, Overseer of South Countries, nHy] Nehy] [r rdit Xn].tw inr [to cause] stone [to be conveyed] by water m […] from (?) […]939 […] 15 […] […] 15 […],940 r qd Hwt-nTr […] in order to build a temple […] [m-mA]wt (?) [ane]w(?), gm Hm=f r-[pr pn wA] His Person found [this sanctuary fallen] r wAs into ruin.941 iw wD-nsw [rdit] m [Hr
m HTri n Tnw trt r mn r wAH
pr Xr wDt
His Person commanded it on the mayors and district rulers of the head of the south,946 Elephantine, as a yearly tax to remain and endure.947
3.2.29. Inscription of Nehy at Sai (Tuthmosis III) An inscription found on a sandstone pillar on the island of Sai records a command given to Nehy: [iw wD.n Hm=f rdit m Hr [His Person commanded a ‘placing in the face’ n sA-nsw to the King’s Son, imy-rA xAswt] rsy nHy Overseer of] Southern [Countries] Nehy, qd Hwt-nTr m [...] to build the temple in […] mn[w] n SAat the moument[s] of Sai. aHa.n ir.n sA-nsw Then, the King’s Son, imy-rA xAsw[t rsy nHy] Overseer of [Southern] Countries [Nehy] made […] […].948
Although fragmentary the text appears to be describing a command from Tuthmosis III to his Viceroy of Kush Nehy to bring stone by water to repair a chapel/sanctuary that had fallen to ruin. This royal command was recorded by a private individual presumably to show his successful completion of a royal command before the god at the temple. The command was ‘placed in the face’ showing that the decree was delivered verbally to Nehy either by the king or one of his messengers. Nehy makes further reference to royal command in his biography on this temple wall:942 aq Hr smi
One who placed in the face of […]943
This inscription is heavily restored. 3.2.30. The Sai Pillar Stele (Tuthmosis III) Another inscription found on Sai island949 records a royal command commissioning a cult barque. It is a pillar stele, probably from the northern half of the fortress, close to where a door jamb inscribed with the name of the Viceroy of Kush Nehy was found.950 Vercoutter simply states that the pillar fragment and other 18th Dynasty objects were found in a higher stratum than the 18th Dynasty ‘Level A’;951 they were thus found out of their original context. Klug suggests the original provenance
[I was] one who entered because of a report and came bearing a command.
935
943
Urk IV 837, 3. For this building at Karnak see PM II(2) 110 – 127. 937 Beckerath 1981: 47. 938 See Caminos 1998: 38 - 40; pl. 22. 939 Sethe restores inr m [SAat] ‘stone from [Sai]’ (Urk IV 986, 5), while Caminos prefers to leave the lacuna unrestored (Caminos 1998: 38). 940 Here Sethe restores [m wsx] 15 ‘[in] 15 [barges]’ (Urk IV 986, 7). There is no way to test the validity of Sethe’s suggestion due to damage to the wall (Caminos 1998: 39). 941 Caminos 1998: 38 – 40, pl. 22; Urk IV 986, 5 – 10. 942 Near the north end of the exterior face of the east wall (Caminos 1998: 61 – 65, pls. 30 – 31).
Urk IV 988, 3 – 5; Caminos 1998: 62 – 63; pl. 30. Caminos 1998: 43 - 44, pl. 25; Dorman 1988: 192; Ratié 1979: 74 – 75; Dunham & Janssen 1960: 8 – 11; Urk IV 193, 13 – 196, 9. 945 For a discussion of this phrase see my forthcoming article ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘What was Said/Commanded m Hm n stp-sA’’. 946 For the questionable transcription of Sethe here, see Urk IV 196, 7; see comments of Caminos 1998: 47 with n. 2. 947 Caminos 1998: pl. 25; Urk IV 194, 1 – 6, 15; 196, 7 – 9. 948 Helck 1975: 130; Vercoutter 1956: 74 – 75, without restorations. 949 Vercoutter 1958: 156, pl. 46a; Klug 2002: 191. 950 Vercoutter 1958: 153, 154, fig. 7. 951 Vercoutter 1958: 155.
936
944
53
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty may have been temple A close to the place of discovery.952 The command reads:
[…] pA twt Hr Xnt n S […] [iw grt wD].n Hm=i
rnpt-sp 27 Abd 2 prt sw 8 Year 27, month 2 of Peret, day 8, xr Hm n under the Person of kA-nxt xa m wAst the Strong Bull, appearing in Thebes, nsw bity mn-xpr-ra King of Upper and Lower Egypt Menkhepere, sA ra DHwty-ms nfr-xprw the Son of Ra, Tuthmosis, Perfect of Forms, di anx given life. iw wD.n Hm=f His Person commanded mst pA sSmw n xw […] the fashioning of the cult barque […].953
tbt Hmw-nTr wabw nw fAyt […] […] […] pA sSm n xw […] [ir].n n=f Hm=i m-mAwt
In a broken part of the text it is possible that the king is described as commanding the giving of spoils of war to the temple.961 He may also be described as inspecting the spoils, although this equally unclear.962 A command referring to temple procedure is also made,963 but the detail is lost in lacuna. The text also includes a command that the crown prince be appointed into a position in the temple administration.964
The presence of the date here may indicate that the inscription is based on an actual decree document, but details are lacking. 3.2.31. The Festival Hall Inscriptions at Karnak (Tuthmosis III) This royal inscription was carved on the outer wall of the south side of the Festival Hall in Karnak;954 it is essentially a list of offerings for the temple, followed by a festival calendar. The text is presented as an audience with the king in year 23955 of the first month of Shemu, day 2, occurring in the audience hall (DAdw) on the east side (of the Nile) in the palace (aH).956 Tuthmosis describes how he found this part of Karnak in a state of deterioration and resolves to have it repaired. A brief yet fragmentary description of the battle of Megiddo is then made. A number of endowments follows, each beginning with ‘My Person commanded…’ First the king commands new festivals be instituted,957 followed by a command that the statue of Amun-Re be brought.958 An increase in divine offerings is then commanded for the different forms of Amun-Re.959 A statue is then commanded to be made as well as sandals for the priests: [iw grt] wD.n Hm=i di.tw iry [n=f twt iry m Ssp] r anx r nfrw Hm=i r Xnt m stA […] […]
[…] the statue for the water procession on the lake […] Moreover, My Person commanded sandals for the priests and Wabpriests of the portable shrines. […] […] the protected (from sight) statue […] which my Person had made for him anew.960
The text ends with an address to the priests: iw wD.n=i n Hmw-nTr irt nn SAt.n=i
I commanded the priests to do this which I ordained.965
Furthermore: in Hm=i [sm]n hpw mty […]
It is My Person [establish]es the exact laws […].966
who
The question remains as to whether this royal sitting should be regarded as a real event in which the king announced a series of commands to the assembled courtiers and officials, or whether it is a fictitious setting added to ‘personalise’ a series of royal decrees issued from the palace in the king’s name. Apart from the setting given at the start of the text, the description of the military campaigns, and the ‘teaching’ to the priests that ends the inscription, the presentation of the long series of decrees gives the impression of being ‘thrown together’, as if the scribe decided to include each decree with the minimum amount of information needed to convey the content of the decree. The narrative does not work as a cohesive record of an audience. As such, it is possible that an audience did occur on the date given, but that this inscription is not an accurate record of the content. It appears that a series of royal decrees were used as the
[Moreover], My Person commanded to have [a statue made for him], made as taken] from life, conforming to the beauty of My Person for the water procession and in dragging […] […]
952
Klug 2002: 191. Helck 1975: 133. Gardiner 1952; el-Sabban 2000: 22 – 31; Redford 2003:127 – 137 (who focuses on the military campaigns); Urk IV 1251, 1 – 1275; PM II(2): 126 (462), for the exact location see no. 462 on Plan XII.2. 955 Or possibly year 24, see Helck 1961: 16 n. 4. 956 Urk IV 1252, 11 – 12. 957 Urk IV 1255, 11. 958 Urk IV 1255, 13. 959 Urk IV 1256, 1; 1258, 7 - 9; 1261, 5, 10, 12; 1265, 2, 6, 15. 953 954
960
Urk IV 1257, 3 – 11. Urk IV 1258, 11. However, there is quite a large lacuna between the command and the reference to foreign lands. 962 Urk IV 1258, 20. 963 Urk IV 1262, 14 – 17. 964 Urk IV 1262, 1 – 2. See 1.2.14. 965 Urk IV 1270, 19. 966 Urk IV 1271, 14. 961
54
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence basis for a significant portion of the content of the inscription.
n mwt=i wADyt wAH=sn Htp-nTr
The inscription conforms to the same features of other calendars made by Tuthmosis III within Karnak temple.967 A figure of the king is depicted, the text of a speech is recorded, containing decrees for the offerings, followed by a calendar which takes the form of tabular lists.968 In the case of the Festival Hall calendar, the offerings appear to be a thanksgiving to Amun following the Megiddo campaign of Year 23. The offerings were to benefit the Festival Hall (Ax-mnw) alone, rather than Karnak Temple as a whole.969
m t Hnqt kA Apdw xt nbt nfrt m HAw wnt m-bAH
Having established the new festivals the king decrees that they be endowed with offerings. The festivals are then listed along with their dates and offerings to be used. 3.2.33. The Annals of Tuthmosis III at Karnak (Tuthmosis III) 3.2.33.1. Introductary and Endowment Texts The Annals of Tuthmosis III were inscribed on the walls surrounding the sanctuary of Amun at the Temple of Amun at Karnak.975 At the start of section 1 of the Annals, located on the northern wall of the corridor surrounding the sanctuary of Amun976 we are informed:
A further inscription found running above the doorways to rooms VII – XII in a corridor in the southern half of the Festival Hall970 records: wD Hm=f smnt rnw nw itw(=f) srwd pAt=sn mst aSm=sn m Dt=sn nb wAH n=sn nTr-Htp aA m-mAwt m-HAw wnt m-bAH
His Person commanded to have established the names of his (fore)fathers, to perpetuate their bread offerings to form their statues in all their bodies, to establish for them the great divine offerings anew, in excess of what was there before.971
wD Hm=f rdit smn.tw [nxtw rdi.n n=f it=f imn] [Hr] wD m Hwt-nTr ir.n Hm=f n [it(=f) imn n mrt rdit smn.tw]
3.2.32. The Buto Stele (Tuthmosis III) This royal stele is still in situ in the temple area (Tell B) at Buto.972 Although the earliest evidence at the temple dates to the reign of Tuthmosis III, the visible remains at the site all date to the Ramesside Period.973 The stele was found on a road which runs west to east and follows the southern limestone wall at the site. There is an opening in the wall at this point which may have been a room. The stele may have been erected here as it is close to the modern findspot. The stele is rough at the back and has a tongue at the bottom – both of which may indicate that the stele was embedded in the wall. After eight lines of introduction the inscription records a donation decree: iw wD.n Hm=i rdit ir.tw Hbw tp trw
for my mother, wADyt, endowing them with god’s offering(s) consisting of bread and beer, oxen and fowl, and every good thing in excess of what was previously.974
wDyt Hr rn=s Hna HAq i[n.n Hm=f im=s] bAk xAswt] nbt rdi.n n=f it=f ra
His Person commanded to have published [the victories which his father Amun gave to him] [as] a decree in the temple, which His Person made [for (his father) Amun, through the desire to have published] (each) campaign by name, together with the booty [which His Person] brou[ght back from there, and the taxes of] every [foreign land] which his father Re had given to him.977
The text focuses on the personal action of the king for the benefit of Amun and Re; no one else is presented as being involved in the decision. A further inscription, which introduces section 5 of the Annals, is located on the northern wall in the western Hall of Annals.978 It provides further detail:
My Person commanded to cause that festivals of tp trw be instituted
wD Hm=f rdit smn.tw nxtw
967 As well as the Festival Hall calendar discussed here, there is one found south of the granite sanctuary of Philip Arridaeus (el-Sabban 2000: 17 – 19); and another on the front face of the extension of the north wing of the 6th pylon (el-Sabban 1991: 20 – 22). For a comparison of the three see el-Sabban 2000: 30 – 31. 968 el-Sabban 2000: 31. 969 el-Sabban 2000: 31. 970 PM II(2): 114 (356), for the exact location see Plan XIII.2; Mariette 1875: pl. 32 (H). 971 Urk IV 607, 8 – 12. 972 See Klug 2002: 96 for more details. For the publication see Bedier 1994a; 1994b; Spalinger 1996. Also see Beylage 2002: 249 – 261. For the exact find spot see Mekkawy 1989: 191 – 216. 973 Klug 2002: 96.
rdi.n n=f it(=f) [imn] Hr sAt inr m Hwt-nTr ir.n Hm=f m-mAw [n it(=f) imn] […] 974
His Person commanded that the victories which his father [Amun] had given to him be established on a stone wall in the temple, which His Person made anew [for his father Amun] […],
Line 9; Bedier 1994a: 47, fig. 2. For the full Annals see PM II(2): 98 (282 II); 97 (280 and 281); 90 (245). For the exact location see Plan XII.1 nos. 245, 280 – 282. 976 PM II(2) (282 II), for the exact location see no. 282 on Plan XII.1. 977 Urk IV 647, 5 -9. 978 PM II(2): 89 (240), for the exact location see no. 240 on Plan XII.1 975
55
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty [mi wD]t n [nTr pn] D[s=f] x[ft smn.tw [w]Dyt Hr rn=s Hna HAq in.n Hm=f im=s
[according to] what [this god] hi[mself] had [comm]anded. Accordingly (each) campaign by name was established, with the booty that His Person had brought on it.979
m xA n t Sbn xA m-xt iit Hm=i Hr dr rTnw m wDyt tpt nt nxt
of
of
Amongst the further endowments recorded, another is expressed as a royal command:
This ‘declaration of the recording of the event’ is written horizontally above the main text.980 It thus acts as an introduction to the new section981 yet links it to that which precedes it. The two sections (1 and 5) may differ in style,982 yet both had the same overall purpose – a description of the king’s nxtw ‘victories’.983 Unlike the introduction to section 1 of the annals, here the scribe records that the king’s decision to have the Annals inscribed was at the command of Amun himself. The king is presented as the agent of the god’s will – the carving of the inscription was not the king’s decision.
iw wD.n Hm=i wAH irp hbnt aAt 5 […]
My Person commanded the endowment of 5 great jars of wine […].988
The purpose of the Annals was to record the victories that Amun gave to the king and the offerings the king made in return. 3.2.33.2. Commands from a Military Context (Tuthmosis III) Further examples of royal command are presented as taking place during the campaigns in the Annals:
The closing lines of section 6984 of the Annals again makes reference to a royal command to have the king’s victories inscribed on the temple wall:
[wD] Hm=f nDwt- r
ist wD.n Hm=f Now, His Person commanded smn.tw nxtw that the victories ir.n=f SA-a [m] rnpt sp 23 which he had made beginning [in] year 23 nfryt r rnpt-sp 42 down to year 42 be established; xft smn.tw wD pn when this stele was established Hr Hwt-nTr pn in this temple ir=f di anx Dt that he make “Given Life” eternally.985
Hna mSa=f n nxt
His Person commanded consultation with his army of victory.989
a
The decision is taken to march through the Aruna pass, at which point Tuthmosis is presented as commanding a speech to the entire army: [His Person commanded a ‘placing] in the face’ n mSa r-Dr=f to the entire army: n[Hm nb=Tn nxt nmtt=tn] “Your victorious Lord will gui[de] your steps [Hr] mTn pf nty wA r Hns [on] this road which becomes narrow.”990 [wD Hm=f rdit] m Hr
In this example it is the king alone who is presented as having commanded the Annals be inscribed. There is no reference to command of the gods, and no setting for the giving of the command.
Once the battle had been won, and the the enemy are besieged in Megiddo, the king makes a further command:
A record of a temple endowment is found inscribed on the interior wall (south side of the 6th pylon) of the vestibule at Karnak, just before the sanctuary.986 This example, from section 8 of the Annals records a royal command of endowment to the temple following a successful campaign: iw wD.n Hm=i qAb Htpw-nTr pn
consisting of thousands varied bread, after My Person returned from subduing Retjenu on the first campaign victory.987
[wn.in Hm=f Hr wDwt]-m[d]t n mSa=f m Dd mH=Tn i[qr sp 2 mSa=i] nxt
My Person commanded the doubling of these divine offerings
[And so His Person was commanding] to his army, saying: “Capture [well, capture well my] victorious [army].991
Although little detail is provided concerning the king’s personal role in subsequent campaigns, there is a single reference to royal command in the campaign of year 25: wD Hm=f r dit
979
Urk IV 684, 9 – 14. Lundh 2002: 95; Spalinger 1977: 41. This is the heading of a new section relating the wars of Tuthmosis III, known as Sections 5 – 6 (Spalinger 1977). It is almost identical to the beginning of the first campaign account. 982 See Spalinger 1977. 983 Spalinger 1977: 41. 984 PM II(2): 89 (240 – 244). 985 Urk IV 734, 13 – 16. 986 PM II(2): 90 (245), for the exact location see no. 245 on Plan XII. 980 981
987
Urk IV 745, 11 – 13. Urk IV 748, 17. 989 Urk IV 649, 4. 990 Urk IV 652, 2 – 4. 991 Urk IV 660, 4 – 5. 988
56
His Person cause
commanded
to
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence has he done?’ as it was plain for all to see. It is possible that Rekhmire is stating that when he had to deal harshly with prisoners, he had royal permission for his actions.
that [the people were] assembled […] […] […] [hb]hb mtnw […] to tread the roads nw tA [pn] of this land […] r Sdt=f n=i m b[nr]w […] to recite it for me ou[tsi]de.992 nwy[.tw rmT]
3.2.35. A ‘Health Decree’ (Tuthmosis III) A damaged papyrus document (P. Berlin 3049) is one of many documents that constitute a homogenous collection of administrative and religious texts dating to the 22nd Dynasty that most likely originated in the Theban area.1000 The document, however, attributes the decree to Tuthmosis III. Following the king’s titulary it reads:
Due to the fragmentary nature of the text, little can be gleaned from this example. A further reference to events during the 1st campaign of Tuthmosis III is found in Karnak Room III (east wall).993 As with other accounts there is reference to the enemy fleeing towards Megiddo, and the king making a circumvallation around them. The Asiatics then leave Megiddo requesting the breath of life from the king. The king then makes a command: aHa.n wD.n Hm=i rdi.t(w) n=sn TAw n anx […]
wD nsw Hr A royal command of the Horus wHm msw who repeats births, n sryw smrw mi qdnw=sn to the Officials and Companions in their totality, r irt hrr nTrw in order to do what satisfies the gods m tA pn in this land, r xw kmnw to protect the kmnw,1001 r dr sDb and in order to drive out hindrance r snfr mnt Haw and restore (cure) what is harmful to the body iyt=f when it is in harm, m-xt rf mA.n Hm=f (enacted) after His Person had seen nht a book of magical protection m[-hAw] Drtyw from the [time of] the ancestors. […] Hr Dw nmmH […] because of the suffering of the poor, […]=sn wn.in nsw […] […] And so the king […] [Dr]ytw those of the Dryt-chamber (priests)1002 Hr bs[=f Hr sx]rw initiate the plans tA pn […] […].in of this land. […] […] wab grt tA pn Hr mnt Moreover, this country will be purified of suffering Hr=s […] because of it […] [wn].in. Hm=f And so His Person Hr dwA nTr was praising god in his gateway m aryt=f mi […] in accord with […] […] pr-nsw m-xt rf mAA […]the palace after seeing […] […]1003
Then My Person commanded that the Breath of Life be given to them […]994
The account makes no reference to the Egyptian army, presenting all actions as that of the king alone against the Asiatics. Much of this text consists of an offering list.995 3.2.34. The Autobiography of Rekhmire (Tuthmosis III) In his autobiography,996 located on the west wall of the transverse hall of his Theban tomb,997 Rekhmire states: iw xn.n=i xn[r] […] [di.n=i] rx XAk-ib xr=f [bin] w[D] n nsw m Drt=i Hr smnx sxrw=f nn Dd wa r=i pw [ir.n=f]
I restrained prison[ers] (?) […] [I caused] the rebel to know of his [evil] fall; A decree of the king was in my hand, when efficiently executing his plans; no one said of me, “what has he done?”998
Gardiner interprets this section in the following way: ‘My acts were not attributed to me personally, but were recognised as the acts of my lord.’999 It was the king’s plan, and the vizier simply brought it to fruition. As Rekhmire was always active in his duties, performing the will of the king, no one had the opportunity to say ‘what
The end of the text is lost. It is more than probable that this is not the original record of the command, but a copy made as royal propaganda1004 kept in a temple archive.1005 The theme of the Pharaoh consulting ancient books is 1000 Vernus 1979: 176. Here can be found earlier references to the text. The papyri were bought by Lepsius in Luxor in 1845 (Sauneron 1953: 65). 1001 This text seems to involve the dispelling of illness specifically to protect the kmnw, a word that Vernus translates as ‘aveugles’, ‘blindmen’ (Vernus 1979: 177, 179 f). 1002 The priests of the Dryt-chamber were most likely involved with the hygiene of the country, which must mean they acted as some form of doctors (Vernus 1979:182 n). 1003 Vernus 1979: pl. I found at the end of the article. 1004 Vernus 1979:183. 1005 Vernus 1979:183.
992
Urk IV 677, 2 – 4. Redford 2003: 149 – 150; Urk IV 757 – 763; PM II(2): 88 (234). This text is heavily reconstructed by Sethe. 994 Urk IV 759, 15. 995 el-Sabban 2000: 21 – 22. 996 Published with comments by Gardiner 1925; with a revised and annotated translation by the same author in Davies 1943: 79 – 83; Urk IV 1071 – 1085. 997 TT 100 published by Davies 1943. Also see PM I(2): 206 – 214. 998 Lines 33 – 34, following Gardiner 1925: 73; also see Gardiner in Davies 1943: 82; Urk IV 1081, 12 – 15 has different reconstructions. 999 Gardiner in Davies 1943: 82 n. 27. 993
57
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty well known,1006 while Tuthmosis III’s reorganisation of temple archives and intellectual ability has also been noted.1007 This text is undoubtedly a pseudo-epigraph, but it may provide evidence of the type of decree that was issued in the king’s name. It shows the king as an initator of action, he finds the solution to a problem and transmits this to others as a command in order that they put his plan into action.
aprw m t Hnqt kA Apd irp snTr dqA xt nbt nfrt wabt m Htri r tnw rnpt m-Haw Hr pA hrw 3 n Hb=s mty r rdit xpr Hb=s n tpy Smw
3.2.36. The Elephantine Stele (Amenhotep II) This royal stele was found divided into three parts.1008 The Cairo fragment is recorded as having come from Armant according to the Journal d’Entrée, but it is unknown where the other parts were found.1009 The Amada stele of Amenhotep II was found at the rear wall of the sanctuary of the temple there, and is still in situ.1010 Consequently Kuentz has argued that the Elephantine stele was similarly originally erected as a cult place in the temple of Khnum at Elephatine,1011 and later transported to Armant. However, the stele could have been erected at a lesser known temple on Elephantine, possibly the Temple of Anuket as this is mentioned in the text. The Elephantine stele seems to have been free standing, rather than sunk into a wall like the Amada stele, due to the presence of graffiti on its right side.1012 The addendum to the text reads:
m hrw 4 r mn r wAH
provisioned with bread, beer, oxen, fowl, wine, incense, fruit and every good and pure thing of every yearly tax, in excess of the 3 days of her regular festival, in order to cause her festival of the first month of summer to exist as 4 days, in order to be established and enduring.1013
No detail is given about how the decree was announced or delivered. 3.2.37. The Western Karnak Stele (Amenhotep II) The base of this pink granite royal stele1014 was found still in situ at Karnak temple in front of the south side of the 8th pylon, left of the doorway. Further fragments were found during excavation close to the pylon and placed back in their original positions on the base.1015 This area was the entrance to the temple on this axis at the time of Amenhotep II. Although the stele originally referred to a specific date all that remains is a reference to day 11 under Amenhotep II. The command reads:
Year 4. His Person commanded to cause the linen to be made for the water procession of these gods who are in Elephantine m mnxt aAw consisting of large (strips) of linen, wa nb mH 10 each one of 10 cubits; iw wn=sn m mnxt nDsw when they had been small (strips) of linen, wa nb n mH 3 each of 3 cubits. iw wD.n Hm=f His Person commanded wAH hrw wa n mwt=f anqt to set aside a single day for his mother Anuket Hr Hb=s n stt on her Nubian festival m Xnt=s n tp itrw during her water procession on the river, rnpt-sp 4 wD Hm=f rdit ir.tw nA n mnxt n tA Xnt n nn nTrw imyw Abw
His Person commands to his august ones, srw nw stp[-sA] the officials of stp[-sA] […] [smrw] aqyw m [aH] […] [the courtiers] who can enter the [palace] […] Hmw [n] nTr nfr […] the servants [of] the Good God fx (?) axm nb nTrw to (destroy?) all the images of the gods, Dt=sn […] their bodies […] […] im[n]-ra […] Amu[n]-Ra ntf is ms […] It is he who has fashioned […] […] […]’1016 wD Hm=f n Spsw=f
The reference to destroying the images of the gods has not been satisfactorily explained. Helck has noted that the reading of fx seems certain, but that the precise meaning of the phrase is unclear.1017 It seems apparent though that the overall theme was likely one of fashioning new cult images.1018 Clearly, a royal command was made to a series of high courtiers, but the details of the command are lost.
1006
So, for example see The Neferhotep stele (Helck 1975: 21 - 29); Ramesses II at Luxor (El-Razik 1975: 125 – 127). 1007 See Poesner 1960: 71. Vernus sees this as more evidence of Tuthmosis III reorganising the temple archives, the king is also said to have renewed the great plan (snTy wr) of the temple of Dendera after finding ancient writings from the reign of Khufu (Vernus 1979: 184 n. 23; Redford 1986: 167; Daumas 1953: 165; Fischer 1968: 45). A similar renewal seems to have taken at Esna (Alliot 1949: 234; Sauneron 1952: 37). Rekhmire also comments on Tuthmosis III’s intellectual ability (Urk IV 1074, 2 – 9). 1008 These parts are Wien ÄS 5909, Cairo CG 34019 and JE 28585. See Klug 2002: 278 for details. Also see Chapter Five, section 5.8.1. for further discussion. 1009 See Kuentz 1925. 1010 Klug 2002: 286. 1011 See Kuentz 1925; Klug 2002: 278. 1012 See Hüttner & Satzinger 1999: 128, 136, Abb. C.; Klug 2002: 278 n. 2201.
1013 Urk IV 1299, 2 – 11; Lacau 1913: no. 34019, see Vol I, p. 38 - 40, pl. XII; Junge 1987: 37-39; PM V: 229. 1014 For the text see Urk IV 1319, 1 – 1321, 8. Also see PM II(2): 177 Q, for the exact location see Q on Plan XIV; Pillet 1924: 78 – 79; Lefèbvre 1924: 139 - 145; Klug 2002: 271 – 274; Beylage 2002: 283 – 289. 1015 Pillet 1924: 78 – 79. The replaced fragments can be seen clearly on Pillet 1924: pl. IX. 1016 Urk IV 1320, 9 – 15. 1017 Helck 1961: 43 n. 4. 1018 Klug 2002: 273 n. 2167.
58
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence and those among them with their own agendas.1026 He further warns Usersatet to investigate thoroughly those that he (Usersatet) is to raise to the status of Chief (wr) for the king, in case the newly appointed chief turns out to be a traitor.1027 As Morschauser notes, it is significant that the Viceroy has the power to appoint these chiefs, rather than the king doing it; however, it is the Viceroy’s responsibility to ensure that the appointee does not make trouble for the king in future.1028 Amenhotep ends the letter by emphasising the confidence he has in his Viceroy, and by praising Usersatet’s virtues by comparing him to various weapons.1029
3.2.38. An Offering List for Khonsu (Amenhotep II) This royal inscription, consisting of an offering list, is found on a block that was built into the later temple of Khonsu at Karnak,1019 it is thus not in its original context. The command reads: irt mi mAat hrw n saq nTr n Hb imn hrw nb iw grt wD Hm=i rdit di.tw Hm-kA […]
Acting in accord with truth on the day of the god’s entry for the festival of Amun, every day. Moreover, My Person commands that funerary endowments […] be given.1020
The content of the decree is unusual; it lacks specfic instructions to the viceroy,1030 as such it has the flavour of advice rather than command. Both Redford and Gardiner have suggested that the king was drunk when writing the decree,1031 based on the reference to the king ‘making holiday’. However, as Morschauser argues, the text was proudly ‘published’ on a stele, and so is likely to have been understandable by all able to read it, rather than an incomprehensible drunken letter from the king to an old friend.1032 This ‘publication’ also makes it unlikely that the king was reprimanding Usersatet, as some have suggested.1033
3.2.39. Letter to the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet (Amenhotep II) A letter written by the king for the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet is recorded on Stela No. 25.632 in the Museum of fine arts Boston.1021 It was found at the Fortress of Semna in Nubia. At the eastern side of the fort is a feature known as the ‘River Corridor’, this is a mud brick construction that leads through the wall of the fortress to the outside.1022 At its end is a series of mud brick steps. The upper part of the stele was found here by Reisner, with the main body of the stele found roughly 2 metres further to the west.1023 The stele is still incomplete. The text reads: rnpt-[sp] 23 Abd 4 Axt sp 1 mity n wD ir.n Hm=f m awy.fy Ds=f n [sA-nsw wsr=stt] [ist Hm=f m niwt rsyt m] kAp n pr-aA a.w.s ti sw m Hms? swri ir hrw [nfr] [mk in.tw n=k wD pn n nsw aA] sxt
Spalinger notes that the original document likely began with the initial particle ist. The scribe found it necessary to add a setting to the stela as was common practice at the time.1034 Amarna Letter 29 has a hieratic note beside the cuneiform stating ‘One was in the Southern City…’1035 Similarly, the Egyptian-Hittite treaty under Ramesses II was given a fictional introduction.1036 As such the introduction to the text is evidence of careful drafting, while the date links it with the anniversary of the king’s accession to the throne.1037 As Morschauser concludes, the decree was not written by a drunken king, and should be classed among the genre of royal teachings (sbAyt).1038
Year 23, month 4 of Akhet, day 1. Copy of a decree which His Person made with his own arms for [the King’s Son Usersatet] [while His Person was in the Southern City in] the kAp of the palace, l.p.h. when sitting drinking and making hol[iday]. [Look, this decree of the king was brought to you, who is great of sword thrust.1024
3.2.40. Stele of the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet from Amara West (Amenhotep II) A stele from western Amara1039 was dedicated by the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet. It has no specific provenance recorded, beyond that it came from the site of the temple which was re-built during the Ramesside Period. Fairman notes that there is no evidence of how the temple had appeared before the Ramesside Period.1040 However, the
The main content of the letter then follows after a number of royal epithets. The king mocks the people of Syria and Palestine, his opinion based on his own experience.1025 The king then warns Usersatet to beware of the Nubians,
1026
Morschauser 1997: 208 – 209. Following the arguments of Morschauser 1997: 209 – 213. 1028 Morschauser 1997: 213. 1029 Morschauser 1997: 214 – 217. 1030 As stated by Der Manuelian 1987: 158. 1031 Redford 1984: 32; Gardiner 1961: 199. 1032 Morschauser 1997: 205. 1033 See summary of such arguments and comments by Morschauser 1997: 205. 1034 Spalinger 1982: 105. 1035 Urk IV 1995, 17 – 20. 1036 Spalinger 1982: 106; Gardiner and Langdon 1920: 186. 1037 Morschauser 1997: 206 with further references. 1038 Morschauser 1997: 222. 1039 Urk IV 1484, 11 – 1486, 3; Fairman 1939: pl. XVI 1. 1040 Fairman 1939: 142. 1027
1019
PM II(2): 244; Urk IV 1341, 1 – 1342, 15. Urk IV 1341, 18 – 19. 1021 Helck 1955: 22 – 31 is the original publication of this stele; Dunham & Janssen 1960: 17, pl. 82; Wente 1990:27 - 28; Cumming 1982: 45 – 46; Urk IV 1343 – 1345; Der Manuelian 1987: 158; Van Siclen 1986: 2; Gardiner 1961: 199. Now see Morschauser 1997. 1022 For the ‘River Corridor’ see Dunham & Janssen 1960: 7, and map IV. 1023 Dunham & Janssen 1960: 17. 1024 Urk IV 1343, 10 – 14. 1025 Morschauser 1997: 207 – 208. The Semna Stele of Senwosret III follows this same tradition in which the king states that he knows best due to his own personal experience. 1020
59
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty stele under discussion and seal-impressions of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III suggests that the site was occupied during earlier periods. Fairman notes that the stele may have been brought from the island of Sai where numerous monuments of the 18th Dynasty have been found.1041 Usersatet states: Ts.n(=i) nmtt Xr wD-nsw
wDt.n=k kA=k pw xpr=sn
Then, regarding Kenamun: gm.n.tw=f Hr aq m rwt
I undertook journeys under royal command.1042
xft prrt m r n nsw
3.2.41. The High Steward in Perunefer Kenamun (Amenhotep II) A scene found on a pillar in the southern side of the transverse hall of the tomb depicts priests dragging a statue of Kenamun.1043 The text records that statues of Kenamun were to be sent out to all temples in Egypt, to the temple of Amun at Karnak, and to Kenamun’s tomb in Thebes. Once the statues had been provided with offering loaves and meat: ist wD.n Hm=f rdit Smswt nn twt r r-prw
in nsw ir=f wDt.n=f
[nfr].wy p[rrt] m [r]=k mnx.w(y) Tsw=k nbw ntk ra
Now, His Person commanded to cause the following of these images to the temple.1044
How [perfect] is that which com[es] from your [mouth], all your utterances are excellent, you are Re.1050
The King then commands Kenamun’s appointment:1051 wD.n=i I have commanded [di.tw qn-imn r imy-rA pr] [that Kenamun be placed as High Steward] m prw-nfr in Perunefer […] […] […] Hr-ntt sw m nxb because he is as stipulated.1052
So, every man says that which he knows, it is the king who will do what he has decreed.1046
Kenamun was also one: sAw r iit=f n tA r-Dr=f
Later, the courtiers say to the king:
m sSm n wDt
ir di=k Hr n xm-xtw If you (the king) “place the face” of an ignoramus, HD-tA spd sw r rxw when the day dawns he is more effective than the wise. ir mdw=k n Xsy […] If you speak to a coward […] [m q]n [Hr]-a[w]y [with cou]rage [immed]iately […]1047
the guardian, until he (the King) comes, for the entire land, over the conduct of what is decreed.1053
3.2.42. The Standard Bearer Nakht (Amenhotep II) This small kneeling statue1054 is probably from Ashmunein due to the reference to ‘Thoth of Shepsy who dwells in Khemenu (Hermopolis)’.1055 The original provenance of the statue is not known as it was found in the possession of a Cairene antiquities dealer and published from photographs supplied by him.
Followed by: ntk ra n fx SA.n=k
He was found entering the doorway in accord with that which came out from the mouth of the king.1049
The courtiers also say to the king:
Kenamun’s appointment account1045 makes frequent reference to the power of the royal word, placed in the mouths of the courtiers as laudatory statements: ix Dd s nb rxt.n=f
that which your ka has commanded will happen.1048
On the base of the statue Nakht states that he had:
You are Re, that which you ordain is not let go,
wnn tp tA m Hsw nsw Hr irt wDt.n=f nbt
existence on earth, in the favour of the king, doing all that commanded.1056
1041
Fairman 1939: 142 n.1. Urk IV 1485, 17. 1043 The tomb of Kenamun (TT 93) was published by Davies 1930; PM(2) I:190 – 194. For this scene see Davies 1930: 39, pl. 38; PM I(2): 192 (pillar B). 1044 Urk IV 1398, 7; Davies 1930: pl. 38. 1045 Urk IV 1385, 6 – 1390, 14; Davies 1930: pl. 8. The appointment account is located on the north western wall of the transverse hall of the tomb (PM I(2): 192(17)). 1046 Urk IV 1386, 1 – 2. 1047 Urk IV 1386, 10 - 11. 1042
1048
Urk IV 1386, 13 – 14. Urk IV 1386, 16. 1050 Urk IV 1388, 19 – 1389, 2. 1051 Urk IV 1386, 20 – 1387, 1. 1052 Urk IV 1386, 20 – 1387, 1. 1053 Urk IV 1405, 9. 1054 Published by Faulkner 1934: pl. XIX; Urk IV 1492, 5 – 1493, 2. 1055 Faulkner 1934: 154, 156. 1056 Faulkner 1934: pl. XIX; Urk IV 1492, 13 – 14. 1049
60
he
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence 3.2.43. The Overseer of Works Minmose (Amenhotep II) At Tura, close to the entrance to the quarry, an inscription of Minmose1057 reads: rnpt-sp 4 xr Hm n nsw bity aA-xprw-ra sA ra […] di anx wD Hm=f [wn] Hwt m-mAwt r wHA inr HD nfr n anw r qd Hwt=f nt HH m rnpwt m-xt gmt Hm=f [Hwt] nty m rAw[y] wA r fx [Dr hAw xpr] Xr-HAt in Hm=f ir m-mAwt
ir m awy=f wDt.n=f nbt xpr.n
3.2.45. The Chief of Police Nebamun (Tuthmosis IV) On the western side of the north wall of his tomb at Thebes,1065 Nebamun records a decree sent to him officially appointing him to Chief of Police.
Year 4 under the Person of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Aakheperure, the Son of Re […] given life His Person commanded [to open] the quarries anew, in order to hew fine white limestone of Ainu, and in order to build his temple of millions of years, after His Person found the [temple], which is in Tura, had fallen to ruin, [since the time of those who had existed] before. It was His Person who made (them) anew.1058
rnpt-sp 6 wD Awyt m Hm n stp-sA a.w.s. m hrw pn n HAty-a Tswty aHaw nw Sma mHyt tA wD m Dd wD.n Hm=i a.w.s. Ssp iAwt nfrt m Hsw [nt xr] nsw r irt xrt n TAyw sry[t] [imn]-nb n dpt-nsw [imn]-mry
This text is identical to that of the two royal inscriptions at Tura under Amenhotep III.1059 All of these inscriptions are copies of an original inscription made under Amenemhat III.1060 Minmose was so proud of his efficiency that he boasts he was one: ir Ddwt nb=f
…. aHa.n wD.n Hm(=i) a.w.s. rdi.n=f m Hry mDAy
who has done that which his Lord has said.1061
Year 6. A command issued m Hm n stp-sA1066 l.p.h., on this day, to the mayor, commander of the fleet of southern and northern Egypt. The command as said: “My Person, l.p.h. has commanded the receiving of a good old age in favours [before the] king in order to settle the affairs of the Standard-Bear[er] Neb[amun] of the king’s boat “Beloved of [Amun]. …. Then My Person l.p.h. commanded that he be placed as Chief of Police.”1067
The decree continues to exempt Nebamun’s land and staff from levies by royal officials.1068 The structure of the appointment account - the dated introduction followed by the setting and content - suggests that at the core of this composition is the decree document itself, depicted being given to Nebamun in his tomb by the Royal Scribe Iuny.1069 The command is described ‘as said’ and lacks the eloquent description found in the Appointments of Useramun and Kenamun, adding weight to this suggestion.
Part of his duty was to perform the stretching of the cord ceremony; he states that he did this at a long list of different temples.1062 3.2.44. Lateran Obelisk (Tuthmosis III and Tuthmosis IV) This obelisk, now in Rome, was likely originally erected between the 5th and 6th pylons at Karnak Temple.1063 Although originally cut for Tuthmosis III, Tuthmosis IV completed the inscriptions on the obelisk. In the inscription of Tuthmosis IV, the king is described as: Dd m r=f
and acts with his arms. All that he commanded happened.1064
As this evidence relates to royal appointment it is also discussed in Chapter One, 1.2.23. 3.2.46. The 2nd Priest of Amun Amenhotepsaese (Tuthmosis IV) This private tomb1070 inscription records that Amenhotep was commissioned to supervise the creation of objects for
one who speaks with his mouth,
1057 The life and career of Minmose has been discussed by de Meulenaere 1981. 1058 Urk IV 1448, 4 – 9. 1059 See below 3.2.49. Also PM IV 1934, 74 (3 and 4). For the text see Urk IV 1680, 1 – 1681, 16. Also see Daressy 1911: 259; Klug 2002: 358 – 360 for the stele of year 1, and 361 – 365 for the stele of year 2. 1060 Daressy 1911: 257. 1061 Urk IV 1447, 11. 1062 Urk IV 1443. 1063 The obelisk was moved to the East Temple of Tuthmosis III at Karnak under Ramesses II, and later to the Temple of Amun-ReHorakhety behind the Temple of Amun by Ptolemy VII. For this obelisk see Selim 1991 vol. 2: 93 – 110; Urk IV 583, 12 – 585, 17 (Tuthmosis III); 1548, 7 – 1552, 14 (Tuthmosis IV); PM II(2): 213.
1064
Urk IV 1551, 19 – 20. TT 90, Published by Davies 1923: 19 - 38; PM I(2): 183 – 185. For this inscription and the accompanying scenes see Davies 1923: 3 – 37, pls XXVI, XXVII and the lower part of XXXVII; PM I(2): 184 (4), and plan on p. 175. 1066 For a discussion of this phrase see my forthcoming article, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘What was Said/Commanded m Hm n stp-sA’’. 1067 Urk IV 1618, 5 – 11, 18. 1068 Eyre 1987: 206. 1069 Urk IV 1619, 7. 1070 TT 75. Published by Davies 1923: 1 – 18; PM I(2): 146 – 149. 1065
61
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty the king. These were then to be given to the Temple of Amun. A scene on the southern wall of the transverse hall depicts three rows of gifts for the temple. The accompanying text reads: xrp mnw rdit m-bAH r mAA [Tnw] [kAwt] mi wDDt mrt.n Hm=f m irt sHtp-ib nb [nTrw imn]
[wD].[n]=f sH[wy] [mSa]=f He [commanded] his [army] to ass[emble] Hr-a immediately. sb.n=f sw m qn nxt He sent it out in bravery and strength.1079
Directing monuments, placing (them) in the (royal) presence in order to inspect [each of] [the works], as was commanded; that which His Person desired in doing (what) satisfies the heart of the Lord [of the gods, Amun…]1071
The king is described as having just left the temple,1080 but the specific location at which he made the command is not given. 3.2.49. Two Inscriptions at Tura (Amenhotep III) At the Tura quarry there are two almost identical inscriptions which relate that Amenhotep III found the area in neglect.1081 The stele dated to Amenhotep III’s first regnal year1082 is found on the south side of the quarry, diagonally opposite the stele of Minmose under Amenhotep II.1083 The second stele dates to Amenhotep III’s second regnal year.1084 These stelae copy their general content from a stele of Amenemhat III.1085 The stelae are found close to the entrance of the quarry,1086 with the stele from the 2nd year of Amenhotep III closest to the quarry entrance itself. People entering the quarry would thus pass these inscriptions. The text of the stelae reads:
A similar inscription is found in TT 226, TT 192, TT 48, and TT 47. 3.2.47. Medamud Stele of Tuthmosis IV (Tuthmosis IV) This stele1072 is of unknown provenance, but is known to have been among the private property of a Swiss before entering the arts trade.1073 The lunette depicts the winged sun disk and Tuthmosis IV before Montu and TjenenetRatawy, while the text also makes reference to Montu. Bigler and Geiger suggest that the stele may originally have been from Medamud on the basis that Montu had his major cult there.1074 In year 5, first month of Shemu, day 10 under Tuthmosis IV: iw wD.n Hm=f Hn pr it=f mntw nb wAst kA Hry-ib mAdw r HH Hna Dt r tm rdit th.tw r rmTw=f nb aHa.n rd.n=f n=f m AHwt st(A)t 500 m xbsw s[t(A)t] […]
wD Hm=f wn Hwt m-mAwt r wHA inr HD nfr n anw r qd Hwt=f nt HH m rnpwt m-xt gmt Hm=f Hwt
His Person commanded to protect the house of his father Montu, Lord of Thebes, the bull in Medamud, for ever and ever, to not allow the attacking of any of his people Then, he gave to him: 500 aruna of fields and […] aruna of xbsw-land.1075
nty m rAwy wA r fx wrt Dr hAw xpr Xr-HAt in Hm=f ir m-mAwt
His person commanded to open the quarries anew in order to hew fine white limestone of Ainu, and in order to build his temple of millions of years, after His Person’s finding the temple, which is in Tura, fallen into great ruin, since the time of those who had existed before. It was His Person who made (it) anew.1087
There is a variant between the final lines of the two stelae of Amenhotep III, instead of in Hm=f ir m-mAwt the second text reads in Hm=i ir m-mAwt.1088
3.2.48. The Konosso Stele1076 (Tuthmosis IV) This rock cut stele is still in situ on the west of the island of Konosso facing east. It originally overlooked the river, but it is currently underwater.1077 Further rock cut inscriptions surround it.1078 Having been informed of a Nubian revolt the king gathers his army:
3.2.50. The Bubastite Fragment (Amenhotep III) This block of red granite1089 measures three feet square, and contains a very incomplete royal inscription. The Tuthmosis IV, as well as various royal cartouches (De Morgan et al 1894: 69; Klug 2002: 345). 1079 Urk IV 1546, 4 – 5. 1080 Urk IV 1546, 3. 1081 PM IV 1934, 74 (3 and 4). For the text see Urk IV 1680, 1 – 1681, 16. Also see Daressy 1911: 259; Klug 2002: 358 – 360 for the stele of year 1, and 361 – 365 for the stele of year 2. 1082 Urk IV 1681, 17. However, this date may be inaccurate, see Klug 2002: 359 n. 2837. 1083 See 3.2.43. above. 1084 Urk IV 1681, 2. 1085 Daressy 1911: 257. 1086 Klug 2002: 358. 1087 Urk IV 1681, 10 – 15. 1088 Urk IV 1681, 19.
1071
Urk IV 1211, 8 – 12; Davies 1923: pl. XII; PM I(2): 147(3). Published by Bigler & Geiger 1994; also see Beylage 2002: 481 – 483. 1073 Bigler & Geiger 1994: 11; Beylage 2002: 481. 1074 Bigler & Geiger 1994: 14. 1075 Bigler & Geiger 1994: 12, pl. 1. 1076 Urk IV 1545, 4 – 1548, 5. 1077 Klug 2002: 345 – 352; PM V: 254; Delia 1990: 81, map IV; Urk IV 1545, 1 – 1548, 6; Lundh 2002: 43; De Morgan et al 1894: 65 – 69. 1078 Around it can be found the Konosso Stele of Amenhotep III; a further stele of Tuthmosis IV and inscriptions of royal princes of 1072
62
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence accompanying blocks have not been found, but it was likely part of a wall at the Temple of Bubastis. Naville attributed it to the reign of Senwosret III,1090 but subsequent scholars have placed it in the reign of Amenhotep III.1091 The inscription in full reads:
[…] It is they, in it, who do everything. wD Hm=f sbt s n mSa 124 His Person commanded the sending of 124 men m prt r Xnmt of the army to go forth to the well ntt Hr w[…] which is upon […] […] […] m xnt r mA[A] Ts n Hwa in sailing upstream to see the sandbank of Huwa, r rdit rx.tw wAt nt sqdwt and to cause to be known the routes of the voyage […] […] [rxt n] sqrw-anx The number of prisoners gm.n=sn im which they found there: nHsw iH-Hmt 113 Nubians, cows: 113. aA-Hmt 11 Female asses: 11 Abd 3 Axt […] Month 3 of Akhet […] […] [mH]ty qA wrt […] the very high north wind, n prt Ts n Hwa for the coming out of the sandbank of Huwa, prt Ts pn m Htp The coming out of this sandbank in peace sqdw […] The voyage […] […] [nSh] nSk rn=s […] Nesheh is its name, r rsy Ts n Hwa to the south of the sandbank of Huwa. Htp m sH iry im Resting in the shelter which was made there. […] […]1093 […] nt sn im=f irr xt nb
[…] [nH]sw […] m irt […] […] mSa pn […] ib=sn psH r aHA
[…] [Nu]bians […] in making […] […] this army […] their hearts, they were biting-eager to fight, xAa r xt nb scrambling(?) against everything. iw […] Come […] […] mTn […] you. n iryt n=Tn wDt-mdw There has not been made a command to you, isT grt ir Hnt n=Tn Hm=i Now, moreover, if My Person shall charge you (with a task), Dd pw […] it is said […] […] dt […] hand. iw [?] [nw] nHsw xr The [?] [of] the Nubians have fallen, n mrwt rx [Hm]=i […] in order to know My [Person] […] ir=Tn n w[…] you do for […] […] n wDt s(y) n=sn […] It has not been commanded for them. wn.in Hm=f Hr Ht sn Ds=f And so His Person beat them himself m Ams wn m a=f with the mace that was in his hand […] […] […] Tsw Hwa […] the sandbank of Huwa, m xa nsw a royal appearance Hr-sA xAst imntt upon the western desert/hill country. Now, the army of […] was isT rdi Hms mSa […] caused to sit […] r Dr=s aSA wrt r xt nb […] all of it, very numerous, more than anything. wn.in Hm=f Hr irt And so His Person made wDt-mdw a command n rmT ipn nt irt=sn to these people for them to act on rdi.in=sn iA[w] […] And so they gave prai[se] […] […] i[n] iaywt nt mSaw […] It is the forces of the army ntt m tpt-a who will be in the front, sart=sn m stp-sA and they will rise as protection. wn.in Hm=f Hr nD-sxr[w] And so His Person consulted about the plan[s]1092 […] […]
Although very fragmentary, the text clearly presents the king as leader of the expedition, making commands to those that are with him. Although the initial commands recorded lack clear detail, a later command made so that the ‘people would act’ results in praise being given and the organisation of the army, the force known as the iaywt being at the front as protection/doing service. The king is then said to inquire about the plans, perhaps suggesting that others were assigned the task of forming campaign strategy. A final command sends 124 men to a well at which they find people whom they take prisoner. The text clearly presents the king as a decision maker for the army. 3.2.51. The Lake Scarab (Amenhotep III) A text describing the construction of a lake for Queen Tiye is found inscribed on eleven large commemorative scarabs issued by Amenhotep III.1094 As a collection, the scarabs lack specific find contexts, but have been found in widespread locations in Egypt and the Levant, many likely came from private tombs.1095 1093
Urk IV 1734, 1 – 1736, 8; for more detail see Faulkner 1955b, and Naville 1891: pl. 34; O’Connor 1998: 268 – 269. 1094 See Kozloff and Bryan 1992: 68 – 69; Blankenberg-van Delden 1969: 134 - 145; 1976; 1977. 1095 Blankenberg-van Delden 1969: 193 - 195 provides tables detailing the present locations of the scarabs known at the time of publication along with a concordance of provenance; also see Baines 2003: 32 – 33. Very few of the commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III were found
1089
Naville 1891: 10, pl. 34 A. 1090 Naville 1891: 10. 1091 O’Connor 1998: 268; Topozada 1988: 160; also see Chapter Six, section 6.10.1. 1092 Spalinger suggests that the meaning here is that following a conference the king sent the army to attack the enemy (Spalinger 1982: 62).
63
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty The Lake scarabs record that in year 11, 3rd month of Akhet, day 1:
The king then attacked the cattle taking 56 of the 170, afterward allowing the horses to rest for four days. Another scarab records that the king killed 102 lions between year 1 and 10 of his reign.1099 As with the ‘Lake’ scarab discussed above, here the king is presented as making a command for his own pleasure. However, this is not a large scale project requiring vast amounts of time and man-power, as the construction of the lake of Queen Tiye must have been. Rather, it is a brief authoritative statement with a limited scale of impact.
His Person commanded the making of a lake n Hmt-nsw wrt ty for the Great Royal Wife Tiye m dmi=s in her town n DarwxA of Djarukha, Aw=f mH 3700 its length being 3700 cubits wsx=f mH 600 and its width being 600 cubits. ir.n Hm=f Hb His Person made a festival wbA S of opening the lake m Axt 16 on the 16th day of Akhet Xnt Hm=f m and his person had a water procession in the dpt-nsw THn-itn m-Xnw=f Royal Boat, ‘The Aten Dazzles’ within it.1096 wD Hm=f irt mr
3.2.53. Unknown Courtier of TT 226 (Amenhotep III) This inscription comes from TT 226 whose owner has still not been firmly identified. A scene on the north eastern wall of the transverse hall depicts the courtier offering pectorals and bracelets, and other objects to Amenhotep III and Queen Mutemwiya.1100 The accompanying inscription reads:
This is a rare example of a royal command for a commission that does not benefit the state or the gods; rather it only benefits Queen Tiye. As it is unlikely that a courtier or official would suggest a lake be made purely for Queen Tiye’s enjoyment it must be assumed that this decree was made personally by Amenhotep III, and was not simply a state initiative stamped by the royal seal. It shows that the king could use his power for selfish reasons, and was not limited to making decrees for the benefit of the gods or state.
The titles of the tomb owner are then given, followed by:
3.2.52. The Wild Cattle Hunt Scarab (Reign of Amenhotep III) Four large commemorative scarabs describe a wild cattle hunt.1097 After the king and courtiers had found the bulls:
mr[r n Hm=f m irt]
ist wD.n Hm=f rdit itH.tw nn smAw m sbty Hna Sdy
[sTA mnw m-bAH Hm=f xft-Hr st] wrt
[xrp mnw rdit m-bAH r mAAw n nTr nfr smnx kAt mi wD]dt
Monuments were dragged into the presence of His Person in front of the great throne.1101
[Directing monuments and placing (them) in the (royal) presence to be seen by the good god. Works are embellished as is comm]anded and lov[ed by His Person to be done.]1102
The same inscription is found in TT 192, TT 47, and TT 48 and TT 75.
Now, His Person commanded that these cattle be herded in an enclosure with a ditch.1098
3.2.54. The Vizier Ramose (Amenhotep III) In his Theban tomb Ramose1103 makes a number of general references to royal command. He states:
in their original contexts (Baines 2003: 32). Baines argues that the majority likely came from tombs: he notes that one with a definite provenance comes from a rich burial at Soleb in Upper Nubia (Baines 2003: 32). The spread of these scarabs is wide ranging from Mit Rahina and ‘Kahun’, to others being found in Syria-Palestine and one at Serabit el-Khadim in Sinai (Baines 2003: 32; Blankenberg-van Delden 1969: 3). He suggests then that they may have been sent as official gifts to officials or vassals in areas held by Egypt, with the same applying to those from Nubia. Only two of the scarabs are known from temple contexts. One of thse two was found at Buhen temple and specifically mentions Horus of Buhen (Blankenberg-van Delden 1969: 4). It must have been made for the temple. Baines suggests that these temple scarabs may have been placed as offerings to the gods. He concludes that the scarabs likely had three basic categories of recipients – ‘the gods in their temples; an unquantifiable proportion of the Egyptian elite; and elites in Egyptian-held territories in Nubia and Western Asia…’ (Baines 2003: 33). 1096 Urk IV 1737, 12 – 16. 1097 Blankenberg-van Delden 1969: 57 – 61. 1098 Urk IV 1739, 14. The archaeological remains of a hunting enclosure was found near Amenhotep III’s temple at Soleb in Nubia: ‘An oval enclosure, measuring approximately 300 by 600 metres (1000 by 2000 feet), with an opening at one of the small sides, was surrounded by a net fence hanging from a cord suspended from forked sticks. These poles were placed in stone supports, and it is the latter that have been discovered. What happened can be gauged from tomb representations. Game was driven through the opening and roamed
n HD=i wDt.n=f
I did not mess up what he (the king) has commanded.1104
freely within the corral until shot by hunters operating from behind barriers, or lassoed if required alive.’ (Janssen and Janssen 1989: 51; Original article in Leclant 1981: 727 - 34. A depiction of this can be seen in the desert hunting scene in the tomb of Senbi at Meir (Blackman 1914: 30 – 32, pl. VI - VIII; Janssen and Janssen 1989: 11 fig. 5). Decker has suggested that an area near the palace grounds at Qantir may have been a hunting park (Decker 1992: 198 n. 15), but others believe it to have been a zoo (see reference to Decker above). 1099 Urk IV 1739, 12 – 13. For these scarabs see Blankenberg-van Delden 1969: 62 – 128. 1100 Published by Davies 1933; also see Urk IV 1877, 1 – 1879, 19; PM I(2): 327. For the scene under discussion see PM I(2): 327(4); Davies 1933: pls. LVII – LVIII. For discussion on the tomb owner’s identity see Habachi 1968; Roehrig 1990: 250 – 256. 1101 Urk IV 1877, 9. 1102 Urk IV 1877, 14 – 15. 1103 TT 55, published by Davies 1941; PM I(2): 105 – 111. 1104 Urk IV 1776, 12; Davies 1941: pl. 22.
64
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence This is in the context of doing what is right for all people. Similarly: n HD=i tp-rd wDt.n=f
3.2.57. The Appointment of Nebnefer (Amenhotep III) A command relating to appointment is recorded on a statue of Nebnefer, found in the temple of Prince Wadjmose at Thebes and now in Brussels.1113 Only the lower half of the statue is preserved. Most of the inscription consist of declarations of faith; however, a copy of what appears to be correspondence from the king is also found. In year 20, month 2 of Akhet1114 Amenhotep III in Memphis1115 sends the Royal Scribe and Steward Khaempet to the Sealbearer of the King and High Priest of Am[un], [Meryptah], of the priesthood of the Temple of Amun at Karnak with a message. The text reads as follows:1116
I did not disobey the instructions that he (the king) has commanded.1105
3.2.55. The Steward of Queen Tiye Kheruef (Amenhotep III) In his Theban tomb (TT 192)1106 Kheruef is depicted offering a necklace and a vase to the king.1107 The accompanying caption reads: xrp mnw rdit m-bAH r mAAw n nTr nfr smnx kAt mi wDdw 1108
mrr n Hm=f m irT
Directing monuments and placing (them) in the (royal) presence to be seen by the good god. Works are embellished as is commanded and loved by His Person to be done.1109
[wD.tw] m pr-aA a.w.s. imm Ssp.tw Hry xAyt n Snwt Htp-nTr nb-nfr […] m Hr itw […] Hwy diw r st=f m Snwt Htp-nTr n imn
Little detail is given about the command; however, it is clear that small items are meant by the word mnw, as opposed to large constructions, as the text continues to refer to ornamental collors, pectorals and vases. Here, royal command and what the king loves to be done are equated. Further private tombs from the same period also make use of this statement: TT 226, TT 47, TT 48 and TT 75.
The command is then recorded as having been carried out: mi Ddwt [nbt]
3.2.56. The Overseer of the Harim Userhat (Amenhotep III) Userhat is depicted offering objects, such as necklaces, to Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye in a scene on the south western wall of the first chamber of his tomb (TT 47),1110 to the left of the entrance to the inner columned hall.1111 The accompanying text reads: xrp mnw rdit m-bAH r mAw n nTr nfr smnx kAt mi wDdt mrr n Hm=f m irt
[A command was given] in the palace, l.p.h: “Cause that the Chief of Measurements of the Granary of the God’s Offerings, Nebnefer be received,1117 in the sight of the fathers, […], Huy, and placed in his position in the Granary of the God’s Offerings of Amun.”1118
according to [all] that had been said.1119
What follows is a verbal reply to the royal scribe, presumably to be passed on to the king: [Dd.in Hm-nTr tpy n im[n] [And so the High Priest of Amu]n, mr-ptH mAa-xrw Meryptah, justified, xft sS-nsw imy-rA pr said to the Royal Scribe and Steward xa-m-pt Khaempet: iry it=k imn nb nst tAwy “Your (Khaempet’s) father Amun, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, has acted
Directing monuments and placing (them) in the (royal) presence to be seen by the good god. Works are embellished as was commanded and loved by His Person to be done.1112
1113 Mus. Roy. E1103, published by Capart & Spiegelberg 1903; Speleers 1923: 60 n. 250; PM II(2): 444. See Urk IV 1884, 1 – 1886, 11. 1114 Urk IV 1885, 10. No day is given; it is perhaps lost in the lacuna. 1115 The text here is in lacuna (Urk IV 1885, 13); however, it is very probable that a location was given for the king. As the lacuna ends with the words […] ptH rsy inb=f nb anx tAwy ‘Ptah South-of-his-Wall Lord of Ankh Tawy, it is more than likely the king was in the Temple of Ptah in Memphis. 1116 Dziobek has commented that Helck’s suggested reconstructions in Urk IV 1885, 10 – 1886, 11 do not fit the space available on the statue (Dziobek 1992: 129 n. 547). As such, only the most feasible restorations have been followed. 1117 See discussion in Chapter One 1.2.33. for this translation. 1118 Urk IV 1885, 16 – 1886, 1. 1119 Urk IV 1886, 2.
The same inscription is found in TT 226, TT 192, and TT 48 and TT 75.
1105
Urk IV 1777, 6; Davies 1941: pl. 40. Published by The Epigraphic Survey 1980; also see Urk IV 1858, 6 – 1873, 17; PM I(2): 298 – 300. 1107 The Epigraphic Survey 1980: pl. 51. 1108 This is surely a scribal error for the usual ‘t’-loaf. 1109 Urk IV 1859, 7 – 8. 1110 PM I(2): 87; Urk IV 1880, 6 - 17. 1111 See the plan Epigraphic Survey 1980: pl. 3, and no. 51 on the plate entitled ‘Key Plans’. 1112 Urk IV 1880, 6 – 7. 1106
65
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty the reply at his disposal; if a letter had been used the addressee would have been the king rather than Khaempet.
(in accordance) with all that he has (the king)1120 commanded.1121 mn pt The sky endures, mn irtw=f what he1122 has done endures, mn wAH n Dt being enduring and longlasting forever.” irw m-bAH xtmty bity It was done in the presence of the Sealbearer of the King, Hm-nTr tpy n imn mr-ptH the High Priest of Amun, Meryptah. Hm-nTr nw-2 ann The 2nd Priest Anen. Hm-nTr nw-3 imn-m-HAt The 3rd Priest Amenemhat. Hm-nTr nw-4 sA-mwt The 4th Priest Simut. sS-nsw xa-m-pt The Royal Scribe, Khaempet. imy-rA pr nxt-sbk The Steward Nakhtsobek.1123
m wDwt=f nbt
In the first communication, the king already refers to Nebnefer as the Chief of Measurements of the Granary of Amun. It is thus possible that in the king’s opinion, Nebnefer already held the post, and that the acceptance of the High Priest, and ratification of Amun, was a formality.1124 However, this depends on whether the scribe who composed the text directly copied the decree word for word. The title may have simply been added retrospectively, as is the case with Nebwenenef under Ramesses II.1125 However, if the reference was contemporary, i.e. an original part of the decree sent to the High Priest, it would be clear that the king already regarded Nebnefer as holding the position. 3.2.58. The Steward of Amun Nakhtsobek (Amenhotep III) On a stele decicated by Iuny for his father Nakhtsobek states that he was:
Two messages are described; the first is a letter, or possibly a verbal communication, presented by the Royal Scribe Khaempet to the High Priest of Amun. After the royal command is said to have been carried out, a response is described, given by the High Priest to the Royal Scribe. As no formal letter of reply, addressed to the king, is described, only a verbal communication between the High Priest and Royal Scribe, it is possible that the response was delivered to the king verbally or that the scribe who composed the statue text did not have
skAb(?) Snwty imn m wD nTr nfr pn
one who causes the double granary of Amun to bulge, as this good God commands.1126
It is unlikely that the king issued a specific decree commanding Nakhtsobek to ‘make the granaries bulge’; as such it should be equated with the courtier doing what was favoured in the eyes of the king. There is no specific command here; just a way of behaving that was endorsed by the palace
1120 ‘He’ must refer to the king, as it is with him that the command originated, thus ‘your’ must be in reference to Khaempet, whom the High Priest is addressing. To take the sentence as a direct reply to the king (making ‘your’ the king and ‘he’ Amun) would not make sense; in this case the High Priest would essentially be stating ‘may Amun act in accord with what Amun has commanded’. As there is no indication that the god should be regarded as temperamental here (although see the Ahmose Storm Stele, Weiner & Allen 1998), and no command of Amun is mentioned in the text, the former interpretation is surely the correct one. 1121 Taking the statement as a Late Egyptianism, perhaps the result of contemporary speech being recorded. This interpretation is backed up by the statements that follow which suggest that a decision has been taken and will not be un-done. It would also make more sense for the High Priest to reply with a firm decision by Amun, rather than a vague wish as Eichler sees it. She suggests that the sentence should be read ‘Möge Dein Vater Amun, der Herr der Throne der beiden Länder, (in) allen seinen Befehlen … handeln’ (Eichler 1998: 58), indicating the desire that Amun accept the candidate just as the king had done. Helck translates ‘Es wird dein Vater Amun, der Herr der Throne der beiden Länder, handeln nach jedem seinem Befehl!’ (Helck 1961: 301). Davies’ recent translation, ‘Your father Amun…shall act in accordance with all that he has commanded’ (Davies 1994: 45) seems far too direct a way to refer to the god, as it would imply that the king was commanding Amun. In all of these translations it appears that Amun was commanded by the King. At first glance this does not follow the hierarchy of command: a wD can only pass from a person of higher rank to a person of lower rank. Consequently, Amun could not be commanded by the king. However, Amun did not act in accordance with the king’s command in the sense that he was subordinate, rather the High Priest is reporting that having consulted the god, perhaps as an oracular consultation, or simply in his capacity as spokesman for the god, Amun concurs with the king’s wishes. Thus he will act in accordance with it. The same phrase with slight variation is found in the appointment of the Viceroy of Nubia, Huy (Urk IV 2064, 11). 1122 Here the ‘he’ could refer to the king, as it had done in the previous sentence, or it could now be referring to Amun, whose agreement with the command of the king would remain and endure for ever. 1123 Urk IV 1886, 3 – 1886, 11.
3.2.59. The High Steward Amenemhat Surer (Amenhotep III) This private tomb inscription is from TT 48.1127 On the north eastern wall of the transverse hall of his tomb Amenemhat is depicted offering objects (in five registers) to Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye.1128 The scene has the caption: xrp [mnw] [rdit] m-bAH
Directing [Monuments] and [placing] (them) in the (royal) presence
1124 A similar event, of an imyt-pr being sealed at the side of the king and then being ratified by Amun, can be seen in the Donation Stele of Ahmose-Nefertari (see 5.2.1.). 1125 The text of Nebwenenef describes him as the ‘High Priest of Amun Nebwenenef, justified’ at the start of his appointment account, chronologically before he had been officially appointed within the context of the text. Kitchen adds the word ‘prospective’ to show this, although it is not part of the original text (Kitchen 1982: 46). As this part of the inscription is not a word for word copy of an official document little need be read into this. However, in the case of Nebnefer it could show that the king did not need to have his decision accepted by the priests. 1126 Urk IV 1888, 16. 1127 Tomb published by Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 33 - 49; for the monuments of this man see Urk IV 1896 – 1907. 1128 Säve-Soderbergh 1957:38 – 39; pls. XXX, XXXVI – XXXIX; PM I(2): 89 (7).
66
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Evidence r mAAw n nTr nfr [smnx kAt mi wDdt mrr n Hm=f m [irt]
would come after him.1138 Any such official who attempts to take the serfs will be cursed and punished by the gods. The king adds that any Vizier, Overseer of the Silver House, Great High Steward of the Estate, Overseer of the Granary, High Priests, God’s Fathers, or Wab-Priests of Amun who have heard the decree, and yet disregard it, will be especially affected by the curse.1139 However, those who follow the edict will be rewarded by the king and the gods.1140 Finally, the king addresses the military officials charged with protecting the royal endowment. Those who fail to protect it, notably on royal feast days on the first day of each month, would be afflicted by the curse,1141 while those who obeyed the decree would reach old age and be buried in the cemetery.1142
to be seen by the good god. [Works are embellished as was commanded] and loved by His Person to be [done].1129
The same inscription is found in TT 226, TT 47 and TT 192 and TT 75. 3.2.60. The High Priest of Ptah Ptahmose (III)1130 (Amenhotep III) On one of his tomb statues1131 the Memphite High Priest Ptahmose briefly records his appointment to High Priest of Ptah:
The king notes that this is ‘my endowment’,1143 while the edict is referred to as having been spoken aloud by the king to the assembled dignitaries.1144 Such evidence presents the king as having a personal interest in the establishment and maintenance of the cult. If actually based in fact this is a rare example of an 18th Dynasty endowment and exemption decree and also a rare example of the king making a decree outside of the palace. It is also the only known record of a king visiting a private mortuary chapel in the 18th Dynasty.1145 However, this introductory description may be fictional due to the scribes’ frequent desire to include a setting for official documents inscribed on stelae and temple walls.1146
The Good God commanded that I be placed to do excellent offices. rdi.n=f wi r wr-xrp-Hmwt He has placed me to be the Master Craftsman1132 r tit n iwn-mwt=f pw in the image of that ‘Pillar of His Mother’, rx.n=f sxrw(=i) he knew (my) conduct iqr mdwt being one excellent of speech.1133 iw wD.n nTr nfr rdi.tw ir(=i) iAt mnxw
3.2.61. Mortuary Temple Decree of Amenhotep Son of Hapu (Amenhotep III) This pseudo-epigraphic inscription was found in the Mortuary Temple of Amenhotep Son of Hapu in Thebes, from the third chapel on the right.1134 Although this text exhibits late Egyptianisms it is hypothetically possible that it is based on an 18th Dynasty original and thus will be included here with some caution.1135 The text is dated to year 30, month 4 of Akhet day 6,1136 and presents Amenhotep III as standing in the mortuary temple of Amenhotep Son of Hapu reading a decree (wD) to the Vizier Amenhotep, the Overseer of the Silver House Meriptah, and the Royal Scribes of the Army.1137 The king endows the temple with male and female serfs, and exempts them from being taken on any business of Pharaoh by any General and Scribe of the Army that 1129
Urk IV 1906, 18 – 1907, 1; Säve-Soderbergh 1957: 38 – 39. Following the numbering of the Priests known as Ptahmose given by Wildung (LA II: 1259 – 1260); Anthes 1936 designates this man Ptahmose no. 5. For a discussion of the succession and family history of these high priests see Murnane 1994. 1131 This statue is now in Florence Musuem, cat. no. 1505. It has recently been discussed by Kozloff, Bryan and Berman 1992: 241 – 242 (37) – it is dated to the last decade of Amenhotep III (Murnane 1994: 193). 1132 As Ptah was associated with craftwork the High Priest of Ptah is commonly given the title ‘Master Craftsman’ (Faulkner 1962: 170). 1133 Urk IV 1918, 16 – 18. 1134 Decree no. 138 in the British Museum. See Varille 1968: 67 – 85 for a description of the piece, transcription, translation, and commentary. Also see PM II(2): 455, for the location of the temple see PM II(2): Plan XXIII. 1135 See the comments of Varille 1968: 84 – 85 who argues that the 21st Dynasty text was adapted from an 18th Dynasty original. 1136 Varille 1968: 68. 1137 Lines 1 – 4; Varille 1968: 70. 1130
1138
Lines 5 – 6; Varille 1968: 70. Lines 11 – 13; Varille 1968: 71. 1140 Lines 13 – 16; Varille 1968: 71 – 72. 1141 Lines 16 – 17; Varille 1968: 73. 1142 Lines 18 – 19; Varille 1968: 73. 1143 mAwD=i, lines 6, 13 – 14, 17; Varille 1968: 70, 71, 72. 1144 Line 2; Varille 1968: 70. Later references to the decree being read aloud refer to future dignitaries and military officials who may have had the decree read to them (lines 12 and 18; Varille 1978: 71, 72). 1145 Varille 1968: 67 – 85. 1146 Spalinger 1982: 104 – 114. 1139
67
be classed as royal inscriptions.1156 It would seem, given the vast amount of private inscriptions in the 18th Dynasty, that courtiers generally did not record royal commands related to construction work and endowments. This would allow the king to appear as the sole force behind such works. Overseers of Work do not state that they made constructions, only that they witnessed the king making constructions: Puyemre states that ‘he saw’ the erection of an ebony shrine by Hatshepsut.1157 He also ‘saw’ the erection of a gateway by the king.1158 Similarly, Hapuseneb lists a number of constructions at Karnak. All are related as construction works that Hapuseneb ‘saw’, but which were done by the person of the king. After each example Hapuseneb states that this occurred when he was ‘Overseer of Works’.1159
CHAPTER FOUR THE USE OF ROYAL COMMANDS (wD-nsw): ANALYSIS 4.1. Specific Reference to Royal Command Eighteenth Dynasty decrees can broadly be placed in the following categories: military;1147 appointment;1148 endowment and construction;1149 public announcement and advice;1150 reward;1151 expedition;1152 and 1153 ‘selfish’. Not all decrees purporting to date to this period are necessarily genuine; some date to later periods, but refer their content back to 18th Dynasty kings. Such decrees are known as pseudo-epigraphs.1154 The vast majority of inscriptions which record royal decrees fall into the category of endowment and construction, with the bulk coming from the reign of Tuthmosis III.1155 These texts relate commands for construction work at temples, the opening of quarries, a temple endowment taken each year as tax from local officials, and the creation of luxury goods. Essentially they portray the king as performing actions for the gods and thus fulfilling his royal duty. All but twelve examples of commands relating to endowment and construction can
Decrees that fall into other categories are much fewer in number. Again, remarkably few are recorded in private contexts: only six royal appointments are expressed in terms of command: four from Theban tombs,1160 one from a temple statue,1161 and another from a private tomb statue.1162 A final example of royal appointment relates the appointment of a royal prince within a royal inscription.1163 There is only one example of the king commanding a reward to a courtier, found inscribed on a temple wall, but the reference to wD is reconstructed.1164 It would seem that it is not typical for courtiers to express their appointment or their reward in terms of royal command.
1147 Nubian Campaign of Tuthmosis II (3.2.7.); the Annals military texts (3.2.33.2.); Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV (3.2.48.); the Bubastite Fragment of Amenhotep III (3.2.50.). 1148 Djehuty (3.2.12.); Useramun (3.2.16.); Festival Hall Inscription at Karnak (3.2.31); Nebamun (3.2.45); Kenamun (3.2.41); Nebnefer (3.2.57.); the High Priest of Ptah, Ptahmose (3.2.60.). 1149 Temple Endowment of Ahmose (3.2.1); Storm Stele of Ahmose (3.2.2.); Sehel Inscription of Turi (3.2.5.); the Abydos Stele (3.2.6.); Senenmut Aswan Inscription (3.2.9.); Donation Stele of Senenmut (3.2.10.); Djehuty (3.2.12.); Hapuseneb (3.2.13.); Nomination to the throne of Tuthmosis III (3.2.17.); the 7th pylon inscription at Karnak (3.2.18.); royal statue at 8th Pylon of Karnak (3.2.19); Temple of Ptah at Karnak (3.2.20.); Dedication text within Temple of Ptah at Karnak (3.2.21.); Sehel inscription of Tuthmosis III (3.2.22.); Stele from Buhen (3.2.23.); Heliopolis stele (3.2.25.); Black Granite stele (3.2.26.); inscription of Nehy at Semna (3.2.27.); royal inscription at Temple of Dedwen (3.2.28.); inscription of Nehy at Sai (3.2.29.); Sai Pillar stele (3.2.30.); Festival Hall inscription at Karnak (3.2.31); the Buto stele (3.2.32.); the Annals endowment texts (3.2.33.1.); the Elephantine stele (3.2.36.); Western Karnak stele (3.2.37.); Offering list of Khonsu (3.2.38.); Minmose (3.2.43.); Nebamun (3.2.45.); Amenhotepsaese (3.2.46.); Medamud stele of Tuthmosis IV (3.2.47.); Tura inscriptions of Amenhotep III (3.2.49.); unknown courtier of TT 226 (3.2.53.); Kheruef (3.2.55.); Userhat (3.2.56.); Amenemhat-Surer (3.2.59.). 1150 Titulary Announcement of Tuthmosis I (3.2.4.); Deir el-Bahri Coronation inscription (3.2.14.2.); the Stele of Nebwawy (3.2.24.); Usersatet stele (3.2.39). 1151 Inscription of an unnamed King’s Son of Kush (3.2.3.). 1152 The Punt Reliefs at Deir el-Bahri (3.2.14.1); inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim (3.2.15.). 1153 The Lake Scarab (3.2.51.); the Bull Hunt Scarab (3.2.52.). 1154 Health Decree of Tuthmosis III (3.2.35.); Mortuary Temple Decree of Amenhotep Son of Hapu (3.2.61.). 1155 Nomination to the throne of Tuthmosis III (3.2.17.); the 7th Pylon inscription at Karnak (3.2.18.); Royal statue at 8th Pylon of Karnak (3.2.19); Temple of Ptah at Karnak (3.2.20.); Dedication text within Temple of Ptah at Karnak (3.2.21.); Sehel inscription of Tuthmosis III (3.2.22.); Stele from Buhen (3.2.23.); Heliopolis stele (3.2.25.); Black Granite stele (3.2.26.); inscription of Nehy at Semna (3.2.27.); royal inscription at Temple of Dedwen (3.2.28.); inscription of Nehy at Sai (3.2.29.); Sai Pillar stele (3.2.30.); Festival Hall inscription at Karnak (3.2.31); the Buto stele (3.2.32.); the Annals endowment texts (3.2.33.1.).
Only four examples fall under the category of public announcement and advice.1165 Only four texts refer to commands made during military campaigns - all are royal inscriptions.1166 All ‘selfish’ decrees, as found on the commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III, can be classed as royal inscriptions.1167 Furthermore, both commands relating to expedition can be classed likewise.1168 Essentially, virtually all occurrences of wD are found on royal monuments or what in can be classed as a royal context. Given that a direct royal command would allow the courtier to show himself as a man of great authority, influence, and trust, and that the recording of the 1156 Donation stele of Senenmut (3.2.10.); Djehuty (3.2.12.); Hapuseneb (3.2.13.); inscription of Nehy at Semna (3.2.27.); inscription of Nehy at Sai (3.2.29.); Minmose (3.2.43.); Nebamun (3.2.45.); Amenhotepsaese (3.2.46.); unknown courtier of TT 226 (3.2.53.); Kheruef (3.2.55.); Userhat (3.2.56.); Amenemhat-Surer (3.2.59.). 1157 Urk IV 521, 10 – 11. 1158 Urk IV 521, 13 – 14. 1159 Urk IV 473, 17 – 476, 16. 1160 Djehuty (3.2.12.); Useramun (3.2.16.); Kenamun (3.2.41.); and Nebamun (3.2.45.). 1161 Nebnefer (3.2.57.). 1162 Ptahmose (3.2.60.). 1163 Crown Prince Amenemhat in the Festival Hall inscriptions (3.2.31.) 1164 Unnamed King’s Son of Kush (3.2.3.). 1165 Titulary Announcement of Tuthmosis I (3.2.4.); Deir el-Bahri Coronation inscription (3.2.14.2.); the Stele of Nebwawy (3.2.24.); Usersatet stele (3.2.39.). 1166 Nubian Campaign of Tuthmosis II (3.2.7.); the Annals military texts (3.2.33.2.); Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV (3.2.48.); the Bubastite Fragment of Amenhotep III (3.2.50.). 1167 The Lake Scarab (3.2.51.); the Bull Hunt Scarab (3.2.52.). 1168 The Punt Reliefs at Deir el-Bahri (3.2.14.1); Serabit el-Khadim (3.2.15.).
68
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis fulfilment of such a decree would show him as an excellent courtier in the service of the king, the only possible conclusion here is that it was a rare privilege for a courtier to record a direct royal command to him on his monuments. This must surely have been a matter of decorum as courtiers will have recorded such commands on their own monuments if they had been free to do so. This then could indicate a degree of control over how courtiers presented themselves in their inscriptions. Self presentation was therefore restricted to simply stating that a courtier fulfilled what the king said, but not that they received a particular wD. The reason behind this reluctance to relate matters in terms of wD on private monuments is unclear, but could relate to a desire to keep the machinery of state out of the ‘public eye’. The courtiers present themselves as acting out of devotion for the king in order to receive praise, they are not commanded. The king shows his authority on his monuments by recording that what he commanded was simply done. The specific recipient(s) of these commands in royal contexts are rarely mentioned.1169
their content proclaimed. As the problem of who had access to different parts of temples has not yet been answered it is difficult to ascertain who would have had access to the royal stelae found in temple precincts. High officials often held priestly office or were at least part of a family which had members holding temple roles. It is at least likely that such people would have had access at all times. The same issue of accessibility hampers the study of the reception of temple wall scenes which include royal commands as part of their composition. It is unclear who would have had access to the Punt and Coronation scenes at Deir el-Bahri,1173 the wall inscriptions at Serabit elKhadim,1174 the dedication text within the temple of Ptah at Karnak,1175 the Annals1176 and Festival Hall texts of Tuthmosis III,1177 the nomination of Tuthmosis III to the throne,1178 or the offering list of Khonsu from that god’s temple at Karnak.1179 However, four inscriptions were located in parts of the temple that were far enough from the main sanctuary to be accessible by those with access to the outer areas: the 7th pylon inscription is above the doorway of the pylon entrance;1180 the colossus of Tuthmosis III is behind the 8th Pylon;1181 the Lateran Obelisk was originally located between the 5th and 6th Pylons,1182 while at the Temple of Dedwen at Semna the commands are on the exterior wall of the temple.1183 The large commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III have varied context. They appear to have been sent to temples and given to high officials, as well as to foreign kings.1184
4.2. Reception of Royal Commands Of the royal stelae that mention wD only two were found in their original positions,1170 in the outer parts of the contemporary temple. The remaining eleven royal stelae were not found in their original place of erection.1171 Still, as stelae are heavy and thus difficult to move it is likely that these stelae were found in the general vicinity of their original place of erection; in which case the majority would also have originally been located in the outermost parts of the temples. These stelae typically relate the king’s construction work, endowments and military ventures for the gods. Such royal monuments would thus advertise the authority and right action of the king to those viewing the monument. The Horemheb Edict and Gebel Barkal stele show that the content of the stelae could be read to a gathered crowd.1172 However, it is unknown how often these inscriptions would have had
With regard to rock cut inscriptions in public places, Peden states that these ‘official graffiti’ were composed as a formal record that an official project had been completed at a mine or quarry. It would also ensure that the name of the author would live on and be a record for his descendants of his successful career.1185 Royal commands are included in three 18th Dynasty quarry inscriptions at Tura.1186 These statements of royal authority will have been visible to those entering and leaving the quarries as they were located at the quarry entrance. The inscriptions are virtually identical and are themselves close copies of an inscription made under Amenemhat III of the 12th Dynasty. Similarly, the Sehel inscriptions of Tuthmosis I1187 and III1188 are virtually identical, and are similar to an inscription made under Senwosret III. They are found in a tight group of royal
1169
See below for discussion of the recipients of commands. The Western Karnak stele of Amenhotep II is still in situ, set up in front of the 8th pylon in a courtyard (3.2.37.). Also, the Horemheb Edict was essentially found at its place of erection against the north side of the 10th pylon at Karnak, see Kruchten 1981: 1. For the stele as a whole see Kruchten 1981; and PM II(2): 187 (581), while for the exact location see no. 581 on Plan XV. 1171 Of royal stele from Karnak: the Ahmose Storm Stele was found in the fill of a pylon (3.2.2.); Ahmose’s donation stele (CG 34001) was found re-used as pavement (3.2.1.). The Black Granite stele was found in a room close to the barque shrine of Karnak temple (3.2.26.). The Karnak-Ptah-temple stele was found in a wall of later date (3.2.20). Of the stelae from outside of Karnak the Buhen fragment is unprovenanced (3.2.23.); the Heliopolis stele similarly so (3.2.25.), and the same for the Sai Pillar stele (3.2.30.). The Buto stele was found at its original site and still stands at its find spot, it is, however, unlikely to be in its original place of erection, the location of which was likely in the enclosure wall of the temple (3.2.32.). The Elephantine stele was possibly found 120km north of its original location (3.2.36.). The Abydos stele of Tuthmosis I was found in the vicinity of the enclosure wall of the Osiris Temple (3.2.6.). The titulary decree of Tuthmosis I was found on 3 stelae at different locations, but none in situ (3.2.4.). 1172 The Horemheb Edict states that its content is to be ‘heard’ (Urk IV 2161, 15 - 19; Kruchten 1981: 186). The Gebel Barkal stele also presents itself as a text to be heard, ‘listen people’ (Urk IV 1234, 6 – 7). 1170
1173
3.2.14. 3.2.15. 1175 3.2.21. 1176 3.2.33. 1177 3.2.31. 1178 3.2.17. 1179 3.2.38. 1180 3.2.18. 1181 3.2.19. 1182 3.2.44. 1183 3.2.27. and 3.2.28. 1184 3.2.51.; 3.2.52. 1185 Peden 1997: 247 – 248. 1186 3.2.43.; 3.2.49. 1187 3.2.5. 1188 3.2.22. 1174
69
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty and private inscriptions on the south western part of Sehel Island among other royal and private inscriptions. Similarly, the military inscriptions of Tuthmosis II1189 and Amenhotep III1190 are found in a tight group of royal inscriptions between Aswan and Philae.1191 These could have been visited by troops marching into and out of Nubia, and indeed, anyone passing along the road. The Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV is one of a cluster of royal inscriptions on the western side of the island.1192 These stelae face the river and would have been visible to ships sailing to and from Nubia. It would seem unlikely that the text would be read; the hieroglyphs are difficult to read due to the location and size of the stelae. It would seem that their physical presence, and their symbolic importance here, was more important than accessibility. Numerous rock cut inscriptions are found on the island of Elephantine,1193 with the majority made by high officials between the 6th Dynasty and 20th Dynasty.1194 The majority lie close to the temple of Anuket.1195 As with the rock cut stelae referred to above, these texts are not randomly placed, but are found in tight groups. Seidelmeyer has argued that the grouping of these inscriptions at Elephantine mark an important point on the ritual procession of the god, grouped at a spot at which the statue of the god(s) would be loaded onto a river barge. This point is further evidenced by a second major cluster of rock cut inscriptions in front of the Temple of Khnum.1196 Only the side of the rocks facing the temple are inscribed, showing that a direct view of the place of divine appearance was the motivating factor for the location of the inscriptions.1197 Thus, Seidlmayer concludes that these New Kingdom rock inscriptions were carved in clusters near local shrines, in locations that played a role during the celebration of public religious festivals.1198 Similarly, the inscriptions at Sehel, the Aswan/Philae stele of Tuthmosis II and the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV, as part of a tight grouping of royal inscriptions, may have acted as a focal point during ritual procession. Many of the rock inscriptions in the first cataract region are well executed and may have been made by the same artisans who decorated the local temple, tombs and chapels.1199 These were not simply rushed carvings by bored courtiers; they are official records of royal activity. They were meant to be seen.
Only twelve officials record commands in their tomb scenes and tomb stelae.1200 Eleven of these are found in the transverse halls of Theban tombs and thus could be read by the family members of the deceased and visitors to the tombs. Only one is found on the wall outside the tomb, in the courtyard.1201 A private stelae of the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet was originally erected on the exterior of the fortress of Buhen at an entrance to the fort.1202 This stele records a letter sent from the king to Usersatet. It proudly proclaims the Viceroy’s personal connection to the king to all entering the fortress and consequently enforced his own authority over his soldiers. Usersatet’s Amara stele was likely originally erected on Sai island, while Nebwawy’s stele has no more specific provenance than Abydos.1203 These royal commands on private monuments are utilised to portray the deceased as a man who acted correctly for the king and could personally be trusted with royal commissions – itself highlighting contact with the king. The same can be said of private tomb1204 and temple statues.1205 Commands found in private tomb scenes, stelae and statues lack any significant detail and simplify the process to the king giving the command and the courtier successfully fulfilling it. Two private inscriptions that refer to royal command are found on the façade of the temple of Dedwen at Semna. One of these was inscribed under Amenhotep I by an unnamed Viceroy of Kush.1206 The other was inscribed by the Viceroy of Kush Nehy under Tuthmosis III.1207 It is an unusual location for a private autobiography to be found. A command given to Nehy is also recorded on a sandstone pillar found on the island of Sai.1208 It not clear who would have seen these inscriptions, but their purpose was clearly self promotional. 4.3. General References to Royal Command General references to royal command occur in both royal and private inscriptions to illustrate the power of the royal word, or simply to show a courtier as a man who carried out the king’s will. These do not refer to a particular decree that had been issued. In royal inscriptions the courtiers laud the king’s power and describe their obedience to his words: SA xpr wD ir.tw
Ordain and it happens! Command and it is done!1209
1189
Aswan Philae stele (3.2.7.). Chapter Five – section 5.10.1. Here is found an inscription of an official from Amenhotep III, the Aswan stele of Tuthmosis III (mentioned here), the southern and northern Aswan stelae of Amenhotep III and a stele of Ramesses II (Klug 2002: 83 n. 663, with further references). 1192 Also found in the area are the Konosso stele of Amenhotep III, part of a further stele of Tuthmosis IV, royal cartouches of Tuthmosis IV and inscriptions relating to his sons (Klug 2002: 345, for further details see de Morgan et al 1894: 69 – 70. 1193 See de Morgan et al 1894: 84 – 103 for reproductions of these. 1194 de Morgan et al 1894: 79. 1195 See the map produced by de Morgan et al 1894: 76. 1196 Seidlmayer 2002: 443. 1197 Seidlmayer 2002: 444. 1198 Seidlmayer 2002: 444. 1199 Delia 1993: 72. 1190 1191
1200 Djehuty (3.2.12.); Amenhotepsaese (3.2.46.); Owner of TT 226 (3.2.53.); Kheruef (3.2.55.); Userhat (3.2.56.); Ineni (3.2.8.); Useramun (3.2.16.); Kenamun (3.2.41.); Rekhmire (3.2.34.); Ramose (3.2.54.); Amenemhat Surer (3.2.59.); Nebamun (3.2.45.). 1201 Djehuty (3.2.12.) 1202 Usersatet (3.2.39.). 1203 Nebwawy (3.2.24.); Usersatet’s stele from Amara West (3.2.40.) 1204 Ptahmose (3.2.60.) 1205 Hapuseneb (3.2.13.); Senenmut’s Berlin Statue (3.2.11.); Nakht (3.2.42.); Minmose (3.2.43.); Nebnefer (3.2.57.) 1206 3.2.3. 1207 3.2.27. 1208 3.2.29. 1209 Abydos stele of Tuthmosis I (3.2.6.),
70
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis Similarly, on the Lateran obelisk of Tuthmosis IV the king is described as active, both physically and verbally; he is: Dd m r=f ir m awy=f wDt.n=f nbt xpr=sn
dd m Hr n […]
This statement suggests that Nehy would enter, assumedly before the king, with an issue and that the solution would be presented to him by the king in the form of a royal decree. However, it must be noted that there is no explicit reference to the king in this example. Gardiner has commented that aq can have the sense of ‘adverse report, accusation, charge’,1217 as a result Caminos suggested that Nehy is reporting that he went before the king with an accusation against him, but came forth cleared.1218 This interpretation does not seem correct. It is unlikely that a courtier would record an accusation against him in his biography even if the outcome were good. Courtiers normally state that there were no accusations against them.1219 They state no fault was found – it does not imply accusation, but that there was never any fault.
one who speaks with his mouth, and acts with his arms. All that he commanded happened.1210
Ineni describes the contentment that resulted from following the words, plans and commands of Hatshepsut. She is the: nbt wD-mdw mnxt sxrw=s Hrrt idbwy xft mdw=s
Lady of Commands, whose plans are excellent, by whose words the Two Banks are made content.1211
Further courtiers simply state that they operated under the royal command: iw ir.n=i tp n Hryw imy-rA n imy-rAw kAt iw=i m tA pn Xr wD=f Dr xprt mni tp awy=f
Courtiers could also comment on the excellent quality of the king’s words and commands:
I acted as Chief of Chiefs Overseer of Overseers of Works when I was in this land under his command, since the death of his predecessor.1212
sxrw nb=i m ibw HA=i nmi=i inH wi r=f inqw sxrw=f tAw nbw psDt nbt nty Hr gs.fy
Similarly, the Viceroy of Kush Usersatet states: Ts.n(=i) nmtt Xr wD-nsw
ink is Hsb is-HAq
I undertook journeys under royal command.1213
nt nxtw Hm=f ti wi Xr-HAt=sn iry=i m Dd(t).n=f
Variations include references to matters being ‘placed in the face’: mDd.n(=i) rdit.n=f m Hr=i
mDd.n=i m ddt=f m Hr=i
I followed what he ‘placed in my face’.1214
gm.n=i st m Axt m nxt
Also: n mhy=i Hr SAt.n=f m Hr=i
pr Xr wDt
My Lord’s plans are a shelter around me, I travel with his utterance surrounding me. His plans unite all lands and every bow which is at his side. I am the one who reckoned the booty from the victories of His Person when I was at the head of them. I acted in accord with what he said; I have followed what he ‘placed in my face’, and I have found it as excellent and strong.1220
Courtiers refer to keeping royal commands secret, emphasising the trust the king placed in them; Nehy refers to himself as:
I was not neglectful of that which he ordained in my face.1215
xtm Xt Hr ddt m Hr=f
Additional generic usage refers to the king’s role in providing solutions to problems for his courtiers: aq Hr smi
One who placed in the face of […]1216
one who sealed (his) belly concerning what was ‘placed in his face’.1221
Caminos takes Xt here to mean thoughts;1222 as such it means that Nehy kept to himself the instructions given to
[I was] one who entered with a report and came out with a command.
1216
3.2.27. Gardiner 1905: 14 (18). Caminos 1998: 63. 1219 Nebamun (Urk IV 1618, 15 – 16); Duarneheh (Urk IV 1481, 9 – 12); Sennefer (Urk IV 1425, 11 – 15). 1220 Amenhotep Son of Hapu, Cairo statue 583, Varille 1968: 37; Urk IV 1821, 18 - 1822, 4 – 6. 1221 From a black granite statue of Nehy from Elephantine; Caminos 1998: 62, 63, 64; Newberry 1933: 54. 1222 Caminos 1998: 64 n. 2 with refs. 1217 1218
1210
3.2.42. 3.2.8. Senenmut (3.2.11.). 1213 3.2.40. 1214 Hapuseneb, Urk IV 484, 5. 1215 Ptahmose, Line 8; Varille 1930: 504, employing a variation of the usual ‘he placed in my face’ phrase. 1211 1212
71
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty also commands that the people of a town be assembled, and that the ‘breath of life’ be given.1233 The Bubastis fragment of Amenhotep III also records commands given when on campaign, but no specific location is given.1234 Amenhotep III is recorded as giving a command to those around him whilst hunting wild cattle.1235 The appointment of Nebnefer is commanding by the king while in his palace (pr-aA).1236 The pseudo-epigraphic exemption decree found in the Temple of Amenhotep Son of Hapu at Thebes presents Amenhotep III announcing the content of the decree within the mortuary temple itself.1237 A typical theme in royal monumental texts is that of the king finding a temple fallen to ruin and then commanding it be renovated.1238 The impression given is that the king made this command on the spot, at the temple site; however this may just be a narrative feature to shorten the text and thus cannot be used as explicit evidence.
him. The Maxims of Ani refers to the belly (xt) being deep as a well. A person should choose to take out what is good and keep what is bad locked inside until death. The heart (ib) is the gatekeeper of this well, it is the thought process that allows a person to decide what should be kept secret.1223 Thus, the Egyptians saw the heart (ib) as the source of intelligence, but the belly as being used for emotions and storage. The evidence consistently presents courtiers as obedient to the commands of the king, and by extension to the will of the gods.1224 4.4. When and Where Royal Commands were Given The majority of royal commands do not record the occasion on which the decree was given. Those that do give an occasion give little extra detail:1225 King Ahmose is described as resting in his palace (pr-aA) shortly before a reference to royal command;1226 Tuthmosis I’s Sehel inscription refers to a command that may have been given when sailing to Nubia;1227 Tuthmosis II is informed of a Nubian rebellion while in the palace (aH) and subsequently makes an oath presented as a royal command later in the text;1228 Hatshepsut’s announcement of the Punt expedition is presented as taking place in an audience hall (DAdw), with the king appearing in her crown on the throne in the palace (aH);1229 the Donation Stele of Senenmut records a command given by Tuthmosis III that was carried out in the court of the king (wsxt n nsw);1230 the appointment of Useramun records that a decree was given in the palace (aH) during an audience of the king.1231 This audience is described as having taken place possibly in the DAdw of the palace, although the text is lost here. The location is said to be on the east side of the river. Similarly, the commands recorded in the Festival Hall inscription at Karnak are presented as given during a single audience with the king in the audience hall (DAdw) on the east side (of the Nile) in the palace (aH).1232 The Annals of Tuthmosis III present the king making commands whilst on campaign: he commands a consultation with his victorious army at the town of Yehem, and then commands that the army be informed that he will lead them through the Aruna Pass to Megiddo; at Megiddo itself the king commands the army to ‘capture well’. He
Decrees are thus presented as given in a number of locations notably the pr-aA, and aH, both normally translated as ‘palace’.1239 The difference between such terminology has not been accurately defined. The palace is sometimes describes as being in the ‘Southern City’ (Thebes), and on the east side of the Nile (right hand side - n imy wrt).1240 Audiences at which decrees were issued are said to be given in the DAdw and wsxt n nsw. The king was not restricted to issuing decrees while in formal audience or other such occasion, he is described as commanding while sailing, hunting, in a mortuary temple before his high officials, and at various locations on campaign – from war council meetings to the site of the battle itself. The making of a wD was thus not restricted to a formal occasion of audience. It would seem then that any authoritative statement made by the king could be classed as wD, irrespective of the physical context or occasion. 4.5. The Formulation of Royal Decrees The question still remains as to how much personal influence the king had in the creation of the decrees that were issued. Were these simply executed in his name, or were they formulated with his own direct input? Evidence for the king composing decrees alone, and evidence for the king composing decrees with the help of his courtiers will now be examined.
1223 From Version D of the Maxims of Ani, see Quack 1994: 134 – 135 for a transliteration and translation, and p. 308 – 309 for a hieroglyphic transcription. 1224 wD ultimately originates with the gods, see below. 1225 The Abydos decree of Tuthmosis III describes the king in audience before his court, but does not give a location at which the command was given; however, this information may have been present in the broken introduction to the stele (3.2.6.). The same can be said for the text describing Tuthmosis III’s nomination to the throne (3.2.17.). 1226 Storm Stele of Ahmose (3.2.2.). 1227 3.2.5. Tuthmosis III is recorded as giving a similar command in his Sehel canal inscription (3.2.22.). 1228 3.2.7. 1229 3.2.14.1. 1230 3.2.10. 1231 3.2.16. 1232 3.2.31.
1233
3.2.33.2. 3.2.50. 1235 3.2.52. 1236 3.2.57. 1237 3.2.61. 1238 Urk IV 30, 8 – 9; 386, 4 – 13; 390, 2 – 391, 5; 169, 4 – 170, 2; 197, 13 – 198, 6; Caminos 1998: 78, pl. 38 col. 22 – 25; Urk IV 818, 2 – 6; Caminos 1998: 58, pl. 29; Urk IV 986, 5 – 10; Caminos 1998: pl. 22; Urk IV 832, 12 – 16; 765, 12 – 15; 879, 5 – 6; 882, 11 – 13; Caminos 1998b: 69, pl. 54. 1239 For pr-aA see Wb I: 516, 2 – 12; for aH, Wb I: 214, 10 -21. 1240 What this means has been the subject of some debate, although the general common consensus is that it refers to a palace on the east bank of the Nile at Thebes, Redford 1973: 89; O’Connor 1995: 275 – 276. 1234
72
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis 4.5.1. The King Alone One definition of law is ‘what the king has said’.1241 If law (hp) was essentially what the king said, there is no real distinction between the different forms of royal authoritative speech, be they instruction or wisdom texts in general, hp, or wD.1242 Generally, there may be no precise boundary between terms such as wD, hp, and tp-rd as would be found in modern legal terminology.1243 In the Horemheb Edict, the king is said to dictate his decree alone to a scribe1244 after having consulted his ib ‘heart/mind’. These words are spoken formally as a command: nsw Ds=f Dd=f m wD[t]
As both king and courtier could smn hp it is unlikely that legislation is meant. As Lorton notes, smn is a causative of the verb ‘mn’, meaning ‘to last/endure’ which can then be translated in this context as ‘enforce’.1253 It would seem that the phrase refers more to the preservation of order and good administration with a sense of enforcing laws, rather than creating them. The Tetisheri Abydos stele1254 presents the king deciding to make a new monument for his mother, Queen Tetisheri, during a discussion with his wife, AhmoseNefertary, in the DAdw of the palace.1255 Although the king is not presented as alone when making his decision, it is not made with the help of a courtier and is presented as his personal initiative. Although both are said to be seeking ways to make mortuary provisions, and they speak to each other, the plans come from the king alone. However, in the Amarna letters the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, writes directly to Queen Tiye,1256 while two further letters from Tushratta, addressed to Akhenaten, advise him to consult Tiye: EA 28 reads, ‘Teye, your mother, knows all the words that I spoke with yo[ur] father. No one else knows them. You must ask Teye, your mother, about them so she can tell you.’1257 More detailed references to Tiye are found in EA 29:1258 concerning Tushratta’s previous correspondence with Amenhotep III, he writes, “T[ey]e, the principal [and favorite] wife of Nimmureya, your father, knows all the words of Nimmureya, your father, tha[t] he would write [to] me over and er. It is Teye, your mother, whom you must ask about all of them: [what] your father [would write over and over], the words that he would speak with me over and over.”1259 Tushratta goes on to explain to Akhenaten that he gave Amenhotep III one of his daughters. He then tells Akhenaten to ask his mother about the words of Amenhotep III to confirm what he is saying. Tushratta complains about the presents sent to him by Akhenaten. He repeatedly asks the king to consult Tiye about the situation that had been agreed.1260 This suggests an active political advisory role played by the queen and by extension a true decision making role played by the king.
The king himself said as a command…1245
There is no indication that Horemheb had consulted any courtiers about its content or that there was an audience present beyond the scribe. The decree is said to be sealed following his dictation.1246 It is common for texts to relate that the king made all laws (hpw) alone. Tuthmosis III states: ist ir.n Hm=i mnw nb hp nb tp-rd nb
Now, My Person made all monuments, all laws and all regulations.1247
The phrase iri hp is used by both the king1248 and courtiers1249 and should be taken as ‘applying’ laws rather than ‘making’ laws.1250 Elsewhere, Tuthmosis III instructs the priesthood on the best way to act for his father (presumably Amun), during which he says that: in Hm=i [sm]n hpw mtyw It is My Person who [enforc]es the exact laws.1251 As with iri hp, private individuals could also make reference to being able to smn hp, Intef states that he was: wDA aH smn pw=f
the well-being of the palace and one who enforces laws.1252
Evidence for the king having no involvement at all in the composition of wD as formalised in administrative documents can be found in the Old Kingdom.1261 The formulaic construction and content of papyrus decrees from the temple of Raneferef at Abu Sir suggests that certain key types of royal decrees were being massproduced.1262 Decrees are also found which relate to the appointment of low-grade civil servants;1263 there is no
1241
Eyre 2004: 95 with further references. In the Westcar Papyrus Khufu states, ‘Let there be offered to the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nebka, the vindicated, one thousand loaves of bread…’ A few lines later in the text, this statement is taken as a royal command, ‘And it was done according to all His Majesty commanded.’ (after Simpson et al 2003: 16). 1242 Eyre 2004: 95. 1243 Eyre 2004: 92. 1244 The scribal sign is partly visible, Urk IV 2143, 8. 1245 Urk IV 2143, 11. 1246 Urk IV 2143, 13. 1247 Urk IV 749, 14. 1248 The phrase is used frequently in the Horemheb Edict; see for example, Urk IV 2149, 7 – 12. 1249 Amenemhat, Urk IV 1045, 3 – 4. 1250 See Lorton 1986: 54 for a brief discussion of this phrase. He cites the Instructions for Merikare: ‘Magnify your great ones, so that they will carry out your laws’ (sAa wrw=k ir=sn hpw=k) (Helck 1977: 24 – 25; Quack 1992: 30 – 31). 1251 Urk IV 1271, 14. 1252 Urk IV 969, 8 – 9.
1253
Lorton 1986: 54 – 55. Klug 2002: 15 – 21; Urk IV 26, 1 – 29, 5. 1255 Urk IV 26, 1 – 29, 4. 1256 EA 26 = Moran 1992: 84 – 86. 1257 Moran 1992: 91. 1258 Moran 1992: 92 – 99. 1259 Moran 1992: 92. 1260 Moran 1992: 92 – 98. 1261 Posener-Kriéger 1985; Pantalacci 1985; Goedicke 1967. 1262 Posener-Kriéger 1985: 206. 1263 Posener-Kriéger 1985: 206. 1254
73
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty evidence that the king had a role, or any personal interest, in making these appointments. Consequently, it is likely these ‘mass-produced’ decrees were ‘rubber stamped’ in the name of the king.
then commanded by the king to be transmitted to others orally (“placed in the face”). The king acts in accordance with the wishes of Amun. It is the king’s role to do what the god wants; he is his representative on earth. The god is presented as communicating his wishes to the king in a number of ways. In his Storm Stele1272 Ahmose sees a storm as a sign from the gods that he should return to Thebes. The king saw the event as a biAt, that is, a clear sign from god, marking success and divine approval. In further texts, Amun appears to Amenhotep II in a dream;1273 while Tuthmosis III sees a comet and interprets it as a sign (biAt) from Amun to show the foreign peoples the power (bAw) of the king.1274 18th Dynasty texts make no explicit reference to oracles, as they are found in the Ramesside Period and later, rather the gods spoke to the king directly.1275 In this manner the king could be presented more as a prophet than as a person taking part in oracular consultation.1276 They dictate words and works to the king which he then communicates to a wider audience by putting the information on stelae at the front of the temple. This aspect of personal communication is found in the words used to describe the king’s interaction with the gods. Amun speaks directly to the king in the Poetical Stele stating that under his guidance (sSmy) the king would reach his enemies.1277 The Gebel Barkal stele relates how Amun guides (sSm) the king on the good road (mTn nfr) through his excellent policies (sxrw).1278 In the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV the king hears of an uprising in Nubia and goes to the temple. Here he consults (nDt) Amun1279 via petition (spr) and receives guidance (sSm).1280 The word nD is used to describe a meeting between the king and members of the court or military officials.1281 Hatshepsut’s petition (spr) to Amun concerning the expedition to Punt is also described as a nDwt-rA – ‘advice’ or ‘consultation’, for which she receives sSm, and the expedition is then described as biAt. Tuthmosis III describes his selection to be king by Amun using a mixture of terminology: at Karnak it is described as a biAt and a tpt-r;1282 the latter word is another term used to describe consultation with the god. It has the meaning of ‘utterance’, but again can be found translated as ‘oracle’. Tuthmosis III is also presented as commanding the recording of events related to
4.5.2. The King and Divine Guidance Only the gods can be explicitly described as commanding the king,1264 as Tuthmosis III relates concerning Amun in the Gebel Barkal stele: iT.n=i rsyw Xr wD=f mHtyw xft sSm=f
I seized the southerners under his command and the northerners according to his guidance.1265
At the Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri a more detailed account of divine guidance is given: the king consults the oracle of Amun and hears his command.1266 Officials are then commanded to send the mission to Punt.1267 It is stated: ir.in.tw mi wDt.n nbt Hm n nTr pn Spss mi st-ib [nt] Hmt=s r=s
It was done according to all that the Person of this august God (Amun) commanded, and according to the pleasure [of] Her Person regarding it.1268
Hatshepsut further states: [iw grt wD.n] Hmt=i rdit m Hr r sbt r xt antyw wbA wAt=f Hry-tp Dt=f rx pXr=f snt mTnw=f xft wD it=i imn
“[Moreover,] My Person [commanded] a ‘placing in the face’ in order to send to the myrrh terraces, to explore its roads which are upon its body, to know (how to) traverse it, to open its roads. according to the command of my father, Amun.”1269
Hatshepsut continues to speak to the courtiers, she states ‘I will cause you to know that which was commanded to me, I have listened to my father […] what was placed in my face…’1270 She explains that the god commanded her to plant trees from Punt beside his temple, and that she fulfilled this command, ‘just as what he placed in my face’.1271 The king emphasises that her command is the same as that which Amun commanded to her. The king is the executor of the divine will. These divine orders are
1272
Wiener and Allen 1998. Urk IV 1306, 12 – 1307, 2. 1274 Gebel Barkal stele, Urk IV 1238, 4 – 1239, 11. 1275 Notably in the Poetical stele of Tuthmosis III (CG 34010) which is a direct address from Amun to the king. See Urk IV 610 – 619, for a translation see Lichtheim II: 35 – 39. 1276 It must also be noted that there is some vague evidence for oracular consultation as it is found in the 18th Dynasty before the New Kingdom (Baines 1987: 89 – 90; Baines and Parkinson 1997). 1277 Urk IV 613, 7 – 8. 1278 Urk IV 1234, 1 – 2; also see Urk IV 1241, 7. 1279 Urk IV 1545, 10 – 1546, 2. 1280 Urk IV 1546, 1. 1281 See discussion below in regard to courtiers. 1282 The inscription here reads, ‘your Person is enduring upon the great throne, an oracle (tpt-r) of the god himself.’ (Urk IV 165, 13 – 14). 1273
1264 The Black Granite Stele of Tuthmosis III (3.2.26.); Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri (3.2.14.1). For further examples see Urk IV 1234, 8; 1236, 10; 1278, 4. 1265 Urk IV 1228, 15 – 16. 1266 Urk IV 342, 9 – 14. 1267 Urk IV 354, 15 – 17. 1268 Urk IV 343, 1 – 2. 1269 3.2.14.1; Urk IV 352, 2 – 7. 1270 Urk IV 352, 15 – 353, 1. 1271 Urk IV 353, 17.
74
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis monumental construction following a nDwt-r.1283 The terminology used to describe communication between the king and god is thus described as a vocal one consisting of ‘command’, ‘utterance’, ‘consultation/advice’, and ‘guidance’, while divine sanction is referred to as biAt shown through physical signs on earth. On the west side of the standing (north) obelisk of Hatshepsut at Karnak,1284 Hatshepsut explains that it was the gods who inspired her to make the monument using many of these terms: Ss.kw m bAw=f mnx n mh=i Hr sp n SAt.n=f Hmt=i rx.ti nTry=f ir.n=i ist Xr wD=f ntf sSm wi nn kA.n=i kAwt nn m ir=f ntf dd tp-rdw n wnt qd=i Hr r-prwy=f n tnm.n=i Hr wDt.n=f
r=i mnx Hr prt im=f n ann.n=i Hr Dddt.n=i
Hatshepsut emphasises that her decision to make the obelisks was completely the will of Amun. She was guided by him and operated under his command. 4.5.3. Evidence for the King Consulting Courtiers The Teachings for Merikare emphasise the king’s need for loyal council:
I was conversant with his excellent bAw, I was not neglectful of that which he ordained. My Person knew that he is divine, I acted under his command. It is he who guided me, I did not plan works without his doing. It is he who gives the regulations. I was without sleep because of his chapel, and I did not stray from that which he commanded.1285
wr wr wrw=f wr qn pw nsw nb Snyt Sps pw xwd m wrw
xprty=sn n Hnty nty ib=sn xt mnw pn irt.n=i n it=i mdwty=sn mtmt gmHty=sn n m-xt
The king himself says: “I ‘place in the face’ of the sunfolk who who will come into being in the everlasting future, whose hearts will be behind (?) this monument which I made for my father, who will speak and discuss it, who will look to the future.”1286
Hatshepsut explains that she decided to make this monument when sitting in the palace, thinking of the one who had created her. It was her ‘heart’ (ib) which led her to make the two obelisks.1287 Finally Hatshepsut states that she recorded these events so that people would not ask why the obelisks were made,1288 she did it for Amun as a desire of her heart, she adds: xmt.n=i mdw rmT
Great is the great man whose great ones are great; brave is the king who possesses an entourage; a noble man is wealthy in great ones.1290
Although this does not state that the king created his decrees with the help of his courtiers it certainly shows the importance of courtiers to the king. Notably it acknowledges the king’s need for others. He cannot operate alone. The Carnarvon Tablet1291 describes the king in his palace speaking to his council of officials which are in his following. The king explains his intention to go to war with the Kushite and Hyksos rulers who controlled large portions of Egypt. The courtiers respond as one stating that they are content with the situation and would only attack if attacked. The king finds these words disturbing in his heart and states ‘as for your counsels…’ before a break in the text. However, it is clear that the king has made his decision to go to war, irrespective of the advice of his courtiers. The king and his army then sail north by the command of Amun, astute of counsel. In the Neferhotep stele1292 the king addresses his courtiers and officials. The king states that his heart wishes to see the primeval writings of Atum. The courtiers recommend that the king go to the ‘House of Writings’. There he unrolls the writings together with his Companions. He decides to have a statue of Osiris and his ennead made. The courtiers applaud the king. The king then sends one of his officials to Abydos. Soon after the king himself travels to Abydos to perform ceremonies and is said to supervise the work on the statue. In the Prophecy of Neferty1293 the king meets his officials for their daily morning homage – they are then dismissed. But the king requests that the seal-bearer call them back to the audience hall in order to ask them to bring an eloquent man to entertain the king. They inform the king of such a man, who then is brought to the court at the command of the king.
As a result of this guidance Hatshepsut completed the obelisks and wished future generations to understand why she made the monument: nsw Ds=f Dd=f di=i m Hr n Hnmmt
(that) my mouth was excellent because of what comes out of it, and (that) I did not turn back on that which I said.1289
I took thought so that people would say
1283
Urk 833, 15 – 834, 3. For this obelisk see Selim 1991, vol 1: 99 – 108; Urk IV 356, 1 – 369, 2. Also see PM II(2): 81 - 82, see E on Plan X. 1285 Urk IV 363, 4 – 11. 1286 Urk IV 364, 10 – 15. 1287 Urk IV 364, 16 – 365, 1. 1288 Urk IV 365, 10 – 13. 1284
1289
Urk IV 367, 10 - 12. Merikare, Helck 1977: 25 – 26; Quack 1992: 30 – 31. 1291 Smith & Smith 1976: 48 – 76. 1292 For the hieroglyphic text see Helck 1975: 21 – 29. 1293 For the text see Helck 1992. 1290
75
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Such texts fall into the literary genre of Königsnovellen. These encompass a number of different literary presentations connected by their mutual use of the king as protagonist and his interactions with his court. The motivation behind such texts was to present the king as ultimate authority and recipient of divine inspiration.1294 Such texts focus on the king’s person - as an individual with personality traits and as a hero who resolves a state of uncertainty or deficiency through his own decisions.1295 It is common within this genre to relate an occasion on which the king and court met to discuss decisions. However, as Loprieno notes the king occupies his own ontological sphere as intermediary to the gods, the dead and mankind, ‘This mobile, multifunctional position of the Egyptian king makes his ideological role a non-historical one par excellence: he is not only the point of transition from the human to the divine or funerary realm, but also an ideal threshold to the sphere of fiction.’1296 These issues cause the presentation of the king in such texts to follow the conventions of the genre. Dziobek has divided Königsnovellen into three categories that show the relationship between the king and his court:1297 1. Advertising a royal decision – king announces something, the council agrees.1298 2. Discussion with the council – king and council disagree, king is always right.1299 3. Mutual efforts at solving a problem.1300 Dziobek argues that texts that fall into categories 1 and 2 provide evidence of an ongoing fight between crown and nobility for power, “why else would they have been put down in public places and why else is their action always styled to the detriment of the non-royal party?”1301 Although this could be seen as evidence of the king’s strong decision making authority and political dominance, and the obedience of his courtiers, Dziobek points to the Chapelle Rouge for further evidence, in which the oracle of Amun will only speak to Hatshepsut leaving the wise men “hollow headed and ignorant”.1302 Type 3 concedes that the king cannot function politically without his courtiers. Dziobek perhaps reads too much into the evidence. His category 1 texts all describe large formal occasions at which a decision was announced before a large assembly. By this stage any argumentation over details will have ended. It would be improper for
courtiers to argue over details at these occasions. His category 2 texts present the decision making process at an earlier stage when the king and his close advisors are debating an issue that is still in flux. It is not a wider announcement and is thus an acceptable event at which issues could be raised and debated; however, the king has the final say. In this manner they emphasise the king’s superiority. As such the Installation of Kenamun should also be included in this category as here the courtiers refuse to make a decision on who should be appointed High Steward in Perunefer because the king is a god and therefore more than capable of making excellent decisions on his own.1303 Dziobek’s category 3 shows this same stage as category 2 and although focuses more on mutual agreement, rather than opposite points of view, the final decision is still taken by the king. This category of text is similar to category 1, in that the king wishes to do something and commands his courtiers to make it possible. It is not mutual agreement, which implies that the king and court are equal in the process; rather there is simply no disagreement by the courtiers in how to make these wishes a reality. Within the genre of tomb biography a number of terms refer to interaction between the king and his courtiers in regard to discussion and decision making. nDwt-r ‘consultation/inquiry’ is often found when the king is consulting the god as an oracle;1304 however, it can also be used to describe interaction between the king and his officials. The king is recorded as nDwt-r-ing his victorious army at Yehem: [wD] Hm=f nDwt- r Hna mSa=f n nxt
His Person commanded consultation with his army of victory.1305
a
Another reference to nD occurring in a military context is found on the Bubastite fragment of Amenhotep III: wn.in Hm=f Hr nD sxr[w] …and so His Person inquired about the sxr[w]1306 The king also has a nDt-r with his soldiers in the Piye stele.1307 In the Appointment of Useramun the elderly vizier is said to enter an audience with the king to nDwt-r about the affairs (xrt) of the Two Lands.1308 The Mayor of Thebes and Overseer of the Double Granary, Ineni, states that he was a:
1294
Loprieno 1996: 277. 1295 Loprieno 1996: 280. 1296 Loprieno 1996: 283. 1297 Dziobek 1998: 138 – 139. 1298 As evidence, Dziobek cites: the Berlin leather scroll of Senwosret I see De Buck 1938: 48 dated to the 18th Dynasty by Derchain 1992: 43; the Abdyos Stele of Tuthmosis I, Urk. IV 94; Hatshepsut’s accession to the throne, Urk IV 254; Hatshepsut’s journey to Punt, Urk IV 349; the accession to the throne of Tuthmosis III (called the Texte de la Jeunesse), Urk IV 155; the Festival Hall inscription of Tuthmosis III, Urk IV 1251. 1299 Stela of Kamose (Smith & Smith 1976); Annals of Tuthmosis III (Urk IV 647); Kuban-Stela of Ramesses II (Tresson 1922). 1300 Neferhotep-stela (Mariette 1880); Appointment of the Vizier (Dziobek 1998: 3 – 15); the Famine Stela, (Barguet 1953); Papyrus Westcar (Lichtheim 1975: 216). 1301 Dziobek 1995: 139. 1302 Dziobek 1995: 139.
nb sArt 1303
possessor of wisdom,
See Davies 1930: 17 – 19, pl. 8; Urk IV 1385, 6 – 1390, 14. See, for example, Urk IV 833, 15 – 834, 3. Also see the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV, Urk IV 1545, 14 – 1546, 2. 1305 Urk IV 649, 4. 1306 Urk IV 1735, 9. See below for a discussion of sxrw. Spalinger suggests that the meaning here is that following a conference the king sent the army to attack the enemy (Spalinger 1982: 62). 1307 See Goedicke 1998: 93 – 98. 1308 Urk IV 1380, 17, 1304
76
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis iqr nDw[t]-r iqr Dd Hr ib n nsw skm ns rx sw m Ddwt
Further terms may relate to the occasions on which opinions were sought and given. The First Royal Herald Iamunedjeh states that he is:
effective (in) consultation, and effective of speech in the view of the king. Complete of tongue, selfknowing in what is said.1309
hrrw nb tAwy Hr sxrw=f
The exact same statements are used by the Overseer of the Silver House (imy-rA pr-HD) Djehutynefer,1310 while further courtiers use elements of these stock phrases. The Chancellor, Sobekhotep, is: iqr nDw[t-r]
Other examples of the same phrase show very little variation.1319 However, a different statement utilising sxrw is provided by Mery under Tuthmosis IV, he is:
effective (in) consultation.1311
sA r iit=f m [pr]-nsw
Paheri also makes the same statement, having already stated that he was ‘complete of tongue’.1312 Amenhotep Son of Hapu is recorded as being mAa nD-r ‘true in consultation’.1313 He also notes that he had been initiated into the divine books, and consequently: nDnD.tw m-a=i m sp=sn nb
r irt sxrw=f pn
I am consulted in all of their examples.1314
[…] sDm Hm=f nDwt-r Tn […] (so that) His Person hears your counsel.1315
w[D] n nsw m Drt=i
nD is a component of the respectful greeting inD-Hr, while the related term nD-xrt is used to show respectful greeting to equals or superiors – normally gods and kings when in audience.1316 What is emphasised in words based around nD is politeness and respect; it reflects the formality of the situation for those interacting with each other at different strata of the political/social hierarchy. This aspect of polite address is used in Ineni’s tomb biography to demonstrate the high esteem he was held in at court in his old age:
n mrt=i
one whose coming is awaited in the palace1320 in order to do this his sxrw.1321
In the Gebel Barkal stele the people give a speech in which a bad fate is indicated for Nubians who might disobey (tht) the king’s sxrw.1322 Four courtiers state in their autobiographies that they were summoned at every hour to perform the sxrw of the Two Lands.1323 In the Bubastite fragment Amenhotep III refers to inquiring (nD) about the sxrw;1324 however, it is not clear whether he is requesting sxrw from his advisors, or if he is inquiring about the status of current sxrw. As all other examples point to sxrw originating with the king alone, the latter interpretation would seem best. Rekhmire states:
Only one broken statement seems to describe a courtier counselling the king:
iw nD.tw xrwt=i m snb anx m Dd Hm=f Ds=f
one with whose sxrw the Lord of the Two Lands is pleased.1318
Hr smnx sxrw=f nn Dd war=i pw [ir.n=f]
A decree of the king was in my hand, when efficiently executing his sxrw; no one said about me, “What [has he done]?”1325
Also, Amenhotep Son of Hapu states: sxrw nb=i m ibw HA=i nmi=i inH wi r=f
I was greeted about my affairs in, “Health and life”, in the speech of His Person himself on account of my love.1317
inqw sxrw=f tAw nbw psDt nbt nty Hr gs.fy
My Lord’s sxrw are a shelter around me, I travel as his utterance surrounds me. His sxrw unite all lands and every bow which is beside him.1326
The Horemheb Edict also makes reference to the king’s exact sxrw1327 and his good sxrw.1328 Such sxrw originate with the king while courtiers could please him through 1309
1318
Urk IV 67, 10 – 12. This final line should perhaps be understood with the sense of ‘in control of his thinking process’. 1310 TT 80, see Urk IV 1475, 19 – 1476, 1 – 3. 1311 Urk IV 1582, 18. 1312 Urk IV 127, 15. 1313 Urk IV 1815, 7. 1314 Urk IV 1820, 15. 1315 Urk IV 1577, 13. 1316 van den Boorn 1988: 56. See Urk IV 1380, 16 in the Appointment of Useramun for various categories of officials coming before the king to ‘greet’ him. Goedicke has argued that nD-xrt could be a reference to discussing business (Goedicke 1977: 54 – 55 n. b – c), but this is not supported by the evidence. 1317 Urk IV 59, 11 – 12; Dziobek 1992: 49, 51, 54.
Urk IV 1370, 13. Urk IV 1402, 1; 1394, 7; 1454, 15; 1472, 7; Save-Soderbergh 1957: 8, pl. VII. 1320 Taking the writing as scribal error, see Cumming 1984b: 272. 1321 Urk IV 1570, 12. 1322 Urk IV 1243, 5. 1323 Iamunedjeh of TT 84 (Urk IV 961, 8); Amenemhat of TT 82 (Urk IV1045, 2); Rekhmire of TT 100 (Urk IV 1141, 1); Sennefer of TT 96 (1430, 19). 1324 Urk IV 1735, 9. 1325 For this text see 3.2.32. 1326 Urk IV 1821, 18 – 1822, 1; Varille 1968: 37. 1327 Urk IV 2149, 6. 1328 Urk IV 2144, 9. 1319
77
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty which could be taken as an advisory role.1337 A 3rd Intermediate Period text relates:
the fulfilment of it. A royal wD provides the official authority to the courtier, it is the term which relates the type of directive, while the plan as a concept – the content of the wD - could be conveyed by the sxrw. The most suitable translation of the word is thus ‘policy’. As with royal wD, the king ultimately receives sxrw from the gods: ir.n(=i) st xft wD n=i it=i imn nb nst tAwy sSm Hm=i Hr mTn nfr m sxrw=f mnxw
xrw(=i) xr Hm=f hrw nb m hrw Xrt iw srw=f Dd r mrr=f n snD(=i) ink sHtp=f ib=f
I did it in accordance with what was commanded to me by my father, Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands. who guides my Person on the good road through his excellent sxrw.1329
r nSnn=f Htp=f Hr sr r(=i) r ms n=f inw
My voice was before His Person every day, and in the course of every day. His officials spoke as he loves, but I was not afraid. I am one who caused his heart to be content at (the time of) his raging. He was content with what my mouth announced, in order to present to him the tribute of every land. It was I who extinguished the flame of speech with peace, until I had brought it to the right measure of joy.1338
The process of the issue of royal directives is emphasised in the above examples. sxrw, as with other directives, is passed to a courtier who shows his worthiness by successfully fulfilling it. sxrw does not originate with courtiers; it is thus a form of royal intention, plans carried out in the name of the king when carrying out activities.
nw tA nb ink pw axm xt
Sennefer refers to hearing what the Lord of the Two Lands hears,1330 while Senenmut states that he ‘hears what is heard, alone and in privacy’.1331 Exclusivity of access1332 both physically and to information is thus emphasised. Senenmut also makes reference to being able to speak to the king, he was one who:
This text not only shows that courtiers would address the king on a daily basis, but that a courtier who spoke up with good advice could impress the king, while those who simply agreed without offering useful advice would lead him to rage. By extension this show that debates occurred. The Steward of the Northern Lands, Khaemwaset states that he was:
n mdwt m hr r iwt=i s(y) r pA xA mty nDmt-ib
[…] in privacy who fills the ears of Horus with truth wsTn nmtt m pr-nsw a.w.s. free of movement in the pr-nsw l.p.h., r mdw n nbt tAwy who utters words to the Lord of the Two Lands.1333
[…] m waaw mH anxwy Hr m mAat
gr mAa qbH tkA And that he was: wAH ib qbH tkA Sw m grg
Senenmut thus had the freedom to move in the pr-nsw and to speak to the king. Horemheb also makes reference to speaking before the king.1334 Further courtiers stress that the king was happy with the things they said: hr.tw Hr pr(w) n r=f
one silent and true, who cools the flame.1339
a patient one, who cools the flame, and is free of falsehood.1340
Few texts outside of descriptions of military campaigns refer to the king as angry and raging. These examples are thus unusual in their presentation of royal behaviour. However, neither example given by Khaemwaset refers to calming the king explicitly, only that he could calm situations in general. Horemheb also refers to calming the king in his Coronation Inscription:
one was content with what came out of his mouth.1335
This indicates that courtiers could make comments to the king, but the detail of such interaction is lacking. Courtiers refer to filling the ears of the king with truth,1336
[Hay tA-tm]w Hr prw n r=f [every]one [rejoiced] at his utterance nis.tw=f m-bAH ity when he was summoned before the sovereign. aH wA=f r nSn (When) the palace fell into anger, wp=f r=f he opened his mouth
1329
Urk IV 1234, 1 – 2. Also see Urk IV 1237, 17 sDm sDmwt nb tAwy, Urk IV 1431, 17 – 18. 1331 sDm sDmt wa m waaw, Urk IV 410, 12. 1332 Freedom to approach the king was controlled; courtiers use epithets to relate this honour: Nefersekheru states that he was ‘one who approaches Horus in his palace’ (Urk IV 1881, 6); on access to the king see el-Menshawy 2000. 1333 Urk IV 456, 15 - 17; also see 461, 2. 1334 Urk IV 2115, 1 – 5, this text is translated below. 1335 Nakhtmin, Urk IV 1910, 1; Kheruef Urk IV 1873, 3. 1336 Nefersekheru, Urk IV 1881 – 1883; Senenmut, Urk IV 456, 15 – 457; Urk IV 961, 10 – 13. 1330
1337
Lichtheim 1992: 50. Jansen-Winkeln 1985, I, 66; II, 464, lines 5 – 7. Urk IV 1930, 17 – 18. 1340 Urk IV 1932, 13 – 15. 1338 1339
78
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis wSb=f n nsw shr=f sw m prw n r=f
other cases information is presented to the king in audience. The Vizier Ramose states:
and answered the king, and he caused him to be contented by his utterance…’ 1341
SnDwtyw nb dhn=[s]n n=i [Hr] sar=i mdw [n nb] aH m Xrt-hrw nt ra nb
These examples show that the king was not an unapproachable god. If he was angry courtiers could speak to him. Courtiers refer to meeting the king in private, referring to themselves as aq Hr nb=f m waaw ‘one who can enter to his Lord in privacy’.1342 Kheruef states that he was: imy-ib mdw m waawt wp.n n=f Hr ib=f n aAt n mnx=f n nsw
The vizier is also presented as informing the king of business in the Duties of the Vizier. aq=f grt r nD-xrt nb a.w.s. Now, he shall enter to greet the Lord, l.p.h., iw smi n=f xrt tAwy when the affairs of the Two Lands have been reported to him m pr=f ra nb in his house, each day.1350
a favourite, who speaks in private, Horus has opened his heart to him because he is excellent for the king.1343
The introduction to the Appointment of the Vizier from the tomb of Useramun describes a similar situation. Rekhmire states that he was:
Similarly, the owner of TT 101 states that he was: nisw [r] tnw wnwt sDm mdwt m waw
summoned [at] every hour, and who hears matters in private.1344
sar mAat n nb=f smi n=f xrt tAwy
Hapuseneb uses a variation of this phrase, stating that he was: nisw r st waaw
All the kilt-wearers bow down to me [when] I forward matters/words [to the Lord] of the palace in the course of every day.1349
one who forwards truth to his Lord, and reports the affairs of the Two Lands to him.1351
It was not only viziers who stated that they forwarded affairs to the king. The Royal Scribe and Steward of Menkheperre Sa-Isis states that he was:
one summoned to the place of privacy.1345
Both Rekhmire and Kheruef state that they were trusted ones, who spoke in privacy,1346 while the Vizier Hapu states that he was in attendance on the king in the ‘place of privacy’.1347 Again, these examples focus on the process of issuing directives and the exclusivity of access to such information at the highest level. Physical access was also restricted: courtiers stress in epithets when they had free or close access to the king.1348 These courtiers are emphasising that they were not given orders in audience; rather they were privileged and trusted enough to enter the royal presence in private. The deliberately given impression is that they have been summoned to be informed of a decision that has already been taken. In
sar xrt tAwy n Hr
one who forwards the affairs of the Two Lands for Horus.1352
However, Senenmut states that the affairs of the Two Lands were reported to him: ink [is] [smi]w n=f xrtw tAwy
I am one to whom the affairs of the Two Lands were [reported].1353
The Prophecy of Neferty refers to courtiers entering and leaving the palace to offer greeting as a daily practice.1354 However, after the greetings have been made the officials leave and the king asks the Sealbearer at his side to summon them back to discuss entertainment for him. Although the king now speaks in a less formal tone (“comrades”), the courtiers still retain their formality, being on their bellies before him. The content of the earlier meeting is not disclosed, only that there was a greeting. It would seem probable that this is the morning briefing referred to in the Duties of the Vizier.1355
1341
Urk IV 2115, 1 - 5. Amenemhab of TT 85 Urk IV 904, 5; the Herald Ramose of TT 94 Urk IV 1465, 11; Kenamun of TT 93 Urk IV 1395, 6; Sennefer of TT 96 Urk IV 1430, 9. See Guksch 1994: 124 – 125, no. (012)04. 1343 Urk IV 1873, 7 – 8. 1344 Urk IV 1474, 10 – 11. 1345 Urk IV 479, 3. 1346 imy-ib mdw m waaw, Rekhmire, Urk IV 1172, 12; Kheruef, Epigraphic Survey 1980: pl. 84, line 6 – 7. Rekhmire also states that he was xnt-st m waaw ‘one foremost of place in private’ (Line 3 – 4; Gardiner 1925: 64; Gardiner in Davies 1943: 80). 1347 iry-rdwy=f m st waaw, (Urk IV 1577, 2). 1348 Phrases such as wsTn nmtt m pr-nsw ‘one who travels freely in the palace’ (Urk IV 455, 9 – 457, 1); smr tkn m ity ‘a companion who can approach the sovereign’ (Urk IV 983 – 985); tkn m-bAH ‘one who can approach the presence’ (Urk IV 520 – 522). 1342
1349
Urk IV 1785, 10 – 11. van den Boorn 1988: 54 – 55, R5. CG 2057 1a 1 – 2, see Blumenthal 1970: 382-G 7.28. 1352 Urk IV 1927, 9. 1353 Urk IV 412, 2. 1354 Lichtheim 1975: 140. 1355 van den Boorn 1988: 54 – 55, R5. 1350 1351
79
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Courtiers refer to the king opening (wbA or wp) ‘the heart’ (ib) to them1356 and that what was in the heart was spoken to them.1357 Intef states that he was one who knew what was in the heart of the sovereign.1358 Although the word ib refers to the heart this word was used with the sense of opinion or thoughts.1359 Such information is thus presented as the personal opinion of the king. It would be an honour for courtiers to hear this information – this personal instruction – and it is used to show personal contact with the king to visitors to the tomb, and thus a good life and worthiness for funerary offerings.
wD=s mdw n rxytw m st nbt nt aH swt Hm sSm=s Tn sDm=Tn mdw=s dmd=Tn Hr wDt=s
Hatshepsut’s command is guidance to the people, just as elsewhere at Deir el-Bahri the god’s command is guidance for Hatshepsut.1362 Also at Deir el-Bahri:
Following the presentation given in this evidence affairs (xrwt) and matter/words (mdwt) are brought to the king by courtiers, the king responds by giving them sxrw. Information could be presented to the king in privacy or during audience, while certain courtiers would have access to this same information, perhaps meaning that it was un-edited, but implying that other courtiers would only be informed at a later time and not in full. The king could summon courtiers at any time. Directives, as a response to this information, could be given by the king in private (waaw) or in audience, but can be described as having come from his ib directly to a courtier. Nehy makes reference to a similar procedure, but using smi and wD: aq Hr smi pr Xr wDt
She shall command to the people from all places of the palace. Assuredly, it is she who shall guide you; you shall hear her words, and be united under her command.1361
sTA srw smrw nw stp-sA r sDm sSm n wDt wD-nsw n Spsw=f it-nTrw smrw-nsw
The officials and the companions of stp-sA were dragged in, in order to listen to the guidance of what was commanded. A royal command to his noblemen, God’s Fathers and Royal Companions.”1363
The king’s ‘guidance’ (sSm) is referred to in the Duties of the Vizier,1364 while the text as a whole is presented as a tp-rd, ‘instructions’, for the newly appointed vizier. On an architrave at Luxor Amenhotep III is one:
[I was] one who entered with a report and came out with a command.1360
dd tp-rd n iw rx sSm imyw-kAtw
The courtiers are thus not presented as having independence and there is no indication of initiative. They bring information to the king and he provides them with the solution. Procedure is emphasised in these texts, but no detail on royal counsel. Those that may refer to such an event, utilising nDwt-r, are based in respect/politeness formulae, and reflect the highly formal nature of interaction with the king.
who gives instructions to the knowledgeable and guides the Overseers of Work.1365
Senemiah, under Hatshepsut, refers to both royal sSm and tp-rd: iw ir=i mty nt ib n nb hrw nb Hn=i awy=i Xr sSm=f
4.5.4. Royal Teaching Royal command can be presented as a form of guidance. Tuthmosis I states, concerning Hatshepsut at Deir elBahri:
nDr=i tp-rd [n] [d]d=f n=i
I have done exactly what the heart of my Lord every day; I control my arms under his guidance; I observe the instructions [whi]ch he gives to me.1366
The king gives instruction to newly appointed courtiers,1367 and is presented as giving speeches in 1356 The following courtiers use a variation of this stock phrase: Kheruef, Urk IV 1873, 7 – 8; Rekhmire, Urk IV 1169, 12 – 13; Senenmut, Urk IV 400, 11 – 12; Amenhotep, Urk IV 460, 6 – 7; Sennefer, Urk IV 1431, 17 – 18; Amenhotep son of Hapu, Urk IV 1815, 5 – 6; Amenemhat Surer, Save-Söderbergh, 1957: pl. 40. Examples using wp include, Sennefer of TT 99, Urk IV 546, 12, 538, 14; Rekhmire of TT 100, Urk IV 1129, 4; Suemniut of TT 92, Urk IV 1449, 9. 1357 Variations of this phrase are used by Tjenuna of TT 76, Urk IV 1578, 10 – 11; Amenhotep of TT 73, Urk IV 463, 1; Iamunedjeh of TT 84, Urk IV 960, 10, 14; Kenamun of TT 93, Urk IV 1405, 7; Kheruef of TT 192, The Epigraphic Survey 1980: pl. 72. 1358 Urk IV 968, 6. 1359 As distinct from HAty which refers to the physical organ. 1360 Nehy, Urk IV 988, 3 – 4; Caminos 1998: 62 – 63; pl. 30.
1361
3.2.14.2. See comments in Chapter Three, section 3.2.14.1. 1363 Punt Reliefs (3.2.14.1.). 1364 ntf sbb mSa sSw nw TmA r irt sSm n nb ‘It is he who dispatches the group (of) scribes of the mat to execute the instruction(s) of the Lord’ (van den Boorn 1988: 265). Here sSm seems to have the sense of ‘instruction’ (as van den Boorn translates) rather than ‘guidance’, although the two words have very similar meaning. 1365 Urk IV 1682, 17 – 18. 1366 Urk IV 489, 2 – 4. 1367 Notably the Installation of the Vizier, but also in the autobiography of Rekhmire, and the appointment of Kenamun. 1362
80
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis audience.1368 Courtiers also refer to royal instruction and characterise themselves as pupils of the king,1369 while others refer to themselves as foster-children of the king.1370 Tjenuna refers to himself as a Foster-Child of the King and states that he was one whom the Lord of the Two Lands instructed,1371 using both presentations. Courtiers who refer to themselves using this presentation are typically high ranking which may be a result of their high level of contact with the king. The king’s command - his authoritative speech - is thus not simply a directive to be followed that came ultimately from the gods, but an education on proper behaviour. Rekhmire is presented as lauding the wisdom of the king and receiving a teaching in his tomb autobiography: ist Hm=f rx xprwt nn wn xmt.n=f rsy DHwty pw m xt nb nn mdwt tmt.n=f arq s[t] […] [SsAw s]w im=f mi sxrw n Hmt sSAt SbSb=f tit r bAk=s mi nTr SA st ir st wpt Hm r=f Dd=f mdw=f xft-Hr=i mk is irty=i Hr HAb (w)i n HAty=i […] rx ntt wptw aSAw nn Dr-a sn wDa-mdw n hA.n=f r tA Hw iry=k xft Dd=i
kA Htp mAa r st=s Hn.n=f n=i wrwy sAq tw sxm-iry m bAg saHa […] […] […] xft SAt.n=f di.n=f n=i qnbt r-xt=i nn wa im ksm.ty.fy wi
Now, His Person knows what happens; there is nothing at all of which he is ignorant. He is Thoth in everything; there is no matter that he has not gained full knowledge of (it). […] [he is conversant] with it1372 like the sxrw of the Person of Seshat. He changes1373 the design into its execution, like the god who ordains it, and does it. His Person opened his mouth and he said his words before me: “Look, my eyes are sending me to my heart,1374 […] knows that tasks are numerous, and there is no end to them, and judgements do not descend to the land.1375 May you act according as I say;
then Maat will rest in her place.” He advised(?) me very greatly: “Pull yourself together; be powerful in action; do not be weary; accuse […]1376 […]” [I acted?] according as he had ordained. He gave to me a court under my authority; There was no one there who could defy1377 me.1378
wD is typically used when a courtier was expected to fulfil a specific ‘one off’ official mission or function.1379 So, it was not the right form of authoritative speech for Rekhmire to be commanded (wD) the Installation of the Vizier, instead as a general guide to working practice, consisting of established rules of action, it is an instruction (tp-rd). This understanding in meaning can be seen in the Installation itself: mk ibw pw n sr irt xt xft tp-rd m irt dddt sprw sprw wppy nn Dd=f n rdi.tw=i wn=i mAa
Look, it is the refuge of the official to do things in accord with instruction when acting on what petitioners say. Then the petitioners who have been judged will not say: “I was not given (my) right.”1380
tp-rd can thus be seen as the general regulations followed as working practice at all times. However, the Installation also refers to itself as a teaching (sbAyt): iw nA m sbAyt kA=k ir=k mitt
1368 Useramun, Kenamun, Festival Hall Inscription of Tuthmosis III; Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. 1369 The owner of TT 226 states that he was sbA n Hm=f Ds=f ‘Pupil of His Person himself’ (Urk IV 1877 – 1879, 8). Tjenuna is one ‘whom the Lord of the Two Lands himself taught’ (Urk IV1579, 12); a royal teaching to Kheruef is referenced (Urk IV 1876, 3). A Menkheperreseneb refers to himself as the one ‘whom the Lord of ritual taught’ (Urk IV 993, 17). 1370 Puyemre is a sDty nsw (Davies 1922: 36, pl. IX); Senenmut is a sDty nsw (Dorman 1991: pl. 79, row N10); Rekhmire is a sDty nsw (Urk IV 1072, 1); Kenamun is a sDty Hr mr=f (Urk IV 1395, 16; 1402, 3; Davies 1930: pl. IX); Tjenuna is a sDty Hr m aH=f (Urk IV 1580, 6); Amenhotep Son of Hapu is a sDty nsw mAa (Varille 1968: 34; Urk IV 1816, 8); Nefersekheru is a sDty Hr (Urk IV 1883, 13). 1371 Urk IV 1579. 1372 Following Gardiner 1925: 66. 1373 Following Gardiner 1925: 66; Gardiner in Davies 1943: 80. 1374 Possibly referring to Rekhmire himself rather than his physical heart, see Gardiner 1925: 67. 1375 Meaning ‘never cease’, see Gardiner 1925: 66 – 67; Gardiner in Davies 1943: 80.
This is a teaching; you should plan accordingly.
to
act
The king is delivering these generally applicable regulations as a direct face-to-face oral teaching1381 to the vizier in audience.1382 The mode of transmission is a ‘teaching’ but the content is a tp-rd. The Middle Kingdom Loyalist Teaching describes the king as ultimate teacher and refers to him in a supernatural 1376
Gardiner suggests ‘evil’ here (Gardiner 1925: 67). With the sense of ‘overrule’ (Gardiner in Davies 1943: 80); or ‘browbeat’ (Gardiner 1925: 67). 1378 Gardiner 1925: 66 – 67 with transcription; Gardiner in Davies 1943: 80. 1379 For example to open a quarry (3.2.41.); appoint a person (3.2.57.); or endow a temple (3.2.28.). 1380 Urk IV 1089, 3 – 6. 1381 The vizier is ‘placed in his face’ with the tp-rd by the king. 1382 The council (qnbt) are brought (sTA) into audience at the start of the text. 1377
81
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty manner, but brings in many aspects of the above mentioned discussions:
may reflect their more direct access to royal wisdom due to their access to the king, unlike others who could only listen to his speeches in formal audience.
“Adore the king, Nimaatre, living forever, in your innermost parts. Place His Majesty in friendly fashion in your thoughts. He is Perception, which is in (all) hearts, and his eyes pierce through every being. He is Re, by whose rays one sees, for he is one who illuminates the Two Lands more than the sun disk. He is one who makes (the land) green, even more than a high inundation: he as filled the Two Lands with victory and life. Nostrils are cool when he starts to rage, but when he sets in peace, one can breathe the air (again). He gives nourishment to those in his circle, and he feeds the one who adheres to his path. The king is ka. His utterance is abundance. The one whom he brought up is one who will be somebody. He is Khnum for the limbs, the Begetter of the begotten. He is Bastet, who protects the Two Lands. The one who praises him will be protected by his arm. He is Sekhmet against those who disobey his orders, and the one with whom he disagrees will be laden with sorrows. Fight on behalf of his name; be obeisant with life. Be free and clear of any instance of negligence.”1383
4.6. Who was Given Royal Commands? This evidence can be divided according to whether a specific executor of the command is named or not. 4.6.1. No Executor Named The vast majority of royal decrees do not specify the person to carry out the command – the executor – and come from a royal context.1388 A typical example would be: iw wD.n Hm=i qAb nTr-Htp pn
No information regarding the mechanism by which the command was achieved is provided. It is simply recorded that the king commanded something. It is understood that the temples, or gods, would benefit from this decree, while the king’s prestige would be illustrated through its recording for posterity.
This all relates to the king’s divinity; the king’s teaching can have a ‘supernatural’ effect on a courtier. In the Appointment of Kenamun it is stated that: ir di=k Hr n xm-xtw HD-tA spd sw r rxw ir mdw=k n Xsy […] [m q]n [Hr]-a[w]y […]
My Person commanded the doubling of these divine offerings.1389
In private examples, the High Priest of Ptah Ptahmose refers to the king commanding that he be placed to do excellent offices,1390 while during Kenamun’s appointment the king commands that Kenamun be appointed.1391 Amenhotep II issues his command appointing Nebamun to Chief of Police in Thebes directly to Nebamun himself.1392 In these examples the king makes a command, but the courtier who recorded the command is not the executor, but the beneficiary. The courtier’s prestige and honour at court is illustrated through the recording of a royal decree – showing specific royal attention - made for his benefit. The
If you (the king) “place the face” of an ignoramus, when the day dawns he is more effective than the wise. If you speak to a coward […] [with cou]rage [immed]iately […]1384
The king is then described as Ra by the courtiers. This ‘supernatural’ side of the king is emphasised in texts that refer to him having Hw and siA, translated generally as ‘authoritative speech’1385 and ‘divine perception’ respectively.1386 Amenhotep II’s letter to his Viceroy of Kush Usersatet can certainly be classed as a royal teaching1387 and indicates that the king saw himself as a source of real wisdom. A major element of New Kingdom royal ideology was that the king knew better than everyone else. He takes advice and makes the best solution. In this regard, based on the presentation in Königsnovellen, the king was a teacher to his courtiers – he taught them the wishes of the gods and the correct way to act, while they could legitimately regard themselves as his pupils. Those who held the title ‘Foster-Child of the King’ were typically high ranking courtiers - a reflection of this father/son, teacher/student concept. It is a title that
1388 Ahmose Temple Endowment (3.2.1), Storm Stele (3.2.2.), Reward of an un-named King’s Son of Kush (3.2.3.), Sehel Inscription of Turi (3.2.5.); Tuthmosis II Aswan-Philae Inscription (3.2.7.); Djehuty (3.2.12); the Punt Expedition of Hatshepsut (3.2.14.1); Coronation of Hatshepsut (3.2.14.2); Serabit el-Khadim Inscription of Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut (3.2.15.); Nomination of Tuthmosis III to the throne (3.2.17.); Statue from 8th pylon of Tuthmosis III (3.2.19); Temple of Ptah inscriptions of Tuthmosis III (3.2.20; 3.2.21.); Sehel Canal inscription of Tuthmosis III (3.2.22.); Fragmentary Inscription from Buhen of Tuthmosis III (3.2.23); Heliopolis inscription of Tuthmosis III (3.2.25.); the Sai Pillar stele of Tuthmosis III (3.2.30.); Festival Hall inscriptions of Tuthmosis III (3.2.31.); Buto stele of Tuthmosis III (3.2.32.); temple endowments from the Annals (3.2.33.1); some military commands in the Annals (3.2.33.2.); the Elephantine stele of Amenhotep II (3.2.36.); Offering List of Khonsu of Amenhotep II (3.2.38.); Inscription of Kenamun (3.2.41.); Medamud Stele of Tuthmosis IV (3.2.47.); Quarry inscriptions at Tura under Amenhotep III (3.2.49.); Lake scarab of Amenhotep III (3.2.51.); Wild Cattle hunt scarab of Amenhotep III (3.2.52.); the appointment of Ptahmose (3.2.60.); the majority of commands recorded in the Horemheb Edict also take this form (Line 14 – 15, Urk IV 2144, 7 – 9; Line 26, Urk IV 2149, 5 – 6; Line 31, Urk IV 2151, 10 – 11, Kruchten 1981: 99; Line 36, Urk IV 2153, 15 – 16. 1389 Urk IV 745, 11, from the Annals of Tuthmosis III (3.2.33.1.). 1390 3.2.60. 1391 3.2.41. 1392 3.2.45.
1383
Simpson et al 2003: 173. Publication is by Posener 1976; also see recent work by Loprieno on loyalist literature (1996b; 1996c). 1384 3.2.41. 1385 Wb III: 44. 1386 Wb IV: 30 – 31. 1387 3.2.39.
82
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis executor of the command is not named as this information was not important in the context.
from under Amenhotep III do not mention a specific person as being commanded.1399
The King’s Son of Kush Turi is commanded to ‘cause the oath to be established…’ 1393 Although this command is given to Turi, he is not the ultimate recipient or executor of the command, rather he is simply meant to cause that another fulful the order.1394
As well as individuals, institutions and multiple persons can be addressed as the recipient of royal commands. Senenmut’s Donation stele1400 is addressed to the Temple of Amun to execute. Hatshepsut’s announcement of the success of the mission to Punt is announced to the God’s Fathers and Royal Companions.1401 Tuthmosis I is presented as commanding to the people (rxywt) in Hatshepsut’s coronation inscription,1402 while later in the text it is the Dignitaries of the King, the nobles, and the foremost of the people whom he is said to be commanding. In the Annals of Tuthmosis III the king directs commands to his army.1403 In his Festival Hall inscription Tuthmosis III commands the priests ‘to do this which I ordained.’1404 The royal command recorded in Tuthmosis III’s health decree is addressed to all the officials and (royal) companions.1405 Amenhotep II is recorded as commanding ‘to his august ones, the officials of stp[-sA], […] [the courtiers] who can enter the [palace], […] the servants [of] the Good God.’1406 Tuthmosis IV commands his army to assemble in his Konosso Inscription.1407 Amenhotep III is recorded as commanding to ‘people’ in his Bubastite Fragment.1408 A decree inscribed upon a statue of Nebnefer to record his appointment to the Temple of Amun states that ‘a command was given in the palace’,1409 but was delivered to the High Priest of Amun to execute. Rekhmire refers to having a decree of the king in his hand when executing the king’s policies (sxrw).1410
4.6.2. Executor Named It is rare for the direct executor of a royal decree to be named. The executor is addressed only by title in royal inscriptions: the Abydos Decree of Tuthmosis I relates that: wD Hm=f n imy-rA xtm xrp kAwt m rdit Sm […] spd nb n smdwt=f tpy n wnwt=f rx tp-rd SsA m rxt.n=f nty thh=f rdiwt m Hr=f [ir] mnw [n] it=f [Asir]
His Person commanded the Chancellor: “Direct the work in causing to go […] every skilled one of his workmen, the best of the priesthood, who know the instructions, and are conversant with what he knows, and who do not disobey what is ‘placed in the face’.” A monument [was made] for his father [Osiris].1395
There are only a few private inscriptions which record that a specific named individual was commanded by the king to execute a function. In these few cases it is the named courtier’s responsibility to carry out a royal command, or see that a royal command is carried out; he is the mechanism by which the command was fulfilled.1396 Prestige and honour is shown through the king having given the courtier a specific task to fulfil.
4.7. ‘Placing in the Face’ A common phrase used to describe an authoritative statement is ‘placing in the face’: on a statue now in Bologna1411 Hapuseneb records: mDd.n(=i) rdit.n=f m Hr=i
I obeyed what he (the King) placed in my face.1412
In some cases the executor is inferred through context, although they are not explicitly named as the executor of the command.1397 For example, Minmose states that the king commanded the quarries at Tura be opened; however, it is not explicit that he commanded Minmose to do this.1398 Still, it would make little sense for Minmose to record this command if he were not involved in its execution. Two further examples of this inscription
Clearly this is a statement of Hapuseneb’s loyalty to the royal command, used to present Hapuseneb as one who was an excellent courtier and worthy of offerings. The phrase could be used to record the initiation of an expedition: the scribe Amenmose records a command to
1393
1399
3.2.4. Similarly, the king commands to cause people be assembled in the Annals, but no specific executor of the command is named (3.2.33.2.). In Kenamun’s tomb it is recorded that the king commanded to cause statues be followed to the temple (3.2.41.). 1395 3.2.6. The recipient of the decree is only named by title in the Berlin Leather Roll also (de Buck 1938). However, in contrast, the Kamose stele specifically mentions the person responsible for having the text inscribed as commanded by the king (Smith & Smith 1976). 1396 Turi (3.2.4.); Nehy (3.2.27.; 3.2.29.); Rekhmire (3.2.34.); Usersatet (3.2.39.; 3.2.40.). 1397 Minmose (3.2.43.); Amenhotepsaese (3.2.46.); Unknown Courtier of TT 226 (3.2.53.); Kheruef (3.2.55.); Userhat (3.2.56.); Amenemhat Surer (3.2.59.) 1398 3.2.43.
3.2.49. 3.2.10. 1401 Urk IV 349, 10 – 350, 1. 1402 3.2.14.2. 1403 3.2.33.2. 1404 3.2.31. 1405 3.2.35. 1406 3.2.37. 1407 3.2.48. 1408 3.2.50. 1409 3.2.57. 1410 3.2.34. 1411 Statue 1822, see Urk IV 480, 11 – 485, 9. There appears to be no specific provenance known for this statue. 1412 Urk IV 484, 5.
1394
1400
83
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty his superior, Sobekhotep, in a private inscription in Sinai:1413 rnpt-sp 36 Abd 2 prt hrw 9 xr Hm n nsw bity nb-mAat-ra sA ra imn-Htp HkA wAst di anx mi ra Dt nHH ist Hm=f m niwt rsyt [m aH=f Hr imy-wr]t n wAst ist rdiw m Hr n sS-nsw imy-rA pr-HD [sbk]-Htp Dd.n=f pA-[nH]sy r ms mfkAt iw Hm=f m xmt Hb[-sd]
Sennefer then goes on to explain that no fault was found with him,1419 and consequently he was appointed as Mayor of Thebes.1420 Similarly, a commission can be described as a ‘placing in the face’:
Year 36, second month of Peret, day 9, under the Majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nebmaatre, the Son of Re, Amenhotep, Ruler of Thebes, given life like Re for ever and ever. Now, His Person was in the southern city, [in his palace in the west side] of Thebes. Now, a ‘placing in the face’ of the Royal Scribe, Overseer of the Silver House, [Sobek]hotep, called Pa[ne]hsy, to [bring turquoise], when His Person was planning the [Sed]-festival.1414
iw rdi.n Hm=f m Hr=i r xrp kAt m r-prw nw nTrw nbw
Hatshepsut recorded a ‘placing in the face’ of the sun folk.1422 While Kenamun states that if Amenhotep II ‘placed in the face’ of an ignoramus, ‘when the day dawns he is more effective than the wise.’1423 Courtiers could ‘place in the face’ of those of a lower rank: Amenhotep Son of Hapu is: dd m Hr n smrw-nsw m mdwt prt m-Xnw aH Hrrw Hr irt.n=f nbt nn kt=f xr wnyw ir wDwt mi wDdwt
On the last day of the Sed-festival Sobekhotep then set out to bring back turquoise for the king’s next Sedfestival.1415 The expedition was successful and when he returned he was given gold by the king. Near the end of the text Amenmose exclaims: nDr.n=i sp rdi=f m Hr=i
nn rdit prw xft hpw
I held to the matters he ‘places in my face’.1416
Some examples combine a wD with a ‘placing in the face’. Thus, in an inscription of Tuthmosis III on the doorway of the seventh pylon, construction work is recorded within the temple: wD Hm=f qd inr diw [m Hr n] […]
Appointment to office could be presented as a ‘placing in the face’: the Mayor of Thebes, Sennefer, states in his tomb at Thebes:1417
rx.n=f ir=i Axt m iAwt rdi.n=f m Hr=i
one who “places in the face of” the Royal Friends by the words which come forth from within the palace, about whose every doing one is contented, there is no pettiness of his with those who exist. who carries out commands according to what has been commanded, without causing excess, according to the law.1424
Amenhotep stresses that although he commanded those below him, he was only passing commands down the hierarchy. Djehuty states that ‘I place [in your face] […]’,1425 but those he is addressing is lost. The Vizier Ramose also makes reference to ‘placing in the face’.1426
Although the text does not explicitly state that the king made the command, the context suggests that he did. Thus, the king is initiating a process, an expedition to the Sinai. The text displays Sobekhotep’s excellent work for the king by describing how he successfully completed the command issued to him. It also shows Amenmose’s excellent action for his superior, Sobekhotep.
mnx=i rx.n st nsw
His Person ‘placed in my face’ to direct the work on the temples of all the gods.1421
His Person commanded to build in stone. Placing [in the face to] […].1427
Also, Hatshepsut commands a ‘placing in the face’ according to what has been commanded by the god.1428 Similarly,
the king knew of my excellence, and he knew that I would act excellently in the offices that he ‘placed in my face’.1418
1419
Urk IV 1425, 14 – 15. Urk IV 1425, 17. 1421 Urk IV 1443, 1. Inscription of Minmose from a black granite statue from Medamud. 1422 Urk IV 364, 10 – 15. 1423 Urk IV 1386, 10. 1424 Urk IV 1815, 12 – 17. 1425 Urk IV 435, 17. 1426 Urk IV 1782, 17 – 19; Davies 1941: pl. 36. 1427 3.2.18. 1428 Urk IV 352, 2 – 7. 1420
1413
Urk IV 1891, 1 – 1893, 12; Gardiner & Peet 1952: No. 211. Urk IV 1891, 4 – 9. 1415 Davies 1994: 100 note 237. 1416 Urk IV 1892, 13. 1417 TT 96, PM(2) I: 197 – 203. 1418 Urk IV 1425, 12 – 13. 1414
84
The Use of Royal Commands (wD-nsw): Analysis di.n=s m Hr n iryw r swDt […]
There is almost exclusively no evidence of debate concerning the content of decrees, and no detail is given concerning the mechanism by which the commands would be fulfilled. The king commands and it is done. Things are achieved through the authority of the king alone; he is the one who makes policies (sxrw) and guides (sSm) his courtiers and the people of Egypt. The courtiers consult him for advice. They bring him information and he provides them with answers. The king could make a command in the palace, outside around Egypt, or on campaign; the giving of a royal command was not limited by location. He is kept informed about current affairs every morning in the palace, or in his tent on campaign.
She has ‘placed in the face’ of those who act according to what has been commanded […]1429
The Viceroy of Kush Nehy records that a royal command was ‘placed in his face’ in order that stone be conveyed on the river for the construction of a temple.1430 He also records that the king commanded he be ‘placed in the face’ to build a temple at Sai.1431 Nehy also records that he kept secret what was placed in his face.1432 When courtiers state that they were placed in their face, this is a reference to direct personal instruction, rather than instruction by letter. In this way, a reference to being ‘placed in the face’ may show higher prestige. In the Annals Tuthmosis III commands a placing in the face to his entire army and gives the specific message:
The king is presented as receiving commands and guidance from the gods, which he then passes down to his high officials, who then further distribute the order. However, it is not right to conclude that all royal commands were inspired by the gods, as Vernus does.1439 This divine ‘flavour’ is simply the consequence of the vast majority of royal decrees being referenced in divine contexts. There is no hint that the letter sent to Usersatet was divinely inspired, nor that the lake of Queen Tiye was dug under divine direction. These are works of the king alone. Any expression of royal will contained authority, thus the letter to Usersatet became classed as an wD.1440
n[Hm nb=Tn nxt nmtt=Tn] “Your victorious Lord will gui[de] your steps [Hr] mTn pf nty wA r Hns [on] this road which becomes narrow.”1433 Two further messages are related to the army from the king as a ‘placing in the face’.1434 It would seem that this is a decree that others should personally, orally be informed of the mission or commission and cause that it be carried it out. A variation of the phrase is found on Stele Lyon 881435 of unknown provenance.1436 The High Priest of Amun, Mayor of Thebes and Vizier Ptahmose (A) states: n mhy=i Hr SAt.n=f m Hr=i
The wDw as presented in Chapter Three are specific in their aims - intended to address a particular need at a particular time - and are thus not recorded to be continuously and generally applicable, or for future reference. They are not administrative copies1441 accurate copies of the original decree that could be consulted for reference - as the detail of the content is missing; they are contracted versions of longer decrees, providing the basic intent of the decree in as brief a way as possible;1442 the decrees as presented are abridged.1443 What is emphasised in these texts is the completion of wDw - the endowments the king had commanded for the temple are understood to have been made, the quarry the courtier was commanded to open has been opened. The wD is simply recorded as a device to show right action for the king or gods. They are recorded for self promotional purposes, not to record the decree per se.
I was not neglectful of that which he ordained in my face.1437
4.8. Conclusion The royal decrees presented in the evidence cover a wide range of subjects, from the endowment of temples to the reward and appointment of officials. The vast majority of references to royal commands are found in royal inscriptions from temple contexts. These great achievements of the kings could be viewed and understood by only a minority, but it must be borne in mind that the divine audience was equally as important as that of the living,1438 and that inscriptions on stelae in temple precincts were possibly read out to a gathered audience.
In general it is clear that the king is showing his good acts for the gods – he makes commands according to the god’s command, or makes commands for the benefit of the gods. He is thus presented as using his authority wisely and for the good of Egypt. Private individuals
1429
Urk IV 502, 16 - 503, 4. 3.2.27. 1431 3.2.29. 1432 Caminos 1998: 62, 63, 64; Newberry 1933: 54. 1433 Urk IV 652, 3 – 4. 1434 Urk IV 655, 16 – 656, 2; 657, 4. 1435 Varille 1930. 1436 Varille states that we are unaware of its origins, and makes no further comment (Varille 1930: 63). 1437 Line 8; Varille 1930: 504. 1438 Baines 2007: 317.
1439
1430
Vernus 1991: 246. Gunn 1927: 234. Such as the Old Kingdom Coptos decrees, for which see Goedicke 1967. Also see Pantalacci 1985; Posener-Kriéger 1985. 1442 Klug has noted that ‘pure’ records of royal commands, such as that of the titulary announcement decree of Tuthmosis I refer to the command as a wD-nsw, while those that simply state iw grt wD Hm=f are not following the original wording of the command (Klug 2002: 493). 1443 As Vernus states ‘ce document est abrégé, résumé, voire réduit à l’idée directrice, au detriment de l’exposé détaillé.’ (Vernus 1991: 243). 1440 1441
85
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty show that they followed the king’s command, and thus show that they were loyal, trusted by the king with major commissions, and worthy of afterlife offerings in the case of tomb inscriptions. Courtiers also show this through non-specific examples of royal command in epithets which simply state in a general sense that the courtier was one who followed royal commands and was influenced by the royal words. As such, the commands lack personality and reflect self-promotion over governmental procedure. Still, there are very few examples of a private individual stating explicitly that he received a royal command to execute, or even that a royal command was made in his favour. As recording the fulfilment of a royal decree would be a sign of great honour for a courtier, decorum1444 must have prevented courtiers from recording their activities for the king in these terms. This could perhaps be the result of the need to present the king as the one who officially performed all functions. Due to the ideological motivation behind these inscriptions reflected in the contexts in which the references to decrees are found - it is impossible to extract details on the extent of the king’s true historical role in making decrees, or the real mechanism of government. The only decrees that hint at royal power used for personal ‘selfish’ reasons are the large commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III. If the king could demand a huge lake be dug for his wife, further excesses typical of absolute rulers likely occurred. There is just the smallest hint then, from all of this evidence, that the king had the personal authority to command those around him at any place, for any reason.
1444
The rules of presentation which governed what could be described in what situations. For a recent overview of decorum see Baines 2007: 3 – 30.
86
rewards he received for his bravery1454 following each battle.
CHAPTER FIVE THE KING’S ROLE AS MILITARY LEADER: EVIDENCE
5.2.1. War Against the Hyksos Having followed his father into the army,1455 Ahmose Son of Ibana finds himself campaigning against the Hyksos in the north of Egypt:
“He is a king who fights alone, without a multitude behind his heart. He is [more] effective [than] a million (men) in numerous armies. No equal to him has been found.”1445
wn.xr=i Hr Sms ity a.w.s. Then I was following the sovereign l.p.h. Hr rdwy on foot, m-xt swtwt=f Hr wrryt=f (running) behind as he travelled on his chariot. iw Hms.tw Hr dmi The town n Hwt-rdt of Avaris was besieged. wn.xr=i qnt Hr rdwy=i Then I was brave on my feet m-bAH Hm=f in the presence of His Person.1456
5.1. Introduction Evidence for the king’s role as military leader is found in literature,1446 on royal stelae,1447 temple wall inscriptions1448 and private tomb autobiographies.1449 The king in battle is also depicted on temple walls.1450 In order to ascertain the extent to which the king’s true historical role as military commander and warrior on the battlefield is presented in this evidence, it is necessary to present examples of him making decrees, consulting his generals, and descriptions of him in battle alongside his troops. Mundane examples, such as the king moving between destinations will be omitted. The extent of the reality of the evidence will then be analysed in the following chapter. Depictions of battles will be considered, as will the physical evidence of the pharaohs.
Ahmose brought a hand to the Royal Herald as proof of a kill. He then states: wn.in.tw Hr rdit n=i nbw n qnt
5.2. The Wars of Ahmose In his tomb autobiography the soldier Ahmose Son of Ibana1451 gives an account of the role he played during the wars against the Hyksos in the reign of King Ahmose.1452 Rather than describing the role played by the king1453 as leader of the army or as warrior, he focuses on the
and then gold of valour was given to me.1457
A further capture is also reported to the Royal Herald, for which Ahmose was rewarded again.1458 At this time Ahmose was still a waw ‘Soldier’,1459 the title he had inherited from his father. As there is no indication at this point in the narrative that he had risen in rank during the campaign,1460 there is no reason to believe that he would have reported his kills to the king himself, or that he would have received rewards during a personal audience.1461 As such he had to report to the Herald as intermediary. If the king had personally rewarded Ahmose one might expect it to have been proudly and obviously stated. Rather, the passive statement implies that he received his reward, but not from the king. Consequently, the reference to him being in the king’s presence need only mean that both were in relatively close proximity due to Ahmose’s military role, but not that there was any interaction. The same can be said for the reference to following the king on foot, which may be a reference to Ahmose acting as royal bodyguard.1462 Additional passive statements follow, without specific
1445
The Gebel Barkal Stele, Urk IV 1229, 14 – 16. The Taking of Joppa is a Ramesside literary tale describing an event during a campaign of Tuthmosis III, see Wente in Simpson et al 2003: 72 - 74. Another literary fragment discussing an event during the wars of Tuthmosis III is discussed by Botti 1955. 1447 The Tombos stele of Tuthmosis I (5.4.1.); the Aswan Philae Inscription of Tuthmosis II (5.5.1.); the Gebel Barkal stele (5.7.2.), Armant stele (5.7.3.), and Karnak Ptah Temple stele of Tuthmosis III (5.7.5.); the Amada and Elephantine stele (5.8.1.), and Memphis and Karnak stelae (5.8.2.; 5.8.3.) of Amenhotep II; the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV (5.9.1); the Aswan Philae stele of Amenhotep III (5.10.1.). See relevant stele below for fuller references. 1448 The Annals (5.7.1) and 7th pylon doorway inscription of Tuthmosis III (5.7.4.). 1449 Notably, Ahmose Son of Ibana for the wars of Ahmose through to Tuthmosis I (5.2.; 5.3.; 5.4.); Amenemhab under Tuthmosis III (5.7.11.). 1450 These have been collected and discussed by Heinz 2001. The evidence is also presented below according to reign. 1451 El-Kab tomb 5 – Urk IV, 1 – 11. A description of the text and the history of the tomb is provided by Vandersleyen 1971: 17 – 21. Translations can be found in Breasted 1906: 3 – 9; Gunn and Gardiner 1918: 48 – 54; Wilson in Pritchard 1955: 233 – 234; Vandersleyen 1971: 17 – 87; Goedicke 1974: 31 – 41; Lichtheim 1976: 12 – 15. 1452 For details on these wars in general see Vandersleyen 1971. 1453 New Kingdom texts sometimes refer to the king using the impersonal pronoun .tw. This can lead to difficulties in translation as it is not always clear whether the sentence is describing the action of the king in the manner of ‘One does x’, or whether it is simply passive, ‘x is/was done’. However, it is quite clear in this text when Ahmose is referring to the king as he specifically refers to him as Hm=f ‘His Person’ or ity ‘sovereign’. Consequently, these statements are best taken as simple passive clauses removing any unnecessary suggestion that the king is being referred to. 1446
1454
See Urk IV 3, 15; 4, 2; 4, 9; 4, 13; 5, 1 – 2; 5, 10 – 11; 6, 7 – 8; 6, 15; 7, 16; 10, 3. On ceremonial reward in general see Schulman 1988: Part 2. 1455 Urk IV 2, 12 – 13. 1456 Urk IV 3, 5 – 8. 1457 Urk IV 3, 15. 1458 Urk IV 4, 4 – 9. 1459 For this title see Schulman 1964: 37. 1460 The first clearly stated elevation of status comes under Amenhotep I when Ahmose is made ‘Warrior of the Ruler’ (Urk IV 8, 2). 1461 Although Ahmose states that he was running behind the king’s chariot, perhaps as a form of royal bodyguard, there is a great difference between a soldier in the service of the king as protection and a soldier who would be invited into the royal presence for reward or consultation. 1462 For pictorial equivalents of this description see the scenes of soldiers or police running in front of the royal chariot in the Amarna tombs of Meryre (Davies 1903: 25 – 26, pl. X); Panehesy (Davies 1905: 18 – 19, pls. XVI - XVII); and Mahu (Davies 1906: 16, pl. XX - XXII).
87
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty heavily dependent on a putative royal daybook1474 which he argues exists for this period.1475 He suggests that the entry for the Tetian episode would take the form ‘smiting him by his majesty’.1476 As daybook entries provide an initial note of royal activity1477 it is possible that ‘his majesty’ here is the king himself and not the king as symbolic of the army. As such, it is possible that this example refers to the king executing Tetian after his capture in battle. However, the assignment of all kills to the king is a theme in texts that acknowledge royal authority.1478
reference to the king in the description of the fighting, after which Ahmose was again rewarded. When Avaris was finally taken Ahmose took one man and three women as spoils. It is then stated: wn.in Hm=f Hr rdit st n=i r Hmw
Then His Person gave them to me as slaves.1463
This then is a more explicit and direct reference to the reward of Ahmose by the king. However, Ahmose does not state that he came into the king’s presence and no narrative is provided concerning the circumstances of the reward. It could be argued that Ahmose was personally rewarded by the king during an audience; however, due to the absence of incidental detail we cannot be sure how this occurred. Another equally valid interpretation is that it was done through the personal authorisation of the king as a general redistribution of spoils to the troops after battle.1464 Sharuhen is then besieged for three years and it is stated that: wn.in Hm=f Hr HAq s(y)
5.2.3. Depictions Fragmentary reliefs of Ahmose’s battle against the Hyksos have been found at the king’s pyramid temple at Abydos.1479 These depict the king in his chariot firing arrows at the enemy. Although little detail can be gleaned from them, they show that this form of depiction was being used from the start of the 18th Dynasty. 5.3. The Wars of Amenhotep I The major source for the wars of Amenhotep I is again the tomb autobiography of Ahmose Son of Ibana.1480 Ahmose relates that the king sailed to Nubia at which:
His Person despoiled it.1465
This then is a reference to the actions of the army summed up in the person of the king.1466 Ahmose was again rewarded with gold and was given his captives as slaves.1467
wn.in Hm=f Hr sqr iwntyw sty pf m Hry-ib mSa=f inw m gwAwA
5.2.2. Nubian Campaign The focus then switches to Ahmose’s campaign in Nubia,1468 but little detail is given. ‘His Person’ slaughtered the Nubians1469 and Ahmose was rewarded for his personal contribution, again without specific reference to the king: wn.in.tw Hr iwa(=i) m nbw Hr snw=sy
nn nhw=sn
Ahmose then states that he was fighting at the head of the army and that the king saw his bravery.1483 Following the battle Ahmose presented two hands to ‘His Person’.1484 Ahmose did not report it to the Herald as he had done earlier under King Ahmose. His success under Ahmose must have led to a rise in status, which perhaps meant that he no longer had to communicate with the king through an intermediary; instead he could approach him directly. There is no evidence that Ahmose officially gained rank until the end of this campaign when he
Then I was rewarded with gold once again.1470
After the king had returned north two rebellions are described. It is ‘His Person’ who finds the rebel Aata in Tentaa and carries him off as a captive.1471 It is also ‘His Person’ who slays the rebel Tetian.1472 Ahmose was rewarded for his bravery after each rebellion,1473 again without specific reference to the king. Spalinger hypothesises that the text of Ahmose’s inscription is 1463
His Person smote that Nubian bowman in the midst of his army, who were brought away in fetters,1481 none of them missing.1482
1474 For a general discussion of daybooks see Redford 1986: 97 – 126. Essentially, the palace kept records of the king’s activities, noting the date, his movements, and activites on each day (Redford 1986: 123 – 124). These records may have formed the basis for narrative accounts, such as Ahmose Son of Ibana’s biography, or the Annals of Tuthmosis III at Karnak, see 5.7.1. below. 1475 No physical examples of daybooks are currently known from this period. There is a reference to such records in the Annals of Tuthmosis III, while certain physical examples are known from the Ramesside Period (see Posener-Krieger 1981). 1476 Spalinger 1982: 131. 1477 Ramesside examples record the date and location of the king on that day before providing the administrative details (Posener-Krieger article). 1478 Baines 1986: 42, 45, 46. See discussion 6.4. in Chapter Six. 1479 Harvey 1998: 314 – 372; Spalinger 2005: 20 – 22 figs. 1.5 – 1.7. 1480 See references above. 1481 Or ‘in a strangle-hold’ (Faulkner 1962: 288). 1482 Urk IV 7, 3 – 5. 1483 Urk IV 7, 7 – 9. 1484 Urk IV 7, 9 – 10.
Lit.: ‘Then His Person was giving them to me as slaves.’ Urk IV 4,
13.
1464
The vizier is said to re-distribute the spoils of war in the Duties of the Vizier (van den Boorn 1988: 250). 1465 Urk IV 4, 15. 1466 In a similar manner historians often refer to the actions of an army as the personal action of its leader. So for example, Napoleon marched on town X. Although the Egyptian conception goes much further than this. See discussion in Chapter Six. 1467 Urk IV 5, 1 – 2. 1468 For a detailed analysis of this campaign see Vandersleyen 1971: 64 – 74. 1469 Urk IV 5, 7. 1470 Urk IV 5, 10. 1471 Urk IV, 6, 2 – 3. 1472 Urk IV 6, 13. 1473 Urk IV 6, 7 – 8, 15.
88
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence became ‘Warrior of the Ruler’.1485 To be considered for this title he must have already been held in high esteem.
royal command to unblock a canal at Sehel.1491 A record of this campaign is also provided in the biography of Ahmose Son of Ibana. As under previous kings, Ahmose makes reference to be being brave in the king’s presence.1492 When sailing south the king is informed of a rebellion, his response is described:
5.3.1. Depictions A scarab depicts King Amenhotep I in his chariot.1486 5.4. The Wars of Tuthmosis I 5.4.1. Nubian Campaign The Tombos stele of Tuthmosis I1487 relates a poetically structured account of a campaign. Among the laudatory statements of the king’s action, it is stated that Tuthmosis I is:
xar.in Hm=f r=s mi Aby wdt Hm=f Ssr=f tpy mn m Snbt nt xrw pf
A fortress for his entire army who faced the assembled nine bows mi Ab rnpy m idr xny like a young panther among a resting herd, Sp.n st bAw Hm=f the bAw of His Person having blinded them; in Drw tA Hr ndbwt=f one who reached the limits of the earth on its foundations; xnd phwy.fy m xpS=f nxt who treads the limits (of the land) with his victorious strong khepesh Hr HHy aHA while seeking to fight, n gm.n=f Hsty.fy Hr im=f (but) he cannot find one who can face him;1488 sdH inwt xm n imyw-bAH one who broke open the valleys which those who came before were ignorant of, n mAA st wTsw nbty and had not been seen by those who wear the nbty-crown (before).1489 mnw n mSa=f tmw Hsy sw m pDt-9 dmd
And so His Person raged against it like a panther. His Person shot his first arrow, which remained in the breast of that enemy.1493
The enemies then turned to flee, helpless before his uraeus. Many were slaughtered and captives were taken. Following the destruction of the enemy force the rebel leader was hung upside down at the bow of the king’s ship during the return journey to Thebes.1494 Although Ahmose provides the most detailed account of Tuthmosis’ war in Nubia, the actions of the king are not described in enough detail to allow a full examination of the personal role he played. The description of the king firing his first shot into the chest of the enemy chief, while others turn to flee from his uraeus, is reminiscent of the stereotypical representation of the king on temple walls, in which he is depicted standing alone firing arrows from his chariot at the fleeing and falling enemy.1495 As such, this description of the king’s action is hard to take as anything more than hyperbole unless the act is taken as an execution following the battle.1496 However, as the text is arranged chronologically and the following lines describe the slaughter of the battle this suggestion is unlikely to be true as it would mean that the king executed his opponent before the battle had begun.
Little specific detail about the king’s personal role can be gleaned from the inscription; indeed from this evidence alone it would not even be possible to confirm the king’s presence on the campaign. However, further inscriptions record that the king did indeed sail north after defeating the Nubians.1490 His presence is also made clear by a
cataract (Graffito A, Urk IV 88, 11 – 16; Graffito B, Urk IV 89, 4 – 9, Graffito C, Urk IV 89, 16 – 90, 8). Graffito A, from between Mahatta and Aswan, records that ‘His Person’ returned from Kush having defeated his enemies (Urk IV 88, 15 – 16), and is dated to Year 3, month 1 of Shemu, day 22 (Urk IV 88, 11). Graffito B, found at Sehel and given the same date (Urk IV 89, 6), records that ‘His Person’ sailed upon this canal when returning from Kush (Urk IV 89, 7 – 8) and is attributed to the King’s Son (of Southern Countries), Turi (Urk IV 89, 9). Graffito C is discussed in the main text above. 1491 Graffito C, Urk IV 89, 10 – 90, 8. Also see 3.2.5. in Chapter Three. 1492 Urk IV 8, 8. 1493 Urk IV 8, 13 – 15; following Spalinger 1982: 132. Spalinger’s hypothetical reconstruction of this putative daybook account reads wdt Hm=f Ssr=f tpy ‘Shooting by His Person of his first arrow’ (Spalinger 1982: 129). It is possible the campaign scribe recorded the king’s first shot as an important event, while the scribe who composed Ahmose’s biography elaborated to make it appear that this shot killed the enemy. 1494 Urk IV 9, 5. 1495 See for example the illustration found on either side of Tuthmosis IV’s chariot (Spalinger 2005: 119, fig. 7.2, 7.3). The enemies of Egypt see the king as he is ideologically portrayed; see the discussion of the Poetical Stele of Tuthmosis III in section 7.5. of this study in which there is a clear overlap between pictorial iconography and written description. 1496 However, at least one scholar has taken this reference as a true description of the king fighting the Nubian chief in personal combat (Redford 1979: 277).
1485
Urk IV 8, 2. See comments above under the reign of Ahmose. Scarab Fraser 190, in Basel. See Hornung & Staehelin 1976: no. 213.233, pl. 21. 1487 Rock cut inscription near the island of Tombos. For the text see Urk IV 82, 9 – 86, 15. For translations and discussion see Goedicke 1996; Spalinger 1995; Bradbury 1984 - 1985; Breasted 1906: 27 – 31. Spalinger has suggested that the Tombos stele is comparable to the Semna and Uronarti stelae of Senwosret III, arguing that the aim was not to describe a campaign of the king but to represent the presence of the king at the location of the stele, marking his territory and placing the foreigners in awe of his power (Spalinger 1982: 46 – 47; 1978: 35 – 41). However, Zibelius-Chen has argued against the identification of the Tombos stele as a border stele (Zibelius-Chen 1988: 193), as has Galán who, in an analysis of Egypt’s borders and stelae, states that it is unlikely that the Egyptians saw these stelae as marking out territory (Galán 1995: 151 – 152). For his discussion of border stelae as a whole see Galán 1995: 146 – 155. 1488 One who could stand upright in his presence, meaning that every person the king found could only bow (Goedicke 1996: 171). 1489 Urk IV 85, 3 – 12. 1490 Four graffiti in the region of Tombos refer to war in Nubia (Urk IV 87, 6 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 16; 88, 2 – 4). However, these provide no detail on the king’s activity. Three further graffiti are found at the first 1486
89
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty 5.4.2. Syrian Campaign Ahmose Son of Ibana also records Tuthmosis I’s campaign into Retenu.1497 It is on this campaign that the king erected his stele on the banks of the Euphrates, later to be joined by one of Tuthmosis III,1498 and went hunting elephants in the region of Niy when returning to Egypt.1499 Ahmose gives little detail about this campaign stating again that the king found the enemy marshalling troops1500 and made a great slaughter among them.1501 The king is then presented as having brought back captives.1502 Ahmose then states again that ‘His Person’ saw his bravery while he was making a capture at the front of the army and rewarded him with gold.1503 Additional sources referring to this campaign add no further detail about the king’s personal role.1504
The king is then described as appearing (xa) like a panther1510 and makes an oath:1511 anx=i mr (w)i ra Hs (w)i it=i nb nTrw imn nb nswt tAwy n di=i A anx m TAy=sn wAH=i A mt im=sn
The king does not lead the campaign himself; instead he dispatches (sb) a large army.1513 However, although the king’s physical body was not present his bAw1514 was:
5.4.3. Depictions Scarab BM 475 depicts Tuthmosis I charging against an enemy on his chariot. The reigns are tied around his waist, while he pulls an arrow from his bow with his arms.1505
aHa.n mSa pn n Hm=f spr r kS Xst bAw Hm=f sSm.n=f st
5.5. The Wars of Tuthmosis II 5.5.1. Nubian Campaign The only source of information regarding Tuthmosis II’s campaign into Nubia is a royal inscription cut into granite on the road between Aswan and Philae, next to the town of Mahatta, commonly referred to as the Aswan-Philae inscription.1506 The text is dated to Year 1, month 2 of Akhet, day 8.1507 The king is in his palace1508 and all is in order when a messenger comes to inform him about a rebellion in Nubia: iw.tw r rdit wDA-ib n Hm=f r-ntt kS Xst wA.ti r bSt
As I live as Re loves me, as my father, the Lord of the Gods, Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands favours me: Indeed, I will not allow their males to live! Indeed, I will put death among them!1512
nx.n Sat=f nmtt=sn
Then this army of His Person arrived at impotent Kush; the bAw of His Person, it had guided them, and terror of him protected their footsteps.1515
It is then stated: wn.in mSa pn n Hm=f Hr sxrt nn xAstyw [n] di=sn A anx m TAyw=sn mi wDt n nbt Hm=f
One came to inform His Person that impotent Kush has fallen into rebellion.1509
And so this army of His Person felled these foreigners. Indeed, they did [not] let their males live, according to all of the commands of His Person.1516
This inscription is the first known text to follow the iw.tw formula,1517 which consists of the following elements the date and epithets of the ruler are given, followed by a setting and a description of the king performing his duties. A person then comes to inform the king (iw.tw r Dd) of rebellion. The king’s reaction is described and ultimately order is re-established through the action of the king.1518 The aim was to describe the military event briefly. A cycle is presented in which order is disrupted and restored. Although, as Spalinger notes, this set format
1497
Urk IV 9, 7 – 10, 3. Urk IV 697, 5. 1499 Text from Deir el-Bahri, see Urk IV 103, 16 – 104, 13. The details for this hunt are sparse. Tuthmosis III later claims to have hunted in the same region see Urk IV 1245 – 1246; a soldier who accompanied the king also records the event (Urk IV 890 – 97). By hunting in Niy on the way back from campaigning in Retenu, Tuthmosis I and III were imitating Middle Kingdom practice when it was a regular occurrence (see Caminos 1959). For 18th Dynasty hunting see Altenmüller 1980: 221 – 224 and no. 17; Redford 1992: 149. 1500 Urk IV 9, 10 – 12. 1501 Urk IV 9, 13. 1502 Urk IV 9, 14. 1503 Urk IV 9, 7 – 10, 3. 1504 See Redford 1979: 275 – 276 for a summary of this evidence with references. The gate inscription which is the subject of the article was originally dated to the reign of Amenhotep I by Redford (Redford 1979: 273), however it is now generally acknowledged to be of Tuthmosis I (Spalinger 2005: 28 n. 7; Redford 2003: 185 n. 4). 1505 Heinz 2001: 235; Desroches-Noblecourt 1950: 43, pl. IX, fig. 8. 1506 For the text see Urk IV 137, 1 – 141, 9. For recent discussions see Lundh 2002: 33 – 39; Lorton 1990; Spalinger 1982: 3 – 4, 89 – 90. 1507 Urk IV 137, 9. 1508 Urk IV 137, 16. 1509 Urk IV 138, 12 -13. 1498
1510
Urk IV 139, 9 – 10. For a discussion of oaths see Wilson 1948. 1512 Urk IV 139, 12 – 16. 1513 Urk IV 140, 3. 1514 See below for a discussion of bAw in this text. 1515 Urk IV 140, 6 – 8; Lorton 1990: 673. 1516 Urk IV 140, 9 – 11; PM V: 245; Lorton 1990. 1517 The standard work on this formula is Spalinger 1982: 1 – 33. Further 18th Dynasty examples are: Urk IV 656, 14, in the Annals of Tuthmosis III; Urk IV 1545, 10 in the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV; Urk IV 1666, 3, in the Aswan Philae inscription of Amenhotep III; Urk IV 1739, 6 for the Wild Cattle Hunt scarab of Amenhotep III; Urk IV 1959, 16, for the Sai inscription of Amenhotep III; Urk IV 1963, 9 and Smith 1976: 124 – 129 for the Amada and Buhen stelae of Akhenaten. All are discussed by Spalinger 1982: 3 – 7. For examples beyond the 18th Dynasty see Spalinger 1982: 8 – 20. Similar examples are also discussed, Spalinger 1982: 21 – 33. 1518 Spalinger 1982: 31. 1511
90
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence gave the scribe ‘little freedom of expression’,1519 the formulaic presentation does not preclude the historical veracity of the inscription. There is no reason to doubt that a Nubian campaign occurred, and the text is honest about the king’s lack of participation. The purpose of the text was to glorify the king; it does this by showing him as a true monarch who restores order when chaos emerges rather than as a hero on the battlefield.
n aAt n mrr sw it=f [imn] and because his father [Amun] loves him r nsw nb xpr Dr pAt tA more greatly than any king who has come into being since the primeval time of the land…1525 Lorton interprets this text as a ‘discourse on the king’s bAw.’1526 Here, the king’s bAw can be taken as a manifestation of dread and terror,1527 while Lorton sees it is as a manifestation of the king’s divine qualities. He argues that ideologically the army could function without the king, but that they needed his divine guidance to succeed. Lorton argues that bAw can have the nuance of ‘reputation’; the campaign occurred in Tuthmosis II’s first year as king, through this victory his reputation was enhanced.1528 However, Borghouts, in a more extensive study, has shown that bAw is a result of the violation of the norm for which a god was responsible. Essentially, it is the ensuing retribution, in whatever form, that would arise to restore order;1529 the physical manifestation of god’s anger when something has occurred that the god disapproves of. It is this interpretation that fits the Aswan-Philae inscription best. The structured order of the world over which the king presides by divine right is distrupted at the start of the text. The ensuing manifestation of the king’s divine wrath and dread as bAw leads the army to restore order.
Lorton has suggested that the sole source used by the scribes to compose this text was the royal command not to let any of the male Nubian rebels live.1520 This statement is found twice, once in the mouth of the king as an oath and the other as the scribe’s comment that the king’s command was fulfilled. The same royal decree could also have supplied the date found at the start of the text,1521 although this could equally have been the date on which the stele was carved or composed. If Lorton is correct, although this text is formulaic it potentially has a royal decree at its core supplying the historical validity from which the narrative is built. It would also provide evidence that the king sent out his army with some form of instruction, although this can hardly be classed as tactical advice. Following the battle, a son of the prince of Kush and his dependants were brought back to Egypt and placed at the feet of the Pharaoh on his dais: sT Hm=f xa Hr TnTAt xft sTA sqr-anx in.n mSa pn n Hm=f
In summary, it is possible to doubt the veracity of the opening statement involving the messenger informing the king of the situation in Nubia due to its formulaic presentation. Consequently, the active role played by the king is minimal. At best the practical guidance he gave to his commanders was to execute all rebel males, as is stated in the royal decree, while he may also have requested that the chiefs be brought back to Egypt for execution. Historical accuracy was not the purpose of this text; rather victory and subsequent restoration of order through the royal bAw.
Now, His Person appeared upon the baldachin when the captives were dragged in, which this army of His Person had brought.1522
The image of prisoners being dragging1523 together by rope is found in monumental art.1524 Following the battle, when order had been re-established and the prisoners had been taken to Egypt, the scribe relates: xpr.n n bAw Hm=f
5.5.2. Depictions Fragments of a battle scene were found at the site of the king’s mortuary temple in Thebes. This temple was likely built and decorated by Tuthmosis III for his father.1530 Little can be gleaned from the fragments beyond that they show Asiatics riding chariots and firing arrows.1531 Johnson has suggested that the scene was dominated by a large image of the king, from whom the Asiatics were fleeing in their chariots.1532
(It) happened because of the bAw of His Person
1519
Spalinger 1982: 2. Lorton 1990: 673 n. 27. The date of issue is an integral part of a royal decree, see for example the titulary announcement of Tuthmosis I, Urk IV 81, 4 which provides a full date; or the appointment of Nebamun Urk IV 1618, 1 which simply records the year. 1522 Urk IV 140, 14 – 15. 1523 The verb sTA is, however, the typical word used when courtiers are brought before the king for an audience, see van den Boorn 1988: 91 – 93, 112 - 113; it illustrates a hierarchical difference between those coming to the audience and the one presiding over it. As such it could simply be understood here as the prisoners were admitted to the presence. However, the reality of the situation suggests that a literal reading as ‘dragged’ is intended. 1524 Talatat from the 2nd pylon at Karnak shows Nubian prisoners, their arms and hands bound, with their necks yoked together by a rope. They are being brought to the king’s kiosk, the king pulling them towards him with the rope. The leading figure is the chief (Schulman 1982: 309). For original publication see Chevrier 1955: 8 - 15, and pl. 1; also see Leclant 1955: pl. 19, fig. 4. 1520 1521
1525
Urk IV 141, 6 – 8; Lorton 1990: 674. Lorton 1990: 677. 1527 Borghouts 1982: 3. 1528 Lorton 1990: 678 – 679. 1529 Borghouts 1982: 33. 1530 Harvey 1998: 308 – 309. 1531 Spalinger 2005: 60 – 62, figs. 3.1a and b, 3.2; Bruyère 1952: pls. III, IV; Heinz 2001: 235; PM II(2): 456. 1532 Johnson 1992: 96 – 97. 1526
91
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Redford suggests that Tuthmosis III led campaigns during Hatshepsut’s rule. His main evidence cited for this is a reference in the Annals to Gaza as dmi mH.n pA HqA ‘the town which the ruler had taken’.1540 As this comes from the annals of year 23 – the year of Tuthmosis’ first campaign as sole king – the statement must refer to an earlier campaign led by Tuthmosis, or at least that Gaza was captured in the name of the king.1541
5.6. The Wars of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III The clearest source of evidence for campaigning under Hatshepsut1533 is a graffito carved into a rock at Sehel commissioned by the ‘one concerned with the booty’ Tiy.1534 Tiy records: I followed the Good God, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, mAat-kA-ra di anx Maatkare, given life. mA.n=i sxr=f iwntyw I saw him overthrowing the (Nubian) nomads, in n=f wrw=sn m sqr-anx their chiefs being brought to him as prisoners. iw mA.n=i xbA=f tA-nHsy I saw him destroying the Land of Nubia, ist wi m Smswt Hm=f while I was in the following of His Person (is)T wi m wpwty nsw Look, I am a Royal Messenger irw Dd.tw who does what is said.1535 Sms.n=i nTr nfr nsw bity
5.7. The Wars of Tuthmosis III 5.7.1. The Annals of Tuthmosis III at Karnak The annals were inscribed on the walls surrounding the barque shrine of Amun at the Temple of Karnak.1542 Certain scribes were charged with recording the king’s movements and activities each day, whether he was on campaign or not;1543 these records were then stored in the palace archive; the author(s) of the annals used these palace daybook entries as the core of the composition;1544 they can be identified due to their use of infinitives without subjects, known as ‘bare infinitives’.1545 These entries were then embellished with constructions common to narrative texts. Due to their heavy reliance on administrative documents the Annals provide a more detailed presentation of royal activity than the majority of other campaign texts.
The graffito itself is recorded as having been made by the draughtsman of Amun, Amenmose. Habachi takes this inscription as evidence that Tiy was an eyewitness to a campaign led by Hatshepsut into Nubia.1536 Senenmut may also make reference to a campaign of Hatshepsut, but it is too fragmentary to draw any detailed conclusions from.1537 Another example cited by Habachi is found on the ‘Northampton’ stele of Djehuty, who states that he saw Hatshepsut collecting booty on the battlefield: iw mA[.n=i xA.t(w) HAqt nsw] pn nxt m [kS] Xst
5.7.1.1 The First Campaign (Year 23) The first campaign of Tuthmosis III, in which Tuthmosis attacks a coalition of Asiatic forces at Megiddo, is recorded in Section I1546 of the Annals.1547 The king sets out from Egypt and passes Gaza.1548
[I] sa[w] the measuring of the plunder] of this strong [king] in impotent [Kush].1538
5.7.1.1.1. War Conference at Yehem Nearing Megiddo, at the town of Yehem, Tuthmosis consults his army in order to decide on the best road to take to Megiddo:1549
Again, this is a heavily reconstructed sentence and cannot be used as absolute evidence. An inscription dated to the 12th year of the coregency of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III was found at Tangur in Nubia. It is in a bad state of preservation, but bears references to ‘the south’ and the ‘overthrowing’ (sxr) of impotent Kush. Below the inscription is a depiction of a man making an offering. This man cannot be identified, but he must have accompanied the campaign.1539 There is no further detail about this campaign. Little evidence of Hatshepsut’s actual involvement in these campaigns can be found in the surviving material.
1540
Urk IV 648, 10; Redford 1967: 60. The Ramesside tale known as the Capture of Joppa refers to the king’s staff as representing his presence (Simpson et al 2003: 72 – 74); as such any town taken when the staff was present could be described as having been taken by the king personally. 1542 For the full Annals see PM II(2): 98 (282 II); 97 (281); 97 (280); 89 – 90 (240 – 244); 90 (245). For the exact location see Plan XII.1 nos. 240 – 245, 280 – 282. 1543 See Redford 1986: 124 with further examples. One such scribe was Tjanuni of TT 74 who accompanied Tuthmosis III to Retjenu, but was buried under Tuthmosis IV (Brack & Brack 1977; Urk IV 1002 - 1018). He states that he accompanied Tuthmosis III to Djahy and that he recorded the victories in writing (Brack and Brack 1977: Text 40, lines 11 – 15). The Annals of Amenemhat II record his movements when in Egypt; to the extent that it records a fishing trip with his officials, see Altenmüller & Moussa 1991. 1544 Although there is no absolute evidence that daybook entries were used, the thematic and grammatical usage is consistent with known daybook entries, see Redford 1986: 123 – 124. 1545 Spalinger 1982: 122. This system is evident in ship’s logs recording the coming and going of the crew and rations (P. Leiden I 350 (verso), see Janssen 1961. 1546 Referring to the division of the Annals into eight sections by Sethe, see Urk IV 645, 7 – 756, 15. 1547 Urk IV 647 – 672. 1548 Urk IV 648, 9 – 649, 1. 1549 For discussions of this conference see Redford 2003: 18 – 21; Spalinger 1982: 101 – 103. Also see Goedicke 2000: 26 – 43. 1541
1533
Reineke 1977 provides an overview of the evidence for the wars of Hatshepsut. 1534 Habachi 1957: 99, 100. 1535 Translation adapted from Habachi 1957: 99 – 100, fig. 16. 1536 Habachi 1957: 100, 104. 1537 See Urk IV 399, 4 - 13; Habachi 1957. Both Urk IV 399, 9, and 11 refer to xfa ‘to grasp’ or ‘to make captures’ (Faulkner 1962: 190) and thus may be in reference to spoils of war. As Urk IV 399, 5 makes reference to Nubia it is likely that these captures occurred in that region. 1538 Urk IV 438, 10. 1539 Reineke 1977: 370 - 371
92
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence rnpt-sp 23 tpy Smw sw 16 r dmi n yHm [wD] Hm=f nDwt- r Hna mSa=f n nxt r Dd r-ntt xrw pf [Xsw] n qdS iw aq r mkti sw [im] m tA At sHwy.n=f n=f wrw nw xAswt [nbt wnw] Hr mw n kmt Hna SA-a r nhryn m […] xArw qdw ssmt=sn mSa=f [rmT=sn] r-ntt sw Hr Dd xr.tw aHa=i r [aHA r Hm=f aA] m mkti Dd=Tn n=i [ntt m ib=tn] Dd.n=sn xft Hm=f sw mi ix Sm[t Hr m]Tn pn nty wA r Hns iw.tw [Hr smit r] Dd xrwyw im aHa Hr [bnrw] [iw=sn] wA r aSA is bn Sm ssmt m-sA [ssmt] [mSa] rmT m mitt in iw wnn [t]A HAt n=n-imy Hr aHA iw nAn [pHwy] aHa aA m aArwnA n aHA.n=sn r-ntt [mT]n 2 aA wA n mTn mk sw […]=n p[r]=f r tA-aA-nA-ka ky mk sw wAt mHtt n Dfti pr=n r mHty mkti
ix wDA nb=n nxt Hr mn[x] May our victorious Lord proceed on (the one) that is preferable [m] ib=f im[=sn] in his opinion; m rdi Sm=n (but) do not make us go Hr mTn p[f] [S]tA on this difficult road!” aHa[.n] [inw] wpwty The[n] a messenger [was brought in [Hr xrw pf Xsy] concerning this impotent enemy], [wHm smit] Hr sxr [pf] and [a herald reported] about [this] plan, Dd.n=sn Xr-HAt which they had said before. Dddt m Hm n stp-sA What was said m Hm n stpsA:1552 [anx n=i] “As Ra [lives for me] mrw (w)i ra and loves me, Hsw wi it=i [imn] and my father [Amun] favours me, Hn [fnDwy]=i as my [nostrils] are rejuvenated m anx wAs with life and dominion, iw wDA Hm=i My Person will proceed Hr mtn pn aArwnA upon this Aruna road imi Sm nty ib=f im=Tn Let him who wants, among you, Hr nA n mTnw go on that road Ddw=Tn of which you spoke; imi iwt nty ib=f im Tn Let him among you who wants to, come m Smswt Hm=i in the train of My Person; m di kA=sn m Do not let them say, nA[n] xrw bwt ra those enemies whom Ra detests, in iw Hm=f wDA “Has His Person proceeded Hr ky mTn upon another road iw=f wA r snD=n because he is become afraid of us?” kA=sn So they will say.” Dd.n=sn xft Hm=f Then they said to His Person: ir it=k [imn nb nst tAwy “Your father [Amun Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, xnt ipt-st Foremost in Karnak] [n ib=k] shall act [as you wish!]1553 mk=n m Smsw Hm=k Look, we are followers of Your Person m bw nb wDA [Hm=k] im in every place that [Your Person] proceeds, wnn bAk m sA nb=f (just as) a servant is at the back of [his] lord.”1554
Year 23 first month of Shemu, day 16 at the town of Yehem His Person commanded a consultation with his army of victory, saying that: “This [impotent] enemy of Kadesh has come and has entered into Megiddo. He is [there] at this moment, He has gathered to himself the chiefs of [all] the foreign lands [which had been] loyal to1550 Egypt as well as (the lands of) Naharin Kharu, and Kedu, their horses, their armies, [their people]; because of the fact that he is saying – (so it) is reported “I will stand [and fight His Person here] in Megiddo.” You should tell me [what is your opinion].” They said to His Person: “How is it to go [on] this r[o]ad which becomes narrow when [it is reported] that the enemies are there, standing [at the exit] [and they] have become numerous. Will not horse go behind [horse], and [soldiers] and people likewise? Shall our own vanguard be fighting while the [rearguard] is standing here in Aruna (where) they cannot fight? There are two roads here. One of the roads, look, it is […]1551 and comes out at Taanach; the other, look, it is to the north side of Djefti, and we will come out to the north of Megiddo.
The army is convened by royal command in order to discuss the best route to take to Megiddo. Using the available information at the time the king suggests the 1552 For a discussion of this phrase see my forthcoming article, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘m Hm n stp-sA’’ . 1553 This does not mean that Amun will do as the king says, rather the troops state that they know the king’s plan will succeed because Amun is on his side. 1554 Urk IV 649, 3 – 651, 17.
1550
Lit. “upon the water”. Sethe inserts [mnx n nb]=n which renders the sentence ‘look, it is [excellent for] our [Lord]’ (Urk IV 650, 9).
1551
93
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty more dangerous route through the narrow Aruna pass. The army wish to take any route but the Aruna pass. However, a messenger soon brings new information and the decision is taken to act as the king had wished.1555 The king makes it clear that he will not punish a person who does not follow his decision. It is notable that the king is not presented as meeting with specific important military officers, and no private meeting place, such as the royal tent, is described.1556 Rather, he discusses his options with the mSa=f n nxtw ‘his army of victory’, which Galán argues was the ‘clashing force’, as opposed to ‘his entire army’ (mSa r-Dr=f) which refers to the nonprofessional soldiers who were in the rearguard.1557 As this must have been a force of considerable size,1558 the image presented is that of the king standing before a large mass of military men presenting his options and listening to their reply, made as a single entity. This is not an attempt to describe the event as it actually occurred, and cannot serve as the basis for historical reconstruction.1559
town;1566 it is likely that the only reason Yehem is mentioned (and not just skipped over as other rest-stops during the march to Megiddo must have been) is that some form of war conference occurred here, during which the decision to take the Aruna road was taken.1567 As there are no specific historical details about what occurred at Yehem, it does not add to our knowledge of the king’s role as decision maker on campaign; he may have ordered the army to take the Aruna road, but there is no evidence to prove it.
The ‘war council’ episode conforms to the Königsnovelle genre of Egyptian literature.1560 These are texts of a narrative structure which place the king as main actor and which exhibit a ‘limited set of motifs centering upon the figure of the king.’1561 The king is presented as a person with human traits,1562 a hero and decision-maker, with specific focus on his deeds,1563 and the success which he creates;1564 however, he exceeds all humans in his abilities. These ‘genre expectations’, or ‘behavioral template’,1565 meant that the author had no choice but to attribute the decision to take the Aruna road to the king alone. As such it is not surprising that the road the king favoured was ultimately the correct road to take. There is also perhaps a suggestion of supernatural foresight here; the king is the only person presented as favouring the dangerous Aruna road from the start of the discussion, before the messenger arrived to confirm this decision as the correct course of action. Also, the fact that the king wished to take the more dangerous route shows him to be a brave and strong leader. Consequently, it would seem most unbelievable that the content of the discussion between the king and his council has any veracity to it. However, it is very likely that a daybook entry was made at the time of the conference. Yehem was an insignificant
[Hr] mTn pf nty wA r Hns
5.7.1.1.2. The Aruna Pass The king is presented as leading his army towards Megiddo: [wD Hm=f rdit] m Hr n mSa r-Dr=f n[Hm nb=Tn nxt nmtt=Tn]
[mk Hm=f ir.n=f] anx r Dd nn di=i pr [mSa=i n nxtw] Xr-HAt Hm=i m [st Tn] [ist rdi.n Hm=f m ib=f] pr=f r-HAt mSa=f Ds=f
[His Person commanded a ‘placing] in the face’ to the entire army: “Your victorious Lord will gui[de] your steps [on] this road which gets narrow.” [Look, His Person made] an oath saying: “I will not let my army of victory come out before My Person from this place.” [Now, His Person placed in his heart] that he would come at the front of his army himself.1568
The final decision to take the Aruna road was communicated to the army as a whole as a royal command. On day 19 the king awoke in the town of Aruna located in the pass itself, it is recorded that the king then led the army at the front, just as he had stated he would.1569 During the march through the pass the king is described as ‘under’ Amun;1570 Faulkner has argued that this could be a reference to a standard of Amun.1571 The Egyptians are then said to be aware of the enemy positions,1572 and the king issues a challenge1573 to the enemy.
1555
Lundh 2002: 78; Spalinger 1982: 136. Although there is reference to a commication of the stp-sA (Urk IV 651, 1), but this need not refer to a specific location, see my forthcoming article, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‘What was Said/Commanded m Hm n stp-sA’’. 1557 Galán 1995: 63. 1558 There is no evidence that this was a ‘small consultation, possibly between the king and select army commanders’, as Spalinger suggests (Spalinger 2005: 103). 1559 However, Goedicke has suggested that it could be an excerpt from a lengthier report (Goedicke 2000: 27). 1560 Most recently see Hofmann 2004; Loprieno 1996; Jansen-Winkeln 1993. 1561 Redford 2003: 19. 1562 Loprieno 1996: 278. 1563 Loprieno 1996: 280. 1564 Redford 2003: 19. 1565 Redford 2003: 19. 1556
1566
Spalinger 2005: 87. Spalinger 2005: 87. Redford does not doubt that a daybook entry recording the event was made; however, he argues that the detail of the conversation is fictional (Redford 2005: 18). However, there is some confusion regarding the chronological placement of the war conference. It is clear from the start of the text that the army is in Yehem, but there is a later reference to the ‘rearguard remaining here in Aruna’ (Redford 2003: 18). 1568 Urk IV 652, 2 – 7. 1569 Urk IV 653, 8, if the Sethe’s restoration is correct. 1570 Urk IV 652, 15 – 653, 2. 1571 Faulkner 1942: 13, for more on this see below. 1572 Urk IV 653, 11 – 12. 1573 Urk IV 653, 14, following Redford 2003: 23 n. 132, translation of nis. 1567
94
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence At this point there is a large lacuna in which a small skirmish may have occurred.1574 It is likely that the king and those accompanying him at the head of the army met a small garrison of enemy troops acting as sentries at the mouth of the pass. This is indicated by the statement: […] iw=sn xr
Hr sAwyt pHwy n mSaw=f n nxtw …. spr.n Hm=f r rsy m mkti Hr spt Xnw n qynA
[…] they fell.1575
wnwt 7 m pXr m hrw
Clearly it would not make tactical sense for the Asiatic coalition to leave the mouth of the pass unwatched no matter how unlikely it was that the Egyptian army would come that way.1576 The lacuna ends with the army praising the king for their successful exit from the pass.1577 There is no indication here that the king personally fought, even though he is presented as being at the front of the troops and therefore in a prime position for battle; the statement is simply stereotypical praise.
Liverani has noted that there is a balance here; earlier the king had acted against the wishes of the army of victory, here he takes their advice. In reality, he suggests, the vanguard likely went to secure the area before the rest of the army could continue.1581 It is also possible to interpret this description of events as an attempt by the army to protect the king. Upon emerging from the pass the king would potentially be in considerable danger, it would make sense that the officers would want him to fall back for his own safety. As ideologically the king needed no protection1582 this is cleverly hidden through the description of the king being concerned for the rest of the army and waiting to protect them. Thus he fulfils his ideological role as ‘shield’ or ‘wall’ of the army.1583 Further evidence for this interpretation is provided by hypothetical reconstructions of the original daybook entry for the event; separating it from the scribe’s narrative commentary.1584 Redford suggests that the daybook entry recorded that the vanguard entered the Valley of Qina, followed by the king who took a seated position at the mouth of the pass, ‘protecting the rear of his victorious army’.1585 Spalinger reconstructs the entry as simply ‘Settling down outside. Sitting there (by the king)’.1586 He sees it as a reference to the king setting up a camp at the entrance to the pass immediately upon exiting,1587 but there is no evidence to suggest this. In both reconstructions the need for further explanation is clear; ideologically the scribe needed to rationalise why the king did not continue at the head of his troops; without the added narrative the presentation of his role as hero is weakened. In reality it would seem that the king’s own protection is the best explanation. That the king would be under close protection in enemy territory is not
When the annals resume, following the lacuna, the king and those accompanying him have exited the pass. The vanguard of his ‘army of victory’,1578 again talking as one entity, ask the king to wait until every other person has also emerged so that he can protect them: aHa.n Dd.n=sn xr Hm=f a.w.s. mk Hm=f pr Hna mSa=f n nxtw mH.n=sn tA int imi sDm n=n nb=n nxt m pAy sp imi sAwy n=n nb=n pHwy n mSa=f Hna rmT=f pr n=n pHwy n pA mSa r HA kA aHA=n r nn xAswtyw kA tm=n rdit ib=n [m]-sA pH n pA=n mSa smnt in Hm=f Hr bnrw snD[…] im
protecting the rear of his army of victory. …. His Person arrived south of Megiddo on the bank of the brook of Qina, when the seventh hour was in its course of day.1580
Then they said to His Person, l.p.h.: “Look, His Person has come out (of the Aruna pass) with his army of victory and they have filled the valley! Let our victorious lord listen to us on this occasion, let our lord guard for us the rear of [his] army, and his people. When the rear of the army has come out to us at the outside (of the pass) we shall fight against these foreigners, and we shall not be anxious about the rear of our army.” Halting by His Person at the outside1579 and sitting […] there,
1580
Urk IV 654, 13 – 655, 7; 655, 12 – 14. Liverani 1990: 175. The king fights alone and always defeates his enemies. This is in opposition to the Asiatic system which emphasises the king’s need for protection; see Liverani 1990: 187 – 196. The king ‘protects and is protected, he grants the throne to his vassals in order to secure his own throne, he grants a post to his officials and subjects in order to get their loyalty.’ (Liverani 1990: 187). This form of relationship is made explicit in the correspondence between the Hittites and their vassals (Liverani 1990: 187 – 189). 1583 Liverani 1990: 187. See references in the Gebel Barkal stele and Amada and Elephantine stelae of Amenhotep II. 1584 For the connection of the daybook entries see Redford 2003: 24 n. 145. Also see Spalinger 1982: 139 – 140. 1585 Redford 2003: 23 – 24. 1586 Spalinger 1982: 139. 1587 Spalinger 1982: 138. 1581
1574
1582
Faulkner 1942: 8, 9 n. v; Breasted 1906: 182 n. e; Spalinger 1982: 137. Lundh, however, disagrees, stating that there is no evidence for a skirmish. Rather he sees this as the conclusion to the section describing the king’s successful passage through the Aruna pass (Lundh 2002: 79 – 80). 1575 Urk IV 653, 15. 1576 Faulkner 1942: 7 – 8 note t, 9 note v; Spalinger 2005: 92. 1577 Faulkner 1942: 9 ns. w, x; Redford 2003: 23 n. 139. 1578 Only the vanguard had emerged from the pass with the king, the rearguard were still in the vicinity of the town of Aruna (Urk IV 654, 7 – 9). As such the ‘they’ referred to in Urk IV 654, 13 must be the vanguard. Note that the king must wait for the rest of the army to emerge, not simply the rearguard of the victorious army, see Galán 1995: 63 – 64 for the distinction. 1579 The outside of the pass.
95
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty surprising, even at home in Egypt he had a personal bodyguard which changed every ten days.1588
equipped with his equipment of war mi Hr TmA-a nb ir xt like strong-armed Horus, lord of action, mi mnTw wAsty like Theban Montu, it=f [imn] Hr snxt awy=f his father [Amun] strengthening his arms. pA db rsy The southern wing n pA mSa n Hm=f of the army of His Person r Dw rsy […] kynA was at a hill south of the Qina [brook], pA db mHty r mHty imnty and the northern wing to the northwest m mkti of Megiddo, iw Hm=f m Hr-ib=sn while His Person was in their midst, [imn] m sAw Ha=f Amun protecting his body1594 r-DAw pHty [stX xt] (in) the melee, the strength of [Seth pervading] at=f his limbs.1595 sabw m Xkrw=f nw r-a-xt
Once the army had completely emerged from the pass and the king had arrived at camp a command was issued: rdi.in.tw m Hr n mSa r-Dr=f r-[Dd] grg Tn sspd xaw=tn r-ntt iw.tw r THn r aHA Hna xr pf Xsy m dwAt Hr-ntt tw.tw […] Htp m aany n a.w.s. …. rs m anx m iAm n a.w.s. ii.tw r Dd n Hm=f mrw snb iwayt rsyt mHtt r mity
The entire army was “placed in the face” [saying]: “Prepare yourselves, sharpen your weapons, because one is to engage in battle with that impotent enemy in the morning because one […]. Resting in the (royal) camp,1589 l.p.h.’ …. Awakening in life in the (royal) tent, l.p.h., one came to say to His Person: ‘The region1590 is safe and the troops of the south and north likewise.1591
As Lundh has noted, this is only the prelude to the fight; the battle itself is summed up in a single sentence:1596 aHa.n sxm.n Hm=f r=s(n)
As it is not made clear that the king made this command it should not be automatically assumed that he did. The latter section shows that the king was kept informed of the military situation in his own tent.
Xr-HAt mSa=f
Then His Person prevailed over them at the front of his army.1597
Although the army are mentioned, the king is ahead of them, and it is he alone who defeats the enemy. The victory was a personal one. The Annals continues:
5.7.1.1.3. The Battle of Megiddo1592 The text describes the actions of the king on the morning of the battle:
mAA.in=sn Hm=f Hr sxm r=sn iw=sn Hr ifd m gbgbyt
rnpt-sp 23 tpy Smw Year 23, first month of Shemu, sw 21 day 21, hrw n Hb n psDntyw r-mty the exact day of the festival of the new moon. xat nsw tp dwAt The appearance of the king at dawn. ist rdi m Hr n Now, (it) was “put in the face of” mSa=f r-Dr=f his entire army r sS[…] to pass/post […]1593 wDA Hm=f Hr wrryt His Person set out on a chariot nt Dam of fine gold/electrum,
[r] mkti m Hrw n snD
Then they saw His Person prevailing over them when they were fleeing headlong [to] Megiddo with terrified faces.1598
There is a lack of emphasis on the events of the battle. Lundh has argued that this lack of detail, especially details of the king’s personal role as warrior on the battlefield, suggests that the king did not participate. Rather, the author(s) of the Annals dwells on the awe that the king inspired and the success that it led to.1599 Furthermore, Spalinger observed that: ‘The account of the battle itself is in a style different from the narrative which precedes. In fact, the text itself switches into a style far more replete with literary imagery of a military nature, similies and metaphors centered around the physical prowess of the monarch, and grammatical constructions of a literary nature…the
1588 See the Horemheb Edict (Urk IV 2158, 3 - 5); also see the Duties of the Vizier in which the king has a military escort when on his travels (van den Boorn 1988: 218). 1589 See Redford 2003: 24 n. 151 for discussion of this term. 1590 Redford 2003: 24 n. 152 prefers to translate ‘wilderness’. Faulkner translates ‘desert’ but makes the suggestion, ‘the coast is clear’ (Faulkner 1962: 112). 1591 Urk IV 655, 16 – 656, 6; 656, 13 – 16. 1592 The battle itself is discussed by Redford 2003: 29 – 30; Goedicke 2000: 66 – 76; Spalinger 2005: 83 – 100. 1593 The meaning here could be similar to ‘post sentries’ as found at Urk IV 656, 9. The king may have commanded to have certain troops posted at key positions.
1594 This may be another reference to a standard of Amun (Faulkner 1942: 13 n. kk). 1595 Lichtheim 1976: 32; Urk IV 657, 2 – 15. 1596 Lundh 2002: 84. 1597 Urk IV 657, 16. 1598 Urk IV 657, 17 – 658, 2. 1599 Lundh 2002: 84 – 85, 91.
96
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence author of the inscription has placed his emphasis on imagery and vocabulary which are concerned with the physical combat itself and the power of the Pharaoh…the absence of the war diary is the most striking feature of the section.’1600
mH=Tn Dri sp 2
Similarly, Redford states:
Hm=f Ds=f Hr xtm iAbty n dmi pn
You should capture strongly, strongly.”1605
During the siege there is a brief reference to the king himself:
‘The daybook entry denoting the battle and victory is here completely suppressed in favor of a ‘literary’ treatment.’1601
His Person himself was at the eastern fortress of this town.1606
The line that follows is badly damaged, but Sethe suggested that it read:
The lack of a daybook entry is a curious omission for such an important event in the campaign. What remains is a fully literary account that provides little detail about the battle. It is possible that the scribe sacrificed a long, literary description of the attack in order to emphasise the king’s ability to defeat his enemies in an instant; the speed of the defeat is easily conveyed through the single sentence that sums up the battle. However, it is likely that the two armies did not physically meet in hand to hand combat. Only 83 hands1602 and 340 prisoners were taken during the battle.1603 The small number of fatalities suggests that the majority of deaths may have been caused by arrow fire while the enemy were approaching or fleeing the Egyptian army - if hand to hand combat did occur it was very brief. Consequently, the scribe’s claim that the enemy simply fled at the sight of the king and his army may not be far from the truth. This would mean that the king did not have the opportunity to fight at Megiddo.
[iw=f rs]w [Hr=f grH mi hrw]
[watchi]ng [over it day and night.]1607
As Redford observes, the content of the speech was not in the daybook, it is a literary creation embellishing the daybook entry describing the army praising the king.1608 However, there is no reason to disbelieve that the king made such a speech to the army when the siege was underway. Inspirational speeches have been made by military leaders throughout history; there is only reason to doubt the specific content. Similarly, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement that the king positioned himself at the eastern fortress. However, the taking of Megiddo is not actually reported. This could be because Tuthmosis III was not present when the city was taken.1609 The Gebel Barkal stele records that the city was under siege for 7 months,1610 as such it is possible the king proceeded to campaign in other areas.
5.7.1.1.4. The Aftermath of the Battle The enemy flee at the sight of the king and his army, yet instead of chasing down the enemy and finishing the campaign there and then, the Egyptian army are described as having looted the enemy camp.1604 A siege then begins. The king makes command to the army:
5.7.1.2. Campaign of Year 25 This section of the Annals is known as Section II using Sethe’s divisions.1611 Although little detail is provided concerning the king’s personal role in campaigns following the Battle of Megiddo, there is a single reference to royal command in the campaign of year 25:
[And so His Person was commanding] to his army, saying: “Capture [well, capture well my] victorious [army] Look, [all foreigner lands] are placed (together) m dmi pn xft wD] [in this town a ccording to the command] ra m hrw pn of Re on this day, r-ntt wrw nb n xAswt because all the great ones nbt mHtt of all rebellious northern foreign lands bStw m-xnw=f are mixing within it r-ntt mH pw m dmi xA pA the capture of Megiddo is the capture of a mH mmkti thousand towns [wn.in.Hm=f Hr wDwt]-m[d]t n mSa=f m Dd mH=Tn i[qr sp 2 mSa=i] nxt mk rdi [xAswt nb
wD Hm=f r dit nwy[.tw rmT] […] […] [hb]hb mTnw nw tA [pn] […] r Sdt=f n=i m b[nr]w
His Person commanded [the people] to be assembled […] […] tread the roads of this land […] to recite it for me ou[tsi]de.1612
Due to the fragmentary nature of the text, little can be gleaned from this example.
1605
Urk IV 660, 4 – 9. Urk IV 661, 1. 1607 Urk IV 661, 2. 1608 Redford 2003: 31. 1609 See Spalinger 1982: 140; Urk IV 658, 8 – 10. 1610 Urk IV 1234, 17. 1611 Beginning on Urk IV 675, 4 – 678, 11. 1612 Urk IV 677, 2 – 4. 1606
1600
Spalinger 1979: 47, 48. Redford 2003: 30. 1602 One hand for every death. 1603 Urk IV 663, 6 – 7. 1604 Urk IV 658, 8 – 10. 1601
97
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty 5.7.1.3. Sections V – VI of the Annals The second major part of Tuthmosis’ annals, designated Sections V – VI by Sethe, generally lack the detail of specific events. Rather, they consist of lists of locations and booty taken over the course of a number of campaigns.1613 Not all campaigns of the king are recorded in the annals, notably the second through fourth campaigns are missing. The annals are thus not a record of all campaigns from year 23 to 42 as their author(s) proclaims.1614 This lack of detail in these sections should not be taken to mean that these campaigns were unimportant. The scribes’ aim was to list booty taken for, and given to, Amun; as such there is no evidence as to whether the king personally fought throughout the majority of this record, but the lack of evidence does not preclude it.
[…] [Hmt mss n] aHA 2 Hmt dbn [n tp …]
Unlike the account of the battle of Megiddo the two forces are here presented as having come together in battle. The reference to ‘His Person’ engaging with the enemy is ambiguous; it could mean that the king ordered his troops to fight, or refer to the movement of the army as personified by ‘His Person’. It need not, however, be taken to mean that the king personally fought. The battle is not described; rather the king is simply stated to ‘prevail’. The total booty taken by the army is listed separately from that of the king.1624 Spalinger notes that this separation of booty taken ‘reflects more on the personal valor of the monarch’1625 and compares it to booty taken personally by Amenhotep II.1626
5.7.1.3.1. The Tenth Campaign A battle at Irina is recorded during the 10th campaign in Tuthmosis III’s 35th1615 regnal year. The description is notable because it separates the action of the king from that of his army, and provides the only other record of a battle in the Annals, apart from that of the Megiddo campaign:1616 aHa.n TH[n.n] Hm=f Hna=sn aHa.n ir.n mSa n Hm=f sp n hdhd [m] xn n iTt int aHa.n sxm.n Hm=f m [nn] xAswtyw m bAw i[t=f] i[mn] [rdi n=f qnt nxt]
5.7.2. The Gebel Barkal Stele1627 This inscription is internally dated to year 47, month 3 of Akhet, day 10.1628 As with the 7th Pylon doorway inscription at Karnak,1629 the Gebel Barkal stele refers to the king’s 1st and 8th Campaigns. Spalinger notes that the Gebel Barkal stele does not belong to the daybook or iw.tw genres; rather, it comprises literary narrations by Tuthmosis III with scribal asides.1630 As Spalinger further notes:
Then His Person enga[ged]1617 with them.1618 Then the army of His Person performed the charging manoeuvre1619 [with] the cry of “seizing and bringing”1620 Then His Person prevailed over [these] foreigners, through the bAw of [his fat]her A[mun, who had given bravery and strength.]1621
‘the scribes have carefully separated the various campaigns of Thutmose from one another and have further divided the ‘pure’ military ventures from the more general acts of valor.’1631 5.7.2.1. First Reference to the Battle of Megiddo The inscription begins with a series of laudatory statements in praise of the king as warrior, followed by a brief reference to the 1st campaign, the king is: Hsy sw m ptri
The booty taken by Tuthmosis himself is then recorded separately from that of his army: r xt kfa in[.n] Hm=f Ds=f m nn xAswtyw n nhrynA
Amount of plunder which His Person himself brought from these foreigners Naharin
[…] Two [bronze shirts for] fighting1622 and a bronze [helmet of …]1623
nSnw xAswt nb dmd aHa mi wa Hr r aHA
of
n wnt bhAw hnn m skw aSAw
1613
Spalinger 1977: 41 – 42, 52. Urk IV 734, 14. 1615 Urk IV 709, 15 – 16. 1616 Redford 2003: 85. 1617 Redford suggests ‘clo[sed] with them’, the meaning of THn Hna=sn being the movement of a person or thing so that it eventually touches another person or thing (Redford 2003: 83 n. 157). 1618 In battle. 1619 Following Redford 2003: 83, lit. ‘an occasion of charging.’ 1620 Redford 2003: 85 – 86 argues here that this phrase should be translated with the sense of Tuthmosis’ army shouting about seizing the enemy and their possessions as spoils. He argues against Faulkner’s interpretation of it being ‘a ragged chorus (of shouts)’ (Faulkner 1962: 192), on the basis that the army would not allow themselves to be seen as disorderly and erratic at such a crucial moment. 1621 Urk IV 710, 10 – 14.
one who turns away him on the battlefield raging; all foreign lands were assembled, standing as one, and prepared to fight, without fleeing, trusting in many companies,
1614
1622
There is another reference to ‘bronze shirts’ at Urk IV 732, 1 and 664, 3. Urk IV 711, 4 – 8. 1624 Urk IV 711, 10 – 712, 2. 1625 Spalinger 1977: 47. 1626 Urk IV 1302, 7. 1627 Boston MFA 23.733. For the text see Urk IV 1227, 1 – 1243, 8; PM VII, 217; Klug 2002: 193 – 208. 1628 Urk IV 1228, 6. 1629 See below for a discussion of this inscription. 1630 Spalinger 1982: 202. 1631 Spalinger 1982: 204. For a full breakdown of the different sections of the Gebel Barkal stele see Spalinger 1982: 202 – 206 or more recently Redford 2003: 103 – 119. 1623
98
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence nn Dr m rmT ssmwt ii.n=sn ibw=sn sxm nn Hry m ib=sn sxr.n st sxm pHty TmA-a titi xftyw=f
without limit to the men and horses. They came stout-hearted, without fear in their hearts. The powerful and strong one felled them, the one with strong arm, who tramples his enemies.1632
m ir a[wy] nTr nfr wr pHty m r-DAw ir xAyt [m] s nb Hr tp=f waw
Due to the reference to ‘all foreign lands assembled’, and overthrowing Mittani in an hour, it is likely that the Battle of Megiddo is being described here. Although the king is described as one who attacks on the battlefield,1637 Lundh regards the lines that follow as rhetorical statements on the combat ability of the king;1638 they do not reflect reality. The king is compared to a shooting star flashing back and forth destroying the enemy army; it is a rationalisation of how the king could single-handedly defeat all enemies alone.
Further praise of the king’s ability as warrior follows: nsw pw aHA waw nn aSAt HA ib=f Ax sw [r] HH m mSaw aSAw n gm.tw n=f snnw aHAwty pr-a Hr ptri nn aHa m-hAw=f sxm Hr-awy r xAswt nbt m tpy n mSa=f sSd=f r imytw pDty 2 mi sbA DA=f Hrt aq m wmt [wn] [th]y hh=f r=s m sDt ir st m tm wn Hdb Hr snf=sn in Axt=f sxr n=f st nsrt=f drt xftyw=f mSa aSA n mtn sxr m km n wnwt sb rsy mi ntyw n xpr [mi] r-awy [n] wnmyt
as one who acts with (his) a[rms], the Good God, Great of Strength in battle, who makes slaughter [on] all men, on his own, the unique (king) …1636
He is a king who fights alone,1633 without a multitude behind his heart, He is [more] effective [than] a million (men) in numerous armies, no equal1634 to him has been found. A warrior, active on the battlefield, there is no one who can stand in his vicinity, one who immediately prevails over every foreign land at the head of his army. He flashes forth between the two wings1635 (of the army) like a star when he crosses the sky, Who enters into the mass of men [whilst] his flaming attack is upon them with fire, making them as ones who cease to exist and prostrate in their blood. It is his uraeus which overthrows them for him, his flaming uraeus which subdues his enemies. The numerous army of Mittani was overthrown in the space of an hour, entirely perished like those who have never come into being [like] a devouring flame,
5.7.2.2. Reference to the 8th Campaign (Year 33) When describing the actions of the king during the campaign against Mitanni the text switches from 2nd person to 1st person: nsw pw qn mi mnTw iT n iT.tw m-a=f ptpt xAswt nb bStw nn wn nx st m tA pf n nhrn xAa.n nb=f n snD xbA.n=i niwt=f wHyt=f di.n=i sDt im=sn ir.n st Hm=i m iAwt nn xpr grg st HqA.n=i rmT=sn nbt in m sqr-anxw mnmnwt iry nn Drw xt=sn r-mitt nHm.n=i anxtt r=s wHA.n=i it=sn Sa.n=i mnw=sn nb xt=sn nb bnr ww=sn wn=sn n dnf
1632
Urk IV 1229, 6 – 13. Reference to the king being one who fights alone with no other with him is found in the Armant stele (Klug 2002: 196 n. 1521, see Urk IV 1248, 18). There are also references under Amenhotep II. 1634 In the sense of one who can contest with him. 1635 Meaning the two farthest reaches of the army. This word also has stellar connotations and thus continues the dual context of military activity and the king as a shooting star (Cumming 1982: 6 note with 1229, 20). 1633
sksk.n sw Hm=i
1636
Urk IV 1229, 14 – 1230, 10. Urk IV 1229, 6. 1638 Lundh 2002: 192. 1637
99
He is a king, brave like Montu, who seizes, but from whom no one can seize, who tramples all rebellious foreign lands, there was none to protect them in that land of Naharin, which its lord had abandoned out of fear. I destroyed its towns and villages and set fire to them. My Person made them into ruins and their (re)establishment will not recur. I carried off all their people, who were taken as prisoners; also their herds of cattle without limit, and all their property likewise. I took away their provisions and reaped their grain. I cut down all their plantations and their fruit trees. Their territories have become wasted. My Person destroyed them,
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty sw xpr m [..w]1639 [tkA]
It is simply to be understood that he killed all enemies himself.
they having become denuded and scorched (land) nty nn wn Snw Hr=f on which there are no trees. ist DA.n Hm=i r pHw nw sTt Now, My Person travelled to the ends of Asia…1640
5.7.2.3. Second Reference to the Battle of Megiddo The events of the 1st campaign1648 are then related in the mouth of the king, as if a real speech had been transcribed:
The scribe then lauds the king’s ability on the battleground: nsw swt n swhy n=f r-DAwt awy.fy m r-DAw DA pXr-wr Hr sA pH sw m tpy n mSa=f Hr HHy xrw pf Xsy [m] xAswt mtn
wHm=i n=Tn gr (r-Dd)
He is a king to boast of because of his actions in the mellay, who crossed the Euphrates after the one who attacked him, at the head of his army, seeking that impotent enemy in the land of Mittani.1641
sDmw rmT
The enemy chiefs and their armies came to face the king ‘in their hundreds of thousands, and by the millions’. The battle is described as follows: ist st m int qinA Hrw r=s m gwAy[t]
Although the king’s ability as a warrior is praised no actual battle is described and the author quickly passes onto the highlight of the campaign – the crossing of the Euphrates. The text then reverts back to being a first person account in which the king adds that he erected a stele at Naharin;1642 this is followed by statements of phrase for the king: nsw pw pr-a mnnw mnx n mSa=f sbty m biA [n pt] hd=f tA nb Hr xpS=f nn s HHw HA ib=f wdy r mDd tnw ms=f n wh.n Ssrw=f TmA-a n xpr mity=f mnTw qn Hr ptri
Now, I am speaking to you again; listen people!1649
sp mar xpr m-a=i im=sn hd.n st Hm=i aHa.n=sn bhA Hr-awy xrw m gbgbyt aq.n=sn r mkti DdH.n st Hm=i Hnty r Abdw 7 n prt=sn r HA Hr snmH n Hm=i r-Dd
He is an active king, an effective fortress for his army, a rampart of ‘metal [of the sky’];1643 he attacks every land with his strong arm, without millions of men behind him, he shoots to hit every (time) he takes aim, whose arrows do not miss, strong-armed, whose like has never existed, brave Montu on the battlefield.1644
imi n=n TAw=k nb=n
Now, they were in the valley of Qina, prepared for it and pulled tight (together). A successful deed happened among them at my hand. My Person attacked them. Then they fled immediately, falling headlong.1650 They entered into Megiddo and My Person shut them up1651 for a period of seven months. They did not come outside, and were making supplication to My Person, saying: “Give to us your breath, our Lord!”1652
The chieftains then sent out their children with gifts for the king, including their weapons. Oaths of allegiance to the king were made.1653 The king is then recorded as having set them free to go back to their own cities.1654 The king later states: in HD=i sxr aAmw Ams=i xw pDt-9
The next episode relates that Re commanded the king to go hunting elephants, of which he took 120.1645 He then states that he did this in accord with the command of Amun-Re.1646 It is notable that the number of animals killed by the king is specifically mentioned (even if it is a fiction or exaggeration), while the number of enemies he personally killed on the battlefield is never mentioned.1647
It was my mace which felled the Asiatics and my club which beat the Nine Bows.1655
This second reference to the 1st campaign provides more detail than the earlier more rhetorical section of the stele. The size of the enemy army is clearly an exaggeration,1656 Amenhotep III (Urk IV 1739, 1 – 1740, 2 for the wild cattle hunt; Urk IV 1739, 12 – 13 for the lion hunt). 1648 Urk IV 1234, 8. 1649 Urk IV 1234, 6 – 7. 1650 Compare to Urk IV 658, 1 – 2 = Section I; and 711, 1 – 2 = Section V. 1651 In the sense of ‘beseiged’. 1652 Urk IV 1234, 13 – 1235, 1. 1653 Urk IV 1235, 3 – 11. 1654 Urk IV 1236, 3 – 5. 1655 Urk IV 1236, 12. 1656 The annals records that there were only 83 deaths and 340 prisoners taken during the battle. (Urk IV 663, 6 – 7).
1639
Klug suggests dnw (Klug 2002: 197 n. 1534). Urk IV 1231, 2 – 1232, 1. 1641 Urk IV 1232, 7 – 9. 1642 Urk IV 1232, 11. 1643 Iron. 1644 Urk IV 1233, 5 – 11. 1645 Urk IV 1233, 13 – 1234, 4. 1646 Urk IV 1234, 1. 1647 Compare to the records of animal kills by the king in the Armant stele (Urk IV 1245 – 46) and the description of the king’s hunting ability there. Also, see the bull hunt and lion hunt scarabs of 1640
100
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence but the detail of an immediate retreat by the enemy supports the account of the battle in the Annals.1657
hundred and twenty elephants in Niy when returning from Naharin,1669 and captured a rhinoceros in Nubia.1670
The victory is again described as the sole action of the king. It is ‘His Person’ who attacked them and his ‘successful deed’. This latter statement of success (sp mar) at his hand need not be interpreted as personal involvement in the fighting by the king. The section clearly does not differentiate between the action of the army and that of the king, both are symbolised by the singular action of ‘His Person’ – the king thus fights alone. The phrase sp mar is used in the Karnak stele of Amenhotep II to describe an occasion on which the king forcibly entering a town, but in which no hand-to-hand combat took place.1658
5.7.3.1. The Battle of Megiddo Some detail is then given of the Megiddo (first) campaign: [Regnal Year 22, month 4 of Peret, […]1671 […]. [pr]t m inb-HD r smA Coming forth from Memphis in order to kill xAswt Xst the foreign lands of impotent Retjenu m sp tpy n nxtw on the first occasion of victory. in Hm=f wp mTn=s It was [His] Person who opened its roads, sd wAt=s nbt n mSa=f and broke into its every way for his army, m-xt irt s(y) Hm[=f] after His Person had made it […] [mk]ti […] [Megi]ddo. aq[.n] Hm=f Hr mTn pf His Person entered upon that road nty wA r Hns wrt which gets very narrow, m tp n mSa=f tm at the head of his entire army, iw xAswt nb sHwy n=s whilst all the foreign lands were gathered together aHa Hrw r r=s and standing prepared at its mouth […] […] xr bdSw The enemy became weak, wtxw m ifd r dmi=sn fleeing headlong towards their city, Hna wr nty m […] together with the chieftain who was in […] […] […] […] n=sn Hr sSA [n Hm=f] […] to them, beseeching His Person, xt iry Hr psdw=sn their property on their backs. ii.n Hm=f m Awt-ib His Person came in joy, xAswt tn tm.ti m Dt[=f] (now) that this entire foreign land was as [his] serfs.1672 [rnpt-sp 22 Abd 4 prt
5.7.3. The Armant Stele The Armant Stele1659 refers to the campaigns of year 23 (Megiddo), year 29 (line 17), and year 33 (Euphrates campaign).1660 The text dates to year 22, month 2 of Peret, day 10.1661 Redford has noted that the author of this text had daybook entries at his disposal, perhaps to give the inscription authority.1662 This text is described as: sHwy spw n qnt n nxt ir.n nTr pn nfr m sp nb mnx n prt-a …. ir sDd.tw m sp Hr rn=f iw aSA r irt st m sSw
A collection of the deeds of bravery and strength which this Good God did, comprising every excellent deed of activity .… if one were to recount them event by event1663 they would be too numerous to put in writing.1664
Nevertheless, the author then attempts to describe a number of these deeds. Thus, the king is described as having fired an arrow through a sheet of copper three fingers thick in front of the entire army.1665 This is followed by a description of his hunting prowess, in which it is stated that the king could take more animals than the entire army;1666 it records that he slew seven lions by shooting arrows,1667 captured a herd of twelve bulls in a single hour before breakfast,1668 killed one
The text presents the king as leading the army successfully to Megiddo; however, although it recounts the journey through the Aruna pass, the king’s role is not described in detail beyond him being at the head of the army. This is mainly due to the lacunae in the text. The reference to the enemy standing ready at the mouth of the pass should not be taken as the Egyptian army encountering a large force immediately at the exit of the pass; it is clear that the army faced little opposition when exiting Aruna.1673 Rather, it should be understood that the enemy were ready to fight (in a general sense) after the
1657
See above. Lundh 2002: 197; Urk IV 1312, 12. 1659 Cairo JE 67377. For the text see Urk IV 1243, 9 – 1247, 14. This was found behind the pylon of Tuthmosis III in the Montu temple at Armant, see Klug 2002: 151, and pages 151 – 158 for transliteration, translation and comments. 1660 Spalinger 1977: 54 n. 47. 1661 Urk IV 1244, 14. 1662 Redford 2003: 157 n. 22. 1663 See similar construction, Faulkner 1962: 150. 1664 Urk IV 1244, 15; 1245, 1 – 2. 1665 Urk IV 1245, 3 – 11. 1666 Urk IV 1245, 12 – 13. 1667 Urk IV 1245, 14. 1668 Urk IV 1245, 15. 1658
1669
Urk IV 1245, 18 – 19. Urk IV 1246, 3 – 4. 1671 Helck has noted that the date must be between day 20 and 24 (cited by Cumming 1982: 61). Day 25 is described in Urk IV 647, 13. 1672 Urk IV 1246, 13 – 1247, 8. 1673 Faulkner 1942: 14. 1670
101
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty army had left the Aruna pass.1674 It would be hard to take the comment in any other way, unless the king is here massively exaggerating the skirmish he faced when exiting the pass, as described in the Annals.1675
There is also the question of whether this truly describes an occasion on which the king personally fought. Galán has argued that a sp n nxt was ‘a single outstanding action of the king’,1681 but it could also equally be a time when the king was not physically present.1682 Essentially it is an occasion on which a successful feat confirmed the king’s hierarchical status,1683 this could be shown through sporting ability,1684 or military success.1685 As there is no detail concerning what the king actually did with his own khepesh, it would be wrong to identify this as an example of the king personally fighting against an enemy; it may simply be an elaborate way of referring to an important victory at which the king was present. Furthermore, the reference to the king’s ‘own khepesh’ could be taken as a reference to royal troops, rather than a weapon of war held in his hand.1686 As the Annals apparently omits the sp n nxt described on the 7th pylon gateway, and no other source refers to it, we must be cautious in seeing a real role played by the king in battle here, especially as there is no reference to the army whatsoever. However, this need not mean that the event did not occur during a later campaign; the 1st campaign is described in such detail not only because of the important victory, but because it was Tuthmosis III’s first campaign as sole king. The later campaigns were comparatively (ideologically) unimportant,1687 and thus are not given such extensive treatments.
5.7.4. Seventh Pylon Inscription at Karnak1676 This text, as with the Gebel Barkal stele, refers to the Megiddo campaign of year 23 and the Euphrates campaign of year 33.1677 The opening of this inscription consists of a royal speech in which he briefly describes the circumstances of his accession, followed by the response of the court. Monuments constructed in Tuthmosis’ name are then described. Some events from the first campaign follow, with specific focus being placed on the captives taken and their assignment to work in the Temple of Amun at Karnak. There is then a reference to a further campaign led by the king: […] ist ir.n Hm=i sp n nxt
[…] Now, My Person made an occasion of strength m xpS Ds=i with my own khepesh m-qAb [nn xAswtyw] amongst [these foreigners] […] […] pr.n=i Hr tA I came out upon the land, Hr.kw r=s prepared for it ib=i wsr and strong of heart. wn.in=sn Hr […] And so they were […] Xr-HAt Hm[=i] from before [My] Person. [wn.i]n niwt=sn HAq[…] [And so] their towns were plundere[d].1678
5.7.5. The Karnak Ptah Temple Stele This inscription1688 describes the offerings the king endowed to the temple following his return from the first campaign. The king, speaking in the first person, refers briefly to the battle of Megiddo:1689
Booty taken is then described, with a notable mention of mrw-wood. Upon the return to Egypt new festivals were established for Amun while herds of cows were also given. A reference to the 8th campaign follows, but again little detail is given of the king’s personal role.
m rdit=f n=i xAswt nbwt nt DAhy sHwy DdH m dmi wa
It is unclear from which campaign the example of the king’s personal bravery comes. Redford notes that if the sequence is chronological the campaign must be between campaigns one and eight. However, only campaigns five, six and seven are recorded in The Annals between the first and eighth, and as Redford notes, none describe a ‘set-piece’ battle as the example presented describes. mrw-wood is among the booty of the 2nd campaign,1679 and as such Redford tentatively attributes the event to that campaign. Lundh, however, identifies this event as taking place in the 10th campaign, although he acknowledges that this could be wrong.1680
snDt Hm=i xt ibw=sn xr bdS spr=i r=sn nn nhw wtx im=sn iH=i st m dmi wa qd.n=i Hr=s m sbty n wmtt
1681
…when he (Amun) gave all the foreign lands of Djahy to me, collected and shut up in one town. Fear of My Person was throughout their hearts, (they) fell and became weak when My Person reached them. There was none who had fled among them. I enclosed them in one town, and I built against it a thick wall,
Galán 1995: 75 – 79. Galán 1995: 77. Galán 1995: 78. 1684 Such as his skill at firing arrows (Urk IV 1245, 2 – 11), or hunting ability (Urk IV 1245, 12 – 1246, 4). 1685 As in the example under discussion, or the Aswan-Philae inscription of Tuthmosis II (Urk IV 140, 3 – 17; Galán 1995: 76 – 77). 1686 Galán 1995: 69 – 73. Although this usage is usually written as the plural xpSw (Galán 1995: 70). 1687 Spalinger 1977: 42. 1688 For the text as a whole see Urk IV 763, 12 – 772, 7; 604, 6 – 9; Legrain 1902. 1689 Urk IV 767, 4. 1682 1683
1674
Spalinger 2005: 92. See section 5.7.1.1.2. above. Urk IV 178, 1 – 191, 4; Redford 2003: 119 – 127; PM II: 169 – 170 (498c); Barguet 1962: 271. 1677 Spalinger 1977: 54 n. 47. 1678 Urk IV 186, 15 – 187, 7. 1679 Urk IV 672, 3. 1680 Lundh 2002: 186. If Lundh is correct this same battle is described in Urk IV 709, 15 – 712, 5; 1230, 3 – 10; and possibly 1238, 4 – 1239, 11. 1675 1676
102
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence r gAw=sn m TAw n anx m bAw it=i imn sSmw (w)i r wAt nfrt m sxrw=f nbw nfrw ir.n=f n Hm=i saA.n=f nxtw Hm=i r nsw nb xpr Dr bAH
king as a ‘man of action’;1697 this latter usage is being employed here. It is notable that in this text the king is not described as being at the front of the army, rather his ‘brave army’ are ahead of him.
to deprive them of the breath of life, through the bAw of my father Amun, who guides me on the perfect road, through all his perfect plans, which he made for My Person, He magnified the victories of My Person more than any king who has existed before.1690
5.7.7. The Buto Stele1698 This royal stele is still in situ on Tell B at Buto:1699 nsw pw pr-a ir xAyt aAt m r-DAw .… Ax sw r mSa aSAw
The entire event is described as an action of the king under the direction of Amun. There is no reference to the army. Again, there is no specific conflict described, rather the enemy fear the king and flee before he can attack them, leading to the siege. The king is the agent of the divine bAw; he is correcting the offence against divine order.1691
n HHw Hr-tp=f wa aHAwty qn n xpr n=f ky m snnw m tA nb m mSaw=f m HqAw xAswt m rsyw mHtyw
5.7.6. Buhen Temple Inscription1692 This text is dated to the 23rd year of Tuthmosis III1693 and is found at the south temple of Buhen on the west side of a pillar.1694 In reference to the Battle of Megiddo, the king is described as: aHA Hr mSa=f Ds=f r mAA tAwy nn iwms pw pr.n=i m pr it=i nsw nTrw [imn] wD n=i nxtw nsw Ds=f Ssp=f wAt mSa=f qn r-HAt=f mi hh n sDt nsw nxt ir m xpS=f
nsw pw n sqA bAw=f r DAwt pHty=f
one who fights for his army himself, so that the Two Lands see; there is no (saying) “it’s an exaggeration!” I came out from the house of my father, the king of the gods, [Amun], who commands victories for me. The King himself took the road, his brave army in front of him like a flame of fire; the victorious king who acts with his khepesh.1695
He is an active king, who makes great slaughter in the mellay .… he is more effective than a numerous army of millions in front of him,1700 a unique fighter, a brave one, another has not existed as an equal in any land, in his army, in the rulers of foreign lands, or the southerners and the northerners. He is a king whose bAw is exalted, because of his strength.1701
As with other royal stelae, here the king’s effectiveness as sole fighter is extolled. However, little detail is given beyond ideological praise. 5.7.8. Karnak Room III (East Wall) This inscription1702 makes reference to the 1st campaign. As with other accounts there is reference to the enemy fleeing towards Megiddo, and the king making a circumvallation around them. The Asiatics then leave Megiddo requesting the breath of life from the king. The king then makes a command: aHa.n wD.n Hm=i rdi.t(w) n=sn TAw n anx
Then My Person commanded that the Breath of Life be given to them […]1703
This reference to the king as one who acts with his khepesh can be compared to examples of the king ‘acting with his arms’: although these can sometimes be taken as describing an event in which the king was personally involved,1696 another usage is as an epithet to show the
[…]
1690
directing work on the 8th Pylon at Karnak (Urk IV 1333, 2 – 4); Amenhotep II writing a letter to a courtier (Urk IV 1343 – 1345). 1697 Amenhotep II (Urk IV 1321, 15 – 16); Tuthmosis IV (Urk IV 1559, 11 – 13); Amenhotep III (Urk IV 1761, 16 – 1762, 3). 1698 For the publication and comments on this stele see Bedier 1994a; 1994b; Klug 2002: 96 – 105; Spalinger 1996; Redford 2003: 162 – 164. 1699 For a brief description of the find context see Klug 2002: 96. 1700 A similar phrase is used in the Gebel Barkal stele Urk IV 1229, 15. 1701 Line 4 – 6; Bedier 1994a: 46 – 47, figs. 1 – 2. 1702 Redford 2003: 149 – 150; Urk IV 757 – 763; PM II: 88 (234). This text is heavily reconstructed by Sethe. 1703 Urk IV 759, 15. 1704 el-Sabban 2000: 21 – 22.
The account makes no reference to the Egyptian army, presenting all actions as that of the king alone against the Asiatics. Much of this text consists of an offering list.1704
Urk IV 767, 5 – 15. See discussion of bAw above, under the Aswan Philae inscription of Tuthmosis II, section 5.5.1. 1692 For the text see Urk IV 806, 8 – 810, 10. Also see Klug 2002: 177 – 185; Redford 2003: 160; PM VII 1975: 134 (11 W.); Randall-MacIver & Wooley 1911: 27 – 31; Caminos 1974: 47 – 52. 1693 Urk IV 806, 11. Redford has argued that this is the date that it was inscribed, i.e. it is not backdated (Redford 2003: 161 – 162. 1694 See Klug 2002: 177 for details. 1695 Urk IV 808, 12 – 809, 1. 1696 Hatshepsut measuring the myrrh from Punt (Urk IV 339, 4 – 340, 8; Naville 1898: 79, 81, 83); Tuthmosis III performing the stretching of the cord ceremony (Urk IV: 166,7 – 17169, 4 – 170, 2); Amenhotep III 1691
103
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Amenemhab is stating that the king inspired his troops through his own feats of strength. He notes that on one occasion he received gold of bravery during a public appearance of the king.1712 This emphasis on the public perhaps indicates that his other rewards were not given during a public ceremony. He later recounts that the king hunted 120 elephants in the region of Niy during the 8th Campaign. The text goes on to state that one of the elephants attacked the king and was only stopped by Amenemhab chopping off the elephant’s trunk. The king rewarded him for this.1713 A further episode is related in which the chief of Kadesh released a mare into the midst of the army - an attempt to cause chaos among the stallions that drove the chariots. Amenemhab cut open the mare’s stomach and presented the tail to the king.1714
5.7.9. The Overseer of Works and Butler Minmose Minmose recalls his time spent on campaign: mA.n(=i) rwdt-a Hm=f Hr xpr m aHA Hr HAq dmi 30 m-Xnw w n ti-x-sy inw wrw=sn Xrw=sn mnmnt=sn sSm.n(=i) mSa qn n nsw ti wi m wbA n nsw m irw Ddt
I saw His Person’s strength taking place in battle and plundering thirty towns within the area of Takhsy. Their chiefs, their inhabitants and their cattle were taken. I led the brave army of the king whilst I was the king’s butler, who did what was said.1705
This describes Minmose leading the army for the king, but under orders from another person. Redford suggests that the reference to the region of Takhsy here could indicate that these events occurred during the reign of Amenhotep II rather than Tuthmosis III.1706
5.7.12. The Royal Herald Djehutymose The stele of Djehutymose1715 records that the Royal Herald was:
5.7.10. The Butler Montuiywy The Butler Montuiywy accompanied the king on his Euphrates campaign of year 33. He states: nn wn […]tw=f Hr […] pri aHAw waw ir sw m fdqw
Hsy Hm=f s[xr] xftwy=f
There was no […] […] the battlefield, one who fought alone (yet) who made himself into portions.1707
Djehutymose goes on to state that he followed the Good God and was respected. He was sent to Nubia as Messenger (wpty) when he was Overseer of the Granary in order to supply food to the army of the king (mSa n nsw), soldiers (mnfyt), royal friends (smrw) and magistrates (qnbtw), as well as to assemble troops and make new recruits. He then states:
This is an unusual reference to the king fighting in battle. Faulkner suggests ‘who was everywhere at once(?)’ as a translation of ir sw m fdqw.1708 However, the word fdq has the basic meaning of ‘division’;1709 the image created is that of the king being multiple entities at once, not a single warrior who was everywhere at once. The king in ‘portions’ is each member of the Egyptian army. It explains how the king can fight alone as the entire army, and thus shows that the actions of the army could be summed up through the action of the king. Montuiywy may be pushing the limits of decorum - he is still stating that the king fought his enemies alone - but is subtly highlighting the role of others in battle (such as himself).
The army reached Nubia equipped with weapons [of war] sxr.n xftyw nw Hm=f and overthrew the enemies of His Person. iw kfa.n=i m kS Hst I made captures in impotent Kush. iw pH nsw […] [waf n=f] The King reached […] [bowed to him].1716
spr mSa r tA-sty sspd m xaw [n aHA]
The Herald describes himself, as well as the army, as ones who overthrow the king’s enemies in Nubia. The king is not mentioned as overthrowing his enemies, perhaps because he was not present during the fighting. It is only after the enemy is said to have been defeated, and Djehutymose had made captures, that the king is said to have reached a destination, the name of which is lost in lacuna. It is possible that following the successful suppression of an uprising in Nubia the king travelled south to view the results of the campaign.
5.7.11. The Soldier Amenemhab Like Ahmose-Son of Ibana, Amenemhab1710 records a number of captures he made on the battlefield and presented to the king (‘My Lord’), and the rewards he received. At the start of his biography, he states: ti sw Hr pri nxtw=f pHty=f Hr swmt ib
the praised one of His Person, the one who over[throws] his enemies.
When he (the king) was on the battlefield of his victories his strength caused (us) to be stout hearted.1711
1705
Urk IV 1442, 16 – 20. Redford 2003: 74. Urk IV 1467, 14 – 15. 1708 Faulkner 1962: 99. 1709 Faulkner 1962: 99; Wb I: 583, 18. 1710 Text from TT 85 (Urk IV 890 – 97). 1711 Urk IV 890, 12 – 13. 1706 1707
1712
Urk IV 892, 12; lit.: m-bAH bw-nb ‘in the presence of everyone’. Urk IV 893, 14 – 894, 4. 1714 Urk IV 894, 5 – 15. 1715 Cairo TN. 21.3.25.14; published by Selim 2005: 333 – 337, pl. II. 1716 Selim 2005: 334. 1713
104
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence 5.7.13. Depictions There are currently no known depictions of Tuthmosis III in battle.1717
at the moment of attack. …. He is a king to be boasted about in return for his arms (being) in the mellay. ….. …. Hsy Hr=f hrw Hw-ny-r-Hr who stands fast (on) the day of combat nn Drw irt.n=f There was no limit to what he did r xAst nb sHww to every foreign land collected (together) r tA nb Dmd and to every land together xr Hr-a n nsrt=f (but then) fell immediately to his uraeus, mi rA-a n wnmyt like the action of a devouring flame.1725 m At Hwtf …. nsw swt n swhA n=f r-DAwt awy=f m r-DA[w]
5.8. The Wars of Amenhotep II Amenhotep II’s abilities as a warrior are stressed on a number of his major inscriptions. According to the Great Sphinx Stele of Amenhotep II at the age of 18: rx sw kAt nbt nt mntw nn twt n=f Hr pgA rx sw Htr n wnt mity=f m mSa pn aSA
He knew all the works of Montu, there was no likeness of him on the battlefield. He knew a chariot team, his like had never existed in this numerous army.1718
He continues to state that no one else could pull his bow1719 or outrun him in a race1720 among other hyperbolic exploits. However, even though the prince showed such ability it is related that Tuthmosis III believed him to be without wisdom (n sArwt=f), and so: nn sw r nw n irt kAt mntw
Although these statements are purely rhetorical, a later passage gives information about a historical event during the campaign: ii.n Hm=f m Awt-ib n it=f [imn]
It is not the proper time for him to perform the work of Montu.1721
smA.n=f pA wrw 7
Montu is a war god, whom the king is likened to in descriptions of battle.1722 The implication is that Amenhotep II was a skilled warrior even at such a young age. The records of Amenhotep II on campaign reflect this presentation. These texts will now be discussed according to the regnal year of the campaign.
m HD=f Ds=f wnw m w n ti-x-sy diw m sxd m-HAt bik n Hm=f
1723
5.8.1. The Campaign of Year 3 The start of the Amada and Elephantine1724 stelae record typical praise for the king, he is: xar mi Aby hb=f pri n wnt aHA m hAw=f pDty qn m Hw-ny-r-Hr sbty mk kmt mn-ib Hr pgA
…. wn.in.tw Hr axt pA s 6 m nn xrw m xft-Hr sbty n wAst
one who rages like a panther when he treads the battlefield, (so that) there is no fighting in his vicinity; a brave bowman in combat, a rampart protecting Egypt; steadfast on the battlefield
nA n Drt r-mity aHa.n sxnt.tw pA ky xrw r tA-sty axw n pA sbty n npt r rdit mAA.tw nxtw Hm=f
1717
Heinz lists a fragment of relief in her analysis of war reliefs, but it cannot be firmly attributed to Tuthmosis III (Heinz 2001: 235). For this fragment also see PM II(2): 425; Smith 1998: 224, pl. 160(A); Winlock 1914: 22; Hayes 1959 Vol. II: 339, fig. 214. 1718 Urk IV 1279, 11 – 14. 1719 Urk IV 1279, 15. 1720 Urk IV 1279, 16. 1721 Urk IV 1282, 2. 1722 For Montu see Wilkinson 2003: 203 – 204; For the king being associated with Montu see Urk IV 657, 2 – 15; 1231, 2 – 1232, 1; 1233, 11; 1279, 11 – 14; 1311, 1 – 12; 1307, 6 – 1307, 17; 1547, 6 – 11; 1666, 3 – 18. 1723 Doubts have been expressed as to whether this was indeed a campaign in its own right, or simply an episode from a later campaign (Yeivin 1967: 120). However, it is treated separately here, following Der Manuelian 1987: 45. 1724 For a bibliography of these stelae see Der Manuelian 1987: 47.
r nHH Hna Dt
His Person returned with the joy of his father [Amun], (after) he had killed the seven chiefs with his own club, who had been in the district of Takhsy; and who were placed upside down at the bow of the falcon ship of His Person… …. And so the six men from these enemies were hung in front of the rampart of Thebes and the hands likewise. Then, the other enemy was taken south to Nubia and hung on the rampart of Napata, in order to cause that the victories of His Person be seen for ever and ever.1726
The emphasis placed on the action of the king ‘himself’ along with the believable description of the king executing prisoners1727 suggests that the king did indeed 1725
Urk IV 1290, 7 - 14; 1291, 13 - 16; 1292, 7 – 12. Urk IV 1297, 1 – 1298, 2. 1727 Unlike in a battlefield situation the king would not be at risk when executing enemies and so would not need protection. There is thus no reason why the king could not personally perform executions. For execution of foreigners by the king see Schulman 1988, although Schulman’s arguments have not met with wide acceptance (see review by Ward 1992). 1726
105
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty perform the actions described. There is no further detail concerning this campaign, although there are references to Takhsy among other inscriptions from Amenhotep’s reign.1728 It is possible that this campaign was relatively insignificant, a punitive raid against a small area; however, the fact that it may be an allusion to a much larger campaign cannot be ruled out.1729
sTtyw anx 35 kA 22
Whereas the Karnak stele records: rxt kfa n Hm=f Ds=f m hrw pn sTtyw anx 18 kA 19
5.8.2. The Campaign of Year 7 The main sources for the campaigns of year 7 and 9 are the Memphis1730 and Karnak1731 stelae, which are virtually identical records of the same events. This is perhaps due to them being composed using the same daybook entries as their cores.1732 As with the first campaign of Tuthmosis III described in his Annals, those of Amenhotep II provide details about the king’s movements around the Levant; it is therefore more than likely that he actually led these campaigns.
kfa Hm=f Ds=f
His Person performed a successful deed there. His Person himself made captures.1733
‘The omission of Gathering and Defeat sections, which would have presented the enemy, as well as the low number of prisoners, suggests that the town did not put up an effective resistance. The king appears to have arrived at the town of Shamash-Edom, forced entry into the town, (or was let in), and plundered it, just as narrated.’1738
The personal action of the king is emphasised here through the use of the emphatic reflexive Ds=f. However, the event is not described in this manner in the Memphis stele, rather the destruction of the town is emphasised: xbA.n=f sy m At Sri
It is likely then, that facing little danger the king took the majority of prisoners and bulls for himself leaving the remainder for his troops.1739
He destroyed it in a brief moment.1734
The amount of booty taken by the king differs between the Karnak and Memphis stelae. The Memphis stele records: rxt kfa n xpS=f
List of the booty of His Person himself on this day: 18 live Asiatics, 19 bulls.1737
This discrepancy could simply be the result of scribal error, but the emphasis placed on the personal capture of booty by the king in the Karnak stele, plus the emphasis on the king himself in the booty record and the lower number of captives, suggests that the Karnak stele may record the actual numbers taken by the king. This would mean that the Memphis stele, without its emphasis on personal activity by the king, records the amount in total taken by the king and his army. That the king took such a large number of prisoners for himself during his ‘successful deed’ is not surprising, Lundh has acknowledged that the capture of the town was not a major event:
5.8.2.1. Capture at Shamash-Edom During Amenhotep II’s raid on the town of ShamashEdom the Karnak stele records that: irt Hm=f sp mar im
35 live Asiatics, 22 bulls.1736
5.8.2.2. Crossing the Orontes In the following section, in which some Asiatics come to attack the army, the action of the army is summed up through reference to His Person alone attacking them. As this section is described in both stelae, and refers to the action of the king during a skirmish, both examples will be presented in full. The Memphis stele reads:
List of the booty of his strong arm:1735
DA.n Hm=f irntw Hr mw
1728
Rainey argued that a fragmentary section in the prologue of the Memphis stele should be restored to read Takhsy (Rainey 1973: 72); however, Helck restores tA-nHsy (Urk IV 1301, 10). Der Manuelian has discussed the references to the Takhsy campaign (Der Manuelian 1987: 51 – 56, 57 – 59). Notably, Amenhotep II, in his letter to the Viceroy of Kush, Usersatet (who accompanied the king on a campaign to Retjenu), makes reference to the people of Takhsy as being completely worthless (Der Manuelian 1987: 54). 1729 Der Manuelian 1987: 55 – 56. 1730 Cairo Museum JE 86763. For the text see Urk IV 1300, 1 – 1309, 20; Badawi 1943; Der Manuelian 1987: 222 – 227; Goedicke 1992; Yeivin 1967; Spalinger 1983; Klug 2002: 242 – 253. 1731 In situ at the southern entrance of the 8th pylon at the temple of Amun in Karnak. See Edel 1953: 98 – 103; Der Manuelian 1987: 227 – 229; Urk IV 1310, 1 – 1316, 4; Klug 2002: 260 – 270. For further references see Der Manuelian 1987: 222. For articles that deal with both stelae see Der Manuelian 1987:221. 1732 Spalinger 1983: 142 – 152. 1733 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1310, 12. 1734 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1302, 2.
m hsmq mi rSp aHa.n wDb.n=f a=f r mAA pHw mSa=f
1735
His Person crossed the Orontes by water, raging like Reshep.1740 Then His Person turned about to see the rearguard of his army,
Following Der Manuelian 1987: 223 n. 3. Helck incorrectly restores rxt kfa n [Hm=f n hrw pn] ‘List of the booty of His Person on this day’ (Urk IV 1302, 4). 1736 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1302, 4 – 5. 1737 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1310, 15 – 16. 1738 Lundh 2002: 111. 1739 Technically all spoils of war reverted to the king; the point here may be that the king personally picked out his booty, rather than having it brought away in his name. He then did not redistribute them. 1740 For m hsmq see Der Manuelian 1987: 223 n. 4. Faulkner suggests ‘wade (?)’ (Faulkner 1962: 160).
106
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence iw=f Hr ptr nhyw n sTtyw iw m rkrk sabw m xaw n aHA r tht r mSa n nsw iw Hm=f Hr nr m sA=sn mi axt nt bik nTry hn=sn ibw=sn bdSw wa Hr wa xr Hr snnw=f r-mn pA=sn Hnty nn wa nb Hna Hm=f wpw Hr=f m xpS=f qny smA st Hm=f m stt
by firing arrows. There is no reference to the army at all in the Karnak stele account; the enemy weaken when the king spots them, he kills their commander with his mace and they flee. The disagreement between the methods used to kill the enemy commander throws doubt on the specific detail of the account, as does the attribution of all action to the king alone. In both accounts the true action of the king and his army are summed up through reference to ‘His Person’ alone; consequently it is unclear what role the king actually played in these events.
when he saw some Asiatics come sneaking up, equipped with weapons of war to attack the army of the king. His Person charged after them like the swoop of the divine falcon. They halted, and their hearts weakened; one by one fell upon his companion including their commander. No one was with His Person, except himself and his brave, strong arm. His Person killed them by shooting (arrows).1741
Once again the booty taken does not tally between the Karnak1743 and Memphis stelae.1744 Although this time the Karnak stele lacks Hm=f Ds=f in the text, it does, once again, record lower amounts and more specific items, it is therefore possible that the king’s personal takings are again recorded, and that the Memphis stele again records the booty of the king and his army combined.
The Karnak stele gives a slightly different view of events:
5.8.2.3. Niy and Ikatj The king and his army then continued to Niy where the people watched him from the tops of their walls.1745 At this time he was informed of a rebellion occurring at the town of Ikatj,1746 including an attempt to overthrow a loyal chief. Little detail is given here and it seems likely that the king and his troops1747 quickly went to the town to contain the rebels. The Karnak stele emphasises the speed of this event:
Now [His Person] proceeded [to ford] the Or[ontes on his horse] m hsmq mi pHty mnTw raging like the strength of Montu, wAsty the Theban. wDb.n Hm=f a=f His Person turned about r mAA pHwy n pA tA to see the ends of the land. aHa.n ptr.n Hm=f Then His Person saw nhy n sTtyw some Asiatics iw Hr Htr come on horseback [m dmi] n qdnA [from the town] of Qatna; iw m rkrk[y]t come sneaking up. ist Hm=f sabw Now, His Person was equipped m xAw=f n aHA with his weapons of war. ist Hm=f Hr nr m-sA[=sn] Now, His Person charged after [them] [m]i mnTw m wnwt=f [li]ke Montu in his hour bdS=sn Dr mAA.n Hm=f They weakened after His Person saw (them) wa [Hr wa i]m=sn one [by one]. aHa.n sxr.n Hm=f Then His Person felled pAy=sn Hnty Ds=f their commander himself m minb=f with his axe. is[t] xft nb [war] Hr nn Now, every enemy [fled] from this. ist in.n=f pA sTtyw Now, he brought away the Asiatic Hr Drwy [n wrrt=f] at the side [of his chariot] pA=f Htr and teams of horses tA=f mrkbt and his chariot, xaw=f nb n aHA and all his weapons of war.1742 ist DA.n [Hm=f mSdt] ir[ntw Hr Htr(=f)]
aHa.n Sn.n=f btn sw nb m dmi pn [smA].n=f st Hr-a
The Memphis stele records: His Person reached Ikatj and he surrounded all who had defied him; smA.n=f st mi ntyw n xpr he killed them like those who have not existed, diw Hr gs m sTsy thrown aside prostrate.1749 spr Hm=f r ikaTy Sn.n=f btn sw nb
The lack of a battle may indicate that the rebels were simply executed,1750 as the texts relate. The king is then described as shooting at a copper target at Kadesh after peacefully meeting its chief.
1743
Karnak stele, Urk IV 1311, 14 – 17. Memphis stele, Urk IV 1303, 1 – 3. According to the Karnak stele, Urk IV 1312, 4. 1746 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1312, 7 – 11. There is no consensus as to whether this location should be equated with Ugarit (Der Manuelian 1987: 63 – 64. 1747 Although both stelae only refer to the action of the king alone. 1748 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1312, 13 – 14. 1749 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1303, 9 – 11. 1750 As suggested by Lundh 2002: 119. 1744 1745
The Memphis stele presents the king as alone, making only one reference to the rearguard of the army. It is he alone who defeats the enemy, including their commander, 1741 1742
Then he surrounded all who had defied him in this town and he [killed] them immediately.1748
Memphis stele, Urk IV 1302, 7 – 15. Karnak stele, Urk IV 1311, 1 – 12.
107
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty alone, yet he is able to defeat an army and capture a number of enemies. Thus we find the fantastical image of the king carrying 16 Hurrian warriors at the side of his own chariot.1758
5.8.2.4. Capture at Hashabu The Memphis stele then describes the king heading out alone, without his retinue – wDA Hm=f Hr Htr r xASAbw waw nn wnt snnw=f ii.n=f im m At Srit in.n=f mryn anx 16 Hr Drwy n wrrt=f Drt 20 r dhnt n ssmwt=f kA 60 m xrpyt r-HAt=f
His Person proceeded on horseback to Hashabu alone, without his companion. He came (back) from there in a short time. He brought (back) 16 Syrian warriors beside his chariot, 20 hands on the foreheads of his horses and 60 bulls, as a cattle-drive before him.1751
5.8.2.5. Capture of a Messenger Both texts then relate the capture of a messenger of Naharin.1759 The king takes the man captive and places him at the side of his chariot.1760 He is then taken to Egypt. The king returns to Memphis and a booty list is recorded. Here the number of Syrian warriors and their wives match in both accounts, although the Karnak stele has lost much of the detail. Still, the numbers related in these accounts are likely exaggerated.1761 5.8.3. The Campaign of Year 9 Both the Memphis and Karnak stelae describe the king’s second campaign into Asia, although the Karnak stele omits much that is found on the Memphis stele.1762 At the start of the campaign, the king attacked a number of towns and villages:
The Memphis stele records the result of this attack – the booty that was taken; whereas the Karnak stele, as well as referring to the king proceeding on horseback alone and without his companion,1752 additionally records that ‘he’ took the chief of the town along with his child,1753 while the booty list is lost in a lacuna.
His Person went out on horseback, sabw m xaw n r-a-xt equipped with weapons of war r dmi n [y]HmA to the town of Jemma. ist HAq.n Hm=f nA wHywt Now, His Person plundered the villages n mpsyn of Mepsyn, Hna nA n wHywt xAtiTAn together with the villages of Khetjen, dmi 2 Hr imnty sA-kA the two towns to the west of Socho. ist pA HqA nSy mi bik nTry Now, the ruler raged like a divine falcon Htrw=f Hr ax His chariots were flying mi sbA n pt like a star of the sky aq Hm=f His Person entered, in.tw wrw=f Xrdw=f its chiefs, children, Hmwt=f and women were brought m sqr-anx Xrw=f nb (away) as prisoners, and all its subordinates r mitt iry likewise, xt=f nb nn Drw=sn all its property without limit, mnmn=f Htrw=f its cattle, its horses, iAw nb {n} m-HAt=f and all herds in front of him.1763 [p]rt Hm=f Hr Htr
Der Manuelian questions whether a military clash occurred, as even the king could not fight an entire settlement alone. He suggests that the king possibly went to review conditions at a town already loyal to him.1754 Goedicke interprets this event differently. He argues that a slaughter is not described here; rather, the king successfully brought additional men, servants and horses to join his campaign, presumably from a friendly town. He translates the reference to ‘20 hands’ not as on the foreheads of the horses, but as servants for tending them taking dhnt n ssmwt=f as ‘for appointment to his horses’.1755 Both interpretations seem unlikely. The reference to the king travelling and fighting alone is a staple of military accounts, even accounts of significant battles.1756 There is no need to interpret the account as a lone visit to a loyal town as Der Manuelian does. It is more likely that an attack is described than a peaceful mission, the aim being to emphasise the personal nature and speed of the king’s victory. Regarding Goedicke’s argument, it would be unusual for the scribe to dedicate so much space to such a relatively inglorious event as the acquisition of additional warriors and supplies.1757 Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the king travelled anywhere without heavy military escort, even in friendly territory. He would not travel without his army to requisition supplies. References to the king travelling and fighting alone should not be taken literally. The scribe has made it clear that the king is
1758
Memphis stele, Urk IV 1304, 12. The image of the king carrying prisoners at the back of his chariot is depicted on two blocks found in the 4th pylon at Karnak, see 5.8.4. below, and Zayed 1985. 1759 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1304, 16 – 1305, 2, the account in the Karnak stele is heavily reconstructed by Helck Urk IV 1314, 1 – 6. 1760 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1304, 16 – 19. Goedicke argued that this was not a capture as such an act would go against custom. He states that the king was honouring the messenger by placing him on the royal chariot. Thus, this must not be seen as capture by force, but surrender (Goedicke 1992: 145). However, the image of prisoners attached to the royal chariot (Zayed 1985) shows that this was a literary and pictorial image favoured by scribes and artists under Amenhotep II. It emphasises the king’s power over a factual telling of events. 1761 Lundh 2002: 124. 1762 This is likely due to lack of space (Lundh 2002: 132). 1763 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1305, 17 – 1306, 10.
1751
Memphis stele, Urk IV 1304, 10 – 14. If Helck’s restoration is accurate, Urk IV 1313, 11. 1753 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1313, 12. 1754 Der Manuelian 1987: 67. 1755 Goedicke 1992: 142 n. 40. 1756 See Chapter Six, section 6.4. 1757 They may have been mentioned if they were ultimately to be offered to a god, but there is no indication of this here. 1752
108
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence No large scale battle occurs, only brief overwhelming raids. An account of the king’s dream in which Amun appeared to him then follows,1764 itself followed by the burning of the people of Ituryn and Mektilyn:
between the army and king here is marked, as it is in other sections of the stelae. The Memphis stele records that the king took Kaka, the chieftain of Giboa-Saman, along with his wife, children and all relatives. Another chief was put in his place.1772 The Karnak stele also records this event; here the fate of the chieftain is separate from the capture of his relatives, but it is lost in a lacuna.1773 Also, there is a reference to the the booty taken by ‘His Person himself’;1774 however, again the detail is lost in lacuna, except for a reference to ‘his horses’.1775
Then His Person, l.p.h. prevailed, mi sxm sxmt like Sekhmet prevails, mi mntw Hr wAst and like Montu the Theban. in.n=f wrw=sn 34 He brought away 34 of their chiefs, mrwyn 57 sTtyw anx 231 57 Syrian warriors1765, 231 living Asiatics, Drt 372 ssmt 54 wrryt 54 372 hands, 54 horses, 54 chariots, r-mn xaw nb n aHA as well as all the weapons of war, nxt-a nb nw rTnw all the ‘strong of arm’1766 of Retjenu, Xrdw=sn Hmwt=sn their children, their women and xt=sn nb all their belongings. m-xt mAA.n Hm=f After His Person had seen pA HAq aSAw wrt the very numerous booty iw.tw Hr ir st m sqr-anx they were made into prisoners. iw.tw Hr irt Sdy 2 Two ditches were made m-qd=sn nb all around them mk mH st m xt and filled with fire;1767 iw Hm=f m rs Hr=s His Person was on guard over it r HD-tA until daybreak, iw pAy=f iqHw his battle-axe Hr wnmy=f in his right hand, wa nn wa nb Hna=f alone, without anyone with him. ist pA mSa wA r=f Now, the army was far from him, Hrw sDmw-aS n pr-aA Apart from the servants of Pharaoh.1768 aHa.n sxm Hm=f a.w.s.
5.8.4. Depictions Two red granite blocks bearing a scene of Amenhotep II on campaign were found in the fourth pylon at Karnak.1776 The lower block first depicts Amenhotep standing, tying two prisoners together. To the right Amenhotep is depicted again, this time riding his chariot; in one hand he holds a crook, in the other a bow, yet he also holds the horses’ reigns in each hand at the same time. Numerous prisoners are depicted attached to the chariot: three sit naked upon the horses, one, again naked, lies on his back on the beam connecting the chariot to the horses. Two prisoners stand within the chariot itself, while a further seven clothed captives are behind the king, seemingly standing on platforms attached to the chariot. Ropes tied around their necks lead back to the king.1777 Zayed has argued that the two prisoners depicted within the chariot are actually decorations on the chariot, rather than actual captives;1778 while Der Manuelian suggests that it is more likely that these were actual prisoners, with the prisoner attached to the chariot beam as decoration.1779 An inscription accompanying the scene reads: Atp=f Htrw=f m anx wAH.n=f m drtw tm rdi Hr mw=f
Goedicke’s comment that the throwstick determinative that follows ‘Itwryn’ designates them as a people or tribe living in this area is probably accurate. However, his arguments that this section refers to the king rebuilding burned stockades during the night out of kindness are far from convincing.1769 Goedicke states that the Egyptians were reluctant towards violence,1770 and that this makes the violent translation unlikely. However, as Der Manuelian notes, the reference to the gruesome fate of the 7 princes of Takhsy during Amenhotep’s campaign of year 3 on the Amada and Elephantine stelae seems only to have been included to glorify the king through ‘examples of excessive cruelty’.1771 The separation
He loaded his span of horses with the living, and he put (down) as hands1780 those who were not put on his water.1781
It is notable that the image of the king taking Asiatic prisoners and placing them at the side of his chariot is 1772
Memphis stele, Urk IV 1308, 12 - 14 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1315, 3 – 8. 1774 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1315, 16. 1775 Karnak stele, Urk IV 1315, 7 – 8. 1776 Cairo Museum J. 36360, Zayed 1985; Der Manuelian 1987: 78 – 81; for the inscriptions see Urk IV 1368, 10 – 19. 1777 Zayed 1985: pl. II. 1778 See Zayed 1985: 8 – 9 for further examples of chariots decorated in this manner. 1779 Der Manuelian 1987: 79 n. 173. 1780 Meaning ‘killed those’. The reference is to the hands taken from the dead after battle. Zayed, however interprets this line differently. He sees Drwt as either refering to the beam on which the prisoner is depicted tied (Zayed 1985: 10), or the car in which the king stands (Der Manuelian 1987: 79 n. 173). He would thus read, ‘and he placed on the Drwt’. His interpretation is not followed here. 1781 I.e. ‘those who were disloyal to him’ (Zayed 1985: 10, pl. II; Urk IV 1368, 18 – 19), with the sense of those who were not added to his minions. 1773
1764
Urk IV 1306, 12 – 1307, 2. mrwyn is likely a mis-writing of mrynw (Der Manuelian 1987: 225 n. 16). 1766 Possibly the ‘adults’ or ‘champions’ (Faulkner 1962: 138). 1767 Following Der Manuelian 1987: 226. 1768 Memphis stele, Urk IV 1307, 6 – 1307, 17. 1769 Goedicke 1992: 136 – 150. 1770 Goedicke 1992: 147. 1771 Der Manuelian 1987: 52. 1765
109
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty found described in the textual accounts of Amenhotep’s wars.1782 It is likely that references to prisoners being ‘at the side’ of the king’s chariot should be taken in the general sense of ‘nearby’. However, the evidence from these depictions could indicate that these descriptions were meant to be taken far more literally, creating the fantastical image of the king actually attaching his prisoners to his chariot.
iw.tw r Dd n Hm=f nHsy hAw m hAw wAwAt kA.n=f bStw r kmt sHwy=f n=f SmAw nb bSttyw nw kt xAst
The scene above that of the king on his chariot, on a separate block, depicts the king executing a foreigner, and bringing a series of Asiatics before Amun as an offering. Such scenes were used to express narrative, i.e. they show pictorially the content of the text – some simply show the ‘culminating scene’.1783 In this manner, these scenes may highlight key moments during one of Amenhotep’s campaigns. However, Zayed’s association of this scene with the Takhsy campaign of Year 31784 lacks evidence.1785
The king is interrupted in his ritual – itself disruptive to order – by a messenger who informs him of foreign rebellion. The text thus follows the pattern of the iw.tw. formula.1793 The king does not go to his advisors rather he goes to consult Amun. Proceeding in peace to the temple in nsw by the king Hr tr n dwAyt in the morning, rdit mAa aAbt aAt n it=f giving a large pile of offerings to his father qmAw nfrw=f who created his beauty. nsw Hm=f spr=f Ds=f The king, His Person himself petitions m-bAH-a HqA nTrw in the presence of the ruler of the gods, nD=f sw to consult with him1794 Hr xrt nmtt=f […]=f concerning the conduct of his movements […] srx=f so that he would inform him what xprw xr=f would happen to him, sSm n=f Hr wAt nfrt so that might guide him on a good road r ir[t] mrrwt kA=f to do which his ka desires, mi mdw it xr sA=f as when a father speaks to his son, [ir].n=f mtwt=f im=f whom he has begotten, his seed in him.1795 wDA m Htp r Hwt nTr
A further depiction of Amenhotep II at war is found on a small seal.1786 It depicts the king on his chariot firing arrows at his enemies, two of which are depicted fallen in his presence. 5.9. The Wars of Tuthmosis IV1787 5.9.1. The Konosso Stele1788 Dated to year 9, month 3 of Peret, day 2 of the reign of Tuthmosis IV, this inscription is rock cut on the island of Konosso. ist Hm=f m niwt rsyt r dmi n ipt-st awy.fy wab m [abw] [nTr] sHtp.n=f it=f imn mi rdit n=f nHH m nsw Dt mn Hr st Hr
One came in order to say to His Person, “The Nehesy has descended from (or near) the region of Wawat,1791 and he has planned rebellion against Egypt. He assembled to himself all the rebellious foreigners of another land.”1792
Now, His Person was in the Southern City, in the town of Karnak, his hands being pure with the [offerings] of the [god], (after) he had propitiated his father Amun, just as eternity as king is given to him and eternity on the Horus throne.1789
Spalinger has noted that the offering to the god has replaced the normal rage and oath scene that follows the interruption by the messenger in iw.tw. formula texts, but that this should not be taken as a higher degree of piety by the king, rather it is just another motif.1796 The consultation is Tuthmosis IV’s reaction to the report just as it is with other kings, except his consultation is with the god. The king then makes a command:
Tuthmosis IV is performing his ritual functions, acting as a true king in line with maat when a messenger comes to give news of a chaotic development,1790 1782
Karnak stele Urk IV 1304, 12; 1311, 11. Gaballa 1976. 1784 Zayed 1985: 16. 1785 See the comments of Der Manuelian 1987: 80. 1786 Louvre E. 6256; Heinz 2001: 235; Der Manuelian 1987: 207 – 208; Desroches-Noblecourt 1950: 38, pl. V, fig. 1. 1787 For a discussion of the wars of Tuthmosis IV see Bryan 1991: 332 – 347. Only the Konosso stele, discussed below, provides any significant detail of a battle under this king. Giveon has discussed the evidence for Tuthmosis’ military activity in the Levant (Giveon 1969), but see the comments of Bryan 1991: 359 – 360 n. 27. 1788 Urk IV 1545 – 1548. 1789 Urk IV 1545, 7 – 9. 1790 Spalinger (1982: 5) notes that this distruption of order is also found at the start of the Aswan Phile stele of Tuthmosis II. Here the king is in 1783
[wD].[n]=f
He [commanded]
his palace ruling the country when the messenger arrives with news of chaotic events. 1791 Following Bryan 1991: 333. See her comments on p. 334 – 335. 1792 Urk IV 1545, 10 – 13. 1793 See discussion at 5.5.1. above 1794 That is by personal prayer or oracle. 1795 Urk IV 1545, 14 – 1546, 2. 1796 Spalinger 1982: 117.
110
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence sH[wy] [mSa]=f Hr-a sb.n=f sw m qn nxt
He found all the Nubian enemies m int StA in a secret valley,1802 n rx.n.tw=s that was not known, isq r rmTwt xt Dww waiting for the people throughout the mountains.1803 […]=f wAw m […] He […] far from […] [aHa.n] rw.[n]=f St [Then] he removed the townspeople (?)1804 Hna Xrw=sn mnmn[t]=sn together with their underlings, their cattle xt=sn nbt xr=sn and all their property (that was) with them. […] […]1805
his [army] to ass[emble] immediately. He sent it out in bravery and strength.1797
gm.n=f xrw nb n nHsyw
No detailed instructions are given. There is no indication that the king had consulted his advisors before making any decisions. As such the only two people presented as protecting Egypt and making decisions are the king and Amun, the former acting under the god’s instruction. The king sends out his army and then follows them escorted by his army: wDA m-xt nn in Hm=f r sxrt pH sw m tA-sty
Proceeding after these by His Person, in order to overthrow the one who attacked him in Nubia.1798
In her analysis of this text Bryan has labelled the events described as a ‘desert patrol within Egypt’ rather than a Nubian war.1806 She argues that the text describes a journey by the king through the gold mine routes east of Edfu. At this time, she argues, Nubians were interfering with the gold transports and it was discovered that the rebels were hiding out in the mountains where the mines were located.1807 She further argues that the king attacked from Edfu before the army had assembled and attacked the enemy on the eastern road. She interprets this then as a campaign of ‘trifling importance’.1808 She notes the main emphasis is on the oracle of Amun and the blessings of the Upper Egyptian gods during the journey; as such it may have been a planned tour – a military procession of the region.1809 Spalinger has also noted the ‘strong scent of religious activity’ which pervades the text.1810 This has also been commented on by Helck.1811
During the journey the king stops at Behdet (Edfu) to celebrate a festival.1799 The text then becomes less specific and more poetic: prt in nTr nfr Coming out by the Good God mi mnTw m xprw=f nbw like Montu in all his forms, DbAw m xaw=f nw rA-a-xt equipped with his weapons of war; nSnw mi stX nwbty raging like Seth, the Ombite, is[t] ra Hr sA=f m anx with the sun behind him in life, nn fxwt there was no failure, nn wxA Hr Dww and no night on the mountains, Hna wawa qny and every single brave one m Sms=f in his following.1800
The king does not consult his army; rather he consults Amun, and having been directed by him, commands that the army be assembled. During this journey the king stops at important temples and offers to the gods. It would seem unusual that the king and his army would journey south together yet separate upon arrival when Nubia was reached; so although the description that follows makes it unclear as to whether the king took part in the battle proper it seems reasonable to suggest that he was at least present. As with other campaign texts the movements of the king and the results of his actions are recorded rather than specific occasions of command. Furthermore, there is the usual reference to the king fighting alone, while his intelligence is emphasised by the
When the army reached Nubia the events are described as follows: nn sin iwt n=f mSa=f [ir.n=f Sat] aSAt m xpS=f qn Hryt=f aq.ti m Xt nb di.n ra snD=f m tAw mi sxmt rnpt Ad=s tp=f rsw n aawy.n=f hbhb.n=f xAswt iAbty wp=f mtnw mi sAb Smaw HHy a n pH sw
Without waiting for his army to come to him. [He made] a great [slaughter] with his brave xpS,1801 the fear of him having entered every belly, Ra had placed all fear of him in the lands like Sekhmet in a year of her pestilence. He was watchful and did not sleep. He traversed the eastern lands opening the roads like an Upper Egyptian jackal, searching for the region of the one who attacked him.
1802 As Spalinger notes, it is a common theme in military texts that the enemy has cowardly hidden himself away in a remote place (Spalinger 1982: 52 – 55, with references). Although only the Konosso stele makes clear that they were in a secret place. 1803 Bryan translates, ‘they being concealed (?) from the people (rmTwt) who trod the mountains’ (Bryan 1991: 334, and see her note 10 on p. 358). 1804 Following Bryan 1991: 334. 1805 Urk IV 1547, 12 – 1548, 6. 1806 Bryan 1991: 334 – 335. 1807 Bryan 1991: 335. 1808 Bryan 1991: 335. 1809 Bryan 1991: 335. 1810 Spalinger 1992: 108. 1811 Helck 1969: 316.
1797
Urk IV 1546, 4 – 5; Lundh 2002: 43. Urk IV 1546, 6; Spalinger 1982: 85, see p. 83 – 85 for examples of wDA and overthrowing of enemies. 1799 ‘The festival of washing the image’ Urk IV 1547. 1800 Urk IV 1547, 6 – 11. 1801 Adapted from, and following, Bryan 1991: 334. 1798
111
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty description of him finding the secret valley in which the enemy hid - a valley which no one else knew of. Apart from the king’s command to assemble the army there is no information as to how the army was led during this campaign.
This suggests a direct role played by the king in the organisation of the campaign. However, as a laudatory epithet that can be translated with a different meaning it must be cited as evidence with caution. What is notable though is that this epithet is not found associated with other 18th Dynasty kings.
5.9.2. Depictions Depictions of Tuthmosis IV at war are found on the sides of a chariot discovered in his tomb (KV 43).1812 Tuthmosis is depicted shooting at his enemies from his chariot protected by Montu-Re. On the right side of the chariot he also holds a battle axe above his head, while also holding his bow with his right hand. As is standard in such representations it is the king alone who defeats the enemies, who fall helplessly before him.1813 He is depicted as calm and controlled while all around him his enemies fall in a chaotic mess.
A fragmentary inscription from Sai1822 records: rnpt-sp 5 Abd 2 Axt 2[4]… Year 5, second month of Akhet, day 2[4] … …. …. ist Hm=f m […] Now, when His Majesty was in […] [nA n] xrw nw tA-sty [‘The] enemies of Nubia kA[y=sn bSt m in-sn] are [planning rebellion in their hearts], […] nt mSaw […] […] the army […].1823
5.10. The Wars of Amenhotep III There were two campaigns in Nubia under Amenhotep III.1814 Spalinger classes Amenhotep III’s military activity as minor campaigns due to the presence of the iw.tw formula.1815 O’Connor, in contrast, sees these campaigns as more than raids.1816
The reading of the date is unclear.1824 Although the location at which the king was present at this date is lost Topozada has argued that at this time the king was in Memphis due to the appearance of Ptah ‘South of his Wall’ in the lunette of the Aswan-Philae stele,1825 and the prescence of the Mayor of Memphis Heby on the campaign.1826 He thus may have organised the campaign from there, and remained in his palace, or accompanied the campaign from there.
5.10.1. First Campaign (Year 5) 1817 Amenhotep III’s Konosso stele1818 describes that in: rnpt-sp 5 iit Hm=f Hb.n=f m wDyt=f tpt nt nxt Hr xAswt nT1819 kS Xst
Year 5, His Person returned, having celebrated (a triumph) on his first campaign of victory in the foreign land of impotent Kush.1820
A further source is the Aswan-Philae inscription,1827 dated to Year 5, 3rd month of the Akhet, day 2.1828 It records that: iw.tw r Dd n Hm=f pA xrw n kS Xst kAy.n=f bSt m ib=f
The remainder of the text is composed of laudatory statements concerning the king’s power and abilities and thus adds little historical data; however, there is also the unusual statement that the king is: rdi bwt(.tw) tA-nHsy Ts aHA
sxm Hm=f r nxt km=f sw m wDyt=f tpt nt nxt spr Hm=f r=sn mi H(w)t bik mi mnTw m xprw=f sxm-ib sw Hr [dndn]
one who has caused the land of Nubia to be despised and who organises the fighting.1821
one came to tell His Person:1829 “The enemy of impotent Kush has planned a rebellion in his heart.” His Person prevails in victory, putting an end to him, on his first campaign of victory. His Person reached them like the stroke of a falcon, and like Montu in his forms. He was stout-hearted while [slaughtering],
1812
CG 46079; published by Carter, Newberry, Maspero, & Smith 1904: 24. Also see Thomas 1966: 80 – 81; Bryan 1991: 190 – 194; Heinz 2001: 236. 1813 Bryan 1991: 193. 1814 Topozada (1988) has collected together and discussed all evidence relating to these campaigns. Although not fully convinced by Topozada’s arguments O’Connor has followed Topozada in his article on Amenhotep’s Nubian campaigns (O’Connor 1998: 261 – 270). I have also followed Topozada’s conclusions here. 1815 Spalinger 1982: 31. 1816 O’Connor 1998: 264. 1817 For a full discussion of the monuments which refer to this campaign see Topozada 1988. Only evidence relating to the personal activity of the king will be included here. 1818 For the full text see Urk IV 1661, 6 – 1663, 6. Also see PM V 1937: 254; Topozada 1988; O’Connor 1998. 1819 This is a scribal error for nt. 1820 Urk IV 1662, 7 – 10.
1821
Urk IV 1663, 4. This can equally be translated ‘which had brought about the fighting.’ 1822 The lacunae in this text are reconstructed using the text of the Aswan Philae Inscription below. 1823 Urk IV 1959, 11, 16 – 17. 1824 Vercoutter 1958: 81. 1825 Topozada 1988: 157. See immediately below for this stele. 1826 Topozada 1988: 157 – 158. Heby left an graffito at Aswan which makes reference to the first campaign of Amenhotep III, see Topozada 1988: 156; PM V: 245 – 246; Urk IV 1793. 1827 The stele is still in situ between Aswan and Philae, see Klug 2002: 422. For the full text see Urk IV 1665, 5 – 1666; also see Klug 2002: 422 – 424; Topozada 1988: 153 – 154; PM V: 245. 1828 Urk IV 1665, 15. 1829 This, and the previous example, conform to the iw.tw formula (Spalinger 1982: 6 – 7). Also, see above.
112
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence Hr smA Hr Sad Drwt s 30000 m sqr-anx wAH=f im=sn r mrt=f r tm fdq prw kS Xst ixny pA abaw m-Xnw [mSa=f] n rx=f pA mAi nty r-HAt=f nb-mAat-ra pw mAi HsAw Amm anwt=f kS Xst ptpt wrw=s nbw xt int=sn Hdbw Hr snf=sn m wa Hr wa
killing, and cutting off hands. 30,000 men1830 as prisoners – he let go as (many as) he liked, so as not to wipe out the households of impotent Kush. Ikheny the boaster within [his army], he did not know the lion that was in front of him, Nebmaatre is the savage lion whose claws grasped impotent Kush. All its chiefs were trampled throughout their valleys, (being) overthrown in their (own) blood, one on top of another.1831
n mrwt rx [Hm]=i […] ir=Tn n w[…] […] n wDt s(y) n=sn wn.in Hm=f Hr Ht sn Ds=f m Ams wn m a=f […] […] Tsw Hwa m xa nsw Hr-sA xAst imntt isT rdi Hms mSa […] […] r Dr=s aSA wrt r xt nb
The main question surrounding these inscriptions is whether the king was actually present during this campaign. Lundh has remarked that the Aswan-Philae inscription of Amenhotep III is unique in its focus on the attack and final victory of the king, and the complete lack of references to the army and divine sanction. He has stated that the reason for this is the king’s presence during the campaign.1832 The king’s presence is confirmed if the Bubastis inscription1833 is included as a source for Amenhotep III’s first campaign, as Topozada argues due to the similar date.1834 The inscription in full reads: […] [nH]sw […] m irt […] […] […] mSa pn ib=sn psH r aHA xAa r xt nb iw […] […] mTn n iryt n=Tn wDt-mdw isT grt ir Hnt n=Tn Hm=i Dd pw […] […] dt iw [?] [nw] nHsw xr
wn.in Hm=f Hr irt wDt-mdw n rmT ipn nt irt=sn rdi.in=sn iA[w] […] […] i[n] iaywt nt mSaw ntt m tpt-a sart=sn m stp-sA wn.in Hm=f Hr nD-sxr[w] […] […] nt sn im=f irr xt nb
[…] [Nu]bians […] in making […] […] […] this army […] their hearts, they were biting-eager to fight, scrambling(?) against everything. Come […] […] you. There has not been made a command to you, Now, moreover, if My Person shall charge you (with a task), it is said […] […] hand. The [?] [of] the Nubians have fallen,
wD Hm=f sbt s n mSa 124 m prt r Xnmt ntt Hr w[…] […] m xnt r mA[A] Ts n Hwa r rdit rx.tw wAt nt sqdwt […] [rxt n] sqrw-anx gm.n=sn im nHsw iH-Hmt 113 aA-Hmt 11 Abd 3 Axt […] […] [mH]ty qA wrt n prt Ts n Hwa
1830 This can equally be read ‘tens of thousands’ (O’Connor 1998: 264 n. 176). 1831 Urk IV 1666, 3 – 18. 1832 Lundh 2002: 46. 1833 For the original publication see Naville 1891: 8 – 10. 1834 Topozada 1988: 160. O’Connor has noted that this inscription may not even be connected to Amenhotep III (O’Connor 1998: 268); the original publication dates the inscription to the reign of Senwosret III (Naville 1891: 10). Even if the inscription is attributed to Amenhotep III it remains uncertain if the events related refer to the first campaign of Amenhotep III or another.
prt Ts pn m Htp sqdw […]
in order to know My [Person] […] you do for […] […] It has not been commanded for them. And so His Person beat them himself with the mace that was in his hand […] […] the sandbank of Huwa, a royal appearance upon the western desert/hill country. Now, the army of […] was caused to sit […] […] all of it, very numerous, more than anything. And so His Person made a command to these people for them to act on And so they gave prai[se] […] […] It is the forces of the army who will be in the front, and they will rise as protection. And so His Person consulted about the plan[s]1835 […] […] It is they, in it, who do everything. His Person commanded the sending of 124 men of the army to go forth to the well which is upon […] […] in sailing upstream to see the sandbank of Huwa, and to cause to be known the routes of the voyage […] The number of prisoners which they found there: Nubians, cows: 113. Female asses: 11 Month 3 of the inundation season […] […] the very high north wind, for the coming out of the sandbank of Huwa, The coming out of this sandbank in peace The voyage […]
1835 Spalinger suggests that the meaning here is that following a conference the king sent the army to attack the enemy (Spalinger 1982: 62).
113
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty […] [nSh] nSk rn=s r rsy Ts n Hwa Htp m sH iry im […]
evidence to suggest that the king accompanied this campaign, or that he was involved in its planning.
[…] Nesheh is its name, to the south of the sandbank of Huwa. Resting in the shelter which was made there. […]1836
5.10.3. Architrave Inscription at Luxor At Luxor temple, on an architrave, Amenhotep III is described as, aHa Hr pgA
The large number of lacunae in this text makes it difficult to interpret the events being described. However, it is clear that the text is based on daybook diary entries, with narrative additions, due to its use of sentences with bare infinitives.1837 As with other records of military activity, described above, this text describes the actions of the king in a narrative fashion while those of the army are in the daybook style. Spalinger notes that the preserved text consists of two speeches by the king.1838 Two clashes with Nubians are also recorded, while the areas in which the army moves are described but have not been placed.1839 Of the events described in the text, it is notable that the king is presented as having had a war conference (nD-sxr) and addresses the army and his people. He is also described as smiting the enemies himself with his mace. There is a reference to certain troops being sent to the front and others acting as protection. While a number of royal commands are presented, they are quite general and may just be a literary creation to move the action along. However, the command to send men to the well could be based on real documentation as it is specific and unusual.
nn Hr sA=f
5.10.4. Amenhotep Son of Hapu On a statue from Karnak1844 Amenhotep Son of Hapu states: [mA.n]=i kfa=f Hr ptri
di.n=i iswt Hr tp wAt r Sna xAswtyw Hr st=sn inHw idbwy m sAwy Hr xns nmiw-Sa ir.n=i m mity Hr-tp mAa r-HAwt arf Xr Tst=i Hrw-r iswt nsw-aprw ink is smAw wAwt=sn rhn=sn Hr tpt-r=i ir.n=i r-Hry Xr-HAt qnyw r Hwt styw sTt
Then one was [mustering the army] of Pharaoh l.p.h.1841
sxrw nb=i m ib HA=i nmi=i inH wi r=f
This statement can be compared to the Konosso Stele of Tuthmosis IV in which it is stated, [wD.n=f] sH[wy mSa]=f Hr-awy
I saw him (the king) making captures on the battlefield.1845
He also relates his time as Scribe of Recuits:
5.10.2. Second Campaign The second campaign of Amenhotep III is recorded as having been led by the Viceroy of Kush Merymose on a stele from Semna.1840 Here the people of Ibhet are described as planning an attack on Egyptians in Nubia. Merymose is presented as attacking them during the harvest season while they are busy and thus unprepared. 740 prisoners are taken, and 312 Nubians are killed. Notably, this text includes a reference to the troops being mustered: wn.in.tw Hr [snhy mSa] pr-aA a.w.s.
one who stands on the battlefield without (one) behind him.1843
inqw sxrw=f tAw nbw pDt nbt nty Hr gs.fy
Then [he commanded] the ass[embling of] his [army] immediately.1842
ink is Hsb=i is-HAqt nt nxtw Hm=f ti wi Xr-HAt=sn iry=i m Dd.n=f mDd.n=i m ddt=f m Hr=i
In the latter example the king’s influence is clear, whereas it is not explicit in Merymose’s stele. There is no 1836 Urk IV 1734, 1 – 1736, 8; for more detail see Faulkner 1955b, and Naville 1891: pl. 34; O’Connor 1998: 268 – 269. 1837 Spalinger 1982: 153. 1838 Spalinger 1982: 108 – 109. 1839 O’Connor 1998: 268. 1840 BM 138 (657); Urk IV 1659 – 61; Topozada 1988: 154; PM VII: 155; Edwards 1939: 21 – 22, pl. 20. 1841 Urk IV 1659, 13. 1842 Urk IV 1546, 4.
gm.n=i st m Axt n m-xt
1843
I have placed the troops at the head of the road, in order to repulse the foreigners from their places which surround the Two Banks, by keeping an eye on the travelling of the Sandfarers. I have done likewise upon the bank(s) at the rivermouth, which were enclosed under my troops, apart from the crews of the royal sailors. It is I who conduct their way, and they trust in my utterance. I was made Chief in front of the brave ones, in order to beat the Nubians and the Asiatics. All my Lord’s plans are a shelter around me. As I travel, his speech surrounds me. His plans unite all lands and every bow which is beside him. I reckoned the booty of His Person’s victories, when I was in front of them. I have acted as he said. I followed what he “placed in my face”, and I have found it is as excellent for the future.1846
Urk IV 1698, 7. CG 583; Urk IV 1813 – 1830. Urk IV 1823, 17. 1846 Urk IV 1821, 10 – 1822, 6. 1844 1845
114
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Evidence in his lifetime.1862 Amenhotep II has a ‘questionable’ compression fracture in his vertebrae.1863 Amenhotep III’s body is badly preserved, and the only details about his body reflect his state late in life.1864 There are no references to the bodies having scars that may have been received in battle; however, the thick resinous paste which coats the skin of many of the royal mummies1865 may hide such evidence.
Amenhotep emphasises that his success on campaign was a result of following the words of the king. 5.10.5. Depictions There are no depictions of Amenhotep III on campaign. 5.11. Physical Evidence of the Pharaohs Any Pharaoh physically taking part in warfare could expect to receive serious injuries in the melee, or at least show some physical evidence of having taken part. However, there is little evidence of ante-mortem trauma among the 18th Dynasty mummies,1847 and no evidence of healed fractures in the long bones.1848 The great warrior King Ahmose1849 has been described as ‘delicately built’,1850 and ‘less robust than his father or later kings’.1851 This may indicate that he suffered from poor physical health, and may be why he was left uncircumcised.1852 All of which led Wente to remark, ‘there is considerable doubt whether this pharaoh was a front-line war-leader subjecting himself to the rigors of combat.’1853 Other Pharaohs seem only to have suffered from age related illnesses.1854 Tuthmosis I1855 suffered a pelvic fracture at some point in his life;1856 however, there is debate as to whether this body is actually that of Tuthmosis I.1857 A similar ‘pelvic tilt’ is found in the bones of Tuthmosis IV,1858 who died at around the age of 35, and whose body is described as ‘extremely emaciated’, probably the result of a disease.1859 Tuthmosis II1860 was a ‘frail individual’ who died from disease at around the age of 30;1861 while there is no evidence that Tuthmosis III received any serious injuries 1847 Whitehouse 1980: 295. As a 17th Dynasty Pharaoh, Seqenenre Tao II has not been included among the Pharaohs studied here. Still, although Seqenenre is typically cited as a Pharaoh who died during battle itself (Bietak and Strouhal 1974), it has also been suggested that he was assassinated within the palace while asleep (Smith 1912: 6). No firm agreement on the matter has so far been achieved; however, see my forthcoming article for a reinterpretation of the evidence relating to Seqenenre’s death. 1848 Whitehouse 1980: 289, 295. 1849 CG 61057, Smith 1912: 15 – 18, pls XI – XII. 1850 Harris & Weeks 1973: 127. 1851 Harris & Weeks 1973: 126 – 127. 1852 Harris & Weeks 1973: 126 – 127. However, Ahmose’s lack of circumcision may have been a Nubian practice (Harris & Weeks 1973: 127). Amenhotep I may also have not been circumcised (Harris & Weeks 1973: 130), which, if true, could suggest a family practice. For Amenhotep I (CG 61058), see Smith 1912: 18, pl. XIII. 1853 Harris & Wente 1980: 239. 1854 Amenhotep II notably suffered from Ankylosing Spondylitis (Whitehouse 1980: 292 – 293), a condition in which the fusion of the spine occurs leading to disability. 1855 CG 61065, Smith 1912: 23 - 28, pls. XX – XXII. 1856 Whitehouse 1980: fig. 8.2. 1857 Tuthmosis I is believed to have reigned for at least 14 years, yet skeletal evidence shows that the body is of a man who died between 18 and 21 years of age (Harris & Weeks 1973: 132; Whitehouse 1980: 288). There is no indication that Tuthmosis I came to the throne as an infant. 1858 Whitehouse 1980: 289. CG 61073, Smith 1912: 42 – 46, pls. XXIX – XXX. 1859 Harris & Weeks 1973: 139. 1860 CG 61066, Smith 1912: 28 - 31, pls. XXIII – XXIV. 1861 Harris & Weeks 1973: 133.
1862 However, his mummy is in a bad condition. CG 61068, Smith 1912: 32 - 36, pl. XXVIII. 1863 Whitehouse 1980: 289. See CG 61069, Smith 1912: 36 – 38. 1864 CG 61074, Smith 1912: 46 – 51, pls. XXXI – XXXV, C – CIII; Harris & Weeks 1973: 142. 1865 Notably that of Ahmose (Harris & Weeks 1973: 126, 127). Tuthmosis I is not coated in resin (Harris & Weeks 1973: 131); however, no scars, or other tell tale signs of active warfare, have been reported.
115
offering to the gods in the temple.1876 His reaction to this news is then given.1877 However, there is little evidence for the king planning military campaigns: the AswanPhilae inscription of Tuthmosis II presents the king as despatching his army to Nubia with the command that they kill all males among the Nubian rebels;1878 the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV presents the king as consulting Amun on how to react to a rebellion in Nubia. He then commands the army be sent.1879 On the Carnarvon Tablet King Kamose is presented as involving himself in the discussion of overall war tactics, as opposed to the tactics for a particular battle,1880 before the army is sent out. This describes the king taking counsel with his high officials. Kamose asks for advice on how to take back Lower Egypt from the Hyksos invaders, who had effectively divided Egypt into two separate kingdoms. The officials respond by stating that they are happy with their share of Egypt and that they would be happy if things stayed the same. This reaction angers Kamose. The text then states, ‘By the command of Amun, astute of council, I sailed north to my victory to drive back the Asiatics, my courageous army in front of me like a flame of fire…’1881 It is possible that the text is making allusion to the king having consulted the god for advice, having faced difficulties with the court.
CHAPTER SIX THE KING’S ROLE AS MILITARY LEADER: ANALYSIS 6.1. Introduction Studies of the evidence for Egyptian military campaigns discuss the logistics of campaigning – the movement of the army, the amount of food required, the technology used1866 – while others focus on the literary genres into which the different military accounts fall,1867 or the organisation of the military administration.1868 Scholars have not used the evidence to attempt a reconstruction of the true historical role played by the king during these campaigns.1869 Here the evidence, as presented in Chapter Five, will be synthesised and analysed in an attempt to create a true picture of the king’s role as military leader. It will be divided into three major sections: the first dealing with evidence for the king’s role as military leader when not accompanying the army on campaign; the second dealing with evidence for the king’s actions when on campaign; and a third which debates the true level of historical reality that can be derived from the Egyptians’ military accounts.
If the evidence is taken at face value the king would debate with his courtiers about whether to go to war, consult the god as oracle for advice, and authorise the despatch of the army by royal command. There is no evidence for him being involved in logistical planning deciding on the best route for the army to take, the numbers of men to send, rations etc… It would seem that his only role, when not accompanying the army, was to decide on whether Egypt should go to war or not.
6.2. Leadership of the Army When the King was not on Campaign 6.2.1. Evidence for the King Being Absent from Campaigns There is no indication that Tuthmosis II personally accompanied his army into Nubia in the Aswan Philae stele.1870 It is also unclear as to whether Tuthmosis IV was present during fighting in Nubia as presented on his Konosso stele.1871 Leadership of the 2nd Campaign of Amenhotep III was entrusted to his Viceroy of Kush,1872 while the Butler Minmose states that he led the army under Tuthmosis III.1873 The Herald Djehutymose refers to a Nubian campaign of Tuthmosis III and indicates that the king only came to join the army after the enemy had been defeated.1874 Clearly then, the king did not lead his army on every campaign; this fact is not hidden.
In the Aswan Philae stele of Tuthmosis II the king’s bAw is described as having led the army to the enemy. The victory of the army itself is attributed to the bAw of the king.1882 As it is clear that Tuthmosis II was not present on this campaign, it is possible that references to bAw could indicate a lack of royal presence. In the Tombos stele of Tuthmosis I the bAw of the king blinds his
6.2.2. Royal Decision Making and Planning The king is presented as being informed of events that require military intervention while in the palace,1875 or
1876
Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV (5.9.1.). The lack of the king’s presence on campaign in texts that record a rebellion and the king’s reaction to the situation has been linked by Spalinger to a genre of Egyptian writing which he called iw.tw reports. This is due to the standard formula of iw.tw r Dd ‘One came to say…’ which, Spalinger argued, the scribes employed to move the narrative along, but to keep the report concise. However, Lundh has argued that iw.tw itself cannot be classed as a genre of Egyptian text rather it is ‘only a narrative tool’ (Lundh 2002: 30). He has shown that there are texts which describe rebellion and the king’s reaction and yet do not use the iw.tw formula, while other texts use the formula yet do not report a rebellion. Also the use of iw.tw does not necessarily mean the text is concise, evidenced by the Libyan war inscriptions of Merenptah. Finally he argues that the use of iw.tw in a campaign text does not always mean the king was absent, as in the Aswan Philae inscription of Amenhotep III (Lundh 2002: 30). 1878 5.5.1. 1879 5.9.1. 1880 Spalinger 2005: 102. 1881 Simpson et al 2003: 346; Spalinger 1982: 107. 1882 5.5.1. 1877
1866
Spalinger 2005; Redford 2003. Spalinger 1982; Lundh 2002. Gnirs 1996a; Schulman 1964. 1869 One exception, a recent study by Spalinger entitled ‘The Pharaoh on Campaign: Ideal and Real’ (Spalinger 2005: 101 – 109) concerns itself more with the military encampment and an uncritical re-telling of the Egyptian inscriptions than any real attempt at discussing what the king did in reality. There is no argument as to whether the king himself fought in battles, or any significant discussion concerning the extent to which the king played an active role in military decision making. 1870 5.5.1. 1871 5.9.1. 1872 5.10.2. 1873 5.7.9. 1874 5.7.12. 1875 Aswan Philae stele of Tuthmosis II (5.5.1.); Aswan Philae stele of Amenhotep III (5.10.1.). 1867 1868
116
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Analysis enemies,1883 while the Buto Stele of Tuthmosis III describes the king as one whose bAw is to be exalted because of his strength.1884 Spalinger has argued that the king was absent during the siege of Megiddo because it is said to have ended as a result of the action of the king’s bAw.1885 However, the Gebel Barkal stele inscription suggests that the people of Megiddo came to the king in person.1886 Here it is stated: aHa.n rdi.n Hm=i di.tw sDfA=sn tryt m Dd nn wHm=n r bin Hr mn-xpr-ra anx Dt pAy=n nb m aHaw=n n anx Dr-ntt mAA.n=n bAw=f
led by General Djehuty was sent by the king to retake the town of Joppa in the Levant. The text refers to a staff of the king which represented his presence during his absence:1894 the enemy chief requests to see the staff of Tuthmosis III and is brought before General Djehuty who takes the staff and announces, ‘[Here is] King Menkheperre’. The General then proceeds to bash the enemy chief on the head with it. Quite clearly, it was meant that the king had smited his enemy. Also, once the army had taken Joppa, it is stated that, ‘the energetic arm of Pharaoh, l.p.h., captured the town.’1895 So, although it is clear in this text that the king was not present, the victory of the army, as a physical extension of his presence,1896 as well as the presence of the royal staff, meant that it could be classed as a personal royal victory. Thus, just because ‘His Person’ is described as winning a battle it does not necessarily mean that the king was personally present. Scepticism must therefore be shown towards texts in which the king’s presence is normally regarded as definite.
Then My Person caused them to take their oaths of allegiance saying: We will not be evil again against Menkheperre, may he live forever, our lord, through our periods of life, since we have seen his bAw.1887
The king is then described as having set the people free to go back to their homes. Clearly then, references to the king’s bAw are not an indication as to whether the king was present or not on a campaign. bAw is simply a manifestation of the king’s ‘divine authority’,1888 ‘spiritual agent’ or divine rage at the loss of order.1889
6.3.1 Royal Decision Making and Planning1897 In the Annals of Tuthmosis III the king is kept aware of the military situation in his tent in the morning.1898 The Bubastis inscription of Amenhotep III records a consultation (nD-sxr) between the king and the army and people. Following this consultation the army are sent out.1899 Furthermore, Amenhotep III is described as the one who organises fighting in his Konosso stele,1900 while Amenhotep Son of Hapu states that Amenhotep III’s ‘policies’ (sxrw) are a shelter around him, and continues to state that he followed everything the king said and that it was this which made him successful.1901
Just as the army succeed due to the bAw of the king, the king’s succeeds due to the bAw of Amun: in the 10th Campaign of Tuthmosis III the kings prevails thanks to the bAw of Amun.1890 The king is also said to besiege Megiddo and deprive the enemy of the ‘breath of life’ through the bAw of Amun.1891 The army is the agent of the royal bAw, the King is the agent of divine bAw. The army, as flame of fire before the king can perhaps also be seen as a manifestation of the royal bAw, they are a manifestation of his divine power that burns up and destroys everything in their path.
The most detailed piece of evidence for a king consulting his army during a campaign is found in the Annals of Tuthmosis III. Tuthmosis is presented as consulting his ‘victorious army’ for advice when deciding the route to take to Megiddo.1902 The king relates his plan to take the Aruna Pass to Megiddo; however, the army argue that this route would be too dangerous and that they would rather take a different road. Tuthmosis is not presented as being angered by their response, as Kamose had been; rather he simply listens to their advice. Spalinger sees a sense of equality here.1903 In the end, however, it is new information that allows the final decision to be made.1904 The content of the war council conforms to the Königsnovellen genre and therefore has certain
6.3. Leadership of the Army When the King was Present on Campaign In contrast to the evidence discussed above, other presentations clearly describe the king as accompanying the army on campaign and playing a greater role as military commander.1892 However, evidence for the presence of the king on campaign is complicated by a Ramesside literary text known as the Taking of Joppa.1893 This relates that during the wars of Tuthmosis III an army 1883
5.4.1. 5.7.7. 1885 Spalinger 1982: 140 – 142. 1886 Urk IV 1234, 19 – 1235, 2; Lundh 2002: 198. 1887 Urk IV 1235, 16 – 19. 1888 Lundh 2002: 21. See 5.5.1. for a discussion of the meaning of the royal bAw. 1889 For arguments on the nature of bAw see Borghouts 1982. 1890 5.7.1.3.1. 1891 5.7.5. 1892 So, for example, the Annals of Tuthmosis III (5.7.1.); or the accounts of the wars of Amenhotep II given on his Memphis and Karnak stelae (5.8.2.; 5.8.3.). 1893 Simpson 2003: 72 – 74.
1894 Simpson et al 2003: 73 n. 5. It is clear that the king himself is not on campaign, as the story concludes with Djehuty sending a message to the king in Egypt concerning the success of his mission. 1895 Simpson et al 2003: 74. 1896 Lundh 2002: 83. 1897 An overview of the evidence for the king consulting his army has been provided by Spalinger 1982: 107 – 112. 1898 5.7.1.1.2. 1899 5.10.1. 1900 5.10.1. 1901 5.10.4. 1902 5.7.1.1.1. 1903 Spalinger 2005: 103. 1904 Spalinger 1982: 107.
1884
117
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty expectations of content.1905 Although this could mean that the content is entirely fictional, Redford argues that ‘far from an ideal pattern existing at an ethereal plane, unachievable and unreal, the role of Pharaoh in the atmosphere of the Königsnovelle exerts a hegemonic influence on the king in forcing him to conform to what is expected. The role demands performance, not reading.’1906 As such he argues that it is possible that the kings conformed to the ideals and stereotypical behaviour expected of them, as is presented in these texts. Thus, he argues, the account of the war council at Yehem should not be dismissed as fictional; rather it likely has some level of historical veracity. Still, this is entirely speculation on Redford’s part. The text belongs to a specific genre, and therefore had to conform to a set of rules regarding presentation – the specific content cannot therefore be treated as credible historical evidence. Still, the general content can perhaps be trusted. It is likely that there was a daybook entry which made reference to a war council, but that it was not recorded in the detail given in the Annals.1907 Indeed, the reference to Yehem, an insignificant location during the campaign, would be unusual if something did not actually occur there. The king’s role in these discussions must remain ever elusive.
6.3.2. The King on the Battlefield The king’s role as warrior on the battlefield is highlighted in numerous laudatory statements; so, for example, he is ‘an active king, who makes a great slaughter in the mellay’,1916 and ‘one who rages like a panther when he treads the battlefield’.1917 More ‘historical’ accounts of military campaigns also make reference to the king being present on the battlefield; however, although these accounts could be long and relatively detailed,1918 references to the king fighting are typically vague: Ahmose Son of Ibana records that Sharuhen was despoiled by ‘His Person’1919 and that ‘His Person’ slaughtered the Nubians.1920 Ahmose also records that ‘His Person’ found the rebel Aata and took him away as captive, and later killed the rebel Tetian.1921 Amenhotep I is said to have smote a Nubian bowman in the midst of his army.1922 Tuthmosis I is recorded as having shot his first arrow and had it remain in the breast of his enemy. He made a great slaughter among the Nubians and then took the survivors as prisoners.1923 Tuthmosis I is also described as making a great slaughter in Syria.1924 In the Annals of Tuthmosis III the defeat of the Asiatics is entirely attributed to the action of the king alone, his troops behind him, and summed up in one sentence, ‘And then His Person prevailed over them’.1925 The Annals also record a battle in Tuthmosis III’s 35th year in which the army are said to have charged against the enemy force, but only after ‘His Person’ is said to have engaged them first. The success of the battle is simply described as ‘His Person prevailed’.1926 The Gebel Barkal stele relates that at Megiddo the king attacked his enemies, and they fled immediately. He then shut them up in their town. This was all a successful deed that happened ‘at his hand’ – the army are not mentioned at all in the relation of these events.1927 Tuthmosis III refers to ‘making an occasion of strength’ with his own khepesh in his 7th pylon inscription, potentially implying that he himself attacked enemies.1928 It is recorded that Amenhotep II is a king ‘to be boasted about, because of his arms being in the mellay’. He is also said to have killed 7 Levantine chiefs with his own mace.1929 There is no indication that this occurred on the battlefield, so this could be a reference to execution following a battle. Amenhotep II is also presented as having saved his army from attack by an enemy force sneaking up behind them.1930 In one account of this attack, Amenhotep is said to have killed the enemy commander himself with his axe. The other account
The king is presented as giving commands to his army while on campaign: in the Annals of Tuthmosis III the king makes commands that are to be ‘placed in the face’ of the army - these are commands that have been given to a member of the army to verbally pass onto those lower down the ranks.1908 He commands a consultation with his army;1909 that the army be informed that he will lead them from the front through the Aruna pass to Megiddo;1910 that the soldiers should capture well and capture strongly;1911 that the ‘breath of life’ be given to the Asiatics when they leave Megiddo following the siege;1912 and also that the people of a town be assembled.1913 Tuthmosis IV commands the army to assemble in his Konosso stele,1914 while frequent commands are recorded on the Bubastite fragment of Amenhotep III.1915 Accounts of royal activity on campaign present the king as taking an active role in making military decisions. He receives advice from his courtiers and makes his own decisions based on available information, given as royal commands. He is kept informed of developments, and consults the gods for advice.
1916
Buto Stele of Tuthmosis III (5.7.7.) The Amada and Elephantine stele (5.8.1.). 1918 Such as the Annals of Tuthmosis III (5.7.1.), the accounts of the military campaigns of Amenhotep II (5.8.2; 5.8.3.). 1919 5.2.1. 1920 5.2.2. 1921 5.2.2. 1922 5.3. 1923 5.4.1. 1924 5.4.2. 1925 5.7.1.1.3. 1926 5.7.1.3.1. 1927 5.7.2.3. 1928 See discussion under 5.7.4. 1929 5.8.1. 1930 5.8.2.2. 1917
1905
See 5.7.1.1.1. Redford 2003: 20. 1907 Redford 2003: 18. And see my section 5.7.1.1.1. 1908 See 4.7. in Chapter Four. 1909 5.7.1.1.1. 1910 5.7.1.1.2. 1911 5.7.1.1.4. 1912 5.7.8. 1913 5.7.1.2. 1914 5.9.1. 1915 5.10.1. 1906
118
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Analysis simply states that the king killed the enemies by shooting arrows. At Ikatj Amenhotep II is said to have killed all his enemies, without any reference to the army.1931 At Hashabu, again, without his army, the king took prisoners and made kills.1932 Further references follow to Amenhotep having taken prisoners and chiefs. In his Konosso stele Tuthmosis IV is recorded as having made a great slaughter among the Nubians.1933 Amenhotep III is described stout-hearted on the battlefield while slaughtering, killing and cutting off hands.1934 There is no reference to the presence of the army. The Bubastite fragment of Amenhotep III refers to the king beating enemies himself with his mace.1935
was taken in total, while the Karnak stele list only records taken/kept by the king for himself. In all of the above given examples the king is presented as a strong and able warrior, the sole force behind Egypt’s military success. There is a blurring between the actions of the king alone, and that of the king and his army – all can be united under the singular action of ‘His Person’.1945 The relation of these events is clearly affected by rules of presentation. In order to decide on the level of historical truth that can be brought from this evidence it is first important to consider these rules, and the themes that the Egyptians used to present the evidence.
The soldier Amenemhab refers to the king being ‘on the battlefield’,1936 while courtiers frequently state that they were in the following of the king in a foreign country.1937 Tiy, a courtier under Hatshepsut, refers to seeing (mAA) the king overthrowing Nubians, and destroying Nubia.1938 Minmose states that he ‘saw’ the king’s strength taking place in battle.1939 Amenhotep Son of Hapu states that he ‘saw’ the king making captures on the battlefield.1940 These could be seen as eyewitness accounts of the king fighting on the battlefield; however, such statements must be compared to those of Overseers of Work who state that they ‘saw’ the king making constructions – constructing shrines, erecting pylons.1941 Although these men and their workers were the real force behind such works, the work was ideologically attributed to the king alone and so had to be presented this way in private autobiographies. The courtiers were simply relegated to witnessing the king’s actions.
6.4. Common Textual Themes and Decorum Accounts of military campaigns employ a number of common themes in their presentation of events. Although the army is often referred to, the battle itself is always won by the action of ‘His Person’ alone. The Gebel Barkal stele relates: ‘He is a king who fights alone, without a multitude behind his heart. He is [more] effective [than] a million (men) in numerous armies. No equal1946 to him has been found.’1947 Furthermore: ‘He attacks every land with his strong arm, without millions of men behind him. He shoots to hit every (time) he takes aim, whose arrow do not miss..’1948 The king alone defeating his enemies is a common theme in military accounts. The Karnak and Memphis stelae describe the same event during a campaign of Amenhotep II in different ways:1949 The Memphis stele presents Amenhotep as having seen Asiatics coming to attack his army. Amenhotep is presented as alone when attacking them except for his brave mighty arm; he kills the enemy with his arrows. The Karnak stele does not make any reference to the army at all in its relation of these events. Here, the king alone sees the enemy and destroys them; he kills their commander with an axe and takes prisoners on his chariot. On both stelae Amenhotep is presented as having set off alone to the town of Hashabu from which he returns ‘in a short time’ with prisoners.1950 He is also presented as standing alone watching the people of Ituryn and Mektilyn burn in a ditch.1951 On his stele at Konosso Tuthmosis IV is described as having made a great slaughter of the enemy without waiting for his army.1952 At Luxor Amenhotep III is described as standing on the
Typically booty is simply described as that of ‘His Person’, emphasising that all booty was the property of the king, to be redistributed as he wished. However, it seems that in some cases the scribes wanted to emphasise booty that the king personally wanted to keep. Tuthmosis III (‘the king himself’) is said to take two bronze shirts and a bronze helmet.1942 Amenhotep II is described as ‘himself’ making captures during his campaign of year 7.1943 Booty lists presented on two separate accounts of Amenhotep II’s year 7 campaign do not tally; the Karnak stele records lower amounts and presents them as booty of ‘His Person himself’, while the Memphis stele refers to the booty of ‘his strong arm’.1944 It is possible that the booty recorded on the Memphis stele records that which
1931
5.8.2.3. 5.8.2.4. 5.9.1. 1934 5.10.1. 1935 5.10.1. 1936 5.7.11. 1937 Urk IV 1455; 1474; 1476; 1481; 1923. 1938 5.6. 1939 5.7.9. 1940 5.10.4. 1941 See 4.1. in Chapter Four. 1942 5.7.1.3.1. 1943 5.8.2.1. 1944 5.8.2.1. 1932 1933
1945 Similarly, after the Amarna Period, the word ‘Pharaoh’ can be used to designate action of the king himself, the palace, or the authorities in general (McDowell 1990: 235). 1946 In the sense of one who can contest with him. 1947 5.7.2.1. 1948 5.7.2.2. 1949 For a discussion of both accounts of this event see 5.8.2.2. 1950 5.8.2.4. 1951 5.8.3. 1952 5.9.1.
119
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty battlefield alone, without anyone behind him.1953 Numerous actions, clearly of the army as a whole, are described as that of ‘His Person’, without reference to the army.1954 Notably, however, military failures are blamed on the army.1955
Aruna Pass in the Annals,1966 the Gebel Barkal stele,1967 and the Armant stele.1968 However, it must be noted that these are all accounts of the same event; in contrast Kamose refers to the army being in front of him,1969 while Tuthmosis III’s Buhen stele similarly states that his ‘brave army’ were in front of him.1970 The king is the protector of his army – a fortress,1971 a rampart of metal.1972 Amenhotep II saves his army from attack.1973 Tuthmosis III is presented as leading his army through the Aruna pass; he is their protection at this dangerous time.1974 The king also finds hidden locations, and leads the army to the enemy.1975
Victory over an enemy is ascribed to the king alone, he prevails (sxm),1956 and overthrows (sxr) them.1957 Similarly, all kills are ascribed to the king himself. In texts of this period soldiers refer to taking hands not lives,1958 and refer to having been brave in the king’s presence; there is no explicit reference to them making kills.1959 Ideologically the highest achievement they could recount was the taking of captives.1960 This theme is neatly summed up by the late 17th Dynasty soldier Emhab, ‘‘I emulated my lord in every affair of his. He is a god while I am a ruler; when he kills I keep alive.’1961 Ideologically, those that were killed by the army in battle were attributed to the action of the king. The 6th Dynasty expedition leader Pepinakht states that he killed many enemies,1962 while in reality it must have been his army that fought. Baines comments, ‘…there may be a difference between the expedition leader, who was the king in later texts, and those under him, whatever their status…’1963 As such, references to ‘His Person’ often have a collective sense in military texts, rather than simply referring to the action of the king himself. The king’s ability to defeat all enemies alone is described in terms of him being able to flash between all wings of the army at once like a star,1964 or, as has been argued above, able to divide himself into many portions, perhaps as the army.1965 In this light, references to the king killing enemies must be regarded with caution. When the army is referred to, it is typically as in the following of the king, who leads them from the front. Tuthmosis III is presented as at the head of the army when moving through the
Further descriptive themes are found in the presentations of royal activity on campaign. In the Kamose stele the army is before the king like a flame of fire. They are his agents, a destructive manifestation that destroys all before them.1976 This theme continues in the 18th Dynasty: in his Buhen Inscription Tuthmosis III states that his army were before him like a flame of fire, while in the same text the king himself is likened to a flame of fire.1977 The Gebel Barkal stele presents Tuthmosis III as making a flaming attack on the enemy, with a flaming uraeus. He has a devouring flame and places fire among the villages.1978 On the Amada and Elephantine stelae the high and low lands fall in the presence of Amenhotep II’s flaming uraeus and his consuming fire.1979 Amenhotep II is presented as having burnt the people of two villages.1980 In the Poetical stele of Tuthmosis III Amun states, ‘I cause them to see Your Person as a shooting star which scatters its flame as fire as it makes its attack.’1981 The speed of the king’s victory is also emphasised: Tuthmosis III immediately prevails over his enemies in the Gebel Barkal stele,1982 while Amenhotep II immediately kills all enemies in the Karnak stele.1983 In his Memphis stele inscription Amenhotep II sets out alone to attack a village and comes back in a ‘short time’ with prisoners.1984
1953
5.10.3. So, for example, the movements described in the Tombos stele of Tuthmosis I (5.4.1.); the account of the battle of Megiddo on the Karnak Ptah Temple stele (5.7.5.); or the defeat of enemies attributed to ‘His Person’ alone, for which see the discussion that follows. 1955 The troops at Megiddo are blamed for the king failing to take the city instantly (Urk IV 658, 8 – 10). This blame is also a feature found in the Battle of Qadesh accounts of Ramesses II (Kitchen 1996: 2 - 26). 1956 5.7.1.1.3; 5.7.1.3.1.; 5.7.2.1.; 5.8.3.; 5.10.1. 1957 5.6.; 5.7.2.1.; 5.9.1.; 5.10.1. 1958 Ahmose son of Ibana (5.3.). 1959 Baines 1986: 45, and n. 10 for references to taking hands. It is commonly thought that the taking of hands is in reference to the severed hands of fallen enemies. However, it has recently been argued that hands were taken from defeated living enemies (Abdalla 2005). Whatever the case, the iconography certainly shows hands been taken from the living; this may be a result again of individuals not being allowed to depict themselves killing enemies. 1960 Baines 1986: 46. 1961 After Baines 1986: 42. The stele of Emhab from Edfu (Cairo JE 49566) is the subject of the article in general. A full translation of the stele is provided by Baines on p. 42. Störk has argued that the reference to Emhab ‘keeping alive’ while the king ‘killed’ should be taken as Emhab’s drumming being encouraging and constructive for the Egyptian army while also being destructive to the enemy (Störk 1993). Also for Emhab see Grimm 1989; Goedicke 1995: 3 - 29. 1962 Urk I 133, 12. 1963 Baines 1986: 45. 1964 5.7.2.1. 1965 5.7.10. 1954
Another common element is the king’s rage: Tuthmosis I is described as raging against Nubians like a panther in 1966
5.7.1.1.2. 5.7.2.1.; 5.7.2.2. 1968 5.7.3.1. 1969 Simpson et al 2003: 346. 1970 5.7.6. 1971 Tombos stele (5.4.1.); Gebel Barkal stele (5.7.2.2.). 1972 Gebel Barkal stele (5.7.2.2.); Amada and Elephantine (5.8.1.). 1973 Karnak and Memphis stelae (5.8.2.2.). 1974 5.7.1.1.2. 1975 In the wars of Ahmose, as presented by Ahmose Son of Ibana, the king finds the rebel Aata (5.2.2.). Also see the Tombos stele (5.4.1.); Syrian campaign of Tuthmosis I (5.4.2.); Armant stele of Tuthmosis III (5.7.3.1.); the Konosso stele of Tuthmosis IV (5.9.1.). 1976 Simpson et al 2003: 346. 1977 5.7.6. 1978 5.7.2.1. 1979 5.8.1. 1980 5.8.3. 1981 Urk IV 615, 14 – 16. 1982 5.7.2.1. 1983 5.8.2.1.; 5.8.2.3. 1984 5.8.2.4. 1967
120
The King’s Role as Military Leader: Analysis the biography of Ahmose Son of Ibana;1985 similarly Tuthmosis II rages like a panther when presented with bad news on his Aswan Phile stele.1986 Tuthmosis III’s rage turns away the enemy on the battlefield in the Gebel Barkal stele.1987 Amenhotep II is described as raging on the battlefield in the Amada and Elephantine stelae.1988 Amenhotep II rages like Reshep in the Memphis stele and Montu in the Karnak stele;1989 he is also presented as raging like a divine falcon on the Karnak stele.1990 Tuthmosis IV rages like Seth in his Konosso stele.1991
quite clearly putting iconography in words.1999 Here the god Amun causes the king’s enemies to see Tuthmosis III as a variety of ideologically charged imagery. It is clear that battle accounts provide a written narrative that mirrors the themes found in monumental art – text and image are identical.2000 Both provide order to a chaotic event – the battle itself. Such an event stands out from the normal ordered world view of the Egyptians, and thus had to be brought under control both pictorially and in narrative descriptions using the same common motifs. Hence the switch in narrative style at the time of the battle of Megiddo.2001 Fighting is chaotic and outside the scope of the ordered daybook entry style narrative that is found before and after the description of the battle itself.2002
6.5. Interplay between Text and Imagery The king’s role as warrior is presented both pictorially and textually from the start of the 18th Dynasty,1992 at this early time depictions of battles had already reached a high level of complexity.1993 It is clear that conventions found in later depictions were already in use during this period: the king is typically depicted alone, charging towards his enemies upon his chariot.1994 He fires arrows at them while steering his horses with the reigns tied around his waist. His other hand sometimes raises a battle axe in the traditional smiting pose.1995 A falcon protects his head. In the reliefs of Seti I at Karnak all arrows fired can be seen to have originated with the king’s bow,1996 emphasising that it is the king, and the king alone who destroyed the enemies of Egypt. Such imagery is similarly described in textual accounts of royal military activity: as noted above, the king alone, riding on his chariot armed with his weapons of war, defeats his enemies on the battlefield. He makes all kills in depictions, just as in texts. Ahmose son of Ibana describes the king as killing the enemy chief with his first shot,1997 while in the Gebel Barkal stele the king is presented as shooting to hit each time.1998 The king’s arrows never miss. The army is not shown, and all enemies fall before him chaotically.
6.6. Conclusion It has been shown that both textual and pictorial presentations of the king in battle use a set array of themes and terminology. These rules are known as decorum: the rules and practices which govern what could be depicted in a certain context and what text could accompany it.2003 Consequently, the rules of decorum restricted what actions could be described, and how reports of actions could be presented.2004 So, in temple scenes, the king is the only human that can be shown offering to the gods - all offerings are ideologically made by him - while evidence for clothing does not match that 1999 ‘I cause them to see Your Person clad in your regalia as you receive your weapons of war on your chariot’ (Urk IV 615, 7 – 8). Scenes of the king dressed for war on his chariot include: Amenhotep II on his chariot (Zayed 1985: pl. II); Tuthmosis IV chariot depictions (Heinz 2001: 236); Tutankhamun chest (Heinz 2001: 237). ‘I cause them to see your majesty as a young bull, stout-hearted, sharp of horns, he is not approached.’ (Urk IV 616, 3 – 4). The Protodynastic Bull Palette depicts a bull representing the Pharaoh trampling a bearded enemy; there is also a bull representing the king depicted killing an enemy on the lower register of the reverse side of the Narmer Palette. ‘I cause them to see Your Person as a fearsome lion, as you made corpses in their valleys’ (Urk IV 617, 2 – 3). The king could be depicted as a sphinx trampling his enemies; also see the statues of Amenemhat III as a sphinx; and the famous sphinx of Khafre at Giza. ‘I cause them to see Your Person as falcon-winged, who seizes what he sees as he desires’ (Urk IV 617, 8 - 9). A falcon is depicted protecting the king in war scenes: image of falcon over an enemy on the Narmer palette; Amenhotep II on his chariot (Zayed 1985: pl. II); falcon protecting Tuthmosis IV in his chariot depictions (Heinz 2001: 236). 2000 As well as the imagery described in the Poetical Stele (see note directly above), the king is described as trampling enemies, he is also depicted in this manner (Tuthmosis IV chariot scenes, Heinz 2001: 236; Tutankhamun chest scenes, Heinz 2001: 237); he is described as alone, he is often depicted alone (Medinet Habu, Libyan war scenes, courtyard, east wall, lowest register, Heinz 2001: 303; PM II(2): 498 (93 - 95); Amenhotep II scenes Zayed 1985: pl. II; Tuthmosis IV chariot scenes, Heinz 2001: 236); all enemies fall in his presence, this is what is depicted (Medinet Habum Libyan campaign, north wall outside, Heinz 2001: 302; PM II(2): 517 (187)); the king is described as grasping his enemies, this is what is depicted (See smiting scenes, Schulman 1988; Swan-Hall 1986). Still, there are no images of the king as a thunderbolt, and there are no scenes of the king emanating fire, although this was quite clearly depictable as Re is shown spitting fire in contemporary underworld scenes in the Valley of the Kings. 2001 See discussion at 5.7.1.1.3. above. 2002 See Assmann 2003: 266 – 267. 2003 For a recent overview of decorum with further references see Baines 2007: 3 – 30. 2004 Baines 1990: 20.
The Poetical stele of Tuthmosis III uses an array of imagery to describe the king - the core part of the text is 1985
5.4.1. 5.5.1. 1987 5.7.2.1. 1988 5.8.1. 1989 5.8.2.2. 1990 5.8.3. 1991 5.9.1. 1992 For texts and reliefs of Ahmose, see 5.2. There is no royal account of Ahmose’s wars; however, kings were certainly recording such events at this time: at the end of the 17th Dynasty Kamose recorded his military exploits on stelae (Smith & Smith 1976). 1993 Harvey (1998: 354 – 357) cites scenes from Tuthmosis II’s battle reliefs which show a fleeing Asiatic archer, and horses which had broken free from their masters, among other imagery. These were executed in a complicated overlapping style, that must have required great skill from the artisans. He notes that these scenes make those of Ramesses II at Qadesh seem formal and rigid. 1994 Ahmose reliefs from Abydos (5.2.3.); Tuthmosis II from his mortuary temple (5.5.2.), Amenhotep II blocks now in Cairo (5.8.4.). 1995 See depiction of Tuthmosis IV from his chariot in Cairo (Heinz 2001: 236). For smiting scenes see Swan-Hall 1986 and Schulman 1988. 1996 See Gomez 2000: 159 – 160 for an analysis of Seti I’s battle reliefs at Karnak. 1997 5.4.1. 1998 5.7.2.2. 1986
121
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty shown in tomb scenes.2005 There is formality in modes of presentation, and in patterns of action described, ‘such parallels do not help us to understand how far what was shown on the monuments resembles what happened in life.’2006 The decorum of military presentation meant that only the king could be described as killing enemies, that he alone led the army, protected the army, and performed the work of the gods. The king became the personification of the army as a whole. The dangerous loss of order (maat), evidenced by the need for a military campaign, meant that the description of such events had to be brought under control. It would be against decorum for a chaotic description of events to be presented. Consequently order was imposed through the use of key themes: the speed of the king’s success, his ability to destroy all enemies alone, his rage at the loss of maat, his perfect ability to lead, and his excellent abilities on the battlefield. The battle itself is not mentioned; rather it can be boiled down to a simple reference to the king having ‘prevailed’ over his enemy. These ideological impositions on the bare facts, as recorded by the scribes in their daybooks, distort the historical truth that can be elicited from the evidence.
stele of Khusobek relates: “His Person caused that I perform work in fighting behind (xt) and beside His Person with 7 men of the residence, and then I was efficient (spd) beside him.’2012 The Horemheb Edict2013 and the Duties of the Vizier2014 state that the king had a protective bodyguard when travelling in Egypt. Also, it has been argued above that the king was kept behind the army at the exit from the Aruna pass for his own safety.2015 Although not concrete evidence that the king did not fight, such considerations might tip the balance in favour of a protected king, safe from the battle. As with evidence for the king’s role on the battlefield, decorum meant that the extent of the king’s role as decision maker and planner is not ascertainable from the available evidence. However, this does not mean that no potentially historically accurate actions by the king can be found in the evidence. There is the statement that Tuthmosis III took two bronze mail-shirts and a bronze helmet in the Annals, 2016 while Amenhotep II lists his own booty and may personally have taken prisoners and bulls at Shamash Edom.2017 Amenhotep II’s marked brutalities in his texts are unusual enough to be truthful accounts of events.2018 These are personal, unusual statements, which do not follow the typical formulaic language. Overall, the wars described surely occurred and the Egyptian army were successful in forming the empire – however, only general historical conclusions, such as these, can be made from the evidence, hardly any specific detail can be trusted as a source for true historical reconstruction. Specifically and emphatically, the evidence cannot be trusted as a source for specific royal action however. The king’s role as military leader and warrior is submerged in so much ideological presentation as to be hardly reachable. It must be borne in mind, however, that the authors of these works were not writing a ‘history’ of events, these were ideological works celebrating the king’s success over chaos and the fulfilment of the god’s wishes.
References to the action of the king on the battlefield are vague or absent due to the literary restrictions forced upon scribes by the need to follow the rules of decorum. This lack of description does not necessarily mean that the king did not participate in the fighting - as Lundh has argued2007 - rather it is a literary device to bring order to a chaotic event. It is not evidence for or against the king’s participation. However, further evidence indicates that it is likely the king did not fight: there is no physical evidence from the royal mummies that the king’s fought.2008 Notably, however, even though Ahmose is described as campaigning and fighting, analysis of his mummy has shown that he was likely unable to personally take part in battle. As subsequent kings describe their prowess on the battlefield in similar terms, all references to the king personally fighting must be approached with caution. Furthermore, evidence shows the king to have been heavily protected, both in Egypt and outside, and even during recreation. Animals that the king hunted were placed in an enclosure and shot at with arrows from safety behind a barrier.2009 The solider Amenemhab describes how he protected the king from an elephant when the court were hunting in the Levant;2010 it is possible that Amenemhab was acting as royal bodyguard, allowing the king to safely fire his arrows at the wild animals. Ahmose Son of Ibana also possibly describes his role as royal bodyguard when travelling with the king on campaign.2011 The Middle Kingdom 2005
2012
Baines 2007: 23, 25. Baines 2007: 25. 2007 Lundh 2002: 84 – 85, 91. 2008 5.11. 2009 Urk IV 1739 – 1740. An enclosure such as this is archaeologically known in Nubia (Leclant 1981: 727 – 734. For comparison Assyrian reliefs show caged animals being released for the king to hunt. 2010 Urk IV 893, 14 – 894, 2. 2011 5.2.1.
Baines 1987: 46. Urk IV 2158, 3 – 5, referring to the procedure for the protection of the king. 2014 Van den Boorn 1988: 218. 2015 5.7.1.1.2. 2016 5.7.1.3.1. 2017 See my arguments concerning the lists of booty taken as recorded in the Memphis and Karnak stelae in section 5.8.2.1. 2018 5.8.
2006
2013
122
before – although they were clearly close to the royal family. Such a close relationship between the king and his highest officials is not as emphatic in the evidence during the reigns of other kings of the 18th Dynasty, and consequently may be indicative of a rise in personal royal authority under Amenhotep II. However, the rise of men whose origins had been in the army, and people of a relatively modest background, such as Senenmut, indicates that the king, if he wanted, could appoint his favourites to high office if he so wished.2024 Furthermore, there is little evidence for the king being forced to make appointment decisions by powerful families.2025 It must be tentatively concluded therefore, from the available evidence, that the king did indeed have the power to appoint those he wished, but perhaps in the majority of cases left such decisions to those below him. Also, as the evidence stands, hereditary succession was controlled, perhaps in order to stop families from appointing their own successors and thus building an independent powerbase.2026
CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION “You are a king; you d[o] as you please”2019 The Babylonian king Kadeshman-Enlil, who made this statement in a letter written to Amenhotep III, clearly regarded the Pharaoh as being all powerful within Egypt. This belief is reflected in virtually all of the Egyptians’ own presentation of royal authority. However, the available evidence relating to the king’s personal role in making commands (wD), appointing officials, and leading and fighting with the army does not allow a true picture of the king’s personal authority to be formed. Only slight indications can be found within the evidence to show what may have actually been happening. Different terminology could be used to describe appointment by the king.2020 The two most common words found are dhn and rdi m/r, with dhn perhaps having connotations of higher prestige. The word sxnt, which is sometimes translated with the meaning of appointment, does not refer to appointment to a particular office, but rather to an increase in status or hierarchical rank. Using the available evidence it is shown that the king is presented as having appointed those in the highest positions in the land, but could also appoint those lower down the hierarchy if he so wished.2021
The vast majority of preserved royal decrees (wD) date to the reign of Tuthmosis III and relate to construction and endowment. They were inscribed within temple precincts on walls and stone stelae. Remarkably few references to royal command are found in private contexts perhaps indicating that the inclusion of commands in private texts was a privilege.2027 The vast majority of references to royal command do not name the person who was to execute the command.2028 It is simply to be understood that the command was fulfilled; there is no mention of the specific mechanism through which it was realised. The evidence thus highlights little about true governmental procedure. Furthermore, although a courtier could potentially have access to the king both in private audience and in wider audience – there is no significant evidence for serious debate. The king commands and it is done. He dictates his commands alone, without the help of the court. The courtiers consult the king for advice and he provides plans and policies. He commands and instructs them in proper action as dictated to him by the gods.2029 The king could make a command at any time in any location; he is presented as making commands in the palace, on campaign, or when travelling around Egypt.2030
There is very little evidence for hereditary succession amongst the offices appointed by the king.2022 This is unusual as it is clear that offices could pass from office holder to son, nephew, or son-in-law, as long as permission was granted. One possible interpretation of this evidence is that office succession was being controlled by an individual or a group of people, often denying permission for hereditary acquisition of office. Another interpretation is that there was a higher degree of intermarriage amongst the elite than the evidence allows us to see. It is clear that in the 18th Dynasty family connections were not stressed on private monuments, especially the female line. Consequently, offices may have passed through various branches of important families, potentially staying within these family lines for many generations. It is thus unclear from this evidence whether the king simply confirmed, in a purely ceremonial role, the movement of offices as they passed through the same family lines, or if he actually had a personal hand in choosing the person on whom an office was conferred.2023
The royal commands presented generally relate to ‘one off’ events that have been completed, such as the opening of a quarry or the appointment of an official.2031 They are not intended for reference, but appear in contexts which show the king’s good actions for the gods. Indeed, many are found in contexts that would render them unreadable by human eyes, emphasising the importance of the divine audience of these texts.2032 They are abridged - not
There is some evidence from the reign of Amenhotep II that the king did indeed choose those who held the highest offices in the land as at this time a number of people held office who were close to the king in his youth, but whose families did not hold high positions
2024
2.10. 2.10.3. 2026 2.11. 2027 4.1. 2028 4.6.1. 2029 4.5. 2030 4.4. 2031 4.5.4. 2032 4.2. 2025
2019
Amarna Letter EA 4, Moran 1992: 8. 2.4. 2021 2.4.3. 2022 2.5. 2023 2.6. 2020
123
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty depictions of the king in battle.2040 The king on his chariot, composed and calm, charges at his enemies who chaotically fall around before him. He fires his arrows and kills all his enemies alone. In texts the army are left to witness the king’s bravery. They describe making captures or presenting severed hands to him, or the royal herald. Effectively, soldiers report being brave in the king’s presence and the rewards they gained as a result of this bravery.2041
administrative copies - and only contain the information required for the purpose of the inscription – self promotion. Commands are given to the king by the gods, who then further passes them down to his courtiers. The command is fulfilled, showing that the king did his duty and his success is recorded in a durable manner for the gods to see for all time. The extent of the king’s personal involvement in making these commands is unclear. Although it would seem that he had the personal authority to command those around him – as evidenced by the large commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III2033 – there is also evidence of decrees being mass-produced and essentially ‘rubber-stamped’ in the king’s name.2034 As the vast majority of royal commands lack any real sense of personality it is impossible to separate the commands that may have been issued with actual royal interest from those that may have simply been issued in the king’s name. However, there is at least a small hint that the king, if he so desired, could make personal commands with full royal authority – the digging of the lake for Queen Tiye must surely have been no small task.2035
The imposition of these key themes is the result of decorum. The need for a campaign was indicative of a loss of maat, it was an event outside of the normal ordered way of the world. This chaotic event had to be brought into a system of order through the use of repetitive imagery and descriptions displaying the king as perfect leader and ultimate warrior - the defender of maat. As this was a role of the king, soldiers could not show or describe themselves defeating Egypt’s enemies, only capturing them for the king. The moment when the two armies met – the battle itself – would be the most chaotic part of the campaign. Thus the scribes completely disregard the daybooks at this point in the narrative and emphatically employ ordered themes emphasising the king’s control and dominance.2042 These themes are so fundamental in bringing order to the battle that they appear in monumental art.2043 The description of the battle itself is summed up in a single sentence describing the king’s ‘prevailing’ over his enemies.2044
Military accounts focus on the personal activity of the king, omitting details of events that did not involve him directly. He can be described as present on campaign or as simply despatching the army. When not accompanying the army the king’s bAw, his divine wrath, can be described as leading them in his place; it is this wrath which leads the army to victory. Thus, the success of the campaign is still directly linked to the influence of the king. There is no evidence for the king having been involved in tactical decisions before the campaign, he simply sends the army out after having consulted the god, or with a simple royal command.2036 When accompanying a campaign the king can be presented as having made commands, directing the course of the campaign, and making tactical decisions with his army.2037
This evidence alone cannot, however, be used to argue for or against the king’s personal participation in fighting on the battlefield – even though textual evidence describes him as present.2045 The ideological veil is so thick that a firm conclusion as to whether the king fought cannot be made. However, the royal mummies of the 18th Dynasty do not show any signs of injury that may have occurred during battle, while Ahmose, a king described as a great warrior by his soldiers, was likely too weak to face such violent situations personally. These considerations, along with the slight evidence for royal protection even when travelling within Egypt, indicate that the king would not personally have taken part in combat.2046
The more detailed military accounts used scribal daybooks as their source material. These were straightforward accounts of daily activity on campaign with special focus on the date, location, and activities of the king.2038 These accounts were embellished by the scribes with narrative additions when composing texts for temple walls and stelae. Typically, the scribes employed a number of key, repetitive themes when making these narrative additions: notably the king represents the actions of the army as a whole, he makes all kills, he protects the army and defeats his enemies alone. The king rages like a panther and destroys his enemies with a fiery wrath. The speed of the king’s defeat over his enemies is also emphasised.2039 Such themes mirror those found in
The overall conclusion to this study, then, is not that the king did have the level of authority as presented in texts, or that he did not. Simply, it is that we do not know; the available evidence cannot be used to say either way. This is, however, important as it is clear that a true detailed ‘history’ of the Pharaoh’s role as an individual in government cannot be written for this period. Any scholar who states that a certain event occurred, or that ‘the king did x’ is making assumptions about the evidence. There is
2033
2040
2034
2041
3.2.51.; 3.2.52. 4.5.1. 2035 4.8. 2036 6.2. 2037 6.3. 2038 5.7.1. 2039 6.4.
6.5. 6.3.2. 6.4. 2043 6.5. 2044 6.4. 2045 6.3.2. 2046 6.6. 2042
124
Conclusion no un-biased view of this evidence, no objective commentator from whom a view of the system from the outside can be gleaned. The evidence is a closed system, coherent within itself, but which does not translate into historical reality as there is no way to know whether the presentation can be trusted. Kadeshman-Enlil may be correct in saying that the king could do as he liked, but the evidence from Egypt cannot be used to prove his assertion.
125
Königsideologie in Mainz, 15.-17.6.1995. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag: 125 – 174. ---------- (1998) ‘Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context’, in Day. J. (1998) King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press: 16 – 53. ---------- (2003) ‘On the Genre and Purpose of the “Large Commemorative Scarabs” of Amenhotep III’, in Grimal, N., Kamel, A. & Sheikholeslami, C. M. (2003) Hommages à Fayza Haikal. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: 29 – 43. ---------- (2007) Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baines, J. & Eyre, C. J. (1983) ‘Four Notes on Literacy’, GM 61: 65 – 96. Baines, J, & Yofee, N. (1998) ‘Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia’, in Feinman, G. & Marcus, J. (1998) Archaic States. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press: 199 – 260. Barguet, P. (1953) La Stèle de la famine à séhel. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdalla, M. A. (2005) ‘The Amputated Hands in Ancient Egypt’, in Daoud, K, Bedier, S & abd el-Fatah, S. (2005) Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan. Vol. I. Le Caire: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte: 25 – 34. Allen, J. P. (2000) Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alliot, M. (1949) Le culte d'Horus à Edfou au temps des Ptolémées. Le Caire: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale. Altenmüller, H. (1980) ‘Jagd’, LÄ III: 221 – 224. Altenmüller, H. & Moussa, A. M. (1991) ‘Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis.Ein Vorbericht’, SAK 18: 1 - 48. Anthes, R. (1930) ‘Die Vorführung der gefangenen Feinde vor den König’, ZÄS 65: 26 – 35. ---------- (1936) ‘Die hohen Beamten namens Ptahmose in der 18. Dynastie’, ZÄS 72: 60 – 68. Assmann, J. (2003) The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. (Trans. Jenkins, A.) Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press. Badawi, A. (1943) ‘Die neue historische Stele Amenophis’ II’, ASAE 42: 1 – 23. Baines, J. (1974) ‘The Inundation Stela of Sebekhotpe VIII’, ActOr 36: 39 – 57. ---------- (1976) ‘The Sebekhotpe Inundation Stela: An Additional Fragment’, ActOr 37: 11 – 20. --------(1985) Fecundity Figures: Egyptian Personification and the Iconology of Genre. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. --------- (1986) ‘The Stela of Emhab: Innovation, Tradition, Hierarchy’, JEA 72: 41 – 53. ---------- (1987) ‘The Stela of Khusobek: Private and Royal Military Narrative and Values’, in G. Dreyer & G. Fecht (1987) Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten: Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 43 – 61. ---------- (1989) ‘Ancient Egyptian Concepts and Uses of the Past: 3rd to 2nd Millennium BC Evidence’ in Layton, R. (1989) Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman. ---------- (1990) ‘Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy, and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions’, JARCE 27: 1 - 23. --------(1996) ‘Contextualizing Egyptian Representations of Society and Ethnicity’, in Cooper, J. S. & Schwartz, G. (1996) The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 339 – 384. ---------- (1997) ‘Kingship Before Literature: the World of the King in the Old Kingdom’, in Gundlack, R. & Raedler, C. (1997) Selbstverständnis und Realität: Akten des Symposiums zur ägyptischen
--------- (1962) Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak: essai d’exégèse. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Beckerath, J. von (1981) ‘Ein Wunder des Amun bei der Tempelgründung in Karnak’, MDAIK 37: 41 – 49. Bedier, S. (1994a) ‘Ein Stiftungsdekret Thutmosis III. aus Buto’, in Minas, M. & Zeidler, J. (1994) Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur. Festschrift für Erich Winter zum 65. Geburtstag. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern: 35-50. ---------- (1994b) ‘Ein Stiftungsdekret Thutmosis III’ Bulletin of the Center of Papyrological Studies 10: 1 – 23. Bennett, J. (1939) ‘The Restoration Inscription of Tut’ankhamūn’, JEA 25: 8 – 15. Benson, M. & Gourlay, J. (1899) The Temple of Mut in Asher. London: Murray. Berlev, O. (1972) трудовое население египта в эпоху среднего царства. Moscow. Berlin, A. (1996) ‘A Search for a New Biblical Hermeneutics: Preliminary Obervations’, in Cooper, J. S. & Schwartz, G. (1996) The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 195 – 208. Berman, L. M. (1998) ‘Overview of Amenhotep III and his Reign’, in O’Connor, D. & Cline, E. H. (1998) Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 1 – 26. Beylage, P. (2002) Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
126
Bibliography Bietak, M. & Strouhal, E. (1974) ‘Die Todesumstände des Pharaos Seqenenre' (17. Dynastie)’, ANMW 78: 29 – 52. Bigler, R. R. & Geiger, B. (1994) ‘Eine Schenkungsstele Thutmosis' IV.’, ZÄS 121: 11 - 17. Björkman, G. (1964) ‘Egyptology and Historical Method’, Orientalia Suecana 13: 9 – 33. Blackman, A.M. (1914) The Rock Tombs of Meir. Part I, The Tomb-Chapel of Ukh-Hotp’s Son Senbi. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Blankenberg-van Delden, C (1969) The Large Commemorative Scarabs of Amenhotep III. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ---------- (1976) ‘More Large Commemorative Scarabs of Amenophis III’, JEA 62: 74 – 80. ---------(1977) ‘Once Again Some More Commemorative Scarabs of Amenophis III’, JEA 63: 83 – 87. Bleiberg, E. (1985/6) ‘Historical Texts as Political Propaganda during the New Kingdom’, BES 7: 5 – 13. ---------- (1996) The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. Blumenthal, E. (1970) Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Königtum des Mittleren Reiches. Vol. I. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ---------- (1987) ‘Ptahhotep und der "Stab des Alters’, in Dreyer, G. & Fecht, G. (1987) Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten: Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 84 - 97. Bonhême, M-A. (1978) ‘Les désignations de la « titulature » royale au Nouvel Empire’, BIFAO 78: 347 – 387. van den Boorn, G. P. F. (1988) The Duties of the Vizier, Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. London: Keegan Paul International. Borghouts, J. F. (1982) ‘Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt and its Manifestations (bAw)’, in Demarée, R. J. & Janssen, J. J. (1982) Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 1 – 70. Botti, G. (1955) ‘A Fragment of the Story of a Military Expedition of Tuthmosis III to Syria (P. Turin 1940 – 1941)’, JEA 41: 64 – 71. Bouriant, U. (1897) ‘Petits monuments et petits textes recueillis en Égypte’, Rec. de Trav. 9: 81 – 100. ---------- (1899) ‘Notes de Voyage’, Rec. de Trav. 11: 131 – 159. Bradbury, L. (1984-1985) ‘The Tombos Inscription: A New Interpretation’, Serapis 8: 1 - 20. Breasted, J. H. (1906) Ancient Records of Egypt. Vol. 2. The Eighteenth Dynasty. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Brovarski, E. (2001) The Senedjemib Complex. Part 1, The Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti (G2370), Khnumenti (G2374), and Senedjemib Mehi (G2378). Boston: Department of Art of the Ancient World, Museum of Fine Arts.
Brunner, H. (1986) Die Geburt der Gottkönigs: Studien zur Überlieferung eines altägyptischen Mythos. Harrasowitz: Wiesbaden. Bruyère, B. (1952) Deir el Médineh, 1926, sondage au temple funéraire de Thotmès II (Hat-ankhshesept). Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Bryan, B. M. (1978) ‘The Title “Foster Brother of the King”’, JSSEA 9: 117 – 123. ---------- (1984) ‘Evidence for Female Literacy from Theban Tombs of the New Kingdom’, BES 6: 17-32. ---------- (1990) ‘The Tombowner and His Family’, in Dziobek, E. & Raziq, M. A. (1990) Das Grab des Sobekhotep. Theben Nr. 63. Mainz: Von Zabern: 81 – 87. ---------- (1991) The Reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins Press. ---------- (2000) ‘The 18th Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.1550 – 1352 BC)’, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 207 – 264. ---------- (2006) ‘Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III’, in Cline, E. H. & O’Connor, D. (2006) Thutmose III: A New Biography. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 69 – 122. De Buck, A (1938) The Building Inscription of the Berlin Leather Role. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Budge, Sir. E. A. W. (1909) British Museum, A Guide to the Egyptian Galleries (Sculpture). London: British Museum. Caminos, R. A (1959a) Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ---------- (1959b) The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ---------- (1974) The New-Kingdom Temples of Buhen, vol. I. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ---------- (1998) Semna-Kumma. Vol. I, The Temple of Semna. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Caminos, R. A. & James, T. G. H. (1963) Gebel EsSilsilah. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Capart, J. & Spiegelberg, W. (1903) ‘Une statuette du Temple de Wazmose’, in Monuments Egyptiens du Musée de Bruxelles. Fascicle 2. Bruxelles: Vromant & Co.. Carter, H., Newberry, P., Maspero, G., and Smith, G. E. (1904) The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV. Westminster: Constable. Černý, J. (1929) ‘Papyrus Salt 124 (Brit. Mus. 10055)’, JEA 15: 243 – 258. Charles, R-P. (1960) ‘La statue-cube de Sobek-Hotep, Gouverneur du Fayoum’, RdE 12: 1 – 26. Chevrier, H. (1936) ‘Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1935-1936)’, ASAE 36: 131-157. ---------- (1955) ‘Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak, 1952-1953’, ASAE 53: 7 - 19.
127
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Delia, R. D. (1993) ‘First Cataract Rock Inscriptions: Some Comments, Maps, and a New Group’, JARCE 30: 71 – 91. Delvaux, L. (1988) ‘La statue Louvre A 134 du premier prophète d’Amon Hapouseneb’, SAK 15: 53 – 67. Derchain, P. (1992) ‘Les débuts de l’Histoire’ [Rouleau de cuir Berlin 3029]’, RdE 43: 35 - 47. Der Manuelian, P. (1987) Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag. Desroches-Noblecourt, Chr. (1950) ‘Un petit monument commémoratif du roi athlète’, RdE 7: 37 - 46. Desroches-Noblecourt, Ch. et al. (1985) Reconstitution du caveau de Sennefer dit 'tombe aux vignes', Thèbes-Ouest, Cheikh Abd el Gournah, XVIIIe Dynastie. Paris: Fondation Kodak-Pathe. van Dijk, J. (1995) ‘Maya’s Chief Sculptor UserhatHatiay, with a Note on the Length of the Reign of Horemheb’, GM 148: 29 – 34. Dodson, A. (1990) King Amenmesse at Riqqa’ GM 117/118: 153-155. ---------- (1990b) ‘Crown Prince Djhutmose and the Royal Sons of the Eighteenth Dynasty’, JEA 76: 87 - 96. Dodson, A. & Hilton, D. (2004) The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Dorman, P. (1988) The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology. London: Keegan Paul International. ---------- (1991) The Tombs of Senenmut: the Architecture and Decoration of Tombs 71 and 353. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ---------- (1995) ‘Two Tombs and One Owner’, in Assmann, J., Dziobek, E., Guksch, H., & Kampp, F. (1995) Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag: 141 – 154. ---------- (2006) ‘The Early Reign of Thutmose III: An Unorthodox Mantle of Coregency’, in Cline, E. H. & O’Connor, D. (2006) Thutmose III: A New Biography. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 39 - 68. Drioton, E. (1926) Rapport sur les fouilles de Medamoud. Les Inscriptions. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Dunham, D. (1929) ‘Three Inscribed Statues in Boston’, JEA 15: 164 – 166. ---------- (1938) ‘The Biographical Inscriptions of Nekhebu in Boston and Cairo’, JEA 24: 1 – 8. Dunham, D. & Janssen, J. (1960) Second Cataract Forts. Vol I: Semna-Kumma. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Duringe, A. (1903) ‘La stele No. 10 d’Uriage’, Sphinx 6: 21 – 29. Dziobek, E. (1987) ‘The Architectural Development of Theban Tombs in the Early Eighteenth Dynasty’, in Assmann, J. (1987) Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul International: 69 – 79.
Cumming, B. (1982) Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fascicle I. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ---------- (1984) Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fascicle II. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ---------- (1984b) Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fascicle III. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Daressy, G. (1911) ‘Inscriptions des Carrières de Tourah et Mâsarah’, ASAE 11: 257 – 268. Daumas, F. (1953) ‘Le Trône d’une Statuette de Pépi Ier Trouvé à Dendara’, BIFAO 52: 163 – 172. Davies, B. G. (1992) Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fascicle IV. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ---------- (1994) Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fascicle V. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ---------- (1995) Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty. Fascicle VI. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Davies, N. de. G. (1903) The Rock Tombs of el Amarna. Part I. – The Tomb of Meryra. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. ---------- (1905) The Rock Tombs of el Amarna. Part II. – The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. ---------- (1906) The Rock Tombs of el Amarna. Part IV. – The Tombs of Penthu, Mahu, and Others. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. ---------- (1923) The Tombs of Two Officials of Tuthmosis the Fourth (nos 75 and 90). London: Egypt Exploration Society. ---------- (1925) ‘The Tomb of Tetaky at Thebes (No. 15)’, JEA 11: 10 – 18. ---------- (March 1926) ‘The Graphic work of the Expedition (Eg. Exped. 1924 – 1925)’, BMMA pt. II: 41 – 51. ---------- (December 1926) ‘The Graphic work of the Expedition (Eg. Exped. 1924 – 1925)’, BMMA pt. II: 3 – 16. ---------- (1930) The Tomb of Ken-amun at Thebes. 2 Vols. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition. ---------- (1933) The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ---------- (1941) The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose based on preliminary work by the late T.E. Peet. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ---------- (1943) Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Davies, N. de. G. & Macadam, M. F. L. (1957) A Corpus of Inscribed Funerary Cones. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Decker, W. (1992) Sport and Games of Ancient Egypt. (Trans. Guttmann, A.) Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
128
Bibliography ---------- (1942) ‘The Battle of Megiddo’, JEA 28: 2 – 15. ---------- (1955) ‘The Installation of the Vizier’, JEA 41: 18-29. ---------- (1955b) ‘A Possible Royal Visit to Punt’, in Università di Pisa (1955) Studi in memoria di Ippolito Rosellini nel primo centenario della morte (4 giugno 1843). Vol. II. Pisa: V. Lischi: 84 - 90. ---------- (1962) A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Feucht, E. (1985) ‘The Xrdw n kAp Reconsidered’, in Israelit-Groll, S. (1985) Pharaonic Egypt, The Bible and Christianity. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University: 38 – 47. Fischer, H. (1968) Dendera in the Third Millenium B.C. Down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fourier, J. B. (1821 – 1830) ‘Préface historique’, in Jomard, E.-F., et.al. (1821-1830) Description de l'Égypte: ou, recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l'expédition de l'Armée Française. 2nd Edition. Paris: C.L.F. Panckoucke. Frankfort, H. (1948) Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Frood. E. (2003) ‘Ritual Function and Priestly Narrative: the Stelae of the High Priest of Osiris, Nebwawy’, JEA 89: 59–81. Gaballa, G. A. (1976) Narrative in Egyptian Art. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Galán, H. M. (1995) Victory and Border: Terminology Related to Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Gardiner, A. H. (1905) The Inscription of Mes: A Contribution to the Study of Egyptian Judicial Procedure. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung. --------- (1910) ‘The Tomb of Amenemhet, High-Priest of Amon’, ZÄS 47: 87 – 99. ---------- (1916) ‘The Defeat of the Hyksos by Kamose: The Carnarvon Tablet, No. 1’, JEA 3: 95 – 110. ---------- (1938) ‘The Mansion of Life and the Master of the King’s Largess’, JEA 24: 83 – 91. ---------- (1943) ‘The Word Hm in ‘His Majesty’ and the Like’, JEA 29: 79. ---------- (1952) ‘Tuthmosis III Returns Thanks to Amun’, JEA 38: 6 – 23. ---------- (1953) ‘The Coronation of King Haremhab’, JEA 39: 13 – 31. ---------- (1957) Egyptian Grammar. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Griffith Institute. ---------- (1961) Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardiner, A. H. & Langdon, S. (1920) ‘The Treaty of Alliance between Ḫattušili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt’, JEA 6: 179-205.
---------- (1992) Das Grab des Ineni, Theben Nr. 81. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ---------- (1993) ‘Some King’s Sons Revisited’, GM 132: 29 – 32. ---------- (1994) Die Gräber des Vezirs User-Amun. Theben Nr. 61 und 131. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ---------- (1995) ‘Theban Tombs as a Source for Historical and Biographical Evaluation: The Case of User-Amun’, in Assmann, J., Dziobek, E., Guksch, H., & Kampp, F. (1995) Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag: 129 – 140. ---------- (1998) Denkmäler des Vezirs User-Amun. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Dziobek, E. & Abd el-Raziq, M. (1990) Das Grab des Sobekhotep. Theben Nr. 63. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Edel, E. (1953) ‘Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über doe asiatischen Feldzüg des Königs’, ZDPV 69: 97 – 176; addendum in (1954) ZDPV 70: 87. Edgerton, W. F. (1947) ‘The Government and the Governed in the Egyptian Empire’, JNES 6:3: 152 – 160. Edwards, I. E. S. (1939) Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc. Part VIII. London: The British Museum. Eichler, S. S. (1998) ‘Amtseinsetzung und Beförderung von Beamten in der 18. Dynastie’, SAK 25: 47 – 69. --------- (2000) Die Verwaltung des "Hauses des Amun" in der 18. Dynastie. Hamburg: Buske. Epigraphic Survey, The (1930) Earlier Historical Records of Ramses III. Medinet Habu Vol. I. Plates 1 – 54. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ---------- (1980) The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Eyre, C. J. (1987) ‘Work and the Organisation of Work in the New Kingdom’, in Powell, M. A. (1987) Labor in the Ancient Near East. New Haven: American Oriental Society: 167 - 221. --------- (1994) ‘Weni’s Career and Old Kingdom Historiography’, in Eyre, C., Leahy, A. & Leahy, L. M. (1994) The Unbroken Reed, Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt in Honour A. F. Shore. London: Egypt Exploration Society: 107 – 124. ---------- (1996) ‘Is Historical Literature ‘Political’ or ‘Literary’?’, in Loprieno, A. (1996) Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms. Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J Brill: 415 – 433. Fairman, H. W. (1939) ‘Preliminary Report on the Excavations at 'Amārah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 1938-9’, JEA 25: 139 - 144. Farid, S. (1964) ‘Preliminary report on the Excavations of the Antiquities Department at Tell Basta (Season 1961)’, ASAE 58: 85-98. Faulkner, R. O. (1934) ‘A Statue of a SerpentWorshipper’, JEA 20: 154 - 156. 129
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Guksch, H. (1978) Das Grab des Benja gen. Paheqamen, Theben Nr. 343. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ---------- (1994) Königsdienst: zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Gundlach, R. (1988) Sennefer: die Grabkammer des Bürgermeisters von Theben. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Gunn, B. & Gardiner, A. H. (1918) ‘New Renderings of Egyptian Texts. II The Expulsion of the Hyksos’, JEA 5: 48 – 53. Habachi, L. (1957a) ‘Two Graffiti at Sehel from the Reign of Queen Hatshepsut’, JNES 16: 88 – 104. ---------- (1957b) Tell Basta. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. ---------- (1959) ‘The First Two Viceroys of Kush and their Family’, Kush 7: 45 – 62. ---------- (1961) ‘Four Objects Belonging to Viceroys of Kush and Officials Associated with Them’, Kush 9: 210 – 225. --------- (1968) ‘Tomb No. 226 of the Theban Necropolis and its Unknown Owner’, in Helck, W. (ed.) (1968) Festschrift für Siegfried Schott zu Seinem 70. Geburstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 61 70. ---------- (1978) ‘King Amenmesse and Viziers Amenmose and Kha’emtore: Their Monuments and Place in History’, MDAIK 34: 57 – 67. ---------- (1980) ‘The Owner of the Tomb’ in Epigraphic Surey, The (1980) The Tomb of Kheruef. Theban Tomb 192. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ---------- (1980b) ‘Königssohn von Kusch’, LÄ III: 630 – 640. ---------- (1985) ‘Devotion of Tuthmosis III to his Predecessors: A Propos of a Meeting of Sesostris I with his Courtiers’, in PosenerKriéger, P. (1985) Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. Vol. I. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: 349 – 359. Hall, H. R. & Lambert, E. J. (1914) Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part V. London: The British Museum. Harari, I. (1959) ‘Nature de la stèle de donation de fonction du roi Ahmôsis à la Reine AhmèsNefertari’, ASAE 56: 139-201. Harris, J. E. & Weeks, K. R. (1973) X-Raying the Pharaohs. London: Macdonald. Harris, J. E. & Wente, E. F. (1980) An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hartwig, M. (2003) ‘Style and Visual Rhetoric in Theban Tomb Painting’, in Hawass, Z. (2003) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists. Vol. II. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 298 – 307.
Gardiner, A. H. & Peet, T. E. (1952) The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part I, Introduction and Plates. London: Egypt Exploration Society, London. Part II = Translation and Commentary (1955) edited and compiled by Černý, J. Glanville, S. (1932) ‘Scribes’ Palettes in the British Museum’, JEA 18: 53 – 61. Gitton, M. (1975) L’Épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary. Paris: Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne. ---------- (1976) ‘La résiliation d'une fonction religieuse: Nouvelle interprétation de la stèle de donation d'Ahmès Néfertary’, BIFAO 76: 65-89. ---------- (1979) ‘Nouvelles remarques sur la stèle de donation d'Ahmès Néfertary’, BIFAO 79: 327 331. Gnirs, A. M. (1996a) Militär und Gesellschaft. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. ---------- (1996b) ‘Die ägyptische Autobiographie’, in Loprieno, A. (1996) Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms. Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J Brill: 191 – 241. Goebs, K. (2003) ‘hfti nTr as Euphemism – the Case of the Antef Decree’, JEA 89: 27 – 38. Goedicke, H. (1960) Die Stellung des Königs im Alten Reich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1967) Königliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1974) ‘Some Remarks Concerning the Inscription of Ahmose, Son of Ebana’, JARCE 11: 31 – 41. ---------- (1977) The Protocol of Neferyt. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. --------- (1986) The Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre’. San Antonio: Van Siclen Books. ---------- (1991) ‘Jurisdiction in the Pyramid Age’, MDAIK 47: 135 – 141. ---------- (1992) ‘Amenophis II in Samaria’, SAK 19: 133 – 150. ---------- (1995) Studies about Kamose and Ahmose. Baltimore, Maryland: Halgo Inc. ---------- (1996) ‘The Thutmosis I Inscription near Tomas’, JNES 55: 161 – 176. ---------- (2000) The Battle of Megiddo. Baltimore, Maryland: Halgo Inc. Goelet, O. (1986) ‘The Term Śtp-sA in the Old Kingdom and Its Later Development’, JARCE 23: 85 – 98. Gomez, M. S. (2000) ‘A Neurosurgeon’s View of The Battle of Reliefs of King Sety I: Aspects of Neurological Importance’, JARCE 37: 143 – 165. Griffith, Fr. Ll. (1896) ‘The Millingen Papyrus (Teaching of Amenemhat)’, ZÄS 34: 35 – 51. Grimm, A. (1989) ‘Calembour, Trommelwettstreit oder Kampf auf Leben und Tod in der autobiographischen Steleninschrift des Emhab?’, JEA 75: 220 - 224. Guillemette, A. (1980) ‘Polizei’, LÄ IV: 1068 – 1071.
130
Bibliography Hüttner,
M. & Satzinger, H. (1999) Stelen, Inschriftensteine und Reliefs aus der Zeit der 18. Dynastie. Mainz: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. Jansen-Winkeln, K. (1985) Ägyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie. 2 Vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1993) ‘Die ägyptische “Königsnovelle” als Texttyp’, WZKM 83: 101 – 116. Janssen, J. J. (1961) Two Ancient Egyptian Ship's Logs. Papyrus Leiden 1350 verso and Papyrus Turin 2008 + 2016. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Janssen, R. & Janssen, J. (1989) Egyptian Household Animals. Aylesbury: Shire Egyptology. Kampp, F. (1996) Die thebanische Nekropole: zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Kees, H. A. J. (1953) Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ---------- (1954) ‘Das Gottesweib Ahmes-Nofretere als Amonspriester’, Orientalia 23: 57 – 63. ---------- (1958) Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit. Indices und Nachträge. Leiden, Koln: E. J. Brill. ---------- (1960) ‘Wêbpriester der 18. Dynastie im Trägerdienst bei Prozessionen’, ZÄS 85: 45 – 56. ---------- (1978) ‘The Harim-Palace at Medinet elGhurab’, ZÄS 105: 122-133. Kemp (1968) ‘The Osiris Temple at Abydos’, MDAIK 23: 138 – 155. ---------- (1989) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge. Kitchen, K. A. (1966) Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale. ---------- (1973) ‘A Donation Stela of Ramesses II from Medamūd,’ BIFAO 73: 193 - 200. ---------- (1982) Pharaoh Triumphant, the Life and Times of Ramesses II. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. ---------- (1987) ‘Amenmesses in Northern Egypt’, GM 99: 23-25. ---------- (1996) Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations II. Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions. Oxford: Blackwell. Klug, A. (2002) Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III. Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Elisabeth. Korzybski, A. (1948) Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. 3rd Edition. Lakeville (Conn.): International Non-Aristotelian Library. Kozloff, A. P. & Bryan, B. M. (1992) Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, Amenhotep III and his World. Bloomington: Cleveland Museum of Art & Indiana University Press. Krauss, R. (1976) ‘Untersuchungen zu König Amenmesse (1. Teil)’, SAK 4: 161-199. ---------- (1977) ‘Untersuchungen zu König Amenmesse (2. Teil)’, SAK 5: 131 - 174.
Harvey, S. P. (1998) The Cult of King Ahmose at Abydos. University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished PhD thesis. Hayes, W. C. (1951) ‘Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III’, JNES 10: 35 – 56, 82 – 112, 156 – 183, 231 – 242. ---------- (1953 - 1959) The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2 Vols. New York: Harper in co-operation with the Metropolitan Museum of Art. ---------- (1957) ‘Varia from the Time of Hatshepsut’, MDAIK 15: 78 – 90. ---------- (1962) ‘Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amenophis III’, in Edwards, I. E. S. (1962) The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, Chapter IX, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hays, H. M. (2000) ‘wD: The Context of Command in the Old Kingdom’, GM 176: 63 – 76. Heinz, S. C. (2001) Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches: eine Bildanalyse. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Helck, W. (1955) ‘Eine Stele des Vizekönigs wśr-Śt.t’, JNES 14: 22 – 31. ---------- (1955 - 1958) Urkunden der 18. dynastie. Fascicles 17 – 22. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. --------- (1958) Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Leiden: E. J. Brill. --------- (1961) Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Übersetzung zu den Heften 17-22. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ---------- (1969) ‘Überlegungen zur Geschichte der 18. Dynastie’ OrAn 8: 281-327. ---------- (1969b) Der Text der 'Lehre Amenemhets I. für seinen Sohn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1975) Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1977) Die Lehre für König Merikare. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1979) ‘Lebenshaus II.’, LÄ III: 957 – 958. ---------- (1981) ‘Wo errichtete Thutmosis III seine Siegesstele am Euphrat?’, CdE 56: 241 – 244. ---------- (1992) Die Prophezeiung des Nfrt.ti. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Hoffmeier, J. K. (1992) ‘The Problem of ‘History’ in Egyptian Royal Inscriptions’, in Zaccone, G. M. & Netro, di T. M. (1992) Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: atti. Vol. I. Torino: Italgas: 291 - 299. Hofmann, B. (2004) Die Königsnovelle: ‘Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk’. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hofmann, T. (2001) ‘Majestät und Diener - Zur Dialektik des Begriffes Hm’, ZÄS 128: 116 - 132. Hornung, E. & Bryan, B. M. (2002) The Quest for Immortality. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Hornung, E. & Staehelin, E. (1976) Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
131
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Liverani, M. (1990) Prestige and Interest, International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600 – 1100 B.C. Padova: Sargon. Logan, T. (2000) ‘The Imyt-pr Document: Form, Function, and Significance’, JARCE 37: 49 – 73. Loprieno, A. (1996a) ‘The King’s Novel’, in Loprieno, A. (1996) Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms. Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J Brill: 277 - 295. ---------- (1996b) ‘Loyalistic Instructions’, in Loprieno, A. (1996) Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms. Leiden, New York, Köln: E, J. Brill: 403 – 414. ---------- (1996c) ‘Loyalty to the King, to God, to Oneself’, in Der Manuelian, P. (1996) Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson. Vol. II. Boston, Massachusetts: Museum of Fine Arts: 533 – 552. Lorton, D. (1974) The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts through Dynasty XVIII. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. ---------- (1976) ‘The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt through the New Kingdom’, JESHO 20: 2 - 64. ---------- (1986) ‘The King and the Law’, VA 2: 53 – 62. ---------- (1990) ‘The Aswan/Philae Inscription of Thutmosis II’, in Isrealit Groll, S. & Magnes, P. (1990) Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Vol. II. Jerusalem: Hebrew University: 668 – 679. ---------- (1993) ‘The Instruction for Merikare and Amarna Ideology’, GM 134: 69 – 83. Lloyd, A. B. (1982) ‘The Inscription of Udjahorresnet, A Collaborator’s Testament’, JEA 68: 166 – 180. Lundh, P. (2002) Actor and Event, Military Activity in Ancient Egyptian Narrative Texts from Tuthmosis II to Merenptah. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University. Malek, J. (1987) ‘The Saqqara Statue of Ptahmose, Mayor of the Memphite Suburbs’, RdE 38: 117 – 137. Manniche, L. (1988) Lost Tombs: a Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monuments in the Theban Necropolis. London: Keegan Paul International. Mariette, A. (1875) Karnak: étude topographique et archéologique avec un appendice comprenant les principaux textes hiéroglyphiques découverts ou recueillis pendant les fouilles exécutées à Karnak. Leipzig : J.C. Hinrichs. ---------- (1880a) Catalogue Génerale des Monuments d’Abydos découverts pendant les fouilles de cette ville. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. ---------- (1880b) Abydos: description des fouilles executées sur l'emplacement de cette ville. 2 Vols. Paris: Franck. Maspero, G. (1890) ‘Monuments Égyptiens du Musée de Marseille’, Rec de Trav 13: 120 – 121.
Kruchten, J-M. (1981) Le décret d'Horemheb traduction, commentaire epigraphique, philologique et institutionnel. Bruxelles: Editions de l'Universite de Bruxelles. ---------- (1989) Les annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXIXXIIImes dynasties) et autres textes contemporains relatifs à l'initiation des prêtres d'Amon. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek. Kuentz, Ch. (1925) Deux Stèle d’Aménophis II (Stèles d’Amada et d’Elephantine. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Lacau, P. (1909 -) Stèles du Nouvel Empire. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. ---------- (1949) Une stèle juridique de Karnak. Cairo: Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Lacovara. P. (1997) The New Kingdom Royal City. London: Keegan Paul International. Lansing, A. & Hayes, W. C. (1937) ‘The Egyptian Expedition, 1935 – 1936’, BMMA 32 (Jan, Pt. II): 3 – 39. Laskowski, P. (2006) ‘Monumental Architecture and the Royal Building Program of Thutmose III’, in Cline, E. H. & O’Connor, D. (2006) Thutmose III: A New Biography. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 183 – 237. Leclant, J. (1955) ‘Fouilles et travaux en Égypte, 1953 1954’, Orientalia 24: 296 – 317. ---------- (1981) ‘Un Parc de chasse de la Nubie pharaonique’, in Devisse, J. (1981) Le Sol, la parole et l’écrit: 2000 ans d’histoire africaine: Mélanges en homage à R. Manny. Paris: Société Française d’Histoire d’Outre-mer: 727 – 34. Legrain, G. (1902) ‘Le Temple de Ptah Rîs-anbou-f dans Thèbes’, ASAE 3: 39 – 42. ---------- (1902b) ‘Rapport sur les travaux exécutés à Karnak du 25 septembre au 31 octobre 1901’, ASAE 2: 265 – 280. ---------- (1903) ‘"Second rapport sur les travaux exécutés à Karnak du 31 octobre 1901 au 15 mai 1902’, ASAE 4: 1 – 40. Lefèbvre, G. (1924) ‘Monuments relatifs à Amon de Karnak’, ASAE 24: 133 – 145. ---------- (1929) Histoire des Grands Prêtres d'Amon de Karnak jusqu'à la XXIe Dynastie. Paris: Geuthner. Lichtheim, M. (1975) Ancient Egyptian Literature. Vol. I. The Old Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press. ---------- (1988) Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag. ---------- (1991) ‘Autobiography as Self-Exploration’, in Zaccone, G. M. & Netro, T. M. di. (1992) Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: atti. Vol. I. Torino: Italgas: 409 – 414. ---------- (1992) Maat in Egyptian Autobiographies and Related Studies. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
132
Bibliography Newberry, P. E. (1900) ‘A Statue of Hapu-senb, Vezir of Thotmes II’, PSBA 22: 31 – 36. --------- (1933) ‘A Statue and a Scarab’, JEA 19: 53 – 54. Nims, C. F. (1948) ‘An Oracle Dated in ‘The Repeating of Births’’, JNES 7: 157 – 162. Northampton, Marquis of., Spiegelberg, W., Newberry, P. E. (1908) Report on some Excavations in the Theban Necropolis during the Winter of 18981899. London: Archibald Constable and Co.. O’Connor, D. (1995) ‘Beloved of Maat, the Horizon of Re: The Royal Palace in New Kingdom Egypt’, in O’Connor, D & Silverman, D. P. (1995) Ancient Egyptian Kingship. London: Keegan Paul International: 263 – 300. ---------- (1998) ‘Amenhotep III and Nubia’, in O’Connor, D. & Cline, E. H. (1998) Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 261 – 270. O’Connor, D. & Silverman, D. P. (1995) Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Oldfather, C. H. (1933) Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. I. London and New York: William Heinemann Ltd, and G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Osing, J. (1979) ‘Zur Geschichte der späten 19. Dynastie’, SAK 7: 253-271. Pantalacci, L. (1985) ‘Un décret de Pépi II en faveur des gouverneurs de l'oasis de Dakhla’, BIFAO 85: 245 – 254. Parkinson, R. B. (1997) The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940-1640 BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ---------- (2002) Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt: A Dark Side to Perfection. London: Continuum. Partridge, R. B. (1994) Faces of Pharaohs: Royal Mummies and Coffins from Ancient Thebes. London: Rubicon Press. Peden, A. J. (1994) The Reign of Ramesses IV. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Petrie, W, M. F. (1896) Six temples at Thebes. London: Quaritch. ---------- (1913) Tarkhan I and Memphis V. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College, and Bernard Quaritch. Pillet, M. (1924) ‘Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1923 – 1924)’, ASAE 24: 78 - 79. Polz, D. (1991) ‘Iamunedjeh, Meri und Userhat’, MDAIK 47: 281 – 291. Posener, G. (1936) La première domination perse en Égypte: recueil d'inscriptions hiéroglyphiques. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. ---------- (1960) De la divinité du Pharaon. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. ---------- (1976) L’Enseignement Loyaliste. Genève: Droz. Posener-Kriéger, P. (1981) ‘Construire une tombe à l'ouest de mn-nfr (P. Caire 52002)’, RdE 33: 4758. ---------- (1985) ‘Décrets Envoyés au Temple Funéraire de Rêneferef’, in Posener-Kriéger, P. (1985)
McDowell (1990) Jurisdiction in the Workmen’s Community of Deir el-Medina. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Mekkawy, F. (1989) ‘Recent Excavations at Tell elFara’in’, in Nibbi, A (1989) Proceedings of Colloquium the Archaeology, Geography and History of the Egyptian Delta in Pharaonic Times, Oxford 29 – 31 August 1988. Oxford: Cotswold Press: 191 – 216. Menshawy, S. el (2000) Studies in Access to the King, the Interaction, with the Court and the Subjects until the End of the New Kingdom. University of Liverpool. Unpublished PhD thesis. ---------- (2003) ‘The Protocol of the Ancient Egyptian Royal Palace’, in Hawass, Z. (2003) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists. Vol. II. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 400 – 406. Menu, B. (1977) ‘La «stèle» d'Ahmès Néfertary dans son contexte historique et juridique. [À propos de l’article de M. Gitton, BIFAO 76, 1976, p. 6589]’, BIFAO 77: 89 – 100. Meulenaere, H de. (1981) ‘La Directeur des Traveaux Minmose’, MDAIK 37: 315 – 319. Meyer, C. (1982) Senenmut: eine prosopographische Untersuchung. Hamburg: Verlag Borg. Morschauser, S. (1997) ‘Approbation or Disapproval? The Conclusion of the Letter of Amenophis II to User-Satet, Viceroy of Kush (Urk. IV, 1344.1020)’, SAK 24: 203 – 222. Moran, W. L. (1992) The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. de Morgan, J., Bouriant, U., Legrain, G., Jéquier, G., Barsanti, A. (1894) Catalogue des monuments et inscriptions de l'Egypte antique. Vol. I. Vienne: Holzhausen. Murnane, W. J. (1994) ‘Too Many High Priests? Once Again the Ptahmoses of Ancient Memphis’, in Silverman, D. P. (1994) For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 187 – 196. ---------- (1998) ‘The Organization of Government under Amenhotep III’, in O’Connor, D. & Cline, E. H. (1998) Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press: 173 – 221. Naville, E. (1891) Bubastis (1887 – 1889). London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trüber and Co. ---------- (1896) The Temple of Deir el Bahari. Vol. II. London: Keegan Paul. ---------- (1898) The Temple of Deir el Bahari. Vol. III. London: Keegan Paul. Niedziólka, D. (2003) ‘On the Obelisks Mentioned in the Northampton Stela of Djehuti, Director of the Treasury during Hatshepsut’s reign’, in Hawass, Z. (2003) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 407 – 415. 133
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. Vol. II. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: 195 – 210. Pritchard, J. B. (1950) Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pumpenmeier, F. (1998) Eine Gunstgabe von seiten des Königs : ein extrasepulkrales Schabtidepot QenAmuns in Abydos. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Quack, J. F. (1992) Studien zur Lehre für Merikare. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ---------- (1994) Die Lehren des Ani. Ein neuägyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen Umfeld. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. Quirke, S. G. (1996) ‘Narrative Literature’, in Loprieno, A. (1996) Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms. Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill: 263 – 276. ---------- (2004) Egyptian Literature, 1800 BC, Questions and Readings. London: Golden House Publications. Radwan, A. (1981) Zwei Stelen aus dem 47. Jahre Thutmosis III.’, MDAIK 37: 403 – 407. Rainey, A. F. (1973) ‘Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi’, JARCE 10: 71 – 75. Randall-MacIver, D. & Wooley, C. L. (1911) Buhen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, University Museum. Ranke, H. (1935 - 1977) Die ägyptischen Personennamen. 3 Vols. Gluckstadt: J. J. Augustin. Ratié, S. (1979) La reine Hatchepsout: sources et problèmes. Paris: Juillard. el-Razik, M. abd (1975) ‘The Dedicatory and Building Texts of Ramesses II in Luxor Temple’, JEA 61: 125 – 136. Redford, D. B. (1965) ‘The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II’, JEA 51: 107 – 122. ---------- (1973) ‘Studies on Akhenaten at Thebes. I. A Report on the Work of the Akhenaten Temple Project of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania’, JARCE 10: 77 - 94. ---------- (1984) Akhenaten, the Heretic King. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ---------- (1986) Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and DayBooks: a Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications. ---------- (1992) Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ---------- (1995) ‘The Concept of Kingship during the Eighteenth Dynasty’, in O’Connor, D & Silverman, D. P. (1995) Ancient Egyptian Kingship. London: Keegan Paul International: 157 – 184. ---------- (2003) The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Reineke, W-F. (1977) ‘Ein Nubienfeldzug unter Königin Hatshepsut’, in Endesfelder, E. et al (1977)
Ägypten und Kusch. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 369 – 376. Ritner, R. K. (1994) ‘Denderite Temple Hierarchy and the Family of Theban High Priest Nebwenenef: Block Statue OIM 10729’, in Silverman, D. P. (1994) For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 205 – 226. Robins, G. (1995) Reflections of Women in the New Kingdom: Ancient Egyptian Art from the New Kingdom. Texas: Van Siclen Books. Roehrig, C & Dorman, P. (1987) ‘Senimen and Senenmut: A Question of Brothers’, VA 3: 127134. Roehrig, C. (1990) The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal Nurse (mn’t nswt), Royal Tutor (mn’ nswt), and Foster Brother/Sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sn/snt mn’ n nb t3wy). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Roth, M. A. (1999) ‘The Absent Spouse: Patterns and Taboos in Egyptian Tomb Decoration’, JARCE 36: 37 – 53. el-Sabban, S. (2000) Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. Sanchez, G. M. (2000) ‘A Neurosurgeon’s View of the Battle of Reliefs of King Sety I: Aspects of Neurological Importance’, JARCE 37: 143 – 165. Sauneron, S. (1952) ‘Le dégagement du temple d'Esné: mur nord’, ASAE 52 (1952), 29-39. ---------- (1953) ‘L’Hymne au soleil levant des papyrus de Berlin 3050, 3056, et 3048’, BIFAO 53: 65 – 90. ---------- (2000) The Priests of Ancient Egypt. London: Cornell University Press. Säve-Soderbergh. T (1957) Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs. Oxford: Griffith Institute at the University Press. Schiaparelli, E. (1887) Museo archeologico di Firenze: Antichità egizie. Roma: Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei. Schulman, A. R. (1964) Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Berlin: B. Hessling. ---------- (1965) ‘The Berlin “Trauerrelief” (No. 12411) and Some Officials of Tut’ankhamūn’, JARCE 4: 55 – 68. ---------- (1978) ‘‘Ankhesenamūn, Nofretity and the Amka Affair’, JARCE 15: 43 – 48. ---------- (1982) ‘The Nubian War of Akhenaton’, in Leclant, J. (1982) L’Égyptologie en 1979: Axes Prioritaires de Recherches. Vol. 2. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: 299 – 316. --------- (1987) ‘The Great Historical Inscription of Merneptah at Karnak: A Partial Reappraisal’, JARCE 24: 21 – 34. ---------- (1988) Ceremonial Execution and Public Rewards: Some Historical Scenes on New
134
Bibliography Kingdom Private Stelae. Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, Freiburg. Seidlmayer, S. J. (2002) ‘New Rock Inscriptions on Elephantine Island’, in Hawass, Z. (2002) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists. Vol. I. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press: 440 – 447. Selim, A - K. (1991) Les obélisques égyptiens: histoire et archéologie. 2 Vols. Le Caire: Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvernementales. Selim, H. (2005) ‘Two Unpublished Eighteenth Dynasty Stelae from the Reign of Thutmoses III at Cairo Museum TN. 20.3.25.3 and TN. 21.3.25.14.’ in Daoud, K., Bedier, S. & Abd el-Fatah, S. (2005) Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan. Vol. II. Le Caire: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte: 329 – 337. Sethe, K (1904 - 1909) Urkunden der 18. dynastie. Fascicles 1 – 16. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Simpson, W. K. (1982) ‘Egyptian Sculpture and TwoDimensional Representation as Propaganda’, JEA 68: 266 – 71. Simpson, W. K. et al (2003) The Literature of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Silverman (1988) ‘The So-called ‘Portal’ Temple of Ramesses II at Abydos’, SAK Beiheft 2: 270 – 277. Smith, G. E. (1912) Catalogue General Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire: The Royal Mummies. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Smith, H. S. (1976) The Fortress of Buhen: the Inscriptions. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Smith, H. S. and Smith, A. (1976) ‘A Reconsideration of the Kamose Texts’, ZÄS 103: 48 - 76. Smith, W. S. (1998) The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. (Revised with additions by Simpson, W. K. New Haven: Yale University Press. Smither, P. C. (1942) ‘An Old Kingdom Letter Concerning the Crimes of Count Sabni’, JEA 28: 16 – 19. Spalinger, A. J. (1974) ‘Some Notes on the Battle of Megiddo and Reflections on Egyptian Military Writing’, MDAIK 30: 221 – 229. ---------- (1977) ‘A Critical Analysis of the ‘Annals’ of Thutmose III (Stücke V – VI)’, JARCE 14: 41 – 54. ---------- (1978) ‘A New Reference to an Egyptian Campaign of Thutmose III in Asia’, JNES 37: 35 – 41. ---------- (1979) ‘Some Additional Remarks on the Battle of Megiddo’, GM 33: 47 – 54. ---------- (1980) ‘Remarks on the Family of Queen xa.snbw and the problems of Kingship in Dynasty XIII’, RdE 32: 96 – 116.
---------- (1982) Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians. New Haven: Yale University Press. ---------- (1983) ‘The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II’, JSSEA 13: 89 – 101. ---------- (1986) ‘Stèle juridique’, LÄ VI: 6 – 8. ---------- (1991) ‘Some Revisions of Temple Endowments in the New Kingdom’, JARCE 28: 21 – 39. ---------- (1995) ‘The Calendrical Importance of the Tombos Stela’, SAK 22: 271- 281. ---------- (1996) ‘The Festival Structure of Thutmose III’s Buto Stele’, JARCE 33: 69 – 76. ---------- (1996b) ‘Sovereignty and Theology in New Kingdom Egypt: Some Cases of Tradition’, Saeculum 47: 217 – 238. ---------- (2002) ‘Book Review: S. C. Heinz Die Feldzugdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches: Eine Bildanalyse’, JAOS 122: 127 – 130. ---------- (2005) War in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Speleers, L. (1923) Recueil des inscriptions égyptiennes des Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles. Brussels: I Vanderpoorten, Gand. Spiegel, J. (1939) 'Die Grundbedeutung des Stammes Hm', ZAS 75: 112 – 121. Spiegelberg, W (1894) ‘Varia’, Rec. de Trav. 16: 26 – 32. Störk, L. (1993) ‘Der Trommler des Königs’, GM 133: 101-109. Strouhal, E. (1997) Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Strudwick, N. & Strudwick, H. (1999) Thebes in Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Swan Hall, E. (1986) The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies. Munchen: Deutscher Kunstverlag. Thomas, E. (1966) The Royal Necropoleis of Thebes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Topozada, Z. (1988) ‘Les Deux Campagnes d’Amenhotep III en Nubie’, BIFAO 88: 153 – 165. Trapani, M. (1993) ‘The Royal Decree and the Divine Oracle from the Old to the Late New Kingdom: a Compared Research’, in Zaccone, G. M. & di Netro, T. M. (1992) Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: Atti. Vol. II. Torino: Italgas: 537 – 545. Tresson, P. (1922) La Stèle de Koubân. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Valbelle, D. (2000) ‘Les Décrets Égyptiens et leur Affichage dans les Temples’, in Valbelle, D. & Leclant, J. (2000) Le Décret de Memphis. Colloque de la Fondation Singer-Polignac à l’occasion de la célébration du bicentenaire de la découverte de la Pierre de Rosette. Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac: 67 – 90. Vandersleyen, C. (1967) ‘Une tempête sous le règne d’Amosis’, RdE 19: 123 – 159. ---------- (1968) ‘Deux nouveaux fragments de la stele d’Amosis relatant une tempête’, RdE 20: 127 – 134.
135
Royal Authority in Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty ---------- (1971) Les guerres d'Amosis; fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie. Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Van Siclen, C. C. (1979) ‘The Identity of a Figure in the Tomb of Kenamun’, Serapis 5: 17 – 20. ---------- (1985/86) ‘The Mayor of This Amenhotep and his Father Nebiry’, BES: 87 – 91. ---------- (1986) The Alabaster Shrine of King Amenhotep II. San Antonio: Van Siclen. Varille, A. (1930) ‘Une stèle du vizir Ptahmes, contemporain d’Aménophis III (no 88 du Musée de Lyon)’, BIFAO: 497 – 507. ---------- (1968) Inscriptions Concernant L’Architecte Amenhotep Fils de Hapou. Le Caire: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale. Vercoutter, J. (1956) ‘New Egyptian Texts from the Sudan’, Kush 4: 66 – 82. ---------- (1958) ‘Excavations at Sai 1955 - 7. A Preliminary Report’, Kush 6: 144-169. Vernus, P. (1970) ‘Quelques exemples du type du parvenu dans l'Égypte ancienne’, BSFE 59: 31 47. ---------- (1979) ‘Un decret de Thoutmosis III relatif a la sante publique (pBerlin 3049, vs XVIII-XIX)’, Orientalia 48: 176 – 184. ---------- (1991) ‘Les “Décrets” Royaux (wD-nsw): L’Enonce d’Auctoritas comme Genre’, in Schoske, S. (1991) Akten des vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen-Kongresses, München 1985. Hamburg: Buske: 239 – 246. ---------- (2003) Affairs and Scandals in Ancient Egypt. (Trans. Lorton, D.). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Virey, P. (1886) ‘Le Tombeau d’Am-n-the et la Fonction de imy-rwyt’’, Rec de Trav. 9: 27 – 32. Vittmann, G. (1998) Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9. 2 Vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ward, W. A. (1992) ‘Book Review: Ceremonial Execution and Public Rewards: Some Historical Scenes on New Kingdom Stele’, JNES 51: 152 – 155. Wen-Peng, L. (1993) ‘Review for the Despotism of Pharaonic Egypt’, in Zaccone, G. M. & Netro, T. M. di. (1992) Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia: atti. Vol. II. Torino: Italgas: 269 – 272. Wente, E. F. (1980) ‘The Gurob Letter of Amenhotep IV’, Serapis 6: 209 – 215. ---------- (1990) Letters from Ancient Egypt. Atlanta (Ga): Scholars Press. Whale, S. (1989) The Family in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Sydney: The Australian Centre for Egyptology. Whitehouse, W. M. (1980) ‘Radiologic Findings in the Royal Mummies’, in Harris, J. E. & Wente, E. F. (1980) An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press: 286 – 327. Wiener and Allen (1998) ‘Separate Lives: the Ahmose Tempest Stela and the Theran Eruption’, JNES 57: 1 – 28.
Wilbour, E.-C. (1890) ‘Canalizing the Cataract’, Rec de Trav. 13: 202 – 203. Wild, H. (1957) ‘Contributions à l'iconographie et à la titulature de Qen-amon’, BIFAO 56: 203-237. Wildung, D. (1977) Egyptian Saints, Deification in Pharaonic Egypt. New York: New York University Press. Wilkinson, R. H. (2003) The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson. Wilson, J. A. (1948) ‘The Oath in Ancient Egypt’, JNES 7: 129 – 156. ---------- (1956) ‘The Royal Myth in Ancient Egypt’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 100 no. 5: 439 – 442. Windus-Staginsky, E. (2006) Der ägyptische König im Alten Reich, Terminologie und Phraseologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Winlock, H. E, (1914) ‘Excavations at Thebes in 1912 – 13, by the Museum’s Egyptian Expedition’, BMMA 9: 11 – 23. Wolterman, C. (1996) ‘A Vizier of Ramses III Visits an Oracle of Amun at Deir el-Medina’, RdE 47: 147 – 170. Yeivin, Sh. (1967) ‘Amenophis II’s Asiatic Campaigns’, JARCE 6: 119 – 128. Zába, Z. (1956) Les Maximes de Ptahhotep. Prague: Éditions de l’Academie Tchécoslovatique des Sciences. Zayed, A. H. (1985) ‘Une représentation inédite des campagnes d'Aménophis II’, in Posener-Kriéger, P. (1985) Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. Vol. I. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: 5 – 17. Zibelius-Chen, K. (1988) Die altägyptische Expansion nach Nubien: eine Darlegung der Grundfaktoren. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
136