You are on page 1of 533

The Culture of Officialdom

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


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

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
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
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.


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.
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.
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.
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

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)

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)
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)

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

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
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
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


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
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
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
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
AWG achrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen
OA Oriens Antiquus
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OED Oxford English Dictionary
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
Attaining Office in the Time of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II

I. Purpose of the research
The organization of the government
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
have ranged from general historical overviews,

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

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.
See note 1.
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.
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
Dynasty, ten to the Ramesside
Period, and one to the Third Intermediate Period.
These include Bryan, Thutmose IV; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; der Manuelian, Amenophis II;
Murnane, in: Amenhotep III; Schmitz, Amenophis I.
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.
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.
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,
it is much less able to contribute to our understanding of
how this structure was maintained or changed over time.
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?

New Kingdom studies include those by Bohleke, Double Granaries; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses
des Amun; Roehrig, Royal urse; van den Boorn, Duties.
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.
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).
On this issue see, for example, Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.45-53.
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
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.
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.
entire 18
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.

An important part in choosing this particular portion of the mid-18
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
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
Dynasty, began the process of re-
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

These two kings reigned during the mid-18
Dynasty of the New Kingdom.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.

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

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.
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.
The GWA performed specific temple rituals as a priestess,

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.
Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.218ff.
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.
CGC 34001; cf. Urk. IV, 14-24.
Cf. Vandersleyen, Cd 52, pp.234ff.; Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.226ff.
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
which gave her religious power within the cult. In addition, the land holdings attached to
the position meant significant economic power.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

also Bryan, in: Mistress of House, pp. 31f.; Robins, Women, pp.44ff., 149-56; Robins, in: Images of
Women, pp.64-78.
Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.71, 73.
Redford, History and Chronology, pp.70ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, p.66.
Boorn, Duties, pp.333-76; cf. the review by Lorton, Cd 70, pp.123-132.
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.349.
Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.347f., 355, 359, 370f.
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.355.
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,

granting the vizier authority as the director of the royal domain, head of the civil
administration and also making him the kings personal delegate.
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.
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.
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.

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
dyn. but now in support of a strong

Van den Boorn, Duties, p.375.
These are van den Boorns three main aspects, which he details in Duties, ch.3, pp.309-31.
Van den Boorn, Duties, ch.3.2.3, pp.320ff. with fig.11, and p.355f.
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.355.
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
Van den Boorn, Duties, p.370f. He in fact credits the family of Aametu with four generations of viziers,
Moving ahead to the mid-18
Dynasty and the events following the death of
Thutmosis II, Dziobek
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.
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.
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
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,
it is clear from other
monuments that this was not, in fact the case.

The different theories explaining Hatshepsuts accession were outlined by

the first being an unknown ancestor of Aametu; cf. Duties, pp.368ff.
I a referring here to his reconstruction of Users involvement in Hatshepsuts accession; cf. Dziobek,
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.
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
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.
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.
Murnane, Coregencies, p.116.
Dorman in his monograph on Hatshepsuts steward Senenmut.
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,
or out of political necessity.
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.
addition, inscriptions such as that from the tomb of Ineni (TT81) seem to indicate that her
assumption of power was fairly gradual.
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.
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.
The extent of this
power is especially visible during Hatshepsuts tenure as gods wife
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.

Dorman, Senenmut, Ch.1, pp.1-17, esp. pp.10-14.
For example, Helck, Verwaltung, p.542; Wilson, Burden,pp.175-7; Hayes, in: CAH II.1, pp.318-19.
Thus, Redford, History and Chronology, p.87.
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
Bryan, Mistress, p.32; BAR 2, 341-42; Urk. IV, 59-61.
Thus, Redford, in: History and Chronology, Ch.4, pp.73ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.76ff.
Bryan, in: Mistress of House, p.31; Robins, Women, p.43f., 151f.; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.73-6.
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.
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.
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
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,
Dziobek has recently revived the concept that there was some
type of bureaucratic involvement in Hatshepsuts rise.
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.
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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is quite different from the Egyptian presence in Nubia, which
immediately resulted in the refurbishment of Middle Kingdom fortresses, and erection of

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
Dynasty was modest and in many respects
traditional. Redford, Wars, p.185.
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.
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
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.
new temples and associated towns.

In general the campaigns of Thutmosis I into northern Syria have been viewed as
little more than skirmishes and a hunting expedition in Niye.
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
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.

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.
Of all the pharaohs of the early to mid-18
Dynasty, Thutmosis III
was the most prolific in acquiring and retaining control of territory throughout the Near
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.
Helck also suggested that despite

Kemp, in: Imperialism, pp. 21-57 and 284-297; Morris, Imperialism, pp.68ff., 180ff.; OConnor, in:
Social History, pp.255ff.
For example, Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.234.
Redford, Wars, p.186.
As Redford strongly states; cf. Redford, Wars, p.193f., pp.255-7.
Morris, Imperialism, pp.115ff.; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.155ff.; Redford, Wars, esp.
pp.191ff.; Weinstein, BASOR 241, pp.10-15.
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.
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
Dynasty, and his conclusions have essentially
been followed; cf. Helck, Einfluss, esp. pp.34ff.
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.
Furthermore, he asserted that familial connections were
important to determining who was granted high civil office.
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.
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
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.

Since the time of Helcks Verwaltung,
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.
He also

Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.147.
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; cf. Helck, Einfluss, pp.33, 41ff., 71f.
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.
Helck, Verwaltung, pp. 537-8; Helck, Einfluss, pp.35-6, n.1, 66-71.
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.

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.
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.

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

Helck, Einfluss, p.71-3.
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p. 168.
Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p. 168.
the larger work.
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
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.

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

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.
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
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
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, pp.1-7; Davies, Whos Who; Kitchen, TIP.
administration, i.e., vizierate, treasury, palace and land.
Within each section he presents
a discussion of the titles, focusing on how they are defined, and the functions attached to
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.

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.
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.

Noticeably left out due to their treatment elsewhere, are the military (cf. Helck, Einfluss) and priesthood
(cf. Kees, Priestertum).
Helck, Verwaltung, Chapters 1-20, pp.1-285.
I.e., mayor (HAty-a), butler (wbA), fan-bearer and standard-bearer (TAy xw, TAy srit)
Helck, Verwaltung, Chapters 21-22.
See the literature cited in notes 3-6 above.
In the summary that completes the volume,
Helck makes several sweeping
conclusions about the evolution of New Kingdom administration. Some have been borne
out by subsequent studies,
while others have been modified.
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.
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.

Similar conclusions that have come from Helcks volume on military influence during the
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

Chapter 23, pp.532-47.
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.
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.
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8.
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,
Helck, Der Einfluss der Militrfhrer in der 18. gyptischen Dynastie, (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
life, while the so-called front soldiers moved into court and palace positions and hid
their military backgrounds.

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.
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.
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.
Helck, Einfluss, pp.28-33, 71-3.
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.
For example, Bohleke, Double Granaries; Bryan, ARCE 1981; Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des
and connections between private individuals and known historical figures through which
to establish a firm chronology.
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.
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.
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.
Thus, he omitted persons who were mentioned perhaps only
once with an obscure title and no filiation.
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.
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.
Most explicitly stated by Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, p.1; Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.xiii-xvi.
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.
Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.1.
Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, pp.2-3.
Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.2.
Though, as Bierbrier notes in his review, Vittmann also tended to treat each family grouping in isolation
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.
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
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.

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.

Bierbriers studies
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.
Kitchen, K.A., The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 110 - 650 B.C., Warminster: Aris & Phillips,
Kitchen, TIP, esp. Part I, Part III, Part IV.
Kitchen, TIP, p.xi.
Bierbrier, M.L. Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Medna, JEA 66 (1980), pp. 100-107; Bierbrier, M.L.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.xii.
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.
Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.1-18, 113-14.
multiple generations, and had connections with the office of deputy.

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
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.

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.
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.
Davies was also able to connect several officials and families with the
reigns of particular kings, providing better chronological information on the Late New

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

Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.19-44, pp. 113-116.
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.
Davies, Whos Who, p.xxiii.
This is especially true in the case of the scribal families; cf. Davies, Whos Who, Appendix A, pp.123-
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.
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

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.
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.

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

This appears throughout his discussion, but see esp. Appendix A, pp.123-142.
Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, p.1-2.
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.
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
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.

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.
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.
Especially relevant are Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Kitchen, TIP.
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
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
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

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.
the highest levels of office.

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
Following Quirke, an office is understood as a position to which regular duties
and functions were attached.
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

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.
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
between those titles which are markers of status, and those which are indicators of
positions with actual duties.
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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
Helck, Ld VI, cols.596-601.
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.
only for the Middle Kingdom,
and to a lesser extent the Ramesside period.

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

nor is it appropriate in the context of this dissertation to do so.
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).

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).
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
a shift begins in which the word for sister (snt) becomes used instead of Hmt to denote a

Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen; Franke, Ld VI, cols. 1032-36; Lustig, Ideologies; Robins,
Cd54, pp. 197-217; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68.
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.
This is the case despite the work of Sheila Whale on the representation of the family in the private tombs
of the 18
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.
In preparation of the short discussion that follows a much longer document was initially prepared.
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.
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.
mans wife.
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.

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.
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.
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.
Detlef Frankes authoritative work on the ancient Egyptian
kinship structure and terminology of the Middle Kingdom,
subsequently summarized

Cerny, JEA 40, p.25, 27-8.
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).
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.
Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68.
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
Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen. This was reviewed by both Robins and Willems; cf. Willems,
Bijdragen Tot 141, pp.186-8; Robins, BiOr 41, pp.602-6.
for the Lexikon,
goes well beyond that of Robins and Willems.
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
descriptive. The same terms were used for siblings and cousins (sn/snt). In addition,
lineals and collaterals were always strictly distinguished, whereas generations were
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.
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.
After contributing and incorporating more
recent anthropological methodology and theory, Lustigs findings essentially agree with

Franke, Ld VI, cols. 1032-36.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
those of her Egyptological predecessors.
She views Frankes genealogical chart
an ideal reconstruction of the Egyptian terminological system.

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

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.
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
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).
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

Lustig, Ideologies, pp. 58-65.
Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, fig. 3, p.163.
Lustig, Ideologies, p.59.
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.
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.
Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina.
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.

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.

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

Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina, pp.29-30. This is especially interesting given that during the
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.
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
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,
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.
This has led to a conception of ancient Egypts
administrative structure as essentially pyramidal in nature, with the king at the apex.

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

See Ch.1, pp.100-110.
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.
Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-4.
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.
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
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.
Thus, there
was an underlying assumption in ancient Egypt that all officials were ultimately
conferred in their posts
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.
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
These upper level officials, and certainly the vizier, were probably
responsible for appointing their subordinates.

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.
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.
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia II, p.576.
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
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.
See the references cited above. For the role of the vizier in appointing officials directly under him and in
though now set in a narrative context.
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.
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.
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
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
Senedjemibs abilities had apparently distinguished him such that he was
rewarded with a promotion and additional responsibilities.
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.
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.
Helck, Ld I, col.227.
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.
For a translation, see Wente, Letters, p.18-19, no.3
this because I saw you as one of excellent conduct, keen of tongue, who had come from
the womb as one wise.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Wente, Letters, p.18-19, no.3.
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).
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, cols. 11-13.
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.
KRI III, pp.283-5.
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.

This practice continues and develops throughout ancient Egyptian history, in inscriptions
found not just in tombs, but on statues and stelae as well.
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,
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.
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.
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.

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,

As, for example in the 6
Dynasty autobiographies of Weni and Harkhuf. See Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.18-
27 for convenient translations.
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.
Weni was an important official of the 6
Dynasty whose tomb at Abydos was recently re-discovered by
Janet Richards.
Lichtheim, AEL I, p.21.
Lichtheim, AEL I, p.91. The stele, now in the British Museum (no.614), was originally set up at Tjentjis
Theban tomb.
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.
offers an example of this.
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].
The last portion of the inscription implies a
situation similar to that of the mdw iAw, or staff of old age.
According to Blumenthal,
the term or method employed in the Old Kingdom that parallels that of mdw iAw was imy-
xt successor.
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.
Lloyd argues that although his
hereditary claims to the position of nomarch were valid, royal appointment was needed in

Coptos Decree M, dated to the 8
Dynasty; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.102. A translation is provided in
Wente, Letters, p.21, no.7.
Wente, Letters, p.21.
The use of this term is reviewed in Chapter 1, Section Ib., pp.64-9.
Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.91.
Khnumhotep II was the owner of Tomb 2 at Beni Hasan; cf. Newberry, Beni Hasan.
order to gain the position.
He goes on to propose that this should be viewed as a
legitimizing strategy used by Khnumhotep II to strengthen his position.
Others have
suggested that nomarchs in place at the beginning of the 11
and 12
Dynasties retained
their positions due to their loyalty to the kings who founded them.
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.

Instances of an official losing his position due to negligence or misconduct are
also known.
An excellent example of a king removing an official from his post comes
from Cairo Stele 30770, dated to the 17
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.

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:

Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27 ff.
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.30. Cf. Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67, esp. pp.59ff.
See, for example, Callender, in: Oxford History, pp.152, 172-6; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-102;
Seidelmeyer, in: Oxford History, p.135f., 142f.
This example is discussed at length in Chapter 1, Section Ia., pp.60-64.
See Helck, Ld I, cols. 231-32 for a brief list.
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.
Wente, Letters, p.26, no.13. The king in question is Nebkheperre Intef.

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.

With this clause it becomes evident that although hereditary succession was an oft-
practiced event, perhaps especially amongst temple personnel,
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).
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.

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

Wente, Letters, p.26, no.13.
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.
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.
The fundamental work is still that of Gardiner and Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead. For more recent
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.
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.
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.

Two examples that demonstrate different aspects of the viziers role date to before
and after the composition of the Duties.
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.
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.
A rather different picture is provided by a
Ramesside letter sent from the chief of police Mininuy to [his] lord, the vizier Khay.

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).
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.
Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. his discussion of the activities of the vizier, pp.309-331.
Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. pp.310-24, with fig.11. The quote comes from p.322.
I follow van den Boorns re-dating of the text to the early 18
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,
From Papyrus Reisner II, Section G; cf. Wente, Letters, p.44, no.43.. Intefoker was vizier during the
reign of Sesostris I.
Wente, Letters, p.44, no.43. Two of the stewards are listed as being sons of stewards.
O. Toronto A 11, rt.12-30, dated to the reign of Ramesses II.
superior, who presumably appointed him,
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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

Duties, Section 17: It is he (i.e., the vizier) who appoints the overseer of police; cf. van den Boorn,
Duties, pp.250f.
Wente, Letters, p.46, no.48.
P. Rylands 9 is dated to the 26
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.
Pestman, Marriage, p.8.
Pestman, Marriage, p.8; Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9, pp.143-4, 445-49.
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576.
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.
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),
rdi to place, appoint (as, to),
sxnt to advance, promote,
dhn to appoint.
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

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.
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,
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.
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.
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
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

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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The following discussion is a short abstract of the lengthier document that introduces the chapter dealing
with this method of acquiring office.
OED, 2
edition, 1989 (web), under: heredity, entry 1., hereditary, (a.) n., entries 1. and 3., and
inheritance, entry I.1.
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.
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.
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;
even replacement for the father.
It also appears that the inheritance of a title and office
could be both legitimized and revoked by the king.
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.
This type of inheritance through lineage certainly
seems to have been possible for some Middle Kingdom officials,
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
On this issue, and the possibility of (residual) rights of primogeniture, see Johnson, in: Mistress of
House, pp.183-4.
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
and can apply to friends, protgs, or others within a person's sphere of influence.

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
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.
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.

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

OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: nepotism, n., entry 1.a.
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: nepotism, n., entry 1.b.
Helck, Ld I, cols.672-5; Helck, Beamtentiteln, pp.136-142; Strudwick, Administration, pp.338-9;
Schmitz, Knigssohn, pp.43ff., 103ff., 159ff.
Strudwick, Administration, p.338.
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.
I follow Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73 in the translation of this term. See Chapter 1, Section Ic, pp.69-73.
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-
that it was relatively common practice.

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

The former, as might be deduced from their title, teach right living in the form of
advice and exhortation, and inveigh against wrongdoing.
In the New Kingdom
Instruction of Amenemope
a particular set of maxims seems relevant to the
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

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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, p.243.
Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.146-63; Shirun-Grumach, Ld III, cols.971-4.
Lichtheim, AEL II, p.151. The lines come from Ch.5, VI,14-17.
behalf of a third party.
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

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).

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

Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, p.258.
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.
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.
The text comes from the back of a dyad, now in the Turin Museum. Translation from Murnane, Amarna
Texts, p.233.
military administrations, over which the king was the supreme head.
In addition, as
was noted above, both the king and his highest officials had the authority to place men in
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.
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

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.
See section Va. Appointment and the literature cited therein.
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.1
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,
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.

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
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.
Helck concluded that Amenhotep II surrounded himself with these court
He also posited many of the men who served in the military campaigns of

See section Va. Appointment and the literature cited therein.
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.
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
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,
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.
Helck, Verwaltung, p.538. See also der Manuelian, Amenhotep II, pp.168-9, and contra this, Bryan,
Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II became formed wartime friendships with their kings
that resulted in their appointment as civil officials following their soldierly exploits.

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.
However, merit can also be defined as
being entitled to reward or gratitude, either implied or explicit.
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.
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.
Helck, Einfluss, p.71-2.
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: merit, n., entry I.1.b., after 1881 and merit system, under
entry IV, Compounds.
OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: merit, n., entry I.1.b.
OConnor, in: Social History, pp.209ff.; van den Boorn, Duties, pp.313 ff., 344 ff.; Bryan, in: Thutmosis
meritorious rise is in the statements made by the officials themselves. The
autobiographies of the 18
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.
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.

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

my lord praised me on account of my excellence,
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.

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.

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.
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.
Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.230-1.
Urk. IV, 1522.9: ir.n iqrw.f st.f
Urk. IV, 1533.5: Hswn win b.i Hr mnx.i
Urk. IV, 1533.8: in ib.i sxnt st.i iqrw.i di.n.f wi m sH
Eyre, in: History and Forms, p.422.
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.
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

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
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

Helck, Einfluss, pp. 28ff, 41ff., 69ff..
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.
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

The reasons for this are stated in the preceding discussion.
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,
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.
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

See above, pp.1-3, Section III, pp.14ff.
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.
For example, a man who acquires an upper level position through his own merit and was then able to
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
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
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.
particularly demonstrate how the approach taken in the present work has changed earlier
theories will be presented.

Chapter 1
The Power of Heredity: Inheritance
and Influence

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
That this certainly did occur is supported by a variety of different documents,
e.g. legal records, narratives, mythological texts and tomb inscriptions.
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
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

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.
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.
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
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.

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,
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.
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
Dynasty the number of non-royal officials was
rapidly expanding.
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.
Although the provinces may have retained a higher

See the Introduction to the book, Section VIa., pp.34-45.
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576
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.
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.

level of autonomy throughout the Old Kingdom,
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
Thus, while already in the later Old Kingdom there is some evidence for the
hereditary succession of office,
this seems to have burgeoned during the Middle
Kingdom, especially for regional nomarchs and viziers.

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.
The family of Khnumhotep II, from his paternal
grandfather through to his own sons, apparently dominated the rulership of the 16
nomes, and possibly had influence within the 15
nome of Upper Egypt.

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

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.
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
Malek, in: Oxford History, p.116f.
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.
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.
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.28. The 15
, or Hare nome, was centered at el-Berhseh. In the text, the
, or Oryx nome, is also referred to as Menat-Khufu. The 17
, or Input-nome is generally
translated as the Cynopolitan nome. For a convenient list, cf. Helck, Ld II, cols.385-408.

daughter of a count, states that he is appointed by the king to the inheritance of my
mothers father in Menat-Khufu.
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.

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.
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.
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.
The youngest son, also named Khnumhotep
(IV), was appointed as mayor, and therefore probably inherited his fathers station in
the Oryx Nome.

Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.22, 2a.
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.22, 2bIII.
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cV.
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cVI, p.34 note 43; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, p.57.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Lloyd suggests that the major
point of emphasis throughout the biography is the legitimacy of royal decision-making
when appointments are made.
Furthermore, the kingship factor is clearly perceived
as operating in counterpoint with hereditary family claims in creating and validating
Although Khnumhotep IIs inscription contains the royal praises so common
to other autobiographies,
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.
In contrast to this, the contemporary

A similar situation happened at Meir, where the rulership of the 14
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.
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)
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.27.
Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.27.
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).
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
See the literature cited above.

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.
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
These texts, which were recently examined by Blumenthal and reviewed in
part by McDowell, are discussed below.

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.
although this text is set in the Old Kingdom, its composition probably dates to the early
Middle Kingdom.
The remaining seven sources are spread evenly in the Middle and
New Kingdoms, on varying types of monuments.
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!

The Judicial Stela of Amarah, see below.
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.
Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-97; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.201-3.
Lichtheim, AEL I, p.63; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.84.
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.
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
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.
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 m tA At.

In the tomb of the nomarch Djhutyhotep at Bersheh (Tomb 2)
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.
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 was both nomarch of Bersheh and vizier under Amenemhat I.
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.
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.
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
Dynasty tombs of the vizier User and the high priest of

The tomb was published in two volumes, Newberry, El Bersheh I and Griffith and Newberry, El
Bersheh II.
Newberry, El Bersheh I, pl.33.
Urk. VII, 46; Breasted, ARE I, pp.308-9; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-6; Willems, JEOL 28,
pp. 80-102;
Following Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-1 and Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.23.
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.
Willems JEOL 28, pp.80-102. With regard to the vizierate, see also their mention in Allen, in: Theban
ecropolis, pp.21-6.

Amun Amunemhat.
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.
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.
This implies that the sons replaced rather
than assisted their fathers.
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
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

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).
They are discussed by Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp. 87-90, and by McDowell, in: Care of the
Elderly, pp.201-2.
McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, p.202; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp. 86-7.
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 .
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.

from the late New Kingdom, all the possessions of the couple Paser and Tameheyt are to
be given to their daughter.
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.
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.
Nonetheless, Janssen views it as a special
administrative title from the Middle Kingdom and 18
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.
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.
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

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.
McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1.
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.
Janssen, Getting Old, p.77.
Shehab el-Din, DE 37, p.64.

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
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.
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.

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
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

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.
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).
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.
Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.123-4; Johnson, in: Mistress, pp.176ff.

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

Numerous examples exist of documents that record the endowments which can be
established for the purposes of perpetuating ones funerary cult.
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.
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.

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.
Indeed, there are records of disputes that
occurred over this very issue.
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

Allam, Ld I, cols. 66-7; Eyre, JEA 78, pp.207-21; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-20.
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.
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.
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
Ward, in: Land Tenure, p.66.
Johnson, in: Mistress, pp.176ff, p.215 n.3;

his paternal inheritance inasmuch as I am the son of a wab-priest like each one of
This indicates that Hapidjefas father had bequeathed these days along with the
office wab-priest itself.
The Donation Stele, which records the purchase of the office of
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.

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.
The Dynasty 17 Stle Juridique from Karnak
provides an example of this last case.
This text records an imyt-pr made by Kebsi for
the man of his family Sobeknakht, interpreted by Spalinger to be a half-brother.

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.

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

Reisner, JEA 5, p.84.
Reisner, JEA 5, p.95; Spalinger, JAOS 105, p.12
Logan, JARCE 37, p.63f.
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.
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.
Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, pp.645-646. Later in the text Sobeknakht is referred to as a brother of
Kebsi (l.10).
Lacau, Stle Juridique, esp. pp.7-9, 17.

office from Kebsi,
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
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.
These types of
transactions may also indicate that an imyt-pr was perhaps a way to legitimize such a
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.
That both aspects were important is
suggested by the phrases Let the possessions be given to him who buries
and As for
him who has no children, he adopts an orphan instead to bring him up.
Thus there
were various methods of adoption, both formal and informal, and it could be used for
relatives, slaves, and even orphans.
The most famous example is the so-called

Spalinger, in: Studien Westendorf, p.646.
Parkinson, Voices, p.110; cf. Logan, JARCE 37, p.59f.
Logan, JARCE 37, p.59; cf. Parkinson, Voices, pp.110-111.
Eyre, JEA 78, p.215; see also McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-20; Allam, Das Altertum 19,
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.
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.
Allam, Ld I, cols. 66-7. The clearest examples of adoption come only from the later New Kingdom,

Adoption Papyrus, a document from the late New Kingdom.
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.

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.

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

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.
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.
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).

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
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

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

areas of administration.
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

(Three generations of viziers)
This family of viziers is the example par excellence of the ability of some
officials in the mid-18
Dynasty to retain control over a position.
(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.

E.g. Khnumhotep IIs son Khnumhotep who became an expedition-leader, or the Bersheh nomarchs
who were also viziers.
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.
The most recent treatments of this family are Dziobek, MDAIK 45, pp.109-32; Dziobek, User-Amun;
Dziobek, Denkmler; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

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
Dynasty, Ahmose, whose
own mother was also called Ahhotep.
In addition, Aametu was possibly related to the
family of the early 18
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.
The pattern of their names (i.e., combining Ahmose with a second

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.
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

) supports this, as does the depiction of Tjuro in the shrine of Aametus son User
at Gebel es-Silsilah (Fig.3, p.459).
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
, no filiation is given,
making it also possible that Tjuro was included as a distinguished colleague of Aametus
rather than a family member.
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,
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,
but an unrelated man
called Seni.
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.
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.
Shrine 17; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.46.
The title reads: sA nsw imy-r xAswt rsyt; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.46.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4ff.
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.
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp. 65-89, 91-6, 155-7;Dziobek, Denkmler, p.137. The chronology of the
viceroys during the 18
Dynasty has been a source of constant debate. The relevant sources are cited in the

of the contemporary mayor of Thebes, Ineni, owner of TT81.
Ineni was also the
architect for the tomb of Thutmosis I
and held a number of upper level positions within
the Amun temple, including overseer of the granaries of Amun.
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
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.
Our evidence for Aametu comes from his Theban tomb
Karnak statue fragment, and from the many different monuments on which he
is named or depicted.
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.
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,
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.
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,
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.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.330-1, type IVb.
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

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.

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.

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.
Sections of the Duties indicate that the vizier administered
over the prison and appointed various officials within it, including the overseer of
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.
sAb TAyty r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat r shrr m tA r-D //[ r.f ]//, imy-r Hwt wrt 6, imy-r niwt
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.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.116-7.
Van den Boorn, Duties, Sec.6-7, pp.120-145, Sec. 17, pp.250-64, pp.309 ff, esp. 317-327.

viziers administrative apparatus,
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
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.
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,
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

Van den Boorn, Duties, p.325.
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.
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.

(mdw iAw) for his father while still active at Karnak.
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,
and in column 24 of the inscription above, the
fuller version scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun
is used. The title falls
about halfway through Dziobeks recreated order of Users positions in the Amun temple
(see below.)

The Co-Installation of User encompasses the west end of the southeast wall of
Users Theban Tomb (TT) 131.
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).
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.
Below this Aametu sits facing User
with another lengthy text written in the style of a teaching.
On the opposite wall is

The term is mentioned in col. 12 and applied to User in cols. 25 and 27.
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.
sS Htmt nTr m Het nTr n Imn
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.100; cf. also Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.265 no.175.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va.
PM(8); cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.73-5, pl.17a, 19, 42-3, 72, 81.
PM(9)I; cf. Dziobek,User-Amun, pp.76-7, pl.18-19, 72, 83.
PM(9)II; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.75-6, pl.18-19, 72, 82; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.23-54 pl.2.

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

As Dziobek has pointed out in his discussion of the inscription,
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.

Composed of 37 columns,
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
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.
Following their speech, the king concurs, and asks that they find a suitable
candidate who in executing judgements his voice is well-disposed.
The officials,
after searching, praise Thutmosis III and inform him that the perfect official to place as a

PM(12); cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.77, pl.75, 85-6; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.55-66, pl.3
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.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.16-21.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.16ff. and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, p.138f.
Dziobek provides a translation with commentary in Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.3-15.
Columns 2-8; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.3-4, pl.1.
Columns 8-12: iAwt ip.s wnwt.s smrw ipn [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.
Columns 12-15: [Dd.]j[n].f Hwy n.i //// n Hmw.Tn [m]XA-ib Hr spw nw //// m stkn wDawt simA.f
xrw[.f]; Dziobek, Denkmler, p.5, pl.1.

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.
Finally, Thutmosis III speaks directly to the
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.
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.
[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.

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.

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

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

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] n.f wDw m aH smi.f xft-Hr Hmw-ib Htp qd
nfr.t sw n.k <m> mdw iAw; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.5-8, pl.1.
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.
Columns 29-36; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.10-12.
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
Dynasty stele of king Neferhotep, and possibly
the 17
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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

Loprieno, in: History and Forms, p.274.
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.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.16ff. and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, p.138f.
Redford, Wars, pp.101f.;Redford, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
Redford, Wars, pp.101f.

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
first appearing in private tombs dating to the reign of Hatshepsut.
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,
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.
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

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-
Probably composed, however, in the Middle Kingdom. See the discussion of sources for the term mdw
iAw above, Section Ib., pp.63-8.
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.100-101.; cf. Urk. IV, 1384.

Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.
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.
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.
However, it is possible that he served until year
34, which is the first certain date for his nephew and successor Rekhmire as vizier.
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.
The upper tomb, TT61,
does not contain depictions of any kings
and was finished, so it may have been begun somewhat earlier that the lower tomb,
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.
According to Dziobek, the shift from Aametu to User

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.
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.
TT82; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.70-2, pl.xxv; Urk. IV, 1043. A discussion of
Amenemhat follows below, see pp.100-110.
This date comes from Papyrus Louvre E. 3226; cf. Megally, Recherches, pp.245, 278-9.
Also suggested by Dziobek, Dziobek, Denkmler, p.21.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.277-9, type IIIa.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va.
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.147; Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.134-6.

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.
Although Dziobek suggests that Aametus actions with regard to
User were predicated by concern over his own dynastic succession,
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

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,
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

Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.144ff.; Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.132ff..
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.147.
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.
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.

rear chamber with niche which was reserved for the funerary and banqueting depictions
usually found at the rear of a single tomb.
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.
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.

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

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

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.
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.
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.
Neferweben is also mentioned in Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.293 no.348.

theories have been suggested. Neferweben is named as a son of the vizier Aametu in
Users shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah,
and as Rekhmires father in TT100, Rekhmires
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.
Dunham placed Neferweben as vizier
between User and Rekhmire,
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.
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.
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.
The only title
Rekhmires father Neferweben bears in TT100 or the Silsilah shrine is wab-priest of

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.
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.
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
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.
Dunham, JEA 15, p.164.
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.
Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.132-4; Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.131-43.
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.

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
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.
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.

Urk. IV, 1128-39; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.84-94 and Rekh-mi-r II, pls. xiv-xv; Lichtheim, AEL II,
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

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,
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.
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.
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.

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

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
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.
Refer to pp.28-33 of the Introduction, and the chart, Table 1, p.57.
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.

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.

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.
The majority of the inscription, some 34 lines, seems to concern
his actions as vizier and self-laudatory statements.
Only at the very beginning, in the
first dozen lines, are there glimpses of Rekhmires connection to Thutmosis III. Amongst

Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.126-8.
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.
Urk. IV, 1074-85; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-r II, pls. xi-xii.

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).
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.
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.
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.
He suggests
that the title of priest of Maat was obtained after, or in conjunction with, becoming
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,
Indeed, Rekhmire himself is called spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of

Urk. IV, 1071-4; Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pp.79-80, and Rekh-mi-r II, pl. xi.
Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.
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.
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
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.80.
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.

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

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,
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 enduring upon his throne, while the children of the

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

nobles are upon the seat of their fathers.
Rekhmire remarks upon the concept of
placing a son in his fathers place
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
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.
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.
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.

Aametus extended family and later generations

(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.
Aametu, however, reported almost no religious titles,

Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.17; Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, col.13.
As an implied, if not actual, staff of old age.
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.81; Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xi, l. 22: mnx.i sA iwow Hr nst (?) it.f
See below for further discussion.
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,
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.128.
See the extended genealogy, Fig.8, p.464.
Most of the family members are included in Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun.

and apparently none that were connected to a specific priesthood.
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.
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;
and finally, Inenis sister married the vizier Aametu,
perhaps an indication that Inenis family was a distinguished one within the royal
As I argued above, Inenis connection to the court is also suggested by the
names prevalent in his family.

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

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.
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.
For example, Pahery was a steward of the high priest of Amun, and Qen was a priest of Mut.
Dziobek, Ineni, pp.143-4.
See p.78.
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.
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.

possibly a 2
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.
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).

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

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
ARCE Annual Meeting, Atlanta, April,
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.

the treasury, overseer of the scribes of Amun, and overseer of the granaries of
Their infrequent usage suggests that while User may have held these positions
as adjuncts to his role as vizier,
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.

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,
Merymaat, Mery and Amenemhat shared various titles,
and Merymaat held several
additional upper level priestly posts.
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.
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

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.
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.
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 ]//.
Smayt nt //[Imn]//. She was not, however, the wife of the steward of the vizier Amenemhat (TT82).
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.
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.
Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.126-7. Both Hor and Merimaat were chief hery-heb priests of Aakheperkare
like their father, while Aapehty was a 3
priest of Amun in Djser-djeseru.

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.
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.
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.
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

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

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.
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.
Menkheperresoneb held the position of sS Htpw nTr tp n Imn and Mery was also an imy-r Sna n Imn.
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,

Amun, and Mery was an overseer of the Sna of Amun.
Rekhmires daughter Takhat and
a granddaughter named Henuttawy were both chantresses of Amun.
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.

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.
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?
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.

(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.
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).
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
Very few 18
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.
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.131.
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.
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.

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
These include a stele at Gebel es-Silsilah,
depiction in the Silsilah shrine of his
superior, the vizier User,
funerary cones from TT82,
and possibly a stelephorous
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

Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.1-6. In general Urk. IV, 1043-65. See also Davies compilation of
Amenemhats titles, pp.6-7.
Griffith, PSBA 12, pp.6-7; Urk. IV, 1053-4.
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
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.
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.

private tombs.
Whale suggests one change and two emendations to Davies original
reconstruction of the basic genealogy, which will be examined in the following
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.
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
Ahmose is identified as the mother of Baket(amun) in TT82 and as the sister
(snt.f) of Amenemhat on the Silsilah stele.
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).
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].
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.
Ahmose-Humashu and Ahmose are

Whale, Family. Her study of Amenemhat appears on pp.60-68, Case 22.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.3.
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.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4-5, pls.xxxvi, xliv.
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.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, pp.6-7, 34-5.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, pp.4-5, 35; Urk. IV, 1055.1-4.

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

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.

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.
Davies calls this
last couple the brother and sister of Ahmose-Humashu,
but Whale identifies them as
the sister of Ahmose-Humashu and her husband because of the use of the term eldest
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.
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

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.
This bears some similarity to the case of Sibastet mentioned above in the Introduction to the chapter,
Section Ic, p.73.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, p.5, 35; Urk. IV, 1055.5-6.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.5, 35
Whale, Family, pp.62, 67.
Refer to the chart of kinship terminology, Table 1, p.57

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.
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.
then are Amenemhats paternal grandparents, while the final couple can probably be
restored as his maternal grandparents.
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

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

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

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.
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,
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
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),

Compare Urk. IV, 1054.16-17; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.36.
Whale, Family, p.67.
Amenemhat probably became chief of weavers of Amun before he acquired the title of steward.
Whale, Family, p.65
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.

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.
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
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.
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).
This last title likely
brought him into close contact with his brother Amenmes who was a scribe of the

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
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4 provides the list.
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.
Amenemhats titles are also given by Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.042.

granary of divine offerings (of Amun).
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.
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.

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

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.
Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.5, pls. vi, xv.
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.

wall of his tombs hall, while Aametu and his wife were placed on the western front
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.
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.
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.
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

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.
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.
For a summary of the Amun related positions that these three men held, cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des
Hauses des Amun, nos.042, 144, 175.
Dziobek, Denkmler, p.131.

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.
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
The two high priests of Amun named Menkheperresoneb, owners of Theban
tombs (TT) 112 and 86,
were recently re-evaluated by Dorman, and subsequently
reviewed by Bryan.
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

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.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 260, 261.
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.
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.147-54; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. See
also Dziobek, Denkmler, p.137-9.

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
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.
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

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.
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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

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.
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.
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.
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
pylon at Karnak, which Redford dates to after year 34; cf. Wars, pp.124-5.
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.154.

architectural plan of TT112, which Kampp accords her type Ve, dates primarily to the
reign of Hatshepsut and Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III.
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
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.
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
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.
However, the decoration that remains is
sufficiently preserved to show that in each tomb it is quite different, and thus the

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.25-6.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.26, 332-6 (TT84). See Chapter 3, pp.350-66 for a discussion of
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).
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen p.150-1.
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.

possibility that the two tombs were envisioned as complementary cannot be so summarily
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.
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
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.
While Davies published only one small fragment
of inscription, he was able to discern the original scenes depicted through the soot and
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

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.
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.
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamntennekropolen, p.149, n.42
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.

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
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.

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
He is also depicted twice before Thutmosis III seated in a kiosk, once
presenting five registers of northern tribute.
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.
Likewise, as Dorman himself

Other tombs beside TT131 include TTs125, 109 and 256.
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.
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.
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).
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.

pointed out, the titles ascribed to Menkheperresoneb in TT112 are exclusively honorary
or are associated with the high priestly office.
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.
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,
and thus complementary to the activities
depicted in the tomb.
In addition, funerary cones found in the tomb report only the title
high priest of Amun.

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.
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

Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.
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.
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.
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.
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).
This is also the case in TT 131 of User.

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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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.
and Nebetta are each identified by their kin relationship to the men they are seated with,

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

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.
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.
The traces are
extremely faint, but a plausible restoration would be whom the royal nurse, one who
nurtured the god, Taiunet, justified, bore.

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.
Dorman suggests that the foster-sister of the king Nebetta in TT86 is
the same woman named as the mother of Hepu in TT112.
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.
Thus, if
Nebetta of TT86 were the same as the woman in TT112, it seems very unlikely that her

Whale clearly demonstrates this practice in her study of family representations in the 18
Dynasty; cf.
Whale, Family.
PM(6) reg.1, Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxix.
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.
The inscription appears at PM(3): ms.n snt-mnat n nswt Nbt-tA mAat-xrw
Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153f.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.314ff.

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,
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
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.

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.

This is contra Roehrig (Royal urse, pp.16-22) who has Nebetta as the mother of Taiunet and thus
foster-sister to Thutmosis I.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.44-8 discusses Taiunet.
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.

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
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

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
In the period under consideration the family of Minnakht and his
son Menkheperresoneb retained control of one of the two positions.
Like the vizierate,
the post of overseer of granaries was one of the most important in the administration,

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.
The power Minnakht exercised likely enabled him to
install his son Amenhotep within the cultic personnel of the Amun precinct, and his son

Megally, Recherche. But contra this, see Bohleke, Double Granaries.
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.
Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
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.

and successor Menkheper(resoneb) as a priest in Henket-ankh.
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.
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.
On the west wall Minnakht
is called the imy-r st and royal scribe, and is seated with his mother receiving offerings.

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
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.

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.
Since the overseer of
granaries title is certainly more prestigious than the others that appear in the shrine, it

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.
A date of year 36 is given in P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche, pp.274-5.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.74-5, pl.58.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.75-6, pl.59.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.74, pl.57.

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
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.
However, only Minnakhts
royal scribe title seems a likely candidate for his presence in Silsilah prior to becoming
overseer of granaries.
Eichlers review of the administration of the House of Amun
during the 18
Dynasty places the position chief of weavers of Amun in the middle
range of the Sna activities,
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.
The full title
appears several times in Minnakhts tomb (TT87), and in the shorter form on funerary
cones found there.
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

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).
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6ff.
As a royal scribe he could have been recording the activities on the kings behalf.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.108ff. Eichler interprets the Sna installation as having
two major production areas: textile manufacture and food processing.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.389 and Guksch, Die Grber, p.18f.
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.

specifically the Sna complex.
An inscription in Minnakhts tomb indicates that he likely
functioned in this capacity in the north of Egypt, near the Ways of Horus.
In fact, a
number of the titles Minnakht reports in his tomb are connected to the north of Egypt and
the Delta,
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.
Caminos hesitated in assigning two
shrines to one man, due to the fact that this is otherwise unattested at Silsilah.

Although still a single-room shrine, Shrine 12 is almost twice as large as Shrine 23 in
every direction.
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
The presence of only three statues in the niche along the rear wall suggests that
they represent Minnakht seated between his parents.
This is the same layout as in
Shrine 23. The titles Minnakht reports are those of royal scribe, overseer of the granaries

Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.66ff., 181ff. See also Guksch, Die Grber, pp.18f., and
Helck, Verwaltung, p.257.
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.
Guksch, Die Grber, p.18. This will be discussed in more detail below.
Guksch, Die Grber, p.88. Shrine 12 is published in Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.35-7, pl. 26-9.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.36, 77.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.23. Shrines 15 and 23 follow the same pattern.
So also Caminos, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.36, note 1.

of Upper and Lower Egypt, and overseer of the granaries of Amun (in the northern
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.
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
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
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

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.
Guksch noted the uniqueness, but made no attempt to explain it, Guksch, Die Grber, p.88.
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.

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

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.
As in Shrine 23, Hapuseneb
is depicted with his mother on one wall and father on the opposite wall.
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.
Although Menkh and his wife are on one wall, on the opposite he

Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.4f.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.42-52, pl.33-9.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.68-72, pl.51-4 (Shrine 21) and pp.4-5, 30-4, pl.23-5 (Shrine 11).

is seated with his parents.
I interpret Usersatets shrine, whose unusualness was also
remarked upon by Caminos,
as probably having been designed as a memorial chapel
for both his mother and his mothers parents.
Contrary to Caminos,
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,
It was usurped twice in antiquity, and is today badly damaged, with the lower

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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp. 4f., 7ff.
Usersatet, and his shrine at Silsilah, is discussed at length in the next chapter.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp. 30-4.
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

portions of the walls essentially destroyed.
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.

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.
In fact, the
entire western bay of the transverse hall is destroyed but for a few fragments.
Of the
remaining area, only the top of the front and rear walls of the east bay are extant.

Fragments of scenes along the interior side of the tombs entrance suggest that the
offering scenes typical to mid-18
Dynasty tombs were depicted here.
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

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.
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.
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.
This encompasses Gukschs scenes 2-4, 8, and 11, none of which have PM designations; Guksch, Die
Grber, pl.51.
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.
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.

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

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
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.
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.
This scene was discussed briefly above in

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.
Guksch, Die Grber, p.51f., pl.4b.
Guksch, Die Grber, pp.44f., plan 7, scene 6.
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.
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.

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.

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.
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,
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.
This seems to suggest that rather than functioning at
Karnak, his duties were centered at an Amun temple located near Memphis.
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.

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
Dynasty, I would argue that
Minnakht was the official responsible for northern Egypt. This would make Tjenna, his

See pp.124f., above.
See Guksch, Die Grber, pp.17-20.
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.
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.
Guksch, Die Grber, pp.18f., and n.43.
Guksch, Die Grber, p.20.

counterpart on the papyrus, the southern overseer.
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).
On the palette he is called royal scribe, chief of
the offering-table, rmn m HAt Imn, (Amun)hotep, who Minnakht bore.
These are both
low to mid-level titles within the Amun administration generally,
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.

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

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.

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.
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,
suggests that Menkheper(resoneb) was
functioning in Thebes when his father was likely overseer of double granaries.
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.
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

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.
Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.280, no.264.
Redford, Ld VI, col.543.
Years 28-35 are recorded on pLouvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherches.
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.

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.
Menkheper(resoneb) was a wab-priest of Amun and scribe of offerings of Amun in the
mortuary temple of Thutmosis III,
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.
east corner of the front wall contains a depiction of Menkheper(resoneb) seated
overseeing a representation of vintage and the bringing of Delta products.

Menkheper(resoneb) may have modeled this well preserved scene on the now destroyed
version found in his fathers tomb, mentioned above.
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,
this is the only
place in TT79 that this title appears. This may indicate that despite his southern locale,

PM(1), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 3, p.146f. It is on the west front wall of the T-hall.
See Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.280 no.264 for a list of his Amun titles.
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.
PM(5), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 6, p.149f.
See pp.130f., above.
PM(6), Guksch, Die Grber, Scene 7, pp.150ff.

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.
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
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.
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.
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

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

granaries of the Lord of the Two Lands (n nb tAwy).
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.
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.
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

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

the kings reign.
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.
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.
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.
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

This colleague may have been Iamunedjeh, owner of TT84, see Chapter 3, pp.350-66.
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.
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?
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.

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

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).
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,
making tomb ownership rather incongruous with

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

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),
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
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-
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.

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.
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.
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.

On the east wall of Amunemhats tomb is a carved stele, the lunette of which is
well-known (Fig.13, p.469).
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).
identification of the queen has generally been as Ahmose-Inhapy, the mother of Ahmose-
Henuttawy and wife of Ahmose.
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.
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.
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.
The placement of the

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.
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
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.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.7-8. Reys rishi coffin was used for the re-burial of Queen Ahmose-Inhapy.
This new reading is based on my examination of the tomb in 2002.
Roehrig (Royal urse) mentions this on p.8, n.5.

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

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.
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.
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,

Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8.
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
/// rdwy n nb tAwy ///

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

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).
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.
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
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.

Line 18: st-a n Imn Imn-m-HAt mAa-xrw
See the translation of Awadalla, BIFAO 89, pp.39-40.
Line 18-19: smAa.n.f xrw wi m DADAt
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

Amenemhat may have had one or more brothers who were charioteers, judging from a
damaged scene in the passage.
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.

There are three ambiguous couples in the tomb, all of whom are depicted in the
lower register of an offering scene in the passage.
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.
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.
Whale suggested that all of these couples were relatives of either
Amunemhat or Sobeknakht, and that the two Sobeknakhts were probably
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.
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).
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.
Urk. IV, 1225; Bouriant, RT 14, 71.
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 ?
Whale, Family, p.99.

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.

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.
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
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.
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.

According to Eichler, this was a family of cult personnel, essentially lower to
mid-level priests.
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

The same situation occurs in other tombs, i.e. TT82.
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).
Urk. IV, 1224 d = Daressy no.213.
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.
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
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.171 ; cf. Sauneron, Priests, pp.57ff.

depicted on the stele.
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

(A new high priest of Amun
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.

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

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.
This literary genre, although not uncommonly
found in tombs,
generally consists of a series of maxims instructing the recipient on
how to live and act correctly.
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,
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.
father, Djhutyhotep, was both a wab-priest and an overseer of the sandal-makers of the

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.
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 xprt xr.i; cf.
Gardiner, ZS 47, p.92, pl.1.
For example, Pthahotep, Any, Amenmeope, Onchsheshonqy; cf. Lichtheim, AEL I-III.
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.
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)
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.

house of Amun.
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.

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.
Eichler mentions that
other than the latter titles, Amenemhat had apparently no connection to the administration
of the Amun precinct.
Based on her general ordering, it would appear as though they
represent lower, middle and upper level positions.

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.
Kees views
Amenemhat as an example of one of few high priests who attained their position not

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.
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.
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.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,, p.15 with n.54.
Perhaps within the land and work administrations? Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,
Gardiner, ZS 47, p.97.

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.
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.

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.
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.
The cartouche is too ruined to ascertain any hieroglyphs, and
thus, as Bryan pointed out, which kings are involved is unknown.
Helck (following
Sethe) restored the cartouche as containing the name Aakheperura, i.e., Amenhotep II.

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

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.
Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, p.208.
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.
Gardiner, ZS 47, pp.92 ff.
Line 11, almost the entire cartouche is lost, and the portion is too damaged to discern any signs. Bryan
Thutmose IV, p.267.
Urk. IV, 1410.
As already mentioned by both Gardiner (ZS 47, p.87) and Bryan (Thutmose IV, p.93).

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.

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.
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.
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

Indeed, in his shrine Amenemhat is consistently referred to as the high priest of
Amun and overseer of priests of Upper and Lower Egypt.
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.
Certainly the funerary cones were made at

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.
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.
Gardiner restores here Ipt-swt; Sethe suggested pr-Imn; and Helck (Urk. IV, 1411.5) followed Gardiner.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.79-85, pls.61-6.
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).
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.

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,
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.
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.
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).

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

The lintel and exterior jambs were left unfinished; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah, p.79.
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
Kees, Priestertum, p.17
Kees, Priestertum, p.17-18, 77, Nachtrage p.8.

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.
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.

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.

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.
Although none of Amenemhats family is
preserved in his tomb, at Gebel Silsilah his son Amunemweskhet is depicted in an
offering scene.
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

Gardiner, ZS 47, p.91 with note 4; cf. also Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.
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.
Gardiner, ZS 47, pp.92 ff.
The other is the vizier User, see above, pp.79-87.
North wall, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.64.

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.

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.
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.
Both of Mins monuments give only his highest

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.
See the discussion on Khnumhotep in Section Ia, pp.59-63, above.
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.

position, that of overseer of the treasury.
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.
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,
as well as two statues from the
north, and is mentioned in his official capacity on Papyrus Mook.
The career and
family of Sobekhotep were recently discussed by B. Bryan in Dziobeks publication of
his tomb.
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).
Sobekhotep and Meryt were in turn
the parents of the high priest of Sobek Shedty and mayor of the Fayum Paser and the first

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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.19, pl.13.
Kampp, Die thebanishce ekropole, pp.280-3, type VIa.
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.
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.
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.84

priest of Iah Djhuty.
Based on her review of the monuments that can be attributed to
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.

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.
In TT63 the scenes in the
transverse-hall are essentially concerned with his role as a treasurer and the
responsibilities entailed therein.
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.
The only place where his Fayum-related titles occur is on the
stele, where they would be expected anyway.
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,
reflecting the duties that

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), .
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.
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, pp. 81, 83-5. But note her caution in the attribution of Hm.f to
Thutmosis IV, p.85.
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81 and the literature cited there.
I.e. foreigners bringing tribute, the inspection of workshops, granaries, and possibly even the treasury.
For example: iry-pat HAty-a xtmw bity smr waty aA m pr-nsw Hsy n nTr nfr.
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)].
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.83

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.
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.
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

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
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, pp.83-4.

dedicated to Horus xnty TArr,
and second that in his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah he is
called Xtmt bity
Hry-tp aA and wDa rwyt.
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.
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.

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.
The fact
that Min was able to guarantee it for his son is a testament to Mins own authority and

Dated by cartouche to Thutmosis III. Urk. IV 1029. For this combination see WB V:356, 6 =
agricultural lands in 12
nome of Lower Egypt.
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.
Urk. IV 1927-8, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, no.5
Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81.
Zivie, Mlanges Adolphe Gutbub, 1984, 245-52.
Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.580; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.3, p.317

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.
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.
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.
Most recently Bryan proposed the almost completely destroyed TT119
of unknown ownership as a possibility for Mins tomb.
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

Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Warburton,
in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.578.
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.
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.
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.

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.

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

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.
There are several points of comparison between it and TT63, as
well as other tombs known to belong to treasurers.
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.
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

Bryan, in Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81.
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.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.428-9, type Va.
i.e. Nehesy in his tomb at Saqqara, Sennefri of TT99.
Such scenes occur for example in TTs 63, 100; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.16

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).
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-
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.
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

PM I.1, 1960, p. 255.
Davies, BMMA 31, pp.46-7. The other two figures are destroyed, but were presumably also not
//[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).

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

(Two generations of Amun servants
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,
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.
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.

The lack of knowledge about this family can be attributed to the mislabeling of
Userhats title in his tomb entry in Porter and Moss.
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.
This was followed by der Manuelian

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.
Neither Userhat nor his father Katy appear in the volume on the Amun domain by Eichler, Verwaltung
des Hauses des Amun.
See above, pp.137 ff.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, pp.168ff.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.370 has a list of the catalogue entries.
PM I.1, pp.281-3.
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.

and Kampp, who each also retained the Amunhotep II-Thutmosis IV date given by
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).
The addition of the latter epithet to his
title implies that he was a priestly official, and most likely functioned in a temple
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.
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

Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.128-9; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.464, type IIa, Vb.
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.
Sauneron, Priests, pp.70ff.
One is complete, the other preserves only the bottom portion.

epithet wab awy is also one that is commonly held by royal butlers,
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.
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.
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.

Cf. Schulman, JARCE 13, pp.117-130; Helck, Verwaltung, pp.269ff.
Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.v [346].
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.

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
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

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

the family are concentrated in the same area, can be seen as well, but this is in addition to
exact transmission of office.
Royal nepotism appears to have played a role in a few
but mention of being appointed to, or placed in, a position is only explicitly
stated three times.
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

Familial influence, both direct and with the king, is treated in the following chapter.
Royal nepotism is dealt with in the next chapter.
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.

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.

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
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.
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.
Amenemhat, however, was
not made a mdw iAw due to such circumstances. In fact, he never sates that he was made a

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.
See pp.85ff.
P.86f.; cf. also Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, and Dziobek, Denkmler, pp.131-2, 144-

staff of old age at all, simply that he was one.
It seems as though Amenemhat was
following the common, if usually unstated, path of a son joining the temple ranks
alongside his father.
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.
This is perhaps a tenuous conclusion. However,

See p.146f.
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.

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.
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

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

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.
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

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

becoming hereditary, beginning as early as the late Old Kingdom.
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.
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.
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.

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

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

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.

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
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.

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.

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.
This alliance tied one prominent official,
to an influential family.
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

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.
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.
Several of Inenis brothers were spread throughout the Amun domain.

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,
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.
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

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 ).
From scenes of temple inspection in the passage; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p.49, 54.

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.
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.
contrast, Rekhmire himself exits the palace and the court of Thutmosis III after having
the governance of Egypt placed (diw) upon him,
while the palace officials (smrw pr-aA)
proclaim that Thutmosis III confirms every office (smn iAwt nbt).
Whether or not
Amenemhat would have had a similar scene of appointment in his tomb is uncertain
due to its poor state of preservation.
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,
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

di(.i) pXr mnxw.f xr.k ix ir.f n.k mdw iAw
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]
diw m Hr //(.f ?)//
Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-r II, pl.xvi, col. 11: HqA nfr mnw (Mn-xpr-ra) smn iAwt nbt
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.
E.g.., that they are both viziers, from the same family, and appointed to office.

fact that User is commemorating his installation as co-vizier alongside his father,
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
Users eventual appointment text probably had much the same wording.
Dziobek, Die Grber, pl.18-19.

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.
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

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

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

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.

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

The term family denotes both blood relations (consanguines), and those who enter through marriage.
On this issue, see the Introduction to the book, Section VIc, pp.47-52.
See the Introduction to the book, Section II, pp. 6ff., Section VIa, pp.34-45.
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.
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.

In the case of Amenemhat, both his own family and the one he married into were
connected to various areas of Amun precincts administration.
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

See Ch.1, pp.75-110.
See Ch.1, pp.78, 96ff.
See Ch.1, pp.101ff.
exceptional relationship with the reigning king, his children, and subsequent heir.
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.

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,
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

Roehrig, Royal urse, esp. pp.330-39.
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.
See the Introduction, pp.47-52.
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.

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.

Helck, Einfluss, pp. 71-3.
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.
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.
Qen himself was the first priest of Mut, mistress
of Isheru and mistress of the sky,
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.
The majority of this
information comes from the large banqueting scene located at the western end of the
south wall of the passage.
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.

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.272-5, type IVa.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
In column 6 we
could perhaps restore either of Amun, of the lord of the two lands, or of Upper and
Lower Egypt.
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

Her name and titles appear in the last two columns of the inscription.
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.
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.
the scene. Qenamun was an overseer of goldsmiths and sculptors of Amun,

Amenemhat was a wab-priest of Amun,
and Djhutymes was a cultivator of Amun.
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.
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.
In this position, Qens father could perhaps be identified with the
overseer of the granaries Tjenna mentioned in Papyrus Louvre E.3226.
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.
Helck, in fact,
originally suggested that the Wesy of P.Louvre was the same man as Qens brother

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.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.060
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).
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).
Bryan, in: Thutmsosis III, forthcoming; Megally, Recherches.
Megally, Recherches, pp.276-7.
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.
depicted in TT59, without any information about Qens father.
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.

Helck also suggested that a familial relationship might exist between Qens
family and the family of Ineni.
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.
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.
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.

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

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.
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.
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.
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.524-5.
Dziobek, Ineni, pp.142-4.
Dziobek, Ineni, pp.142-4.
descendants in the same or similar positions is at this time uncertain.
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
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,
based on both stylistic criteria and
the titulary of the deceased, it probably belongs to the reign of Thutmosis III.

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.

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.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, cites Neferhotep, but not Amunhotep, cf. p. 296, no.371.
PM I.1, pp.413-4.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.584; Schmitz, Knigssohn, p.285; Whale, Family, p.87 n.68.
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)
These texts reveal that Amunhotep was a wab-priest, a first kings son, and a
first kings son of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I).
He is depicted with his wife in at
least three scenes, where she is always named as the chantress of Amun, Renay.

According to Mond, five funerary cones were found during the excavation of this
Two cones, D&M nos.95 and 121, neither of which were in Daressys original
catalogue, are certainly attributable to Amunhotep.
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.
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

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.
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).
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
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.
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 ///.
in Eichlers catalogue carry them from the reigns of Hatshepsut through Amenhotep

Amunhotep gives his lineage as born of Djhutsenty in one scene,
and in
another is shown offering to his parents (Fig.20 (rt.), p.476).
They are identified in
relation to Amunhotep as his father Djhutsenty and his (i.e., Djhutysentys) wife,
Takhered, while Amunhotep calls himself their son.
In this offering scene the text
in the area preceding his fathers name and above his parents is damaged.
remains is: imAxy Xr /// m (?) Dsr //// +Hwt-snty.
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]
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),
Here too Amunhotep identifies the couple he offers to in his own inscription,
but without filiation. According to Lepsius, in the inscription with Amunhotep,

Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,, p.368 provides a list.
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9c; PM(1), left thickness.
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f, right side; PM(6).
it.f +Hwt-snty Hmt.f vA-Xrd mAat-xrw n in sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp
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.
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.
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.
Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f, left side; PM(6).
Neferhotep is given the titles 4
divine father of Amun, while in his own text he is called
a 4
priest of Amun.
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
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.
The cones are Daressy
nos.128, 136 and 137, all of which are for the 4
priest of Amun Neferhotep, and two of
which (128, 137) also include his wife, mistress of the house, Amunhotep.

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,
but this is not
necessarily the case.
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,

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.
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.
Kees, Priestertum p.76, n.3, had already attributed Daressy no.136 to Neferhotep.
Whale, Family, p.87f.; Urk IV, 106.5; Kees, Priestertum, p.76.
Similar depictions in which it appears that colleagues rather than, or in addition to, family members are
depicted include TTs 72 and 53.
brother, could mean nephew as well.
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).

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.
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.
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
-priest of Amun makes him relatively low in the temple

See the discussion in the Introduction, pp.28ff. and table 1, p.47.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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-

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.
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.
The latter title,

This is Amenemhet and his father Itnefer, who were both imy st-a n Imn; cf. Chapter 1, pp.140ff.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.195.
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.
These two titles were already known from his autobiographical stela: sDm-aS tp xAi HD nbw n pr [Imn].
which is a lower ranked post within the treasury administration,
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
This is overseer of the offerings for the altar [of Amun?].
This title
in fact accords well with the scene depicted on the west side of the rear wall of the
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.
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.

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

Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, p.138.
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.
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.
PM (3).
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)]
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).
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)
Although his fathers name is not
preserved here, the name of his mother is Mes, like Bakis own wife.
The name of
Bakis father can, however, be tentatively restored from the autobiographical
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.
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.
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.
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,

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.
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.
Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.167; PM(5)
Gardiner, G29.
The damage as indicated by Gauthier is a little too extensive; cf. Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.167.
After the mAa-xrw comes ms n born of, which typically indicates that the mothers name and titles can
be expected.
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
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
Two officials whose tombs, families, and careers are currently under investigation
are those of Ahmose (TT121) and his son Ra (TT72).
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.
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

Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.108.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, p.192f.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses das Amun, nos.001 (Ahmose), 401 (Ra).
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.
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.
and Amenhotep II.
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,
we learn that he was a first
lector-priest of Amun, 2
priest of Amun, 2
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.
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.
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

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 Eichler includes Ahmose, Ra and other family
members in her catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 001, 119, 303, 401, 596.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.410-12, type Ve.
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.
Picciones accounts of the whereabouts of this title are rather confusing. In his SSEA talk (Feb., 2000,
see 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 However, in his ICE talk (March, 2000, see Piccione credits Ra with placing this title in Ahmoses tomb wherever he
finished the decoration for his father (web abstract; cf. Likewise, in his
1999 AIA lecture, he also only credits this title to funerary cones of Ahmose (web text;
seal-bearer of the King of Lower Egypt and an overseer of Upper and Lower Egypt.

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.
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.
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,
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.

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.
In these epithets she is affiliated with Hathor, Mut, and possibly

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.
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.
Piccione, AIA 1999 lecture, web text; cf. Davies and Macadam,
Corpus, no.234.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Piccione has affiliated the two men as father and son.
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

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

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,
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.
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.
Although Ra does not seem to have had the
number of court-related titles and epithets that his father had,
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

His suggestion that Iret might alternatively be a sister of Ahmose seems unlikely. AIA 1999 lecture, web
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.303-6, type Vb.
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
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.
The only ones still extant in the tomb (to my knowledge) are wa iqr mr nb tAwy Hsy [iry-p]a[t] HAty-a
in an offering scene before Amenhotep II and his mother Queen Merytre.
inscription is damaged, but Piccione restores the following for the three men: his brother,
first lector-priest of Amun, Amunhotep;
his brother, first priest of Amun, Senres;
brother, first priest of Amun, Menkheperresoneb.
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,

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.
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.
Also, Amunhoteps

sn.f Xry-Hb [t]p [n Imn Imn-]Htp; cf. Eichler, Das Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.119.
sn.f Hm-nTr tpy [n Imn] %n-rs. Not included by Eichler.
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
Pers. comm.., Piccione, 2002.
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.
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
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
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.

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.
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,
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.
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,
and appears at

Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.327ff.
Cf. Whale, Family, pp.261ff.
least four and probably seven times in the tomb, with her name and titles mentioned in an
additional two inscriptions.

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

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.

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

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).
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
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.
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
Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts V, p.10, pl.32-3.
Dorman in fact came to the conclusion that this statue should not be attributed to (either)
Menkheperresoneb Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.
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.
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.
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
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.
From other sources we know that
Satepihu was an official during the reign of Hatshepsut.
Roehrig places Tinetiunet as
the mother of Satepihu and a nurse of Ahmose, son of Ahmose I, based on his depiction
on the stele.
Bryan on the other hand calls her the wife of Satepihu, placing her

Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 393, 394.
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.
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.
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.15. In the lunette Inay and his parents offer to Osiris, Queen Nefertary and
squarely in the reign of Hatshepsut, with an unknown nursling.
The lack of a stated
filiation between Tinetiunet and Satepihu, as well as their placement as guests on the
stele, makes either scenario plausible.
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
Dynasty, suggests that there may have been a connection between them.
What this might have been is uncertain.
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.
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.

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
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.
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.
As a nurse of Thutmosis III, Taiunet was presumably contemporary with Thutmosis II, making a father-
daughter relationship between Satepihu and Taiunet impossible.
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


? --- ?
| ? --- 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.

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,
also held the title chief of stables.
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.
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.
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),
the lower
portion of a seated statue that also names prince Aakheperenreseneb and probably dates
to the reign of Thutmosis II (BM 1782),
three graffiti in the area of Aswan,
lower half of a stelephorous statue from Hermopolis Magna (Louvre, Caves IFAO

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.350-2, type VIIIa.
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.
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.
Based on the titles on statue BM1728, which likely depicted Iamnefer holding a son of Thutmosis II.
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.
Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.3, pl.ii-iii, no. 1782.
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.
and two stelae (Leiden V77 and V46).
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.
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.
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.
This title implies that
Iamnefer was involved with one of the sed-festivals of Thutmosis III.

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.
During this time he was also designated as great

Caves IFAO 110; cf. Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-342.
Boeser, Stelen, p.2 no.2, pl.v and p.6, no.19, pl.v.
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.
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.
Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3 and Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-342.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.57. On the title xrp nsty cf. Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.; Vandersleyen, CdE
43, pp.234-58.
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;
chief of the Hare nome, and eventually took on his fathers position as mayor of
Helck draws a connection between the priesthood and the mayoralty during
the 18
Dynasty, viewing the priestly role as enhancing that of the mayor.
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.
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.

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.
However, in
the Duties of the Vizier, it is also indicated that mayors would travel between their
regions and the court.
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,
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.
Helck, Verwaltung, pp.220-1.
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 PA-aHawty
mAa-xrw [scribe] of divine offerings of Thoth Iamnefer justified, born to the mayor of Neferusy Pa-
ahauty, justified.
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.
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.
Van den Boorn, Duties, section 5, p.88f.
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.
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.

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.
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

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
The tomb is unfinished, with several of the scenes sketched in and large portions

I would like to thank B. Bryan for pointing this out to me.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
one who followed the king on his marches upon the southern and
northern foreign lands,
and one who followed the king upon water and upon land, a
warrior (kfaw) upon every foreign land.

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).

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.
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.).
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
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.
PM(1), north end, upper, Urk. IV, 1452.10-11: irt [rd]wy nb tAwy tm tS grH mi [Hrw]
PM(2), upper, Urk. IV, 1449.16: Sms nsw r nmtt.f [r] xAswt rsyt mHtt
PM(2), center, lower, Urk. IV, 1450.3-4,: [Sms nsw] Hr mw Hr [tA] kfaw [Hr] xAst nbt
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.
Schulman, MRTO, p.71
Schulman, the position of standard-bearer was a mid-level rank indicating actual combat
activity and the ability to command troops.
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.
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,
as well as on Suemniuts funerary cones.
This implies

Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3, cf. no.491n for the reference to Suemniut.
PM(5). The interpretation of the scene follows that of B. Bryan, pers. comm.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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
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.
In TT92 Suemniut was
also designated as a wdnw of Amun, festival leader of Amun, and overseer of bulls of
The latter title, like overseer of ships, also appears on his funerary cones.

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

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
Schulman, MRTO, pp.51-3, p.86 table 4.
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.
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.
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.
be connected to the loading of ships with taxes from the south.
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
Dynasty is not completely understood.
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
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.
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

Papyrus Turin A; cf. Schulman, MRTO, ref.140, p.110.
For general discussions see Helck, Verwaltung, pp.269-76; Schmitz, Ld VI, cols.771-2; Gardiner, AEO
I; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
Both the depictions and inscriptions in TT110 attest to these duties; cf. Davies, in: Studies Griffith, pp.
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).
sometimes judicial duties, and were sometimes sent as envoys for the king on diplomatic
missions abroad.

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)
and the receptacle (bAH)
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.
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.
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

Schulman, JARCE 13, pp.117-30; Schulman, CdE 61, 187-202; Schmitz, Ld VI, cols.771-2.
WB I: 175, 15.
WB I: 422, 6, as a container and measure for baked goods.
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.
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.
production and presentation of every good and pure thing for pleasing the heart and
sending the vegetables which are made for the palace.
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
campaign, during which Thutmosis III crossed the Euphrates,
because this is the only one for which the gold lion was given as a reward.
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.
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.

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.

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
From the autobiography of Mahu; cf. Breasted, ARE II, pp.232-2; Redford, Wars, pp.167-72.
This is on the right rear wall of the front room, at PM(8). The king is depicted standing with Hathor.
See note 916.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Usersatet, who, as I will demonstrate below, came from an elite background, stressed his

Gnirs suggests that the presence of officials with titles standard-bearer and chief of stables during
the early to mid-18
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.
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.
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
E.g., Amenemheb-Mahu, Dedy, Minmose and Iamunedjeh, though the latter two were not military
personal relationship to the king.
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.
He has also been held up as an
example par excellence of Amenhotep IIs childhood friends whose relationships were
strengthened by warfare.
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
Dynasty, beginning with the early studies of Reisner and Gauthier in the
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,
and by
Dewachters work in the late seventies and early eighties.
More recently, the issue of
the 18
Dynasty viceroys has been revisited in a series of articles in the journal Gttinger

This is the next official to be discussed.
Cf. Der Manuelian, Amenohpis II, p.158.
Cf. Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.269f.
Reisner, JEA 6, pp. 28-55. Gauthier, RT 39, pp. 179-238.
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.
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.
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.
This does not in any way denote that any of
these men were actually members of the royal family.
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
Usersatets history comes to us from his shrine at Qasr Ibrim (no.4),
stelae from
Wadi Halfa,
and two from Semna,
eight graffiti in the area of
a statuette from Thebes,
and statues from Deir el-Medina,

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
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
Reisner, JEA 6, pp. 28-55. Gauthier, RT 39, pp. 179-238.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75, pls.23-35; Urk. IV, 1345-6 and 1490
BM 623; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7
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.
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,
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.
In addition, four of the graffiti give us the names of Usersatets assistants

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.
A tomb has not been
discovered, although locations in Qurnet Murai at Thebes and Qubbet el-Hawa in Aswan
have been suggested as possibilities.
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).
On the stele is
transcribed a letter that Amenhotep II sent to Usersatet in year 23 on the anniversary of

Chassinat, BIFAO 10, p.161
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.
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).
Khartoum 32; cf. Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.38, fig.18, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72,
Sehel = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, pp.91.106, 92.112, 100.207 and Gebel Tingar = De
Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.128.5
Shrine no.11 of Seninefer; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-4.
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
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.
his accession to the throne.
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.
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.
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).
Following his role on these campaigns
Usersatet is taken out of the military and placed as an overseer of the house (steward) of
presumably some type of royal residence.
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

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.
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.
Helck, JES 14, p.31.
Helck, JES 14, p.26 (k): snj "Wagenkmpfer" ist hier des Anklanges an das vorhergehende knj wegen
benutzt worden.
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.
As der Manuelain notes it would have been small in comparison to the one at Perunefer; cf. der
Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.154-5.
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.
Contra this, Gnirs sees an organized chariotry already in the first
half of the 18
Dynasty, even if it is was to some degree still considered part of the
overall army or military organizational structure.
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,
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-
Der Manuelian discusses the Semna stele in reference to the Thutmosis

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.
Gnirs, Militr, pp.19-21.
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.
//// [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.
III-Amenhotep II co-regency
and Amenhotep IIs campaign to Takhsy in year 3.

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
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
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.
Schulman does not deal with the title royal herald, but given that being a
herald imparted to its holder a great deal of authority
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

der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.21 no.5, 32-4.
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.54.
der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19-34.
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.
I.e. in the inscriptions of Mahu (TT85).
As seen elsewhere with Intef, Iamunedjeh, and Sennefri; cf. Pardey, Essays Lipinska, pp.377-97.
Thutmosis III,
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

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.
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.
Fairman, JEA 25, pl.xvi 1, Urk. IV, 1484-6
Urk. IV, 1485.6-7, lines 1-2 of the stele.
See the discussion in Chapter 3.
See the discussion in Chapter 3.
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.
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.
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
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.
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

Urk. IV, 1485.10-11, lines 1-4 of the stele.
Urk. IV, 1485.13, 1485.17-1486.2, lines 4, 6-7.
Urk. IV, 1485.8.
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.
connection to the king and the court.
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.
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

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)
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.
(imy-r pr) of Meidum (Mr-tm), kings son, overseer of the southern foreign
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
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.
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.
One of these is especially interesting
because it is the only graffito in which Usersatet may be called kings brave one (qny

Urk. IV, 1486.17-1487.2
Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, fig.18; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.54-5, 58.
Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55, 58
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.
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).

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)
with cooked (i.e. fired) works (m kAt
snwx) in order to build in //// that which was done anew.
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.
The exterior lintel of Usersatets
shrine bears only the cartouches of Amenhotep II, indicating that it was built during this
kings reign.
On the jambs Usersatet is called leader, brave one of the king, kings
son and kings son, overseer of southern foreign countries.
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,

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.
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.
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.
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.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75, pls.23-35; Urk. IV, 1345-6 and 1490.
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.
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
presents offerings to several southern deities,
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.
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.
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.
It is concluded in the second
register with a badly damaged address to Amenhotep II by Usersatet, whose figure is
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.

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.
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.
However, on the north half of the west
wall of Usersatets shrine, Amenhotep II is again depicted, receiving all life, stability

Caminos, Ibrim, pp.62-5, pl.27
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.
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
Caminos, Ibrim, p.67, pl.28, 32; Urk. IV, 1345-6.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.67-71, pls.31-2.
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.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.35-43, pls.6-11.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.50-8, pls. 17-22.
dominion from Satis.
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.
In addition, to either side of Usersatets niche Amenhotep II is depicted
presenting offerings to the statues,
as opposed to simply inscriptions as in the shrine
of Nehi.
It would appear that part of Usersatets personlia,
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.
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.

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.

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

Caminos, Ibrim, pp.61-2, pl.26.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.26-7, pl.8.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.71-3, pl.33.
Caminos, Ibrim, pp.42-3, pl.11.
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.
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.
It may also indicate that indeed Nehi served beyond year 25 of Thutmosis III, since he too was given a
shrine here.
I am indebted to Ms. Gasse and Mr. Rondot for sharing their work with me.
stands the idnw of the kings son Usersatet, Meh.
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.
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
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.

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.
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.
The shrine suffered the
loss of the entire top half of its walls due to ancient quarrying in the cliff above.
As a
result, the entrance lintel and jambs are no longer extant, leaving the question open as to

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-4, pls.22-5.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.
its date and ownership.
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.
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
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.

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.
In addition, it is the
only shrine that has five statues, the rest have at most four, and most often only one.

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 (?)

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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.2-4
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.22
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.
overseeing what is clearly a type of agricultural activity (Fig.24a, p.480).
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
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).
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
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.
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,

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.
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.
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.
E.g., Shrines 6, 15, 17, 23.
banqueting scenes were portrayed on both the north and south walls of room B.
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.
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.

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

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.
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).
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.
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

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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.31, pl.23/2.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.32, pl.24.
See also Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.31 n.2.
See PM I.1 p.467 (19a).
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.33-4, pl.25.
I.e., TT93 of Qenamun, TT56 of Userhat.
early Thutmosis IV.
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.

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.
This combined with Hatshepsuts presence in the shrine seems to
indicate that she is indeed Seninefers wife.
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],

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.

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.
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

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).
This type of antequating is a common feature in tombs.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25.
The only other remaining inscription for Hatshepsut is on the north wall of room B, where she is called
simply mistress of the house.
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
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.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.184-5.
faces Usersatet, leading Roehrig to propose that she was Usersatets wife.
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.
In the one case in which the inscriptions are legible, the
texts on each pair of couples face each other.
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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.185-6, with note 584.
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.
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,
and thus
it is unlikely that a child would be named after the queen/king. However, if Senynefer

Roehrig suggested that Nenwenhermentes was placed in the center for reasons of seniority; cf. Royal
urse, p.184-5.
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.
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.

One final note about shrine 11 concerns its function.
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).
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,
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.
However, the use of tomb scenes seems to also indicate that Usersatet may have been

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).
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.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25; Roehrig, Royal urse, p.183.
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.
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.
providing them with a monument in lieu of, or at least in addition to, their own

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.
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.
wanting to implicate Amenhotep II in this affair, Helck compared User to officials such

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).
Helck, JES 14, p.31; Habachi, Kush 5, p.17.
Helck, JES 14, p.31.
as Rekhmire who seem to have suffered during the transition between kings.
was likewise unable too suggest a reason for the intentional defacement of Usersatets
name on his Aswan graffiti.
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.
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.
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
The reason(s) for this is unknown, but Dewachter does not attribute it to part of
a damnation memoriae because Usersatets name is preserved.
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..

Helck, JES 14, p.31.
Habachi, Kush 5, p.17. Gasse and Rondot confirmed that Usersatets name and figure were hammered
out on all of his graffiti.
Notably der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.158.
A. Gasse, pers. comm., September 2003.
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.
Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55.
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.
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.

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

Caminos, Ibrim, and Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.70.
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

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.
debate about Sennefers parentage has centered primarily on the evidence found in
TT96A (upper tomb).
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.

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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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.
Finally, the large offering scene located at PM(21), in the rear chamber,
depicts Sennefer and Senetnay being offered to by Nefertiry.
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

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

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.
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)
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.
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
of Ahmose-Humay in which
Sennefer is consistently identified as sA n snt.f mnx n sn.f son of his sister, effective for

Laboury has drawn this same conclusion, pers. comm., 2002.
n it.f imy-r pr n Hmt-nTr Hwmy mAa-Xrw in HAty-a n niwt rsyt %n-nfr
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
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.498-501, type IVa.
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.
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
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.

Additionally, in Amenemopets tomb, TT29,
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
Despite his depiction in Amenemopets tomb, Sennefers relationship to either
Amenemopet or Ahmose-Humay is never given. Amenemopet, however, designates

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

From the chart detailing ancient Egyptian kinship terminology
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
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.

PM(4), PM(10), and the passage ceiling.
Figure 1, p.457
When ancient Egyptian kinship terms are used to form compound expressions, only their simple
meanings are employed; cf. Robins, CdE 54, pp.197-217.
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.
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.
Here Ahmose-Humay and his wife receive offerings
from Ahmose-Humays biological and adopted sons, Amenemopet and Sennefer

Janssen and Janssen, Getting Old.
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.
The genealogy of Sennefers family as discussed above, and with a few additions,
is as follows
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.

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
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.
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

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

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

TT224 is constructed as a reverse T-shape, with entry directly into a passage that leads to
the transverse-hall.
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.
All of these features argue for
dating the tombs construction and decoration during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-
However, in the lunette of his autobiographical stele Ahmose-Humay
presents offerings to the cartouches of Thutmosis III,
while the name of Hatshepsut
does not appear in his tomb.

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

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.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, pp.498-501, type IVa.
The architectural plan is the same as that of the tomb of Qen (TT59), above.
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.
Cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, p.21, where the comporanda for this tomb dates primarily
from the early 18
Dynasty to the reing of Hatshepsut/Thtumosis III.
This is also similar to TT112, see above, Chapter 1.
Amun, and within the palace.
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.
The method(s) by which he achieved these
positions is unclear, as all that is known about his parents are their names, Senwosret and
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)
In the
transverse-hall Ahmose-Humay is also called overseer of priests
and one who
nurtured the flesh [of the god].
Ahmose-Humay is one of only two tutors to hold this

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.
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).
They are depicted receiving offerings on the lower portion of the west wall of the passage, PM(6).
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.
On the stele on the east wall; cf PM(9).
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.
title, which indicates that its bearer survived to see their charge become king.
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).
royal nurse titles were also accorded to him in the tombs of his son, the vizier
Amenemopet (TT29),
and nephew, the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96).
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

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.
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

Roehrig, Royal urse, p.327ff. The other tutor was Hekareshu, whose charges included prince
Thutmosis (IV).
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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

Redford, History and Chronology, pp.70ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, p.66.
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.
Bryan, in: Mistress, p.32f.; Dorman, Senemut, pp.113ff.
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.
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,
has left us without
an installation or appointment text.
Unlike other high and secondary officials of this

These are Aametu, User and Rekhmire, discussed in Chapter 1, pp.75-101.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.214-5, type VIIa.
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.

One of the most interesting aspects of the titles and epithets of Amenemopet is
that they are purely civil and vizier-related.
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.
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.

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.
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.
Amenemopets titles of priest of Maat and opener of truth are certainly vizier-related, while that of sm-
priest is essentially non-funcitonal.
Eichler does not include him in her catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun.
Amenemopet, like his father, married an Xkrt nswt, a woman called Weret.

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.
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
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.

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

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.
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.
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.
Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.502.
called Tiiry, and her husband Nu.
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.
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.
In addition, he held several other titles related to
funerary temples of previous kings.
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.

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.
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 ////.
Pillar Ab (south face): imy-r Hmw-nTr (aHms-Nfrt-iry)\; Pillar Da (east face): imy-r Hmw-nTr n Hmt-nTr.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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

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.
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.
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.
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] .
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.
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.
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.
This is also the only time Senetnay/nefer bears the chantress

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.
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?
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.
title, which is unusual given its prevalence among nurses of this time period.

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
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
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.
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.
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.

E.g., Baky, Hunay and Neith are all chantresses of Amun; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.321.
See note 1143 above.
There were also objects made for the Xkrt nswt Baketre.
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.
For an unknown reason she was instead apparently interred with Amenhotep II in his tomb, KV35.
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,
while a second daughter, Mutnofret, was
granted the title of foster-sister of the lord of the Two Lands.
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.
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.
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
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,

She was depicted at least three times in TT96 upper, as well as on the Cairo statue (CG 42126)
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
The difference in orthography parallels that seen for her mother Senetnay/Senetnefer. See above note
Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, p.194
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

Hunay and her son Mery
(A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun
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
several funerary cones,
and is mentioned in the tomb of his steward
Djhuty, TT45.
In addition, Mery usurped TT84 of Iamunedjeh, perhaps due to
structural issues with the rock in TT95.
Merys own tomb is unpublished, though
currently it is being studied and prepared for publication by Andrea Gnirs in conjunction

Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.268.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.358-60, type VIII.
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,
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.
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.
with tombs 84 and 88.
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

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,
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.

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.
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.
By contrast, his father
Nebpehtetre was simply the high priest of Min of Coptos,
a position that although
high in its own regard, would have wielded much less authority than Mery. Merys

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.
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.
Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.61ff.
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.
Mery is included in Eichlers catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung das Hauses des Amun, no.268.
These titles are found in his tomb inscriptions and on his funerary cones
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.
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.

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.
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.
This is supported by the prominence of Hunay
throughout Merys tomb, in which she is depicted and identified by inscription at least
three times.
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.
Hunays name and titles appear along with those of
Nebpehtetres (Merys father) on the northeast architrave where Mery presents his
The important role that Hunay played for Mery is also suggested by her

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.
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.
Roehrig, Royal urse, p.142.
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.
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.
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
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.

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,
royal nurse and
nurturer of the body of the god,
and great nurse, one who nurtures the god, Horus
having united of her breast, chantress of .
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.
All of these women
shared essentially the same titles, and listed them in almost identical order.
husband Mahu served from Thutmosis III into early Amenhotep II and Baky was a nurse
to Amenhotep II.
Neiths husband Pehsukher was roughly contemporary with
Amenhotep II and was likely the nurse of Thutmosis IV.
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
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.
PM(1): mnat wrt n nb tAwy !wnAy maA-xrw xr Wsir
Northern architrave, east face: mnat nswt Sdt nTr Haw !wny
PM(3): //// mnat wrt Sd nTr Xnm !r Snbt.s Smayt //// //[!wn]y maA-xrw ////.
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.
Compare Urk. IV, 913 and 1460.
Mahu and Baky are discussed in Chapter 3, pp.304ff.
Pehsukher and Neith are discussed below,. See also the discussion of Pehsukher with regard to
Qenamun on pp.274-5.
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.
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.

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.
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

On this title see most recently, Feucht, Das Kind, esp. pp.266-304; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-
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
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.
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.
is also given the title of chantress of Amun.
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.
The one inscription that records his titles labels him as his
brother, chief in Karnak master of secrets (of) Amun .
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.

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.

Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.67-8, fig.2.
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.
PM(5): sn.f r-Hry m Ipt-swt //// Hry-sStA (n) Imn ////
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).
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.
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
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

TT 93 is published by Davies, Ken-Amun. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.352-6, type VIIb.
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.
might have followed in his fathers footsteps as a steward, based on the latters title as an
imy-r pr .
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.

However, this is not the case. Davies incompletely copied the scene located on the
southern corner of the west wall of the hall.
On Davies plate 25 are placed a number
of fragmentary inscriptions, one of which (G) belongs to the very southern end of this
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),
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.

Helck, Verwaltung, p.366; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.159.
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.
This is PM(7).
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.
It can be found in Urk. IV, 1406,18-19, though here too it is incomplete.
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.
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.
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.

Davies restored the name of Qenamuns mother as Amenemipet, and this has
almost consistently been accepted.
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

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.
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.
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.
The notable exception is Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.111-121, especially pp.114f, 117f., 121.
(Fig.29, p.485).
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.
Thus it appears that Davies was likely correct to
restore the name of Qenamuns mother as Amenemipet.

Three men depicted in Qenamuns tomb have also been identified, and generally
accepted, as family members.
Two of them appear as offering bearers following
Qenamun and his wife on the east wall just south of the entrance.
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

PM(16), Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix. mnat wrt [Sdt] nTr /// M // t mAat-xrw xr nTr aA
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.
Contra Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.114f, 117f., 121.
Davies, Ken-Amun, p.39 and Whale, Family, pp.157-8. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.130-5, questions these
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.
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.
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 ,

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.

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.
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

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.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp, 119-120, 130-1, 135-7.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.136-7, 142-3. Mery is discussed in this chapter pp.258ff.
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.
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

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.
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.

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

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.
Van Siclen, Serapis 5, p.18; Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.89. The funerary cone is Davies and Macadam,
Corpus, 482.
Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.87-89.
Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.89-90.
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.
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,
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
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.

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).
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.
Similar to the presentation scene in TT72 in which Re is followed by an actual brother as well as by
Van Siclen, Serapis 5, p.20; Van Siclen, BES 7, p.89.
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).
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.
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.
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).
It is indeed the case that the graffito
that mentions Pehsukher is both much larger and written in a glyphic script.
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

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.
Davies, Ken-Amun, p.20 with n.6. Pehsukhers tomb is slightly east and further up the cliff from
Whale, Family, p.158.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.134, 177.
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.
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.
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.
The relationship between Hekarehsu and Hekarneheh is unclear, though
they may be father and son.

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.
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.
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.

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.
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
PM(7), cf. Newberry, JEA 14, pl.xii;Lepsius, Denkmler III pl.69a.
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.
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).
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 /// ////
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.
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.
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.

Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.19-20.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, pp.55, 67.
suggests that Neith may have been a nurse to Amenhotep IIs son Thutmosis IV.
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.

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
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,

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.178-9, Appendix I, p.342f.
Pehsukher and Neith are discussed below, pp.304ff.
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.
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.
As has been discussed elsewhere, while this could involve
the ability to command troops, there was likely an administrative aspect to the position as
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.

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.
The only lengthy inscription

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.
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.
Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. See also the discussion below, pp.281 ff., on Nebamun and Paser.
Schulman, MRTO, pp.51-3, p.86 table 4.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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

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 .
Wild, BIFAO 56, p.237 nos.138-140.
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.
See below, pp.304ff.
receiving his appointment to office, in this case as steward of Perunefer.
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.
In Qenamuns text, Amenhotep II states:
I have decreed (wD) [that one place (rdi) Qenamun to steward] in Perunefer.
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.
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.

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).
This representation is especially
significant for two reasons. First, Amenemipet is depicted at a larger scale than the king,

PM(17); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii.
See the lengthy discussion under User, Chapter 1.
Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii, col.18; Urk. 1386, 18: wD.n.i [ Qn-Imn r imy-r pr] m Prw-nfr ////
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.
Helck, Einfluss, p.71.
PM(16); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix-x, xlviii.
and second, the king touches her shoulder while she supports his head as though he were
a child.
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.
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,
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

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
These are discussed in Chapter 3, pp.393ff..
TT85, PM(9)
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.
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.
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.
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.

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

PM(9); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pls.xi-xxiv.
Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii cols. 31ff. These phrases fall in cols. 31 and 33.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.

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

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.
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.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.430, type IIb.
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.
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.

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.
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.
The base originally supported the statue of a falcon, while a

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
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).
Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.378.
He was perhaps advanced in age and did not distinguish himself in the wars; Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.376.
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).
Hassan, Giza 8, p.66 fig. 59. See also Zivie, Giza, NE 13.
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
As Zivie mentions, these epithets place the statue in the reigns of Thutmosis III
and/or Amenhotep II.
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.
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.

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.
Zivie, Giza, p.124.
Hassan, Giza 8, p.66.
See note 1274.
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.
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.
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
the sequence excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands, praised of the
good god, friend great of love,
and the sequences one who follows the king on his
marches upon water, upon land, and upon every foreign country
and one who
follows the king upon every foreign country of the south and north.

The only king mentioned or depicted in Pasers tomb, TT367,
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

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.
Fakhry published TT 367 with plates, see Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp. 389-414.
PM(1) nb xnt xr Snw.f; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.400
PM(2); cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.402.
PM(5); cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.396.
PM(4), PM(3), 1
column on left; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.399, 406.
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.592-3, type VIIa.
the presentation scene before the enthroned Amenhotep II.
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.
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.

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

PM(6), right (east) side, PM(3), 2
column from right (with the error nsw i for ti nsw), and PM(5)
respectively; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.394, 406, 396 respectively.
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.
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.
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.
contrast, his Hry pDt title never appears as his final designation.
Even in the tomb of
his father Nebamun, Pasers title of chariot-warrior is followed by his designation as a
follower of the king.
In addition, on the false-door it is qualified by the phrases of the
lord of the two lands and of his majesty.
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.
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.
Feucht has argued that the Xrd n
kAp title is probably an indication that its bearer was raised in the royal court.
certainly seems to be supported by Pasers claim to be a follower while Amenhotep II
was still a youth at the court himself.

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

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.
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.
Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.373; Helck, Antike Welt 2, p.77. See also note 11 above.
All of Pasers inscriptions here carry epithets that denote his close connection to the king; cf. Fakhry,
ASAE 43, pp.406-7.
Gnirs, Militr, p.5.
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.
Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.266 ff., esp. 303-4.
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.
reward of wealth in the form of gold or slaves was commonly given to men involved with
the campaigns,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

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.
For example Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85) or Tjanuny (TT74).
Sms nsw Hr xAst rsy mHtt; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.406-7.
Murnane, Road to Kadesh; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19ff., 47 ff.
For the publication, see Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75. For a discussion of the inscription see der
Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.92-5.
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.
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.
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.

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
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.

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.
Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6.
This is also suggested by Schulman, MRTO, p.55 no.130.
He was called follower of the king, Hry pDt, Xrd n kAp; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.409-10.
(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,
is one of the larger in the necropolis, consisting of a
3-pillared transverse-hall, very long passage, and 2-pillared rear chamber;
the ceiling
is also extremely high.
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.
addition to the inscription just mentioned, both kings are represented in the lunette of
Amenmoses stele,
and according to Murnane, Amenhotep II may be depicted on the

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.237-9, type VIIb.
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.
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.
Murnane, Coregencies; Van Siclen, Uronarti, p.49 (D).
PM(11); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb.
right half of the rear wall of the front room, parallel to the depiction of Thutmosis III on
the left half.

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.
The scene of Amenmose before
Thutmosis III is badly damaged, with the figures of both individuals completely
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

Murnane, Coregencies. These scenes are PM(5) and (12) respectively; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb,
pls. xxxiii-xxxv for PM(5).
There seem to be traces of an offering table and offerings.
PM(5); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xxxiii-xxxv.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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

PM(18); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxxix.
See note 1269 above for a discussion of this title.
PM(4), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, p.30, pl.xxxvi.
PM(5), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxxiii-xxxv.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.66; Murnane, in: Essays te Velde.
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.
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.

While Hry pDt is certainly a position with active military duties,
the overseer of
northern foreign countries is purely administrative.
According to Helck,
the trend
during the mid-18
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.
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

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.
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.
See note 2 above.
Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, 251-258.
Helck, Einfluss, p.70f.
Helck, Einfluss, p.72.
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.
An overseer of foreign countries,
however, would function as the kings representative in foreign lands and be entrusted to
speak on the kings behalf.
Based on the depiction of the Syrian fortress, Helck
suggested that Amenmose was the equivalent of the rabisu, or Kommissar in
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
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,
and Gnirs would interpret the
addition of n nb tAwy as supporting this.
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.
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.

Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. Schulman places the Hry pDt as the highest rank a field-officer could attain.
Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, p.256f..
Helck, Beziehungen, p.251.
PM(2) and PM(18); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xlviF and xxxix.
Schulman, MRTO, p. 51.
Gnirs, Militr, p.5.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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,
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-)

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

Amenhotep IIs cartouches are in the tomb, but it is unclear whether he was depicted; cf. pp.289ff.
The discussion of Rekhmires removal and its timing is in Chapter 1.
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*.
undertook his eighth campaign into Syria in year 33.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.

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

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
See Chapter 3.
Murnane, Coregencies, p.53 with n.94, placed Montuiywy as a possible co-regency official, and Van
Siclen agreed; cf. Uronarti, p.49(D).
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)].
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.
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.
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.

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.
Following the offering formula at the
beginning of the inscription,
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,
and was then promoted to a higher position that related to the

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.
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.
Lines 1-4, Urk. IV, 1466.6-12.
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
other attendants in the palace.
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.
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
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
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

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.
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
Wenig, Ld IV, col.343.
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.
Guksch, Knigsdienst, pp.57-65.
On the campaigns of Thutmosis III, see most recently Redford, Wars.
[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.

While not as explicit as in Amenemheb-Mahus autobiography,
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.
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.
In the Urkunden, the suggested restoration is that Montuiywy was
placed among his [courtiers] and promoted among his [officials].
however, includes Montuiywys royal butler title in the damaged areas, thus he was

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
See Chapter 3 for the discussion of Amenemheb-Mahus autobiography.
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.
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.
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.
placed with his [courtiers] and promoted as [royal butler].
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.

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.
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.

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.
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

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.
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.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.49.
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.
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)].
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.
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,
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,
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.
While both of these scenes are commonly found in 18

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.
The next scene on the

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.
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
register), and a destroyed figure.
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.
The depictions are below PM(7)-(9).
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.

Montuiywys claim to have gown up in the court accords well with his title of Xrd
n kAp.
However, unlike other officials who were called Xrd n kAp and whose parents
have a demonstrable connection to the court,
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
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.
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.

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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
This description seems to be quite accurate with regard to

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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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,
and to a lesser extant his career, are quite similar to
that of Mahus, the owner of TT85.
The numerous points of comparison between the
two mens careers and families are well-known to scholars and have been discussed at
length elsewhere.
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.
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

TAy xw (n nb tAwy), idnw n nsw; idnw n Hm.f; idnw n mSa aSAw, iry pDt n nb tAwy
See Chapter 3, for a discussion of this official. For Mahus autobiography; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.167-
Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.342, type VIIa.
Amenemheb-Mahu is discussed Chapter 3.
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.
Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp. 65-80.
Pehsukhers was never completed and as a result we do not have as clear a picture of his
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
In addition to TT88, Pehsukher also owned a stelephorous statue, now in the
Royal Scottish Museum,
and several funerary cones.
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.
The beginning of the inscription
duplicates the one in TT85, at the end of which Mahu is called an idnw n mSa.

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

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.
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).
RSM, Edinburgh, no. 1910.75. Vandier, Manuel III, pl.clx (3).
Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 201.
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.
Compare Urk. IV, 911.5-11 with 1459.
as a TAy xw.
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.
The latter is the same as that found once in Mahus tomb and bears
some discussion here.
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.
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.
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.

PM(1), east end, register three: TAy xw PH-sw /// pA Hm-ntr ///
In the brazier offering scene at PM(5) and the column of inscription that runs along the left side of the
stele, respectively.
In the transverse-hall, PM(26), see above.
Gnirs, Militr, p.25 with note 202.
Gnirs, Militr, p.102 with note 532 and p.152 with note 957.
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,
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.
interprets all of these phrases as statements expressing loyalty to the king.
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.
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.

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

PM(5), west end of the southeast wall: iry rd.wy n nb tAwy Hr xAst rsyt mHt
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
Guksch, Knigsdienst, pp.56-73.
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.
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.
epithets that are meant to demonstrate his usefulness above other courtiers.
claims that the king promoted (sxnt) him because of his devotion,
and repeats this on
one of the pillars with the epithet one whom his lord ennobled.
Thus, it appears that
throughout his tomb Pehsukher is continually stressing his relationship with the king as
opposed to his military abilities or duties.

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.
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.
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.
One image in particular has often been
discussed with respect to Pehsukhers use of scenes from TT85: the representation of

This is in contrast to Mahu, who explicitly states that he was appointed by the king.
Line 12, Urk. IV, 1522.9: sxnt.n nswt Hr mnx-ib.f
Pillar Da, south face, register 3: saH nb.f.
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.
mnat wrt n nb tAwy Sdt nTr nfr
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.
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.
Baky offering an Amun bouquet to Amenhotep II in TT85.
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.
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.
It is

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
In fact, there is a destroyed space before the man into which another smaller figure could fit perhaps a
fan-bearer or two?
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).
thus not possible to say for certain who Neiths nursling was, although usually prince
Amenhotep, later Amenhotep II has been suggested.
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.

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.172ff.
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.
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.
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

See the discussion in Ch.3.
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.
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
priest of Amun,
Ahmose. Although all of the officials in this group entered the priesthood through their
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
priest of
Amun. This position is relatively low in the temple hierarchy,
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.
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

Sauneron, Priests, pp.57f.; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.69, 71ff.
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-
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.
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.
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.

Kampp, Thebanische ekropole, p.199f., pl.7.
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.
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.
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.

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

It is also possible that Qen was placed in an extremely high position from the beginning.
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.
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
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.

It must be admitted that this could have occurred in the destroyed portions of the tomb.
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.
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,
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

In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.322-7 for her concluding comments on the royal tutors.
mna(y) n msw nswt tutor of the kings children indicates.
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.
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.
Royal nurses

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.

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.
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.

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.
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
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).
In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.314-21 for her concluding comments on the royal
The epithets are sweet of milk, one who suckled well, and whose breast was united with Horus;
cf. Roehrig, p.320.
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.
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,
while for royal tutors the honor
shown the tutor does not seem directly to have benefited his family.
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
except Qenamun, for whom it appears to have been
The husbands of the women who were nurses to Amenhotep II are virtually
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.
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.

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.336-7.
Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.331.
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.).
The one exception is Amenemheb-Mahu, who is discussed in the next chapter.
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.
The foster-sister of the king was Nebetta, sister to Menkheperresoneb (i); cf. Ch.1.
In contrast, the mnat nswt themselves appear to be very prominent women in their own
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.
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.

In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.314-21 for her concluding comments on the royal
Cf. Whale, Family, pp.261ff.
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
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.

Roehrig, Royal urse, p.349,
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
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

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.
deputies of the king were Usersatet as viceroy of Kush (Nubia)
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.
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

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.
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.
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.
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.

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,
or that, as Montuiywys tomb seems to indicate, his actual
duties were small compared to his titulary.

See above, p.304.
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.
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
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

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.
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
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
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

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.
may have later become friends with the king, it was the fact of having a parent in an
influential position that precipitated their rise.

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
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
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.
Thus, the phraseology
common to many New Kingdom autobiographies asserts ones own capabilities and
performance, such as his trustworthiness (iqrw) made his place,
my lord praised
me on account of my excellence,
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

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

Gnirs, in: History and Forms, p.228.
Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.230-1.
Urk. IV, 1522.9: ir.n iqrw.f st.f
Urk. IV, 1533.5: Hswn win b.i Hr mnx.i
Urk. IV, 1533.8: in ib.i sxnt st.i iqrw.i di.n.f wi m sH
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.

Eyre, in: History and Forms, p.422.
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.
II. Officials
(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
Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no.13,
is an official of the Hatshepsut Thutmosis III
coregency who continued into the sole reign of Thutmosis III.
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,
two block statues,
a pair statue,
a broken block statue where he
is holding a prince,
and a stele from Serabit el-Khadim.
He was also depicted with

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.368-70, type VIa.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.37-9.
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:
The funerary cones are Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos.154, 93.
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.
Also in black granite, it is in the Cairo Museum, CG 1013, Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, p.25-6,
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
The stele is published in Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, pl. LXV (199), II, 161-2
Thutmosis III in a relief at the temple to Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim
and mentioned
in a papyrus dated to the middle of Thutmosis IIIs reign, along with other high

The shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no.13) would appear to be the earliest monument
attested for Sennefri.
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.
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.
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.
Dziobek contends that
the erasure on the shrine is similar to those seen on others at Silsilah dated to Hatshepsut

Urk IV, 548; Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, pl. LXIII, II, 158-9 (194); photo Petrie,
Sinai, pl. 96, p. 80.
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).
Published by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.37-9, pl. 26-7, 30-1.
Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.32: imy-r xtmt qn and imy-r [xtm]t wHm nswt
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.
Roehrig also mentions this, and subsequently follows Helcks reconstruction. Roehrig, Royal urse,
and the co-regency.
While this is not entirely accurate,
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,
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.
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.
TT99 is
surrounded by others belonging to primarily upper level officials who served during the
span of Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II.
For example, the vizier Rekhmire has his tomb,

Dziobek, Denkmler, p.135.
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.
He is overseer of the seal at least until year 32 of Thutmosis III; cf. Megally, Recherches, p.279-81.
The tomb is currently being prepared for publication by N. Strudwick. His website has photos and texts
published on it; cf. Strudwick, web:
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.

Sennefris autobiography was placed on the left front wall of the rear chamber,
adjacent to the entrance into the room.
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.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
For example, his titles of overseer of the granaries, chief of mayors, overseer of gold lands of Amun.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
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.
PM(9), S12. Due to the tombs orientation, this is at the east end of the southwest wall.
tomb, the lower portion of Sennefris autobiography is badly damaged.
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
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.
The title chief mouth (r-Hry) often is used to refer to
while the Sna seem to be production centers, with perhaps temporary storage,
exclusively associated with temple complexes.
In addition, Polz has demonstrated that
the title imy-r Sna is usually either qualified by a gods name, or by reference to the

Urk. IV, 528.11-531.15. A portion (lines 9-18) is published in hieroglyph and roughly translated on
Strudwicks website,
Column 9. In Urk. IV, 530.1-2 the r preposition which is clearly on the wall was left out.
Columns 10-11, Urk. IV, 530.4-6. See also the translation provide by Strudwick at
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.
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.
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.

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.
The exact location of Watet-Hor
is unknown,
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.
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.
Strudwick does not think that Watet-Hor should
be equated with the similarly named Ways of Horus,
which runs from the Delta

Polz, ZS 117, p.47. Verarbeitungsbeitrab or Produktionsbetrieb. See also Helck, Verwaltung,
pp.159 f. Arbeitshaus.
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
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.
WB I, 248.14 defines this as a wine-producing area (Bez. einer Wein produzierenden Landschaft).
In the tomb of the 2
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:
Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no.389; Guksch, Die Grber, p.18f., 44f. See also the
discussion of Miinnabkht in Chapter 1.
Bietak, Ld III, cols.62-4.
across the Sinai to the north-east, due to differences in the orthography.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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 //// m SA[y]wt nt 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

Strudwick, website:
Bietak, Ld III, col.63; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming, also makes this suggestion.
He is the only official in Polzs list with this position, Polz, ZS 117, p.54 A7.
This title will be discussed below.
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.
taxes, consisting of the dues of their cities as the tax of every year.
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.
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.
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.
He appears to be in
charge of the deliveries to the granary officials.
These deliveries are referred to as the

Columns 11-13, Urk. IV, 530.11-16. See also the translation provide by Strudwick at
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.
Published by Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, p.17, pl. XI (A recto XI, 3-4); p.24, pl. XXVI (A verso XI, 3-
Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, pp.10, 17, 24; Megally, Recherches, pp.279-81
Megally, Recherches, pp.279-81; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.
grain of the chief treasurer Sennefri.
Three other well-known officials are also
mentioned on the papyrus: the vizier Rekhmire and the overseers of the granaries
Minnakht and Tjenna.
Rekhmire is mentioned in year 34 giving grain to the two
granary officials from the great granary.
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.
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.
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

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
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.
Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, A recto XIII, 9-10 and A verso XIII,10-XIV,1; Megally, Recherches,
pp.220-5, 278-9
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.
Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.
mention for anything but year 32.
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.
This would seem to suggest that Bohleke does not
consider Sennefri to have truly functioned in this post.
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,
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
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,

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.
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.
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.
PM(2), S1.
PM I.1 p.205
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 .

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.
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.

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.
The depiction of the carrying out and completion of this
task and Sennefris return to Egypt occupies the opposite side.
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.
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.

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.
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.
PM(3) and (5), S3-4.
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.
PM(5), S4.
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.
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).
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.
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),
once on his pair statue (CG1013),
and once
in TT99. In the tomb the title occurs not in a main scene, but on a face of one of the
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

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:
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.
Edwards, Hieroglyphis Texts VIII, p.4-5, no.48, pl.v.
Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, no.1013, p.26
PM Pillar Bd, the northeast face.
is also designated by the epithet mouth of the king of Upper Egypt (r n nswt).
phrase is found a second time in the tomb, on a ceiling inscription.
In both cases
mouth of the king is placed in conjunction with the term ears of the king of Lower
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.
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.
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.
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 be