The Culture of Officialdom

An examination of the acquisition of offices during the mid-18

th
Dynasty




By
JJ Shirley








A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy


Baltimore, Maryland
March, 2005












2005 by JJ Shirley
UMI # 3172694
ii
Abstract

Stemming from Helcks Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs and Der
Einfluss der Militrfhrer, studies on the configuration and development of the
administration of ancient Egypt have focused primarily on discussing the offices and the
duties attached to them, and only secondarily on the office-holders as they relate to their
positions. The current work examines the structure of ancient Egypts government
through a prosopographical and historical investigation of the officials themselves in
order to ascertain how they obtained their positions during the transition from the reign of
Thutmosis III to that of his son Amenhotep II, c.1450-1400 B.C.
The methodology employed reintegrates the titular, genealogical and biographical
information that was available for the officials with the historical context in which they
functioned. Issues relating to how and why these officials became visible are also
considered in order to gain a better understanding of the culture of officialdom. Three
questions are posed; 1) What were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain
office?; 2) What does this tell us about the underlying structure of the government during
the mid-18
th
Dynasty?; 3) What do these patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an
officials or familys influence vis--vis the king in achieving and retaining a position?
The results of the current work demonstrate that the administrative structure
described by Helck, and essentially followed since, should be reevaluated. It now appears
that officials were able to obtain their positions in a variety of ways throughout the period
studied. Direct inheritance and familial nepotism were more prevalent during the reign of
Thutmosis III, while under Amenhotep II the families of his nurses and tutors benefited
iii
from the close relationship formed between the young prince and his caretakers.
Meritorious rise was also a possibility and did not require external circumstances, such as
wartime activity, to instigate it. While the particular men who made up the highest levels
of the administration changed, the elite status of their families did not. This indicates that
the underlying structure of the government was extremely fluid and that while at the
surface the alterations may appear dramatic, in fact they were not.


iv
Dedication

In 1988 I went to Egypt for the first time and fell in love with it the country, the people,
but especially the monuments. A few years later I began my professional academic
career as a student of Egyptian art, archaeology, history and language. This work is the
culmination of that process. It is dedicated to all the people who made my journeys,
adventures, and research possible.

But especially to those who ensured that I finished.
v
Acknowledgements
As is inevitably the case with a project that spans several years, there are a
number of people who have contributed in small and significant ways to the final
product. The project would not have begun without the advice and support of Dr. Betsy
Bryan, and the Department of Near Eastern Studies at The Johns Hopkins University.
Permission to work in Egypt was granted by the Supreme Council of Antiquities and its
directors, previously Prof. Dr. Gaballa Ali Gaballa, and currently Dr. Zahi Hawass. The
fieldwork was undertaken with financial backing from The Johns Hopkins University, an
Exploration and Field Research Grant from the Washington, D.C.-based Explorers Club,
and a USBECA Fellowship funded through The American Research Center in Egypt.
While working in Egypt, The American Research Center in Egypt provided
assistance that I am very grateful for. Special thanks go to Mme. Amira Khattab and Mr.
Amir Abdel Hamid. At the Cairo Museum, I am indebted to Mr. Adel Mahmoud. Salima
Ikram and Nicholas Warner ensured that my time in Cairo was always exciting. In Luxor,
Dr. Yehyia el-Misry, Dr. Mohammed el-Bialy, Mr. Nur Abd el-Gafar, my inspectors, Mr.
Ramadan Ahmed Ali and Mr. Mugi Mahmoud Selim, and the Necropolis guards were all
essential for the daily operations of my work. I could not have recorded some of the
tombs without the help of Chicago House. I would like to especially thank the Director,
Ray Johnson for the loan of ladders, as well as tea and dinners, Will Schenk and Emily
Napolitano for their epigraphic help and enthusiastic company, Yarko Kobylecky, Sue
Lezon, and Ellie Smith for their photographic assistance and Tina Di Cerbo for the loan
of her digital camera, as well as many fun afternoons. I cannot thank Deanna Kiser
enough for her company and coffee during the many months we both worked in Luxor.
vi
Many Egyptologists and Institutes generously shared their work with me. I would
especially like to mention Roland Tefnin, Luc Gabolde, Nigel Strudwick, and Peter
Piccione, all of whom allowed me to examine the tombs they are currently publishing. In
addition, Dimitri Laboury shared his own research on the viziers, while Annie Gasse and
Vincent Rondot allowed me to use their as yet unpublished work on the graffiti at Sehel.
At the Griffith Institute, I would like to thank Jaromir Malek and Elizabeth Miles for
granting me access to, and assistance with, the collection, and John Baines for facilitating
my stay in Oxford. My work at the Egypt Exploration Society in London was
accomplished with the help of Patricia Spencer and Chris Naunton, as well as a
wonderful phone conversation with T.G.H. James.
During the writing process I received constant advice, support, critiques, and
encouragement from both Betsy Bryan and Richard Jasnow. My colleagues and friends in
Baltimore and elsewhere were an important source of sanity while dissertating, and I
would like to especially mention Violaine Chauvet, Ronald Koder, Nicholas Picardo, and
Matthew D. Adams, as well as Susanna Garfein and Ross Garfinkel and their inn. The
last few months in Michigan were greatly helped along with the support of Janet
Richards. Finally, I must thank my dissertation committee, Matthew Roller, Betsy Bryan,
Richard Jasnow, Raymond Westbrook, and David OConnor for their participation and
valuable comments.
The support of my family has been constant from the very beginning, and I owe
them all a special thanks, but especially my mom and dad for always encouraging me to
pursue my dreams. A final thank you goes to Diane Kagoyire, for getting me back on
track, and to Raphael Cunniff, for keeping me there.
vii
Table of Contents

Title Page i
Abstract ii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgments v
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures xii
Abbreviations xv
Introduction: Attaining Office in the Time of 1-58
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II
I. Purpose of Research 1
II. Historical Background 3
III. Prosopographical Studies 14
IV. Methodology 23
V. Data Analysis 27
VI. Structuring of the data 33-55
VIa. Appointment 34
VIb. Heredity 45
VIc. Nepotism 46
VId. Merit 52
VII. Data presentation 54


viii
Chapter 1 59-176
The Power of Heredity: Inheritance and Influence
I. Introduction 59-75
Ia. Lineage 60
Ib. Staff of Old Age (mdw iAw) 64
Ic. The imyt-pr, adoption, and other legal methods 69
of ensuring succession
Id. Appointment and Heredity 73
Ie. Conclusion 74
II. Officials 75-163
Ahmose-Aametu, his son User-amun and grandson Rekhmire 75
(Three generations of viziers)
Aametus extended family and later generations 95
(Involvement in the Amun priesthood)
Amenemhat (scribe and steward of the vizier) 101
Menkheperresoneb and his nephew Menkheperresoneb 110
(Two generations of high priests of Amun)
Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb) 122
(Two generations of overseer of granaries)
Amunemhat, son of Itnefer 138
(mid-level priests)
Amenemhat 145
(A new high priest of Amun)
Min and his son Sobekhotep 152
(Two generations of treasurers; Three generations of mayor through marriage)
Excursus: A possible tomb for Min in Thebes 157
Userhat 160
(Two generations of Amun servants)

ix
III. Conclusions 163
Chapter 2 177-329
Influence as a Means of Obtaining Office: The Family and The King
I. Introduction 177
II. Family Influence 181-282
IIa. Familial Nepotism 181-199
The Family of Qen 181
(Karnak clergy and staff)
Amunhotep and his uncle Neferhotep 185
(Priests in the royal mortuary temples)
Baki and his father Bak[enamun] 190
(Mid-level priests)
Ahmose and his son Ra 193
(Priests at Karnak and in the royal mortuary temples)
IIb. The Family and the King 200-282
Taiunet and her son Menkheperresoneb 200
(A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun)
Iamnefer and his son Suemniut 205
(A regional mayor and tutor and his son the royal butler)
Usersatet, viceroy of Kush 216
(A man of elite origins)
The Family of the Mayor of Thebes Sennefer 240-259
A. The Parentage of Sennefer 240
B. Ahmose-Humay, his son Amenemopet (called Pairy) 246
and his nephew Sennefer
(A tutor, his son the vizier, and nephew the mayor of Thebes)
Hunay and her son Mery 259
(A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun)
Amenemipet and her son Qenamun 265
(A royal nurse and her son the steward of the king and steward of Perunefer)
x
III. Personal Influence 282-313
Nebamun and his son Paser 282
(Friendship with the king is more important than family)
Amenmose 290
(From the field to the court)
Montuiywy 297
(Royal butler and court follower)
Pehsukher 305
(A court-based military official)
IV. Conclusions 312
Chapter 3 331-431
Meritorious Rise to Office
I. Introduction 331
II. Officials 333-432
Sennefri 333
(His rise from a Sna in the Delta to overseer of the seal)
Iamunedjeh 351
(A controller of works abroad and in Egypt)
Userhat 367
(From idnw of the royal herald to Xrd n kAp of Amenhotep II)
Amenemheb-Mahu and Baky 380
(A career military man and his royal nurse wife)
Minmose 401
(An idnw for the king abroad and overseer of works in Egypt)
Dedy 418
(From soldier to royal messenger to chief of the Medjay)
Tjanuny 424
(From army scribe to overseer of the army of the king)

xi
III. Conclusions 432
Conclusions 444-457
Changing Continuity in the Movement of Office
Figures 458-510
Works Cited 511-544





xii
List of Figures

Fig. 1 Table of ancient Egyptian kinship terminology 458-59
with anthropological equivalents
Fig. 2 Genealogy of Aametu, indicating the line of viziers 460
and marriage into the priestly family of Ineni
Fig. 3 Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 17 (after Caminos) 461
Fig. 4 Co-Installation Scene of User (after Dziobek) 462
Fig. 5 Co-Installation Text of User (after Dziobek) 463
Figs. 6-7 Rekhmires Family wall (after Davies) 464-5
Fig.8 Extended genealogy of Aametus family, indicating 466
their positions throughout the Amun priesthood
Fig.9 Genealogy of Amenemhat (after Davies) 467
Fig.10 Amenemhats Family wall (after Davies) 468
Fig.11 Menkheperresoneb (i)s Family 469
Fig. 12 Minnakht and Menkheper(resoneb) (after Guksch) 470
Figs. 13-15 Amenemhat (TT53) stele lunette 471-3
Figs. 16-18 TT143 474-6
Fig. 19 Qens family 477
Fig. 20 Amunhotep offers to his parents (rt.) 478
Amunhotep offers to his parents (left)
Fig.21 Baky offers to his parents 479
Fig. 22 Usersatet Semna stele (after der Manuelian) 480
Fig. 23 Usersatet Ras Sehel graffito (after Habachi) 481
Fig. 24a-b Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11 (after Caminos) 482
xiii
Fig. 25a-b Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11 (after Caminos) 483
Fig. 26 Ahmose-Humay, TT224, passage 484
Fig. 27 TT224 faade 485
Fig. 28 Qenamuns father, TT93 486
Fig. 29 Qenamuns mothers name, TT93 487
Fig. 30 Pehsukher in Qenamuns tomb (after Davies) 488
Qenamuns mother and the king
Fig. 31 Paser before Amunhotep II 489
Fig. 32 Amenmose in Syria (Authors photo) 490
Fig.33 Kings in Montuiywys tomb 491
Fig.34 Pehsukher and Neith before Amunhotep II 492
Fig. 35 Sennefri in Lebanon (after Strudwick) 493
Fig. 36 Iamunedjehs stele 494
Fig. 37 Marseille stele 495
Fig. 38 Iamunedjeh in TT56 of Userhat 496
Figs. 39-40 Userhat before Amenhotep II (after Beinlich-Seeber) 497-8
Fig. 41 Amenemheb-Mahu autobiography 499
Fig. 42 Baky offers to Amenhotep II 500
Fig. 43 Mahu and Baky with Amunhotep II 501
Fig. 44 Mahus garden estate 502
Fig. 45 Baky suckles young Amenhotep II 503
Fig. 46 Inscription of Baky owning a tomb 504
Fig. 47 Minmose statue BM2300 505
xiv
Fig. 48 Dedys funerary cones (after Davies & Macadam) 506
Fig. 49 Kings in Dedys tomb 507
Fig. 50 Radwan sketch of above scene 508
Figs. 51-2 Tjanuny records troops 509-10

xv
Abbreviations

A gyptologische Abhandlungen
AT gypten und Altes Testament
ACE Studies Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies
AEL Ancient Egyptian Literature
AEO Ancient Egyptian Onomastica
F gyptologische Forschungen
AL Anne Lexicographique. gypte Ancienne
AE Law A History of Ancient ear Eastern Law
ARCE American Research Center in Egypt
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquits de l'gypte
ASE Archaeological Survey of Egypt
AV Archologische Verffentlichungen
BACE The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
BAR J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BdE Bulletin de l'Institut d'gypte
BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar
Beitrge Bf Beitrge zur gyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde
BIFAO Bulletin de l'Institut Franais d'Archologie Orientale du Caire
Bijdragen Tot Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde
BiOr Bibliotheca orientalis
xvi
BMMA The Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
BMRAH Bulletin des Muses Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire
BSFE Bulletin de la Socit Franaise d'gyptologie
CAA Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CAE Civilizations of the Ancient ear East
CASAE Cahier, Supplment aux Annales du Service des Antiquits de
l'gypte
CdE Chronique d'gypte
Cnes Funraires G. Daressy,Recueil des cnes funraires, in: MMAF 8, Part 2
CRS Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne
CWS Centre of on-Western Studies
Corpus N. de G. Davies and M.F. Laming Macadam, Corpus of Inscribed
Egyptian Funerary Cones
CRIPEL Cahiers de Recherches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et
d'gyptologie de Lille
DE Discussions in Egyptology
EAZ Ethnographisch-archologische Zeitschrift
EEF Egypt Exploration Fund
EES Egypt Exploration Society
FIFAO Fouilles de l'Institut Franais d'Archologie Orientale du Caire
GM Gttinger Miszellen
HS Hamburger gyptologische Studien
HB Hildesheimer gyptologische Beitrge
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
xvii
JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
JEA The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JES Journal of ear Eastern Studies
JSSEA The Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
KRI K. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions
LAAA Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology
Ld Lexikon der gyptologie
LS Leipziger gyptologische Studien
MS Mncher gyptologische Studien
MU Mnchener gyptologische Untersuchungen
MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts fr gyptische
Altertumskunde in Kairo
MIFAO Mmoires publis par les membres de l'Institut Franais
d'Archologie Orientale du Caire
MMAF Mmoires publis par les membres de la Mission Archologique
Franaise au Caire
MonPiot Fondation Eugne Piot, Monuments et mmoires
MRTO Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian ew
Kingdom
AWG achrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen
OA Oriens Antiquus
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OED Oxford English Dictionary
xviii
Pd Probleme der gyptologie
PM B. Porter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography I.1
PMMA Publications of the metropolitan Museum of Art
PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology
RdE Revue d'gyptologie
RIDA Revue Internationale des droits de lantiquit
RPTMS Robb de Peyster Tytus Memorial Series
RT Recueil de travaux relatifs la philologie et l'archologie
gyptiennes et assyriennes
SAGA Studien zur Archologische und Geschichte Altgyptens
SAK Studien zur altgyptischen Kultur
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
SBL Writings Writings from the Ancient World, Society of Biblical Literature
SHCAE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient ear East
TIP K. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period
TTS Theban Tomb Series
UGA Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunder gyptens
Urk. IV Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums, Abteilung IV, Heft 17-19
VA Varia Aegyptiaca
WB Wrterbuch der gyptischen Sprache
ZS Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache and Altertumskunde
1
Introduction
Attaining Office in the Time of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II

I. Purpose of the research
The organization of the government
1
in ancient Egypt has long been a topic of
interest among scholars from all branches of the discipline of Egyptology. Discussions on
the structure of Egypts administration
2
have ranged from general historical overviews,
3

to the documentation available for a particular period,
4
or reign.
5
Previous scholars have
also focused on the organization and influence of particular areas of administration within
the overall government,
6
or on the development of a particular office over time.
7


1
In his entry for the Oxford Encyclopedia (Vol.3, pp.314-9) on the ancient Egyptian state, Wilkinson
says The structure of the state may be divided for convenience into three broad areas: the king and
members of the royal family; the government of Egypt; and the government of Egypts foreign
possessions (p.316). The entity which is the government of ancient Egypt is generally further subdivided
into state (or central), provincial, religious and military areas of administration. The term government is
thus used here as an overarching term for the entire (internal) system comprising several different units of
administration. The term administration can, however, encompass both the entire system or can refer to
discrete areas within the government, i.e., religious, civil (central and provincial), royal domain and
military, each of which had their own structure and administrative system. My use of this terminology
essentially follows the interpretation of the structure suggested by OConnor in: Social History, pp.204-18
and schematically outlined in Fig. 3.4. See also the entry by Wilkinson cited above; Quirke, in: Oxford
Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.12-16; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Haring, in: Oxford
Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.20-3.
2
See note 1.
3
See, for example, Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-60; Kemp, in: Garnsey and Whittaker, Imperialism, pp.7-57
and 284-297; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-87; Trigger, et al., Social History.
4
Especially significant are the studies of Baer, Rank and Title; Helck, Beamtentiteln; Helck, Verwaltung;
Kanawati, Egyptian Administration; Kanawati, Governmental Reforms; Strudwick, Administration; Quirke,
Administration; Quirke, RdE 37, pp.107-30. See also McDowell, Jurisdiction (concerning Deir el-Medina);
Kadry, Officers and Officials. A list of the principal administrative documents, as well as a succinct
discussion of other types of sources that provide information about the administration of ancient Egypt can
be found in Quirke, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.23-9. Of the twenty-one sources he mentions, two
date to the Old Kingdom, five to the Middle Kingdom, three to the 18
th
Dynasty, ten to the Ramesside
Period, and one to the Third Intermediate Period.
5
These include Bryan, Thutmose IV; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; der Manuelian, Amenophis II;
Murnane, in: Amenhotep III; Schmitz, Amenophis I.
6
Examples include Faulkner, JEA 39, pp.32-47; Gnirs, Militr; Hayes, in: CAH II.1,pp.353-72; Helck,
Einfluss; Kees, Priestertum; Kanawati, Akhmim; Leprohon, JAOS 113, pp.434-6; Schulman, MRTO;
Schulman, in: CAE I, pp.289-301.
2
Common to almost all of these studies is that their descriptions of the
configuration and development of the ancient Egyptian government have focused
primarily on discussing the offices themselves and the duties attached to them, and only
secondarily on the office-holders as they relate to the positions they held.
8
As a result,
officials have essentially been turned into symbols of their office(s), which have been
regarded as paramount. In reality however, ancient Egyptian officials were not
synonymous with their positions. Although a title- and function-based study of the
administration can provide a great deal of information about the organizational
components of the government,
9
it is much less able to contribute to our understanding of
how this structure was maintained or changed over time.
10
Another consequence of this
has been that when the officials are in fact discussed, it is only those who are the most
prominent and most visible. While this may be a factor of the available material, it is still
important to ask the question how did these men become visible? That is, why are they
known to us today and how did they attain a level which allows us to know about them?
11



7
New Kingdom studies include those by Bohleke, Double Granaries; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses
des Amun; Roehrig, Royal urse; van den Boorn, Duties.
8
The most obvious examples of this are Helcks two main works, Beamtentiteln and Verwaltung, and to a
lesser extent his Einfluss. This method has essentially been followed in more recent works on the Old and
Middle Kingdoms, e.g.., Kanawati, Egyptian Administration; Kanawati, Governmental Reforms;
Strudwick, Administration; Quirke, Administration. It is also noticeable in recent tomb publications of the
Archologische Verffentlichungen and Theben series. See also general studies such as those of Edgerton,
JES 6, pp.152-60; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-87; and in Trigger, et al. Social History. Research on
specific areas of the government, especially the military administration, also often takes this approach, e.g..,
Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire; Faulkner, JEA 39, pp.32-47; Schulman, MRTO.
9
Thus Kemp, in: Social History (p.80), states in reference to the paucity of administrative documents from
the Old Kingdom: In their place we must rely heavily on the very numerous titles born by officials.
Likewise Leprohons conclusion that in the New Kingdom From the general lack of midlevel management
administrative titles, it seems as if the administration itself revolved more than ever around the person of
the king. (in: CAE I, pp.283-4).
10
On this issue see, for example, Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.45-53.
11
Baines and Eyre provide an interesting discussion of this from the point of view of literacy levels in
ancient Egypt; Baines and Eyre, GM 61, pp.65-96, esp. pp.65-77. On the topic of the literacy of women in
3
This study takes a rather different approach to examining the structure of ancient
Egypts government than has previously been applied. What follows is a
prosopographical and historical investigation of the officials themselves in order to
ascertain how officials obtained their positions during the transition from the reign of
Thutmosis III to that of his son Amenhotep II, c.1450-1400 B.C.
12
Three questions are
posed. First, what were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office?
Second, what does this tell us about the underlying structure of the government during
this time period? For example, what positions were available to what types of individuals,
were there restrictions based on family or ones relationship to the court or king? Are
there trends that can be seen for particular areas of the government? Third, what do these
patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an officials or familys influence vis--vis the
king in achieving and retaining a position? The originality of this dissertation lies in its
fresh, and in some respects less burdened, approach towards understanding the
underlying framework of Egypts administration.

II. Historical Background
The time frame of this examination is limited to the transition between the sole
reign of Thutmosis III and his son Amenhotep II for specific reasons. The first is that a
central tenet of the present work is that the composition of the government can be better
understood by focusing on the officials themselves, rather than on the titles they held. In
order to answer the questions raised above, each official needs to be examined in great
detail, and a circumscribed time period allows for this more than a broad survey of the

the New Kingdom, see Bryan, BES 6, pp. 17-32.
4
entire 18
th
Dynasty. Second, despite the narrow chronological focus, there is an extremely
rich body of data available within the cultural material belonging to the officials
themselves, specifically information found in tomb and shrine inscriptions and
decorations, statues, stelae, funerary cones and equipment, papyri and graffiti.
13

An important part in choosing this particular portion of the mid-18
th
Dynasty is
that this was a historically significant and dynamic period during which changes in
foreign affairs (i.e., ongoing campaigns in the Near East), as well as domestic
developments, appear to have had a considerable impact on the structure of the
government.
14
Thus, this brief review of the historical events leading up to the sole reign
of Thutmosis III will help to situate the current study.
At the end of Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 B.C.), as the Hyksos were
being driven out of Egypt and the country once again became unified under a single
Egyptian king, Ahmose, founder of the 18
th
Dynasty, began the process of re-
organization.
15
On the military front, this involved a series of campaigns into southern
Palestine designed to drive out the remaining Hyksos, assert Egypts newfound strength,
and solidify Egypts borders with the southern Levant. In addition, campaigns were

12
These two kings reigned during the mid-18
th
Dynasty of the New Kingdom.
13
A quick review of Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography I.1, and Kampp, Die thebanische
ekropole, as well as the numerous monographs, articles and tomb publication that relate to this period,
clearly demonstrates this.
14
The burgeoning of the military and its influence during the New Kingdom in general has been widely
discussed; cf. Faulkner, JEA 39, pp.32-47; Gnirs, Militr; Helck, Einfluss; Sve-Soderbergh, avy;
Schulman, MRTO; Spalinger, Aspects. Most recently, Redford has re-visited foreign activity in the time of
Thutmosis III, while Spalinger has done the same with the New Kingdom military in general; cf. Redford,
Wars; Spalinger, War. On a variety of domestic developments, religious and civil, see, for example,
Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion; Boorn, Duties; Dorman, Senenmut; Dziobek, Denkmler; Gitton, Les
Divines pouses; Robins, in: Images and Women, pp.65-78.
15
Vandersleyen is still the primary work on Ahmose; cf. his monograph Amosis, RdE 19, pp.123-59 and
RdE 20, pp.127-34, and also La valle du il ii. Also relevant are Bietak, Avaris; Lacovara, Deir el-Ballas;
Oren, The Hyksos; Smith and Smith, ZS 103, pp.48-76; Wiener and Allen, JES 57/1, pp.1-28. For recent
and succinct reviews of the period, cf. Bourrieau, in: Oxford History, pp.185-217, esp.210-17; Bryan, in:
Oxford History, pp.218-23; Quirke, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.3, pp.260-5.
5
needed in the south in order to regain control of Lower Nubia and its resources, as well as
defeat the Kushite Kingdom which had risen during the Second Intermediate Period.
16

Domestically, Ahmoses concerns centered on establishing a strong dynastic line, re-
asserting royal control over the northern portion of Egypt (north from Cusae), which had
previously been under the rule of the Hyksos, and developing an administrative
organization to run the newly reunited country. Demonstrating devotion to the god
Amun, the chief god of Thebes and now the national deity, was also an important activity
for the Theban-based kings.
17

The prominent role that the royal women played in this early period is well known
and often discussed by scholars.
18
Ahhoteps apparent governance of Egypt and military
activity during her son Ahmoses minority is attested to on his year 18 Karnak stele.
19

The act of marrying ones (half-)sister was a policy begun by Ahmose whose goal was to
consolidate royal power and stabilize the familys control of the dynastic line.
20
The
Donation stele, also erected in Karnak by Ahmose, records the establishment of the office
Gods Wife of Amun (GWA) by Ahmose on behalf of his wife Ahmose-Nefertari. He
bequeaths the office and its associated holdings to Ahmose-Nefertari and her chosen
successors in perpetuity.
21
The GWA performed specific temple rituals as a priestess,

16
On this topic see most recently Morris, Imperialism, esp. pp.27-30, 38f., 41ff., 56ff.; cf. Kemp, in:
Imperialism, pp. 7-57 and 284-297; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.98-122, 125-55; Weinstein,
BASOR 241, pp.1-10.
17
Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.218ff.
18
Tetishery, grandmother of Ahmose, was honored during his reign, while Ahhotep and Ahmose-Nefertari
were prominent in the reigns of their husbands and sons. See, for example, Bryan, in: Oxford History,
pp.226-30; Eaton-Krauss, Cd 65, pp.195-205; Gitton, Lpouse du dieu; Robins, Wepwawet 2, pp.10-14;
Robins, GM 62, pp. 67-77; Robins, Women, pp.42-52.
19
CGC 34001; cf. Urk. IV, 14-24.
20
Cf. Vandersleyen, Cd 52, pp.234ff.; Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.226ff.
21
On the Donation stela and the office of Gods Wife in general, see Graefe, Gottesgemahlin; Harari, ASAE
56, pp.139-201; Menu, BIFAO 77, 89-100; and the various works by Gitton: Gitton, Les Divines pouses;
Gitton, Lpouse du dieu; Gitton, BSFE 75, pp.31-46; Gitton and Leclant, in: Ld II, cols. 792-812. See
6
which gave her religious power within the cult. In addition, the land holdings attached to
the position meant significant economic power.
22
By placing this office, which had its
own priesthood, land, and endowments, in the hands of the royal women, Ahmose not
only strengthened the link between the national deity and the royal family, but increased
the latters wealth as well.
23

In addition to strengthening the role of kingship, Ahmose was concerned with the
administration of his newly re-unified country. As van den Boorn has shown, the Duties
of the Vizier was composed sometime during the reign of Ahmose, and hence reflects the
administrative organization that he was attempting to establish.
24
According to van den
Boorn, this was to be a less complex, more direct type of government. His (i.e.,
Ahmoses) aim was apparently to establish a powerful and pervasive royal authority
based on an administration with more efficient, personal and direct ties between its
various echelons to transform it into an efficient and more direct system under a
strong and powerful kingship.
25
Van den Boorn suggests that once Ahhotep died,
Ahmose needed to replace this personal and trustworthy assistant, and that instead of
looking to the royal family he began a policy to seek the support of personal delegates
for the enactment of his reorganizations.
26
The establishment of the position Viceroy of
Kush to oversee the governance of Nubia, and the development of the viziers position
with regard to Egypt proper were the two most important officials for this purpose.
27


also Bryan, in: Mistress of House, pp. 31f.; Robins, Women, pp.44ff., 149-56; Robins, in: Images of
Women, pp.64-78.
22
Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.71, 73.
23
Redford, History and Chronology, pp.70ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, p.66.
24
Boorn, Duties, pp.333-76; cf. the review by Lorton, Cd 70, pp.123-132.
25
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.349.
26
Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.347f., 355, 359, 370f.
27
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.355.
7
Van den Boorn interprets the Duties as a reflection of Ahmoses refocusing of the
vizierate to become essentially the main civil office supporting royal government,
28

granting the vizier authority as the director of the royal domain, head of the civil
administration and also making him the kings personal delegate.
29
It is the latter role that
the viziers close relationship with the king emerges, since the activities are those where
the vizier serves as a mediator, representative and spokesman on the kings behalf.
30
The
danger in installing too much power on one individual is of course that the individual will
assert his authority to a degree that becomes dangerous to the kings control. Van den
Boorn states that the daily salutation (and information) ceremony of section 3 of the
Duties demonstrates both Ahmoses concern over this possibility and how the king
remained in command of his extremely powerful vizier.
31
Yet this seems to be
contradicted by the fact that during or shortly after the reign of Ahmose, Aametu and his
two successors, User and Rekhmire, were able to form a vizierate dynasty, in a sense
creating the independent centre of power that Ahmose was attempting to prevent.
32

Van den Boorn resolves this by suggesting that the hereditary nature of the vizierate at
this time, as well as its possible family connection to the other major position, viceroy of
Nubia, may have been a planned policy on the part of the king a re-establishment of
the position of the vizierate of the 13
th
dyn. but now in support of a strong
monarchy.
33


28
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.375.
29
These are van den Boorns three main aspects, which he details in Duties, ch.3, pp.309-31.
30
Van den Boorn, Duties, ch.3.2.3, pp.320ff. with fig.11, and p.355f.
31
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.355.
32
The existence of this family of viziers is not new information, but was noted already by Dunham, JEA
15, pp.164-5 and Davies, Rekh-mi-R' I, p.101-2. See also the discussions by Caminos and James, Silsilah
I, pp.42-52, 57-63 and Helck, Verwaltung, pp.285-98, 433-41. This family is re-visited and discussed at
length in Chapter 1, see pp.74-100
33
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.370f. He in fact credits the family of Aametu with four generations of viziers,
8
Moving ahead to the mid-18
th
Dynasty and the events following the death of
Thutmosis II, Dziobek
34
would certainly agree with van den Boorns statement. The exact
length of Thutmosis IIs reign is uncertain, but it was quite likely short, since he died
when his heir, Thutmosis III, was still a young child.
35
The explanation for how
Hatshepsut was able to assume kingship, rather than remain as regent for her nephew and
stepson, is still not completely understood. Hatshepsuts self-legitimization strategy can
be seen in her Birth and Coronation scenes, which were placed on the walls of her
mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri.
36
Her divine birth as the daughter of the god Amun and
Thutmosis Is wife Ahmose, combined a hereditary claim with a divine right to the
throne. Hatshepsuts presentation, acceptance, and coronation before Amun and the gods
of Egypt, as well as Thutmosis I and the royal court demonstrated that she was the chosen
heir.
37
Although these scenes are extremely interesting for what they impart concerning
how Hatshepsut wished her assumption of royal power to be viewed by her subjects, they
tell us very little about how this was actually effected. Indeed, although Hatshepsut
presents herself as the chosen successor of Thutmosis I,
38
it is clear from other
monuments that this was not, in fact the case.
39

The different theories explaining Hatshepsuts accession were outlined by

the first being an unknown ancestor of Aametu; cf. Duties, pp.368ff.
34
I a referring here to his reconstruction of Users involvement in Hatshepsuts accession; cf. Dziobek,
Denkmler.
35
The only known date is for year one, though Thutmosis II is often credited with up to eleven years. On
this subject are several articles by Gabolde, e.g., SAK 14, 61-87; Karnak 9, 1-82.
36
Featured on the north side of the second colonnade in her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri. Cf. Urk. IV,
215-34, 255-58; BAR 2, 187-213, 215-242
37
This in fact draws upon an example set by her father, Thutmosis I, on his stele at Abydos, wherein the
priests of Osiris proclaim him as born of Osiris. Urk. IV, 94-103; BAR 2, 90-8.
38
Cf. the inscriptions found on the upper terrace of Deir el-Bahri, where there were chapels to both
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis I. Urk. IV, 241-74.
39
Murnane, Coregencies, p.116.
9
Dorman in his monograph on Hatshepsuts steward Senenmut.
40
Most scholars viewed
her as some sort of usurper to the throne, based in large part on the assumption that that
Thutmosis III carried out an immediate defacement of Hatshepsuts monuments, either as
an act of retribution,
41
or out of political necessity.
42
Dorman, however, convincingly
demonstrated that the intentional mutilation did not begin until much later in Thutmosis
IIIs sole reign, c. year 46, thus removing the motivation behind the earlier theories.
43
In
addition, inscriptions such as that from the tomb of Ineni (TT81) seem to indicate that her
assumption of power was fairly gradual.
44
Some scholars have suggested that
Hatshepsuts position as GWA was a prominent factor, or perhaps motivator, in her
ability to assume the throne as co-regent / king.
45
The high level of wealth and influence
that this title carried for both Ahmose-Nefertari and Hatshepsut is suggested by their self-
identification as GWA much more often than the various royal designations kings
daughter, king sister, great royal wife, or kings mother.
46
The extent of this
power is especially visible during Hatshepsuts tenure as gods wife
47
and during her
transition from regent to king, when she passes the title to her daughter Neferure and
links the management of the domain with that of the palace and the temple of Amun.
48


40
Dorman, Senenmut, Ch.1, pp.1-17, esp. pp.10-14.
41
For example, Helck, Verwaltung, p.542; Wilson, Burden,pp.175-7; Hayes, in: CAH II.1, pp.318-19.
42
Thus, Redford, History and Chronology, p.87.
43
Dorman, Senenmut, esp. Ch.3, pp.46-65. though I would mention that Bryan, following van Siclen (GM
79, p.53) has suggested that the late date of the defacement and its continuation b Amenhotep II may
indicate that Thutmosis III initiated it in order to ensure Amenhotep IIs succession to the throne; cf. Bryan,
in: Mistress, p.34 with notes 70-2, in: Oxford History, pp.243f., 248, and in: Amenhotep III, p.31 with note
20.
44
Bryan, Mistress, p.32; BAR 2, 341-42; Urk. IV, 59-61.
45
Thus, Redford, in: History and Chronology, Ch.4, pp.73ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.76ff.
46
Bryan, in: Mistress of House, p.31; Robins, Women, p.43f., 151f.; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.73-6.
47
During the reign of her husband, Thutmosis II, Hatshepsut is visible performing cult activities throughout
Karnak with Neferure behind her. Bryan, Mistress, p.32; Robins, Women, fig.2.
48
As witnessed through the titulary of Senenmut, who serves as steward for all three, and as tutor to
princess Neferure, Hatshepsuts daughter and successor as gods wife. Bryan, Mistress, p.32. Cf.
Dorman, Senenmut, pp.201-11 for a list of Senenmuts titles, these three positions fall on pp.204-6.
10
These actions certainly make it plausible that Hatshepsut may have been able to utilize
her authority as GWA to consolidate a power base and create officials especially loyal to
her.
Although the idea that there were competing factions or parties, some that
were loyal to Hatshepsut and others who sided with the young Thutmosis III, has
generally been discarded,
49
Dziobek has recently revived the concept that there was some
type of bureaucratic involvement in Hatshepsuts rise.
50
According to Dziobek, faced
with a young child (Thutmosis III) as the king upon the death of Thutmosis II and a
potential crisis, the highest officials of the time came together and made a state
decision for the benefit of the entire country. Fearful of lengthy queen-regency and not
wishing to bring in a non-royal as Hatshepsuts new husband and co-regent for
Thutmosis III, these officials opted to install Hatshepsut herself as pharaoh. This
cabinet included men such as the vizier User, herald Intef, treasurer Djhuty, overseer of
granaries Minnakht, and steward Senenmut.
51
Dziobek believes that the late date of
Hatshepsuts proscription, as well as the fact that several of her officials, and also their
descendants, continue to serve under Thutmosis III, indicates that Hatshepsut was not a
usurper to throne. Rather, it further supports the idea that they helped to orchestrate
Hatshepsuts rise only out of necessity, and also ensured a smooth transition from the
regency of Thutmosis III to the co-regency with Hatshepsut and back again to his

49
Thus Redford, who is careful to distinguish his own theories from those of, for example, Hayes (CAH
II.1, pp.318-9). Cf. Redford, History and Chronology, Ch.4, p.57-87, esp. pp.62-5, 77. See on this issue
also Dorman, Senenmut, pp.10-14.
50
Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.134-6 and Denkmler, pp.131-48. Unless otherwise
noted, the statements made in the following paragraph all refer back to these pages.
51
The discussion of these men can be found in Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.132-4 and
Denkmler, pp.132-43. User and Minnkaht are included in the corpus of officials used in the present study.
See Ch.1, pp.79-87 and 121-32, respectively.
11
regency. For Dziobek, the implication is that Thutmosis III already had a well-established
elite formed at the court when the co-regency ended and Thutmosis III began his 32 years
of sole rule.
Much of the preceding discussion has focused on providing a brief review of
opinions concerning domestic developments within Egypt prior to the sole reign for
Thutmosis III. Yet, another important aspect of this time period was the military
activities. It has long been recognized that the expulsion of the Hyksos ushered Egypt
into a new phase militarily.
52
Generally referred to as Egypts Imperialistic Age, the
kings who were most involved in expanding Egypts influence over portions of Syria-
Palestine were Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III, and while essentially every pharaoh
campaigned in Nubia, it was Thutmosis I who finally removed the Kushite threat.
53
It is
also important to mention that certainly prior to the sole reign of Thutmosis III, and most
likely for some time thereafter, the evidence for a clear Egyptian presence, in the form of
garrison-towns and troops, in Syria is minimal, though the opposite was probably true for
the region of Gaza.
54
This is quite different from the Egyptian presence in Nubia, which
immediately resulted in the refurbishment of Middle Kingdom fortresses, and erection of

52
See the literature cited in notes 14-15 above. However, it should be noted that more recently Redford has
taken the view with regard to Syria-Palestine that prior to year 22 of Thutmosis III, i.e., the beginning of his
sole reign, the extent of Egyptian involvement in the early 18
th
Dynasty was modest and in many respects
traditional. Redford, Wars, p.185.
53
Kemp, in: Imperialism, pp. 7-57 and 284-297; Morris, Imperialism, pp.30ff., 48ff., 68ff., 115-29;
Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.148-62; Redford, Wars, pp.185-94.
54
Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.192-213; Redford, Wars, pp.185-94, 255-7; Morris, Imperialism,
Ch.2 pp.38ff., 136ff.; Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, pp.251-8. In Syria, this in fact does not clearly occur
until the Ramesside Period, or perhaps late 18
th
Dynasty around the reign of Horemheb; cf. Redford, Egypt,
Canaan and Israel, pp.203-7; Morris, Imperialism, pp.268ff., 339-42. However, Morris (pers. comm.) also
argues for a larger Egyptian presence in Syria-Palestine than is usually assumed during the reign of
Thutmosis III. She bases this in large part on the Horemheb Decree, interpreting his repeal of the practice
of garrisoning and providing for troops up and down the Nile River during the reign of Thutmosis III as
applying to foreign policy as well. For a recent translation of the text, see Murnane, Texts, pp.235-40, the
relevant section is on p.237f.
12
new temples and associated towns.
55

In general the campaigns of Thutmosis I into northern Syria have been viewed as
little more than skirmishes and a hunting expedition in Niye.
56
However, Redford has
taken a different approach. He characterizes Thutmosis Is expedition to the Orontes
River and northern Syria as a resuscitation (if not an outright innovation) of a concept of
military confrontation which involves something more than a mere razzia or punitive
attack.
57
Whether due to Thutmosis Is premature death, as Redford would interpret, or
because Thutmosis Is campaign still accomplished little more than a raid, there is little
doubt that it was not until after year 22 of Thutmosis III that the Egyptians could be said
to be in any way in control of large portions of Syria-Palestine.
58

Almost immediately upon starting his (second) regency in year 21, Thutmosis III
began a program of constant military activity that lasted throughout most of his thirty-two
years of sole rule.
59
Of all the pharaohs of the early to mid-18
th
Dynasty, Thutmosis III
was the most prolific in acquiring and retaining control of territory throughout the Near
East.
60
This new era of expansion necessitated a larger and more organized army than
Egypt had ever had, resulting in what Helck described as homines novi taken from out of
the military and placed in civil and court positions.
61
Helck also suggested that despite

55
Kemp, in: Imperialism, pp. 21-57 and 284-297; Morris, Imperialism, pp.68ff., 180ff.; OConnor, in:
Social History, pp.255ff.
56
For example, Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.234.
57
Redford, Wars, p.186.
58
As Redford strongly states; cf. Redford, Wars, p.193f., pp.255-7.
59
Morris, Imperialism, pp.115ff.; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.155ff.; Redford, Wars, esp.
pp.191ff.; Weinstein, BASOR 241, pp.10-15.
60
Redford provides the most recent, and excellent, discussion of Thutmosis IIIs campaigns, the changing
nature of the relationship between Egypt, Syria-Palestine and the contemporary Near Eastern powers, and
comments of Thutmosis IIIs administration of the areas under Egypts sway; cf. Redford, Wars.
61
Most recently Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.247. Helck was the first to undertake a study of the
development and changes within the military during the 18
th
Dynasty, and his conclusions have essentially
been followed; cf. Helck, Einfluss, esp. pp.34ff.
13
the stronger military presence, during Thutmosis IIIs reign the top administrative
officials were primarily promoted up out of the priestly ranks, especially those of the
Amun temple at Karnak.
62
Furthermore, he asserted that familial connections were
important to determining who was granted high civil office.
63
Dziobek seems to have
affirmed this idea to some extent, suggesting that the elites paid increasing attention to
the continuation of their own families positions of power during this period.
64
More
recently, it has been suggested that although Thutmosis III had the established elite at his
disposal, to some degree he also made use of the men who accompanied him on his
campaigns.
65
Underlying all of these explanations is still the assumption that a division
existed between the established and the so-called new class of military elite in terms of
what types of offices they could hold. Thus, it is generally assumed that the highest
positions, such as vizier and overseer of the seal, were still reserved for men from
established families, while military officials could have court connections, but were not
involved in the administration of the palace per se.
66

Since the time of Helcks Verwaltung,
67
the view has been that the accession of
Amenhotep II in many respects revolutionized the makeup of the court. Helck argued that
there was an entirely clean break between the governments of Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II, in which Amenhotep II eschewed the elite families of his father in favor of
childhood friends who were sons of his nurses, and children of the court.
68
He also

62
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
63
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
64
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.147.
65
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
66
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; cf. Helck, Einfluss, pp.33, 41ff., 71f.
67
Helck, W., Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs (Probleme der gyptologie 3), Leiden-Koln:
E.J. Brill, 1958. This massive volume, published in 1958, is still considered the standard work for the
period, despite the fact that it is largely out of date.
68
Helck, Verwaltung, pp. 537-8; Helck, Einfluss, pp.35-6, n.1, 66-71.
14
concluded that men who served in the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II, and became civil officials following their soldierly exploits, were the
benefactors of similar royal favor, and that they strove to conceal their military origins.
69

Der Manuelians work on the reign of Amenhotep II led him to the conclusion that
several military officials who began under the reign of Thutmosis III were kept on by
Amenhotep II because he recognized their worth and experience.
70
However he also
concurred with Helck that Amenhotep II had a newly initiated policy of surrounding
himself primarily with officials he had grown up with and knew personally.
71

The foregoing review has attempted to bring out the complexities of the situation
leading up to and, to some extent, during the period of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign to the
early years of Amenhotep II. The various conclusions that have been made about the
nature of the administration during this period, and how officials acquired and retained
their positions are precisely those that are being challenged in the current study.

III. Prosopographical Studies
As a study of both an individuals life and career, prosopography is an historical
inquiry that should encompass both genealogical and biographical research. However,
many prosopographical studies seem either to concentrate on only one of these, while the
second is afforded little or no serious attention, or to treat them as essentially separate
entities. This naturally results in a rather one-sided discussion, with the focus often on the
titles that pertain to an area of administration, and a lengthy list of officials appended to

69
Helck, Einfluss, p.71-3.
70
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p. 168.
71
Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p. 168.
15
the larger work.
72
A main goal of this dissertation is to reintegrate the different types of
information such that the career and family of each official can be presented as fully as
possible. This will make it possible to more clearly define the means by which officials
obtained office and begin to answer questions concerning the composition of the
government and possible tensions between well-placed families and the king.
Although the current examination represents a divergence from more traditional
prosopographical studies, it nonetheless draws upon the methodologies developed by this
earlier work. Thus, a review of some of these, especially those that deal with the New
Kingdom, is necessary. Since Helcks Verwaltung
73
is still considered the standard work
on the subject of the New Kingdom administrative structure, it will be examined first.
Following this is a discussion of more recent approaches, such as those of Bierbrier,
Kitchen, and Davies.
74

Helcks monumental Verwaltung in many ways set the tone for subsequent
discussions of the administration and the officials who formed it. The Verwaltung is
divided up into chapters that clearly demonstrate that although it is a book about the
administration of the Middle and New Kingdoms, it deals with selective portions of the
administration. Helck examines what are generally perceived as the main areas of

72
The classic example is Helcks Verwaltung. In a similar vein see also Chevereau, Prosopographie du
ouvel Empire; Englemann, ZS 122, pp.104-137; Gratien, Prosopograhie des ubiens; Kees,
Priestertum; Kees, Hohenpriester; Schulman, MRTO; Strudwick, Administration. Even the
prosopographical studies on which my own methodology is modeled follow this model to some extent; cf.
Davies, Whos who; Vittmann, Priester und Beamte. It is also a common method of presenting the officials
in a lager study on a particular kings reign, although in his case the abbreviated treatment is quite
understandable; cf. Bryan, Thutmose IV; der Manuelian, Amenophis II.
73
Helck, W., Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs (Probleme der gyptologie 3), Leiden-Koln:
E.J. Brill, 1958. In addition, Helck deals with New Kingdom involvement in the Near East, the military in
the 18
th
Dynasty, and New Kingdom temple economy, respectively, in his monographs Beziehungen
gyptens, Einfluss and Materialien. Likewise, his Beamtentiteln is still a major resource for Old Kingdom
research.
74
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, pp.1-7; Davies, Whos Who; Kitchen, TIP.
16
administration, i.e., vizierate, treasury, palace and land.
75
Within each section he presents
a discussion of the titles, focusing on how they are defined, and the functions attached to
them.
76
Helck uses the titles to discuss the positions themselves, bringing in the officials
who held them when documenting inscriptions that demonstrate the variations in the
titles, or what duties were attached to it. In the few cases in which Helck includes the
people who held these offices in his analysis of the positions, the resulting discussion is
essentially chronological and without much additional information about the officials or
their families.
77

Helcks prosopographical notes on particular offices and the officials who held
them are a telling example of what are often considered the most important offices, and
generally the most discussed.
78
In the Verwaltung, the positions of vizier, treasurer, high
steward, overseer of granaries, overseer of the treasury, and mayor of Thebes are all
treated, despite the fact that the earlier portions of the Verwaltung in fact cover several
other areas and titles within the government. Helck also included a chapter providing
basic genealogical information for the officials treated in the prosopography. This method
of dividing the discussion and presenting a prosopography based foremost on titles has
since become the standard in the scholarly literature that deals with overall studies of the
government, the administration during a particular kings reign, and investigations on the
development of an area of administration or specific title over time.
79


75
Noticeably left out due to their treatment elsewhere, are the military (cf. Helck, Einfluss) and priesthood
(cf. Kees, Priestertum).
76
Helck, Verwaltung, Chapters 1-20, pp.1-285.
77
I.e., mayor (HAty-a), butler (wbA), fan-bearer and standard-bearer (TAy xw, TAy srit)
78
Helck, Verwaltung, Chapters 21-22.
79
See the literature cited in notes 3-6 above.
17
In the summary that completes the volume,
80
Helck makes several sweeping
conclusions about the evolution of New Kingdom administration. Some have been borne
out by subsequent studies,
81
while others have been modified.
82
A suggestion made by
Helck that is especially significant for the current study is one that has essentially been
accepted and integrated into following discussions about New Kingdom government.
This is Helcks conclusion that there is a sharp break between the administrations of
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.
83
He posited that up through the reign of Thutmosis III
administrative officials were primarily promoted up out of the priestly ranks, family
retention of position was not unusual, and officials that did not come from an established
family were uncommon. In contrast, Amenhotep II surrounded himself with boyhood
friends from the court who thus had personal relationships with their king. The theory
that at this time there was an introduction of new men into an established system has had
a great impact on all studies that came after Helck, and while some have admitted that
Helcks characterization is probably too simplistic, none have yet offered alternatives.
84

Similar conclusions that have come from Helcks volume on military influence during the
18
th
Dynasty,
85
include the theory that military officials came from a lower social strata,
could not pass on their positions, and are not found in ranks outside the military later in

80
Chapter 23, pp.532-47.
81
For example, Helcks remark that a reorganization of the administration was undertaken following the
expulsion with the Hyksos that included the creation of the office kings son of Nubia. Cf. Helck,
Verwaltung, p.537. In confirmation of this, see, for example van den Boorns comments in Duties,
pp.339ff. (obs.19), 349f., 368ff.
82
Such as Helcks assumption that the growth of the military during Thutmosis IIIs sole rule was in part
due to a reaction against the passive reign of Hatshepsut; cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.537.
83
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
84
The simplicity of Helcks statements has, to some extent, already been pointed out, though no
alternatives have yet been offered; cf. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.168 (who nonetheless essentially
follows Helck), and to a greater degree by Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.353 ff.; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III,
forthcoming.
85
Helck, Der Einfluss der Militrfhrer in der 18. gyptischen Dynastie, (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
18
life, while the so-called front soldiers moved into court and palace positions and hid
their military backgrounds.
86

Since the Verwaltungs publication in 1958 a significant amount of new material
has come to light through excavation, publication, and new research, all of which makes
Helcks work in need of re-assessment and revision.
87
Other scholars have taken this on
for particular offices, but none have yet attempted a wider-scale project for the New
Kingdom that encompasses multiple offices and officials.
88
A main goal of this study is
to reevaluate and re-examine the trends and changes that Helck suggested occurred
during the Thutmosis III Amenhotep II period. Although the system of government
may appear to be working along a particular line on the surface, by focusing on the
officials themselves, and utilizing a multi-dimensional examination that studies how
officials attained their positions, as well as their overall careers and their families,
nuances are more likely to be noticed that provide insights into the underlying framework
of job acquisition and the bureaucracy.
Although Helcks Verwaltung is the most relevant work to the present effort in
terms of time period and subject matter, there are other, more recent, prosopographical
studies whose methodologies are much closer to that being employed here. They each
follow the approach that the ability to draw historical conclusions from prosopographical
research relies on extensive genealogies, an understanding of the kinship terminology,

und Altertumskunder gyptens 14), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1939.
86
Helck, Einfluss, pp.28-33, 71-3.
87
Warbuton comments that the work is out of the[sic] date and based on speculative interpretations about
the character of the Egyptian state and the degree to which conclusions can be drawn from titles.
Warbuton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.3, p.583. Likewise, in a recent study on New Kingdom Memphis,
Martin has again drawn attention to the lack of a comprehensive New Kingdom prosopography for the
whole country. Martin, in: Abusir and Saqqara, pp. 102-3. See also his n.19 for a list of some publications
which have produced prosopographical information for the New Kingdom.
88
For example, Bohleke, Double Granaries; Bryan, ARCE 1981; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des
19
and connections between private individuals and known historical figures through which
to establish a firm chronology.
89
Several of the more germane include those by
Vittmann, Kitchen, Bierbrier, and Davies. These will now be reviewed.
Vittmann undertook a genealogical and prosopographical study of priestly and
civil officials in Saite period Thebes.
90
He states in his introduction that while he had
intended to include all officials from the Saite Period, he was restricted to focusing on
Theban-based individuals due to the genealogical information available.
91
Further, the
methodology Vittmann followed allowed for the presentation of only those officials for
which extensive genealogical information was known, except in cases where their
inclusion was necessary for chronological purposes of tracing the particular office
through the Saite Period.
92
Thus, he omitted persons who were mentioned perhaps only
once with an obscure title and no filiation.
93
Vittmanns criteria still allowed him to
examine not just the highest office holders, such as viziers and high priests, but several
lower level families as well. The results of his investigation primarily concern
establishing genealogies of the various officials he was able to document. However, it
also produced important socio-historical information about the relationship between these
officials and the royal line from Osorkon II through Takelot III.
94
In addition, Vittmann
was able to demonstrate the ability of these Theban families to retain their titles, both
priestly and mayoral, though several generations.

Amun; Gnirs, Militr; van de Boorn, Duties.
89
Most explicitly stated by Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, p.1; Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.xiii-xvi.
90
Vittmann, G. Priester und Beamte im Theben der Sptzeit. Genealogische und prosopographische
Untersuchungen zum thebanischen Priester- und Beamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie. Beitrge zur
gyptologie 1 Wien: Afro-Pub, 1978.
91
Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.1.
92
Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, pp.2-3.
93
Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.2.
94
Though, as Bierbrier notes in his review, Vittmann also tended to treat each family grouping in isolation
20
Kitchens work on the Third Intermediate Period (1100-650 B.C.) is one of the
most important studies on this difficult phase of Egyptian history.
95
He examined the
royal families, as well as the elite officials and families that were connected with them, or
represented the beginnings of other royal lines. The often confusing and overlapping
nature of the families and rulers present during this time, as well as the often concomitant
dynasties based in different cites or areas of Egypt, made Kitchens task enormously
complex. Especially important for his study were the high priests of Ptah in Memphis, the
Theban high priests of Amun, and other high-ranking dignitaries from Thebes and
Heracleopolis. For the Theban high priests of Amun and for the some of the Tanite kings
in the 21
st
Dynasty, much of the information on family relationships came from the
women involved. Kitchen was able to establish a relative chronology through his
reconstruction of the family lines, as well as the lines of succession in the offices held by
the families. By combining this relative chronology with the few absolute dates known
for some of the kings and elites, Kitchen was able to produce a much clearer version of
events for the Third Intermediate Period in terms of actual regnal lengths and the roles
that kings and various important officials (and their wives) played during this period.
96

His collection and use of the massive amount of material he gathered thus enabled him to
reconstruct the basic chronology of the 21st-25th Dynasties, and therewith to present an
historical outline.
97

Bierbriers studies
98
of some of the families represented in the Late New

rather than to construct an integrated schema. Bierbrier, BiOr 36, pp.306-9 with Table 1.
95
Kitchen, K.A., The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 110 - 650 B.C., Warminster: Aris & Phillips,
1986.
96
Kitchen, TIP, esp. Part I, Part III, Part IV.
97
Kitchen, TIP, p.xi.
98
Bierbrier, M.L. Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Medna, JEA 66 (1980), pp. 100-107; Bierbrier, M.L.
21
Kingdom at Deir el-Medina was undertaken to determine more exactly the possible
maximum lengths of some of the reigns in this period [Dynasties 19-26] and to illuminate
certain historical trends with regard to the priestly class.
99
The detailing of numerous
family histories for both the noblemen of Dynasties 19-25 and the workmen of Deir el-
Medina allowed Bierbrier to comment on two essentially different but equally important
broader issues: the accession of Ramesses II and the method of succession to office
during the Ramesside and early Third Intermediate Period.
Based on these histories, Bierbrier was able to contribute a generational timetable
to the period between Ramesses II and XI, allowing him to make significant contributions
to the discussion on the accession of Ramesses II.
100
In addition, he was able to
demonstrate that high offices during the Ramesside Period were essentially hereditary.
While occasionally these families fell out of power, they almost always regained their
standing within the given career at a later point, often through marriage. Moreover, these
positions were remembered down the line as later relatives claimed the right to be
installed in a particular office based on their family.
101
In his study of the workmen,
Bierbrier concludes that the hereditary method of succession did not stop with the
nobility, but also made its way into the lower levels of society, as demonstrated by the
position of chief workman on the right and left, which were each passed down through

The Late ew Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300-664 B.C.): a genealogical and chronological investigation,
Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1975; Bierbrier, M.L. Genealogy and Chronology: Theory and Practice, in:
R.J. Demare and A. Egberts (eds.), Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium "Texts from Deir el-
Medna and Their Interpretation", Leiden, May 31-June 1, 1991 (CNWS 13), Leiden: Centre of Non-
Western Studies, 1992, pp.1-7.
99
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.xii.
100
Bierbriers findings enable him to discard the 1304 date, while lending further support to the 1279, and
1290 dates for Ramesses IIs accession; cf. Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp. 109-113.
101
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.1-18, 113-14.
22
multiple generations, and had connections with the office of deputy.
102

Bierbriers work clearly shows that when family and titular histories are examined
in conjunction, they become a valuable asset for investigating the bureaucratic system, as
well as providing further information on the amount of time that elapses between reigns
and even dynasties. Indeed, as Bierbrier states in his conclusion to The Late ew
Kingdom,
Apart from chronological information, the study of the careers of
individuals and families reveals certain interesting data about the officials
and the descent of offices in the late New Kingdom.
103


Davies prosopographical study on the numerous families of workmen known
from Deir el-Medina was aimed at examining the pedigrees of the major families from
the village of Deir el-Medina.
104
He was able to demonstrate that these offices were also
largely hereditary in nature, and extremely intertwined among the various families. As a
result, a much clearer picture was gained of the successions of the office holders, and
their functions.
105
Davies was also able to connect several officials and families with the
reigns of particular kings, providing better chronological information on the Late New
Kingdom.
106

The foregoing review of previous proposopographical work demonstrates that the
current study is not without scholarly predecessors. Although I am adapting the
methodologies developed and employed in the work of Bierbrier, Kitchen and others, a

102
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.19-44, pp. 113-116.
103
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.113. Vittmann also found this to be the case, as for example in the case
of the overseer of the gods wife, where it became apparent that sons of apparently low ranking officials
were able to attain this rather upper level position, perhaps due to royal favor; cf. Vittmann, Priester und
Beamte, p.202.
104
Davies, Whos Who, p.xxiii.
105
This is especially true in the case of the scribal families; cf. Davies, Whos Who, Appendix A, pp.123-
23
fundamental basis for the research remains Bierbriers assertion that the ability to draw
historical conclusions from prosopographical investigation depends on the ability to
establish firm genealogies and chronological connections that connect the families with
known historical figures.
107
I am adding to this the assertion that in order to contribute
significantly to our socio-historical knowledge of ancient Egypt, the careers of the
officials examined must be considered in tandem with their family backgrounds. Linking
together these three topics will, it is believed, enable us not just to ask but also to answer
questions revolving around how offices were transmitted before, during, and after the
transition between kings.

IV. Methodology
Despite the narrow chronological period being studied, there is an extremely rich
body of data available within the cultural material belonging to the officials themselves,
specifically information found in tomb and shrine inscriptions and decorations, statues,
stelae, funerary cones and equipment, papyri and graffiti. While collecting and examining
this data, the titular, autobiographical and genealogical information contained within
these sources was always of primary interest. The quantity and clarity of these three types
of information helped to determine which officials to include for examination in this
dissertation. It must also be stated that the Theban tombs, which represent a significant
percentage of the overall data sources, were often unfinished in antiquity and are today in
varying states of preservation. This is a limitation of the data that is unavoidable and has
the result that in some cases our knowledge of an officials family and career would be

142.
24
substantially increased had the tomb autobiography or duty-related scenes been extant or
less damaged.
The original data set that was compiled contains every official known or thought
to have served during the Thutmosis III Amenhotep II period, and the list generated
includes over 100 individuals.
108
Each official was initially given the same treatment,
wherein all the available information about an official was collected. As mentioned
above, the material comes from both monumental and portable artifacts. The collection of
the data involved not only textual documentation, but also required particular attention to
the way in which these texts were displayed, namely, the associated and supplementary
decoration in tomb scenes, and the type and placement of other inscribed artifacts within
tomb, temple or secondary chapel. For Theban tombs, which the majority of the
examined officials owned, an eight-month field season was undertaken in order to
investigate and record the many that are unpublished or inadequately published, and to
check the published documents against what is visible on the walls today.
109

Once the materials were collected, they were examined for their genealogical,
titular, and autobiographical content. The assumption was made that, in order to discuss
an official in terms of how he started, progressed and ended his career, a sufficient

106
This appears throughout his discussion, but see esp. Appendix A, pp.123-142.
107
Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, p.1-2.
108
Where an official could not be dated precisely by the presence of a cartouche on one or more of his
monuments, stylistic criteria and inscriptional evidence was used. Studies that were consulted with regard
to the dating of the tombs, one of the major sources of information, include Dziobek, Datierungsmethode;
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole; Shedid, Stil der Grabmalereien. The inscriptional evidence refers to
particular epithets that were employed during this period to indicate an officials participation on the
military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, such as one relating to the legs of the lord of the
two lands and follower of the king on his marches.
109
Preliminary fieldwork was carried out in May 2000 and February 2001, which was supported in part by
The Department of Near Eastern Studies, The Johns Hopkins University and by the Explorers Club
Foundation in the form of a Field Research Grant, awarded in May 2000. The majority of the fieldwork
was undertaken between February and September of 2002 and was funded by the American Research
25
amount of information must be present on and retrievable from his monuments. This
follows established methods of prosopographical research, discussed above, which rely
on familial and chronological connections to make historically relevant conclusions.
110

Several criteria were established to decide if enough data existed and these were
applied equally to all officials regardless of the types of monuments that were available
for study. Ownership of a tomb did not lead to automatic inclusion, despite the fact that in
general we can equate a tomb with an indication of the recognized (upper) status of the
individual who owned it.
111
Likewise, an extensive number of monuments did not
necessarily lead to an officials final presence in the corpus. The essential qualifying
criterion for being placed in the selected list was that at least one monument needed to
include some combination of titular, autobiographical and genealogical information.
Because the goal of the present study is to produce more than simply a list of officials
who held positions during the time frame being examined, men who would simply fill
out the chronological aspects are not used in the present discussion. The decisive factors
that led to an officials inclusion or exclusion in this dissertation are perhaps best
presented in list form:
1) An official for whom extensive titular, career and genealogical material was
available was automatically included.
2) If there was no information about an officials family, either ancestors or

Center in Egypt (ARCE) in the form of a USBECA Fellowship, awarded in May 2001. Full inscriptional
and photographic documentation was carried out in each tomb.
110
Especially relevant are Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Kitchen, TIP.
111
This is based on the fact that the ability to have a tomb built and decorated indicated that the owner was
recognized by the king as an upper level or honored man of status. For several excellent discussions dealing
with the planning of the Theban Necropolis and the possible correlation between status and tomb
placement, see J. Assmann (ed.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen and N. Strudwick (ed.), Theban
ecropolis.
26
descendants,
112
the official held only one title, and no career information could be
gleaned from tomb scenes or other inscriptions, he was automatically excluded.
3) If a single-titled official had familial information which would permit a
suggestion either as to how he obtained his position, or how his status was influential for
his children, then he was included. If there was autobiographical information that allowed
for comments to be made about how positions were achieved despite the lack of
knowledge about any family connection to the beginning or furthering of the career, then
the official was included. Likewise, if the genealogical data allowed for commentary on
the officials career despite the lack of autobiographical details, he was included.
4) An official who held more than one title, but for whom there was no context in
which to trace the progression of the career, and who lacked any familial information was
excluded.
The resulting selection reduced the number of officials to a little less than half the
original number, but did not limit the discussion to only those uppermost officials
whom scholars have extensively discussed. Rather, a cross-section of the government
could be examined that incorporated men from multiple levels (i.e., servant (sDm-as) to
vizier) of all areas of the administration (palace, religious, military and civil). The ability
to present such a broad spectrum was an initial concern of the project, because it was not
at first clear whether there would be sufficient material to talk about a 3rd priest of Amun
in the same way as there was for the vizier. Fortunately, this is not the case, and thus it is
not a factor of the available evidence that has led to previous scholars concentrating on

112
Simply knowing the names of family members is not sufficient, titles must also be available for one or
more relatives which can be related in a significant way to that of the official being examined. Likewise full
genealogical information without any preserved titles would have resulted in automatic exclusion had this
been encountered.
27
the highest levels of office.
113


V. Data Analysis
Two components of the data that are especially important to this study are the
titular and genealogical information contained within the collected material. The passage
of titles provides a means of tracing a familys control over an office or position.
However, ancient Egyptians held different types of titles, only some of which actually
had responsibilities attached to them. In order to determine the relationships between
officials and the various people they chose to portray on their monuments, it is necessary
to understand how ancient Egyptians defined their relationships to each other. The
following section discusses the use of the terms office and title in this study and
presents a review of the research that has been done on ancient Egyptian kinship
terminology.
Following Quirke, an office is understood as a position to which regular duties
and functions were attached.
114
The means for tracing the passage of an office and the
progression of a career is through the titles by which an office is called, e.g., vizier,
overseer of the granaries, soldier. Therefore, title becomes essentially interchangeable
with office, and is used as such throughout the dissertation. An important feature of this
dissertation is that the offices/titles that are included are entirely dependent upon the
information available about the men who held them. A further distinction should be made

113
In the case of the priesthood, the work of Kees had long ago shown that it was at least possible to
investigate the lower echelons as well; cf. Kees, Priestertum and ZS 85, pp. 45-56; and more recently
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun. This is also to some degree true for the military; cf. Helck,
Einfluss; Schulman, MRTO; Gnirs, Militr.
114
According to Quirke, the administrative title is the official expression of tasks undertaken on a
regular basis by a person, which is recognizable from its use, in more than one source, as a single
28
between those titles which are markers of status, and those which are indicators of
positions with actual duties.
115
An honorific title is one that was granted as symbol of
rank or in recognition of service, but which entailed no tangible responsibilities on the
part of the bearer. Epithets are generally understood as descriptive phrases, which can
relate either to status or to functions in a particular office.
116
During the New Kingdom an
official would list his titles in order from rank to function, thus those placed at the
beginning are generally standard honorifics that almost every official would have held.
117

Next are epithets and finally titles, though these two categories could sometimes be
interwoven such that an epithet might describe the title it precedes or follows. Thus, the
titles were positioned in a specific order, with the most prestigious generally found
closest to the officials name. One exception to this rule is that honorific titles which
denote a particularly close relationship to the king could also occur closer, or even
adjacent, to the officials name.
118

The study of the kinship structure and terminology of ancient Egypt has been
sporadic within the field of Egyptology, and has not received significant attention by
anthropologists. Extensive work on the kinship structure and terminology has been done

element identifying a person in addition to the name; cf. Quirke, in: Studies Simpson, p.670-1.
115
This dissertation generally follows the work of Quirke in distinguishing an epithet or honorific from a
proper title; cf. Quirke, in: Studies Simpson, pp. 665-677. Another source frequently consulted in this
regard was Guksch, Knigsdienst. A useful study on epithets of the Middle Kingdom that is often
applicable to the New Kingdom is Doxey, Epithets. For autobiographies and its development as a genre,
see Lichtheim, Maat; Loprieno, in: History and Forms, pp. 39-58, esp.43-9(para.5-6), 51-2 (para.8); Gnirs
in: History and Forms, pp.191-242.
116
Though as Quirke points out, epithets can sometimes be used as titles and titles turned into epithets
through the addition of adjectives; cf. Quirke, in: Studies Simpson, pp.670ff.
117
Helck, Ld VI, cols.596-601.
118
This is especially true of the title Xrd n kAp child of the court, the interpretation of which is poorly
understood. Feucht, Das Kind, pp.266-304; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-47; Bryan, in: Thutmosis
III, forthcoming.
29
only for the Middle Kingdom,
119
and to a lesser extent the Ramesside period.
120

Unfortunately, the New Kingdom as a whole has not been comprehensively studied,
121

nor is it appropriate in the context of this dissertation to do so.
122
Nonetheless, given the
overall summary nature of ancient Egyptian kinship terms and their subsequently wide
range of meaning, a few comments are necessary. For ease of reference a chart that
summarizes the findings of the major treatments of the topic can be found at the end of
the book (Fig.1, p.457).
123

In general, the vocabulary the ancient Egyptians employed to denote kinship was
restricted to the simplest modes of expressing filiation: father (it), mother (mwt), brother
(sn), sister (snt), son (sA), daughter (sAt), husband (hAy), and wife (Hmt).
124
In order to
convey a further degree of relationship, for example nephew, a combination of terms was
often used, such as sA n snt.i son of my sister. In addition, during the mid-18
th
Dynasty
a shift begins in which the word for sister (snt) becomes used instead of Hmt to denote a

119
Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen; Franke, Ld VI, cols. 1032-36; Lustig, Ideologies; Robins,
Cd54, pp. 197-217; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68.
120
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.100-7. See also the work of Toivari-Viitala on the
status and roles of women at Deir el-Medina; cf. Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina.
121
This is the case despite the work of Sheila Whale on the representation of the family in the private tombs
of the 18
th
Dynasty; cf. Whale, Family. In her brief treatment of kinship terminology (pp.239-40) Whale
essentially reiterates Frankes work on the Middle Kingdom, and thus adds little to the discussion of
kinship terminology employed in the New Kingdom.
122
In preparation of the short discussion that follows a much longer document was initially prepared.
123
This table is a compilation of several different studies on the subject of ancient Egyptian kinship
terminology. For discussions of ancient Egyptian kinship terminology see, Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.100-107;
Clre, Comptes rendus 6, pp.35-36; Cerny, in: Studi Calderini, pp.51-5; Franke,
Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen; Franke, Ld VI, cols. 1032-36; Lustig, Ideologies; Robins, Cd 54,
pp.197-217; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68; Matthieu, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3/49, pp.45-75.
Articles on filiation include Berlev, Palestinskii Sbornik 9/72, pp.13-42; Sethe, ZS 49, pp.95-9;Vernus,
RdE 23, pp.193-9; those on terms for in-laws include Englebach, ASAE 22, pp.124-38; Fischer, in:
Egyptian Studies I, pp.19-21; Roquet, BIFAO 77, pp.119-27; Smith, JEA 44, p.122; Ward, ZS 95, pp.65-
72; other articles of interest are those of Legrain, RT 31, pp.1-10; Matthieu, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3/49,
pp.45-75; Piehl, Sphinx 3, pp.1-6.
124
Clre, Comptes rendus 6, pp. 35-36. In addition, the word for child could be expressed in a number of
ways, including Xrd (Middle New Kingdoms), Sri(t) in the Late Egyptian stage of the language, and
Hwn(t) (Ptolemaic Period and sporadically in the New Kingdom); cf. MacDonald, BACE 5, pp.53-9.
30
mans wife.
125
Lineage could be specified by either a descriptive or factual formula. The
first indicates that a person is born to (ir n) his father and born of (ms n) his mother, while
in the New Kingdom the latter is a simple A, son (sA) of B statement that can be
repeated until the desired ancestor is reached.
126

Gay Robins examined both the simple and compound (made up of two or
more basic terms) uses of the basic kinship terms and found that in most cases only the
basic terms are used, while the more complicated forms are rarely attested. Instead, the
reference point is altered (i.e., from Ego to Egos spouse) to allow for a simpler term to
be employed.
127
Harco Willems incorporated anthropological research into his study of
Egyptian kinship terms of the Middle Kingdom and generated a list of complex rules that
he views as forming a foundation for the ancient Egyptian terminological system.
128
He
found that in their employment of the terminology the ancient Egyptians seem to have
mainly drawn distinctions between lineals (direct ascent or descent from ego, i.e., father,
mother, children) and non-lineals (i.e., siblings, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece), rather than
between generations.
129
Detlef Frankes authoritative work on the ancient Egyptian
kinship structure and terminology of the Middle Kingdom,
130
subsequently summarized

125
Cerny, JEA 40, p.25, 27-8.
126
The means for expressing filiation in fact develops over time. In the Old Kingdom the formula used is A
sA.f B, A, his son, B, while in the Middle Kingdom this changes to A sA B As son B. This switches in
the New Kingdom such that A sA B reads A, son of B; cf. Sethe, ZS 49, pp. 95-99; Berlev, Palestinskii
Sbornik 9/72, pp. 13-42; Robins, CdE 54, p.198 with n.(3).
127
Robins, Cd 54, pp.197-217. Most of her data comes from Middle Kingdom stelae, with some
additional information from New Kingdom tombs, such as that of Paheri at el-Kab.
128
Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68.
129
every kinship system differentiates lineals by generation. The main distinction, in the Egyptian
terminology is not one between generations, but rather between lineals (for whom the terms it, mwt and
sA(t) were used; the lineals of egos spouse and possibly also his ChSp [Childrens Spouses] apparently also
come under this heading) and non-lineals (including those of egos spouse), who were all termed sn(t).
Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, p.162. In the anthropological literature, collateral is used to indicate non-lineal
kin.
130
Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen. This was reviewed by both Robins and Willems; cf. Willems,
Bijdragen Tot 141, pp.186-8; Robins, BiOr 41, pp.602-6.
31
for the Lexikon,
131
goes well beyond that of Robins and Willems.
132
However, for our
purposes here, it is enough to state that the findings of Willems and Robins are essentially
confirmed. Franke states that the Egyptian system at its core was bilateral
133
and
descriptive. The same terms were used for siblings and cousins (sn/snt). In addition,
lineals and collaterals were always strictly distinguished, whereas generations were
not.
134
Thus, ancient Egyptian kin terminology was able to express all relationships using
the basic, compound or extended meanings of the terms, regardless of line of descent or
the gender of ego.
135
The significance of this is that, for example, the statement A sA B,
can mean not only A, son of B, but also A, grandson of B, which considerably
changes the nature of the relationship.
Judith Lustig reviewed the ancient Egyptian kinship terminology, meaning and
structure as employed by Egyptologists in her Ph.D. thesis on kinship, gender, age and
class relations during the Middle Kingdom.
136
After contributing and incorporating more
recent anthropological methodology and theory, Lustigs findings essentially agree with

131
Franke, Ld VI, cols. 1032-36.
132
Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen. For example, Franke distinguishes between kinship and
descent, whereby kinship (Verwandtschaft) is based on heredity, and descent (Abstammung) follows legal
and social rules (pp.1-10). He examines not just the meanings and uses of the kinship terms themselves, but
also attempts to reconstruct the various terms employed for different kinship- and descent-groups, taking
into account these rules of descent (Abstammung[sregeln]). This is not the place for a long discussion of
his findings, however it would be extremely interesting to examine them with regard to the phrase staff of
old age (mdw iAw), with which Franke does not deal. Franke also incorporates anthropological research
and theory in his treatment of how the ancient Egyptian kinship system relates to other, modern, systems
and what it conveys about ancient Egyptian social structure.
133
This refers to the rules governing the type of descent, which are understood as a social allocation and
has nothing to do with genealogical relationships or the recognition thereof; cf. Murdock, Social Structure,
p.15. According to Murdock, a system of bilateral descent indicates that a person is associated with a
group of very close relatives irrespective of their particular genealogical connection (p.15).
134
An example of this is that snt, sister, could be used to refer to a sister, aunt, niece, or sister-in-law, but
never a daughter or daughter-in-law. The word for father (it) could also denote grandfather, father-in-law,
or ancestor generally.
135
The preceding three sentences come from Franke; cf. Franke, Ld VI, cols. 1032-36; Franke,
Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, pp.154-77. See also the review by Robins, BiOr 41, pp.602-6.
136
She used the Middle Kingdom tombs at Meir as the basis for her research; cf. Lustig, Ideologies, esp.
Ch.3, pp. 45-65. Lustig discussed in particular the work of Robins, Willems and Franke cited above.
32
those of her Egyptological predecessors.
137
She views Frankes genealogical chart
138
as
an ideal reconstruction of the Egyptian terminological system.
139

Most of the New Kingdom data comes from the Ramesside Period (19
th
-20
th

Dynasties) as represented at the workmens village and associated tombs of Deir el-
Medina. Bierbrier, Davies and Toivari-Viitala have utilized the extensive genealogical
material that is available from the Deir el-Medina sources for the purposes of studying
broader social issues.
140
Although the approach each takes involves much less theoretical
work than that done by Willems and Franke, whose primary goal was to understand the
kinship terms themselves, nonetheless, each contributes to our understanding of the kin
terms and how they can be interpreted. Bierbriers survey of the kinship terminology as it
is employed at Deir el-Medina lead him to the conclusion that terms of relationship in
tomb-reliefs and stelae usually do indicate an actual relationship rather than a vague
affinity, but the terms themselves may have a wider meaning than has hitherto been
supposed.
141
Toivari-Viitalas study on the status and roles of women at Deir el-Medina
reviews the various methods of identifying a woman or wife (Hmt, Hbswt, snt, nbt pr), as
well as the terms for mother (mwt), and female children (sAt and Srit).
142
The distinction
that Toivari-Viitala makes between literary (i.e., tombs and stelae) and non-literary
material is a rare example of attention to the contextual description and use of kinship
terminology. This methodology enables her to determine that there was a difference, for

137
Lustig, Ideologies, pp. 58-65.
138
Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, fig. 3, p.163.
139
Lustig, Ideologies, p.59.
140
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.100-7; Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, pp.1-7;
Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina; Davies, Whos Who.
141
Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.106-7. One example of this is the use of the term sn brother, to denote a brother-
in-law; cf. Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.xiv.
142
Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina.
33
example, in the use of the term snt in literary rather than non-literary texts. It occurs more
frequently in the former, where it generally denoted a wife or sister, while in the latter snt
was usually applied to a collateral relative.
143

In the present work the interpretation of the kin terminology generally follows the
results of the literature presented above. Because the period under investigation has not
been comprehensively studied, new information and evidence for the shifts seen between
the Middle Kingdom and Late New Kingdom were always watched for. Extensive
commentary about familial relationships as indicated by the kin terminology employed is
offered when it is deemed relevant to the argument being presented. For example, in the
discussion of the steward of the vizier Amenemhat, who depicted numerous family
members on a wall of his tomb (TT82), a substantial review of how the people
represented were related to Amenemhat demonstrates that he inherited almost all of his
titles from both consanguines and marriage-related family.
144


VI. Structuring of the data
When approaching the topic of official advancement one must first consider the
different ways in which an office could be obtained. Although there are, naturally, any
number of possibilities, five basic methods suggested themselves: appointment, heredity,
nepotism, friendship, and merit. These are of course discrete categories, but the reality is
that many cases probably involved more than one of these factors. The questions thus
raised are, which played the stronger role for a given official, and how were different

143
Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina, pp.29-30. This is especially interesting given that during the
mid-18
th
Dynasty a shift began to take place in which snt sister became the more common term used to
denote wife in a literary context; cf. Cerny, JEA 40, p.25, 27-8. This would be an extremely interesting
further line of inquiry.
34
methods intertwined? Each official presented is discussed with these issues in mind, and
basic conclusions are drawn at the end of the individual discussed. General conclusions
are placed at the end of each chapter, with a final chapter that brings the study into the
broader socio-historical context of the mid-18
th
Dynasty and the transition between
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. Here it is appropriate to indicate exactly what is meant
by the terms listed above, and to discuss briefly the types of evidence that might show
these systems at work in ancient Egypt.

VIa. Appointment
The hypothesis that there existed in ancient Egypt different methods by which an
official could obtain his job must be understood in the context of the kings role in
ancient Egyptian society. Numerous studies on the institution of ancient Egyptian
kingship, and on the Egyptians own perception of it,
145
have demonstrated that the king
was not simply the ruler of Egypt, but the holder of a divine office through which he
acted as absolute monarch, the chief executive officer of the state chief justice,
(and) supreme high priest.
146
This has led to a conception of ancient Egypts
administrative structure as essentially pyramidal in nature, with the king at the apex.
147

Even more schematic, or linear renderings place the king above all other branches.
148


144
See Ch.1, pp.100-110.
145
See, for example, portions of each chapter in Trigger, et al. Social History and the various contributions
in OConnor and Silverman, Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Concise surveys include Leprohon, in: CAE I,
pp. 273-7 and Bonhme, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.238-45.
146
Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-4.
147
See, for example, Trigger, in: Social History, pp.1-70, esp. 44-61; Kemp, in: Social History, pp. 71-182,
esp. 71-85, 96-112.
148
See, for example, the discussions in OConnor, in: Social History, pp.183-278, esp. 204-18 with fig.3.4.
Quite different approaches and interpretations have been suggested by Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.45-
53, Lehner, in: Dynamics, and Mller-Wollerman, BES 9, pp.25-54. Cruz-Uribe focuses on fluctuating
spheres of influence between the king, families, and particular offices, while Mller-Wollerman and
35
Following from this, the king (in theory) was responsible for the appointment and
promotion, as well as the demotion and even removal, of all his officials.
149
Thus, there
was an underlying assumption in ancient Egypt that all officials were ultimately
conferred in their posts
150
by the king.
In practice however, the king could not possibly have controlled so many diverse
areas without delegating at least some his of royal authority.
151
It is most likely that the
highest office-holders of each administrative department would have been granted the
authority to appoint lower level officials. Scholars have therefore concluded that with
regard to appointment, the king concerned himself mainly with those who attained the
highest levels, such as the vizier, treasurer, high priest of Amun, and kings son of Nubia
(viceroy).
152
These upper level officials, and certainly the vizier, were probably
responsible for appointing their subordinates.
153

However, official autobiographies often simply state I was x, and even when a
chronology of upward mobility can be discerned, the statements are still often the same,

Lehner, the latter following the work of Schloen (House of the Father), discuss the patrimonial nature of
the bureaucracy.
149
See the various Amts- entries by Helck , Ld I, cols. 226-32, as well as his entry on officialdom,
idem., cols.672-5. Examples are presented below.
150
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia II, p.576.
151
Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.68f; Leprohon, in: CAE I, p.273, 281; Warburton, in:
Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, p.76f.; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.3, p. 316f. But for a different
interpretation, cf. Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.45-53
152
This was essentially true in all periods of Egyptian history. In general see Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-60;
Hayes, CAH II.1, pp.353-63; Helck, Ld I, cols. 226-32, 672-5; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-87;
OConnor, in: CAE I, pp.319-59; Trigger, et al., Social History. The syntheses in Oxford Encyclopedia
provided by Doxey (Vol.2, pp.68-73), Warburton (Vol.2, pp.576-83), Wilkinson (Vol.3, pp.314-9), Quirke
(Vol.1, pp.12-16), Pardey (Vol.1, pp.16-20), and Haring (Vol.1, pp.20-3), are especially useful. For a recent
and brief overview of the administrative structure of the Old through Late Periods and how it relates to the
law see Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.98-108, 258-66, 294-307, 783-92 and the literature cited therein. On Old
Kingdom administration see Strudwick, Administration, and Kanawati, Egyptian Administration and
Governmental Reforms. For the Middle Kingdom, see Quirke, Administration, and RdE 37, pp.107-30.
New Kingdom sources include Helck, Verwaltung; McDowell, Jurisdiction (Deir el-Medina); Murnane, in:
Amenhotep III, pp.173-221; OConnor, in: Social History, pp.204-18; Van den Boorn, Duties, esp.
pp.313ff., 325ff., 344ff., 365ff.
153
See the references cited above. For the role of the vizier in appointing officials directly under him and in
36
though now set in a narrative context.
154
This would seem to indicate that due to the
implicit belief that all officials were placed in their posts, whether by the king or by a
delegate, the actual act of being appointed is generally not expressed. Helck stated that on
those occasions that an official records his selection for a position, inscriptional and
pictorial evidence demonstrates that it is consistently the king who is named or depicted
as ceremonially conferring it.
155
This led him to conclude that appointment was
apparently undertaken through the decree of a king, and that only when kingship was
weak did this not occur.
156
The accuracy of Helcks theory will be examined throughout
the current study, but it now seems appropriate to review briefly some of the evidence on
which he based his remarks.
The 5
th
Dynasty vizier Senedjemib recorded in his Giza tomb a letter sent to him
by the king. The content of this royal decree (wD-nswt) informs Senedjemib, who was
already the chief justice and vizier, that he shall serve as overseer of all works of the
king.
157
Senedjemibs abilities had apparently distinguished him such that he was
rewarded with a promotion and additional responsibilities.
158
Similarly, the Middle
Kingdom stele of Ikhernofret reports how the king (Sesostris III) sent him on a journey to
Abydos because it is a fact that you profited from My Majestys tutelage when as My
Majestys foster son, a sole pupil of my palace, you grew up. My Majesty appointed you
as a companion when you were a young man of twenty-six years of age. My Majesty did

adjacent areas, cf. Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.310ff., 325ff.; James, Pharaohs People, Ch.2, pp.51-72.
154
A perusal of the autobiographical inscriptions included in Lichtheims AEL Vols.1-3, and Lichtheim,
Autobiographies, demonstrates this nicely. See also Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.191-241, esp.
pp.219ff. where she chronicles the stylistic development of the autobiography from the Old Kingdom
through the Late Period.
155
Helck, Ld I, col.227.
156
See in general the references cited in Helcks Amts- entries, Ld I, cols. 226-32, esp. cols. 227,228,
231, as well as his entry on officialdom, Helck, cols.672-5, esp. col. 673.
157
For a translation, see Wente, Letters, p.18-19, no.3
37
this because I saw you as one of excellent conduct, keen of tongue, who had come from
the womb as one wise.
159
Ikhernofret apparently performed his duty well, as he
eventually became the overseer of the two houses of gold, overseer of the two houses of
silver, and chief treasurer for his king.
From the New Kingdom, the speech of the courtiers in the vizier Rekhmires
tomb, Tutankhamuns Restoration Stele, and Horemhebs coronation inscription each
provide examples of the kings apparent role in appointing officials. In Rekhmires tomb
the courtiers proclaim of Thutmosis III that he confirms every office and furnishes the
temples with regulations and guiding principles of every sort, he being secure on his seat
and the children of the nobles on those of their fathers.
160
Although this is a general
statement of the kings responsibility, Tutankhamun and Horemheb explicitly state that
they refurbished the temples and (re-)installed the priests from among sons of officials
and troops, respectively.
161
The New Kingdom inscription of Nebwenenef provides a
slightly different example of royal appointment. Nebwenenef, the high priest of Onuris
and Hathor, and overseer of priests from Imen to Abydos, is selected by the Amun oracle
from among a list of names presented to him by Ramesses II to be installed as high priest
of Amun in Karnak.
162
Although not directly stated, the text certainly implies that
Nebwenenef had proven himself at Abydos and was thus promoted to be the high priest
of the most important temple complex in ancient Egypt at the time.

158
Wente, Letters, p.18-19, no.3.
159
Wente, Letters, p.24, no.10. Cf. Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.123-5 and Autobiographies, pp.98-100, no.42.
This portion of the inscription is also in the form of a royal decree. The stele, originally set up at Abydos, is
now in Berlin, (no.1204).
160
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, cols. 11-13.
161
See the translations in Murnane, Amarna Texts, pp.212-14, esp. p.213 and pp.230-33, esp. p.233.
Bennet, JEA 25, p.13, n.36., also notes the comparison between the two texts.
162
KRI III, pp.283-5.
38
In the preceding examples it is the king who remarks upon his officials
distinction. However, during the later Old Kingdom it also became common to include
self-laudatory phrases and narrative-style accounts of ones career in autobiographies.
163

This practice continues and develops throughout ancient Egyptian history, in inscriptions
found not just in tombs, but on statues and stelae as well.
164
In general, these officials
credit their own abilities, as opposed to their families, as the reason for being noticed and
subsequently advanced by the king. Thus Weni,
165
when he is made count and governor
of Upper Egypt, relates that this happened because he was worthy in his Majestys
heart, and implies that his service in the palace prior to this promotion was what brought
him to the kings attention.
166
Likewise the Middle Kingdom treasurer Tjetji states He
(i.e., the king) made me great, he advanced my rank, he put me in the place of his trust
the treasure was in my hand, under my seal.
167
New Kingdom examples of this type also
exist, but as many of these will be dealt with in subsequent chapters, it is superfluous to
mention them here.
168

Also of interest are documents that indicate royal involvement in a seemingly
hereditary position. One of the Coptos Decrees, dating to the end of the Old Kingdom,

163
As, for example in the 6
th
Dynasty autobiographies of Weni and Harkhuf. See Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.18-
27 for convenient translations.
164
For an excellent overview of the development of the genre, see Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.191-
241, esp. pp.219ff. Lichtheim, Autobiographies, covers the Middle Kingdom in particular, while
Lichthiem, Maat, surveys texts from the Old Kingdom through Late Period. There is as yet no
comprehensive treatment of New Kingdom autobiographies.
165
Weni was an important official of the 6
th
Dynasty whose tomb at Abydos was recently re-discovered by
Janet Richards.
166
Lichtheim, AEL I, p.21.
167
Lichtheim, AEL I, p.91. The stele, now in the British Museum (no.614), was originally set up at Tjentjis
Theban tomb.
168
In general, during the New Kingdom these officials commonly refer to their excellence (mnx) and
trustworthiness (iqrw). See, for example, the autobiographies compared in Urk. IV, 1515-39. The most
recent work on the self-representation of New Kingdom officials is Guksch, Knigsdienst.
39
offers an example of this.
169
The king elevates the overseer of prophets Idi to the position
of governor of Upper Egypt and overseer of prophets between the first and seventh
nomes of Upper Egypt. In this newly granted capacity Idi serves under the direction of
his father, the vizier, governor of Upper Egypt, and overseer of prophets Shemay. In the
decree, the king says to Shemay that he (i.e., the king) has commanded that he (i.e., Idi)
serve as magistrate, that he act exemplarily in these nomes in accordance with your (i.e.,
Shemays) command, and that he be your spokesman. It is [in complete harmony] that
he shall act in conjunction [with you].
170
The last portion of the inscription implies a
situation similar to that of the mdw iAw, or staff of old age.
171
According to Blumenthal,
the term or method employed in the Old Kingdom that parallels that of mdw iAw was imy-
xt successor.
172
Although this phrase is not used here, the sense seems nonetheless the
same. Idi, who was already following in his fathers footsteps as overseer of prophets,
was further promoted by the king in order to act as the deputy or assistant to his father,
who was presumably reaching an advanced age. The similarity between this example and
that of the New Kingdom vizier Aametu and his son User, discussed in detail in Chapter
1, is striking.
The issue of royal involvement in a hereditary position can also be seen in the
autobiography of Khnumhotep II of Beni Hasan.
173
Lloyd argues that although his
hereditary claims to the position of nomarch were valid, royal appointment was needed in

169
Coptos Decree M, dated to the 8
th
Dynasty; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.102. A translation is provided in
Wente, Letters, p.21, no.7.
170
Wente, Letters, p.21.
171
The use of this term is reviewed in Chapter 1, Section Ib., pp.64-9.
172
Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.91.
173
Khnumhotep II was the owner of Tomb 2 at Beni Hasan; cf. Newberry, Beni Hasan.
40
order to gain the position.
174
He goes on to propose that this should be viewed as a
legitimizing strategy used by Khnumhotep II to strengthen his position.
175
Others have
suggested that nomarchs in place at the beginning of the 11
th
and 12
th
Dynasties retained
their positions due to their loyalty to the kings who founded them.
176
Although the actual
level of the kings involvement cannot, perhaps, be ascertained with certainty, what is
clear is that the appearance of being appointed by the king was an important image for
Khnumhotep II to project.
177

Instances of an official losing his position due to negligence or misconduct are
also known.
178
An excellent example of a king removing an official from his post comes
from Cairo Stele 30770, dated to the 17
th
Dynasty.
179
In this case a priest of Min who had
stolen a sacred relic from the temple is caught, and in response the king issues a
punishment decree that affects not only the current office holder, but his descendants and
any potential supporters as well. The king states:
Have him expelled from the temple of my father Min and
have him stripped of his temple rank from son to son and
heir to heir, he being cast upon the ground and his food
stipend, his title deed, and his meat taken away.
180


In addition, the king issues a further statement that should anyone petition on the thiefs
behalf, or any king or potentate (sxmw-ir.f) pardon him, not only will the rank and its
holdings be taken from the priest and his descendants, but:

174
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27 ff.
175
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.30. Cf. Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67, esp. pp.59ff.
176
See, for example, Callender, in: Oxford History, pp.152, 172-6; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-102;
Seidelmeyer, in: Oxford History, p.135f., 142f.
177
This example is discussed at length in Chapter 1, Section Ia., pp.60-64.
178
See Helck, Ld I, cols. 231-32 for a brief list.
179
Lorton, JESHO 20, pp.53-4; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.256, 268, 301, 346-7. Translations are in
Breasted, ARE I, 339-41; Wente, Letters, pp.25-6, no.13.
180
Wente, Letters, p.26, no.13. The king in question is Nebkheperre Intef.
41

not anyone of his family or of the relatives of his father and
mother shall be allowed to be inducted into this rank, but
this rank should be conferred on the seal-bearer of the
Lower Egyptian king and overseer of a work-center
Minemhat, and its food stipend, its title deed, and its meat
given to him, it (the rank) being confirmed in his
possession in writing in the temple of my father Min, lord
of Coptos, from son to son and heir to heir.
181


With this clause it becomes evident that although hereditary succession was an oft-
practiced event, perhaps especially amongst temple personnel,
182
the king did have the
final word, and could demonstrate his authority when he so chose.
Finally, there are examples in which it is not the king, but an upper-level official
who wields the authority to make decisions regarding appointments. Documents
recording legal disputes involving the inheritance of land and possessions (including
offices) from the Old Kingdom through Late Period indicate that the claims could be
brought before the king, vizier, or local courts (DADAt and qnbt).
183
Even the dead could be
appealed to for legal assistance, as is quite evident in the so-called Letters to the Dead,
which are known from the Old through New Kingdoms.
184

Although the examples are few, it seems as though when an upper-level official is

181
Wente, Letters, p.26, no.13.
182
On this issue, see, for example, Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.68f., 71ff.; Helck, Ld IV,
cols. 1084-97; Sauneron, Priests, pp.42-50.
183
Logan, JARCE 37, p.70. Many of these fall under the category of the imyt-pr, discussed above. In the
Old Kingdom there is no evidence beyond that of the royal decrees for the kings involvement; cf.
Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.94, 98-108. During the Middle and New Kingdoms the kings involvement is
apparently more direct, cf. Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.258-66 and 294-307. Some of the more interesting
New Kingdom documents that record legal disputes include the Inscription of Mes (Allam, JEA 75, pp.103-
12; Gardiner, Inscription of Mes; Gaballa, Mose; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.292, 334) and the Ramesside
will of the woman Naunakhte (Cerny, JEA 31, pp.29-53; Pestman, in: Gleanings, pp.173-81; McDowell, in:
Care of the Elderly, pp.211-2, 215-6; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.335). See also the documents form Deir el-
Medina that deal mostly with economic disputes; McDowell, Jurisdiction.
184
The fundamental work is still that of Gardiner and Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead. For more recent
42
consulted or petitioned, the superior in question is one who would have direct influence
over the subordinate. The Duties of the Vizier clearly states that the vizier was in fact
responsible for choosing at least some of his subordinates.
185
In addition, as van den
Boorn has demonstrated, the Duties provides a great deal of information about the
structure of the judicial and administrative areas of the ancient Egyptian government and
the viziers role in running them.
186
Thus, we learn that the vizier was the primary
deputy of the king and as such acted as a functional extension of the kings power in
both the pr-nsw (palace) and civil administration.
187

Two examples that demonstrate different aspects of the viziers role date to before
and after the composition of the Duties.
188
From the Middle Kingdom we have a
document of the vizier Intefoker in which he composes a list of stewards in the Thinite
nome who are allowed to use palace boats.
189
His authority to determine the names is
based on the fact that one of his titles is one who commands the stewards of the palace
administration who are in the Thinite nome.
190
A rather different picture is provided by a
Ramesside letter sent from the chief of police Mininuy to [his] lord, the vizier Khay.
191

The end purpose of the letter is unclear, but Mininuy seems to be using it to remind his

translations, cf. Wente, Letters, pp.210-20. As for example in CG 25975 where assistance is requested in
regaining possession of a house (p.211, no.340).
185
The best preserved form of text comes from the New Kingdom (reign of Thutmosis III) tomb of the
vizier Rekhmire. Sections 17 and 19 are the ones referred to here; cf. Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.250ff.,
276ff., 310ff.
186
Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. his discussion of the activities of the vizier, pp.309-331.
187
Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. pp.310-24, with fig.11. The quote comes from p.322.
188
I follow van den Boorns re-dating of the text to the early 18
th
Dynasty, and probably the reign of
Ahmose; cf. van den Boorn, Duties, pp.334-76. Compare the review by Lorton, Cd 70, pp.123-32,
esp.125-6.
189
From Papyrus Reisner II, Section G; cf. Wente, Letters, p.44, no.43.. Intefoker was vizier during the
reign of Sesostris I.
190
Wente, Letters, p.44, no.43. Two of the stewards are listed as being sons of stewards.
191
O. Toronto A 11, rt.12-30, dated to the reign of Ramesses II.
43
superior, who presumably appointed him,
192
that he is a well-respected official who, as a
policeman of western Thebes (i.e., the cemetery zone), was appointed chief of police,
being handsomely rewarded on account of the goodness of [my] conduct.
193
An example
of an appeal for an appointment into an apparently hereditary priestly position is provided
by a section of the Late Period Papyrus Rylands 9.
194
Here we learn of a man named
Horwedja who asks the priest Peteese, an upper-level official for an office as priest, as
his father has also always been a priest.
195
Peteese requires that he prove his hereditary
claim to the position, and thus Horwedja brings evidence demonstrating that his father
was a priest of Amun at Taiwadj. He is subsequently granted the same office as his
father, and also Peteeses daughter as a wife.
196

This brief review suggests that contrary to Helck assertion, the involvement of
the king or a superior was not mentioned in a consistent manner among documents that
record an officials appointment. This seems to concur with Warburtons statement that
[m]any offices required royal approval, whether tacit, real, or pro forma.
197
Thus, it
appears that with regard to appointment, transmission of office could occur in three ways.
The king could be an essentially inactive participant, that is, the kings approval was both
expected and implied, and therefore no proclamation was necessary. In contrast, the king,
or his delegate, could take an active role and in fact appoint the official to his position,
whether hereditary or not. This suggests that the approval of the king was necessary and

192
Duties, Section 17: It is he (i.e., the vizier) who appoints the overseer of police; cf. van den Boorn,
Duties, pp.250f.
193
Wente, Letters, p.46, no.48.
194
P. Rylands 9 is dated to the 26
th
-27
th
Dynasties. It was originally published by Griffith, Catalogue
Rylands. The relevant text appears in Col.ix, cf. Pestman, Marriage, p.8; Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9,
pp.143-4, 445-49.
195
Pestman, Marriage, p.8.
196
Pestman, Marriage, p.8; Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9, pp.143-4, 445-49.
197
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576.
44
not absolutely expected. Finally, reference to an appointment by the king could represent
a mere formality, wherein mentioning that the king sanctioned the assumption of the
position perhaps reinforced it.
The ability to determine the degree or actuality of the kings (or his delegates)
involvement may be reflected in the terminology employed, or in the pictorial record. For
example, presentation scenes of the official before the king from the Amarna Period and
later depicting an official receiving gold collars from the king are generally interpreted as
denoting actual ceremonies.
198
In addition, even from the brief review above it appears
that the ancient Egyptians themselves used several terms to express appointment: iri to
make, act (as),
199
rdi to place, appoint (as, to),
200
sxnt to advance, promote,
201
and
dhn to appoint.
202
Since different terminology seems to have been used by the ancient
Egyptians, it is possible that each of these verbs may have had different implications for
the contemporary reader. One may have indicted tacit approval, while another would
imply formal approval conducted in ceremony at the kings palace. The scenes and
inscriptions that form the body of the data will be examined closely when discussing each
official in order to determine if there is evidence for active, passive, or formalized
appointment. However, since, as it has been stated, there existed for the ancient

198
As for example in the tombs of Parennefer at Amarna and Horemheb at Saqarra. See in general, Davies,
Rock Tombs; Kemp, Anatomy, pp.261-317; Martin, Hidden Tombs, pp.35-100.
199
See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.26, no.3, with reference to Urk. IV, 545.7; Urk. I, 106.9; Urk. IV,
1112, 9. WB I: 109, 26-31. Meeks, AL I:37, 77.0383. Meeks, AL II:41-2, 78.0416. Meeks, AL III:28-30,
79.0288.
200
See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.154f., with reference to Bersheh I, 33; Beni Hasan I, 25, 46-7; Urk.
IV, 897.14. WB II:466, 13; 467, 26, 37-8. Meeks, AL I:223-4, 77.2452. Meeks, AL II:227-8, 77.2459.
Meeks, AL III:175-6, 79.1804.
201
See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.242, with reference to Urk. IV, 259.2, 992.14; Urk. VII, 66.12. WB
IV:255, 12-17; 256, 1-2, 9. Meeks, AL I:342, 77.3820, with reference to Helck, Merikare, 36; ChapHatsh,
136,l.8, 139. Meeks, AL II:346, 77.3771 with reference to Dendera VIII, 115, 15.
202
See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.315, with reference to P.Kahun 11.19; Beni Hasan I, 25, 107; Urk.
IV, 3.9, 663.2. WB V:479, 6-11, 18. Meeks, AL I:438, 77.5082, with reference to ChapHatsh, 130 l.8, 136
45
Egyptians an underlying assumption that all positions were appointed, a chapter on
appointment is not included. Rather, when evidence for stated or implied appointment
appears, it will be discussed in conjunction with the other possible methods for obtaining
office in order to more clearly understand the interplay between the concept of
appointment and the practice of job acquisition.

VIb. Heredity
203

Heredity refers to a method of succession in which an official acquires his title(s)
and position(s) as the designated heir of his father or family member through a (legally)
recognized system of inheritance.
204
In ancient Egypt, the eldest son was the ideal heir
and a structure existed to ensure that he would inherit his fathers property, possessions,
and often titles.
205
However, it is also important to understand that the son did not inherit
to the exclusion of the remainder of his family, but rather as the executor or trustee of the
estate.
206
The ancient Egyptians also recognized that the ideal was not always realized
and so they established means for adoption and methods to designate someone other than
the eldest son as heir.
207
Another method of ensuring that a son inherited the position of
his father was to place him as a staff of old age, making the son an assistant, deputy, or

l.7; Zivie, Giza 66 l.4. Meeks, AL III:339, 79.3581, with reference to KRI II: 331, 8.
203
The following discussion is a short abstract of the lengthier document that introduces the chapter dealing
with this method of acquiring office.
204
OED, 2
nd
edition, 1989 (web), under: heredity, entry 1., hereditary, (a.) n., entries 1. and 3., and
inheritance, entry I.1.
205
In general, see Mrsich, Ld I, cols.1235-60; Allam, in: Oxford Encyclopedia III, pp.158-61; Allam, OA
16, pp.89-97. More specifically, Pestman, in: Laws of Succession, pp.136-9; Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO
11, esp. pp.167-9; Eyre, JEA 78, pp.215-6; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.175-85; Lddeckens,
gyptische Ehevertrge, pp.279-83.
206
Eyre, JEA 78, pp.215-6; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.179 ff.; Lddeckens, gyptische
Ehevertrge, pp.276-86; Thodorids, RIDA 17, pp.140-5.
207
The imyt-pr (transfer-deed) document, marriage, and formal adoption could all be utilized for this
purpose. Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.177-84; Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Allam, Ld I, cols. 66-7;
46
even replacement for the father.
208
It also appears that the inheritance of a title and office
could be both legitimized and revoked by the king.
209
Despite the legal means by which
ancient Egyptians could designate successors, their concept of the ideal heir would
seem to imply that hereditary right may have been recognized even without a precise
document or term describing it.
210
This type of inheritance through lineage certainly
seems to have been possible for some Middle Kingdom officials,
211
and so its presence in
the New Kingdom will also be assessed.

VIc. epotism
Traditionally the term nepotism refers to an arrangement whereby an official
receives his position based not on merit, ability, or hereditary right but by virtue of being
related to a person in a position of authority or influence.
212
Nepotism by definition is not
part of a recognized system of inheritance. Thus, stating that an official obtained his
employment through nepotism usually indicates that he was given that position by a
relative in preference to an eligible non-relation regardless of his actual qualifications.
The concept of acquiring a post through personal friendship is also a form of nepotism,

Eyre, JEA 78, pp.207-221; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp. 199-221. These methods will be further
discussed in Ch. 1.
208
This term, mdw iAw, first appears in the Old Kingdom and is found sporadically into the later New
Kingdom. Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass; McDowell, Care of the Elderly. It will be fully discussed in
Ch.1, Section Ib., pp.64-9.
209
In the former case see for example the discussion by Lloyd on the inscription of Khnumhotep II at Beni
Hasan, Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37. The inscription on Cairo stele 30770 (17
th
Dynasty) is an
example of an office being taken away, cf. Lorton, JEHSO 20, pp.18-21; Wente, Letters, pp.25-6, no.13.
These topics are further discussed in Ch.1.
210
On this issue, and the possibility of (residual) rights of primogeniture, see Johnson, in: Mistress of
House, pp.183-4.
211
As for example Khnumhotep II, a Middle Kingdom official in Beni Hasan, who inherits his position
from a maternal uncle. Khnumhotep will be discussed in Ch.1, Section Ia., pp.60-4. Recent treatments of
Khnumhoteps autobiography are Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37 and Franke, in: Middle Kingdom
Studies, pp.51-67. This may be the case for the vizier User and his nephew and successor Rekhmire, who
will be discussed in Ch.1, pp.79-95
47
and can apply to friends, protgs, or others within a person's sphere of influence.
213

Through nepotism, a close relationship to the king or an upper-level official could
potentially be beneficial for ones career.
When dealing with the issue of nepotism in ancient Egypt we must be careful not
to assign our own, generally disapproving, views upon it. Although the modern concept
of nepotism often carries a negative connotation, it is not clear to what extent this may, or
may not, have been true in ancient Egypt. During the early Old Kingdom, it is clear that
there was a degree of royal nepotism in the filling of the highest positions, such as that of
vizier.
214
Although this practice was already ending in the later Old Kingdom, this has
been attributed to a change in policy which can only have originated with the king, to
open the higher state offices to men without affiliation to the royal family.
215
Though
royal nepotism was waning in the late Old Kingdom, there is no evidence to suggest
concentrated disapproval of the early Old Kingdom pharaohs nepotistic practices.
216

While transfers of office and property through an imyt-pr, or transfer document,
could be contested,
217
these involve inheritance as opposed to nepotism. In general, there
seems to be a lack of evidence for legal sanctions against nepotism.
218
This seems to
suggest that this was a normal part of ancient Egyptian society, and may even imply

212
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: nepotism, n., entry 1.a.
213
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: nepotism, n., entry 1.b.
214
Helck, Ld I, cols.672-5; Helck, Beamtentiteln, pp.136-142; Strudwick, Administration, pp.338-9;
Schmitz, Knigssohn, pp.43ff., 103ff., 159ff.
215
Strudwick, Administration, p.338.
216
Cf. Strudwick, Administration, pp.338ff., who suggests that political controversies may have instigated
the change in policy. Malek, in: Oxford History, pp.101 ff., seems to indicate that the increasingly
bureaucratic nature of the later Old Kingdom was the cause.
217
I follow Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73 in the translation of this term. See Chapter 1, Section Ic, pp.69-73.
218
In a basic survey of the various different types of legal disputes, claims, or other documents that record
some kind of court intervention, none appeared to deal with this issue. Likewise, in Jasnows survey of the
documentation concerning the law in ancient Egypt, the topic of complaints against sons obtaining
positions through their fathers or other family members did not appear; cf. Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.93-
48
that it was relatively common practice.
219

However, there may have been at least some degree of moral sanction attached to
the nepotistic act.
220
The genre of literature known as Didactic consists of works that
generally fall under the broader categories known as Instructions and Laments.
221

The former, as might be deduced from their title, teach right living in the form of
advice and exhortation, and inveigh against wrongdoing.
222
In the New Kingdom
Instruction of Amenemope
223
a particular set of maxims seems relevant to the
discussion:
Do not falsify the temple rations, Do not grasp and youll
find profit.

Do not remove a servant of the god, So as to do favors to
another.
224


The text, which is composed of thirty chapters, follows a pattern of drawing the portraits
of opposite character types in order to emphasize the differences between right and
wrong, good and evil.
225
Since it is meant as a set of instructions composed by
Amenemope for his son on how to conduct himself in all aspects of his life, it is
interesting to note that one of the things he should not do is defrock temple priests on

140, 255-359, 777-818.
219
The imyt-pr, for example, was generally employed when the transfer was one that involved
circumstances outside the normal inheritance. See most recently Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; cf. note 218
above.
220
Baines discussion on the concepts of morality and ethics and their manifestation in ancient Egyptian
sources demonstrates the difficulties involved in dealing with this material. Cf. Baines, in: Religion,
pp.130-61. See also Lichtheim, Moral Values.
221
This is also often called Wisdom Literature. In general see the articles in Ld III, cols.964-992
(grouped under Lehren) and several works by Lichtheim; cf. Lichtheim, Moral Values; Lichtheim, in:
History and Forms; Lichtheim, Maat; Lichtheim, Wisdom Literature. See also Baines, in: Religion, pp.123-
200; Williams, JAOS 101, pp.1-19; Jasnow, Wisdom Text; and several contributions to Loprieno (ed.),
History and Forms.
222
Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, p.243.
223
Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.146-63; Shirun-Grumach, Ld III, cols.971-4.
224
Lichtheim, AEL II, p.151. The lines come from Ch.5, VI,14-17.
49
behalf of a third party.
226
Although this is the only example I am aware of that makes
such a statement, it is interesting nonetheless to consider the possibility that the ancient
Egyptians did look askance upon nepotism.
In contrast, however, the restoration of the temples and their clergy that was
asserted by both Tutankhamun and Horemheb could potentially be viewed as creating a
system that would inevitably lead towards nepotism. As Tutankhamun states on a stele
set up at Karnak:
he (i.e., Tutankhamun) installed lay priests and higher
clergy from among the children of the officials (srw) of
their cities, each one being the son-of-a-man whose name
was known
227


And so, too, for Horemheb in his coronation text:
And he (i.e., Horemheb) equipped them (i.e., the temples)
with lay priests and lector priests from the pick of the home
troops (i.e., the army).
228


By placing sons of upper levels officials as priests, these two kings were potentially
instituting a system in which it could come to be expected that a well-placed
administrator, by virtue of his position, would be able to install his sons in the clergy.
It has been suggested that by the New Kingdom there was a long-standing
tradition of elite members of society filling the ranks of the palace, civil, religious, and

225
Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, p.258.
226
The Hm-nTr, or servant of the god, was a lower or perhaps mid-level priest within the temple. See
Helck, Ld IV, cols.1084-97; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.69.
227
The text comes from Tutankhamuns Restoration Stele which was erected at Karnak. Translation from
Murnane, Amarna Texts, p.213. See also Bennet, JEA 25, pp.8-15. Bennet also notes the comparison with
the Horemheb text, cf. Bennet, JEA 25, p.13, n.36.
228
The text comes from the back of a dyad, now in the Turin Museum. Translation from Murnane, Amarna
Texts, p.233.
50
military administrations, over which the king was the supreme head.
229
In addition, as
was noted above, both the king and his highest officials had the authority to place men in
office.
230
This may indicate that acquiring ones job through nepotism or personal
friendship in the New Kingdom may have relied more on family connections than royal
ones. There would appear to be different ways in which it might be possible to attain a
position through nepotism or friendship. The first is direct nepotism through a family
member who is either himself of high enough rank to assist a younger relative, or has the
position and ability to influence his superior in favor of his family. Evidence for this type
of nepotism might be found by examining the titles that family members held in order to
determine if there appears to be a familial sphere of influence. A second kind of nepotism
may have been practiced by certain upper-level officials who had especially close
relationships with their sovereign. Roehrig, for example, demonstrated that the men and
women entrusted with the upbringing of the royal children (both male and female) were
highly honored members of Egyptian society in Dynasty 18.
231
This contact may have
afforded them a great deal of influence with the king, which they could use to enhance
their own childs position in a type of indirect royal nepotism. In this scenario, we
might expect to find a significant disconnect between the careers of the child and those of
their ancestors.
Like the nepotistic possibilities mentioned above, obtaining a position through
personal friendship could occur either with a member of the upper elite or with the king.
The difference, however, is that the official who is the beneficiary is also the one

229
Helck, Ld I, cols.672-5; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.280-5; Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-160; OConnor,
in: Social History, pp.209ff.
230
See section Va. Appointment and the literature cited therein.
231
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.1
51
asserting influence. The possibility of job acquisition or career advancement due to ones
connection to an official of higher status is not one that has been considered previously. It
may be that an officials personal relationship to someone in authority is difficult to
demonstrate except in regard to the king. However, the fact that upper-level officials
were able to appoint their subordinates,
232
suggests that although direct evidence is
perhaps lacking, it is nonetheless likely that men tried and were sometimes able to use
friendships with well-placed officials in obtaining jobs. Marriages between mid- or
lower-level officials and the daughters of their superiors may be an indication of this type
of connection. However, we must be careful in applying this too readily, since evidence
of whether the marriage produced the promotion or the promotion resulted in the
marriage is rare.
233

Previous scholars have suggested that the phrase Xrd n kAp, child of the court (or
nursery), should be interpreted to mean that its bearer was most likely raised in the royal
court.
234
The possibility of growing up at the palace and being educated in the court is
certainly indicated on a Middle Kingdom stele where the king says: you profited from
My Majestys tutelage when as My Majestys foster son, a sole pupil of my palace, you
grew up.
235
Helck concluded that Amenhotep II surrounded himself with these court
pages.
236
He also posited many of the men who served in the military campaigns of

232
See section Va. Appointment and the literature cited therein.
233
If the marriage came first, then it enters into the category of familial nepotism, whereas if the job came
first it could in theory be either through friendship or merit.
234
On the Xrd(w) n kAp in general see Feucht, Das Kind, pp.266-304 (pp.272-293 provides a list of Xrd n
kAp during the 18
th
Dynasty, though some are missing) and Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-47. The
latter is essentially an English summary of the material covered in the relevant section of her book. For a
brief discussion of the bearers of this title in the reign of Thutmosis III, see also Bryan, in: Thutmosis III,
forthcoming.
235
This is from the Middle Kingdom stele of Ikhernofret ( Berlin Stele 1204); cf. Wente, Letters, p.24,
no.10; Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.123-5 and Autobiographies, pp.98-100, no.42.
236
Helck, Verwaltung, p.538. See also der Manuelian, Amenhotep II, pp.168-9, and contra this, Bryan,
52
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II became formed wartime friendships with their kings
that resulted in their appointment as civil officials following their soldierly exploits.
237

This implies that it would also be possible to benefit from royal favor based on links
created in adulthood. The evidence that led Helck to these conclusions will be
reevaluated and combined with a detailed examination at the relevant officials. The
objective is to determine whether Helcks explanations cover the totality of the
circumstances that led to an officials rise in career.

Vd. Merit
Merit is in theory the most straightforward and easily understood reason for
official advancement. The position is awarded based on a mans ability and competence
rather than his familial or political affiliations.
238
However, merit can also be defined as
being entitled to reward or gratitude, either implied or explicit.
239
In ancient Egypt
however, the question must be asked whether it was possible for individuals to rise in
social status and career through their own abilities. As reviewed above, the supreme
decision maker was the king, and his closest advisors were men such as the vizier,
overseer of the seal, and possibly royal tutors.
240
To whom among the decision makers
would the officials abilities be demonstrated and reported, and how could we determine
whether this occurred?
It seems that the most likely place in which we might find evidence for

Thutmose IV, pp.353 ff.
237
Helck, Einfluss, p.71-2.
238
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: merit, n., entry I.1.b., after 1881 and merit system, under
entry IV, Compounds.
239
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: merit, n., entry I.1.b.
240
OConnor, in: Social History, pp.209ff.; van den Boorn, Duties, pp.313 ff., 344 ff.; Bryan, in: Thutmosis
53
meritorious rise is in the statements made by the officials themselves. The
autobiographies of the 18
th
Dynasty may be especially fruitful in this regard because it is
during this time period that actual life accomplishments and personal characteristics
become integrated within the ritualistic phrases that had formed the framework for this
genre since the late Old Kingdom.
241
According to Gnirs, statements about professional
achievements seek to demonstrate not only historical information, but also to represent
the deceased as having achieved distinction due to personal qualification and initiative.
242

Thus, the phraseology common to many New Kingdom autobiographies asserts ones
own capabilities and performance, such as his trustworthiness (iqrw) made his place,
243

my lord praised me on account of my excellence,
244
and my heart (i.e. intelligence)
advanced (sxn) my place and my trustworthiness (iqrw) caused that he (i.e., the king)
place me in the council chamber.
245

Eyre asserts that the private autobiography is a speech of self-justification,
addressed by the tomb owner to posterity, and to a lesser extent to his contemporaries.
246

As such, it should be kept in mind that when examining the inscriptions of these men we
are provided with the image of how they have chosen to be remembered. In order to
ascertain whether these statements might have some truth to them, there must be other
types of evidence that support such a claim. This evidence might be found in statements
where the deceased claims to have been appointed or promoted to a post on account of

III, forthcoming.
241
Gnirs, in: History and Forms, p.228. These ritualistic phrases include, e.g., the recital of virtuous
conduct, appeal to the living, and negative confessions; cf. Lichtheim, Maat.
242
Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.230-1.
243
Urk. IV, 1522.9: ir.n iqrw.f st.f
244
Urk. IV, 1533.5: Hswn win b.i Hr mnx.i
245
Urk. IV, 1533.8: in ib.i sxnt st.i iqrw.i di.n.f wi m sH
246
Eyre, in: History and Forms, p.422.
54
his actions. There is also the possibility that a very regular route to advancement, with no
obvious outside connections that might assist an individual in achieving a position, would
indicate that the promotions were based on the persons abilities. Likewise, a distinct
absence of information about family background may suggest that an official did not
view his family as an important to his career, and may help us to conclude that the
official in question rose through his own recognition.
One of the models being examined in this study is Helcks theory that service in
the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II resulted in a class of elite
military men.
247
Although Helck seems to credit this entirely to the personal friendships
that were created out of warfare, it seems possible that in fact the political environment of
the period merely provided another path through which capable officials could rise to
prominence. A detailed examination of an officials career as it compares with his own
self-depiction may help to distinguish between truly merit-based advancement and
officials whose position and status were primarily made possible by royal favor or
friendship.

VII. Data presentation
The data examined and evaluated in this dissertation is presented according to the
different methods of obtaining office described above, with the exception of
appointment.
248
It is important to mention that although these categories are being used to
structure the ensuing chapters, this is not meant to imply that an officials position was
attained entirely through this single method. The author is aware that in some cases

247
Helck, Einfluss, pp. 28ff, 41ff., 69ff..
55
overlap may exist between these discrete classifications, and it may be difficult to
ascertain whether or not there was a single determining factor behind an officials
elevation, rather than a product of several paths to office.
This format was chosen because it will better enable us to look and the how and
why of office transmission, as opposed to simply the fact that titles changed hands. As
stated at the outset, this study represents a new approach to examining the structure of the
government in ancient Egypt. Thus, it requires a design that will allow us to address the
questions that are being asked. How were offices obtained? What do the methods of
transmission indicate about the composition of the government? What is the relationship
between familial influence and a connection with the king in the acquisition and
retainment of positions? In this one respect, the following study is attempting to ascertain
the culture of officialdom, as opposed to merely describing its existence.
Several drawbacks to the studies arranged by title-based categories have already
been mentioned.
249
However, it is worth reiterating that the main reason this structure
was not chosen is that titles tend to obscure the trends under discussion here, namely, the
means by which the men of ancient Egypt attained their positions, and not who they
were, or what they accomplished while in office. Likewise, a purely chronological
ordering would make it difficult for the reader to gain a sense of commonalities and
differences in how particular positions were obtained through time.
Nonetheless, for the study to be both readable and usable some type of
classification system must be used. Within the categories chosen, every effort has been
made to avoid rigidity while simultaneously exposing the underlying methods by which

248
The reasons for this are stated in the preceding discussion.
56
officials could obtain their positions. The individual chapter titles have been chosen in an
attempt to demonstrate the fluidity within and between these categories. Except for the
chapter that deals with heredity, which has a lengthy introduction,
250
short introductions
preface each chapter to inform the reader of the types of information that will be sought,
how the particular method for obtaining office might present itself in the data, and the
importance of attention to detail.
In an effort to avoid biasing the reader or presenting the data as already
conclusive, but still to make comprehension of the material easier, within each chapter
the officials are arranged chronologically those who served only Thutmosis III, those of
the co-regency, and finally Amenhotep II. This will allow us to discern the chronological
changes taking place for each method of obtaining office, e.g., if a particular method is
more prevalent during one period than another. The officials are introduced simply by
name, with a brief subheading indicating the position(s) held and the method(s) by which
his office was attained. Each official receives a lengthy treatment that demonstrates how
he attained office and why he was included in a particular chapter as opposed to another.
In some cases, the overlap mentioned above will result in an official being discussed at
length in one chapter and referred to briefly in another.
251
Conclusions placed at the end
of each chapter are intended to summarize and synthesize the information that has be
presented in that chapter, and reference to the larger socio-historical context is kept to a
minimum.


249
See above, pp.1-3, Section III, pp.14ff.
250
This chapter has a much longer introduction due to the fact that there is an abundance of documentation
about legal methods of inheritance in ancient Egypt.
251
For example, a man who acquires an upper level position through his own merit and was then able to
57
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the presence of a hereditary system for the
transmission of office, and the role of the law in determining inheritance. There are four
subsections that are presented at the beginning: lineage, staff of old age (mdw iAw), legal
recourse (e.g., the imyt-pr, adoption), and appointment. The men discussed here can
generally be seen to be using at least one of these methods as a primary means of passing
on their office(s). Chapter 2 deals with the issues of nepotism and personal friendship as
they relate to obtaining a position. In order to reflect the different sources of nepotism, in
this chapter the officials are grouped under the headings Family Influence and
Personal Influence. In the first, familial spheres of influence within an area of
administration and the role played by a family members personal relationship with the
king are examined. The latter section considers officials who stress a personal
relationship to the king as the primary reason for their elite status. In addition, examples
of elite, as opposed to royal, friendship leading to career advancement may also surface.
Chapter 3 concerns the possible existence of merit-based promotion and the evidence of
such that might be found in the autobiographies of mid-18
th
Dynasty officials.
Finally, in Chapter 4, the data and initial conclusions presented in the previous three
chapters are brought together, synthesized, and placed in the overall historical context of
the mid-18
th
Dynasty. The three questions asked at the outset of the dissertation, (what
were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office, what does this tell us
about the inner structure of the government during this time period, and what do these
patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an officials or familys influence vis--vis the
king in achieving and retaining a position) will each be reviewed. Officials who

use his status to influence the career paths of his children, either through heredity or nepotism.
58
particularly demonstrate how the approach taken in the present work has changed earlier
theories will be presented.

59
Chapter 1
The Power of Heredity: Inheritance
252
and Influence
253


I. Introduction
In ancient Egypt, the concept that an officials (eldest) son would assume the
position of his father as the latter reached old age, or upon his death, was the ideal
situation.
254
That this certainly did occur is supported by a variety of different documents,
e.g. legal records, narratives, mythological texts and tomb inscriptions.
255
The goal in this
chapter is to discuss those men who obtained their positions through a recognized system
of hereditary succession. This includes the legal passage of exact titles through the
staff of old age as well as the situation wherein a familys control over a position
makes the inheritance of the title clear, although there is a lack of formal wording. Before
discussing men for whom this was possible in the mid-18
th
Dynasty, I will review the
system of hereditary succession that existed prior to the New Kingdom in ancient Egypt,
and present the different ways in which the passage of titles and offices to designated

252
An inherited transmission of office is recognized by the passage of exact titles within a family, with or
without legal wording being applied. The term family denotes both blood relations (consanguines), and
those who enter through marriage.
253
Familial influence is in fact a form of nepotism, which is treated in the next chapter. Its inclusion in this
chapter is secondary to direct inheritance, and only discussed in a few cases where it is significantly
intertwined with inherited positions and serves as an additional marker for a family overall power.
254
Mrsich, Ld I, cols.1235-60; Pestman, in: Laws of Succession, pp.136-9; Allam, Ld II, cols.101-03,
Allam, OA 16, pp.89-97; Thodorids, in: Legacy of Egypt, pp. 296-7. The importance of this concept to
the ancient Egyptians with regard to royal succession is revealed in the Ramesside mythological narration
of the Contendings of Horus and Seth. Published by Gardiner, Chester Beatty I, pp.8-26, pls.I-XVI,; See
Allam, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.137-45; and the translations by Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.214-23 and Simpson,
Literature, pp.91-107. For a discussion of the kinship terminology employed see Egberts, JSSEA 14, pp.57-
59; Leach, Royal Anthropological Institute ews 15, pp.15-21; Robins, Cd 54, pp.202, 205-8; Franke,
Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, p.64, Tabel E pp.69-72, pp.330-2; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.161 ff.,
esp. Genealogy VII. See Gardiner, Chester Beatty I, p. 14, pl.I, p.16, pl.V and p.19, pl.VIII for the relevant
lines.
255
Jasnow provides an excellent synthesis of many of these, with full literature, in: AE Law, pp.93-140,
255-359, 777-818. On property and inheritance in particular see pp.120-6, 276-9, 328-36, 801-4. See also
McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.199-221.

60
heirs could be effected. These have been divided into the following three broad
categories: lineage, the staff of old age (mdw iAw), and legal methods such as the
imyt-pr and adoption.
The possibility of inheriting ones office must also be understood in relationship
to the role of the king in ancient Egypt. As stated earlier,
256
although the king was
nominally responsible for appointing all officials, in reality this was probably often
delegated to several of the highest officials. In addition, actual statements of being
appointed, or references to it, are widely varied in nature. Following the discussion of
hereditary passage outlined above, the issue of appointment and its interaction with
hereditary methods of office transmission will be returned to briefly.

Ia. Lineage
It is generally understood that there existed in ancient Egypt a hereditary
aristocracy of officials.
257
During the early Old Kingdom most upper level officials
connected to the central government and priestly administration were related in some way
to the king or royal family, but by the 5
th
Dynasty the number of non-royal officials was
rapidly expanding.
258
The formation of priestly dynasties began to occur during the Old
Kingdom, and this practice continued throughout ancient Egyptian history, reaching a
climax in the later New Kingdom.
259
Although the provinces may have retained a higher

256
See the Introduction to the book, Section VIa., pp.34-45.
257
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576
258
Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.71f.; Roth, Egyptian Phyles, pp.207-17; Strudwick,
Administration, pp.337-46, esp. p.338; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.577f., 579.
259
Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.71f.; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.198-
203; Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.21f.; Sauneron, Priests, pp.42f.

61
level of autonomy throughout the Old Kingdom,
260
the authority of the nomarchs rose
significantly during the First Intermediate Period, and this was not entirely curtailed with
the re-unification of Egypt and concomitant rise in royal power that the Middle Kingdom
brought.
261
Thus, while already in the later Old Kingdom there is some evidence for the
hereditary succession of office,
262
this seems to have burgeoned during the Middle
Kingdom, especially for regional nomarchs and viziers.
263

The autobiographical inscription found in the Beni Hasan tomb (BH 3) of
Khnumhotep II, the governor of this region under Amenemhat II, provides us with an
excellent example of this situation.
264
The family of Khnumhotep II, from his paternal
grandfather through to his own sons, apparently dominated the rulership of the 16
th
and
17
th
nomes, and possibly had influence within the 15
th
nome of Upper Egypt.
265

Throughout his autobiography, Khnumhotep II makes reference to his paternal and
maternal lineage thereby establishing his hereditary right to the governorship of Menat-
Khufu. Thus, we have a situation where Khnumhotep II, as the son of both a count and a

260
The changing involvement of the king and central court in their control over the provinces during the
Old Kingdom is still debated. Compare Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia, Vol.2, p.71f.; Haring, in: Oxford
Encyclopedia, Vol.1, p.22f.;Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.279-80; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1,
p.17f.; Strudwick, Administration, pp.340f.; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.582f.
261
A useful summary of the events of the First Intermediate Period is Siedelmeyer, in: Oxford History,
pp.118-47; and likewise Callender in: Oxford History, pp. 148-83 (esp. pp.152, 172-6) for the Middle
Kingdom.
262
Malek, in: Oxford History, p.116f.
263
The families come mainly from Asyut, Beni Hasan, Meir, and Bersheh, though the viziers also come
from Thebes. See Callender, in: Oxford History, pp.174-6 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37; Lustig,
Ideologies; Allen, in: Studies Simpson, pp.1-26; Allen, in Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Brovarski, in:
Studies Dunham, pp.14-30; Willems, Chest of Life; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-102.
264
Treatments of the autobiography and its implications for heredity, the role of royal favor in obtaining
and keeping bureaucratic office, and events during Middle Kingdom are Franke, in: Middle Kingdom
Studies, pp.51-67; Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37; Ward, GM 71, pp.51-9. See also the discussion by
Jansen-Winkeln of the end of the autobiographical inscription; cf. Jansen-Winkeln, GM 180, pp.77-80. On
the information gained from the Middle Kingdom coffins at Beni Hasan and elsewhere, see Willems, Chest
of Life, esp. pp.60ff. For the original publication of the Beni Hasan tombs see Newberry, Beni Hasan.
265
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.28. The 15
th
, or Hare nome, was centered at el-Berhseh. In the text, the
16
th
, or Oryx nome, is also referred to as Menat-Khufu. The 17
th
, or Input-nome is generally
translated as the Cynopolitan nome. For a convenient list, cf. Helck, Ld II, cols.385-408.

62
daughter of a count, states that he is appointed by the king to the inheritance of my
mothers father in Menat-Khufu.
266
However, he also documents that prior to his
inheriting this position it had passed from father to son on his maternal side, implying
that his maternal uncle did not have any sons to succeed him.
267

Khnumhotep IIs emphasis on the importance of his entire lineage in the passage
of office also sets the stage for his sons to follow in hereditary positions of rulership. His
eldest son Nakht is given the office of ruler of the Cynopolitan Nome to the inheritance
of the father of his mother, succeeding his maternal grandfather because his mother
Khety was probably an only child.
268
The middle son Khnumhotep (III) was appointed as
a door of the foreign lands, resulting in a career more closely connected with the palace
as an expedition-leader, rather than with the family governorship.
269
Although
Khnumhotpe (III) apparently did not inherit his fathers position, his fathers (and
familys) influence may have enabled Khnumhotep (III) to attain a post that involved
leading missions on behalf of the king.
270
The youngest son, also named Khnumhotep
(IV), was appointed as mayor, and therefore probably inherited his fathers station in
the Oryx Nome.
271


266
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.22, 2a.
267
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.22, 2bIII.
268
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cV.
269
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cVI, p.34 note 43; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, p.57.
270
These expeditions may well have centered around, or started out from the area of Middle Egypt that
Khnumhotep (III)s family controlled. However, for the interpretation that Khnumhotep III was raised in
the palace and thus promoted away from his fathers inheritance by the king, see Franke, in: Middle
Kingdom Studies, pp.59ff, and the brief comment by Willems, Chest of Life, p.61f.
271
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cVI; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, p.58; cf. Ward, GM 71,
pp.51-9. Khnumhotep IV was the son of a second wife, the treasurer Tjat. It is certainly possible that
Khnumhotep III was originally intended as the successor, but was moved into another, tangentially related,
position because his father was still able to perform his duties. Thus Khnumhotep IV succeeded him.

63
By using a combination of direct descent and marriage the family of Khnumhotep
II spread and strengthened its power base in Beni Hasan and the surrounding area.
272

However, it is possible that heredity alone was not strong enough to cement their
positions. Lloyds interpretation of Khnumhotep IIs autobiographical inscription is that
royal favor was often considered important in strengthening a position within a particular
family, particularly in the case of local administration.
273
Lloyd suggests that the major
point of emphasis throughout the biography is the legitimacy of royal decision-making
when appointments are made.
274
Furthermore, the kingship factor is clearly perceived
as operating in counterpoint with hereditary family claims in creating and validating
power.
275
Although Khnumhotep IIs inscription contains the royal praises so common
to other autobiographies,
276
they seem to affirm what is already a recognized hereditary
position, rather than to establish it. Likewise, the direct juxtaposition of hereditary claims
with royal appointment or favor may also imply that for local administrators the kings
sanction was important, though not necessary.
277
In contrast to this, the contemporary

272
A similar situation happened at Meir, where the rulership of the 14
th
nome passed through at least five
generations of the same family and at Bersheh, where five or perhaps seven generations held the title of
ruler of the Hare nome. In both cases a combination of direct descent and marriage was utilized. See
Lustig, Ideologies, esp. pp.90 ff.; Willems, Chest of Life, esp. pp.68 ff., 82 ff.; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-
102; Brovarski, in: Studies Dunham, pp.14-30. See Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.21-9 for a discussion
of the four Bersheh rulers who were also viziers.
273
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27 ff. He holds the view that for Khnumhotep and his family the
validation of [hereditary] claims by royal support is consistently seen as essential. (p.30)
274
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.27.
275
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.27.
276
For example, the autobiography of the Old Kingdom official Weni; the Middle Kingdom stele of
Ikhernofret from Abydos (Berlin Museum 1204), Montuhotep from Abydos (CG 20539) and of Meri
(Louvre C3); Amenemhats inscription in his tomb at Beni Hasan (no.2).
277
This is somewhat contra Lloyd (in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27-8) who states that although the role of
inheritance is emphasized, this point is immediately followed by an acknowledgement of the importance of
royal favour in gaining the position. (emphasis added). It is outside the scope of this study to comment at
length on the relationship between the king and his nomarchs, and their so-called decline, during the
Middle Kingdom. The two main hypotheses seem to be that either the king stopped appointing sons to
their fathers positions in an intentional effort to decrease their power and eliminate the office (Cruz-Uribe,
VA 3, pp.107-11) or rather that the king brought these sons into the court, thereby shifting alliances and
wealth such that the provincial lite would be transformed into members of the residence lite. Cf.

64
officials whose positions and duties kept them in closer contact with the king and the
court (i.e. vizier, overseer of the seal, great steward) would have had their status
recognized through the placement of their (Theban) tombs near the mortuary temples of
the kings they served. This monumental recognition would thus supplant the need for
textual repetition of the kings attitude towards them seen in the tombs of local
administrators such as Khnumhotep II.
278

Although only one example has been discussed here, the similarities between this
case and those of several other nomarchal and vizieral families from this time period
clearly demonstrates that a recognized system of hereditary succession to office existed
among both the central and provincial the elite.
279
In the case of Khnumhotep II, it was
apparently effected by a combination of familial control and royal acknowledgement
and/or sanctioning through appointments. Although not directly stated, the situation
may have been rather similar to the one provided by a son being made a staff of old age
for his father, which forms the subject of the next section.

Ib. Staff of Old Age (mdw iAw mdw iAw mdw iAw mdw iAw)
Our understanding of what the phrase mdw iAw, staff of old age, actually meant
to the ancient Egyptians is somewhat hindered by the paucity of recorded uses; there are

Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.63ff. Similarly Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.30f., who suggests
that Khnumhotep IIs statements may reflect a need to justify his position.
278
For excellent discussions of the contemporary highest officials, i.e., the viziers, overseers of the seal,
and great stewards, see Allen, in Studies Simpson, pp.1-26 and Allen, in Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29. The
majority of these officials were of Theban origin, like the ruling family. Several were obviously favored by
their kings and were thus granted tombs in the cliffsides surrounding of the mortuary temples of
Montuhotep II and Amenemhet I. Allen (in Theban ecropolis, p.26) suggests that the Bersheh officials
who were both nomarchs and viziers appear to have been given the latter position in recognition of their
support to the Theban royal family. Their appointment, as well as those of a few other non-Thebans to the
highest positions would have enabled the ruling family to cement their control over Egypt. See also the
literature cited in notes 263 and 272 above.
279
See the literature cited above.

65
only eight examples. In these eight documents, it was a son who was generally named as
the mdw iAw for his father, although in one case a daughter seems to have fulfilled this
role for her mother.
280
Designation as a mdw iAw seems to have involved the formal
recognition of an officials successor and his placement as an assistant or deputy to the
official.
281
These texts, which were recently examined by Blumenthal and reviewed in
part by McDowell, are discussed below.
282

The earliest mention of the staff of old age comes from the Instruction of the
vizier Ptahhotep, where, in the prologue, Ptahhotep states; May this servant be
ordered to make a staff of old age, and later let my son occupy my place.
283
However,
although this text is set in the Old Kingdom, its composition probably dates to the early
Middle Kingdom.
284
The remaining seven sources are spread evenly in the Middle and
New Kingdoms, on varying types of monuments.
285
On a papyrus from the Middle
Kingdom archive at Kahun the father Mery states: I am giving (transferring) my office
of phylarque to my beloved son Intef called Iuseneb, as a staff of old age, because of
my having grown old. Cause that he be appointed (dhn) at this moment!
286


280
The Judicial Stela of Amarah, see below.
281
On this term and the evidence for its use, see Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-97; McDowell, in:
Care of the Elderly, pp.201-3; Janssen, Getting Old, pp.70-8; Shehab el-Din, DE 37, pp.59-64.
282
Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-97; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.201-3.
283
Lichtheim, AEL I, p.63; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.84.
284
According to Blumenthal (in: Form und Mass, p.91), the term mdw iAw does not appear until the later
Middle Kingdom, although it may have its origin in several metaphors found in the autobiographies of the
First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom, e.g. son of old age (sA n iAw), support of old age (Ts
iAw), father of the orphan, etc.
285
Middle Kingdom: pKahun III/1 and VIII/1 (Griffith, Hieratic Papyri I, pp.29, 55-6 and II, pl. 11, 22);
Tomb 2 of Djhutyhotep at el-Bersheh (Newberry, Bersheh I, pl.33, Urk. VII 46). New Kingdom: TT131 of
User; TT97 of Amenemhat; Cairo statue CG 583 of Amenhotep son of Hepu, all discussed by Blumenthal,
in: Form und Mass, pp.86-90. Only the late New Kingdom (19
th
Dynasty, reign of Ramesses V) Judicial
Stela of Amarah is left out of Blumenthals discussion; cf. Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, p.165;
Thodorids, RIDA 11, pp.45-80; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1.
286
P. Kahun VII/1, l.17-19; Griffith, Petrie Papyri, pp.29-31, pl.XI. See also Blumenthal, in: Form und
Mass, p.86; Logan, JARCE 37, p.57; Pestman, Marriage, p.138, n.4; Thodorids, Heritage, pp.304-5 and
Idem., Maat, p.386. The quoted text reads: iw.i Hr rdi pAy.i mty n snw n sA.f mry Intf Ddw n.f Iw-snb r mdw
iAw xft-ntt wi tn iAw.kwi imi dhn.tw.f m tA At.

66
In the tomb of the nomarch Djhutyhotep at Bersheh (Tomb 2)
287
a scene on the
rear wall of the shrine provides an intriguing look at the occasional disparity between the
use and practice of the term mdw iAw.
288
Djhutyhotep stands before his father Kay, and
the inscription above mentions the placement of Djhutyhotep as a successor (sti). Kay,
however, is called a mdw iAw, presumably referring to the role he filled for his father
Neheri.
289
Neheri was both nomarch of Bersheh and vizier under Amenemhat I.
290
When
Neheri became vizier, his son Djhutynakht (V) became nomarch, while Kay was placed
as a mdw iAw for his father as vizier, whom he eventually succeeded.
291
Willems suggests
that although Kay was the intended successor to Neheri as nomarch, the appointment to
vizier changed this. The term sti, would thus refer to Djhutyhoteps position as the
successor to Kay as a staff of old age for Neheri.
292
However, the two terms may rather
reflect the fact that Djhutyhotep was marked to inherit his paternal uncle Djhutynakht
(V)s position of nomarch while Kay was still acting as a staff of old age. I would argue
that Kay was called a mdw iAw because he in fact functioned as an assistant to Neheri,
while Djhutyhotep was simply marked as the designated heir to the position, without any
corresponding duties prior to his becoming nomarch.
Likewise in the New Kingdom there are tomb inscriptions that contain the phrase
mdw iAw, e.g. in the mid-18
th
Dynasty tombs of the vizier User and the high priest of

287
The tomb was published in two volumes, Newberry, El Bersheh I and Griffith and Newberry, El
Bersheh II.
288
Newberry, El Bersheh I, pl.33.
289
Urk. VII, 46; Breasted, ARE I, pp.308-9; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-6; Willems, JEOL 28,
pp. 80-102;
290
Following Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-1 and Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.23.
291
Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.23; Brovarski, in: Studies Dunham, p.22f., 26f.; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.
80-102. Griffith gives an account of the genealogy on pp.4-14. This has since been revised by Willems,
JEOL 28, pp.80-102.
292
Willems JEOL 28, pp.80-102. With regard to the vizierate, see also their mention in Allen, in: Theban
ecropolis, pp.21-6.

67
Amun Amunemhat.
293
Both of these officials will be discussed in detail below, but here it
is important to mention that although they are both made a staff of old age for their
fathers, the implementation of this position is different for each of them. User becomes
co-vizier alongside his father the vizier Aametu, while Amenemhat is placed as a wab-
priest for his father, whose titles are well below those of high priest.
294
In the case of
Amenhotep son of Hapu, we learn from his scribal statue (CG 583) that he was in charge
of young recruits to the army and assigned them to divisions in the place of their family,
the staff of old age being as his beloved son.
295
This implies that the sons replaced rather
than assisted their fathers.
296
This also appears to be the case for the New Kingdom
artisans at Deir el-Medina. Although the term mdw iAw does not seem to be employed, it
is clear from the textual and artifactual evidence that there is a strong hereditary
component to being a second or third generation artisan within the Deir el-Medina
village.
297
The clear distinction that is made between sons who are apprentices under their
fathers and those who function in the same capacity, though perhaps at a junior level,
suggests that the duties involved for a mdw iAw were different depending on the position
to which it pertained.
The final usage of this phrase seems to indicate that the right of inheritance could
depend on a childs actions towards their elderly parent. On the Judicial Stela of Amarah

293
In Users tomb (TT 131) it is found three times within the so-called Co-installation of the Vizier, and
in the autobiography of Amenemhats tomb (TT97).
294
They are discussed by Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp. 87-90, and by McDowell, in: Care of the
Elderly, pp.201-2.
295
McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, p.202; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp. 86-7.
296
This practice is perhaps what the Middle Kingdom chief of police Bebi was referring to when he stated
I bequeathed my task to my son while I was still alive. Boeser, Beschriebung II, pl.10 lines 8 ff. Cf.
Ward, in: Land Tenure, p.69; but also Logan, JARCE 37, p.57, who translates swD.n.i wpt.i as I handed
over my household .
297
McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.208-10; Davies, Whos Who. This is suggested by the concurrent
usage of titles and can be seen in the address lines of several letters, for example O. Berlin 11247
(Ramesses II): Addressed by the draftsman Pay to his son, the draftsman Pre[emhab]; see the translation
in Wente, Letters, p.142, no.185.

68
from the late New Kingdom, all the possessions of the couple Paser and Tameheyt are to
be given to their daughter.
298
First, their son, the second prophet of Amun, Hor declares
that everything that belonged to his father Paser now belongs to his sister, the chantress
of Khnum Irytekh. Following this his mother the chantress of Horus of Anuba, Tameheyt,
declares that everything that her husband Paser left to her should also be given to
Irytekh, my daughter, for she has made for me a staff of old age.
299
It may also imply
that Irytekh became a chantress of Horus when her mother became too old.
The scarcity of documents that mention mdw iAw led Blumenthal to conclude that
the staff of old age was neither the usual nor the most common method used to ensure the
transfer of office from father to son.
300
Nonetheless, Janssen views it as a special
administrative title from the Middle Kingdom and 18
th
Dynasty that was used to
describe a son who was appointed, by the Pharaoh or by a bureaucrat, to act as the deputy
and future successor of his father.
301
On the other hand, Shehab el-Din sees it as a
metaphor for son as helper or assistant that was temporal and never considered an
actual office title.
302
Although the documentation is too limited to make sweeping
generalizations, it seems to me that the meaning of the term mdw iAw could vary
depending on the situation for which it was invoked. Certainly it was a metaphor, and
probably it was temporal, but the son who was made as a staff of old age could
apparently be either a deputy under his father or take over his fathers duties. Perhaps
then it also had something to do with the type of position, since the latter case is only

298
Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, p.165; Thodorids, RIDA 11, pp.45-80 = Maat, 559-98; McDowell,
in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.335-6; Fairman, JEA 24, p.155 pl.xi.
299
McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1.
300
Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.92. She uses the Coptos Decrees O (Urk. I, 299), M (Urk. I, 300-301)
and R (Urk. I, 304-6), the Stle Juridique (CG 52543) and the case of the vizier Rekhmire (Urk. IV, 1085-
93, esp.1076.4) as examples to support this.
301
Janssen, Getting Old, p.77.
302
Shehab el-Din, DE 37, p.64.

69
implied for soldiers and artisans, while the former seems to be that followed by the civil
and religious officials.

Ic. The imyt imyt imyt imyt- -- -pr pr pr pr, adoption, and other legal methods of ensuring succession
There are a number of ancient Egyptian legal texts that deal with the topic of
inheritance.
303
The division, whether actual or in name only, of ones property and
belongings between the surviving members of the family was an act that was commonly
documented, and occasionally disputed.
304
The imyt-pr or transfer deed (literally
house-document) seems to have been used as a means of ensuring (or preventing) the
transfer of ones property and belongings to a particular person upon ones death.
305

Although these are mainly concerned with the transfer of property and belongings, there
are some that more directly relate to the passage of titles and include the officials
position(s) in the group of items being transferred. An office could also be sold, a fairly
common practice with regard to mortuary endowments during the Old and Middle
Kingdoms.
306
This practice would seem to indicate that the official had at least some
degree of control in deciding how his post should be filled, independent of the kings

303
There are many more texts than can be mentioned here. Some of the more famous, such as an
inscription from the Old Kingdom tomb of Metjen, Middle Kingdom Hekanakht Letters, and the New
Kingdom Inscription of Mes, are left out because they deal essentially with land holdings and mortuary
endowments, and not the transmission of titles or offices. For a recent discussion of many of these texts,
and their placement within the history of ancient Egyptian law, see Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.93-140, 255-
359, 777-818. See Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73, for an excellent synthesis of the imyt-pr document.
304
It was commonly the case that the eldest son inherited his fathers possessions, becoming the head of
the household, and was thus required to provide for his siblings and mother as their share of the inheritance.
Pestman, in: Laws of Succession, pp. 58-77; Janssen and Pestman, JESHO 11, pp.137-170; Eyre, JEA 78,
pp.215-16. This is also reflected in the Middle Kingdom Tale of Sinuhe in which Sinuhe, prior to his
return to Egypt, spends a day handing over my possessions to my children, my eldest son taking charge of
my tribe; all my possessions become his my serfs, my herds, my fruit, my fruit trees. Lichtheim, AEL I,
p.231 (l.249-240).
305
This appears to have been in use especially when the intended heir was not the obvious one. Johnson,
in: Mistress of House, p. 177; Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.127-9.
306
Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.123-4; Johnson, in: Mistress, pp.176ff.

70
approval. Adoption of orphaned boys, slaves, relatives, or even wives, was another way
in which ancient Egyptians manipulated rules governing inheritance.
307

Numerous examples exist of documents that record the endowments which can be
established for the purposes of perpetuating ones funerary cult.
308
The contracts of
Hapidjefa, a high priest of Wepwawet and nomarch of Asyut during the Middle
Kingdom, provide perhaps the classic example of the usufruct system attached to land
endowments that was in place in ancient Egypt.
309
All ten contracts are concerned with
the establishment of Hapidjefas funerary cult, for which he endows several temple
priests and officials with land, servants, cattle, etc., enabling them to provide for his cult.
In four of the contracts Hapidjefa makes it explicit that it is the office itself which is
endowed, as opposed to the person or family holding it at the time the contract is made.
310

Thus, the land and other supplies must pass to the next office holder, regardless of
kinship; they cannot be separated from the office and given to a son who does not assume
responsibility for perpetuating the cult.
311
Indeed, there are records of disputes that
occurred over this very issue.
312
Also of interest for our purposes is that in Contract III,
Hapidjefa endows 22 temple days to a group of wab-priests, stating that this comes from

307
Allam, Ld I, cols. 66-7; Eyre, JEA 78, pp.207-21; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-20.
308
Many of these are discussed by Ward, in: Land Tenure, pp.63-77, esp. pp.64-6. See also Logan, JARCE
37, pp.49-73, esp. pp.51-5.
309
Reisner, JEA 5, pp.79-98; Thodorides, RIDA 18, pp.108-251; Beinlich, Ld I, cols. 1105-7. Harari,
ASAE 56, pp.151-6, comments on the public function of the contracts. Spalinger, JAOS 105/1, pp.7-20,
provides an economic analysis of the passage of revenues, as opposed to the religious and legal discussions
more commonly undertaken.
310
In Contract III (Reisner, JEA 5, p.84): these days shall pass to every future staff of officials of the
temple because they are the ones who offer for me this bread and beer and again in V (Reisner, JEA 5,
p.85): these three temple days shall pass to every future wardrobe-keeper. Similarly in Contract IX
Reisner, JEA 5, p.87): this land which I have conveyed to him shall belong to every future overseer of the
cemetery-workmen, to every commander of the desert, and to every future desert-guard because they are
the ones who are to offer for me this bread and beer and in Contract X (Reisner, JEA 5, p.88): this land
shall pass to every future overseer of the desert, because he it is who shall offer for me this bread and beer
311
Ward, in: Land Tenure, p.66.
312
Johnson, in: Mistress, pp.176ff, p.215 n.3;

71
his paternal inheritance inasmuch as I am the son of a wab-priest like each one of
you.
313
This indicates that Hapidjefas father had bequeathed these days along with the
office wab-priest itself.
314
The Donation Stele, which records the purchase of the office of
2
nd
priest of Amun by king Ahmose for his wife Ahmose-Nefertari, provides a similar
example. Here an imyt-pr is used to establish that the office, and all of it endowments, is
now to be passed from son to son, heir to heir in perpetuity.
315

In the imyt-pr the eldest son is sometimes named as the heir, but in many of these
documents the possessions are divided between the spouse and children, transferred to
the wife before being passed on to the children, or passed to a brother when children were
not present and no adoption was made.
316
The Dynasty 17 Stle Juridique from Karnak
provides an example of this last case.
317
This text records an imyt-pr made by Kebsi for
the man of his family Sobeknakht, interpreted by Spalinger to be a half-brother.
318

Kebsi appoints Sobeknakht as the inheritor of his position of governor of el-Kab, which
he inherited from his father Imeru, who in turn inherited it from his childless brother.
319

Sobeknakht apparently also had to pay 60 debens worth of goods for the transference of

313
Reisner, JEA 5, p.84.
314
Reisner, JEA 5, p.95; Spalinger, JAOS 105, p.12
315
Logan, JARCE 37, p.63f.
316
Where the eldest son is the sole heir see for example, the Old Kingdom inscriptions of Wepemnofret
(Goedicke, Privaten Rechsinschriften, pp.31-43; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.125-6) and of Heti (Jasnow, in:
AE Law, p.124-5; Thodorids, Heritage, p.29; Urk. I, 162). For an imyt-pr made first for the wife, see for
example P. Kahun I.1 (Eyre, JEA 78, p.219; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p.178; Logan, JARCE 37,
p.58f.; Parkinson, Voices, pp.108-110) and the New Kingdom Senimose stele (Spalinger, Studien
Westendorf, pp.631-652; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.334; Logan, JARCE 37, p.64f.). Also of interest here is P.
Kahun VII.1 in which an imyt-pr made for the wife is revoked in favor of a new one for the son.
(Thodorids, Heritage, pp.304-5; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.271-2, 278; Logan, JARCE 37, p.57f.). An heir
could also be bypassed in favor of grandchildren, as is documented in the Old Kingdom tomb of Metjen, cf.
Urk. I, 2.9-11. Or he could inherit everything to the inclusion of other siblings as in the Third Intermediate
Period (reign of Osorkon III) Stle de lapanage; cf. Breasted, ARE IV, 405; Kitchen, TIP, p.311; Jasnow,
in: AE Law, p.780.
317
Dated such by Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, p.643; See also Thodorids, RIDA 12, pp.132-3; Lacau,
Stle Juridique; Logan, JARCE 37, pp.60-3; Harari, ASAE 51, pp.273-97.
318
Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, pp.645-646. Later in the text Sobeknakht is referred to as a brother of
Kebsi (l.10).
319
Lacau, Stle Juridique, esp. pp.7-9, 17.

72
office from Kebsi,
320
implying that an office could effectively be purchased by a person
in the right position.
Papyrus Kahun II.1 provides an interesting example of payment for office in
which a son lays claim to a sum promised to his father in exchange for an official
position.
321
The father had made an imyt-pr for the purpose of transferring his offices to
another individual for which payment had not been received. The son claims that when
his was near death he said to his son, If the financial principal which Iyemiatib swore
to me is not given to you, Then you should petition for it from the Officials who will hear
it (the case). Then the financial principal will be given to you.
322
These types of
transactions may also indicate that an imyt-pr was perhaps a way to legitimize such a
sale.
Adoption can also be used to provide a line of inheritance and ensure that a
childless couple is taken care of in their old age.
323
That both aspects were important is
suggested by the phrases Let the possessions be given to him who buries
324
and As for
him who has no children, he adopts an orphan instead to bring him up.
325
Thus there
were various methods of adoption, both formal and informal, and it could be used for
relatives, slaves, and even orphans.
326
The most famous example is the so-called

320
Spalinger, in: Studien Westendorf, p.646.
321
Parkinson, Voices, p.110; cf. Logan, JARCE 37, p.59f.
322
Logan, JARCE 37, p.59; cf. Parkinson, Voices, pp.110-111.
323
Eyre, JEA 78, p.215; see also McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-20; Allam, Das Altertum 19,
pp.3-17.
324
P. Bulaq 10; cf. Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, pp.167-9; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp. 295, 334-5;
Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p.177.
325
O. Berlin 10627; cf. Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p.183, n.94, Allam, Das Altertum 19, p.4; Jasnow,
in: AE Law, p.328.
326
Allam, Ld I, cols. 66-7. The clearest examples of adoption come only from the later New Kingdom,
19
th
Dynasty.

73
Adoption Papyrus, a document from the late New Kingdom.
327
In the first part
Nebnefer adopts his wife Nanefer/Rennefer because they are childless in order to ensure
that his property passes to her and not to his consanguineal relatives upon his death.
Following this, Nanefer/Rennefer relates that she has adopted, and thereby freed, three
children born by a slave owned by the couple. Finally, the marriage of the eldest adopted
daughter to Nanefer/Rennefers brother Padiu and Padius subsequent adoption, results in
the bequeathing of all her property and belongings to Padiu as head of the household after
her husband Nebnefers death.
Although a particular office is not mentioned in this case, there are examples in
which this does seem to occur. The inscription on the stelephorous statue of the royal
barber Sibastet describes how he passes on the title of royal barber, which he inherited
from his father Nebsehehu, to his slave Imenywi, and marries him to his niece.
328

Although not technically adopted, by marrying him into the family and passing on his
title, Sibastet provides himself with a son-like figure who can look after the presumably
childless Sibastet and his wife in their old age.
329


Id. Appointment and Heredity
The last topic to be treated in the introduction, appointment to office, is one that
seems to contradict the chapters focus, the power of heredity in obtaining a position. As

327
Allam, Ld I, cols. 66-7; Cruz-Uribe, JEA 74,; Gardiner, JEA 26; Eyre, JEA 78; Jasnow, in: AE Law,
p.327; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-8; Johnson, Mistress of House, p.183 (translation).
Another wife adoption may be recorded in P. Turin 2021; cf. Allam, in: Mlanges Thorids, pp.23-8;
Cerny and Peet, JEA 13; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.327-8.
328
Louvre statue E.11673. de Linage, BIFAO 38, pp.217-34; Eyre, JEA 78, p.215; Spalinger, Studien
Westendorf, pp.638-640, 648-9; Thodorids, RIDA 12, pp.123-6 ; Jasnow, in : AE Law, p.321. See also
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
329
There is a break in the line, which de Linage restored (and is generally accepted), that indicates that the
Nebsehehu was a royal barber in the temple of Bastet at Bubastis, and that this is the position which
Imenywi is probably given (de Linage, BIFAO 38: pp.221, 226, 233).

74
the foregoing review has demonstrated, offices could be passed on as a hereditary right,
willed through devices such as the mdw iAw and adoption, or transferred by means of
an imyt-pr. Yet some of the examples presented above include references to an official
stating that he was (also) appointed to his office, e.g. Khnumhotep II. In the Introduction
to this book a review of examples of appointment to office was presented, and evidence
for its use in ancient Egypt was discussed. This does not need to be repeated here.
However, the assumption that in ancient Egypt all officials were ultimately conferred in
their posts
330
by the king must be kept in mind when reviewing the evidence for
inherited offices. The scenes and inscriptions that form the body of the data will be
examined closely when discussing each official in order to determine if there is any
evidence for active, passive, or formalized appointment in addition to the stated
hereditary right.

Ie. Conclusion
We have now seen that the means to achieve hereditary succession to (non-royal)
office did in fact exist in ancient Egypt, and that there were several ways in which it
could be effected, e.g., through inheritance, the staff of old age, and imyt-pr documents.
It has also been shown, albeit briefly, that titles could pass to both natural and adopted
sons, as well as to brothers, and that they could be sold. In addition, the example of
Khnumhotep II suggests that the king sometimes played a role in sanctioning or perhaps
directly appointing a son to his fathers position. Some of the cases also indicate that a
familys influence could contribute to the rise of their descendants in different but related

330
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576.

75
areas of administration.
331
This implies that heredity succession could also lead to a
situation where a familys clear control over one area allows for a son to rise in a related
position. When a family begins to have influence in a general area of administration, but
not necessarily over the passage of a particular title, nepotism begins to play a prominent
role. In the following pages only those officials for whom it can be shown that they
attained their exact positions through a system of inheritance will be discussed. The
officials who owe their stations primarily to the influence of their families are discussed
in the chapter on nepotism.

II. The Officials
Ahmose-Aametu, his son User-amun and grandson Rekhmire
332

(Three generations of viziers)
This family of viziers is the example par excellence of the ability of some
officials in the mid-18
th
Dynasty to retain control over a position.
333
Ahmose-Aametu
(henceforth Aametu) and two generations of his descendants were able to dominate the
vizierate, employing heredity, alliances and the staff of old age to maintain this control
and spread their family throughout other areas of the government as well. The first vizier,
Aametu, was perhaps already part of an established court family. He may have been
related to the contemporary line of viceroys, and certainly married into the powerful
Theban family of the mayor Ineni, who also had strong ties with the Amun priesthood.

331
E.g. Khnumhotep IIs son Khnumhotep who became an expedition-leader, or the Bersheh nomarchs
who were also viziers.
332
For ease of reference a basic genealogy that includes only the viziers and the marriage into the family of
Ineni is provided on p.458 (Fig.2). A more extensive genealogy will be presented later in the chapter. These
newly reconstructed genealogies are based on the research done by myself, as well as that of others, which
will be presented in the following discussion of the family.
333
The most recent treatments of this family are Dziobek, MDAIK 45, pp.109-32; Dziobek, User-Amun;
Dziobek, Denkmler; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

76
This fusion of two important families increased the strength and power of Aametu and
subsequently his influence as vizier. He was able to pass on the position to his son User-
amun (henceforth User), who was also made a staff of old age (mdw iAw) and use his
new family connections to spread his offspring throughout the Amun priesthood. The
familial nepotism established by Aametu within the Amun precinct continues through the
third generation, when it takes on an important role with regard to the vizierate. It would
appear that when Rekhmire succeeded his uncle User as vizier both his hereditary claim
and his earlier placement within the Amun domain played a significant role.
Clearly this family cannot be easily placed in only one category for describing their
means of obtaining office. However, in the interest of continuity in discussing this large,
important and well-known family, and because lineage appears to be the overarching
feature of the familys rise to power, I present them all in this chapter. The position of
vizier will be discussed first, followed by a separate section that treats the role of familial
nepotism and the Amun priestly domain for the remainder of the family.
Information about Aametus ancestors and contemporary family is extremely
sparse. Aametus fathers name is unknown, but the name of Aametus mother, Ahhotep,
may imply a relation with the court of the first king of the 18
th
Dynasty, Ahmose, whose
own mother was also called Ahhotep.
334
In addition, Aametu was possibly related to the
family of the early 18
th
Dynasty viceroys of Kush, Ahmose Satayt and his son Ahmose
Tjuro, who appear to have controlled this position from the reign of Ahmose through year
3 of Thutmosis I.
335
The pattern of their names (i.e., combining Ahmose with a second

334
Suggested by Dziobek, Denkmler, p.111. Her name is found on a ceiling inscription in the portico of
Aametus tomb; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, p.103.
335
Precise dates for Satayt are not known, but Tjuro is already viceroy in year 7 of Amenhotep I, and
remains as such at least until year 3 of Thutmosis I; cf. Habachi, Sixteen Studies, p.82 and Urk. IV, 78 and

77
name
336
) supports this, as does the depiction of Tjuro in the shrine of Aametus son User
at Gebel es-Silsilah (Fig.3, p.459).
337
Tjuro is placed in the bottom register, just below the
representation of User offering to his parents, Aametu and Taametu. Although he is
called kings son, overseer of southern foreign countries, Tjuro
338
, no filiation is given,
making it also possible that Tjuro was included as a distinguished colleague of Aametus
rather than a family member.
339
However, the nature of the Silsilah shrines as family
monuments, and the fact that the persons depicted in the shrines, when identifiable, are
exclusively family members,
340
leads me to conclude that a kin-based relation between
Tjuro and Aametu is the more likely explanation for his presence in the shrine.
Assuming a familial relationship existed between Tjuro and Aametu, then this,
combined with a probable court connection extending back to the reign of Ahmose,
would have made this family extremely powerful. Tjuro, however, was apparently unable
to retain control of his position, and thus the viceroy who succeeded him during the reign
of Thutmosis I or Thutmosis II was not his son Ahmose-Patjeni,
341
but an unrelated man
called Seni.
342
Aametu in contrast increased his influence by marrying Taametu, a sister

89. On this family of viceroys and their monuments, see in general Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp. 65-89,
91-6, 155-7. See also Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.136-7 for a brief discussion. A funerary cone and statue
from Deir el-Bahri can be attributed to Tjuro, suggesting that had a tomb in Thebes. Following Tjuro, the
viceroyship moved out of the familys control, as his descendants for three generations are all called scribe
of the divine offerings of Amun, a title also held by several descendants of Aametu.
336
A pattern also followed by the royal family at this time, as their monuments indicate; cf. Vandersleyen,
Ld I, col.100. This similarity is perhaps a further indication that there was indeed a close royal connection.
337
Shrine 17; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.46.
338
The title reads: sA nsw imy-r xAswt rsyt; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.46.
339
I do not think it is simply a question of close friendship, as Dziobek seems to suggest; cf. Dziobek,
Denkmler, p.136. It was not unusual to include ones colleagues in contemporary tomb scenes, as banquet
guests alongside family members, for example in TT82 of the viziers steward Amenemhat and TT56 of the
scribe of counting bread Userhat. However this practice was apparently not followed at Silsilah, see below.
340
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4ff.
341
Ahmose-Patjeni and the next 2 generations were in fact all involved with the Amun priesthood as
scribes of divine offerings; cf. Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp.65-89, 91-6.
342
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp. 65-89, 91-6, 155-7;Dziobek, Denkmler, p.137. The chronology of the
viceroys during the 18
th
Dynasty has been a source of constant debate. The relevant sources are cited in the

78
of the contemporary mayor of Thebes, Ineni, owner of TT81.
343
Ineni was also the
architect for the tomb of Thutmosis I
344
and held a number of upper level positions within
the Amun temple, including overseer of the granaries of Amun.
345
Based on the names of
Inenis family it would appear that they, too, may have had a connection to the royal
court. His own wife and two sisters were called Ahhotep, while also prevalent are the
names Ahmose and Amenhotep, and his fathers name, Intef, hearkens back to the kings
of the 17
th
Dynasty. The marriage of these two families would have enabled Aametu to
spread his influence through nepotism to the Amun priesthood, the evidence and results
of which will be discussed below.
The means by which Aametu entered into the vizierate during the reign of
Thutmosis I is uncertain.
346
Our evidence for Aametu comes from his Theban tomb
(TT83),
347
Karnak statue fragment, and from the many different monuments on which he
is named or depicted.
348
All of Aametus titles pertain to his position as vizier, and most

discussion of Usersatet, himself a viceroy of Kush under Amenhotep II; cf. Chapter 2, pp.215-239, with
notes 954-7.
343
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.323-6, type IIIb, IVb, Vb. Taametu is depicted in Inenis tomb
standing behind Ineni and his wife Ahhotep-Tjuiu at the east end of the northwest wall of the portico,
PM(5).
344
Ineni mentions his role in the construction of Thutmosis Is tomb in Thebes in the autobiographical stele
in his tomb (TT81), l.11-14; cf. Urk. IV,57-8.
345
Inenis tomb, TT81, was published by Dziobek, who reconstructs Inenis career as beginning under
Amenhotep I and continuing into the co-regency of Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III; cf. Dziobek, Ineni, p.35,
142-3 for the relevant scene and his brief discussion in Denkmler, p.111. For Inenis positions and
placement in the Amun domain, see also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.260f., no.244
and her individual discussions of the titles he held. Many of his tomb inscriptions can be found in Urk. IV,
53-74
346
See Dziobek, Denkmler, p.111 for a plausible reconstruction of Aametus lifespan. Helck, Verwaltung,
pp.289-96, 435-8, also discusses Aametu and this family of viziers, and some of Aametus inscriptions are
found in Urk. IV, 489-93 and 1041-2.
347
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.330-1, type IVb.
348
I direct the reader to Dziobeks discussion of Aametus son and successor User, in which he presents a
complete list of Aametus monuments, with full citations, and includes the titles Aametu held on each; cf.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.103-11. Aametus personal monuments include his unpublished tomb in Sheikh
Abd el-Qurna (TT83) and a statue from Karnak (Nr. E134). In addition, he is depicted and/or mentioned in
TTs 131, 100, 228, 122, and 82, Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no.17, as well as on several statues, stele and

79
are the very same ones that his descendants who held this position also possessed. These
include chief magistrate, spokesman of Nekhen, priest of Maat, spokesman who makes
peace in the entire land, overseer of the six great law courts, and overseer of the city.
349

Thus we have no knowledge of any earlier positions that Aametu perhaps held before
becoming vizier that might have led him into this career. What is clear, however, is that it
was through his marriage to Inenis sister that positions in the Amun precinct became
open to Aametus descendants. Prior to this the vizierate and the Amun domain were
essentially separate entities.
350

Aametu and Taametu had some eight sons and five daughters, and it was their
second son, User, who succeeded Aametu as vizier during the co-regency of Hatshepsut
and Thutmosis III. It is extremely interesting that this should have occurred, when the
eldest son, Amenemhat, was already serving under his father as overseer of the prison
(xnrt). According to Dziobek, this would have been in Thebes, and so Amenemhat would
also have been the administrator of prisoner records and subsequently the overseer of
prisoner administration.
351
Sections of the Duties indicate that the vizier administered
over the prison and appointed various officials within it, including the overseer of
police.
352
If, as Van den Boorn suggests, the prison was a functional extension of the

funerary cones belonging to his relatives. My own work on these monuments confirms the information
published by Dziobek.
349
sAb TAyty r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat r shrr m tA r-D //[ r.f ]//, imy-r Hwt wrt 6, imy-r niwt
350
Hatshepsuts high priest of Amun, Hapuseneb, does bear the title of vizier on his Louvre statue, where it
is placed among a list of titles preceding a short biography of his career and work as high priest of Amun.
However, this is the only monument on which it appears, and it is placed in the midst of titles such as
great chief in Upper Egypt and overseer of temples. What role Hapuseneb might have played as vizier,
or any responsibilities he carried related to this position, as well as when or even if, he acted as vizier,
remains unclear. On his monuments, Hapuseneb consistently stresses his position of high priest of Amun
and the activities related to it, indicating that this was the title he considered as his most important.
Discussions of this can be found in Helck, Verwaltung, pp.286-9, 434 and Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.137-9.
351
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.116-7.
352
Van den Boorn, Duties, Sec.6-7, pp.120-145, Sec. 17, pp.250-64, pp.309 ff, esp. 317-327.

80
viziers administrative apparatus,
353
then it seems quite possible that Aametu may have
used his influence as vizier to place his son Amenemhat as overseer of the prison. Indeed,
especially if the institution of the great prison was somewhat separate from that of vizier,
then it would have greatly benefited Aametu to have his son in such a position of
authority.
Many scholars have assumed that the priesthood was the route to the vizierate,
and that User was perhaps groomed for his position as vizier, while concurrently holding
a number of titles within the Amun priesthood.
354
However, it seems more plausible that
it was Amenemhat who was being groomed, since he was already serving as head of an
institution that his father oversaw. Perhaps Amenemhat died early? Or, perhaps Aametu,
instead of removing the valuable asset Amenemhat provided, decided to promote his
second son User to become his mdw iAw. Neither scenario is provable, but the
implications for our understanding of the relationship between the vizierate and the
Amun priesthood are quite interesting.
Based on his study of Users monuments,
355
Dziobek reconstructed a career for
User in which he started as a wab-priest during the reign of Thutmosis I, progressed
through the echelons of the Amun priesthood under Thutmosis I-III, and, according to the
Co-Installation/ Appointment (Berufung) text of User, was made a staff of old age

353
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.325.
354
Most recently Dziobek, Denkmler. He discusses Amenemhat but gives no explanation for why he was
not chosen to succeed his father; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.116-7. Dziobek gives a summary of Users
titles and career by monument with complete references and includes an Appendix with a complete list of
Users titles organized both by the monuments on which they occur, and in a second list alphabetically by
functional title; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.85-101, 157-64. See also Urk. IV, 1029-43.
355
These monuments include two Theban tombs (TTs 131 and 61), a shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no. 17),
funerary cones, statues, stelae, papyri, and several smaller finds from TT61. In addition he is mentioned or
depicted in tombs, statues and other artifacts belonging to family members and colleagues. A complete list
of all the monuments with full references and discussion is given by Dziobek; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler,
pp.85-101. The main publications for Users tombs are Dziobek, User-Amun; Dziobek, Denkmler; and
Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.129-40. For the Gebel es-Silsilah shrine, cf. Caminos
and James, Silsilah I, pp.57-63, pls.33-4, 45-7.

81
(mdw iAw) for his father while still active at Karnak.
356
Users position at Karnak when he
became a staff of old age was probably that of scribe of the divine seal in the temple of
Amun. In the scene accompanying the co-installation text, the identifying caption refers
to User as scribe of the divine seal,
357
and in column 24 of the inscription above, the
fuller version scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun
358
is used. The title falls
about halfway through Dziobeks recreated order of Users positions in the Amun temple
(see below.)
359

The Co-Installation of User encompasses the west end of the southeast wall of
Users Theban Tomb (TT) 131.
360
It is composed of both a lengthy inscription and a
presentation scene that depicts Thutmosis III seated in a kiosk and facing a procession of
attendants, Aametu as the aged vizier, and his son User (Figs.4-5, pp.460-1).
361
At the
opposite end of the wall the upper register depicts Thutmosis III being carried on a
palanquin with User, as the new vizier, leading the royal procession to the gate of Karnak
temple, followed by officers and a military escort.
362
Below this Aametu sits facing User
with another lengthy text written in the style of a teaching.
363
On the opposite wall is

356
The term is mentioned in col. 12 and applied to User in cols. 25 and 27.
357
As it exists today, the title reads: sS nTr /// t //// Wsr mAa-xrw. Between nTr and the t is probably the
top of the xtmt sign, while a horizontal m or perhaps a pr-sign can be restored after this group. The rest of
the title until Users name is completely lost. In the publication of the tomb, Dziobek reads: sS xtm.w nTr
[Imn]-wsr mAa-xrw, the scribe and divine sealer , with one group missing between nTr and the restored
Imn of User(amun)s name; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, p.75 text 5h, pl.72. In a later discussion however,
Dziobek seems to change his mind about this reading, translating instead scribe of the divine seal as an
abbreviation for scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun; cf. Denkmler, p.100, 159. I believe that
the latter interpretation is correct.
358
sS Htmt nTr m Het nTr n Imn
359
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.100; cf. also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.265 no.175.
360
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va.
361
PM(8); cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.73-5, pl.17a, 19, 42-3, 72, 81.
362
PM(9)I; cf. Dziobek,User-Amun, pp.76-7, pl.18-19, 72, 83.
363
PM(9)II; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.75-6, pl.18-19, 72, 82; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.23-54 pl.2.

82
the third text in Users tomb that completes the set: the Installation (of the vizier) text
(Einsetzung),
364
which has parallels in the tombs of Rekhmire, Amenemopet and Hepu.
365

As Dziobek has pointed out in his discussion of the inscription,
366
the Co-
Installation text is structured by a scheme that is repeated twice and consists of a framing
story, speech of the officials and speech of the king. The overarching theme is that of the
royal audience, which Dziobek interprets as having three elements: the king, his
advisors, and the solution to a problem that could be dealt with in different ways.
367

Composed of 37 columns,
368
the inscription begins with the phrase xpr swt Hmst nswt a
sitting of the king took place. This sets the context for the entire event, which essentially
occurs in the audience-hall of the king. The process of the co-installation or appointment
of User as a staff of old age has three parts. First, a procession of officials and courtiers
enter into the palace, including the vizier (Aametu), and the courtiers tell Thutmosis III
that the vizier (Aametu) has reached old age and his back is bowed with the weight of his
responsibilities.
369
They go on to request that Thutmosis III make for Aametu a mdw iAw,
citing as a reason, besides his age, that he has made mAat throughout the land on behalf of
the king.
370
Following their speech, the king concurs, and asks that they find a suitable
candidate who in executing judgements his voice is well-disposed.
371
The officials,
after searching, praise Thutmosis III and inform him that the perfect official to place as a

364
PM(12); cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.77, pl.75, 85-6; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.55-66, pl.3
365
Tombs 100, 29, and 66. Rekhmire is Users nephew and successor and is discussed below. Amenemopet
followed Rekhmire as vizier in the reign of Amenhotep II, see Ch.2. Hepu was vizier during the reign of
Thutmosis IV.
366
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.16-21.
367
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.16ff. and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, p.138f.
368
Dziobek provides a translation with commentary in Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.3-15.
369
Columns 2-8; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.3-4, pl.1.
370
Columns 8-12: iAwt ip.s wnwt.s smrw ipn Dd.sn [wDA.k] ity nb.n r-ntt TAty pH[.n].f Tni nhy m ksw xn m
psd.f nt-ow.f th s dmi.s sqA sArt imyt ib.k sAx.n n.k wDa mAat n ky Hr sp pn Ax tA.wy ky diw Hr m mdw iAwt;
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.4-5, pl.1.
371
Columns 12-15: [Dd.]j[n].f xft.sn Hwy Dar.tn n.i //// n Hmw.Tn [m]XA-ib Hr spw nw //// m stkn wDawt simA.f
xrw[.f]; Dziobek, Denkmler, p.5, pl.1.

83
mdw iAw is Aametus own son User, who was already appointed by the king as scribe of
the divine seal in the temple of Amun.
372
Finally, Thutmosis III speaks directly to the
vizier:
25
Then his Majesty was answering the vizier concerning it,
saying: How good is one whose honor is firm, whose love
endures in the audience-chamber.
26
There is not your
blame, there is not your wrongful act, there is not your
reproach arriving at the palace. I have witnessed your son
User as one efficacious in instituting deeds,
straightforward, one who your teachings satisfy, whose
heart opens to [all]wisdom.
27
[I] will cause that his
excellence surrounds you. Then he would act for you (as) a
staff of old age according as that which one does for one
who did what is praised, and who provided an [excellent]
place. [It is] a good thing, replacement by his equal.
373


After Users appointment as a staff of old age, Thutmosis III presents a short depiction
of what a viziers duties entail and the text concludes with Users presentation to the
court as (co-)vizier.
374

This text is extremely interesting from both a literary and historical perspective. It
is written in the style of a royal narrative (Knigsnovelle), a genre which, in the mid-18
th

Dynasty, had only recently developed.
375
Unlike a private autobiography, which can also

372
Columns 16-25, especially 24-25: di.k is sA.f Wsr rn.f m sS xtmt nTr m Hwt-nTr n Imn ntf m hAw it.k nswt
bity (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| mAa [xrw] /// w /// [tA-wr] //// [iw rdi.tw] n.f wDw m aH sar.tw smi.f xft-Hr Hmw-ib Htp qd
nfr.t sw n.k <m> mdw iAw; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.5-8, pl.1.
373
Columns 25-7: wn-in Hm.f Hr wSd TAty Hr.s m Dd nfr.wy Htp imAx.f mrt.f mn m aXnw(ty) nn wn.k nn sp.k
xbn nn srx.k spr r aH iw mtr.n.i sA.k Wsr m mnx m wAH spw aqA-ib Htp sbAw.k swab ib.f r sArt [nbt] di(.i) pXr
mnxw.f xr.k ix ir.f n.k mdw iAw mi irt n ir Hsst DbA bw [Ax] ... [sw] sp nfr DbA m mity[.f]; Dziobek,
Denkmler, pp.8-10, pl.1.
374
Columns 29-36; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.10-12.
375
There are a few examples from before the New Kingdom that are in the style of a Knigsnovelle, such as
the building inscription of Sesostris I (pBerlin 3029), 13
th
Dynasty stele of king Neferhotep, and possibly
the 17
th
Dynasty Coptos stele of king Rahotep. Inscriptions prior to the reign of Thutmosis III are also
limited and include, the stelae of king Kamose, Thutmosis Is Abydos stele, and the Coronation and Punt
inscriptions of Hatshepsut. On the Knigsnovelle, see in general Hermann, Die Knigsnovelle and Osing,
in: Ld III, cols. 556-7; on the military usage of the genre see Spalinger, Aspects, pp.101-20. Most recently
Quirke, in: History and Forms, pp.263-76 and Loprieno, in: History and Forms, pp.277-95 have discussed
the literary placement and development of this genre.

84
contain narrative, the Knigsnovelle focuses on the person of the king, such that it
presents a literary narrative of an episode in a kings life.
376
Thus, although the content
concerns the appointment of User as a staff of old age for his father, it is the king who
is the protagonist of the text. Dziobek categorizes Users text as belonging to a subgroup
of the Knigsnovelle whose characteristic feature is the use of the royal audience.
377

Within this are three types, distinguished by the way in which the problem is solved:
advertising a royal decision, discussion with the council, and mutual efforts at
solving a problem; Users fits into the last group.
378
Redfords recent monograph on the
wars of Thutmosis III separates this type of text from that of the Knigsnovelle or
Novella. When used by Thutmosis III, these sance texts include mention of his
campaigns, but in the style of reminisces or remembrances that are often placed in
topical, rather than chronological, order.
379
According to Redford, in their fullest form the
sance texts include the date, the appearance of the king enthroned, the introduction of
the courtiers, the kings statement, and lastly the adulation of the courtiers.
380

Whether Users appointment text is characterized as a Knigsnovelle, a subgroup
within it, or a sance text, the important point is that these genres are exclusively the
purview of the king and found on royal monuments such as stelae and temple walls.
Here, however, an elite individual is employing the text in a private, funerary, setting,
where it becomes one of several scenes that describe the life and career of User. Users
ability to depict himself standing before the king twice in his tomb is a marker for both

376
Loprieno, in: History and Forms, p.274.
377
In his discussion of the genre, Loprieno groups a variety of different type of texts under the aegis of the
Knigsnovelle, commenting that they all focus on the kings deeds, and hence function as king, but
Loprieno does not further subcategorize them; cf. Loprieno in: History and Forms, pp.277-82.
378
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.16ff. and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, p.138f.
379
Redford, Wars, pp.101f.;Redford, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
380
Redford, Wars, pp.101f.

85
his status and his relative importance in the eyes of the king vis--vis other officials. In
addition, it is an element of tomb decoration that is newly introduced in the 18
th
Dynasty,
first appearing in private tombs dating to the reign of Hatshepsut.
381
The entire
composition is extremely formal both inscriptionally and visually, with a clear separation
between the person of Thutmosis III and that of his officials. Despite the kings role as
protagonist, the narrative commemorates a specific event in Users life, the very
beginning of his career as vizier. The inscription and the image seem to serve three
important purposes, first they reinforce Users heredity right to the position as the son of
the current vizier, second they demonstrate that this right is recognized by the court and
the king, and third the use of the phrase mdw iAw in reference to Users position is an
archaism that hearkens back to the Old Kingdom maxims of Ptahhotep,
382
and invites the
(literate) viewer to recall that User is fulfilling the ideal function of a son for his father.
Papyrus Turin 1 provides the probable date of Users succession to the position of
vizier in year five, during the co-regency between Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, while he
was still active in the Karnak temple or shortly thereafter.
383
Despite becoming vizier in
year five of a 15-year co-regency, only one of Users monuments carries traces that might
indicate it was built during this time. The lintel of his shrine at Silsilah (no.17) is mostly
destroyed, but on the portion that remains there is a large defaced area similar to those
seen on the lintels of shrines that originally bore the double cartouches of both

381
I.e., the tombs of her overseer of works and chief steward Amenhotep (TT73) and the royal butler
Djhuty (TT110), who also depicts Thutmosis III in his tomb. TT73 is published in Sve-Sderbergh, Four
Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, pp.1-10, pls.i-ix, and TT110 by Davies in Studies Griffith, pp. 279-90, pls. 35-
44.
382
Probably composed, however, in the Middle Kingdom. See the discussion of sources for the term mdw
iAw above, Section Ib., pp.63-8.
383
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.100-101.; cf. Urk. IV, 1384.

86
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.
384
This indicates that the shrine was carved during the co-
regency period, and suffered defacement in the later years of Thutmosis IIIs reign when
Hatshepsuts name was obliterated from many royal and private monuments.
385
The last
attested date for User as vizier is year 28 of Thutmosis IIIs reign, provided by a stele in
the tomb of his steward Amenemhat.
386
However, it is possible that he served until year
34, which is the first certain date for his nephew and successor Rekhmire as vizier.
387
On
the remainder of Users monuments the only king that is ever mentioned or depicted is
Thutmosis III. This seems to suggest that while User was given permission to construct a
shrine at Silsilah shortly after becoming vizier, his ability to begin work on his tombs
came at a later date.
388
The upper tomb, TT61,
389
does not contain depictions of any kings
and was finished, so it may have been begun somewhat earlier that the lower tomb,
TT131.
390
The lack of Hatshepsuts presence in TT131 is certainly important, implying
that its decoration, if not construction, began only after Thutmosis III was again sole
ruler, after year 22. The unfinished nature of TT131 may point to Users death, and end
of tenure as vizier, being closer to year 28 than to year 34.
The method of Users entry into the vizierate, as a staff of old age for his father,
is perhaps indicative of concern amongst the elite during the transition to the co-regency
of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.
391
According to Dziobek, the shift from Aametu to User

384
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.45. Parallels can be seen on shrines 6, 7, 14, and 23. See also Dziobek,
in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.134.
385
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.57. The later date for the program of defacement against Hatshepsut
has been convincingly established by Dorman, Senenmut, esp. Ch.3, pp.46-65.
386
TT82; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.70-2, pl.xxv; Urk. IV, 1043. A discussion of
Amenemhat follows below, see pp.100-110.
387
This date comes from Papyrus Louvre E. 3226; cf. Megally, Recherches, pp.245, 278-9.
388
Also suggested by Dziobek, Dziobek, Denkmler, p.21.
389
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.277-9, type IIIa.
390
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va.
391
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.147; Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.134-6.

87
occurring at approximately the same time as Hatshepsut became co-regent is significant
because the vizier was one of the officials who would have played an important part in
her rise to the throne.
392
Although Dziobek suggests that Aametus actions with regard to
User were predicated by concern over his own dynastic succession,
393
it seems more
likely that by having his son made a staff of old age, Aametu may have been trying to
give assurance of the familys loyalty to Hatshepsuts placement as king. The fact that
Users year five co-regency date comes only from a papyrus, while the text in TT131 is
undated may have been Users way of expressing his fealty to Thutmosis III as sole
ruler.
394

Once User became vizier he also became an official with significant power and
status vis--vis the king. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the fact that in
addition to the Silsilah shrine and several smaller monuments,
395
User was the owner of
two Theban tombs, TTs61 and 131, both located on the Sheikh Abd el-Qurna hillside of
the Theban Necropolis, near TT83 of his father Aametu. The architecture and decoration
of TTs 131 and 61 reflect their complementary nature.

TT 131 is placed at the bottom of
the hillside, and has a pyramid superstructure and niched faade that imitates the
porticoed tomb of his father Aametu (TT83).The decoration of the transverse-hall
contains only scenes related to his career and life. In a direct line of sight, but quite far
above TT131, TT61 was built as the completion of the tomb, containing a passage and

392
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.144ff.; Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.132ff..
393
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.147.
394
For a discussion of Users role in the events surrounding the transitions from Thutmosis III to a co-
regency with Hatshepsut and back to sole rule again, cf. Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen,
pp.134ff., and Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.131-2, 144-8.
395
The tombs are published by Dziobek; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun; Dziobek, Denkmler, Dziobek, in:
Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.129-40. See also Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.277-9, type
IIIa (TT61); Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va (TT131). The shrine is no. 17 at
Gebel es-Silsilah; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.57-63. The smaller monuments include funerary
cones, statues, papyri and stelae; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.85-101 for a full catalogue.

88
rear chamber with niche which was reserved for the funerary and banqueting depictions
usually found at the rear of a single tomb.
396
In addition, a shaft descends from the
courtyard of TT61, leading to a burial chamber decorated with inscriptions and vignettes
from the Amduat and the Litany of Re, both of which are common to the burial
chambers of kings, but are otherwise unknown in non-royal tombs.
397
As in Users use of
the Knigsnovelle in TT131, User has employed these works for his own benefit, placing
himself as a companion of the king on Res divine barque, and inserting himself into
portions of the text. The fact that User had the ability to construct two complementary
tombs to provide for his funerary cult and afterlife, and was able to use royal elements in
the decoration of his burial chamber suggests that his power, status, and relationship to
Thutmosis III were incredibly strong. Perhaps this, combined with a stable kingship, is
why he did not feel the need to ensure the hereditary succession of the vizierate using the
introduction of a mdw iAw, staff of old age, as his father Aametu did for him.
User did have several sons of his own, and at least two of them followed their
father in attaining the same positions at Karnak, including scribe of the divine seal.
398

Despite this, the position of vizier passed from User to his nephew Rekhmire, a son of his
brother, the wab-priest of Amun, Neferweben.
399

There is no clear indication of how or why Rekhmire inherited his paternal uncle
Users position between years 28 and 34 of Thutmosis IIIs reign, although several

396
Dziobek, MDAIK 45; Dziobek, User-Amun, pp. 37-40, 99-100. See also Dorman, in: Thebanische
Beamtennekropolen, p.145 for a brief discussion of the construction and function of the tombs.
397
The version of the Amduat share similarities with the versions seen in the royal tombs of Thutmosis I
and Amenhotep II, while the Litany of Re is a complement to the version placed in Thutmosis IIIs tomb.
Hornung, in: User-Amun, pp.42-7; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.152-5; Dziobek in: Thebanische
Beamtennekropolen, pp.137f. See also Hornungs discussion of Users burial chamber and the texts in it, in
Hornung, Grabkammer.
398
These are Merymaat and Samenkhet, perhaps his eldest two. They are discussed below. For the
complete list of Users family, cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.103-128.
399
Neferweben is also mentioned in Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.293 no.348.

89
theories have been suggested. Neferweben is named as a son of the vizier Aametu in
Users shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah,
400
and as Rekhmires father in TT100, Rekhmires
tomb.
401
The original idea put forth by Davies, and based on the work of Dunham on the
monuments of the northern vizier Neferweben, was that Rekhmires father Neferweben
and the vizier Neferweben were the same man.
402
Dunham placed Neferweben as vizier
between User and Rekhmire,
403
and Davies argued that the reason Rekhmire left out his
fathers vizier title was because he was originally appointed by Hatshepsut, and it was
politically smart for Rekhmire to downplay this.
404
Dziobek sees no reason for such a
suppression since there are monuments of other officials from the reign of Hatshepsut
and later that mention her.
405
However, I would caution against this argument if only
because we should remember that Rekhmire was likely constructing and decorating his
tomb during the period in which Thutmosis IIIs program of erasure was being carried
out on the monuments of Hatshepsut and those that mentioned her name.
406
The only title
Rekhmires father Neferweben bears in TT100 or the Silsilah shrine is wab-priest of

400
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.59, pl.46. Neferweben is the third son placed below the seated figures
of Aametu and Taametu on the north wall. Here is called sA.f wab n [Imn] Nfr-wbn. This is contra Bryan, in
Thutmose III, forthcoming.
401
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.370-2, type Vb. TT 100 was published by Davies in two
volumes, Rekh-mi-r I, Text and Rekh-mi-r II, Plates. Neferweben appears in the bottom half of the
family wall in Rekhmires transverse-hall where he is called wab n [Imn]-ra [Nfr-w]b[n] mAa-xrw ; cf.
PM(9), Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.14-5 and Rekh-mi-r II, pl.x. He is also mentioned in an inscription at
PM(2) where Rekhmire designates himself as born of the wab-priest of Amun, Neferweben; cf. PM(2),
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.31 and Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xxiv.
402
The sources are: 1) a statue dated by the cartouche of Thutmosis III in the Boston MFA (29.728) where
Neferweben has the same titles as User, Iahmes and Rekhmire, i.e., sAb TAyty TAty imy-r Hwt wrt 6 ...imy-r
niwt TAty, chief magistrate, vizier, overseer of the 6 great law courts overseer of the city, vizier; cf.
Dunham, JEA 15, p.164; 2) two canopic jars dated to the early 18
th
Dynasty in the Nugent collection where
Neferhotep is identified as sAb TAyty TAty; cf. Blackman, JEA 4, 1917, pp.39ff.; and 3) a statue from the
temple of Ptah now in the Brussels Royal Museum (E7333), and probably for Ptah of Memphis; cf. Capart,
BMRAH 5, pp.114ff.; Gessler-Lhr, in: Gedenkschrift Barta, pp.133-157.
403
Dunham, JEA 15, p.164.
404
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.101f. He compares the case of Hepuseneb who also omits from his tomb his
appointment as vizier, which did occur under Hatshepsut.
405
Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.132-4; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.131-43.
406
As Dorman was the first to point out, this began after Thutmosis IIIs year 46 or 47; cf. Dorman,
Senenmut, esp. Ch.3, pp.46-65. See also Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.243f., 248-9.

90
Amun, and there is no evidence to suggest that he ever attained a higher position. Nor is
there anything to firmly support a connection between Rekhmires father and the vizier
Neferweben who was based in the north of Egypt. These factors indicate that Rekhmires
father Neferweben was not a vizier and did not provide the link between Rekhmire and
User.
While User was made a staff of old age for his father Aametu, no such event
was recorded by Rekhmire. Rekhmires own Installation scene depicts only Rekhmire
standing before Thutmosis III, while the inscription makes no mention of his
predecessors, or how he obtained this position.
407
Rather, it seems to consist of a list of
general maxims to follow as vizier, the only title Rekhmire is even mentioned as having.
In this it resembles Users own Installation text, which is placed on the wall opposite
that of his Co-Installation or Appointment text. In the text immediately adjacent to
Rekhmires installation, however, the court officials (smrw pr-aA) state that Menkheperre
(Thutmosis III) confirms every office, implying that this is the case for Rekhmire as
well. Rekhmire is here depicted exiting the kings presence with a number of courtiers,
and the inscription continues with:
Coming in peace from the palace, life prosperity health, by the iry-
pat HAty-a, spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat, overseer of
the city, vizier [Rekhmire, (justified ?)], the praises of the lord of
the palace were given to him, the governorance of the Two Lands
were placed upon [him], acting (?) in the affairs of the [Two
Lands] like there was in the face of his father, the overseer of the
city and vizier Aametu, justified.
408



407
Urk. IV, 1128-39; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.84-94 and Rekh-mi-r II, pls. xiv-xv; Lichtheim, AEL II,
pp.21-4.
408
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, cols. 17-21: iit m-Htp m stp-sA anX wDA snb in iry-pat
HAty-a r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat imy-r niwt TAty //[Rx-mi-ra (mAa-xrw ?)] /// di n.f Hsw nb aH diw m Hr //(.f ?)// sHrw
tAwy irt m xrw //[tAwy]// mi wnt m Hr n it.f imy-r niwt TAty aA-mTw mAa-xrw

91
This is the only clear indication in Rekhmires tomb that he was the recognized
and confirmed successor to the vizierate. In other duty-related inscriptions Rekhmire also
calls himself the son of Aametu,
409
while in the scene that depicts Rekhmire standing
before the hall in which he presumably holds court as vizier he is the overseer of the
city, vizier, [Rekhmire], justified, born of Betau, born to the wab-priest of Amun
Neferweben, justified, son of the overseer and the city and vizier, Aametu.
410
This
phraseology certainly emphasizes his hereditary right to the position of vizier, and even
parallels the steps taken by Thutmosis III with regard to his own right to the throne. As
can be seen from ancient Egyptian kin terminology, heredity and kinship did not
distinguish between father and grandfather necessarily.
411
The words for father (it) and
son (sA) were applicable regardless of the generational gap, indicating that it was the
direct lineage that mattered. However, it is important to remember that the terminology
did distinguish between lineals and collaterals, and thus Rekhmire could not have called
himself the son of User unless this were actually true. This indicates that User did not
adopt Rekhmire in order to pass on the office of vizier to him.
412

To summarize: Rekhmire was not made a staff of old age, he did not succeed his
paternal uncle as a proxy son, there was no link through Rekhmires father, and User did
not adopt Rekhmire. The question remains, by what means did Rekhmire attain the
office of vizier? Dziobek suggests that Rekhmire became the successor to User because

409
On the south side of the passage in the temple inspection scenes, PM(14), he labels himself as imy-r niwt
TAty mr Hwt wrwt 6 r Nxn Rx-mi-ra mAa-xrw sA mr niwt TAty r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat aA-mTw mAa-xrw
410
The scene is PM(2) and is the only text that records his full lineage. The relevant inscription reads: imy-r
niwt TAty //[Rx-mi-ra]// mAa-xrw ms n BtAw ir n wab n //[Imn]// Nfr-wbn mAa-xrw sA imy-r niwt aA-mTw; cf.
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.30f. and Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xxiv.
411
Refer to pp.28-33 of the Introduction, and the chart, Table 1, p.57.
412
This did occur for the mayor of Thebes Sennefer who was adopted, whether officially or not, by his
maternal uncle Ahmose-Humay. It is indicated by a change in the kin terminology whereby Sennefer is
called son of my sister in his uncles tomb (TT224), but Ahmose-Humay is called my father by
Sennefer in his own tomb (TT96 upper). See Chapter 2, pp.239-45, for further discussion.

92
he may have been more fit than Users own sons to succeed him in this office. Thus the
choice of Rekhmire was made as a means of protecting the dynastic succession as it were,
because the sons of User were too "mittlemig" for further career advancement.
413

Another possibility is that Rekhmires position within the Amun priesthood
played an important role in his advancement. It was mentioned above that Aametus
marriage into Inenis family opened up the Amun priesthood as a place to install his own
sons. We have sent that prior to becoming co-vizier, User was an official in the Amun
priesthood. Rekhmire, unlike Users sons, does not seem to have had many of the same
Amun and Karnak related titles held by User. Significantly, he did not have any titles that
dealt with the divine seal. On the other hand, while Users sons were essentially priests,
Rekhmires positions were administrative in nature. This perhaps suggests that a specific
path to the vizierate through the Amun priesthood did not exist, or, in contrast, that the
Amun precinct played an important role and that Rekhmires placement within it was
stronger than that of Users sons. These possibilities will be explored further below.
It was mentioned above that Rekhmire does not have an appointment text of any
type in his tomb, and his Installation text provides no information on how exactly
Rekhmire became vizier. However, the implication that Thutmosis III placed him in the
position seems to be supported by several statements contained within his extensive
autobiographical stele.
414
The majority of the inscription, some 34 lines, seems to concern
his actions as vizier and self-laudatory statements.
415
Only at the very beginning, in the
first dozen lines, are there glimpses of Rekhmires connection to Thutmosis III. Amongst


413
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.126-8.
414
The stele was placed on the west wall of the transverse-hall; cf. Urk. IV, 1071; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I,
pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-r II, pls. xi-xii.
415
Urk. IV, 1074-85; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-r II, pls. xi-xii.

93
the numerous titles and epithets listed in lines 1-6 are included controller of the kilt
(xrp Sndyt), foster-child of the king of Upper Egypt (nswt sDty), follower of the king
of Lower Egypt (Sms bity), attendant of Horus (imy-xt @r).
416
While the latter three
seem to indicate that a close relationship to the king existed, the first suggests Rekhmire
participated in one of Thutmosis IIIs sed-festivals.
417
Rekhmire also calls himself an
excellent sole one for one who ennobled him, which seems to tie in with his assertion
that he was a noble second of the king, fourth of him who decided between the two,
advanced of the privy chamber.
418
Although admittedly these phrases are essentially
describing Rekhmires high status, since these are placed before Rekhmire seems to
attain the position of vizier, they may also be seen as demonstrating his established
position vis--vis Thutmosis III. The next few lines are very damaged, but Davies
interprets them as recording Rekhmires promotion to vizier, translating I had come
forth in the adornments [of the vizier (?), promoted] as priest of Maat.
419
He suggests
that the title of priest of Maat was obtained after, or in conjunction with, becoming
vizier.
420
This may well be the case, as it is a title that both Aametu and User held, and
one that consistently appears in conjunction with the titles overseer of the city,
vizier.
421
Indeed, Rekhmire himself is called spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of

416
Urk. IV, 1071-4; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.79-80, and Rekh-mi-r II, pl. xi.
417
Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.
418
The first phrase occurs in line 2, while the remainder appear in lines 3-4; cf. Urk. IV, 1072; Davies,
Rekh-mi-r I, pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-r II, pls. xi-xii.
419
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.80, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xi. Lines 6-7: Dr prt.i m Xkrw //[nw]// /// //[TAty ?]//
[dpn] .kwi m Hm-nTr mAat
420
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.80.
421
Aametu is called spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat, overseer of the city and overseer of the
city, priest of Maat on the portico ceiling of TT83; priest of Maat who is in the palace, overseer of the
city in TT131 of his son User; spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat, overseer of the city, vizier in
TT122 of his son Neferhotep and (great?) grandson Amenemhat; overseer of the city, vizier, spokesman of
Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat in TT100 of his grandson Rekhmire. User is also called spokesman of
HIerakonpolis, priest of Maat several times inTTs131 and 61, Silsilah shrine 17, and CG42218; cf.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.157-64.

94
Maat, overseer of the city, vizier as he exits the palace after having been placed as vizier
by Thutmosis III.
422

The stress which Rekhmire places on his kinship to User and Aametu certainly
indicates that he felt the need to draw attention to the familys established control over
the position, and therefore his right to inherit it. This is perhaps best exemplified on the
east wall of the transverse-hall where Rekhmire depicts a family gallery. (Figs.6-7,
pp.462-3)
423
In the upper register a son of Rekhmire offers to his parents, while behind
him are seated Rekhmires grandparents Aametu and Taametu with nine children and
below them Rekhmires uncle User and aunt Tjiu with eight children. In the lower
register the scene is repeated with Rekhmires parents Neferweben and Betau as guests
with seven children, and below them Rekhmires children and a couple who are likely the
parents of either Betau or Rekhmires wife Meryt. Although Rekhmires parents and in-
laws are included, the most prominent placement on the wall is awarded to his
predecessors as vizier, Aametu and User. The distinction Rekhmire awards his two
ancestors and predecessors as vizier seems to imply that Rekhmire may have been
attempting to emphasize his familial right to the position of vizier.
Rekhmires clear familial link to Aametu and User serves to impress upon others
his hereditary claim to the position of vizier, and even parallels the steps taken by
Thutmosis III with regard to his own right to the throne. The courtiers accompanying
Rekhmire as he exits the presence of the king even proclaim of Thutmosis III that he is
mn r st.f msw nw saHw m st itw.sn enduring upon his throne, while the children of the

422
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, cols. 17-21.
423
PM(9); cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.14-5, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.ix-x.

95
nobles are upon the seat of their fathers.
424
Rekhmire remarks upon the concept of
placing a son in his fathers place
425
in his autobiography. Towards the middle, in the
section of I did X phrases, he states I established the son and heir on the seat of his
father.
426
Rekhmire may have already been planning for one of his own sons to take his
place. His eldest and third sons, Menkheperresoneb and Mery, respectively, followed in
their fathers footsteps with regard to Karnak, while his second son, Amenhotep, was a
scribe of the divine seal of Amun, like User.
427
If Rekhmire had carried out the
instructions given to him by the king in his Installation text, then not only should he
have remained as vizier under Amenhotep II, but he should have been able to pass on the
position to a family member.
428
However, shortly after the accession of Amenhotep II,
the vizierate changes hands and families. Perhaps, as Dziobek suggested, the power held
by Rekhmire and his extended family was too strong and posed a potential threat to the
newly installed king.
429

Aametus extended family and later generations
430

(Involvement in the Amun priesthood)
In the above discussion on the heredity of the vizierate within the family of
Aametu it has also become evident that this family was firmly entrenched in the Amun
priesthood and Karnak generally.
431
Aametu, however, reported almost no religious titles,

424
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.17; Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, col.13.
425
As an implied, if not actual, staff of old age.
426
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.81; Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xi, l. 22: mnx.i sA iwow Hr nst (?) it.f
427
See below for further discussion.
428
The two instructions in question are: The magistrate who acts like this, He will succeed here in this
place. (l.15-16) and Lo, a man remains in his office, If he acts as he is charged (l.22); Lichtheim, AEL II,
p.23.
429
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.128.
430
See the extended genealogy, Fig.8, p.464.
431
Most of the family members are included in Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun.

96
and apparently none that were connected to a specific priesthood.
432
Why then did almost
all of Aametus sons hold positions in the priesthood? As it was said above, it was
Aametus marriage to Taametu that seems to have afforded his descendants entry into the
Amun priesthood. Taametus brother Ineni was the mayor of Thebes, and held a variety
of upper level positions within the Amun temple.
433
In his publication of Inenis tomb
(TT81), Dziobek offers several interesting observations. First, Ineni and his wife
Iahhotep-Tuiu were childless; second some of Inenis brothers held middle and upper
level positions in the priesthood;
434
and finally, Inenis sister married the vizier Aametu,
perhaps an indication that Inenis family was a distinguished one within the royal
court.
435
As I argued above, Inenis connection to the court is also suggested by the
names prevalent in his family.
436

Seven of Aametus eight sons were all priests, and of these four were involved in
the Amun priesthood.
437
User, who was discussed at length above, held several Amun-
related positions before inheriting the vizierate.
438
Neferhotep was an imy-r Sna n Imn and

432
The only possible reference to a position within the Amun priesthood may occur in col. 24 of the Co-
installation text of User, but there is a lacuna here. Although Helck (in: Fs. Grapow, p.107-117) and
Davies (BMMA part II, 1926, p.50) restore Aametu a scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun during
the reign of Thutmosis I, Dziobek, in comparison with Stele Uriage lines 3-5, has convincingly shown that
it is User who is being referred to, see Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.7-8. Although he was also called divine
father, beloved of the god, this should probably be viewed as an epithet indicating Aametus status.
Likwise, Aametus title of priest of Maat is perhaps really an epithet connected to his function as a vizier.
433
See above, p.77 with note 91. These titles include overseer of the granaries of Amun, overseer of work
in Karnak, overseer of work in the kings tomb, overseer of all offices in the house of Amun, overseer of all
seals in the house of Amun. For a complete list, see Dziobek, Ineni, pp.122-3. See also Eichler, Verwaltung
des Hauses des Amun, no.144. Dziobek discusses Inenis life and career, Dziobek, Ineni, pp.124-41.
434
For example, Pahery was a steward of the high priest of Amun, and Qen was a priest of Mut.
435
Dziobek, Ineni, pp.143-4.
436
See p.78.
437
The eighth, and perhaps eldest, son was Amenemhat, who was discussed in the preceding section due to
his position as overseer of prison, which was probably under the jurisdiction of the vizier; cf. p.79f.
438
Eichler, Verwaltung des "Hauses des Amun, no.175. According to Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.100-101,
Users movement through the temple ranks can be reconstructed as: xtm(.i) Spss nb m Ipt-swt xtm(.i) Spssw
nw tAw nbw m Hwt nTr nt Imn sS aA(w)t nbt Spst sS xtmw nTr sS HD nbw sS xtmt nTr nt Imn [imy-r xtmt nt
Imn] imy-r pr.wy HD nbw. The last two titles, as well as a few others were likely held in conjunction with
Users position as vizier because they fall within the framework of the viziers total responsibilities.

97
possibly a 2
nd
priest of Amun (in Karnak or perhaps Deir el-Bahri). Neferweben (the
father of Rekhmire) was a wab-priest of Amun, and Amenmes was a scribe of the treasury
of Amun.
439
Two other sons were priests in the larger Karnak precinct. Nacht(amun) was
a wab-priest of Mut, and Aakheperkare was a Hm-priest of Montu, while Hor was a wab-
priest, chief lector-priest in the funerary temple of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I), and
possibly overseer of the temple of Amun (referring to that of Thutmosis I).
440

As Ineni was certainly well-placed within the Amun temple, it seems he not only
was able to introduce his own (younger?) brothers into the temple, but that his position
provided Aametu the ability to place his own sons there as well. In this regard it is
especially significant that some of Aametus sons held the same titles as their maternal
uncles, i.e. User and Ineni, Nacht(amun) and Qen, Neferweben and Userhat. This seems
to indicate that although Aametu was a powerful official as vizier, it was his marriage
that enabled his own sons to flourish in the Amun domain. Thus nepotism began to play a
role in how Aametus descendants gained their positions.
The involvement of Aametus family with the priesthood continues with
Aametus son User and his children. As was mentioned above, User bore several titles
related to the Amun priesthood and Karnak. Although User advanced through the ranks
of the priesthood prior to becoming vizier, the titles which could perhaps be attributed to
him after becoming (co-)vizier are overseer of the seal-bearers of Amun, overseer of

439
In general, see the material provided by Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.112-114. Neferhotep is the owner of
unpublished TT122, and is also known from Gebel es-Silsilah 17, TTs100 and 61, and a personal statue
(Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.370 and 123); Amenmes is the owner of TT228 (Eichler,
Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.082); Neferweben is known from Gebel es-Silsilah 17 and TT100
(Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.348). On the identification of Neferhotep as the owner of
TT122 and the son of Aametu, see most recently J.J. Shirley, 54
th
ARCE Annual Meeting, Atlanta, April,
2003.
440
Nachtamun is known from Gebel es-Silsilah 17 and TT100. Hor is known from TTs 61 and 100, Gebel
es-Silsilah 17, the Senmes stele, and a personal statue; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,
no.435). Aakheperkare is known from TTs 122 and 82.

98
the treasury, overseer of the scribes of Amun, and overseer of the granaries of
Amun.
441
Their infrequent usage suggests that while User may have held these positions
as adjuncts to his role as vizier,
442
they power attached to them may not have been
extensive. This is further supported by the scenes in TT131, only a few of which depict
User overseeing work perhaps connected to the Amun precinct.
443

Out of Users 5 sons and 7 daughters, 4 sons and 1 daughter were certainly
involved in the Amun priesthood. Baket was a chantress of Amun,
444
Samenkhet,
Merymaat, Mery and Amenemhat shared various titles,
445
and Merymaat held several
additional upper level priestly posts.
446
In fact, Samenkhet and Merymaat, the two eldest,
both had titles that their father also held, namely, wab-priest and scribe of the divine seal
in Karnak. Additionally, Merymaats priestly position in Deir el-Bahri placed him in the
same position as his paternal uncle Hor and Hors two sons (Hor and Merimaat), and
Merymaats own son Aapehti also followed in this position.
447
Neferweben, although his
own title seems to have been rather lower in the priesthood, may have married into a
highly placed Amun priesthood family, if we take the depiction in Rekhmires tomb of an

441
Once in TT131 is the sequence overseer of the seal-bearers of Amun, overseer of the treasury of Amun,
overseer of the city, vizier. On the Uriage stele the grouping overseer of the treasury, overseer of the
granaries of Amun is placed shortly before the vizier title. In TT83 of Aametu (Users father), User is
called overseer of the treasury /// overseer of /// overseer of the city, vizier, sAb, overseer of scribes of
[Amun]. The title overseer of the treasury is listed before vizier three more times in TT131, and once in
TT82; it follows vizier once in TT131. Overseer of scribes also appears once in TT131 after the vizier title.
442
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.45ff.; Kees, Priestertum, p.81. See also Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.15 and
Quirke, RdE 37, p.118 on this trend in the Middle Kingdom. Dziobek seems to follow this for User as well,
cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.100-1.
443
User is shown receiving taxes and foreign tribute, and inspecting craftsmen. In the latter his titles
include //[ imy-r pr.wy HD nbw ]// xtm Spssw n (?) tAw nbw m Hwt-nTr n //[ t Imn ]//.
444
Smayt nt //[Imn]//. She was not, however, the wife of the steward of the vizier Amenemhat (TT82).
445
wab-priest: Amunemhat, Samenkhet, Merymaat; scribe of the divine seal: Mery, Samenkhet, Merymaat,
hem-priest: Mery?, Merymaat. See Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos.057, 282, 487.
446
Hm-nTr sn-nw n Imn Hm-nTr n Imn m Dsr Dsrw (Mery may have also held this title) sS iit aAt nbt st it nTr n
Imn sS nTr Xtmt aq Hry sStA m pr-Imn wab // m Ipt-swt wab n mAat.
447
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.126-7. Both Hor and Merimaat were chief hery-heb priests of Aakheperkare
like their father, while Aapehty was a 3
rd
priest of Amun in Djser-djeseru.

99
otherwise unknown couple to be the parents of Neferwebens wife Betu. The couple
consists of the overseer of the nfrwt-cattle of Amun Baki and his wife Itu. They are
depicted at the bottom of the family tableau, under the representation of Rekhmires
parents and their other children.
448
While much of the scene depicting Neferweben and
Betus children is damaged, the title of scribe can be suggested for two of the sons.
In contrast to User, most of Rekhmires Amun or Karnak related titles seem to be those
that come under his jurisdiction as vizier, rather than necessarily being titles that he held
independent of assuming this office.
449
Rekhmires positions which may perhaps reflect
actual duties are those of chief scribe of divine offerings of Amun and overseer of the Sna
of Amun, both of which two of his sons also held.
450
This is in contrast to Users sons,
who, as shown above, were primarily priests. The titles that Rekhmire and User shared
are those of wab-priest and overseer of the houses of gold and silver, as well as divine
father, beloved of the god and priest of Maat. Like User however, most of Rekhmires
identified children seem to have held positions in the Amun priesthood. Thus we have the
eldest son, Menkheperresoneb, as a (chief) scribe of divine offerings of Amun and 2
nd

priest of Amun.
451
Amunhotep, like his Uncle User, was a scribe of the divine seal of

448
Also discussed above, p.93, Fig.1, p.177. As no affiliation is given, this attribution remains uncertain,
and it has been suggested that they are instead the parents of Meryt, Rekhmires wife. However, I would
agree with Davies that the similarity between the names of Itu and Betu, both linguistically and
orthographically, makes this situation more probable; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-r I.
449
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.45ff.; Kees, Priestertum, p.81. See also Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.15 and
Quirke, RdE 37, p.118 on this trend in the Middle Kingdom. These titles would include overseer of (all)
work (imy-r kAwt (nbt)), controller of all work in Karnak (xrp kAwt nbt m Ipt-swt ), overseer of craftsmen
(imy-r Hmwt ), overseer of all craftsmen of Amun (imy-r Hmwt nbt nt Imn ), and steward of Amun (imy-r pr
n Imn ). Dziobek seems to follow this for User as well, cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.100-1.
450
Menkheperresoneb held the position of sS Htpw nTr tp n Imn and Mery was also an imy-r Sna n Imn.
451
His titles are: sS nTr Htpw (tp) n Imn and Hm-nTr snnw n Imn. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses
des Amun, no.263. There is not a son named either Amunhotep (Urk. IV, 1138) or Neferhotep who had
the title of Hm-nTr snnw n Imn, this inscription in fact carries the name of Menkheperresoneb (Davies, Rekh-
mi-r II, pl. LXX). Kees reference to a son of Rekhmire with this title (Priestertum, p.20) is not in fact
followed up, rather he mentions a son of User, the same Menkheperresoneb discussed here (Priestertum,
p.23).

100
Amun, and Mery was an overseer of the Sna of Amun.
452
Rekhmires daughter Takhat and
a granddaughter named Henuttawy were both chantresses of Amun.
453
Beyond the
generation of Rekhmires sons we have no further information on this familys presence
within the Amun priesthood and Karnak.
Based on the available evidence, it seems that in addition to the clearly family
controlled position of vizier, this family also had influence within the Amun priesthood.
Between Aametu and User, the position of vizierate was passed using inheritance through
the staff of old age. It seems that Rekhmire was utilizing every tool at his disposable to
explain his succession to the position. Thus, we see that he stressed both his hereditary
claim and relationship to the king. In addition, his increased responsibilities concerning
the Amun domain once vizier suggests that his pre-vizieral positions within the temple
administration may have assisted his ability to become placed as the successor to his
paternal uncle. Familial nepotism, originally through marriage, was consistently used to
place younger members of the family throughout the Amun priesthood. The Amun
positions range from lower to upper level positions in different areas of the priesthood or
priestly administration, suggesting that this vizierate familys influence, and wealth, was
indeed widespread.
454


452
Amunhoteps title is sS nTr xtmt n Imn, and Merys imy-r Sna n Imn. The restoration of a son named
Amunemhat with the title of imy-r Sna n Imn is unlikely (Urk. IV, 1157), and I would follow Davies in
restoring the inscription with the name of Rekhmire, based both on the placement of the inscription, and the
fact that Rekhmire bears this title elsewhere in this same scene (Davies, Rekh-mi-r II pl. XXXVI,
XXXVIII). See also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 274.
453
Smayt nt Imn. They are both found in the passage scene that depicts Rekhmire being greeted upon his
return from Hutsekhem (Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.LXX-LXXI): Takhat is first, followed by 2 unidentified
women, 1 woman perhaps called Maatneferet (?) and the sAt sAt.f Henuttawy; all the women (there are 11
total) are represented holding menats and sistra. There are traces before Maatnefrets (?) name that may
have been those of a title, perhaps Henuttawy was her daughter?
454
This powerful family may even have had some control over the placement of tombs in the Theban
Necropolis. In the northern section of Shekh Abd el-Qurna we find Aametus tomb (TT83), both tombs of
User (TTs 61 and 131), the tomb of Neferhotep and Amunemhat (TT122 placed in almost the direct line
between TT61 and 131), and the tomb of Amenmes (TT228) a bit to the north, but roughly even with 131.

101
Amenemhat
(scribe and steward of the vizier)
Dziobek suggested that the scribe and steward Amenemhat was a close friend of
the vizier User due to their temple connections, and based on these assumptions, he
concluded that Amenemhat was promoted to the position of vizier when User, the official
Amenemhat served under, himself became vizier.
455
However, Davies demonstrated that
Amenemhat held a number of the same positions as members of his lineal and extended
family. What follows is a detailed (re-)examination of Amenemhats family and their
titles in order to discern what role heredity may have played in his rise to the positions
scribe who counts grain and steward of the vizier.
Amenemhat was the owner of one of the larger tombs in the Theban Necropolis,
TT82, which is a T-shaped tomb with a rear chamber and niche with statues of
Amenemhat and his wife Baket(amun).
456
From the niche a shaft leads straight down into
a complex of three rooms, one of which was clearly Amenemhats intended burial
chamber, since it has a niche and is decorated with the Book of the Dead and Pyramid
Texts.
457
Very few 18
th
Dynasty private tombs had decorated burial chambers, making

The tomb of Rekhmire (TT100), although being further south, is on a parallel ridge with TT131 of User,
and even the tomb of Users steward Amenemhat (TT82) is nearby, being just south (almost adjacent) to
that of Aametu.
455
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.131.
456
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.326-30, type Vb. The tomb was published by Davies and
Gardiner, Amenemhet. My examination of the tomb in 2002 revealed that it is in essentially the same
condition as when Davies worked there. TT82 was completely decorated, although by Davies time the
entire east bay of the hall, as well as parts of the passage, have suffered considerable damage.
457
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.102-10, pls. xxxv-xlvi. The burial chambers walls are divided in
half by a continuous band of text. Book of the Dead (BD) texts were painted on the north, south and east
walls, as well as the rear wall of the niche. On the west wall of the chamber the goddesses Isis and Nepthys
frame the BD texts on the lower portion of he wall, while human-headed Sons of Horus, in pairs, frame the
Pyramid Texts placed in the upper half. The burial chamber is in much the same state as Davies left it,
complete with piles of shwabtis, pottery shards, and even a bit of newspaper from the 1930s with adds for
items like shoe polish! I am indebted to the SCA for allowing me access to the burial chamber, which
conveniently still had a ladder in place. I am also grateful to Harold Hayes, and especially Will Schenk, for
their help with the inscriptions.

102
this a unique and significant feature of TT82 the importance of which as a marker of
Amenemhats status will be discussed below. Another distinctive aspect of Amenemhats
tomb is his portrayal of multiple members of his consanguine and affinal family, as well
as the family of viziers he served under. The difficulties inherent in understanding ancient
Egyptian kinship terms make determining the relationships between Amenemhat and the
people he chose to depict challenging. A cursory examination appears to indicate that
Amenemhat inherited almost all of his titles, either directly or indirectly, from the
relatives represented in his tomb. Thus, the progression of Amenemhats career is
intricately tied to determining the exact nature of these familial links.
In his publication of the tomb, Davies presents an extensive genealogy for
Amenemhat based on the evidence fromTT82 and other monuments attributable to
him.
458
These include a stele at Gebel es-Silsilah,
459
depiction in the Silsilah shrine of his
superior, the vizier User,
460
funerary cones from TT82,
461
and possibly a stelephorous
statue.
462
Amenemhats genealogy is rather complex, so for ease of reference Davies
version appears as Fig.9, p.465. Only a few of the identifications that Davies makes are
questionable, and these are indicated on the figure with an asterisk. Sheila Whale
included Amenemhats tomb and family in her study of the representations of families in

458
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.1-6. In general Urk. IV, 1043-65. See also Davies compilation of
Amenemhats titles, pp.6-7.
459
Griffith, PSBA 12, pp.6-7; Urk. IV, 1053-4.
460
Shrine no.17; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.57-63, esp. p.58 and pl.46. See also Dziobek,
Denkmler, pp.128-31
461
Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 128-9, no.379, which belongs to the elder of the portal
Amenemhat and his wife Nofretiry are perhaps relatives of Amenemhat, who had a niece and sister named
Nofretiry, as well as a son named Amenemhat. Daressy nos. 46 and 249 are also possibly attributable to
Amenehat on the basis of titles and the wifes name.
462
Berlin no.2316; cf. Aegyptische Inschriften, V, p.52; Urk. IV,1049. The attribution of the stele is tenuous
as the name of Amenemhats wife is Merytamun.

103
private tombs.
463
Whale suggests one change and two emendations to Davies original
reconstruction of the basic genealogy, which will be examined in the following
discussion.
Before turning to his extended family, it should be mentioned that Amenemhats
wife Baket(amun) was, as Davies originally suggested, apparently also his niece through
his (half- ?)sister Ahmose.
464
This identification is based on the fact that in relation to
Amenemhat Baket(amun) is called both Hmt.f his wife and sAt n snt.f daughter of his
sister.
465
Ahmose is identified as the mother of Baket(amun) in TT82 and as the sister
(snt.f) of Amenemhat on the Silsilah stele.
466
Most of Amenemhats extended family
(excluding his siblings, wife, and children) is depicted on the west wall of the transverse-
hall (Fig.10, p.466), where they are referred to as ancestors (itw).
467
Amenemhat stands
before them as the scribe who counts grain in the granary of [divine offerings of Amun],
elder of the portal (smsw hAyt) [of the house of Amun], overseer of ploughed lands,
steward of the vizier, head of the weavers of [Amun].
468
In the upper register three
couples are depicted. The first two are the steward of the vizier Ahmose-Humashu and
his wife Ahmose, and Ahmose-Humashus parents, the chief of weavers of Amun
Djhutymes called Aa and his wife Tjuiunefret.
469
Ahmose-Humashu and Ahmose are

463
Whale, Family. Her study of Amenemhat appears on pp.60-68, Case 22.
464
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.3.
465
She is designated as wife four times in the tomb, as well as on the Silsilah stele, and as his niece three
times in the tomb; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4, pls. iv, ix, xii, xiv, xxii, xxxi, xxxv.
466
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4-5, pls.xxxvi, xliv.
467
PM(4); cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii. Amenemhet stands before them making a Htp-di-
nsw offering for the ancestors, revered ones, those who are in the necropolis; cf. Davies and Gardiner,
Amenemhet, pl.vii, p.35; Urk. IV, 1054-5.
468
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, pp.6-7, 34-5.
469
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, pp.4-5, 35; Urk. IV, 1055.1-4.

104
named as the parents of Amenemhats wife Baket(amun) twice in the burial chamber.
470

This indicates that Amenemhat probably inherited his title of steward of the vizier from
his father/brother-in-law. It is perhaps possible that the marriage between Amenemhat
and his niece Baket(amun) was conducted in order to cement the transition, since
Amenemhat would now be a son to Ahmose-Humashu.
471

The last couple is identified as his brother (sn.f), the steward and scribe
Djhutymes and his great (i.e. eldest) sister (snt.f wrt) Djhutymes.
472
Davies calls this
last couple the brother and sister of Ahmose-Humashu,
473
but Whale identifies them as
the sister of Ahmose-Humashu and her husband because of the use of the term eldest
sister.
474
I do not agree with Whale in this conclusion, because Amenemhat was very
consistent in his use of kinship terms. Although Ahmose is his sister, she is called Hmt.f
because she is depicted in relation to her husband, and Djhutymes is identified as it.f in
relation to Ahmose-Humay while his wife is called Hmt.f in relation to Djhutymes. Thus
if the last couple were meant to be identified as husband and wife they should be
identified as sn.f Hmt.f, regardless of the fact that Djhutymes was the sister of Ahmose-
Humashu since his brother could still mean brother-in-law.
475
Throughout the tomb the
term snt.f is never used to mean wife, only the more traditional Hmt.f. The only exception
to this is when Amenemhat identifies his wife by her own lineage as sAt n snt.f. The fact
that here Djhutymes is instead called eldest sister implies that she is the older sister of

470
Once on the rear wall of the niche, and once on the north wall, to the east of the burial chambers
entrance, cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.4-5, pls.xxxvi l.3-4, xliv top left l.2. In both inscriptions
Baket(amun) is born to the steward of the vizier Hamash(u),born of the mistress of the house Ahmose.
471
This bears some similarity to the case of Sibastet mentioned above in the Introduction to the chapter,
Section Ic, p.73.
472
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, p.5, 35; Urk. IV, 1055.5-6.
473
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.5, 35
474
Whale, Family, pp.62, 67.
475
Refer to the chart of kinship terminology, Table 1, p.57

105
Djhutymes, who was the brother of Ahmose-Humashu. Thus I follow Davies
genealogical reconstruction of this register.
In the register below this Amenemhat seems to depict his own ancestors. The first
couple certainly represents the parents of Amenemhat as they are identified by their
relationship to him, thus his father (it.f), his beloved, revered on long of life, the elder of
the portal and overseer of ploughed lands, Djhutymes and his mother (mwt.f), his
beloved, mistress of the house Intef.
476
It is important to notice that the point of
reference in this register is Amenemhat himself, and not the first seated couple as it was
in the upper register. Thus the remaining figures must all relate back to Amenemhat. The
inscriptions for the next two couples are badly damaged; however, enough traces remain
to suggest their relationship to Amenemhat. For the second couple we can read the
father of his father (it it.f), the elder of the portal and overseer of ploughed lands, Kay (or
Kemy) and the mother of his father (mwt it.f), the mistress of the house Intef.
477
These
then are Amenemhats paternal grandparents, while the final couple can probably be
restored as his maternal grandparents.
478
The damage to the inscription accompanying
this last couple has erased their filiation almost completely. In the first column there are
just the traces of it, father, at the top, leaving room for further kinship terms and in the
second column we have the name Intef with traces of the determinative at the top of the
third column, the rest being lost. The next portion is also badly damaged, with the initial
kinship term lost and the final three columns restorable as mwt.f Ahhotep. As none of the
preceding inscriptions have blank columns between the names and titles of the couples, it
is likely that all of the columns here also bore inscriptions. The likely restoration then

476
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.2-3, 35; Urk. IV, 1054.12-13.
477
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4, 36; Urk. IV, 1054.14-15.
478
So also Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4 and Whale, Family, p.62.

106
becomes the father of [his mother], Intef and [the mother] of his mother, mistress of
the house, Ahhotep.
479

Whales first addition to the genealogy as presented by Davies is to extend the
already evident connection between Amenemhat and his predecessor as steward of the
vizier Ahmose-Humashu by proposing that Ahmose-Humashus mother Tjuiunefret was
the sister of Amenemhats father Djhutymes.
480
Other than a belief that such a
relationship is possible, the only evidence Whale gives to support this theory is that
Amenemhat would have thus inherited his title of chief of the weavers of Amun from a
paternal aunt, rather than indirectly through marriage. However, the fact that Amenemhat
inherited the position of steward of the vizier from Tjuiuneferets son Ahmose-
Humashu already indicates that Ahmose-Humashu did not have any male children on
whom to confer this position. His elder (?) brother Djhutymes already had the title of
steward, and it could be suggested that neither Djhutymes the brother nor the sister were
married or at any rate had children on whom Djhutymes the father could confer his
position. Thus it passed to Amenemhat,
481
who was already entrenched in various aspects
of the Amun priesthood through his consanguines.
Second, she forms a consanguine relationship between Amenemhats
grandparents, suggesting that his paternal grandmother was the sister of his maternal
grandfather.
482
This is based on the following three suppositions: 1) the presence of
Amenemhats mother Intef in the burial chamber niche (as opposed to his father),
483
2)

479
Compare Urk. IV, 1054.16-17; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.36.
480
Whale, Family, p.67.
481
Amenemhat probably became chief of weavers of Amun before he acquired the title of steward.
482
Whale, Family, p.65
483
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.xxxv. Amenemhet and Baketamun receive offerings on one side
while it seems as though Amenemhet is seated with his mother on the opposite. The scene is damaged and
the figure and inscription placed before Intef are lost.

107
Intefs extended or additional names of Intefaa and Taweret, and 3) the fact that Intefs
father and her husbands mother were both also called Intef.
484
Each point requires
review. First, although Amenemhat is depicted with his wife and mother on opposite
sides of the burial chamber niche, this is not necessarily unusual. It is quite likely that
Amenemhat was simply honoring his mother by including her in his funerary cult
preparations. Intefs name does have different orthographies on Amenemhats
monuments,
485
but it does not necessarily follow that being called great/elder Intef of
the great one suggests a familial connection. Finally, although a consanguine
relationship between Amenemhats grandparents is of course possible, there is no
concrete evidence to support this.
The reason for this extensive genealogical discourse is to reinforce the fact that
Amenemhat inherited essentially all of his titles from his family, both through blood and
by marriage.
486
Thus we see that Amenemhat inherited the positions of overseer of
ploughed lands and elder of the portal from his father Djhutymose, who had inherited
them from his father Kay/Kemy. Amenemhats title chief of the weavers of Amun
came from his wifes paternal grandfather. Through his inherited positions Amenemhat
may have indirectly become counter of the grain of Amun and its expanded version
counter of the grain in the granary of divine offerings (of Amun).
487
This last title likely
brought him into close contact with his brother Amenmes who was a scribe of the

484
Whale, Family, p.65. She states: It is possible that the mother of +Hwty-ms and the father of his wife
Intf were sister and brother. Thus, +Hwty-ms might have married his cross-cousin, his mothers brothers
daughter.
485
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4 provides the list.
486
As already noted by Davies, cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.7-9 for a discussion of
Amenemhats career. This use of direct and indirect (through marriage) inheritance of titles is quite like
that seen for the Middle Kingdom nomach Khnumhotep II, discussed above in the Introduction to the
chapter, Section Ia, pp.60-4.
487
Amenemhats titles are also given by Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.042.

108
granary of divine offerings (of Amun).
488
Given the number of siblings that Amenemhat
had, it seems quite possible that he may have been quite a bit younger than his sister
Ahmose, whose daughter he married. This would also help to explain how it was that
Amenemhats most eminent position of steward of the vizier was passed on from his
wifes father (who was also his brother-in-law). He may also have acquired his position
as scribe of the vizier after his brother Amen held it.
489
Indeed, Amenemhats
participation in the Amun priesthood likely came at an earlier stage in his career and is
perhaps part of the reason that he also inherited an Amun title from an in-law. It is worth
mentioning that the titles repeatedly used in his autobiographical stele are scribe,
counter of the grain, chief of the weavers of Amun. This is how Amenemhat chose to
characterize himself when speaking of the projects he oversaw on behalf of the vizier
User. Many of these projects were detailed on the stele inscription in his tomb, which
provides the year 28 date in the reign of Thutmosis III for User as vizier and Amenemhat
as his steward.
490

The fact that Amenemhat wished to represent multiple generations on a wall of
his tomb indicates that he also recognized the importance that his extended family played
in his becoming a steward of the vizier. It also suggests that Amenemhat may have had
notions of grandeur about his status and position within society. As was mentioned
above, TT82 was one of the larger and more distinctive tombs of its time. In addition to
his own family, Amenemhat depicted the vizier User and his family on the eastern front

488
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.5, pls. v, xv. On Amenemhats positions, and those of his family, in
the Amun priesthood see Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.244, no.042 with the literature
and references cited therein.
489
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.5, pls. vi, xv.
490
The stele is in fact a later addition, being painted over a scene of funerary equipment. This indicates that
Amenemhats tomb was already complete well before year 28, and thus that he was steward before this as
well; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.70-2, pl.xxv; also Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

109
wall of his tombs hall, while Aametu and his wife were placed on the western front
wall.
491
He was also represented in Users shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah, along with other
officials, including Ahmose-Humashu, who served under User and/or his father.
492
His
relationship with the vizierate family may well have started while he served as a counter
of grain in the Amun precinct, since User was the scribe of the divine seal and his
uncle by marriage Ineni (TT81) was overseer of the granary of Amun and overseer of
all sealers in the house of Amun, among other positions.
493
Based in part on a family
connection between the two officials that stretched back to their childhood, Dziobek in
fact suggests that Amenemhat left his Amun-related duties to become steward to User
when the latter became vizier.
494
While possible, I would suggest that Amenemhat may
have become steward at the very end of Aametus tenure, rather than at the succession of
User. This seems to provide a better explanation for the depiction of both Aametu and
User in Amenemhats tomb than simply a strong family link.
Apparently due to his close relationship with User, Amenemhats tomb was even
placed near those of User and his father Aametu. Indeed, TT82 closely parallels that of
the viziers Aametu, User and Rekhmire in placement, size and decoration. It is closest to
Aametus, bears a decorated burial chamber as does Users, and portrays multiple
generations on a short wall of the hall as in Rekhmires tomb. In the last case, the
similarity is even more striking since the family members chosen by both men are those
that relate most directly to how they achieved their own positions. It seems likely that

491
Users family are at PM (3), the remains of the names of Aametu and Taametu are all that remain of the
scene located at PM (6); cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pls. iii, xxxi.
492
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.58-9, pl.46. It sems likely that Ahmose-Humashu was the steward for
Aametu, while Amenemhat may have entered into the position towards the end of Aametus tenure, and
thus was essentially the steward for User. See also the brief discussion by Dziobek, Denkmler, p.131.
493
For a summary of the Amun related positions that these three men held, cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des
Hauses des Amun, nos.042, 144, 175.
494
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.131.

110
Amenemhat was able to use his connections to the vizierate family to embellish his own
tomb and its decoration. Although he may have felt his position as a steward to the vizier
entitled him to certain rights regarding his funerary preparations, it apparently did not
carry over into the stability of his position.
Despite the fact that Amenemhat was the third generation to inherit lower level
positions in the Amun priesthood, none of Amenemhats sons appear to have taken their
fathers place.
495
In addition, the post of steward of the vizier also moved outside of this
familys control after Amenemhats tenure. Perhaps this was in part due to his closeness
to the vizierate family. Thus, with the replacement of Rekhmire during the reign of
Amenhotep II by an entirely new and unrelated vizier, the positions given to the viziers
subordinates likewise changed hands.

Menkheperresoneb and his nephew Menkheperresoneb
(Two generations of high priests of Amun
496
)
The two high priests of Amun named Menkheperresoneb, owners of Theban
tombs (TT) 112 and 86,
497
were recently re-evaluated by Dorman, and subsequently
reviewed by Bryan.
498
My own re-examination of both tombs raises some new questions
about the familys initial rise to influence, the tombs chronological placement, and the
relationship between the two tomb owners. As was the case with the vizierate, both
nepotism and lineage were factors in how the office of high priest of Amun was granted
to, and remained within, this family. The nepotistic aspect of the argument can be found

495
Only two of his sons are ascribed titles, and these are only that of scribe; cf. Davies and Gardiner,
Amenemhet, pp.5-6 provides a list.
496
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 260, 261.
497
The two tombs are published by Davies, Menkheperrasonb. TT86 belongs to Kampps Type Ve, TT112
to type Vd; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.338-40, 392-4.
498
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.147-54; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. See
also Dziobek, Denkmler, p.137-9.

111
in the next chapter, which focuses on familial relationships with the king. The following
discussion, then, concerns the passage of the title from one Menkheperresoneb to the
other, and tackles the latter two issues mentioned. Specifically, the date and purpose of
each tomb, based on stylistic criteria and textual evidence, and the genealogical
importance of identifying the woman called Nebetta who appears in each tomb, as well as
her relationship to the rest of the individuals named.
Prior to Dormans review, the dominant interpretation was that a single high
priest of Amun named Menkheperresoneb was one of a few officials who owned two
tombs.
499
Dormans reconstruction resulted in the identification of not one, but two
Menkheperresonebs, both high priests of Amun, who were uncle and nephew to each
other. Dorman argued that Menkheperresoneb of TT112 was the son of the royal nurse
Taiunet and charioteer Hepu, and grandson to Nebetta, while Menkheperresoneb of TT86
was the son of this same Nebetta and brother to Hepu. Thus, Menkheperresoneb of TT86
was the uncle and predecessor of Menkheperresoneb of TT112, his nephew through his
brother Hepu.
500
This genealogy also makes it necessary to place TT86 as earlier in
construction than TT112, a conclusion that is problematic for several reasons.
Bryan agreed with Dormans separation of a single high priest of Amun named
Menkhperresoneb into two like-named and related men who passed the title of high priest
between them. However, she questions which man preceded the other in office, stating
that Tomb 112 is a limestone relief one, typical of tombs of the earlier part of the

499
This was the conclusion reached by both Lefebvre (Histoire, pp.82-9, 233-5) and Davies, pp.15-16, 20.
Dorman reviews their arguments in his article in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.141-54. Other
double-tomb owners include Senenmut (TTs 71 and 353), the vizier User (TTs 61 and 131), the overseer
of the treasury Djhhutynefer (TTs 104 and 80), the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96 upper and lower) and
a number of individuals who were also granted tombs in the Valley of the Kings, including Sennefer and
his cousin the vizier Amenemopet.
500
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153

112
dynasty, and it should be noted that the only monuments named in the tomb include both
Djeser djeseru and Henket ankh The later Djeser akhet does not appear.
501
Djeser-
djeseru was the name of Hatshepsuts mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri, while Henket-
ankh is Thutmosis IIIs funerary temple, built during the co-regency and already in use
by year 23.
502
The construction of Djeser-akhet, the temple that Thutmosis III placed at
Deir el-Bahri, took place in the last decade of Thutmosis IIIs sovereignty, and its
mention in TT86, as well as that of Karnak monuments dating to the later years
Thutmosis IIIs reign, indicate that the tomb must also have been decorated, if not built,
in this time frame.
503
In addition, the presence of named Syrian chiefs bringing tribute
and the mention of the Euphrates River places the construction of TT86 after year 33, the
date of Thutmosis IIIs eighth campaign, which crossed the Euphrates.
504
All of these
points were also noted by Dorman, who is then forced to push the date of TT112, and its
owners tenure as high priest, into the period of late Thutmosis III-early Amenhotep II.
505

However, as stated above, the decorative style and inscriptional content of TT112 fits
best during the co-regency and earlier portion of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign. Even the

501
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. In TT112, Henket-ankh and Djeser-djeseru appear in an offering
scene at PM(3); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxiv.
502
Dorman discusses Djeser-djeseru several times in Senenmut, while Rickes work on Thutmosis IIIs
mortuary temple is still the main source; cf. Ricke, Der Totentempel. See also Haeny, in: Temples, pp.93-99
and Redford, Ld VI, col.543.
503
On the construction sequence of Thutmosis IIIs monuments at Karnak, see Dorman, Senenmut, Ch.3.
The dating of Djeser-akhet stems from Hayes, JEA 46, pp.43-52. In TT86 Djeser-akhet is mentioned twice
in an offering scene at PM(1) and once in the offering scene depicting Menkheperresoneb before the king at
PM(8); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.iii, xvii. In addition, an (unfinished) scene adjacent to PM(1)
records the names of Henket-ankh, Djeser-akhet, and Djeser-set; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xvii.
504
Menkheperresoneb offers before Thutmosis III at PM(8), and behind him are two registers with the
chiefs of Keftiu (Crete), Kheta (Hatti), Tjenpu (Tunip) and Qadesh depicted, while the text above register 3
contains the term pXr-wr great bend, which refers to the Euphrates River, and mentions the tAw MTn, or
lands of Mittani; cf. Davies, pl. iv, vii; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. Redfords Wars is the most
recent discussion of Thutmosis IIIs campaigns in Syria and Palestine. He also mentions
Menkheperresonebs work at Karnak in connection with the construction activities described by Thutmosis
III on the 7
th
pylon at Karnak, which Redford dates to after year 34; cf. Wars, pp.124-5.
505
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.154.

113
architectural plan of TT112, which Kampp accords her type Ve, dates primarily to the
reign of Hatshepsut and Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III.
506
In contrast, TT86 falls into
Kampps type Vd, which has parallels that date solidly to Thutmosis IIIs reign, including
TT84 of Iamunedjeh, who also participated in the 8
th
campaign.
507
One final point is that
the only king mentioned or depicted in either tomb is Thutmosis III.
The above discussion confirms what Bryan pointed out (and Davies before her),
namely that TT112 is in fact the earlier of the two tombs. Having established this fact, we
must now turn to the purpose(s) for which the tombs were constructed. Dorman was the
first to separate the tombs between two different men of the same name and title, arguing
against Davies original suggestion that a single high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb
designed two complementary tombs, in the style of the vizier Users tombs.
508
Dorman
discounts this architecturally because they each appear to be complete monuments, and
stylistically because TTs86 and 112 are unfinished and badly damaged, and TT112 was
usurped.
509
Based on a recent examination of these tombs, I agree that they are indeed
unfinished (as are Users) and damaged (as are Users), and suggest that TT112 was
usurped not once, but at least twice.
510
However, the decoration that remains is
sufficiently preserved to show that in each tomb it is quite different, and thus the

506
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.25-6.
507
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.26, 332-6 (TT84). See Chapter 3, pp.350-66 for a discussion of
Iamunedjeh.
508
Davies, Menkheperrasonb, p.20 and note 2. Users tombs are TTs 131 (daily life and career scenes) and
61 (funerary scenes and an exterior burial chamber).
509
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen p.150-1.
510
The Ramesside usurpation is long known and mentioned by Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pp.18-20, 24-5,
in PM I.1, p. and by Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p. 392. It seems to be relegated to the north wall
of the hall and south wall of the passage (Jiro Kondo however thinks the style is possibly that of
Amenhotep III, pers. comm.). The northwest wall of the hall is divided into two scenes, the upper of which
appears to be perhaps dateable to Horemhab (pers. comm. Ray Johnson, Deanna Kiser). I would like to
point out that although Polz mentions TT 112 in his article on tomb ownership, he seemed unaware of this
additional usurpation, cf. Polz, MDAIK 46, pp.311f.

114
possibility that the two tombs were envisioned as complementary cannot be so summarily
dismissed.
Turning to the earlier tomb first, the architecture of TT112 consists of a short
transverse-hall and passage that leads into a rear chamber with a niche and a descending
shaft leading to a chamber with another shaft.
511
The original decoration of TT112
combines carving in the transverse-hall with painting in the passage, and is entirely
composed of banquet and funerary scenes. In the hall Menkheperresoneb is depicted
offering braziers, receiving offerings in both banquet and festival contexts, and adoring
Osiris.
512
Why Menkheperresoneb left out any scenes relating to his function as a high
priest of Amun is unclear. Perhaps these or those of hunting or fishing and fowling were
intended for the two blank walls (later usurped) on the north side of the hall. However,
even if this were the case, it seems significant that the majority of the hall was reserved
for funerary-related scenes. Although Dorman finds Davies comments about the passage
odd, in fact they are quite accurate.
513
While Davies published only one small fragment
of inscription, he was able to discern the original scenes depicted through the soot and
usurpation.
514
My examination confirms what he describes, namely that the passages
south wall depicted the funerary procession to the Western Goddess, including the
Abydos pilgrimage, and an offering scene, while on the north wall the funeral outfit may
have been represented. The damage and usurpation in the passage makes it difficult to

511
This is the only difference with Users tombs, whose funerary tomb, TT61, consists of a passage and
rear chamber with an exterior shaft and burial chamber, while Users other tomb, TT131, is T-shaped and
unfinished like TT86, though without side-chapels.
512
In one of the offering scenes (PM(5), southwest wall of the hall) a Pyramid Text is even included. I
would like to thank Harold Hayes for pointing this out to me.
513
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamntennekropolen, p.149, n.42
514
Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pp.24-5. The fact that he only published small portions from the passage is
typical for Davies when dealing with difficult scenes. He generally traced what he felt was actually
traceable, and described the remainder, e.g. pp.19-20, 24-25.

115
ascertain with certainty that the two styles are complementary as is the case in TT131 of
User. However, given that the combination of painting and carving in a single tomb is not
unknown,
515
it seems most likely that the two methods were employed simultaneously.
The plan of TT86 is that of a long transverse-hall with side-chapels and an
unfinished passage whose walls retain the original masons marks. Although the walls of
the hall were prepared for painting, their decoration was only completed on the east side
and directly adjacent to the main axis on the west side. In contrast to TT112, here the
focus is exclusively on duty-related scenes, with the exception of two or three offering-
scenes placed at the expected locations on the front wall at either side of the entrance.
516

Throughout most of the hall Menkheperresoneb depicts himself acting in his capacity as
high priest, inspecting animals and temple workshops, and receiving tribute and foreign
products.
517
He is also depicted twice before Thutmosis III seated in a kiosk, once
presenting five registers of northern tribute.
518
It is certainly possible that the unfinished
walls at the west end of the hall would have contained banquet scenes, but it is equally
likely that they contained additional duty-related scenes, or perhaps those of fishing and
fowling and an autobiographical stele.
In TT112 none of Menkheperresonebs duties as high priest are depicted, nor are
any of the titles associated with those duties reported.
519
Likewise, as Dorman himself

515
Other tombs beside TT131 include TTs125, 109 and 256.
516
As these scenes are quite typical in this location, I do not think they detract from the overall statement.
On the west side [PM(1)] there may have been two offering scenes, both connected to temples, and on the
east side [PM(3)] is a brazier scene.
517
These scenes occur at PM(4)-(7) in the transverse-hall, from the eastern end of the south (front) wall to
the eastern end of the north (rear) wall.
518
The two presentation scenes are placed on the halls rear wall, on either side of the entrance to the
passage. PM(2) is unfinished and only depicts Menkheperresoneb before Thutmosis III, while the fuller
scene is at PM(8).
519
Dorman provides a list of these titles; cf. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.152. See also
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.260 for an abbreviated list of his titles.

116
pointed out, the titles ascribed to Menkheperresoneb in TT112 are exclusively honorary
or are associated with the high priestly office.
520
In fact, the honorary ones are
primarily concerned with the court and Menkheperresonebs closeness to the king.
Dorman states that there is an inscription that deals with building activities in Karnak, but
I was not able to locate this text.
521
In contrast, TT86 presents only duty-related scenes
and the titles that are unique to TT86 are functional ones pertaining to the construction
projects and the supervision of craftsmen,
522
and thus complementary to the activities
depicted in the tomb.
523
In addition, funerary cones found in the tomb report only the title
high priest of Amun.
524

The most compelling reason for the separation of the two tombs is in fact not the
content of the scenes, which do in their unfinished state appear to be complementary, as
Davies suggested. Rather, it is that the style of the decoration is quite different in each of
the tombs. TT112 uses both carved relief and painting, but the two methods are similarly
executed and fall into the earlier part of the reign of Thutmosis III.
525
The techniques
employed in the painting of TT86 on the other hand, represent a later evolution of tomb
decoration that belongs towards the end of Thutmosis IIIs reign. This is quite different
from the two tombs of User, where the painting in TT61 is the same as that used in

520
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.
521
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151: It should be noted that TT 112 also contains an
account of Menkheperrasenebs building activities at Karnak, even though this is not supported by specific
titles having to do with construction. The location of this account is not given.
522
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.
523
Dorman and Eichler each provide a list of his titles; cf. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen,
p.152 and Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.261. The functional titles include overseer of
the granaries of Amun, overseer of weavers of Upper and Lower Egypt, overseer of craftsmen, and
chief of the overseers of craftsmen.
524
When I examined the tomb in 2002 I found 54 cones for the Wsir iry pat HAty-o sDAwt bity Hm-nTr tpy n
Imn Mn-xpr-ra-snb mAa-Xrw. There were also 6 for the sS [nsw] imy-r Snwty n Imn ^maw MHw Mn-xpr-ra-
snb mAa-xrw xr nTr aA (Menkheperresoneb, TT79), and one cone for the HAty-a n niwt rsyt imy-r-pr imy-r kAw
n Imn %n-nfr mAa-xrw (Sennefer, TT96).
525
This is also the case in TT 131 of User.

117
TT131 and also the same stylistically as the carved scenes in the latter tomb. If
Menkheperresonebs two tombs were designed as complementary, and for one individual,
there would have been a long gap between their decoration. An extended chronological
difference is further indicated by the monuments reported in each tomb, with Djeser-
djeseru named in TT112, but Djeser-akhet appearing only in TT86. This situation, while
possible, nonetheless seems to be an unlikely solution at this time.
526

Whether or not the unfinished portions in each tomb were intended for decoration
that would complete the typical repertoire remains moot. It is the style of decoration and
inscriptional content in each tomb that supports their chronological split and division of
ownership. However, if one is to interpret them as distinct tombs belonging to different
individuals, then an explanation of the seemingly singular nature of their decoration must
be addressed. It seems to this author that the most likely reason is that each official was
stressing different aspects of his rise to high priest and authority within that position. Our
understanding of the familys genealogy is significant for this discussion.
Having established that TT112 is in fact the earlier tomb, it is no longer possible
to follow Dormans reconstruction that the owner of TT86 is the uncle of TT112. If we
re-examine the representations of the family members who appear in each tomb, it also
becomes evident that the earlier date of TT112 helps rather than hinders the genealogy.
Dorman is certainly correct in discarding both the British and Cairo Museum statues (BM
708 and CG 42125, respectively) from among the monuments ascribable to either
Menkheperresoneb. The BM statue is excluded on the basis of several titles, including
second priest of Amun, found on the statue but not in either tomb. While the titles

526
Although Djhutynefer (TTs 104 and 80) did just this, both of his tombs are complete entities in terms of
the decoration, not complementary, as Users (TTs131 and 61) are. I would like to thank Betsy Bryan for
stimulating conversations as well as her thoughts and insights on this topic.

118
reported on the Cairo statue are too damaged to be of use, the names and titles of the
statue owners parents do not match any of the people represented in either tomb, making
it unlikely that this statue belonged to one of the Menkheperresonebs.
527
In addition, the
Cairo statue bears the cartouche of Amenhotep II, which I believe is too late for either
high priest. I would argue that TT112 appears to fit in the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-
regency and early Thutmosis III, while Menkheperresoneb of TT86 served only during
the reign of Thutmosis III and was the predecessor of the high priest of Amun
Amenemhat, who likely witnessed the transition of Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II.
528

In order to discern the relationship between the two Menkheperresonebs two
issues must be dealt with. First, the kinship interpretation of the family tableaux in
TT112, and second, the identification of the mistress of the house Nebetta depicted in
TT112 and the foster-sister of the king Nebetta represented in TT86. Dormans review
of the monuments, besides resulting in the recognition of two related high priests of
Amun who shared the same name, also produced a new genealogy.
According to Dorman, in TT112 three generations are represented at the east end
of the south wall, at PM(3) (Fig.11, p.467). Menkheperresoneb is seated with his
mother, the royal nurse, Taiunet, and behind them are his father, the charioteer of his
Majesty, Hepu and his mother, his beloved, mistress of the house, Nebetta. The same
set of pairs is also depicted on the opposite wall, where in the upper register
Menkheperresoneb and his mother Taiunet are offered to by a priest, and in the register
below Menkheperresoneb himself offers to Hepu and his mother Nebetta.
529
Taiunet
and Nebetta are each identified by their kin relationship to the men they are seated with,

527
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151f.
528
See my discussion of the high priest of Amun Amenemhat, below.
529
This is at PM(5).

119
namely mwt, mother. Although Davies argued that Hepu and Nebetta were the parents
of Taiunet, if Nebetta was the wife of Hepu, she should have been called Hmt.f, his
wife, in the inscriptions. Taiunets role as Menkheperresonebs mother is confirmed by
two factors. First, she is consistently called his mother and displayed prominently in
the tomb, indicating that Menkheperresoneb was unmarried and thus his mother is placed
in scenes that a wife would otherwise appear in.
530
In addition, an inscription in an
offering scene on the northeast wall of the hall contains a somewhat damaged text that
reads ms[.n mnat nswt ...(Sdt nTr ?) ... &A-]Iwnt mAat-xrw xr Itm.
531
The traces are
extremely faint, but a plausible restoration would be whom the royal nurse, one who
nurtured the god, Taiunet, justified, bore.
532

Dormans classification of Hepu and Taiunet as the parents of Menkheperresoneb
of TT112, and this Nebetta as the mother of Hepu, is certainly supported by the evidence.
In TT86, Menkheperresoneb labels himself as whom the foster-sister of the king,
Nebetta, bore.
533
Dorman suggests that the foster-sister of the king Nebetta in TT86 is
the same woman named as the mother of Hepu in TT112.
534
However, there is no need to
equate the two women, and in fact there are several reasons to keep them separate.
The title foster-sister of the king is a high court honorific, implying a close
relationship to the king that probably grew out of nursing alongside him.
535
Thus, if
Nebetta of TT86 were the same as the woman in TT112, it seems very unlikely that her

530
Whale clearly demonstrates this practice in her study of family representations in the 18
th
Dynasty; cf.
Whale, Family.
531
PM(6) reg.1, Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxix.
532
Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxix, records the title incorrectly his mnat is in fact a t-sign, while the mt
following this (owl and bread loaf) I found no trace of. There is plenty of room to restore the inscription
with the full spellings, thus it would parallel the one found on the door-jamb, which reads ms.n mnat nswt
Sdt nTr &A-iwnt mAat-xrw.
533
The inscription appears at PM(3): ms.n snt-mnat n nswt Nbt-tA mAat-xrw
534
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153f.
535
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.314ff.

120
title would have been left out in TT112. Especially since the much lower title of Hepu, a
chariot-soldier, was given, and Taiunets title as a royal nurse is prominently displayed. A
more likely solution would be to place Nebetta of TT86 as the daughter of Taiunet,
making her the sister of TT112 Menkheperresoneb. She would have been named for her
paternal grandmother, and named her own son after her prestigious brother. In addition,
Nebetta would become the foster-sister of Thutmosis III,
536
a situation that accords well
with both Taiunets role as nurse to prince Thutmosis (III) and her sons position as high
priest in the later years of this king. The fact that Taiunet was a nurse to the young
Thutmosis III is demonstrated by her use of the title Sdt nTr one who nurtured the
god,
537
which occurs at least twice, and possibly three times in the tomb. Traces of the
title remain in the Htp-di-nsw formula on the southern interior door-jamb, and in the row
of inscription above the priests in an offering scene on the northeast wall of the hall.
538

Clearly the connection to the royal household was important to Menkheperresoneb of
TT112 and it is doubtful that he would have neglected to include his paternal
grandmothers title if it reinforced this relationship.





536
This is contra Roehrig (Royal urse, pp.16-22) who has Nebetta as the mother of Taiunet and thus
foster-sister to Thutmosis I.
537
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.44-8 discusses Taiunet.
538
The door-jamb inscription is adjacent to PM(2), Davies pl. xxiii, and the offering scene inscriptions
appear at PM(6) reg.1, Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxix. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen,
p.153, n.53, suggested that this title could be restored at the opposite end of PM(6), where
Menkhperresoneb and Taiunet are depicted. The area is extremely damaged and it is possible, but the title
would have to be above where Dorman places it as otherwise there is not enough room for the beginning of
Taiunets name which is secured by the still visible Iwnt portion.

121
The above discussion leads me to posit the following genealogy:
? --- ? ? --- Nebetta (mwt.f mrt.f to the HPA in TT112)
| |
| |
Taiunet (mwt.f and ms.n to the HPA in TT112) --- Hepu (it.f to the HPA in TT112)
(mnat nswt Sdt nTr) | (snni n Hm.f)
|
| |
? --- Nebetta (ms.n to the HPA in TT86) HPA Menkheperresoneb (i) (TT112)
| (snt mna nswt )
|
| |
HPA Menkheperresoneb (ii) (TT86) Tadidites (sAt snt mnay n nb tAwy Nbt-tA) --- Hekanefer
(D&M nos. 393, 394)

This reconstruction solves the issue of the decorative styles of TTs112 and 86, as
well as the lack of a title for Nebetta in TT112. It also explains why Menkheperresoneb
(i) of TT112 does not call himself a foster-brother, an omission that Roehrig pointed out
as suggestive that one of his siblings carried the title; Nebetta of TT86 would be that
sibling. For the younger Menkheperresoneb (ii), it becomes clear that he inherited the
position of high priest of Amun from his maternal uncle because Menkheperresoneb (i)
was unmarried and without children. This is an excellent example of how inheritance can
be transferred to another male family member when the title-holder does not have direct
descendants.
I would further argue that it was Taiunets position as a royal nurse that led to the
familys initial rise in power, not Nebettas as a foster-sister to the king. This example of
how a mothers relationship with the king as a royal nurse can lead to benefits for her
family will be discussed further, with additional examples, in the next chapter.
One final point to make concerns the number and variety of titles that each
Menkheperresoneb held. It was mentioned above that the elder high priest reported
primarily court honorifics and priestly titles. This seems to support the idea that he was

122
awarded his position due to his familys court connection, stressing this fact in his titles.
In contrast, the Menkheperresoneb (ii) bore a range of supervisory positions connected to
activities within the temple precinct. This could suggest that he was brought into the
priesthood and placed in various upper-level positions prior to taking on the high
priesthood for his uncle. However, it may also indicate that the familys power had grown
to such an extent that Menkheperresoneb (ii) was able to wield a greater amount of
authority, over larger areas of the temple domain. This will be discussed further in the
conclusions at the end of the chapter.

Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb)
(Two generations of overseer of granaries)
P. Louvre 3226 informs us that the title of overseer of the granaries of Upper and
Lower Egypt was one that was generally held contemporaneously by two officials during
the mid-18
th
Dynasty.
539
In the period under consideration the family of Minnakht and his
son Menkheperresoneb retained control of one of the two positions.
540
Like the vizierate,
the post of overseer of granaries was one of the most important in the administration,
541

and in this case one that was passed through two generations. In addition to being the
overseer of granaries, Minnakht was an upper-level administrative official in various
areas of the Amun precinct.
542
The power Minnakht exercised likely enabled him to
install his son Amenhotep within the cultic personnel of the Amun precinct, and his son

539
Megally, Recherche. But contra this, see Bohleke, Double Granaries.
540
The publication of their tombs, which are related architecturally, was done by Guksch, Die Grber. A
synthesized treatment of these officials was presented most recently by Bryan, in: Thutmosis III,
forthcoming. See also Helck, Verwaltung, pp.387-9, 497-9.
541
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
542
Guksch lists Minnakhts titles on pp.17-19; cf. Guksch, Die Grber. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des
Hauses des Amun, no.389. According to Eichler, all but two of his positions belong to the upper echelon;
cf. Eichlers general division of titles into upper, middle and lower categories in Verwaltung des Hauses
des Amun, pp.v-viii.

123
and successor Menkheper(resoneb) as a priest in Henket-ankh.
543
This family provides
another example of the ability of a highly placed official to use both heredity and
nepotism to consolidate his familys power.
Minnakht was an official during the co-regency of Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III and
into the sole rule of Thutmosis III.
544
Early in his career he constructed Shrine 23 at
Gebel es-Silsilah, whose outer lintel originally bore the double cartouches of both
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, dating it to their co-regency.
545
On the west wall Minnakht
is called the imy-r st and royal scribe, and is seated with his mother receiving offerings.
546

The scene repeats on the opposite (east) wall, where the chief of the weavers of Amun
and royal scribe Minnakht sits before an offering-list and table with his father, the sAb
Sendjhuty.
547
Each of these two scenes is completed with a bottom register depicting
musicians and offering-bearers and a side panel with representations of funerary rituals.
At the rear of the shrine are three statues which represent Minnakht and his parents.
548

The middle one has the beginning of Minnakhts title overseer of the granaries of Upper
and Lower Egypt preserved. A fragmentary inscription from the top of the inner west
jamb (i.e. west side of the north wall) also reports this title.
549
Since the overseer of
granaries title is certainly more prestigious than the others that appear in the shrine, it

543
Amunhotep is known from a scribal palette (BM 12786); cf. Guksch, Die Grber, p.16 and also Eichler,
Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.130. Menkheperresoneb has two titles connected to Henket-ankh,
which appear in both his fathers and his own tomb (TT79). Guksch lists Menkheperresonebs titles in Die
Grber, pp.122-3.
544
A date of year 36 is given in P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche, pp.274-5.
545
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.74-7, pl.56-9. The cartouches of Hatshepsut were later defaced, a fate
suffered by all the Silsilah shrine with her cartouches on them.
546
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.74-5, pl.58.
547
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.75-6, pl.59.
548
The text on the left statue is destroyed, but can be identified as the father based on the other two statues.
The middle statues inscription preserves a portion of Minnakhts title, and the inscription on the right
statue reads his mother, his beloved . Cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.76, pl.57.
549
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.74, pl.57.

124
seems significant that it does not appear on the walls, but only on the statue and inner
door-jamb. In addition, while the title royal scribe is Minnakhts most important on the
walls of Shrine 23, in Minnakhts tomb (TT87) it consistently precedes overseer of the
granaries.
550
These factors may indicate that he did not receive this title until the end
stages of the shrines decoration.
If this interpretation is correct, then it suggests that Minnakht was already
influential before he became an overseer of granaries. The shrines at Silsilah were built
by officials who belonged to the governments upper ranks, and whose responsibilities
included activities that would bring them to the region.
551
However, only Minnakhts
royal scribe title seems a likely candidate for his presence in Silsilah prior to becoming
overseer of granaries.
552
Eichlers review of the administration of the House of Amun
during the 18
th
Dynasty places the position chief of weavers of Amun in the middle
range of the Sna activities,
553
while both Eichler and Guksch read imy-r st as an
abbreviated form of imy-r st n at jrp overseer of the wine chamber.
554
The full title
appears several times in Minnakhts tomb (TT87), and in the shorter form on funerary
cones found there.
555
According to Eichler, this title fits in the administration of gardens
and vineyards attached to either the Amun temple or the palace, and perhaps even more

550
This is the case on funerary cones as well as tomb inscriptions; cf. Guksch, Die Grber, pp.17-20, 24-8,
44, 47-8, 50 (pl.4), PM(7)-(9). Also worth mentioning is that in TT87 the title of royal scribe both follows
and precedes imy-r st. See Guksch, pp.25f., 44, 59, 177 (pl.47f).
551
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6ff.
552
As a royal scribe he could have been recording the activities on the kings behalf.
553
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.108ff. Eichler interprets the Sna installation as having
two major production areas: textile manufacture and food processing.
554
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.389 and Guksch, Die Grber, p.18f.
555
The relevant texts and scenes are in Guksch, Die Grber, pp.19, 24, 44, 48, 59, 177 (pl.47f), and pl.16
(cols. 34, 54). See also Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.147.

125
specifically the Sna complex.
556
An inscription in Minnakhts tomb indicates that he likely
functioned in this capacity in the north of Egypt, near the Ways of Horus.
557
In fact, a
number of the titles Minnakht reports in his tomb are connected to the north of Egypt and
the Delta,
558
which makes his presence in Silsilah even more interesting. Why Minnakht
would have been sent to Silsilah at this apparently early stage in his career is unclear to
me. Perhaps there is another explanation for Shrine 23 and its inscriptions.
Shrine 12 at Silsilah has also been tentatively attributed to the same Minnakht,
based on the name and titles recorded therein.
559
Caminos hesitated in assigning two
shrines to one man, due to the fact that this is otherwise unattested at Silsilah.
560

Although still a single-room shrine, Shrine 12 is almost twice as large as Shrine 23 in
every direction.
561
The outer lintel of the shrine carries only the cartouches of Thutmosis
III, dating it to the kings sole reign. Minnakht is depicted seated before offerings with a
man on the north wall and a woman on the opposite wall, and although they are
unidentified, this was a common method for depicting ones parents in the Silsilah
shrines.
562
The presence of only three statues in the niche along the rear wall suggests that
they represent Minnakht seated between his parents.
563
This is the same layout as in
Shrine 23. The titles Minnakht reports are those of royal scribe, overseer of the granaries

556
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.66ff., 181ff. See also Guksch, Die Grber, pp.18f., and
Helck, Verwaltung, p.257.
557
Guksch, Die Grber, p.44f. She compares the scene, which exists only in a few fragments, to one in the
tomb of his son Menkheper(resoneb), idem., pp.149f., pl.29-32.
558
Guksch, Die Grber, p.18. This will be discussed in more detail below.
559
Guksch, Die Grber, p.88. Shrine 12 is published in Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.35-7, pl. 26-9.
560
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.36, 77.
561
According to Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.74, Shrine 23 is 1.40 m in width; the east wall is 1.98 m
long and the west wall 2.06 m. The ceiling, flat and unadorned, is 1.46 m above the floor of the shrine. It
is also the only shrine that faces north. In contrast, Shrine 12 looks east and is approximately 3.26 m deep
and 2.60 m wide The partly preserved roof, flat and bare, is at a height of 2.55 m from the floor.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.35.
562
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.23. Shrines 15 and 23 follow the same pattern.
563
So also Caminos, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.36, note 1.

126
of Upper and Lower Egypt, and overseer of the granaries of Amun (in the northern
region).
564
As in TT87, royal scribe is placed before either of the other two titles.
The similarity in layout, names and titles all make it reasonable to conclude that
the same Minnakht dedicated both shrines, especially as Shrine 12 is both later in date
and larger in size. However, this is a unique situation and so must be explained.
565
It was
mentioned above that Minnakht may have received the title overseer of granaries of
Upper and Lower Egypt only at the end of Shrine 23s decoration. However, in Shrine
12 this is the most prominent title, appearing on the focal walls, and this elevation may
provide one reason for why Minnakht would have constructed two Silsilah shrines.
Shrine 12s size and higher titles would thus reflect Minnakhts promotion. The fact that
the outer lintel of Shrine 12 carries only the name of Thutmosis III, thus falling into the
latter portion of Minnakhts career when he would have had these titles, supports this
theory.
A second possibility is that one of the shrines was intended to serve as a funerary
monument for Minnakhts parents. In his publication of the shrines, Caminos interpreted
their function to be that of a funerary chapel for the persons depicted or mentioned in
them.
566
This would accord well with the idea that Minnakht came from a relatively mid-
or lower status family, one for whom he wished to provide a monument once his own

564
The inscriptions on both walls are identical but for a single title: iry-pat HAty-a sDAwt bity sole friend,
who the king of Upper Egypt made great, who the king of Lower Egypt exalted, whose fortune the lord of
the Two Lands made, royal scribe, overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, overseer of the
granaries of Amun. The last title occurs only on the north wall. See Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.35-
6, pl.28-9. Guksch, Die Grber, p.18, interprets the title overseer of the granaries of Amun as a shortened
version of the longer title overseer of the granaries of Amun in the northern region, which only appears in
the shaft of TT87.
565
Guksch noted the uniqueness, but made no attempt to explain it, Guksch, Die Grber, p.88.
566
On the function of the shrines in general, and the importance of Shrine 11 for understanding their
purpose, see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6-10. See also my comments on the viceroy Usersatets
shrine in the next chapter.

127
position had risen to a high level within the administration. I would argue that three
factors place Shrine 23 as the monument that Minnakht built for his parents. First, the
earlier date of the shrine, which would match with the dates of his parents later years. As
has already been stated, Minnakht reports only his lower titles on the walls of Shrine 12.
If we view the monument as one primarily for his parents, then this suggests that he may
be recording the positions he held while his parents were still alive and which led to his
final promotion. Finally, the decoration of Shrine 23 seems to indicate that it served as
more than a funerary chapel. Although funerary banquet scenes are common to the
shrines, those in Shrine 23 include musicians and dancers as well as depiction of the
actual rites. In general, this resembles tomb scenes much more than the chapel
decorations.
567

Three other Silsilah shrines have similar depictions to that seen here, and in two
of these the owner is clearly represented with his parents. Shrine 15 of Hatshepsuts high
priest of Amun Hapuseneb has sub-scenes that incorporate musicians, butchering, and a
lengthy funerary list with rituals placed along the bottom.
568
As in Shrine 23, Hapuseneb
is depicted with his mother on one wall and father on the opposite wall.
569
Parallels can
also be found in the shrines of the queens steward Menkh (no.21) and viceroy of Kush
Usersatet (no.11), which also contain representations of daily life common to
contemporary tombs.
570
Although Menkh and his wife are on one wall, on the opposite he

567
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.4f.
568
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.42-52, pl.33-9.
569
Although Hapuseneb was married, his wife is depicted presenting offerings to Hapuseneb and his
mother, rather than receiving any; Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.44-5, pl.37.
570
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.68-72, pl.51-4 (Shrine 21) and pp.4-5, 30-4, pl.23-5 (Shrine 11).

128
is seated with his parents.
571
I interpret Usersatets shrine, whose unusualness was also
remarked upon by Caminos,
572
as probably having been designed as a memorial chapel
for both his mother and his mothers parents.
573
Contrary to Caminos,
574
it seems likely
that the lower registers depicted Usersatets ancestors. The upper registers are destroyed,
but based on the statue identifications would probably have held representations of
Usersatet with his mother, and perhaps his wife.
Although the ownership of two shrines would make Minnakht unique, it seems
quite plausible that this was indeed the case. The reason for this can not be stated with
complete certainty, but despite Caminos hesitation to assign two shrines to one man,
there is enough evidence to support this. I would argue in favor of the monuments serving
different functions, Shrine 23 for his parents and Shrine 12 for himself. The fact that
other Silsilah shrines that also depict the owners parents closely parallel Shrine 23 in
their decoration strengthens this argument. The viceroy of Kush Usersatet may even have
modeled his own two-room shrine, also unique, on Minnakhts example.
In addition to owning two shrines at Silsilah, Minnakht began a tomb in Thebes,
TT87.
575
It was usurped twice in antiquity, and is today badly damaged, with the lower

571
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.70, pl.53. I would like to mention here that although the cartouches on
the shrines lintel date it to the reign of Thutmosis I, the scenes as drawn appear to be later in date. Perhaps
then this is a similar situation to that seen in the tombs at el-Kab, where the monument was built, or at least
partially decorated later than the lifetime of the person it honors? For more on this topic see the discussion
of Usersatet in the next chapter.
572
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp. 4f., 7ff.
573
Usersatet, and his shrine at Silsilah, is discussed at length in the next chapter.
574
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp. 30-4.
575
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.340-2, type Vd; Guksch, Die Grber, pp.13-121. Minnakhts
other monuments include several funerary cones and statues. Guksch provides a full list with literature,
Guksch, Die Grber, pp.86-8

129
portions of the walls essentially destroyed.
576
Fortunately, from the inscriptions that are
preserved in his tomb, as well as from the shrines and several statues belonging to
Minnakht, a fairly complete picture of his career can be reconstructed.
577

The enormous amount of damage to the tomb, as well as its unfinished nature, do
not seem to allow one to state definitively that the tomb does not depict the activities of
Minnakht in his capacity as an overseer, either before the king or otherwise.
578
In fact, the
entire western bay of the transverse hall is destroyed but for a few fragments.
579
Of the
remaining area, only the top of the front and rear walls of the east bay are extant.
580

Fragments of scenes along the interior side of the tombs entrance suggest that the
offering scenes typical to mid-18
th
Dynasty tombs were depicted here.
581
The preserved
section and fragments from the rear wall on the east side indicate that it was originally
decorated with an offering and banquet scene in which Minnakht was depicted as the

576
As Bryan comments (in: Thutmose III, forthcoming), these conditions make Gukschs publication and
her reconstruction of the decorative scheme all the more valuable. See Guksch, Die Grber, plans 7-9 for
the decorative layout of the walls as preserved, and pl.51 for her concordance with PM.
577
Guksch, Die Grber, pp.17-19 provides Minnakhts full list of titles and the monuments on which they
are found. The monuments themselves, which include two statues from Thebes, as well as Coptos and
Memphis, and a naos from Giza, are presented with full literature on pp.87-8. See also Helck, Verwaltung,
497-8 (4); Urk. IV, 1177-90.
578
This is contra Bryan, in Thutmose III, forthcoming, who states that this was the case for the tomb of
Minnakht as well as the tomb of his son Menkhperresoneb. It is possible that the king could have been
depicted in Minnakhts tomb at Gukschs scene 11, which is completely destroyed. As Guksch points out,
TT79 of Minnakhts son Menkheper(resoneb) is of no help in clarifying the matter since the same wall was
unfinished and is today destroyed; cf. Guksch, Die Grber, pp.53, 166.
579
This encompasses Gukschs scenes 2-4, 8, and 11, none of which have PM designations; Guksch, Die
Grber, pl.51.
580
This relates to Gukschs scenes 1, 5-7, 9-10; scene 12 is the outer side of the passage entrance. Scene 6
= PM(3), scene 9 = PM(4), scene 12 = PM(5); Guksch, Die Grber, pl.51.
581
There are remains of the head of the deceased facing the entrance on the west side, and on the east are
butchers at the bottom of the scene, near the door-jamb; cf. Guksch, Die Grber, p.41f., plan 7, scenes 1-2
and pl.5a-b.

130
recipient.
582
Amongst the fragments relating to the guests one inscription identifies a
brother of Minnakht as Djhuty-///.
583

An important scene occurs at the east end of the front wall, where the upper
portion of the tomb owner [receiving] products which are of the Ways of Horus is
preserved.
584
Based on comparison with his sons tomb, Guksch restores the figure of
Minnakht as seated, and the inscription as nearly complete, missing only a portion of the
last title and Minnakhts name.
585
The inscription begins with sxmx-ib pleasing the
heart, which places the scene in a funerary context, and suggests that here Minnakht is
recalling his life, or remembering the activities which he undertook as an official of
the king, specifically as a true royal scribe, his (i.e., the kings) beloved, overseer of the
granaries, overseer of the wine-chamber.
586
This scene was discussed briefly above in

582
Although there is not room for a woman seated behind him, the scene is so damaged that we cannot rule
out the possibility that Minnakhts wife Meryt was placed at his feet, below the chair. Cf. Guksch, Die
Grber, pp.50ff., plan 7, scene 9, pl.4. Indeed, although Minnakhts wife Meryt is only visibly included in
the rear chamber (PM(9), Guksch, scene 22; Guksch, Die Grber, p.68f., pl.10), the amount of damage to
the t-shaped portion of the tomb means that we cannot entirely discount her presence. See, for example, the
scene on the west wall of the passage (PM(9), Guksch, scene 16; Guksch, Die Grber, p.59f., pl.8), where
the top portion of an offering scene is preserved. There is certainly room for two seated figures, and
although the inscription only mentions Minnakht, the presence of a daughter Meres behind the destroyed
seated figures, suggests that Minnakhts wife was probably also included.
583
Guksch, Die Grber, p.51f., pl.4b.
584
Guksch, Die Grber, pp.44f., plan 7, scene 6.
585
Guksch, Die Grber, p.44, with reference to pl.29. This is indeed possible, though I would point out that
the proportions of Minnakhts figure seem to be slightly smaller than those of his son, which suggests to me
that it is at least possible that Minnakht was in fact standing. If this were the case, then it is also possible
that the last column of inscription continued behind the chair and contained additional titles. These may
have been sS nsw or the uncertain imy-r ... title, both of which follow the imy-r st title in other places; cf.
Guksch, p.24, 59. It is also possible that Minnakht would have given his paternal lineage here, which
otherwise appears only in the burial shaft inscriptions; cf. Guksch, p.15, 74f., pl.14.
586
See Guksch, Die Grber, p.44. The full text reads: [sx]mx-[ib] /// [Ssp] jnw nty m [@r] wAtt in iry[-pat
HAty-a] /// mn mrwt m pr-nswt nb Hswt xr Snyw(t).f sS nswt mAa mr.f imy-r Snwty imy-r st n at [irp NHt-mnw]
///. A variant occurs on a funerary cone as great overseer of the (wine-)chamber; cf. Guksch, Die Grber,
p.19, 25f.; Davies and Macadam, Corpus no.87.

131
the discussion of Shrine 23 where it was stated that Minnakhts function as an overseer of
the wine-chamber probably occurred in the north of Egypt, near the Ways of Horus.
587

This leads us into a discussion of Minnakhts career and its progression. Based on
Gukschs ordering of Minnakhts titles and the brief discussions she gives, three items
become clear.
588
First, Guksch views Minnakht as moving up through positions
connected to overseeing the production of foods and materials until he becomes overseer
of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt. In addition, although four of Minnakhts
titles mention Amun,
589
his connection to the north is strengthened by the titles overseer
of the granaries of Amun in the northern region and overseer of granaries of the
marshes (XAwt) of the two lands.
590
This seems to suggest that rather than functioning at
Karnak, his duties were centered at an Amun temple located near Memphis.
591
Finally,
based on Silsilah Shrine 23 she interprets Minnakht as already having achieved his
highest post during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency, and thus concludes that he
must have started in the early years of Hatshepsut.
592

In light of Minnakhts connection to the north throughout his early career, and the
indication from plover 3226 that there were two men simultaneously functioning as
overseer of the double granaries during the mid-18
th
Dynasty, I would argue that
Minnakht was the official responsible for northern Egypt. This would make Tjenna, his

587
See pp.124f., above.
588
See Guksch, Die Grber, pp.17-20.
589
These are (in the following order): head (iry) of the (food-)chamber of Amun, chief (Hry) of weavers of
Amun, overseer of the Sna of Amun, and overseer of the granaries of Amun in the northern region.
590
Although this title may be a qualification of Minnakhts responsibilities as overseer of the granaries of
Upper and Lower Egypt, it nonetheless demonstrates that he was active in the north; cf. Guksch, Die
Grber, p.19.
591
Guksch, Die Grber, pp.18f., and n.43.
592
Guksch, Die Grber, p.20.

132
counterpart on the papyrus, the southern overseer.
593
Although Minnakht owned a tomb
in Thebes, this can perhaps be explained by the fact that much of his time may
nevertheless have been spent in Thebes. In addition, TT87 is located in a direct line of
sight with the mortuary temple of Minnakhts king, Thutmosis III, indicating that
Minnakht held a prestigious place in the administration. It also appears that his
experience as an overseer of the wine-chamber, overseer of the Sna, and overseer of
the granaries of Amun contributed to his becoming an overseer of the granaries of Upper
and Lower Egypt. This is further supported by the fact that these titles appear on his
funerary cones, indicating that he considered them important and relevant even at the end
of his career.
As Minnakht moved through the administrative hierarchy of food and wine
production, it appears that he was able to influence the careers of his two sons,
Menkheper(resoneb) and Amunhotep. Amunhotep, who does not appear in the preserved
portions of the tomb, can nonetheless be identified as a son of Minnakht from the
inscription on his palette (BM 12786).
594
On the palette he is called royal scribe, chief of
the offering-table, rmn m HAt Imn, (Amun)hotep, who Minnakht bore.
595
These are both
low to mid-level titles within the Amun administration generally,
596
and thus Amunhotep
could conceivably be said to be under his fathers jurisdiction, supporting the theory that
Minnakht brought his influence to bear on his sons behalf.

593
He is only known from this papyrus. Cf. Megally, Recherche, pp.276-7; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III,
forthcoming.
594
Glanville, JEA 18, pp.55f. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.259 no.130; Guksch,
Die Grber, p.16.
595
Glanville, JEA 18, pp.55f.
596
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.171.

133
This is more obvious for Minnakhts son Menkheper(resoneb), whose position as
the elder son is suggested by his regular appearance as the officiant in offering scenes
before Minnakht and his inheritance of the position overseer of granaries.
597

Throughout TT87, Menkheper(resoneb) is only referred to by his lower titles, wab-priest
of Amun in Henket-ankh, scribe of the divine offerings of Amun in Henket-ankh, and
royal scribe.
598
This demonstrates that Menkheper(resoneb), like his younger brother
Amunhotep, benefited from his fathers influence as an upper-level administrative
official. Menkheper(resoneb)s placement in the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III, which
was already built and in use by year 23,
599
suggests that Menkheper(resoneb) was
functioning in Thebes when his father was likely overseer of double granaries.
600
This
seems to indicate that despite his northern connection, Minnakht was still influential in
the south, which would provide further reason for his tomb being placed in Thebes.
Turning now to an examination of Menkheper(resoneb)s tomb, we can discover
more information about the path of his rise to his fathers position of overseer of double
granaries. Menkheper(resoneb) placed his tomb, TT79, slightly above and adjacent to
his fathers.
601
It is damaged and unfinished, but the extant scenes are not quite as badly
destroyed as in his fathers tomb, TT87. Two scenes in Menkheper(resoneb)s tomb
depict him performing duties connected to his positions, while a third indicates that he,
and his family, had a close relationship with Thutmosis III. In addition, the inscriptional

597
He is named and depicted on the west of the outer lintel leading into the rear chamber [PM(7)] and is
also the son whose name is lost on the other side of the lintel where the title is wab-priest of [Amun] in
Henqet-[ankh], as he has this title in his own tomb [PM(5)]. On the southwest wall of the rear chamber
[PM(9)] he is perhaps the son offering to his Minnakht, the inscriptions is damaged, but could be perhaps
restored as scribe of the divine offerings of Amun.
598
Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.280, no.264.
599
Redford, Ld VI, col.543.
600
Years 28-35 are recorded on pLouvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherches.
601
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.318-20, type VIa; Guksch, Die Grber, pp.122-178. Guksch
provides a list of his titles and brief discussion of his career on pp.122-3.

134
evidence demonstrates the passage of titles between Minnakht and Menkheper(resoneb),
as well as from Menkheper(resoneb) to his son Nebenmaat.
Menkheper(resoneb)s duty-related scenes occur at the far ends of either side of
the transverse-halls front (south) wall. At the western end, the deceased inspects supplies
(in this case cattle, geese, and eggs) being brought for the temple festivals.
602
Since
Menkheper(resoneb) was a wab-priest of Amun and scribe of offerings of Amun in the
mortuary temple of Thutmosis III,
603
this scene could be related to these titles despite the
fact that neither of them are present in the accompanying inscription. Instead,
Menkheper(resoneb) is called a royal scribe and overseer of the granaries of Upper and
Lower Egypt, and the latter title would certainly include this type of responsibility.
604
The
east corner of the front wall contains a depiction of Menkheper(resoneb) seated
overseeing a representation of vintage and the bringing of Delta products.
605

Menkheper(resoneb) may have modeled this well preserved scene on the now destroyed
version found in his fathers tomb, mentioned above.
606
Unfortunately, the beginning of
this inscription is lost, so it is not clear if this scene, as in TT87, was placed in a funerary
context. It is interesting that here Menkheper(resoneb) chose to place his overseer of
granaries title before that of wab-priest of Amun in Henket-ankh, thereby awarding
prominence to the latter title. Other than on his autobiographical stele,
607
this is the only
place in TT79 that this title appears. This may indicate that despite his southern locale,

602
PM(1), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 3, p.146f. It is on the west front wall of the T-hall.
603
See Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.280 no.264 for a list of his Amun titles.
604
The fact that this is the only place in the tomb with the full version of the title may indicate that the
duties are related to his function as an overseer of granaries, as opposed to his earlier positions.
605
PM(5), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 6, p.149f.
606
See pp.130f., above.
607
PM(6), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 7, pp.150ff.

135
and lower temple rank, Menkheper(resoneb) could also have been involved with the
receiving and recording of northern products perhaps at his fathers behest?
Directly opposite this scene, on the transverse-halls rear wall, Menkheperresoneb
is depicted with his parents and two children looking at the funeral outfit which has been
presented by the king.
608
This is an excellent example of wealth and gifts bestowed by
the king onto a favored and prestigious official. In this scene, the two titles which precede
Menkheperresonebs name are royal scribe, and overseer of granaries of the Lord of
the Two Lands. Behind him, his father is called the sAb, royal scribe, overseer of
granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, Minnakht (Fig.12, p.468). Here the inscriptions of
Menkheper(resoneb) and Minnakht demonstrate not only the passage of titles from father
to son, but may also point towards how this was accomplished. We will return to this
below.
Based on P.Louvre 3226, we know that Minnakht probably passed the position
overseer of the granaries to his son Menkheper(resoneb) late in the reign of Thutmosis
III, certainly after year 35 of this king.
609
Bryan points out that Menkheper(resoneb)s
tomb is decorated in the style belonging to the earlier years of Amenhotep IIs reign,
which, although it shows that he served under this king, does not necessarily provide a
terminus ante quem for his tenure as overseer.
610
However, the inscriptions of TT79 seem
to provide some additional information on how this was effected, if not precisely when.
Throughout the tomb, Menkheper(resoneb) regularly uses the title of overseer of

608
PM(7), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 10, pp.162ff.
609
Based on P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche, pp. pp.274-5.
610
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; also Guksch, Die Grber, pp.122-123.

136
granaries of the Lord of the Two Lands (n nb tAwy).
611
As noted above, his father is
designated as overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt (n ^maw MHw) in the
scene of inspecting burial equipment, which is prominently placed on the wall. Although
Menkheper(resoneb) is twice called the overseer of the granary, which, as mentioned
above, was a common abbreviation for the longer title, overseer of the double granaries
of the lord of the two lands, both occur in less visible areas.
612
However, in the scene in
which Menkheper(resoneb) inspects supplies for temple festivals he is called the overseer
of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt. This is the titles only occurrence in TT79.
These distinctions do not appear to be arbitrary since the writing of nb tAwy would require
the same amount of wall space as ^maw MHw.
Gnirs has suggested that the qualification of the lord of the two lands after a
title implies a relationship to the king, rather, or more, than an actual position.
613
Since
we know that Menkheper(resoneb) did become overseer of the double granaries, it does
not seem that the version overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands
was purely honorific. However, if we consider the possibility that a specific choice was
made for the placement of the titles, it seems possible that Menkheper(resoneb) might
have been functioning as a junior (i.e. younger) overseer at the time his tomb was
decorated, and hence the phrase n nb tAwy is the more common. Since the more
prestigious term of ^maw MHw does appear, this would suggest that he became the senior,
or at least equal overseer to his colleague during the (still) early years of Amenhotep II
and would have probably continued to serve in this capacity into the middle portion of

611
The title appears at PM(4)-(8); cf. Gucksh, Die Grber, Scenes 5-7, 9-10.
612
The scenes are the offering of braziers (PM (3), Guksch 1) and the eastern stele (PM (6), Guksch 7).
613
Gnirs, Militr, p.5

137
the kings reign.
614
It seems then that the inscriptions in TT79 may indicate that
Menkheper(resoneb) was a junior official to his father, in the manner of a staff of old
age, although this term is not explicitly used. A title that appears at the very end of his
lengthy stele inscription seems to support this. Here Menkheper(resoneb) is called
overseer of the double granaries in Heliopolis.
615
This could also imply that ultimately,
Menkheper(resoneb) was responsible for the northern region of Egypt, as his father was.
Nebenmaat fulfills the same role in his father Menkheper(resoneb)s tomb that the
latter did in Minnakhts tomb. Adjacent to the scene of Menkheper(resoneb) and his
parents admiring the burial equipment, Menkheper(resoneb) and his wife receive
offerings and an Amun bouquet given by his son Nebenmaat.
616
In this scene Nebenmaat
bears the title of scribe of the temple in Henqet-ankh, which is remarkably similar to
the two titles held by his father in this temple.
617
This suggests that Menkheper(resoneb)
used his own influence to place his son positioning the same temple. Whether this
occurred while Menkheper(resoneb) was still active in Henket-ankh, or following his
elevation to the position of overseer of the granaries, is unclear. Regardless of when it
occurred however, it is clear that Menkheper(resoneb) intended for Nebenmaat to begin
his career in a manner similar to Menkheper(resoneb)s own beginnings. Nothing is

614
This colleague may have been Iamunedjeh, owner of TT84, see Chapter 3, pp.350-66.
615
Gucksh, Die Grber, Scene 7, pp.152ff. The steles inscription is remarkably damaged, and even with
Gukschs reconstruction does not seem to contain chronological markers for Menkheperresonebs career. I
would only point out that the titles which do appear, or are reconstructable, are wab , royal scribe,
overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands, and at the very end, Menkheper(resoneb) is
called excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands, overseer of the double granaries, royal scribe,
overseer of the double granaries in Heliopolis (Inw mH). Cf. Gucksh, Die Grber, pp.152ff.
616
PM(8); cf. Gucksh, Die Grber, Scene 9, pp.158ff. Although it is clear that Menkheper(resoneb) was
married, the name and titles of his wife are not known. In addition to a woman presumably being included
in the fishing and fowling scene, there are the remains of a womans feet at the east end of the destroyed
south front wall. Perhaps the scene was originally one representing the deceased couple offering braziers?
617
i.e. wab-priest of Amun in Henqet-ankh and scribe of the offerings of Amun in Henqet-ankh. The
latter only appears in TT87, but the former appears in both tombs.

138
known of Nebenmaat beyond this tomb, though it is clear that Menkheper(reseonb) was
unable to retain the overseer of double granaries post within his family.
In conclusion, Minnakht, who probably came from a mid-level family, gained
distinction for his work in a temple precinct in northern Egypt, probably near Memphis.
This led to his being made overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt
during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency. At this time he built a shrine for his
parents at Gebel es-Silsilah, later beginning one for himself. Minnakht was able to install
both of his sons into priestly positions that likely fell under his own jurisdiction. His
eldest, Menkheper(resoneb), eventually succeeded Minnakht as overseer of the granaries,
and may also have had responsibility for northern Egypt. In addition, Minnakhts
increased status led to a closer royal connection, from which Menkheperresoneb
benefited directly in the form of funerary equipment. The hereditary passage may also be
in part due to the familys relationship with the king, though clearly this did not last or
play a large role, since Menkheperresonebs son Nebenmaat did not follow his fathers
path.

Amunemhat, son of Itnefer
(mid-level priests)
The imy st-a n Imn, or helper of Amun Amunemhat seems to have inherited his
position from his father, the imy st-a n Imn Itnefer(t).
618
Amunemhats mother was also
connected to the Amun temple, as a chantress of Amun. The members of this family are
essentially lower level temple staff,
619
making tomb ownership rather incongruous with

618
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, nos. 045 and 150.
619
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, p.171.

139
their positions. Although clearly the direct inheritance of temple positions is present, it
also seems possible that others factors besides hereditary contributed to their visibility.
In Amunemhats unpublished tomb in Sheikh Abd el-Qurnah (TT53),
620
there are
two offering scenes in which Amunemhat depicts his parents. In both cases his father is
named as the helper of Amun, Itnefer(t), and his mother is the chantress of Amun
Tetiemnetjer.
621
Thus both parents were involved in the Amun priesthood, presumably at
Karnak. Although neither of his stelae preserves a statement in which Amunemhat was
made a mdw n iAw for his father, it is possible that this was the case. Throughout his
tomb, the title which Amunemhat bears is that of his father. The only places where
additional titles are given are on the two stelae placed at either end of the transverse-
hall.
622
However it is only on one of these stelae that a higher position is listed, while on
the other the additions are essentially descriptive epithets. Perhaps the reason for this is
that at the latter stages of his tomb decoration his father either died or retired and
Amunemhat was subsequently promoted to a higher office. By that time his tomb was
essentially completed. Rather than re-carve or re-paint the scenes, Amunemhat chose to
have this new title listed in the one space available the last lines of the painted stele on
the west wall of the transverse-hall.

620
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.258-60, type Vb. A publication is in preparation by M. el-Bialy
and H. Altenmller, and I would like to thank M. el-Bialy for allowing me a few days access to the tomb in
2002. Urk IV, 1217-1223 contains the east wall stele inscription.
621
In PM(2) Amunemhat offers to his parents; his fathers name here is It.f-nfrt and the title of his mother
is damaged, but traces are visible. In PM(14) his parents are seated behind Amunemhat and his wife; the
titles and names of each are well preserved.
622
I do not think this is an accident of preservation. In general where damage occurs the imy-st-a n Imn title
can be restored without difficulty. The only exception to this is on the east wall of the passage [PM(14)]
where the title and name of Amunemhat are completely excised. However even here I think it is most likely
that the inscription originally read imy-st-a n Imn Imn-m-HAt mAa-xrw , there is not really room for more.

140
On the east wall of Amunemhats tomb is a carved stele, the lunette of which is
well-known (Fig.13, p.469).
623
The scene in the lunette depicts two men presenting
offerings to the sAt nswt aH-ms-Hnwt-tA-mHw and the Hmt nswt aH-ms-[]; a nurse R..u
stands behind them and there is a female child under their chair (Fig.14, p.470).
624
The
identification of the queen has generally been as Ahmose-Inhapy, the mother of Ahmose-
Henuttawy and wife of Ahmose.
625
Roehrig, who reads her name as R..y, concludes that
she must have also been the nurse for Ahmose-Inhapy because she stands with her hand
on the queens chair. She goes on to suggest that this nurse is the same as the nurse of
Queen Ahmose-Nefertari Rey, known from her rishi coffin.
626
However, the orthography
of Reys name on her rishi coffin is entirely different from the name of the nurse in TT53.
In fact, this name has been mistranslated in the literature. In both Lepsius and Hermann,
the name appears to be Rnnw, but my own examination reveals that it could likely be read
as RTw.
627
Either name would add a new nurse to the list, but would also mean that Rey
was not a nurse to two women, which would be uncommon.
628
The placement of the

623
The stele was most recently published by Awadalla, BIFAO 89, pp.25-42, pl.1. Earlier publications
include Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.8a; Hermann, Stelen, p.60-3, fig.8, pl.9d; Urk. IV, 1217-1223; Bouriant,
RT 14, 71-73.
624
The inscription of the nurse is badly damaged, but the at portion of mnat can just be made out. The stance
of the woman with her hand on Ahmose-Henuttamehus shoulder make her position as a nurse, and thus the
restoration of the title, likely; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8
625
The name of the queen is illegible after Ahmose, and was to both Lepsius (Denkmaler III, pl.8a) and
Hermann (Stelen, pp. 60-63, fig.8, pl.9d). Hermann restored this name as aH-ms-[in-Hapy], while Bouriant
(RT 14, p.71) restored the name as aH-ms-[mryt-Imn]. This is extremely unlikely since as the chief queen of
Ahmose she was called gods wife, and would have been so identified at this time as well. Adawalla
however calls Ahmose-Inhapy a wife (and sister ?) of Tao II, and Henuttawy their daughter; cf. BIFAO 89,
pp.25-6. Roehrig dealt with this scene most recently and followed Hermanns restoration; cf. Roehrig,
Royal urse, pp.7-8.
626
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.7-8. Reys rishi coffin was used for the re-burial of Queen Ahmose-Inhapy.
627
This new reading is based on my examination of the tomb in 2002.
628
Roehrig (Royal urse) mentions this on p.8, n.5.

141
nurse in the scene is unusual and does seem to indicate, as Roehrig suggests, a familial
connection between R..u and Amunemhat.
629

The two men have always been identified as Amunemhat and his son. However,
the identifying inscriptions are damaged, and a different solution could be proposed.
Above the lead figure, the beginning of the imy st-a is just visible, but that is all (Fig.15,
p.471). The column before the son is better preserved and can be read his son, wab-priest
of Amun, Amun . It seems entirely possible that the men depicted here are not
Amunemhat and a son but Amunemhat as the son following his father Itefnefer.
Although imy st-a is the most ubiquitous of Amunemhats titles, it is not the only one.
Indeed he is called a wab-priest in the ensuing stele inscription.
630
Perhaps he is fulfilling
the role of an assistant to his father, akin to being a mdw n iAw.
The stele on the west wall of the transverse-hall was painted, and is less well-
known. Unlike its opposite, only the lunette was carved with the cartouches of
Thutmosis III. The text of the stele was sketched in red and then hastily painted over in
blue, but it was never properly finished. The upper portion is extremely damaged, but the
last three lines are fairly well preserved and it is here that we learn more about
Amunemhats upper level positions in the priesthood. The beginning of line 16 is badly
damaged, but there are traces that suggest Amunemhat may have been involved in the
campaigns of Thutmosis III.
631
The line ends with the following text: //[s]t-a n Imn m
+sr-Dsrw [I]mn-m-HAt the helper of Amun in Djeser-djeseru Amunemhat. This would
place him as a priest in the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. Interestingly,

629
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8.
630
Line 9. The entire string of epithets and titles is: wab awy Hr irt Hwt xrp ib ir.f Hsswt wab imy //[ st-a n
Imn Imn-m-]// HAt mAa-xrw
631
/// rdwy n nb tAwy ///

142
the inscription itself ends with the more common title of Amunemhat rather than this
longer one, which may indicate that it could be read as a shortened version of the full
title.
632

I would like to suggest that the two stelae are to some extent meant to serve as
markers for Amunemhats career. On the east wall is the earlier stele, where Amunemhat
is depicted with his father as a wab-priest presenting offerings to deified queens. Most of
this 20-line text is dedicated to the preservation of the deceased in the afterlife (l.1-17)
and appeal to the living (l.19-20).
633
Only two lines (l.17-19) recount the life and career
of Amunemhat. These two lines are mostly descriptive in nature, listing the types of
activities or duties that Amunemhat performed as a temple servant, with the result that he
was justified among the magistrates.
634
The western stele, which is painted rather than
carved and bears the cartouches of Thutmosis III thus becomes the later stele, on which
Amunemhat gave the title he acquired at the end of his career. Indeed, although most of
the 18-line inscription is lost, it seems possible that here the offering formulae and
appeals would have been reduced in favor of a more extensive account of Amunemhats
career.
As for the rest of Amunemhats family, his wife Sobeknakht only carries the
common lady of the house title wherever she appears. From the offering scenes it can
be inferred that they may have had a daughter Senres who predeceased them, as well as
another daughter and son who were still alive when the tomb was decorated.
635


632
Line 18: st-a n Imn Imn-m-HAt mAa-xrw
633
See the translation of Awadalla, BIFAO 89, pp.39-40.
634
Line 18-19: smAa.n.f xrw wi m DADAt
635
Senres is shown standing behind the chair of Amunemhat and Sobeknakht in PM(2), but no filiation is
preserved. Whale (Family, p.99) points out that she might be a sister of either of them as well. In the same

143
Amenemhat may have had one or more brothers who were charioteers, judging from a
damaged scene in the passage.
636
If this is correct, then it would go towards supporting
the theory that Amunemhat may have been involved in the campaigns of Thutmosis III. It
would also help to explain why at least two striding charioteers are included in what is
otherwise a series of funerary scenes.
637

There are three ambiguous couples in the tomb, all of whom are depicted in the
lower register of an offering scene in the passage.
638
In the upper register is the double
pair of Amunemhat with Sobeknakht and Itefnefer with Tetiemnetjer already mentioned.
The first couple in the lower register is destroyed, but it is likely that here belongs the
inscription of the wab-priest of Aakheperkare Sobeknakht.
639
The second couple are the
steward in the treasury Ramose and his wife Ahmose, and the third an unknown man who
was a steward of Djserkara, and a steward of an unknown institution with his wife whose
name is lost.
640
Whale suggested that all of these couples were relatives of either
Amunemhat or Sobeknakht, and that the two Sobeknakhts were probably
consanguines.
641
It is certainly possible that this is correct, especially as to the
Sobeknakhts. However, it seems equally plausible, and perhaps more so given the lack of
filiation, that at least two of the three couples are represented because they are colleagues

scene an unidentified woman offers to the couple and Senres, while in the passage [PM(14)] a man offers to
the double pair of Amunemhat with Sobeknakht and Itefnefer with Tetiemmetjer.
636
PM(13). The inscription reads: sn.f snni //// //// snni ////. It is possible that the first at least was a
brother. Schulman (MRTO, p.60, para.149) regards the social status of the chariot-warrior as being from
among the elite based in part on the exemption of temple personnel from being conscripted as recorded in
pHarrisI (p.122, ref.229).
637
The two figures are in the lowest register. Above them is a register of seated banquet guests and above
this are two registers of Opening of the Mouth scenes.
638
PM(14)
639
Urk. IV, 1225; Bouriant, RT 14, 71.
640
First couple: //[ wab n ( aA-xpr-kA-ra )|]// ///; second couple: imy-r pr n (sic) m sDAwty Ra-ms mAa-xrw Hmt.f
mrt.f nbt pr aH-ms mA ///; third couple: imy-r pr n (Dsr-kA-[ra )|] imy-r pr /// nb tAwy (?) /// yt //// Hm(t).f nbt
pr /// mAat-xrw . Possibly Ramoses title should be split and read imy-r pr n gs sDAwty ?
641
Whale, Family, p.99.

144
of Amunemhat. The fact that these men were all stewards in funerary establishments, and
Amunemhat can now be placed as a servant in one, makes this suggestion attractive.
642

A funerary cone and a statue that have been attributed to Amunemhat are now
made more secure by the discovery of his new title. Both of these objects, as well as other
funerary cones, are for the imy st-a n Imn Amunemhat.
643
However, D&M no.443 carries
an elaboration of this title that is otherwise unknown for Amunemhat of TT53: Hr sA sn-
nw from the 2
nd
phyle.
644
A statue from Deir el-Bahri, now in Florence, has his
common title, but also calls him the helper of Amun in Henqet-ankh and the helper of
Amun in Henqet-ankh from the first phyle.
645
As neither of these objects name
Amunemhats father, the attribution, while plausible, is still uncertain. However, since
Amunemhat was an helper of Amun in Djeser-djeseru, it seems likely that he might also
have been one in Henqet-ankh. With the statue more clearly ascribed, the funerary cone
can be as well.
646

According to Eichler, this was a family of cult personnel, essentially lower to
mid-level priests.
647
This makes the ownership of a tomb somewhat unusual, as they do
not seem to have a position of high enough status to have one built. It seems likely that
this was due to a connection that the family held to the nurse, queen and princess

642
The same situation occurs in other tombs, i.e. TT82.
643
Two funerary cones recorded by Champollion (otices I, p.512) and Davies and Macadam, Corpus,
no.442 are easily identified with Amenemhat of TT53 (also listed in Urk. IV, 1224, a-c). Davies and
Macadam, Corpus, no.442 is the same as Daressy no.180 which was found in the court of TT55 of Ramose,
just down the slope and west of TT53 (Davies annotated Daressy, Griffith Institute).
644
Urk. IV, 1224 d = Daressy no.213.
645
Hr sA tpy Florence no.3708 = Urk. IV, 1224-5; Schiaparelli, Cat. Gen. I, no.1501, pp.192-4. The first
title is restored by both Helck and Schiaparelli.
646
It is theoretically possible to read Hr sA sn-nw and Hr sA tpy as separate titles, thus commander of the
second troop and commander of the first troop. However, Schulman (MRTO) lists only Hry n p# s#
(commander of a company) as a military title, and this is held by a man who also bore other military titles
(no.452, p.153). It seems more plausible then to regard these as elaborations of the priestly title which they
follow.
647
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.171 ; cf. Sauneron, Priests, pp.57ff.

145
depicted on the stele.
648
If this connection existed, then in previous times the family of
Amunemhat and his father Itnefer would have had considerable prestige, wealth, and
status. Perhaps the wealth and status had carried through the generations, although the
current positions of the family dont reflect this, and thus they were able to build a tomb
based on their lineage. Although Itnefer was able to bring Amunemhat into the priesthood
as a wab-priest and eventually pass on his title as an imy st-a, it may be that the familys
visibility owes more to its past glory than to its ability to retain mid-level positions within
the family. Unfortunately, the lack of information about any of Amunemhats sons or
daughters limits our ability to comment on whether this family was able to continue their
involvement in the temple, or whether their current position caught up with their past
wealth.

Amenemhat
(A new high priest of Amun
649
)
The high priest of Amun Amenemhat did not inherit this position from his father.
However, he was placed as a staff of old age for his father as a wab-priest and did
inherit a few lower-level titles. This section supports the view that heredity was a major,
though not the only, component in becoming high priest of Amun. Either a recognized
inheritance, such as the mdw iAw provided, could facilitate later advancement, or
Amunemhat was promoted for reasons not connected to being a staff of old age.
Amenemhat was the owner of TT97, in which he originally had two stelae
inscribed, although only the one in the rear chamber is preserved to any degree.
650


648
This connection was also suggested by Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8.
649
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.243, no.040.

146
Fortunately, this autobiography is also one of few that chronicles parts of his career and
gives us some inkling into the order in which positions were achieved. The autobiography
is somewhat unusual, opening with Beginning of a teaching which Amenemhat
made. He says as a teaching for his children, Now I speak that I might cause that you
listen to what has happened with me.
651
This literary genre, although not uncommonly
found in tombs,
652
generally consists of a series of maxims instructing the recipient on
how to live and act correctly.
653
In Amenemhats case, these seem to be worked into an
overall narrative that also describes his career as a priest and the manner in which he
performed his duties.
After recording his fullest titulary,
654
which is placed within the lines just
described, Amunemhat states that he served as a staff of old age for his father. The
phrasing is exactly like that seen in the legal and other texts described above: (I) was as
a wab-priest, a mdw n iAw at the side of my father in his existing upon earth.
655
His
father, Djhutyhotep, was both a wab-priest and an overseer of the sandal-makers of the

650
The tomb was partially published by Gardiner, ZS 47, pp.87-99. See also Kampp, Die thebansiche
ekropole, pp.364-7, type VIa. TT 97 is T-shaped with an additional 4-pillared rear chamber that also
contains a niche. The two stelae were originally located on the east wall of the hall, and at the south corner
of the west wall of the rear chamber. The inner chamber of the tomb is unfinished and the entire tomb is
very badly damaged and blackened from the fires of people inhabiting the tomb.
651
Lines 1-2: HAt-a m (s)bAyt rt n Imn-m-HAt Dd.f m sbAt xr msw.f Dd.i swt di.i sDm.tn xprt xr.i; cf.
Gardiner, ZS 47, p.92, pl.1.
652
For example, Pthahotep, Any, Amenmeope, Onchsheshonqy; cf. Lichtheim, AEL I-III.
653
The genre, which is also referred to as Wisdom Literature, was discussed in the introduction, Section
Vc., pp.46ff.; cf. the literature cited there. In general, however, see the articles in Ld III, cols.964-992
(grouped under Lehren) and works by Lichtheim including Moral Values and Wisdom Literature.
654
Gardiner gives a translation of the text; cf. ZS 47, pp.92-3, pl.1. These are given in the following order:
iry-pat HAty-(a) it nTr mrt nTr Hry sStA m //[ Ipt-swt]// Hry-tp tA (r) Dr.f (r s)hrr m rw-(p)rw aq r pt mAA ntt
im.s //[rx sq nb n dwAt]// imy-r prw nb imy-r prw HD iry-pat n Gb imy-r Hmw-nTr nw Smaw mHw it-nTr tp
n I(mn)
655
Gardiner, ZS 47, p.92; line 3: wn(.i) m wab mdw n iAw m-a it.f wn.f tp-tA. For comporanda, see above,
Section Ib., pp.63-8.

147
house of Amun.
656
Amenemhat goes on to describe the ways in which he assisted his
father, clearly demonstrating that as a staff of old age Amenemhat had duties to fulfill
and was acting as a deputy to his father in one of these positions.
657

Although Amenemhat does not give his age at the time when he was made a wab
priest, he was presumably still fairly young, since his father was both alive and
functioning in the temple. By the age of 54 Amenemhat had become a wab-priest of the
divine sandals, chief of his subordinates, and overseer of the st.
658
Eichler mentions that
other than the latter titles, Amenemhat had apparently no connection to the administration
of the Amun precinct.
659
Based on her general ordering, it would appear as though they
represent lower, middle and upper level positions.
660

Scholars have generally viewed Amenemhats situation at the age of 54 as still
fairly unadvanced within the priesthood, necessitating a rather rapid rise to high priest
during his later years. Gardiner offered the possibility that he was promoted to the high-
priestship over the heads of his colleagues, and without passing through the regular
stages, but he has no theories as to why this would have happened.
661
Kees views
Amenemhat as an example of one of few high priests who attained their position not

656
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.329, no.580. His fathers name and titles are not
mentioned (or preserved) anywhere on the stele, but rather come from ceiling inscriptions in the passage
and rear chamber where he is called the sAb wab imy-r Tbw n [pr n Imn] +Hwty-Htp mAa-xrw.
657
Gardiner, ZS, p.92; lines 3-6. These fall into the framework of the instructions, with a series of
statements beginning I did not. Cf. Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, pp.243-62.
658
Gardiner, ZS, p.92; line 6: pH.n.i s n rnpt 54 iw.i m wb tb.wy nTr imy-r st Hry smdt.f. The translation of
this term is still somewhat uncertain. Gardiner listed the title as overseer of the kitchen (ZS, p.92 with
note p), but storehouse, or even a more generic translation such as department or office is perhaps better.
Eichler does not seem to deal with this title, except to note that Amenemht and a few other officials held it;
cf. Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.55 with note 222. It appears that this is not the same as in the
case of Minnkaht, above, where imy-r st could be shown to be a short form of imy-r st n irp.
659
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,, p.15 with n.54.
660
Perhaps within the land and work administrations? Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,
pp.v-viii.
661
Gardiner, ZS 47, p.97.

148
through the court or family relations but through the kings favor. In this case, he may
have gained recognition gained through his participation as a young man in the wars of
Thutmosis III.
662
Murnane on the other hand regards Amenemhat as an extreme example
of the high priests more typical background as sons of low- or middle-ranked
clergymen that rarely attained high rank themselves before their elevation.
663

However, none of these explanations seems entirely satisfactory. In the following
lines of the autobiography Amenemhat describes that he acted according to the
expectations of a priest in the temple of Amun and that this, and perhaps the influence of
his father, assisted his advancement.
664
Unfortunately much of the autobiography is
damaged after this point, and the entire bottom section is lost. Within these destroyed
portions are fragments of inscription that Gardiner convincingly suggested represent a
transition between kings.
665
The cartouche is too ruined to ascertain any hieroglyphs, and
thus, as Bryan pointed out, which kings are involved is unknown.
666
Helck (following
Sethe) restored the cartouche as containing the name Aakheperura, i.e., Amenhotep II.
667

This restoration would certainly fit with the style of the tombs decoration, as well as that
of his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah.
668
It also accords well with the now accepted placement

662
Kees, Priestertum, p.17-18, 77, Nachtrage p.8. See also Bryan (Thutmose IV, p.267) who, citing Kees,
suggests that Perhaps his low rank as wab simply reflected his late entry into sacral administration.
663
Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, p.208.
664
Lines 4-6, 7-11. The line referring to his father is damaged: iw.i bs.kwi r sDm sDmwt wabw /// it.i Hr sAw.i
m ////. Gardiner (ZS 47, p.93) suggested [the recommendation (??)] in the lacuna.
665
Gardiner, ZS 47, pp.92 ff.
666
Line 11, almost the entire cartouche is lost, and the portion is too damaged to discern any signs. Bryan
Thutmose IV, p.267.
667
Urk. IV, 1410.
668
As already mentioned by both Gardiner (ZS 47, p.87) and Bryan (Thutmose IV, p.93).

149
of Amenemhat as the successor to one of the Menkherperresonebs (in my opinion the
owner of TT86), and predecessor of the high priest of Amun Mery, owner of TT95.
669

It appears that soon after the new kings ascension, which Amenemhat apparently
witnessed, he was promoted to upper level priestly positions. The damaged inscription
records: I [being] appointed (dhn) to gods father and to first chief in I.
670
Both
Karnak and the house of Amun have been suggested as possibilities for the location in
which Amenemhat served as first chief following the transition between kings.
671
The
reason for his sudden rise is unclear, and while it would seem that Amenemhat did
achieve at least one upper level title before becoming a high priest, is final attainment of
office is unfortunately not preserved in the remainder of the autobiography, nor are any
clues given in the inscriptions in the rest of the tomb or in his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah
(no.25).
672

Indeed, in his shrine Amenemhat is consistently referred to as the high priest of
Amun and overseer of priests of Upper and Lower Egypt.
673
Likewise his funerary cones
and statue do not expand our knowledge of Amenemhats rise to power, repeating titles
already known from his tomb and shrine.
674
Certainly the funerary cones were made at

669
For the most recent analysis of priestly succession during this time period see Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.281-
91, esp. Abb.1 and p.284-6. Also mentioned by Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.154.
670
Lines 12-13: [dh]n.[k]wi r it nTr r [H]ry tp m I ///. This is contra Gardiner, ZS 47, pp.92 ff., who reads
He appointed me as I am basing the restoration on the similarity of the inscription to that of Nebwawy
(Urk. IV, 208.9) and on the stative aq.kwi which occurs in the next line.
671
Gardiner restores here Ipt-swt; Sethe suggested pr-Imn; and Helck (Urk. IV, 1411.5) followed Gardiner.
672
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.79-85, pls.61-6.
673
The three inscriptions from the shrine come from the south and north walls and the ceiling. On the south
wall Amenemhat is the iry-pat HAty-a [sDAwt] bity smr waty Aa n nswt /// n bity ir.n nb tAwy kA.f Hm-nTr tpy (n
Imn) imy-r Hmw-nTr nw ^maw MHw (Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.65). On the north wall he is called
the iry-pat HAty-a [sDA]wt bity s[mr] aA n mrt r shrr [m tA r-Dr.f] Hm-nTr tpy n (Imn) imy-r Hmw-nTr nw
(^maw) MHw (Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.64). And on the ceiling: iry-pat HAty-a sDAwt bity smr aA n
mrt Hm-nTr tpy n (Imn) imy-r Hmw-nTr nw (^maw) MHw (Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.62).
674
The funerary cones are in Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 42-44. The statue comes from Deir el-
Bahri, cf. Naville, Deir el-Bahari III, p.2, pl.V no.1 and Urk. IV 1413.

150
the end of Amenemhats career since they were meant to be placed at the tomb. Likewise,
the fact that the statue only reports his later titles suggests that this monument was also
likely created towards the end of his life. Despite the lack of inscriptions on the lintel of
his Silsilah shrine,
675
it is unlikely that Amenemhat could have begun construction of the
shrine prior to becoming high priest, and so we could also tentatively date Shrine 25 to
the reign of Amenhotep II.
The preserved portions of the tomb autobiography make no mention of
Amenemhats military or court epithets. Rather, these are found in other inscriptions in
the tomb, especially those on the ceiling of the passage and rear chamber, as well as on
the funerary cones.
676
Amenemhat is designated as one who relates to the legs of the
lord of the two lands, suggesting that he may indeed have been involved with the wars
of Thutmosis III as a young man. Given the damaged state of the autobiography, the
possibility of military service or presence on the campaigns cannot be entirely
discounted. Perhaps this service was prior to his initial introduction into the clergy as a
wab-priest and the positions he held at age 54. Kees suggested that Amenemhats rise was
directly related to the royal favor he gained from his military service.
677
However, Kees
did not recognize any connection between father and son, stating that the father had no
role in either the administration (probably true) or the clergy (clearly false).
678

Amenemhats autobiography certainly suggests that his initial entry into the Amun
priesthood was through his father. While Amenemhats probably rapid advancement may

675
The lintel and exterior jambs were left unfinished; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah, p.79.
676
In addition to the ceiling inscriptions of both the passage and rear chamber, which have the most
complete titles, there are some on the entrance to the passage, and on the walls and pillars of the rear
chamber. They include iry rdwy n nb tAwy, irty nswt anxwy n bity, mn Hsw m stp-sA anx wDA snb and r shrr m
tA r-Dr.f, among others
677
Kees, Priestertum, p.17
678
Kees, Priestertum, p.17-18, 77, Nachtrage p.8.

151
have had something to do with his military career, it would not have risen solely from it.
However, his military career may have led to a closer relationship with the king that
facilitated this rise. On his ceiling inscriptions, Amenemhat is also called Xrp nsty m irty
n nswt controller of the two thrones before the eyes of the king, a title which indicates
he participated in one of the kings jubilees, though which king is uncertain.
679
The barest
remains of the top of a kiosk on the rear wall of TT97s transverse-hall, adjacent to the
passage entrance, indicate that Amenemhat was once depicted before his king.
680

Assuming Amenemhat was promoted to high priest by Amenhotep II, then this would
have been the king depicted. Perhaps then it had something to do with the transition
between two kings that Amenemhat apparently witnessed.
681

It remains a fact that without his fathers position Amenemhat would not have
entered the priestly service and thus would not have attained the level of high priest of
Amun. Amenemhat is also one of only two officials from this time period for whom the
use of the mdw iAw is demonstrated.
682
Although none of Amenemhats family is
preserved in his tomb, at Gebel Silsilah his son Amunemweskhet is depicted in an
offering scene.
683
He is titled as a wab-priest of Amun in the scene, and quite possibly
served as a staff of old age for Amenemhat, carrying on the tradition. Amunemweskhet

679
Gardiner, ZS 47, p.91 with note 4; cf. also Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.
680
This scene is to the east of PM(1) and Gardiner E. It is not designated by its own PM number, nor was
it mentioned by Gardiner in his article; cf. ZS 47, pp.87-99, esp. p.89.
681
Gardiner, ZS 47, pp.92 ff.
682
The other is the vizier User, see above, pp.79-87.
683
North wall, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.64.

152
apparently never achieved the position of high priest, however, since the next official to
hold this title seems to have been Mery, the owner of TT95 and usurper of TT84.
684


Min and his son Sobekhotep
(Two generations of treasurers; Three generations of mayor through marriage)
The family of Min and Sobekhotep provides us with an example of inherited
positions in two different forms, through direct lineage, and through marriage. It is also
an interesting example of how the highest office-holders could become connected with
regional administrators. Although this is not the place for a study of regional mayoralties,
it is important to keep in mind that these positions had a long tradition of heredity,
stretching into the late Old Kingdom, and becoming especially common during the
Intermediate Periods.
685
Thus, the position of treasurer and that of mayor of the Fayum
will be discussed in the ensuing pages, these are in many respects separate topics. Indeed,
although Sobekhotep was the beneficiary for both of them, it appears that they were not
held concurrently.
The treasurer Min, who served under Thutmosis III, would be much less well-
known were it not for his son Sobekhotep. Min is known only from his shrine at Gebel
es-Silsilah (no.5), a funerary cone from Thebes, and through his mention and depiction
on Sobekhoteps monuments.
686
Both of Mins monuments give only his highest

684
TT95 has never been properly documented, but is currently in the process of being published by A.
Gnirs, in collaboration with E. Grothe and H. Guksch. Thus, some of the conclusions drawn will be
tentative. The most recent article is in MDAIK 53, pp.58-70.
685
See the discussion on Khnumhotep in Section Ia, pp.59-63, above.
686
The shrine is published by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.19-21, pls.13-15. The funerary cone is
Daressy no.242 = Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.499. The texts from the shrine, funerary cone and
sons monuments are found in Urk. IV, 1027-9.

153
position, that of overseer of the treasury.
687
On the exterior lintel of the shrine only the
cartouches of Thutmosis III are present, indicating that Min was not the overseer of the
treasury until the sole reign of this king.
688
Despite the presence of a funerary cone, no
tomb for Min has been found in Thebes, a subject that will be returned to below. This is
the extent of the information that can be gathered from Mins monuments. However, a
great deal more can be said about his son, Sobekhotep.
Sobekhotep inherited his fathers title, but also became mayor of the Fayum
through his wifes family. He was the owner of TT63,
689
as well as two statues from the
north, and is mentioned in his official capacity on Papyrus Mook.
690
The career and
family of Sobekhotep were recently discussed by B. Bryan in Dziobeks publication of
his tomb.
691
From the genealogy that Bryan reconstructs we see that Sobekhotep of TT63
was the son of the treasurer Min, married to the wrt xnrt of Sobek Shedty Meryt, who
herself was both a daughter of the mayor of the Fayum Kap and his wife Meryt, and
brother to the mayor of the Fayum Sobekhotep(a).
692
Sobekhotep and Meryt were in turn
the parents of the high priest of Sobek Shedty and mayor of the Fayum Paser and the first

687
imy-r xtmt; cf. Daressy no.242 = Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.499; Caminos and James, Silsilah I,
p.19-20, pls.13, 15. In the shrine he also bears epithets describing his role as treasurer: great chief in
Upper Egypt, judge in Lower Egypt, one who is sent and who returns with his deed accomplished, one who
approaches the council tent that he may ring joy. See Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.20, pl.15 and
Bryan, in Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.82.
688
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.19, pl.13.
689
Kampp, Die thebanishce ekropole, pp.280-3, type VIa.
690
The tomb is published by Dziobek; cf. Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, and Sobekhoteps career and family are
reconstructed by Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, IV Exkurse, pp.81-8. See also her earlier discussion in
Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.306-8, 132-7 and a more abbreviated treatment by Bryan, in Thutmose III, p.23.
For an earlier discussion, cf. Helck, Verwaltung, pp.352-3, 468-9. One of Sobekhoteps statues was
probably from Memphis, CG1090; cf. Borchardt, Statuen IV, p.51, pl.162, Urk. IV, 1585. The other was
likely from the Fayum, Brussels E.6856; cf. Capart, BMRAH 4, pp.83-6, Van de Walle, RdE 15, pp.77-85.
In Papyrus Mook (P. Munich 809) Sobekhotep is mentioned in his official capacity as treasurer, cf.
Spiegelberg, ZS 63, pp.105-15. Bryan discusses these on pp.84-7 with full references, and gives a
compilation of Sobekhoteps titles on p.87.
691
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, IV Exkurse, pp.81-8. See also her earlier discussion in Bryan,
Thutmose IV, pp.306-8, 132-7 and a more abbreviated treatment by Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.23.
692
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.84

154
priest of Iah Djhuty.
693
Based on her review of the monuments that can be attributed to
Sobekhotep,
694
Bryan concluded that Sobekhotep had two different stages of his career.
He became mayor of the Fayum during the reign of Amenhotep II, but probably did not
assume his position as treasurer until the reign of Thutmosis IV.
695

The later date ascribed to the start of Sobekhoteps career as treasurer is due both
to the scenes depicted in his tomb, and to the probability that his father Min was serving
as treasurer in the latter half of Thutmosis IIIs reign.
696
In TT63 the scenes in the
transverse-hall are essentially concerned with his role as a treasurer and the
responsibilities entailed therein.
697
Likewise the titles and epithets that are attributed to
Sobekhotep in the hall, where preserved, are court and duty-related, or generically
religious in character.
698
The only place where his Fayum-related titles occur is on the
stele, where they would be expected anyway.
699
The south wall of the passage is covered
with typical funerary scenes, e.g. the Abydos pilgrimage, opening of the mouth rituals,
and an offering scene. On the north wall however, the scenes have been deliberately
woven together to create a setting in the beautiful Fayum,
700
reflecting the duties that

693
It should be mentioned that the identification of Djhuty does not reflect the restoration and interpretation
of the inscriptions by Dziobek ; cf. Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.69, text 20e. In the scene Djhuty has no
filiation and is first in a row of offering-bearers behind Paser. His inscription reads Hm-nTr tpy n IaH DHwty
WbA-swt, which Dziobek translates as first priest of Thoth-month, Uabsu (?), but which could just as
likely have been two titles, thus the first priest of Iah, royal butler (reading wbA nswt), .
694
Besides TT63, Sobekhotep owned two statues, one probably from Memphis (CG1090), the other likely
from the Fayum (Brussels E.6856). For CG10190, cf. Borchardt, Statuen IV, p.51, pl.162, Urk. IV, 1585,
and for Brussels E.6856, cf. Capart, BMRAH 4, pp.83-6, Van de Walle, RdE 15, pp.77-85. In Papyrus
Mook (P. Munich 809) Sobekhotep is mentioned in his official capacity as treasurer, cf. Spiegelberg, ZS
63, pp.105-15. Bryan discusses these on pp.84-7 with full references, and gives a compilation of
Sobekhoteps titles on p.87.
695
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, pp. 81, 83-5. But note her caution in the attribution of Hm.f to
Thutmosis IV, p.85.
696
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81 and the literature cited there.
697
I.e. foreigners bringing tribute, the inspection of workshops, granaries, and possibly even the treasury.
698
For example: iry-pat HAty-a xtmw bity smr waty aA m pr-nsw Hsy n nTr nfr.
699
Also, in a procession scene where Sobekhotep is depicted before the king Dziobek restores his title of
mayor [Dziobek scenes 5-6 = PM (5) and (4)].
700
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.83

155
would have concerned Sobekhotep as mayor of the Fayum. Although the separation of
scenes is in part due to the nature of the transverse-hall and passage, which reflect
different aspects of the life and passage into the afterlife of the tombs owner, nonetheless
it seems significant that the scene of the Fayumic locale is awarded a significant
amount of wall space.
Accepting the argument that Sobekhotep was a mayor before he became treasurer,
it is probable that he inherited this title from his wifes brother, also called Sobekhotep,
who had inherited it from his father Kap. Two statues of Sobekhotep(a) which are,
according to Bryan, stylistically datable to the reign of Amunhotep II, place him as mayor
in this kings reign, and his father Kap in the reign of Thutmosis III.
701
This would also
support a later acquisition by Sobekhotep of the treasurer title, since he would have
followed Sobekhotep(a) in the mayoral position only towards the end of the reign of
Amunhotep II. It would appear that Sobekhotep(a) was not married, or at least had no
children, since neither are mentioned on the statues. Thus the position passed to his
sisters husband. Bryan suggests that Sobekhoteps wife Meryt was the connection
which placed Sobekhotep B into the Fayumic Mayors office; for although he, as son of
Treasurer Min, has no known genealogical connections to the area, Meryts titles
should be attributed to the regional importance of the womans family.
702
While
Sobekhotep did undoubtedly inherit his position from his like-named brother-in-law, it
seems at least possible that Sobekhoteps father Min might have had connections in this
area. Two things suggest this: first, the fact that a statue of his from Tell Muqdam was

701
To this Sobekhotep are attributed the statues Marseille 208 and Berlin 11635 based both on the
orthography of the name (all but once written without the shrine) and his filiation as the son of Kap and
Meryt.
702
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, pp.83-4.

156
dedicated to Horus xnty TArr,
703
and second that in his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah he is
called Xtmt bity
704
Hry-tp aA and wDa rwyt.
705
Although all of these designations are
descriptive epithets rather than proper titles, they are nonetheless suggestive that Min
may have had a more involved role in the north. This is perhaps further supported by the
statue, which, as Bryan pointed out, may reflect a Delta origin for Min.
706
The fact that
Min had a shrine at Silsilah does not detract from this possibility as the treasurer Nehesy
under Hatshepsut is also known from a shrine at Silsilah as well as a tomb at Saqqara.
707

From the above discussion it becomes clear that the office of overseer of the
treasury, like that of vizier, could potentially be passed on. In the case of Min and
Sobekhotep, it was held for two generations before moving out of this familys control.
Prior to acquiring this position however, Sobekhotep married into a regional family and
inherited the position of Mayor of the Fayum though his wifes brother. The family was
able to retain the mayoral office in the Fayum slightly longer, through three generations,
including that of Sobekhoteps descendants.
Although it may seem as though the retention of these two positions was similar,
in fact there are two essential differences between them. The post of treasurer was one of
the most prominent in the country, and not one that was usually hereditary.
708
The fact
that Min was able to guarantee it for his son is a testament to Mins own authority and

703
Dated by cartouche to Thutmosis III. Urk. IV 1029. For this combination see WB V:356, 6 =
agricultural lands in 12
th
nome of Lower Egypt.
704
I would translate this title in this way rather than the more common sDAwty bity with the suggestion that
it carried more than honorific value. See also TT 121 in Ch.2.
705
Urk. IV 1927-8, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, no.5
706
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81.
707
Zivie, Mlanges Adolphe Gutbub, 1984, 245-52.
708
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.580; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.3, p.317

157
influence within the administration. It may also be possible that Sobekhoteps tenure as
mayor helped enable his inheritance of his fathers post as treasurer.
Mayoral positions, in ancient Egypt had a long history of becoming hereditary,
beginning as early as the late Old Kingdom.
709
Although their regional power fluctuated
depending on the strength of the central government, in general these were landed
aristocracies that remained within families. As mayor of the Fayum, Sobekhotep became
a part of this landed aristocracy, which was a common source from the Middle
Kingdom on from which to move into upper-level administrative positions.
710
Thus,
although Sobekhotep was unable to retain control over who succeeded him as treasurer,
his marriage and subsequent career as mayor of the Fayum provided a continual revenue
source for the family.
Excursus: A possible tomb for Min in Thebes
The issue of where Mins tomb is located is still under debate. It has generally
been assumed that he had a tomb in Thebes, based on funerary cones that were found in
the Necropolis.
711
Most recently Bryan proposed the almost completely destroyed TT119
of unknown ownership as a possibility for Mins tomb.
712
This was based on the scene of
Syrians and Keftiu bringing goods to the deceased, which parallels scenes found in the
tomb of the treasurer Sennefri (TT99), as well as that of Sobekhotep. Although the scenes

709
Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Warburton,
in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.578.
710
As evidenced in Tutankhamuns Restoration Stele and the Decree of Horemheb. See also Allen, in:
Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67.
711
Daressy no.242 = Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.499. Davies mentions finding the cone in his
discussion of objects found during his investigation of the tomb of Daga (TT103), where he calls it a large
brick stamped on 2 sides (Davies, Five Theban Tombs). TT103 is just north of the tomb of Sobkehotep.
712
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.82, n.14. The tomb consists of a passage and 4-pillared chamber
with a niche and is located south of TT63, very near to that of the vizier Aametu (TT83); cf. Kampp, Die
thebanische ekropole, pp.406-7.

158
are comparable, the scene in TT119 stylistically seems to be earlier in the reign of
Thutmosis III rather than later, as one might expect for an official who, as Bryan states,
most likely did not achieve that rank until well into Thutmose IIIs sole rule.
713

However, TT 143, also of an unknown official, is another possibility, which Helck was
the first to suggest.
714

TT 143 is a T-shaped tomb located in Dra Abu el-Naga whose plan and
decoration were never finished, but which stylistically can be placed in the Thutmosis III
Amenhotep II range.
715
There are several points of comparison between it and TT63, as
well as other tombs known to belong to treasurers.
716
Three scenes in TT143 are pertinent
to the discussion: two on either side of the rear wall of the hall [PM(3) and (6)], and
another on the eastern front wall of the hall [PM(4)]. On the south side of the tomb, the
rear (west) wall contains the badly damaged remains of men approaching rows of neatly
stacked jars and produce. This probably formed part of an inspection scene common to
the tombs of officials who were in charge of the reception and distribution of various
products, and in the case of the overseer of the seal responsible for all sealed materials
of the state.
717
Likewise the scene of agricultural activity that takes up a majority of the
front wall on the north side of the tomb falls into this category. While the lower three
registers depict the agricultural cycle (from ploughing to harvest to the recording of
produce), an activity that likely would have fallen under the domain of the treasurer, the
upper three involve measuring and recording the crop, and also depict two boats. The

713
Bryan, in Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81.
714
Helck, Verwaltung, 352. He mentions in conjunction with this the scene of a Punt expedition which is
located on the east side of the north wall [PM(6)] of TT143. Repeated by der Manuelian, Amenophis II,
p.126 (VI.4). Scenes in the tomb are described by Davies, BMMA 31, pp.46-52.
715
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.428-9, type Va.
716
i.e. Nehesy in his tomb at Saqqara, Sennefri of TT99.
717
Such scenes occur for example in TTs 63, 100; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.16

159
scene is damaged, but it seems plausible that the boats are perhaps being loaded with
supplies to be brought to the storehouses.
Most significant for the issue of the tombs attribution to Min, however, is the
image opposite this on the rear wall of the north end. Porter and Moss called this scene
Five registers, tribute from Punt (Figs.16-18, pp.472-4).
718
The lower two registers do
indeed depict the expedition to and from Punt, complete with ships and charioted military
escort. In the upper three registers the deceased stands before the enthroned king while
behind him are piles of incense, myrrh trees, gold rings, butchered cattle, and even a pair
of obelisks. Behind this, the deceased is again represented, this time holding one tray of
incense and one of gold rings while rows of are men bringing various goods behind him.
The men directly behind the second figure of the deceased are prostrate and one of them
wears a distinctly un-Egyptian dress. According to Davies, it is the dress of a Puntite
prince, though he admits that the costume is quite different from that seen at Deir el-
Bahri.
719
The inscription that accompanies the first figure of the deceased is damaged but
what remains is extremely interesting: of your foreign land together with gold of the
hillside of Gebtiu (Coptos) gold of great quantity.
720
The scenes of a Puntite
expedition and the mention of gold from Coptos are strong indicators that TT143 did
indeed belong to a treasurer. Stylistically, the tomb fits in the later half of Thutmosis III
to early Amenhotep II, which would match well with the time-frame for Min. It must be
admitted however, that his predecessor Ty is also a candidate, although if he were the

718
PM I.1, 1960, p. 255.
719
Davies, BMMA 31, pp.46-7. The other two figures are destroyed, but were presumably also not
Egyptian.
720
//[2 columns destroyed]// (nbw) n xAst.Tn m-ab nbw n xAst Gbtiyw /// nbw n aSA wrt There are traces of a
sign in the damaged area between Gebtiu and gold. Davies suggested Domw fine gold, which seems
likely. A similar inscription can be found in TT86 of the HPA Menkheperresoneb where he is receiving
taxes: sSp nbw n xAst Gbtiyw m-ab nbw n KSh Xst (PM(6), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.ix).

160
owner one might expect the Nubian or Serabit el-Khadim expeditions to have been
portrayed rather than one to Punt and the eastern desert.
721


Userhat
(Two generations of Amun servants
722
)
Earlier in this chapter we saw how helpers of Amun, mid-level priests, could
pass on their positions, and this appears to be the case for the lower-level servants of
Amun as well. However, what is unusual in this example is that while the servant of
Amun Amunemhats family appears to have been descended from an elite line,
723
there
is nothing beyond the mere fact of a tomb to suggest that Userhat and his family were
anything more than temple staff. According to Eichler, the role of the sDm-aS was
essentially as assistant staff for a variety of cult functions.
724
Although she does not
include our officials in her corpus, or give a particular discussion of the title itself, it
appears from her catalogue that this was often the sole title reported by its holders.
725

The lack of knowledge about this family can be attributed to the mislabeling of
Userhats title in his tomb entry in Porter and Moss.
726
Porter and Moss had attributed
TT176 in the Khokha area of the Theban Necropolis to the royal butler pure of hands
[Amun-]Userhat, with no other relatives known.
727
This was followed by der Manuelian

721
The treasurer Nehesy (who also had a shrine at Silsilah) was in charge of an expedition to Punt, but for
Hatshepsut, and his tomb is known to be at Saqqara.
722
Neither Userhat nor his father Katy appear in the volume on the Amun domain by Eichler, Verwaltung
des Hauses des Amun.
723
See above, pp.137 ff.
724
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.168ff.
725
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.370 has a list of the catalogue entries.
726
PM I.1, pp.281-3.
727
The original entrance is now blocked, and the tomb is accessed through a breach in the north wall of the
adjacent Ramesside Period tomb, TT177, which belongs to the scribe of truth Amenemipet.

161
and Kampp, who each also retained the Amunhotep II-Thutmosis IV date given by
PM.
728
TT 176 is quite small, being composed of a small (and oddly shaped) front room,
short passage or shrine and niche. The extant decoration is fragmentary, but the painted
areas that remain are stylistically consistent with the latter half of Amenhotep IIs reign.
My examination of this tomb in 2001 has revealed that the inscriptions have
previously been read incorrectly. The texts around the shrine indicate that the owner was
not a royal butler, but rather a servant (sDm-aS) who is qualified by the epithets
excellent (iqr) and pure of hands (wab awy).
729
The addition of the latter epithet to his
title implies that he was a priestly official, and most likely functioned in a temple
setting.
730
Stored in the tomb are the original sandstone door-jambs of the tomb which
indicate that the name and title of the owner had been combined.
731
On the fragmentary
piece Userhat is called simply sDm-aS, but on the complete jamb sDm-aS n Imn Wsr-hAt
servant of Amun, Userhat. This demonstrates that he was indeed a temple servant in
Thebes, though whether on the East or West Banks is unknown.
It also seems likely that this is in part where the error in reading Userhats name
and title arose. The name of Amun shows typical Amarna-period defacement. Although
the only occurrence of the full title is on the door-jamb, based on the destruction patterns
it was likely used in the inscriptions around the shrine and niche as well. In addition, the

728
Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.128-9; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.464, type IIa, Vb.
729
Userhat is called sDm-aS iqr in two columns of inscription on the north (left) side of the shrine, and sDm-
aS wab awy in two columns of inscription on the south (right) side.
730
Sauneron, Priests, pp.70ff.
731
One is complete, the other preserves only the bottom portion.

162
epithet wab awy is also one that is commonly held by royal butlers,
732
and it would seem
much more likely that a royal butler would have a tomb, than a simpler temple servant.
Once the name and title had been correctly read, additional new information came to
light. Perhaps the most important has been the identification of Userhats father as the
sdm-aS Katy. Although not mentioned in the tomb, a stele in the British Museum
(BM346) can now be attributed to them.
733
The stelephorous stele contains a hymn to Re
and was dedicated by the sDm-aS of Amun Userhat for his father, the sDm-aS Katy. The
stele originated in Thebes, and thus it is likely that Userhat set it up for his father in the
Amun precinct of Karnak temple. Although Katy is not specifically labeled as a sDm-aS of
Amun, the fact that Userhat used both the simpler form and the longer sDm-aS n Imn in his
tomb suggests that these were variants of each other. Thus, it could be suggested that
Katy, like his son was also a sDm-aS n Imn. That both father and son hold the same title,
even in variant form, demonstrates the hereditary aspect of the position.
Unfortunately, the only person identified in the tomb is Userhat. In one scene he
is depicted seated with a woman, who could be a mother or wife.
734
However, the fact
that in the funerary scenes only Userhat is represented would seem to suggest that he was
not married. Another door-jamb stored in the tomb bears an inscription for the wab-priest
of Amun Huy. Although nothing further is known about this individual, it seems possible
that he was another family member, perhaps a brother or son, who was also placed in the
Amun priesthood. If Huy is a family member, then it indicates that familial nepotism was
also at work, though whether it was indirect or direct is unclear.

732
Cf. Schulman, JARCE 13, pp.117-130; Helck, Verwaltung, pp.269ff.
733
Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.v [346].
734
PM(5). The inscription above the seated pair was left blank. They are being offered to by a girl, who
would then be either a sister or daughter.

163
The lack of information beyond what has been reviewed above leaves us
wondering how Userhat was able to procure a tomb for himself, albeit a small one. The
destruction to the tomb walls certainly leaves open the possibility that Userhat held
higher positions which are no longer extant, though the fact that the ones which are
preserved come from the door-jambs, generally one of the last parts of a tomb to be
decorated, seems to indicate that being a sDm-aS n Imn was the culmination of his career.
The very fact of the tombs existence is curious, and at this time there is no good
explanation for how Userhat became so visible.

III. Conclusions
From the preceding discussion several conclusions can be drawn. The most
obvious is that despite the statement in the Instructions of Any that an office has no
children,
735
this was clearly not entirely true in Ancient Egypt. Hereditary succession
was certainly a method by which officials could obtain their positions. However, this was
achieved in different ways. Direct inheritance from a consanguine is, of course, prevalent,
while inheritance through marriage occurs in only three instances. The use of the mdw
iAw, staff of old age, transpires in only two cases, though in a few instances it seems to
be implied that an official was acting in this capacity. Although officials could succeed to
more than one post, and inherit from multiple persons, it was rare that the official
subsequently rose to a higher rank than his father. While all of the officials included in
this chapter inherited their positions, in only three cases was exact transmission
maintainable for more than two generations. Familial influence, where the titles within

735
Dated to the 18th Dynasty; cf. Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.135-46, cf. p.140; Quack, Lehren des Ani,
pp.106f., 172f.

164
the family are concentrated in the same area, can be seen as well, but this is in addition to
exact transmission of office.
736
Royal nepotism appears to have played a role in a few
cases,
737
but mention of being appointed to, or placed in, a position is only explicitly
stated three times.
738
The fact that we do have evidence for nepotism, especially in those
families where the office being passed on was extremely influential, is an excellent
example of the fluidity that existed between methods of obtaining office, and of the
possibility that these processes would become intertwined.
Obviously each official included in this chapter inherited at least one of his titles.
The vizier User, overseer of granaries Menkheper(resoneb), treasurer Sobkehotep, and
servant of Amun Userhat each succeeded to their fathers post, which was the highest for
both father and son. The steward and scribe of the vizier Amenemhat also took over his
fathers rank, but these positions were lower within the Amun domain; Amenmehats
chief position came through marriage. Likewise, Sobekhotep became mayor of the
Fayum through marriage prior to being installed as treasurer. The reason that Amenemhat
and Sobekhotep acquired offices through marriage appears to be due to their
predecessors lack of sons. In addition, the vizier Aametus marriage into a prominent
Theban priestly family allowed his descendants to enter into the priesthood. Rekhmire
succeeded his paternal uncle to the vizierate, as did Menkheperresoneb (ii) when he
became high priest of Amun. Although Menkheperresoneb (ii)s uncle did not have
children, Rekhmires had several, which makes his succession unusual. Only two

736
Familial influence, both direct and with the king, is treated in the following chapter.
737
Royal nepotism is dealt with in the next chapter.
738
The destroyed nature of the tombs of Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb), both overseer of
double granaries, as well as the high priests of Amun named Menkheperresoneb, who were uncle and
nephew, makes it difficult to state with certainty that they would not also have recognized royal
involvement in some way.

165
officials seem to have risen above their fathers status. The high priest of Amun
Amenemhat, vastly surpassed his father Djhutyhoteps post overseer of sandal makers
when he became high priest of Amun. I would also suggest that the agent of Amun
Amenemhat ascended above his father Itnefers position. Itnefer is only called the agent
of Amun, while Amenemhat bears the phyle designations agent of Amun from the
second phyle and agent of Amun in Henket-ankh from the first phyle.
739

Both the high priest of Amun Amenemhat and the vizier User were staffs of old
age for their fathers, but at very different levels and for different reasons. While
Amenemhat served as a wab-priest alongside but under his fathers direction, User was
installed as co-vizier to his aging father. Amenemhat was still a fairly mid-level priest
when he was elevated to the position of high priest of Amun, which was much greater
than that of his father, an overseer of sandal-makers at his death. In contrast, User
succeeded Aametu as vizier, though whether when Aametu died or became infirm is
uncertain.
I suggested above in the discussion of the vizierate that the combination of Users
Installation scene and inscription served as marker of both his recognized hereditary right
and the fulfillment of his role as an ideal son.
740
In addition, I pointed out that the method
of Users installation as co-vizier was perhaps connected to the unusual political
environment of the Hatshepsut Thutmosis III co-regency.
741
Amenemhat, however, was
not made a mdw iAw due to such circumstances. In fact, he never sates that he was made a

739
I am assuming that Amenemhats father was probably attached to either Djeser-djeseru or Henket-ankh,
like his son, and that only the short form of Itnefers title was used, or is preserved, in the tomb.
740
See pp.85ff.
741
P.86f.; cf. also Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, and Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.131-2, 144-
8.

166
staff of old age at all, simply that he was one.
742
It seems as though Amenemhat was
following the common, if usually unstated, path of a son joining the temple ranks
alongside his father.
743
Four other officials in this chapter, the steward Amenemhat,
helper of Amun Amenemhat, servant of Amun Userhat, and high priest of Amun
Menkheperresoneb (ii) also came from priestly families, not to mention the ubiquity of
Aametus extended family in the temples of Thebes.
The fact that the high priest of Amun Amenemhat mentions his time and services
as a mdw iAw seems to indicate that he viewed this as an important part of his career. I
would suggest that Amenemhat was employing this phrase to demonstrate his right to
the position of high priest. Amenemhat was promoted (dhn) to this post by Amenhotep II,
who thereby removed a two-generation family from the position. Although the exact
timing is uncertain, it seems likely that this happened fairly early on in Amenhotep IIs
reign since Amenemhats predecessor, Menkheperresoneb (ii), makes no mention of
Amenhotep II in his tomb, TT86. By mentioning that he had a hereditary right to be a
part of the Amun priesthood, Amenemhat was demonstrating that he was also a suitable
candidate for high priest of Amun. In this respect we might say that the system of the
mdw iAw was employed by Amenemhat and User in similar ways and for similar reasons.
In the discussion of the imy st-a of Amun Amenemhat, I suggested that he may
also have served as a staff of old age when he was a wab-priest. This was based on the
eastern steles lunette which I argued depicts him as a wab-priest standing behind his
father, the imy st-a of Amun Itefnefer.
744
This is perhaps a tenuous conclusion. However,

742
See p.146f.
743
Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.71f.; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.198-
203; Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.21f.; Sauneron, Priests, pp.42f.
744
P.140f.

167
in the case of the Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb), both overseers of double
granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, the evidence provides a stronger case for
Menkheper(resoneb) functioning as a junior official or colleague to his father. First is the
fact that there were two overseers functioning during this time period, one each in the
north and south of Egypt.
745
In addition, in TT79 Menkheper(resoneb) used a particular
form of his title, overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands to
designate himself in relationship to his father as overseer of the double granaries of
Upper and Lower Egypt. Finally, Menkheper(resoneb) is called overseer of the double
granaries of the lord of the two lands in northern Heliopolis at the end of his
autobiographical stele, as well as overseer of the double granaries of Atum, lord of
Heliopolis and steward of Heliopolis on his funerary papyrus, cementing his
connection to the north which his father Minnakht also had. This seems to me to be
strongly suggestive of a situation in which Menkheper(resoneb) functioned as his fathers
deputy in the north before succeeding him as overseer of the double granaries of Upper
and Lower Egypt.
If we examine those men who inherited positions through marriage, it becomes
clear that the status of the officials was enhanced, and their influence increased, as a
result of the union. It is also interesting that these official families are also the same three
that were able to maintain positions through more than two generations. These officials
are the steward Amenemhat, mayor and treasurer Sobekhotep, and the descendants of the
vizier Aametu.
Amenemhat, prior to becoming steward of the vizier, was the third generation to
also act as overseer of ploughed lands and elder of the portal. Amenemhats entry

745
Based on P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche.

168
into the Amun temples granary administration may have come from an elder brother,
while he likely became scribe of the vizier as the successor to another older brother.
Through marriage Amenemhat acquired two additional titles. He inherited chief of the
weavers of Amun from his wifes paternal grandfather, whose own sons already had
several positions. Amenemhats most prestigious position, steward of the vizier, was
passed to him from his wifes father, apparently because his only child was this daughter.
Amenemhat and his consanguines were already functioning within the temple
administration when he married into a family with both temple and vizieral connections.
However, without this marriage it is not at all clear, despite any supposed contact
between Amenemhat and User when both were working in the Amun temple, that
Amenemhat would have been promoted out of this career to serve as steward to two
illustrious viziers and be able to construct for himself one of the largest tombs in the
Theban Necropolis.
Although Sobkehotep succeeded his father Min as treasurer, prior to this he
married into a prominent Fayumic family. This marriage allowed him to inherit the
mayoralty of the Fayum from his wifes brother, who was unmarried and thus childless.
Once Sobekhotep held this position, he was able to pass it on to his son Paser, while
another son became high priest of Sobek-Shedty. There are two essential differences
between the two positions that Sobekhotep held. The post of treasurer was one of the
most prominent in the country, and not one that was usually hereditary.
746
The fact that
Min was able to guarantee it for his son is a testament to Mins own authority and
influence within the administration. Mayoral positions, however, have a long history of

746
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.580; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.3, p.317

169
becoming hereditary, beginning as early as the late Old Kingdom.
747
Although their
regional power fluctuated depending on the strength of the central government, in general
these were landed aristocracies that remained within families, and could provide officials
for upper-level posts.
748
Thus, although Sobekhotep was unable to retain control over
who succeeded him as treasurer, his marriage and subsequent career as mayor of the
Fayum provided a continual revenue source for the family.
Aametus marriage into the family of Theban priests headed by Ineni has already
been discussed at length above.
749
The point that I would like to stress is that the
succession of the vizierate from Aametu to User had very little to do with their familys
now widespread presence in the Amun priesthood. Aametus children through great-
grandchildren were placed in priestly positions as a direct result of his marriage.
Evidence for this is that several of Aametus sons inherited their positions from their
maternal uncles and these exact positions continued to be passed on. The fact that User
held numerous priestly positions prior to becoming co-vizier seems to be of secondary
importance. That is, the path to the vizierate was not necessarily at this time through the
priesthood. Rather, this was probably an additional means by which Aametus family
could increase its wealth, since many upper-level priestly positions benefited from being
attached to the temple estates.
750

It was only in the third generation, that of Users children and Rekhmires
ascension to vizier, that power within the priesthood may have played a significant role in
the vizierate. This is the first time that we see such a high level of involvement between

747
Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Warburton,
in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.578.
748
As evidenced in Tutankhamuns Restoration Stele and the Decree of Horemheb.
749
Pp.78f., 96ff.
750
Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, p.22.

170
the vizier and the Amun temple, as witnessed by both the numerous overseer titles that
Rekhmire held and by the scenes of temple workshops and the delivery of grain and
produce to the temple that form a major component of his tombs decoration. Although
Rekhmire himself stress both his hereditary claim, as the son of Aametu, and his close
relationship to Thutmosis III, the changes in Rekhmires titulary and events which follow
his removal from office also seem to support the theory that the connection between the
vizierate and the Amun precinct was unusually strong during his tenure.
During the time frame that Aametu and his descendants retained possession of the
vizierate, Hapuseneb, and then Menkheperresoneb (i) and (ii) held control of the high
priest of Amun post. Hapuseneb, who was not included in this study, was an extremely
powerful official during the regency and co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.
751

As Menkheperresoneb (i) seems to have held only honorary titles in addition to being
high priest, it seems likely that he was able to succeed Hapuseneb by virtue of his
mothers position as royal nurse to Thutmosis III. This was mentioned briefly above, and
will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. Menkheperresoneb (i) probably
served towards the end of the co-regency and into the early years of Thutmosis IIIs
reign, while his nephew and successor Menkheperresoneb (ii) served during the sole rule
of Thutmosis III and into the very beginning of Amenhotep IIs reign. At this point both
the high priest and the vizier are replaced, the former by Amenemhat, the latter by
Amenemopet.
If we compare the role of the vizier with regard to the Amun priesthood and the
level of power held by the concurrent high priests of Amun, a pattern becomes apparent.

751
He was not included because his tenure as an official, which ends prior to Thutmosis IIIs sole rule, falls
outside the scope of his project.

171
Aametu, who had no clear connection with the administration of the Amun precinct, was
vizier during the tenure of an extremely powerful high priest. He did, however, marry
into an equally powerful Theban family, whose head, Ineni, held positions such as
mayor of Thebes, overseer of the granaries of Amun, overseer of work in Karnak,
and overseer of work in the kings tomb.
752
This alliance tied one prominent official,
Aametu,
753
to an influential family.
754
By the time Menkheperresoneb (i) became high
priest, User was probably vizier, certainly co-vizier, and his extended family, due to the
marriage into Inenis family, was now spread throughout the priesthood at various levels
of authority. Menkheperresoneb (i) seems to have held primarily priestly responsibilities,
and perhaps the more functional duties were left to the men such as User, his brothers and
cousins, who were already familiar with these roles. User did take on some supervisory
roles, i.e., overseer of the seal-bearers of Amun, overseer of the treasury, overseer
of the scribes of Amun, and overseer of the granaries of Amun. However, in addition
to being high priest, Menkheperresoneb (ii) was also overseer of the granaries of
Amun, overseer of weavers of Upper and Lower Egypt, overseer of craftsmen, and
chief of the overseers of craftsmen. It would appear that the viziers role was primarily
concerned with record-keeping, while the new high priest dealt with the actual production
of goods in addition to his religious functions.
Once Rekhmire succeeds his uncle, this changes. Rekhmire, by virtue of his titles
as well as the scenes and inscriptions in his tomb, demonstrates his intricate involvement

752
For a complete list, see Dziobek, Ineni, pp.122-3. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,
no.144. Dziobek discusses Inenis life and career in Dziobek, Ineni, pp.124-41.
753
Although Aametu was probably related to the early viceroys of Kush Ahmose-Satayt and his son
Ahmose-Tjuro, this position as not held by Tjuros descendants, suggesting that this branch of the family
had decreased in power.
754
Several of Inenis brothers were spread throughout the Amun domain.

172
in the daily operations of Karnak temple. His responsibilities appear to dwarf those
recorded by Menkheperresoneb (ii) as high priest. Although it does not seem as though
Rekhmire has an extremely high level of power within the Amun domain prior to
becoming vizier, he certainly did afterwards. The various overseer positions that one
might begin to expect are vastly increased,
755
while phrases such as one who lays down
instructions for the Hm-priests and guides the wab-priests in their duties, one who
establishes rules for the temples of Upper and Lower Egypt, and letting every man
know his routine, by virtue of his office of superintendent of works also appear
accompanying depictions of Rekhmire performing these duties.
756
These developments
suggest that Rekhmires direct authority had surpassed even that of the high priest in the
running the Amun temples administration. Although the role played by Rekhmires pre-
vizieral positions (in the Amun precinct) in his assumption of the vizierate is uncertain,
his level of control over the Amun domain after becoming vizier is certainly suggestive
that the two were somehow connected.
Amenhotep II, by replacing both Rekhmire and Menkheperresoneb(ii), not only
removed two positions of power from the grasp of families trying to retain their
hereditary control, but also altered the nature of the positions. Amenemhat, the successor
to Menkheperresoneb (ii), comes from a mid-level priestly family and seems to hold
essentially priestly responsibilities. The vizier who replaces Rekhmire, Amenemopet,
has no demonstrable authority with regard to the temples, while his cousin Sennefer, as

755
Such as overseer of all work (imy-r kAwt nbt), controller of all work in Karnak (xrp kAwt nbt m Ipt-swt ),
overseer of craftsmen (imy-r Hmwt ), overseer of all craftsmen of Amun (imy-r Hmwt nbt nt Imn ), and
steward of Amun (imy-r pr n Imn ).
756
From scenes of temple inspection in the passage; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.49, 54.

173
mayor of Thebes, seems to dominate most areas of the Amun domain. Both Sennefer and
Amenemopet are discussed at length in the following chapter.
Among the officials discussed, only three exhibit texts which mention an
appointment by the king, the viziers User and Rekhmire, and the high priest of Amun
Amenemhat. The relevant inscriptions and scenes have already been quoted at length and
need only be summarized here. User stands before Thutmosis III with his father Aametu,
the current vizier, and Thutmosis III states that he will cause (di) User to act (ir) as a
staff of old age for Aametu.
757
Thutmosis III is also reminded by his court that he had
appointed (di) User to the position scribe of the divine seal at an earlier date.
758
In
contrast, Rekhmire himself exits the palace and the court of Thutmosis III after having
the governance of Egypt placed (diw) upon him,
759
while the palace officials (smrw pr-aA)
proclaim that Thutmosis III confirms every office (smn iAwt nbt).
760
Whether or not
Amenemhat would have had a similar scene of appointment in his tomb is uncertain
due to its poor state of preservation.
761
In his autobiographical inscription he states that he
was appointed (dhn) to two positions, both upper-level priestly posts. Any record of how
he attained the position high priest of Amun has been lost.
Although in general it is the similarities between User and Rekhmire that scholars
focus on,
762
I would argue that in fact the differences are more significant. These
differences appear not only in the wording of their appointments, but also in the way
the events were represented in their respective tombs. Attention should be drawn to the

757
di(.i) pXr mnxw.f xr.k ix ir.f n.k mdw iAw
758
di.k is sA.f Wsr rn.f m sS xtmt nTr m Hwt-nTr n Imn ntf m hAw it.k nswt bity (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| mAa [xrw]
759
diw m Hr //(.f ?)//
760
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, col. 11: HqA nfr mnw (Mn-xpr-ra) smn iAwt nbt
761
I suggested above, that just such a scene may have appeared on the rear wall of the transverse-hall,
adjacent to the passage entrance, where there appears to be traces of a kiosk.
762
E.g.., that they are both viziers, from the same family, and appointed to office.

174
fact that User is commemorating his installation as co-vizier alongside his father,
763
while
Rekhmire presents himself as vizier with the associated responsibilities; User is acting as
his fathers deputy, while Rekhmire is given control of the affairs of Egypt. This is true
both visually and textually. User stands behind his father the vizier in the royal court, and
is only designated as scribe of the divine seal, the position to which User had earlier
been appointed by the king. The fact that Thutmosis III needs to be reminded of this
earlier act is interesting because it could perhaps be construed as evidence for the king
delegating his authority to select officials. In this case, it may well have been Users
maternal uncle, Ineni, who would have carried out the actual appointment.
764

Both User and Rekhmire were appointed or placed in their positions, yet it seems
as though the level of royal involvement may have been different in some respects.
Rekhmires appointment seems much more basic: he enters the palace, is instructed in his
office by the king, and exits confirmed in his post.
765
User however was picked after a
search for an appropriate deputy and successor to Aametu, and was subsequently placed
as his fathers mdw iAw. Following this he succeeded to the position of vizier, an act
which may well be recorded visually in the scene adjacent to Users co-installation,
where User is depicted as vizier, wearing the vizier costume, and leading the royal
procession to the temple gates.
766
Certainly part of the reason for the differences may lie
in the fact that Rekhmire was not a mdw iAw for User. However, it seems plausible that
other, more historical, factors may have been involved.

763
On the wall opposite Users Co-Installation is a badly damaged scene of User before the king. The
fragmentary text appears to a parallel that of Rekhmires, indicating that User recorded both his installation
as a staff of old age and his final appointment to the position.
764
Ineni, it will be recalled, was both overseer of all offices in the house of Amun and overseer of all
seals in the house of Amun.
765
Users eventual appointment text probably had much the same wording.
766
Dziobek, Die Grber, pl.18-19.

175
Now a few broader statements can be made. This chapter has demonstrated that
hereditary succession was possible for central, provincial, and priestly officials. Among
the eight families examined, in only four was an exact position traceable beyond a second
generation, Aametu and the vizierate, the steward Amenemhat as overseer of ploughed
lands and elder of the portal, Sobekhotep with the mayoralty of the Fayum, and the high
priest Amunemhats post as a wab-priest.
767
For the majority of the officials the titles
remained within their families for only two generations, from father (or other male
relative) to son. At first glance this might seem to suggest that rather than office
inheritance this situation could be explained by nepotism. However, if we examine more
closely the political environment, it appears that the ascension of Amenhotep II may have
limited the ability of these men to pass on their positions within their families.
None of the officials who inherited their highest position during the reign of
Thutmosis III remained to serve under Amenhotep II. Rekhmire was removed, ending a
vizieral dynasty, which had begun three generations earlier with Aametu in the reign of
Thutmosis I or II. The high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (ii) was replaced by
Amenemhat, while the sons of the overseer of double granaries Menkheper(resoneb) and
the steward Amenemhat did not succeed their fathers. Likewise, the steward
Amenemhats lower-level positions, which he was the third generation to hold, were not
passed on. There is not enough evidence to state with certainty whether or not any
descendants of the agent of Amun, Amenemhat, or of the servant of Amun, Userhat,
inherited positions. Sobkehotep, who lasted into the reign of Thutmosis IV, is the one
anomaly. However, since he was mayor before taking over his father Mins position of

767
The presence of Aametus family in the priesthood also continued through at least three generations, but
this was due to nepotism, not direct inheritance.

176
treasurer, he was perhaps removed enough from court politics that he was able to inherit
during the reign of Amenhotep II.
768

The situation just described seems to suggest the possibility that Amenhotep II
was systematically replacing officials who had inherited their positions under his father
Thutmosis III. Had a change in reign not taken place from one strong king to another,
perhaps these families would have been able to retain control of their offices.




768
As mentioned in the text, it is possible that he did not become treasurer until the reign of Thutmosis IV;
cf. p.152f.
177
Chapter 2
Influence as a Means of Obtaining Office: The Family
769
and The King

I. Introduction
The following discussion focuses on those officials for whom it seems that
nepotism was the primary means by which they obtained office. I will state at the outset
that I am making two assumptions in this chapter. The first is that, in fact, nepotism did
take place in ancient Egypt.
770
The second is that there are possibly different ways in
which it can be recognized. The issue thus becomes, how was it enacted and how can this
be established?
It has been stated elsewhere that although nominally it was the king who placed
all officials in their positions, texts such as the Duties have shown that in fact this
authority was often delegated.
771
This suggests that other powerful individuals could
exert some influence over appointments and they may have used this influence to benefit
their families.
The first, and most obvious, method is direct nepotism through ones family. By
this I am referring to a situation in which the titles spread throughout a family
demonstrates that they are all functioning in similar or related sections of government.
This demonstrates the ability of an older relative to assist in the placement of his
descendants, collaterals, and perhaps even affines within the same general area of
administration. Determining whether the officials influence was direct, through personal

769
The term family denotes both blood relations (consanguines), and those who enter through marriage.
770
On this issue, see the Introduction to the book, Section VIc, pp.47-52.
771
See the Introduction to the book, Section II, pp. 6ff., Section VIa, pp.34-45.
178
authority, or indirect, through influence with a superior, may not always be possible. We
have already seen evidence of this system in the previous chapter, for the vizier Aametu
and the steward of the vizier Amenemhat.
772
Aametus marriage linked him with a
prestigious Theban family whose head, Ineni, was an important official in the Amun
domain. In the generations following Aametu, his descendants are situated in a variety of
priestly and administrative positions, many of which were held by Aametus in-laws.
773

In the case of Amenemhat, both his own family and the one he married into were
connected to various areas of Amun precincts administration.
774
Evidence similar to that
provided by these families is investigated in this chapter in order to determine whether
familial nepotism played a role in job acquisition.
A second possibility involves a type of indirect royal nepotism whereby an
official appears to obtain his position due to the level of relationship and influence that an
older family member has with the king. This situation would primarily be indicated by
two factors. The first is an immediate ancestor who has a high degree of royal contact,
perhaps holding a connection to the king through his or her office. The second marker is
that their children hold upper status positions that are otherwise not found in this family.
Unlike for familial nepotism, titular information is not necessarily informative here
because the parents and children may not have the same or even similar titles. Rather, it is
precisely this disconnect, in combination with signs of the familys personal link to the
king, that would demonstrate that an official acquired his title(s) through indirect royal
nepotism. Roehrig has already shown that royal nurses and tutors clearly had an

772
See Ch.1, pp.75-110.
773
See Ch.1, pp.78, 96ff.
774
See Ch.1, pp.101ff.
179
exceptional relationship with the reigning king, his children, and subsequent heir.
775
If
this connection was especially beneficial for their own children then it might indicate that
these nurses and tutors also had greater influence than has previously been thought.
776

Indeed, in the previous chapter I suggested that this might be the case for the high priest
of Amun Menkheperresoneb (i), who was the son of a royal nurse. His situation will be
reviewed in greater detail below.
A personal friendship with the king is a third nepotistic means through which it
appears an official could obtain his job. It is important to clearly distinguish this from the
method just described. In this section officials are presented who demonstrate an
individual, as opposed to familial, connection to the king. As mentioned earlier,
777
this
type of relationship could be established either in youth or as an adult. It is certainly the
case that a youthful relationship with the king, such as for officials who claim to have
been raised at court, is prima facie evidence for a parent in the upper echelons of the
court. However, the distinguishing feature among these officials is that they choose to
stress their link to the king and the ensuing royal favor in relationship to their careers. In
theory, a personal friendship with the king could act in conjunction with merit as
perceived by the king. This would enable the official to obtain a higher position due to
his relationship with his sovereign than he would have received through merit alone.
Helck seems to believe that this was the situation for military men who accompanied
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II on campaigns and later became high level court

775
Roehrig, Royal urse, esp. pp.330-39.
776
This is contrast to Helck, who ascribed the importance of the relationship to the children of these
individuals, rather to the nurses or tutors themselves; cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.538; Helck, Einfluss, pp.35-
6, n.1, 66-71. Cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.336-7, who appears to follow his conclusions.
777
See the Introduction, pp.47-52.
180
officials.
778
I am suggesting that a position acquired primarily through personal friendship
can perhaps be distinguished from one achieved by merit when an officials earlier titles
could in no way indicate meritorious advancement to the position which he subsequently
achieved. In addition, it seems possible that an official whose high level of visibility and
prestige is demonstrated through his monuments, but who does not hold a position that
would naturally afford him this prominence, could also be said to have benefited from a
royal friendship.
Acquiring a position through a personal friendship with a direct superior, i.e. a
non-royal official, was mentioned in the Introduction to the book. However, I am not
addressing this aspect of friendship-based nepotism here because, in fact, there is no
documentation available that conclusively demonstrates its occurrence. There are
examples of officials whose daughters marry men who, at some point in their careers, are
lower level officials within the same area of administration as their fathers-in-law.
779

Unfortunately, there is no indication of when during an officials career these marriages
took place.
The remainder of the chapter is essentially ordered according to the methods just
discussed. Since familial nepotism and a familial connection to the king both involve
nepotism through ones family, they are placed as subsets of the overarching category
Family Influence. The last form of nepotism, in which an official has a direct
relationship with the king, is placed in the final section, entitled Personal Influence.



778
Helck, Einfluss, pp. 71-3.
779
E.g. the overseer of the seal Sennefri whose daughter Renen married the idnw of overseer of the seal,
Amenhotep. See Ch.3, pp.348ff.
181
II. Family Influence
IIa. Familial epotism
The Family of Qen
(Karnak clergy and staff)
A family that seems to have held power in both the Amun and Mut precincts at
Karnak is that of Qen, owner of TT59.
780
Qen himself was the first priest of Mut, mistress
of Isheru and mistress of the sky,
781
his many brothers were priests and officials within
the domain of Amun, and his father was probably an overseer of granaries in the temple.
This family provides us with an example of how familial nepotism could result in a
family being spread throughout the larger Karnak precinct, as both priests and
administrative staff at varying levels.
Qens tomb is unpublished and badly damaged, but the remaining inscriptions do
contain considerable information about this priestly family.
782
The majority of this
information comes from the large banqueting scene located at the western end of the
south wall of the passage.
783
In the upper register Qen and his wife Meryt are seated
before an offering table, while in the lower Qens parents receive offerings. Four registers
of guests complete the setting, all of whom were originally identified, though now many
of the inscriptions are lost.
784


780
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.272-5, type IVa.
781
Even his epithets seem to concentrate on the Mut precinct, i.e. Hsy m pr-Mwt praised in the house of
Mut. Qen also had funerary cones with this title, cf. Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 538-9.
782
Helck, Verwaltung, p.387, 525 cites Wb. Theb. Grb. 704/8 as a source for the tomb; I have not been
able to check this. I visited the tomb in 2002.
783
PM(3). The tomb is in an inverted T-shape, with a rear chamber and niche. Only the passage and shrine
were decorated, and in the passage much of this is now lost.
784
The tomb has been the victim of intentional destruction by persons trying to hack portions of the wall.
As a result most of the areas around the heads of the figures and their inscriptions are lost, except in the
uppermost register. Each register depicts five individuals, with alternating rows of men and women.
182
The inscription that accompanies Qens parents is badly damaged, and until now
only his mother was clearly identified as the Xkrt nswt Tjuiu (Fig.19, p.475).
785
Seven or
perhaps eight columns contained the titles of Qens father, and although they are
extremely faded, the following can be read: (1) iry-pat HAty-a //// (2) aA m n /// (3) imAxy m
(4) Ipt-swt Hswt m (5) pr //// imy-r Snwty //(6th column lost)// (7) n /// -n (?) mAa-xrw
(blank column) Hmt.f mrt.f Xkrt nsw /// *wiw mAa-xrw the iry-pat HAty-a great in
revered in Ipet-sut (Karnak), praised in the house of the overseer of the granaries -n
(?), justified; his wife, his beloved, the Xkrt nsw, Tjuiu, justified.
786
In column 6 we
could perhaps restore either of Amun, of the lord of the two lands, or of Upper and
Lower Egypt.
787
All of these possibilities have important implications for the remainder
of the family.
If we read the title as overseer of the granaries of Amun, then Qens father
becomes a member of the Amun priesthood. The fact that he was also revered in
Karnak seems to suggest that he was an official connected to the temple precinct. In
addition his title praised in the house could perhaps be restored to praised in the
house [of Amun], paralleling Qens epithet revered in the house of Mut. In addition to
his titulary, the positions of Qen and his brothers also seem to indicate that the title
overseer of the granaries of Amun is the most likely restoration.
Although Qen was based at the Mut precinct, at least three of his brothers were
also involved with the domain of Amun, all of whom are depicted as banquet guests in

785
Her name and titles appear in the last two columns of the inscription.
786
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun mentions that Qens father was an unknown overseer of
the granaries in reference to three of his sons; see below, note 9.
787
Respectively, n Imn or n nb TAwy or n Smaw mHw. Paleographically, each of these would require the same
amount of wall space. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun mentions that Qens father was an
unknown overseer of the granaries in reference to three of his sons (see below, notes 10-12); Bohleke
includes him in his study on overseers of double granaries; cf. Bohleke, Double Granaries, pp.55f.
183
the scene. Qenamun was an overseer of goldsmiths and sculptors of Amun,
788

Amenemhat was a wab-priest of Amun,
789
and Djhutymes was a cultivator of Amun.
790
A
fourth brother depicted here, Wesy, was the scribe of the overseer of granaries, and
would perhaps be an assistant to his father in the Amun temple.
791
Restoring Qens father
as the overseer of granaries of Amun thus indicates that nepotism played a prominent
role in how his sons obtained their posts.
A restoration of the fathers title to overseer of the granaries of the lord of the
two lands, or to the overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt would make
Qens father a very influential official, since this position was one of the most important
in ancient Egypt.
792
In this position, Qens father could perhaps be identified with the
overseer of the granaries Tjenna mentioned in Papyrus Louvre E.3226.
793
The papyrus
covers years 28-35 of Thutmosis IIIs reign, which would fit with the dating of Qens
tomb in the reign of Thutmosis III if Tjenna was at this time in the last stages of his
career. Nepotism might still be indicated if Wesy is identified with a man of the same
name and title who appears on P.Louvre 3326 as an assistant to the overseer of the
granaries Minnakht, the overseer who is mentioned alongside Tjenna.
794
Helck, in fact,
originally suggested that the Wesy of P.Louvre was the same man as Qens brother

788
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.516. She reads the titles separately, thus overseer of
goldsmiths and sculptor of Amun; cf. pp.145, 148f.
789
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.060
790
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.574. Qenamun and Amenemhat are the last two
brothers in the top register, while Djhutymes appears in the middle of the third register of guests at PM(3).
791
Wesy is seated second in the top register of banquet guests at PM(3), and based on remains of the title
was probably also placed as a guest on the north wall of the shrine at PM(8).
792
Bryan, in: Thutmsosis III, forthcoming; Megally, Recherches.
793
Megally, Recherches, pp.276-7.
794
Megally, Recherches, pp.274-5. Minnakht is the owner of TT87 and Gebel es-Silsilah shrines 23 and 12.
He and his son, who was also an overseer of granaries, are discussed in Chapter1, pp.124ff.
184
depicted in TT59, without any information about Qens father.
795
If Qens father was the
overseer of granaries (of Upper and Lower Egypt) Tjenna, then it is possible that he
placed one son as the assistant to his colleague, and used his influence to spread his other
sons throughout the Amun priesthood. Outside of P. Louvre, Tjenna is not well known,
and thus it is tempting to make this identification with the family of Qen.
796

Helck also suggested that a familial relationship might exist between Qens
family and the family of Ineni.
797
He thought it was unlikely that Qen of TT59 could be
identified with Inenis brother Qen, priest of Mut, for two reasons. First, because the
mothers names are not the same (although their titles are), and second because the titles
of Inenis numerous brothers do not match with those known from TT59.
798
However, he
did propose that Qen might be a son of Ineni, although Inenis wife Tjuiu did not have the
title Xkrt nswt. Dziobek reviewed the evidence for this relationship in his publication of
Inenis tomb.
799
He states definitively that Qen of TT59 is not to be identified either as a
brother or a son of Ineni, the former for the reasons already mentioned, the latter because
Ineni and his wife Ahhotep did not have any children.
800

This review demonstrates that while Qens family was spread throughout the
greater Karnak precinct during his own generation, the presence of ancestors or

795
Helck, Verwaltung, p.387. See also the discussion of Minnakht and Tjenuna by Bryan, in: Thutmose III,
forthcoming. Both are mentioned on pLouvre3326 which deals with activites occurring in years 28-35 of
Thutmosis III; cf. Megally, Recherches.
796
Tjenuna is probably not to be identified with the scribe of the granary and overseer of all granaries of
Thinis known from CG34168, cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.387, n.4. Nor is he the same man as the chief
steward Tjanuny, owner of TT74; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
797
Ineni was the mayor of Thebes and also held a variety of upper level positions within the Amun temple
during the reings of Thutmosis I Thutmosis III. He is the owner of TT81 and his sister Taametu married
the vizier Aametu, see Chapter 1, pp.77ff., 97ff.
798
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.524-5.
799
Dziobek, Ineni, pp.142-4.
800
Dziobek, Ineni, pp.142-4.
185
descendants in the same or similar positions is at this time uncertain.
801
Although it could
be argued that Qens father was the little known Tjenna who was overseer of granaries of
Upper and Lower Egypt during the third-fourth decade of Thutmosis IIIs reign, it seems
more likely that he was in fact an overseer in the Amun domain. The prevalence of his
family in this area as well as his own epithets seems more indicative of a temple
administrator. Assuming this to be correct, then it appears that familial nepotism was the
means by which Qen and his brothers obtained their positions.

Amunhotep and his uncle eferhotep
(Priests in the royal mortuary temples
802
)
This family of upper level temple priests were involved with the mortuary cults of
Thutmosis I, and possibly Hatshepsut. Amunhotep, the owner of TT345, has in fact been
dated anywhere from Thutmosis I through Thutmosis III, though it seems most likely that
he should be placed in the latter part of this time period. Although Porter & Moss
originally dated TT345 to the reign of Thutmosis I,
803
based on both stylistic criteria and
the titulary of the deceased, it probably belongs to the reign of Thutmosis III.
804

Unfortunately, this tomb is largely unpublished, and as it is currently covered by the
hillside I was unable to view it in 2002. However, a selection of inscriptions from his
tomb were published by Lepsius and collated by Sethe.
805


801
Qen was married to a woman named Meryt, but whether or not they had children is unclear. None of the
inscriptions that accompany the priests who offer to Qen and Meryt are well-enough preserved to record a
name or title.
802
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, cites Neferhotep, but not Amunhotep, cf. p. 296, no.371.
803
PM I.1, pp.413-4.
804
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.584; Schmitz, Knigssohn, p.285; Whale, Family, p.87 n.68.
805
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9, p.280-1; Sethe, Urk. IV, 105-108. Mond discovered the tomb, but
incorrectly attributed it to Djhutyseneb, Amunhoteps father (Mond, LAAA 14, p.30, pl.33). For ease of
reference the correspondence between Lepsius Denkmaler and PM is: pl.9a=PM(5), pl.9b=PM(2),
pl.9c=PM(1) left thickness, pl.9d=PM(1) right thickness, pl.9e=PM(7), pl.9f=PM(6)
186
These texts reveal that Amunhotep was a wab-priest, a first kings son, and a
first kings son of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I).
806
He is depicted with his wife in at
least three scenes, where she is always named as the chantress of Amun, Renay.
807

According to Mond, five funerary cones were found during the excavation of this
tomb.
808
Two cones, D&M nos.95 and 121, neither of which were in Daressys original
catalogue, are certainly attributable to Amunhotep.
809
The titles given for Amunhotep are
pure of hands before Aakheperkare (no.95) and kings son, bearer before
Aakheperkare (no.121). His wife Renay is listed on each as a chantress of Amun.
810
A
reconstruction of Amunhoteps career could be suggested in which he was first simply a
wab-priest, then became pure of hands of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I), and after this
moved into his position as first kings son for the funerary cult of Thutmosis I. This
combination of titles is extremely common for first kings sons of Amun, and several

806
There are multiple variations: wab ; wab sA-nsw tp ; sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| ; wab sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-
kA-ra)| ; and possibly also wab [n] I[mn] sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)|. According to Schmitz, Knigssohn,
pp.285f., this royal funerary cult of Thutmosis I was probably established by Hathsepsut in an effort to help
legitimize her ascent to the throne. Organized along parallel lines to the cult of Amun and the title first
kings son of Amun, it had the effect of deifying Thutmosis I.
807
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9 a, b, d = PM(5), (2), (1). She was probably also depicted in PM(7), but
unnamed, as well as in PM(3) and (4).
808
Mond, LAAA 14, p.30. There are listed with one catalogue number: 26/207, implying that they all bore
the same inscription. In Davies annotations to Daressy (stored at the Griffith Institute) these might be his
added cone no. 436 which he notes as being found by Mond near PaHqmn (i.e. TT343) in 1926. Davies
also adds that the inscription was for Imn-Htp whose wife is called RnAy in his tomb. (He renumbered 436
as 431 and seems to equate it to Daressy no.284). Another possibility is Davies no.510 (same as Davies
438), to which he appends the note that Mond found five of them while digging in the court of TT55 in
1926.
809
They were also missed by Manniche (Lost Tombs, p.11), who only lists Davies and Macadam, Corpus,
247 (Daressy 132) as attributed Amunhotep. This cone may or may not be attributable. Daressys
inscription reads wob of Amun Amunhotep, while Davies is chantress of Amun Renu, wab
Amunhotep. The attribution seems tentative at best.
810
No.95: wab awy m-XAt (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp mAa-xrw Hmt.f mrt.f Smayt n Imn Rn-nfr (this could be an
alternative spelling of her name, or a mis-reading). No.121: sA nswt rmn Hr (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp /// Hmt.f
nbt pr Smay //[t n Imn]// Rn-ny ///.
187
in Eichlers catalogue carry them from the reigns of Hatshepsut through Amenhotep
III.
811

Amunhotep gives his lineage as born of Djhutsenty in one scene,
812
and in
another is shown offering to his parents (Fig.20 (rt.), p.476).
813
They are identified in
relation to Amunhotep as his father Djhutsenty and his (i.e., Djhutysentys) wife,
Takhered, while Amunhotep calls himself their son.
814
In this offering scene the text
in the area preceding his fathers name and above his parents is damaged.
815
What
remains is: imAxy Xr /// m (?) Dsr //// +Hwt-snty.
816
As the name of Amun is consistently
defaced in the rest of the tombs inscriptions, it is likely that Amuns name could also be
restored here. Thus we could read revered before [Amun], in Djeser[-djeseru]
Djhutsenty.
817
This restoration would indicate that Amunhoteps father was also a
mortuary priest, in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. The epithet may also have
served as a substitute for the term mAa-xrw, which does not appear after Djhutsentys
name, although it does after his wifes.
Adjacent to the scene in which Amunhotep offers to his parents, he is depicted
offering to the couple Neferhotep and his wife, also called Amunhotep (Fig.20 (left),
p.476).
818
Here too Amunhotep identifies the couple he offers to in his own inscription,
but without filiation. According to Lepsius, in the inscription with Amunhotep,

811
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,, p.368 provides a list.
812
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9c; PM(1), left thickness.
813
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f, right side; PM(6).
814
it.f +Hwt-snty Hmt.f vA-Xrd mAat-xrw n kA.tn in sA.sn sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp
815
This portion of the inscription was not recorded in the Urkunden, but traces are visible in the Lepsius,
Denkmaler when a magnifying glass is used.
816
There is a seated figure determinative at the end of the last break, just before Djhutsentys name, the
head is missing but it is probably a male figure.
817
A parallel writing can be found in the tomb of the high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (i), TT112 at
PM(3) and in the tomb of Menkheperresoneb (ii), TT86 at PM(1); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xvii.
818
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f, left side; PM(6).
188
Neferhotep is given the titles 4
th
divine father of Amun, while in his own text he is called
a 4
th
priest of Amun.
819
From new evidence it now seems clear that the title of divine
father was miscopied by Lepsius and should in fact be restored to match his other title of
4
th
priest. This evidence comes in the form of three funerary cones for Neferhotep and his
wife, which also suggest that Neferhotep had a tomb in Thebes.
820
The cones are Daressy
nos.128, 136 and 137, all of which are for the 4
th
priest of Amun Neferhotep, and two of
which (128, 137) also include his wife, mistress of the house, Amunhotep.
821

Unfortunately, none of the cones give the name of Neferhoteps father or brother.
In TT345 the inscription that accompanies Amunhotep in the offering scene does
not distinguish Neferhotep filially. Rather, Amunhotep calls himself his brother, first
kings son of Aakheperkare, Amunhotep in reference to Neferhotep. Although similar to
the scene of Amunhotep before his parents, it is just different enough to call into question
whether or not these two men were in fact brothers, rather than colleagues. The literature
has traditionally suggested that Neferhotep was Amunhoteps brother,
822
but this is not
necessarily the case.
823
The fact that Neferhotep and his wife are depicted at the same
scale and in a parallel context to Amunhoteps parents, suggests that Neferhotep may
have been a brother of Sendjhuty, and paternal uncle to Amunhotep. Since kin
terminology in ancient Egypt did not distinguish between generations, the term sn,

819
Urk. IV, 106.8: it nTr 4-nw n Imn Nfr-Htp Var. Hm-nTr nwt-4 . From Lepsius (Lepsius, Denkmaler III,
pl.9f) the full inscription above the couple is: iry-pat HAty-a saA n nswt siqr n bity xtmt (bity ?) it nTr (4)-nw ///
Nfr-Htp Hmt.f nb pr [Imn-]Htp. Neferhotep is also named in the text that accompanies Amunhotep, but here
he is the Hm-nTr nwt-4 (sic) n Imn Nfr-Htp mAa-xrw.
820
Perhaps in Khokha / Assasif where, according to Davies notes to Daressys text, two of the cones were
found? No. 128 does not have any notes attached, but for no.136 there was one near T.179, and for
no.137 one found outside 48, one in T161.
821
Kees, Priestertum p.76, n.3, had already attributed Daressy no.136 to Neferhotep.
822
Whale, Family, p.87f.; Urk IV, 106.5; Kees, Priestertum, p.76.
823
Similar depictions in which it appears that colleagues rather than, or in addition to, family members are
depicted include TTs 72 and 53.
189
brother, could mean nephew as well.
824
The fact that Sendjhuty does not appear to have
a priestly title seems to support the identification of Neferhotep as a family member
whom Amunhotep honored for helping him to acquire his own priestly positions.
Therefore, it seems most likely that their relationship was one of nephew (Amenhotep)
and paternal uncle (Neferhotep).
825

This familys influence in the priestly sphere continues with Amenhoteps
children. The tomb scenes that depict Amunhotep and Renay as the recipients of
offerings have either one or 2 women (presumably daughters) represented as the offerers,
while a priest (who could be a son) libates them in another scene. A pair of wooden
statuettes dedicated to Amunhotep and Renay give the name of their son as wab-priest
before Aakheperkare, Aakheperkareseneb.
826
There are also perhaps three funerary
cones that belonged to Aakheperkareseneb. D&M no.372 was made for the high priest of
Aakheperkare, Aakheperkareseneb, and no.484 was for the high priest of Aakheperkare,
Aakheperkareseneb called Amunmes.
827
Clearly, Aakheperkareseneb was not only named
after the king in whose funerary temple his father was a priest, but was following in his
fathers footsteps as well.
The honored position awarded to Neferhotep in Amunhoteps tomb suggests that
he was the family member who introduced his nephew into the temple clergy.
Neferhoteps position as a 4
th
-priest of Amun makes him relatively low in the temple

824
See the discussion in the Introduction, pp.28ff. and table 1, p.47.
825
Unlike in TTs72 and 53 however, Amunhotep and Neferhotep were not part of the same priestly
establishment, and this favors their being identified as relatives rather than colleagues.
826
Pushkin MFA, I.1.a. 2103 and 2009; Kees (ZS 85, 1960, p.47) lists Amunhoteps titles as wab, first
kings son of Aakheperkare, var. wab, bearer (rmn) before Aakherpkare bzw. first kings son on the
west side (n imj-wrt) and front wab of Aakheperkare.
827
No.372 = dwAt Ra-Hr-axty in Hm-nTr tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra )| aA-xpr-kA-ra-snb mAa-xrw . No.484 = Hm-nTr tp n
(aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Ddt.f Imn-ms aA-xpr-kA-ra-snb maA-xrw xr Wsir. Daressy no.93 may be the same as D&M 372,
as the inscription according to Daressy was dwA Imn in Hm-nTr tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-ms mAa-xrw .
190
ranks, and thus this might be evidence for Neferhoteps ability to influence a superior on
behalf of his nephew. Once Amenhotep entered into the temple ranks through his uncle
Neferhotep as a wab-priest, he advanced in position to first kings son in the mortuary
temple of Thutmosis I, and was subsequently able to ensure that his own son became high
priest in the same temple.

Baki and his father Bak[enamun]
(Mid-level priests)
We saw in Chapter 1 that a family who were agents of Amun was able to build
a tomb and maintain a level of status beyond their actual level due to an ancestral
connection to the nurse of a queen.
828
The servant of Amun Baki, who held essentially
lower and mid-level positions, seems to have originally benefited from his father
Bak[enamun]s status as an official attached to the funerary temple of Queen Ahmose-
Nefertari.
829

Very little is known about Baki, the owner of TT18, but some new information
has been gleaned from my re-examination of his unfinished and damaged tomb.
830
Baki
began his career, presumably, as a sDm-aS, then became first sDm-as, and later moved on
to be the one who weighs the gold and silver in the temple of Amun.
831
The latter title,

828
This is Amenemhet and his father Itnefer, who were both imy st-a n Imn; cf. Chapter 1, pp.140ff.
829
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.195.
830
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.199-200, type Vb. The most recent mention of this tomb is by
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.138. Graefe, Gottesgemahlin des Amun, pp.179-80,
frag200, briefly discusses Bakis father and gives a genealogy. See Gauthier, BIFAO 6, pp.163-171, pl.11-
13 for the only publication of TT18. I investigated TT18 in the summer of 2002. Although only the
transverse-hall was finished, the vaulted rear chamber or shrine was in the process of being decorated the
entire (?) south wall is grid-lined and a male face is sketched in at the west end. The tomb seems to be
decorated in the style of early Thutmosis III.
831
These two titles were already known from his autobiographical stela: sDm-aS tp xAi HD nbw n pr [Imn].
191
which is a lower ranked post within the treasury administration,
832
suggests that his
earlier positions were also in the Amun temple. There is now a new position that can be
ascribed to him which comes from a previously unknown ceiling inscription in the
transverse-hall.
833
This is overseer of the offerings for the altar [of Amun?].
834
This title
in fact accords well with the scene depicted on the west side of the rear wall of the
transverse-hall.
835
Although the figure of Baki is lost, what remains is a scene of bringing
gold and silver vessels and objects to be weighed and their weighing at one end, while at
the other end scribes record the bringing and stacking of jars and foodstuffs. Both
activities would certainly have been part of his duties as a weigher and one who dealt
with the offering-table of Amun.
836
Bakis wife was a woman described only as nbt pr
and with the name Mes, and together they had at least three daughters and two sons.
837

Unfortunately, no titles are preserved for any of the sons.

832
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.138.
833
N end, E band. Gauthier did not copy or reproduce this inscription in his publication. In fact, all but one
of the six ceiling bands (three per side east, center, west; no axis band) were inscribed for Baki.
Unfortunately they are all badly damaged and generally only Bakis name, and in some cases the beginning
of his lineage, is preserved.
834
The inscription here is: n kA n sDm aS tp imy-r wdHw n /////. The title is damaged, and another possible
rendering for imy-r wdHw is DfA. In addition, the tp -sign in reality looks more like a seated figure perhaps
here the title is simply sDm aS? If this is the case, then perhaps the following title should read iry DfA n xAwt
/// one who relates to the offerings of the offering-table of . The destruction after the offering-table
may indicate that this title could further be restored as n pr Imn.
835
PM (3).
836
Eichler also mentioned the connection between his office as a weigher and this scene; cf. Eichler,
Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, p.171. Also perhaps owing to his duties regarding the offering-table
are the overburdened tables placed before Osiris and Anubis on the exterior of the shrine or rear chamber
lintel [PM(7)]
837
The only named son is Ab- (??), while the daughters are Sepnefer, Nebtawy and Khnumnefer. The
damage to the inscriptions in the fishing and fowling scene mean that there could be as many as four sons
and five daughters. The latter two are both depicted naked and thus may have been young children when
Bakis tomb was being constructed. Note that this is contra Whale (Family, p.81) and Gautheir (BIFAO 6,
p.170) who believed Khnumnefer to be male and emended the text to reflect this. No such emendation is
necessary: the t of sAt is lost in the damage, thus sA(t).f mrt.f %nm-nfr. Likewise the depiction of
Khnumnefer is exactly the same as that of Nebtawy (with a perfectly clear inscription) in offering scene:
naked, yellow skin, and reddish coloring on the head and pubic area. Also the reading of the name Itef or
T..f for one of the sons is incorrect, the name is completely lost and the text reads in fact sA.f mr.f /// (contra
Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.169; Whale, Family p.80; Graefe, Gottesgemahlin des Amun, pp.179-80).
192
Baki depicted himself offering to his parents in the tomb, and it is from this scene
that we have the full title of his father as scribe of counting cattle (in the funerary
temple) of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari. (Fig.21, p.77)
838
Although his fathers name is not
preserved here, the name of his mother is Mes, like Bakis own wife.
839
The name of
Bakis father can, however, be tentatively restored from the autobiographical
inscription.
840
Toward the end of line 9 is inscribed the name Baki, with the rest of the
line lost. Line 10 begins with the end of the title of Bakis father (i.e., Ahmose-
Nefertari, justified), followed by the head, beak and incense bowl common to the bird
that serves as an ideogram for bA.
841
In the damaged space following this sign, there is
just enough room for a basket, seated man, and mAa sign before the still visible [mAa-]xrw
justified, which generally follows the names of deceased individuals.
842
In this
reconstruction his name would be Bak, similar to that of his son. The damaged areas are
relatively small and could plausibly be restored with born of the scribe of counting cattle
of in line 9 and Ahmose-Nefertari, Bak, justified in line 10. This cannot be another
title for our tomb owner Bak because the next portion of the inscription indicates that this
is part of a lineage formula.
843
However, another possibility is that we could restore the
fathers name as Bak-[n-Imn], Bakenamun. This might account for the damage to the
fathers name in the offering scene, which appears to be intentional. In addition, there is a
funerary cone for the royal scribe of counting cattle, overseer of the cattle of Amun,

838
Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.169; PM(4). The first guest in the accompanying banquet scene is the snt.f &A-r,
apparently a sister of Baki. This is not recorded by Gauthier.
839
Based on the rarity of the name Mes as a womans name, Whale (Family, p.82) suggested that the two
women were related, possibly as aunt and niece. There is no evidence to further substantiate or contradict
this suggestion.
840
Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.167; PM(5)
841
Gardiner, G29.
842
The damage as indicated by Gauthier is a little too extensive; cf. Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.167.
843
After the mAa-xrw comes ms n born of, which typically indicates that the mothers name and titles can
be expected.
193
Bakenamun.
844
Although giving slightly different titles than those listed in TT18 for
Baki, it is nonetheless tempting to equate the two men.
Baki did not have the same title as his father, and his career was perhaps centered
at Karnak rather than in a mortuary temple. Nonetheless, it seems likely that his initial
entry into the priesthood was based on his fathers position in the funerary temple.
According to Eichler, the scribe of counting cattle in of Amun was a mid-level
position,
845
and it seems likely that the same could be said in the mortuary temple. Baki
eventually rose to a position that was perhaps roughly equal to his fathers. They were
both essentially administrative priests, responsible for various aspects of their
particular temples domains. Thus, it seems that here we do indeed have a case where a
son was able to enter into the priesthood due to his fathers standing in that priesthood.

Ahmose and his son Ra
(Priests at Karnak and in the royal mortuary temples
846
)
Two officials whose tombs, families, and careers are currently under investigation
are those of Ahmose (TT121) and his son Ra (TT72).
847
Prior to Picciones work, it was
not widely known that these two men were in fact father and son, and since his work
began in the early 90s a great deal of new information has been brought to light.
848
This
family apparently held several important positions within Karnak temple on the East and
several funerary temples on the West Bank of Thebes during the reigns of Thutmosis III

844
Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.108.
845
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, p.192f.
846
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, nos.001 (Ahmose), 401 (Ra).
847
Peter Piccione, who is directing the work on these men, has graciously shared his published and /or
previously presented information with me (much of which can be found on his web site). My conclusions
are based on this, but it should be noted that he plans a complete publication of the tombs that will certainly
have extensive and new information on this family.
848
Labib Habachi was apparently on of the few who recognized the connection, and told Piccione about it
(Piccione, pers. comm., 2002), but Piccione is the first to publish this fact.
194
and Amenhotep II.
849
In addition, it appears that Ahmose may have had palace positions
late in life that resulted in Ras ability to depict Amunhotep II in his tomb.
From the inscriptions in Ahmoses tomb, TT121,
850
we learn that he was a first
lector-priest of Amun, 2
nd
priest of Amun, 2
nd
priest of Amun-Ra at Karnak, and god's
father beloved of the god. In an inscription in the niche (previously unknown) he also
seems to bear the title of a priest (perhaps first priest of Amun) in Henqet-ankh.
851
The
inscription is damaged and unpublished at this point, but Piccione does award Ahmose
the title of First Prophet in Henqet-ankh (the mortuary temple of Thutmose III). If this
title is placed in the niche, then it should be elongated as there is a long lacuna before the
m hnqt-anx portion, and the name of Amun seems to be just visible.
852
However, Piccione
is probably correct in assessing that Ahmose gained this position late in life, if not
posthumously. Besides his priestly titles, the text in the niche also credits Ahmose as a

849
According to Piccione, The two tombs date to the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty of the mid-second
millennium BC. They were preceded in construction by the tomb of Senenmut which lies between them.
While Senenmut served Queen Hatshepsut and probably Thutmose III very early in his sole reign, Ahmose
served Thutmose III, apparently later in the reign, and Ry served that king at the end of his reign, and
thereafter Amenhotep II. Ahmose began building his tomb late in the reign of Thutmose III (c. 1504-1450
BC), whereupon it was completed after his death by his son, Ry. Ry constructed his own tomb apparently
during the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (c. 1450-1453), or else shortly thereafter (AIA
1999 lecture, web text, see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/). Eichler includes Ahmose, Ra and other family
members in her catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 001, 119, 303, 401, 596.
850
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.410-12, type Ve.
851
Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no. 297 is probably attributable to Ahmose. It was made for the first
priest of Amun in Henqet-ankh, Ahmose and would thus confirm this title for Ahmose. Davies and
Macadam, Corpus, no. 300 carries the title of second priest of Amun-Ra, note that the name of Ahmose
is written with the moon-sign up.
852
Picciones accounts of the whereabouts of this title are rather confusing. In his SSEA talk (Feb., 2000,
see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/) Piccione states that Ahmose's senior-most title in his tomb is "Second
Prophet of Amun-Re". His title, "First Prophet of Amun in Henqet-Ankh" (also Ry's title), occurs only on
selected funerary cones, on funerary stelae which Ry placed into the tomb, and in texts inside Ry's own
tomb. (web abstract, see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/) However, in his ICE talk (March, 2000, see
http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/) Piccione credits Ra with placing this title in Ahmoses tomb wherever he
finished the decoration for his father (web abstract; cf. http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/). Likewise, in his
1999 AIA lecture, he also only credits this title to funerary cones of Ahmose (web text;
http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/).
195
seal-bearer of the King of Lower Egypt and an overseer of Upper and Lower Egypt.
853

The former title is also found on a granite block in the tomb which, along with an
inscription at the west end of the south wall of the passage, lists several other court-
related titles and epithets.
854
Thus it would seem that Ahmose was not only highly placed
within the priesthood, but within the royal court as well.
There is also the matter of the title great offspring in the palace, which may be
an indicator of Ahmoses closeness to the royal court. Piccione mentions funerary cones
found near TT121 are inscribed for a man named Ahmose who was a Xrd n kAp of
Meritamun, which are perhaps ascribable to this Ahmose.
855
If the attribution is correct,
then it would appear that Ahmose was granted a palace position late in life. Meritamun
was a daughter of Thutmosis III,
856
and thus Ahmose could not have grown up in the
palace with her. However, he might have been placed in a supervisory role, akin to a
tutor, over Meritamun as a child.
857

Ahmoses wife Iret was a Xkrt nswt, (an honorific court title), and in the one
lengthy inscription in Ahmoses tomb in which her name is preserved she has her own
bevy of epithets.
858
In these epithets she is affiliated with Hathor, Mut, and possibly

853
Transliterated by Piccione as SDAwt bity, but perhaps better transliterated as Xtmt bity because its
placement within the list (near the end and among other clear titles) suggests that it has actual duties
attached to it, rather than being an honorific.
854
For example: mH-ib n nswt m xnrt ir // Axt n !r.f xrp rs-yp n nb tAwy sdty aA m Hwt-aA wr wrw m smrw.f
(all from the Passage), Hry sStA n st-wrt mrr nb tAwy (from the granite block). The granite block is perhaps a
piece of the granite stele that originally adorned the tomb.
855
Piccione, AIA 1999 lecture, web text; cf. http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/. Davies and Macadam,
Corpus, no.234.
856
There was also a Meritamun, daughter of King Ahmose, but if this were the princess meant than the
cones cannot belong to Ahmose of TT121, who was an official during the reign of Thutmosis III. Feucht
follows the earlier dating; cf. Feucht, Das Kind, p.272, 302-3; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, p.43.
857
The Xrd n kAp could also designate an institution or body of people whose members could even have
juridical duties; cf. Feucht, Das Kind, pp. 300-4; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.43-4; Bryan, in:
Thutmose III, forthcoming.
858
The portion of the inscription which relates to Iret reads: Hmt.f mryt.f nbt pr aAt Spst Hmsyt tpw Hsyt nT
Hwt-Hr mrrt //[nt Imn ?]// nb iqrt Hr-ib mryt Mwt Xkrt nswt nbt pr Irt maAt-Xrw nbt imAx
196
Amun, suggesting that her family may have had both court and priestly connections. This
indicates that Ahmose may have married into a well-placed family and in this way
secured his own court positions, and perhaps those of the Amun temple as well. The only
sibling for whom we have information is his brother Neferhebef, who was a wab-priest of
Amun in Henqet-ankh.
859
Exactly how Ahmose gained his high priestly positions is
unclear, especially as no lower-level priestly positions are mentioned. However, it is clear
that in addition to being elevated in the priesthood, he had strong court affiliations. This
would likely have given Ahmose a high degree of power and influence, certainly enough
to enhance his sons careers.
In Ahmoses tomb the inscriptions which would have named his son(s) are
unfortunately either no longer extant or badly damaged. One ceiling text in the
transverse-hall preserves a tantalizing clue however: sA.f anx xpr . In one scene in
Ras tomb (TT72) he calls himself the son of the nTr Ahmose, while in another an
unknown man offers to a seated couple identified as Ahmose (no titles or filiation
preserved) and his mother, his beloved, the royal ornament, Ray.
860
Nonetheless,
Piccione has affiliated the two men as father and son.
861
It is certainly tempting to see
Ras title of chief priest of Menkheperre in the lacuna of Ahmoses ceiling inscription.
Likewise, Ras father was clearly a priest named Ahmose and his mother a Xkrt nswt.
However, there is the issue of the wife of Ahmose in TT121 being called Iret, while the
mother of Ra in TT72 is Ray. Piccione suggests that Ray was perhaps a nickname for

859
This information is also from Piccione, AIA 1999, web text. I do not know where the brother is known
from.
860
mwt.f mrt.f Xkrt nswt Ray
861
He may have more concrete additional inscriptional evidence currently unknown to me.
197
Iret, and that it may have been used in Ras tomb instead of Iret because of the similarity
of the two names.
862

Assuming Piccione to be correct, it seems likely that Ahmose used his own high
standing in the Amun priesthood to introduce his son Ra into the system. Ra then
followed in his fathers footsteps and even surpassed them. In his own tomb, TT72,
863
the
following positions are mentioned: first priest of Amun in Djeser-akhet, Henqet-ankh and
possibly Men-iset, first priest of Menkheperre, first priest of Amun and of Menkheperre
in Henqet-ankh, and first priest of Hathor who resides in Henqet-ankh.
864
According to
Piccione, Ra was also a first priest of Amun in Djeser-set, and an Overseer of the
Mansion of Gold of the Estate of Amun.
865
Although Ra does not seem to have had the
number of court-related titles and epithets that his father had,
866
he did hold higher
positions and his positions were spread throughout the funerary temple priesthood. The
fact that Ra does not appear to have any lower-level priestly titles suggests that his
fathers influence allowed Ra to start at a higher level within the priesthood. This
supports the theory that his career is mostly due to his fathers nepotism.
In addition to his parents, Ra depicts three men in his tomb who are all designated
as sn.f, literally his brother. Piccione has called into question whether or not they are
true brothers or only colleagues of Ra, especially since they are all depicted following Ra

862
His suggestion that Iret might alternatively be a sister of Ahmose seems unlikely. AIA 1999 lecture, web
text.
863
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.303-6, type Vb.
864
The first three of these are, respectively, the temple of Thutmosis III at Deir el-Bahri, the mortuary
temple of Thutmosis III, the mortuary temple of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari
865
All of these titles are found in Picciones AIA 1999 talk (web text), but I was unable to find the latter
two when I visited the tomb. The title of first priest of Amun in Men-iset, which Piccione has as certain, I
could only find a possible fragment of on a broken sandstone block that was part of the original right door-
jamb; the left jamb is the Berlin Egyptian Museum (Piccione, AIA 1999, web text). Ras overseer title is
possibly taken from that found on Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.116 (Hm-nTr tpy imy-r-pr Hwt-nb Imn
Ray mAa-xrw ), although here his name is given as Ray similar in orthography to that of his mother.
866
The only ones still extant in the tomb (to my knowledge) are wa iqr mr nb tAwy Hsy [iry-p]a[t] HAty-a
[mH-]ib
198
in an offering scene before Amenhotep II and his mother Queen Merytre.
867
The
inscription is damaged, but Piccione restores the following for the three men: his brother,
first lector-priest of Amun, Amunhotep;
868
his brother, first priest of Amun, Senres;
869
his
brother, first priest of Amun, Menkheperresoneb.
870
Given the method and repetitiveness
of the defacement, both here and elsewhere in the tomb, it does seem plausible that the
name of Amun could be restored in all three cases.
Senres appears twice more in the tomb, both times in roles usually reserved for
family members. In the transverse-hall a three register offering scene depicts Ra
(restored, name and titles lost) offering to his parents, a brother (name and titles lost)
offering to Ra and another person, and Senres (filiation lost) offering to Ra and another
person. As the inscriptions relating to the offerers were all added later however,
871

perhaps caution should be taken with this scene. According to Piccione, Senres is also
named in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony in the passage as one of the officiants of
Ras mummy.
872
The suggestion that these men are all colleagues rather than brothers is
certainly possible. However, the presence of Senres in familial roles elsewhere in the
tomb would seem to indicate that he at least was an actual brother. So what of the other
two? Given that Senres is placed second in the line (after Amunhotep), it seems unlikely
that he would be preceded by a colleague rather than a brother.
873
Also, Amunhoteps

867
PM(5).
868
sn.f Xry-Hb [t]p [n Imn Imn-]Htp; cf. Eichler, Das Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.119.
869
sn.f Hm-nTr tpy [n Imn] %n-rs. Not included by Eichler.
870
sn.f Hm-nTr tpy [n Imn] nb (sic) Mn-xpr-ra-snb. Seems to be misidentified by Eichler as having the name
Nebamun; cf. Eichler, Das Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 303, or 596
871
Pers. comm.., Piccione, 2002.
872
Pers. comm., Piccione, 2002. Piccione mentioned the inscription as being extremely faint, and indeed I
could not find it during my own examination of the tomb.
873
In other tombs where both family members and colleagues are shown, they are grouped separately. For
example in TT82, where ancestors are placed in the registers above artisans who worked on the tomb at
PM(4); cf. Davies, Amenemhet, pl.vii, viii
199
title chief lector-priest of Amun fits nicely with the family, being the same one that
Ahmose held. Perhaps he is the unidentified brother in the second register of the offering
scene mentioned above. That leaves the last man, Menkheperresoneb, who could be
either a brother or a colleague. There does not seem to be overwhelming evidence
favoring either conclusion, though I would posit that it seems more likely that he is a
colleague since he carries (presumably) the same title as both Senres and Ra. If he is in
fact a colleague, could he be one of the Menkhepperresonebs that owned tomb 112 or
86? The timing is certainly appropriate.
Ray, Senres and Amenhotep each certainly benefited from their father Ahmoses,
position and influence within the priesthood. Although they may have started out at
Karnak, it seems the majority of the familys control was on the West Bank in the
funerary temples of the mid-18
th
Dynasty kings. At present there is no evidence for
further generations holding similar positions. Ra was probably childless as there is no
mention of a wife, and his brother(s) perform duties a son would normally provide. Ra
also seems to have developed his own connection to the court, since he was granted the
ability to present Amenhotep II in his tomb. However, it seems likely that Ras
association with the king would not have come about were it not for the nepotistic
practices of Ras father Ahmose.






200
IIb. The Family and the King
Taiunet and her son Menkheperresoneb
(A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun)
In the previous chapter, which examined the power of heredity, the two uncle and
nephew high priests of Amun called Menkheperresoneb, owners of TTs 112 and 86, were
discussed at length.
874
There is no need here to reiterate that entire argument. However,
the older of the two men and his mother are relevant to the topic of this chapter. There, I
suggested a genealogy slightly different from that presented by Dorman,
875
in which
Menkheperresoneb (i) of TT 112 is the son of the royal nurse Taiunet, brother to the
foster-sister of the king Nebetta and maternal uncle to his successor as high priest, the
like-named Menkheperresoneb (ii) of TT86. As I stated there, this reconstruction solves
two important issues: the decorative style of the two tombs and the lack of the title
foster-brother of the king for Menkheperresoneb (i).
This revised genealogy also places Taiunet as the potential leader of the familys
rise. In TT112 she is called both royal nurse and one who nurtured the god, implying that
she was the nurse to the next king, Thutmosis III.
876
Her husband, also depicted in
TT112, was the chariot-warrior Hepu, a title much less prestigious than that of his wife.
For this reason, and due to Menkheperresoneb (i)s apparent lack of a wife, she is
prominently featured throughout TT112. She is consistently placed alongside
Menkheperresoneb (i) in all of the positions usually reserved for a wife,
877
and appears at

874
Pp.113-24.
875
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153.
876
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.327ff.
877
Cf. Whale, Family, pp.261ff.
201
least four and probably seven times in the tomb, with her name and titles mentioned in an
additional two inscriptions.
878

How Menkheperresoneb (i) rose to the position of high priest of Amun seems
unclear at first.
879
All of the titles and epithets in his tomb are those of a high priest of
Amun, or an elite official.
880
The only monument that might be an exception to this is
BM708, on which Menkheperresoneb (i) bears the title of 2
nd
priest of Amun.
881

However, as this title does not appear in TT112, the other titles or epithets on the statue
are mostly quite different from those in the tomb, and there is a lack of clear
prosopographical connections, it is tenuous to attribute BM708 to the owner of TT112.
882

Most likely then, the reason for Menkheperresoneb (i)s rise was that his mothers
position and status as a nurse to Thutmosis III led to the familys rise in power in general,
and her sons in particular. Menkheperresoneb (i)s sister Nebetta was the royal foster-
sister, not Menkheperresoneb. This suggests that he was probably older than the crown

878
The four scenes in which she appears are PM(3)-(6), and she may be the woman with
Menkheperresoneb in the upper register of PM(3) as well as in the Abydos pilgrimage and offering scene in
the passage at PM(8)-(9). Her name and titles are also included in the inscriptions accompanying PM(2)
and the northern end of PM(6).
879
It is worth mentioning here that his apparent predecessor, Hepuseneb (TT67, Gebel es-Silsilah shrine
no.15), who seems to have only served Hatshepsut, probably used his position as high priest to place his
children within the priesthood as well. One son was a high priest in the funerary temple of Thutmosis I,
while the other was a second lector-priest in the same temple, perhaps the subordinate of his elder brother.
A third son may have been the great steward in the funerary temple of Thutmosis I, User, the owner of
TT21, although as his parents are unknown he might also have been a brother. Three of his daughters were
singers of Amun, and a fourth was a divine adoratrice of Amun and possibly chantress like her sisters.
Hepusenebs father was a third lector-priest of Amun, and his mother may have a Xkrt nswt. His mothers
status may have contributed to his rise to high priest, though certainly he could have entered the priesthood
through his fathers position. He seems to have had at least one brother also involved with the priesthood:
the scribe and chief sealer of Amun Saamen. Why none of Hepusenebs sons succeeded him is not clear.
However, it is interesting that both Hepuseneb and Menkheperresoneb had mothers with royal court
connections. Also worth mentioning is that the 2
nd
priest of Amun and Hepusenebs son-in-law Puiemre,
owner of TT39, was the son of the scibe Puia and the chief nurse (mnat wrt) Neferah; cf. Roehrig, Royal
urse, pp.28-31.
880
For example: it nTr tpy n Imn imy-r Hmw-nTr n tA-mHw Smaw mn Hswt aA m pr-nswt r shrr m tA r-Dr.f
881
Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts V, p.10, pl.32-3.
882
Dorman in fact came to the conclusion that this statue should not be attributed to (either)
Menkheperresoneb Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.
202
prince and while he may have been around the court, he would not have been in a
position to build a close relationship with the king at a young age. It was Taiunets
influence that appears to have led to Menkheperresonebs ability to obtain a station that
might otherwise have been outside his reach as the son of a charioteer.
The importance of Taiunet and degree of her influence is supported and
emphasized by the lineage used by Nebettas children. As was mentioned above, Nebetta
was the daughter of Taiunet and carried the title of royal foster-sister. Nebettas son,
Menkheperresoneb of TT86, identified himself as whom the foster-sister of the king
Nebetta bore.
883
Her daughter Tadidites, known from the funerary cones of her husband
Hekanefer, was similarly called the daughter of the foster-sister of the Lord of the Two
Lands Nebetta.
884
The prominence of the foster-sister title as an identifying marker for
relatives of its bearer implies that having a connection to the nurse was considered
desirable.
There is also the possibility that this family was already linked to the royal court.
A royal nurse called Tinetiunet is known from the stele of Inay on which she appears
with a man identified as the mayor of This Satepihu.
885
From other sources we know that
Satepihu was an official during the reign of Hatshepsut.
886
Roehrig places Tinetiunet as
the mother of Satepihu and a nurse of Ahmose, son of Ahmose I, based on his depiction
on the stele.
887
Bryan on the other hand calls her the wife of Satepihu, placing her

883
PM(3).
884
Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 393, 394.
885
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.14-15, 43; The stele was found by Mariette in the North Cemetery, cf.
Mariette, Abydos III, pp.393-4, no.1080. It is now CG 34080, Lacau, Stles, p.127-129, pl. xl.
886
He is the owner of a tomb at Abydos and the sandstone statue originally from there, and now in the
Metropolitan Museum, and is represented at Deir el-Bahri in the scene depicting the transportation of
obelisks, cf. Urk. IV, 516-520. Either the tomb did not record his family members or they were not copied.
887
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.15. In the lunette Inay and his parents offer to Osiris, Queen Nefertary and
Ahmose.
203
squarely in the reign of Hatshepsut, with an unknown nursling.
888
The lack of a stated
filiation between Tinetiunet and Satepihu, as well as their placement as guests on the
stele, makes either scenario plausible.
889
The similarity between the names of Tinetiuent
on the stele and Taiunet in TT112, as well as their relative rarity among womens names
during the 18
th
Dynasty, suggests that there may have been a connection between them.
What this might have been is uncertain.
890
If the relationship was between Satepihu and
Taiunet, it may be that they were siblings and Tinetiunet was their mother, or that
Tinetiunet was Satepihus wife and Taiunets sister-in-law.
891
It is also possible that
Tinetiunet and Taiunet were sisters, making Satepihu a brother-in-law. However, it seems
to me that if Tinetiunet was the mother of Taiunet, then she would have appeared in
TT112 because she would belong to the same generation as Menkheperresonebs paternal
grandmother, who does appear in the tomb despite her lack of a title. In addition, since it
is clear that Taiunets position as royal nurse was instrumental in Menkheperresonebs
own career, if he could trace this back another lineal generation it is likely that he would
have indicated this in his tomb. As a sister-in-law, or even sister, Tinetiunet would have
probably been less likely to be depicted, since this would make her a collateral relative to
Menkheperresoneb. It thus appears that if there was a relationship between Taiunet and
Tinetiunet, it was that of sister or sister-in-law.


888
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
889
They appear as the first seated couple in the first register of the stele, followed by the overseer of the
cattle of Onuris and his wife, and the owner of the stele Inay with his parents. The order suggests that they
may perhaps be ancestors of Inay or his parents.
890
See Bryan, JSSEA 9, pp.121-3 and Whale, Family, pp.102-4 for earlier discussions of the possible
relationship, though it needs to be mentioned that in both of these Menkheperresoneb of TT112 was
thought to be same as the owner of TT86, so the genealogical possibilities are slightly different.
891
As a nurse of Thutmosis III, Taiunet was presumably contemporary with Thutmosis II, making a father-
daughter relationship between Satepihu and Taiunet impossible.
204
The genealogy presented in Chapter 1 (p.121) could then be revised as follows:
? --- ?
| ? --- Nebetta (TT112)
| |
| ? | |
Satepihu --- Tinetiunet Taiunet (TT112, mnat nswt Sdt nTr) --- Hepu ( TT112)
(mnat nswt ) |
(CG 34080) |
| |
? --- Nebetta (TT86, snt mnanswt) HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT112)
|
|
| |
HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT86) Tadidites (sAt snt mnay n nb tAwy Nbt-tA) --- Hekanefer


OR

? --- ?
| ? --- Nebetta (TT112)
| |
| ? | |
Tinetiunet --- Satepihu Taiunet (TT112, mnat nswt Sdt nTr) --- Hepu ( TT112)
(mnat nswt ) |
(CG 34080) |
| |
? --- Nebetta (TT86, snt mna nswt) HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT112)
|
|
| |
HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT86) Tadidites (sAt snt mnay n nb tAwy Nbt-tA) --- Hekanefer

If indeed the two families are to be linked, then the connection both to the royal family
and the young Thutmosis III becomes even stronger, and is certain to be the primary
reason that an otherwise mid-level son of a chariot-warrior became the high priest of
Amun under Thutmosis III.




205
Iamnefer and his son Suemniut
(A regional mayor and tutor and his son the royal butler)
The royal butler under Amenhotep II was Suemniut, the owner of TT92,
892
who
also held the title chief of stables.
893
His father Iamnefer, was a major priestly figure in
Hermopolis/Ashmunein, as well as the mayor of Neferusy in Middle Egypt, a position he
apparently inherited from his own father Pa-ahauty.
894
In addition, Iamnefer appears to
have been made a royal tutor, or at least to have gained an especially close relationship
with the court of Thutmosis II Thutmosis III.
895
How and why this occurred is
uncertain, but it likely had a large impact on Suemniuts own career, which involved both
the military and the palace.
Suemniuts father Iamnefer and his mother Meryt, who was a chantress of Thoth,
are known from a variety of monuments, including Suemniuts tomb (TT92),
896
the lower
portion of a seated statue that also names prince Aakheperenreseneb and probably dates
to the reign of Thutmosis II (BM 1782),
897
three graffiti in the area of Aswan,
898
the
lower half of a stelephorous statue from Hermopolis Magna (Louvre, Caves IFAO

892
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.350-2, type VIIIa.
893
B. Bryan is currently publishing his tomb. I would like to thank her for the opportunity to work on the
tomb, and to present preliminary results of my research at the ARCE Annual meeting in Chicago, April,
1999. The tomb is comprised of a T-shaped plan with a 2-pillared front hall placed at the front, and has an
east-west orientation. The north arrow on the plan in PM is incorrectly placed, thus although I will use PM
designations for the scenes, I will use the corrected cardinal directions when referring to a scenes
placement on the wall. I would also point out that B. Bryans work has uncovered four additional
depictions, these will be labeled as B1-4 proceeding from the front of the tomb towards the rear.
894
Pa-ahauty is called the mayor of Neferusy on the back pillar of Iamnefers setaed statue (BM1728). On
the same statue Iamnefer holds several other titles, but not mayor, indicating that he held it after his father.
895
Based on the titles on statue BM1728, which likely depicted Iamnefer holding a son of Thutmosis II.
896
They are depicted twice in the tomb, once in the front room and once in the passage. In both places
Iamnefer is called the mayor of Neferusy and overseer of priests of Thoth, while in the passage his wife
Meryt is called a chantress of Thoth.
897
Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.3, pl.ii-iii, no. 1782.
898
Shallal, Petrie 244 = de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 153; Mahattah/Shallal, Petrie 245 = de
Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 150; Petrie 242 = de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions 152; Sehel =
Mariette 46. The sources are: Petrie, Season in Egypt; Griffith, PSBA, pp.228-234; Mariette, Monuments
divers; de Morgan, Monuments et Insriptions.
206
110),
899
and two stelae (Leiden V77 and V46).
900
From these monuments a picture of
Iamnefers career is gathered in which it becomes clear that he was a mayor in Middle
Egypt, and he was likely a prominent figure in the court and palace as well.
Prior to assuming the mayoralty of his father, Iamnefer became distinguished at
the court and connected to the royal family. The inscription on the front of statue
BM1728 records the name of prince Aakheperenraseneb, an older son of Thutmosis II.
Although the statue is broken, the horizontal nature of the princes text suggests that
Iamnefer was holding the prince on his lap.
901
The pose is commonly found for statues of
men who were royal tutors, as well as for those who were not officially designated as
such, but who nonetheless likely played this role.
902
An additional indication of
Iamnefers presence at the court comes from his title of xrp nsty controller of the two
thrones, which appears on both BM1728 and the Louvre statue.
903
This title implies that
Iamnefer was involved with one of the sed-festivals of Thutmosis III.
904

Iamnefers title-based career is rather interesting since it appears that he moved
through the ranks of the Thoth priesthood in Hermopolis. He started as a wab-priest,
graduated to scribe of divine offerings, then overseer of priests, and eventually attained
the position of high priest of Thoth.
905
During this time he was also designated as great

899
Caves IFAO 110; cf. Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-342.
900
Boeser, Stelen, p.2 no.2, pl.v and p.6, no.19, pl.v.
901
Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3. The inscription for Aakeperenreseneb reads sA nswt n Xt.f mr.f
aA-xpr-n-ra-snb mAa-xrw kings son, of his body, his beloved, Aakheperenreseneb, justified.
902
Despite the statues similarity to several other statues whose owners were not always called tutors,
Roehrig does not include Iamunefer in her work of the royal nurses and tutors; cf. Royal urse, Appendix
I, pp.340-4. As a seated statue, it resembles those of Senemut holding princess Neferure, though the lack of
a royal tutor title makes it comparable to the block statues of the overseer of works in all the temples
Minmose, and the treasurer Benermerut.
903
Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3 and Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-342.
904
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.57. On the title xrp nsty cf. Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.; Vandersleyen, CdE
43, pp.234-58.
905
Iamnefer is called a wab-priest and scribe of divine offerings on a graffitio (de Morgan 153) and
BM1782; overseer of priests on the Louvre statue (Caves IFAO 110), a graffito (Mariette 46) and in TT92;
207
chief of the Hare nome, and eventually took on his fathers position as mayor of
Neferusy.
906
Helck draws a connection between the priesthood and the mayoralty during
the 18
th
Dynasty, viewing the priestly role as enhancing that of the mayor.
907
This may be
the case, but for Iamnefer it is clear that he inherited the position of mayor of Neferusy
from his father Pa-ahauty, who he names as such on the back of statue BM1728.
908
On
the right side of the statues seat Iamnefer is called great chief of the Hare nome, a
position which perhaps prepared him to take over his fathers mayoralty.
909

Iamnefer probably did not become mayor until sometime after the reign of
Thutmosis II. This conclusion is based on BM1728, which dates to the reign of
Thutmosis II and on which Iamnefers father is called mayor of Neferusy, while Iamnefer
is simply a great chief. Iamnefers position as mayor of Neferusy, and to a lesser extent
chief of the great Hare Nome, meant that he was responsible for the economy of these
regions and ensuring that deliveries from them were made to the palace.
910
However, in
the Duties of the Vizier, it is also indicated that mayors would travel between their
regions and the court.
911
The fact that Iamnefer was a tutor, or at least closely connected
to the court while he was great chief may indicate that his regular appearances at the

and high priest of Thoth on the Louvre statue and Leiden stele V46. For this official, see especially Zivie,
BIFAO 75, pp.321-42, who collects and discusses his monuments, and Bryan, in: Thutmose III,
forthcoming.
906
Iamnefer is called great chief of the Hare nome on BM1728 and mayor of Neferusy on all three Aswan
graffiti (de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 150, 153 and Mariette 46) and in TT92.
907
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.220-1.
908
The statue was dedicated at Karnak. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.3, pl. 2, no. 1782. The
inscription on the back pillar reads //// [sS] nTr-Htpw n DHwty IAm-nfr mAa-xrw ir n HAty-a n Nfrw.sy PA-aHawty
mAa-xrw [scribe] of divine offerings of Thoth Iamnefer justified, born to the mayor of Neferusy Pa-
ahauty, justified.
909
Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3. The title of Iamnefer is Hry-tp aA n Wnt. It is also likely that
this title is a deliberate archaization of the Middle Kingdom designations for nomarchs, as at Beni Hassan.
In this sense then, being chief of the Hare nome was what was given to Iamnefer while he waited to
succeed his father as mayor.
910
Based on Van den Boorns work on the Duties of the Vizier, see especially sections 5, 12, 16-17; See
also Helck, Verwaltung, pp.220-5; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
911
Van den Boorn, Duties, section 5, p.88f.
208
palace in this capacity may have led to his becoming a tutor. As this court connection was
certainly established prior to Iamnefer becoming mayor, it seems quite likely that he
would have traveled and not simply remained in Neferusy overseeing the transport of
goods. Perhaps then, Iamnefer is the nameless mayor of Neferusy mentioned on an
ostracon from Deir el-Bahari.
912
The ostracon is dated to year 11 of Hatshepsut,
suggesting that if Iamnefer was the referent then he, like the mayor of Thinis Satepihu,
had a regular presence in Thebes throughout his career.
913

Iamnefer and his wife Meryt, who was a chantress of Thoth, had at least 14
children, all of whom are depicted in a large family graffito at Aswan, which may no
longer be extant.
914
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Suemniuts name appears in this
list, and thus his position among the sons cannot be determined. In addition, none of the
seven sons are given titles, and thus it is not certain if any succeeded Iamnefer as mayor
of Neferusy or high priest of Thoth, or moved onto other careers as Suemniut evidently
did.
915

Our only source of evidence for Suemniuts career comes from his Theban tomb
92, which is dated by the use of Amenhotep IIs prenomen as a decorative element in the
tomb.
916
The tomb is unfinished, with several of the scenes sketched in and large portions

912
I would like to thank B. Bryan for pointing this out to me.
913
Satepihu was active during the reign of Hatshepsut (she is the only king mentioned on his monuments),
and appears in the scenes of transporting obelisks at Deir el-Bahri; cf. Urk. IV, 516-7.
914
Listed as from Mahattah/Shallal, cf. de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, no.150; Petrie, Season,
no.245; Griffith, PSBA 11, p.229 no.245; Urk. IV, 1454.14-19. In winter 1999 I attempted to find this, and
the other graffiti, with the help of B. Bryan, S. Ikram and N. Warner. Although we were able to locate a
few of the inscriptions that Mariette and Petrie grouped with ours, the three attributed to Iamnefer remained
elusive. It is of course possible that the Aswan Dam caused this particular inscription to either be cut of the
rock face, or submerged after the creation of the lake.
915
A discussion of Suemniuts family based on all of the monuments known for both Suemniut and
Iamnefer was presented by the author at the ARCE Annual meeting in Chicago, April, 1999.
916
Stylistically the tomb fits with the end of Thutmosis III and early Amenhotep II and is remarkably
similar in style to the nearby tomb of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85). The degree of
209
of the transverse-hall left undecorated. As a result, we are lacking an autobiographical
stele or inscription for Suemniut, making the titles and scenes the main sources for
reconstructing his career path. Two depictions of Suemniut in his tomb allow us to
extrapolate that he was active in the Near Eastern wars of Thutmosis III. In at least two
scenes in the front hall Suemniut wears the gold fly pectorals indicative of his
participation and distinction on the Syrian campaigns.
917
Like the chief of the Medjay
Dedy, Suemniut was apparently rewarded with the gold fly, and he wears both this and
the more elaborate pendant of a fly surrounded by striding lions that Dedy also wore in
his tomb.
918
Suemniuts involvement is further suggested by his military epithets, which
include one relating to the two legs of the lord of the two lands, who is not absent in
night as in day,
919
one who followed the king on his marches upon the southern and
northern foreign lands,
920
and one who followed the king upon water and upon land, a
warrior (kfaw) upon every foreign land.
921

However, the only clearly military title that Suemniut held, which is found in both
the tomb and on one of his funerary cones, was that of standard-bearer (TAy sryt).
922

While the title suggests that Suemniut actually bore the standard of the king in battle, it is
possible that this task may also have been delegated to a subordinate.
923
According to

similarity is so striking that the same artist(s) may have worked on both tombs, completeing TT92 slightly
after TT85 (B. Bryan, pers. comm.).
917
Suemniut wears the gold fly pendant at PM(3) and the striding lions and gold fly combination at
PM(4), located in the front hall at the west corner of the south wall and the south side of the west wall
respectively.
918
The only extant representation in Dedys tomb that shows him wearing this is in PM(1), lower register.
See also the discussion of Dedy, Chapter 3, pp.417ff.
919
PM(1), north end, upper, Urk. IV, 1452.10-11: irt [rd]wy nb tAwy tm tS grH mi [Hrw]
920
PM(2), upper, Urk. IV, 1449.16: Sms nsw r nmtt.f [r] xAswt rsyt mHtt
921
PM(2), center, lower, Urk. IV, 1450.3-4,: [Sms nsw] Hr mw Hr [tA] kfaw [Hr] xAst nbt
922
In the tomb, the title appears, slightly damaged, at PM(2), center, lower, Urk. IV, 1450.5. The funerary
cone, which has only this title on it, is Daressy, Recueil, no.124, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no. 181,
Urk. IV, 1452.17, and was also found in the tomb.
923
Schulman, MRTO, p.71
210
Schulman, the position of standard-bearer was a mid-level rank indicating actual combat
activity and the ability to command troops.
924
The fact that this is Suemniuts first (and
only) military title suggests that he may have begun at a higher position within the
military due to his familys status at the court. Iamnefers influence as a tutor likely led to
Suemniut receiving more attention from the king than he would have had his father not
had such a connection to the king. This may have been further cemented by Iamnefers
apparently regular presence in Thebes when he was mayor of Neferusy.
There is no evidence that Suemniut commanded or dealt with troops, unless an
unfinished scene in the front room can be interpreted as recording military activities.
925
In
the upper register the standing figure of Suemniut watches as men are brought before him
and disciplined, while in the middle register the seated Suemniut oversees the scribes
recording what appears to be booty, including a horse. While these are not battle-
scenes per se, they are perhaps indicative of Suemniuts time in the military. What is
clear is that in these scenes Suemniut has a position of some authority, further supporting
the notion that he did not start as a soldier like the idnw Amenemheb-Mahu, or a servant
like the royal butler Montuiywy.
Suemniut was also called master of the stables of the lord of the two lands (Hry
iHw n nb tAwy), which may have a military connotation. It occurs in an inscription that
accompanies a scene in the front room in which Suemniut and his wife (Hmt.f) Kat are
seated receiving offerings,
926
as well as on Suemniuts funerary cones.
927
This implies

924
Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3, cf. no.491n for the reference to Suemniut.
925
PM(5). The interpretation of the scene follows that of B. Bryan, pers. comm.
926
Located at the west end of PM(3), upper register, Urk. IV, 1452.6: imy-r aHa[w] nswt Hry iHw nb tAwy
%w-m-niwt mAa-xrw.
927
Suemniut is called Hry iHw on Daressy, Recueil, no.123, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.163; cf. Urk.
IV, 1452.17. This cone was also found in the tomb.
211
that Suemniut viewed these as significant positions, ones that he claimed at the end of his
career along with royal butler and standard-bearer. Bryan questions whether Suemniuts
position as a stable-master would have been connected to the military or the court.
928

Schulman places this title within the scribal ranks of the chariotry and suggests that the
position was not a militarily active one. Stable-masters could be stationed in Egypt or
abroad, and could be either civil or military officials. He also implies that it is higher in
rank than several military combat titles, including standard-bearer.
929
If this is correct,
then Suemniut would have been granted this title after finishing his active military career
on the Levantine campaigns of Thutmosis III, but probably before becoming a royal
butler.
Suemniuts title of overseer of ships (aHaw) is equally difficult to interpret.
Although a military connotation is possible, it is equally likely that this title belongs to
the religious sphere of Suemniuts activities. The title appears only once in the tomb,
alongside his position of chief of stables mentioned above.
930
In TT92 Suemniut was
also designated as a wdnw of Amun, festival leader of Amun, and overseer of bulls of
Amun.
931
The latter title, like overseer of ships, also appears on his funerary cones.
932

Worth mentioning in relation to Suemniuts position as an overseer of ships is a
Ramesside document in which a stablemaster of the Residence (i.e. palace) appears to

928
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
929
Schulman, MRTO, pp.51-3, p.86 table 4.
930
Located at the west end of PM(3), upper register, Urk. IV, 1452.6: imy-r aHa[w] nswt Hry iHw nb tAwy
%w-m-niwt mAa-Xrw.
931
He is mentioned in Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.489. Eichler lists seven individuals
who are overseer of ships of Amun, but only one other who was an overseer of ships of his majesty.
The latter is Eichler no.543 and also comes from a funerary cone.
932
His title of overseer of ships is Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.143. The cone on which he is called
overseer of cattle was found in the tomb.
212
be connected to the loading of ships with taxes from the south.
933
Whether or not
Suemniuts titles bore a similar relationship to each other is uncertain, but the prospect is
an interesting one. Perhaps then Suemniuts position as a stable-master served in part as
the segway between his military and court positions.
When exactly Suemniuts final promotion to royal butler occurred is unclear, but
it was certainly before the time his tomb was decorated, and thus should have happened
in the last decade of Thutmosis IIIs reign or the early years of Amenhotep II. This
suggests that Suemniut was rewarded by one of the kings for his military service by being
given a position in the palace that would probably have engendered close contact with the
king, and may have been rather influential within the court. The exact role of the royal
butler in the mid-18
th
Dynasty is not completely understood.
934
Although in the Middle
Kingdom the royal butler was primarily connected with the kitchen of the private
household, during the New Kingdom he entered into the palace sphere. The royal butler
during the Hatshepsut Thutmosis III co-regency was a man named Djhuty, owner of
TT110, who was in charge of both the provisioning of the palace and preparing for
festivals.
935
The duties of the butler during the Thutmosis III Amenhotep II period are
less clear, but appear to be changing to a combination of civil and military or foreign-
related responsibilities.
936
By the Ramesside Period it appears that there were gradations
within the position of royal butler, the lowest being one who still was primarily
concerned with food provisions while the upper ranks held legal, administrative and

933
Papyrus Turin A; cf. Schulman, MRTO, ref.140, p.110.
934
For general discussions see Helck, Verwaltung, pp.269-76; Schmitz, Ld VI, cols.771-2; Gardiner, AEO
I; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
935
Both the depictions and inscriptions in TT110 attest to these duties; cf. Davies, in: Studies Griffith, pp.
279-290.
936
Bryan, In: Thutmose III, forthcoming; Schmitz, Ld VI, cols.771-2. Unfortunately little is known about
the functional role of several Thutmosis III royal butlers, for example Neferperet (TT143), Monutiywy
(TT172), Qenamun (statue).
213
sometimes judicial duties, and were sometimes sent as envoys for the king on diplomatic
missions abroad.
937

For Suemniut, it would appear that his function as a royal butler was still
primarily concerned with the provisioning of the palace, despite his previous experience
abroad. Unlike in the royal butler Montuiywys tomb (TT172), two walls in the front
room of Suemniuts tomb have depictions that are clearly related to his position as a royal
butler. This was Suemniuts highest post, and thus the one that was a central feature of
his tomb decoration. At the east end of the north wall Suemniut stands watching over
several registers of which only the uppermost remain. These depict men climbing ladders
and stacking what appears to be loaves of bread. The accompanying inscription describes
the scene as supervising the pure vittels (abw)
938
and the receptacle (bAH)
939
for the
drinks for the (royal) residence which is done for the palace, provided with every good
thing to delight the lord of the two lands and to make happy the good god.
940
In the
upper register at the east end of the south wall Suemniut is seated viewing the beautiful
things of the kings house, (namely) beer and milk which are being prepared for Amun-
Re on behalf of the king.
941
The play on words here is excellent, beer and milk (Dsrw
wAst) being the same phonetically as the western desert (i.e., the West Bank of Thebes),
where the tomb is located and where Amun-Re would be receiving such offerings. In the
adjacent registers are men carrying loaves of different types of bread, jars and jugs, and a
scene of brewing beer. Below this Suemniut stands overseeing three registers of the

937
Schulman, JARCE 13, pp.117-30; Schulman, CdE 61, 187-202; Schmitz, Ld VI, cols.771-2.
938
WB I: 175, 15.
939
WB I: 422, 6, as a container and measure for baked goods.
940
PM(6), Urk. IV, 1449.5-8: mAA abw bAH n pA swr n Xnw irw Hr pr-aA anx wDA snb apr m Xt nbt nfrt r swDAy
Hr n nb tAwy.
941
PM(2), I-V; Urk. IV, 1449.14: mAA bw nfr nw pr-nswt Dsrw wAst. The inscription that accompanies the
adjacent registers indicates that the recipient of the items is Amun-Re.
214
production and presentation of every good and pure thing for pleasing the heart and
sending the vegetables which are made for the palace.
942
Thus we see Suemniut
intimately involved with the health of the king and provisioning of the palace, as well as
providing for festivals on the kings behalf.
Suemniuts responsibilities as a royal butler were clearly those of a trusted
official. It seems likely that this level of trust was formed while Suemniut served on the
military campaigns of Thutmosis III. We can say with certainty that Suemniut
participated on the 8
th
campaign, during which Thutmosis III crossed the Euphrates,
because this is the only one for which the gold lion was given as a reward.
943
The king
to whom Suemniut presents New Years gifts in his tomb is probably Amenhotep II,
although the name of the king is not preserved.
944
This would seem to indicate that
Suemniut was promoted not by Thutmosis III, but by Amenhotep II. If this is correct,
then it also suggests that he may have participated in the expeditions that Amenhotep II
lead as co-regent and in his early years as king. It was mentioned above that TT92 is
stylistically quite similar to the tomb of the idnw Mahu, TT85, which is located nearby.
945

In Mahus tomb however, when he gives his autobiography he is depicted standing before
Thutmosis III, despite the fact that his final promotion came from Amenhotep II. This
seems to support the possibility that the depiction of Amenhotep II in Suemniuts tomb is
due to his service under this king, and that Suemniut received his position of royal butler
from Amenhotep II as well.
946


942
PM(2), VI-VIII; Urk. IV, 1450.7-8: mAA x[t nbt nfrt wabt n sHtp-]ib sby smw irw r pr-aA anx wDA snb
943
From the autobiography of Mahu; cf. Breasted, ARE II, pp.232-2; Redford, Wars, pp.167-72.
944
This is on the right rear wall of the front room, at PM(8). The king is depicted standing with Hathor.
945
See note 916.
946
The lack of an autobiographical inscription for Suemniut contributes to the difficulty of ascertaining
what he might have done on the campaigns of Thutmosis III and who promoted him to royal butler.
Undoubtedly we would have much more to say about Suemniuts career were the inscription available.
215
The depiction of a king in Suemniuts tomb shows that he benefited from royal
favor. We can also say that because Suemniut was awarded with the gold fly, this favor is
likely tied to his military service.
947
However, this favored status started as a result of his
fathers connection to the royal family. Without Iamnefers presence in the court
Suemniut would not have received the type of attention that allowed him to participate on
the campaigns as a standard-bearer rather than a soldier. Suemniut would quite likely
have had a much less noticeable career were it not for Iamnefer.
It is worth mentioning that although Suemniuts parents, Iamnefer and Meryt, are
depicted in scenes generally reserved for the tomb owners parents, there are no
inscriptions in the tomb that directly state their filial connection to Suemniut.
948
The
relationship is only stated clearly in one of the Aswan graffiti, a short two column vertical
inscription which, according to Mariette, reads Suemniut, son of the mayor of Neferusy,
overseer of the hem-priests of Thoth lord of Ashmunein, Iamnefer, justified.
949
Was
Suemniut attempting to indicate that he was favored by the king not because of his family
but because of his own performance? Certainly other men who participated in the
campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II and went on to become high officials
appear to have come from rather lower-status backgrounds than Suemniut.
950
Even
Usersatet, who, as I will demonstrate below, came from an elite background, stressed his

947
Gnirs suggests that the presence of officials with titles standard-bearer and chief of stables during
the early to mid-18
th
Dynasty in upper level state and palace postions reflects a system of meritocracy
within the military organization; cf. Gnirs, Militr, pp.20-21 with notes 159-163. While this may be the
case for some officials, it is not for Suemniut.
948
Suemniut did not record his lineage in any of his texts on the tomb walls or the ceiling, and the kinship
terms it.f(his father), and sA.f (his son) are not used in the offering scenes.
949
Urk. IV, 1452.20; de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 103.46 (Mariette 46): %w-m-niwt sA n HAty-a n
Nfrwsy imy-r hmw-nTr n +Hwty nb Hmnw IAm-nfr mAa-xrw
950
E.g., Amenemheb-Mahu, Dedy, Minmose and Iamunedjeh, though the latter two were not military
officials.
216
personal relationship to the king.
951
For Suemniut, portraying himself as an official who
was rewarded and favored by the king for his military service may have thus been more
important than demonstrating a familial connection to the court.

Usersatet, viceroy of Kush
(A man of elite origins)

One of the most famous officials of the time period being examined is the viceroy
of Kush Usersatet. Generally viewed as one of Amenhotep IIs closest officials, his
subsequent fall from grace has long puzzled scholars.
952
He has also been held up as an
example par excellence of Amenhotep IIs childhood friends whose relationships were
strengthened by warfare.
953
A thorough review of Usersatets monuments follows so that
these assumptions can be reevaluated.
A great deal of discussion and debate has occurred over who the viceroys of Kush
were in the 18
th
Dynasty, beginning with the early studies of Reisner and Gauthier in the
1920s,
954
who each presented the data (as it was then known) on the viceroys and their
assistants during the whole of the New Kingdom. Their work was much enhanced by the
detailed studies of Labib Habachi from the late fifties into the early seventies,
955
and by
Dewachters work in the late seventies and early eighties.
956
More recently, the issue of
the 18
th
Dynasty viceroys has been revisited in a series of articles in the journal Gttinger

951
This is the next official to be discussed.
952
Cf. Der Manuelian, Amenohpis II, p.158.
953
Cf. Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.269f.
954
Reisner, JEA 6, pp. 28-55. Gauthier, RT 39, pp. 179-238.
955
Habachis articles, which were published in several volumes of the journal Kush, have since been
collected in a volume entitled Sixteen Studies on Lower ubia.
956
Dewachters work revolves around not only the viceroys but also the title sA nswt kings son in
general; cf. RdE 2, pp. 66-73; RdE 32, pp. 69-73; RdE 35, pp. 195-199; Archeologia 72, pp. 54-58. See also
the work of Schmitz on the title kings son, Schmitz, Knigssohn.
217
Miszellungen.
957
While this is not the place for an extensive discourse on the subject, two
items should be made clear. The first is that until the reign of Thutmosis IV, the viceroys
of Kush were identified by the combination sA nswt imy-r xAswt rsyt kings son and
overseer of the southern foreign lands.
958
This does not in any way denote that any of
these men were actually members of the royal family.
959
The second point is that the gap
between the last concrete date for the viceroy Nehi in year 25 of Thutmosis III and the
first solid date for Usersatet in year 23 of Amenhotep II leaves a rather large span time
into which Nehis career must be extended, another (unknown) vizier must have taken
over, or Usersatets career must be pushed back to fill. We will come back to this issue
below.
Usersatets history comes to us from his shrine at Qasr Ibrim (no.4),
960
stelae from
Wadi Halfa,
961
Amara-West
962
and two from Semna,
963
eight graffiti in the area of
Aswan,
964
a statuette from Thebes,
965
and statues from Deir el-Medina,
966
Sai,
967
and

957
El-Sabbahy, GM 129, pp. 99-102; Pamminger, GM 131, pp. 97-100; Dziobek, GM 132, pp. 29-32. See
also the most recent succinct discussion by Bryan, In: Thutmose III, forthcoming, and the literature cited
therein.
958
Reisner, JEA 6 p.78; Habachi, JARCE 13, pp.113-6 = Sixteen Studies Ch.VI, pp.111-9; Mller,
Verwaltung, p.177; Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.250-1. Beginning in Thutmosis IVs reign they are called
kings son of Kush sA nswt n KS
959
Reisner, JEA 6, pp. 28-55. Gauthier, RT 39, pp. 179-238.
960
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75, pls.23-35; Urk. IV, 1345-6 and 1490
961
BM 623; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7
962
Fairman, JEA 25, pl.xvi 1, Urk. IV, 1484-6. Now in the Louvre, E.17341. There are also four fragments
of a stele in the Aswan Museum, originally from Gebel Tingar, that may belong to Usersatet; cf.
Dewachter, Archaeologia 72, p.56 (6) and the references cited there.
963
Dunham and Jannssen, Second Cataract Forts I, 1960, p.17, pl.82 and pp.43-4, pl.39c; BMFA 25.632
and 25.633. For 25.632 see Helck, JES 14, Urk. IV, 1343-4, der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.157-8,
fig.37.
964
The recent (unpublished) work of Gasse and Rondot has confirmed De Morgan, Monuments et
Inscriptions, nos. 86.28, 91.106, 92.112 and Ras Sehel p.75; added De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions,
nos. 91.89 (right text) and 100.207; questions the attribution of 91.103; reads the name of Paheqaemsasen
for 92.116; and equated De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 91.100 with 90.90. I would like to thank
them both for sharing their work with me, and especially thank Annie Gasse for meeting with me and going
over their documentation while I was in Paris. Sehel = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 86.28,
91.100, 91.103, 91.106, 92.112, 92.116; Gebel Tingar = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 128.5; Ras
Sehel/Shamra = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p. 75; Habachi, Kush 5, nos.4-11.
218
Uronarti.
968
In addition, four of the graffiti give us the names of Usersatets assistants
969

while a statue of Usersatet that is carved at the rear of Shrine 11 at Gebel es-Silsilah
seems to provide further information about his family.
970
A tomb has not been
discovered, although locations in Qurnet Murai at Thebes and Qubbet el-Hawa in Aswan
have been suggested as possibilities.
971
Almost half of these monuments bear cartouches
that date them to Amenhotep II: the Amara-West and Semna stelae, Qasr Ibrim shrine,
and statues from Deir el-Medineh and Uronarti. This fact, combined with the new
information suggesting that there was an unknown viceroy between Nehi and Usersatet,
seems to indicate that Usersatet was made viceroy by Amenhotep II, though he may well
have begun his early career during the co-regency between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep
II, or perhaps during the sole reign of Thutmosis III.
Helck reconstructed a career path for Usersatet based on his Semna stele (MFA
25.632) that most scholars seem to have accepted (Fig.22, p.488).
972
On the stele is
transcribed a letter that Amenhotep II sent to Usersatet in year 23 on the anniversary of

965
Chassinat, BIFAO 10, p.161
966
The lower part of a seated statue found in front of the temple at Deir el-Medina; Maystre, Melanges
Maspero II, pp. 657-63, Urk. IV, 1487-9.
967
Vercoutter, Kush 4, p.72 no.10; Arkell, JEA 36, 1950, p.34. Now in the Khartoum Museum, cf.
Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.56 (11).
968
Khartoum 32; cf. Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.38, fig.18, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72,
pp.54-8.
969
Sehel = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, pp.91.106, 92.112, 100.207 and Gebel Tingar = De
Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.128.5
970
Shrine no.11 of Seninefer; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-4.
971
Located at Qurnet Murai are the tombs of Nehi, Huy and Merimose; cf. Maystre, Mlanges Maspero II,
p.663; Helck, JES 14, p.30-1; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, Ch.IX, p.160. Habachi also suggested Qubbet el-
Hawra; cf. Habachi, Kush 5, p.22
972
Helck, JES 14, pp.30-1. Despite DeWachters reevaluation of Nehis year 52 date, der Manuelian
follows Helck; cf. Amenophis II, pp.154-5. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.186, n.54 does suggest that Usersatet
may have been older than Amenhotep II and begun his career under Thutmosis III, although her reasoning
is based on the assumption that Usersatet was the father of the owner of Shrine 11 at Silsilah and the
incorrect statement that there are cartouches of Amenhotep II on the exterior of the shrine. Bryan does not
deal with Usersatet, but since she accepts Nehi in years 23-5, presumably would reevaluate Usersatet as
well; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
219
his accession to the throne.
973
The text of the letter and the colloquial language employed
indicate that a close relationship existed between the king and his viceroy. According to
Helck, after growing up in the court of Thutmosis III as a Xrd n kAp, Usersatet began his
career as a royal herald (wHm nswt) and in this capacity participated and plundered on
Amenhotep IIs Syrian campaign in year three, and perhaps in years 7 and 9.
974
Helck
does not deal specifically with Usersatets title of chariot-warrior (snny) and its
placement in this sequence, other than to use it as proof that Usersatet was not a viceroy
until the reign of Amenhotep II.
975
However, in his discussion of the texts translation,
Helck seems to imply that he views the term snny as a clarification of, or in connection
with, Usersatets honorific brave one (qny).
976
Following his role on these campaigns
Usersatet is taken out of the military and placed as an overseer of the house (steward) of
Meidum,
977
presumably some type of royal residence.
978
He appears to stay in this
position until his final promotion to viceroy.
Two points are important with regard to the interpretation of the Semna stele and
its meaning for Usersatets career. First is our understanding of the title snny and its
placement within the overall military organization, as well as the burgeoning chariotry.
Schulmans work on the military clearly shows that the title snny in fact indicated an
actual position, perhaps a rather prestigious one as chariots and horses were still

973
Translations of the text can be found in Helck, JES 14, p.25; Helck, bersetzung zu den Heften 17-22,
p.50; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.157-8; Leprohon, CAA Boston 3.
974
Usersatet does not bear the title wHm nswt on this stele, but only on the Amara-West stele. He is called a
Xrd n kAp on the Deir el-Medina statue, Amara-West stele and funerary statuette.
975
Helck, JES 14, p.31.
976
Helck, JES 14, p.26 (k): snj "Wagenkmpfer" ist hier des Anklanges an das vorhergehende knj wegen
benutzt worden.
977
This title, imy-r pr n Mr-tm, appears only on Usersatets Wadi Halfa (BM 623) stele; cf. Edwards,
Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7.
978
As der Manuelain notes it would have been small in comparison to the one at Perunefer; cf. der
Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.154-5.
220
relatively new to the ancient Egyptians. However Schulman nonetheless places the
chariotry as a sub-division of the army, without a clear organization of its own.
Chevereau appears to agree with Schulman, classifying snny as parallel to the term for
army soldier, waw.
979
Contra this, Gnirs sees an organized chariotry already in the first
half of the 18
th
Dynasty, even if it is was to some degree still considered part of the
overall army or military organizational structure.
980
Although she does not discuss the
title snny, she bases this on iconographical sources, references to tA nt-Htri (chariotry) and
titles such as chief of stables (Hry-iHw) and overseer of horses (imy-r ssmwt). Given the
importance of the use of horses and the personnel that went with them following the wars
with the Hyksos, it seems that Gnirs interpretation is the more likely. In addition, the
emphasis that Amenhotep II placed on horses and his mastery of them suggests that at
least by his reign,
981
and probably his fathers, the chariotry may have gained in both
importance and status, making a snny somewhat higher than a mere wow.
The second point concerns the phraseology of this section of the inscription. In
line 5 of the Semna stele, the text reads a brave one who plunders/captures upon all
foreign lands, a chariot-warrior who fights for his Majesty Amenhotep, who-rules-in-
Heliopolis.
982
Der Manuelian discusses the Semna stele in reference to the Thutmosis

979
Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire, p.189-90. However, he also views it as having been
added as an honorific title to the ranks of some officials. Which officials Chevereau means is unclear since
he has a rather limited list of men, only 5, with the title snny.
980
Gnirs, Militr, pp.19-21.
981
Amenhotep IIs connection to horses, horsemanship, and presumably the chariotry is well demonstrated
in the Great Sphinx stele. He calls himself one who knew horses (line 12, Urk. IV, 1279.13), and lines
19-26 (Urk. IV, 1281.8-1283.4) tell of how Thutmosis III placed his son in charge of the stables and
training of the horses. See der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.181-8, 196-200 for a translation, discussion and
relavent literature.
982
//// [q]ny kfaw Hr xAswt nbt snny Sfaw n Hm.f. kfaw Urk. IV, 1343.15-1344.1. The phrase kfaw qny, which
is similar to that seen here, is also used twice in the tomb of Amenemheb-Mahus, cf. Urk. IV, 898.17 and
with a variation at 899.11, Faulkner, Concise Dictionary p.285, WB V, 121.7. For Sfo WB IV, 460.1 lists
only the combination make war (?) and plunder in all foreign lands Sfa kfaw Hr xAst nbt. It appears thats
the use of Sfaw here is in parallel to that of kfaw.
221
III-Amenhotep II co-regency
983
and Amenhotep IIs campaign to Takhsy in year 3.
984

Based on der Manuelians work, it is clear that this first campaign of Amenhotep II in
fact took place during the co-regency, though Thutmosis III likely died before it was
concluded.
985
Perhaps then the use of the simpler Hm.f his majesty in reference to
Amenhotep II signifies that indeed he was co-regent at the time of the campaign that is
being remembered in this letter. In this scenario, Usersatets bravery, skill as a chariot-
warrior and abilities as a fighter would have been especially important to Amenhotep II,
and something that would have caused the king to remember Usersatets performance in
a letter written some twenty years later. It also seems to imply that Usersatet might have
been slightly older than Amenhotep II, rather than his exact contemporary. Supporting
this theory is the fact that Usersatet does not bear any epithets such chief of the
followers of his majesty
986
commonly found among officials who were contemporaries
of their king. Nor does Usersatet make reference to Amenhotep II as a youth, as is the
case for men who were significantly older than the king, but well-known by him when he
was a prince.
987
Schulman does not deal with the title royal herald, but given that being a
herald imparted to its holder a great deal of authority
988
it seems likely that Usersatet was
a chariot-soldier prior to becoming a royal herald.
How exactly Usersatet moved from a charioteer to a royal herald is unclear.
Usersatet may not have been old enough to have participated in the last battles of

983
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.21 no.5, 32-4.
984
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.54.
985
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19-34.
986
Hry Smsw n Hm.f - Paser in TT367, Iamu in TT85 of his father Amenemheb-Mahu who was tpy n iryw.f
first among his followers.
987
I.e. in the inscriptions of Mahu (TT85).
988
As seen elsewhere with Intef, Iamunedjeh, and Sennefri; cf. Pardey, Essays Lipinska, pp.377-97.
222
Thutmosis III,
989
but he probably would have had early interactions with the crown-
prince and co-regent due to the latters involvement with the chariotry and horses
mentioned above. Although the royal herald has traditionally been viewed as tied or
connected to the military in some way, as we have seen with Iamunedjeh and Sennefri,
this is not necessarily the case. For Userhat, there seems to be no clear method by which
he would have transitioned from chariot-warrior to royal herald, except royal favor.
990

Usersatet bears the title royal herald on only one of his known monuments, the stele from
Amara-West (Louvre, E.17341), on which he is also called a Xrd n kAp.
991
The lunette of
the stele depicts Amenhotep II, identified by cartouche, offering before Khnum and the
goddesses of Elephatine, Satis and Anoukis. Within the expected Htp-di-nsw offering
formula Usersatet requests a long lifetime as one praised of the king, a mouth for
speech, ears for hearing.
992
These phrases seem to speak directly to the content in the
remainder of the text. As a royal herald Iamunedjeh (TT84) was mostly concerned with
building and renewing monuments (he was also an overseer of works), and presenting
tribute and tribute-bearers before the king.
993
Sennefri on the other hand was involved
with gold from the eastern desert and was likely sent to Lebanon to obtain cedar trees in
his capacity as royal herald.
994
In the case of Usersatet we seem to have evidence for both
areas of authority. In the Amara-West inscription Usersatet is first called the favorite of

989
Assuming Usersatet was in his mid- to late-twenties in the year 3 campaign, his birth would have been
somewhere in the third decade of Thutmosis IIIs reign. He likely would not have become a chariot-warrior
until between the ages of 16 and 20, yrs. 46-50. This makes Usersatet too young for the campaigns led by
Thutmosis III in Syria-Palestine, which lasted until about year 42, though perhaps somewhat later in Nubia.
However, it would fit well with a co-regency campaign c. year 51; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.241ff.
990
That Usersatet was clearly favored by the king is demonstrated by the fact that three of his monuments
contain representations of the king: the Amara-West and Semna stelae and the Qasr Ibrim shrine. See
below for a discussion of the shrine.
991
Fairman, JEA 25, pl.xvi 1, Urk. IV, 1484-6
992
Urk. IV, 1485.6-7, lines 1-2 of the stele.
993
See the discussion in Chapter 3.
994
See the discussion in Chapter 3.
223
the king in southern foreign lands in embellishing/restoring his monuments of eternity (m
smnx mnw.f n nHH), kings son and overseer of southern foreign countries.
995
While not
conclusive on its own, the remainder of the text elaborates: (I) erected many monuments
for (my) lord, this good god (I) undertook journeys (Tsi nmtt) under the command of
the king. He placed me before his courtiers, he made me great more than the great ones of
the palace, he caused that my stride is broad (i.e. have influence), the royal herald, who
his lord loves, kings son, Xrd n kAp.
996
It would appear that activities described are
exactly those that a royal herald could have carried out.
Usersatets Xrd n kAp appellation may have been granted later in life. I suggest this
despite the fact that there is evidence Usersatet came from a family who would have had
court connections, resulting in Usersatets perhaps being brought up in the court (see
below). Nonetheless, it seems that he, like others of this time period, received this
honorific title as a symbol of his status and personal (here as opposed to familial) tie to
the king. Earlier in the Amara-West text, Usersatet asks for a good burial after old
age.
997
This indicates that the stele may have been made towards the end of his career at
a time when a burial would have been of concern to this prestigious official. The only
other monuments on which Xrd n kAp appears are Usersatets funerary statuette and Deir
el-Medina seated statue.
998
On the statuette the title appears twice, both times in the final
position. In the offering formula that appears on the right side of the Deir el-Medina
statue Xrd n kAp appears at the beginning of a list of epithets that all stress Usersatets

995
Urk. IV, 1485.10-11, lines 1-4 of the stele.
996
Urk. IV, 1485.13, 1485.17-1486.2, lines 4, 6-7.
997
Urk. IV, 1485.8.
998
For the funerary statuette, see Chassinat, BIFAO 10, p.161. For the Deir el-Medina statue, see Maystre,
Mlanges Maspero II, pp.657-63, Urk. IV, 1487-9.
224
connection to the king and the court.
999
Three separate texts appear on the back of the
statue, one of which includes the name of Amenhotep II in a place usually reserved for
the name of a deity. The text reads revered before the king Aakheperrure, life
eternally, kings son, Usersatet, justified. The fact that the inscriptions on both of these
monuments are directed towards Usersatets funerary cult suggests that Usersatet
perceived his connection to the king to be second only to his highest title of viceroy in
terms of importance for how he was perceived in death. It also supports the theory that
the honorific was a later addition to Usersatets repertoire, augmenting his functional
titles of royal herald and overseer of the house of Meidum.
Usersatets movement into the position of overseer of the house/steward of
Meidum is probably connected at least in part to his position as royal herald. In the latter
post Usersatet carried the authority to speak on behalf of the king in foreign lands.
Assuming he performed his tasks as well as he claims, it is not unthinkable that he would
have been brought further into the royal sphere and placed in charge of a palace, albeit a
small one. Two of Usersatets monuments carry this title, his stele from Wadi Halfa and
statue from Uronarti, neither of which, interestingly, are anywhere near Meidum.
1000
In
the lunette of the Wadi Halfa stele, the kings son overseer of the southern lands
Usersatet offers to Thoth, who is designated as the lord of Nubia (TA-sty). The five-row
inscription in the bottom half of the stele informs us that the stele is dedicated to
Usersatet as one great of the tribute (inw) of Nubia, who fills the treasury (pr-HD) with
fine gold (Damw), who enters bearing riches to the place where the king is steward

999
Urk. IV, 1488.1-6. For example, one beside the good god (Xry-tp n nTr nfr), a variation on the title
chamberlain of the king (Xry-tp n nsw)
1000
BM 623; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7. Khartoum 32; cf. Van Siclen,
Chapel of Sesostris III, p.38, fig.18, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, pp.54-8.
225
(imy-r pr) of Meidum (Mr-tm), kings son, overseer of the southern foreign
countries.
1001
Although the tribute and gold of Nubia is what Usersatet is collecting, the
place to which it goes is the treasury and where the king is. As a steward of Meidum,
Usersatet was presumably in charge of a royal palace of some type, much in the way that
Qenamun was for the much larger palace at Perunefer, Amenhotep IIs garden estate.
However, the inscription in the stele seems to imply that his duties as steward involved
the treasury and presentation of tribute to the king. Perhaps then the Meidum
establishment also had some role in this.
The Uronarti statue depicts Usersatet in a supplicant position, kneeling with his
hands on his legs, and with the cartouches of Amenhotep II on his right pectoral and
shoulder.
1002
On the front is an offering formula in which Usersatet is simply called
kings son. The inscription on the back pillar occupies three columns, the last two of
which are damaged. Unfortunately only a tantalizing fragment remains of the
autobiographical portion of the text: (I) arrived at/reached (spr.n(.i)) the southern
foreign land the steward of Meidum (Mryw-(t)m), kings son, overseer of [southern]
foreign lands.
1003
Nevertheless, the text seems to support Helcks theory that Usersatet
was steward in Meidum prior to being brought south to be made viceroy.
Three of the five graffiti found in the area of Aswan that depict Usersatet contain
basic offering formula for Khnum and Anuket.
1004
One of these is especially interesting
because it is the only graffito in which Usersatet may be called kings brave one (qny

1001
Urk. IV, 1486.17-1487.2
1002
Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, fig.18; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.54-5, 58.
1003
Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55, 58
1004
In Gebel Tingar (De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.128.5) Usersatet gives praises to Khnum,
while in Sehel (De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, nos. 91.89 and 90.89 [right side]) the praises are
for Anuket. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.90.90 (old 91.100) contains a Htp-di nsw in which
Anuket is named.
226
nsw).
1005
However, a graffito that Usersatet had carved at Ras Sehel records some of his
activities in the area, presumably after he was made viceroy of Nubia (Fig.23, p.479).
1006

The lengthy six-column inscription begins with praises given by the kings son and
overseer of southern foreign lands Usersatet to Amun and Re-Horakhty on the occasion
of his visit to Sehel for the festival of Anuket. Following this, Usersatet says: He makes
accordingly five lakes/canals/basins/ramps (?) (S)
1007
with cooked (i.e. fired) works (m kAt
snwx) in order to build in //// that which was done anew.
1008
No other record of this
activity exists for Usersatet, but it is clear that part of his duties as viceroy involved
maintaining the area of Aswan.
Usersatets main responsibilities as viceroy of Nubia are perhaps best exemplified
by the walls of his shrine at Qasr Ibrim, shrine no.4.
1009
The exterior lintel of Usersatets
shrine bears only the cartouches of Amenhotep II, indicating that it was built during this
kings reign.
1010
On the jambs Usersatet is called leader, brave one of the king, kings
son and kings son, overseer of southern foreign countries.
1011
The interior of the
shrine is damaged, but what remains provides a great deal of information about
Usersatets career. While on the north wall Amenhotep II, accompanied by Horus,

1005
De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions 90.90 (old 91.100), corrected by Gasse and Rondot (pers.
comm.). In Habachi, Kush 5, fig.4, insc.7, the inscription is essentially correct, but the depiction is wrong.
1006
This is on p.75 of De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions; Habachi, Kush 5, fig.5, insc.10. Gasse and
Rondot have numbered it 231a.
1007
The translation of this term is unclear. Usually S refers to a lake, garden, or perhaps canal (substituting
for the more common mr), and basin is also known. Gasse and Rondot have suggested ramps (rampes /
marches), but without any evidence for this usage elsewhere.
1008
The translation is based on the transcription made by Gasse and Rondot, thus it differs slightly from
that done by Habachi, Kush 5, p.20-21.
1009
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75, pls.23-35; Urk. IV, 1345-6 and 1490.
1010
Amenhotep II also appears in the inside of the doorway (north side of the west wall), being offered to
by a goddess, Caminos, Ibrim, pp.61-2, pl.26.
1011
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-60, pl.24; Urk. IV, 1490.8-9. The titles HAwty qny n nswt sA nsw appear on the
right jamb, and those of sA nswt imy-r xAswt rsyt on the left. The text as given in Urk. IV, 1490.9 (B) is
incorrect.
227
presents offerings to several southern deities,
1012
on the opposite (south) wall Usersatet
stands before the enthroned king and the goddess Satis while three registers of men
leading the tribute of Kush follow him.
1013
In the upper register, a lengthy inscription
accompanies this scene that is an extraordinary text telling of the tribute brought from the
southern foreign countries following an expedition into Nubia.
1014
The tribute is
apparently greater than that of the lowlands (tAw), utilizing more than 2500 men to carry
items such as gold, ivory, ebony and live panthers.
1015
It is concluded in the second
register with a badly damaged address to Amenhotep II by Usersatet, whose figure is
lost.
1016
The rear (east) wall of the shrine contains a niche in which three statues are
placed that, based on comparisons with the other shrines, probably represent Horus,
Amenhotep II and Satis.
1017

The multiple representations of Amenhotep II in the Qasr Ibrim shrine are not
unusual. Shrine 1 belonging to Nehi, the viceroy under Thutmosis III, bears almost
exactly the same layout and decorative scheme.
1018
The unfinished shrine 3, dated to the
Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency, also has the kings names and figures executed on
the exterior lintel and east wall respectively.
1019
However, on the north half of the west
wall of Usersatets shrine, Amenhotep II is again depicted, receiving all life, stability

1012
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.62-5, pl.27
1013
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.65-71, pl.28 with details on plates 29-32. The scene actually begins on the south
half of the west wall, where there are three registers of men leading various animals; cf. Caminos, Ibrim,
p.62, pl.26.
1014
According to der Manuelian (Amenohpis II, pp.92-4), this scene demonstrates that Amenhotep II did
indeed undertake a campaign into Nubia, as opposed to merely receiving tribute based on his fathers
campaigns.
1015
Caminos, Ibrim, p.67, pl.28, 32; Urk. IV, 1345-6.
1016
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.67-71, pls.31-2.
1017
Caminos, Ibrim, p.71, pl.33. All three figures wear the white crown of Upper Egypt, though the left
(northern) figure also wears the nemes headdress. This is exactly the arrangement seen in the shrine of
Thutmosis IIIs viceroy Nehi, where the statues are identified as Horus, Thutmosis III, and Satis; cf.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.42-3, pl.11.
1018
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.35-43, pls.6-11.
1019
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.50-8, pls. 17-22.
228
dominion from Satis.
1020
This is not the case in Nehis shrine, where both sides of the
west wall depict Nehi with inscriptions above him that indicate he is making offerings to
the gods.
1021
In addition, to either side of Usersatets niche Amenhotep II is depicted
presenting offerings to the statues,
1022
as opposed to simply inscriptions as in the shrine
of Nehi.
1023
It would appear that part of Usersatets personlia,
1024
was a relationship to
Amenhotep II that allowed for additional representations of the king. Caminos views
each monument as a crown undertaking meant to be finished so as to meet the personal
wants of some meritorious high Nubian official.
1025
If this scenario is correct, then it
provides further evidence for Usersatets privileged position and status within the court of
Amenhotep II, and demonstrates that Amenhotep II thought highly enough of Usersatet
to grant him a shrine amongst his predecessors at Qasr Ibrim.
1026

As viceroy Usersatet had at least four men at his immediate disposal. Three of
these have for sometime been known from Usersatets graffiti around Aswan, and from
the recent work of Annie Gasse and Pierre Rondot a fourth can now be added.
1027

Usersatet is depicted with his idnw Meh in a graffito at Sehel. Usersatet is giving praises
to Khnum as the kings son and overseer of southern foreign lands, while behind him

1020
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.61-2, pl.26.
1021
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.26-7, pl.8.
1022
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.71-3, pl.33.
1023
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.42-3, pl.11.
1024
This is the term used by Caminos to describe those areas of the shrine whose representations revolved
around the shrines owner, depicting their names, titles, and episodes incident to their careers; cf.
Caminos, Ibrim, p.29.
1025
Caminos, Ibrim, p.29. This is based on the nearly identical representations found on the entrance lintel
and rear wall of the shrines, all of which contain religious or royal elements, leaving the remainder for the
personal elements of each official. The fact that Shrine 3 has these elements and the walls are prepared
for decoration, but is otherwise unfinished led them to this conclusion.
1026
It may also indicate that indeed Nehi served beyond year 25 of Thutmosis III, since he too was given a
shrine here.
1027
I am indebted to Ms. Gasse and Mr. Rondot for sharing their work with me.
229
stands the idnw of the kings son Usersatet, Meh.
1028
In another graffito it appears that
two assistants of Usersatet stand facing each other. One is the idnw of the kings son,
overseer of foreign southern countries Sennefer. The man Sennefer faces is probably also
an assistant because he is drawn at the same scale and the title (kings) son overseer of
[southern] foreign countries can be read in the badly damaged inscription.
1029
Due to
Gasse and Rondots epigraphic work in the region, a graffito that De Morgan erroneously
recorded was fixed and the scribe Nehesy can now be added to the list of Usersatets
subordinates.
1030
The final man known to have served under Usersatet is a charioteer
(kDnw) whose name was hammered out, much as Usersatets was in all of his graffiti.
1031

Information about Usersatets family comes from two of his monuments.
Usersatet records his lineage on either side of the front of his granite seated statue from
Deir el-Medineh.
1032
His parents were the sAb Saamun and his mother the Xkrt nswt
Nenhermentes. However, the most interesting information with regard to Usersatets
possible relatives comes from shrine 11 at Gebel es-Silsilah.
1033
The shrine suffered the
loss of the entire top half of its walls due to ancient quarrying in the cliff above.
1034
As a
result, the entrance lintel and jambs are no longer extant, leaving the question open as to

1028
idnw n sA nsw Wsr-stt MaH. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p. 128.5 (Gebel Tingar); Habachi,
Kush 5, fig.6, insc.11; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.113 III.8. The inscription was not checked by Gasse
and Rondot.
1029
idnw n sA nsw imy-r xAswt rsyt Wsr-stt %n-nfr facing //// sA [nsw] imy-r xAst ////. De Morgan, Monuments
et Inscriptions, p.91.106; Habachi, Kush 5, fig.2, insc.5; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.113 III.10. This
was viewed and the inscription confirmed by Gasse and Rondot.
1030
sS sA nsw Wsr-stt NHsy. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p. 100.207. This was viewed and the
inscription confirmed by Gasse and Rondot.
1031
kDnw n sA nsw Wsr-stt ////. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.92.112; Habachi, Kush 5, fig.3,
insc.6; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.116 III.12. This was viewed and the inscription confirmed by
Gasse and Rondot. The orthography of the title is rather unusual, previously being known only after the
Amarna period; cf. WB V,148, 12-17.
1032
Maystre, Mlanges Maspero II, pp.657-8; Urk. IV, 1487.6-11. The inscription of Usersatets father is
on the right side and his mothers on the left side of the legs.
1033
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-4, pls.22-5.
1034
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.
230
its date and ownership.
1035
However, Caminos and James stated the shrine was
principally hewn for a certain Senynfe and his wife Hatshepsut (a) clue for the
purposes of dating being the sculptured figure of Usersatet, a well-attested viceroy of
Nubia under Amenhotep II, at the rear wall of the shrine.
1036
This is the date and
attribution that has since been accepted by scholars. However, a careful re-examination of
the shrine as it is published, combined with the evidence of Usersatet presented above
leads to an entirely different conclusion. There are four issues to be dealt with: the
shrines architectural plan, the type and style of the shrines decoration, the people
represented in the shrine and their relationship(s) to each other, and lastly the probable
function of the monument.
The plan of shrine 11 is extremely unusual when compared to the others at Gebel
es-Silsilah.
1037
As Caminos and James note, all of the shrines have essentially the same
layout: a single room with statues carved out of a niche at the rear of the monument.
1038

However, shrine 11 has two rooms. The first room (A) is rectangular in shape and this is
followed by a square room (B) with five statues carved at the rear.
1039
In addition, it is the
only shrine that has five statues, the rest have at most four, and most often only one.
1040

The depictions on the walls of the shrine also contain scenes that appear to go beyond the
usual funerary banquets and related scenes that are seen in the rest of the shrines. On the
south wall of room A, Senynefer is shown with fat rolls and is seated with Hatshepsut (?)

1035
Roehrigs claim (Royal urse, p.182) that the shrine is securely dated to Amenhotep II by the presence
of his cartouches on the shrine is incorrect.
1036
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.
1037
It is not, perhaps, as unusual as Shrine 4, which has two rooms and three side rooms or niches each with
three statues. The original owner of this shrine was likely the scribe of the treasury Djhutymes, but it is
dated to the end of Dyansty 18. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.3-4, 16-18, pls.10-12.
1038
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.2-4
1039
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.22
1040
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.5-6 list the shrines with statues, or traces of such, seven contain 1
statue, five have 2 and 3 statues, and three have 4 statues.
231
overseeing what is clearly a type of agricultural activity (Fig.24a, p.480).
1041
The larger-
scaled figure that is placed within the scene may be an assistant, or may perhaps even be
another depiction of Senynefer himself. This is certainly outside the scope of what is
normally shown on the walls of the Silsilah shrines, but compares well with tomb
depictions of the mid-18
th
Dynasty.
1042
This is also true of the banquet placed on the
north wall of Room B, where three musicians and clappers entertain Senynefer and
Hatshepsut (Fig.24b, p.480).
1043
Although the presence of two rooms would in theory
allow for more variety in what is placed on the walls, it seems more likely here that the
shrine has multiple functions, one of which required tomb-like scenes.
Another important aspect of the decoration is that the only persons represented are
Senynefer, Hatshepsut and some of his family. Despite the fact that only the bottom of
the walls remain, it seems significant that this should be the case. A consistent feature of
the Silsilah shrines, and of 18
th
Dynasty tombs, is to place family members, offering-
bearers, or subsidiary scenes in the lower registers while the monuments owner appears
in the upper register.
1044
If Senynefer is the owner of this shrine, then it must be that he
also appears in the now destroyed upper registers. This seems highly unlikely since this
type of double representation does not occur in the other shrines, or in the tombs. It is
clear from what remains of the upper registers that additional, and seemingly elaborate,

1041
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-1, pl.23/1. The identification of this as Senynefer is based on the
column of text behind the seated couple in which Seneynefers name is preserved.
1042
This type of scene is common in tombs, see PM I.1 pp.464-5 (7), 466-7 (15) for excellent lists.
Caminos and James also mentioned the unusualness of this scene and its similarity to those found in tombs,
cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4-5, 30-1.
1043
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.31-2, pl.23/2. The similarities with tomb depictions was again
mentioned by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4-5. 31. See also PM I.1 pp.469-70 (24-25) for a list of
tombs with these types of scenes.
1044
E.g., Shrines 6, 15, 17, 23.
232
banqueting scenes were portrayed on both the north and south walls of room B.
1045
On
the upper register of the north wall of room B a man followed by two women and a child
stand before what appears to be a boat or sledge of some type.
1046
The upper register of
room Bs south wall portrays a couple seated with a scribal case under the chair and
offerings stacked behind it while a cat plays with a bone under the offering table.
1047

Although I am unaware of exact parallels for the scene on the north wall,
1048
that on the
south is of a type commonly found in mid-18
th
Dynasty tombs.
1049

Senynefer was a wab-priest of Amun (in the first phyle), chief of the department
(at) of the great house (i.e. pharaoh) in the southern city (i.e. Thebes), and overseer of the
royal apartments (ipt nswt), but beyond these titles and this monument nothing is known
about him.
1050
Thus the dating of shrine 11 has depended largely on the presence of
Usersatet, viceroy under Amenhotep II, among the five statues carved out of a niche in
the rear wall of the shrine (room B).
1051
Disregarding his statue there is plenty of stylistic
evidence that suggests a date late in the reign of Amenhotep II or even early Thutmosis
IV. The elongated shape of the eyes, drooping flowers, elongated fat cones, and sandals
are all typical features seen in tombs of dating to later Amenhotep II.
1052
Likewise the
movements and hairstyles of the female musicians or dancers, and the realistic
depiction of the cat are developments that belong in the latter portion of his reign and into

1045
All traces of the upper portion of room As south wall are lost. Another offering and banquet scene was
depicted on the lower register on the south wall, which continued onto the east wall as well.
1046
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.31, pl.23/2.
1047
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.32, pl.24.
1048
See also Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.31 n.2.
1049
See PM I.1 p.467 (19a).
1050
At the end of the line of text above the scene on the south wall of room B he is called: wob n [Imn] cny-
//// and on his statue at the rear of the shrine: wab [n Imn] Hr sA tpy %ny-nfr ///. In the banquet scene on the
north wall of room B is the final title: //// %ny-(n)fr Hry tA at pr-aA m niwt rsyt imy-r ipt nswt %ny-nfr.
1051
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.33-4, pl.25.
1052
I.e., TT93 of Qenamun, TT56 of Userhat.
233
early Thutmosis IV.
1053
While the costume worn by Senynefer and Hatshepsut is perhaps
earlier in style, this is suggestive of their not being the main owners of this shrine, but
rather older family members depicted in the styles current when they were alive.
1054

Returning now to the niche and the persons represented in statue form, there is on
either side of the niche a column of inscription that is destroyed but for the very bottom:
overseer of the royal apartments Senynefer, justified on the right and Hatshepsut,
justified on the left.
1055
This combined with Hatshepsuts presence in the shrine seems to
indicate that she is indeed Seninefers wife.
1056
Although the entire top of the niche and
statues is damaged, the inscriptions are essentially preserved on all but one of the statues
(Fig.25a, p.481). Moving from right to left, the statues are inscribed for [Hatshepsut],
1057

the wab-priest of [Amun] in the first phyle Senynefer, the Xkrt nswt Nenwenher[men]tes,
kings son and overseer of the southern foreign lands Usersatet, and the [royal] nurse,
who [nurtured] the god, praised of the good god, mistress of the house Henuttawy.
1058

None of the statues bears inscriptional evidence for the relationships among the
people represented. However, Roehrig posits that the directionality of the hieroglyphs can
be used to suggest the remainder of the relationships.
1059
In the case of Nenwenhermentes
and Usersatet, whom we know to be mother and son from Usersatets Deir el-Medina
statue, the inscriptions on each statue face each other. The text on Henuttawys dress

1053
The dancing girls are quite similar to those in TTs 56, 74, 90. The cat brings to mind TT130 of May
(previously dated to Thutmosis III, but certainly Amenhotep II-Thutmosis IV based on stylistic criteria).
1054
This type of antequating is a common feature in tombs.
1055
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25.
1056
The only other remaining inscription for Hatshepsut is on the north wall of room B, where she is called
simply mistress of the house.
1057
The inscription on this statue is lost, but Roehrig convincingly suggests that it belonged to Hatshepsut
whose name appears at the bottom of the text to the left of the five statues, and who is not otherwise
represented by any of the other statues. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.183
1058
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25. Henuttawys inscriptions reads [mn]at wrt Sd[t] nTr [Hs]yt nt
nfr nTr nbt pr Hnwt-tAwy mAat-xrw, but there is should have been room for nswt in front of the mn-sign.
1059
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.184-5.
234
faces Usersatet, leading Roehrig to propose that she was Usersatets wife.
1060
Senynefers
hieroglyphs face the statue surmised to belong to Henuttawy, who was probably his wife.
Parallels to this arrangement can be found in several of the Silsilah shrines, despite the
fact that none of the others have five statues. Three shrines have four statues in the niche,
and in all cases the women are placed on the outside of the male statues, while five
shrines contain two statues.
1061
In the one case in which the inscriptions are legible, the
texts on each pair of couples face each other.
1062
This indicates that the statue to
Senynefers left was indeed his wife. Among the four shrines that contain three statues,
the owner is always in the middle, between his parents in two shrines, and with a woman
placed at either side in two shrines.
1063
In the two shrines in which the owner is clearly
between his parents, the mother is always placed to his left, as in the case of shrine 11.
1064

It seems that in shrine 11 the statues form two discreet, though related, groups. Senynefer
and Henuttawy as one set, and Usersatet seated between his mother and wife as the other.
Roehrig draws the conclusion that Senynefer was the son of Usersatet and Henuttawy,
Henuttawy was a nurse for Amenhotep II, and Usersatet was thus older than this king and
probably served more of his career under Thutmosis III.
1065


1060
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.184. Roehrig also suggests she may have been a sister or aunt who was
included by virtue of her connection to the royal family as a nurse (p.185), but this seems unlikely.
1061
Shrines 17, 22, and 32 each have four statues, while shrines 5, 13, 20, 21 and 29 each have two statues.
See Caminos and James, Silsilah I.
1062
In Shrine 17, which belonged to the vizier under Thutmosis III, User(amun), the statues depict
User(amun), his wife, and his parents. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.62-3, pl.33, 47.
1063
Shrines 12, 23, 27, and 28. In shrines 12 and 23 the owner is placed between his parents. In shrine 28
he is placed between two women, presumably his mother and wife, while in shrine 27 it may be two wives
since a child is carved into the stone on either side of the mans legs. Shrine 24 also has three statues, but
they are too unfinished to be certain of the gender identifications; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I.
1064
In shrine 12, the relationships are based on the wall scenes and the similarities with shrine 23, which
was probably owned by the same man; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I. In Shrine 23 the owner Minnakht
is placed in the middle, with his inscription facing his mothers statue. His mothers text, however, face
outwards, i.e., away from Minnakht, while the directionality of the fathers inscription is unclear. Caminos
and James, Silsilah I, p.76, pl.57 no.4
1065
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.185-6, with note 584.
235
There are several problems with this. The first is that Roehrig placed Henuttawy
as a nurse for Amenhotep II based on the incorrect assumption that his cartouches are on
the faade of shrine 11; they are not. Secondly, as I have suggested above, the decoration
of the shrine suggests that Senynefer was not the main owner, but rather a relative of the
shrines owner. In addition, a stylistic analysis of the shrine leads to a date in the latter
half of Amenhotep IIs reign. All of these items point towards one conclusion: Usersatet
was in fact the owner of Similar shrine 11, which was built at the end of his career, and
he used it commemorate two generations of ancestors. Thus, I would interpret the
relationships indicated by the statues to be Senynefer and his wife Hatshepsut, their
daughter Nenwenhermentes, and her son Usersatet and his wife Henuttawy. This
realignment is still in accord with the directionality of the hieroglyphs, and provides a
better explanation for Nenwenhermentes central position, as now the statues follow a
chronological and genealogical order.
1066
Although the names of Senynefer and
Hatshepsut appear on either side of the niche, this is not conclusive that the shrine was
primarily theirs. The earlier portion of the inscription may have recorded Usersatets
lineage, or he may be honoring them further by placing their names in this prominent
position. I would also point out that the name of Senynefers wife, Hatshepsut, makes it
more likely that she (and by extension Senynefer also) was born prior to year 46 of
Thutmosis IIIs sole reign. It was at this point that he began the program of defacing
Hatshepsuts name from her monuments and those of some of her officials,
1067
and thus
it is unlikely that a child would be named after the queen/king. However, if Senynefer

1066
Roehrig suggested that Nenwenhermentes was placed in the center for reasons of seniority; cf. Royal
urse, p.184-5.
1067
The officials include those who were especially high-placed like the steward Senenmut and royal butler
Djehuty and the activity continued into the early years of Amenhotep II; cf. Dorman, Senenmut and Bryan,
in: Oxford History, pp.243, 248-9.
236
and Hatshepsut are the parents of Nenwenhermentes, then they probably would have
been born during the reign of Thutmosis Is, at a time when the name of Hatshepsut
would have been considered an excellent choice.
1068

One final note about shrine 11 concerns its function.
1069
Along the top of the
statue base there is an inscription that implies the shrine may have been dedicated to all
five of the people depicted in the statues: An offering that the king gives (Htp-di-nsw),
and that Osiris, Geb, Nut, and the gods who are in pure water (give). May you (plural)
give invocation offerings of bread, beer, cattle, fowl, cool water, wine, milk in the course
of every day for the kA of the lords (i.e. owners) of this funerary chapel (Hwt), the noble
ones (Spssyw) who are beloved of the ruler (HqA) (Fig.25b, p.481).
1070
Of special interest
here is the last segment, which implies that the shrine was intended as a monument to be
shared by all five of the individuals represented by the statues. The phrase nbw Hwt tn is
similar to nbw wabwt, owners of tombs,
1071
and suggests that indeed this particular
shrine had a dual purpose. On the one hand, Usersatet appears to be using this monument
to commemorate his ancestors in the style of the contemporaneous tombs at el-Kab.
1072
.
However, the use of tomb scenes seems to also indicate that Usersatet may have been

1068
This is based on the idea, posited above, that Usersatet was in his mid-twenties during Amenhotep IIs
year 3 campaign (c. 1426-7), placing his birth in the later years of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency
(c.1452). Assuming that children were generally born when the mother was between 15 and 25, this would
mean his mother Nenwenhermentes should be born during the early part of the co-regency (c.1467-77) and
thus her parents would be born roughly twenty years earlier, (c.1482-1502).
1069
On the function of the shrines in general, and the importance of shrine 11 for understanding their
purpose, see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6-10.
1070
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25; Roehrig, Royal urse, p.183.
1071
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.128 in reference to Papyrus Leiden 344 and Gardiners edition of the
Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage; WB II, 231, a. nb.w.
1072
I.e., the tomb of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, an official from Thutmosis I to Thutmosis III whose tomb
however was built much later, in the later years of AMenhotep IIs reign. As B. Bryan communicated to
me, the fact that several generations are included in the tomb, so many of whom were already deceased, led
to an earlier (and incorrect) date for the tomb. (November, 2004). I would like to take this opportunity to
thank her for valuable discussions and encouragement concerning my ideas about Usersatet and Silisilah
shrine 11.
237
providing them with a monument in lieu of, or at least in addition to, their own
tomb(s).
1073

The new genealogical information for Usersatet also changes the way we view the
beginning of Usersatets career. It would now seem that Senynefers positions as chief of
the department of the palace in Thebes and overseer of the royal apartments led to an
increasing closeness with the royal court of Thutmosis II Hatshepsut/Thutmosis III that
resulted in his daughter Nenwenhermentes being called a Xkrt nswt. This title was a court
honorific that previously has been attributed to Nenwenhermentes due to Usersatets
status. However, if in fact Nenwenhermentes was already a Xkrt nswt when she bore
Usersatet, then it also seems possible that his ability to join the ranks of the chariotry,
even as a lower-order chariot-warrior, would have been due in part to a recognition on the
part of Thutmosis III of the elite status of Usersatets family.
A final note on the life and career of Usersatet concerns the apparent mutilation of
several of his monuments. The theory that a damnation memoriae was carried out on the
person or memory of Usersatet was first suggested by Helck in his publication of the
Semna stele (BMFA 25.632) and reiterated by Habachi when he (re-)published
Usersatets Aswan graffiti.
1074
In the lunette of the Semna stele Usersatets figure and the
last two columns of text, including his name, are disfigured (Auskratzung) (Fig.22,
p.478). Based on this, Helck suggested that Usersatet fell into disgrace, lost his position
as viceroy, had his tomb destroyed, and probably suffered a violent death.
1075
Not
wanting to implicate Amenhotep II in this affair, Helck compared User to officials such

1073
This also appears to have been the case at el-Kab, where the tombs served as memorial chapels
erected when the families had the resources to provide a monument to honor their clearly important, and
long dead, ancestors. (B. Bryan, pers. comm., November, 2004).
1074
Helck, JES 14, p.31; Habachi, Kush 5, p.17.
1075
Helck, JES 14, p.31.
238
as Rekhmire who seem to have suffered during the transition between kings.
1076
Habachi
was likewise unable too suggest a reason for the intentional defacement of Usersatets
name on his Aswan graffiti.
1077
Since these two publications, scholars have generally
followed this reconstruction of events, with the culprits ranging from agents of
Amenhotep II or Thutmosis IV to private individuals.
1078
However, my re-examination of
Usersatets monuments, though based largely on publications, leads me to the conclusion
that the situation has been grossly exaggerated.
While it is clear that the graffiti suffered from intentional defacement, the work of
Gasse and Rondot has led to the realization that this was a wide-spread occurrence
amongst the graffiti of the New Kingdom.
1079
Dewachter states with regard to the
Uronarti statue (Khartoum 32) that although the socle is missing, the statues head was
re-attached, and the face, hands, and sides of the apron are damaged, the name is
intact.
1080
The reason(s) for this is unknown, but Dewachter does not attribute it to part of
a damnation memoriae because Usersatets name is preserved.
1081
Likewise although the
Deir el-Medina and Sai statues are apparently broken, the name of Usersatet was left
untouched, and the rest of the monuments seem to bear only the signs of damage accrued
over a span of more than 3000 years. This is especially significant for the Qasr Ibrim
shrine, whose outer jambs still bear Usersatets name quite clearly, and the Gebel es-
Silsilah shrine, where the inscription on Usersatets statue is likewise untouched..

1076
Helck, JES 14, p.31.
1077
Habachi, Kush 5, p.17. Gasse and Rondot confirmed that Usersatets name and figure were hammered
out on all of his graffiti.
1078
Notably der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.158.
1079
A. Gasse, pers. comm., September 2003.
1080
Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55. He does not mention the inscription on the back pillar in the list of
damage, thus I assume that it is simply eroded. In addition, it is not clear whether the head was removed
and put back on in antiquity, modern times, or a combination thereof.
1081
Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55.
239
According to Caminos and James, both monuments are badly damaged due to the sliding
of the rock above and around them, as well as quarrying activity.
1082
In the Silsilah shrine
this resulted in the loss of the top portion of the walls, the entrance lintel and jambs, and
the top portions of the five seated statue at the rear of the shrine. At Ibrim, they state
clearly that with regard to the damaged wall where Usersatet once stood before the king,
no sign of hammering, hacking, scraping, or deliberate excision of any kind is to be seen
upon the wall. In so far as can be judged by meticulous examination of the affected area,
the damage is accidental and for the most part due to the falling away of the surface
plaster brought about by the movement of the cliff.
1083

In view of the evidence it appears that Usersatet was not the victim of a damnatio
memoriae due to a fall from grace. The destruction of the graffiti was apparently part of a
larger, generalized effort, while Usersatets other monuments are untouched except for
the effects of time. This leaves only his Semna stele as an intentionally disfigured
monument. As is well-known, many of ancient Egypts artifacts, from temples and tombs
to stelae and statues, suffered from the activities of Coptic Christians and local beliefs
that the objects carried magical properties. This has resulted in, for example, huge gouges
in the walls of Karnak and the scratching out of the images of deities painted or carved
onto the walls. Is it possible that this is the cause of the Semna steles condition?
Whatever the reason, it is clear that unlike in the case of Rekhmire (TT100) and
Amenmose (TT42), both of whose figures are carefully and completely excised from
their tombs, Usersatet was not the object of a concerted effort to erase his person and
memory.

1082
Caminos, Ibrim, and Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.
1083
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.70.
240
The foregoing discussion, has after some length, demonstrated that Usersatet
descended from a court-connected family. The influence that his familys elite status
brought enabled his career and subsequent ability to develop a relationship with
Amunhotep II. In addition, it seems certain that Usersatet was neither the victim of a
damnatio memoriae nor the object of any type of concentrated effort to erase his person
and memory.

The Family of the Mayor of Thebes Sennefer
A. The Parentage of Sennefer
1084

The following discussion is undertaken in an effort to finally put to rest the idea
that the mayor of Thebes Sennefer was the brother of the vizier Amenemopet-Pairy
(henceforth Amenemopet) and son of Ahmose-Humay. Both of these officials came to
distinction under Amenhotep II, and much has been made of their relationship.
1085
The
debate about Sennefers parentage has centered primarily on the evidence found in
TT96A (upper tomb).
1086
The issues involved are outlined below and, it is hoped, will
demonstrate that in fact Sennefer was the maternal cousin of Amenemopet. This will
become significant in the following section (part b) where the influence that
Amenmopets father Ahmose-Humay had as a tutor over the careers of his son and
Sennefer is considered.

1084
For the kinship terms and their use, refer to Table 1, p.457. Roehrig seems to have been the first to
point out that Sennefer was probably a cousin and not brother to Amenemopet, (Royal urse, pp.154-5).
This has been confirmed by Dimitri Labourys work and by my own examination of the three tombs.
1085
Originally espoused by Helck, Verwaltung, pp.297-8, 423-4, 439(9), 525f.(6) and more recently der
Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.152-4; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.317, no.502.
1086
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.360-4, type VIa. The tomb is currently being excavated and
conserved by a Belgian team led by R. Tefnin. I would like to thank Professor Tefnin for allowing me to
visit these tombs in 2002.
241
The first issue concerns the identification of the couple Nu and his wife (Hmt.f)
Henutiry/Ti-iry, depicted in four offering scenes in Sennefers upper tomb, and their
relationship to Sennefer. In two of these scenes,
1087
Nu and Henutiry/Ti-iry are placed
behind another couple in the lower register, while Sennefer and Senetnay are depicted in
the upper (main) register receiving offerings. In PM(2), the first couple is destroyed, and
there are traces before Nus title that suggest the reading it.f. his father. In PM(8) the
first couple is partly lost, but the woman is identified as mwt.s By her mother By,
suggesting that they were Senetnays parents. The second couple is identified as it.f his
father Nu and mwt.f his mother Henutiry, and the man offering to them is unnamed
but called the mayor (pA HAty-a), a term that is used to refer to Sennefer in his lower
tomb.
1088
Thus it seems likely that the parents of Sennefer and Senetnay are represented
in the lower register. In PM(9), Sennefer and Senetnay are offered to by their daughter
Nefertiry on one half of the upper register, and the other half is destroyed. Below this are
three registers of offering scenes placed on either side of a (destroyed) stele. In the lowest
register on the left (west) side Sennefer offers to Nu and Henutiry, but any filiation is lost
to damage.
1089
Finally, the large offering scene located at PM(21), in the rear chamber,
depicts Sennefer and Senetnay being offered to by Nefertiry.
1090
Behind Nefertiry are
seated, at the same scale as Sennefer, Nu (sans filiation) and Ti-iry, followed by two
registers of banquet guests. Although Sennefer never refers to himself as born of (ir n

1087
PM(2) and PM(8).
1088
TT96b. The texts are at PM(26) and PM(40).
1089
Sennefers presence is based on the partial title HAty-a.
1090
This is based on the inscription.
242
or ms n) anyone, based on the extant inscriptions and scene composition, it appears that
Nu and Hunetiry/Ti-iry are Sennefers parents.
1091

The second issue surrounds the inscriptions in TT96A in which Sennefer calls
Ahmose-Humay it.f, his father, and Ahmose-Humays son Amenemopet sn.f, his
brother. These are found in the offering scene at PM(22) and in a scene between
PM(11)-(12). The double offering-scene located at PM(22) depicts Sennefer offering to
Ahmose-Humay and his wife Nebu at one side, with Sennefer and Senetnay offered to at
the other. Ahmose-Humay is referred to as the overseer of the gods wife, royal tutor
Humay and his wife is called mistress of the house, Xkrt nswt Nebu. The inscription
that accompanies Sennefer describes himself as giving offerings for his father, the
steward of the gods wife Humay, justified.
1092
In a scene on the south wall of the
passage, Sennefer is seated with his wife below his chair. This representation, located
between PM(11) and (12) on the wall, was not noted by PM. From the inscription we
learn that Sennefer is reminiscing about days spent sitting with his brother (sn.f)
Amenemopet-Pairy.
1093
The adjacent offering scene depicts Sennefer offering to
Amenemopet-Pairy and his wife Weret, but no indication is given of the relationship
between Amenemopet and Sennefer.
1094
However, Amenemopet is called ir n born to
the steward of the gods wife Humay and ms n born of Nebu. Amenemopet also offers
to his parents in PM(23), though no filiation is given in the accompanying descriptions.
Equally significant are four inscriptions in TT224
1095
of Ahmose-Humay in which
Sennefer is consistently identified as sA n snt.f mnx n sn.f son of his sister, effective for

1091
Laboury has drawn this same conclusion, pers. comm., 2002.
1092
n it.f imy-r pr n Hmt-nTr Hwmy mAa-Xrw in HAty-a n niwt rsyt %n-nfr
1093
Hmst m sH n sXmX-ib ir Xt nfrt Hno sn.f mrr.f wa Ax ib n nTr nfr imy-r niwt TAty Imn-m-ipt Dd.f PA-iry
1094
PM(12).
1095
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.498-501, type IVa.
243
his brother. In all of the related scenes, Sennefer is depicted in a manner common to
sons of the deceased. On the east wall of the passage Ahmose-Humay and his wife are
seated at the end of the funerary procession receiving offerings presented by [their] son,
who causes that their name live, overseer of the estate of the gods wife of Amun, [name
lost], justified and the son of his sister, effective for his brother Sennefer.
1096
On the
opposite wall in the top register a son, name and titles lost, presents offerings to Ahmose-
Humay and his wife. Behind him, Sennefer offers to the first of the seated male banquet
guests.
1097
Below this in the second register, Ahmose-Humay offers to his parents
Senwosret and Taidy and is accompanied by Sennefer. The last scene is that of fishing
and fowling, found at PM(8) in the transverse-hall. At the east (left) end of the scene
Sennefer stands before Ahmose-Humay offering rope to him.
1098

Additionally, in Amenemopets tomb, TT29,
1099
Sennefer and his wife Senetnay
are offered to by their daughter Mutnofret in a family tableaux located at PM(8). At the
front of the scene a destroyed figure offers to Amenemopet, while behind him another
destroyed figure, possibly Amenemopet himself, offers to the seated couple it.f Ahmose-
Humay and Hmt.f Nebu (Amenmopets parents). Behind this Mutnofret (sAt.f mrt it.s)
offers to her parents the mayor of Thebes Sennefer and Hmt.f Senetnay. The last group is
the depiction of Paser (sA.f) offering to his parents the vizier Amenemopet and Hmt.f
Weret.
1100
Despite his depiction in Amenemopets tomb, Sennefers relationship to either
Amenemopet or Ahmose-Humay is never given. Amenemopet, however, designates

1096
PM(5). The inscription with the unnamed son is: sA // sanx rn.sn imy-r gs-pr n Hm(t)-nTr nt Im(n) ////
mAa-xrw
1097
PM(6).
1098
He is again called son of his sister, sA n snt.f
1099
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.214-5, type VIIa.
1100
Both figures are destroyed, but their identification is certain based on Pasers inscription.
244
himself as ir n Hwmy born of Humay in three other inscriptions found in the
tomb.
1101

From the chart detailing ancient Egyptian kinship terminology
1102
it is clear that
the term sn brother was used in ancient Egypt to denote other types of relationships as
well, including (maternal and paternal) uncle, nephew or male cousin, and brother-in-law.
Similarly, it father could mean also grandfather (maternal and paternal), father-in-law,
or male ancestor. The phrase sA n snt.f is unambiguous, as it can only mean son of his
sister.
1103
Thus, this last set of terms is where we should look to determine the
relationship between Sennefer, Amenemopet-Pairy and Ahmose-Humay. From the phrase
sA n snt.f , it becomes evident that Sennefer was indeed a nephew of Ahmose-Humay
through his mother, Ahmose-Humays sister, who is now clearly identifiable as
Henutiry/Ti-iry. This places Nu, Henutiry/Ti-irys husband, as certainly Sennefers
father. The entire phrase sA n snt.f mnx n sn.f is best interpreted as denoting the
relationship between Sennefer and Ahmose-Humay by using terms that define Ahmose-
Humays relationship to Sennefers parents. Thus, Sennefer is the son of [Ahmose-
Humays] sister, excellent of [Ahmose-Humays] brother(-in-law). Sennefers reference
to Amenemopet-Pairy in TT96 as his brother can now also be understood to mean in
fact his (male) cousin. Sennefers use of his father to refer to Ahmose-Humay must
be interpreted in light of the fact that the term father in ancient Egypt was only applied
to lineal kin. Therefore, at some point during his life, Sennefer considered himself as a
true son of his uncle.

1101
PM(4), PM(10), and the passage ceiling.
1102
Figure 1, p.457
1103
When ancient Egyptian kinship terms are used to form compound expressions, only their simple
meanings are employed; cf. Robins, CdE 54, pp.197-217.
245
Although Ahmose-Humay never identified Sennefer as his son in his own tomb
(TT224), he must have had a close relationship with Sennefer. This is indicated by the
number of times and types of scenes in which Sennefer was represented in Ahmose-
Humays tomb. Whether Sennefer was figuratively or literally a son of Ahmose-Humay,
possibly through adoption, remains unclear. The fact that he is designated as effective
for his brother indicates that his parents were deceased, as this phrase generally denoted
that one had acted as the dutiful son in terms of a parents burial.
1104
This is certainly
suggestive of a situation in which Sennefer came under the supervision, if only
nominally, of his uncle. However, by the time Sennefers tomb was being decorated,
Sennefer thought of Ahmose-Humay as his father. The evidence for this is that Sennefer
refers to Ahmose-Humay as his father in the prominently placed tomb scene on the rear
wall of TT96As rear chamber.
1105
Here Ahmose-Humay and his wife receive offerings
from Ahmose-Humays biological and adopted sons, Amenemopet and Sennefer
respectively.
1106







1104
Janssen and Janssen, Getting Old.
1105
PM(22)
1106
These scenes are placed at either end of additional offering scenes in which Sennefer receives offerings
from a priest on one side and his grandson (sA n sAt.f ) on the other. Sennefer is perhaps drawing a parallel
between the two representations, suggesting that he favors his grandson in the way he was himself favored
by his uncle Ahmose-Humay.
246
The genealogy of Sennefers family as discussed above, and with a few additions,
is as follows
1107
:
Senwosret -- Taidy
|
|
| |
ebu -- Ahmose-Humay Henutiry/Tiiry -- Nu ? -- By
| | |
| | |
| | | |
unknown son Amenemopet -- Weret Sennefer -- Senetnay/Senetnefer
(TT29) | (TT96) |
| |
| | |
Paser Mutnofret efertiry


B. Ahmose-Humay, his son Amenemopet (called Pairy) and his nephew Sennefer
(A tutor, his son the vizier, and nephew the mayor of Thebes)
Amenemopet called Pairy was installed as the new vizier by Amenhotep II.
1108

This appointment brought to a close the control of the vizierate family that had held this
position for three generations from Thutmosis I through the accession of Amenhotep
II.
1109
New investigations into the tomb of Amenemopet (TT29) and his cousin Sennefer
(TT96 upper) by a Belgian team led by Dr. Roland Tefnin will no doubt shed light on the
reason behind this change, and the way in which it was effected.
1110
I would like here to
present a few of my own conclusions about how Amenemopet and Sennefer became two
of the most powerful officials during the reign of Amenhotep II. These are based largely

1107
See notes 1111, 1121 and 1143 below for comments on additional family members.
1108
He succeeded Rekhmire in this position.
1109
See Ch.1, pp.75-100 for a discussion of this family.
1110
I would like to thank Professor Tefnin for allowing me to visit these tombs in 2002.
247
on my examination of the tombs and other monuments and artifacts that belonged to
Ahmose-Humay, Amenemopet, Sennefer and their families.
1111

Ahmose-Humay was the father of Amenemopet and the owner of TT224.
1112

TT224 is constructed as a reverse T-shape, with entry directly into a passage that leads to
the transverse-hall.
1113
Off the transverse-hall, on the central axis, is a small shrine with a
niche in the rear wall and a vaulted ceiling. The scenes in the passage are carved, while
those in the transverse-hall and shrine are painted.
1114
All of these features argue for
dating the tombs construction and decoration during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-
regency.
1115
However, in the lunette of his autobiographical stele Ahmose-Humay
presents offerings to the cartouches of Thutmosis III,
1116
while the name of Hatshepsut
does not appear in his tomb.
1117

From the inscriptions in Ahmose-Humays tomb and on his funerary cones it
becomes evident that he was a high official connected to the estate of the gods wife of

1111
Dimitri Laboury is working on the relationships between these men as a part of Tefnins team. In 2001
he graciously shared his own work on the family of Amenemopet and Sennefer, and we also had several
productive discussions about them. Much of what follows incoporates his own opinions, as of 2001, on the
family structure, especially as it relates to Sennefer. I would caution though, that since the tombs are as yet
unpublished, his reconstruction could subsequently change. In an attempt to keep pers. comm. notes to a
minimum I will present Labourys position on the family structure when the discussion turns to Sennefer.
For the relationships dealt with in the following treatment of Ahmose-Humay and Amenemopet, the family
tree presented at the end of the preceding section contains the basic genealogy. To this can be added that
Ahmose-Humay and Nebu have an additional six daughters, none of whom are known outside the tomb. In
addition, based on an inscription in TT224, Laboury assigns the unknown son of Ahmose-Humay the title
of steward of the gods wife of Amun. See also below, note 1121, 1143.
1112
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, pp.498-501, type IVa.
1113
The architectural plan is the same as that of the tomb of Qen (TT59), pp.xxx above.
1114
This is the same pattern of decoration found in TT109 of the mayor of Thinis and tutor Min whose
tomb depictions with the young prince Amenhotep (II) indicate that Min died before Amenhotep II became
king. See also TT112 of the high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (i), Chapter 1.
1115
Cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, p.21, where the comporanda for this tomb dates primarily
from the early 18
th
Dynasty to the reing of Hatshepsut/Thtumosis III.
1116
PM(9).
1117
This is also similar to TT112, see above, Chapter 1.
248
Amun, and within the palace.
1118
If the reconstruction of one of his more damaged titles
is accurate, then Ahmose-Humay may also have been an overseer for the funerary estate
of the deified queen Ahmose-Nefertary.
1119
The method(s) by which he achieved these
positions is unclear, as all that is known about his parents are their names, Senwosret and
Taidy.
1120
In addition, Ahmose-Humays autobiographical stele is completely destroyed
but for a few traces in the top five lines of the text. Nonetheless, the traces that do remain,
as well as the groupings of titles in the remainder of the tomb allow for a possible
reconstruction of his career.
Throughout the passage Ahmose-Humay is consistently referred to as scribe,
overseer of the estate (imy-r gs-pr), overseer of the estate of the gods wife and
overseer of the granaries of the gods wife Ahmose-Nefertary (Fig.26, p.482)
1121
In the
transverse-hall Ahmose-Humay is also called overseer of priests
1122
and one who
nurtured the flesh [of the god].
1123
Ahmose-Humay is one of only two tutors to hold this

1118
In TT224 Ahmose-Humay is identified variously as overseer of the estate, overseer of the estate of
the gods wife (of Amun), overseer of the granaries, overseer of the granaries (of the gods wife of
Amun), overseer of all priests. He is also called one who nutured the flesh [of the god] and [father
and nurse ?] of the kings son of his body, his beloved, Amun[-hotep]. On his funerary cone he is the
father and nurse (tf mnay), overseer of the ipt-nswt, overseer of the aXnwty (chamberlain), and overseer of
stables; cf. Daressy, Cnes Funraires, no. 19, Davies and Macadam, Corpus.
1119
The title, imy-r Snwty n Hmt nTr (/////-iry)|, appears on the east wall of the passage, in the offering scnee
located at PM(5).
1120
They are depicted receiving offerings on the lower portion of the west wall of the passage, PM(6).
1121
The titles appear in inscriptions placed on the east and west walls, as well as the outer entrance to the
transverse-hall; cf. PM(5)-(7). At least one of Ahmose-Humays sons, whose name is unknown, appears to
have followed in his fathers footsteps as an overseer of the estate of the gods wife of Amun. The erasure
of the sons name suggests that it contained the theophoric Amun element, but it does not seem likely that
this was Amenemopet because he does not carry this title, or indeed any of his fathers titles, in his own
tomb or that of his cousin Sennefer. The scene is in the bottom register at the north end of PM(5). The
unknown son and Sennefer offer to the overseer of the estate and overseer of the granaries of the gods wife
Ahmose-Nefertari, Ahmose and his wife. See the family tree on p.245 and note 1111 above.
1122
On the stele on the east wall; cf PM(9).
1123
In the fishing and fowling scene at PM(8), and traces in line 4 of the stele at PM(9). This is contra
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.192f.
249
title, which indicates that its bearer survived to see their charge become king.
1124
In
addition, on the faade of TT224 Ahmose-Humay is called [father and nurse] of the
kings son of his body, his beloved, Amen[hotep] (Fig.27, p.483).
1125
Ahmose-Humays
royal nurse titles were also accorded to him in the tombs of his son, the vizier
Amenemopet (TT29),
1126
and nephew, the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96).
1127
In
addition, on his funerary cone, Ahmose-Humay is called father and nurse (tf mnay),
overseer of the ipt-nswt, overseer of the aXnwty (chamberlain), and overseer of
stables.
1128

The fact that the titles having to do with the palace and his role as a tutor only
appear at the rear of the tomb, on the faade, and on the funerary cones, seems to suggest
that Ahmose-Humay acquired these positions well after construction of his tomb had
already begun.
1129
In this reconstruction, Ahmose-Humays duties in the kings palace
would all have been received later in his career, after he had already distinguished
himself in the administration of the estates of the gods wives. If he did indeed live to see
Amenhotep II become king, as his epithet implies, then his tomb decoration, which is in

1124
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.327ff. The other tutor was Hekareshu, whose charges included prince
Thutmosis (IV).
1125
PM(3): //// n sA-nsw n Xt.f mry.f Imn ////. Min of TT109 also carried this title in his tomb and like
Ahmose-Humay probably acquired it at the end of his career. Also Itrury, father of Pahery, was designated
tutor of the kings son of his body by his son Herari in the tomb of Ahmose sA Ebana at el-Kab (no.5); cf.
Champollion, otices I, p.658.
1126
In TT29, Ahmose-Humays name and titles appear in PM(4) (damaged), (10) nswt mna Sd nTr How,
and on the northern band of the Passage ceiling inscription nswt mnay wr . He is depicted in a family
tableaux at PM(8) as the imy-r pr n Hmt nTr nswt mna Sd nTr Haw !wmy .
1127
In TT96, Ahmose-Humay receives offerings from Sennefer in PM(22) as the imy-r gs-pr Hmt nTr nswt
mno !wmy. Ahmose-Humay is also mentioned as the father of Amenemopet in PM(12), where he is
referred to as the imy-r pr Hmt nTr, and he receives offerings from Amenemopet in PM(23) as the imy-r gs-
pr n Hmt nTr !wmy.
1128
Of the 70-odd funerary cones currently stored in Ahmose-Humays tomb, not one appears to be his.
Davies notes to Daressys publication record that several cones in poor condition were found, but the
location of them is unknown. The 4 column inscription recorded by Daressy no.19 reads: (1) tf mnay aH-ms
(2) imy-r ipt-nswt (3) imy-r a-Xnwty aH-ms mAa-xrw (4) mr iHw aH-ms; cf. Daressy, cnes funraires.
1129
The decoration of tombs began even while they were still being fashioned out of the rock. Thus the
passage would have been decorated first. The decoration of the faade was generally left to the end.
250
the style of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency period, would have progressed over
some fifty years. Although not impossible, it is perhaps not very likely either.
One explanation for the seeming incongruousness of Ahmose-Humays tomb and
a life-span into the reign of Amenhotep II might be that his role in the administration of
the gods wives estate allowed him to begin tomb construction at a much earlier point in
his life. The institution of the Gods Wife of Amun (GWA) was established during the
reign of Ahmose as part of a concerted effort to increase the wealth of the royal family
and strengthen its ties to the cult of Amun, the main god of Thebes who became the
national deity during the 18
th
Dynasty.
1130
Although the initial assets attached to this
office were created under Ahmose-Nefertary in the form of a priesthood, land, and
endowments, its visibility increased significantly during the reign of Hatshepsut.
1131
The
priests and staff attached to these domains would have thus benefited enormously from
the attention that was lavished on it, and the Amun temples in general, during the reign of
Hatshepsut.
1132
It seems possible then that Ahmose-Humays positions as overseer of the
estate and overseer of granaries of the GWA may also have given him the ability to begin
work on his tomb much earlier than might be otherwise expected.
Another possibility is that his tomb was later finished by one of his sons or
Sennefer, and thus the faade and perhaps other portions of the tomb were finished or
added to after Ahmose-Humays death. This might imply that Ahmose-Humays status in
the palace was to some extent an invention on the part of his descendants to elevate the
standing of both their ancestor and themselves. However, since Ahmose-Humays

1130
Redford, History and Chronology, pp.70ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, p.66.
1131
Bryan, in: Mistress, p.32; Dorman, Senemut, pp.113ff., 204-6. The St. Petersburg Papyrus mentions
land holdings belonging to the gods wife estate in Middle Egypt during this period.
1132
Bryan, in: Mistress, p.32f.; Dorman, Senemut, pp.113ff.
251
funerary cones do attest to his role as a tutor and presence in the palace, it seems more
likely that he would have held these titles during his lifetime.
It seems that Ahmose-Humay initially rose to prominence in his administrative
role within the GWA estates and that this led to his being given positions that brought
him into the palace sphere. How he was able to do this is uncertain. However, when
examining the careers of his son Amenemopet and nephew Sennefer, it becomes clear
that his relationship with the young Amunhotep II furthered their careers.
Prior to Amenemopet, control of the vizierate was firmly cemented in three
generations of the same family.
1133
For a new man to take over this position, and for a
new king to be able to break the control of an old and powerful family, a strong
interpersonal connection was apparently required. From his monuments it is clear that
Ahmose-Humay was a trusted official during the later years of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign,
at a time when Amenhotep II was perhaps already or soon to be nominated as heir-
apparent. Ahmose-Humays constant presence at the royal court likely facilitated his
ability to use his role as a tutor and advisor to Amenhotep II to further the careers of both
his sons and nephew. When Amenhotep II attained the throne and decided to install a
new vizier, he chose the son of his own tutor. This strongly suggests that Amenemopet
owed his position almost completely to the status and relationship of his father with
Amenhotep II.
Unfortunately, the damage to Amenemopets tomb, TT29,
1134
has left us without
an installation or appointment text.
1135
Unlike other high and secondary officials of this

1133
These are Aametu, User and Rekhmire, discussed in Chapter 1, pp.75-101.
1134
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.214-5, type VIIa.
252
time period, he does not seem to have participated in any of the military campaigns of
Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II. Although Amenemopet may have been too young for the
wars of Thutmosis III, his lack of involvement in the campaigns of Amenhotep II
suggests that he was installed after the excursions into Syro-Palestine in year nine. We
know from Rekhmires tomb (TT100) that this vizier witnessed the accession of
Amenhotep II to the throne, thus it is likely that he remained in power until shortly after
year nine of Amenhotep II.
1136

One of the most interesting aspects of the titles and epithets of Amenemopet is
that they are purely civil and vizier-related.
1137
In addition, Amenemopet does not seem
to have held any of the upper-level titles related to the administration of the Amun
precinct in Thebes that his predecessor Rekhmire bore.
1138
It is of course possible that
these titles, and the scenes to which they would relate were originally planned or placed
in the now destroyed south bay of the transverse-hall of Amenemopets tomb, TT29.
However, it seems more likely that the reason Amenemopet did not carry any of these
titles is because his cousin Sennefer did. This seems to indicate that along with the
change in the person of the vizier came a change in his influence, and quite likely his
duties as well. Perhaps Amenhotep II was attempting to dilute the power that the vizier
had in an effort to prevent the position from again becoming a hereditary right.

1135
It is possible that this scene was placed on the south side of the rear wall of the transverse-hall, a
location that parallels the installation text of Rekhmire. There are traces here of text columns and a kiosk.
When the conservation being undertaken by Tefnin is complete, perhaps some of this will come to light.
1136
Rekhmire is shown returning from acclaimg Amenhotep II after his accession at the south end of the
east wall of the passage, PM(17). Davies noted that the inscription in fact overlays an earlier one, indicating
that this text was a later addition, made after the tomb was already completed; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-re I,
pp.63-6, 68-9 and Rekh-mi-re II, pl.lxviii-lxxii.
1137
Amenemopets titles of priest of Maat and opener of truth are certainly vizier-related, while that of sm-
priest is essentially non-funcitonal.
1138
Eichler does not include him in her catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun.
253
Amenemopet, like his father, married an Xkrt nswt, a woman called Weret.
1139

However, she was also bore the following titles and epithets: chantress of Amun; praised
(?) of Hathor, mistress of Denderah; foremost (?) in the house of the queen; excellent of
speech, who does all that which Horus says.
1140
Clearly she too was part of the elite, but
whether from her husbands position as vizier, or through her own birthright, is uncertain.
She was represented with her husband four times in his tomb, as well as in the tomb of
Sennefer where her Xkrt nswt title and name are given after those of Amenemopets
parents.
1141
Based on the exclusion of her parents from apparently all the scenes in
Amenemopets tomb, including the one that depicts Amenemopets own parents, as well
as his cousin Sennefer with his wife, I would suggest that her secondary titles at least
were granted due to the status of her husband and his family. Amenemopets son Paser
was a lector-priest of Amun, and may have gained entry into the Amun temple through
his paternal uncle Sennefer, who held several upper-level administrative titles connected
to the Amun domain.
1142

Ahmose-Humays nephew Sennefer is in some ways a more obvious benefactor
of his uncles status. Sennefers own parents were Ahmose-Humays sister Henutiry, also

1139
Ahmose-Humays wife was the Xkrt nswt Nebu. This title is only preserved in TT96 of Sennefer, at
PM(22). In TT29 of her son one inscription is damaged, PM(4), and in the other [PM(8)] this title is not
given. However, Nebus inscriptions are all damaged in TT224 of her husband [PM(5)-(6)] and thus it is
possible that she bore this title there as well.
1140
PM(1) = Hmt.f //// t mn /// Wr mAat-xrw. She appears at PM(2), contra P&M, = sn.f //w nb n irt.f (?) ////
Xkrt nswt nbt pr Wrt mAat-xrw. PM(6) = Hmt.f mrt.f //[n st ib.f]// /// !wt-Hr nbt //[Iwn]// t //[Hswt / Xntwt
(?)]// m pr Hmt-nswt Smayt //[nt Imn ?]// /// t pr ikrt mdw irwt Ddwt Hr nb Wrt mAat-Xrw. PM(8) = Hmt.f Smayt
n //[Imn ?]// Xkrt nswt nb pr Wrt mAat-xrw.
1141
See also the family tree on p.245. In TT29 Weret accompanies her husband on the south thickness of
the tombs entrance [PM(1)], in the brazier offering scene [PM(2)], and in the offering banquet scene in the
passage [PM(8)]. At PM(6) She is either depicted alone or as a continuation of the scene with her husband
at PM(5). In TT96 upper, PM(12), Sennefer offers to Amenemopet and Weret.
1142
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.502.
254
called Tiiry, and her husband Nu.
1143
Nu was a second priest of Hor-wer (Horus), lord of
Gesy (Qus), in Middle Egypt. Sennefer may have started out following in his fathers
footsteps, and even risen beyond him, based on his title of overseer of priests of Horus,
lord of Qus.
1144
However, at some point he seems to have come to Thebes and
subsequently been adopted by his uncle Ahmose-Humay. Although it was not among
his more common titles, Sennefer was an overseer of priests of Ahmose-Nefertary and
overseer of priests of the gods wife.
1145
In addition, he held several other titles related to
funerary temples of previous kings.
1146
This suggests that Ahmose-Humay used his
influence to introduce Sennefer into this area of religious administration in the manner of
familial nepotism discussed in the previous section.
1147


1143
The relationship between these individuals was demonstrated at the beginning of this section, pp.239-
45 above. It is now appropriate to present Labourys position, as of 2001, on the family structure of
Sennefer and his descendants. In the two tombs of Sennefer, TT96 upper and lower, several different
women are presented. There is as yet no consensus on who they all are, or how they all relate to Sennefer;
cf. Whale, Family, pp.144-51. The four women who could possibly be Sennefers wives are Senetnay,
Senetnefer, Senetmay and Meryt. The first three women all appear in the upper tomb, TT96A, and are
called variously his wife and his sister. Laboury views Senetnay and Senetmay as variants of each
other, probably due to scribal errors in the orthography of A and m. In the current work she is referred to as
Senetnay. He also makes Senetnay and Senetnefer the same woman, believing the latter to be an alias, since
they share the same royal nurse titles. Meryt is the dominant figure in the lower tomb, TT96B, and Laboury
has suggested that she might in fact be an actual sister of Sennefer since she is only called his sister and
is a chantress of Amun (Sennefer was the steward of Amun as well as mayor of Thebes). There are also
issues concerning the identification of Sennefers children. Laboury views Sennefer and
Senetnay/Senetnefer as having three daughters, the foster-sister Mutnofret, Nofretiry and Muttuy.
Mutnofret is only attested in TT29 and on a dyad statue of Sennefer and Senetnay/nefer in Cario (CG
42126), while Nofretiry is on the dyad as well as in TT96 with the epithet mAat-xrw, indicating that she is
deceased. Muttuy is only known from the lower portion of TT96 (TT96B). It is the current authors belief
that Mutnofret and Muttuy are likely the same women, and that Mutnofret is an alias for Muttuy, following
after the pattern of her mother Senetnay/Senetnefer.
1144
This title appears in TT96 at PM(7) = imy-r Hmw nTr !r-wr; PM(14) = imy-r Hmw nTr !r ////; ceiling
inscription along the center axis band in the transverse-hall (upper tomb) = imy-r Hmw nTr !r-wr nb Gsy;
and possibly on the center passage ceiling band = imy-r Hmw nTr ////.
1145
Pillar Ab (south face): imy-r Hmw-nTr (aHms-Nfrt-iry)\; Pillar Da (east face): imy-r Hmw-nTr n Hmt-nTr.
1146
Pillar Ab (south face): imy-r pr n [Imn] imy-r pr n (+sr-kA-ra)\; Transverse-hall, center, ceiling
inscriptions (south band): imy-r pr n (+sr-kA-ra)\ sSm Hb n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)\; Hm-nTr tpy n Imn m Mn-swt ; xrp
nfrwt nt Imn m +sr-Dsrw.
1147
It is possible that in fact Sennefer came to Thebes due to his familys position as opriests in Middle
Egypt. The Restoration stela of Tutankhamun describes the appointment of the sons of local magnates to
the priesthood in Karnak; cf. Bennet, JEA 25, pp.8-15; Sauneron, Priests p.58.
255
As is the case for his cousin Amenemopet, there is no indication that Sennefer
was involved in any military campaigns. Sennefers main two positions concerned the
Theban mayoralty and the administration of the Amun precinct in Thebes.
1148
It thus
appears that instead of placing upper-level control over the estate and workshops of the
Amun precinct in the hands of the vizier, with lower-level positions granted nepotistically
to their relatives (as with User and Rekhmire), Amenhotep II gave these titles, and any
duties attached to them, to Amenemopets cousin Sennefer. Undoubtedly it was Ahmose-
Humays adoption of Sennefer that led to his position as mayor of Thebes and
administrative controller of the Amun precinct. Sennefer probably wielded more actual
control than Amenemopet would have in these positions. Of the approximately thirteen
different Amun-related titles that Sennefer bore, only two were also held by the
contemporary high priest of Amun, Mery, two by the chief steward Qenamun, and one by
the overseer of works Minmose.
1149

Sennefers wife in his upper tomb was the chief royal nurse and nurturer of the
body of the god Senetnay/Senetnefer.
1150
Like several other nurses of this time period,
namely Baky, Mery and Neith, Senetnay/nefer also seems to have been a wet-nurse.
1151


1148
Almost all of his titles concern these two areas, and it seems significant that the titles awarded him in
TT29 of Amenemopet were those of overseer of the granaries of Amun and Mayor of the Southern City.
1149
According to Laboury (pers. comm.), all four men bore the title of overseer of the iHw-cattle of Amun,
Mery was also an overseer o the #hwt-fields of Amun, and Qenamun was also an overseer of the nfrwt-
cattle of Amun.
1150
See note 1143 above. The two names appear to be used interchangeably, occurring an almost equal
amount of times, with both being designated as his wife (Hmt.f) and his sister (snt.f). These titles appear
in three different formats throughout Sennefers upper tomb: mnat (n) nswt (PM(9), (15), (19), (22), Pillar
Ab, Ac); mnat nswt Sdt nTr Haw (PM(1), restored); mnat wrt Sdt nTr Haw [PM(2), (14)]; damaged at PM(7),
Pillar Cc. Senetnay is also depicted with her husband in TT29 of Amenemopet: PM(8) = Hmt.f nswt mnat
//[Sdt]// nTr %nt-ny mAa-xrw.
1151
In a previously unrecorded scene and inscription inTT96upper, located on the south wall of the passage
between PM(11) and (12), Sennefer is described as sitting in the hall of pleasure with his brother the
overseer of the city and vizier Amenemopet. Senetnay kneels below his chair and is referred to as snt.f nb
pr mrt.f st ib.f Hsyt nTr nfr Xnm.n !r //[Snbt.s]// //// his wife, mistress of the house, his beloved of the place
of his heart, praised of the good god, Horus having united [of her breast] .
256
The king for whom Senetnay/nefer was a nurse is never named, but Roehrig lists her as a
nurse to Amenhotep II, further stating that It is impossible to say what influence
Senetnay/nefers position as nurse had on her husbands career.
1152
However, since
Sennefers upper tomb belongs stylistically to the early years of Amenhotep IIs reign,
and the lower dates to the mid-late portion of Amenhotep IIs reign, it seems probable
that Senetnay/nefer was indeed a nurse to the young Amenhotep II.
Senetnay/nefers parents are depicted once, and possibly twice, in the tomb of
Sennefer, but the inscription is damaged beyond revealing more than the name of the
mother, By.
1153
They seem to have been held in high esteem by Sennefer, who places
them before his own parents as recipients of offerings in banquet scenes. Although it is
certainly possible that Senetnay/nefers position may have contributed to Sennefers rise,
it seems more likely that Sennefer was able to marry a woman of elite status due to his
own position as the nephew of the tutor Ahmose-Humay and mayor of Thebes.
Throughout the upper tomb, Senetnay/nefer plays a prominent role and
consistently bears her nurse titles. In the lower tomb however, she is only called
Senetnefer and is depicted just twice in the outer room, once as the royal nurse and once
as a chantress of Amun.
1154
This is also the only time Senetnay/nefer bears the chantress

1152
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.153. Following Roehrigs logic, the fact that the only king named or
represented in the tomb is Amenhotep should indicate that this was the king that Senetnay nursed.
1153
In the lower register of PM(2), Senetnays parents may be the ones seated before those of Sennefers.
This composition is suggested by a lower scene at PM(8) which depicts an unknown man offering to
her beloved, mistress of the house, By, lady of reverence followed by Sennefer offering to his parents. In
the register below this two additional but unidentified couples are depicted, perhaps those of Aemenmopet
and Weret and Ahmose-Humay and Nebu?
1154
PM(29) = snt.f mr.f nbt pr Smayt n Imn %nt-nfr mAat-xrw; PM(30) = nbt pr mnat nswt %n-nfr mAat-xrw.
She also appears on the thicknesses of the entrance between the puter chamber and inner [pillared room,
but these are limestone and sandstone blocks removed from the original entrance to the upper tomb and re-
used here; on each she is awarded the title of royal nurse.
257
title, which is unusual given its prevalence among nurses of this time period.
1155

However, in the second room of the lower tomb the chantress of Amun Meryt takes
precedence and is shown with Sennefer in nearly every scene. She is consistently called
his sister (snt.f) and thus could have been a second wife of Sennefers, a sister, or
sister-in-law.
1156
The near exclusion of Senetnay/nefer from the lower chamber may
indicate that she had already died and was included as a memorialization, or perhaps that
she did not require the services of the lower tomb for her funerary cult since she was
honored by being buried in the Valley of the Kings with Sennefer.
The high status with which Amenhotep II regarded both Amenemopet and
Sennefer is especially evident in their each being granted a tomb in the Valley of the
Kings. Shwabtis bearing the name and titles of Amenemopet were found in KV48, while
fragments of funerary equipment made for Sennefer and Senetnay were discovered in
KV42.
1157
There is still some question as to whether KV42 was the tomb originally meant
for Senetnay and Sennefer, or whether it was a location used as a cache for some of their
objects and mummies.
1158
From foundation deposits placed on the entrance we know that
the tomb, which bears architectural resemblance to that of Thutmosis III (KV34), was
originally intended as the burial place for Hatshepsut-Meryetre, the great royal wife of
Thutmosis III and mother of Amenhotep II.
1159
It is possible that Amenhotep II decided
to honor primarily his nurse Senetnay and also her husband Sennefer by granting them a
tomb near his, and this is partly the reason for Senetnays near absence from TT96 lower.

1155
E.g., Baky, Hunay and Neith are all chantresses of Amun; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.321.
1156
See note 1143 above.
1157
There were also objects made for the Xkrt nswt Baketre.
1158
Roehrig suggested that the nearby tombs KV26 and KV37 were perhaps those originally used by
Senetnay and Baketre; cf. Roehrig, in: Sun Kings, pp.82-107; Roehrig, JARCE 29, pp.208-9.
1159
For an unknown reason she was instead apparently interred with Amenhotep II in his tomb, KV35.
258
If this is the case, then it seems at least possible that Amenhotep II presented Senetnay
with the tomb originally designed for his mother as a way of honoring Senetnays role as
his wet-nurse.
Whether Sennefer benefited from his wifes position as a nurse or not may be uncertain,
but their daughter Nofretiry was a Xkrt nswt,
1160
while a second daughter, Mutnofret, was
granted the title of foster-sister of the lord of the Two Lands.
1161
This indicates that the
prince she was raised with certainly became king, in this case Amenhotep II. Mutnofret
should also probably be identified with the daughter Muttuy who appears in TT96 lower
as the chantress of Amun-Ra.
1162
This is the almost certainly the same Muttuy who was
the wife of the mayor of Thebes and overseer of the granaries of Amun Qenamun, owner
of TT162.
1163
It would appear that Sennefer was able to retain control over his position as
mayor of Thebes and pass it on to the husband of his daughter, since he did not have any
sons.
Amenemopet and Sennefer were two of the more prominent men during the reign
of Amenhotep II as the vizier and mayor of Thebes, respectively. Yet neither one reports
any titles that would indicate how they achieved these positions. The common element is
Ahmose-Humay, and more specifically his connection to the palace as an overseer of the
ipt-nswt and tutor. The influence these positions created was directly beneficial for both
Amenemopet and Sennefer. In addition, it would also appear that Ahmose-Humay used
his influence within the estate of the gods wife to bring Sennefer into this domain,

1160
She was depicted at least three times in TT96 upper, as well as on the Cairo statue (CG 42126)
1161
Mutnofret bears this title in TT29, PM(8): sAt.f snt mna n nb tAwy mrt it.s Mwt[-nfrt] maAt-xrw. On the
dyad statue of Sennefer and Senetnay in the Cairo Museum (CG 42126), she is only called a chantress of
Amun.
1162
The difference in orthography parallels that seen for her mother Senetnay/Senetnefer. See above note
1143.
1163
Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, p.194
259
perhaps shortly after the death of Sennefers parents, and adoption by Ahmose-Humay.
While Sennefer may have continued on in the priesthood administration and still be
known through his monuments today, there is no indication that Amenemopet, without
the help of his father, would have achieved a significant level of visibility in the
administration.

Hunay and her son Mery
(A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun
1164
)
The high priest of Amun Mery, who succeeded Amenemhat during the reign of
Amenhotep II, achieved this position through very different means from his predecessor.
Despite a father who was himself an upper-ranking priest, Mery appears to owe his rise to
his mothers role as a royal nurse. An examination of his monuments also demonstrates
that there is a great deal of parallelism between Mery and Menkheperresoneb (i),
discussed above.
Mery is known to us from several sources. He was the owner of TT95 in
Thebes,
1165
several funerary cones,
1166
and is mentioned in the tomb of his steward
Djhuty, TT45.
1167
In addition, Mery usurped TT84 of Iamunedjeh, perhaps due to
structural issues with the rock in TT95.
1168
Merys own tomb is unpublished, though
currently it is being studied and prepared for publication by Andrea Gnirs in conjunction

1164
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.268.
1165
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.358-60, type VIII.
1166
There are two funerary cones attributable to Mery, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 390 and 400,
and he is also mentioned on the funerary cone of his steward Djhuty, Davies and Macadam, Corpus,
no.402.
1167
Djhutys tomb is published by Davies, Seven Private Tombs. Gnirs discounts Merys ownership of the
graffito in Wadi Shatt er-Rigale which only bears the title of overseer of the treasury, Gnirs, MDAIK 53,
p.60, n.15.
1168
This is the reason given by Gnirs as the most likely for Merys usurpation of TT84 of Iamunedjeh;
Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.60, with n.22. Iamunedjeh is discussed in Chapter 3.
260
with tombs 84 and 88.
1169
Thus, some of the information presented here is previously
unknown, and some of it will no doubt be corrected by the work of Gnirs and her
team.
1170

Tomb 95 is amongst the largest of the Theban necropolis, being composed of a
large 12-pillared and 4-pilastered front hall and 4-pillared rear chamber. Although it was
largely unfinished, the shafts were used by Mery,
1171
supporting Gnirs contention that he
usurped Iamunedjehs tomb to provide himself and his mother Hunay with the funerary
and cultic areas that are reserved for the rear of the tomb. The tomb was further damaged
by Coptic re-use. Despite the lack of decorated surfaces, both banquet and duty-related
scenes are present on the finished walls and pillars.
1172

Not only was Mery the high priest of Amun, but he was also the steward of Amun
and the overseer of several aspects of the Amun temples domain, including the fields,
cattle, and granaries.
1173
In addition, he reported the titles of overseer of priests of Upper
and Lower Egypt, gods father of the double throne, overseer of both the gold and silver
treasuries, and the chief and overseer of Upper Egypt.
1174
By contrast, his father
Nebpehtetre was simply the high priest of Min of Coptos,
1175
a position that although
high in its own regard, would have wielded much less authority than Mery. Merys

1169
Preliminary reports on Gnirs work in TT95 and discussions of the tombs significance as well as its
relationship to TT 84 can be found in Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp. 57-83 and Gnirs, in: Thebanische
Beamtennekropolen, pp. 233-253. Other articles that discuss TT95 and its owner Mery are Polz, MDAIK
46, pp.301-336; Polz, MDAIK 47, pp. 281-291.
1170
I would like to thank the SCA for allowing me to visit the tomb for a few days in 2002. I would also
particularly like to express my thanks to Ramadan Ahmed Ali and Abdel Rahman, two inspectors who
were especially helpful and watchful while I was in the tomb.
1171
Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.61ff.
1172
The front (east) wall carries offering scenes on the south side [PM(1)], and the presentation of braziers
as well as two inspection scenes on the north side [PM(3)-(5)]; the north side of the rear (west) wall bears
the sketch of what would have been a Knigsszene, i.e. the deceased standing before the king in a kiosk.
1173
Mery is included in Eichlers catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung das Hauses des Amun, no.268.
1174
These titles are found in his tomb inscriptions and on his funerary cones
1175
Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.66 calls him Nebpehtira, but the name is clearly written with only one lion-head
and two bread loves, as opposed to two lion-heads or lion-head, bread loaf, double-stroke.
261
mother Hunay however, was the chief nurse of the Lord of the Two Lands most likely
the young Amenhotep II, as suggested by her additional title of Sdt nTr.
1176

Throughout his tomb, Mery carries only the highest titles that he possessed, along
with the usual repertoire of epithets. Thus unlike Amenemhat of TT97, there is no
evidence for Mery having been a lower level priest prior to his rise to high priest.
1177
Nor
did he bear the priestly title of his father. Roehrig in fact pointed out that Mery does not
seem to have moved through the ranks of the Amun priesthood to attain his high position,
and it is possible that his mothers close relationship to the king was instrumental in his
promotion to the high priesthood.
1178
This is supported by the prominence of Hunay
throughout Merys tomb, in which she is depicted and identified by inscription at least
three times.
1179
It is possible that she was also in a fourth scene depicting Mery and a
woman receiving offerings, and was the woman accompanying Mery on the east face of
the two central pillars.
1180
Hunays name and titles appear along with those of
Nebpehtetres (Merys father) on the northeast architrave where Mery presents his
lineage.
1181
The important role that Hunay played for Mery is also suggested by her

1176
This title does in fact appear in TT95 on the east face of the northern architrave (Pillars A-C), with a
slight variant in PM(3), and (restored) in the scene adjacent to the south side of the tombs entrance (no PM
number), contra Roehrig, Royal urse, p.142.
1177
Gnirs agrees with this, noting that this Mery cannot be the same as the wab-priest of Amun Mery from
the Marseille stele and TT56 of Userhat due to the variations in the orthography of their names, the
different names of their wives, and the fact that they do not share any titles. Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.60.
1178
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.142.
1179
See Gnirs discussion, MDAIK 53, pp.66 ff. Hunay accompanies Mery on either side of the entrance in
the brazier offerings (PM (3) and without number) and in the offering scene at the south end of the
southeast wall [PM(1)]. Although Gnirs (p.64 and n.38) places Hunay in the southern brazier scene, she
does so for reasons of symmetry as opposed to inscriptional evidence which is unnecessary. There is a
column of text behind the legs of Mery in which there are traces of the Sdt nTr Haw title, making it clear that
Hunay followed Mery here as on the northern side.
1180
If Hunay is the woman seated with Mery in PM(7), then perhaps one of the two women standing behind
is his wife. However, it seems more likely that this scene should depict Mery and his wife seated with two
daughters standing behind them. The pillars are PM Aa and Ga and any inscriptions that might have
accompanied the women are lost.
1181
Hm-nTr tpy //// //// maA-xrw ir n Hm-nTr tpy Min //[Nb-]-PHtt-[Ra]// maA-xrw ms n nswt mnat Sdt nTr Haw
!wny. This is also given in the first column of inscription at PM(6), where Nebpehtetres name is more
262
presence in TT84, which Mery usurped from Iamunedjeh and his wife Henutnofret. The
inscriptions in which Mery replaced the original owners name and titles with his own
also have Hunays name and titles inserted.
1182

From the three complete inscriptions in TT95 we learn the full repertoire of
Hunays titles. She was the great nurse of the Lord of the Two Lands,
1183
royal nurse and
nurturer of the body of the god,
1184
and great nurse, one who nurtures the god, Horus
having united of her breast, chantress of .
1185
This last inscription is perhaps the most
important because it adds three new titles to Hunays list, and demonstrates the
connection between Hunay and two other nurses Baky and Neith.
1186
All of these women
shared essentially the same titles, and listed them in almost identical order.
1187
Bakys
husband Mahu served from Thutmosis III into early Amenhotep II and Baky was a nurse
to Amenhotep II.
1188
Neiths husband Pehsukher was roughly contemporary with
Amenhotep II and was likely the nurse of Thutmosis IV.
1189
Since Mery was high priest
only during the reign of Amenhotep II, it seems likely that Hunays tenure as nurse to
Amenhotep II probably followed that of Bakys.

complete, though Hunays name and titles are lost: //// //[Mr]y maA-xrw ir n Hm-nTr tpy n Min Gbtiyw Nb-
(p)Htt-ra maA-xrw (m)s //// //// ////[!w]-ny
1182
In several places in TT84 Hunays name is inserted into inscriptions that give the name of
Iamunedjehs wife, and the filiation changed from snt.f to mwt.f. In two of these texts her title of nurse
who nurtures the body of the god are also added. At PM(7) the last four cols were changed to Hm-nTr tpy n
[Imn] Mry maAt-xrw ms n mnat Sd nTr [Haw (?)] !wniA ////. In the lower register at the north end of PM(14)
the last two columns were changed from Henut-nofret, justified, to one who nurtures the god, Hunay.
1183
PM(1): mnat wrt n nb tAwy !wnAy maA-xrw xr Wsir
1184
Northern architrave, east face: mnat nswt Sdt nTr Haw !wny
1185
PM(3): //// mnat wrt Sd nTr Xnm !r Snbt.s Smayt //// //[!wn]y maA-xrw ////.
1186
For Neith, wife of Pehsukher, who was probably a nurse to Thutmosis IV rather than Amenhotep II, see
below, pp. 274-5 and pp.304ff.
1187
Compare Urk. IV, 913 and 1460.
1188
Mahu and Baky are discussed in Chapter 3, pp.304ff.
1189
Pehsukher and Neith are discussed below,. See also the discussion of Pehsukher with regard to
Qenamun on pp.274-5.
263
Although his mother was a mnat nswt, Mery does not bear the title of foster-
brother, suggesting that he was perhaps older or much younger than Amenhotep II when
Hunay became the princes nurse. However, one inscription in TT95 does suggest that
Mery might have grown up in the court. In the text accompanying the offering of braziers
on the north side of the entrance, a change was made by the scribe. Here Merys final
listing of titles reads iry-pat HAty-a, companion great of love, favorite of the king, high
priest of [Amun], his beloved, Mery, justified. Underneath the title nswt mH-ib is the title
Xrd n kAp child of the court.
1190
It appears that the sedge plant and n of nswt were used
for the subsequent title, but the kAp-sign is left hanging at the top of column five. Why
this inscription was changed is unclear, but its presence, even if only in the planning
stages, makes Mery one of few officials connected with the priesthood who were called
Xrd n kAp.
1191

As for the rest of Merys family, very little information is known. Only one other
woman appears with certainty in TT95 on the rear (west) face of pillar A in the hall
where the woman accompanies Mery and is called snt.f nbt pr My.
1192
She has
traditionally been identified as the Merys wife, and this seems to be confirmed by the
presence of canopic jar fragments found in one of the burial shafts. On the fragment she

1190
On this title see most recently, Feucht, Das Kind, esp. pp.266-304; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-
47.
1191
According to Feuchts list, Das Kind, pp.272-92, the only others who had priestly positions as their
highest post were Ptahemhat of TT77 (Thutmosis IV); Nebseni, Amenhotep and Nendjuref (18
th
Dynasty).
Ahmose of TT 241 (Thutmosis III) was a Xrd n kAp of Thutmosis IIIs daughter Meritmaun, suggesting that
he was a tutor or adminsitrtor for her. See above for a discussion of Ahmose and his son Ra.
1192
PM Ac. It is of course possible that My was in fact a sister of Mery, and Mery was unmarried,
especially since it is his mother that clearly accompanies him in scenes otherwise reserved for a wife, i.e.
both brazier offering representations. However, it is also possible that Mery married late in life, and thus
his wife only appears on the pillars, and possibly in the offering scene at PM(7) where the inscription does
not preserve the names of the seated individuals.
264
is also given the title of chantress of Amun.
1193
Whether Mery and My had children is
not known, as none of their names are preserved in the tomb. Besides his parents, the
only other family members mentioned in TT95 are two brothers, though since neither
name is preserved, they may be the same man. In each of the scenes where Mery is
depicted performing some of the duties required by a high priest of Amun he is assisted
by a man called sn.f.
1194
The one inscription that records his titles labels him as his
brother, chief in Karnak master of secrets (of) Amun .
1195
This may in fact be a
case where Mery, by virtue of his position as high priest, was able to bring his brother
into a subordinate position. Merys title of master of secrets in Karnak, which appears
three times in the tomb, lends support to this.
1196

From the picture presented in his tomb, there is no indication that Mery was ever
anything but a high priest of Amun, despite the fact that his father was a high priest of
Min in Coptos. Merys lack of any titles except those belonging to a high priest of Amun
combined with his mother Hunays status as a nurse of Amenhotep II suggests that his
position was a direct result of Hunays influence over the young king. Once Mery was
established, he began to use his influence as high priest of Amun to further the career of
his brother at Karnak.




1193
Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.67-8, fig.2.
1194
These are scenes PM(4) and PM(5) where Mery inspects the recording of cattle, donkeys, and other
animals and the workshops of the Amun temple.
1195
PM(5): sn.f r-Hry m Ipt-swt //// Hry-sStA (n) Imn ////
1196
Hry-sStA m Ipt-swt. The title appears on the east face of pillar F (PM Fa), on the northern band of the
ceiling inscriptions located on the east half of the central axis, and is a likely restoration in PM(7).
265
Amenemipet and her son Qenamun
(A royal nurse and her son the steward of the king and steward of Perunefer)
The chief steward of the king and chief steward of Perunefer Qenamun was
probably one of Amenhotep IIs most trusted men. His enormous tomb in Thebes, TT93,
although unfinished, stands as a testimony to the status Qenamun held vis--vis the king
due to both its size and the quality of the painting where it is finished.
1197
There are two
main topics that must be treated in order to fully appreciate the way in which Qenamun
obtained his positions and his status. The first is genealogical. Qenamun was the son of a
chief royal nurse who was recognized and favored by Amenhotep II. She seems to have
played a large role in her sonss standing within the court. The identification of
Qenamuns father and his possible role in Qenamuns career is less certain. Also
important is determining the name of Qenamuns mother and the relationships between
Qenamun and some of the individuals portrayed in his tomb. Once the genealogical and
relationship issues are discussed, Qenamuns career will be examined. His possible
participation in the military campaigns is especially germane to this discussion. Also
significant for this discussion is the status of Qenamuns mother and her personal
relationship to Amenhotep II when he was a youth.
Piecing together the members of Qenamuns family is somewhat problematic as
all of our information comes from his unfinished and badly damaged tomb in Thebes
(TT93).
1198
The names of both of his parents are lost, and although the titles of his mother
survive, that of his father is incomplete. Previous scholars have suggested that Qenamun

1197
TT 93 is published by Davies, Ken-Amun. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.352-6, type VIIb.
1198
Fortunately, the tomb was published by Davies in 1930 (Puyemre). I was able to visit the tomb in 2002
and coallate Davies publication with the scenes and inscriptions. Although generally correct, Davies did
make a few mistakes, and incompletely copied a few scenes and inscriptions. Some of these new
inscriptions, which I copied, are quite relevant to the discussion at hand. See also Urk. IV, 1385-1408 for
inscriptions from his tomb and some of his other monuments.
266
might have followed in his fathers footsteps as a steward, based on the latters title as an
imy-r pr .
1199
According to Davies publication, the only preserved inscription in which
the father would have been named is in a ceiling text on the southwest side of the
transverse-hall. Here, following Qenamuns name, is the phrase born of the steward .
Likewise the only scene, according to Davies, in which his depiction might be preserved
is in an unfinished offering scene on the southwest wall of the rear chamber.
1200

However, this is not the case. Davies incompletely copied the scene located on the
southern corner of the west wall of the hall.
1201
On Davies plate 25 are placed a number
of fragmentary inscriptions, one of which (G) belongs to the very southern end of this
scene.
1202
Davies apparently did not copy (or did not publish) the inscription above the
figures at the northern end of the scene (Fig.28, p.484),
1203
which is as follows:
////// unknown number of columns lost (1+x) ///// (2+x) m //// (3+) imy-r pr wr n nswt (4+)
TAy Xw n nb tAwy (5+) ///// (6+) it.f imy-r pr // mn (?) //// (7+) ///// (8+) ///// (9+) ///// (10+)
mAat-xrw xr nTr nfr chief steward of the king, fan-bearer of the lord of the Two
Lands his father, steward [of Amun ?] justified before the good god.

1199
Helck, Verwaltung, p.366; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.159.
1200
PM(23). Davies, Ken-Amun, p.48. Whale, Family, p.155 identifies these figures as Qenamun with his
wife and father. This may be the case, but it is unclear to me why the father would be embracing his sons
wife, as he does indeed appear to do when viewing the wall first-hand. Nothing in Whales analysis of the
representations of family during this time period suggest that this was ever done (Whale, Family, pp.240
ff.). Could it perhaps be the case that the first two figures are those of the parents, followed by Qenamun,
and that the two sons doing the offering are sons of the father, thus Qenamuns brothers, rather than
Qenamuns sons? Or Qenamun followed by his parents? Whale discounts these because they are not the
normal method of representing a tomb owner and his parents (Family, p.38 n.29, 259ff.), but given the
status in which Qenamun (and the king) held his mother it seems quite possible.
1201
This is PM(7).
1202
Davies mentions this scene and translates the inscription he reproduced on plate xxv. He identifies the
figures seated at the north end as Ken-Amun and his mother (?), apparently not remembering the
inscription accurately; cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, p.44. This is repeated by Whale (Family, p.156), who states
that Davies did not have any supporting evidence to suggest that the seated figures were Qenamun and
his mother. Clearly he did, though he neglected to reproduce the text.
1203
It can be found in Urk. IV, 1406,18-19, though here too it is incomplete.
267
The first figure, that of Qenamun, is completely lost but those of his parents are
preserved in outline, their bodies and faces being completely hacked out. Both the traces
of the mn-sign and the pattern of hacking at the end of column (6+) suggest that the
fathers title might be restored as steward of Amun.
1204
If this is correct, then Qenamun
did not inherit one of his fathers titles, for despite the abundance of Amun-related titles
he bore, steward is not among them.
1205
The next three columns are so damaged that it is
impossible to say for certain what the names of Qenamuns parents were. While they may
have contained the theophoric Amun element, the destruction is so precise and thorough
that it seems to be more than the usual Atenist destruction. This suggests, as does the
systematic defacement of Qenamuns figure throughout the tomb, that the damage was
done intentionally for more personal reasons. The fact that Qenamuns father was clearly
a steward of something, if not of Amun, and his lack of the title of scribe mean that it is
unlikely that Qenamuns father was the deputy Nebiry as suggested by Van Siclen.
1206

Davies restored the name of Qenamuns mother as Amenemipet, and this has
almost consistently been accepted.
1207
In the famous nursing scene where she is depicted
holding the boy-sized king Amenhotep II on her lap, Qenamuns mother is referred to as
the chief royal nurse, who nurtured the god, mt, justified before the great god

1204
If Qenamuns father was a steward of Amun, then he would have been a rather high-ranking priestly
official, and one previously unknown to us.
1205
Lists of his titels are given in Urk. IV, 1385-1408; Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.11-16; Helck, Verwaltung,
pp.479-80; Wild, BIFAO 56, pp. 233-7, pl. I; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.114-5; Eichler, Verwaltung
des Hauses des Amun, no.514.
1206
Van Siclen, BES 7;Van Siclen, Serapis 5. Van Siclen mentions that Qenamuns father held the two
positions of steward and scribe, but does not cite the references; cf. Serapis 5, p. 19 and BES 7, p.90. To my
knowledge, Helck, Verwaltung, p.480 is the only place where the title of scribe is attributed to Qenamuns
father. Having scoured both the published literature and the tomb itself, I am certain that Qenamuns father
never held this title. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.131 also thought that Nebiry was an unlikely candidate for
Qenamuns father.
1207
The notable exception is Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.111-121, especially pp.114f, 117f., 121.
268
(Fig.29, p.485).
1208
The traces of the Sdt nTr title are certain, as is the identification of the
bird as an m from the color palette and the edge of its head which is barely visible in the
damage. Although small, the space between the title and the bottom of the name is
enough for Imn to fit, and the tip of what looks to be a blue sign just under the nTr-sign
lends support to this. Of the ipt-sign, there is perhaps a small blue corner just above the
t. The name would be written in slightly smaller glyphs than the rest of the inscription,
but as it was presumably the title that was the most important part, this does not seem to
be an obstacle to the reconstruction. The problem arises from the one other inscription
that preserves her title and traces of her name, at the beginning of which are visible
elements of Imn, but following which there is certainly not an m-bird. However, there is
the tip of a red sign which could very well be the horizontal m, and in the remainder of
the damaged area ipt could easily fit. There would not be space for the mAa-xrw phrase,
but as it does not appear after Qenamuns (restored) name in the adjacent column, this
does not pose a significant problem.
1209
Thus it appears that Davies was likely correct to
restore the name of Qenamuns mother as Amenemipet.
1210

Three men depicted in Qenamuns tomb have also been identified, and generally
accepted, as family members.
1211
Two of them appear as offering bearers following
Qenamun and his wife on the east wall just south of the entrance.
1212
Neither man is
designated by a filial relationship to Qenamun. The first is the third priest (of Amun),
Kaemheribsen and the second is the mayor of Thinis and overseer of the priests of

1208
PM(16), Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix. mnat wrt [Sdt] nTr /// M // t mAat-xrw xr nTr aA
1209
Her title can be found in yet another two inscriptions, though the name is completely lost: PM(20) and
the west face of Pillar A (Ac). In both she is identified in relationship to Qenamun as ms n mnat wrt Sdt nTr.
1210
Contra Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.114f, 117f., 121.
1211
Davies, Ken-Amun, p.39 and Whale, Family, pp.157-8. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.130-5, questions these
relationships.
1212
PM(2).
269
Onuris, whose name is lost. Kaemheribsen was matched by Davies to the owner of TT98
who has the same name, was a third priest of Amun and the son of a royal nurse.
1213
On
this basis he was included as a brother of Qenamun. Roehrig argued against this, citing
the difference in the titles of the two women as the main reason.
1214
It does seem
significant that in Kaemheribsens tomb, his mother, whose name was hacked out, is
called the chief nurse of the Lord of the Two Lands, praised of the good god ,
1215

while Qenamuns mother did not hold either of these titles. Roehrigs suggestion that
Hunay, the mother of the high priest Mery (TT95) was also the mother of Kaemheribsen
on the basis of a shared title, can also no longer be supported.
1216

Kaemheribsens tomb, which is located adjacent to Qenamuns courtyard and
above the tomb of Mery (TT95), is damaged and almost completely unfinished. It may be
possible that if Kaemheribsen were an older brother of Qenamun, their mother might
have had different titles in the two tombs, especially if Amenhotep II had not yet
succeeded to the throne or been named as heir at the time that Kaemheribsens tomb was
being decorated.
1217
If we accept Kaemheribsen as a brother of Qenamun, then it
becomes possible that he entered into the Amun priesthood through the influence of his
father who may have been a steward of Amun. If we consider him as a non-relative, it is
nonetheless likely that Kaemheribsens status as a son of royal nurse and position in the
Amun priesthood gave him the ability to place his tomb near that of the more prestigious

1213
Davies, Ken-Amun, p.39 with note 1. For the publication of TT98, see Fakhry, ASAE 34. The tomb has
suffered greatly since the 1930s, with the result that Fakhrys photographs are the most complete record of
the decoration of the front wall. I visited the tomb in 2002, at which time only the right third of Fakhrys
fig.2 [PM(1)] actually remained on the wall; three fragments on the floor of the tomb were reconstructable
as the torso and partial inscription of the seated couple at the west end of the scene.
1214
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp, 119-120, 130-1, 135-7.
1215
PM(2)
1216
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.136-7, 142-3. Mery is discussed in this chapter pp.258ff.
1217
As an older brother Kaemheribsen would probably not have grown up with the young king and thus
does not carry the foster-brother of the king title, which Qenamun has.
270
nurses sons Qenamun and Mery. It is interesting to note that of the other three tombs in
the immediate vicinity two belong to the vizier under Amenhotep II, Amenemopet
(TT29), and his cousin the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96). Both of these men were
related and/or married to royal nurses, and their tombs are placed just below and before
those of Mery and Qenamun. The third tomb, which is slightly lower and adjacent to the
Qenamuns courtyard (on the opposite side from Kaemheribsens) belonged to the first
royal herald and fan-bearer on the right of the king Ramose called Aamay (TT94). This
appears then to be a small enclave of high and secondary officials of the reign of
Amenhotep II all but one of whom was related to a royal nurse or tutor of Amenhotep
II.
1218

The nameless mayor of Thinis and overseer of priests of Onuris, whose name was
hacked out in Qenamuns tomb, was identified by Van Siclen as likely being the
unknown owner of TT A19 and a funerary cone that was made for a man called
Amenhotep who held the same titles.
1219
Van Siclens arguments are quite persuasive and
he is undoubtedly correct in his assessment of the identity of the figure. Amenhoteps
relationship to Qenamun is another matter. As demonstrated by Van Siclen, Amenhotep
was the son of the deputy in the Thinite nome, the scribe, Nebiry and his wife Ry.
1220

There is, however, nothing to substantiate the claim that Nebirys second wife was the
same woman as Qenamuns mother, making Amenhotep his half-brother.
1221
Also, as

1218
Qenamun, Mery, and Kaemheribsen were all sons of royal nurses, Amenemopet was the son of a royal
tutor, Sennefer was the nephew of the same tutor and a husband of a royal nurse.
1219
Van Siclen, Serapis 5, p.18; Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.89. The funerary cone is Davies and Macadam,
Corpus, 482.
1220
Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.87-89.
1221
Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.89-90.
271
mentioned above, the titles of Nebiry and Qenamuns father do not match, lending further
weight to an argument against any kinship between Amenhotep and Qenamun.
The scene in which both Kaemheribsen and Amenhotep appear depicts Qenamun
and his wife offering braziers followed by two registers of men bearing bouquets;
Kaemheribsen and Amenhotep are the men in the top register. This type of scene often
includes additional persons, who can be relatives, colleagues, or attendants.
1222
The text
above Qenamun and his wife is somewhat damaged, but seems to record only Amun-
related titles for Qenamun. The remainder of the wall depicts Qenamun accompanying
his statues to Karnak, to the temples [of all the gods of] the south [and north], and to
his tomb,
1223
and ends in a scene of Qenamun adoring Osiris and the Western Goddess in
a kiosk. Perhaps in this case the men fall somewhere in the middle as colleagues of
Qenamun.
1224
Furthermore, although not family, they may well have been close friends of
Qenamun. Kaemheribsen presumably grew up around the court as Qenamun did, while
Amenhoteps early connection to Thinis as a son of the deputy meant that he would have
had contact with Amenhotep II when the prince visited or stayed in the area. This is
especially likely given that the mayor Min, who Amenhoteps father Nebiry served
under, was a tutor to prince Amenhotep II.
1225


1222
In the tomb of Min [TT109, PM(3)] an identified son follows him in this position, while in the tomb of
Ptahemhat [TT77, PM(1)] a male relative may follow and in the tomb of May (TT130, PM(1)] daughters
may follow. In TT72 of Ra [PM(5)] there may be a combination of brothers and colleagues accompanying
Ra in an offering scene before Amenhotep II and his mother Queen Merytre. The presence of (usually)
unnamed attendants is very common, cf. TT343, PM(6); TT94, PM(1); TT367, PM(1), (4); TT74, PM(2),
(7); TT96, PM(1); TT58, PM(7); TT77, PM(5).
1223
Sms twt n imy-r kAw n //[Imn Qn-Imn]// r Hwt-nTr //[n Imn m]// I//[pt-swt]// r rw-prw //[n nTrw nbw n]//
rsyt //[mHtt] m-Htp sp-sn r is.f n Xrt-nTr . Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.39 ff, pl.xxxviii.
1224
Similar to the presentation scene in TT72 in which Re is followed by an actual brother as well as by
colleagues.
1225
Van Siclen, Serapis 5, p.20; Van Siclen, BES 7, p.89.
272
The third man appears with Qenamun standing before the king, who is seated on
the lap of Qenamuns mother, his nurse (Fig.30, p.486).
1226
The man is identified by a
small inscription placed near the bottom of the scene as the deputy of the king,
Pehsukher. Based on the title and the strangeness of the name, as well as its orthography,
this man has been matched to the owner of TT88 Pehsukher called Tjennu, whose tomb is
not far from that of Qenamuns.
1227
Whale however questions the figures association
with Pehsukher because the text is in fact a graffito, not unlike others placed along the
lower portion of the same scene.
1228
Roehrig stated that although in more abbreviated
hieroglyphs than the main text the style of the writing is similar to secondary texts in
other parts of the tomb and therefore seems to be contemporary (unlike several hieratic
graffiti written elsewhere on the same scene).
1229
It is indeed the case that the graffito
that mentions Pehsukher is both much larger and written in a glyphic script.
1230
It is also
placed adjacent to an otherwise unidentified man, while the other graffiti are inserted
between the legs of the female musicians who follow Qenamun. It seems likely then to
have been inscribed with the intention of identifying the first man accompanying
Qenamun in this scene.
Roehrig goes on to suggest that the composition of the scene itself supports an
identification of Pehsukher as a relative. To support this, she draws parallels between this
scene and two in Paherys tomb in which family members present offerings to a tutor and

1226
PM(16). This scene is extremely damaged, but the traces which Davies recorded that suggest the
presence of two figures before the enthroned king and his nurse are still extant, as are the graffiti; cf.
Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix.
1227
Davies, Ken-Amun, p.20 with n.6. Pehsukhers tomb is slightly east and further up the cliff from
Qenamuns.
1228
Whale, Family, p.158.
1229
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.134, 177.
1230
Two of the graffiti are hieratic, while the third is a much more glyph-like hieratic and belongs to the
Ramesside vizier Paser Davies, Ken-Amun, p.22, pl.ix.
273
princes.
1231
Both of these scenes however are part of the repertoire of offering scenes, and
even though Pahery holds prince Wadjmose on his lap, they are not enclosed within a
kiosk or overhang of any type. A more analogous depiction can be found in TT64 of the
royal tutor Hekarneheh.
1232
Here Hekarneheh is preceded by a prince and followed by six
others, and offers a bouquet to the royal tutor Hekareshu seated with the small-sized king
on his lap.
1233
The relationship between Hekarehsu and Hekarneheh is unclear, though
they may be father and son.
1234

The presence of unrelated fan-bearers preceding and following the deceased in a
presentation scene before an enthroned king is not unknown, nor is the inclusion of
colleagues in this type of scene.
1235
The inscription that accompanies Qenamun seems to
support a collegial rather than kin relationship, as the epithets and titles at the beginning
are military in nature and include fan-bearer on the right of the king.
1236
Pehsukher was
also a fan-bearer of the lord of the two lands, and it seems quite likely that these two men
may have known each other while on military campaigns. This seems especially likely
since they are in fact depicted holding fans before Amenhotep II.
The one unusual part of Qenamuns scene is that the kiosk extends over both
Pehsukher and Qenamun, a fact which Roehrig also uses to support her argument.

1231
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.132-3, 178. The different methods of portraying a nurse or tutor and the
nursling in painting and relief is discussed by Roehrig in Chapter 2, section 2.2, pp.288-305.
1232
PM(7). At another scene in the tomb, PM(3), Hekareshu is seated behind an offering table with a prince
(as an adult) on his lap, while adjacent to this Hekareshu alone receives offerings from a man, perhaps
Hekarneheh.
1233
PM(7), cf. Newberry, JEA 14, pl.xii;Lepsius, Denkmler III pl.69a.
1234
Lepsius, Denkmler III p.261; Roehrig, Royal urse, p.203 with n.642, p.207-9. There is a graffito
from Knosso of the divine father Hekareshu depicted with the princes Amenhotep and Aakheperure
(Petrie no.23), while in another nearby (?) graffito Hekarneheh is called a Xrd n kAp following the names of
the same princes (Petrie, no.32). Petrie, A Season in Egypt, pl.i; Newberry, JEA 14, p.85.
1235
For example, in the roughly contemporaneous tombs of Re (TT72), Paser (TT367), Haremeheb (TT78);
or in the slightly later tombs of Nebamun (TT90), Kaemhat (TT57), Neferhotep (TT50).
1236
The titular sequence is: iry-pat HAty-a irty n nswt anxwy n bity ir n nb tAwy kA.f TAy xw Hr wnmy nsw sdty
Hr mr.f ir.n n.f wrw n aAt n wr Hsw /// imy-r nfrw nt [Imn] imy-r mrw Smaw mHw imy-r pr wr n /// ////
274
However, in the scene in TT64 mentioned above Hekareshu and the small king are also
seated under a similar type of canopy, though without a pillar, that extends beyond the
seated figures to include Hekarneheh and the six princes who stand behind him.
Davies suggested that Qenamuns kiosk was meant to be understood as more of a
canopy that one might find on a garden estate such as at Perunefer.
1237
Indeed, the kiosk
is not of the type usually found in presentation scenes before the king. It lacks the cow-
head and Hathor-uraeus frieze along the top, the upper inscriptional band is missing, and
the column resembles those used in garden estates or houses rather than the one that
typically frames the kiosk of an enthroned king.
1238
The idea that a more intimate setting
is indicated here is further supported by the inscription that accompanies the female
musicians who stand outside the kiosk/canopy and complete the scene. The text seems to
describe the scene as taking place in Perunefer, the estates of which may be represented
both below and at the north end of this wall. Based on these details I would argue that the
entire composition should be read as an indicator of Qenamuns and Pehsukhers
individual closeness to the king, the former through his mother and the latter through his
military career and wife. In this situation Pehsukher does not necessarily have to be a
relative, and thus his placement before Qenamun and under the overhang of the
kiosk/canopy reflects their collegial, personal, and royal relationship.
1239


1237
Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.19-20.
1238
The kiosk scenes at PM (4), (9) and the adjacent PM(17) in Qenamuns tomb all carry these
characteristics. Other parallels can be found in the tombs of Rekhmire (TT100), User (TT131), Haremhab
(TT78), Pehsukher (TT88), Sennefri (TT99), and others.
1239
I would also like to point out here that the portion of the scene in which Qenamun and Pehsukher are
depicted is completely destroyed. In his reconstruction, Davies left a large blank space behind the two
figures, and there is just enough room for a third figure. Davies in fact states with reference to this scene
that a group of officials was shown approaching him [i.e. the king] in an act of homage. Two men held
first place together, it seems; one of them, Ken-Amun, the other, the fan-bearer Peh-su-khr(Davies,
Ken-Amun, p.20). The overlapping hands above the offering table indicate that there were certainly two
275
There is also a chronological issue that may go against the identification of
Pehsukher as a brother of Qenamun. Pehsukhers own tomb has not been properly
published, though it is currently being re-investigated by Guksch, et alia, in conjunction
with the tomb of Amenemhab called Mahu, TT85.
1240
These two tombs share remarkable
architectural and decorative similarities, a situation that was determined to be intentional
on the part of Pehsukher, who served as a military official somewhat later than Mahu, a
career military man already during the reign of Thutmosis III.
1241
Pehsukhers tomb, like
that of Qenamun fits stylistically in the reign of Amenhotep II. However, while Qenamun
was the son of a nurse of Amenhotep II, Pehsukher has traditionally been called the
husband of one, implying that Pehsukhers career started during the reign of Thutmosis
III and ended during the reign of Amenhotep II, in whose reign he then probably would
have died.
1242
Amenhotep II was the not the first heir-apparent, and indeed was already in
his late teens by the time he became the recognized successor. Thus it would not be
impossible for Pehsukher to be a much older son of the royal nurse Amenemipet and the
husband to the royal nurse Neith, both being nurses for Amenhotep II.
The name of Amenhotep II is not preserved anywhere in Pehsukhers tomb, nor is
the name of Neiths nursling ever mentioned. Both women were nurses to princes who
became kings during their lifetime based on the use of the epithet wrt and title Sdt nTr. In
her discussion of Neith, Roehrig lists her as another nurse to Amenhotep II, but
recognizing the chronological difficulty of Pehsukher as a brother to Qenamun, she also

men at the front, however it seems at least possible that these were both fan-bearing attendants, and that
Qenamuns figure stood behind them, now completely lost.
1240
Both TTs 85 and 88 were partially published by Virey, Sept Tombeaux. The new study was most
recently reported on in Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.57-83.
1241
This topic was the focus of an article by Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, and
discussed again by Guksch, cf. Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp. 74ff, esp. 79-81.
1242
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, pp.55, 67.
276
suggests that Neith may have been a nurse to Amenhotep IIs son Thutmosis IV.
1243
This
latter situation would certainly solve the chronological issue. Pehsukher can easily be a
son of a nurse to Amenhotep II and husband of a nurse to Thutmosis IV. However, his
tomb decoration does not suggest in any way that he was the son of a royal nurse. Despite
its unfinished and damaged nature, it is clear that his wife had a prominent place in the
decoration. In fact, neither of Pehsukhers parents are mentioned in the preserved
inscriptions. It seems more likely then that Pehsukher, like Kaemheribsen and
Amenhotep, was placed in the tomb as a colleague and close friend of Qenamun.
Pehsukhers inclusion in the kiosk scene is also due in part to his own personal
connection to Amenhotep II. In this scenario, Pehsukher would need to be roughly
contemporary with Amenhotep II, thus pushing his career more firmly into the reign of
Amenhotep II and perhaps even early Thutmosis IV, and Pehsukhers wife would have
been a nurse for Thutmosis IV.
1244

From the lengthy discussion presented above several new items are presented
regarding Qenamuns family. First, his father remains unidentified except by his title
steward of . It is possible that this can be restored as steward of Amun, but it
remains doubtful that Qenamuns father was particularly influential for the career of his
son since he is only depicted twice in the tomb. Second, Qenamuns mother was the chief
royal nurse Amenemipet, as Davies first suggested. The three contemporaries of
Qenamun who are depicted in his tomb are the 3
rd
priest of Amun Kaemheribsen, the
mayor of Thinis and overseer of priests of Onuris Amenhotep, and the idnw Pehsukher.
Each official owned a tomb in Thebes and all were probably colleagues of Qenamun,

1243
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.178-9, Appendix I, p.342f.
1244
Pehsukher and Neith are discussed below, pp.304ff.
277
though it is highly unlikely that any of them were related. They were depicted in his tomb
because they were of the same generation and social group. Based on his placement in the
tomb, Pehsukher was probably an especially close friend of Qenamuns. This relationship
may have developed because they were both fan-bearers for the king.
We can now turn to the discussion of Qenamuns career and the way in which he
achieved his positions of chief steward of Perunefer and chief steward of the king.
Although not a career military man like others of his time period, Qenamuns military
service has long been considered the main reason for his later high-level court and
administrative positions.
1245
However, the military titles that Qenamun held are almost all
non-combative in nature. He is called a Hry pDt only once in the tomb, on a ceiling
inscription in the passage.
1246
As has been discussed elsewhere, while this could involve
the ability to command troops, there was likely an administrative aspect to the position as
well.
1247
The other position the Qenamun bears on these ceiling inscriptions is Hry iHw,
chief of stables, which probably denoted a non-active position within the military, or
perhaps an administrative position connected to the palace.
1248

However, most of the information for Qenamuns participation on the military
campaigns comes from descriptive phrases such as one who follows the king on his
marches upon the foreign land of vile Retjenu (Syria) and one relating to the two legs
upon water, upon land, and upon all foreign countries.
1249
The only lengthy inscription

1245
Helck, Verwaltung, p. 366; Gnirs, Militr, pp.26 n.207, 30 n.230, p.31, 69; der Manuelian also credits
his personal relationship with the king as a foster-brother; Amenophis II, pp.159-160.
1246
In a ceiling inscription located at the north-west end of the passage. As many of the ceiling inscriptions
are damaged, it is possible that it appeared more than once; cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl. liv.
1247
Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. See also the discussion below, pp.281 ff., on Nebamun and Paser.
1248
Schulman, MRTO, pp.51-3, p.86 table 4.
1249
Sms nsw r nmtt.f Hr xAst RTnw Xst and iry rdwy Hr mw Hr tA Hr xAst nbt . Similar epithets which are used
include Sms n nb.f r nmtt.f Hr xAswt rsyt mHtt, irty n nsw anxwy n bity and irty nsw r wAwt PDt psD.
278
in his tomb that seems to preserve some record of military exploits is the painted stele on
the east half of the south wall of the transverse-hall. Though it should be mentioned that
here too, the connotation is derived solely from epithets, and Qenamun is also called
follower of the king (Sms nsw).
1250
In fact, the most commonly found military title is
that of fan-bearer and its extended versions fan-bearer of the Lord of the Two Lands and
fan-bearer upon the right side of the king. These are found in both wall and ceiling
inscriptions, as well as on funerary statuettes, shwabtis and a statue.
1251
This title, like the
epithet Sms nsw, is one that implies a level of close proximity to the king while on
campaign, as opposed to any actual military duties or functions.
1252
From this it would
appear that Qenamun in fact did not have much of an active military career in the manner
of men such as Mahu. In fact, it bears a great deal of similarity to that of his
contemporary Pehsukher.
1253
This is in part due to the fact that Qenamun was an official
during the reign of Amenhotep II, when much less military campaigning was taking place
as compared to the reign of Thutmosis III. It might thus be suggested that Qenamun, like
Pehsukher, was demonstrating a connection to the king more than any real military
involvement.
Qenamuns relationship with the king is a focal point of his tomb decoration and
is represented in two very distinct and equally significant ways. On the right half of the
rear wall of TT93s front room, Qenamun is depicted standing before the enthroned king

1250
PM(5); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.xliv, xxv.. The inscription is badly damaged, and the entire bottom
portion is lost, but lines 3 through 8 contain a series of epithets, titles, and statements some of which are
military in nature. Including in l.7-8 the following: He [Qenamun] says: I was a servant beneficient to his
lord, one who made [a following of the king/him upon water, upon land upon] every foreign country who
does not turn away in night like day .
1251
Wild, BIFAO 56, p.237 nos.138-140.
1252
In this respect it differs from the title standard-bearer (TAy sryt), which did denote military
repsonsibililty; cf. Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3.
1253
See below, pp.304ff.
279
receiving his appointment to office, in this case as steward of Perunefer.
1254
As in the
tomb of the vizier User, the installation text is placed within the structure of the
Knigsnovelle, or sance text, in which the king asks his courtiers for assistance in
choosing an official to appoint to said position, the courtiers defer to the wisdom of the
king, and the king makes the final decision.
1255
In Qenamuns text, Amenhotep II states:
I have decreed (wD) [that one place (rdi) Qenamun to steward] in Perunefer.
1256
The
king is purportedly looking for a trustworthy and capable man, and in four places in the
tomb Qenamun bears the epithet who the king made great on account of the excellence
of his heart.
1257
In this context, this phrase can perhaps be understood as referring to
advancement based on the capabilities of the official since the ancient Egyptians viewed
the heart as the seat of intelligence. This suggests that Qenamun was providing
justification for the position he was awarded. However, there is no indication that he was
hiding his military career, as Helck suggested.
1258

This royal favor was not based solely on Qenamuns own relationship with the
king. Rather it was his mothers royal connection that provided Qenamun with a higher
start than other officials. Adjacent to the installation scene (to the north) is where
Qenamun and Pehsukher stand before Qenamuns mother seated in a kiosk holding the
child-sized Amenhotep II on her lap (Fig.30, p.486).
1259
This representation is especially
significant for two reasons. First, Amenemipet is depicted at a larger scale than the king,

1254
PM(17); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii.
1255
See the lengthy discussion under User, Chapter 1.
1256
Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii, col.18; Urk. 1386, 18: wD.n.i [di.tw Qn-Imn r imy-r pr] m Prw-nfr ////
1257
saA.n nsw Hr mnx ib.f. This epithet comes early in the list in the scenes of Qenamun presenting New
Years gifts to the enthroned Amenhotep II and Maat [PM(9)] and inspecting the bringing and recording of
Delta produce [PM(11)]. It also appears on two pillars, the south face of Pillar D where Qenamun offers to
Renutet, and the east face of Pillar G.
1258
Helck, Einfluss, p.71.
1259
PM(16); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix-x, xlviii.
280
and second, the king touches her shoulder while she supports his head as though he were
a child.
1260
This is a testament to the elevated status in which Amenhotep II held
Amenemipet. It is quite different from the scenes in TT85 where Amenemheb-Mahus
wife Baki is shown suckling the king.
1261
In all of these, Amenhotep II is shown as a
child, making the difference in size appropriate. Although Baki is depicted offering a
bouquet to the enthroned Amenhotep II,
1262
the overall composition of the scene is
exactly what one would expect, namely the king is the largest figure and the offerer is
thus being honored by being allowed to present gifts to the king. In Qenamuns tomb,
however, it is Amenemipet who is given the place of distinction over that of her nursling.
The fact that Amenhotep II is shown as a boy-sized king rather than a child emphasizes
this, and suggests that the king must have favored Amenemipet more than any of his
other nurses.
As a result of her status, it seems likely that Amenemipet would have wielded a
fair amount of influence over the young Amenhotep (II), both when he was a child and
perhaps even after he became king. Qenamuns own rise within the government can then
be viewed, at least at the outset, as a direct result of his mothers relationship with
Amenhotep II. As his career progressed, and probably especially after his appointment to
the position of steward of Perunefer, Qenamun acquired his own strong connection to the
king. In TT93 this, now personal, link is demonstrated on the wall opposite the
installation scene in which Qenamun presents New Years gifts to Amunhotep II and

1260
This exact pose is also seen in TT109 of the tutor Min, though in this case Amenhotep II is in fact
represented as a child. In TT64 Hekareshu supports the small kings head, but the king does not touch his
tutor.
1261
These are discussed in Chapter 3, pp.393ff..
1262
TT85, PM(9)
281
Maat.
1263
It is also perhaps referred to in the installation text, when the the courtiers refer
to the newly installed Qenamun as praised by the king and praised in the kAp.
1264
Feucht
has suggested that the kAp was a type of institution within the palace, and that
membership in it would have denoted a position of respect and authority that was
recognized by the king.
1265
Whether or not Qenamun became a member of the kAp, it
appears that his status vis--vis the king was known in the palace.
The idea that Qenamun was able to move beyond his mothers sphere of influence
and establish his own connection is further suggested by the the appearance of the title
foster-brother of the king on a number of his shwabtis and funerary statuettes.
1266
The
fact that Qenaun does not have this title in his tomb indicates that he was probably
slightly older or younger than Amenhotep II and thus was not a milk-brother of the
king. However, the fact that by the end of his life he was considered as such implies that
Qenamun could claim to have this type of kinship with Amenhotep II. It was not the title
itself that was important, but the close relationship it implied.
1267

This claim would not exist for Qenamun without the status of his mother
Amenemipet as a chief royal nurse. The manner of Amenemipets depiction in

1263
PM(9); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pls.xi-xxiv.
1264
Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii cols. 31ff. These phrases fall in cols. 31 and 33.
1265
This is based on titles such as chief of the Xrdw n kAp, and on evidence that it could act as a judicial
body in the palace; Feucht, Das Kind, p.303 and in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.43-4. On the Xrd(w) n kAp in
general see Feucht, Das Kind, pp.266-304 (pp.272-293 provides a list of Xrd n kAp during the 18
th
Dynasty,
though some are missing) and Feucht, in Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-47. The latter is essentially an English
summary of the material covered in the relevant section of her book. For a brief discussion of the bearers of
this title in the reign of Thutmosis III, see also Bryan, in Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1266
Daressy, ASAE 19, pp.150-1; Davies, Ken-Amun, pl. lxix; Sottas, in: MontPiot. 25, pp.409-10; Urk. IV,
1403-4; Wild, BIFAO 6.
1267
There is also a possibility that Qenamun held the title of sA nswt kings son, based on a shwabti in
Florence (65555) that Dewachter suggests belonged to Qenamun. Dewachter proposes that this be
understood as denoting Qenamun as an administrator of Syria in parallel to Pahekaemsasen as an
administrator of Nubia during the reign of Amunhotep II. If the shwabti indeed belongs to this Qenamun,
then I would prefer to understand the title as a further indicator of Qenamuns relationship to the king, a
possibility that DeWachter also acknowledges. Dewachter, RdE 32.
282
Qenamuns tomb indicates that Amenhotep II recognized her as especially important.
This implies that Amenemipet played an influential role during Amenhotep IIs formative
years, and was able to use her relationship with Aemnhotep II to the benefit of her son
Qenamun. While Qenamuns performance in the military alongside the young
Amenhotep may have cemented his subsequent rise, it was through his mother that
Qenamun was initially able to rise above other contemporary officials and gain the royal
favor of Amunhotep II.

III. Personal Influence
ebamun and his son Paser
(Friendship with the king is more important than family)
Paser was a follower of his majesty and Xrd n kAp during the reign of
Amenhotep II. In his tomb, TT367, he appears to stress his relationship to the king over
any actual duties he might have performed as aan Hry pDt, the upper level military
position that he held. This seems to be the case despite the fact that his father Nebamun
was also a hry pDt during the reign of Thutmosis III. Before discussing how Paser was
able to develop this relationship, we should first take a look at the career of his father.
1268

The Hry pDt
1269
Nebamun was the owner of TT 145,
1270
an unfinished tomb in Dra Abu
el-Naga that dates stylistically to the reign of Thutmosis III.
1271
Unfortunately, the

1268
Nebamun may be the same as a man who gave a bull to a temple in order to ensure a job for his brother;
cf. Spalinger, in: Studien Westendorf.
1269
This has been translated variously as colonel (Oberst)/commander of troops (Helck, Einfluss);
commander of a host (Schulman, MRTO; larger in size than a company (approx. 250), but not the full
army); commander of a regiment (Chevereau, Prosopographie); commander of archers/bowmen (Gnirs,
Militr). The determinative of an archery bow in the word pDt is suggestive that the title refers to archers or
bowmen, though to my knowledge there are no depictions that would enable us to draw a firm conclusion
on this. WB I:570.10 ff., defines pDt as both a Truppe von Soldaten and die Bogenschtzen. Regardless
of translation though, it is clear that this the bearer of this title was militarily active and probably led troops
of some kind.
1270
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.430, type IIb.
283
portions of his tomb that were finished contain only offering scenes, and thus almost no
information can be gleaned about his military career. However, on the northern wall the
unfinished sub-scene depicts a double register of men bringing and recording a variety of
animals before the larger image of Nebamun. At the forefront of these is a pair of horses
that appear to be led by a Syrian man, based on his facial characteristics such as the beard
and hair. Fakhry suggested that this scene represented part of the estates of Nebamun,
who would have entrusted his two precious animals to a foreigner who knew how to
care for them.
1272
It does seem likely that Nebamun is inspecting his own herds, and I
would further suggest that Nebamun acquired the horses while he was on the campaigns
with Thutmosis III. He may have captured them as booty, or perhaps Thutmosis III gave
the horses to Nebamun as a reward for his military service. If this were indeed the case,
then it would imply that Nebamun was a more distinguished officer than Fakhry thought,
since horses were not common in Egypt outside of the military during this time.
1273

The only title preserved in Nebamuns tomb is that of Hry pDt, while his epithets
give no further clues as to the nature of his military service.
1274
However, it is possible
that Nebamun of TT145 is the same as the Nebamun whose statue base was found by
Hassan at Giza in 1953.
1275
The base originally supported the statue of a falcon, while a

1271
The tomb has never been fully published, but it was discussed and photographed by Fakhry and later in
more detail by Helck; Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp. 369-379; Helck, Antike Welt 27/2, pp. 73-85. Fakhry placed in
the first half of Thutmosis IIIs reign or even earlier based largely on the depiction of the herds of animals
and the supposition that Paser of TT367 who was an official under Amenhotep II was Nebamuns son
(Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.371, 376 ff.). Helck also dated it stylistically to the early 18
th
Dynasty, and most
likely Thutmosis III based on parallels with other tombs, i.e. TT81 of Ineni, TT123 of Amenemhat and
TT143 (unknown). He also agreed that Paser of TT367 was likely Nebamuns son (Helck, Antike Welt
27/2, p.75).
1272
Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.378.
1273
He was perhaps advanced in age and did not distinguish himself in the wars; Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.376.
1274
The epithets he carries in the tomb are excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands (mH-ib mnx n nb
tAwy), great favorite of his lord (mH-ib aA n nb.f), praised of the good god (Hsy n nTr nfr), praised before the
lord of the two lands (Hsy xr nb tAwy), and beloved among his courtiers (mrwt xr Snw.f).
1275
Hassan, Giza 8, p.66 fig. 59. See also Zivie, Giza, NE 13.
284
representation of the donor was carved on the front. The five column inscription on the
statues right side indicates that it was made for the one who follows his lord upon
water, upon land, upon foreign countries of the south and north, great favorite of the lord
of the two lands, favorite of the good god, Hry pDt of Nubians, Nebamun, repeating
life.
1276
As Zivie mentions, these epithets place the statue in the reigns of Thutmosis III
and/or Amenhotep II.
1277
Hassan originally translated the name as Amun(em)heb, and it
is perhaps for this reason that a connection between the two men has not previously been
suggested. Although the epithets granted the two Nebamuns are slightly different, and the
owner of the statue was a Hry pDt NHsyw as opposed to simply a Hry pDt, it seems quite
possible that the two men should be equated.
The unfinished scenes of TT 145 would have almost certainly been related to the
duties and functions of Nebamun as a Hry pDt, and it is not improbable that more
extensive epithets, such as those of a Sms nsw would have been included here. If the two
men are the same, then the epithet of Horus found on the statue also supports the idea that
Nebamun was a highly placed official. The more common Horus in the horizon,
foremost of Setepet is replaced here by Horus, lord of the horizon in the Setepet.
Hassan suggested that this change reflected Nebamuns status as an official attached to
the personal guard of the King.
1278
The epithets attested for Nebamun in TT145, such as
beloved among his courtiers, also support a close relationship to the court and by
extension the king.
1279


1276
Sms nb.f Hr mw Hr tA Hr xAst rsyt mHtt mH-ib aA n nb tAwy imy-ib n nTr nfr Hry pDt NHsyw Nb-Imn wHm
anx. The title Hry pDt NHsyw according to the various translations would then be commander of a
troop/host/regiment of Nubians or commander of Nubian archers/bowmen.
1277
Zivie, Giza, p.124.
1278
Hassan, Giza 8, p.66.
1279
See note 1274.
285
Unfortunately we have no information about Nebamuns parents, or about how he
entered into military service. He was married to a woman named Iahhotep, and based on
the offering scenes they appear to have had three daughters and perhaps two sons. One
son was the chariot-warrior (snny) of his majesty and one who follows the king (on) his
marches named Paser.
1280
This son Paser has generally been identified with the owner of
TT367, who was also a Hry pDt (of the lord of the two lands), as well as chief of the
followers of his majesty and a Xrd n kAp.
1281
In his tomb, Paser carries a number of
epithets, many of which are the same or quite similar to those held by Nebamun in TT145
and on the statue of Nebamun. These include, lord who is foremost among his
courtiers,
1282
the sequence excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands, praised of the
good god, friend great of love,
1283
and the sequences one who follows the king on his
marches upon water, upon land, and upon every foreign country
1284
and one who
follows the king upon every foreign country of the south and north.
1285

The only king mentioned or depicted in Pasers tomb, TT367,
1286
is Amenhotep
II, and we learn from the inscriptions that Paser considered himself a close companion,
and perhaps friend of the king when they were both youths. The phrase chief of
followers of his majesty when the king was as a (royal) child (Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti nsw m
inpw) occurs on the outer lintel leading into the passage, on the false-door stele, and in

1280
The inscription is damaged, but based on the publications does seem to read sA.f mr.f snny n Hm.f Sms
nswt nmtt.f; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.373; Helck, Antike Welt 27/2, p.77.
1281
Fakhry published TT 367 with plates, see Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp. 389-414.
1282
PM(1) nb xnt xr Snw.f; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.400
1283
PM(2); cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.402.
1284
PM(5); cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.396.
1285
PM(4), PM(3), 1
st
column on left; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.399, 406.
1286
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.592-3, type VIIa.
286
the presentation scene before the enthroned Amenhotep II.
1287
Although the term Sms
nsw, follower of the king is commonly used to describe military activity on the part of
its bearer, it can also refer to the personal contemporaries of the king.
1288
This is
especially true when the alternative form of Smsw n Hm.f is employed. The inscription
accompanying Paser when he stands before Amenhotep II (Fig.31, p.487) makes it clear
that this king bestowed awards on Paser both for his military service and due to his status
within the court:
Bringing/Presenting every good and pure thing by the great
favorite of the Lord of the Two Lands, praised of the good
god, who fills the two ears of Horus truly, one who follows
the king on his marches upon water, upon land, and upon
every foreign country, to whom favors are given by the
king consisting of rings of fine gold, Hry pDt, child of the
nursery (Xrd n kAp), chief of followers of his majesty when
the king was as a (royal) child, Paser, justified, on behalf of
the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperura, given
life forever to eternity.
1289


The fine gold rings are precisely the bracelets and double-necklace Paser wears here
and in other depictions in the tomb. Paser is followed in this scene by his wife, daughter,
and Egyptian offering-bringers.
This inscription is an excellent source for demonstrating that Paser viewed the
most important aspect of his life and career to be his friendship with the king. The fact
that Paser places his Xrd n kAp and Sms nsw titles last suggests that it was his relationship
to the king that Paser valued more than his military positions. In fact, throughout his

1287
PM(6), right (east) side, PM(3), 2
nd
column from right (with the error nsw i for ti nsw), and PM(5)
respectively; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.394, 406, 396 respectively.
1288
Franke, in: Miscellanea Agyptologica Helck, 67-87. Guksch interprets them as expressions of loyalty to
the king on the part of the official that did not necessarily reflect participation on campaigns; cf. Guksch,
Knigsdienst, pp.57-68.
1289
PM(5), north wall, east side, columns 1-9: ms Xt nbt nfrt wabt in mH-ib aA n nb tAwy Hsy n nTr nfr mH
anxwy Hr m mAawt Sms nsw r nmtt.f Hr mw Hr tA Hr xAst nb diw n.f Hswt nt Xr nswt m waw n DAm-nbw Hry pDt
Xrd n kAp Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti sw m inpw PA-sr mAa-xrw; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.396.
287
tomb the titles which appear most often and closest to his name are chief of followers
(of his majesty (when he was as crown-prince)), and child of the nursery.
1290
In
contrast, his Hry pDt title never appears as his final designation.
1291
Even in the tomb of
his father Nebamun, Pasers title of chariot-warrior is followed by his designation as a
follower of the king.
1292
In addition, on the false-door it is qualified by the phrases of the
lord of the two lands and of his majesty.
1293
Gnirs has interpreted the n nb tAwy epithet
to imply a direct connection to the king, implying that the position was gained through
this relationship rather than by an officials own prowess.
1294
This is certainly possible in
the case of Paser, especially as he claims to be a companion of the young Amenhotep II.
It also seems to be supported by the fact that Paser on his false-door chose to characterize
himself almost entirely in relationship to the king.
1295
Feucht has argued that the Xrd n
kAp title is probably an indication that its bearer was raised in the royal court.
1296
This
certainly seems to be supported by Pasers claim to be a follower while Amenhotep II
was still a youth at the court himself.
1297

The second point to make about the text quoted above is that Paser is not
rewarded for his military exploits by promotion, but with gifts of fine gold. Although a

1290
The first title appears alone twice [PM(3), (6)], last in a combination three times [PM(1), (4), (5)], and
first on Pasers funerary cones, twenty of which were found by Fakhry in the courtyard of TT 367. Xrd n
kAp always follows Hry pDt, thus it comes last at PM(2)-(3), and second at PM(4)-(5) and on the funerary
cones. In addition, it precedes the first title at PM(1); Fakhry, ASAE 43.
1291
Hry pDt is always the first in a list [PM(2)-(5), with 3 occurrences at PM(3)], except on the funerary
cone where it comes second; Fakhry, ASAE 43.
1292
Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.373; Helck, Antike Welt 2, p.77. See also note 11 above.
1293
All of Pasers inscriptions here carry epithets that denote his close connection to the king; cf. Fakhry,
ASAE 43, pp.406-7.
1294
Gnirs, Militr, p.5.
1295
He is called great favorite of the good god, sole excellent one of the lord of the two lands, chief of
followers of his majesty when he was as a youth, twice Xrd n kAp, twice Hry pDt of the lord of the two
lands, and Hry pDt of his majesty; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.406-7.
1296
Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.266 ff., esp. 303-4.
1297
Perhaps Nebamun, Pasers father, in addition to being rewarded with horses by Thutmosis III, was also
given the distinction of having his son raised in the royal court.
288
reward of wealth in the form of gold or slaves was commonly given to men involved with
the campaigns,
1298
Pasers mention of only fine gold has several implications. The first
is that it is not accompanied by a promotion, as seems to have been the case for other
military officials who distinguished themselves.
1299
The second is that in one of the
inscriptions on Pasers false-door he is called one who follows the king upon southern
and northern foreign lands.
1300
The type of gold Paser is rewarded with is known to
come from mines in Nubia, suggesting that Paser certainly participated on campaigns to
the south. Amenhotep II led only three campaigns into the north, in years three, seven and
nine, and the first of these was likely done during the co-regency period.
1301
Of
Amenhotep IIs forays into Nubia we have very little information other than that at least
one campaign took place at some point, as it is commemorated in the inscription of
Usersatet at his shrine at Qasr Ibrim.
1302
Pasers inscription serves as further evidence of
these activities. The fact that Paser does not mention individual places directly, as some
other military officials did, may be irrelevant since his tomb was unfinished and without
an autobiographical stele. However, it may also be a further indication that Pasers
military career was less important as a marker of his status than his personal
relationship to the king, which had been formed in childhood.
From the inscriptions in the tomb of his father and his own we can characterize
Pasers career as one that relied heavily on a close personal connection to his sovereign,
but also had elements of nepotism and heredity in it. The latter two are suggested by the

1298
It is commonly referred to in the Annals of Thutmosis III, and in the autobiographies of the men on
these campaigns, such as Amenemheb-Mahu.
1299
For example Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85) or Tjanuny (TT74).
1300
Sms nsw Hr xAst rsy mHtt; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.406-7.
1301
Murnane, Road to Kadesh; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19ff., 47 ff.
1302
For the publication, see Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75. For a discussion of the inscription see der
Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.92-5.
289
fact that Paser started his military career as a chariot-warrior, a position that Pasers
father Nebamun may have been able to obtain for him due to his service under Thutmosis
III. Following this he seems to ascend directly into the position that his father held, Hry
pDt. It is certainly possible that Paser replaced his father when Nebamun became too old,
in the manner of a mdw iAw or staff of old age, as we know was sometimes the case for
recruits from military families.
1303
Schulman has suggested that the position of hry pDt
was subordinate only to the general (imy-r mSa wr), and the highest level a field officer
could reach at this time.
1304
However, in Pasers case it should perhaps rather be
understood as an example of a friend of the kings being awarded the position of his
father despite an apparent lack of qualifications for it. Schulman admits that the post
could sometimes carry administrative duties, and this may be a better interpretation of
Pasers function as a Hry pDt.
1305

The emphasis Paser places on his relationship with Amenhotep II throughout his
tomb suggests that despite his fathers military connections, it was primarily Pasers
childhood friendship with the king that was the cause for his status in the court. As the
inscription on his funerary cones demonstrates, this was what he deemed most
important.
1306
Thus, although heredity and/or nepotism may have been part of the
equation, it was Pasers personal relationship with the king that furthered his career and
made him a favored court official.


1303
From the scribal statue of Amenhotep son of Hapu (CG 583), a scribe of recruits in the reign of
Amenhotep III. See Chapter 1, Section Ib, pp.64-9.
1304
Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6.
1305
This is also suggested by Schulman, MRTO, p.55 no.130.
1306
He was called follower of the king, Hry pDt, Xrd n kAp; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.409-10.
290
Amenmose
(From the field to the court)
Amenmoses military career spanned the reigns of Thutmosis III and early
Amenhotep II, during which time he held the positions of Hry pDt, overseer of northern
foreign lands (imy-r xAswt mHtt), and chief of the stables (of the lord of the two lands)
(Hry iHw [nb tAwy]). Although he has a demonstrably military career, the wide range in his
titles, as well as the size of his tomb, suggests that his relationship with Thutmosis III
apparently allowed him to jump from a combat position (Hry pDt) to that of a diplomat in
Syria-Palestine (imy-r xAswt mHtt) with seemingly no intervening steps.
Amenmoses tomb, TT42,
1307
is one of the larger in the necropolis, consisting of a
3-pillared transverse-hall, very long passage, and 2-pillared rear chamber;
1308
the ceiling
is also extremely high.
1309
Although TT42 is unfinished and the text of the painted stele
destroyed, it is nonetheless possible to date the tomb and Amenmoses career. Above the
entrance leading into the rear chamber the prenomens of Thutmosis III (Menkheperre)
and Amenhotep II (Aakheperure) are still clearly visible.
Both Murnane and Van Siclen included Amenmose among a list of co-regency
officials who were active during the transition from Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II.
1310
In
addition to the inscription just mentioned, both kings are represented in the lunette of
Amenmoses stele,
1311
and according to Murnane, Amenhotep II may be depicted on the

1307
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.237-9, type VIIb.
1308
Published by Davies, Menkheperrasonb. It was originally intended to be a 4-pillared hall, but the
architects of the tomb apparently did not realize their proximity to TT110 of the royal butler Djehuty, an
official during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency. As a result the easternmost pillar could not be
hewn and the transverse-hall is oddly shaped.
1309
The ladder that Raymond Johnson, Director of Chicago House, made available to me resulted in my
being able to examine and photograph the tomb with relative ease. I thank him greatly for this.
1310
Murnane, Coregencies; Van Siclen, Uronarti, p.49 (D).
1311
PM(11); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb.
291
right half of the rear wall of the front room, parallel to the depiction of Thutmosis III on
the left half.
1312

Although the lunette of the stele it is clear that Amenmose offers to two seated
kings, the cartouches are almost completely destroyed. There are traces of Menkheperre
in the left cartouche, so clearly this was Thutmosis III. It is certainly possible that
Amenhotep II was represented on the right, and this may be supported by the fact that the
arrangement of the cartouches would then be the same as on the shrines lintel. The issue
of Amenhotep IIs actual depiction in the tomb is less certain. The wall that Murnane has
suggested is almost completely destroyed, but it must be said that the traces which remain
are more suggestive of an offering scene on behalf of Amenmose, rather than a
representation of Amenmose before Amenhotep II.
1313
The scene of Amenmose before
Thutmosis III is badly damaged, with the figures of both individuals completely
destroyed.
1314
The representation of the Syrians bearing tribute that complete this scene,
the representation of soldiers on campaign in Syria, and the overall decorative style of the
tomb place the majority of Amenmoses career in the reign of Thutmosis III. Thus it is
likely that although Amenmose was an official during the co-regency of Thutmosis III
and Amenhotep II, he may not have lived long past the accession of the latter.
Amenmoses own family background is uncertain. His parents do not seem to
appear in his tomb, and his lineage is not recorded. Thus without additional monuments
their names and status must remain unknown. Unfortunately, the stele in Amenmoses
tomb is completely destroyed except for the lunette, and thus we do not have direct

1312
Murnane, Coregencies. These scenes are PM(5) and (12) respectively; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb,
pls. xxxiii-xxxv for PM(5).
1313
There seem to be traces of an offering table and offerings.
1314
PM(5); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xxxiii-xxxv.
292
information about the progression of his career. Yet, based on the scenes and title
sequences in TT42, a tentative reconstruction may be attempted. The most complete
listing of Amenmoses various titles comes from the exterior side of the entrance to the
rear chamber.
1315
The information from this, as well as six other titular inscriptions and
the depiction of a Syrian campaign, including a fortress set in a forested area, indicates
that the title Hry pDt was the one that Amenmose held for the majority of his career and as
a participant in the campaigns of Thutmosis III.
1316
In the fragment of inscription that
remains next to the figure of Amenmose before the prostrating chief of the Lebanon and
other Syrians bearing gifts from their fortress, Davies has restored the title Hry pDt
(Fig.32, p.488)
1317
There are no traces of this or any other title, but its insertion certainly
seems plausible given that the registers below the depiction of the Syrian chiefs and
fortress are taken up by rows of soldiers and scribes.
The scene adjacent to that of the captured fortress depicts Amenmose leading a
procession of Syrians bearing tribute of all sorts, including vases, precious materials,
archery equipment, and horses and chariots before an enthroned king, most likely
Thutmosis III.
1318
None of the inscription is preserved, but it is probable that here
Amenmose would primarily be called the overseer of the northern foreign lands, a title he
holds elsewhere in the tomb and which, as Bryan states, included the supervision of
revenue deliveries to Egypt.
1319
This then would be the position awarded to Amenmose
by Thutmosis III for his service as an officer in the campaigns, thereby moving him out
of the frontline and into the area of military administration. The titles Hry pDt and

1315
PM(18); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxxix.
1316
See note 1269 above for a discussion of this title.
1317
PM(4), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, p.30, pl.xxxvi.
1318
PM(5), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxxiii-xxxv.
1319
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.66; Murnane, in: Essays te Velde.
293
overseer of northern foreign lands seem to be Amenmoses main ones, appearing an
almost identical number of times in the tomb, and each placed last in a string of titles of
nearly equal length.
1320
From his epithets, we learn that Amenmose also regarded
himself as the follower of the king in Retenu (Syria) and the eyes and ears of the king in
vile Retenu. While these epithets might further speak to his tenure as an active soldier, it
seems even more likely that they describe the type of activities that Amenmose would
have carried out as the kings representative in Syria once he became overseer of northern
foreign countries.
1321

While Hry pDt is certainly a position with active military duties,
1322
the overseer of
northern foreign countries is purely administrative.
1323
According to Helck,
1324
the trend
during the mid-18
th
Dynasty was for front officers to become placed in upper level
administrative positions. He goes on to suggest that because these new men were
placed here by the king, they were entirely dependent upon the kings favor.
1325
The
position of overseer of foreign countries certainly carried with it prima facie evidence for
royal trust being placed in the individual who held this title. How Amenmose gained the
trust of Thutmosis III is unclear, but it must have had to do with his career as a Hry pDt.
Although it could be suggested that this provides evidence for a meritorious rise, in
which Amenmoses ability led to his promotion, the difference in the responsibilities

1320
Hry pDt is listed fourteen times and imy-r xAswt mHtt nine times. When placed together, they each take
precedence three times, with a possible fourth occurrence for Hry pDt, and each of the titles also appear in
combination with mry nb tAwy.
1321
At PM(16) I would restore [Sms] nsw Hr xAst RTnw Hry pDt imy-r xAst mHtt //// I[mn-m]s; cf. Davies,
Menkheperrasonb, pl.xlviG. At PM(8) we have the inscription irty nswt anx.wy bity Hr xAst RTnw Xst ////; cf.
Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xlviA. Bryan (in: Thutmose III, forthcoming) also records the title the one
relating to the king in the two lands of Retenu, which I presume she reads at PM(18), thus iry nsw Hr xAst
2 RTnw; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxxix.
1322
See note 2 above.
1323
Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, 251-258.
1324
Helck, Einfluss, p.70f.
1325
Helck, Einfluss, p.72.
294
seems too great for a purely merit-based ascent. A Hry pDt was still essentially a soldier,
even if an upper-level one who commanded troops.
1326
An overseer of foreign countries,
however, would function as the kings representative in foreign lands and be entrusted to
speak on the kings behalf.
1327
Based on the depiction of the Syrian fortress, Helck
suggested that Amenmose was the equivalent of the rabisu, or Kommissar in
Amurru.
1328
For Amenmose to have achieved such a post after a combat-oriented career,
suggests that the personal relationship that he developed with Thutmosis III is the
stronger factor.
Amenmoses final title of chief of the stables (Hry iHw), appears only twice in
TT42 once in an offering scene in the pillared-hall following his main titles and with
the qualification of the lord of the two lands, and once on the entrance to the rear
chamber.
1329
Either this was an early post that Amenmose considered of very little
importance, or it was awarded at the end of his career. According to Schulman it may not
have had an active military role attached to it,
1330
and Gnirs would interpret the
addition of n nb tAwy as supporting this.
1331
It is possible that Amenmose was given the
post of Hry iHw n nb tAwy as a type of retirement position, possibly in recognition of his
service in the Syrian wars of Thutmosis III.
1332
Whether this was granted by Thutmosis
III or Amenhotep II is uncertain, but as it appears last in the list already at the front of the
tomb, Thutmosis III is perhaps the more likely candidate.

1326
Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. Schulman places the Hry pDt as the highest rank a field-officer could attain.
1327
Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, p.256f..
1328
Helck, Beziehungen, p.251.
1329
PM(2) and PM(18); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xlviF and xxxix.
1330
Schulman, MRTO, p. 51.
1331
Gnirs, Militr, p.5.
1332
Schulman states in his discussion of the title that its holders really had no active military role (p.51)
and suggests that the evidence form the protocols shows him more frequently originating from an infantry
background as a combat officer or military official. It would not be however unlikely that he became a
stablemaster after he had left the military. Schulman, MRTO, p. 53.
295
As stated above, Amenmose was a co-regency official who may not have
survived long into the reign of Amenhotep II. In his tomb, the figure of both Amenmose
and his wife are thoroughly excised. This was clearly not the work of Atenist defacers
since the theophoric element of Amenmoses name is untouched, the title of his wife
Henuttawy, who was a chantress of Amun, is equally undamaged, and none of the sem-
priests were disfigured. Another explanation of the figures treatment is that they had
fallen into disfavor with the reigning king or suffered at the hands of a personal vendetta,
perhaps by a successor to Amenmose as overseer of foreign lands. There is no direct
evidence to support either of these scenarios over the other; the thoroughness of the
destruction, as well as the unfinished nature of the tomb, however, lends itself towards
royal instigation, or at least compliance.
The destruction in fact closely resembles that seen in the tomb of Rekhmire
(TT100). He was the vizier under Thutmosis III, witnessed the accession of Amenhotep
II, and was shortly thereafter replaced in his post. Rekhmires figure is also completely
excised throughout his tomb, although the figure of his wife is untouched.
1333
We do not
have any information on a retirement post for Rekhmire, and it may be that he was
ousted without compensation in order to ensure his familys removal from the vizierate. It
seems significant as well, that Amenmoses one identified son, Amenemhab, is given the
title of wab-priest of Amun. He clearly was not following his father into the military, but
whether through choice or necessity remains uncertain.

1333
Rekhmire, his family, and their downfall is dealt with in Chapter 1, on heredity and briefly mentioned
in Section IIb, above, in the discussion of the new vizier and his family. Although it has been suggested
that this also happened to the viceroy Usersatet, this does not in fact appear to be the case. See above
Section IIb, for a discussion of this official.
296
The lack of an autobiography for Amenmose means that we cannot state with
certainty that Amenhotep II did not promote Amenmose to his final position, but I think
this is unlikely for two reasons. The first is that the evidence for Amenmose that is
preserved centers on his presence in Syria and the presentation of foreign tribute and
captives before Thutmosis III in Egypt.
1334
It is more likely that Amenmose would
present before the king as an overseer than as a troop-commander. In addition, although
Amenmose witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II, the intentional erasures suggest that
he may have been removed from his position by the new king, which would argue against
Amenmose being appointed by him as well. I would tentatively suggest that Amenmoses
removal, like that of Rekhmire,
1335
occurred sometime after year 9 of Amenhotep II, after
the campaigns in Syria-Palestine had ended. It thus seems that Amenmose, like several of
the highest officials who attained their positions under Thutmosis III, was removed
relatively quickly by the new king, though not until after the northern lands were (re-)
secured.

Montuiywy
(Royal butler and court follower)
The royal butler Montuiywy, owner of TT172,
1336
is another of the few officials
whom we know to have crossed the Euphrates River with Thutmosis III when he

1334
Amenhotep IIs cartouches are in the tomb, but it is unclear whether he was depicted; cf. pp.289ff.
above.
1335
The discussion of Rekhmires removal and its timing is in Chapter 1.
1336
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, pp.459-61, type Vb. The tomb is unpublished. His stele can be
found in Urk. IV, 1466-8 and Herman, Stelen, 40*-41*.
297
undertook his eighth campaign into Syria in year 33.
1337
Despite this fact, he seems to
have done very little on the kings behalf while in Syria-Palestine. His inscriptions
provide an excellent counterpart to military men such as Amenemheb-Mahu and Dedy
who distinguished themselves in part through their careers.
1338
Montuiywys constant
focus on his nearness to the king may suggest that despite his actual palace-based
positions, Montuiywys career and visibility owes much to his relationship with the king.
Montuiywy was also certainly a co-regency official, based on the apparent
depiction of both kings in his tomb.
1339
This representation, which is rather unusual,
appears on the upper half of the east wall above a false-door stele with two registers of
offering-bearers on either side (Fig.33, p.489).
1340
On the north (left) side Montuiywy
praises a king wearing what appears to be the khepresh crown and holding an ankh in his
right hand and crook and flail in his left. The king is seated on a throne before an offering
table and as expected, he is at a larger scale than Montuiywy.
1341
The north scene is
approximately 1/3 larger than that on the south (right), where Montuiywy presents a
bouquet to a king also holding the ankh, crook and flail, who is seated on a throne placed
on a raised platform. The combination of the raised height of the king and smaller size of
the composition results in the kings scale being almost equal to that of Montuiywys.
1342

Unfortunately, the entire top half of the south side is destroyed leaving the identification

1337
Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85), Iamunedjeh (TT84) and probably Minmose (based in part on his use of the
verb DAi, to cross water, in his autobiography) are the others. See Chapter 3, for discussions of these
officials.
1338
See Chapter 3.
1339
Murnane, Coregencies, p.53 with n.94, placed Montuiywy as a possible co-regency official, and Van
Siclen agreed; cf. Uronarti, p.49(D).
1340
PM(3). It is quite different from the depiction in TT42 of Amenmose where the two kings are shown
back-to-back receiving offerings in the lunette of Amenmoses stele [PM(11)].
1341
Ancient Egyptian artistic convention was that the size of a figure was directly related to the individuals
importance. Thus in a tomb the owner is also represented as the largest figure, except when placed before
or in conjunction with kings or deities; cf. Robins, Proportion and Style, Ch.1.
1342
The upper body proportions of the king are at the same level as Montuiywys, indicating that if he were
standing they would be roughly the same height.
298
of the king unknown. However, although the columns of inscription above the northern
side are badly damaged, the very bottom of the cartouche is visible, and there do not
appear to be any signs within it. This suggests that the name which should be restored is
that of Menkheperre (Thutmosis III), rather than Aakheperure (Amenhotep II) since the
latter name would have plural strokes at the very end. Thus, if we assume that two kings
are depicted, then it must be Amenhotep II who is at the right. The smaller size of the
royal figure placed there now makes more sense, since if he were only coregent when the
scene was executed it is not impossible that Montuiywy and Amenhotep II would be
placed at a similar scale. In fact, this composition is not unlike that found in
Amenemheb-Mahus tomb where Amenhotep II followed by Mahu, his wife Baky, and
possibly their daughter Amunhedu present offerings to Osiris in a kiosk.
1343

Despite the lack of a clear identification of the kings, Montuiywys
autobiographical stele on the opposite wall seems to indicate that Thutmosis III died and
his son Amenhotep II ascended to the throne.
1344
Following the offering formula at the
beginning of the inscription,
1345
Montuiywy begins to recount his activities during the
reign of Thutmosis III. Thus we learn that Montuiywy was a servant in the kings
apartments who followed Thutmosis III as a youth (nxn) of twenty-two after having
grown up in the palace,
1346
and was then promoted to a higher position that related to the

1343
The scene in Mahus tomb (TT85) is located on the north end of the east wall of the pillared front hall,
PM(16). Thutmosis III is perhaps depicted as Osiris here, while the figures of Mahu and his family are only
slightly smaller than that of the newly crowned Amenhotep II. See Chapter 3, for a discussion of the scene.
1344
PM(2), Urk. IV, 1466-8, Hermann, Stelen, 40*-41*, pl.3 (b). The stele is badly damaged, as indicated
in Hermanns plate, but not significantly more than at that time. I was able to confirm the inscription as
recorded by Hermann and the Urkunden.
1345
Lines 1-4, Urk. IV, 1466.6-12.
1346
Lines 4-5, Urk. IV, 1466.13-16. The text, with restorations in [ ] from the Urk., reads: Dd.f [in]k //[saH
Ax n nb.f]// bAk n ipt-nswt iw Sms[.n].i //[nswt]// bity //[Mn-xpr]//-ra //[Hr xAswt]// nb[t] m nxn n ///x+ 1 i ////
xpr.n(.i) m Xnw He says: I was a [noble beneficial for his lord], a servant of the royal apartments. I
followed the king [of Upper] and Lower Egypt [Menkheper]re [upon] all [foreign countries] as a child of
299
other attendants in the palace.
1347
Montuiywy proceeds to extol the abilities of Thutmosis
III in his chariot and on the battlefield, including mention of traversing (xns) the
mountains, crossing the Euphrates River and crossing to Karoy, another name for Napata
in Nubia.
1348
The text bears remarkable similarity to that on the statue of the overseer of
works in the temples Minmose, especially in the verb choice and their order of
placement.
1349
According to Montuiywy, it was during the latter campaign that he was in
his (the kings) following, a phrase indicative of his close relationship to the king
1350
and
one that likely placed him in close contact with Thutmosis IIIs other followers, men
like Amenemheb-Mahu, Minmose, and Amenmose. The mention of the Euphrates River
crossing gives us a date in year 33, the eighth campaign that Thutmosis III made into
Syria.
1351

At this point in the narrative there is no indication that Montuiywy has been
promoted to the position of royal butler, but his personal relationship to Thutmosis III is
clear. The next series of events seems to describe the death of Thutmosis III and
accession of Amenhotep II, although neither king is named directly. Montuiywy relates:

(22 ?) after I grew up in the (royal) residence. I suggest a restoration of 22 based on the fact that a
single stroke is visible at the bottom of the damaged section and there is only room for one or perhaps two
additional strokes in front of it. Above this the most likely restoration are two signs each denoting the
number 10, since it is highly unlikely that Montuiywy was only in his teens on these campaigns. The
damage after m Xnw makes it possible that this should be taken as the proposition within rather than as a
preposition + noun. However, even translated as within, there would need to be a location named after
this, and the palace is still the most likely.
1347
Lines 6-7, Urk. IV, 1466.17-18. The text reads: /// iq[r.k]wi //// nb xpr.kwi m //// n Xrw tp aH I was
excellent everyone, I having become as of those who are under (i.e. subordinates) the head of the
palace.
1348
Wenig, Ld IV, col.343.
1349
See Chapter 3, pp.400ff. for a discussion of this official, esp. pp.403ff. for the relevant portion of
Minmoses Medamud inscription. The use of DAi to cross (water) is here used both for the Euphrates
campaign and the one to Nubia, which is unusual given that this verb is rarely used to indicate land travel.
It may be that the wrong determinative was drawn by the scribe, that of a boat instead of a x (Gardiner
Z9) and arm with stick (Gardiner D40), which would change the meaning to extend (against), a more
logical choice with regard to a Nubian campaign.
1350
Guksch, Knigsdienst, pp.57-65.
1351
On the campaigns of Thutmosis III, see most recently Redford, Wars.
300
[I went forth] bearing the praises of the lord of the two
lands, [he caused that I ?] flourish under the two legs of his
eldest son, who came out from [him after] he [appeared in
glory], the [image of] the king / a king like a god who
came forth from a god, whose seat Re confirmed.
1352


While not as explicit as in Amenemheb-Mahus autobiography,
1353
it is nonetheless clear
that Montuiywy is speaking about a transition between kings. Based on the stylistic
dating of the tomb, and Montuiywys certain participation on the Syrian wars of
Thutmosis III, the only conclusion possible is that the kings referred to are Thutmosis III
and Amenhotep II. It is also evident that Montuiywy participated in military operations
led by Amenhotep II on behalf of Thutmosis III and was active in Amenhotep IIs first
campaign in year 3, during which Thutmosis III probably died.
1354
Once Amenhotep II
becomes king, Montuiywy is further promoted within the palace sphere. Under the new
king he rises in rank and becomes promoted (sxnt) to a position supervising all the offices
of the kings house.
1355
In the Urkunden, the suggested restoration is that Montuiywy was
placed among his [courtiers] and promoted among his [officials].
1356
Hermann
however, includes Montuiywys royal butler title in the damaged areas, thus he was

1352
Lines 14-15, Urk. IV, 1467.16-20. The text, with restorations in [ ] from the Urkunden and suggestions
in ( ), reads: //[pr.n.i]// xr Hsw nb tAwy swAD //(.n.f wi ?)// [x]r rdwy sA.f smsw pr xn[t.f xAi].n.f //[tw]t nswt
/// f //// nTr pr m nTr s[m]n.n Ra nst.f
1353
See Chapter 3 for the discussion of Amenemheb-Mahus autobiography.
1354
For a discussion of the Thutmosis III Amenhotep II co-regency and the events surrounding
Amenhotep IIs year 3 campaign see der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19-40, 45-56.
1355
Lines 17-18, Urk. IV, 1468:6-8. The text as I viewed it, with only obvious gaps filled in ( ) reads:
di(.k)w(i) m ///w.f sxnt.kwi m //// iAwt nbt nt pr-nswt anx (wDA snb) r(di).kwi Xr st-Hr I was placed as/with
his (the kings) , I was promoted as/among , every office of the kings house, life, prosperity, [health],
was placed under the place of (my) sight.
1356
Urk. IV, 1468:6-8: : di[.k]w[i] m [-m smr]w.f sxnt.kwi m[-m srw.f] iAwt nbt nt pr-nswt anx wDA [snb]
r[di].kwi Xr st-Hr I was placed among his (the kings) courtiers, I was promoted among his officials, every
office of the kings house, life, prosperity, health, was placed under the place of (my) sight.
301
placed with his [courtiers] and promoted as [royal butler].
1357
The damaged area
gives almost no indication towards either restoration. I would only point out that if
Hermanns suggestion were accurate, then it is likely that the fuller phrase royal butler,
pure of hands was used because this would fit the space better.
1358

Bryan states that although it is clear that Montuiywy was promoted by
Amenhotep II, this does not necessarily mean he was not already a royal butler under
Thutmosis III.
1359
Indeed, in an offering scene towards the rear of the passage it would
appear that Montuiywy was given a possibly higher position late in life. Here he is called
the the two legs of the lord of the two lands upon every foreign country that he
traversed, [royal butler] pure of hands, overseer of the royal apartments, Xrd n kAp.
1360

This is the only place in the tomb that the title overseer of the royal apartments is
found, and one of the few instances in which royal butler is not placed just before
Montuiywys name.
1361
Perhaps then Montuiywys final position, the one to which
Amenhotep II promoted him, was overseer of the royal apartments. If this is the case,
then it implies that after a long tenure as a royal butler on the campaigns of Thutmosis III
and Amenhotep II, Montuiywy was brought back to the palace and given a position in his
later years that was the culmination of his early career as a servant in the royal
apartments.

1357
Hermann, Stelen, 41*.7: di[.k]w[i] m [smr]w.f sxnt.kwi m [wbA nswt] iAwt nbt nt pr-nswt r // m Xr
st-Hr I was placed with his (the kings) courtiers, I was promoted as royal butler, every office of the
kings house as under the place of (my) sight.
1358
There is a trace of a line just before the word iAwt, included in the Urkunden as part of the plural strokes
following srw. Hermann does not indicate this stroke, but it could easily be part of a in wab awy.
1359
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.49.
1360
In the offering scene in the middle(-north) of the east wall of the passage, PM(9), Montuiywy is being
presented with funerary gifts made in the workshops depicted in the adjacent scene.
1361
Out of seven relatively undamaged inscriptions, in which the end of the text and Monutiywys name are
legible, or at least easily reconstructable, royal butler appears at the end in at least three (PM(4), (5),
Passage ceiling, west band) and possibly four [PM(10)]. Of the remaining three texts, in two Xrd n kAp is
the last title [PM(1), (9)], while in the third the last title is lost, though it may have read royal butler of
pure hands, [Xrd n kAp], which would fit the space [brazier offering to the east of PM(1)].
302
What is especially interesting is that despite the long autobiographical narrative,
and Monutiywys various duties at home and abroad, almost nothing of this is
represented in his tomb. This may be a result of the damaged state of the transverse-hall
of the tomb. In the hall, the only scenes that are extant are those that show banqueting,
offering, fishing and fowling, and the two stelae discussed at length above.
1362
It is
certainly possible that the remaining two walls of the tombs transverse-hall are where
representations of Montuiywys activities in the palace would have been placed. While
the depictions on the west wall of the passage are purely funerary in nature,
1363
those on
the east wall could plausibly fit into the realm of daily life or even duty-related scenes.
At the south end of the wall Montuiywy hunts on foot in the desert,
1364
while just to the
north is an extensive vintage scene in which all five parts of the process are shown:
picking and crushing the grapes, making and storing the wine, and presenting the
products to Montuiywy.
1365
While both of these scenes are commonly found in 18
th

Dynasty Theban tombs, and are generally interpreted as representations of an officials
activities on his own estate, in Monutiywys case it is also possible that the vintage scene
serves as a reminder of his royal butler responsibilities as well. This may also be a second
interpretation for the agricultural activities that are placed along almost the entire bottom
of the wall and depict the cycle from ploughing to harvesting.
1366
The next scene on the

1362
On the south wall, west side [PM(1)] Montuiywy offers braziers followed by several attendants, and is
offered to by a priest. PM(2) contains the autobiographical stele, while at PM(3) is the false-door stele and
scene of Montuiywy offering to the two kings. The east side of the north wall [PM(4)] contains fishing and
fowling as well as an offering scene, while in the lower register Montuiywy is seated in a kiosk receiving
the products of the catch.
1363
PM(5)-(6). The wall bears three registers of a funerary procession culminating in the arrival of the
people and objects before Anubis (top register), Osiris (2
nd
register), and a destroyed figure.
1364
PM(7).
1365
PM(8). The scene also includes the figure of Termuthis in snake form placed above staked jars. The
inscription with Montuiywy is very faded and difficult to read.
1366
The depictions are below PM(7)-(9).
303
wall, PM(9), is an excellent indicator for the high status that Montuiywy held, though it
provides little information about his duties. Here he is seated receiving objects which are
being made for the New Years Day (wpt-rnpt) festival.
1367

Montuiywys claim to have gown up in the court accords well with his title of Xrd
n kAp.
1368
However, unlike other officials who were called Xrd n kAp and whose parents
have a demonstrable connection to the court,
1369
the only evidence for Montuiywys
childhood at the court is his own statement. The fact that there is almost no information
about his family is not due to his tomb being damaged. Rather, an examination of the
scenes quickly demonstrates two points. First, based on the fact that Montuiywy is
represented alone in all of the offering scenes save one, at the rear of the passage, he was
either not married, or only married late in life, after his tomb decoration had been
started.
1370
The woman who receives offerings with Montuiywy on the east wall of the
passage appears to be his mother, the mistress of the house, Hepu.
1371
Second,
Montuiywy may have come from a relatively low social status since his father is not
depicted or mentioned anywhere in the tomb, and his mother is only designated as a
mistress of the house.

1367
The scene is a similar, though much smaller, version of the one in TT92 of the royal butler Suemniut,
placed at the north end of PM(7). Although in Suemniuts case he is presenting New Years gifts to
Amenhotep II and Maat. See above, pp.203ff.
1368
Montuiywy bears this title in the offering scene adjacent at PM(1), as well as in the two scenes placed
at the north end of the passages east wall, PM(9)-(10). PM(9) is the scene with the New Years Day gifts,
and PM(10) is an offering scene.
1369
I.e., Iamu, the son of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu, the overseer of the granaries
Menkheper(resoneb) (TT79) whose father was the overseer of the granaries Minnakht (TT87), the steward
of Perunefer Qenamun (TT93) whose mother Amenemipet was a royal nurse, and perhaps Paser (TT367),
the son of the Hry pDt Nebamun (TT145).
1370
Although a woman accompanies Montuiywy in the fishing and fowling scene [PM(4)] and a young boy
in the hunt [PM(7)], neither are identified and could thus be related in any number of ways, i.e. respectively
a mother/wife/sister/daughter/niece or brother/son/nephew.
1371
PM(10), the north end of the wall. The woman is identified in PM I.1 p.280 as his mother, and although
the inscription is rather faded, mwt.f, his mother seems to be a better fit than Hmt.f his wife.
304
Yet this would appear to contradict Montuiywys own statement that he grew up
in the court. An important point for reconciling these two issues is that in his
autobiography Montuiywy expounds on the virtues and abilities of Thutmosis III,
1372
and
also credits the king for his advancements. The emphasis that Montuiywy places on
Thutmosis IIIs role in the campaigns and concomitant lack of any mention of his own
achievements suggests that the point being made is that Montuiywy was present on these
campaigns. His apparent place in the court from an early age may have allowed him to
take advantage of the access he had and develop a friendship with the king that resulted
in Montuiywy accompanying Thutmosis III on his military undertakings. At the very end
of his autobiography, Montuiywy states, I praise god for the favors of the king in the
(royal) residence, a lifetime of Ra and the years of Atum.
1373
This would seem to imply
that for Montuiywy, the favors granted him by both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II
played a central role in his advancements. Schulman has suggested that by the Amarna
Period the royal butlers comprised a class of men who were loyal to the king, due to their
positions within the kings household rather than the court itself, and thus they depended
on the favors of the king.
1374
This description seems to be quite accurate with regard to
Montuiywy.




1372
For example, in line 13, Urk. IV, 1467.15.he describes Thutmosis III as a sole warrior who made
himself into portions aHA waw ir sw m fqdw. The statement seems to imply that Thutmosis was alone on the
battlefield, yet was able to be everywhere at once.
1373
Line 18, Urk. IV, 1448.9-10: dwA.i nTr n Hsw nswt //// m-Xnw aHaw n Ra rnpwt Itm. Hermann restores
di.n.f n.i He gave to me in the damaged portion.
1374
Schulman, CdE 61, p.196-7. For further discussion on the royal butlers, see the discussion of Suemniut
in Section IIb, p.203 ff. above.
305
Pehsukher
(A court-based military official)
The military officer known as Pehsukher called Tjennu bore the titles fan-bearer
(of the lord of the two lands), idnw of the king/his majesty and idnw of the multitudinous
army, as well as iry pDt of the lord of the two lands. He will be referred to simply as
Pehsukher here.
1375
Discussions about Pehsukher have generally focused on comparison
between him and Amenemheb-Mahu, owner of TT85, who served under Thutmosis III
and provides accounts of several of the campaigns on which he participated.
1376
This may
have led to Pehsukhers being viewed as more of a military official than he actually was.
A reevaluation of Pehsukhers career and titles follows in an effort to ascertain whether
he was truly a military man, or used the military as a context in which to place his
relationship to Amenhotep II.
Pehsukhers tomb, TT88,
1377
and to a lesser extant his career, are quite similar to
that of Mahus, the owner of TT85.
1378
The numerous points of comparison between the
two mens careers and families are well-known to scholars and have been discussed at
length elsewhere.
1379
In some areas Pehsukhers tomb and its decoration replicates that
seen in TT85, while in others it appears that Pehsukher borrowed and adapted some of
the elements for his own tomb, TT88.
1380
This is probably due to Pehsukher and Mahu, as
well as Neith and Baky, having comparable duties, even if the titles themselves are not
exactly the same. Unfortunately, unlike Mahus tomb, the construction and decoration of

1375
TAy xw (n nb tAwy), idnw n nsw; idnw n Hm.f; idnw n mSa aSAw, iry pDt n nb tAwy
1376
See Chapter 3, for a discussion of this official. For Mahus autobiography; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.167-
72.
1377
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.342, type VIIa.
1378
Amenemheb-Mahu is discussed Chapter 3.
1379
Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen., pp. 65-80. It has also resulted in the joint re-
publication of TTs 85 and 88, which is currently underway.
1380
Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp. 65-80.
306
Pehsukhers was never completed and as a result we do not have as clear a picture of his
career.
1381
In basic type and placement, the scenes which were finished mirror those
found in TT85: provisioning of troops and storing of provisions on the southwest wall,
false-door stele on the north end of the west wall, inspecting troops and offering before
the king on the northwest wall, offering braziers and banquet scene on the southeast wall,
round-topped stele with offering text on the south end of the east wall, and decorated
pillars.
1382
In addition to TT88, Pehsukher also owned a stelephorous statue, now in the
Royal Scottish Museum,
1383
and several funerary cones.
1384
He is called the fan-bearer
of the lord of the two lands, idnw of the king on both.
The reconstruction of Pehsukhers career is made difficult by the lack of an
autobiographical stele and the damaged or uninscribed duty-related scenes. The
depictions of recording the storing of provisions and recording the troops are unfinished,
and in the representation of provisioning troops Pehsukhers titles are lost. However, this
last scene is such an exact match in placement, style and content to Mahus earlier TT85
a restoration of Pehsukhers text can be suggested.
1385
The beginning of the inscription
duplicates the one in TT85, at the end of which Mahu is called an idnw n mSa.
1386

Pehsukher is also assisted by scribes in this depiction, one of whom refers to Pehsukher

1381
TT88, like TT85, has a 6-pillared front room with the end pillars attached as pilasters and the beginning
of a passage that was never finished being hewn. It is also placed on a south-north axis.
1382
All of the scenes are in the pillared hall. Respectively PM(1), southwest wall; PM(2), west wall, north
end; PM(3), northwest wall, west end; PM(4), northwest wall, east end; PM(5)-(6), southeast wall; PM(7),
east wall, south end; the south face of the central pillars (Ba, Ca) and lintel between them as well as the
south face of the west pillar (Da).
1383
RSM, Edinburgh, no. 1910.75. Vandier, Manuel III, pl.clx (3).
1384
Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 201.
1385
In both TT85 of Mahu and TT88 of Pehsukher this depiction is placed on the southwest wall of the
pillared hall, and the provisioning occurs at the east end of the wall.
1386
Compare Urk. IV, 911.5-11 with 1459.
307
as a TAy xw.
1387
It thus seems likely that the end of the text would read either idnw n mSa
aSAw (or idnw n nswt) TAy xw PH-sw-xr mAa-xrw.
Throughout the rest of the tomb, including in the elements that frame the stele,
Pehsukher is called equally idnw (of the king) and TAy xw (of the lord of the two lands).
The only variants of this are the titles idnw of the multitudinous army and idnw of the
king in the army.
1388
The latter is the same as that found once in Mahus tomb and bears
some discussion here.
1389
Gnirs has argued that while at the beginning of the New
Kingdom the title idnw n mSa was originally a military office, it eventually became an
administrative label denoting logistical responsibilities within the military.
1390
This
change also brought the position under the subordination of the king, and thus the titles
idnw n nswt /Hm.f become variants for it, suggesting that the bearer is always an idnw of
the king even when this is not explicitly stated. Gnirs would thus understand the term
idnw as shifting from the duties of an adjutant or deputy (Adjutanten) within the military
to those of a representative (Stellvertreter) of the king in the military sphere.
1391
The fact
that both Pehsukher and Mahu held the additional variant idnw of the king in the army
lends support to this idea. In Mahus case it seems likely that because he was a career
military officer who, as an older man, was directly appointed or promoted by Amenhotep
II into the position of idnw he straddles the transition of the title from military to purely
administrative. For Pehsukher however, his function as an idnw was probably more
directly administrative from the beginning.

1387
PM(1), east end, register three: TAy xw PH-sw /// pA Hm-ntr ///
1388
In the brazier offering scene at PM(5) and the column of inscription that runs along the left side of the
stele, respectively.
1389
In the transverse-hall, PM(26), see above.
1390
Gnirs, Militr, p.25 with note 202.
1391
Gnirs, Militr, p.102 with note 532 and p.152 with note 957.
308
Although Pehsukhers career seems at first glance remarkably similar to that of
Mahu, it is important to mention that while Pehsukher was indeed in the military and
participated on the campaigns of Amenhotep II, he was more administrator than warrior.
While Mahu stresses his role in the campaigns prior to becoming an idnw, Pehsukher
bears no truly soldierly titles. Rather, his military exploits are expressed as epithets.
These epithets include one relating to the legs of the lord of the two lands upon northern
and southern foreign countries,
1392
one relating to the legs of the good god who does
not turn away from the lord of the two lands upon the battlefield and one who follows
the king in his marches upon the southern and northern foreign lands.
1393
Guksch
interprets all of these phrases as statements expressing loyalty to the king.
1394
Even
Pehsukhers two main titles, idnw of the king and fan-bearer of the lord of the two
lands, as well as the less common iry pDt, while essentially military in nature, carry
with them a strong inference of court/royal connection. This is especially true for fan-
bearer, which unlike standard-bearer is more representative of an officials proximity to
the king than of his function on the battlefield.
1395
Although Pehsukhers stele contains an
offering text including a hymn to Re, appeal to the living and the gods and numerous
self-praising statements, it nonetheless provides some insight into Pehsukhers career.
1396

He seems to mention his advancement within the context of the numerous laudatory

1392
PM(5), west end of the southeast wall: iry rd.wy n nb tAwy Hr xAst rsyt mHt
1393
Pillar Da (south face), registers 1 and 3 respectively: [iry rdwy nTr nfr] tm [tSy r] nb tAwy [Hr pri] and
[(Sms) nswt r nmtt].f Hr [xAst rsyt mHtt]. Based on Vireys copy as these inscriptions are today badly
damaged.
1394
Guksch, Knigsdienst, pp.56-73.
1395
Schulman does not deal with the fan-bearer titles at all, but views standard-bearer as denoting
military responsibility; cf. Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3.
1396
The Htp-di-nsw formula and hymn concern lines 1-15, while the appeal and I am/was (ink )
statements appear in lines 15-33. The form and content of the stele is to a large extant the same as that seen
in other tombs of this period, e.g. TT200 of the military official and chief of police Dedi, TT87 of overseer
of the granaries Minnakht, and in TT79 of his son, the overseer of the granaries Menkheper(resoneb); cf.
Urk. IV, 1515 ff.
309
epithets that are meant to demonstrate his usefulness above other courtiers.
1397
Pehsukher
claims that the king promoted (sxnt) him because of his devotion,
1398
and repeats this on
one of the pillars with the epithet one whom his lord ennobled.
1399
Thus, it appears that
throughout his tomb Pehsukher is continually stressing his relationship with the king as
opposed to his military abilities or duties.
1400

The comparisons that have been made between Mahu and Pehsukher have also
been made between Pehsukhers wife Neith and Mahus wife Baky, who were both
designated as a chief royal nurse and nurturer of the good god.
1401
Pehsukher did not limit
his borrowing from TT85 to scenes only related to his own career, the representations
pertaining to Neith are also quite similar to Bakys representations found in TT85. Neith
accompanies Pehsukher in the brazier and banquet scenes on the southeast wall, as well
as on the pillars, where she bears both of these titles.
1402
However, unlike Baky, Neith is
never shown suckling the prince, or being offered to by her husband, rather she is
consistently shown paired with Pehsukher.
1403
One image in particular has often been
discussed with respect to Pehsukhers use of scenes from TT85: the representation of

1397
This is in contrast to Mahu, who explicitly states that he was appointed by the king.
1398
Line 12, Urk. IV, 1522.9: sxnt.n nswt Hr mnx-ib.f
1399
Pillar Da, south face, register 3: saH nb.f.
1400
As will be shown in Chapter 3, this is quite different from the case of Mahu, who focuses almost all his
attention on his military exploits and career.
1401
mnat wrt n nb tAwy Sdt nTr nfr
1402
PM(5): nbt pr mr.f mnat wr(t) Sdt nTr Nt maAt-xrw; PM(6), from Virey, MMAF 5: Hm.f mr.f mnat wrt Sd
nTr Nt mAat-xrw; Pillar Ca, reg.1: nbt pr mnat nswt Sd nTr ///; Pillar Da, reg.2, from Virey: Hmt.f mna(t) nswt
Nt mAa-xrw; Pillar Da, reg.3: Hmt.f mr.f mnat nswt Nt mAa-xrw.
1403
Roehrigs suggestion that a fragment in Berlin depicting a woman suckling a male child comes from
TT88 is certainly a possibility, though unproven; Roehrig, Royal urse, pp. 175-6, 302-4. Part of the
problem is its location the south end of the west wall and south face of the adjoining pilaster is plastered
but undecorated, as is the south face of the eastern pilaster, adjoining the stele at PM(7). If it follows the
pattern of the rest of the tomb, it should appear in the lower register of the north end of the east wall.
However, this as well as the adjoining northeast wall were either destroyed down to the rock or were left
unfinished. The latter seems more likely, especially since this is the only area in the pillared hall in which
the ceiling was plastered but not painted, and in general only small parts of the plaster have fallen off to
reveal bare rock.
310
Baky offering an Amun bouquet to Amenhotep II in TT85.
1404
In TT88 an extremely
similar scene is found in the same position, and above it is almost an exact replica of the
columns that pertain to Baky (Fig.34, p.490).
There are two important differences between the depictions in TT88 and TT85
that have thus far gone unnoticed. First, in TT85, although the majority of the wall is
destroyed, the heads of the figures belong to women. This is certain based on both the
style of the hair and the fact that the inscription, which relates only to Baky, starts in the
column immediately adjacent to the kings kiosk. However, in TT88 while we are
missing the heads of the figures, we have the feet: the first figure is a man and the second
is a woman.
1405
In addition, the inscription, which is for Neith, begins in the fourth
column. Thus the first three columns could easily have been intended for Pehsukher, or
even the king. As was mentioned above in connection to Mahu and Baky, scenes in
which a couple offers before an enthroned king are uncommon. However, the fact that it
is not Neith, but presumably Pehsukher followed by Neith who offer bouquets makes it
quite clear that while Neith was probably an important figure due to her status as a royal
nurse, she was not individually honored in the way that Baky was.
In general, Pehsukher has been thought a somewhat later contemporary of Mahu
who served primarily under Amenhotep II, though he probably began his career under
Thutmosis III. Unfortunately the name of the king depicted in the kiosk offering scene is
completely lost, and it does not appear or is not preserved elsewhere in the tomb.
1406
It is

1404
In TT85 it appears at the east end of the northwest wall [PM(9)], adjacent to the scene of Mahu before
the troops [PM(8)]. See also the discussion in Chapter 3
1405
In fact, there is a destroyed space before the man into which another smaller figure could fit perhaps a
fan-bearer or two?
1406
This is at PM(4). Unlike in Mahus tomb, the name of the king does not appear on the sides of the
storehouse in the provisioning scenes, PM(1).
311
thus not possible to say for certain who Neiths nursling was, although usually prince
Amenhotep, later Amenhotep II has been suggested.
1407
Above (p.271ff.) Pehsukher was
discussed in relation to his appearance in the steward Qenamuns tomb, TT93, and the
issue of Neiths nursling was also debated. The conclusion reached was that Pehsukher
was a contemporary of Qenamun and Amenhotep II, and thus Neith was more likely to
have been a nurse to Amenhotep IIs son prince Thutmosis (IV). Although the thematic
content of the tombs decoration is more reminiscent of that seen in the reign of
Thutmosis III and early Amenhotep II, we must remember that Pehsukher copied scenes
from a tomb of the earlier period. In addition, the decorative style of TT88 is comparable
to that of Qenamun and other officials whose tombs were painted in the latter portion of
Amenhotep IIs reign.
Pehsukher was an important official in his own right during the reign of
Amenhotep II. Despite his tombs unfinished status, its size suggests that Pehsukher was
honored by the king, as does his marriage to a royal nurse. We know little of his origins
as neither his tomb nor his statue provides any information about his own parents, or
those of Neith. Whether this is due to the tombs unfinished state, Pehsukhers desire to
emulate Mahu (who did not name his parents in his tomb), or was intentional, is
unknown. However, based on the type of epithets, and even titles that Pehsukher had, it
appears that his career was based primarily on a personal connection to the king. Unlike
the idnw Mahu, Pehsukher did not have a truly military career. Rather he was primarily
an administrator who probably would have stayed close to the palace. This is reflected by
the fact that all of his titles have the qualification of the lord of the two lands or of his
majesty added to them.

1407
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.172ff.
312
As was mentioned above, Pehsukher copied or adapted scenes from Mahus tomb
for the decoration of his own. Perhaps Pehsukher emulated Mahu in part to increase his
own standing through comparison to the older official, who had achieved his status and
relationship with both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II through merit.
1408
Pehsukher may
even have named his son, the second priest of Amun Mahu after the older official, since
the two names are written with the same orthography. What remains clear is that
Pehsukher seems to have owed his position to a personal friendship with the king, rather
than to his abilities or his family.

IV. Conclusions
The foregoing discussion has demonstrated that nepotism was indeed a part of
Egyptian bureaucratic society, and that it occurred in different degrees and with varying
results. Those officials whose familial influence provided them access to positions are all
active throughout the Theban temple sphere, ranging from low to upper- level priests and
temple staff.
1409
In one example, a family belonging to the mid- and upper-priestly
echelons of royal mortuary temples may also have had a connection to the king through
the father, which could have further enhanced the positions of his sons.
In contrast, officials who benefited due only to an ancestors relationship with the
king attained extraordinarily high positions within all areas of the government. This
relationship, with one exception, was based on the parent being a nurse or tutor to the
king as a youth. All of these officials afforded a parent unusual prominence in their

1408
See the discussion in Ch.3.
1409
This is also seen in the family of the steward Amenemhat, and among the in-laws and descendants of
the vizier Aametu, who were included in Chapter 1.
313
monuments, but only one is designated as a Xrd n kAp (child of the court), while another
who is praised in the kAp is also called a foster-brother of the king (sn mnay n nswt).
Additionally, three of these men report only their highest titles, while a fourth bears an
early post that has no link to his subsequent positions. Three officials in this group also
carry some level of military distinction, and appear to have eventually formed their own
rapport with the king. For those officials whose personal friendship with the king was
stressed above anything else, it appears that this association led to increased prestige and
status, but did not necessarily result in significant job advancement. In one instance, the
son in fact inherited the titles of his father, although this is given a singular lack of
attention in comparison to the officials claim to amity with the king. In addition,
although participation on military campaigns was mentioned or implied by all of the
kings friends, only one of them clearly had an actual role in military activities. This
suggests that mentioning ones presence in relation to the battlefield was important to
demonstrating camaraderie with the king.
Among the four priestly families who benefited from familial nepotism, only for
the first kings son Amenhotep is there clear evidence for three generations of clergy.
Due to the state of preservation in their tombs, there is no information on the descendants
of either the high priest of Mut, Qen, or the weigher of gold and silver, Baki. Thus, we
cannot state conclusively that their children would not also have been priests or temple
staff. Ra, the high priest in several mortuary temples, was both childless and unmarried.
Although it is possible that one of Ras brothers had children who could have also been
priests, there is no record of this in Ras tomb, or that of his father the 2
nd
priest of Amun,
Ahmose. Although all of the officials in this group entered the priesthood through their
314
families, this was effected in slightly different ways. The relatively low rank of
Amenhoteps uncle, Neferhotep, suggests that this may be an example where an official
influenced a superior to the benefit of a relative. Ras father, however, would probably
have wielded enough power from his priestly and court positions that he could place his
sons as upper-level priests. Assuming that the restoration of Qens father as an overseer
of the granaries of Amun is correct, then he too would have had the ability to spread his
sons throughout Karnak. Baki provides an interesting case, since it may be that his father
Bak(enamun)s position as scribe of counting cattle in (the mortuary temple) of
Ahmose-Nefertari bestowed upon the family an increased status and visibility.
In the text it was suggested that the first kings son (high priest) Amenhotep
honored his uncle, Neferhotep, because he played a role in Amunhoteps becoming a
priest. However, the highest, and only, recorded position for Neferhotep is 4
th
priest of
Amun. This position is relatively low in the temple hierarchy,
1410
which makes it unlikely
that Neferhotep could have installed Amunhotep as a wab-priest. A more plausible
explanation might be that Neferhotep was able to influence a superior to install his
nephew Amenhotep as a wab-priest.
1411
Based on his titulary, it appears that Amenhotep
moved through the ranks of temple priests, beginning at the lowest level and eventually
becoming high priest in the funerary temple of Thutmosis I. However, Amenhoteps son,
Aakheperkaraseneb, seems to have been able to pass over the middle positions of his
father, ascending from wab-priest directly to high priest in the mortuary temple of
Thutmosis I. This may indicate that Amenhotep, once he became high priest, was able to

1410
Sauneron, Priests, pp.57f.; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.69, 71ff.
1411
However, since it is possible that Amenhoteps father Djhutsenty was active at Djeser-djeseru, it cannot
be entirely ruled out that he also played a role in his Amunhoteps career path.. He bears the (reconstructed)
epithet or title revered before [Amun] in Djeser-djseru, the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-
Bahri.
315
use his influence to accelerate his sons assumption of the highest position. The fact that
Aakheperkaraseneb reports the same titles as his father, also suggests that this is another
example of direct office inheritance of the type seen in the previous chapter.
As mentioned above, Bakis case is interesting because the status indicated by his
titulary seems to be incongruous with tomb-ownership. Bakis positions are essentially in
the low to middle range of temple administration, making it seem unlikely that he would
have been able to have a tomb at all. Yet his tomb (TT18), though not large, has a
courtyard, is well decorated, and is favorably situated within the necropolis on the Dra
Abu el-Naga hillside.
1412
An explanation for this might be that Bakis fathers connection
to the mortuary temple of Ahmose-Nefertari may have afforded him a higher level of
status than would otherwise be expected for a scribe of counting cattle.
1413
If this were the
case, then it seems that the fathers status was transferable to his son.. The fact that TT18
has a view towards the joint funerary temple of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari
seems to support this theory. It also leads to the question of whether Baki himself served
in the same mortuary temple. Although the addition of the phrase of Ahmose-Nefertari
is not found in his tomb, the poor state of its preservation means that we cannot rule out
this possibility. Unfortunately, the lack of information concerning Bakis sons prevents
us from assessing the chronological extent of the status engendered by a connection to the
mortuary temple administration of a prestigious queen.
1414


1412
Kampp, Thebanische ekropole, p.199f., pl.7.
1413
Ahmose-Neferetari was extremely prominent and influential during the reigns of her husband Ahmose
and son Amenhotep I. See the Introduction to the book, Section II, pp.3ff.
1414
It is possible that the absence of Bakis sons from the record is itself suggestive that familial-based
prestige was not maintainable for more than one generation.
316
The above two examples both demonstrate how a mid-level official could use
familial influence could be used to assist a relatives placement in the same type of office,
priestly for Amunhotep and temple administration for Baki. However, Qens family
demonstrates that when a parent was especially highly placed in the temple domain, his
sons can be found functioning as both clergy and temple staff. As an overseer of
granaries of Amun, it is likely that two of Qens brothers, Djhutymes and Wesy, came
under their fathers direct supervision, while Qen and two other brothers were in
completely different areas of the temple. Indeed, Qen himself probably had a degree of
influence that was similar to his father, though as a priest rather than an administrator.
The fact that none of Qens preserved titles are lower than high priest of Mut, may
indicate that his fathers prominence hastened Qens rise, and he subsequently chose not
to report his lower titles.
1415

Ra, who was a high priest in the mortuary temples of Ahmose-Nefertari,
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, provides an excellent example of the fluidity that can exist
between modes of office transmission. In the examination of the monuments belonging to
Ra and his father Ahmose, two details are especially notable. The first is that both
Ahmose and his wife Iret were elite members of the clergy in Karnak and had a
privileged status in the court. The second is that Ra, in addition to holding several high
priestships, had a close relationship with his sovereign, Amenhotep II, which allowed Ra
to depict the king and the kings mother Merytre in his tomb. This suggests that Ras
entry into the upper echelons of the priesthood was due to his fathers status at Karnak,
that his initial contact with Amenhotep II came as a result of his parents prestige in the

1415
It is also possible that Qen was placed in an extremely high position from the beginning.
317
palace, and that Ra was eventually able to establish his own personal connection to
Amenhotep II. Although this may seem similar in some respects to those men who gained
positions due to an ancestors connection to the palace, I would argue that in Ras case
the primary reason that he became high priest was due to his fathers positions at Karnak,
not his standing in the palace.
This should be seen as distinct from the officials who originally benefited due to
an ancestors association with the king, as well as separate from officials whose positions
are due to royal favor brought on by amity with their sovereign. In the preserved
decorations and inscriptions of the tomb, Ra does not stress his fathers palace
connection; Ahmose is only designated as a high priest of Amun.
1416
In contrast, officials
like Qenamun, who owed their high office to a parents influence with the king,
consistently honored this ancestor in their monuments. Ra also does not report any court
epithets that would suggest that he owed his position to individual favors bestowed by the
king.
1417
Rather, Ra depicts himself offering to the Amenhotep II and kings mother
Merytre in his guise as high priest of Amun and of the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III
in Henkhet-ankh, with three additional priests of Amun behind him. This is very
different from, for example, Paser who, despite following in the career path of his father,
focuses in his tomb solely on his friendship with the king since youth. Without his
fathers help, it is not at all clear that Ra would have attained the level of priestly rank
that allowed him to build such a large, well-located, tomb and made him visible not only
to the ancient Egyptians but to the modern scholar as well.

1416
It must be admitted that this could have occurred in the destroyed portions of the tomb.
1417
This seems less likely to be an accident of preservation, since in the brazier offering scene Ra lists only
the standard epithets, but almost all his priestly titles.
318
This last statement is likewise true for the second group of officials examined in
this chapter, but here it was the parents direct influence with the king that led to these
officials prominent placement in the government of Egypt. There are several remarkable
conclusions that can be drawn from examining these men. First, it seems significant that
the officials descend almost equally from tutors as from nurses to the kings they later
served. Menkheperresoneb (i), Qenamun and Mery were each sons of nurses, Suemniut
and Amenemopet-Pairy were sons of tutors, and Sennefer was the nephew and adopted
son of Amenemopet-Pairys father. In addition, both Sennefer and Usersatet married
royal nurses. Usersatet is the only official whose parent was not a royal nurse or tutor,
rather, he was the son of a Xkrt nswt who was herself the daughter of a palace official.
Turning to the chronology of these men we find that Menkheperresoneb (i) is the only
official who dates to the co-regency and early years of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign; his
mother was a nurse to Thutmosis III. Usersatet and Suemniut clearly served under both
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, and Sennefer may have as well. The remaining men
were officials solely during the reign of Amenhotep II. Based on the chronology, it seems
most likely that the wives of Usersatet and Sennefer would have performed their nursing
duties for Amenhotep II.
The fact that certain men and women were entrusted with the care of princes and
princesses as royal nurses and tutors is prima facie evidence for the closeness of their
relationship with the reigning king and father. Tutors,
1418
who were also called it mna(y)
nswt, father and tutor, seemed to have been guardians selected to watch over the young
prince or princess. They could also be given the charge of a group of children, as the title

1418
In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.322-7 for her concluding comments on the royal tutors.
319
mna(y) n msw nswt tutor of the kings children indicates.
1419
In addition, a tomb scene
in TT109 of the royal tutor Min indicates that their duties could involve instructing the
male princes in skills such as archery.
1420
It is likely that tutors received this position
towards the end of their careers, after they had already proven themselves as trustworthy
to the reigning king. Although men could be represented as tutors without holding the
title, this does not seem to be the case for women who were nurses.
1421
Royal nurses
1422

probably functioned as wet-nurses for the princes and princesses, as the breast
determinative for the title implies and several tomb scenes and epithets indicate.
1423

Those that nursed the crown-prince, including the women mentioned above, are
distinguished by the titles chief (wrt) royal nurse and Sdt (Haw) nTr, one who nurtured
(the flesh of) the god.
1424
As would be expected, it is likely that nurses were appointed
early in life, when they would have been able to suckle the royal children. This may
indicate that the type of relationships royal nurses formed with their charges from birth
might have furthered their ability to influence them as kings.

1419
Hekareshu and Hekarneheh, who were tutors to princes Thutmosis (IV) and Amenhotep (III),
respectively, each held this title; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.201f., p.211; Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.55ff.,
259 ff.
1420
This scene occurs on the west half of the front (south) wall, approximately in the center of the lower
register; cf. PM(5)IV,1. Although Min was clearly an important mayor in the Thinite region during the co-
regency and early years of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign, and became tutor to prince Amenhotep (II) towards
the end of his career, he was excluded from this study because at this time there is no information which
provides an indication of how Min rose to prominence or what power he was able to wield on behalf of his
descendants.
1421
This is determined by representations (statuary and tomb painting or relief) in which the official is
depicted holding a royal child or children; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.2. The six tutors in question are
Pahery (el-Kab T.3), Minmose (statue), Benermerut (statue), Sobekhotep (TT63, statue), Horemheb
(TT78), and Tjenuna (statue). The women are always accorded their title(s).
1422
In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.314-21 for her concluding comments on the royal
nurses.
1423
The epithets are sweet of milk, one who suckled well, and whose breast was united with Horus;
cf. Roehrig, p.320.
1424
Roehrig, Royal urse, discusses this particular title on pp.327-30. The tutors Ahmose-Humay and
Hekareshu also held the title, while the tutor Ahmose-Pennekhbet reports a similar one.
320
Roehrig suggested that Thutmosis III created a group of strong and trusted
courtiers for Amenhotep II in the form of husbands to royal nurses, the children of
whom would have provided a group of future courtiers in the form of foster-brothers and
sisters with extremely close ties to their sovereign,
1425
while for royal tutors the honor
shown the tutor does not seem directly to have benefited his family.
1426
The results of
the current study do not support these statements. It is not the husbands of the nurses, but
the nurses themselves who are prominent figures, even after Amenhotep II becomes king.
In addition, it appears that the children of both nurses and tutors became important and
influential men in the government of Amenhotep II. However, none of these men were
called foster-brother of the king
1427
except Qenamun, for whom it appears to have been
honorary.
The husbands of the women who were nurses to Amenhotep II are virtually
unknown.
1428
Certainly the fathers of Mery and Qenamun are elusive figures at best in the
tombs of their sons, and this is also true for Menkheperresoneb (i), whose mother was a
nurse of Thutmosis III.
1429
Even Menkheperresoneb (ii), who inherited his uncles
position as high priest of Amun, states that he was born of the foster-sister of the king,
Nebetta thus stressing his familys status at the palace, rather than naming his father.
1430


1425
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.336-7.
1426
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.331.
1427
The title foster brother/sister of the lord of the two lands (sn/snt mna(y) n nb tAwy) could only be held
by children of nurses. In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.308-14 for her concluding
comments on this title. B. Bryan, who suggested the title indicated a brother or sister of a nurse or tutor
(SSEA IX, pp.117-23), now agrees with Roehrig on the titles interpretation (pers. comm.).
1428
The one exception is Amenemheb-Mahu, who is discussed in the next chapter.
1429
Menkheperresoneb (i)s father was the chariot-warrior Hepu. He appears twice in the tomb, but his wife
Taiunet is the figure whose name and person are given distinction. Merys father Nebpehtetre, although a
high priest of Min at Coptos, is known only through two inscriptions in Merys tomb. In contrast, Hunay
figures prominently both in her sons tomb and in TT84, which he usurped. The presence of Qenamuns
father, the steward of , is completely overshawdowed by that of his wife Amenemopet.
1430
The foster-sister of the king was Nebetta, sister to Menkheperresoneb (i); cf. Ch.1.
321
In contrast, the mnat nswt themselves appear to be very prominent women in their own
right.
1431
This is primarily reflected in how they are represented, both pictorially and
textually, in the tombs of their sons. Although Menkheperresoneb (i) was unmarried, his
mother Taiunet appears or is mentioned not only in banquet scenes, but in the funerary
procession and in inscriptions along door-jambs as well. This suggests that she is
included in the funerary cult alongside Menkheperresoneb (i), and not simply serving in
the role of a wife in her sons tomb.
1432
Despite the fact that he was probably married,
Mery is accompanied by his mother, Hunay, both in his own tomb and in TT84, which he
usurped,. The prominently placed scene in TT93 in which Amenemopet holds the child-
size king Amenhotep II on her lap while he reaches towards her clearly demonstrates that
she was accorded special distinction and status both by Qenamun and Amenhotep II.
Likewise, Sennefers wife Senetnay/nefer seems to have been similarly singled out by
Amenhotep II and may have been granted her own burial in the Valley of the Kings,
perhaps along with Sennefer.
Although it seems likely that tutors, unlike nurses, received their positions at the
end of their careers, this does not necessarily mean that their role as a tutor was not an
element in the furthering of a sons career. As was stated above, the very fact of being a
tutor implies that the official already had a close relationship with his sovereign that
would benefit his own descendants even before becoming a tutor. However, the evidence
seems to imply that it was this final promotion and recognition on behalf of the king that
allowed its bearer to significantly influence the careers of his children. For example,
Suemniut came from a hereditary line of mayors but did not inherit this position himself.

1431
In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.314-21 for her concluding comments on the royal
nurses.
1432
Cf. Whale, Family, pp.261ff.
322
Rather, it appears that his father Iamnefers tutor-based connection to a son of Thutmosis
II gained Suemniut sustained attention at the court that enabled him to accompany
Thutmosis III on his campaigns as a standard-bearer and later become royal butler. This
disconnect between Suemniuts military and palace administration posts and his fathers
priestly and mayoral functions supports the theory that it was Iamnefers role as a tutor
that resulted in Suemniuts career path and his subsequent ability to form his own
relationship with Amenhotep II.
Ahmose-Humay probably became a tutor shortly after Amenhotep II was born,
since in addition to this title he was called [father and nurse] of the kings son of his
body.
1433
However, his epithet one who nurtured [the flesh of the god] also indicates
that he lived to see Amenhotep II become king. Thus, despite the stylistically early date
of Ahmose-Humays tomb he may not have been nearing the end of his career by this
time. While Ahmose-Humay may have benefited enormously from his position as an
overseer of the estates connected to the GWA, it nonetheless seems that it was his amity
with Thutmosis III and connection to the young Amenhotep II, more than his position
within the administration of the holdings attached to the gods wife estates, that led to
his son Amenemopet becoming vizier under Amenhotep II. Significant for this
conclusion is the fact that on his own monuments Amenemopet reports only the title of
vizier and its associated titulary. There are no military epithets to indicate that he
participated on the campaigns of Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II, nor does he have any
titles that might connect him with his fathers positions in the temple or palace.

1433
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.349,
323
Sennefer, however, seems to have benefited from both of his uncles main spheres
of influence. It appears that here we have an example of different types of nepotism
altering a career. As an overseer of priests connected to the mortuary temple of the
GWA, Sennefer was probably introduced into the temple clergy through the power that
his uncle could wield as an overseer of granaries in the same domain. However, the shift
from this rank to that of mayor of Thebes and the unparalleled control over the Amun
precinct as exemplified by Sennefers titles suggests that something more powerful than
familial nepotism was behind his rise. I would posit that this something was the
authority Ahmose-Humay held as a tutor to Amenhotep II.
Previous scholarship, while recognizing an association between royal nurses
(though not tutors) and men who become prominent officials, has consistently taken the
position that because children of nurses would have grown up in the court they developed
friendships with the young crown-prince that then led to their positions in the
administration.
1434
However, it seems more accurate to say that it was the parents royal
connection that allowed the official to be noticed and promoted. The question thus
becomes, how much influence did they have once their charge became king, and to what
extent could they bring this to bear on behalf of their children? The evidence presented
here suggests that in fact royal nurses and tutors were able to do more than simply ensure
that their children grew up around the palace and were therefore part of the court elite. As
adults, these men held the most prominent positions of the country. The immediate

1434
A theory first suggested by Helck in Einfluss, pp.35-6, n.1, 66-71 and repeated in his Verwaltung,
p.538, it has since been repeated by every scholar to deal with this time period; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse,
pp.336-7; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.152-69, esp. pp.167ff.; Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.269ff.
324
deputies of the king were Usersatet as viceroy of Kush (Nubia)
1435
and Amenemopet as
vizier. In the north, Qenamun was the steward of the important naval center and
Amenhotep IIs garden estate at Perunefer. Thebes had as its head Amenemopets cousin
Sennefer, who was both mayor of the city and held a large degree of administrative
control within the Amun domain in Thebes. Menkheperresoneb (i) and Mery were both
high priests of Amun, although not successively.
1436
Attached to the king himself were
both Qenamun, in his role as steward of the king, and the royal butler Suemniut, whose
function in provisioning the kings palace was awarded prominence in his tomb.
The clear veneration of the royal nurses by their sons, and in some cases by their
charges after assuming the throne, was demonstrated in the text and reiterated above.
Likewise, Ahmose-Humay was accorded a prominent position in the tombs of his son,
the vizier Amenemopet, and his nephew, the mayor of Thebes, Sennefer. Although
Suemniuts father Iamnefer was not particularly distinguished, it seems that this might be
due to the fact that Iamnefers connection was with Thutmosis II and III, while the king
depicted in Suemniuts tomb is Amenhotep II. Suemniuts final distinction and own royal
connection came under this king, and so Iamnefers role in his rise was reduced. This
recognition combined with the positions that the sons of these nurses and tutors attained
all seem to point towards the conclusion that that the institution of the royal nurse was
highly influential during this time period. It also suggests that the influence of the nurse,
likely lasted beyond the actual time that they were intimately involved with the king. In

1435
Though not a son of nurse, his familys long-standing presence in the administration of the royal
apartments seems to have had the same effect.
1436
Menkheperresoneb (i)s nephew Menkheperresoneb (ii) inherited this post only to be replaced during
the reign of Amenhotep II by the apparently fairly unknown Amenemhat. See the discussion in Chapter 1.
325
addition, it seems likely that although tutors were already distinguished officials, their
ability to shape their sons careers was heightened by this position.
The four officials presented in this chapter who cite a personal friendship with the
king as the primary reason for their positions have further common elements. They
exclude any mention of their family, and they all express a connection with the military
and the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. However, their military
experiences are all quite different, and may thus reflect not only an actual presence, but
also a socially perceived need to relate oneself to the king through battle. The fact that
these officials served under both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II suggests that despite
Amenhotep IIs lack of military activity after year nine, the burgeoning of the military
had a lasting effect on the elites self-representation.
This is perhaps best demonstrated by comparing the career and life of the overseer
of foreign countries Amenmose with that of the royal butler Montuiywy, both of whom
were officials during the reign of Thutmosis III, participated on his campaigns, and
witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II. The similarity between these two officials ends
here. Amenmose is the only official with a demonstrable military career, depicting
himself on campaign in Syria receiving gifts from a conquered fortress, and in Egypt
presenting foreign tribute and captives before Thutmosis III. The relationship he
apparently formed with Thutmosis III on these campaigns allowed him to shift from an
upper-level combat position (Hry pDt) to that of a diplomat in Syria-Palestine (imy-r xAswt
mHtt) with seemingly no intervening steps. This disparity seems to indicate that it was not
simply Amenmoses ability that caused his rise in rank, though admittedly this may have
played a part.
326
Montuiywy, however, was a palace-based official, holding positions related to the
kings apartments when he followed the king across the Euphrates River. Unlike
Amenmose, Montuiywy neither refers to nor depicts his own activities on these
campaigns. Instead he confines himself to extolling the virtues and abilities of Thutmosis
III in battle and repeatedly mentions his place in the following of the king. Although he
did move from a palace servant to supervisor to the overseer of offices and apartments,
the emphasis throughout his autobiography is on his closeness to the king. There is no
sense that Montuyiwy earned or had a hereditary right to his positions. Rather, in perhaps
the clearest statement of personal gain through connections, Montuiywy states that he
praises god for the favors of the king.
1437

Another interesting dichotomy between these two men is that while Montuiywy
was clearly promoted by Amunhotep II, it appears that Amenmose was removed from his
post by this king. It was mentioned in the text that this may have occurred shortly after
year nine of Amenhotep II, once the campaigns in Syria-Palestine had ended. It thus
seems that Amenmose, like several of the highest officials who attained their positions
under Thutmosis III, was removed relatively quickly by the new king, though not until
after the northern lands were (re-)secured. Although Montuiywy was a royal butler,
which was an upper level position, there is no evidence that he was removed from office.
The reason for this could be that Montuiywy was old enough that he was not considered a
threat by Amunhotep II,
1438
or that, as Montuiywys tomb seems to indicate, his actual
duties were small compared to his titulary.

1437
See above, p.304.
1438
Montuiywy was 22 when he first went on campaign, and the first recorded mention is yr.33, so he
would be about 42 at the accession of Amunhotep II.
327
Paser provides an example of the fluidity and interplay between methods of
obtaining office and demonstrates how royal favor did not necessarily elevate ones
functional position. Paser, like Amenmose, held military titles and epithets suggesting
that he campaigned with Amenhotep II. However, he also appears to have inherited his
highest title, Hry pDt, from his father, who served in this capacity under Thutmosis III,
and claims that he was given rings of fine gold. Despite this, it is clear that Paser
emphasizes his connection to the court as a youth by awarding prominence to the titles
that reflect this position, namely Xrd n kAp and chief of the followers of his Majesty
when the king was as a (royal) child. The inscriptional and pictorial focus of Pasers
tomb suggests that Paser viewed himself as a loyal childhood friend of the king, and
wished to present himself as such. The fact the he could depict Amunhotep II in his tomb
implies that the king also considered him as a close friend. Rather than increased titular
awards, it seems as though Pasers relationship with the king resulted in material goods in
the form of gold and a tomb placed in the upper terraces of the Qurna necropolis, looking
out over the funerary temple of his sovereign. This provides further evidence that Pasers
status, and perhaps even the inheritance of his fathers titles, was based not on merit but
on his association with the king.
Pesukhers friendship with the king seems to have resulted in an increased level
of status for himself and, quite possibly, his wife. Although Pehsukher carried military
epithets, like Montuiywy these stress his relationship to the king rather than any actual
participation.
1439
As it was suggested in the text, Pehsukhers titles and epithets all seem
to point towards a connection with the king, which, although it may have military

1439
E.g., One relating to the legs of the good god (i.e., the king) who does not turn away from the lord of
the two lands upon the battlefield.
328
undertones, was likely not related to participation on any campaigns. His titles of fan-
bearer and idnw of the king in the army, place emphasis on his affiliation to the king,
rather than on his military responsibilities; it is as the kings representative that he records
troops, rather than as a military officer. In addition, in his autobiographical stele
Pehsukher states that he was promoted (sxn) because of his loyalty, not because he
excelled at his position. Whereas Amenmose had clear military responsibilities and even
Montuiywy worked in the palace, it appears that Pehsukher was essentially given a
position without significant duties attached to it. We must remember that Amenhotep II
was no longer campaigning in Syria-Palestine after year 9, and expeditions into Nubia are
virtually unattested. Thus, Pehsukhers posts would have been entirely home-based and
perhaps involved little more than routine inspections. Pehsukhers elite status, as well as
his amity with the king, is reflected in his wife Neiths position as a royal nurse. This is
true regardless of whether she became a nurse before or after marrying Pehsukher,
although if the latter scenario is correct, then this suggests that Neith benefited from her
husbands relationship with Amenhotep II, which was based on friendship and expressed
allegiance, rather than on recognition of his abilities.
In summary, the results of this chapter indicate that unlike for men who inherited
their offices (presented in Chapter 1), the officials who owed their positions to nepotism
as practiced either within the family, between the family and the king, or directly with
king, would not have become visible as elite or favored officials without this assistance.
We can see that familial influence is an entrenched aspect of the priesthood in Thebes.
Although most of our data comes from Thebes, where the Amun priesthood was naturally
most prominent, this does not dilute the above statement, but rather confirms it. For an
329
official with some degree of influence with the Amun or royal funerary temple domain,
the enormous size of these establishments and their need for personnel may have in fact
facilitated an officials ability to practice nepotism. This seems to be supported by the
presence of the upper elite in the temple ranks, such as the descendants of the vizier
Aametu, mayor of Thebes Sennefer, and the children of several personal friends.
In the reign of Amenhotep II it appears that while amity with the king could
afford one a greater status and visibility among the elite than would have occurred
naturally, this connection did not result in becoming an upper level official within the
administration. In addition, it appears that expressing a military association, whether real
or fictitious, was important to demonstrating loyalty. This suggests that the campaign
activity of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign had an effect on how officials chose to represent
themselves and the origin of their status at least into the early years of Amenhotep II.
The governing of the country at the highest levels was reserved for men whose
parentage and already elite status were able to influence the Kings decisions concerning
appointments.
1440
This implies that Amenhotep IIs nurses, tutors, and even Xkrt nswt
could wield significant power on behalf of their children. As a rule, it appears that the
officials who attained these positions were not close contemporaries of Amenhotep II, but
were quite likely a bit older or younger. Among them, only Usersatet was designated as
Xrd n kAp, and Qenamun was called foster-brother of the king, but in both cases these
distinctions seem to have been awarded as status markers later in life. Thus, while they

1440
Although only Qenamun records an appointment text, the lack of a tomb for Usersatet and the damaged
nature of Amenemopets tomb do not preclude them from also stating that they were appointed by the king.
The work of Tefnin and his team in the tomb of Amenemopet may yet provide us with these texts.
330
may have later become friends with the king, it was the fact of having a parent in an
influential position that precipitated their rise.


331
Chapter 3
Meritorious Rise to Office
I. Introduction
Was it possible for ancient Egyptians to rise in social status through their own
abilities? Even assuming it was, would we be able to tell? These are two fundamental
questions that surround the issue of meritocracy in ancient Egypt.
It seems that the most likely place in which we might find evidence for
meritorious rise is in the statements made by the officials themselves. The
autobiographies of the 18
th
Dynasty may be especially fruitful in this regard because it is
during this time period that the professional sphere of the individual becomes integrated
within the existing framework that had been in development since the late Old
Kingdom.
1441
According to Gnirs, statements about professional achievements seek to
demonstrate not only historical information, but also to represent the deceased as having
achieved distinction due to personal qualification and initiative.
1442
Thus, the phraseology
common to many New Kingdom autobiographies asserts ones own capabilities and
performance, such as his trustworthiness (iqrw) made his place,
1443
my lord praised
me on account of my excellence,
1444
and my heart (i.e. intelligence) advanced (sxn) my
place and my trustworthiness (iqrw) caused that he (i.e., the king) place me in the council
chamber.
1445

Eyre asserts that the private autobiography is a speech of self-justification,
addressed by the tomb owner to posterity, and to a lesser extent to his

1441
Gnirs, in: History and Forms, p.228.
1442
Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.230-1.
1443
Urk. IV, 1522.9: ir.n iqrw.f st.f
1444
Urk. IV, 1533.5: Hswn win b.i Hr mnx.i
1445
Urk. IV, 1533.8: in ib.i sxnt st.i iqrw.i di.n.f wi m sH
332
contemporaries.
1446
As such, it should be kept in mind that when examining the
inscriptions of these men we are provided with the image of how they have chosen to be
remembered. In order to ascertain whether these statements might have some truth to
them, there must be other types of evidence that support such a claim. This evidence
might be found in statements where the deceased claims to have been appointed or
promoted to a post on account of his actions. There is also the possibility that a very
regular route to advancement, with no obvious outside connections that might assist an
individual in achieving a position, would indicate that the promotions were based on the
persons abilities. Likewise, a distinct absence of information about family background
may suggest that an official did not view his family as an important to his career, and
may help us to conclude that the official in question rose through his own recognition.
When examining the inscriptional data, the issue of self-presentation must also be
kept in mind, and any statements that the official himself makes regarding his career or
family must be correlated with the evidence as presented by his monuments, tomb
depictions, and actual status and positions. A detailed examination of an officials career
as it compares with his own self-depiction may help to distinguish between truly merit-
based advancement and officials whose position and status were primarily made possible
by royal favor or friendship.
1447





1446
Eyre, in: History and Forms, p.422.
1447
It should be remembered that one of the models being examined in this study is Helcks theory that
service in the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II resulted in a class of elite military
men. See Introduction to the book Section II.
333
II. Officials
Sennefri
(His rise from a Sna Sna Sna Sna in the Delta to overseer of the seal)
The overseer of the seal (imy-r xtm) Sennefri, owner of Theban Tomb 99
1448
and
Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no.13,
1449
is an official of the Hatshepsut Thutmosis III
coregency who continued into the sole reign of Thutmosis III.
1450
This dating makes
Sennefri somewhat earlier than the period under consideration (Thutmosis III-Amenhotep
II). As will be suggested below, it seems possible that in fact Sennefris career started and
continued somewhat later than is generally thought. It also appears that his first position,
which was connected to production storage in the Delta, may have been what first
brought him to the attention of Thutmosis III as he passed through on his way north to
Syria-Palestine. Although not a military official, Sennefris duties eventually took him to
Lebanon, and thus he became one of several men who mention the exploits of Thutmosis
III in connection to their own, non-military, careers.
In addition to the monuments mentioned, Sennefri was the owner of several
funerary cones,
1451
two block statues,
1452
a pair statue,
1453
a broken block statue where he
is holding a prince,
1454
and a stele from Serabit el-Khadim.
1455
He was also depicted with

1448
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.368-70, type VIa.
1449
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.37-9.
1450
This tomb is currently being prepared for publication by Nigel Strudwick, and I would like to thank
him for allowing me to visit and photograph portions of TT99 in 2002. I should also mention that much of
my information comes from Strudwicks website on TT99: www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/index.html.
1451
The funerary cones are Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos.154, 93.
1452
Both statues are in black granite. One is BM48, from Thebes and published in HT VIII, no.48, p.4-5,
pl.v and Urk. IV, 544.13-548.3. The second is Kunsthistorisches Museum S 5978, published in: Rogge,
CAA Wien 6, pp.221-4.
1453
Also in black granite, it is in the Cairo Museum, CG 1013, Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, p.25-6,
pl.160.
1454
Also in black granite, it is in the Cairo Museum, CG 1112, Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, p.64,
without plate; Roehrig, Royal urse, pl.11
1455
The stele is published in Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, pl. LXV (199), II, 161-2
(199).
334
Thutmosis III in a relief at the temple to Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim
1456
and mentioned
in a papyrus dated to the middle of Thutmosis IIIs reign, along with other high
officials.
1457

The shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no.13) would appear to be the earliest monument
attested for Sennefri.
1458
The shrine is essentially destroyed, and were it not for the
remains of the inscription on the outer lintel and left jamb we would be unaware that it
belonged to Sennefri. The lower portion of the jamb records the titles of overseer of the
seal, brave one, and royal herald.
1459
The cartouches on the lintel originally bore the name
of Hatshepsut and her prenomen Maatkare, however these were re-carved to read
Djhutymes and Menkheperre respectively. Helck suggested that Sennefri served as
overseer of the seal only under Thutmosis III and usurped an earlier shrine, but most
scholars now agree that Sennefri was the original builder and owner of the monument,
and thus held this position during the co-regency.
1460
Although Sennefri carries his title
overseer of the seal on all of his monuments, the Silsilah shrine is the only one that
bears the name of Hatshepsut. If Sennefri were already an overseer of the seal during the
reign of Hatshepsut, as he would have to be if this were his original shrine, then it does
seem unusual that we would have no other evidence for this.
1461
Dziobek contends that
the erasure on the shrine is similar to those seen on others at Silsilah dated to Hatshepsut

1456
Urk IV, 548; Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, pl. LXIII, II, 158-9 (194); photo Petrie,
Sinai, pl. 96, p. 80.
1457
Papyrus Louvre E3226, published in M. Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, 17, pl. XI (A recto XI, 3-4); 24, pl.
XXVI (A verso XI, 3-4).
1458
Published by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.37-9, pl. 26-7, 30-1.
1459
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.32: imy-r xtmt qn and imy-r [xtm]t wHm nswt
1460
Helck, GM 43, pp.39-41; For the newer date cf. Megally, Papyrus E.3226, pp.279-81, Dziobek,
Denkmler, pp.134-5 and Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. However, Redford, Wars, p.175, notes that
Helcks suggestion is plausible.
1461
Roehrig also mentions this, and subsequently follows Helcks reconstruction. Roehrig, Royal urse,
p.99-100.
335
and the co-regency.
1462
While this is not entirely accurate,
1463
the fact that the overseer of
the seal was one of the highest positions within the administration of ancient Egypt
implies that Sennefri would have started a new monument rather than usurped an existing
one. In addition, given the length of his tenure in office,
1464
it is quite possible that he
would have made several trips to Gebel es-Silsilah himself. When Thutmosis III began
his program of defacing Hatshepsuts monuments late in his reign, Sennefri had his
altered as well. Thus, despite the fact that Sennefri was a co-regency official, he had the
name and prenomen of Hatshepsut removed from the lintel and replaced with those of
Thutmosis III.
Sennefris tomb, TT99, is one of the largest in the Theban Necropolis.
1465
The
plan includes the courtyard and T-shape common to tombs of the period, but the long
passage then opens into a large 2-pillared hall at the rear of the tomb.
1466
TT99 is
surrounded by others belonging to primarily upper level officials who served during the
span of Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II.
1467
For example, the vizier Rekhmire has his tomb,

1462
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.135.
1463
The other six co-regency shrines, as well as the two dated to Hatshepsut, all had her name erased or
hacked out but never replaced. The co-regency shrines are nos. 6 (Ahmose), 7 (unknown), 14 (overseer of
the seal Nehesy), 17 (vizier User), 22 (unknown), and 23 (overseer of the granary Minnakht). Shrines 15 of
the high priest of Amun Hepuseneb and 16 of the steward Senenmut are dated to Hatshepsut. Caminos and
James, Silsilah I; Helck, GM 43, p.41.
1464
He is overseer of the seal at least until year 32 of Thutmosis III; cf. Megally, Recherches, p.279-81.
1465
The tomb is currently being prepared for publication by N. Strudwick. His website has photos and texts
published on it; cf. Strudwick, web: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/index.html
1466
Its orientation is not directly south-north or east-west, but on a southwest-northeast angle.
Unfortunately, the tomb is badly damaged and burnt, resulting in significant losses of the lower portions of
the walls.
1467
Sennefris tomb (TT99) is just above TT100 of the vizier Rekhmire and next to TT97 belonging to the
high priest of Amun Amenemhat. TT99 is also surrounded to the west by a cluster of tombs dating to
Amenhotep II: TT29 belonging to the vizier Amenemopet, TT96 of the mayor of Thebes Sennefer
(Amenemopets cousin), TT94 of the first royal herald and fan-bearer on the right of the king Ramose
called Aamay, TT95 of the high priest of Amun Mery, TT98 of the 3
rd
priest of Amun Kaemheribsen, TT93
of the chief steward of the king Qenamun. Tombs located to the east and slightly above Sennefris are
TT84 belonging to the royal herald Iamunedjeh, TT85of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu, and
TT87 of the overseer of the granaries Minnkaht. Minnakht is attested only during the reign of Thutmosis
III, while Amenemheb-Mahu and Iamunedjeh were colleagues during the reign of Thutmosis III who lasted
336
TT100, located directly below Sennefris. Rekhmire was primarily in office under
Thutmosis III, though he witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II and lasted into the
early portion of this kings reign. Next to and just east of TT99 is TT97, belonging to
Amenemhat, the high priest of Amun under Amunhotep II. This may indicate that
Sennefri continues later in Thutmosis IIIs reign than previously suspected. Indeed,
Bryan suggests that Sennefri and Rekhmire may have constructed their tombs
contemporaneously.
1468
If Sennefri was overseer of the seal further into Thutmosis IIIs
sole reign, then it becomes likely that he started at a later point in the co-regency as well.
Throughout TT99, Sennefris most numerous and prestigious title is overseer of the seal,
and many of his other titles probably reflect various aspects of his function and
responsibilities in this office.
1469
The scenes and inscriptions which have the most bearing
on our understanding of Sennefris career and how he gained each of his positions are
concentrated in the transverse-hall, with the addition of the autobiography that appears on
a wall in the rear chamber.
1470

Sennefris autobiography was placed on the left front wall of the rear chamber,
adjacent to the entrance into the room.
1471
An unknown number of columns at the
beginning of the inscription are lost, and as is the case with many of the walls of the

into the early years of Amenhotep II. For the locations, see the plans in PM I.1, map V, Sheikh Abd el-
Qurna North and Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, Plan III, Sh. Abd el-Qurna II.
1468
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1469
For example, his titles of overseer of the granaries, chief of mayors, overseer of gold lands of Amun.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1470
Following PM, the scenes are at PM(2)-(5) and PM(9). Strudwick has renumbered the walls of the
tomb and in his system the depictions appear at walls 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12; these will be referred to as S1, etc.
Two important new scenes that were not identified in PM are on the short walls of the transverse-hall, S2
and S5.
1471
PM(9), S12. Due to the tombs orientation, this is at the east end of the southwest wall.
337
tomb, the lower portion of Sennefris autobiography is badly damaged.
1472
Of the
preserved columns of Sennefris autobiography, the first eight provide a list of his titles,
each starting with the generic court designation iry-pat HAty-a. Following this, Sennefri
mentions three different specific offices (iAwt) that he held, and mentions at least some of
the duties connected to them. Despite the lack of dates, an internal chronology is
suggested by the statements and a career path can be reconstructed. Sennefri tells us: iw
ir.n.i iAt tpyt ti wi m r r-Hry m //// I made the first office when I was as chief mouth in
.
1473
He goes on to say: mH.n.i m tp-rd n Hry-tp.i //// imyw-r Snaw Xr st Hr.i I filled
according to the instructions of my chiefs [of the Sna (?)], the overseers of the storehouses
being under my supervision.
1474
The title chief mouth (r-Hry) often is used to refer to
temples,
1475
while the Sna seem to be production centers, with perhaps temporary storage,
exclusively associated with temple complexes.
1476
In addition, Polz has demonstrated that
the title imy-r Sna is usually either qualified by a gods name, or by reference to the

1472
Urk. IV, 528.11-531.15. A portion (lines 9-18) is published in hieroglyph and roughly translated on
Strudwicks website, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/wall12.html
1473
Column 9. In Urk. IV, 530.1-2 the r preposition which is clearly on the wall was left out.
1474
Columns 10-11, Urk. IV, 530.4-6. See also the translation provide by Strudwick at
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/translation.html
1475
The phrase used is almost exactly that seen on a stele from Abydos (BM1199) belonging to the high
priest of Osiris Nebwawy (Thutmosis III-Amenhotp II), Urk. IV, 208.8-9: iw ir.n.i iAwt tpt m pr it Wsir
di.kwi r r-Hry m r-pr.f /// nw Hwt-nTr and similarly later in this inscription, Urk. IV, 209.12: di.kwi r r-Hry m
xai-mnw Dsr pr nw it nsw-bity Nb-pH-ra. Additional comporanda for this phrase can be found on a statue
(Berlin 2296) of Hatshepsuts steward Senemut, Urk. IV, 405.3: ink saH mr nb.f aq Hr bit n nbt tAwy saA.n.f
w(i) xnt tAwy rdi.n.f wi r-Hry n pr.f.
1476
Polz, ZS 117. The traditional translation of magazine or storehouse indicates its close relationship
to the term for granary, Snwt; cf. WB IV: 507.12-508. Recent exacavations undertaken around the funerary
temple complex of Sesostris III at the site of Abydos indicate that this was almost certainly the case, at least
for the Middle Kingdom. This is based on sealings mentioning the Sna and officials associated with it that
were found near the temple, but not in or near the contemporary town-site. The temple connection
continues in the New Kingdom at Abydos, as an inscription on the wall of the Ramesses temple indicates.
These excavations were undertaken by V. Smith in 2004, as part of her doctoral dissertation research under
the auspices of the UPenn Expedition to South Abydos directed by J.Wegner, and the overall umbrella of
the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition to Abydos, co-directed by D. OConnor and W.K. Simpson. I thank V.
Smith for this information.
338
king.
1477
Thus we might suggest that in this sentence Sennefri is informing us that in his
first position as the chief mouth in [a temple complex] he was responsible for carrying
out orders given to him by the chiefs [of the Sna] that were attached to the temples
production center.
During this time Sennefri may have been functioning in the northeast of Egypt,
perhaps near the area of Watet-Hor, where his father was the overseer of the st.
1478

Eichler has suggested that the st might have been part of the Sna complex, in which case
Sennefri may have been functioning under his father.
1479
The exact location of Watet-Hor
is unknown,
1480
though it may be in the northeast of Egypt. This is based on two roughly
contemporary tomb depictions that show wine and other items being brought from a
place called Watet-Hor in conjunction with (and contrast to) products from the Oases, it
should perhaps be placed in the northeast of Egypt.
1481
This is suggestion is supported by
the contemporary overseer of double granaries Minnakht, who was called both imy-r st
and imy-r st n at irp, the latter title appearing in conjunction with a scene of receiving
produce from the Ways of Horus.
1482
Strudwick does not think that Watet-Hor should
be equated with the similarly named Ways of Horus,
1483
which runs from the Delta

1477
Polz, ZS 117, p.47. Verarbeitungsbeitrab or Produktionsbetrieb. See also Helck, Verwaltung,
pp.159 f. Arbeitshaus.
1478
This comes from Sennefris statue, BM48; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.4-5, pl.v; Urk. IV,
547.4-5. In columns on either side of the top of the statues pedestal Sennefris father is imy-r st m WAtt-@r
xAy-tp-DHwty mAa-xrw and his mother Xkrt nswt %At-DHwty mAat-xrw xr Wsir
1479
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.66ff., 181ff. See also the discussion of Minnakht in
regard to this title and the Ways of Horus, Chapter 1.
1480
WB I, 248.14 defines this as a wine-producing area (Bez. einer Wein produzierenden Landschaft).
1481
In the tomb of the 2
nd
priest of Amun Puiemre (TT39), jars from Watet-Hor are brought in conjunction
with products from the the northern and southern Oases; cf. PM(11), where it is translated as Road of
Horus. According to Strudwick, the other depiction is in the upper tomb of the mayor of Thebes Sennefer,
TT96A; cf. Strudwick, website: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/senneferi.html.
1482
Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.389; Guksch, Die Grber, p.18f., 44f. See also the
discussion of Miinnabkht in Chapter 1.
1483
Bietak, Ld III, cols.62-4.
339
across the Sinai to the north-east, due to differences in the orthography.
1484
However, it is
at least possible that Watet-Hor was located near this road, perhaps at the southwestern
end of it, closer to the Delta and near the northeastern boundary of Egypt proper.
1485

Regardless of the exact location in the north of Egypt, it is clear that if Sennefris father
was functioning in this area, then they were likely not from Thebes, and thus Sennefri
also grew up in the north. One might surmise then that his first position would have been
held in this area as well.
From this we learn that although granted a significant amount of authority,
Sennefri was still a second-level official who reported to and carried out the commands
of his superiors. According to Polz, Sennefris statement of being a supervisor to the
overseers of the Sna is unusual.
1486
However, it seems possible that it was Sennefris
abilities in this position that led to his eventually becoming the overseer of the double
granaries, a much higher position but one with similar functions.
1487
This career path
would be similar to overseer of the double granaries Minnakht, who was a colleague of
Sennefris during the reign of Thutmosis III, and who was also an overseer of the Sno.
1488

Sennefris exact entry into his second position is lost, but the initial phrase can be
reconstructed: //// //[iAt 2-nwt m]// imy-r xtmt ini.kwi r WAst Iwnw Smaw rd.kwi r imy-r
Snwty Ssp.n(.i) HH //// bAkwt.sn m SA[y]wt nt niwt.sn m Htr n Tnw //[rnpt]// [(My) second
office was as] overseer of the seal. I was brought to Thebes, the southern Heliopolis, and
I was placed as overseer of the double granaries, and (I) received millions of their

1484
Strudwick, website: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/senneferi.html
1485
Bietak, Ld III, col.63; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming, also makes this suggestion.
1486
He is the only official in Polzs list with this position, Polz, ZS 117, p.54 A7.
1487
This title will be discussed below.
1488
Polz, ZS 117, p.55 A10. A later official with both titles was the overseer of the Sna and overseer of the
granaries of Aten User, who served under Akhenaten, cf. Polz, ZS 117, p.55 A18.
340
taxes, consisting of the dues of their cities as the tax of every year.
1489
From this
inscription two things become evident. First, that Sennefri was brought to Thebes and
once there made the overseer of the seal. This suggests that his duties as an overseer of
the seal required that he be in the south, and specifically in Thebes. This leads into a
second observation, namely, that his function as overseer of the double granaries was
connected to his position as overseer of the seal. Bryan also pointed this out, mentioning
a scene in TT63 of Sobekhotep, the overseer of the seal under Thutmosis IV, in which his
title is that of overseer of the seal, but the activity recorded involves overseeing the filling
of the royal granaries.
1490
The connection in Sobekhoteps tomb can be extrapolated to
Sennefris career, where it implies that Sennefri had proven himself as an official in
charge of directing the overseers of the Sna and for this reason was brought south and
given the higher position of overseer of the seal. Unfortunately, the remains of the
preserved scenes in Sennefris tombs do not appear to indicate that a depiction similar to
the one in TT63 existed.
However, we know from Papyrus Louvre E.3226 that Sennefri was involved in
the collection of grain in his capacity as overseer of the seal.
1491
On the papyrus, which
originated in Thebes, Sennefris name appears twice in connection with shipments of
grain that were brought from Quft in year 32 of Thutmosis III.
1492
He appears to be in
charge of the deliveries to the granary officials.
1493
These deliveries are referred to as the

1489
Columns 11-13, Urk. IV, 530.11-16. See also the translation provide by Strudwick at
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/translation.html
1490
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. PM(7) Sobekhotep inherited the position from his father Min, cf.
Chapter 1 for a discussion of this family and the literature cited therein.
1491
Published by Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, p.17, pl. XI (A recto XI, 3-4); p.24, pl. XXVI (A verso XI, 3-
4).
1492
Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, pp.10, 17, 24; Megally, Recherches, pp.279-81
1493
Megally, Recherches, pp.279-81; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
341
grain of the chief treasurer Sennefri.
1494
Three other well-known officials are also
mentioned on the papyrus: the vizier Rekhmire and the overseers of the granaries
Minnakht and Tjenna.
1495
Rekhmire is mentioned in year 34 giving grain to the two
granary officials from the great granary.
1496
The two overseers of the granaries appear
to be mentioned throughout the document, which covers activities related to grain
transport during years 28-35 of Thutmosis III. This has been used to suggest that there
were two overseers of the double granaries, one functioning in the south at Thebes and
the other in the north, perhaps at Memphis.
1497
Based on Sennefris mention in year 32 as
the overseer of the seal, Bryan has suggested that he no longer functioned in his capacity
as overseer of the double granaries at this time, having ceded the office to Tjenna
sometime before year 28.
1498
It seems quite plausible to suggest that Sennefri was
overseer of the seal during the entire time spanned by the papyrus, despite the lack of

1494
This is very similar to the scene in the tomb of Userhat, PM(3), where he is shown receiving aqw for/of
the granary of the herald (Snwt pA //[wHmw]//) and is assisted by a man called the servant (sDm-aS) of the
herald.
1495
Megally, Recherches, pp.274-9. Rekhmire and Minnakhte both owned tombs in the vicinity of
Sennefris, TTs100 and 87 respectively. Minnakht also built shrines 12 and 23 at Silsilah, and the former is
placed near that of Sennefris.
1496
Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, A recto XIII, 9-10 and A verso XIII,10-XIV,1; Megally, Recherches,
pp.220-5, 278-9
1497
Megally, Recherches, pp.274-8; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.24. For the opposite view, that there was not
a dual system, see Helck, Verwaltung, pp.150-1, 153-7, 384-9 and Bohleke, Double Granaries. In the
abstract Bohleke states (p.ii): The results of the study do not support the contention of a dual system of
administration similar to the New Kingdom vizierate. On the contrary, there is no unequivocal evidence
that more than one Overseer of Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt held office concurrently,
though there could be several subordinate granary overseers in the central grain administration or within
temple establishments. Bohleke doubts Megallys conclusions regarding the double administration,
believing instead that the duality existed at the level of the functioning of the grain bureau, but did not
include a split at the highest level of control of the administrative structure. He thus sees Minnakht and
Tjenna as functioning together in Thebes at an equal level as overseer of the double granaries, subordinate
to the authority of the overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, who is unnamed in
P.Louvre E3226. See pp.119-124.
1498
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
342
mention for anything but year 32.
1499
In this regard it is perhaps significant that the
overseer of the granaries title was granted to Sennefri in connection with becoming
overseer of the seal, and not necessarily as a position in its own right. Indeed, in
Bohlekes work on the New Kingdom overseers of the double granaries, Sennefri is not
mentioned at all, despite Bohlekes extensive treatment of the overseers Minnakht and
Tjenna, as well as P.Louvre E2336.
1500
This would seem to suggest that Bohleke does not
consider Sennefri to have truly functioned in this post.
1501
It is certainly interesting that
the only place that Sennefris title as overseer of the double granaries appears seems to be
in the autobiography of TT99, perhaps supporting the idea that he was not an overseer of
the granary in the sense that Minnakht and Tjenna were.
At the west end of the southwest wall of the transverse-hall,
1502
there is a
representation that matches Sennefris statement in his autobiography quite well. The
description of the scene as given by Porter and Moss indicated that Sennefri receives
treasure.
1503
In fact, although the scene is almost completely destroyed, the inscription
clearly indicates that Sennefri is Receiving dues [consisting of ? ] all precious and
costly stones/metals all weapons by the overseer of the gold lands [of Amun,

1499
This would mean that between years 25 and 28 he became overseer of the seal. The year 25 date is the
last confirmation of Ty in this office, based on the stele he had inscribed in the Sinai. Urk. IV, 886-9;
Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, p.196, pl.xliv.
1500
Bohleke, Double Granaries, pp.108-151. He doubts Megallys conclusions regarding the double
administration, believing instead that the duality existed at the level of the functioning of the grain bureau,
but did not include a split at the highest level of control of the administrative structure. See pp.119-124.
1501
Although admittedly it seems odd that Sennefri was entirely left out, especially considering that
Bohleke does include assistants overseers of the double granaries as well as others connected to these men
in their official capacity.
1502
PM(2), S1.
1503
PM I.1 p.205
343
Sennefr]i, overseer of the horn and hoof, overseer of the seal, Sennefri, overseer of
thousands of all things, overseer of the seal Sennefri, festival-leader for Atum,
overseer of the seal Sennefri, mayor, overseer of Hm-priests of [all] the gods .
1504

Bryan also mentions this inscription and scene in connection with Sennefris duties as an
overseer of the seal and as an overseer of the gold lands of Amun.
1505
More obviously
connected to Sennefris duties as an overseer of the seal are the scenes placed in the most
prominent position in the tomb, on both sides of the rear wall of the transverse-hall.
1506

On the left side Sennefri stands before the enthroned Thutmosis III who charges him with
the task of traveling to Lebanon to bring back cedar trees to be used in the decoration of
the Amun temple at Karnak.
1507
The depiction of the carrying out and completion of this
task and Sennefris return to Egypt occupies the opposite side.
1508
In the text, Sennefri
mentions his arrival in Lebanon (#nt-S) after a storm, presenting offerings to the local (?)
goddess on the kings behalf, traveling to Byblos (KApny) to obtain the cedar, and the
return across the sea (wAD-wr) to Egypt.
1509
On the wall, all that remains are
representations of men carrying axes en route to the forest followed by horses with
chariots, and dragging the wood down to the waiting Egyptian ships. The Egyptians are
assisted in the latter effort by Syrians. However, a scene on the adjacent wall may
elaborate on the details of Sennefris expedition.

1504
Ssp SAy[wt m ?] //// aAt nbt Spst //// Xaw nb //// [in] /// imy-r xAst nbw [n Imn %n-nfr]i imy-r ab wHm imy-
r sDAwt %n-nfri /// imy-r xAw m xt nb imy-r sDAwt %n-nfri /// sSm Hb n Itm imy-r sDAwt %n-nfri /// HAty-a imy-r
Hm-nTr nTrw [nbw] ///; cf. Urk. IV, 536.11-537.1.
1505
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. My translation differs slightly from Bryans because it is based
on a collation of the Urkunden text that I made when I visited TT99 in 2002.
1506
PM(3) and (5), S3-4.
1507
PM(3), S3. Urk IV 532.12-534.3. The phrase valuable terraced hillsides of cedar is used: [xtyw]
Sps[sw nw aS] Urk. IV, 532.13.
1508
PM(5), S4.
1509
Urk IV 534.4-536.4. Redford, Wars, p.175, suggests that the cedar is perhaps for the Karnak flagstaffs
placed at the 7th pylon in years 33-4 and that if the storm actually happened, then the most likely timing of
the expedtion would be in winter, following the year 33 campaign.
344
The new scene, unmentioned in PM, is Strudwicks S5, and although all but the
top northeast corner is destroyed it is nonetheless extremely important. It depicts a Syrian
fortress, complete with crenellated walls and bastions, atop which men and women are
standing with their arms raised in adoration (Fig.35, p.491).
1510
Centered above them are
two birds facing away from each other with their wings spread and feet placed as if to
suggest they are about to land.
1511
Is this a representation of Sennefris visit to the local
town and shrine to ask the goddess for permission to remove the wood? There seem to
be traces of an inscription at the left of the scene, but it is too damaged to read anything
clearly. Nonetheless, it is an enticing scenario. In the texts that accompany the scene of
Sennefri before the king very few of his titles are preserved. Not only are we missing his
primary one of overseer of the seal, but another that may well have come into play when
Sennefri was in Lebanon, that of royal herald.
Sennefri holds the title of royal herald in his shrine at Silsilah, twice on his block
statue in the British Museum (BM48),
1512
once on his pair statue (CG1013),
1513
and once
in TT99. In the tomb the title occurs not in a main scene, but on a face of one of the
pillars.
1514
Sennefri stands below the text, in which he is called the overseer of the gold
lands [of Amun], royal herald, overseer of the seal, Sennefri. Earlier in the inscription he

1510
The dress of these figures is more elaborate, and slightly different than that worn by the Syrians
accompanying the Egyptians on the adjacent wall; cf. Strudwick, web:
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99
1511
There is also a rather strange square white object with three rows of three pink dots on it placed in the
center of the fortress, between the two birds. I am at a loss to explain what the depiction represents, or its
presence in the scene.
1512
Edwards, Hieroglyphis Texts VIII, p.4-5, no.48, pl.v.
1513
Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, no.1013, p.26
1514
PM Pillar Bd, the northeast face.
345
is also designated by the epithet mouth of the king of Upper Egypt (r n nswt).
1515
This
phrase is found a second time in the tomb, on a ceiling inscription.
1516
In both cases
mouth of the king is placed in conjunction with the term ears of the king of Lower
Egypt,
1517
a sequence that is more commonly found as the two eyes of the king of
Upper Egypt, the two ears of the King of Lower Egypt.
1518
However, in the case of
Sennefri it seems as though the epithet may have additional meaning attached to it. On
both CG1013 and BM48, the title royal herald occurs in the midst of a list of epithets
using exactly the same phrases.
1519
In fact, a large portion of the two texts are exact
replicas of each other, with only a few differences in some of the orthography.
1520
It
would seem that royal herald may be in some sense interchangeable with the epithet
mouth of the king. This seems to be a play on the fact that as a royal herald, Sennefri
would have spoken with the authority of the king, as well as on the kings behalf.
In addition to being the overseer of the seal and royal herald, Sennefri was called
brave one on both BM628 and the Silsilah shrine.
1521
The titles on the left exterior
entrance jamb of the Silsilah shrine are overseer of the seal, brave one and overseer of
the seal, royal herald.
1522
The title brave one is also unusual. The only other place it
occurs is on Sennefris broken block statue in Vienna (S 5978): //// [chief of courtiers]

1515
The full text is: iry-pat HAty-a sdAwt bity smr wa n mr[t] r n nswt anxwy n bity n imy-ib n nTr nfr imy-r
xAswt nbw [nt Imn] wHm nswt imy-r sDAwt %n[-nfri mAa-xrw] ir n sAb [%Ay-DHwty mAa-xrw] Urk IV. 540.8-14
(b)
1516
The text comes from the ceiling of the rear chamber, Urk. IV, 540.15-541.2 (c)
1517
iry-pat HAty-a sdAwt bity smr wa r n nswt anxwy n bity imy-ib pw n nb tAwy imy-r xtmt
1518
irty nswt anxwy bity. The phrase occurs amongst the title lists of several 18
th
Dynasty officials,
including elsewhere in Sennefris tomb and monuments.
1519
CG1013: Columns 3-4: shrr pat rxyt wHm nsw sDm sDmwt wa; Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294,
no.1013, p.26; BM48: Line 8: shrr pat rxyt wHm nsw sDm sDmwt wa; Edwards, Hieroglyphis Texts VIII,
p.4-5, no.48, pl.v.
1520
A fact also noticed by Strudwick on his website:
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/senneferi.html
1521
Line 12 on the front of statue BM628: wHm nsw imy-r xtm qn %n-nfr mAa-xrw
1522
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.30. imy-r xtmt qn %n-nfri mAa-xrw and imy-r [xtm]t wHm nswt %n-nfri
mAa-xrw
346
in the palace, overseer of the seal, brave one of the king, Sennefr(i).
1523
The fact that the
title of brave one only appears in conjunction with royal herald suggests that the two
are related in some way. The most likely scenario in which Sennefri would be designated
a royal herald, and would classify himself as a brave one, is one in which Sennefri was
away from Egypt proper. This would necessitate his being able to speak on behalf of the
king, and other officials who are called brave one (of the king) are often those connected
to the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.
1524
Thus it seems likely that when
Sennefri was sent to Lebanon to bring back cedar trees, Thutmosis III bestowed upon him
the title royal herald. Upon his return, Sennefri could claim, as so many others who
returned from the Near East, that he was among the brave ones of the king.
Returning once more to Sennefris autobiography, it continues with Sennefris
mention of his third office: [iAt].i n 3-nwt m HAty-a imy-r Hmw-nTr n Sbk n In[pw] //// WAst
m Hry-tp nw HAtyw-a m imy-r aHwt nt Imn xws.n.i //// n Nbty xnty &A-Smaw n nTrw nbw
spAt.Tn My third office was as mayor, overseer of priests of Sobek and Anubis Thebes
as chief of mayors and as overseer of the fields of Amun. I built for He-of-Ombos
(Seth), foremost of Upper Egypt, and for all the gods of their districts.
1525
These are
Sennefris third and final set of positions. From other inscriptions in the tomb we learn
that his priestly roles also involved the god Atum, for whom he was festival-leader and
overseer of priests.
1526
On CG1013 Sennefri is called a steward in the house of Amun,
1527

while on BM48 he is referred to as the mayor of Akhmim and overseer of priests for Min

1523
//// //[Hry-tp smr]w m aH imy-r xtmt qn n nswt %n-nfr. Kunsthistorisches Museum S 5978: Rogge, CAA
Wien 6, pp. 221-4. The restoration is suggested based on central band of ceiling inscriptions in the passage
of TT99.
1524
For example, the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu bears this distinction in his tomb,
1525
Columns 14-16, Urk. IV; Strudwick, web: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/translation.html
1526
PM(2) and a ceiling inscription on the northwest side of the transverse-hall respectively.
1527
Left side of the statue, column 4; cf. Borchardt, Statuen IV, p.25. imy-r pr m pr-Imn
347
of Coptos.
1528
Bryan suggests that (t)he connection with the mayoralties could be related
to Sennefris role as overseer of the seal and second ranked official in the royal
administration.
1529
This mayoral connection may also be a reflection of Sennefris duties
concerning grain deliveries as overseer of the seal and overseer of the granaries. The
royal herald Iamunedjeh was involved with recording the cattle belonging to the rulers of
estates as part of his duties as an overseer of the ruyt.
1530
As discussed elsewhere,
1531
the
ruyt was within the sphere of the palace, thus in Iamunedjehs case the rulers may have
been bringing their cattle to the palace. However, Sennefris role as overseer of mayors
may have required going to the cities in order to undertake this type of accounting.
1532
It
would thus seem that the last posts Sennefri records in the autobiography were active
ones, rather than retirement positions.
In summary, Sennefri was first an official in the north of Egypt responsible for
overseeing grain distribution from various Sna, probably in a temple setting. Although it is
not clear how he was noticed, it may have something to do with Watet-Hor being located
in the vicinity of the Ways of Horus route to the Near East. As Watet-Hor is mentioned
in other contemporary sources, it seems likely that it may have been a stop en route to or
from the widely used Ways of Horus.
1533
Based on his abilities in this capacity,
Sennefri was promoted and brought south to Thebes where he was made overseer of the
seal and overseer of the double granaries. These two positions are connected to his earlier
post, but at a much higher level, and carry responsibilities involving all of (southern)

1528
Front of the statue, row 11; cf. HT VIII, p.5, pl.v. Urk. IV, 546.14-15. HAty-a n Xm and imy-r Hmw-nTr
Mnw Gbtyw
1529
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1530
Located at PM(2) in his tomb, TT84.
1531
See below, pp.350ff. for the discussion.
1532
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1533
E.g., TTs39 and 96 upper, see pp.337f. above.
348
Egypt and not just the temples. Finally, Sennefri was given control over several towns as
mayor and chief of mayors, taking on the overseeing of priestly duties at the temples in
these towns as well. It is obvious that Sennefri moved in a fairly fluid manner through the
different levels of the bureaucracy that were all connected with grain distribution and
taxes. As the overseer of the seal, his main position, Sennefri was also charged with
leading expeditions to procure gold and precious metals, possibly from the eastern desert,
and in this capacity he is called the overseer of the gold lands of Amun.
1534
His trip to
procure cedar trees from Lebanon was likewise an additional function of his position as
overseer of the seal, and one that resulted in the auxiliary titles of royal herald and brave
one (of the king).
One last title and monument of Sennefris indicates that he became an especially
trusted official of Thutmosis III. There is a fragmentary statue in the Cairo Museum
(CG1112) whose style and inscriptions indicate that Sennefri was a tutor for the
otherwise unknown prince Siamun, a son of Thutmosis III.
1535
From Roehrigs
description and plate, it becomes clear that it is a block statue with the princes head (now
lost) sticking out of the lap of the statue, in front of Sennefris head (also lost).
1536
The
inscription that covers the majority of the robe includes a number of epithets already
known for Sennefri, though the damage at the bottom has resulted in the loss of his main
titles.
1537
However, on the lap of the statue two columns of inscription facing each
other read father and tutor of the [kings son Siamun], overseer of the seal, Sennefri,

1534
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1535
Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, no.1112, p.64, without plate. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.102-3, pl.11
1536
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.102-3, pl.11. She notes that it is in the style of Senemuts statues with
Hatshepsuts daughter Neferure.
1537
Borchardt, Statuen IV, no.1112, p.64. There are some variations to the epithets, for example Sennefri is
called the two eyes of the king of Upper Egypt in the Upper Egyptian cities, his two ears in the districts of
Lower Egypt ir.ty nswt m niwt Smaw anxwy.f m spAwt &A-mHw
349
justified.
1538
Roehrig suggests that the reason for the titles lack of appearance on any of
Sennefris other monuments is that Siamun was perhaps an older brother of Amenhotep
II who died at a young age.
1539
Thus Sennefri was also given a trusted position within
the royal court after having proved himself as a reliable official to the king, probably
sometime after his trip to Lebanon.
1540

Our information on Sennefris own children is scanty. His wife, the mistress of
the house Taiamu, is only known from TT99, where she is depicted at least once
receiving libations and offerings with Sennefri in the rear chamber.
1541
She also presents
offerings to Sennefri on the south face of Pillar A. Here Sennefri is Seeing the greetings
that are brought (by) his wife, his children, his brothers, and his craftsmen,
1542
while his
wife, his beloved, mistress of the house Taiamu faces him.
1543
Other than this general
reference to children, it is not clear from depictions in TT99 that Sennefri and Taiamu
actually had children. Indeed, it appears that a brother presents the funeral outfit to
Sennefri at the rear of the passage.
1544
Fragments from the south wall of the Silsilah
shrine however seem to indicate that they had at least one son, called Nebes..., who

1538
Tf mnat [sA-nsw %A-Imn] imy-r Xtmt %n-nfri mAa-xrw. Borchardt indicates the portion in [ ] as being
Shaved (Rasur). Borchardt, Statuen IV, no.1112, p.64. According to Roehrig (Royal urse, p.102) the
inscriptions suffered Atenist defeacement and were subsequently restored.
1539
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.103.
1540
I posit this as the marker because the trips depiction in TT99 indicates that it was obviously the
highpoint of Sennefris career as he viewed it. Sennefris career to some degree parallels that of the mayor
of Thinis and the Oasis, overseer of priests of Osiris and Onuris, and royal tutor Min, owner of TT109.
1541
PM(15). She is called by the offerer snt.f nrt.f nbt pr &A-//// and in the inscription above her snt.f mrt.f n
st ib.f nbt pr &A-iAmw. There was also an offering scene at PM(12) in which it is likely that Taiamu was
included.
1542
PM Pillar Aa, Strudwick Pillar A, East face: mAA nD-Hr innt Hmt.f msw.f snw.f Hmwt. See also the
translation provided by Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/pillarAE.html
1543
PM Pillar Aa, Strudwick Pillar A, East face: msy nD-Hr in Hmt.f mrt.f nbt pr &A-iAmw. See also the
translation provided by Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/pillarAE.html
1544
PM(8), S9; cf. Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/wall9.html
350
presumably presents offerings to his parents.
1545
Roehrig suggested that the chantress of
Amun Renen who is known from the tomb of her husband Amenhotep (Tomb C3, now
lost), was the daughter of this Sennefri.
1546
This is based on inscriptions in the tomb that
refer to Renen as the daughter of the overseer of the seal Sennefri and her husband
Amenhotep as a scribe and the idnw of the overseer of the seal.
1547
The granite false-door
that once graced this tomb was found re-used as a flooring block in a chapel attached to
the north side of the temple of Khonsu at Karnak.
1548
Roehrig also equates Sennefris
daughter with the nurse of the kings daughter (mnat n sAt nswt) Renen, who is known
from a shwabti.
1549
Given the apparent rarity of the name Renen,
1550
and the fact that
many royal nurses also held the title of chantress of Amun,
1551
this seems quite likely.
Strudwicks excavations have uncovered new information that supports the
relationship between Amenhotep, Renen and Sennefri. Near the bottom of one of TT99s
shafts a headless statue inscribed for the idnw of the overseer of the seal, Amenhotep
was discovered.
1552
This makes it rather certain that Sennefri had a daughter who married
a man that was his idnw. The question remains however, was Amenhotep promoted

1545
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.31: sA.f mr.f Nb-s///. The reconstruction that this is a son of Sennefri
and that Sennefri was depicted on this wall is based on comparison with the other shrines at Silsilah.
Shrines 6 and 17 have the deceased couple placed on the south wall, and the owners parents on the north
wall. The father appears seated with his son on the south wall in Shrines 12 and 15, and on the east wall in
Shrine 23, while the owner is depicted with his mother on the opposite wall in these shrines. Only once is
an owner depicted with his parents, on the south wall of Shrine 21, and on the north wall he is depicted
with his wife. It would thus appear that parents were placed on the north wall unless shown with the owner
of the tomb. The owner and his wife could also appear on both walls, as is the case in Shrines 11 and 25.
1546
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.103-4, 110
1547
The ceiling texts were recorded by Piehl, Inscriptions hiroglyphiques I, p.111, pls. CXLII (X) and
CXLIII (Z). Amenhoteps parents Ahmose and Neh are also mentioned in the inscriptions.
1548
Traunecker, Karnak 6, pp.197-208, pl.LII. Throughout the piece, Amenhotep is called idnw of the
overseer of the seal and scribe.
1549
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.109-111.
1550
This is the only example cited in Ranke, Personnenamen
1551
For example Baky, Neith and Mery; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.321.
1552
The body was found near the bottom of Shaft E, and the head and portions of the chair in Shaft A. The
conserved statue is now on display in the Cairo Museum; cf. Strudwick,
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/wall9.html
351
because of his marriage, or was the marriage a result of his position as idnw? The only
titles that we have for Amenhotep are those of idnw and scribe, and in both the tomb and
on the false-door scribe is placed closest to his name. This makes it more likely that
Amenhoteps marriage came after he was an idnw for Sennefri.
The princess for whom Renen was a nurse is unknown, though Roehrig suggests a
daughter of Thutmosis III, perhaps Merytamun whose tutor was the overseer of all works
of the king and overseer of the treasury (imy-r pr-HD) Benermerut.
1553
Since Sennefri was
an official during the later Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency and throughout the sole
reign of Thutmosis III, it is possible that she was a nurse to a younger daughter of
Thutmosis III, as her father was to an older son of the same king. In this scenario it seems
quite likely that Renen was made a royal nurse due to her fathers status in the court. This
makes her one of only two female nurses whose fathers were tutors.
1554
Whether either of
these women inherited the title/position is unclear, though as the duties involved were
rather different, it seems unlikely that inheritance in the formal sense was at work here.






1553
Roehrig, Royal urse, Appendix I, p.342. For her discussion of Benermerut, pp.104-9.
1554
The overseer of works of all temples and royal scribe Minmose was tutor to two princes whose
paternity is unclear. They were either older sons of Thutmosis III or of Amenhotep II. His daughter Sharyti
was a royal nurse, one who nurtured the god, implying that her nursling became king. Roehrig suggests
that Minmose princes were older sons of Thutmosis III and Shertis nursling was Amenhotep II. Roehrig,
Royal urse, pp. 89-95, 179-82. Bryan however places the princes as sons of Amenhotep II, making Sherti
a nurse of Thutmosis IV. Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.46-9 and in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. This family is
discussed below, pp.400ff.
352
Iamunedjeh
(A controller of works abroad and in Egypt)
Iamunedjeh and his tomb, TT84,
1555
have already been mentioned briefly in
connection with the high priest of Amun Mery (TT95) who usurped several of the
inscriptions in Iamunedjehs tomb.
1556
Iamunedjeh held the positions of controller of
works, first royal herald, overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and
Lower Egypt. Despite the lack of a recent publication of Iamunedjehs tomb, the
extensive amount of preserved information as well as his participation in the campaigns
of Thutmosis III, has led to Iamunedjeh being a relatively well-discussed official.
1557

Likewise, the usurpation of TT84 by Mery and the presence of Iamunedjeh in TT56 of
Userhat has raised questions about the relationships between these men, with the so-
called family stele in Marseille playing a central part in the debate.
1558
Iamunedjehs
career has been called unusual,
1559
and this combined with his unclear relationship to
Userhat, warrants a full review of his career and family to determine exactly what part the
military played in his rise to overseer of granaries.
TT84 is one of the few that are completely decorated in the Theban Necropolis.
Unfortunately, it is also one of the most damaged.
1560
Nonetheless, a fairly detailed view

1555
Kampp, Die thebanische nekropole, pp.332-6, type Ve.
1556
See Chapter 2.
1557
Besides the early work of Virey, Hayes published an article that discussed the basic career of
Iamunedjeh, cf. Hayes, ASAE 33 and Helck included him in the prosopography of granary overseers, cf.
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.384-6. More recently, Shedid discussed Iamunedjehs presence in the tomb of
Userhat (TT56) Bryan included a succinct discussion of Iamunedjehs career in her chapter of the officials
of Thutmosis III; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. On his role as a royal herald, see also Martin-
Pardey, in: Essays Lipinska.
1558
Polz reviewed the biographies of and relationships between Iamunedjeh, Mery and Userhat, cf. Polz,
MDAIK 47. On the connection between Mery and Iamunedjeh, see most recently Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.58-
61
1559
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
1560
Not only has a great deal of the decorated plaster fallen off the walls, but Coptic painting has obscured
many of the scenes as well. It was originally published by Virey, RT 7; Virey, in: Sept tombeaux, pp. 337-
361, and is currently being re-published by Grothe, cf. Gnirs, MDAIK 53.
353
of Iamunedjehs career from beginning to end can still be gathered. Both of the stelae in
his tomb are relatively well preserved,
1561
and in addition he was the owner of several
other monuments, including funerary cones,
1562
a block statue,
1563
statuette,
1564
stele,
1565

and graffito,
1566
as well as being depicted in TT56 of the idnw of heralds and royal scribe
Userhat.
1567

The starting point for the discussion of Iamunedjehs career comes from the
bottom half of the round-topped stele located on the west wall (Fig.36, p.492). This stele
was intact when Champollion visited, but had already been broken through its middle
when Virey copied the tomb, and thus only recorded the inscriptions of the lunette.
1568

The stele text is today badly damaged, resulting in the need to rely mostly on the copy
provided by Sethe in the Urkunden, which restored several damaged portions.
1569
My
own examination and copy of the text essentially confirms that published in the
Urkunden. Although the progression of Iamunedjehs career has been reconstructed by
several scholars, a fresh summary seems necessary.
The entire beginning of the stele is taken up with offering formula, and it is not
until the second half that Iamunedjeh begins to speak about his life as an official.
According to lines 10-12 of the stele, Iamunedjeh was appointed to act as controller (xrp)
for the king beginning in year fifteen down to an unknown year, during which time he

1561
Located on the west and east walls at PM(4) and PM(9) respectively.
1562
Daressy, MMAF 8, nos. 43 and 141; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 34, 281, 283, 548.
1563
Originally CM JE 59190, now Luxor Museum J.3.
1564
Newberry, PSBA 35, p.156
1565
Maspero, RT13, pp.120-1, n.34
1566
de Morgan, Monuments et inscriptions, p.92, no.107
1567
Seeber and Shedid, Userhat.
1568
PM(4). Virey did not copy the text of the stele, see Urk. IV, 937-41. Through this breach Kampps
tomb 155 can be reached. The date, decoration, and ownership of this tomb was recently discussed by
Grothe, cf. Grothe, in: Stationen, pp. 273-279.
1569
Urk. IV, 937-41
354
was involved in a renovation project of the kings.
1570
Following this it seems that
Iamunedjeh was placed as controller of works (xrp n kAwt) and, as Hayes suggested,
witnessed the erection of three sets of obelisks during years 33, 36 and 40 of Thutmosis
III.
1571
This is an important distinction that was mentioned by Helck, but does not seem to
have been picked up on.
1572
The monument(s) that was made anew between years fifteen
and thirty-three (?) may perhaps have led to Iamunedjeh becoming controller of works.
After the erection of the obelisks Iamunedjeh reuses the phrase that introduced this
section: ist wi m Now (when) I was as. Sethe restored the break after this again as xrp
kAwt, controller of works, though it is certainly possible that another title appeared here,
perhaps royal scribe, or even royal herald?
1573
Unfortunately, the rest of the line is lost
until we come to the portion in which Iamunedjeh records his promotion (sxnt) to first
royal herald.
1574
Following this the text is quite damaged, and thus our ability to
reconstruct Iamunedjehs activities as first royal herald is diminished.
1575
However, two
things seem to suggest that even in this position Iamunedjeh was still concerned with
building works, both at home and abroad. First is the fact that he advances to first royal
herald as chief of the entire land, instead of the more common as chief of the land and
the (foreign) hills, which implies Egypt. The second is that in the next lines after his

1570
Lines 10-12, Urk. IV, 940.3-7: //[Dd.f]// sp tp n rdit m Hr.f r irt xrp n nb tAwy //[SA]//a m rnpt 15 nfryt r
rnpt //// //// //[ir.n Hm.f]// m mAwt n //// m st.f mtt
1571
Hayes, ASAE 33, pp.12-14. Followed by Helck and Polz; cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.385; Polz, MDAIK
47, pp.282-3. The text covers lines 12-14, Urk. IV, 940.8-12: ist wi im m //[xr]//p //[kAwt iw mAA.n(.i) saHa]//
//// //[ir.n Hm.f n i.f Imn] iw mAA.n(.i) saha //[txn]//w wrw ir.n Hm.f //[n]// it.f //[Imn]// iw //[mAA saHa]// //// n
it//[.f]// Itm nb Iwnw r r bxnt.wy aAt.wy ir.n Hm.f m mAwt.
1572
Helck, Verwaltung, p.385.
1573
He holds the titles of royal scribe and royal herald several places in the tomb.
1574
Lines 14-15, Urk. IV, 940.13-16: ist wi m //[xrp kAwt (?)]// //// //// //[s]//xnt.kwi r wHm nswt tpy m Hry-
tp n tA r-Dr.f hb.kwi m //[wpwt nbt]// Now when I was [controller of works ?] my being promoted to
first royal herald as chief of the entire land, I was sent on [all missions]
1575
Lines 15-16, Urk. IV, 940.17-941.2 //// m Hr.i ir.n.i m mAa n nb mAat rx.kwi //[Htp.f Hr.s]// ////
[something placed ?] in my face which I made anew for the lord of maat, knowing that he would be
satisfied on account of it.
355
promotion Iamunedjeh again speaks of making something anew, i.e. a restoration
project. The fact that he is sent on all missions does not seem to be necessarily
connected with his participation in the campaigns, as Bryan seems to suggest.
1576
Indeed,
the stele does not seem to clearly mention any of his military activities until the very end,
when Iamunedjeh summarizes them in one line, saying I followed the good god upon
every northern foreign country, I did not turn away from him upon the battlefield.
1577

Thus, based on the deeds described in the stele, it would appear that Iamunedjeh reported
only about his duties as a civil official in Egypt.
Rather, Iamunedjeh utilizes the second stele in the tomb, on the east wall, to
record these exploits.
1578
Only in the columns of text to either side of the stele are his
civil positions mentioned. Here he is called overseer of the ruyt hearing alone, overseer
of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt and controller of all works of the king.
1579

The body of this stele is even more damaged than the first, and again the autobiographical
portion is placed in the second half. What is clear is that Iamunedjeh had dealings with
the foreigners of Retenu and rebellions taking place in the region. In addition, the nine
bows, referring to the traditional enemies of ancient Egypt, are mentioned, and in a line
previously unpublished a fortress or rampart (sbty) is also referred to.
1580
Fortunately we

1576
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1577
Line 18, Urk. IV, 941.6-7: iw Sms.n(.i) nTr nfr Hr X#swt nbt mHtt n tS //[.i r.f Hr pri]//
1578
PM(8)
1579
In the left, north side column: wHm tpy nswt imy-r rwyt sDmt wa imy-r Snwty ^maw MHw and in the right,
south side column: xrp kAwt nbt nt nswt Hsy n nTr nfr mH-ib aA n nb tAwy ////
1580
Lines 15-16, Urk. IV, 946.10-12: //// n xAstyw n Rtnw bS//[tA]//. s m-HAt.s r pH.s //[r]// SA//[a m]// //// ////
pD//[t 9]//; Line 19: ///// m sbty ////. It is possible that this is the same sbty at Qadesh whose impending
breach is referred to in the autobiography of Amenemheb-Mahu. The timing of this is uncertain, and could
date to year 42 or later; cf. Redford, Wars, p.169ff.
356
know from Iamunedjehs statue that he crossed the Euphrates with Thutmosis III in year
33.
1581

The statue is dedicated to Iamunedjeh as one who follows the king upon his
marches, one relating to the two legs of the good god who does not turn away from the
lord of the two lands upon the battlefield upon all northern foreign lands, who crossed the
inverted river (i.e. Euphrates) following after his Majesty in order to make the boundaries
(tASw) of Egypt, the first royal herald, overseer of the ruyt, whose counsel pleases the lord
of the two lands, the royal herald.
1582
Thus we see that despite the fact that Iamunedjeh
was involved in the erection of obelisks as the controller of works at this time, this title is
not included in the repertoire. It would appear then that with regard to his
autobiographical stelae Iamunedjeh himself separated his duties or accomplishments
according to where they took place Egypt, or abroad in connection with military
campaigns.
Throughout the rest of the tomb there are probably four scenes that deal with
Iamunedjehs duties as an official. The two representations that tell us the most about his
function as a first royal herald are those on either side of the rear (north) wall of the
transverse-hall of the tomb, at PM(5) and (9), and hence in direct line of sight to anyone
passing by or a visitor entering into the tomb. The depictions are nearly identical,
showing Iamunedjeh on the west (left) leading Nubians and on the east (right) leading
Syrians bearing tribute to an enthroned Thutmosis III. What has gone relatively
unnoticed, however, is that Iamunedjeh in fact appears twice in each scene once before

1581
Galn, Victory, p.117 H. The statue is currently housed in Luxor Museum.
1582
n kA n Sms nswt r nmtt.f iry-rd.wy nTr nfr tm (t)S r nb tAwy Hr pri Hr xAst nbt mHtt DAi r pXr-wr m-sA Hm.f r
irt tASw Kmt wHm tpy nswt imy-r rwyt hrrw nb tAwy Hr sxrw.f wHm nsw IAmw-nDH mAa-xrw Hayes, ASAE 33,
p.7; Urk. IV, 1370.9-11.
357
the king, and once following after the registers of foreign tribute-bearers. The figure and
inscription of Iamunedjeh before Thutmosis III is destroyed on the northwest wall,
1583

and the text that accompanies Iamunedjeh behind the Nubians is extremely damaged,
though not as extensively as Vireys copy implies.
1584
It describes what is happening in
the representation that precedes it, namely that the people of vile Kush are presenting
(sar) tribute of all kinds to Thutmosis III, whose name is quite clear. The content of the
inscription is quite similar to that placed with the figure of Iamunedjeh as he stands on
the opposite, northeast, wall before Thutmosis III with registers of Syrians behind
him.
1585
Unfortunately the titles of Iamunedjeh are not preserved in either of these two
texts. However at the end of this scene, above the second figure of Iamunedjeh, the six
columns enumerate a number of his epithets and titles. This inscription is also essentially
unpublished, Virey having noted only a few groups. One of these comprises the title
sAb of the mr district, an area in the Delta. The title could therefore relate to Iamunedjehs
role in overseeing the bringing of tribute from the north. Although Iamunedjehs main
titles are not extant, we can still suppose that it was in his function as chief royal herald
that he would have been involved with leading and announcing the tribute-bearers before
the king.
1586
In addition, the prominent place awarded these two scenes suggests that
although his titles of overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and
Lower Egypt were awarded after that of first royal herald, and were presumably more

1583
PM(5). Iamunedjehs placement here is based on traces of the beginning of the inscription adjacent to
the kiosk as well as analogy to PM(9). The figure of the king is destroyed, but the top of the kiosk and
cartouches are visible through the Coptic painting; the name of Thutmosis is easily reconstructed.
1584
Virey, in: Sept tombeaux, p.347. Vireys description of this wall (p.347-8) is rather misleading. He
starts at the west end with this figure and text of Iamunedjeh, moves to a description of the registers of
Nubians, and then comments that the rest of the wall is destroyed.
1585
PM(9).
1586
As also stated by Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming; cf. Martin-Pardey, E., in: Essays Lipinska, pp.
377-397.
358
prestigious, the majority of Iamunedjehs career was as a royal herald and thus this was
the position in which most of his important deeds were carried out.
Iamunedjehs duties as an overseer of the ruyt are, as Bryan suggested, likely
represented in an essentially destroyed scene on the southwest wall of the transverse-
hall.
1587
Here men are leading cattle, some designated as overseers of cattle (imyw-r
kAw), to the (destroyed) figure of Iamunedjeh, while the text running above these men
mentions the HqA Hwtt, indicating that Iamunedjeh was involved with recording cattle, and
presumably other items, that belonged to these rulers of estates. In a second depiction
Iamunedjeh and his wife Henutnofret are shown inspecting (mAA) and receiving Delta
produce. The products are presented by Iamunedjehs brother Khaemwaset in the first
register, and by two officials, one the overseer of the marshland (sxt), in the second
register. Despite being placed on the east wall of the passage, in a combination daily
life/funerary setting in between scenes of chariot hunting and fishing and fowling, the
scene nonetheless informs us about Iamunedjehs responsibilities as an overseer of the
ruyt and overseer of granaries.
1588
The text above Iamunedjeh has been altered several
times, though it appears that he was labeled as either a royal scribe or scribe who counts.
However, in the inscriptions accompanying the presenters, Iamunedjeh is once called
royal scribe and overseer of the ruyt, and in the second register overseer of the ruyt, royal
scribe, one who counts cattle and fowl, overseer of the granaries, and one who counts the
taxes of Upper and Lower Egypt. The latter text was in fact altered from its original

1587
PM(2). Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1588
PM(16). The hunting scene is to the south at PM(15), and the fishing and fowling to the north at
PM(17). Beyond this to the north is a banquet scene at PM(18). On the opposite wall, PM(13)-(14) records
the funerary procession to the Western Goddess, statue and mummy rites, and an offering scene.
359
sketch, in which the title of royal herald and seemingly overseer of foreign lands were
included, but that of overseer of the ruyt was left out.
1589

The only other location in the tomb in which Iamunedjeh bears the title of
overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt is in the offering scene at the rear of
the west wall of the passage, where it seems to be his only functional title.
1590
Overseer of
the ruyt on the other hand appears several more times in the tomb, both as the primary
title, i.e. last in the sequence, and as the first of the list.
1591
The other title which
Iamunedjeh carries in a number of inscriptions in the tomb has already been mentioned
twice royal scribe. This appears not only in the context of his duties as an overseer of
the ruyt, but also as the primary title in a ceiling inscription, on four of the jambs of the
tombs entrance, and possibly in the hunting scene preceding the title of royal herald at
PM(15).
1592

Helck suggested that Iamunedjeh may have been a royal herald at the time of the
crossing, though he was only appointed to the position of first royal herald after the last
pair of obelisks was set up in year 40, in the last decade of Thutmosis IIIs reign became
overseer of the ruyt and in his final years was made overseer of the granaries of Upper
and Lower Egypt.
1593
Polz leaves out the intermediary step, understanding Iamunedjehs
career path to pass from controller of works directly to first royal herald, and then to

1589
The underlying sketch was not recorded by Virey on in the Urkunden. The title imy-r xAswt was
probably a scribal error for overseer of granaries (imy-r Snwt), with which it was replaced.
1590
PM(14), upper register: iry-pat HAty-a wa mnx ib n nb tAwy Ddw n.f ntt m ib aq Xr nfrwt r bgr nswt imy-r
Snwty Smaw MHw //[IAmw-nDH]//
1591
As the final title imy-r rwyt appears twice on the exterior entrance jambs, in a previously unrecorded
brazier offering scene on the southwest wall of the transverse-hall [adjacent to PM(2)], and in a ceiling
inscription on the east side of the transverse-hall and on the west side of the rear chamber. It occurs first in
the sequence on the east and west walls of the west chapel [PM(10)] and in the offering scene at PM(18).
1592
At PM(15) the title is partly damaged and the remainder of the inscription usurped by Mery. There are
also two additional inscriptions which the title of scribe appears, but whether royal scribe, or perhaps scribe
of offerings is unclear; cf. PM(16), PM(18).
1593
Helck, Verwaltung, p.385. Helck also seems to imply that Iamunedjeh may have been in a position
more akin to that of Userhat, as an assistant (idnw) to the herald.
360
overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries.
1594
Based on a reanalysis of the tomb
and statue inscriptions, I would posit the following scenario. As Bryan states, Iamunedjeh
had a somewhat unusual career path.
1595
He began his official life during the co-regency
of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III as a controller (xrp) involved with a renovation project
between years fifteen and thirty-three. Around or shortly prior to year 33 he became
controller of works and in this capacity, and probably for this reason, Thutmosis III
brought Iamunedjeh to Syria. Over the next seventeen years Iamunedjeh undertook the
erection of obelisks for Thutmosis III in Egypt, and was involved with projects carried
out in Syria as a result of the campaigns. Thutmosis III erected obelisks after the crossing
of the Euphrates, and Iamunedjeh is one of the few officials who records being present at
this event. It seems likely that Thutmosis III brought Iamunedjeh to Syria in year 33 in
his capacity as the controller of works and not as a military officer per se, despite
Iamunedjehs claim to have been on the battlefield. It seems clear that it was not until
after the erection of all the obelisks (after year 40) that Iamunedjeh was promoted to the
position of first royal herald. However, given the lacuna between the erection of last pair
of obelisks and Iamunedjehs advancement it is certainly possible that Iamunedjeh first
held the position of herald.
1596
While Thutmosis III may have awarded him with this title
because the need to be able to speak for the king when erecting the obelisks, it is quite
plausible that it was Iamunedjehs presence in Syria, were this need would be greater,
that resulted in his advancement to royal herald. It is important to remember that
Iamunedjeh also claims to have gone to Syria to erect the boundaries of Egypt quite

1594
Polz, MDAIK 47, p.282, with note 17.
1595
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1596
Though I would not agree with Helck that he was an idnw, it does not seem impossible for Iamunedjeh
to have moved from royal herald to chief royal herald.
361
possibly in a literal sense by overseeing the installation of stelae, an action associated
with making or extending tASw.
1597
It is worth pointing out that in the examples cited by
Galan that deal with this concept, Iamunedjehs inscription seems to be exceptional, the
only one to use the verb iri to make as opposed to swsx to extend when referring to
military expeditions connected with the borders of Egypt.
1598
The event as described by
Iamunedjeh is in accord with what Thutmosis III himself records in his Karnak annals for
year 33: He has established his stele (wD) in Naharin, extending the tASw of Egypt.
1599

Thus I would suggest that Iamunedjehs military career was by default rather
than an actual career in the sense of Amenemheb-Mahu (who also crossed the Euphrates),
Dedi and others. Iamunedjeh did not leave a civil/administrative career for the military,
but rather was bought into the military by Thutmosis III to serve in his capacity as
overseer of building projects. When Iamunedjeh became first royal herald he may not
have been actively participating in the campaigns of Thutmosis III, since he was probably
around 45 years old.
1600
Although this position gave Iamunedjeh the authority to speak on
behalf of the king both in Egypt and abroad, it is quite likely that he acted in this capacity
mostly on the homefront. Perhaps in connection with his subsequent elevation to overseer
of the ruyt, a position that brought him closer into the palace sphere and under the direct
supervision of the vizier.
1601
The depiction in his tomb of Iamunedjeh as first royal herald
leading the foreign tribute bearers to the king likely occurred in Egypt, where

1597
Galn, Victory, p.119, cf. also p.117 H for the passage referring to Iamunedjehs actions in year 33. The
fact that Galan does not view them as boundary stele in the strict sense, but rather as stelae erected to
record the victories in the area does not change the interpretation with regard to Iamunedjehs involvement;
cf. Galan, Victory, pp. 146 ff., esp. 153-4.
1598
See Galans sources in Victory, p.117 as compared to p.119.
1599
Urk. IV, 698.17-699.1. See also Galn, Victory, p.119 D. Thutmosis III also mentions this event in his
Gebel Barkal and Armat stelae.
1600
This is based on the reconstruction of Polz, who places Iamunedjehs birth in c. 1495, and the erection
of the three sets of obelisks in 1457, 1454 and 1450. Polz, MDAIK 47, p. 283 Abb.1.
1601
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
362
Iamunedjehs post as overseer of the ruyt may also have played a role. The time frame for
Iamunedjehs attainment of the post of overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower
Egypt is unknown, though presumably it happened at the very end of his career. Indeed, it
does not appear on any of his funerary cones, which carry only the titles royal herald and
overseer of the ruyt (of the kings house). Thus he probably did follow Tjenna in this
post, as suggested by Bryan,
1602
and was perhaps the senior official at the time that
Menkheper(resoneb) succeeded his father Minnakht as overseer of the granaries of Upper
and Lower Egypt, in the last years of Thutmosis IIIs reign.
1603

The family of Iamunedjeh gives no information on how he attained his first
documented position of controller of the lord of the two lands. Exceedingly little is
known about his parents, the sAb Sadjhuty and his wife Resy. Iamunedjeh presents
himself as having attained his position through his own abilities, and not through familial
or royal connections. Based on the evidence from is tomb and other inscriptions, it would
indeed seem that this was the case. Although scholars have concluded that Resy was
especially important to Iamunedjeh, more so than his wife Henutnofret, this is not in fact
the case.
1604
Sadjhuty and Resy are named in a ceiling inscription in the transverse
hall
1605
and appear individually with Iamunedjeh as recipients of offerings on the west
and east walls respectively of the west side chapel.
1606
This chapel may have been
intended for his parents, who were probably of lower elite status.
1607
While it is the case

1602
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1603
For a discussion of the careers of Minnakht and Menkheper(resoneb), see Chapter 1.
1604
As also noted by Whale, Family, pp.115-6.
1605
The northern band on the east side of the hall is the only place in the tomb where Iamunedjeh gives his
lineage: ir n sA b %A-DHwty mAa-xrw ms n nbt pr Rsy ///
1606
PM(10). On the east wall Iamunedjeh is with it.f mr.f %A-DHwty mAa-xrw xr nTr nfr nb tA-Dsr and on the
west wall with /// nbt pr Rsy mAa-xrw
1607
Iamunedjehs father was only a sAb; cf. Onasch, EAZ, p.287 on the title sAb as a marker of lower social
status when it is used alone.
363
that on Iamunedjehs block statue he records his lineage only to his mother,
1608
on a small
statuette both parents are named.
1609
In addition, it is not the case that she appears more
often than Henutnofret in the tomb, or that Henutnofrets name was originally not
inserted often.
1610
My examination of TT84 in 2002 discovered that Henutnofrets name
was discernable beneath that of the usurper Merys mothers name of Hunay in almost
every readable inscription. Henutnofret was clearly depicted and identified in four
scenes,
1611
while in three others Hunays name has obscured the original inscription.
1612

Only in one scene could the name of Resy have been placed, but here Hunays name has
been painted over the original and the beginning of Resy (Rs) seemingly sketched over
Hunay.
1613

Iamunedjeh also had at least four brothers that were named in the tomb. The
lector-priest (Xry-Hb) and wab-priest of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I) in Henketankh
Khaemwaset (called Nebkheti ?) is already well-known since he appears as the presenter
of offerings in at least three scenes.
1614
Two of the other brothers appear as banquet
guests, and the fourth, previously misidentified as a son, stands behind Iamunedjeh

1608
Formerly in the Cairo Museum, JE 59190, and now in the Luxor Museum, J.3. Iamunedjeh calls
himself ms n nbt pr Rsy
1609
Newberry, PSBA 35. The location is currently unknown to me. The inscription reads: aA m pr-nswt
smi.n.f Xrt tAwy wHm nsw tpy IAmw-nDH ir n sAb %A-DHwty ms n nbt pr Rs
1610
Contra Polz and Shedid; Polz, MDAIK 47, p. 283, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.109 Anm.719.
1611
PM(1), west thickness; PM(2); PM(14) lower register; PM(16). None of these inscriptions except for
PM(16) were recorded by Virey.
1612
PM(7); PM(20); PM(21). Three additional inscriptions are damaged or destroyed, but probably
depicted Henutnofret: PM(11), east and west walls; PM(14), top register, Hunays name seems to be
painted over a female determinative and mAat-xrw
1613
A new, badly damaged offering scene at the east end of the southeast wall, to the east of PM(7).
1614
He presents offerings to Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret at PM(7) and PM(14), and Delta produce at
PM(16). In the latter two scenes the end of the inscription is damaged, but it appears that his name is
written xA-m-wAst Dd(w n).f Nb-x-ti (?) ///
364
receiving offerings.
1615
Iamunedjeh is also depicted seated with an unknown man
receiving offerings on the east wall of the passage.
1616

Another source of information, and problems, for Iamunedjehs family comes not
from his tomb, but from a so-called family stele in Marseille, and from his presence in
TT56 of Userhat.
1617
The stele is dedicated to the royal scribe Mery, and contains three
registers of double offering scenes in which a number of persons are identified, though
their genealogical relationships are unclear (Fig.37, p.493). In the lunette the royal herald
Iamunedjeh and his wife (Hmt.f) Henutnofret are on the right offered to by his son (sA.f),
the lector-priest of Amun, Mery, while on the left his son (sA.f), the royal scribe Mery
presents offerings to Iamunedjeh and his wife/sister (snt.f) Kha. This pattern is repeated
in the first register, where his son, wab-priest of Amun, Mery offers to the kings son
(sA nswt) Renna and his wife (Hmt.f) Tanodjmet on the right and libates before the scribe
Amunerhatef and his wife/sister (snt.f) Baket on the left. In the second and final register it
changes slightly, his daughter (sA(t).f) Henutnofret libates before Ahmose and the
scribe Amenemheb on the right, and on the left his son (sA.f), Xrd n kAp Tety offers to
the royal scribe Mery and his wife/sister (snt.f) Ruia.
The clearest relationship is that depicted in the second register. Here we have the
owner of the stele, the royal scribe Mery, seated with his wife Ruia and offered to by
their son Tety while opposite them their daughter Henutnofret offers to two men who are

1615
The name of the brother receiving offerings with Iamunedjeh at PM(3) is extremely difficult to discern,
despite his being labeled as Djhuty-mes by Virey (in: Sept tombeaux, p.344). The inscription reads: sn.f
mr.f //[wab n ?]// //DHwty// Min(?)-ms mAa-xrw Contra Whale, he is definitely not a son; Whale, Family,
p.115-6. Two banquet guests in the second register at PM(7) appear to be the sn.f nb / Hb /// aH-ms and sn.f
mr.f NAy
1616
PM(18); the inscription was usurped and is essentially destroyed today. The name might be read
Djhutymes, Minmes, or even Sadjhuty.
1617
Muse Borly Nr. 234. Maspero, RT xiii, p.120-1 no.34; Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.108-110, Abb.45
Taf.46. TT56, PM(4).
365
probably brothers, or perhaps colleagues, of Mery. Although Helck, Seeber and Polz
equate the owner of the stele with the lector-priest and wab-priest Mery who appears as
well, this does not seem likely.
1618
Nor is it possible that any of them should be identified
with the high priest of Amun Mery, owner of TT95, who usurped Iamunedjehs tomb.
This is the conclusion reached by Gnirs, as well as by my own research.
1619

Returning to the stele, who is Mery and what is his relationship to Iamunedjeh?
First, despite being placed in the bottom register, as the owner of the stele the royal scribe
Mery should still be understood as the person to whom the majority of the genealogical
terms refer back. It is important to remember that the kinship term sA, son, can also
mean grandson, son-in-law, or descendant in general. In addition, it could possibly refer
to the spouse of a child, or even (at least in the late New Kingdom) to someone who
performs the role of the son but is not an actual blood relation.
1620
Stylistically the stele
dates to the early half of Thutmosis IIIs reign, and this is supported by Iamunedjeh only
bearing the title of royal herald, as opposed to first royal herald. From what we know of
the inscriptions and depictions in Iamunedjehs tomb, he and Henutnofret did not have
any children, nor did Iamunedjeh have a second wife. However, Iamunedjeh did have
several brothers, one of whom was deceased and shown at least once receiving offerings
with Iamunedjeh.
1621
Perhaps then Iamunedjeh adopted his sister-in-laws son, as we saw
happened between Ahmose-Humay and Sennefer, above.
1622
This would allow for Mery
to be called his son in reference to Iamunedjeh, as opposed to sn.f, his brother, the

1618
Helck, Verwaltung, p.496.3; Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.289-90; Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.109-110.
Whale also mentioned that it was not usual for a royal scribe to carry priestly titles, though she later seems
to contradict this. Whale, Family, pp.117-8.
1619
Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.58-61; contra Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.287-9. See Chapter 2.
1620
See the genealogical table, Table 1.
1621
This is the ///-mes at PM(3) who is perhaps the same man depicted seated with Iamunedjeh at PM(18).
1622
Sennefers adoption was probably due to his parents having died; see Chapter 2.
366
usual term used when referring to the son of a sibling. Thus in the lunette Iamunedjeh
would be depicted with his wife Henutnofret and sister-in-law Kha. The royal scribe
Mery offers to Iamunedjeh as his adopted father seated with his mother, but I would posit
that the lector-priest of Amun Mery who offers to Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret is a son of
the royal scribe Mery, thus the grandson (by adoption) of Iamunedjeh. By analogy, in the
first register we would have Ruias parents Amunerhatef and Baket depicted, being
offered to by their grandson the wab-priest Mery (who should be equated with the lector-
priest Mery), with the parents of Merys mother Kha placed opposite them. Although
somewhat unusual, I believe this would also account for the use of the term snt.f on the
left and Hmt.f on the right. In the lunette these terms are used to signify different
relationships. On the right side of the first and second registers Mery uses snt.f to denote
his own wife and his mother-in-law in keeping with the way his own mother is referred
to, while on the left side Hmt.f is used to demonstrate a generational difference, in keeping
with the way Mery may have viewed his uncle/adopted father Iamunedjeh and
Henutnofret.
Thus we have the following genealogy:
1623

Renna --- Tanodjmet Sadjhuty --- Res
sA nswt | |
| |
| | | | |
Amunerhatef --- Baket Kha --- ///-mes Iamunedjeh --- Henutnofret Ahmose Nay
sS | | _ _ _ _/
| | /
| (?) | | / | (?) | (?)
Wesy Ruia --- sS nsw Mery Ahmose Amenemheb
(TT56) | sS
|
| | |
Mery Henutnofret Tety
Xry-Hb n Imn wab n Imn Xrd n kAp

1623
This is quite different from that reconstructed by Seeber in the publication of TT56, the tomb of
Userhat; cf. Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.110.
367
Although Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret did not have any children, the above
reconstruction allows for the possibility that Iamunedjeh used his influence and position
to help the career of his nephew/adopted son Mery, who also bears the title of royal
scribe. Wesys inclusion in the genealogy stems from his presence in the tomb of Userhat
(TT56) where the high priest of [Montu in] Thebes Wesy offers to a man whose name
could plausibly be restored as Amuneratef and his wife (snt.f) Byky (Fig.38, p.494).
1624

The tomb depiction is placed as the right half of a scene on which the left shows Meryu
offering to the first royal herald of the lord of the two lands Iamunedjeh and his wife
(snt.f) the Xkrt nswt Henutnofret. The reason(s) for Iamunedjehs appearance in the tomb
of Userhat will be discussed in the section on Userhat because they relate to his career, as
opposed to that of Iamunedjehs.

Userhat
(From idnw idnw idnw idnw of the royal herald to Xrd n kAp Xrd n kAp Xrd n kAp Xrd n kAp of Amenhotep II)
It was mentioned in the preceding section that there was a connection between
Iamunedjeh and Userhat. Indeed, in his position as idnw of the royal herald, Userhat was
probably an underling of Iamunedjeh. Although Userhat eventually gained distinction
from Amenhotep II, it seems possible that his abilities were in fact initially recognized by
Iamunedjeh, and only later by the king. Userhat thus provides an excellent opportunity
for examining how a mid-level official could rise both through merit and through the
recommendation of a superior, a type of ascension that generally seems not to be visible
in ancient Egypt.

1624
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.73-4, 111.
368
In addition to being the idnw of the royal herald, Userhat was also a royal scribe
and scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt. Like Iamunedjeh, Userhat was
probably a civil official connected to the military. However, this connection seems to
have been more direct. That is, while Iamunedjeh was brought on Thutmosis IIIs
military campaigns for his skills as an engineer, Userhat was from the beginning probably
involved with the military. It may have been the case that Userhat performed more of the
duties than Iamunedjeh, who I have suggested was made a royal herald primarily to
enhance his ability to erect monuments on behalf of Thutmosis III abroad.
1625
Nowhere in
Iamunedjehs tomb (TT84) are there depictions of the type seen in Userhats with respect
to duty-related scenes. In fact, the depictions in Userhats tomb are in many respects
reminiscent of those seen in the tombs of Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85) and Pehsukher
(TT88), who were both called idnw of the army, as well of the sS nfrw Horemhab (TT78)
and Tjanuny (TT74).
1626

Userhats tomb, TT56,
1627
has been published and his life, career and family
reconstructed by Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid.
1628
As mentioned above, his relationship to
Iamunedjeh has also been reevaluated by Polz, and further, if briefly, discussed by Gnirs
et al. The most important, and only, scene in TT56 in which Iamunedjeh is depicted
occurs on the east wall of the transverse-hall (Fig.38, p.494). A faux-granite painted
false-door with two registers on either side occupies the lower 2/3 of the wall. On the
lintel of the false-door Userhat is seated with his wife Mutnofret, and in the side registers
Userhat is offered to by male attendants. The representation on the top of the wall is of a

1625
See the discussion of Imaunedjeh, above, pp.350ff.
1626
In Userhats tomb, the particular scenes are those at PM(3) and (9)-(11), which will be discussed below.
1627
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.265-7, type Vb.
1628
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat.
369
double offering in which the first royal herald Iamunedjeh and his wife the Xkrt nswt
Henutnofret are placed in parallel to Amunerhatef and Byky as recipients of offerings.
1629

According to Seeber, the explanation of this scene is that it depicts the parents of
Userhats wife Mutnofret and Iamunedjehs wife Henutnofret respectively.
1630
However,
as we have seen, it appears that Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret did not have any children,
and thus it is highly unlikely that Mutnofret was a daughter of Iamunedjeh.
1631

The re-interpretation of the Marseille stele and the tomb scene also affect the
relationship between Userhat and Amunerhatef, since now the reconstruction of
Amunerhatef and Byky as parents of Henutnofret does not work. As the two couples are
placed opposite each other in Userhats tomb, they should be linked in some way. The
first possibility that suggests itself is one of profession. It was mentioned above that
Userhat was probably the idnw for Iamunedjeh as first royal herald, as well as perhaps
serving as a counter of bread under Iamunedjeh in his final capacity as overseer of
granaries. Both of these points will be discussed further below. If we assume that the man
depicted in the tomb is the same Amunerhatef as on the Marseille stele, then we know
that he was a scribe. However, Iamunedjeh was only a royal herald on the stele, whereas
he is the first royal herald in the tomb. Thus it stands to reason that Amunerhatef could
also have become royal scribe by the time of his depiction in TT56. This would make
him a possible colleague or mentor to Userhat, in the style of Iamunedjeh. The other
possibility is that Amunerhatef and Byky were in fact the parents of Userhat,
1632
and were
placed in connection with the other main (albeit professional) force in Userhats life.

1629
The scene was also briefly described in the discussion of Iamunedjeh, p.367, above.
1630
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.110-11.
1631
Also pointed out by Polz, MDAIK 47, p.289
1632
A possibility also suggested and rejected by Seeber, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.111.
370
Though admittedly if this were the case, it is unclear why Userhat would not be offering
to them, and why they are not mentioned elsewhere in the tomb. I prefer then to see the
composition of this scene as one of commemorative character in which Userhat honors
the two officials who most had an impact on his own career.
1633
The fact that Userhat
does not offer to either Iamunedjeh or Amunerhatef does not detract from this, rather it
supports it. The false-door in the center of the wall places the scene in a funerary context,
such that all three men are the recipients.
The clear professional connection between Userhat and Iamunedjeh is reinforced
by the location of TT56.
1634
It is placed at the bottom of the Qurna necropolis, almost on
the flat plain, but cut east towards the river such that its entrance in fact faces TT84 of
Iamunedjeh, which is quite far up the hill. In addition, some of the scenes in Userhats
tomb are similar in content and layout to those found in the tomb of Iamunedjeh. In each
tomb the deceased is depicted watching the bringing of cattle on the right front wall of
the transverse-hall.
1635
As discussed above Iamunedjeh presumably does this in his
position as an overseer of the ruyt, under the command of the vizier. Userhat is called a
scribe who counts bread, though one of the assistants refers to him as the idnw of the
herald. The lower register in Iamunedjehs tomb is destroyed, but in Userhats he is
shown receiving the deliveries (aqw) from/of the granary of the herald, which are being
handed out to soldiers carrying baskets.
1636
Here he is referred to as the idnw of the herald
and one of his assistants is called the sDm-aS (servant) of the granary of the herald. The
layout of the hunting and fishing and fowling scenes is also quite similar in the two

1633
In this I follow Polzs concept, though not his exact interpretation/reconstruction of the reasons; cf.
Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.289-91.
1634
Cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, plans II, E3 and plan III, C4 demonstrate this layout.
1635
PM(2) in Imaunedjehs tomb, PM(3) in Userhats.
1636
sSp pA aqw n tA Snwt pA //[wHmw]//
371
tombs. Although on opposite walls of the passage and facing opposite directions,
1637
both
depict the deceased hunting in a chariot and facing a papyrus marsh full of birds. The
remainder of this part of the wall in Iamunedjehs tomb is destroyed, but could plausibly
be restored with the depiction in Userhats tomb of the deceased facing a second papyrus
marsh, this time spearing fish. The lower register in Userhats tomb where he is seated
with his wife being offered fowl and the products of the adjacent vintage scene parallels
the depiction of Iamunedjeh and his wife receiving the produce of the Delta.
1638

The final scene to be discussed reflects both the similarities and differences
between the royal herald and his idnw. It appears on the left side of the rear wall of the
transverse-hall, in the direct line of sight of a visitor to the tomb, and hence where
especially important or status-bearing representations are placed (Figs.39-40, p.495-6).
Generally this involves the depiction of the deceased before the king or of the deceased
being offered to, with the most important individual(s) consistently placed at the end of
the wall closest to the central axis. In Iamunedjehs tomb, this is the east half of the north
wall where he leads the Syrians bearing tribute before the king seated in a kiosk.
1639
The
same wall in Userhats tomb (west half of the south wall) has two components, separated
by painted architectural elements, and arranged from left to right (east to west) in the
following order: 1) the registration of soldiers, delivery of bread rations to soldiers, and
officials (based on dress) eating bread before storehouses, and 2) Userhat presenting a
bouquet to Amenhotep II seated in a kiosk. Amenhotep II is not placed at what is

1637
In TT84 these scenes are PM(15) and (17), which appear on the east wall of the passage with the
directionality of the action facing out of the passage, toward the front of the tomb, i.e. facing south. In
TT56 PM(14)-(15) are also on the east wall because the tombs orientation is reversed, but the action heads
towards the niche at the rear of the passage.
1638
This is PM(16) in TT84, which occurs between the depictions of hunting and fishing and fowling.
1639
PM(9), and on the opposite wall he leads the Nubians to the king, PM(5).
372
generally considered the focal point, but instead is at the far end of the wall, and so the
registration and provisioning scene takes the more prominent placement. Seeber
interpreted this as due to the reversed orientation of the tomb, resulting in the need to
place Amenhotep II at the far end of the wall so that Userhat would be moving towards
the west as he approached the king and thus Amenhotep II could fulfill his role as a
mediator between the deceased and the gods.
1640
However, I would point out that several
Theban tombs of this period depict kings on both sides of the rear wall,
1641
bouquets can
be offered to living kings placed on the east as well as the west walls,
1642
and when two
different kings are depicted in this manner, it is not necessarily the earlier, deceased king
that occupies the western position.
It seems quite possible then that the scene of Userhat before Amenhotep II was a
slightly later addition to the wall. Although the registration scene is lacking inscriptions,
it is clear from the dress and larger size of the individual that it is Userhat who is depicted
in the top register standing before the troops. Thus his presence is already accounted for,
without the kiosk scene. Three factors may support the idea that Userhat was granted
permission to represent the king in his tomb after the majority of the wall decoration had
already been executed. The first is that according to Shedids stylistic analysis, this wall
is done in a later style than others in the tomb.
1643
Secondly, the rear of the kiosk scene
actually continues onto the adjacent wall, where two registers of fan- and accoutrement-

1640
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.25-6,64-5
1641
For example in Iamunedjehs tomb (TT84).
1642
For example in the tombs of Mahu (TT85) and Pehsukher (TT88).
1643
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.139-41. Hand A, which is in a traditionally Thutmosis III style is used
in the offering scenes in the transverse-hall [PM(2), (5)-(7)] and on the east wall where the false-door stele
and depictions of Iamundjeh is found [PM(4)]. Hand B is credited with the duty-related scenes [PM(3),
(9)-(11)] in the transverse-hall as well as the entire east wall of the passage, where the daily-life scenes
are placed [PM(14)-(15)]. These all exhibit characteristics of the reign of Amenhotep II, which are further
developed in the funerary scenes on the west wall of the passage [PM(17-18)] that were done in hand C.
373
bearers are depicted facing the back of the kiosk. Finally, with the exception of the outer
door-jambs of the tomb and passage entrances, this is the only inscription in which
Userhat is called an Xrd n kAp.
1644
This is also the only occasion on which Xrd n kAp is the
most prominent, and hence, prestigious title, appearing right before Userhats name. In all
other cases in which Xrd n kAp appears, it is followed twice by scribe and twice by royal
scribe, whereas here it is preceded by the title scribe who counts bread in Upper and
Lower Egypt. Since all of the epithets in this inscription also relate to Userhats closeness
or access to the king, the scribal title is not only the solitary functional title, but also one
that relates to the adjacent scene, which is otherwise inscriptionless.
1645

Although TT56 is not a copy of TT84 as was seen for Pehsukher and Mahu, it
would appear that Userhat did indeed emulate Iamunedjeh as his superior. It also seems
that Userhat, at least at the beginning stages of constructing and decorating his tomb, was
able to utilize his connection to the first royal herald Iamunedjeh. In this he brings to
mind Amenemhat, the steward of the vizier User during the reign of Thutmosis III and
his tomb, TT82. Amenemhat quite clearly utilized his position and relationship to the
vizier User to enhance the decorative quality and grandeur of his tomb.
1646
However, the
fact that Userhat is represented offering to the king he served indicates that at some point
he was recognized by Amenhotep II for his own abilities and was thus able to depict
scenes that showed his personal access to the king. This may also be part of the

1644
The inscriptions around the shrine and one ceiling inscription in the passage are damaged, but based on
the remaining titles in these areas, so it is possible, though unlikely, that the Xrd n kAp title was present.
1645
The inscription accompanying Userhat is: msy rnpyt nbt nfrt n Hm.f in mH-ib n mnx n nb.f Hsy n nTr nfr
Dd n.f wpwt nbt n aAt n mnx.f n nswt aq Xr nfrwt r bw Xr nswt pri Hsw m stp-sA anx wDA snb sS Hsp tA m Smaw
mHw Xrd n kAp Wsr-HAt maA-xrw Presenting all beautiful flowers to his Majesty by the excellent favorite of
his lord, praised of the good god, to whom one says all messages on account of his excellence for the king,
who enters under goodness to the place where the king is, who comes out praised in the palace, l.p.h., the
scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt, child of the nursery, Userhat, justified.
1646
For a more in-depth discussion of this, see Chapter 1.
374
explanation for the scene in which three women are depicted each holding a young
child.
1647
Seeber interprets this as depicting the three children of Userhat, Nebettawy, an
unnamed son and Henutnofret, held by their nurses who are perhaps members of the
family. The title Xkrt nswt that both Userhats wife Mutnofret and daughter Henutnofret
carry are indicators of their elite status, and possibly of a court or royal connection.
1648

Although not called a royal nurse, it is at least possible that Mutnofret was involved with
the children of the court, or with elite children, and that this is a representation of that
position.
The question that still remains, however, is how did Userhat achieve a status that
brought him out from under the influence of Iamunedjeh and into a direct relationship
with the king? For Polz, the career connection between Userhat and Iamunedjeh became
problematic when the issue of the dating of TT56 and the role of the high priest of Amun
Mery came into play.
1649
The high priest Mery can now be discarded from the equation
since, as we have seen, he should not be equated with the lower priests of Amun depicted
on the Marseille stele and perhaps in Userhats tomb. As Polz notes, Seeber seems to date
the career of Userhat to the last decade of Thutmosis III and first half of Amunhotep II,
though Seeber places the tomb stylistically in the later portion of Amenhotep IIs
reign.
1650
Polz thus reconstructs two different life-spans for Userhat, one (a) in which he
is born during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III (c.1488 B.C.) and lives
into the middle of Amenhotep IIs reign (c.1425 B.C.), and a second (b) in which Userhat
lives from c. 1475-1412 B.C. It now seems possible that one is more likely than the other.

1647
PM(7), at the west end of the north (front) wall of the transverse-hall, directly opposite the kiosk scene.
1648
On the possible connection of the Xkrt nswt to the court and the king, see Brack, SAK 11.
1649
Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.286, 289-91.
1650
Polz, MDAIK 47, p.286; Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.113 versus 145.
375
The stele that might have contained an autobiographical inscription was never
finished, and Seebers reconstruction of Userhats career path is somewhat contradictory.
According to Seebers ordering of the titles, from lowest to highest position, Userhat is a
scribe, royal scribe, overseer of cattle/nfrwt-cattle of Amun, scribe who counts bread in
Upper and Lower Egypt (and its variants) and finally idnw of the herald.
1651
However, in
the text Seeber suggests that based on the absence of the title idnw of the herald on the
funerary cones, Userhat only held this position while Iamunedjeh was a royal herald,
probably until Iamunedjeh died. His other titles of royal scribe, scribe who counts bread
and overseer of cattle continued to be held by Userhat, despite the fact that they were
presumably lesser positions.
1652
Seeber also posits that Userhat was concomitantly the
idnw and the scribe who counts bread because the bread was coming from the granary of
the herald (discussed above), and wonders whether the position of overseer of the cattle
of Amun was a type of pension post.
1653
Polz, who follows Seebers in text
reconstruction, states that Userhat would have been an idnw beginning around 1450 B.C.
and become overseer of cattle after Iamunedjehs death and in the first decade of
Amenhotep IIs reign, between 1440 and 1430 B.C.
1654

However, in his tomb Userhat is only the idnw of the herald and Iamunedjeh
likewise is only referred to as the royal herald, not first royal herald. In the re-analysis of
Iamunedjehs career it was suggested that he was royal herald from approximately years
33-40 of Thutmosis III, and first royal herald only after year 40, c.1450 B.C. The
combination of these two factors leads to the possibility that Userhat was idnw for

1651
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.152.
1652
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p. 104-5.
1653
Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.111with n.730.
1654
Polz, MDAIK 47, p.290.
376
Iamunedjeh prior to his becoming first royal herald, thus beginning c. 1457 B.C. If we
assume that Userhat was at least a scribe prior to becoming an idnw, then it seems likely
that Polzs scenario a with a birth for Userhat c.1488 B.C. (rather than c.1475) is more
accurate. This would make Userhat about 31 when he became idnw, after being a scribe,
and perhaps royal scribe, for a number of years. As Iamunedjehs idnw during the years
in which Iamunedjeh was involved with the campaigns of Thutmosis III, it is likely that
Userhat would have accompanied him.
Userhat does not mention the Euphrates river in any of his inscriptions, so perhaps
he did not go on this campaign, or did not become idnw until after year 33. Userhat does
bear the military epithets one relating to the legs of the lord of the two lands in every
place which he traveled and one relating to his (i.e. the kings) legs upon all foreign
lands, both of which are indicators that Userhat was involved with campaigns during the
Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II period.
1655
I suggested above that Iamunedjeh was made a
royal herald to facilitate his function as a civil engineer erecting obelisks and stelae, and
quite likely assisting in designing the Egyptian camps and breaking through Syrian
defenses while on the Syrian campaigns. Userhat as his idnw may then have taken on the
more directly militaristic aspects of the duties assigned to a royal herald, and thus we see
him dealing with provisioning troops with bread rations from the granary and butchering
of cattle. Although in this capacity Userhat also refers to himself as a scribe who counts,

1655
The first epithet, iry rdwy n nb tAwy m st nbt xnd.n.f, is on a ceiling inscription in the passage and in the
offering scene at PM(5). The second, iry rdwy.f Hr xAst nbt, is on the opposite wall in the transverse-hall at
PM(2). Iamunedjeh also carried the iry rdwy epithet on his block statue. Guksch suggests that these epithets
should be considered as expressions of loyalty to the king; cf. Guksch, Knigsdienst, pp.56-73.
377
it is the idnw title that takes precedence in the inscriptions that accompany these
scenes.
1656

Polz suggests that the career connection between Userhat and Iamunedjeh is also
reflected in their respective titles of scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt
and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt.
1657
This is certainly true, but
from the evidence in Userhats tomb it would appear that Iamunedjehs royal herald and
overseer of granaries titles overlapped in function at least to some extent, and that
Userhats did as well. Iamunedjeh may have used his influence with the king while a
controller of works and royal herald to elevate the career and increase the duties of
Userhat as his idnw. Once Iamunedjeh was elevated to the position of overseer of the ruyt
Userhats duties as an idnw would probably have essentially ended, and his role as a
scribe who counts and overseer of cattle would have become his primary positions.
Iamunedjehs closer proximity to the king in the palace sphere may have also resulted in
Userhats coming into closer contact with Amenhotep II during the co-regency period.
Thus while at the beginning of his career Userhat may have benefited greatly
from his position as an idnw and his connection to Iamunedjeh, he eventually could boast
of his own personal connection to Amenhotep II. The fact that Iamunedjeh was made an
overseer of granaries in his last years suggests that even if Userhat was nominally under
Iamunedjehs authority, the duties were being carried out by Userhat as a function of his
own titles.
1658
In addition, Userhats role as a scribe who counts is quite clearly still
connected to the military, though it is obvious that Iamunedjeh had moved out of this

1656
PM(3),discussed above.
1657
Polz, MDAIK 47, p.290.
1658
I would also point out here that in Iamunedjehs tomb inscriptions the titles overseer of granaries, royal
scribe and scribe who counts are all found together in the scene of Delta produce.
378
sphere, with which he was only tangentially ever connected. In this respect Userhat bears
some resemblance to Tjanuny, who was an administrative official in the military
sphere.
1659
It would thus seem that it was Userhats on-going connection to the military
that brought him into closer contact with Amenhotep II. When Amenhotep II was crown-
prince, and presumably leading some of his fathers campaigns, Userhat would have been
involved with provisioning of the troops. His abilities in this area led to his notice by the
king, and subsequent elevation to an Xrd n kAp, denoting his personal connection to
Amenhotep II and preferred status within the court. Although Userhat was approximately
50 years old when Amenhotep II became king, and thus quite a bit older than the 18-year
old king, it was not uncommon for older officials to be granted the status of a child of
the nursery late in life.
1660
It was a recognition not only of the service to the king(s), but
also of the esteem in which the king held these men who seem to have come from non-
elite backgrounds, but were equated with nobles from birth in the eyes of the king.
Userhats preferred status, although granted later in life, was transferred to his
daughter Henutnofret. She is called a Xkrt nswt, a court title indicative of a royal
connection, in each of her three appearances in the tomb. In one of these Henutnofret
accompanies her parents in a brazier offering scene, an indicator of her preferred status
within the family.
1661
Here she is called Xkrt nswt beloved of her lord,
1662
and in the
other two inscriptions she is referred to as Xkrt nswt beloved of the good god (i.e. the

1659
See the discussion of Tjanuny below, pp.423.
1660
Amenemheb-Mahu underwent the same transformation due to his military service under Thutmosis III,
and Amenhotep II also made him idnw of the army.
1661
PM(2), on the east (left) side of the north (front) wall.
1662
The full inscription that accompanies Henutnofret is his daughter, his beloved of the place of his heart,
praised of Hathor mistress of Dendera, Xkrt nswt, beloved of her lord, Henutnofret, justified.
379
king),
1663
further signs of her relationship with the court and king. Her mother Mutnofret
is identified in the same brazier-offering depiction twice: in the inscription above the
figures using the generic epithets common to an officials wife,
1664
and in a column
before her figure as his sister (i.e. wife), his beloved, mistress of the house, praised of
Hathor, Mutnofret, justified. According to Seeber, Mutnofret also held the Xkrt nswt title
once in the tomb, in the second brazier-offering scene, where there also seem to be two
inscriptions associated with her.
1665
However, in this instance the inscriptions are both
damaged, the name is lost, and only in the text above the figure is her filiation given.
1666

In addition, the two inscriptions repeat the phrase praised of Hathor, an epithet that
both Mutnofret and Henutnofret held. Although Seeber restores Mutnofrets name in each
inscription, it seems also possible that the column before the figure of Mutnofret was
meant to identify Henutnofret, whose figure is absent from the scene. If Mutnofret did
bear the Xkrt nswt title, she clearly only gained it late in life and as a result of her
husbands status in the court of Amenhotep II. Out of seven depictions and four
additional mentions in the TT56, the scene and text just discussed is the only place in
which the Xkrt nswt title appears in (possible) connection with Mutnofret, including on
the funerary cones.
1667



1663
Twice in PM(5), once where Henutnofret offers with her siblings to her parents and once in the banquet
portion of this scene, where she is seated with her sister (?) and offered to by her daughter (?).
1664
his sister (i.e. wife), his beloved, mistress of the house Mutnofret, justified before the great god, lord
of Abydos
1665
PM(6), on the west (right) side of the north (front) wall.
1666
The text above her figure reads his sister (i.e. wife), his beloved, mistress of the house, praised of
Hathor mistress of ////. Seeber restores mistress of Dendera, Mutnofret, justified, Beinlich-Seeber,
Userhat, p.50. The column before Mutnofret reads Xkrt nswt praised of Hathor ////, and Seeber restores
Mutnofret, justified, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.49.
1667
Though Userhats Xrd n kAp title is also missing from the funerary cones.
380
Amenemheb-Mahu and Baky
(A career military man and his royal nurse wife)
One of the most well-known military officials from the Thutmosis III
Amenhotep II period is the idnw n mSa Amenemheb called Mahu; for simplicity he will
referred to as Mahu in this text. A career military man from a seemingly lower status
family, Mahu distinguished himself with his military service to Thutmosis III and was
promoted increasingly higher within the ranks of the military. His wife Baky was among
the most honored of Amenhotep IIs nurses, and it may be that she played a small role in
her husbands final rise.
1668
In the following pages, a careful review of Mahus
monuments, and of Bakys presence on them is undertaken in order to determine how this
couple became so honored by both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.
Mahu was the owner of TT85,
1669
which numbers amongst the largest in the
Theban Necropolis and is located high on the Qurna hillside near several contemporary
tombs of upper level officials.
1670
It is composed of a four-pillared 2-pilastered front hall,
short passage, transverse-hall, and axial hall with a niche. The decoration was finished
prior to Mahus burial, and although the bottom half of almost all the walls is nearly
completely destroyed a generous amount of information is still preserved.
1671
As with
many military officials, we have very little information about Mahus parentage. His
father is completely unknown to us, while his mother Tetires appears only once in the

1668
It does not seem probable that Mahus wife Baky should be equated with the nurse Amenemopet called
Baki/Baka known from a Book of the Dead papyrus, or that she was the same chief royal nurse
Amunemopet that was mother to Qenamun. Likewise the notion that she and possibly Mahu were
Canaanite is extraordinarily unlikely. For these suggestions, cf. Barwik, Essays Lipinska, pp. 331-338.
1669
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.336-8, type VIIa.
1670
For example, Rekhmire (TT100), Suemniut (TT92), Qenamun (TT93) to name a few.
1671
TT85 was recognized early on as one of the more impressive tombs in Qurna and was partially
published by Virey in the late 1800s; cf. Virey, in: Sept tombeaux;Virey, Records of the Past. Today the
tomb is being researched for re-publication by a German team led by Heike Guksch; cf. Gnirs, MDAIK 53.
The tomb is being investigated in conjunction with TT88 of Pehsukher, a younger contemporary of Mahu,
who borrowed architectural and decorative elements from TT85 for the construction of his own tomb.
381
tomb.
1672
The person who figures most prominently, besides Mahu himself, is his wife
Baky, who was a chief royal nurse for Amenhotep II. Indeed, her status in Mahus tomb
suggests that she may have either shared his tomb equally, or been given her own tomb,
an idea that is supported by a number of inscriptions in TT85.
1673
Baky will be discussed
in greater depth below.
Mahu spent the majority of his life and career on the campaigns of Thutmosis III,
but he also witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II, and although he may not have
survived long into the new kings reign he was still playing a relatively active role in his
advanced years. This makes him part of a small group of co-regency officials, all of
whom have depictions of both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II in their tombs.
1674
One of
the reasons that Mahu has figured prominently in previous discussions about this period
is because of his long tomb autobiography. It is placed not on a stele, but rather forms the
inscription that accompanies Mahu as he stands before an enthroned Thutmosis III with
three registers of prostrate Syrians behind him (Fig.41, p.497).
1675
The scene is placed
prominently on the rear wall of the front hall, thus just opposite the tombs entrance and
in the direct line of sight of a visitor to the tomb.
1676
The text, which is nearly intact,
gives an extraordinary amount of information on his exploits in what is largely, though

1672
In the second register on the east face of the westernmost pillar, PM Pillar Ad, where she offers to her
son and his wife Baky and is called mwt.f mrrt.f //[nbt pr ?]// Hsyt nt Imn //[T]//ti-r//[s]// // nb[t] imAx.
1673
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.170-1.
1674
Murnane was the first to propose the idea and compile a list that includes Min (TT109), Dedi (TT200),
Neferrenpet (TT43), Amenmose (TT42), and Montuiywy (TT172), see Murnane, Coregencies; Van Siclen
added Mahu (TT85), Nebemkemet (TT256), and the unknown owner of Silsilah shrine 30 to the list, see
Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, Appendix 2, p.49 D. Most of these are military men, a significant fact
that will be discussed in the conlcusions.
1675
Der Manuelian, following Breasted and others, describe the scene as one in which Mahu recites his
autobiography before Amenhotep II; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.162. This is not correct; the
cartouches though damaged are clearly those of Thutmosis III. Amenhotep II is probably portrayed in the
same position on the west side of the same wall, at PM(9), where the bottom of Amenhotep IIs epithet HqA
wAs (ruler of Thebes) is discernable. I visited the tomb in 2002.
1676
PM(17), the east side of the north (rear) wall of the pillared transverse-hall. The layout of the scene
parallels that seen in TT99 of Sennefri.
382
not entirely, the eighth campaign of Thutmosis III (year 33),
1677
chronicles the death of
Thutmosis III and accession of Amenhotep II, and documents the end of Mahus career.
Redford has demonstrated that the text is thematically, as opposed to
chronologically ordered, but nonetheless it is possible to reconstruct a career path for
Mahu.
1678
At the beginning of the inscription Amenemheb-Mahu calls himself simply
waw, which Schulman understands as infantryman or even (in this case) simply soldier,
at the bottom of the combat ranks.
1679
This position then is presumably the starting point
of Mahus career, and the capacity in which he first went to Syria with Thutmosis III.
Before the list of specific military activities begins, Mahu states:
I am one very true to the sovereign, devoted to the king of
Upper Egypt, beneficial of heart to the king of Lower
Egypt. I followed my lord on his marches upon the foreign
lands of the north and south, so he loves my being as one
related to his legs (iry rdwy) while he is upon the battlefield
of his victories and his power is making the heart
steadfast.
1680


During the recitation of the battles in which he participated, Mahu does not list additional
titles for himself, though he does relate that he captured Asiatics and mariannu chariot
warriors as prisoners and was awarded by the king with silver and gold, including the

1677
Urk. IV, 890-97. The interpretation of the events recorded in the autobiography varies greatly. Breasted
originally saw five different campaigns, while Gardiner thought it related only the activities of the 8
th

campaign; Breasted, AER II, pp.227-234, Gardiner, AEO I, 153*-58*. The most recent treatment is by
Redford, Wars, pp.167-72, who has revisited this issue and his reconstruction of events I followed here.
1678
Redford, Wars, pp.170-2.
1679
Schulman, MRTO, pp.36-7, esp. no.82.
1680
Columns 2-4, Urk. IV, 890, 7-13: ink mAa wrt n Ity anx wDA snb pxA HAty n nswt Ax-ib n bity iw Sms.n(.i)
nb.i r nmtt.f Hr xAst mHtt rsyt mr.f iw.i m iry rdwy.f ti sw Hr priw nxtw.f pHty.f Hr swmtib. The phrase iry-
rdwy is translated literally here, but it is generally understood in the sense of one in attendance on
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.25, or ones fellow; WB I: 104, 7. Der Manuelian translates it as
companion; cf. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.121, while Galan, Victory, p.89B uses page. Redford
prefers atr his heels; cf. Redford, Wars, p.167.
383
highly valued gold of praise and golden flies.
1681
The same is true for his efforts on the
elephant hunt and in slaying a mare sent loose among the Egyptian chariotry horses. In
reference to his participation at Qadesh Mahu hints at his position using the epithetic
phrases I was among his followers/in his following (i.e. personal companions or
retinue)
1682
and I was the foremost (i.e. leader) of every brave man,
1683
while at Sendjar
and Tikhasy he mentions fighting beside the king.
1684
Based on Redfords reconstruction,
it would appear that Mahu became part of the kings following after he fought at his side
at least once, and may have been leader during the final campaigns.
1685

It is only at the end of the entire campaign account that Mahu says: I made these
captures when a waw of (the ship) Imn-wsr-HAt. I was tying aqAw-ropes in (the ship) Imn-
wsr-HAt when I was as the first of his companions in rowing (the ship) Amun-Re at the
Beautiful Feast of the Opet, all men in rejoicing/festival.
1686
Although the campaigns are
not given in chronological order, the first battle to be mentioned involves the crossing of
the Euphrates, and thus Mahu was likely already a waw of (the ship) Imn-wsr-HAt.
1687
The
mention of the Opet festival in these lines indicates that Mahu is now back in Egypt, and

1681
These campaigns took place in the Negeb and Naharin (A), near Aleppo (B), at Carchemish (C), in
Sendjar (D), at Qadesh (E), in a place whose name is lost (F), in Tikhasy (G), and again at Qadesh (J). In
between Tikhasy and the last Qadesh battle, Mahu recounts a hunt in Niya (H) and a loose mare in the
Egyptian calvalry (I). The lettering (A-J) is Redfords grouping in Wars, pp.167-70. Following Redfords
reconstruction of the chronological sequence (Wars, p.172), A-C and H belong to the 8
th
campaign, D is the
8
th
or 13
th
campaign, F could be the 10
th
campaign, G likely falls between years 42-49, and E, I, J should be
grouped together as the 1
st
, 6
th
, or last campaign. The mention of the fort in J suggests a later date, and may
be equivalent or later than G, in year 42.
1682
Campaign E. Column 14, Urk. IV, 892, 7: iw.i m Smsw.f. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.267; WB IV:
487, 5-7.
1683
Campaign J. Column 31, Urk. IV, 895, 2: iw.i m H#wty n qn nb
1684
Campaign D. Column 13, Urk. IV, 892, 2 and Column 21, Urk. IV, 893, 8: kfo.n.i (im.f) m-bAH nswt I
made captures (therein it) before the king
1685
See note 1681 above.
1686
Campaign G. Columns 33-5, Urk. IV, 895, 8-12: ir.n.i nn kfa iw(.i) m waw [n Imn-wsr-HAt] ink Tsw aqAw
m I[mn-wsr-HAt] i[w].i m tpy n iryw.f Hr X[nt Imn-ra] m Hb nfr n Ipt tA-tmw m ihAA There are certainly traces
on the wall which match the restorations suggested in the Urkunden. Schulman does not deal with this
inscription after the first sentence, cf. Schulman, MRTO, p.90, no.23. See below for the phrase tpy iryw.f
1687
Column 10, Urk IV, 891, 10: DAi.n.i pA mw n Nhrn
384
functioning as a ship-soldier during religious festivals. This indicates that it may have
been only at the very end, or perhaps after his return, that Mahu gained the greater
distinction of being first of the kings companions (tpy n iryw.f),
1688
a position that
probably would have placed him in close contact with Thutmosis III.
The next seven or eight columns deal with the death of Thutmosis III and
accession of Amenhotep II. Following this, Mahu recounts that the new king noticed him
while he was rowing under him in his barque,
1689
and was brought into the palace while
or after rowing in the Beautiful Feast of the Opet Festival and to Djeser-akhet.
1690
While
Mahu is standing before Amenhotep II in the palace, the king grants him his final
promotion, saying:
(I) knew your character when I was (still) in the nest, when
you were among the followers of (my) father. Placed in
your face is the office, so that you may act as an idnw n mSa
in accordance with what is spoken. May you be watchful of
the qnywt of the king. Then the idnw n mSa Mahu was doing
all that he said.
1691


The other main (functional) title known for Mahu, which is not included in his
autobiography, is that of Hry pDt. In addition, he bears several epithets as well as
honorifics indicative of his loyalty and close relationship to the king, i.e., (foremost)
companion to the lord of the two lands, chief of those in his (the kings) following, chief

1688
Literally first of those relating to him. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.121 translates this as chief of
his guards, probably after the Wrterbuch entry, which gives the possible translation of guard (Hter), WB
I: 103, I. Faulkner however lists a meaning crew of a boat with this line (Urk. IV, 895, 11) as the source,
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.25. This may be the better translation given the context. Schulman does
not mention this phrase; Schulman, MRTO.
1689
Columns 43-4, Urk. IV, 897, 1-2: aHa.n mAA.n wi Hm.f Hr Xnt Xr.f m bi[k.f]
1690
Is it possible then that the two events of rowing are connected and perhaps tied into the festivals that
occurred around the time of the early co-regency and subsequent accession of Amenhotep II?
1691
Columns 46-47, Urk IV, 897, 11-17: rx.n(.i) qd.k ti wi m sSy m wn.k m Smswt it(.i) di m Hr.k m iAwt
idnw.k n mSa mi Ddt srs.k qnwyt nswt wn.in idnw MaHw Hr irt Dd.ti nbw.f
385
of his smr-courtiers, and Xrd n kAp.
1692
While the additional titles come from various
inscriptions throughout the tomb, there are a few scenes to which they are most relevant
and bear discussion. These representations are found primarily clustered on the front and
rear walls of the left half of the tombs pillared hall.
1693
Here we see Mahu involved in
the provisioning of troops and inspecting the recording of provisions (which likely come
from the agricultural scene in the lower registers) before a storehouse bearing the name of
Amenhotep II, and either leading soldiers, etc. to the king or (as is perhaps more likely)
supervising and registering the soldiers.
1694

The first two scenes occur back-to-back on the same wall and are separated by the
storehouse, which Mahu stands in front of. The storehouse seems to be related to both
scenes, indicating where the activities depicted are taking place.
1695
In the first depiction
Mahu is bringing the srw nw mnfAywt and anxw nw mSa to the palace in order to distribute
provisions to them.
1696
Mahu is identified as the iry-pat HAty-a, excellent favorite of the
lord of the two lands, praised of those who are in the palace, one who fills the ears of
Horus with truth, the idnw n [mSa] Xrd n kAp // [destroyed] //. Although the end of the

1692
(HAty) iry-rdwy n nb tAwy, Hry-tp n imyw-Xt.f, and tpy n smrw.f.
1693
The tomb is so enormous that Mahu was able to have it decorated almost thematically. In the pillared
front hall we have on the western side duty-related activities and offerings to the deceased, as well as a
presentation before Amenhotep II. On the eastern side the front and side walls involve offerings to the
deceased, gods and the deceased Thutmosis III, while on the rear wall is the autobiographical text and
presentation before Thutmosis III. The west side of the short passage depicts two couples seated before the
funeral outfit, which leads into the front and end walls on the west side of the transverse-hall with the
funerary procession and offerings to Osiris; the rear wall depicts hippo-spearing. The eastern side of the
short passage contains a double-offering scene while the same side of the transverse-hall is decorated with
fishing and fowling and additional banqueting scenes. The axial passage contains additional scenes related
to the afterlife, with mummy rites and a funeral procession on the west and the deceased couple in a garden
setting on the east. The rear (north) wall has a niche with offering scenes on either side and a depiction of
Osiris on the west side.
1694
Respectively PM(2), (3), and (8). The interpretation of PM(8) is based on the similar scene in TT88 of
Pehsukher and will be discussed below under this official.
1695
PM(2)-(3), the west side of the south (front) wall of the pillared chamber. The lower registers are
damaged, but based on comparison with TT88 of Pehsukher, it is probable that Mahu was depicted at the
east end observing the agricultural activities which take up most of the lower portion of the wall.
1696
Schulman understands these to be respectively officials of the army and soldiers, Schulman, MRTO, pp.
13-14, 33-4, and 91 no.24.
386
inscription is damaged, the available space is the appropriate size to restore Imn-m-Hb
mAa-xrw. It is certainly possible that there was another title placed here, e.g. Hry pDt,
followed by the abbreviated name Mahu. However, the four inscriptions that
unambiguously contain the Hry pDt title all list it as first,
1697
and the pattern of destruction
suggests that it is in large part due to Atenist defacement. Thus Mahus name becomes
the more likely restoration. It is also interesting to note that the list of epithets and titles is
an almost exact replica of that found in the slightly later tomb of the Hry pDt Paser
(TT367) discussed above, who however is not known to have been an idnw.
1698
Mahu is
assisted in his duties by a man referred to as the scribe of the document (i.e. secretary)
of the idnw Mahu, who is not absent from his two legs in any place, the dignitary/sAb
Mes.
1699
Although earlier we saw the expression (iry-)rdwy.f in a military context, to
imply service in foreign lands, here it is used to suggest that this scribe accompanied
Mahu wherever he provisioned the troops. This inscription replicates almost exactly one
used by Mahu in the context of describing his relationship with the king.
1700
Its placement
here thus implies that this scribe was especially close to Mahu, perhaps being his chief

1697
These are all located in the back of the tomb at PM(24), (29), (30), and in a ceiling inscription in the
rear axial passage.
1698
TT367 must have been built and decorated in the second half of Amenhotep IIs reign as it alters the
courtyard of TT92, which is a few years newer than TT85 (Pers. Comm., Betsy Bryan). The inscription in
TT367 is located at PM(5), where Paser presents offerings before the king. The inscription is quoted in text
above, see Chapter 2, but the relevant portion is: mH-ib aA n nb tAwy Hsy n nTr nfr mH anxwy Hr m mAawt
Hry pDt Xrd n kAp Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti sw m inpw PA-sr mAa-xrw. The similarities between Mahus tomb
and that of Pehsukher (TT88) have long been known; see most recently Gnirs, MDAIK 53, and the
bibliography cited there. As Pehsukher served shortly after Mahu (he was probably contemporary with
Paser), I will discuss the similarities in relation to the discussion on Pehsukhers tomb, unless relevant here
when suggesting possible restorations.
1699
Virey did not fully copy this inscription, which accompanies the figure in the first register: sS Sat n idnw
n MaHw tm tS r rdwy.f m st nbt saH / sAb Ms (?);cf. Virey, Sept tombeaux, p.229. The inscription is somewhat
obscured at the end and the reading of sAb / saH Ms is uncertain, what is clear is that there is a 4-legged
animal followed by the ms-sign. In a slightly larger script below this, but still pertaining to the scribe we
read nf Sn; I am uncertain how best to translate or interpret this.
1700
The inscription accompanies the scene of Mahu and Baky standing before their garden estate at the
south end of PM(30); cf. columns 5-7 (Urk. IV, 901.5-6): Sms nsw iry-rdwy.f tm tS r nswt m st nbt
387
assistant. In the scene adjacent to this Mahu is speaking to the overseer of the granary of
the lord of the two lands, one who reckons the preparation of bread and beer, whose
name is unfortunately not given.
1701
Again Mahu is identified by only his idnw n mSa title
as he gives instructions to the overseer about dealing with the army provisions.
Both of these scenes take place before a storehouse of Amenhotep II, thus it is
likely that they primarily refer to Mahus duties under this king. The fact that only his
highest title (idnw n mSa) is used supports this, since Amenhotep II placed him in this
position. In addition, the inscription of Mahus scribal assistant and the depiction of the
Egyptian overseer of granaries suggest that at this time Mahus responsibilities were in
Egypt. These depictions also strengthen the idea that the role of the idnw was, as
Schulman states, mostly connected with the provisioning of the army and mainly of an
administrative nature.
1702
It seems then that we are dealing with the end of Mahus
career. Schulman however seems to contradict himself, as he also suggests that the
position of idnw was not given to an official in retirement but was instead a rather active
post.
1703
Schulman views the Hry pDt as primarily a combat post in which the official
commanded troops and was subordinate only to the imy-r mSa wr, although Schulman
does admit that the Hry pDt could play an administrative role as well.
1704
According to
Schulmans reconstruction of the military hierarchy, Mahu would have moved from a
waw (m Imn-wsr-HAt) to an idnw (n mSa) and at the end attained the higher post of Hry
pDt.
1705
Schulmans interpretation, if correct, would affect our understanding of Mahus

1701
PM(3); imy-r Snwty n nb tAwy Hsb psw t Hnqt
1702
Schulman, MRTO, p.35
1703
Schulman, MRTO, p.34. This is contra Helck, Enfluss, pp.54-7.
1704
Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. See also the discussion above on Nebamun and Paser, Chapter 2, p.281,
with note 1269 for a brief discussion of the term Hry pDt.
1705
Schulman, MRTO, the lists on pp.82-6. Schulman does not deal with the positions tpy n iryw.f or tpy n
smrw.f.
388
life in the military because it implies that Mahu was younger than has been previously
thought, or at least that he lived and was militarily active further into the reign of
Amenhotep II. Schulmans scenario also seems to suggest that either Mahu moved from a
combat to administrative back into combat position, or that his duties as a Hry pDt were
essentially administrative in nature.
1706
Chevereaus interpretation of this title as
commander of a regiment who was subordinate only to the imy-r mSa seems to
essentially agree with that of Schulman.
1707
Gnirs however states that Mahus position as
a Hry pDt might have been essential for the progression of his career, despite its lack of
mention in the autobiography.
1708
A review of the inscriptional and pictorial material
from the tomb shows that a reconstruction based on Schulman does not fit with the
evidence we have for Mahu.
Throughout the tomb Mahu records his idnw titles, and in two inscriptions in the
tombs rear portion Mahu is referred to as idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp, and once as idnw n nsw
m mSa.
1709
This latter is a new variation on the title for Mahu and its only occurrence is in
the bottom half of a mostly destroyed scene on the southeast wall of the transverse-
hall.
1710
In the lower part of the scene, which is almost completely destroyed, Mahu
stands at the far left with a scribe recording items that numerous men are carrying.
1711


1706
I would point out that in Schulmans Table 3, which lays out the military hierarchy as he interprets it,
he does place both idnw n mSa and Hry pDt in the combat ranks field, with the simpler idnw as the service
title or post, although idnw appears in the combat lists of the earlier tables. Schulman, MRTO, pp.81 ff.
1707
Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire, p.64, no.11.
1708
Gnirs, Mititr, p.27 with n.214.
1709
He is idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp on the south side of the fishing and fowling scene at PM(27) and in the
banquet scene at PM(28). The inscription on the north side of PM(27) is completely destroyed.
1710
PM(26). The upper portion depicted Mahu at the right with a short inscription above him watching the
collection and preparation of fowl and fish; the figure of Mahu and the inscription are completely
destroyed. The title is included in the list given by Eisermann, but no mention is made of its location in the
tomb. Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.66.
1711
The last column of the inscription is legible, though the name is lost. Pehsukher (TT88) also held the
same title, if my restoration of the column of text alongside the stele is accurate. See below for further
discussion.
389
This appears to be the only scene in this part of the tomb that may depict Mahu in his
official capacity. Mahus Hry pDt title, however, is only found in four inscriptions in the
rear of the tomb: one in the transverse-hall and three in the axial hall, one of which is on
the ceiling. Two or perhaps three times Mahu is called Hry pDt Xrd n kAp idnw, and twice
Hry pDt idnw.
1712
In the remainder of the tomb, including the pillars, Hry pDt is not used at
all.
1713
The reason for the titles appearance in this portion of the tomb may be that by
listing all of his main titles, Mahu is able to present a picture of his career despite the lack
of scenes demonstrating his responsibilities. The placement of Hry pDt as consistently first
in the list of titles suggests that Mahu considered his idnw title to be more important and
prestigious than that of Hry-pDt, and also indicates that Mahu was likely a Hry-pDt before
becoming an idnw.
1714

Thus, from the evidence provided by his tomb, it appears that Mahu started as a
low-level soldier, probably due to his own parents lower status, though whether he was
drafted or enlisted is not known. He then distinguished himself in the campaigns of
Thutmosis III to such an extent that he was rewarded with gifts and the praise and

1712
Hry pDt Xrd n kAp is used at PM(24), west end of the northwest wall in the transverse-hall, in the scene
of Mahu, followed by a woman, spearing a hippopotamus: Hry pDt Xrd n kAp idnw; in the west band of the
axial-hall ceiling inscriptions: ////[Hry]// pDt Xrd n kAp ////; and perhaps at PM(25) where Mahu and a
woman stand behind (i.e. to the east) and facing the hippo-spearing scene: //// Xrd n kAp idnw. This last is
based on the order of the titles, which is only found four other times in the tomb, PM(19)-(20), Pillars Aa
and Cc. Hry pDt idnw occurs at the south end of PM(30), east wall of the axial hall, where Mahu and a
woman stand overlooking a large garden: Hry pDt idnw and at PM(29), west wall of the axial hall, in the
funeral procession to the tomb: Hry pDt idnw ////. In other inscriptions in PM(29) Mahu is also referred to as
idnw n mSa; //// idnw; and idnw.
1713
While it is true that some of the inscriptions here are also damaged, the ones which relate to his service
as a military official do not contain this title, nor do any of the rest of the preserved inscriptions found in
the pillared front room, or short passage.
1714
Several of the inscriptions in the transverse-hall are damaged or destroyed, and thus it is possible that
the titles had more occurrences here. No inscriptions are included in the funerary procession to the Western
Goddess at PM(22), southwest wall, transverse-hall. At PM(23), on the west wall of the transverse-hall,
where Mahu and a woman stand before Osiris in a kiosk, the 24-column accompanying inscription is
completely faded and was in Vireys time as well. Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.66,
stated that the title imy-r mSa aA n nb tAwy was palced in this inscription, but I was not able to find it. The
text of Mahu and a woman seated at the north end of PM(30) is completely destroyed, as are any
inscriptions on the north wall of the axial passage [PM(31)].
390
recognition of the king. This is most likely how Mahu became an Xrd n kAp. There is no
evidence to suggest that he would have obtained this title due to his familys connection
to the royal court. Rather, it appears that the title was awarded as an honorific in
recognition of Mahus service and loyalty. At some point during his military career Mahu
was also granted the position of Hry pDt, though as he does not mention it in the
autobiography there is no way to ascertain whether he achieved this position on his own
merit, or was presented with it by the king. If we take Gnirs interpretation of the
importance of his role as a Hry pDt to his later career as an idnw, it would seem to be the
former situation. Thutmosis III further rewarded Mahu by making his wife the chief nurse
to his son, and later heir, prince Amenhotep (II). The combination of Mahus own status
in the court and his wifes position as royal nurse, led to Mahu becoming, as Amenhotep
II states, known to him in the nest. Thus, once Amenhotep II became king he awarded
his fathers trusted official, and the husband of his own nurse, with the position of idnw in
which to finish out his career. By the later years of his life Mahu had raised himself
significantly above the point at which he seems to have started. Indeed, in the banqueting
scene on the southeast wall of the pillared front room the men serving the guests seated at
the front are each called wbA n idnw butler of the idnw.
1715

Van Siclen added Mahu to the list of co-regency officials first established by
Murnane, based on the balanced decoration Thutmosis III on the right side and
Amenhotep II on the left seen on the rear wall of the first room of the tomb.
1716
While
this is correct, it should be pointed out that in the scene before Amenhotep II it is Mahus
wife, Baky, who takes prominence over her husband in her role as Amenhotep IIs chief

1715
PM(11), west end, registers 1-2: wbA n idnw MaHw and wbA n idnw n Imn-m-Hb
1716
Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.49D. Murnane, Coregencies, p.53.
391
nurse (Figs.41-2, pp.497-8).
1717
Nonetheless, Mahu does fit in with the appellation of a
co-regency official based on other factors, e.g. his autobiographical inscription
(discussed above), and the scene in which Mahu and Baky follow Amenhotep II in an
offering scene before Thutmosis III as Osiris (Fig. 43, p.499).
1718
It has generally been
assumed that Mahu did not live long past the accession of Amenhotep II. This is based on
his extended military career under Thutmosis III, as evidenced by the autobiography and
the fact that his wife was a wet-nurse for Amenhotep II. In addition, the decorative style
and content of Mahus tomb has generally been placed stylistically in the latter part of
Thutmosis IIIs reign and very early years of Amenhotep II.
1719

In fact, a re-examination of TT85 has proved significant for this issue. In studying
the tomb it appears quite evident that the rear portion (transverse and axial halls) was
decorated in a different style that is generally simpler than the front area of the tomb. The
fact that the outer rooms (pillared hall and short passage) are more elaborate is not
especially surprising as it was common to have so-called master artisans spend the
most amount of time and use more costly materials in decorating an area that would be
seen by visitors or passers-by. Nonetheless, the rear portions of the tomb were important
for the funerary cult and thus the significant discrepancy between the two styles seems to
suggest that in TT85 there is another explanation.

1717
Her prominence in the tomb and connection to Mahus career will be discussed further below.
1718
PM(16). According to Virey, Champollion recorded the names of both Amenhotep II and Thutmosis II
on the entrance to the tomb, but if this is accurate it was not preserved when Virey recorded the tomb and I
could not find any traces of this. The only cartouches which appear sur la porte are those of Amenhotep
II on the outer face of the lintel for the doorway created by the center pillars of the front room. Virey, in:
Sept tombeaux, p.224.
1719
For example the scenes of the soldiers and the style of the costumes. It is also remarkably similar in
artistic hand to the nearby tomb of Suemniut (TT92), who was a royal butler and high-ranking court official
during this time period (Pers. Comm., Betsy Bryan). As was mentioned in Chapter 2, TT92 must pre-date
TT367 of Paser, and thus TT85 must as well.
392
As mentioned above, Mahus wife Baky held a prominent position in TT85.
However, upon examining the scenes and inscriptions it became apparent that in fact this
is only true for the front for the tomb. Baky is only identified as the woman who
accompanies Mahu in the front hall and short passage. Her status in the outer portions of
the tomb is almost on par with that of her husband, and her position as a chief royal nurse
is placed in every inscription.
In the transverse and axial halls the woman accompanying Mahu is always in a
clearly subordinate position, and wears a plainer costume, while Mahu is depicted in
essentially the same manner as in the front of the tomb. This woman is only clearly
identified once, in the banquet scene on the northeast wall of the transverse-hall, where
she is simply referred to as snt.f mrt.f nbt //[pr] //// his sister, his beloved, mistress [of
the house] .
1720
This is contained in the last of nine columns placed above the seated
couple, and based on the space there is barely room for her name in the damaged portion.
Throughout the remainder of the transverse and axial halls the woman depicted seems not
to have been identified.
1721
This is certainly the case in the representation of a woman
standing with Mahu looking at their garden estate (Fig.44, p.500)
1722
and is the likely
situation in four other areas as well.
1723
There are two other texts in the rear part of TT85

1720
PM(28).
1721
There is no mention of a female companion at PM(26), which may, however, be a duty-type scene
for Mahu. Nor does a womans name seem to be included in the badly faded ceiling inscriptions. At
PM(23) the inscription is too faded to draw a conclusion.
1722
PM(30), south end of the east wall of the axial hall. The 13-column inscription above them records only
a list of epithets and titles for Mahu.
1723
These scenes are located at PM(24)-(25), (27) and (30), north end, though it is possible that the
inscriptions are now destroyed. PM(24)-(25) are on the north-west wall of the transverse-hall at the west
and east ends respectively. PM(24) depicts Mahu spearing a hippo with Baky (?) standing behind him; the
lower half of the scene is destroyed. At PM(25) the couple stands facing the spearing scene and the 13-
column inscription above them seems to contain only or primarily a list of epithets and titles for Mahu. It
parallels the inscription found at the south end of PM(30) in which Baky is not identifed. PM(27) is the
fishing and fowling scene in which the north (left) side inscriptions is destroyed, though the women do not
393
in which the woman may have been identified, but one is too faded to read, and the other
is lost to damage.
1724

Also indicative of the difference between the outer and inner portions of the tomb
is that while in the short passage Baky is seated with Mahu inspecting the funeral
outfit,
1725
in the depiction of the funerary procession to the tomb in the axial hall she is
not mentioned at all.
1726
On the opposite wall Mahu is seated with a woman (figure
destroyed), while offering-bearers present produce from the garden estate.
1727
The
inscription above Mahu is completely destroyed, and the figure of Mahu is damaged, but
enough of his torso is preserved to indicate that he was depicted with rolls of fat. This is
in stark contrast to his depiction throughout the rest of the tomb, where he is only shown
in the prime of life. For the ancient Egyptians, rolls of fat were an indication of status
as an upper-level official, wealth, and leisure-time.
1728

There are two possible explanations for the clear differences in both the
decoration and women depicted in the front and rear of the tomb. One is that Mahu in fact
had two wives, the royal nurse Baky and a simple mistress of the house. Although
Baky could, ostensibly, have been the first wife, it seems more likely that she was the
second wife since presumably Mahu would not have married a woman of lesser status
late in his career. In addition, based on the scene of Baky offering to Amenhotep II, she
would have survived into this kings reign. This would indicate that his first wife died

appear to be identified, and any text for the standing woman on the south (right) side is also destroyed. The
inscription accompanying the seated couple at the north end of PM(30) is lost.
1724
PM(23) Mahu and a woman stand before Osiris, but the inscription was unreadable. At PM(30) the
inscription placed above the seated couple, as well as the upper portion of the figures, is destroyed.
1725
PM(20). Their son Iamu and his wife are seated behind them.
1726
The funeral procession to the Western Goddess at PM(22) does not have any inscriptions except for the
goddess, while the bringing of objects to the tomb at PM(29) only mentions Mahu as the recipient.
1727
PM(30). Located at the north end of the east wall of the axial passage.
1728
Also commonly seen on scribal statues.
394
relatively young and that Mahu married Baky while still at an early stage of his career.
His first wife, of apparently much lower status, would then be the woman represented in
the rear portions of the tomb. The second possibility is that Baky was Mahus only wife,
and that she is depicted differently in the rear of the tomb as a reflection of her
subordinate role in Mahus funerary cult. As will be demonstrated below, if we
understand that Baky is the woman in the rear of the tomb, then it is also possible that her
subordinate role is due to the fact that Baky may have had her own tomb, and thus her
presence in Mahus cult is a formal one.
Thus far Baky has only been mentioned briefly, and with reference to
Amenemheb-Mahu and his career. Some discussion of her own position vis--vis the
king and court is now necessary. There are a number of representations of Baky in TT85
that impart information about her preferred status. Perhaps the most important or
significant of these depict Baky in the act of suckling the king, who is shown simply as a
young child.
1729
Two of the suckling scenes occur on the south faces of the central pillars
in the first room, thus they are immediately visible from the entrance to the tomb.
1730
In
each Mahu presents offerings to Baky who is seated with the young prince on her lap to
whom she extends her breast while the child grasps her arms.
1731
On one pillar she is
called chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, praised of the good god, mistress of the
house, and it is the action which speaks to her duties as a nurse.
1732
On the other
however, her epithets describe the act itself: one sweet of breast, who is healthy of

1729
Tis is quite different from the scene in the tomb of Qenamun, discussed elsewhere, in which
Qenamuns mother is seated in a kiosk with Amenhotep II on her lap dressed in kingly regalia.
1730
The top register of PM Pillars Ba and Ca.
1731
In Pillar Ba Mahu is referred to as ns/// Hsy n nTr nfr idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp nb.f //[Imn-m-Hb mAa-xrw]//
and at Pillar Ca as iry-pat HAty-a Sms nswt r nmtt.f Hr xAst rsyt mHtt idnw n mSa //[Imn-m-]Hb mAa-xrw
1732
Pillar Ba: mnat wrt nt nb tAwy [Hs]y[t nt] ntr nfr nbt pr BAky mAat-xrw.
395
suckling, chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, whose breast is united with Horus.
1733

The third representation, though there are no texts, is unusual because Baky suckles the
young Amenhotep (II) as they stand before a procession of offering-bearers led by a man,
probably Mahu, carrying a bouquet (Fig.45, p.501).
1734

Once Amenhotep II became king, it is evident that he held his former wet-nurse in
high esteem. While Baky was probably awarded with the status of royal nurse due to her
husbands status, it was her own position vis--vis Amenhotep II that enabled her to be
depicted in TT85 suckling the young prince, and offering to him as king. The latter scene
takes place on the west (left) side of the rear wall of the pillared front room (Fig.42,
p.498).
1735
This placement puts Baky in direct line of sight to a visitor and thus affords
her the same importance as the depiction of Mahu before Thutmosis III with his
autobiographical text and three registers of northern foreigners, which is in the same
position on the opposite wall.
1736
Although scenes in which an official is accompanied by
his wife in the presentation before a king are uncommon, the composition in TT85 is a
unique testament to Bakys place among the elite.
1737
Here too, in the act of presenting an
Amun bouquet, Baky bears her wet-nurse epithets.
1738
In addition, while Mahus
butlers attended to the guests in the banquet scene, Baky is accompanied by her own

1733
Pillar Ca, Urk. IV, 920.10-15: nDmt mnD snbt snq mnat wrt n nb tAwy Xnm @r Snbt.s wdt r sp nfr Xkrt
nswt BAky mAat-xrw
1734
PM(16), bottom half of the scene, on the north end of the east wall of the front hall.
1735
PM(9).
1736
PM(17).
1737
The same scene occurs in TT88 of Pehsukher, who however borrowed many elements from TT85 in
the decoration of his own tomb.
1738
PM(9), Urk. IV, 920.3-9 and 923.7-11: //[iit]// Xr anx n //[Imn]// in //[Smayt nt Imn mn]//at wrt n nb
tAwy Hsyt nt nTr nfr Sdt nTr nfr[t sn]q Xnm n Hr Snbt.s nswt Hmt BAk Dd.s [Coming] carrying [a bouquet of
Amun] by the [chantress of Amun], chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, praised of the good god, one
who suckled the god, good of suckling, her breast having been united with Horus, servant of the king,
Bak(y). She says
396
servants in the depiction of her and Mahu offering braziers.
1739
Directly behind the
figures of Baky and Mahu are two registers of which the upper shows a man and woman
who are probably their children, and the second holds two rows of male attendants. In the
upper row the first man is a servant of Mahu, the second mans inscription is destroyed,
and the third is the sDm aS n mnat n nswt BAk NAry servant (literally one who hears/obeys
the summon) of the royal nurse Bak(y), Nary.
1740

Perhaps more significantly however, it appears that Amenhotep II recognized the
important role Baky played in his early years by granting her a tomb. In the scene directly
above the one in which Baky is depicted standing with the prince at her breast, Thutmosis
III as Osiris is seated in a kiosk receiving offerings from the newly crowned Amenhotep
II followed by the idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp Amenemheb-Mahu and Baky.
1741
Here Baky is
not only called the chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, but is also said to be
[praised] of those who are in the palace, one whose two arms embraced the good god,
whose breast [was united with Horus], mistress of a burial upon the west for the mistress
of the house.
1742
A similar inscription accompanies Baky seated behind Mahu inspecting
the funeral outfit on the west wall of the passage:
1743
mistress of a burial among those
who are in Thebes as one praised of the good god, [Xkrt nswt, mistress of the house,
Baky].
1744
The funeral outfit however is entirely for Mahu, as indicated both by the

1739
PM(10), west end of the southeast wall of the pillared hall, adjacent to PM(11) and facing the entrance
to the tomb.
1740
Urk IV, 925.16. The inscription that pertains to the first man is damaged, what remains is: //// MaHw
Imn-Htp Dd n //[.f !wy]// [the servant/butler of the idnw ?] Mahu, Amenhotep, [called Huy]. The
restoration of the beginning suggested in Urk. IV, 925.17 is not tenable, though the end is possible and has
been used here.
1741
PM(16), top register. The epithets that precede Mahus titles refer to his military service.
1742
The entire inscription for Baky is: snt.f mrt.f nt st ib.f mnot wrt nt nb tAwy //[Hsy ?]// n imy aH Sntt awy.s
Hr nTr nfr //[Xnm @r]// Snbt.s nbt qr(s)t Hr imntt n nbt pr BAky mAa-xrw. Urk IV, 920.16-921.4.
1743
PM(20). Their son Iamu and his wife are seated behind them.
1744
Columns 8-9, Urk. IV, 913.7-8: nbt qrst Hr imy WAst m Hsw n nTr nfr //[Xkrt nswt nbt pr BAky]//
397
nature of the items and the beginning of the text of the scribe who presents it: Excellent
favorite of his lord, the scribe Tasha, he says: For your ka .
1745

The above discussion demonstrates Baky was the owner of a tomb. However, as
Roehrig stated, it is uncertain whether this meant a tomb of her own in one of the royal
valleys, as was the case for certain male officials from this time period and perhaps the
royal nurse Senetnay, or if rather she was the joint owner of TT85 with Mahu.
1746
Based
on the evidence presented above concerning Mahu, it seems unlikely to me that she
would simply have been awarded joint ownership of her husbands tomb. The inscription
placed on the outer face of the lintel created by the center pillars seems to support this.
1747

In the text above the couple Mahu relates that he is giving praises to Osiris and he goes
on to say: I came here in your following in the course of every day together with his
wife, his beloved, who was buried in the favor of the king, which was done for her as that
which is done for a noble, the royal nurse, who nurtured the god, Baky, justified.
1748

In addition, a new inscription, previously unrecorded by Virey and likewise
unknown in the Urkunden, seems to suggest that she was awarded with a tomb in the
Valley of the Kings, or perhaps Queens. This inscription falls on the south face of the
western pilaster in the front room.
1749
The scene depicts Baky seated receiving offerings
from a woman who appears to be her sister (Fig.46, p.502).
1750
Above Baky the four
column inscription reads:


1745
PM(20), north end: mH-ib mnx n nb.f sS &A-SA Dd.f n kA.k
1746
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.171.
1747
PM(18).
1748
iy.ni aA m Smswt.k m Xrt ra nt ra nb Hna snt.f mrt.f qrst m Hswt nswt irw n.s ir rdi n saH mnat nswt Sdt nTr
BAky mAa-xrw
1749
PM(5).
1750
The inscription is damged, but the beginning reads snt.s aA (?) nt st-ib.s ////
398
mnat wrt nt nb //[tAwy]// Hsyt nt nTr nfr nbt //[qrst (?) ]// Hr
Dsr n WAst mi ir // n nswt-msw nbt BAk // mAa-xrw

Great nurse of the lord [of the two lands] praised of the
good god, mistress of [a burial (?)] upon the Dsr of Thebes
like what is done for all the royal children, Bak(y),
justified.

It is now evident that Thutmosis III awarded Mahu with gifts, honorific titles, and
the ability to construct and decorate an enormous tomb due to his distinguished and life-
long service under this king. His wife Baky was likewise honored and placed as a nurse
to Amenhotep II.
1751
When Amenhotep II ascended the throne, he recognized Mahus
abilities and status, and promoted to his final position as an idnw. Bakys personal service
to Amenhotep II when he was still a child resulted in her being recognized in an equal
manner as Mahu in his tomb, and also led Amenhotep II to grant Baky her own tomb.
Although I do not think that Baky was responsible for Mahus career, it is possible that
Bakys obvious importance to Amenhotep II may have contributed to his final
promotion.
1752

The status and court connections of both Mahu and Baky extended itself to their
children. They had a least one daughter, who is probably depicted though not identified in
a number of scenes throughout the tomb.
1753
Although the inscription is lost, she may be
the woman shown following Baky in the presentation of an Amun bouquet before the
enthroned Amenhotep II.
1754
The only scene in which a woman who is not Baky is

1751
This assumes that Baky was his only wife, as if Baky was a second wife, then Mahu could have married
her either before or after she was a royal nurse; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.170f.
1752
Roehrig also discussed whether it was Bakys position that influenced Mahus career, or vice-versa.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.170-1 with note 546. It is worth mentioning that other co-regency officials
seem to have been summarily replaced, e.g., Rekhmire, Amenmose.
1753
E.g. accompanying her parents with her brother at PM(10) and in the fishing and fowling at PM(27), as
one on the guests in the banquet scenes at PM(11), (20), (21), and (28).
1754
PM(9).
399
identified occurs on the north face of the eastern pilaster.
1755
It adjoins the presentation
before Thutmosis III as Osiris discussed above,
1756
and is likely a continuation of this
scene. She is called the chantress of Amun, Amunhedu.
1757
The fact that Amunhedu is
represented at the same scale as Mahu and Baky suggests that she was a relative and thus
although no filiation is given, it seems likely that she is indeed a daughter.
Their son Iamu has a more prestigious role than his sister in TT85. Like
Amunhedu he appears in a number of scenes in which he is not identified,
1758
but once he
is identified as the figure offering to his parents,
1759
and a second time is the recipient of
offerings along with his parents and wife.
1760
In his role as an offerer, Iamu is called Xrd
n kAp and beloved of the lord of the two lands. These epithets imply a close relationship
with the king, and may indicate that he grew up in the royal court while Amenhotep II
was still a prince.
1761
Iamu and presumably his wife sit behind Mahu and Baky on the
west wall of the short passage, inspecting the funeral outfit.
1762
The text is written in
continuous columns, but a clear break occurs after Bakys name, where the following
column (col.10) begins with Htp-di-nsw. Clearly the latter half of the inscription was
meant for Iamu and his wife. Although not referred to as a Xrd n kAp, Iamu is designated
as chief of the followers of his Majesty, again calling attention to his relationship with

1755
PM(15).
1756
PM(16).
1757
Smayt nt Imn Imn-hdw. It is worth pointing out that her costume is more elaborate than that worn by
Baky in the adjacent scene, though it is identical to the type Baky wears throughout most of the rest of the
front rooms of the tomb.
1758
Mostly the same as those cited above: in attendance at PM(10) and PM(27); probably the man offering
to his father on Pillar Ca (reg2) and to his parents on Pillars Da (reg1) and Db(reg.3). In the banquet scene
at PM(28) Iamu is probably the hacked-out sem-priest, though the inscription is unfinished. At PM(21) he
and his wife are probably the couple seated behind Mahu and Baky receiving offerings, in parallel to
PM(20).
1759
PM(11).
1760
PM(20).
1761
PM(11), southeast wall of the pillared-hall, Urk. IV, 916.2-6: sA.f mr.f st-ib.f Xrd n kAp mry nb tAwy
IAmw Dd.f n kA.k anx [n] Imn Hss.f tw mry.f tw swAH.f t(w)
1762
PM(20).
400
Amenhotep II. Indeed, Iamu all of his epithets/titles reflect his status at court and vis--
vis the king.
1763
The fact that Iamu is called only Xrd n kAp rather than foster-brother
and does not carry a single functioning title suggests that he was probably a younger
contemporary of Amenhotep II.
1764
Iamus place amongst the children at court allowed
him a prominent role in his fathers tomb, even though he may not have distinguished
himself in a career at the time of Mahus death.
Although only TT85 has been referred to in the discussion about Mahu there is
another monument that may be attributable to him. A stele now in the British Museum
was ascribed to Mahu by Schulman, but questioned by Yoyotte on the grounds of style
and the wifes name.
1765
On the BM stele Mahu is referred to only as Mahu and bears the
titles Hry pDt (n nb tAwy) and idnw. He is accompanied by his wife, the nbt pr
Nefretiry,
1766
and they are offered to by the chief of the followers of the idnw Mahu,
Amuneminet. If this stele does belong to Mahu of TT85, perhaps Nefretiry was his first
wife, or an actual sister, thus being the woman represented in the rear chambers of the
tomb. Stylistically however, BM 307 appears to be later than Thutmosis III, perhaps from
the reign of Thutmosis IV. In this case, we might suggest that it belongs to a descendant
of Mahu, possibly a grandson who was named after the famous Mahu and followed in the
same career path. If this is correct, than we have also an example of a military career
becoming hereditary in nature.


1763
PM(20), cols.15-20; Urk. IV, 914.11-13: //[n kA] n Sms nswt m st.f nb //[pH IA]//wy m Hsw nb tAwy Hry
Smsw n Hm.f IAmwmAa-xrw xr Wsir. The remainder of col. 18, as well as cols. 19-20 were either left
unfinished or are faded beyond legibility.
1764
I would point out that Iamu being younger than Amenhotep II would support the theory that his mother
Baky was younger than Mahu, and may have perhaps been his second wife.
1765
BM 307; cf. Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, p.9 and pl.23; Schulman, MRTO, p.134 no. 310a; Yoyotte,
BiOr 26, p.12 310a.
1766
She is designated by snt.f mrt.f
401
Minmose
(An idnw idnw idnw idnw for the king abroad and overseer of works in Egypt)
An official who seems to have come from relatively lower origins, yet rose to
high ranks within the administration is the overseer of works in the temples of all the
gods of Upper and Lower Egypt and royal scribe Minmose.
1767
In addition to his
position as controller of works in the temples of all the gods, Minmose is known for
being one of a small group of men who clearly served under both Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II. In addition, a lengthy statue inscription gives an account of Minmoses
participation during Thutmosis IIIs campaigns.
1768
The fact that Minmose, like
Iamunedjeh, appears to have been primarily a civil official suggests that his presence in
the Near East was due to circumstances other than warfare. The following reevaluation of
Minmoses family and career is undertaken in order to determine the extent and nature of
Minmoses service under Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.
Minmose is in fact a most unusual case, since despite his apparent prominence,
his tomb has yet to be located. The only monuments we have for him are a group statuette
possibly from Abydos,
1769
a group statue from Nebesheh,
1770
a block statue from
Medamud,
1771
a statue of Minmose holding two princes possibly from Karnak,
1772
a stele
carved at Tura,
1773
and a stele of unknown provenance.
1774
Der Manuelian suggested that
his tomb might have been in the Delta as opposed to Thebes, a supposition based on the
fact that as almost all of his monuments come from the north, he may have originated

1767
I would like to point out here that Minmose was not a royal butler, a title erroneously attributed to him
in the Urk. IV, 1441f. and by Helck, Verwaltung, pp.271f.
1768
This has recently been discussed by Redford, Wars, pp.173-4.
1769
BM 2300; de Meulenaere, MDAIK 37, pp. 315-19.
1770
Petrie, Tanis II, pl.10 no.5; Urk. IV, 1445-46.
1771
Drioton, Mdamoud II, pp.52-6, no.355; Urk. IV, 1441-45.
1772
CG638; Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117; Urk. IV, 1447.
1773
Daressy, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.
1774
Berlin 822; Aegyptische Inschriften Berlin II, p. 99.
402
from there.
1775
However, Assasif tomb 59, which was usurped in the Ramesside period,
has also been put forth as a possibility.
1776
In addition, a funerary cone found in Thebes
that has been attributed to Minmose might also indicate a tomb or at least chapel in
Thebes.
1777
Based on the inscription and the orthography of the name, the funerary cone
seems to the author a tenuous attribution at best, and should not be used to corroborate a
tomb in Thebes.
1778
The possibility of a northern tomb for Minmose thus seems quite
strong, and all the more likely now that excavations undertaken by Alain Zivie have
discovered 18
th
Dynasty tombs at Saqqara.
1779

Minmoses parents were the sAb Naiy and his wife the mistress of the house
Rennefer. They are named on Minmoses Karnak statue and depicted with him in the
group statue from Nebesheh.
1780
On the basis of the group statue, Kees surmised that
because it was dedicated to his parents and placed in a Lower Egyptian temple the family
may have come from this area.
1781
Unfortunately, this is all that is known about them.
However, a great deal is known about Minmose and his career, despite the lack of a

1775
Der Manuelian, Amenhophis II, p.166. The idea of a northern origin was first suggested by Kees,
Priesterum, p.33.
1776
PM I.2, p.628
1777
Mentioned by Roehrig, Royal urse, p.93-4. Published by Daressy, no.197: Wsir in sr n Imn kAt nTr
Htpw Mnty-ms mAa-xrw nb imAx Davies notes to Daressys publication, which I was able to view with the
permission of the Griffith Institute in 2003, has the comment Berlin 87494 placed beside this cone.
1778
Eichler apparently agrees, as she lists the owner of the funerary cones separately from Minmose the
architect; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.277, nos.249 and 250; Helck, Materialien I,
p.48.
1779
The earliest of these is that of Nehesy, the overseer of the seal during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and
Thutmosis III and who was in charge of Hatshepsuts year 9 expedition to Punt. Zivie published the tomb,
cf. Alain Zivie, in: Mlanges Gutbub, pp.245-52. There is then a gap until the (post-)Amarna period; cf.
Martin, Hidden Tombs.
1780
For the black granite Karnak statue, see Urk. IV 1447, 14-15 and Borchardt, Statuen, p.187, pl.117,
rows 6-7: ir n sAb NA-iy mAa-xrw ms [n] nb[t] R[n-nfr mAa-xrw]. The Nebesheh statue, also of black granite,
depicts the three figures seated before two altars on the fronts of which are placed the inscriptions.
Minmoses father has his own altar, while Minmose and his mother share a larger altar. Petrie, ebesheh,
no.30, p.30, pl.X no.5.
1781
Kees, Priestertum, p.33. This has since been followed, cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.91-2; de
Meulenaere, MDAIK 37, p.318; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.166.
403
tomb.
1782
Most of our information comes from the lengthy inscription on his statue from
Medamud, which comes from the Montu temple, and is dated to the later reign of
Thutmosis III based on the kings cartouche and the textual content.
1783
A second source
of important information is Minmoses Tura inscription, which bears a year four date in
the reign of Amenhotep II.
1784
The textual content of these two monuments indicate that
although most of Minmoses career came under the reign of Thutmosis III, it continued at
least into the early years of Amenhotep II, making him a contemporary of the idnw of the
army Amenemheb-Mahu.
1785

As in the case of Mahus tomb autobiography, Minmose does not list military
titles for himself on his Medamud statue. Nonetheless, from the inscription we are able to
get a sense of how Minmoses career progressed and responsibilities increased. This fact
indicates that the text can probably be understood as being essentially chronologically
ordered.
1786

Throughout the Medamud inscription Minmose stresses that he saw the
victorious campaigns that Thutmosis III led into both Syria and Nubia.
1787
We can
interpret from this that Minmose witnessed these battles, though any active participation
on his part is not clear. He uses a variety of verbs to express his involvement, none of
which imply combat activity: he followed (Sms), tread (xnd), and crossed (water) (DAi)
after the king. The reference to crossing water implies that Minmose participated on
Thutmosis IIIs 8
th
campaign in year 33, while the Nubian exploit can be placed in the

1782
The most recent discussions on Minmose are Der Manuelian, Amenophis, pp.164-6; Redford, Wars,
pp.173-4, 241ff.
1783
A partial translation and short discussion can be found in Redford, Wars, pp.173-4
1784
A translation is provided in der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.166.
1785
See above, pp.379ff.
1786
The text is also interpreted chronologically by Redford, Wars, p.174.
1787
mAA.n.(i) rdt a Hm.f occurs in lines 4 and 14, while mAA.n.(i) sxrw.f &A-nHsy is in line 5. See Urk. IV,
1441.16, 1441.18, 1442.16
404
last decade of Thutmosis IIIs reign.
1788
In the interval between these two events,
Minmose had become a follower of his majesty indicating that he had become a close
companion of the king.
1789
Following these battles, Minmose records that he taxed (Htr)
the Retenu, caused that the chiefs of the Retenu know their taxes (bAkw) of every year,
and taxed the chiefs of the land of Nehesy (Nubia) in taxes of each year.
1790

Minmose goes on to assert that with regard to all the victories of Thutmosis III, and
subsequent tribute, I knew it, I counted it, having been placed under the charge of the
treasury (pr.wy-hD).
1791
None of the titles that Minmose had bear any connection to the
treasury. However, it seems likely that he carried out these duties in his position as royal
scribe.
1792
Although a seemingly lower-level title, it is in fact the one that Minmose
identifies himself as most often. It appears as the most important (last in the list) twice on
this statue, once on the Tura stele and the Karnak statue, and on the Nebesheh statue it is
twice the only title he uses.
1793
Thus it clearly had duties attached to it that Minmose was
proud of, such as the taxing of foreign lands and recording of tribute described in the
Medamud statue.
Minmose next describes Thutmosis IIIs battle in the district of Tikhasy, near
Qadesh,
1794
in which he reports (I) led the army of brave ones (mSa qnt) of the king when

1788
Urk. IV, 1441.15-21. Cf. Redford, Wars, p.174.
1789
Urk. IV, 1442.1; Franke, in: Miscellanea Aegyptologica, pp. 67-87.
1790
Urk. IV, 1442.4-108.
1791
Urk. IV, 1442.15
1792
Also suggested by de Meulenare, MDAIK 37, p.318.
1793
Also noted by Roehrig, Royal urse, p.91
1794
Roehrig (Royal urse, p.91) suggested that this campaign be placed between years 30 and 33, the latter
being the eighth campaign in which Thutmosis III crossed the Euphrates. This is contra Gardiner, AEO I,
150-1, who places all three as part of the eighth campaign. Likewise, der Manuelian sees the Tura
inscription as pertaining to yr.33, and thus the Takhsy reference must relate to a different series of events
(Amenophis II, p.53-4). More recently, Redford (Wars, p.171f., 174) has argued for its placement after year
42 of Thutmosis III, in part based on his reconstruction of Amenemheb-Mahus autobiography. There is
also a possibility that it refers to the year 3 campaign of Amenhotep II; cf. Redford, Wars, p.174.
405
I was as an idnw of the king as one who does that which is said.
1795
This title, idnw of
the king, was also held by Pehsukher called Tjennu, owner of TT88, who served during
the co-regency of Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II and through the reign of Amenhotep II.
1796

In addition, both Mahu and Pehsukher held the title idnw of the king in the army.
1797
In
the discussion of Pehsukher, it was stated that an idnw could be either a military office or
an administrative one within the military sphere.
1798
Both Mahu and Pehsukher seemed to
have been involved with the managerial aspects of this title, Mahu because he was an
older official when he attained it, Pehsukher because he was essentially an administrator
as opposed to a true military man. Minmose appears to have been a bit of both. Clearly he
was involved in the campaigns as a royal scribe, but here he seems to equate being an
idnw with leading troops. Mahu, when he was appointed as an idnw by Amenhotep II,
was told be watchful of the brave ones (qnywt) of the king.
1799
Was Minmose perhaps
not leading them in battle, but rather leading the brave ones on behalf of the king after
the battle had ended?
1800

At this point Minmose is appointed to the position for which he is best known,
controller of works in the temples of all the gods. As Minmose himself states: His
majesty placed my face to controller of works in the temples of all the gods.
1801
What
follows is an extensive list of precisely the deities whose temples he was in charge of.
These range from Sakhmet, foremost of the desert and Montu in Thebes to Wadjyt

1795
Urk. IV 1442.19-20. The reading of idnw is somewhat uncertain based on the signs presented in the
Urkunden, but nonetheless seems likely: sSm.n(.i) mSa qn n nswt ti.wi m idnw n nswt m irw Ddwt
1796
See Chapter 2. for the discussion.
1797
Mahu bears this title in the transverse-hall, PM(26), while Pehsukher carries it in the column of text
alongside the stele, PM(7).
1798
See Chapter 2.
1799
srs.k qnwyt nswt See Urk IV, 897, 14-16 for the entire portion.
1800
This is contra Redford, who views Minmose as the leader of elite troops in the battle; cf. Redford,
Wars, p.174.
1801
iw rdi.n Hm.f m Hr.i r xrp kAwt m rw-prw nw nTrw nbw
406
(Buto), mistress of Pe and Dep and Hathor mistress of Byblos, thus covering
essentially the entire span of Egypt and into the regions of the northeast under Egypts
control.
1802
Thus, although this is a new phase of his career, it seems to be connected to
his earlier exploits by the distribution of deities. Minmose proceeds to inform us that not
only did he stretch the cord
1803
in all these places, he provided them as excellent
works of eternity so that the king could propitiate the gods.
1804
In doing this, Minmose
demonstrated his skill (SsA) to Thutmosis III, who rewarded (fqA) him with 150 servants,
fields, vineyards, and appointed (dhn) him to specific priestly positions in Letopolis, the
temple of Bastet, and the temple of Montu in Thebes.
1805
In addition, Minmose was given
the functions or offices (iAwt) of Hm- and wab-priests in all the temples for which he was
made controller of works.
1806
The remainder of the inscription contains rather standard
formulaic phrases, including the appeal to the living. The only further information
about Minmoses career comes from the titles he lists prior to his name. In addition to the
ones already mentioned in the autobiography, Minmose calls himself overseer of nfrt-
cattle of Amun and overseer of works in the temples of the gods of Upper and Lower
Egypt.
1807
To these can be added overseer of great works in the temples of the gods of
Upper and Lower Egypt, overseer of cattle (kAw) of Amun
1808
and true royal scribe who

1802
Urk. IV, 1443
1803
This is a phrase that refers to laying the groundwork for building temples. It is a scene that is often
depicted on temple walls. An excellent example of this, and of the other activites involved in building a
temple, can be seen in the reliefs at the temple of Edfu.
1804
Urk. IV, 1444.1-3
1805
Urk. IV, 1444.5-13. Minmose is made Hm-priest and opener of the mouth in Letopolis, great one of the
papyrus-scepter in the temple of Bastet, and mayor and overseer of priests in the temple of Montu.
1806
Urk. IV, 1444.14: di.w n.i iAwt Hmw-nTr wabw m nn rw-prw xrp.n(.i) kAwt im.sn
1807
Urk. IV, 1444.15: imy-r nfrwt nt Imn and Urk. IV, 1441.14: imy-r k#wt m rw-prw nw nTrw ^maw MHw
1808
A title also found on the Berlin stele, no.822. Aegyptischen Inschriften Berlin II, p. 99.
407
he (the king) loves from the Nebesheh statue,
1809
as well as festival-leader of Amun,
festival-leader of Osiris and overseer of the estate of gods wife from BM3200.
1810

Additional information about Minmoses career as an architect comes from the
inscription he left at the Tura quarries. Here we learn that Amenhotep II commanded the
quarries to be re-opened so that fine limestone could be cut from them to be used in the
construction of his funerary temples.
1811
This was the activity that brought Minmose to
Tura in year four of Amenhotep II and caused him to inscribe that he had executed the
orders of his king: Done in the charge of the iry-pat HAty-a favorite of the king in
restoring his monuments.
1812
However, der Manuelian has shown that the events
described by Minmose also date back to the reign of Thutmosis III.
1813
The next phrase in
the text seems to be the transition point for Minmoses service under the two kings
because it describes his conduct in his capacity as overseer of works in the temples: who
is watchful/vigilant concerning the temples of the gods, a position he held under both
kings.
1814
Following this however, Minmose inserts information related to his activities
during the reign of Thutmosis III. The reason for this may lie in the connection between
the event chronicled and the type of monument (a stele) it is recorded on: who sets up
stelae /// [upon] the foreign land of Naharin [and of Karoy].
1815
Presumably he erected
these stelae while he was following Thutmosis III on his campaigns to Syria and Nubia. It

1809
Petrie, Tanis, pl.X no.5, Urk. IV, 1446.7-8: imy-r kAwt aA m rw-prw nw nTrw ^maw MHw imy-r kAw n
Imn sS nsw maA mr.f
1810
BM 3200: sSm Hb n Imn is on the front of Minmoses dress, while sSm Hb n Wsir imy-r gs-pr n Hmt-nTr
is on the back of the statue. de Meulenare, MDAIK 37, pl.50-1.
1811
Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.4-10, 15-19. These latter lines represent a vertically inscribed
column that accompanies the relief above the lengthier inscription. The scene depicts Amenhotep II before
two rows of thirteen deities. The column of text is essentially a restatement of the first two lines of the
horizontal inscription.
1812
Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.11: ir Xr-a n iry-pat HAty-a mH-ib n nswt m smnx mnw.f
1813
Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.51-6 (esp.53-4), 165-6.
1814
Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.12: rs-tpw Hr Hwt nTrw
1815
Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.13: smn wD /// [Hr] xAst Nhrn //[KA-ry]//. Karoy is in Nubia,
near Napata (Gebel Barkal).
408
seems likely that he would have worked alongside, or perhaps under, the controller of
(all) works (of the king) and royal herald Iamunedjeh in these efforts, especially if he was
still a royal scribe at this time.
1816
The reason that Minmose was never granted the title of
royal herald may be because Iamunedjeh served in this capacity on their joint building
projects. Iamunedjeh would have been somewhat older than Minmose, making this
scenario quite plausible. If this is the case, then it may be that Minmose was with
Thutmosis III on the Euphrates crossing in year 33, that this is the campaign referred to in
the lost line on the Medamud statue that begins with DAi cross (water),
1817
and the stele
Minmose erected in Naharin was put up following this conquest. This would also mean
that at least some of the events described on the Medamud statue and the Tura stele
occurred during the same campaign, the proposal originally put forward by Gardiner and
subsequently rejected by der Manuelian.
1818

In the discussion outlined above it becomes clear that Minmoses so-called
military career was, like that of Iamunedjeh, carried out in a purely administrative
capacity. As a royal scribe Minmose saw (i.e. recorded) Thutmosis IIIs military
victories throughout the Near East and Nubia. His abilities in this regard apparently
brought him to Thutmosis IIIs attention, and eventually Thutmosis III promoted
Minmose to be his idnw. This position gave Minmose the authority to speak on the kings
behalf and thus Thutmosis III placed in Minmoses charge his own brave ones, perhaps
elite soldiers connected to the person of the king.
1819
Minmose erected stelae in Naharin
and Nubia, presumably while he was still a royal scribe, possibly working under the royal

1816
See above, pp.350ff. for the discussion on Iamunedjeh
1817
Line 5, Urk. IV, 1441.17. See also above.
1818
Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.53-4.
1819
JEA 39, p. 44.
409
herald and controller of works Iamunedjeh. Finally, Minmose was rewarded for his
service with land, servants, and a prestigious position as the controller and overseer of
works in the temples of all the gods in Upper and Lower Egypt. Alongside this came a
number of upper level priestly positions, including overseer of priests of Montu in
Thebes, high priest at Letopolis, overseer of bulls and nfrt-cattle of Amun, and overseer
of the estate of the gods wife.
1820

Kees suggested that Minmoses responsibilities as the architect of the temples
required that he have high-level priestly positions, though whether these involved actual
duties or were honorific is unclear.
1821
Eichler appears to consider the general titles as
honorific, though since she is dealing with the officials specifically connected to the
temple of Amun this may be an inaccurate assumption.
1822
For the Amun temple, Eichler
comes to the conclusion that during the reign of Thutmosis III the integration of military
personnel into the temple precinct cannot be proven. However, she also views the areas
of the treasury, construction and workshops as being the only areas within the domain of
the temple that civil officials could enter into later in their careers.
1823
Although she does
not include Minmose in the study that comes to these conclusions, it would appear that he
fits this latter model. The fact that the title Minmose placed above all others was the one
that led him to these prestigious positions, royal scribe, seems to support this.

1820
See Eichler, Verwaltung der Hauses des Amun, no.249. The position overseer of the estate of the
gods wife was also held by Ahmose-Humay and an unknown son. Ahmose-Humays other son,
Amenemopet, became vizier under Amenhotep II.
1821
Kees, Priestertum, 34-5. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.164-5.
1822
Eichler, Verwaltung der Hauses des Amun, no.249. She lists here only the following titles: overseer
of nfrt-cattle of Amun, overseer of bulls (iHw) of Amun, overseer of (great) works in the temples of the
gods of Upper and Lower Egypt, festival-leader of Amun, festival-leader of Osiris, overseer of the estate
(gs-pr) of the gods wife, overseer of Hm-priests of Montu lord of Thebes, royal scribe. Thus I assume these
to be the ones she considers to have actual duties attached to them.
1823
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, 203(6)-7. The viziers Useramun and Rekhmire, the
overseer of works of Kaarnak Benia, and overseer of works in the house of Amun Peniaty are examples of
this.
410
Only one title remains to be discussed for Minmose, royal tutor. In fact, Minmose
did not hold this title, but is inferred to have acted as a tutor based on a black granite
block statue (CG 683) thought to have originally been placed at Karnak temple.
1824
The
statue is in the style of the tutor Sennefris, with the heads of two princes placed on either
side of Minmoses. The princes are identified as the kings son, who he loves, Nedjem
and the kings son, who he loves, Webensenu.
1825
The paternity of the princes is
uncertain,
1826
and the inscription on Minmoses robe contains interesting factors that
warrant a full translation here.
An offering that the king gives (Htp-di-nsw), and that Osiris
lord of Busiris, great god lord of Abydos (gives). May he
place all that which comes forth upon his offering-table in
the course of every day and a beautiful burial (qrst) after
old age. For the kA of the excellent sole one, praised of his
god, who the king made great since his childhood (saA n
nsw Dr Xrdw.f), who reached old age without one finding
his fault, who did that which his lord said, who built
immediately in restoring his (the kings) monuments of
eternity, the overseer of works in this temple (i.e. Karnak),
royal scribe, Minmose, justified, born to the sAb Naiy,
justified, born [of] the mistress [of the house] Re[nnefer,
justified].
1827


The two princes, Nedjem and Webensenu, are problematic because they are
virtually unattested. Canopic jars and a funerary statuette belonging to Webensenu that
were found in Amenhotep IIs tomb (KV35) have generally been used to attribute the
princes parentage to Amenhotep II. Indeed, Gauthier listed the two princes as sons of
Amenhotep II, and Kees followed this, further suggesting that the statue was the last of

1824
Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117
1825
Urk. IV, 1447.18, 20. Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117
1826
See the discussion by Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.46-9.
1827
Urk. IV, 1447.5-15. Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117.
411
Minmoses monuments, made after the Tura inscription in year 4 of Amenhotep II.
1828
In
his study on Amenhotep IIs family, der Manuelian retained this attribution, placing them
as just older than Thutmosis (IV), while Bryan places their birth within the first five years
of Amenhotep IIs reign.
1829
Roehrig however pointed out that KV35s use as a royal
mummy cache in the 21
st
Dynasty means that the canopic jars of Webensenu may not be
original to the tomb. In addition, Minmoses long career under Thutmosis III leads her to
the proposal that the princes were sons of Thutmosis III and older brothers of Amenhotep
II.
1830

Minmoses service under Thutmosis III is certainly not in dispute, though without
any dates it is difficult to suggest an exact chronology. However, it seems that he was an
official only during the independent reign of Thutmosis III. Even assuming Minmose
participated in Thutmosis IIIs first campaign in years 22-23, he would have needed to be
at least in his early twenties to be a royal scribe. As the above discussion of Minmoses
career demonstrates, he was a royal scribe for most of this time, probably becoming
controller and overseer of works in the temples only when he had reached his late thirties
or even forties.
1831
I suggested above that Minmose was younger than Iamunedjeh, who
was already an official in year fifteen of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency, and
roughly contemporary with Amenemheb-Mahu, whose wife was the royal nurse to
Amenhotep II. Amenhotep IIs tutor Min was also probably older than Minmose, since he
seems to have died prior to the accession of Amenhotep II.
1832
Thus, if Minmose were
made the tutor of two sons of Thutmosis III, these would most likely be younger than

1828
Gauthier, Livre de rois, pp.289-90. Kees, Priestertum, p.35, achtrage 35 (p.9)
1829
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.166, 176-7, 180. Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.48-9
1830
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.94-5
1831
Certainly after the eighth campaign of year 33, and possibly as late as year 42.
1832
In Mins tomb, TT109, Amenhotep II is only shown as a child and labeled as sA nswt, kings son.
412
Amenhotep II, who was born in year 35. This seems rather unlikely given that tutors and
nurses seem only to have been assigned to princes up until a surviving son was made heir
or crown-prince.
1833
Thus Nedjem and Weben[senu] are most likely older sons of
Amenhotep II who were born early in his reign. This also argues for a dating of
Minmoses block statue in the early years of Amenhotep II.
1834

In support of placing Minmoses service slightly further into the reign of
Amenhotep II is the phrase who the king made great since his childhood.
1835
Roehrig
interprets the childhood as being that of the king, as opposed to Minmose.
1836
However,
two factors suggest that in fact it is Minmoses youth that is referred to here. The first is
the use of childhood (Xrdw) in opposition to old age (iAw) in the expression that follows.
Clearly the old age referred to is Minmoses, and thus it follows that it is his youth as
well that is spoken of. The second is indicated by comparison with other applications of
this term and phraseology. The Cairo stele (CG547) of Menkheperresoneb uses a similar
structure to indicate his service during the reigns of two kings.
1837
Menkheperresoneb
states that he was one who followed the king during his childhood (Xrdw.f), whose youth
(xnw) happened at the place where the god is, one whom the lord of the cult act instructed
because he was effective to the heart.
1838
These indicate his service as a young man
during the reign of Thutmosis III. However, the phrase chief of followers of his majesty

1833
This is based on the list provided as Apppendix I in Reohrig, Royal urse, pp.340-4. Obviously for
royal daughters the situation could be different.
1834
Bryan already suggested a dating in the co-regency or sole reign of Amenhotep II. Bryan, Thutmose IV,
pp.46-9
1835
saA.n nswt Dr Xrdw.f
1836
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.92, n.273.
1837
Urk. IV, 991-4. Menkheperresoneb was chief of the Medjay during the reigns of Thumosis III and
Amenhotep II.
1838
Urk. IV, 993.15-17.
413
when he (the king) was as a youth (inpw)
1839
clearly refers to Menkheperresonebs s
career when Amenhotep II was still at court, but probably crown-prince if not already co-
regent. The latter interpretation is confirmed in the tomb of Paser (TT367),
1840
where
Paser stands before an enthroned Amenhotep II and refers to himself as Xrd n kAp, chief
of chief of followers of his majesty when he (the king) was as a youth.
1841
Paser was
roughly contemporary with Amenhotep II and thus his and the kings youths occurred
together. The phrase employed by Minmose however suggests that his career is in large
part due to the recognition of Thutmosis III from his youth as a royal scribe onwards. The
fact that he is made tutor by Amenhotep II is for Minmose the culmination of his
career,
1842
at a time when he was likely an older man, who had reached old age without
one finding his fault.
Although very little is known about Minmoses parents, quite a bit more
information is available for his wife, children and grandchildren. Most of this information
comes from a group statuette (BM2300) and stele (Berlin 822) (Fig.47, p.503). De
Meulenaere layed out a convincing argument connecting the owners of these two
monuments based on family, and further linking them to the overseer of works Minmose
based on similar and shared titles.
1843
From them we learn that Minmose was married to
the Xkrt nswt Mia and that they had a son Minmose who became high priest of Osiris, a
daughter Heriy who was a chantress of Amun, and a second daughter Sharyti who was a
royal nurse. A third Minmose, also a first priest of Osiris, was already known to Kees as

1839
Urk. IV, 994.10-11. Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti sw m inpw
1840
See Chapter 2.
1841
Urk. IV, 1455-57.
1842
I would point out that Minmose was neither a Xrd n kAp or royal companion in his youth. His
association with the royal court and Thutmosis III only came later in life.
1843
De Meulenaere, MDAIK 37, pp.315-19. On BM 2300 Minmose is the festival leader of Amun, festival
leader of Osiris and overseer of the estate of the gods wife. On Berlin 822 he is the overseer of the cattle of
Amun.
414
the son of a man named Neferheb from two stelae from Abydos (CG34099 and
CG34101).
1844
Both of these stelae are dedicated to Neferheb and his wife Heriy by their
son Minmose, and show multiple generations of the family.
1845
On CG34101 the lunette
depicts the high priest of Osiris and gods father of all the gods Minmose and his sister
Mutnofret
1846
offering to Neferheb and Heriy,
1847
while a daughter named Tanofret
1848

kneels below their chair and touches her mothers leg. In the register below this kneel
their sons the scribe Hatiy and Tury, grandson Amun, son Amenemheb, and an unknown
son.
1849
The three line inscription at the bottom indicates that the stele is for the overseer
of the st and overseer of fields (AHwt) of Amun, Neferheb and his wife (snt.f) the
chantress [of Amun] Heriy.
1850
The lunette of CG34099 depicts the high priest of Osiris
Minmose and his brother the wab-priest of Amun Tury
1851
offering to Neferheb and
Heriy
1852
while their daughter Mutnofret
1853
kneels behind their chair. Below the seated
couple in the first register kneel their daughters Mi, Tany, Taweret,
1854
[Tanofret ?],
1855

and a young son Paerheny.
1856
Facing them is their brother the scribe Hatiy (seated), and

1844
Kees, Priestertum, p.59-60; Lacau, Stles, p.153-5 (CG34009), pl.xlviii and CG34101, pp.160-1,
pl.xlix.
1845
Lacau, Stles, p.153-5 (CG34009), pl.xlviii and CG34101, pp.160-1, pl.xlix. Based on the style and the
way in which certain family members are represented, CG34101 appears to be slightly earlier, perhaps late
Thutmosis III. The figure of Minmose on CG34009 wears a cartouche pendant, but the name is
unfortunately all but obliterated. The ra symbol remains, and there may be traces of aA, indicating that the
stele should be dated to the reign of Amenhotep II, which would be in accord with the stylistic dating.
1846
Minmose is called sA.k mr.k Hm-nTr tay n Wsir it nTr n nTrw nbw Min-ms mAa-xrw m Hswt, and his sister
Mutnofret is called sAt.s mrt.s Mwt-nfrt Dd n.s &w-iy
1847
They are designated as the imy-r AHwt [n Imn] Nfr-Hb snt.f nbt pr Hsyt n nTr nfr Smayt n [Imn Hr]-iy mAat-
xrw m Xrt-nTr
1848
sAt.f &A-nfrt
1849
The inscriptions are: sA.f sS HAt-ti sA.f &w-ry sA.f sA [Imn] sA.f Imn-m-Hb inscription lost
1850
kA n imy-r st imy-r AHwt n [Imn] Nfr-Hb mAa-xrw snt.f mrt.f nbt pr Smayt [n Imn] Hr-iy
1851
sA.f mr.f Hm-nTr tpy n Wsir Min-ms sA.f wab n Imn &w-ry
1852
They are designated as the imy-r AHwt n Imn Nfr-Hb snt.f nbt pr Smayt n Imn Hr-iy
1853
sAt.f Mwt-nfrt
1854
sAt.f Mi maAt-xrw sAt.f &A-ny sAt.f &A-wrt
1855
The name was either uninscribed or is lost, but this is the only daughter not otherwise named who we
know existed.
1856
sA.f PA-r-hny. The son is depicted as a boy standing behind his sisters.
415
behind him kneel a grandson of Neferheb named Amun (sA.f sAt), and two more sons,
Menkheper and the chariot-warrior (snny) Mahu.
1857
The remainder of the stele contains
eight rows of text consisting of an offering formula for the overseer of the fields of
Amun Neferheb, born of ; unfortunately the rest of the inscription was not
finished.
1858
Clearly the two high priests of Osiris named Minmose are not the same
person, but using these two stelae, CG34099 and CG34101, de Meulenaere easily
demonstrated that they were uncle and nephew though Heriy. The genealogy can thus be
reconstructed as follows:
1859


sAb Naiy --- Rennefer
|
|
|
Minmose --- Mia ? --- ?
imy-r kAt m r-prw nw | Xkrt nswt |
nTrw ^maw MHw | |
| |
| | | |
Sharyti Minmose Heriy --- Neferheb
mnat nswt Sdt [nTr] Hm-nTr tpy n Wsir Smayt n Imn | imy-r st imy-r AHwt n Imn
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Mutnofert | Mi | Tany Taweret Tanofret | | | |
| (Tjuiy)
1860
| | \ | / | | | |
Minmose Hatiy Tury \ | / Menkheper Mahu Paerheny Amenemheb
Hm-nTr tpy sS wab n Imn \ | / snny
n Wsir \ | /
it nTr n nTrw nbw sA.f sAt Amun
(it is unclear who is the mother)
1861



1857
sA.f mr.f sS HAt-ti mAa-xrw sA.f sAt Imn sA.f Mn-xpr sA.f snny MaHw
1858
n kA n imy-r AHwt n Imn Nfr-Hb mAa-xrw ir n
1859
De Meulenaere presents a more basic genealogy; cf. MDAIK 37, p.319.
1860
Mutnofret is placed kneeling behind her parents on CG34099, but offering to them with Minmose on
CG34101. On the latter stele she is identified as sAt.s mrt.s Mwt-nfrt Dd n.s &wiy
1861
Based on his placement on CG34009, it appears he is older that Menkheper and Mahu, but younger
than Hatiy
416
Nothing more is known about Minmoses wife Mia, thus it is impossible to say
exactly how she came by the court honorific Xkrt nswt. However, I would suggest that
Minmoses obvious connection to the royal court, exemplified by his being made a tutor,
resulted in his wife also be honored. It seems likely that Minmoses influence in the
temple domain based on his being the chief architect of the temples, including that of
Osiris, as well as his own title of festival-leader of Osiris led to his like-named sons
position as high priest of Osiris. Unfortunately we know nothing about the son
Minmoses career, but he may have started at an already advanced position before rising
to high priest. Likewise the father Minmoses presence in Thebes and numerous positions
related to the Amun temple probably allowed for his daughter Heriy to become chantress
of Amun. Heriys husband Neferheb was an overseer of the fields of Amun, a title
Eichler places in the upper range along with those of overseer of nfrt-cattle and
overseer of bulls, both of which Neferhebs father-in-law Minmose held.
1862
Heriy then
seems to have married a younger colleague of her father. While their son Tury became a
wab-priest in the temple of his father, their son Minmose apparently followed his like-
named uncles footsteps exactly. Minmose may in fact have inherited this position from
his maternal uncle, though there is nothing concrete to demonstrate this. The two others
sons of Heriy and Neferheb for whom titles are known suggests that one was entering
into a scribal career (Hatiy), while the other was entering into the military (Mahu).
Perhaps this was due to his being one of the youngest children, though I would point out

1862
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.55-61, 78-90. Neferheb is no.360 in Eichlers catalog.
Minmose bears these titles on his Medamud and Nebesheh statues respectively. However, Eichler notes
(p.55 n.222) that Neferheb is the only official to hold the imy-r AHwt title without also holding titles
elsewhere in the domain of the Amun temple. His only other known position is that of overseer st, and this
it is possible that his marriage to Heriy resulted in his advancement into the upper echelon of administration
of the Amun temple.
417
that a position as a chariot-warrior may well have been better off than that of a regular
army soldier.
Sharytis epithet who nurtured the god indicates that she was the nurse to a
prince who eventually became king. Roehrigs discussion of Minmose and Sharyti raised
the question of who was made a tutor/nurse first, Minmose or his daughter. If Minmose
became a tutor relatively early in his career, to sons of Thutmosis III, then Sharyti,
through her fathers influence, was made nurse to Amenhotep II. This is the conclusion
that Roehrig believes to be more likely, stating: a younger Minmose, having shown his
abilities during various foreign campaigns and building projects, would have been
appointed tutor by Thutmosis III, and his daughter might have been chosen as nurse to
Amenhotep II later in the reign, partly through the influence of her father.
1863
Roehrigs
assumption is that regardless of when Minmose was awarded the position of tutor,
Sharyti was the nurse of Amenhotep II because her father was the tutor to Amenhotep
IIs older brothers. However, as we have seen above, it is much more probable that
Minmose was the tutor to early sons of Amenhotep II. This makes Sharytis nursling
prince Thutmosis (IV), whose precise date of birth is unclear, but was presumably born
by the middle of Amenhotep IIs reign.
1864
Sharyti, like the rest of her family, benefited
from her fathers status at the court, and specifically in this case as a tutor. As was
mentioned in the case of the royal nurse Renen, daughter of the overseer of the seal and
tutor Sennefri, the type of inheritance involved was most likely an informal,
unstructured one.
1865


1863
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.181f.
1864
See the discussion by Bryan, Thutmose IV, Ch.2 and der Manuelian, Amenophis II, Ch.IV, Part I,
pp.172-81.
1865
See the discssuion on Sennefri and his family above, pp.332ff.
418
Dedy
(From soldier to royal messenger to chief of the Medjay)
Dedys service under Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, like that of Mahu, was
consistently military in nature. He progressed from a low-level soldier to an envoy of the
king, and was at the end of his career placed in charge of guarding the area around the
royal necropolis. Despite the damaged nature of his tomb, the fragmentary scenes and
several funerary cones seem to provide a picture of an official whose merit and ability
was recognized by the king, and which resulted in his rise to a much higher status than he
originated from.
1866

Dedys T-shaped tomb, TT200,
1867
is extraordinarily badly damaged, with the
upper portions of the walls completely, or almost completely, destroyed.
1868
In the areas
that are still extant, for the most part the inscriptions are lost or so faded as to be
indiscernible.
1869
Due to the state of preservation in TT200, much of our information
about his titular career comes from three different funerary cones, each of which records
a variety of his positions (Fig.48, p.504).
1870
Two of these cones were recorded as being
found in his tomb by Davies,
1871
and these were still in situ when I visited the tomb in

1866
The titles from his tomb and funerary cones can be found in Urk. IV, 995-6. On the royal messenger
in general, see Valloggia, Recherche, p.99, no.39. See most recently Bryan, in: Thutmose III, pp.43-4, 67-9
for a discussion Dedy. Several of the points she raises are repeated here.
1867
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.485-67, type Vb.
1868
I visited the tomb in 2002. I was unable to confirm the titles recorded by Champollion, otices I,
pp.527-8, 848 and reproduced in Urk. IV, 995.9, 11-12. Two of these are either similar to or can be
confirmed by titles found on Dedys funerary cones (Urk. IV, 995.9, 12). The third however, chief of the
companies (sAw) of pharaoh is based solely on Champollions notes.
1869
The lengthy stele inscription that appears on the east wall of his tomb [PM(6)] is entirely funerary in
nature. It is quite similar to that found in the roughly contemporary tombs TTs 88, 79, and 87; cf. Urk. IV,
1515-39, esp. 1515-26, 1535, 1538-9 for Dedis inscription. The stele was also published in Hermann,
Stelen, 41*-43*, pl.6 (d) where the condition is much the same as today.
1870
Daressy nos. 4, 13, 30; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 4, 22, 24.
1871
According to the notes he made to Daressys publication, which the Griffith Institute kindly allowed me
access to in September 2003.
419
2000.
1872
On Davies and Macadam, Corpus no.4 Dedy is called the royal messenger
upon every foreign land in as much as he is pleasing to the heart, gold of praises given to
him on account of bravery in many deeds, chief of the Medjay.
1873
A combination of
lower and upper-level titles are granted to Dedy on Corpus no.22, where he is the
infantryman (waw) of (the ship) Beloved-of-Amun, standard-bearer of the companies
(sAw) of his majesty, overseer of foreign lands west of Thebes, chief of Medjay.
1874

Finally, Corpus no. 24 contains only epithets, including favorite of the lord of the two
lands and the military distinction brave one (qny) of the soldiers (mnfyt).
1875

These titles provide a starting point from which to reconstruct Dedys career.
Turning again to the tomb, a careful examination of the extant scenes reveals that Dedy
was certainly called overseer of the foreign lands upon the west of the city (i.e. Thebes)
at least twice in his stele inscription.
1876
In addition, traces in an offering scene suggest a
possible reading of the military epithet one who followed the king upon his
marches.
1877
Another depiction indicates that Dedy was a co-regency official. This is
based on a scene in which both Amenhotep II and Thutmosis III were represented seated

1872
I would like to thank the SCA for allowing me to carry out some preliminary dissertation research at
this time, as well as Dr. Betsy Bryan and The Johns Hopkins University for supporting the project.
1873
The inscription is divided into five columns: (1) wpwty nswt (2) Hr xAswt nbt n aAt n mnX.f (3) Hr ib dd
n.f nbw n Hswt Hr qnt (4) m sp aSA Hry MyDAyw _yd- (5) w mAa-xrw. Urk. IV, 995 (d), Daressy, cnes
funraires, no.13, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.4
1874
Also placed in five columns, the inscription reads: (1) waw (2) n Mry-Imn TAy sryt (3) n sAw n Hm.f imy-r
xAst imntt WAst Hry Ma- (4) DAyw _ydw (5) mAa-xrw xr nTr nfr nb tA-Dsr. Urk. IV, 996 (f), Daressy, cnes
funraires, no.4, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.22.
1875
Urk. IV, 995 (e), Daressy, cnes funraires, no.30, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.24. For a
discussion of the term mnfAt cf. Schulman, MRTO, pp.13-4, and nos.93, 139, 142 for titles dealing with the
mnf#t. See also Gnirs, Militr, pp.12-17.
1876
imy-r xswt Hr imntt niwt. Portions of the title are still preserved in lines 15 and 28, and in both cases it
is the only title awarded. Hermann restores the title in line 11. Urk. IV, 995.10, 1535.2
1877
PM(7). At the beginning of the first column: //[Sms]// nsw /// r nmtt.f. For comparisons, cf. TT367 of
Paser, PM(5), TT42 of Amenmose, PM(16).
420
in a kiosk reviewing six registers of troops (Fig.49, p.505).
1878
Although today the figures
of the kings are lost, the size of the kiosk platform, which takes up half of the wall, is a
clear indicator that two kings were seated within it. The damage to the wall makes it
uncertain whether Dedy was depicted in the scene,
1879
but his ability to portray in his
tomb both kings under whom he served indicates that he held a favored position within
the court.
Combining Dedys titles and tomb representations we can extrapolate that he
participated in the Syrian wars of Thutmosis III and that the king rewarded him for his
efforts. Early in his career Dedy was apparently a soldier on the ship Meryamun. This
was not a warship, but rather a state barge which carried the ruler and his associates
on court missions.
1880
This may be where Dedy was first noticed by the king. His next
position was probably standard-bearer of the companies of the king, and likely
represents the transition from his career in Egypt to that abroad. As a standard-bearer,
Dedy was a mid-level military official who would have commanded troops, in this case
the sAw, which in its entirety could include some 250 men.
1881
From Amenemheb-Mahus
autobiography we know that gold flies were given to participants of Thutmosis IIIs
year 33 battles in Syria.
1882
Dedy apparently distinguished himself by his brave deeds and

1878
Radwan, Darstellungen, p.33, Fig.1. I was able to visit the tomb in 2000, at which time the very bottom
of the kiosk was still extant.
1879
Representations of recording troops are also known from the slightly earlier tomb of the idnw of the
army Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85), as well as the later tombs of the fan-bearer (TAy xw) and idnw Pehsukher
(TT88) and overseer of the army Tjanuny (TT74) In all three tombs the scenes are also placed on the left
side of the rear wall of the front room. At PM(8)-(9) in TT85, PM(3)-(4) in TT88, and in TT74 on both
sides of the rear wall at PM(5)-(6) and (10)-(11). However these depict the deceased standing before the
troops at one end of the wall, and before the king at the other. The scene in Dedys tomb is almost a
contraction of what is found in the others. Perhaps this is part due to the fact that TT200 is significantly
smaller than the others, causing only the major components of it to be represented.
1880
Bryan, in: Amenhotep III, p.61.
1881
Schulman, MRTO, pp.26-30, 69-71, 84ff. (table 3).
1882
Breasted, ARE II, pp.232-3. Amenemhab-Mahu records being rewarded with gold in the form of both
lions and flies, as well as necklaces and arm rings; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.167-72.
421
was thus given both gold of praises and a further promotion to royal messenger in every
foreign country.
1883
The golden fly was not simply a metaphorical way of indicating
that an official was rewarded, Dedy in fact wears a pectoral composed of a golden fly
with striding lions in his tomb.
1884
His title royal messenger in every foreign country
indicates that Dedys duties in this post concerned the kings needs abroad.
1885
It thus
seems likely that Dedy continued to participate in Thutmosis IIIs Syrian campaigns, and
perhaps in his Nubian wars as well, although there is no direct evidence for this.
1886
As
Thutmosis III traversed the various regions of the Near East an official who could be
trusted to carry messages back and forth between the king and his troops, which were
often spread out, would have been both useful and important.
1887
In addition, he may
have been involved with expeditions that were sent to the Near East to obtain various
commodities, such as the one commanded by the overseer of the seal Sennefri to obtain
cedar from Lebanon.
1888

While there is nothing to either substantiate or refute the theory that Dedy would
have functioned in his capacity of royal messenger within Egypt as well,
1889
I would posit

1883
On this see also Valloggia, Recherche, p.242. Since I was unable to confirm the title chief of the
companies of pharaoh (Hry n pA sAw n pr-aA), I am leaving it out of the list. However, if Dedy did hold this
position, it seems logical that he would have moved into it after being a standard-bearer, but before
becoming royal messenger.
1884
Dedy likely wore this distinguishing pendant throughout his tomb, though today the area around Dedys
chest is defaced in all but one scene, the bottom register in PM(1). See also Bryan, in: Amarna Diplomacy,
pp.74-5.
1885
Valloggia, Recherche, p.245f.
1886
The Nubian wars seem to start in the later years of Thutmosis IIIs reign; cf. Breasted, ARE II,
pp.257ff.; Morris, Imperialism, pp.180ff.
1887
Valloggia, Recherche, pp.244-9, 275-7, 279-81.
1888
Valloggia, Recherche, pp.244-9, 275-7, 279-81. Sennefri was the owner of TT99, in which the historic
event is commemorated on several walls in his tomb, see above, pp.332ff. Similar trips are known for other
royal messengers, such as the unnamed one who lead the Punt expedition depicted at Deir el-Bahri on
behalf of the overseer of the seal Nehesy. Urk. IV, 323-6, 889.
1889
As implied by Van den Boorn who views the position messenger of the royal house as the same with
regard to function as that of royal messenger; cf. Duties, p.203-4. See also, Bryan, in: Thutmose III,
forthcoming.
422
that it is not until Dedy was promoted to overseer of the western desert and chief of the
Medjay (police) that his responsibilities are focused on Egypt proper. Both of these
positions carried duties involving the Theban necropolis and its western environs, as well
as access to them from the west. As Bryan suggests,
1890
Dedys military achievements
probably figured in this promotion as well, and since Dedys position as chief of the
Medjay occurs last on both Corpus nos. 4 and 22, it was probably the last post he held.
Dedys tenure in any of the positions he held is unknown. Stylistic features such
as his crinkled shawl,
1891
the division of the banquet guests along gender lines,
1892

straight or slightly curved (but not drooping) lotuses, a white pet dog,
1893
and the use of
Hmt wife all suggest a stylistic date of early to mid-Thutmosis III.
1894
However,
according to Radwan, in the kiosk scene Amenhotep II is seated before Thutmosis III
(Fig.50, p.506).
1895
This would seem to imply that not only did Dedy serve during the co-
regency, but that he was likely decorating his tomb during this time, or shortly thereafter.
One solution to this apparent discrepancy is the scene was one of the last painted. This is
suggested by the fact that it is the only one in the tomb that relates any information about
Dedys career.
1896
Unfortunately, none of the inscriptions are preserved, so there is
nothing to indicate whether these were part of Dedys Medjay, or military troops. Based
on the different costumes, it would seem that various types of troops are represented,

1890
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
1891
He wears this in the banquet scene at PM(5), it is a pink-red garment with wavy white lines.
1892
Lower registers of PM(5)
1893
Placed under the chair of Dedy and his wife in PM(7).
1894
Cf. Dziobek, Eine ikonographische Datierungsmethode, pp.15, 39f.
1895
Radwan, Darstellung, p.33 fig.1. The sketch of the cartouches comes from Wilkinson MSS XVII. H 19
verso.
1896
The remainder of the walls in the transverse-hall contain offering-scenes, representations of fishing,
fowling and the preparation of the catch, and two stelae. The passage is completely destroyed except for the
bottoms of each wall, where there are fragments of a funerary procession on the west and part of an
agricultural cycle on the east.
423
suggesting this may be a militarily-related scene. In this case, the troops they are
inspecting are ones that Dedy was involved with as standard-bearer of the companies of
his majesty. If this is correct, then this depiction may provide support for Dedy as a
chief of the companies of pharaoh, the title ascribed to him by Champollions artists,
but no longer extant in his tomb. However, if this scene was one of the last finished, then
the troops may in fact be those Dedy was in charge of as chief of police.
1897

Despite the seeming emphasis on banquet and offering scenes, which make up the
remainder of the tombs decoration, comparatively little is known about Dedys family.
This is of course due in part to the damaged state of TT200. Multiple family members
were certainly depicted on the east (right) side of the rear wall of the hall,
1898
but the
question remains as to who they were and what their relationship to Dedy was. According
to Porter and Moss, Dedys wife was the mistress of the house Tuy, but her name is no
longer preserved in the tomb.
1899
An inscription for her was included in the long funerary
stele on the east wall, indicating that she was also a recipient of the offerings and offering
formula recorded on the stele.
1900
Whether or not they had any sons is unclear, but their
daughter Meryptah presents offerings to them in at least one scene, a position normally
reserved for a son.
1901
Their second daughter, Henutwa, is twice represented kneeling

1897
Though perhaps unlikely, it is possible that the composition is meant to represent more than one of
Dedys functions. I am unaware of any comporanda that would support this theory, since the other scenes
of reviewing troops in tombs of this period all clearly depict military troops (i.e. TTs85, 88, 74, 56).
1898
PM(7). In the top register Dedy and his wife are at the east (far right) end of the wall, while opposite
them were probably two registers of guests of which only a portion of the first couple in the lower register
is preserved. In the bottom register the remains indicate that figures were offered to at both ends of the
wall.
1899
PM I.1, p.303.
1900
PM(6), Urk. IV, 1539.20. This is line 28 of the stele where following Dedys name is inscribed Hmt.f
////
1901
PM(5), where she is called his daughter, Meryptah.
424
below the chair of parents.
1902
Neither daughter appears to have held any titles, and thus
nothing can be said about how his favored status at the court affected subsequent
generations. Likewise, it must be said that if his autobiographical stele was better
preserved, then we would have a clearer picture of Dedys activities on the campaigns of
Thutmosis III, and perhaps a better idea of how he moved from being a soldier on to a
post in Thebes.

Tjanuny
(From army scribe to overseer of the army of the king)
Tjanunys career provides an interesting look at the path of advancement within
the administrative section of the military. Despite being a part of the military, Tjanunys
career in many ways resembles those of other civil officials whose training was required
on the campaigns of Thutmosis III.
1903
The fact that he served under three kings whose
reigns were progressively less militaristic,
1904
and yet continued to rise through the ranks
suggests that an administrative career was indeed quite different from that of a soldier.
The military career of Tjanuny, owner of TT74,
1905
began in the sole reign of
Thutmosis III and did not end until after Thutmosis IIIs grandson Thutmosis IV was on
the throne. There is some debate over the nature of the positions Tjanuny held during this
seventy-year span, as well as their chronological order. According to the Bracks, who
published the tomb, Tjanuny began as a royal scribe (sS nswt) but then moved into the

1902
PM(1), where she is identified by the inscription Henutwa, and probably again in PM(5), although
the inscription here is lost.
1903
E.g., Iamunedjeh and Minmose, see above.
1904
As typified by the adminstration of Thutmosis IV versus that of Thutmosis III; cf. Bryan, in: Oxford
History, pp.269ff.; Bryan, in: Amenhotep III, pp.58ff.
1905
Published by Brack, Tjanuni; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.307-10, type Va. TT74 is a T-
shaped with a rear chamber that has four roughly hewn statues along the rear wall. The passage was only
plastered in preparation for painting, but the transverse-hall was completely decorated, though today it is
badly damaged.
425
military sphere as an army scribe (sS mSa), later becoming a sS nfrw and finally attaining
the rank of overseer of the army of the king (imy-r mSa n nswt).
1906
Bryan however,
following Helck, views the title of army scribe as a lower echelon rank from which
many important men commenced their careers.
1907
Further, she suggests that the royal
scribes were more highly placed than army scribes, stating that in the reign of Thutmosis
IV the route to advancement was now from either Army scribe or Child of the Nursery
to Royal scribe and scribe of the elite troops (nfrw), and then on to higher positions.
1908

This seems indeed to be case for officials who served only under Thutmosis IV, or from
the latter years of Amenhotep II on. However, Tjanuny was involved with the campaigns
of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, as his autobiography clearly states. Although
Tjanuny bears the title of sS nswt more often than that of sS mSa in the tomb, when they
appear in a list together, royal scribe invariably precedes that of scribe of the army. Thus
for Tjanuny the route to advancement seems more likely to have been that recreated by
the Bracks.
Another important issue with regard to Tjanunys career centers on how to best
translate and interpret the term nfrw. Helck originally defined the nfrw as recruits of the
army, in part based on the determinative used the figure of a child or youth.
1909

Schulman however felt that the sources indicated rather a type of elite troops, who
while perhaps young were not newly enlisted.
1910
The Bracks, following Yoyotte and
Lopez, returned to Helcks reading because the connotation of an elite troop in modern

1906
Brack, Tjanuni, pp.85 ff.
1907
Bryan, Thutmose IV, p.279. Though I would point out that for Helck the normal military career was
to start off as a royal scribe, and from there move into the ranks of the military. Helck, Einfluss, p.14.
1908
Bryan, Thutmose IV, p.279, with note 287. I would point out however that in her contribution to
Thutmose III Bryan agrees with the Bracks in their translation of sS nfrw as scribe of recruits, pp.64-5.
1909
Helck, Einfluss, pp.15 ff.
1910
Schulman, MRTO, pp.20-1.
426
terms is akin to military special forces, and there is no indication that the nfrw were
part of a special military unit.
1911
Gnirs likewise disagrees with Schulman, but also feels
that Helcks classification is too narrow, suggesting instead a reading of inspection-
scribe, perhaps partly in the sense of mustering troops.
1912
With regard to the case of
Tjanuny it seems possible that Gnirs explanation is closest to what is meant. As will be
seen below, Tjanuny was in charge of recording, registering and inspecting many things
on behalf of the king besides simply troops. To avoid confusion however, I will simply
render the term in ancient Egyptian.
1913

The scribal-based titles of Tjanuny are extensive.
1914
The autobiographical stele
along the north wall of the hall is badly damaged, but enough remains that a general
picture of the progression of Tjanunys career can be gleaned.
1915
The relevant lines fall
in the latter half of the stele, which was better preserved when Champollion first had his
artists copy it. Following the lengthy offering formula the first titles used by Tjanuny
include scribe of the army.
1916
Then begins the autobiography proper, with Tjanuny
relating how he followed Thutmosis III every year, and told of his victories in all foreign
countries, which included bringing back the princes of Djahi as captives.
1917
Tjanunys

1911
Yoyotte, BiOr 26, p.5. Brack, Tjanuni, p.86. Chevereau also translates the term with scribe of recruits;
cf. Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire, p.216 no.31.
1912
Gnirs, Militr, p.10 with note 71. Musterungs- bzw./oder Inspektionsschreiber
1913
I should also note that Tjanuny does bear one title, known only from jars found in his burial chamber,
that may indicate he was in charge of a special unit: sS nswt sS nfrw n tA pDt pr-aA royal scribe, scribe of
recruits of the palace troop. The Bracks place this title as a step up from sS nfrw, but still below that of
general. Brack, Tjanuni, pp. 63-4, 85-6.
1914
See Brack, Tjanuni, for the full list.
1915
PM(9). For a discussion of Tjanunys career and position see Brack, Tjanuni, pp.82-7. For the
inscription see Brack, Tjanuni, pp.46-7 and Urk. IV, 1003-5.
1916
Line 10.
1917
Lines 10-14. According to the Bracks, Tjanuni, p.90, this likely refers to the campaign in year 30, rather
than the later one in year 42.
427
role on these campaigns was to record the victories in writing, presumably as an army
scribe, or even already as the overseer of army scribes.
1918

After his service to Thutmosis III Tjanuny continued under Amenhotep II, whom
he followed as the favorite of his majesty (mH-ib n Hm.f). The text here is damaged, and
thus we have no indication that Tjanuny was promoted to a higher military position by
Amenhotep II, though given the length of this kings reign, it seems likely that some
progress would have occurred in Tjanunys career.
1919
As an official under Thutmosis IV,
Tjanuny recorded the troops, suggesting that at this time his primary role was as the more
prestigious sS nfrw.
1920
No mention is made of any further promotions, and Tjanuny
closes his autobiography by stating that he was beloved above all others by the king, who
as a result gave Tjanuny funerary goods and a tomb in Thebes.
1921

The information provided in Tjanunys autobiography is supplemented by the
inscriptions and scenes on either side of the halls rear wall (Figs.51-2, pp.507-8). On the
south side of the rear wall the south end is taken up by a double depiction of Tjanuny
recording various troops of the army. In the lower register Tjanuny stands before two
registers of troops, and although the inscription is lost, we can infer his activities from the
inscription in the upper register where Tjanuny sits before two registers of troops
enrolling the army before his majesty in his capacity as the true royal scribe who he
(the king) loves and army scribe.
1922
Adjacent to this Tjanuny presents an Amun

1918
Lines 14-15. ink smnt pA nxtw irt.n.f Hr xAst nbt irw[m sSw mi irywt]
1919
Lines 15-17. [iw Sms.n.i nTr nfr nswt-bity (aA]-xprw-ra)| isT wi m mH-ib. n Hm.f Hswt.i mn.ti ra nb ///// nn
srx.i Htp m aH.f ir.n.i ////
1920
Lines 17-18. iw Sms.n.i nTr nfr nb tAwy (Mn-xprw-ra)| di anx mi Ra Dt [sS.n.i n.f mSa aSAw]
1921
Lines 18-20.
1922
PM(5). The full inscription is: sS mSa m-[bAH Hm.f] snhy DAm[w n] nfrw rdit rx s nb irwt.f m mSa r-Dr.f in
sS nswt mAa mr.f sS mSa *A-nw-n mAa-xrw Enrolling the army before his majesty, registering the young men
of recruits (militrischen Nachwuchses), causing that every man know his office in the entire army by the
true royal scribe who he loves, scribe of the army, Tjanuny, justified. See also Brack, Tjanuni, pp.40-1.
428
bouquet to a king, presumably Thutmosis IV, seated in a kiosk. In the accompanying
inscription Tjanuny also bears the titles of scribe of recruits and overseer of scribes. A
complementary scene on the opposite side of the wall (i.e. north side, north end) depicts
Tjanuny inspecting troops, cattle and horses as the army scribe beloved of his lord.
1923

The scene next to this depicts Tjanuny as an overseer of the army, and scribe of recruits
offering a Syrian vase before an enthroned king, again most likely Thutmosis IV.
The enlarged list of titles used in the kiosk scenes reflects both Tjanunys status
by the reign of Thutmosis IV and perhaps indicates that the additional titles are related to
the nearby duty scenes. Holding the Syrian vase, Tjanuny is described as leading the
foreign chiefs who are presenting the tribute of Retenu, taxes of the northern foreign
countries, silver, gold, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, and every precious stone of Gods Land
(vA-wr).
1924
The troops Tjanuny inspects helped to procure the tribute and taxes, while
the animals, especially the horses, are easily understood as part of the taxes and tribute
sent, along with the more precious items. Although the Amun bouquet does not at first
glance seem to be connected to the troop recoding, from the text we learn that Tjanuny is
asking that Amun-Re grant to the king valour, victory, and control over the foreign
lands.
1925
The ability to dominate the countries into which the king campaigns is of
course in part dependant upon the troops that Tjanuny is in charge of recording and
placing within the army.

1923
PM(10). The full inscription is: snhy tA r-Dr.f m-bAH Hm.f irt mAAw m irt nbt rx mSa wabw nswt Hmw
Hmwt nbt nt tA mi qd[.f kAw Apdw awt] nbt in sS [mSa mryw] nb.f *A-nw-n mAa-xrw Dd.f km.n.n Recording
the entire land before his majesty, making an inspection of every man, knowing the army, wab-priests, royal
servants, all craftsmen of the entire land, all bulls, birds and small cattle, by the scribe of the army whom
his lord loves, Tjanuny, justified. He says: we completed (it). See also Brack, Tjanuni, pp.43-4.
1924
PM(11)
1925
PM(6)
429
Tjanunys final promotion was certainly to the position of mr mSa (n nswt). This
title, like that of sS nfrw, has also been variously interpreted. Helck was the first to
suggest that the overseers of army scribes (imy-r sS mSa), sS nfrw, and overseer of the
army/general (imy-r mSa) were all upper level administrative offices within the
military.
1926
Schulman similarly viewed these titles as non-combative, though he lists sS
nfrw (scribe of elite troops) as a scribal rank and officer (imy-r) of army scribes as a
service title/post.
1927
In his discussion of the imy-r mSa, Schulman concludes that
military officer was not a distinct rank, but rather was a title which indicated that its
bearer held a military command.
1928
He reserved the denotation of general, a combat-
oriented post, for the imy-r mSa wr, although the wr was not always written.
1929
Once
again, the Bracks, Chevereau and Gnirs have all returned to the original translation of
general for imy-r mSa, and Gnirs further suggests that the title imy-r mnfAt army
commander is synonymous to it.
1930
The Bracks however appear to follow Helck in the
assumption that the position of general was an administrative one, and which drew from
the scribal ranks as opposed to field officers.
1931

On the other hand, the Bracks also ascribe to Tjanuny the duties, if not position,
of a field officer while he was a sS nfrw. This is based in large part on the fact that the
standard-bearer of the ships contingent of training (TAy sryt n tA Xnyt [nt] sxpr)
Senimose is depicted as a subordinate of Tjanunys in the scene of recording troops.
1932

From this they conclude that he was in a position similar to that of the Hry pDt in terms of

1926
Helck, Einfluss, p.14 ff.
1927
Schulman, MRTO, Table 3.
1928
Schulman, MRTO, p.42-3.
1929
Schulman, MRTO, p.43-4.
1930
Gnirs, Militr, pp.3 ff and Excursus 1.
1931
Brack, Tjanuni, pp.86 f.
1932
PM(5), the lower register.
430
status and that the sS nfrw was also a high-ranking field officer.
1933
Certainly it makes
Tjanuny a higher ranking official than the standard-bearer, as Schulman noted.
1934

However, it does not necessarily follow that he was a field officer. It seems more likely
that Tjanuny was recording the troops being led by the standard-bearer in his capacity as
a scribe of the army and scribe of recruits. Whether these men were new recruits being
placed on the ship, or old hands simply being recorded as part a regular count is of course
unknown. And indeed, as Bryan points out, the fact that the title of general was received
late in life, and the lack of mention of actual campaigning, or leading of troops in
Tjanunys autobiography supports a purely administrative career within the military.
1935

Thus, Tjanunys position as an imy-r mSa becomes one of status, not function.
The origins of Tjanuny are unclear, and we know more about his wife, children
and possible in-laws then we do of Tjanunys own parents.
1936
This suggests that they
were perhaps of a rather low status, especially compared to the family of his wife Mutiry
who herself was a Xkrt nswt and a chantress of Thoth and of Nehemtaway, both deities of
Hermopolis.
1937
Two ceramic jars found in the second burial chamber below Tjanunys
tomb were inscribed for the great of scribes (wr sSw), Amunhotep of Hermopolis.
1938

Although the inscription does not link Amunhotep directly to either Tjanuny or Mutiry, it
seems likely that given Mutirys own connection to Hermopolis, Amunhotep was a
relative of hers. As it is generally parents of wives that are mentioned or depicted in

1933
Brack, Tjanuni, p.86.
1934
Schulman, MRTO, p.64 no.159.
1935
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.65.
1936
For a discussion of Tjanunys family see Brack, Tjanuni, pp.87-9.
1937
Mutirys fullest complement of titles, found at PM(3), is Xkrt nswt iqrt Smayt n +Hwty nb #mnw n
NHmt-awy Hrt-ib #nmw
1938
Brack, Tjanuni, pp.68-9, pl.65. The inscription runs around the body of the jars: //// imAxy xr Wsir nb
/// wr Ss Imn-Htp n #nmw Brack, p.88 suggests the reading great one/chief of scribes of Hermopolis,
Amenhotep.
431
tombs of this period, it follows that Amunhotep could be Mutirys father. If this is the
case, then Tjanuny married into a fairly prestigious Hermopolite family.
How or when Tjanuny married Mutiry is unclear, and depends in part on when
Mutiry became a Xkrt nswt. Brack views the marriage as occurring after Mutiry came to
the court and she was installed in the palace as a Xkrt nswt.
1939
He seems to imply that it
was her own family that led to her status at the court, not Tjanunys. While at the court
Mutiry would have developed a personal relationship with Amenhotep II that resulted in
her receiving grave goods bearing his stamp.
1940
If this is correct, then it is likely that
Tjanuny married Mutiry after he had already become an overseer of army scribes,
1941
and
quite possibly after he had become a favorite of Amenhotep II. Brack does not explain
why Mutiry would have been sent to the court, and it seems equally likely that her status
was due to her husbands position, and not that of her father. The fact that Tjanuny is
probably not promoted to the rank of sS nfrw or overseer of the army until the reign of
Thutmosis IV implies that his wifes status had little to do with the progression of his
career. At least one of Tjanuny and Mutirys sons entered into the scribal ranks,
1942
while
Tjanunys brother Aamun was also a scribe.
1943
Unfortunately we have no further
information about Tjanunys descendants, thus making it impossible to say whether or
not they too became military scribes and officials.
For Tjanuny, the fact of being in the military plays a subordinate role to his
position as a scribe. Although he does not record being promoted or advanced under any

1939
Brack, SAK 11, p.185.
1940
Brack, SAK 11, p.185-6.
1941
This was his first upper-level title, which he seems to have already held during the reign of Thutmosis
III; cf. Brack, Tjanuni, p. 87, based on the autobiographical stele inscription at PM(9).
1942
This is the scribe Hattiy, who offers to his parents on a stele now in Turin (Nr.1644); he may also be the
son whose figure and name are lost in the offering scene at PM(3) in TT74. Their son Nebwaiu is depicted
at the bottom of the left outer door-jamb, now in Turin (Nr.1645); no titles are known for him.
1943
aA-Imn is mentioned on two ostraca found in the courtyard of TT74.
432
of the kings he served, it nonetheless seems as though Tjanunys path through the
military was fluid and natural. Indeed, in his tomb, the picture presented is that it was
Tjanunys abilities as a true scribe enabled him to continually move through the scribal
administration of the army until achieving the post of general as a marker of his status.
The ability to depict Thutmosis IV in his tomb, as well the statement that this king
provided for him in old age, indicates that Tjanunys status and position vis--vis his king
was incredibly elevated.

III. Conclusions

The scribe who is skilled in his office, He is found worthy to be a courtier.
1944

So ends the Ramesside text Instruction of Amenemope, an inscription composed of thirty
chapters designed to educate Amenemopes son on how to be an ideal man. The
individuals discussed in the preceding pages certainly present themselves as having
attained their positions through their own abilities, rather than through heredity or
nepotism. In general, these officials paid very little attention to their origins, suggesting
that their families played little or no role in their rise to prominence.
1945
Although we
must keep in mind the issue of self-presentation, it certainly seems that the favor these
men were shown by the king came as a result of excelling in their respective duties. With
the exception of Dedy, they covered their monuments with records of their activities and
responsibilities, implying that the rewards and promotions given to these officials were

1944
From the Ramesside Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 30, XXVII, l.16-17. For a translation, see
Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.146-63, cf. p.162.
1945
Dedys tomb is too poorly preserved to state with certainty that his family was not detailed, especially
as there is one wall, which is suggestive of having a family tableaux in the style of Amenemehat (TT82)
or Rekhmire (TT100). Likewise, the lack of a tomb for Minmose prevents us from knowing how he might
have depicted his family in this setting.
433
based on merit. In addition, the movement of these men through their positions seems
fairly fluid. This situation is quite different from the officials seen in the preceding
chapter whose prestige was unnaturally heightened by a personal friendship with the
king, and who focused on describing this relationship and largely omitted any record of
their duties. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that only Mahu was a Xrd n kAp, and he,
like the viceroy Usersatet, appears to have received this as an honorary distinction late in
life.
1946

Also noteworthy is that from the five preserved autobiographies, three of them
recorded that an office was placed in the face of the official,
1947
while Sennefri seems
to suggest that he was transferred from the Delta to Thebes. Mahu received instructions
from the king regarding his new position, and it appears that the abilities of Userhat were
in fact initially recognized by Iamunedjeh, and only later by the king. Additionally,
Sennefri and Minmose became tutors, and their daughters became royal nurses, while
Mahus wife Baky was one of the most prestigious of Amenhotep IIs nurses.
Finally, it must be mentioned that although all of these men played a part in the
Near Eastern activities of Thutmosis III, only three were in fact military officials,
1948

while the other four were civil officials brought into the military sphere due to their
expertise.
1949
Nonetheless, except for Sennefri, who was involved purely with trade rather
than campaigns, all of these men stress the activities that took them into the field of
battle. The majority of them served mainly under Thutmosis III, and thus were likely
functioning only at the beginning of Amenhotep IIs reign. A king is represented in each

1946
For Usersatet, see Chapter 2.
1947
Minmose, Iamunedjeh and Mahu.
1948
Mahu, Dedy and Tjanuny.
1949
Sennefri, Minmose, Iamunedjeh and Userhat.
434
of their tombs,
1950
twice it is Thutmosis III and twice both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep
II are depicted, while Amenhotep II and Thutmosis IV each appear in one tomb.
When the officials presented here are viewed together with the above points in
mind, it appears that the slight differences they exhibit in the path of meritorious rise
cannot entirely be attributed to chronological factors. The overseer of the seal Sennefri
is one of two officials who served during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency and
well into the later years of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign. Despite the fact that Sennefri was
in office at least until year 32 of Thutmosis III,
1951
he is the only official in the group who
does not bear any military epithets, or make mention of accompanying the king on any of
his exploits. His single trip to the Near East involved an expedition to obtain Lebanese
cedar, as opposed to a military excursion. It was for the purposes of this trip that Sennefri
was granted the tile of royal herald (wHm nswt), though he was already overseer of the
seal. While Sennefris trip may have occurred shortly after the 8
th
campaign in year
33,
1952
there is nothing in his account to suggest that his mission was anything other than
peaceful. Finally, in contrast to the other officials, Sennefri appears to have originated
from an elite background, since according to his statue his father was the overseer of the
st in Watet-Hor and his mother was a Xkrt nswt. As demonstrated above,
1953
Sennefri
was quite possibly an official under his fathers jurisdiction in the north of Egypt when he
was made overseer of the seal. It also appears that Sennefris son-in-law served under
him as an idnw, though whether before or after his marriage to his daughter Renen is
uncertain. In addition Sennefri was placed as a tutor to a son of Thutmosis III, and Renen

1950
With the exception of Minmose, whose tomb has not been found.
1951
From P.Louvre E3226, see above, pp.339ff.
1952
Cf. Redford, Wars, p.175.
1953
See pp.337ff.
435
was also a royal nurse, perhaps to a younger daughter of Thutmosis III. It appears that
Sennefri, although he came from an established family, rose based on his own abilities to
a level of prominence and influence that resulted in his position as tutor and allowed him
to place his daughter as a nurse.
Iamunedjeh, who served for approximately the same time-span as Sennefri,
1954

presents a picture at once similar and different from that of Sennefri. Based on the review
of Iamunedjehs career presented in the text, it can now be suggested that Iamunedjeh
was essentially a civil official who, like Sennefri, played a role in the Near East. For
Iamunedjeh, however, this involved his presence on the campaigns of Thutmosis III due
to his abilities as an engineer, literally controller of works (Xrp n kAwt). Again like
Sennefri, Iamunedjeh was promoted (sxn) to royal herald in order to facilitate his
missions, which included setting up Thutmosis IIIs stele in Naharin and perhaps
assisting in rampart demolition. His presence on these campaigns, although in a civil role,
is the primary reason that Iamunedjeh reports military epithets alongside his civil
titles.
1955
Following these activities, Iamunedjeh returned to Egypt, where he functioned
as overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt,
overseeing the recording and bringing of produce from throughout Egypt to the palace.
The main difference between Iamunedjeh and Sennefri is that there is no evidence to
suggest that Iamunedjeh was descended from a distinguished family. Indeed, the fact that
one of the chapels in his tomb seems to be dedicated towards their reception of the
funerary cult could suggest that Iamunedjeh was providing for them post-mortem.

1954
His is a functioning official in year 15, crossed the Euphrates in year 33, witnessed Thutmosis IIIs
erection of a third pair of obelisks in year 40, and was promoted to first royal herald sometime thereafter;
cf. pp.350ff. above.
1955
E.g. I followed the good god upon every northern foreign country, I do not turn away from him upon
the battlefield.
436
Although Iamunedjeh and his wife, the Xkrt nswt Henutnofret, did not have any children,
it appears that he may have fostered the careers of both his nephew Mery
1956
and his idnw
Userhat.
Iamunedjehs role in Userhats tomb and career has already been discussed at
length, and does not need to be reiterated here. However it is worth mentioning that
Userhat presents us with an example of how both merit and nepotism could interact in the
furthering of an officials career. The fact that Userhat chose not to represent his own
parents, but instead honored his superiors suggests that he benefited from their attention.
It does not appear that Userhat was in any way related to these men, and thus it seems
most likely that he was noticed for his abilities as a scribe and idnw. While Userhat
would not have had influence with the king, Iamunedjeh, as royal herald, certainly did,
and he may have used it to bring Userhat to the attention of Thutmosis III or perhaps his
crown prince Amenhotep II. The depiction of army barracks in Userhats tomb seems to
favor that his connection was made with Amenhotep II, who was raised in a military
setting near Memphis.
1957
It seems that both his ability to depict Amenhotep II in his
tomb and his appellation as a Xrd n kAp,
1958
came at a later stage in his career, after the
majority of the tomb was already decorated, and at a point when a functional
advancement was probably not needed.
1959
In addition, Userhats daughter Henutnofret,
and possibly his wife Mutnofret, were given distinction as Xkrt nswt. These factors all
make Userhats rise a rare example of how ability combined with an influential superior

1956
Based on my reconstruction of the Marseille stela, see above p.365.
1957
Based to a large extent on Amenhotep IIs sphinx stele; cf. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.181ff.
1958
I do not believe that he grew up in the court, but rather take the view that this title was given to Userhat
as an indication of his status vis--vis the king.
1959
That Userhats tomb was near completion when the scene with Amenhotep II was added suggests that
Userhat would have been nearing the end of his own career and advanced in years.
437
could lead to a mid-level officials rise in prestige late in life. It is useful to stress that
although Userhat formed a friendship with Amenhotep II, the depictions in his tomb
clearly indicate that Userhat had a number of responsibilities that probably would have
resulted in his having a tomb without the connection to the king. Thus, although he was
granted prestige, as were the personal friends discussed in the previous chapter, he was
also a capable official who rose meritoriously.
Both Dedy and Amenemheb-Mahu belong to the group of so-called co-regency
officials who witnessed the transition from Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II and depicted
each of these kings in their tombs.
1960
Despite the lack of a tomb, Minmose could perhaps
be grouped with them, as his Medamud statue bears the cartouche of Thutmosis III and
his Tura inscription preserves a date in year 4 of Amunhotep II. Tjanunys career began
in the later decades of Thutmosis IIIs sole reign and lasted into that of his grandson
Thutmosis IV, the king depicted in the tomb.
Although these officials chronologies overlap, their careers exhibit interesting
differences. Minmoses path of advancement, which greatly parallels those of Sennefri
and Iamunedjehs, is the not at all like those of the other three officials, who were
essentially military men throughout their lives. However, while Tjanuny was consistently
connected to the administrative branches of the army, Dedy and Mahu began as soldiers
and eventually attained directorial positions within the military sphere.
It appears that Minmoses function in following Thutmosis III on his campaigns
was to tax the subjugated areas and ensure that the revenues were placed in the

1960
A list of these officials was compiled by Murnane, Coregencies, p.53 f, and added to by Van Siclen,
Uronarti, pp.48-51.
438
treasury.
1961
Although previously his Medamud inscription has been understood as
chronologically ordered, it was argued above that it seems more likely that, as in the case
of Mahu,
1962
it is to some degree a thematic account. In this reconstruction, Thutmosis III
made the royal scribe Minmose his deputy (idnw) so that he could carry out the taxation
of Retenu and Nubia on the kings behalf, just as Sennefri and Iamunedjeh were made
royal heralds to facilitate their responsibilities in the Near East. Although Minmoses
duties as overseer of works were primarily centered in the temples of Egypt, the fact that
he records setting up stelae in Naharin and Karoy, perhaps under the supervision of
Iamunedjeh,
1963
implies that he may have been placed as controller of works due to his
skill in this regard. It is also possible that this position, especially with the attendant
priestly titles that Minmose was given, should be viewed more as an example of a
pension post. Towards the end of his career Minmose was made a tutor to two sons of
Amenhotep II, and Minmoses daughter Sharyti later became a royal nurse for some of
Amenhotep IIs other offspring. This is also similar to Sennefri and his daughter Renen.
Minmose and wife, the Xkrt nswt Mia, had two other children as well. His
namesake became high priest of Osiris, while their daughter Heriy was a chantress of
Amun, and subsequent generations continued to be involved in the priesthoods of Osiris
and Amun.
1964
It thus appears that Minmoses rise to prominence had a substantial and
lasting affect on the fortunes of his descendants. Minmoses career has such overall
similarity to those of Sennefri and Iamunedjeh, we can surmise that if a tomb for

1961
Medamud statue; cf. Urk. IV 1441-2 and the discussion above, pp.403ff.
1962
On this interpretation for Mahus autobiographical tomb inscription, see Redford, Wars, pp.167 ff.
1963
See above, pp.07ff.
1964
Based on the information from a series of stelae and a statue, see above, pp.413 ff.
439
Minmose is located, it would depict his various activities and duties in much the same
manner as is seen in the tombs of these men.
Dedy and Mahu seem to have followed somewhat similar career paths.
1965
Each
started as a soldier connected to a ship, and in Mahus case this is supported by his first
(recorded) campaign, which involved crossing the Euphrates in year 33. Dedys
participation on this campaign is demonstrated by the gold of praise and gold fly
pectorals that he wears in his tomb. Sometime during his early career, Dedy was
distinguished as a brave one (qny) of the soldiers (mnfyt).
1966
Following their exploits
as low-level soldiers, it appears that Dedy became a standard-bearer of the companies
(i.e., of the army), and then perhaps chief of the companies,
1967
while Mahus next
position seems to be as a Hry pDt. Perhaps it is during this phase that Mahu is called a
leader of the brave ones (qnn).
1968

However, at this point their careers diverge. Dedy becomes a royal messenger
(wpwtyw) in every foreign country for Thutmosis III, while Mahu returns to Egypt as
first of his companions and takes his place among the military escort accompanying
royal and cult barques during festival processions. Following Dedys service as royal
messenger, he too returned to Egypt, becoming overseer of the western desert and chief
of the Medjay, making him responsible for the cemeteries and western desert of Thebes.

1965
I would remind the reader that Dedy may have been older than Mahu since in his tomb (TT200)
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II are seated together inspecting troops, while in Mahus tomb (TT85) the
inscriptional and pictorial evidence demonstrates that Thutmosis III has died and Amenhotep II is now
king.
1966
On one of his funerary cones, cf. above, pp.418ff.
1967
Assuming Champollion to be correct, see above, pp.418ff. with note 1868.
1968
Following the reconstruction of Redord, Wars, pp.167-72, this probably occurred at the end of Mahus
career on the campaigns.
440
Dedy thus appears to have moved from a soldier to a trusted messenger, to a police
position, albeit one that involved guarding the royal necropolis.
1969

This is rather different from Mahu, who was appointed
1970
as idnw of the (king in
the) army by Amenhotep II and was also granted the appellation Xrd n kAp. In addition,
Mahus wife Baky was one of Amenhotep IIs most prestigious nurses, on par with
Qenamuns mother Amenemipet and Sennefers wife Senetnay/nefer. Baky was honored
by both husband and king, as witnessed by the extraordinary depictions in Mahus
tomb,
1971
and it is a distinct possibility that she was granted her own tomb as well,
perhaps in the Valley of the Kings.
1972
Although relatives of Sennefri, Minmose and
Iamunedjeh apparently gained positions due to the status of these three men, Mahus son
Iamu does not seem to have moved out of the palace sphere. Despite being married,
Iamus designation as a Xrd n kAp and purely status-related epithets seem to indicate that
he did not hold a functioning position of any type.
As mentioned above, Tjanunys career followed an administrative route, from
royal scribe to army scribe, scribe of recruits, scribe of recruits of the palace troops, and
finally overseer of the army of the king.
1973
From Tjanunys record of his activities on the
campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II it becomes clear that while he was part of
the military, his duties were purely administrative, akin to those of a civil official. As
such, his military participation resembles more closely that of Iamunedjeh or Minmose,
than Dedy and Mahu. The contrast is particularly evident when one compares the

1969
There is no information preserved on Dedys family, so it is unclear how his career and status may have
benefited later generations.
1970
Literally, placed in your face is the office so that you may act as idnw of the army.
1971
E.g., she suckles the young Amenhotep II, accompanies Mahu and Amenhotep II in presenting
offerings to Osiris, and offers before the enthroned Amenhotep II with her daughter.
1972
See above, pp.395ff. for this argument.
1973
There are several other variations, including overseer of royal scribes, overseer of army scribes, and
great army scribe of the king.
441
autobiographical statements of Minmose, Mahu and Tjanuny that describe their presence
on the battlefield.
1974

For example, Minmose, as royal scribe and idnw, saw (mAA) Thutmosis III
overthrow Nubia and plunder Takhsy as he was following after his king. Mahu, however,
was an active soldier and consistently uses the phrase I made a capture. Even when
describing that victories or prowess of Thutmosis III that he witnessed, Mahu follows this
with I made a capture. Tjanunys role accords with his function as an army scribe, he
was to record in writing (m sSw) the triumphs of Thutmosis III that he observed as he
followed him throughout Syria-Palestine. Although his activities under Amenhotep II are
lost, for Thutmosis IV the scribe of recruits Tjanuny recorded (sS) the numerous troops,
now probably within Egypt itself. This clearly indicates that Tjanunys career, although
entrenched within the military sphere, more closely follows the lines of other civil
officials whose abilities were required abroad during the reigns of Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II. His role in Egypt was extended beyond that of the military to recording
the entire land, inspecting every man, from the army through to artisans, as well as
the fauna of Egypt. Tjanuny reports his final position, as overseer of the army, when he
leads a contingent of foreign chiefs presenting tax and tribute before Thutmosis IV.
Tjanunys abilities as a true scribe enabled him to continually move through the
scribal administration of the army until achieving the post of general. At the end of his
autobiography, Tjanuny states that the king (Thutmosis IV) gave him a good old age and
made for him a tomb. This clearly demonstrates that Tjanunys status and position vis--
vis his king was incredibly elevated, not unlike that of Mahu. The kings Tjanuny served

1974
For convenient translations of the relevant passages in Mahus and Minmoses autobiographies, see
Redford, Wars, pp.167-70, 173f.
442
under also honored his wife, Mutiry, who was a Xkrt nswt and whose grave goods bear
the stamp of Amenhotep II.
The above examination demonstrates that slightly over half of these men were not
military officials, but men whose abilities made them useful for the various activities
Thutmosis III and his successors undertook in Syria-Palestine. Thus, they bridge the
transitions of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency into the reign of Thutmosis IV.
These officials are not part of a new class of military men, and indeed seem to return to
positions within Egypt that mirror those they conducted abroad, though often at a higher
level of responsibility.
1975
Only Mahu and Dedy are truly military men whose abilities
advanced their careers, and although they started at the same rank, the end of their
respective careers is quite different. Dedy was given police authority over the west bank
of Thebes, the religious center of Egypt, while Mahu was placed as an idnw of the king in
the army. In this position, Mahu, along with his wife as royal nurse, gained enormous
prestige within the court and palace.
It also becomes clear that not only was a meritorious rise possible in ancient
Egypt, but it was a marker of elite status and a relationship with the king that rivaled
those held by the personal friends and established families. Although one could argue
that the lack of information on the origins of most of these men precludes a conclusion
that they did not come from important lineages, their inscriptional evidence suggests that
they were recognized for their abilities. Indeed, even for Sennefri, who family was
established, the emphasis is on his own responsibilities rather than on his genealogy.
While admittedly the aspect of an officials desired self-presentation cannot be ruled

1975
Sennefri is perhaps the exception, as he was already overseer of the seal when he was sent to Lebanon.
Although part of the military administration, I would suggest that in many respects Tjanuny is part of this
group as well.
443
out, the fact is that these men, unlike those whose rank was due to a personal friendship,
rarely report epithets or titles that stress a connection to the king. Rather, they universally
focus on their own achievements in a very fact-oriented, terse manner, and make
reference to being appointed, promoted, or otherwise installed in their positions.
1976
This
seems to indicate that the officials were demonstrating their meritorious rise by
describing their abilities and stressing that they were chosen for their positions.





1976
The two exceptions to this Userhat and Dedy, neither of whom has an extant autobiography. Tjanunys
autobiography has several lacunae, and it is possible that he may have utilized similar wording that is now
lost.
444
Conclusions
Changing Continuity in the Movement of Office

In the Introduction to this dissertation, three questions were asked about the
movement of office during the transition from Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II, c.1450-
1400 B.C.; 1) What were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office?;
2) What does this tell us about the underlying structure of the government during this
time period?; 3) What do these patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an officials or
familys influence vis--vis the king in achieving and retaining a position? Issues relating
to how and why these officials became visible were also considered. It was felt that the
traditional title- and function-based studies that had been done previously were not able
to answer these types of questions because they neglected to investigate the officials
themselves. Likewise, prosopographical studies often concentrate on determining
pedigrees without connecting the families to the larger socio-historical context.
Therefore, the methodology employed here combined these types of research,
reintegrating the titular, genealogical and biographical information that was available for
the officials with the historical context in which they functioned. This will make it
possible to more clearly define the means by which officials obtained office, to answer
questions concerning the composition of the government, and to gain a more complete
understanding of the culture of officialdom in ancient Egypt during the mid-18
th
Dynasty.
The extensive discussions and the conclusions drawn in the preceding chapters
demonstrate that this approach has had the desired outcome. The results of the current
work indicate that the administrative structure described by Helck in Zur Verwaltung and
445
in Der Einfluss der Militrfhrer, and essentially followed since, must now be
reevaluated. Helcks homines novi were not a group of uneducated lower-level men who
owed their positions to the king, but rather stemmed from families whose influence is
demonstrated by the many positions that connect them to the palace and childhood of the
king. Thus, Amenhotep IIs so-called new court in fact came out of a group of
established families.
1977
The establishment of a military elite seems to be a misnomer,
as many of the men who participated on campaigns were performing the civil functions
they already held, albeit in a military setting.
1978
These men also form the core group who
advanced through merit and who report being placed, appointed or promoted during their
careers.
1979
Inheritance of positions at the highest levels of government seems to have
essentially ceased with the reign of Amenhotep II, while nepotism within the priesthood
seems to decline.
1980
Yet, the ability to obtain elite status and recognition through a
friendship with the king is more common. During the reigns of both Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II it also appears as though the Amun domain was not an administration from
which men were promoted, but rather served as a readily accessible location into which
officials at all levels could place their sons, thereby increasing the overall wealth of the
family.
1981

When the above conclusions are considered in light of the historical context, it
becomes apparent that the present study alters many earlier assumptions concerning the

1977
E.g., Qenamun, Usersatet, Amenemopet, Sennefer, Mery, Suemniut.
1978
E.g., Sennefri, Minmose, Iamunedjeh, Userhat, and even Tjanuny, since he was never a soldier, but
always an administrative official.
1979
This is the case for Sennefri, Minmose, and Iamunedjeh. Userhat does not have an autobiographical
inscription, and Tjanunys as preserved does not specifically mention his promotion through the ranks.
1980
An exception to both of these statements is the mayor of Thebes Sennefer, who held several
administrative positions connected to the Amun precinct. His immediate family were all Amun priestesses
and his son-in-law succeeded him as mayor.
1981
Cf. Kees, Priestertum, p.13
446
nature of the government during the transition from Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II. Van
den Boorn has argued that the establishment of a vizierate dynasty during the early to
mid-18
th
Dynasty was a conscious choice on the part of King Ahmose, evolving out of
his desire to re-centralize the government, with the king taking a more direct role.
1982
By
the reign of Hatshepsut officials were drawn from a wide variety of areas; from the
provinces as well as Thebes; out of the established families and those of lower status, the
latter becoming part of Hatshepsuts loyal group of officials.
1983
Dziobek has
demonstrated that many of these men continued to serve under Thutmosis III and
suggested that they were integral to the smooth transition from the regency of Thutmosis
III to the co-regency with Hatshepsut and back again to his sole reign.
1984
In addition,
there is a general consensus that military figures drawn from Thutmosis IIIs extensive
campaigning also became part of the administrative elite.
1985
This does not reflect a
change in policy, but rather a change in the political climate of Thutmosis IIIs reign as
compared to Hatshepsuts.
1986

However, when one examines the officials that these statements are based on, it
becomes evident that a number of Thutmosis IIIs new officials were in fact not military
men, but rather officials whose abilities had been required in the military sphere. Fifteen
of the officials examined mention some level of military participation in relationship to
their careers, and of these only Mahu, Usersatet and Amenmose are clearly involved with
actual engagements, while for three others this can be surmised from the evidence.
1987
All

1982
Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.349ff., 368ff.
1983
Redford, History and Chronology, p.77; cf. Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.269
1984
Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.132 ff.; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.131ff.
1985
Cf. Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
1986
Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,pp.218ff.
1987
Mahu and Usersatet mention their military engagements, while Amenmose depicts a subjugated Syrian
fortress in his tomb. Dedys titles are indicative of a military career and he, like Suemniut, was given gold
447
but one of these men served under both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, though it is
likely that their military activities took place primarily under the earlier king.
1988

Although these officials appear in the military record as participants on Thutmosis IIIs
campaigns, they were not military men per se, nor did they move from a civil into a
military sphere. Rather, it has been shown that they were performing the civil functions
they already held in a military setting, and that they were specifically brought to Syria-
Palestine for this purpose.
1989
The overall significance of the campaigns during the mid-
18
th
Dynasty is what led these officials to focus on their participation in them. The fact
that they were promoted to new positions and authority in recognition of the expertise
they demonstrated while in Syria-Palestine probably also made mentioning wartime
involvement important to these men.
1990

Eichlers study of the Amun temple administration during the 18
th
Dynasty
implies that, in Hathsepsuts reign, temple officials frequently came from among the
lower status families,
1991
while established priestly, provincial, and Theban families were
less common, and significant managerial power in the Amun domain was placed in the

of praise and gold fly pectorals. Pasers father Nebamun is included by extension, since his titles also
suggest a military career.
1988
Usersatet may have served only in the very last years of Thutmosis III, and participated on the year 3
(co-regency ?) campaign of Amenhotep II. In addition, Pasers father Nebamun probably served only under
Thutmosis III.
1989
I.e., Sennefri, Minmose, Iamunedjeh, Userhat, and even Tjanuny, since he was never a soldier, but
always an administrative official. Suemniut may also fall into this category, as the exact nature of his
military activity is difficult to ascertain. Although not included in this study, it appears that this may well
be the case for the royal herald Intef and royal barber Sibastet; cf. Bryan, in Thutmosis III, forthcoming;
Redford, Wars, pp.164f., 176ff., esp. p.180f.
1990
E.g., Minmose and Iamunedjeh. Sennefris promotion to overseer of the seal is outside the context of
the military sphere, but he is awarded an additional position when sent to Lebanon for cedar.
1991
Eichler (Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.218) bases this on the status of the father as a sAb, but
at least one of her examples, the second priest of Amun Puiemre, was the son of the sAb and scribe Puia and
the chief nurse (mnat wrt) Neferiah; cf. Davies, Puyemr, pl.ix; Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.28-31. He was
also married to the dwAt-nTr Smayt nt Imn %n-snb divine adoratrice, chantress of Amun, Senseneb, who
was the daughter of Hathsepsuts high priest of Amun, Hapuseneb; cf. Whale, Family, p.52; Bryan,
Thutmosis III, forthcoming. She appears in Shrine 15 of her father at Silsilah; cf. Caminos and James,
Silsilah, pp.42-52.
448
hands of non-priestly officials such as Senenmut.
1992
In contrast, she suggests that during
Thutmosis IIIs reign the same positions were mostly held either by members of
established families who were already part of the temple ranks, or by relatives of the
vizieral family of Aametu that had spread throughout the temple clergy and staff.
Additionally, figures like Senenmut were replaced by a burgeoning mid-level hierarchy,
while the most important temple administrative titles were held by Menkheperresoneb (ii)
in his role as high priest of Amun.
1993

There is no doubt that Aametu and his descendants were spread throughout the
Amun domain; this has been clearly demonstrated. However, Eichler has failed to realize
that this occurred only by virtue of Aametus marriage into the established and
influential family of Ineni, who, like Senenmut, held considerable power in Thebes and
over the temple precinct.
1994
Thus, Aametus position as vizier did not contribute to the
prevalence of his descendants in the temple staff and clergy. In addition, the presence of
these two families in the Amun domain had already begun during the reign of Thutmosis
I, under whom both Aametu and Ineni served. Although Eichler recognizes that multiple
generations of this family permeated in an astonishing mass throughout the temple
administration, she essentially neglects the role that User, and especially Rekhmire,
played in the Amun domain.
1995

This is significant because through the current study it becomes apparent that
when the responsibilities of the high priests are centered primarily on their priestly

1992
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.215ff.
1993
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.218ff.
1994
This is in part due to the nature of Eichlers study, which focuses on the titles that pertain to the Amun
temple administration as opposed to the men that held these positions.
1995
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.222 with note 921, and p.221, note 914 in reference to
Rekhmire in particular.
449
activities, the power of the concurrent vizier over the administrative portions of the Amun
temple increases.
1996
Hapuseneb, the high priest under Hatshepsut,
1997
held numerous
priestly and temple administrative titles, while the viziers during his tenure, the aging
Aametu and User as co-vizier, held considerably fewer. Users titles after becoming
vizier indicate that he claimed supervisory positions connected to the record-keeping
aspects of the Amun precinct, while Hapusenebs successor, Menkheperresoneb (i) was
singularly devoid of any but priestly designations. The next high priest,
Menkheperresoneb (ii), probably would have served alongside User,
1998
and while he
does carry several overseer positions, these are all connected to the production areas of
the temple domain. Although Menkheperresoneb (ii)s hereditary position may have
allowed him to expand his authority, the level of responsibility he reports is vastly
dwarfed by that of Rekhmire, Users successor as vizier.
1999
Indeed, based on Rekhmires
tomb depictions, it is evident that he had a considerable amount of direct control over the
Amun precinct, in the style perhaps of Senenmut, that the earlier viziers of his family
likely did not.
2000
Yet it is to Mery, the (second) high priest under Amunhotep II, that
Eichler awards this comparison, suggesting that this is in part due to the development of a
temple treasury.
2001
This will be returned to below when developments during the reign
of Amenhotep II are considered.

1996
This was already discussed at length in the conclusions to Chapter 1, and also Chapter 2.
1997
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.306, no.433 ; cf. Dziobek, in: Thebanische
Beamtennekropole, pp.133; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.137f. Hapusenebs possible role as vizier is unclear,
as it comes only from one monument; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, p.138; Helck, Verwaltung, p.288.
1998
Cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, p.139.
1999
I would point out that Eichler refers to Rekhmires titles only in a footnote to her discussion; cf.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.221 with n.914.
2000
Rekhmire is the last of his line as vizier, and his familys traceable descendants remain at low to mid-
level positions with the temple.
2001
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.224, 233.
450
Turning now to the men who were part of the administration during the transition
from Thutmosis III and into the sole reign of Amenhotep II, it is important to reiterate
that Helcks suggestion, that Amenhotep II broke from the precedents of his father and
aunt in order to surround himself and his administration with childhood friends and
military men, represents a dramatic shift in policy.
2002
While the court youth appeared
in various positions, Helck argued that those who had seen military service were only
placed in palace or mid-level administrative posts, and that both were essentially
dependant upon the king for their positions.
2003
Helck went on to suggest that the ex-
military officials, recognizing that influence and distinction lay in being civil officials as
opposed to military men, hid their military origins once they had achieved places within
the administration.
2004
Although der Manuelian tempered Helcks statements somewhat,
noting that Amenhotep II did retain some of the men who had served under Thutmosis
III, he too agreed that the majority of Amenhotep IIs administrative officials represented
a core of new men, unconnected to the elite families that were prevalent in the
officialdom of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.
2005
However, the preceding pages have
demonstrated that if we examine the lineage of Amenhotep IIs new men we discover
that, in fact, they were also predominantly from established elite families.
2006
While it is
clear that they represent a different group than those who held upper level positions
during Thutmosis IIIs reign, nonetheless they had elite status and in fact were born to
officials that served under Thutmosis III. Indeed, as sons of nurses, tutors, and in the case

2002
Helck, Einfluss, pp.33ff., 41ff., 69ff.; Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
2003
Helck, Einfluss, pp.33ff., 41ff., 69ff.
2004
Helck, Einfluss, pp.71f. He cites both Qenamun and Senenmut as examples of this.
2005
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.167ff.
2006
An exception is his first high priest Amenemhat, who was from a mid-level priestly family and was
promoted up through the temple ranks after serving as a staff of old age for his father.
451
of Usersatet a palace family, their parents were specifically chosen by Thutmosis III to
suckle, watch over and train his young son. The direct contact these women and men
would have had with the young Amenhotep II allowed them to develop close
relationships that afforded them influence over his actions. The prominent status, and in
some cases veneration, of these nurses and tutors is intertwined with the subsequent rise
of their offspring, suggesting that the institution of the royal nurse/tutor was highly
influential.
Amenhotep II did not choose these men because they were linked from youth, but
rather because their parents were able to promote their sons above other officials. Indeed,
most of these childhood friends were older than Amenhotep II and had probably
already functioned in some capacity during the reign of Thutmosis III,
2007
while
Qenamun and Mery were quite likely younger than Amenhotep II. These were not the
close companions that Helck described them as, but a group of men made powerful by
their parents. In addition, several of these officials are remarkable for their lack of
military involvement, especially given the importance Amenhotep II attached to battle
prowess and military skill.
2008
Qenamun did not hide his military career, as Helck
suggested. Rather, it seems that he was barely involved, if at all, in military exploits.
Certainly the lack of attention he gives his military titles seems to suggest that these
were not important to his career,
2009
and the same can be said for Amenemopet, Sennefer,
and Mery, none of whom have any militarily oriented titles or epithets at all. This is made
all the more evident by the examples of Usersatet and Suemniut, who are also a part of

2007
E.g., Amenemopet, Sennefer, Suemniut. Usersatet may also have been older than Amenhotep II, but
perhaps less so than the other officials.
2008
As witnessed on his Giza sphinx stele; cf. der Manuelian, pp.181-213.
2009
The titles appear only in a few ceiling inscriptions, and the epithets are at the beginning of the damaged
stele inscription.
452
this group, but who distinguish themselves in part through their military involvement.
Mahu might even be tangentially placed here. It is worth pointing out that his final
promotion, to idnw of the army, came under Amenhotep II, and thus after his wife Bakys
service as a wet-nurse had ended. Baky was, like a few other nurses,
2010
especially
favored by Amenhotep II, and Amenhotep IIs statement that he knew Mahu when he
was yet a prince in the court may indicate that she played some of role in her husbands
ultimate position.
It has already been mentioned that those officials who were part of Amenhotep
IIs upper administration that were not from the elite were all drawn from Thutmosis IIIs
reign and had meritoriously risen in their positions, both civil and military. Although all
of these men performed within the military setting at some point, their participation was
due to the fact that they served under Thutmosis III, at a time when campaigning took
place regularly, making it more likely that officials of all types would end up in service to
the king in Syria-Palestine. In addition, most of these men received their highest
distinctions under the earlier king,
2011
only Mahu and Userhat clearly benefited during the
reign Amenhotep II; Mahu gained his highest post of idnw,
2012
while Userhat was granted
elite status.
2013

The idea that wartime activity would be hidden by military-turned civil officials is
further disproven by the fact that during the reign of Amenhotep II this became a vehicle
for asserting ones personal connection to the king. Although men such as Pehsukher and

2010
I.e., Qenamuns mother Amenemopet and Sennefers wife Senetnay/Senetnefer.
2011
Sennefri, Iamunedjeh, Minmose and probably Dedy.
2012
Perhaps granted at the behest of his wife Baky, who was also a favored nurse of Amenhotep II?
2013
Tjanuny became scribe of recruits and overseer of the army under Thutmosis IV, although he was in
the following of Amenhotep II, there is no indication of a functional promotion under this king. In this
respect he is somewhat similar to Userhat, who becomes a Xrd n kAp and whose daughter is a Xkrt nswt.
453
Paser expressed their loyalty to their sovereigns through militarily oriented epithets, there
is very little to suggest that they actually participated in any way on the military
campaigns of either Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II.
2014
Even Montuiywy, who was in
Syria-Palestine and mentions crossing the Euphrates, seems to simply have followed
Thutmosis III without participating in any of the victorious campaigns he purports to
have witnessed.
2015
This is quite in contrast to officials such as Mahu and Minmose who
explicitly recount their involvement. In general these officials did not hold positions of
authority that would account for their visibility,
2016
and it is the depiction of the king(s) in
their tombs and their claim to a relationship with the king that testifies to their elevated
status.
Eichler argued that, during the reign of Amenhotep II, a shift occurs in the Amun
temple administration that is similar to what previous scholars have suggested for his
civil administration.

This has proven incorrect. According to Eichler, the tradition of
influential Theban families staffing the temple disappears and officials under Amenhotep
II belong to a combination of temple and old guard families, as well as group of new
men who have either military or palace connections, the latter as sons of nurses, tutors
and Xkrt nswt.
2017
In addition, she suggests that an increased focus on the internal aspects
of the temple leads to administrative responsibilities being concentrated in the position of
the high priest, now Mery, while the concomitant centralization and appearance of civil

2014
It is worth noting that even Qenamun bears these epithets.
2015
Montuiywys appointment seems to be little more than an attempt to justify his positions in view of
his autobiographical content, which does nothing to indicate that he did anything other than follow
Thutmosis III on his campaigns, no individual activities, either military or civil, are ever referred to.
2016
The anomaly is perhaps Amenmose, depending on the responsibilities one attaches to his position as
overseer of the northern countries. Cf. Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, pp.251-8; Redford, Wars, pp.255-7
2017
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.225ff. Eichler bases this on a survey of the officials
mothers, noting that where traceable, under Thutmosis III only three of twelve mothers held titles that
connected them to the palace; cf. p.225.
454
institutions in the temple context (i.e., the Amun treasury) results in several positions
being placed under the authority of a few individuals.
2018

When we examine the priesthood during this period, it is interesting that
Qenamun, Mery and Sennefer all seem to have been connected to the Amun precinct and
shared some titles. Although Eichler has interpreted this as evidence for the inclusion of
Amenhotep IIs new men in the temple domain,
2019
it seems that this is not entirely
accurate. While it is true that all of these men were related to nurses or tutors, only Mery,
as high priest, was truly part of the Amun precinct. I would argue that Sennefers role,
while significant, is strongly connected to his function as mayor of Thebes, and indeed,
his Amun-titles generally are those related to the management of the temple holdings.
In addition, it must be remembered that Mery was the second high priest that
Amenhotep II installed. The man who replaced Menkheperresoneb (ii) was Amenemhat,
a purely priestly official who was promoted from within the temple ranks and who came
from a priestly background. Contemporaneously, Amenhotep II removed Rekhmire, who
had held significant control over the Amun domain, from his post as vizier and installed
Amenemopet in his place. These two actions on the part of Amenhotep II not only halted
the hereditary development that had taken place within these offices, but also left the
Amun domain without its main administrators; both Amenemhat and Amenemopet report
only titles connected to their chief posts as, high priest of Amun and vizier, respectively.
The institution of Sennefer as mayor of Thebes and steward of the Amun temple solved
the problem of a lack of an upper level administrator for the Amun precinct by combining

2018
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.222ff. Eichler specifically emntions Sennefer in this
regard.
2019
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.224ff.
455
in one official responsibility and jurisdiction over those portions of the temple domain
that overlapped the most with Sennefers function as mayor.
The transmission of office during the transition between Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II is marked by both continuity and change. There is little evidence for the
clean break Helck suggested. Although changes to the administration occurred between
the reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, the shift that took place did not involve
dropping or supplementing the old guard in favor of newly formed childhood or
military loyalties. Rather, a new elite was established as a consequence of policies
introduced by Thutmosis III regarding the rearing of his son. The expanding influence of
the royal nurses and tutors is demonstrated by the positions their sons were able to
obtain, and it appears that they enjoyed much greater sway over the new king in with
respect to their own childrens careers than has previously been thought.
Under Thutmosis III, the role of the military in the fortunes of men of non-elite
status is not as strong as had been assumed. It now appears that several of the so-called
military men held few duties we would recognize as specifically military. These men
were brought on campaigns because their civil or administrative skills were useful to the
king; they were primarily not military officers but civil officials who would have been
recognized even without their military involvement. In contrast, during the reign of
Amenhotep II, claiming to be in the following of the king, especially in a military
sense, was important to the self-identification of officials as having friendships with the
king. These relationships may well not have been formed in battle, but as these men
could not present a real reason for their elite, though generally non-functional, status, an
456
epithet such as one relating to the legs of the king served to imply that their loyalties
arose out of war.
Thus, although the nature of the elite had changed, the practice of the highest
positions being filled by these men had not. I would argue that the most significant
change that Amenhotep II was able to institute was that of removing Rekhmire from
office. It seems that Amenhotep II recognized the influence that the third generation
vizier had, and to prevent power from becoming concentrated in a hereditary vizierate, he
not only installed a new official, but also separated the administrative Amun offices from
the vizierate and placed them under the supervision of the mayor of Thebes. Even here,
however, Amunhotep II was influenced by his upbringing, for the two men he installed
were not only cousins, but related to a tutor as well.
The aim of this study has been to re-evaluate the culture of officialdom during the
transition between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. It now appears that officials were
able to obtain their positions in a variety of ways throughout this period. Direct
inheritance and familial nepotism were more prevalent during the reign of Thutmosis III,
while familial influence with the king became an important force behind the upper level
officials during the reign of Amenhotep II. Meritorious rise was also a possibility and did
not require external circumstances, such as wartime activity, to instigate it. Despite the
waxing and waning visibility of different methods, they were all present to some degree
throughout this period. While the particular men who made up the highest levels of the
administration changed, the elite status of their families did not. This indicates that the
underlying structure of the government was extremely fluid and that while at the surface
the alterations may appear dramatic, in fact they were not. The most significant change is
457
that during the reign of Amenhotep II the families of nurses and tutors became especially
prominent and influential due to the close relationship formed between the young prince
and his caretakers. This suggests that the model proposed by Cruz-Uribe,
2020
in which
ancient Egypts political structure is viewed as a series of interacting spheres of influence
that changes over time, deserves further investigation over a broader portion of the New
Kingdom.


2020
Cruz-Uribe, in: For his Ka, pp.45-53.
Figure 1
Ancient Egyptian Kinship Terminology
458
Figure 1 presents a compilation of previous research on ancient Egyptian kinship terms
and their meanings.

The abbreviations used in the table follow the standard denoting of kinship terms:
H = husband; W = wife; M = mother; F = father; B = brother; Z = sister; D = daughter;
S = son; P = parents; Sb = sibling; Ch = children; and possession belongs to the first
element(s) in a group of terms, e.g. FF = fathers father; PSbCh = parents siblings
children, etc.

The Egyptological abbreviations used denote time periods:
MK = Middle Kingdom; SIP = Second Intermediate Period; NK = New Kingdom; post-
NK = post New Kingdom time period; LP = Late Period; with the exception of LE = Late
Egyptian stage of the language.


Egyptian Term Clre, 1953
(general)
ern , 1957
(general)
Robins, 1979
(MK [and NK])

hAy

H (man) H H

Hmt

W (woman) W W (woman)

it

F
F F, ascendant

mwt

M M M, MM, ascendant

sA

S S

S, DS (?), descendant

Sri

S = LE S = post-NK
sAt

D D

D (SD, descendant)

Srit

D = LE D = post-NK
sn




B B
B, MB, BS, ZS,
ZH (? NK);
H = NK
(sn it = FB, FMB)
snt




Z; W = NK Z
Z, FZ, MZ (?), BD, ZD,
MZD (?);
W = NK
(snt mwt = MZ)

SAm in-laws =MK/SIP WF

Smt in-laws =MK/SIP WM



Figure 1
Ancient Egyptian Kinship Terminology
459
Egyptian
Term
Willems, 1980
(MK)
Franke, 1983
(MK)
Franke, 1986
(general / MK)
Bierbrier, 1980
(Late NK)

hAy

H

H

H


Hmt

W

W

W


it

F, ascendant
(WF = Late NK)
=> male lineal ego &
spouse



F, FF, MF,
(F-in-law = NK)


F, FF, MF,
F-in-law;
FP, FPP, etc.


F, F-in-law; ancestor;
short for it n it.f = FF
(it n Hmt.f = WF)

mwt

M, MM, ascendant
=> female lineal ego &
spouse


M, MM,
M-in-law

M, MM,
M-in-law (?);
MP, MPP, etc.


sA



S, DS, descendant,
ChSp (=Late NK ?)
=> male lineal Ch &
spouses




S, SS, SSS;
(DS, S-in-law =
NK)




S, SS, SSS, DS,
S-in-law;
ChCh, etc.

S, S-in-law; poss.
grandson/descendant;
quasi-parental no
blood ties; not son
but blood relation
unclear
Sri
sAt

D, SD, descendant,
ChSp (=Late NK ?)
=> female lineal Ch &
spouses



D, DD, SD,
D-in-law


D, DD, SD,
D-in-law (?);
ChCh, etc.




D, D-in-law
Srit
sn


B, MB, ZS;
BS = Early NK;
ZH, FB = Late NK;
H = NK; MZS ??
=> nephew, uncle, male
cousin




B, MB, FB, FBS,
MZS, BS, ZS,
WB;
ZH (? NK)


B, MB, FB, FBS,
MZS, BS, ZS,
B-in-law;
SbCh, PSb,
PSbCh, WSb,
SbH,
B, B-in-law,
(sn n it.f = FB);
same gen. no blood
ties; same and
different gen. i.e.
nephew, cousin,
uncle blood or
marriage
snt

Z, MZ, ZD,
BD = Early NK;
FZ = NK; W = NK; MZD
(?)
=> niece, aunt, female
cousin



Z, MZ, FZ, MZD,
ZD, WZ;
ZH (? NK);
BD = NK


Z, MZ, FZ, MZD,
ZD, BD, Z-in-law;
SbCh, PSb,
PSbCh, WSb,
SbW



same and different
gen. i.e. niece,
cousin blood or
marriage

SAm





WF = Late NK




F-in-law;
poss. S-in-law




F-in-law;
poss. S-in-law

infrequent from OK-
LP and Coptic
Period;
not used at D. el-
Medina

Smt


WM = Late NK

M-in-law;
poss. D-in-law

M-in-law;
poss. D-in-law


As above


Figure 2
460
Genealogy of Aametu
The Vizierate Line


? --- Ahhotep Initef/Ineni --- Satdjhuty
| sAb | Xkrt nswt
| |
| |
| | | | |
Ahmose-Aametu --- Taametu 12 brothers 2 sisters Ineni --- Iahhotep
TAty (TT83) | imy-r Snwty n Imn
| (TT81)
|
| | |
Amenemhat User(amun) --- Tjuiu Neferweben --- Betau
imy-r xnrt imy-r niwt TAty | wab n Imn | Xkrt nswt
(TTs131, 61) | |
| |
| | | | |
5 sons 7 daughters Meryt --- Rekhmire 5 sons 3 daughters
Xkrt nswt | imy-r niwt Taty
| (TT 100)
|
| |
5 sons 4 daughters


F
i
g
u
r
e

3

G
e
b
e
l

e
s
-
S
i
l
s
i
l
a
h

S
h
r
i
n
e

1
1

4
6
1




F
i
g
u
r
e

5

T
T

1
3
1

4
6
3



Figure 6

TT 100
Top of Wall







464


Figure 7

TT100
Bottom of Wall








465


F
i
g
u
r
e

8

4
6
6

A
a
m
e
t
u

s

f
a
m
i
l
y

a
n
d

t
h
e

A
m
u
n

p
r
i
e
s
t
h
o
o
d








?

-
-
-

A
h
h
o
t
e
p




I
n
i
t
e
f
/
I
n
e
n
i

-
-
-

S
a
t
d
j
h
u
t
y








|






s
A
b


|







X
k
r
t

n
s
w
t



|




|


|








|













|





|






|





|







|










|








|


|

A
h
m
o
s
e
-
A
a
m
e
t
u

-
-
-

T
a
a
m
e
t
u








P
a
h
e
r
y


Q
e
n


U
s
e
r
h
a
t

9

b
r
o
t
h
e
r
s







2

s
i
s
t
e
r
s









I
n
e
n
i

-
-
-

I
a
h
h
o
t
e
p

T
A
t
y

(
T
T
8
3
)






|










i
m
y
-
r

p
r

n









H
m
-
n
T
r

n

M
w
t

w
a
b

n

I
m
n











i
m
y
-
r

S
n
w
t
y

n

I
m
n















|












H
m
-
n
T
r

n

I
m
n















(
T
T
8
1
)









|


















|


|










|










|





















|




|










|




|


A
m
e
n
e
m
h
a
t



|

A
m
e
n
m
e
s







N
e
f
e
r
h
o
t
e
p








A
a
k
h
e
p
e
r
k
a
r
e



|







N
a
k
h
t
(
a
m
u
n
)

H
o
r


i
m
y
-
r

x
n
r
t







|

s
S

p
r
-
H
D

n

I
m
n


i
m
y
-
r

S
n
a

n

I
m









H
m
-
n
T
r

n

M
n
T
w



|







w
a
b

n

M
w
t



X
r
y
-
H
b

n





|


(
T
T
2
2
8
)

(
T
T
1
2
2
)






|




(
a
A
-
x
p
r
-
k
A
-
r
a
)
|

U
s
e
r
(
a
m
u
n
)

-
-
-

T
j
u
i
u













N
e
f
e
r
w
e
b
e
n

-
-
-

B
e
t
a
u










i
m
y
-
r

n
i
w
t

T
A
t
y





|












w
a
b

n

I
m
n






|





X
k
r
t

n
s
w
t








s
S

x
t
m
t

n
T
r

n
t

I
m
n


|
































|












(
T
T
s

1
3
1
,

6
1
)








|























|











































|



|










|



|


|


|












|


|

S
a
m
n
e
k
h
e
t





M
e
r
i
m
a
a
t


A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t








M
e
r
y









B
a
k
e
t







5

s
o
n
s

3

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

R
e
k
h
m
i
r
e

-
-
-

M
e
r
y
t

w
a
b

n

I
m
n



H
m
-
n
T
r

n

I
m
n


w
a
b

n

I
m
n







s
S

x
t
m
t

n
T
r







S
m
a
y
t

n
t

I
m
n









i
m
y
-
r

n
i
w
t

T
a
t
y


|

X
k
r
t

n
s
w
t




s
S

x
t
m
t

n
T
r



(
T
T
1
2
2
)











i
m
y
-
r

S
n
a

n

I
m
n



|
























(
T
T

1
0
0
)




|

















































|















|











|






|







|














M
e
n
k
h
e
p
e
r
r
e
s
o
n
e
b


A
m
u
n
h
o
t
e
p


M
e
r
y









T
a
k
h
a
t







S
S

n
t
r

H
t
p
w

(
t
p
)

n

I
m
n


s
S

x
t
m
t

n
T
r

n
t

I
m
n



i
m
y
-
r

S
n
a

n

I
m
n




S
m
a
y
t

n
t

I
m
n



F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0

T
T

8
2


4
6
8



Figure 12
TT 79








470


F
i
g
u
r
e

2
0


T
T
3
4
5























O
f
f
e
r
i
n
g

t
o

u
n
c
l
e



O
f
f
e
r
i
n
g

t
o

p
a
r
e
n
t
s


4
7
8



Figure 22
Usersatet Semna stele
480



Figure 23

Usersatet Ras Sehel graffito






481


F
i
g
u
r
e

2
4

a
-
b

G
e
b
e
l

e
s
-
S
i
l
s
i
l
a
h

S
h
r
i
n
e

1
1

4
8
2



F
i
g
u
r
e

2
5

a
-
b

G
e
b
e
l

e
s
-
S
i
l
s
i
l
a
h

S
h
r
i
n
e

1
1

4
8
3



F
i
g
u
r
e

3
0

T
T

9
3


4
8
8



F
i
g
u
r
e

3
2

T
T

4
2

A
m
e
n
m
o
s
e

S
y
r
i
a
n

F
o
r
t
r
e
s
s


4
9
0



F
i
g
u
r
e

3
5

T
T
9
9

S
e
n
n
e
f
r
i

i
n

L
e
b
a
n
o
n


4
9
3



Figure 37
Marseille stele



495


F
i
g
u
r
e

3
8

T
T

5
6

4
9
6



Figure 39
TT 56







497


F
i
g
u
r
e

4
0

T
T

5
6

4
9
8



Figure 47
Minmose statue
BM2300






505


Figure 50
Radwan sketch of kings in TT200







508

511
Works Cited

Aegyptische Inschriften aus den Kniglichen Museen zu Berlin, 5 vols., Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1913-1924.
Allam, S.,

Zur Adoption im pharaonischen gypten, Das Altertum 19 (1973): 3-17.
_________
, Adoption, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,
cols.66-67.
_________
, Familie, soziale Funktion, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld II, Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz, 1977, cols.101-03.
_________
,

Les obligations et la famille dans la societ gyptienne ancienne, OA 16

(1977): 89-97.
_________
, Some Remarks on the Trial of Mose, JEA 75 (1989): 103-112.
_________
, Legal Aspects in the Contendings of Horus and Seth, in: A.B. Lloyd (ed.),
Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (Occasional
Publications 8), London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992, pp.137-145.
_________
, Papyrus Turin 2021: Another Adoption Extraordinary, in: C. Cannuyer, J.-M.
Kruchten (eds.), Individu, socit et spiritualit. Mlanges Thodorids, Ath, Bruxelles,
Mons: Illustra, 1993, pp.23-28.
_________
, Inheritance, in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol.
3, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.158-161.
Allen, J.P., Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom, in: P. der Manuelian
(ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 2, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts,
1996, pp.1-26.
_________
, The High Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom, in: N. Strudwick, and J.
Taylor (eds.), The Theban ecropolis: Past, Present and Future, London: British
Museum Press, 2003, pp.14-29.
512
Archologische Verffentlichungen, Deutsches Archologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo,
Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.
Assmann, J., Egyptian Solar Religion in the ew Kingdom. Re, Amun and the Crisis of
Polytheism (Studies in Egyptology), Translated from the German by A. Alcock, London
and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1995.
Assmann, J., and E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische
Beamtennekropolen. eue Perspektiven archologischer Forschung, Internationales
Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag,
1995.
Awadalla, A., Une stle dAmenemhat, BIFAO 89 (1989):25-42.
Baer, K., Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom: The Structure of the Egyptian
Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1960.
Baines, J., Society, Morality, and Religious Practice, in: B. Shafer (ed.), Religion in
Ancient Egypt. Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, London: Routledge, 1991, pp.123-
200.
Baines, J. and C. Eyre, Four notes on literacy, GM 61, pp.65-96.
Barwik, M. Amenemheb and Amenemopet. New Light on a Papyrus from the National
Museum in Warsaw, in: Essays in honour of Prof. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw
Egyptological Studies 1), Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw, 1997, pp. 331-338.
Beinlich, H. Djefaihapi, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1975, cols.1105-7.
Beinlich-Seeber, C., and A.G. Shedid, Das Grab des Userhat (TT 56) (AV 50), Mainz am
Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 1987.
Bennet, J., The Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun, JEA 25 (1939): 8-15.
Berlev, O., The Methods of Expressing Filiation in the Texts of the Middle Kingdom,
Palestinskii Sbornik (Moscow-Leningrad) 9/72 (1962): 13-42 (English summary).
513
Bierbrier, M.L., The Late ew Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300-664 B.C.): a genealogical and
chronological investigation, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1975.
_________
, A review of G. Vittmann, Priester und Beamte im Theben der Sptzeit. Wien,
1978 (Beitrge zur gyptologie 1), Afro-Pub, No.3, BiOr 36 (1979): 306-9.
_________
, Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Medna, JEA 66 (1980): 100-107.
_________
, Genealogy and Chronology: Theory and Practice, in: R.J. Demare and A.
Egberts (eds.), Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium "Texts from Deir el-
Medna and Their Interpretation", Leiden, May 31-June 1, 1991 (CNWS 13), Leiden:
Centre of Non-Western Studies, 1992, pp.1-7.
Bietak, M., Horuswege, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld III, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1980, cols.62-64.
_________
, Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab
c
a, London:
Published by British Museum Press for the Trustees of the British Museum, 1996.
Blackman, A.M., The Nugent and Haggard Collections of Egyptian Antiquities, JEA 4
(1917): 39-46.
Blumenthal, E., Ptahhotep und der Stab des Alters, in: J. Osing and D. Gnter (eds.),
Form und Mass. Festschrift fr Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987
(AT 12), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987, pp.84-97.
Boeser, P.A.A., Beschreibung der gyptischen Sammlung des iederlndischen
Reichsmuseums der Altertmer in Leiden II-III. Die Denkmler der Zeit zwischen dem
Alten und Mittleren Reich und des Mittleren Reiches, 1.-2. Abteilung, The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1909-1910.
_________
, Beschreibung der aegyptischen Sammlung des iederlndischen Reichsmuseums
der Altertmer in Leiden VI. Die Denkmler des euen Reiches, 3. Abteilung: Stelen, The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1913.
Bohleke, B., The Overseers of the Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt in the
Egyptian ew Kingdom, 1570-1085 B.C. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), New Haven:
Yale University, 1991.
514
Bonhme, M.-A., Kingship, in: D. Redford, (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Egypt, Vol. 2, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.238-245.
van den Boorn, G.P.F., Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early ew
Kingdom, London, New York: Paul Kagan International, 1988.
Borchardt, L., Statuen und Statuetten von Knigen und Privatleuten, 5 vols., Berlin,
1911-36.
Bouriant, U., "Petits monuments et petits textes recueillis en gypte," RT 9 (1887): 95-
99.
_________
, Notes de voyage. 15: Stle du tombeau dAmenemhat, RT 14 (1893), pp. 67-
74.
Bourriau, J., The Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 BC), in: I. Shaw (ed.), The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.184-217.
Brack, A., Das Grab des Haremhab, Theben r. 78 (AV 35), Mainz am Rhein: Phillip
von Zabern, 1980.
_________
, Diskussionsbeitrag zu dem Titel Xkrt njswt, SAK 11 (1984): 183-186.
Brack, A., and A. Brack, Das Grab des Tjanuni; Theben r. 74 (AV 19), Mainz am
Rhein: von Zabern, 1977.
Breasted, J.H., Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Records from the Earliest Times to
the Persian Conquest, 5 vols., London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., 1988.
Brovarski, E., Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First Intermediate
Period, in: W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean,
and the Sudan. Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1981,
pp.14-30.
Brunner, H., Stab des Alters, in: W. Helck and O. Westendorf (eds.), Ld V,
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984, col. 1224.
Bryan, B.M., The Title Foster Brother of the King, JSSEA 9 (1979): 117-123.
515
_________
, The administration of the Fayum in the mid-18th Dynasty, Paper Presented at
the ARCE Annual Meeting, Boston, 1981.
_________
, Evidence for Female Literacy from Theban Tombs of the New Kingdom, BES
6 (1985): 17-32.
_________
, The Tombowner and His Family (IV Exkurse), in: E. Dziobek, Das Grab
Sobekhotep Theben r. 63 (AV 71), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990,
pp.81-88.
_________
, The reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1991.
_________
, In women good and bad fortune are on earth: Status and roles of women in
Egyptian culture, in: A.K. Capel and G.E. Markoe (eds.), Mistress of the House,
Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996,
pp.25-46.
_________
, The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.1550-1352 BC), in: I.
Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000,
pp.218-271.
_________
, The Egyptian Perspective on Mitanni, in: R. Westbrook and R.Cohen (eds.),
Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2000, pp.71-84.
_________
, Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III, in: O'Connor, D., and E.H. Cline
(eds.), Thutmosis III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, Forthcoming.
Callender, G., The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c.2055-1650 BC), in: I. Shaw (ed.),
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.218-
271.
Caminos, R.A., The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim (ASE 32), London: Egypt
Exploration Society, 1968.
516
Caminos, R.A., and T.G.H. James, Gebel es-Silsilah, I. The Shrines (ASE 31), London:
Egypt Exploration Society, 1963.
Capart, J., Une Statue de Sebekhotep, Precepteur Royal, BMRAH 4 (1938): 83-85.
_________
, La statue du Vizir Neferouben, BMRAH 5 (1938): 114-116.
ern, J., The Will of Naunakhte and the Related Documents, JEA 31 (1945): 29-53.
_________
, Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt, JEA 40 (1954): 23-29.
_________
, A Note on the Ancient Egyptian Family, in: Studi in onore di Aristide
Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, Milano: Casa Editrice Ceschina, 1956-57, pp.51-55.
ern, J., and T.E. Peet, A Marriage Settlement of the Twentieth Dynasty: An
Unpublished Document from Turin, JEA 13 (1927): 30-39.
Champollion, J.F., Monuments de l'gypte et de la ubie - otices Dscriptives, 2 vols.,
1844-79.
Chassinat, ., Petits monuments et petites remarques, BIFAO 10 (1912), pp. 161-164.
Chevereau, P.-M., Prosopographie des cadres militaires gyptiens du ouvel Empire,
Anthony, France: Published by the author, 1994.
Clre, J.J., "Les noms de parent en ancien gyptien," Comptes rendus du groupe
linguistique d'tudes chamito-smitiques 6 (1953): 35-36.
Cruz-Uribe, E., The Fall of the Middle Kingdom, VA 3 (1987): 107-112.
_________
, A New Look at the Adoption Papyrus, JEA 74 (1988), pp. 220-223.
_________
, A Model for the Political Structure of Ancient Egypt, in: D.P. Silverman (ed.),
For his Ka: essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer (SAOC 55), Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994, pp.45-53.
Daressy, G., Recueil des cnes funraires, in: MMAF 8, Part 2, Paris: Leroux, 1893-94,
pp.269-352.
_________
, Inscriptions des carrires de Touah et Msarah, ASAE 11 (1911): 257-268.
_________
, Les statuettes funraires trouves Zawiet Abou Mesallam, ASAE 19 (1920):
149-152.
517
Davies, B.G., Whos Who in at Deir el-Medina: a Prosopographic Study of the
Workmens Community (Egyptologische Uitgaven 13), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor
het Nabije Oosten, 1999.
Davies, N., and A.H. Gardiner, The Tomb of Amenemhet (o. 82) (TTS 1), London:
Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915.
Davies, N., and N. de G. Davies, The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose and
Another (os. 86, 112, 42, 226) (TTS 5), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1933.
Davies, N. de G., The rock tombs of El Amarna (ASE 13-18), 6 vols., London: Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1903-1908.
_________
, Five Theban Tombs (being those of Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga,
ehemawy and Tati), (ASE 21), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1913.
_________
, The Tomb of Puyemr at Thebes (RPTMS 2-3), 2 vols., New York: Metroplitan
Museum of Art, 1922-23.
_________
, The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes (PMMA 5), 2 vols., New York: Metroplitan
Museum of Art, 1930.
_________
, Tehuti: Owner of Tomb 110 at Thebes, in: Studies Presented to F.Ll. Griffith,
London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1932, pp.279-290.
_________
, The Work of the Graphic Branch of the Expedition," BMMA 31 (1935), pp. 46-
57.
_________
, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re' at Thebes (PMMA 11), 2 vols., New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1943.
_________
, Seven Private Tombs at Kurnah (ASE Memoir 36), A.H. Gardiner (ed.), London:
Egypt Exploration Society, 1948.
_________
, Annotated with additional notes of Daressy, G., Recueil des cnes funraires,
in: MMAF 8, Part 2, Paris: Leroux, 1893-94, pp.269-352, Griffith Institute Archives,
unpubl. MSS.
Davies, N. de G., and M.F. Laming Macadam, Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary
Cones, Part I: Plates, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957.
518
Dewachter, M., Une nouvelle statue du vice-roi de Nubie Ousersatet Khartoum,
Archologia 72 (1974): 54-58.
_________
, Le vice-roi Nehy et lan 52 de Thoutmosis III, RdE 28 (1976): 66-73.
_________
, Un nouveau fils royal de la XVIIIe dynastie: Qenamon, RdE 32 (1980): 69-
73.
_________
, Le roi Sahathor Complments, RdE 35 (1984): 195-199.
Dorman, P., The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology, London,
New York, Kegan Paul International, 1988.
_________
, Two Tombs and One Owner, in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F.
Kampp (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. eue Perspektiven archologischer
Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993, (SAGA 12), Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.141-154.
Doxey, D.M., Egyptian on-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom. A Social and
Historical Analysis (Pd 12), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999.
_________
, Priesthood, in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol.
2, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.68-73.
Drioton, E., Rapport sur les fouilles de Mdamoud (1925-1926) (FIFAO 3-4), 2 vols.,
Cairo: Institut Franais dArchologie Orientale, 1926-1927.
Dunham, D., Three Inscribed Statues in Boston, JEA 15 (1929), pp. 164-166.
Dunham, D. and J.M.A., Janssen, Second Cataract Forts, Volume I, Boston: Museum of
Fine Arts, 1960
Dziobek, E., The Architectural Development of Theban Tombs in the Early Eighteenth
Dynasty, in: J. Assmann, G. Burkard, and V. Davies (eds.), Problems and Priorities in
Egyptian Archaeology (Studies in Egyptology), London, New York: Kegan Paul
International, 1987, pp. 69-79.
_________
, Eine Grabpyramide des frhen NR in Theben, MDAIK 45 (1989): 109-132.
519
_________
, Das Grab des Ineni Theben r. 81 (AV 68), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp
von Zabern, 1992.
_________
, Some Kings Sons Revisited, GM 132 (1993): 29-32.
_________
, Die Grber des Vezirs User-Amun Theben r. 61 und 131 (AV 84), Mainz am
Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994.
_________
, Theban Tombs as a Source for Historical and Biographical Evaluation: The
Case of User-Amun, in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp (eds.),
Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. eue Perspektiven archologischer Forschung,
Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.129-140.
_________
, Denkmler des Vezirs User-Amun (SAGA 18), Heidelberg: Heidelberger
Orientverlag, 1998.
Dziobek, E., and M. Abdel Raziq, Das Grab Sobekhotep Theben r. 63 (AV 71), Mainz
am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990.
Dziobek, E., T. Schneyer, and N. Semmelbauer, Eine ikonographische
Datierungsmethode fr thebanische Wandmalereien der 18. Dynastie (SAGA 3),
Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1992.
Eaton-Krauss, M. The coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and the
mother of Ahmose, CdE 65, fasc.130 (1990): 195-205.
Edgerton, W.F., The Government and the Governed in the Egyptian Empire, JES 6
(1947): 152-160.
Edwards, I.E.S., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Musuem.
Part VIII, London: British Museum, 1939.
Egberts, A., The kinship tern sn n mwt, JSSEA 14 (1984): 57-59,
Eichler, S., Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun in der 18. Dynastie (SAK Beihefte
7), Hamburg: Buske, 2000.
Eisermann, S. Die Grber des Imenemheb und des Pesucher - Vorbild und Kopie? in: J.
Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, and F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische
520
Beamtennekropolen. eue Perspektiven archologischer Forschung, Internationales
Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag,
1995, pp.65-80.
el-Sabbahy, A.-F., Kings Son of Kush under Hatshepsut, GM 129 (1992): 99-102.
Englebach, R., Names and Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom From Tell Edfu, ASAE
22 (1922): 124-138.
Englemann, H., and J. Hallof, Zur medizinischen Nothilfe und Unfallversorgung auf
staatlichen Arbeitspltzen im alten gypten, ZS 122 (1995): 104-137.
Erman, A., and H. Grapow, Wrterbuch der gyptischen Sprache, 7 vols., Leipzig and
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1926-63.
Eyre, C., The Adoption Papyrus in Social Context, JEA 78 (1992): 207-221.
_________
, Is Egyptian historical literature historical or literary? in: A. Loprieno (ed.),
Anceint Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (Pd 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill,
1996, pp.415-433.
Fairman, H.W., Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Sesebi (Sudla) and Amarah
West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 1937-8, JEA 24 (1938): 151-156.
_________
, Preliminary Report on the Excavation at Amarah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan,
1938-39, JEA 25 (1939): 139-144.
Fakhry, A., Tombeau de Kaemheribsen a Thebes, ASAE 34 (1934): 83-86.
_________
, The Tomb of Nebamun, Captain of Troops (No. 145 at Thebes), ASAE 43
(1943): 369-379.
_________
, The Tomb of Paser (No. 367 at Thebes), ASAE 43 (1943): 389-414.
Faulkner, R.O., Egyptian Military Organization, JEA 39 (1953): 32-47.
_________
, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962.
Feucht, E., "The Xrdw n kAp reconsidered, in: S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Pharaonic Egypt
The Bible and Christianity, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Magnes Press, 1985, pp. 38-
47.
521
_________
, Das Kind im Alten gypten. Die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft
nach altgyptischen Texten und Darstellungen, Frankfurt - New York: Campus Verlag,
1995.
Fischer, H.G., The Inscription of a Son in the Tomb of his Mother, in: H.G. Fischer
(ed.), Egyptian Studies I: Varia, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, pp.23-
25.
_________
, A Mother-in-Law of the Old Kingdom, in: H.G. Fischer (ed.), Egyptian
Studies I: Varia, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, pp.19-21.
Franke, D., Altgyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mitteleren Reich (HS 3),
Hamburg: Borg GMBH, 1983.
_________
, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnugen, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld VI, Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1986, cols.1032-36.
_________
, Anchu, der Gefolgsmann des Prinzen (Grabrelief Boston MFA 1971.403), in:
H. Altenmller and R. Germer (eds.), Miscellanea Aegyptologica. Wolfgang Helck zum
75. Geburtstag, Hamburg: Archologisches Institut der Universtt Hamburg, 1989,
pp.67-87.
_________
, The career of Khnumhotep III of Beni Hasan and the so-called Decline of the
Nomarachs, in: S. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, New Malden: SIA
Publishing, 1991, pp.51-67.
Gaballa, G.A., The Memphite Tomb-Chapel of Mose, Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd,
1977.
Gabolde, L., La chronologie du rgne de Thoutmosis II, ses consquences sur la datation
des momies royales et leurs rpercutions sur l'histoire du dveloppement de la Valle des
Rois, SAK 14 (1987): 61-81.
_________
, La Cour de Ftes de Thoutmosis II Karnak (Karnak IX), Paris : ditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1993, pp.1-100.
Galn, J.M., Victory and border: terminology related to Egyptian imperialism in the
XVIIIth Dynasty (HB 40) Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1995.
522
Gardiner, A.H., The Inscription of Mes: A Contribution to the Study of Egyptian Juridical
Procedure (UGA 4), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905.
_________
, The Tomb of Amenemhet, High-Priest of Amun, ZS 47 (1910): 87-99.
_________
, The Library of A. Chester Beatty: The Chester Beatty Papyri, o.1, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1931.
_________
, Adoption Extraordinary, JEA 26 (1940): 23-29.
_________
, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 3 vols., Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1947.
_________
, Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Third
Edition, Revised, London, Published on behalf of the Griffith Institute, Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
Gardiner, A.H., T.E. Peet, and J. ern, The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part I: Introduction
and Plates (EES 45), London: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Gardiner, A.H., and K. Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead, London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1928.
Gauthier, H., Rapport sur un Campagne de Fouilles Dra Abou'l Neggah en 1906,
BIFAO 6 (1908): 122-171.
_________
, Le livre des rois dgypte (MIFAO 17-21), 5 vols., Cairo: Institut Franais
dArchologie Orientale, 1907-1917.
_________
, Les fils royaux de Kouch et le personnel administratif de lEthiopie, RT 39
(1921): 179-238.
Gessler-Lhr, B., Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches von Saqqara vor der
Amarna-Zeit I: Grber des Wesire von Untergypten, in: D. Kessler and R. Schulz
(eds.), Gedenkschrift fr Winfried Barta (MU 4), Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern: Peter Lang,
1995, pp.133-157.
Gitton, M., L'pouse du dieu Ahmes fertary. Documents sur sa vie et son culte
posthume (CRS 15 = Annales Littraires de l'Universit de Besanon, 172), Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1975.
523
_________
, Le rle des femmes dans le clerg d'Amon la 18e dynastie, BSFE 75 (1976):
31-46.
_________
, Les divines pouses de la 18e dynastie (CRS 61 = Annales Littraires de
l'Universit de Besanon, 306), Paris, Les Belles-Lettres, 1984.
Gitton, M. and J. Leclant, Gottesgemahlin, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld II,
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1977, cols.792-812.
Glanville, S.K.R., Scribes' Palettes in the British Museum: Part I, JEA 18 (1932): 55-
58.
Gnirs, A., Das Pfeilerdekorationsprogramm im Grab des Meri, Theben Nr. 95: Ein
Beitrag zu den Totenkultpraktiken der 18. Dynastie, in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H.
Guksch and F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. eue Perspektiven
archologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA
12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.233-253.
_________
, Die gyptische Autobiographie, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Literature: History and Forms (Pd 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp. 191-
242.
_________
, Militr und Gesellschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des euen Reiches
(SAGA 17), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996.
Gnirs, A., E. Grothe and H. Guksch, Zweiter Vorbericht ber die Aufnahme und
Publikation von Grbern der 18. Dynastie der thebanischen Beamtennekropole, MDAIK
53 (1997): 57-83.
Goedicke, H., Die privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten Reich, (Beihefte zur Wiener
Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 5), Wien: Verlag Notring, 1970.
Graefe, E., Untersuchungen zur Verwaltund und Geschichte der Insitution des
Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des euen Reiches bis zur Sptzeit (A 37),
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1981.
Gratien, B., Prosopographie des ubiens et des gyptiens en ubie avant le ouvel
Empire (CRIPEL 3, Supplment), Lille: Universit Charles de Gaulle, 1991.
524
Griffith, F.Ll., Notes on a Tour in Upper Egypt, PSBA 12 (1889): 89-113.
_________
, Notes on a Tour in Upper Egypt, PSBA 11 (1889): 228-234.
_________
, The Petrie Papyri: Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob, 2 vols., London:
Quaritch, 1898.
_________
, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester, 3
vols., Manchester, 1909.
Griffith, F.Ll., and P.E. Newberry, El Bersheh Part II (ASE 4), London: Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1892.
Grothe, E., "Das Grab eines Amenophis in Theben, in: H. Guksch and D. Polz (eds.),
Stationen Beitrge zur Kulturgeschichte gyptens), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998,
pp.273-279.
Guksch, H., Knigsdienst. Zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie (SAGA
11), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1994.
_________
, Die Grber des acht-Min und des Men-cheper-Ra-seneb. Theben r. 87 und
79 (AV 34), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995.
Habachi, L., The Graffiti and Work of the Viceroys of Kush in the Region of Aswan,
Kush 5 (1957): 13-36 (= Sixteen Studies on Lower ubia, Ch.3, pp.29-63).
_________
, Miscellanea on Viceroys of Kush and their Assistants Buried in Dra Abu El-
Naga, JARCE 13 (1976): 113-116 (= Sixteen Studies on Lower ubia, Ch.6, pp.111-19).
_________
, Sixteen Studies on Lower ubia (CASAE 23), Cairo: Institut Franais
dArchologie Orientale, 1981.
Haeny, G. New Kingdom Mortuary Temples and Mansions of Millions of Years, in:
B. Shafer (ed.), Temples of Ancient Egypt, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997, pp.86-
126.
Hall, H.R., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Musuem. Part V.
London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914.
525
_________
, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Musuem. Part VII.
London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1925.
Harari, I., Porte de la stle juridique de Karnak. Essai sur la terminologie juridique du
Moyen Empire gyptien. ASAE 51 (1951): 273-97.
_________
, Nature de la stle de donation de fonction du Roi Ahmsis la Reine Ahms-
Nefertari, ASAE 56 (1959): 139-201.
Hari, R., Un Troisieme Djehoutynefer Directeur du Trsor?, Orientalia 52 (1983): 230-
232.
Haring, B., Administration: Temple Administration, in: D. Redford, (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001, pp.20-3.
Hassan, S., The Great Sphinx and its Secrets (Excavations at Giza 8), Cairo: Government
Press, 1953.
Hayes, W.C., Statue of the Herald Yamu-nedjeh in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, ASAE
33 (1933): 6-16.
_________
, The Scepter of Egypt, Pt. II: The Hyksos Period and the ew Kingdom (1675-
1080 B.C.), New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1959.
_________
, A selection of Thutmoside Ostraca from Dr el-Bahri, JEA 46 (1960): 43-52.
_________
, The Civil Service, in: I.E.S. Edwards (ed.), Cambridge Ancient History II, Pt.
1, Sect. 8, Ch. 9 (CAH), London: Cambridge University Press, 1973, pp.353-72.
Helck, W., Der Einfluss der Militrfhrer in der 18. gyptischen Dynastie (UGA 14),
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1939.
_________
, Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des gyptischen Alten Reiches, (F 18),
Glckstadt, New York: J.J. Augustin, 1954.
_________
, Eine Stele des Vizeknigs Wsr-St, JES 14 (1955): 22-31.
_________
, Die Berufung des Vezirs Wcr, in: O. Firchow (ed.), Hermann Grapow zum 70.
Geburtstag gewidmet (gyptologische Studien. Institut fr Orientforschung 29), Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1955, pp.107-17.
526
_________
, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 17. Historische Inschriften Thutmosis' III. und
Amenophis' II (Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1955.
_________
, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 18. Biographische Inschriften von Zeitgenossen
Thutmosis' III. und Amenophis' II (Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV),
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956.
_________
, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 19. Historische Inschriften Thutmosis' IV, und
und biographische Inschriften seiner Zeitgenossen (Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums,
Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957.
_________
, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs (Probleme der gyptologie 3),
Leiden-Koln: E.J. Brill, 1958.
_________
, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. bersetzung zu den Heften 17-22 (Urkunden des
gzptischen Altertums . Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961.
_________
, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des euen Reiches, Mainz: Akademie der
Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1961.
_________
, Die Beziehungen gyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (A
5), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971.
_________
, Amtsauffassung und -begriff, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz, 1975, cols.226-7.
_________
, Amtseinsetzung, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1975, cols.227-8.
_________
, Amtserblichkeit, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1975, cols.228-9.
_________
, Amtsinsignien, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1975, cols.229-30.
_________
, Amtssitz, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,
col.230.
527
_________
, Amtstracht, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,
cols.230-1.
_________
, Amtsverkauf, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1975, col.231.
_________
, Amtsverlust, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,
cols.231-2.
_________
, Amtsvermgen, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1975, col.232.
_________
, Beamtentum, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,
cols.672-675.
_________
, Gaue, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld II, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1977,
cols.385-408.
_________
, "Die Datierung des Schatzmeisters Sennefer," GM 43 (1981): 39-41.
_________
, Priester, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld IV, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1982,
cols.1084-97.
_________
, Titel und Titulaturen, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld VI, Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz, 1986, cols.596-601.
_________
, Ein verlorenes Grab in Theben-West: TT145 des Offiziers Neb-Amun unter
Thutmosis III., Antike Welt 27/2 (1996): 73-85.
Hermann, A., Die gyptische Knigsnovelle (LS 10), Glckstadt: Augustin, 1938.
_________
, Die Stelen der Thebanischen Felsgrber die 18. Dynastie (F 11), Glckstadt-
Hamburg-New York, 1940.
Hornung, E., Die Grabkammer des Vezir User (AWG 1), Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1961.
James, T.G.H. Pharaohs People. Scenes from Life in Imperial Egypt, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1984.
528
Jansen-Winkeln, K. Der Schlusatz der Biographie des Chnumhotep in Beni Hassan,
GM 180 (2001): 77-81.
Janssen, J.J, and P.W., Pestman, Burial and Inheritance in the Community of the
Necropolis Workmen at Thebes (Pap. Bulaq X and O. Petrie 16), JESHO 11 (1968):
137-170.
Janssen, J.J., and R.M. Janssen, Getting Old in Ancient Egypt, London: The Rubicon
Press, 1996.
Jasnow, R.L., A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text (P. Brooklyn 47.218.135) (SAOC 52),
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992.
_________
, Ancient Egypt, in: R. Westbrook and R.L. Jasnow (eds.), A History of Ancient
ear Eastern Law (Handbook of Oriental Studies, ear and Middle East 72/1-2) [AE
Law], Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp.93-359.
Johnson, J.H., The Legal Status of Women in Ancient Egypt, in: A.K. Capel and G.E.
Markoe (eds.), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven. Women in Ancient Egypt, New
York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996, pp.175-185.
Kadry, A., Officers and Officials in the ew Kingdom (Studia Aegyptiaca 8), Budapest:
Universit Lornd Etvs, 1982.
Kampp, F., Die thebanische ekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII.
bis zur XX. Dynastie (Theben 13), 2 vols., Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
1996.
Kanawati, N., The Egyptian administration of the Old Kingdom, Warminster: Aris &
Phillips, 1977.
_________
, Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt, Warminster: Aris & Phillips,
1980.
_________
, Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Part I: Chronology and Administration (ACE
Studies 2) Sydney: The Australian Centre for Egyptology, 1992.
Kees, H., Das Priestertum im gyptischen Staat, vom euen Reich bis zur Sptzeit (Pd
1), Leiden-Kln: E.J. Brill, 1953.
529
_________
, Das Priestertum im gyptischen Staat, vom euen Reich bis zur Sptzeit. Indices
und achtrge (Pd 1), Leiden-Kln: E.J. Brill, 1958.
_________
, Webpriester der 18. Dynastie im Trgerdienst bei Prozessionen, ZS 85
(1960): 45-56.
_________
, Die Hohenpriester des Amun von Karnak von Herihor bis zum Ende der
thiopenzeit (Pd 4), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.
Kemp, B.J., Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575-1087 B.C.) In:
P.D.A. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 7-57 and 284-297.
_________
, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686-
1552, in: B.G. Trigger, et al. (eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 71-182.
_________
, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, London and New York: Routledge,
1989.
Kitchen, K.A., The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 110 - 650 B.C., Warminster: Aris
& Phillips, 1986.
Kitchen, K.A. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, Vol. III. Oxford,
1980.
Kush, Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service, Khartoum.
Lacau, P., Stles du ouvel Empire (CG nos. 34001-34189) (Catalogue gnral du Muse
du Caire 45) Cairo: Institut Franais dArchologie Orientale, 1909.
_________
, La stle juridique de Karnak (ASAE Supplment 13), Le Caire: IFAO, 1949.
Lacovara, P., Deir el Ballas: Preliminary Report on the Deir el Ballas Expedition 1980-
1986, Winona Lake, 1990.
Leach, E., The Mother's Brother in Ancient Egypt, Royal Anthropological Institute
ews 15 (1976): 19-21.
Lefebvre, G., Histoire des Grands Prtres d'Amon de Karnak jusqu' la XXIe Dynastie.
Paris: Geuthner, 1929.
530
Legrain, G., Recherches gnalogiques," RT 31 (n.s 15) (1909): 1-10.
Lehner, M., Fractal House of Pharoah, in: T.A. Kohler and G.J. Gumerman (eds.),
Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-Based Modeling of Social and Spatial
Processes, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Lehren, and Lehre ..., (various authors) in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld III,
Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1980, cols.964-992.
Leprohon, R.J., Stelae II. The ew Kingdom to the Coptic Period (CAA Boston 3), Mainz
am Rhein: Harrassowitz, 1991.
_________
, Administrative Titles in Nubia in the Middle Kingdom, JAOS 113 (1993):
434-436.
_________
, Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt, in: J.M. Sasson
(ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient ear East (CAE), vol. 1, New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995,
pp.273-287.
Lepsius, R., Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Theben. Text. Volume III-IV.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche, 1900-01.
Lexikon der gyptologie, 7 vols., W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975-
92.
Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature; A Book of Readings, 3 vols., Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1973-1980.
_________
, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context. A Study of
Demotic Instructions (OBO 52), Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.
_________
, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: a study and
an anthology (OBO 84), Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.
_________
, Maat in Egyptian Autobiographies and Related Studies (OBO 120), Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
_________
, Didactic literature, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History
and Forms (Pd 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp.243-62.
531
_________
, Moral Values in Ancient Egypt (OBO 155), Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1997.
de Linage, J., Lacte dtablissement et le contrat de mariage dun esclave sous
Thoutms III, BIFAO 38 (1939): 217-234.
Lloyd, A.B., The Great Inscription of Khnumhotpe II at Beni Hasan, in: A.B. Lloyd
(ed.), Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths
(Occasional Publications 8), London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992, pp.21-37.
Logan, T., The jmyt-pr Document: Form, Function and Significance, JARCE 37
(2000): 49-73.
Loprieno, A. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (Pd 10), Leiden,
New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Lorton, D., The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt through the New Kingdom,
JESHO 20 (1977): 1-64.
_________
, Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom, CdE 70 (1995): 123-132.
Lddeckens, E., gyptische Ehevertrge (A 1), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1960.
Lustig, J., Ideologies of Social Relations in Middle Kingdom Egypt: Gender, Kinship,
Ancestors (Ph.D. dissertation), Temple University, 1993.
MacDonald, D.N., "Terms for 'Children' in Middle Egyptian: a Sociolinguistic View,"
BACE 5 (1994): 53-59.
Malek, J., The Old Kingdom (c.2686-2160 BC), in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of
Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.118-147.
Manniche, L., Lost Tombs: A Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monumnets in the
Theban ecropolis (Studies in Egzptology), London: Kegan Paul International, 1988.
der Manuelian, P., Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (HB 26), Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg Verlag, 1987.
Mariette, A., and G. Maspero, Monuments divers recueillis en gypte et en ubie, Paris:
F. Vieweg, 1889.
532
Mariette, A., Catalogue gnral des monuments d'Abydos, Vol. 3. Hildesheim, Zrich,
New York: Georg Olms, 1998.
Martin, G.T., The Hidden Tombs of Memphis. ew Discoveries from the Time of
Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great, London: Thames and Hudson, 1991.
_________
, Memphis: the status of a residence city in the Eighteenth Dynasty, in: M.
Brta and J. Krejc (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000 (Archiv oreintln
Supplementa 9), Praha: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2000, pp.99-120.
Maspero, G., "Monuments gyptiens du Muse de Marseille, RT 13 (1890), pp. 120-
121.
Matthieu, M.E., Iz istorii sem'i i roda v drevnem Egipte, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3/49
(1954), pp. 45-75.
Maystre, C., Une statue dOusersatet vice-roi de Nubie sous Amenophis II, in:
Mlanges Maspero I (MIFAO 66), Cairo: Institut Franais dArchologie Orientale,
1935-1938, pp.657-663.
McDowell, A., Jurisdiction in the Workmens Community of Deir el-Medina
(Egyptologische Uitgaven 5), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1990.
_________
, Legal Aspects of Care of the Elderly in Egypt to the End of the New
Kingdom, in: M. Stol and S.P. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient
ear East (SHCAE 14), Leiden, Boston, Kln: Brill, 1998, pp. 199-221.
Meeks, D., Anne Lexicographique. gypte Ancienne, 3 vols., Paris, 1977-82.
Megally, M., Le Papyrus Hiratique Comtable E. 3226 du Louvre (BdE 53), Cairo:
L'Institut Franais d'Archologie Orientale, 1971.
_________
, Recherches sur lconomie, ladministration et la comptabilit gyptiennes la
XVIII dynastie daprs le Papyrus E. 3226 du Louvre (BdE 71), Cairo: Institut Franais
dArchologie Orientale, 1977.
Menu, B., La stle d'Ahms Nefertary dans son contexte historique et juridique. A
propos de: M. Gitton, La rsiliation d'une fonction rligieuse: nouvelle interprtation de
la stle de donation d'Ahms Nefertary, BIFAO 77 (1977): 89-100.
533
de Meulenaere, H., Le dircteur des travaux Minmose, MDAIK 37 (1981): 315-319.
Mond, R., Excavations at Sheikh Abd el Gurneh 1925-26, LAAA 14 (1927), pp. 13-34.
de Morgan, J., Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions de l'gypte antique. Volume I:
Haute gypte, Vienna: Adolphe Holzhausen, 1894.
Morris, E. The Architecture of Imperialism, Probleme der gyptologie 22, Leiden: Brill,
2005.
Mrsich, T., Erbe, in: W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Ld I, Weisbaden.: Harrassowitz,
1975, cols.1235-60.
Mller, I., Die Verwaltung der nubischen Provinz im Neuen Reich, Ethnographisch-
archologische Zeitschrift 23 (1982): 465-470.
Mller-Wollerman, R., Das gyptische Alte Reich als Beispiel enier Werberschen
Patrimonialburokratie. BES 9 (1987/88): 25-40.
Murdock, G.P., Social Structure, New York: The Free Press, 1967.
Murnane, W.J., Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (SAOC 40), Chicago: The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1977.
_________
, The Road to Kadesh (SAOC 42), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 1985.
_________
, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (SBL Writings 5), Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995.
_________
, Overseer of the Northern Foreign Countries: Reflections on the Upper
Administration of Egypt's Empire in Western Asia, in: J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on
Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde (Egyptological Memoirs 1), Groningen:
Styx Publications, 1997, pp. 251-258.
_________
, The Organization of Government under Amenhotep III, in: D. O'Connor, and
E.H. Cline (eds.), Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1998: pp. 173-221.

534
Newberry, P.E., El Bersheh Part I: The Tomb of Tehuti-hetep (ASE 3), London: Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1891.

_________
, Beni Hasan (ASE 1, 2, 5, 7), 4 vols., London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893-
1900.
_________
, Egyptian Historical Notes, PSBA 35 (1913): 156-158.
_________
, The Sons of Thutmosis IV, JEA 14 (1928): 82-85.
O'Conner, D., New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552-664 B.C, in: B.G.
Trigger, et al. (eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983, pp. 183-278.
_________
, The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Egyptian Temples, in: J.M.
Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient ear East (CAE), vol. 1, New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995,
pp. 319-329.
O'Connor, D., and E.H. Cline (eds.), Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.
_________
, Thutmose III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, Forthcoming.
OConnor, D. and D. Silverman (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Pd 9), Leiden, New
York: E.J. Brill, 1995.
Onasch, A. Zur sozialen Stellung der gyptischen Beamten im Neuen Reich, EAZ 26
(1985): 261-90.
Oren, E. (ed.), The Hyksos: ew Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (University
Museum Symposium Series 8 = University Museum Monograph 96), Philadelphia: The
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1997.
Osing, J., Knigsnovelle, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld III, cols.556-7.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), online, http://oed.com/.
535
Pamminger, P. Nochmals zum Problem der Vizeknige von Kusch unter Hatschepsut,
GM 131 (1992): 97-100.
Pardey, E., "Der sog. Sprecher des Knigs in der 1. Hlfte der 18. Dynastie, in: Essays
in honour of Prof. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw Egyptological Studies 1), Warsaw, 1997,
pp.377-397.
_________
, Administration: Provincial Administration, in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001, pp.16-20.
Parkinson, R.B., Voices From Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Middle Kingdom Writings,
London: British Museum Press, 1991.
Pestman, P.W., Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt, Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1961.
_________
, The Law of Succession in Ancient Egypt, in: M. David, F.R. Kraus, and P.W.
Pestman (eds.), Essays on Oriental Laws of Succession (Studia et Documenta 9), Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1969, pp. 58-77.
_________
, Who were the Owners, in the Community of Workmen, of the Chester Beatty
Papyri, in: R.J. Demare and J.J. Janssen (eds.), Gleanings from Deir el-Medina
(Egyptologische Uitgaven 1), Leiden, 1982, pp. 155-172.
Petrie, W.M.F., Tanis (EEF 2, 4), 2 vols., London: Trbner, 1885-1888.
_________
, A Season in Egypt 1887, London: Field & Tuer, The Leadenhall Press, 1888.
_________
, Researches in Sinai, London: John Murray, 1906.
Piccione, P., TTs 121 and 72 website, http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/
Piehl, K., Inscriptions hiroglyphiques recueillies en Europe et en gypte, 6 vols.,
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886-1903.
_________
, Un mot de parent jusqu'ici mconnu, SPHIX. Revue Critique 3 (1900): 1-6.
Polz, D., Bemerkungen zur Grabbenutzung in der thebanischen Nekropole, MDAIK 46
(1990): 301-336.
536
_________
, Die Sno-Vorsteher des Neun Reiches, ZS 117 (1990): 43-60.
_________
, Jamunedjeh, Meri und Userhat, MDAIK 47 (1991): 281-291.
Porter, B., and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic
Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I: The Theban ecropolis, Part 1: Private Tombs, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1960.
Quack, J.F. Die Lehren des Ani (OBO 14), Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.
Quirke, S., The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom, RdE 37 (1986), pp. 107-
130.
_________
, The administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: the hieratic
documents, New Malden, Surrey: SIA, 1990.
_________
(ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, New Malden, Surrey: SIA, 1991.
_________
, Horn, Feather and Scale, and Ships: On Titles in the Middle Kingdom, in: P.
der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 2, Boston: Museum
of Fine Arts, 1996, pp. 665-677.
_________
, Narrative literature, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature:
History and Forms (Pd 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp.263-76.
_________
, Administration: State Administration, in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001, pp.12-16.
_________
, Administrative Texts, in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.23-9.
_________
, The Second Intermediate Period, in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol.3, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001, pp.260-5.
Radwan, A., Die Darstellungen des regierenden Knigs und seiner Familienangehrigen
in den Privatgrbern der 18. Dynastie (MS 21), Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1969.
Ranke, H., Die gyptischen Personennamen, 2 vols., Glckstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935.
537
Redford, D. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies
(ear and Middle East Studies 3), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967.
_________
, Thutmosis III, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld VI, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,
1986, cols.540-8.
_________
, Egypt and Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992.
_________
, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, CHANE 16, Leiden: Brill,
2003.
Reisner, G.A. The Tomb of Hepzefa, Nomarch of Sit, JEA 5 (1918): 79-98.
_________
, The Viceroys of Ethiopia, JEA 6 (1920): 28-55.
Ricke, H., Der Totentempel Thutmoses III.: baugeschichtliche Untersuchung (Beitrge
Bf 3/1), Cairo, 1939.
Robins, G., The Relationships Specified by Egyptian Kinship Terms of the Middle and
New Kingdoms, CdE 54 (1979): 197-217.
_________
, A critical examination of the theory that the right to the throne of ancient Egypt
passed through the female line in the 18
th
dynasty, GM 62(1983): 67-77.
_________
, The Gods Wife of Amun in the 18
th
Dynasty in Egypt, in: A. Cameron and A.
Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983.
_________
, Detlef Franke, Altgyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mitteleren
Reich, BiOr 41 (1984): 602-606.
_________
, The role of the royal family in the 18h dynasty up to the reign of Amenhotep
III: 1. Queens, Wepwawet 2 (1986): 10-14.
_________
, Women in Ancient Egypt, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1993.
_________
, Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art, Austin: University of Texas Press,
1994.
538
Roehrig, C., The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal urse (mn't nswt), Royal Tutor (mn'
nswt), and Foster Brother/Sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sn/snt mn' n nb t3wy)
(Ph.D. dissertation), University of California at Berkeley, 1990.
_________
, Review: Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal ecropolis. By C.
N(icholas) Reeves. KPI. London, 1990, JARCE 29 (1992): 208-9.
_________
, Gates to the Underworld: The Appearance of Wooden Doors in the Royal
Tombs in the Valley of the Kings, in: R. Wilkinson (ed.), Valley of the Sun Kings. ew
Explorations in the Tombs of the Pharaohs, Tucson: The University of Arizona Egyptian
Expedition, 1995, pp. 82-107.
Rogge, E., Statuen des euen Reiches und der Dritten Zwischenzeit (CAA Wien 6),
Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990.
Roquet, G., "SMT(= J) <<Ma Belle-mre>> (6 Dynastie)," BIFAO 77 (1977): 119-127.
Roth, A.M., Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom. The Evolution of a System of Social
Organization (SAOC 48), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
1991.
Sauneron, S. The Priests of Ancient Egypt. New York, London, 1960.
Sve-Sderbergh, T., The avy of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, Upssala:
Lundequistska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1946.
_________
, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs (PTT 1), Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1957.
Schiaparelli, E., Museo Archeologico di Firenze : antichit egizie (Catalogo generale dei
musei di antichit e degli oggetti d'arte raccolti nelle gallerie e biblioteche del Regno I),
Rome: Salviucci, 1887.
Schloen, J.D., The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol. Patrimonialism in Ugarit
and the Ancient ear East (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2),
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Schmitz, B., Untersuchungen zum Titel zA nswt Knigssohn (Habelt
Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe gyptologie 2), Bonn: Hablet Verlag, 1976.
539
_________
, Truchse, in: W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Ld VI, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1986, cols.771-2.
Schmitz, F.-J., Amenophis I: Versuch einer Darstellung der Regierungszeit eines
gyptischen Herrschers der frhen 18. Dynastie (HB 6), Hildesheim: Gerstenberg
Verlag, 1978.
Schulman, A.R., Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian ew Kingdom
(MS 6), Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1964.
_________
, The Royal Butler Ramessesemperre, JARCE 13 (1976): 117-130.
_________
, The Royal Butler Ramesses-samion, CdE 61 (1986): 187-202.
_________
, Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt, in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations
of the Ancient ear East (CAE) Vol. 1, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Macmillan
Reference Library USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, pp. 289-301.
Seidlmayer, S., The First Intermediate Period (c.2160-2055 BC), in: I. Shaw (ed.), The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.118-47.
Sethe, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), 4
vols., Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906-09.
_________
, Der Name >>Merui-tensi<< und die Entwicklung der Filiationsgabe bei den
gyptern, ZS 49 (1911): 95-99.
_________
, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie I (Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV).
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914.
_________
, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie: Historisch-biographische Urkunden I-IV (Urkunden
des gyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927-30.
Shedid, A.-G., Stil der Grabmalereien in der Zeit Amenophis' II (Archaologische
Verffentlichung 66), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern, 1988.
Shehab el-Din, T., The Title mdw-jAwj the Staff of Old Age Ukkazat al-aykuka, DE
37 (1997), pp. 59-64.
540
Shirun-Grumach, I., Lehre des Amenemope, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld III,
Wiesbaden : Harrasowitz, cols.971-4.
van Siclen, C., "The Identity of a Figure in the Tomb of Kenamun," Serapis 5 (1979): 17-
20.
van Siclen, C., "The Mayor of This Amenhotep and his father Nebiry," BES 7 (1985/6):
87-91.
van Siclen, C., The Chapel of Sesostris III at Uronarti, San Antonio, Texas: privately
published, 1982.
Silverman, D.P. (ed.), For his Ka: Essays Offered in memory of Klaus Baer. (SAOC 55)
Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994.
Simpson, W.K., The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an anthology of stories, instructions,
and poetry, 3rd ed., New Haven, Conn. and London: Yale University Press, 2003.
Smith, H.S., "Three Coptic Etymologies," JEA 44 (1958): 122.
Smith, H.S. and A. Smith, A Reconsideration fo the Kamose Texts, ZS 103 (1976):
48-76.
Spalinger, A.J., Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (Yale Near
Eastern Research 9), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.
_________
, The Will of Senimose, in: F. Junge (ed.), Studien zu Sprache und Religion
gyptens: zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westendorf, Gttingen: Hubert & Co., 1984, pp. 631-
652.
_________
, War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom, University of Auckland: Blackwell
Publishing, 2005.
Spiegelberg, W., Ein Gerichtsprotokoll aus der Zeit Thutmosis IV, ZS 63 (1928), pp.
105-115.
Strudwick, N., The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom; The Highest Offices and
their Holders, London: Kegan Paul International, 1985.
_________
, TT99 website, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/index.html.
541
Strudwick, N., and N. Taylor (eds.), The Theban ecropolis: Past, Present and Future,
London: British Museum Press, 2003.
Theben, Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.
Thodorids, A., La stle juridique dAmarah, RIDA 11 (1964): 45-80.
_________
, Le Papyrus des Adoptions, RIDA 12 (1965): 79-142.
_________
, Le testament dans lgypte ancienne, RIDA 17 (1970): 117-216.
_________
, The Concept of Law in Ancient Egypt, in: J.R. Harris (ed.), The Legacy of
Egypt, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971, pp. 291-322.
_________
, Vivre de Mat. Travaux sur le droit gyptien ancien (Acta Orientalia Belgica
Subsidia 1), Bruxelles, Louvain, Leuven: Socit Belge dtudes orientales, 1995.
Toivari-Viitala, J., Women at Deir el-Medina: A study of the Status and Roles of the
Female Inhabitants in the Workmen's community during the Ramesside Period
(Egyptologische Uitgaven 15), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,
2001.
Traunecker, C., La stle fausse-porte du vice-chancelier Amnophis, Karnak 6 (1973-
1977): 197-208.
Trigger, B.G., B.J. Kemp, D. O'Conner, A.B. Llyod (eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social
History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
_________
, The Rise of Egyptian civilization, in: Trigger, B.G., et al., (eds.), Ancient
Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp.1-70.
Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 17-19, (Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV),
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955-7.
Valloggia, M., Recherche sur les Messages (wpwtyw) dans les Sources egyptiennes
profanes (Hautes tudes Orientales 6), Geneve-Paris: Librairie Droz, 1976.
Vandier, J., Manuel d'archologie gyptienne, Tome III, Les grandes poques. La
statuaire, Paris: ditions A. et J. Picard & Cie, 1958.
Vandersleyen, C. Une tempte sous le rgne d'Amosis, RdE 19 (1967): 123-59.
542
_________
, Deux nouveaux fragments de la stle d'Amosis relatant une tempte, RdE 20
(1968): 127-34.
_________
, Un titre du vice-roi Mrimose Silsila, CdE 43 (1968): 234-58.
_________
, Les guerres d'Amosis. Fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie (Monographies Reine
lisabeth 1), Bruxelles: Fondation gyptologique Reine lisabeth, 1971.
_________
, Une stle de l'an 18 d'Amosis Hanovre, CdE 52 (1977): 223-44.
_________
, L'gypte et la Valle du il. Tome II: De la fin de l'Ancien Empire la fin du
ouvel Empire (ouvelle Clio. L'histoire et ses problmes), Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France, 1995.
Vandier, J., Manuel d'Archologie gyptienne, Tome 3: Les Grandes poques. La
Statuaire, Paris: ditions A. et J. Picard, 1958.
Varga, E., Recherche gnalogique, in: Aegyptus museis rediviva: Miscellanea in
honorem Hermanni de Meulenaere, Brussels: Muses Royaux d'Art et dHistoire, 1993,
pp. 185-196.
Vernus, P., Noms propres juxtaposs au Moyen Empire, RdE 23 (1971), pp. 193-199.
Virey, P., Le tombeau d'Am-n-t'eh et la fonction de, RT 7 (1886), pp. 32-46.
_________
, The official life of an Egyptian officer, from the tomb of Amen-em-heb at
Thebes, Records of the Past 4 n.s. (1890): 1-13.
_________
, Sept tombeaux thbains de la XVIIIe Dynastie (MMAF V, Part II), Paris: Leroux,
1891 (1894), pp.197-380.
_________
, Le tombeau d'Amenemheb, in: P. Virey (ed.), Sept tombeaux thbains de la
XVIIIe Dynastie (MMAF V, Part II), Paris: Leroux, 1891 (1894), pp.224-85.
_________
, Le tombeau de Pehsukher, in: P. Virey (ed.), Sept tombeaux thbains de la
XVIIIe Dynastie (MMAF V, Part II), Paris: Leroux, 1891 (1894), pp.286-310.
_________
, Le tombeau d'Am-n-t'eh, in: P. Virey (ed.), Sept tombeaux thbains de la
XVIIIe Dynastie (MMAF V, Part II), Paris: Leroux, 1891 (1894), pp.337-61.
543
Vittmann, G., Priester und Beamte im Theben der Sptzeit. Genealogische und
prosopographische Untersuchungen zum thebanischen Priester- und Beamtentum der 25.
und 26. Dynastie (Beitrge zur gyptologie 1), Wien: Afro-Pub, 1978.
_________
, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9 (AT 38), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998.
van de Walle, B., Prcisions nouvelles sur Sobek-hotep, fils de Min, RdE 15 (1963):
77-85.
Warburton, D.A. Officials, in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt,
Vol. 2, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 576-83.
Ward, W.A., Notes on Some Egypto-Semitic Roots, ZS 95 (1968): 65-72.
_________
, The Case of Mrs. Tchat and Her Sons at Beni Hasan, GM 71 (1984): 51-9.
_________
, Some Aspects of Private Land Ownership and Inheritance in Ancient Egypt, ca.
2500-1000 B.C, in: T. Khalidi (ed.), Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the
Middle East, Beirut: American University in Beirut, 1984, pp.63-77.
Weinstein, J., The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment, BASOR 241 (1981):
1-28.
Wenig, S., Napata, in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Ld IV, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1982,
cols.342-4.
Wente, E., Letters from Ancient Egypt (SBL Writings 1), Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Westbrook, R. and R.Cohen (eds.), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International
Relations, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
Whale, S., The Family in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: A Study in the Representation
of the Family in Private Tombs (ACE Studies 1), Sydney: Australian Centre for
Egyptology, 1989.
Wiener, M. and J. Allen, Separate Lives: The Ahmose Stela and the Thera Eruption,
JES 57/1 (1998): 1-28.
Wild, H., Contributions l'Iconographie et la Titulature de Qen-amon, BIFAO 56
(1957), pp. 203-237.
544
_________
, ASAE 57 (1962): 107-109.
Wilkinson, T., State, in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt,
Vol. 3, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.314-19.
Willems, H.O., A Description of Egyptian Kinship Terminology of the Middle Kingdom
c. 2000-1650 B.C., Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde 139 (1983), pp. 152-
168.
_________
, Franke, Detlef, Altgyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mitteleren
Reich, Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde 141 (1985), pp. 186-188.
_________
, The Nomarchs of the Hare Nome and Early Middle Kingdom History, JEOL
28 (1985), pp. 80-102.
_________
, Chests of Life (Mmoires de la Socit dtudes Orientales Ex Oriente Lux
25), Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 1988.
Williams, R.J., The Sages of Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Scholarship, JAOS
101 (1981): 1-19.
Wilson, J. Burden of Egypt, Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1951.
Wrterbuch der gyptischen Sprache, see Erman, A., and H. Grapow.
Yoyotte, J., and J. Lopez, L'organisation de l'arme et les titulatures de soldats du
Nouvel Empire gyptien, BiOr 26 (1969) : 3-19.
Zivie, A.-P., Une statue stlphore au nom dImaounefer dHermopolis Magna, BIFAO
75 (1975), pp. 321-342
_________
, Giza au deuxime millnaire (BdE 70), Cairo: Institut Franais d'Archologie
Orientale du Caire, 1976.
_________
, Un chancelier nomm Nehesy, in: Mlanges Adolphe Gutbub, Montpellier:
Universit de Montpellier, 1984, pp. 245-252.