Chapter 2: Mayors or Governors of The City (Thebes)

2.1. The titles H3ty-a n niwt and rwD-a3 xsf n niwt

The title H3ty-a n niwt was held by a series of prominent individuals during the
Twenty-fifth Dynasty. It is often translated as ‘mayor’1 and is usually understood to
designate the ‘governor’ of the city of Thebes.2

The title rwD a3 xsf n niwt has recently been translated as ‘great inspector, controller
of the town’3 and several scholars have suggested that this title also designated the
‘governor’ of the city of Thebes, and, therefore, that essentially it had the same
meaning as the title H3ty-a n niwt. The titles were used interchangeably in abnormal
hieratic Papyrus Turin 247 dating from the forty-fifth year of the reign of Psamtek I.4
Bierbrier5 has asserted that it was used as a synonym for H3ty-a n niwt from the time
of the late Twenty-fifth Dynasty onwards (but not necessarily before this point) and
was followed in this by Graefe.6 Vittmann7 refuted the theory, claiming that the title
was “keine Paraphrase” for H3ty-a n niwt but that it may have been held ex officio by
certain Theban governors. Vittmann was followed in this by Elias, who felt that the
titles were functionally distinct from one another and that the rwD a3 xsf n niwt title8
“may actually denote greater executive force than the latter,” although the basis for
this assertion is unclear.9 Most recently, the evidence for the Libyan, Kushite and
Saite periods has been reviewed by Payraudeau10 who concludes that the two titles
effectively had the same meaning, on the bases that:

1
German ‘Bürgermeister’ (see for example Vittmann 1978a, 170). The French equivalent ‘maire’
seems not to have been used by French scholars; Leclant favoured ‘Prince de la Ville’ for the title of
his volume on Montuemhat (1961), and the designation ‘gouverneur’ has been used more recently:
Payraudeau 2003, 131-53.
2
‘niwt’ in titles such as this and imy-r niwt, had had the meaning ‘Thebes’ since the Middle Kingdom:
Pressl 1998, 113.
3
“grand inspecteur, contrôleur de la ville”: Payraudeau 2003, 151.
4
Malinine 1953, 81-2.
5
Bierbrier 1975, 69.
6
Graefe 1978, 47.
7
Vittmann 1978a, 171.
8
Elias in fact understood there to be two titles involved: rwD a3, meaning ‘great agent,’ and xsf n niwt
meaning ‘defender of the city:’ Elias 1993, 678.
9
Elias 1993, 694-6, n. 86.
10
Payraudeau 2003, 131-53.

17
  certain individuals held both titles, which occupied the same position in the
title sequence but were never cited together;11
 the title H3ty-a n niwt disappeared during the Libyan Period but reappeared
during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty when it seems to have been in use, briefly,
alongside that of rwD a3 xsf n niwt, before the latter disappeared completely,
having apparently been replaced again by H3ty-a n niwt.12

Payraudeau’s argument is persuasive in that throughout the period from the

beginning of the reign of Sheshonq I to the time of the last attested H3ty-a of Thebes
(either the Chief Steward of the God’s Wife, Padihorresnet, during the reign of
Necho II,13 or Pami, also Mayor of Memphis and the owner of Theban Tomb 243,
slightly later14), it seems unnecessary to postulate that there was any point at which
each of the two titles were held by separate individuals at the same time. There seem
to have been four phases in the use of the titles, as follows:

1) the time prior to the Libyan Period when the title H3ty-a n niwt was used to
designate the governor of Thebes;
2) the period from the beginning of the reign of Sheshonq I to the early-mid15
Twenty-fifth Dynasty, when the title H3ty-a n niwt fell out of use and was
replaced by the title rwD a3 xsf n niwt;
3) a period in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty during which both titles seem to have
been in use;
4) the period after the Twenty-fifth Dynasty during which the title rwD a3 xsf n
niwt seems to have largely fallen out of use and been replaced by H3ty-a n
niwt and the variant forms H3ty-a wr n niwt and finally wr n W3st (see below).

11
Payraudeau 2003, 148.
12
Payraudeau 2003, 148-9.
13
Graefe knew of no attested holder of the title H3ty-a n niwt (or of any of the variants current at this
time) after Padihorresnet, in whose tomb (TT 196) are inscribed the cartouches of Necho II: Graefe
1978, 46-7.
14
Vittmann (1978a, 188) noted that the title H3ty-a n niwt had been recorded by Gardiner and Weigall
(1913, 38) in an inscription relating to Pami, in the latter’s tomb, but had been unable to confirm this
himself.
15
Whether this change occurred at the beginning or the middle of the Dynasty depends largely on the
placement of certain individuals, and particularly the Fourth Priest of Amun and H3ty-a n niwt
Karabasken (see below).

18
Of course, these phases correspond broadly to wider changes affecting the Thebaid.
The change over time in the use of these titles was presumably not insignificant, and
reflects the changing circumstances of the times, and also perhaps an evolution in the
role and responsibilities of the individuals concerned. The situation appears to have
been slightly more complicated under the Kushites (see below for a survey of the
holders of these titles during this period), and there remains the possibility that there
were at certain times, particularly during the early stages of the Twenty-sixth
Dynasty, more than one holder of the title H3ty-a n niwt (see below).

The title rwD a3 xsf n niwt seems not to have been hereditary during the Libyan
Period, although, it was dominated during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty by members of
the Montuemhat family. This group also held the title of vizier until the generation
prior to Montuemhat himself at which point it was passed to the Nespakashuty
family (see Chapter 1). Their tenure of the office of ‘Governor of Thebes’ (this
designation is used henceforth for holders of the titles H3ty-a n niwt and/or rwD a3 xsf
n niwt) was maintained throughout much of the period however. Both the titles under
scrutiny here were attributed to Khaemhor A, two generations prior to Montuemhat
whose career probably fell not long after the Kushites assumed control of Thebes at
the latest, and perhaps not long after the reign of Osorkon III (see Chapter 1). The
title would remain in the hands of members of this family for a further three
generations, into the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, passing ultimately to the son of
Montuemhat, Nesptah B. The situation is complicated, however, by the presence of
at least two further Governors who officiated during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty:
Karabasken and Wedjahor (see below). Three possible explanations for this present
themselves:

 the succession of the title in the Montuemhat family was interrupted;

 the titles were attributed erroneously to certain of these individuals;
 at certain points there was more than one holder of the titles in question.

2.2. Holders of the titles H3ty-a n niwt and/or rwD a3 xsf n niwt and their variants
during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty
As we have seen, Khaemhor A was one of three sons of Harsiesi F who inherited the
title of vizier from their father. Of these three, Khaemhor A was the only one to hold

19
any titles other than those of the vizieral Grundtitulatur among which were the
ranking titles iry-pat and H3ty-a, and both the titles under study: H3ty-a n niwt and rwD
a3 xsf n niwt. However, of the thirteen monuments recorded here (see appendix 3.5
and table 1.1) which preserve Khaemhor A’s name and titles, only the coffin of his
son Nesptah A16 explicitly attributes the second of these to him,17 and only the
sequence of titles ascribed to him on the coffin of his great-grandson Khaemhor C18
includes the title H3ty-a n niwt. Perhaps most notably, the inscriptions of statue CG
42234 of Khaemhor himself, provide only the Grundtitulatur of the vizier and it is
this combination of titles that is by far the most frequent.

That the earlier of these two documents ascribes to Khaemhor A the title rwD a3 xsf n
niwt and that of H3ty-a n niwt, as well as the fact that each appears in the same place
in the title sequence just before the vizieral titles, would seem to support
Payraudeau’s hypothesis that each signified that the holder was Governor of Thebes,
and that the H3ty-a n niwt was a later means of expressing what rwD a3 xsf n niwt had
meant some years earlier.

2.2.1. Nesmin B
In Chapter 1 it was argued that Nesmin B inherited his titles directly from Khaemhor
A, his father, and that it was only after the end of Nesmin’s career that his titles were
divided between his brothers: Nesptah A and Harsiesi G / Pahrer. Nesmin B is
attributed the Grundtitulatur of the vizier and the ranking titles par excellence: iry-
pat H3ty-a xtmty bity smr waty.19

In contrast to the previous generations of this family, three of the four known sons of
Khaemhor A held scribal titles, mostly relating to Karnak. Nesmin B was thus
‘Temple Scribe of the Domain of Amun’ (sS Hwt-nTr pr Imn), as were his brothers

16
The coffin itself is now lost but the inscriptions were recorded by Vassali: see Bierbrier 1979a, 116.
17
Inscriptions on the coffin of Khaemhor A’s grandson, Khaemhor B, imply that Khaemhor A held
the same titles, including rwD a3 xsf n niwt, as his son Nesmin B, as is indicated by the phrase ‘the
like-titled’ (mi nw). However, the extent to which we might rely on this phrase to provide accurate
information on the titulary of an individual’s ancestors is open to question. In this regard it is notable
that in this instance the inscription would imply that Khaemhor A also held three other titles – xtmty
bity, smr waty and sS mSa– the last of which is unusual, which he is otherwise not known to have held.
18
CG 41068 (see appendix 1.5).
19
Evidence is provided by coffins CG 41021 of his son Khaemhor B, CG 41020 of his wife Titenese,
CG 41023 of his daughter Amunirdis, and CG 41022 and 41067 of his son Nesamunope. See
appendix 1.5 for further details.

20
Nesptah A and Padiamun. Notably, he was also ‘Scribe of the Army’ (sS mSa) in a
rare Twenty-fifth Dynasty example of a title connecting an individual with the
military. This may be evidence of an indirect link between Nesmin B and the Kushite
pharaohs, whose direct control of the armies at this time may explain the apparent
absence of Egyptians involved with the military during this period (see Chapter 6 for
discussion of this phenomenon). Nesmin B was never attributed the title H3ty-a n
niwt, while Khaemhor B was identified by the title of rwD a3 xsf n niwt only once, on
a coffin (CG 41021) of his son. The only other document included here which
records his name and titles is the coffin of his wife, Titenese (CG 41020). It could
not be argued that these inscriptions were too brief to include any but the most
important of his titles as eight are recorded in all including the Grundtitulatur, a
scribal title and several ranking titles. It is possible however that his wife died prior
to his assumption of the role of Theban Governor, perhaps later in his life.

2.2.2. Nesptah A
Nesptah A’s titles correspond closely to those of his brother, Nesmin B though he
did not hold the titles of the vizierate (T3ty, T3yty s3b, imy-r niwt) or that of Scribe of
the Army. In addition to being ‘Scribe of the Temple of the Domain of Amun,’ as his
brother was, Nesptah A was also Scribe of the ‘Offering Table in the temple of
Amun’ (sS wDHw n pr Imn), of the ‘Daily Offerings of the domain of Amun’ (sS Htpw
n pr Imn) and also scribe of the ‘T3 of the Domain of Amun’ (sS T3 n pr Imn).

Elias has argued that Nesptah A may have been born much later, perhaps to a
different mother, than Nesmin B on the basis of the relative dates for the coffins of
their wives, and also that Pahrer and Nesptah A were not exact contemporaries.20 The
coffins of Istemkheb, wife of Nesptah A (and mother of Monutemhat), display
features which are later than the ‘Formative Saite’ type, suggesting they were
produced some way into the reign of Taharqo, possibility the second quarter of the

20
Elias 1993, 680-1, n. 60, and 698; although on page 679 Elias writes “In accordance with the
hypothesis that Pahrer served contemporarily with Nesptah A we may perhaps eliminate Shabako’s
ninth year…”, he later modifies his position slightly by placing Pahrer slightly earlier than Nesptah A.
The basis for this, however, is unclear.

21
7th century BC despite the fact that the wife of her husband’s brother, Titenese,
apparently died much earlier (see appendix 2.1).21

A relief in a chapel of the temple of Mut depicts Taharqo advancing towards Mut.
The king is followed by Nesptah A, his son Montuemhat, and his grandson Nesptah
B.22

Fig. 2.1. Relief from a chapel in the Temple of Mut, Karnak, showing Taharqo before Mut,
with Nesptah A, Montuemhat and Nesptah B standing behind him. After Mariette-Bey 1875,
pl. 43.

According to Leclant the Montuemhat family members were labelled as follows:

Nesptah A: “……….dans Ipet-sout, le scribe (sacerdotal) dans le
domaine d’Amon, le prince de la Ville Nsiptah.”
Montuemhat: “Son fils, le noble et prince, chancelier royal, [le bien-
]aimé, le prophète d’Amon dans ………., le dieu grand, le prophète
d’Amon dans ………. Montuemhat.”
Nesptah B: “le fils de ce prince, le quatrième prophète d’Amon dans
Ipet-sout, le chef de phyle Nsiptah, qu’a mis au monde la dame
Neskhonsou (j. v.).”23

21
Elias 1993, 689-90 and n. 75. Furthermore, Gauthier thought that stylistically the coffin of
Istemkheb belonged to the Saite Period, further suggesting that it was not produced in the early
Twenty-fifth Dynasty: Elias 1993 690-1.
22
Leclant 1961, 231.
23
Leclant 1961, 232. Leclant notes that the reliefs were so damaged at the time of writing that he had
no choice but to use Mariette’s drawing of the scene and accompanying inscriptions, which is
reproduced above. Strangely however, his translation does not seem to match entirely the glyphs as
they appear in the drawing. Nesptah A’s titles seem to have been accurately translated although I note
that one would normally expect a genitival ‘n’ where Mariette’s draughtsman has recorded an ‘m’
(Gardiner Aa 13/15) preceding ‘Ipt-swt’, and there are no signs present to confirm that this title should

22
The relief appears to show that Nesptah A’s son and grandson were both active and
in office during his lifetime, but apparently did not yet hold all the titles for which
they would ultimately be best known. The scene appears therefore to show the
representatives of three generations of a single family at different stages in their
careers. Nesptah B seems not to have become Fourth Priest until some years into the
Twenty-sixth Dynasty, after the death of Nesptah A (see Chapter 3). This raises
several issues. It is possible that Nesptah A was in fact dead at the time the relief was
carved, despite the absence of any epithet such as ‘m3a xrw’. Even if this were the
case, however, it would appear that Nesptah B held the title of Fourth Priest of Amun
during the reign of Taharqo when the Nitocris Adoption Stela and Saite Oracle
Papyrus would seem to show that the title remained in Montuemhat’s hands several
years after Taharqo’s death. Is it possible, therefore, that titles moved fluidly between
members of this family and/or were perhaps retained by certain individuals even
after they had ceased to exercise the functions associated with those titles.24

This provides further evidence that certain principles which shape our interpretation
of the evidence cannot always be relied upon.

On the basis that some titles appear to have been shared between Nesptah A and his
son Montuemhat at this time, Leclant also hypothesized that they shared a certain
authority in Thebes at this point.25 There is no reason, however, to suppose that the

be sS Hwt-nTr as opposed to any of the other scribal titles Nesptah is known to have held within the
domain of Amun: sS T3 n pr Imn, sS wDHw n pr Imn and sS Htpw n pr Imn – see tables. For
Montuemhat the translations seem largely unproblematic, although the signs following n mrwt present
some difficulties. The translation “bien-aimé” accurately renders the partially preserved ‘n mrwt,’
‘beloved,’ however, Leclant could perhaps also have restored smr-waty prior to this. The lacuna in
between the Hm-nTr and Imn signs suggests this title is perhaps that of Fourth Priest of Amun, since
Montuemhat was never otherwise accorded any ordinary priesthood of Amun, which is why it would
seem stranger still that a second Amun priesthood appears in this sequence. In both instances the
lacunae and the fact that some signs seem to have been partially visible to Mariette’s draughtsmen
(and may, understandably, have been misread), mean there is quite some uncertainty as to exactly
what these titles were. The basic Hm-nTr Imn components seem clear in each case, but the additional
signs which survive are puzzling (Leclant 1961, 232, n. 4 and 237).
As Leclant notes, although the imy-r sign (Gardiner F20) is missing, the last signs preceding
Montuemhat’s name probably form part of the title imy-r ^maw, Overseer of Upper Egypt. Nesptah
B’s titles, including that of Fourth Priest of Amun, were almost undamaged at the time of Mariette’s
drawing and therefore caused Leclant no problems.
24
It is possible that in certain contexts the titles attributed to an individual should be read as a sort of
‘curriculum vitae’ summarizing the roles played by the individual during his lifetime, not all of which
were necessarily current roles.
25
Leclant 1961, 237.

23
division of responsibilities was not what it would have been had any other, unrelated,
individual held the same titles.

If nothing else the relief shows the close connection between these three individuals,
increasing the likelihood that this line of succession was not interrupted.

Nesptah A is attested on numerous monuments, mostly those of his descendants. A

statue of him in the British Museum (BM EA 54349), his coffins and those of his
wife, Istemkheb, identify him by the title of rwD a3 xsf n niwt. A coffin of his
daughter, Tabatja, records that he held the title H3ty-a xsf n niwt, while a statue of
Nesptah A dedicated by his son, Montuemhat, ascribes him the title(s) rwD a3 H3ty-a
n niwt. All other monuments providing information on this individual give him the
title H3ty-a n niwt, but not that of rwD a3 xsf n niwt. This would seem to illustrate the
theory of Payraudeau very well: what are perhaps the earliest of these monuments
show Nesptah A to have been Theban Governor by means of the rwD a3 xsf n niwt
title; monuments which are perhaps slightly later ascribe him a mixture of this title
and that of H3ty-a n niwt, while those that are later still only mention the H3ty-a n niwt
title.

It would be logical to assume that Nesptah A’s successor as Theban governor was
Montuemhat himself. Montuemhat seems not to have held the rwD a3 xsf n niwt title,
however, of the many titles he did hold, that of H3ty-a n niwt is among the most
frequently attributed to him. His designated heir and successor was his son Nesptah
B, who inherited the title of Fourth Priest from his father no later than year seventeen
of Psamtek I, as he is given this title in an abnormal hieratic papyrus of this date.26
Nesptah himself had died by year 25 of this king, since his name is mentioned on
another, similar papyrus with the epithet ‘m3a xrw.’27

After this point in the early Twenty-sixth Dynasty the title seems to have passed out
of the Montuemhat family. Four other individuals of the period who held titles
apparently designating them as Theban Governor should be considered at this point:
Karabasken, Wedjahor, Raemmaakheru, and his son, Khaemhor C.

26
Parker 1962, 24.
27
Parker 1962, 24.

24
2.2.3. Karabasken and Wedjahor
Karabasken, the Kushite and owner of Theban Tomb 391, and Wedjahor were both
Fourth Priest of Amun. Elements of the burial equipment of the latter, which was
found in TT 99, were dated to year eleven of Shabaqo,28 thus strongly suggesting that
Wedjahor died and was buried in this year and therefore that his career should be
placed in the early stages of Kushite rule.

If the title rwD a3 xsf n niwt is equivalent to that of H3ty-a n niwt and there was
normally only one holder of either or both these titles at any one time, then the
succession of Montuemhat family members as Theban Governors must have been
broken at some point by Wedjahor. It would seem highly unlikely that Khaemhor
and two of his sons could have officiated as Theban Governor after the death of
Wedjahor in year eleven of the reign of Shabaqo, and before Montuemhat took over
the post, probably some time during the 670s BC. The situation would be made less
complicated if it could be shown that certain members of the family did not act as
Theban Governor but were attributed the title, perhaps only posthumously and/or for
honorific reasons. A second possibility might be that there was more than one titular
‘Governor’ of Thebes at certain times, or that there was at least some overlap.29
However, both scenarios are based on speculation and it seems more likely that the
line of succession was interrupted, as appears to have been the case with other titles
such as that of the Fourth Priest of Amun which had passed out of the Nakhtefmut
family by the time it was held by Wedjahor, but subsequently returned to the family
in the person of Nakhtefmut G who held the title in the fifth year of Taharqo’s reign
(see Chapter 3).

Karabasken’s ethnicity suggests he is likely to have been in office under (and indeed
perhaps installed by) the Kushites. The fact that we know nothing of any of his
ancestors or descendants suggests that he, and any family he had, made little or no
lasting impression in Thebes, and we might hypothesize that his career was entirely

28
Strudwick 1997-2009.
29
Generally speaking, as with the viziers, the number of holders of either the H3ty-a n niwt or rwD a3
xsf n niwt titles (or both) during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty seems high and might reflect some
reshuffling, if not some degree of turmoil within the administrative ranks, as the Kushite pharaohs
sought to establish themselves.

25
predicated on his allegiance with the Kushite ruling house. A study of the
architecture of TT 391 and tombs of a similar date, as well as those that were
constructed in close proximity, suggests that Karabasken’s tomb was the first of the
Late Period monuments to be constructed in this part of the Theban necropolis.30

According to the theory that the title rwD a3 xsf n niwt fell out of use and that of H3ty-
a n niwt came back into fashion during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, Wedjahor, who
was only attributed the title of H3ty-a n niwt on a statue perhaps inscribed some years
after his death,32 should be placed before Karabasken, who held the title of H3ty-a n
niwt but not that of rwD a3 xsf n niwt. J. Taylor has suggested that the tomb of
Karabasken should be placed in the second half of The Twenty-fifth Dynasty,33
supporting the theory that its owner’s career should be placed after that of Wedjahor.

Despite accepting that lines of succession were broken, it would seem most prudent
to minimise the number of times this happened in any reconstruction of the sequence
of title holders. It is therefore preferable to posit that Wedjahor and Karabasken
officiated as Fourth Priest of Amun and Governor of Thebes in direct succession.
However, Payraudeau places Nesptah A in between Wedjahor and Karabasken on
the basis that Nesptah A held both the rwD a3 xsf n niwt title and that of H3ty-a n niwt.
This fits Payraudeau’s theory and also allows Karabasken’s career to be situated as
late in the Dynasty as possible, most closely fitting the supposed date of his tomb.
However, this scenario requires us to suppose that the Montuemhat line was
interrupted twice, and presents a further problem relating to the sequence of Fourth
Priests of Amun. If the holders of this title are considered in isolation it seems most
likely that Karabasken officiated prior to Wedjahor since, after his death, the title
returned to two members of the Nakhtefmut family:34

30
Eigner 1984, 40.
32
Payraudeau 2003, 142.
33
Payraudeau 2003, 147, n. 89. I have since spoken to Dr Taylor about this in person and he claims
not to have not to have conveyed such an opinion to Payraudeau despite the latter’s claim. There
appears to be no evidence to suggest that Karabasken’s tomb should be placed in the second half of
the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
34
The office of Fourth Priest of Amun was held by several members of this family whose lineage can
be traced back to Osorkon II. Data on the family is summarised by Kitchen 1986, 217-4, 566. A
crucial modification to the family was provided by the publication of cursive hieratic papyrus Cairo
CG 30884+30864+31182, which showed Nakhtefmut G’s father’s name to have been Harisesi and not
Djedkhonsefankh as had previously been postulated: Vittmann 2000, 143. See also Chapter 3.

26
 Fig. 2.2. Members of successive generations of the Nakhtefmut family to have held the
office of Fourth Priest of Amun.

Nakhtefmut G, who was certainly in office in year five of Taharqo (685 BC), and
Djedkhonsefankh D, his son and presumably his direct successor. If Karabasken is
placed after Wedjahor his career would have to be placed either between the death of
Wedjahor in year eleven of Shabaqo and year five of Taharqo, or between year five
of Taharqo and the assumption of the post by Montuemhat (in 671 BC at the latest,
assuming he was in post as both Theban Governor and Fourth Priest of Amun at the
same time). In either case, the ‘window’ of his career, it should be noted, is relatively
small, and the number of Fourth Priests of Amun attested after Wedjahor becomes
rather high.

There is simply no straightforward solution to this conundrum, and any

reconstruction would require a deviation from one or more of the following ideas:

1. there was no overlap in the careers of any of the attested holders of the rwD a3
and/or H3ty-a n niwt titles;
2. title(s) maintained within a certain family were passed directly from one
family member to the next without interruption;
3. individual holders of the title rwD a3 xsf n niwt should be placed earlier than
the holders of the title H3ty-a n niwt, and holders of both titles should be
placed in between the other two groups;

27
 4. the tomb of Karabasken was built during the second half of the Twenty-fifth
Dynasty.

The first of these hypotheses is possible but cannot be proven either way. With
regard to the second suggestion, under ‘normal’ circumstances we would expect
titles to be passed from father to son, however, the titles of vizier and Theban
governor appear more than once in the same generation in the Monutemhat family.35
It seems generally prudent to minimise the number of hypothetical interruptions
where possible. The third statement is contradicted by attestations, albeit infrequent,
of the title rwD a3 under Psamtek I (see below); while with respect to the fourth point,
there is insufficient evidence for firm conclusions to be drawn about the date of TT
391.36

One intriguing aspect of the possibility that the titles H3ty-a n niwt and rwD a3 xsf n
niwt referred to the same role is that we would then have three individuals –
Karabasken, Wedjahor and Montuemhat – who were both Fourth Priest of Amun as
well as Theban Governor at the same time. These individuals seem not to have been
related in any way, so it cannot have been the case that this was due to the two titles
having been passed on as an inherited ‘bundle’ of titles, and, therefore, it could
simply be a coincidence. It would make sense for these three to have held office
consecutively even if, functionally, there was no need for the responsibilities brought
by the two titles to have been held by the same person. The fact that the both titles
were held by three individuals in succession could be explained by custom.
However, placing these individuals in post in succession is difficult chronologically
and would require us to assume one or more of the following:

 the succession of Montuemhat family holders of the title of governor and

Nakhtefmut family holder of the title of Fourth Priest of Amun (see Chapter
4) was interrupted;
 these individuals’ (including Karabasken and Wedjahor) average term of
office was quite short;

35
See genealogical chart 2.
36
See n. 33.

28
  some of these individuals were only attributed their title(s) posthumously and
in fact, therefore, have no effect on the chronology of the real holders of this
office.

Putting aside these chronological problems momentarily, there may have been a
reason for the repetition of this combination, although the individuals Karabasken,
Wedjahor and Montuemhat, who held the two titles simultaneously, appear not to
have been direct successors. If so, however, this reason remains obscure.

2.2.4. Raemmaakheru and his son, Khaemhor ‘C’

Raemmaakheru was son of Harsiesi G/Pahrer. He is represented by a statue, and his
name is also mentioned in inscriptions on the coffin of his son, Khaemhor C. The
statue identifies him by the title H3ty-a n niwt; while it is not used in the coffin’s
inscription. However, both this title and that of rwD a3 xsf n niwt are attributed to
Khaemhor, the coffin’s owner, and Raemmaakheru himself is indirectly attributed
the titles via the phrase ‘mi nw.’ Khaemhor C is also mentioned in the inscriptions of
the statue of his father, but in this case he is only given the title ’Stolist of Thebes’
(sm3 W3st), presumably because he was still at a relatively early stage in his career at
this point. There is no reason to suggest that these individuals were not Theban
Governors, but the placement of these individuals in the sequence of Theban
governors is problematic.37

As we have seen it is likely that Nesptah A, Montuemhat and Nesptah B were

Theban Governors in direct succession to one another. If this is correct, then
Raemmaakheru must have officiated either before or after all three of this line of
individuals. Raemmakheru came from the same generation as Montuemhat and there
is nothing to suggest that they were not, at least approximately, contemporaries. The
only possible solutions are:

 both Raemmaakheru and his son should be placed before the Nesptah-
Montuemhat-Nesptah succession;

37
Curiously, Khaemhor C is omitted from the lists of Theban Governors published by Vittmann 1977,
263-4, and 1978a, 171-89.

29
  they should both be placed after the Nesptah-Montuemhat-Nesptah
succession;
 the Nesptah-Montuemhat-Nesptah succession, and/or that of the
Raemmaakheru-Khaemhor C line, was interrupted.

Either of the first two options would suggest that, despite their generational
equivalence, the members of these two branches of the family may have been quite
different in age. In the first scenario the ‘window’ of time into which these
individuals should be placed is slight, especially if Karabasken succeeded
Wedjahor.38 If both are placed after Nesptah B, the gap in between the death of
Raemmaakheru’s father and his own rise in office would seem unusually long.
Furthermore, another, entirely unconnected family, that of Patjenfy (see below),
seems to have held the title H3ty-a n niwt, and would otherwise be presumed to have
been the direct successors of Nesptah B.

The fact that Raemmaakheru and his son held these titles at all is puzzling.
Raemmaakheru can only have inherited the title from his uncle, his cousin, or his
second cousin, but certainly not, it seems, from his father.

An alternative solution is provided by Leclant who suggested that Montuemhat

shared power with his father Nesptah A.39 Perhaps with this in mind, Elias suggested
that it is not impossible that Raemmaakheru should be placed in between
Montuemhat and his father, but did officiate as a fully-empowered Theban mayor.40
This solution would require the abandonment in this case of the principle that each
individual by the title of, for example, H3ty-a n niwt, would play at least a similar role
to holders of the same title before and after him. There is no evidence for this, but
given that all other solutions presented are problematic in some way, the possibility
has to be considered, and raises the question of the extent to which we can rely on
titles to provide a clear picture of the distribution of responsibilities and the authority
that came with them.

38
Elias (1993, 694, n. 84) also claims that Vittmann (1977, 263) “for some reason” places
Raemmaakheru’s son, Khaemhor C in between Karabasken and Nesptah A. However, Elias has
simply misinterpreted this since the Khaemhor in question is clearly Khaemhor A.
39
Leclant 1961, 237.
40
Elias 1993, 695-6.

30
2.3. The Twenty-sixth Dynasty
As has already been mentioned, Nesptah B had died by Psamtek I’s twenty-fifth year
(639 BC). Alongside Raemmaakheru and his son there are several known individuals
who may have succeeded Nesptah B as Governor of Thebes. Vittmann has argued
that the Montuemhat family were succeeded by Basa, the owner of TT 389, who
lived during the reign of Psamtek I.41 Patjenfy, the owner of TT 128, and several
other members of his family42 seem also to have acted as Theban Governor. The rwD
a3 xsf n niwt and H3ty-a n niwt Padiese is known from two Abnormal Hieratic
documents to have been active around the end of the reign of Psamtek I, 43 and finally
the title became part of the titulary of successive Chief Stewards of the God’s Wife
of Amun: Pabasa and Padihorresnet.44

Nespakashuty D was also H3ty-a n niwt,45 although this was not a title that he made
known as regularly as that of vizier.46 As we have seen, Nespakashuty D was in post
as vizier by 651 BC, at the time of the Saite Oracle Papyrus (see Chapter 1). The
theory that the title of vizier was given to individuals who had proven their
competence after holding other responsibilities for some time would suggest that
Nespakashuty may not have lived far beyond this point. It would seem unlikely that
he held the title after Raemmaakheru and Khaemhor C, but it is equally unlikely that
Raemmaakheru held the title after Nespakashuty D. Ultimately, there is simply no
straightforward solution to the problem that three individuals of the same generation

41
Vittmann 1978a, 173-5. Curiously, Vittmann does not mention Khaemhor B at all.
42
His son, Khonsirdis and the latter’s half-brother Ramose; his cousin, Hor (rwD a3 xsf n niwt but not
H3ty-a n niwt), son of Patjenfy; and his great-grandson Padiamun. The family seems to have come
from Edfu and all but Hor were Governors (H3ty-a) of Edfu as well as Governors of Thebes: Vittmann
1978a, 175-83.
43
P. Turin 247 and 248. See Vittmann 1978a, 183-4, with further references. Payraudeau includes
Padiesi in his list of Theban Governors, but erroneously, under the name Padiamun: Payraudeau 2003,
145-6.
44
There is no doubt that each was both Theban Governor and Chief Steward and there is no reason to
think that each could not have held both titles at the same time: Vittmann 1978a, 184-5. See also
Assmann 1973, 22; Graefe 1978, 47; Payraudeau 2003, 147.
45
See appendix 2.1 and Pressl 1998, 184-5. Curiously, both Vittmann (1977 and 1978a) and
Payraudeau (2003, 146-7) omit Nespakashuty D from their lists, presumably on the basis that the title
H3ty-a n niwt n ^maw n Nxn was in fact distinct from that of H3ty-a n niwt.
46
According to Munro, Nespakashuty D’s grandfather, Nespakashuty C, was also ‘Bürgermeister’ of
Thebes on the basis of inscriptions on the stela of his grandson, Nesamun, BM 1333: Munro 1973,
283. However, the title in question is in fact imy-r niwt – a standard part of the vizieral titulary which
Nespakashuty C is well-attested as having borne – and not H3ty-a n niwt.

31
– Nesptah B, Khaemhor C and Nespakashuty D – appear to have been Theban
Governors.

As we have seen, Nespakashuty D was also vizier, and later in the Twenty-sixth
Dynasty the role of Theban Governor would be subsumed into the responsibilities of
the Chief Steward who, by the end of the reign of Psamtek I, was the de facto ruler of
Thebes. Nespakashuty D is in fact only ascribed this title once, on the base of statue
BM 1132 +1225.47

Variations of the H3ty-a n niwt title appear in the titulary of Montuemhat and various
of his successors. Montuemhat occasionally bore the title H3ty-a n W3st or H3ty-a wr
n W3st. Furthermore, Pabasa, the Chief Steward of Nitokris, was H3ty-a n niwt and
H3ty-a wr n W3st. Although Montuemhat’s career was separated in time from the
chief stewards by several decades, the similarities seem clear – each held the title
designating them as Theban Governor, but with variations suggesting, through the
adjective wr (‘great’), that they had risen to a station above that of the normal
Governor. In addition, each also held other titles (most notably imy-r ^maw which
they all held in common – see Chapter 4) which would seem to suggest an elevated
status. Nespakashuty D also falls into this category.

Several of the attested Governors between Montuemhat and Pabasa had connections
outside the Theban area and may have had only limited connections with Thebes
itself. Basa, for example, was originally from Coptos, while the Patjenfy family came
from Edfu. The latter group seem to have been markedly less prominent than
Montuemhat, Nespakashuty D and the Chief Stewards, and did not hold the ranking
titles H3ty-a iry-pat xtmty-bity smr-waty, the sign of an individual of high status.48
Basa, however, built a tomb (TT 389) for himself among the grandest monuments of
the Kushite and Saite Periods in the Asasif cemetery.

47
Pressl transcribes this title as H3ty-a n niwt n ^maw n Nxn followed by T3yty s3b T3ty (Pressl 1998,
184-5). However, an inspection of the original conducted by the author suggests that the sequence
should be read as H3ty-a n niwt imy-r ^maw t3yty s3b T3ty (see appendix 2.1). Although H3ty-a n niwt is
otherwise never attributed to this individual, showing the inscription to be unique in this regard, it
nonetheless seems more likely that this title would be followed by another – imy-r ^maw – which we
know from other sources to have been held by Nespakashuty D, while H3ty-a n niwt n ^maw n Nxn
would otherwise be very unusual.
48
Assmann 1973, 21.

32
2.4. Summary
Khaemhor A was the first Theban Governor during the period (the first appointed
under the Kushite regime at least, if not the first to act in this capacity under their
rule). He was succeeded directly by his son Nesmin B, as the similarity between their
titles suggests.
The succession within the family was then interrupted by Wedjahor, presumably as a
result of intervention by the Kushite rulers. If Nesmin B’s tenure of this title was cut
short, that is, if the title was removed from him before his retirement or death, this
might help explain why it was later held by a member of the same generation.
Wedjahor was succeeded by Karabasken, another Kushite appointee, who was
among the first to have constructed a rock-cut tomb for his burial. Both Wedjahor
and Karabasken were Fourth Priest of Amun as well as Theban Governor, it having
become custom at this point for the two titles to be held by the same individual.
After the death of Karabasken, the title returned to the Montuemhat line, in the
person of Nesptah A, perhaps at the same time as the title of Fourth Priest of Amun
returned to the Nakhtefmut family, another established Theban family. This perhaps
reflects a reduction in the Kushite authority relative to that of the local establishment,
or at least a change in the dynamics of that relationship.
Nesptah A was succeeded by his son, Montuemhat, who would also take on the title
of Fourth Priest of Amun, and become ruler of Southern Egypt. Montuemhat in turn
would pass the Theban Governorate on to his own son, Nesptah B. The close
connection of these individuals is illustrated by the relief from the chapel of Mut at
Karnak.
The end of the career of Montuemhat came at a time when Psamtek I was
establishing his authority over all of Egypt through a centralised system of
government. This led to a reduction in the authority of local governors and changes
in the titles borne by those with influence. At this time, the situation becomes
confused but it seems likely that, Nesptah B was succeeded by his uncle
Raemmaakheru, who in turn passed the title onto his own son, Khaemhor B. The
vizier Nespakashuty D also held the title. The fact that he also held the title imy-r
^maw (see Chapter 1) suggests that he was the successor as ruler of a wider area than
the city of Thebes alone. It could be that by this time a revision of the means by

33
which Thebes was governed49 signalled a dramatic reduction in the importance of the
titles previously used to designate the Theban Governor, and which were then
claimed by various individuals50 and/or subsumed into the titulary of other, more
powerful individuals such as the Chief Stewards of the God’s Wife of Amun (at
least by the reign of Necho II). This does not explain the apparent prominence of the
Governor Basa, whose tomb fits well into the sequence of apparently pre-eminent
individuals buried in el-Asasif.

2.5. Discussion
Several of the individuals we think of as Governors are in fact only given the title
H3ty-a n niwt and/or rwD a3 xsf n niwt a few times (see table 2.1). Khaemhor A, for
example, is attributed the rwD a3 xsf n niwt and H3ty-a n niwt titles once each, while
by contrast the title of vizier is attributed to him on every one of these monuments.
Furthermore, Nesmin B, Raemmaakheru and Khaemhor are all only attributed such
titles once, though their monuments in general are fewer and, therefore, the contrast
is less stark.

Although one might postulate that in certain instances titles were attributed to
individuals erroneously, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it does not seem
prudent to suggest that the individuals concerned did not hold these titles. Another
possible reason for the relative scarcity of citations of this title is that it was not
considered to be of great importance by its owners or those commissioning the
production of the monument, at least not at the time, or in the context of their
monuments. We might deduce from the monuments that the title of vizier was more
significant to Khaemhor A than that of Theban Governor, and that it was more
significant in general at this time. At the same time we might deduce that the H3ty-
a/rwD a3 titles were of greater importance to Nesptah A and Montuemhat (neither of
whom were viziers).

49
That is, the change from a situation in which the city was governed independently from other Upper
Egypt towns and cities, to one in which it was brought into a wider administration headed by an
individual perhaps based at Thebes but with responsibility over a wider area, signified by the title imy-
r ^maw
50
For example, Raemmaakheru and his son whose claim was based on their relationship to
Montuemhat and his line.

34
If the title(s) designating an individual as Theban Governor were considered to have
had only secondary importance in some cases, but not in others, how might this be
explained? It could be that in some cases individuals took on the role of Theban
Governor relatively early in their career before ascending to a senior role, such as the
vizierate, which, as we have seen in Chapter 1, may have been awarded only to those
who had already proved their competence in other roles. 51 This may have been the
case for Khaemhor A. Alternatively, the title and role of Theban Governor may only
have been acquired by certain individuals after they had risen to what would be their
senior-most position, a scenario in which the role of Governor became a component
part of their wider responsibilities. This would seem perhaps to fit the case of
Montuemhat, and much later, the Chief Stewards of Nitocris, all of whom seem to
have exercised the role of Theban Governor as part of their wider remit as the most
powerful individual in Upper Egypt.

In general terms, it might seem therefore as though there was a gradual reduction in
the relative significance in the title of Theban Governor perhaps beginning with
Montuemhat, whose remit was much wider than that of the preceding Governors.
This would appear, in general terms, to fit the historical model in which the influence
of the Kushite pharaohs began to wane during the time Montuemhat started to rise to
prominence (which was also the time of Assyrian attacks), after which the Saite royal
house rose to power and gradually, under Psamtek I, began the re-centralisation of
the government of the country, thus reducing Thebes’ independence and influence.

It seems that during the early years of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty the Theban
governorate was hereditary within the Montuemhat family as was the Vizierate.
However, the lines of succession were interrupted at least once and the title appears
not to have passed simply from father to son, but from brother to brother on at least
one occasion, and then from one branch of the family to another (the Montuemhat
branch to the Raemmaakheru branch or possibly vice versa), which suggests it was
not hereditary. The possibility that the title may have been given to individuals
outside the Montuemhat family, due to intervention on the part of the Kushite

51
Payraudeau (forthcoming, 297) has noted that most of the holders of the rwD a3 xsf n niwt title seem
to have held other titles, which they considered to be of greater importance, and that the title rwD a3
xsf n niwt does not, therefore, appear to have represented the pinnacle of these individuals’ careers.

35
pharaohs, suggests not only that the role of Governor was significant at this time, but
also that the key to the Kushites’ maintenance of their grip on the southern capital lay
in not allowing the established Theban families, and in particular that of
Montuemhat, to develop too substantial a power base through the aggregation of
titles and responsibilities. This reasoning has been used to explain the ‘transfer’ of
the vizierate from the Montuemhat family to that of Nespakashuty C (see Chapter 1).

2.6. What did the Governor do?

It has been suggested that the titles rwD a3 xsf n niwt and H3ty-a n niwt, the latter
being held by Montuemhat at the time of the Assyrian invasions, represented the
office that the Assyrians translated šarru,52 and also, therefore, that this implies some
equivalence between Montuemhat and the various other local governors, such as the
Libyan Delta chiefs listed in Ashurbanipal’s Annals. Clearly, however, it is
unreasonable to expect that Egypt was divided into a series of units which were of
roughly the same size and governed on the same basis. Equally it would not be
reasonable to expect that the Assyrian terminology would take into account any
variations in the role or responsibilities of each of these local governors beyond the
fact that each was the pre-eminent individual charged with the running of each area
(presumably with jurisdiction over the local economy, judiciary, military and so on).
This does not preclude the possibility, however, that more complicated relationships
existed between each of these local units and governors, or, for example, that
Montuemhat exercised greater authority and power than others designated as šarru in
Upper Egypt (see also the discussion of the Ashurbanipal Annals in Chapter 1).
Furthermore, the role of the šarru might not necessarily be represented solely by the
title H3ty-a n niwt in the case of Montuemhat, but by his accumulation of a series of
titles, including that of Fourth Priest of Amun, which perhaps gave him considerable
influence within the estate of Amun. Had the Assyrian invasions occurred during an
earlier phase of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, during the lifetime of Khaemhor A, it may
well have been the latter who was the designated šarru, and we might in that case
conclude that it was his tenure of the vizierate that led to this (as has been the
conclusion drawn in the case of the vizier and šarru of Thinis, Nespamedu – see
Chapter 1), when again it might in fact have been his aggregation of this title and that

52
Payraudeau 2003, 149.

36
of rwD a3 xsf n niwt that led to his pre-eminence. It seems reasonable to assume that
only the Assyrian šarru at Thebes was the most prominent person in the region at the
time. This was clearly Montuemhat around the time the Annals were written, but at
other times the most prominent person in the region probably held different titles.
The Assyrian text is therefore of limited use in interpreting the role played by
Montuemhat, and the significance of the title H3ty-a n niwt (and by extension that of
rwD a3 xsf n niwt).

Payraudeau’s argument that the title rwD a3 xsf n niwt was supplanted by that of H3ty-
a n niwt during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty is convincing. That they, therefore, had the
same meaning is much less convincing, and ignores the changing circumstances of
the times, and also the fact that the meaning of the H3ty-a n niwt title seems to have
altered further after this point as well. The significance of the holders of the title
appears to have shifted as well,53 which again raises the question of whether
individual titles were the reason for an individual’s elevated status or a reflection of
it, or whether in fact the aggregation of titles was most important.

It has been suggested that the rwD a3 xsf n niwt title might have had military
connotations, on the basis that the element xsf meant ‘punisher’ or ‘controller’ and
was written with the determinative of the ‘forearm with hand holding stick’
(Gardiner sign-list D40), but also that, contrary to this hypothesis, the individuals
concerned do not seem to have held any other titles connecting them with the
military (although caution should be exercised in inferring the meaning of a certain
title on the basis of others held with it). In addition, biographical texts of these
individuals would suggest they were more closely involved with the civil
administration.54 These texts suggest that the rwD a3 xsf n niwt was “the one who
organises Thebes with effective decrees” or the one “who puts Thebes in order by
good decrees.”55

53
Compare for example Montuemhat, the pre-eminent individual in the whole of Upper Egypt in the
late Twenty-fifth Dynasty / early Twenty-six Dynasty, and the members of the Patjenfy family who
were also H3ty-a n niwt but seem to have been associated primarily with Edfu.
54
Payraudeau 2003, 150.
55
Payraudeau 2003, 151.

37
During the Libyan Period it seems the influence of the rwD a3 xsf n niwt did not
extended beyond Thebes.56 At this time, the apparent geographical limits of the
influence of the rwD a3 xsf n niwt would seem to reflect the fragmented nature of the
period. By the point at which Montuemhat ruled Upper Egypt, Thebes had perhaps
regained its importance as a regional centre, a situation which might have resulted in
a change in the role of the Theban governor. Such a shift might have been the reason
for the change from the use of the title rwD a3 xsf n niwt to that of H3ty-a n niwt.

It has been suggested that the role of Theban Governor was designated by the title
rwD a3 xsf n niwt, while other towns and cities in Egypt continued to be governed by
a H3ty-a n niwt (the ‘foremost one of the town’) during the Twenty-second Dynasty,
as during this time the Governor was not the foremost authority in the city, that place
having been taken over by the Chief Priest of Amun. The shift back to the use of the
title H3ty-a n niwt might have been the result of the dramatic reduction in the
importance of the Chief Priest. The literal translation of the title as ‘foremost one of
the City’ of Thebes, would then reflect the scenario outlined above in which the
šarru of Ashurbanipal’s Annals was simply the foremost authority in a given area,
regardless of what Egyptian titles they held.

56
Payraudeau forthcoming 299. This judgement is based on the fact that the holders of the title rwD a3
xsf n niwt held no titles relating, for example, to cults outside Thebes, or to areas wider than Thebes,
such as ^maw ‘Upper Egypt.’ However, this is not an entirely convincing argument. Thebes was
clearly a major centre of power and controlled much territory beyond the city itself; the title rwD a3 xsf
n niwt might ostensibly only refer to the city of Thebes, but may have in fact involved jurisdiction
over a wider area. There is very subtle distinction to be made between the responsibilities attached to
a specific title, such as that of rwD a3 xsf n niwt or H3ty-a n niwt, and the responsibilities held by an
individual who held those titles and others. Therefore, in discussing the significance of a title, caution
should be exercised in inferring that the title had or had not a certain meaning on the basis of the fact
that the individual did or did not hold certain other titles.

38