Thebes in the First Millennium BC Thebes in the First Millennium BC Edited by Elena Pischikova, Julia Budka and Kenneth Griffin  Thebes in the First Millennium BC, Edited by Elena Pischikova, Julia Budka and Kenneth Griffin This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Elena Pischikova, Julia Budka, Kenneth Griffin and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5404-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5404-7  TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword …………………………………………………………………xi Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………...xv Part A: Historical Background Chapter One ……………………………………………………………....3 The Coming of the Kushites and the Identity of Osorkon IV Aidan Dodson Part B: Royal Burials: Thebes and Abydos Chapter Two ……………………………………………………………..15 Royal Burials at Thebes during the First Millennium BC David A. Aston Chapter Three …………………………………………………………....61 Kushites at Abydos: The Royal Family and Beyond Anthony Leahy Part C: Elite Tombs of the Theban Necropolis Section 1: Preservation and Development of the Theban Necropolis Chapter Four ………..………………………………………………….101 Lost Tombs of Qurna: Development and Preservation of the Middle Area of the Theban Necropolis Ramadan Ahmed Ali Chapter Five ……………………………………………………………111 New Tombs of the North Asasif Fathy Yaseen Abd el Karim vi Table of Contents Section 2: Archaeology and Conservation Chapter Six ……………………………………………………………..121 Kushite Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis: Conservation, Reconstruction, and Research Elena Pischikova Chapter Seven ………………………………………………………….161 Reconstruction and Conservation of the Tomb of Karakhamun (TT 223) Abdelrazk Mohamed Ali Chapter Eight …………………………………………………………..173 The Forgotten Tomb of Ramose (TT 132) Christian Greco Chapter Nine …………………………………………………………...201 The Tomb of Montuemhat (TT 34) in the Theban Necropolis: A New Approach Louise Gestermann and Farouk Gomaà Chapter Ten ………………………………………………………….....205 The “Funeral Palace” of Padiamenope (TT 33): Tomb, Place of Pilgrimage, and Library. Current research Claude Traunecker Chapter Eleven …………………………………………………………235 Kushite and Saite Period Burials on el-Khokha Gábor Schreiber Section 3: Religious Texts: Tradition and Innovation Chapter Twelve ………………………………………………………...251 The Book of the Dead from the Western Wall of the Second Pillared Hall in the Tomb of Karakhamun (TT 223) Kenneth Griffin Chapter Thirteen ……………………………………………………….269 The Broad Hall of the Two Maats: Spell BD 125 in Karakhamun’s Main Burial Chamber Miguel Angel Molinero Polo  Table of Contents vii Chapter Fourteen ……………………………………………………….295 Report on the Work on the Fragments of the “Stundenritual” (Ritual of the Hours of the Day) in TT 223 Erhart Graefe Chapter Fifteen …………………………………………………...…….307 The Amduat and the Book of the Gates in the Tomb of Padiamenope (TT 33): A Work in Progress Isabelle Régen Section 4: Interconnections, Transmission of Patterns and Concepts, and Archaism: Thebes and Beyond Chapter Sixteen ………………………………………………...………323 Between South and North Asasif: The Tomb of Harwa (TT 37) as a “Transitional Monument” Silvia Einaudi Chapter Seventeen ………………………………………………...……343 The So-called “Lichthof” Once More: On the Transmission of Concepts between Tomb and Temple Filip Coppens Chapter Eighteen ……………………………………...………………..357 Some Observations about the Representation of the Neck-sash in Twenty- sixth Dynasty Thebes Aleksandra Hallmann Chapter Nineteen ……………………………………………………….379 All in the Detail: Some Further Observations on “Archaism” and Style in Libyan-Kushite-Saite Egypt Robert G. Morkot Chapter Twenty …………………………………………...……………397 Usurpation and the Erasure of Names during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty Carola Koch viii Table of Contents Part D: Burial Assemblages and Other Finds in Elite Tombs Section 1: Coffins Chapter Twenty-one ………………………………………...………….419 The Significance of a Ritual Scene on the Floor Board of Some Coffin Cases in the Twenty-first Dynasty Eltayeb Abbas Chapter Twenty-two …………………………………………….……..439 The Inner Coffin of Tameramun: A Unique Masterpiece of Kushite Iconography from Thebes Simone Musso and Simone Petacchi Chapter Twenty-three ……………………………………………….…453 Sokar-Osiris and the Goddesses: Some Twenty-fifth–Twenty-sixth Dynasty Coffins from Thebes Cynthia May Sheikholeslami Chapter Twenty-four …………………………………………………...483 The Vatican Coffin Project Alessia Amenta Section 2: Other Finds Chapter Twenty-five ……………………………………………...……503 Kushite Pottery from the Tomb of Karakhamun: Towards a Reconstruc- tion of the Use of Pottery in Twenty-fifth Dynasty Temple Tombs Julia Budka Chapter Twenty-six ……………………………………………….……521 A Collection of Cows: Brief Remarks on the Faunal Material from the South Asasif Conservation Project Salima Ikram Chapter Twenty-seven …………………………………………………529 Three Burial Assemblages of the Saite Period from Saqqara Kate Gosford  Table of Contents ix Part E: Karnak Chapter Twenty-eight ………………………………………….………549 A Major Development Project of the Northern Area of the Amun-Re Precinct at Karnak during the Reign of Shabaqo Nadia Licitra, Christophe Thiers, and Pierre Zignani Chapter Twenty-nine …………………………………………………...565 The Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices at Karnak (Naga Malgata) during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: Some Hitherto Unpublished Epigraphic Material Laurent Coulon Chapter Thirty …………………………………………………….……587 Offering Magazines on the Southern Bank of the Sacred Lake in Karnak: The Oriental Complex of the Twenty-fifth–Twenty-sixth Dynasty Aurélia Masson Chapter Thirty-one ………………………………………………..……603 Ceramic Production in the Theban Area from the Late Period: New Discoveries in Karnak Stéphanie Boulet and Catherine Defernez Chapter Thirty-two ……………………………………………..………625 Applications of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) in the Study of Temple Graffiti Elizabeth Frood and Kathryn Howley Abbreviations …………………………………………………………..639 Contributors ……………………………………………………………645 Indices …………….……………………………………………..……..647  FOREWORD “Egypt in the First Millennium BC” is a collection of articles, most of which are based on the talks given at the conference of the same name organised by the team of the South Asasif Conservation Project (SACP), an Egyptian-American Mission working under the auspices of the Ministry of State for Antiquities (MSA), Egypt in Luxor in 2012. The organisers of the conference Elena Pischikova, Julia Budka, and Kenneth Griffin in- tended to bring together a group of speakers who would share the results of their recent field research in the tombs and temples of the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Dynasties in Thebes and other archaeological sites, as well as addressing a variety of issues relevant to different aspects of Egyptian monuments of this period. Papers based on the talks of the participants of the conference form the bulk of this volume. However, we found it possible to include the papers of a few scholars who could not attend the conference, but whose contri- butions are pertinent to the main themes of the conference and could en- rich the content of the present volume. Therefore, this volume covers a much wider range of sites, monuments, and issues as well as a broader chronological span. Discussions of the monuments of Abydos and Saqqara, along with the Libyan tradition, enrich the argument on intercon- nections, derivations, innovations, and archaism. The diversity of topics cover the areas of history, archaeology, epigraphy, art, and burial assem- blages of the period. Aidan Dodson deliberates on chronological issues of the early Kushite state by re-examining the identity of Osorkon IV and related monuments. His paper gives a historical and cultural introduction to the Kushite Period and the whole volume. The papers of the General Director of the Middle Area of the West Bank Fathy Yaseen Abd el Karim, and Chief Inspector of the Middle Area Ramadan Ahmed Ali, open a large section in the volume dedicated to different aspects of research and fieldwork in the Theban necropolis. They concern the preservation and development of the necropolis, an incredibly important matter which assumed a new dimension after the demolition of the Qurna villages and clearing of the area being undertaken by the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) teams. Numerous tombs found under the houses need immediate safety measures to be applied as well as archaeological and research attention. The conservation, preservation, and recording of the elite tombs in the area are amongst the most relevant issues in the Theban necropolis today. xii Foreword David Aston and Anthony Leahy examine the royal burials of Thebes and Abydos. Both papers present a remarkably large number of burials related to the royal families of the First Millennium BC. This time period in the Theban necropolis is traditionally associated with elite tombs, with the royal monuments often neglected. Research on the royal aspect of these sites provides a deeper perspective to the study of the elite tombs of the period. The papers on the elite tombs of the Theban necropolis address a vari- ety of aspects of work in this group of monuments such as archaeology, conservation, epigraphy, and burial assemblages, as well as relevant issues as archaism and innovations of the decoration and interconnections be- tween the tombs of different parts of the necropolis. The areas of archae- ology and conservation of the necropolis are presented by the papers of the Director of the SACP Elena Pischikova, and its leading conservator Abdelrazk Mohamed Ali. These papers give a summary of the re- discovery, excavation, conservation, reconstruction, and mapping work done in the tombs of Karakhamun (TT 223) and Karabasken (TT 391) over a period of eight years, with emphasis on the 2012 and 2013 seasons. This section is complemented by a paper on the fieldwork in another “forgotten” tomb of the South Asasif necropolis, Ramose (TT 132), by Christian Greco. The archaeological work in the South Asasif necropolis has resulted in the uncovering and reconstruction of a large amount of new architectural, epigraphic, and artistic information, some of which is presented in this volume for the first time. The new project in the tomb of Montuemhat (TT 34), undertaken by Louise Gestermann and Farouk Gomaà, is another invaluable piece of information which, together with the work of Greco in the tomb of Ramose, and Molinero Polo in the tomb of Karakhamun, modifies our understanding of Kushite and early Saite burial compartments and their semantics within the tomb complex. The paper on the Twenty-fifth to Twenty-sixth Dynasty tombs of el-Khokha by Gábor Schreiber widens our perception of the geographic disbursement of Kushite tombs in the Theban necropolis. The amount of intrusive Twenty-fifth Dynasty burials within the primarily New Kingdom site of el-Khokha gives confidence that we may expect similar results from the numerous Qurna missions. Special attention paid to such intrusive burials in different areas may build a solid basis for our better understanding of Kushite presence and activities in Thebes in the future. The epigraphical studies of Kenneth Griffin, Miguel Molinero Polo, and Erhart Graefe within the tomb of Karakhamun, and Isabelle Régen in the tomb of Padiamenope, concern the reflection of tradition and innova-  Foreword xiii tions in the texts of the Book of the Dead, the Amduat, the Book of the Gates, and the Ritual of the Hours of the Day, as well as their new archi- tectural and contextual environment. The comparative research of these texts in different tombs will eventually lead to a better understanding of the reasons for selections of certain traditional texts, reasons for their ad- justments, as well as their interpretations in the new contexts of temple tombs of the period. Although Kushite and Saite tombs demonstrate a rich variety of archi- tectural, textual, and decorative material they are all interconnected by certain aspects and concepts. The next group of papers by Silvia Einaudi, Filip Coppens, Robert Morkot, Aleksandra Hallmann, and Carola Koch concern such aspects, relevant to most of the monuments. Silvia Einaudi raises the incredibly important question of interconnections and inter- influences between the tombs of the Theban necropolis, origins of certain patterns and traditions within the necropolis, and their transmissions from tomb to tomb. Filip Coppens and Aleksandra Hallmann concentrate on smaller elements of the tomb complexes, such as a piece of garment or a single architectural feature, to track it within a group of monuments. Thus, Coppens traces similarities and differences in the Sun Court decoration in different tombs, its connection with the temple concept, and discusses its symbolic and ritual meaning in temple tombs. Robert Morkot discusses the sources and chronological developments of archaism in royal and elite monuments. Carola Koch addresses the Saite approach to Kushite monu- ments by re-examining the phenomenon of the erasure of Kushite names during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. A large group of papers on the burial assemblages and other finds in elite tombs enrich and expend the discussion of the burial complexes of the First Millennium BC. Eltayeb Abbas, Simone Musso and Simone Petacchi, Cynthia Sheikholeslami, and Alessia Amenta discuss the issues of construction techniques, workshops, and iconography of coffin decora- tion and its ritual meaning. Julia Budka and Salima Ikram discuss finds in the tomb of Karakhamun. Budka analyses Kushite pottery found in the burial compartment and its usage in a Twenty-fifth Dynasty temple tomb, while Ikram remarks on the faunal material from the First Pillared Hall. Kate Gosford broadens the boundaries of the discussion with some burial assemblages from Saqqara. The last section of the volume is dedicated to the new archaeological research at Karnak presented by Nadia Licitra, Christophe Thiers, Pierre Zignani, Laurent Coulon, Aurélia Masson, Stéphanie Boulet, and Catherine Defernez. Their papers concern different areas of the temple complex such as the temple of Ptah, the Treasury of Shabaqo, the “palace” xiv Foreword of the God’s Wife Ankhnesneferibre in Naga Malgata, and offering maga- zines as well as the new evidence of ceramic production at Karnak in the chapel of Osiris Wennefer. Another Karnak paper introduces a new tech- nology, with Elizabeth Frood and Kathryn Howley describing the use of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) as a means of studying graffiti at the site. Most of the information included into this volume is being published for the first time. We feel that the research presented here brings together a range of current studies on royal and elite monuments of the period, put- ting them into a wider context and filling some gaps in First Millennium BC scholarship. This time period is still one of the least researched and published area of study in Egyptology despite the numerous recent devel- opments in field exploration and research. The present volume offers a discussion of the First Millennium BC monuments and sites in all their complexity. Such aspects of research as tomb and temple architecture, epigraphy, artistic styles, iconography, palaeography, local workshops, and burial assemblages collected in this publication give a new perspective to the future exploration of these aspects and topics. We hope that the present volume will inspire new comparative studies on the topics dis- cussed and bring First Millennium BC scholarship to a new level. .  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Minister of Antiquities Mohamed Ibrahim and the Ministry of State for Antiquities for their support in organising the conference “Thebes in the First Millennium BC” in Luxor in October 2012 and permission to work in the South Asasif necropolis. We are grateful for the support our Egyptian-American team, the South Asasif Conservation Project, has received over the years from Dr. Mohamed Ismail Khaled, Director of the Department of Foreign Missions MSA, Dr. Mansour Boraik, Director General of Luxor Antiquities until 2013; Ibrahim Soliman, Director of Luxor Antiquities; Dr. Mohamed Abd el Aziz, Gen- eral Director for the West Bank of Luxor; Fathy Yassen Abd el Kerim, Director of the Middle Area; Ramadan Ahmed Ali, Chief Inspector of the Middle Area; Ahmed Ali Hussein Ali, SCA Chief Conservator and Director of the Conservation Department of Upper Egypt; Afaf Fathalla, General Director of the Conservation Department of Upper Egypt; the MSA conservation team; and all our team members and volunteers. We are very grateful to our sponsors, IKG Cultural Resources, directed by Anthony Browder (USA), and the South Asasif Conservation Trust, di- rected by John Billman (UK). Without all this help and support we would not have been able to accomplish the field work and research included in the present volume. Special thanks to the participants of the conference, particularly to our Luxor colleagues Nadia Licitra, Christophe Thiers, Pierre Zignani, Laurent Coulon, Claude Traunecker, Isabelle Régen, Louise Gestermann, and Farouk Gomaà who showed their sites to the participants.  CHAPTER TWO ROYAL BURIALS AT THEBES DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC. DAVID A. ASTON* Abstract: This paper examines the tombs, and tomb groups of all members of the various royal families who ruled Egypt during the First Millennium BC, and who were buried at Thebes. Whilst current archaeological and extant documentary evi- dence provide evidence for only two tombs of kings during this period, excava- tions have brought to light a surprising number of burials which are directly re- lated to the royal families of this time. Introduction With the abandonment of the Valley of the Kings as a royal necropolis at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, one might assume that Thebes was abandoned as a royal cemetery. The last king certainly buried in the Valley was Ramesses IX, and although tombs were indeed begun for both Ramesses X and Ramesses XI, neither was buried here. Schneider has suggested that both Ramesses VIII and Ramesses X were buried in Per- Ramesses, since, having died after relatively short reigns, their Theban tombs were not sufficiently advanced to receive a royal burial.1 The end of the reign of Ramesses XI is somewhat confused, and he too, may have been buried in the north, perhaps also in Per-Ramesses, or in Memphis.2 * I thank Diana Craig Patch and the Metropolitan Museum of Art for permission to include illustrations of the burials of Henettawy C and Nauny shown in figs. 2-8 and 2-9; Maarten Raven and the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden for permission to include the illustrations of Leiden C.1.283, 285–286 and F.1970/7.4 on fig. 2-6. 1 Schneider 2000, 105. 2 Dodson 2012, 23–24. Following Thijs (1998, 95–108), Dodson believes that Ramesses XI was a northern king who overlapped the end of the reign of Ramesses IX and the complete reign of Ramesses X, only taking control of Thebes, after the death of the latter, and just before the beginning of the wHm-mswt period. He 16 Chapter Two Of the following Dynasties, or at least those recorded in Manetho, kings of the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Dynasties have been found at Tanis,3 Twenty-fifth Dynasty kings were buried in Nubia, the royal cemetery of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty was clearly at Sais since it was seen by Herod- otus.4 The Persian kings of the Twenty-seventh Dynasty were buried in their homeland, whilst a tomb of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty has come to light at Mendes.5 In view of this it is almost certain that the kings of Manetho’s Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, Twenty-eighth, and Thirtieth Dynasties were buried in their home cities, namely Tanis, Sais, and Seben- nytos. In spite of this, however, Thebes continued to be used as a cemetery by a large number of people who were descended from the kings recorded in Manetho. Amongst these are members of the immediate family of Psusennes I, Kashta, Piye, and Psamtek I; however any consideration of royal burials at Thebes during the first millennium BC should probably begin with that of Hedjkheperre-Setepenamun Harsiese-Meryamun, since his is the only king’s burial of these times to have been discovered at Thebes. Recent studies have shown that it is becoming increasingly clear that during the reign of Osorkon II, the Egyptian kingship was being split into a more federal society, or a loose confederation reinforced by family alliances and appointments, in which several kings were reigning at the same time,6 many of whom were clearly not known to the compilers of the records consulted by Manetho. Later records, particularly the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, and the Victory Stela of Piye, indicate that one of these new lines of kings, von Beckerath’s “Dynasty XXIIA”,7 cf. chart 2-1, was not only based at Heracleopolis, but also had pretensions to sovereignty suggests, therefore, that Ramesses XI would have already started a tomb for himself in the north, and it was in this tomb that he chose to be buried. Such a scenario, however, does not explain why the burials of Ramesses VIII and Ramesses X have not been found at Thebes, unless, of course, they were cached with Ay and Horemheb in a cache which has since been lost to us. Unlike Ay and Horemheb, however, no items of funerary furniture belonging to Ramesses VIII or Ramesses X have ever been found. 3 Montet 1947–1960. 4 Herodotus, Book II, 169. Cf. Stadelmann 1971, 111; Quack 2006, 115–116. 5 Redford 2004. 6 Cf. Leahy 1985, 51–65; Lange 2008, 131–141; Ritner 2009, 327–340. 7 von Beckerath 1999, 192–199. I have also referred to this line of kings elsewhere as the “Theban” or “Heracleopolitan/Theban Twenty-third Dynasty”. See Aston 2009a, 1–28, although deriving from an offshoot of the Twenty-second Dynasty, “Dynasty XXIIA”, is probably a better term.  Royal Burials at Thebes 17 over the Thebaid. To this line of kings clearly belong Harsiese and his immediate family. Chart 2-1: The Heracleopolitan/Theban Dynasty XXIIA (people with names in italics were buried in Thebes). 18 Chapter Two The Heracleopolitan/Theban Dynasty XXIIA The Tomb of Harsiese The tomb of Harsiese was discovered by Hölscher beneath the Ptolemaic pavement surrounding the wall of the Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Medi- net Habu sometime between 1927 and 1933, but remained unpublished until 1954.8 Although the superstructure of the tomb had disappeared in antiquity, the substructure (fig. 2-1) comprised of an inclined entrance passage with steps cut in the floor, an antechamber, and a burial chamber. The walls, and roofs, of the passage and the two chambers were lined with reused sandstone blocks, whilst the entire tomb was surrounded by mud- bricks. The reused granite sarcophagus was walled up to its rim, thus the floor level was at the same height as the top of the sarcophagus. Five niches in the sandstone walls presumably held the canopic jars and other objects. After the burial the doorway to the antechamber was walled up and the antechamber and passage were filled with large stone blocks and column fragments. The staircase leading down to the burial chamber is certainly reminiscent of Nubian burial customs,9 and the general plan of Harsiese’s substructure is remarkably similar to those of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty kings buried at el-Kurru.10 Consequently Lull has proposed a pyramidal superstructure for the tomb of Harsiese,11 although there is no proof that the pyramid, as opposed to a mastaba-like construction, was adopted in Nubia before the reign of Taharqo, who was buried at Nuri.12 That Harsiese’s tomb certainly had some form of superstructure is clear not only from the discovery of a single inscribed block of Harsiese, reused in a later construction,13 but is also confirmed by the Karnak statue Cairo CG 406, which indicates that one of the posts held by the owner was the care of the Hwt n nsw Harsiese, obviously a reference that can only mean the tomb chapel of king Harsiese.14 8 Hölscher 1954, 8–10. 9 As stated by Lull, 2002, 168; Budka and Kammerzell 2007, 207, with note 12; Budka 2010b, 504. 10 Reisner 1919, 237–254; Dunham 1950, passim. 11 Lull 2002, 168. 12 For the evolution of the cemetery of el-Kurru and a possible reconstruction of Kashta’s tomb as first pyramid, see Kendall 1999. For Nuri and Taharqo’s pyramid, see Dunham 1955; cf. also Lull 2002. 13 Hölscher 1939, 37. 14 Legrain 1905, 126; Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 155.  Royal Burials at Thebes 19 Fig. 2-1: The tomb of Harsiese. 20 Chapter Two Harsiese, himself, is somewhat of an enigmatic figure, although there can be no question that he was recognised as a legitimate ruler since his cartouches appear on contemporary statuary and carved on the walls of the Fourth Pylon at Karnak.15 For a long time he was considered to be a mem- ber of the Twenty-second Dynasty, identical with the supposed High Priest of Amun, Harsiese A, son of Sheshonq Q, who served as High Priest be- fore becoming king,16 in much the same way as, for example, Herihor and Pinedjem I had done earlier. However, there is no evidence that Harsiese A was ever a High Priest, whilst it is indeed more likely that king Harsiese was the son of the High Priest of Amun, Smendes III, and thus a grandson of Osorkon I, although this is, in itself, not certain. Smendes III’s wife, Istemkheb, bore the title “God’s Mother”, which almost certainly means that she was the mother of a king, but of which one remains unclear. Sim- ple generation counting would imply that her son lived in the mid to late ninth century BC, and, as king Harsiese is known to have been a contempo- rary of Osorkon II, since the cartouches of both kings appear on one of the statues of the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Nakhtefmut A, then Harsiese is the most likely to be her son. Two of Harsiese’s siblings were buried in the royal necropolis at Heracleopolis, and there can thus be no doubt that Harsiese is the first of this line of kings. Moreover, ushabtis of an other- wise unknown queen Shebensopdet were found in the same royal necrop- olis at Heracleopolis, and, if Takeloth II named his own daughter, She- bensopdet ii, after his mother, then the queen Shebensopdet of the Her- acleopolitan ushabtis might well be the mother of Takeloth II, and since, for lack of any other candidate, the wife of Harsiese. If this were the case, then one may assume that Harsiese died in c. 841 or c. 834 BC, this being the apparent succession date of Takeloth II based on astronomical rec- ords.17 Even if this were not the case, the definite chronological link between Harsiese and Osorkon II would still place Harsiese as being alive in the mid-ninth century BC, with the result that his tomb should date to around the mid- to late-ninth century BC. As such it is more likely that, in contrast to Lull, the superstructure of the tomb comprised a pylon entrance, which led to a vaulted chamber, which ran longitudinally along the main axis, since many such tombs, which I have elsewhere characterised as type “Thebes II”,18 were clearly being constructed in Thebes at this time. From within the vaulted chamber the staircase led to the burial chamber. The 15 Dodson 2012, 107, fig. 84. 16 Cf. Jansen-Winkeln 1995, 129–136. 17 Krauss 2006, 408–411. 18 Aston 2009b, 411–413; Aston 2011, 15–16.  Royal Burials at Thebes 21 vaulted chamber was probably fronted by a chapel, which to judge from the extant remains of similar tombs found behind the Ramesseum, was probably somewhat elaborately decorated.19 A sizable number of grave goods from the disturbed burial still re- mained. These comprised the granite sarcophagus (usurped from Henet- mere, daughter of Seti I, wife of Ramesses II), Cairo JE 59896, the sar- cophagus lid (original) with the head in the form of a hawk, Cairo JE 60137, four canopic jars (without lids), Cairo JE 59900a–d, found in small niches, two per niche, in each wall opposite the long sides of the sarcoph- agus, and 224 greenish faience inscribed ushabtis now distributed between Cairo and Chicago (fig. 2-1). Of Harsiese’s immediate family, his daughter, Isisweret i, was obvi- ously interred in the Ramesseum cemetery, but of her grave goods, only a wooden stela is known, Philadelphia E.2045 (fig. 2-2a),20 whilst another daughter, Taditanebethen, was buried at Abydos.21 The Tomb of Osorkon III Papyri Paris Louvre E.7128, Turin 231.2, and Paris Louvre E.7856, from the reigns of Necho II, Amasis, and Darius I all refer to the tomb (Hwt) of a king Osorkon on the Theban west bank,22 and although this tomb has never been found, it must imply that at least one of the kings, Osorkon, was buried at Thebes. Of the known kings with the name Osorkon, Osorkon I, II, and IV are clearly associated with the Delta residences of Tanis and Bubastis, in contrast to Osorkon III who is only known from Upper Egypt and primarily from Thebes. The recent attempt by Porter23 to link the newly discovered Tanite blocks of a king Osorkonu with Osorkon III is unlikely on both artistic and linguistic grounds. The physiognomy of Osorkonu differs markedly from known representations of Osorkon III, as can be seen by comparing these blocks with representations of Osorkon III depicted in the chapel of Osiris heka-djet at Karnak. Moreover, Osorkon III, as far as is known, never used the Osorkonu version of the name in a cartouche without a succeeding HqA Iwnw. Consequently, the Tanite blocks appear to represent a different king who can only be Osorkon IV.24 In all 19 Cf. Quibell 1898, 11, pl. xxii; Nelson 2003, 88–94. 20 Quibell 1898, pls. ii. 5, xxi. 8; Saleh 2007, 199 [nr. 45]. 21 Taylor 1988, 230–231. 22 Griffith 1909 III, 19; Malinine 1953, 85–88. 23 Porter 2011, 111–113. 24 See also the paper by Dodson in this volume. 22 Chapter Two likelihood, therefore, the Theban tomb referred to in the papyri is that of Osorkon III. a b c Fig. 2-2. d  Royal Burials at Thebes 23 Although his tomb has disappeared we can guess at its appearance. In all probability the tomb comprised an entrance pylon and two chapels, somewhat similar to the chapel of Osiris heka-djet (fig. 2-2c), built during the reigns of Osorkon III and his son Takeloth III, and to the Third Inter- mediate Period royal tombs found at Heracleopolis (fig. 2-2d)25 and Leon- topolis (fig. 2-2b).26 The royal tomb at Leontopolis bore traces of sunken relief, whilst those at Heracleopolis bore traces of painted decoration. Osorkon III’s tomb chambers might also then be expected to have borne decoration. The Family of Takeloth II If Harsiese and Osorkon III were buried at Thebes it may be surmised that Takeloth II was also intended to be buried here, and for all we know—no traces of his funerary items have ever come to light—this may indeed be the case. However, his reign was clearly marked by a civil war and it may not have been possible for him to have been interred here. If he were not, then presumably he was buried in Heracleopolis. Nevertheless some of Takeloth II’s children were clearly buried in Thebes. The stela Vatican 329/Turin 146827 of a prince Nimlot, son of a king Takeloth is clearly Theban, and is of the type I have elsewhere designated Type IIc,28 a stela framed by the imntt and iAbtt symbols, and showing a standing Re-Horakhty holding a wAs-sceptre and an anx. Stylistically this suggests that Nimlot was a son of Takeloth II, and, as the stela is clearly Theban, it is strongly suggestive of the fact that Nimlot was also buried in Thebes. Takeloth II’s daughter, Shebensopdet ii was married to the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Djedkhonsefankh C, whose office clearly associates him with Thebes, and their daughter, Takeloth II’s granddaughter, Nehem- sybast was buried in the cemetery behind the Ramesseum, the plundered remains of her burial being discovered by Quibell in 1896. One might pre- sume, therefore, that both Djedkhonsefankh C and Shebensopdet ii were also buried at Thebes. Of Nehemsybast’s burial only fragments of a car- 25 Perez Die 2009, 303–326; Eadem 2010. 26 Gauthier 1921, 21–27. 27 Devéria 1863, 12, n. 1; Gauthier 1914, 391; Aston and Taylor 1990, 138 [10]; Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 229; Petrie, Italian Photos, album kept in the Griffith Institute, Oxford. 28 Aston 2009b, 349. Cf. Saleh 2007, 18–19. This type presumably belongs in Loth’s (2009, 228–230) Späte Gruppe. 24 Chapter Two tonnage and parts of a shabti box were recovered.29 Although no traces of the superstructures of these tombs were recorded, they presumably would have been similar to that of Djedmutesankh, daughter of the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Nakhtefmut A. As such we may envisage a vaulted chamber with one or more shallow shafts, no more than two to three me- tres deep, leading to one or two burial chambers. The vaulted chamber was fronted by a chapel (fig. 2-3a–b), which to judge by the preserved remains of Djedmutesankh’s chapel (fig. 2-3c) must have been relatively elabo- rately decorated. Combining the fragments found by Quibell and the cur- rent CNRS-CEDAE team excavating behind the Ramesseum, it would appear that the chapel doorway, surmounted by a lintel, was dominated by a winged sun-disc, which, in turn, was flanked by opposing goddesses. Within the chapel the decoration often showed the deceased before the god Atum.30 Nehemsybast’s cousin, Tamit, another granddaughter of Takeloth II, and her son Ankhpakhrod ii were also buried not far from the Ramesseum. Their burials were found during excavations carried out on behalf of the Berlin museum by Möller to the south west of the Ramesseum, in 1911, and published by Anthes some thirty years later. Their tombs, however, were of a newer type, which I have elsewhere termed “Thebes IV”,31 and, not surprisingly, were similar to a number of those discovered behind the Ramesseum by Quibell, Petrie, and the CNRS-CEDAE mission. Tombs of type “Thebes IV” comprise an entrance pylon, which leads to a courtyard, from whence a low staircase leads to either a narrow second court, or a vaulted chamber with three cult chapels behind. Each chapel would have its own tomb shaft, leading to one or two burial chambers. In total Möller discovered forty-five graves, some of which were linked to tomb chapels similar to those built for the god’s wives at Medinet Habu, and again more than one tomb shaft was allied to a single chapel. Both Tamit and her son were found within the same tomb (fig. 2-4) but in different tomb shafts, nrs. 28 and 29 on Möller’s plan. Tamit’s tomb group (fig. 2-5) comprised a qrsw-coffin, an inner coffin, a cartonnage, 200 small ushabtis and four canopic jars. Her son’s, Ankhpakhrod ii’s tomb group (fig. 2-5), com- prised a qrsw-coffin, a middle coffin, an inner coffin, four canopic jars, the bones of a slaughtered animal, a black painted wooden shabti box, numer- ous small blue ushabtis, pieces of a large painted wooden jackal, a floral 29 Quibell 1898, pl. xxiv. 4, 6. 30 For examples of the decoration found in these chapel niches, see Quibell 1898, pl. xxii; Nelson 2003, 92, fig. 5. 31 Aston 2009b, 412, 415; Aston 2011, 16, 21.  Royal Burials at Thebes 25 wreath on the jackal, the remains of a black painted Osiris figure, a large painted wooden falcon, and a smaller painted wooden falcon. a b c d Fig. 2-3. 26 Chapter Two Fig. 2-4.  Royal Burials at Thebes 27 Fig. 2-5: (after Anthes 1943, pls. 7, 10, 13–14). 28 Chapter Two The Family of Takeloth III That Takeloth III was the son of Osorkon III is beyond doubt, and, as such, it is probably safe to assume that his tomb should be looked for in the Theban necropolis. Of his burial, however, nothing is known, unless a set of somewhat curious miniature canopic jars, Leiden C.1.283, 284–286 (fig. 2-6a), should be attributed to him.32 The burial of Takeloth III’s sister (or half-sister), Shepenwepet I, how- ever, has indeed been found at Thebes. Her destroyed tomb-chapel was found at Medinet Habu, being the easternmost and earliest of the four contiguous tomb-chapels of the god’s wives of Amun (fig. 2-10c), built to the west of the eastern fortified gate and south-east of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III. Although the burial chamber was “almost intact” the rec- orded finds are few, comprising an inlaid wooden coffin (decayed), 57 uninscribed green faience ushabtis, 21 uninscribed green faience reis ushabtis, stone ushabtis, a wedjat-eye amulet, beads, and “various other small objects”.33 Chart 2-2 shows the family tree of Takeloth III and a large number of his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who were buried at Thebes. Practically all of them were buried in tomb chambers cut through the floor of the Deir el-Bahari temple of Hatshepsut (cf. fig. 2-6b) alt- hough others were buried elsewhere within the Theban necropolis. These include a prince Osorkon, son of Takeloth III whose destroyed burial may have been found in the same group of tombs as those of Tamit and Ankhpakhrod ii. In “Grab 27” (fig. 2-4), fragments of a mummiform coffin naming the Priest of Amun, Osorkon, son of a king Takeloth and born of the king’s wife Irtybast, clearly refer to a royal prince.34 Stylistic considerations date the coffin to the later eighth century BC hence Osorkon must be a son of Takeloth III.35 Within TT 367 in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, Fakhry found the plundered remains of five intrusive burials, two of whom clearly belonged to the family of Takeloth III, namely the Overseer of the Singers of Amun, Haroudja and his son, the Priest of Amun, Iuf-o. Iuf-o’s wooden stela, Cairo JE 65757,36 indicates that his mother, . . . ankh, was a daughter of a king Takeloth, which in view of the stylistic date of the stela can only be Takeloth III.37 Of the grave goods, only his stela, fragments of 32 Boeser 1926, 5–6, pl. 5; Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 320 [30.6]. 33 Hölscher 1954, 18–20. 34 Anthes 1943, 34. 35 Aston and Taylor 1990, 132–133 [3]. 36 Fakhry 1943, 410–411, pl. xxvi; Munro 1973, 187, fig. 4. 37 Aston and Taylor 1990, 136–137 [8].  Royal Burials at Thebes 29 a qrsw-coffin and a quantity of beads remained, whilst the only item clearly attributable to his father was another, somewhat earlier in style, stela, Cairo JE 65756.38 If his mother were also buried here, no identifiable remains were found. Linen fragments bearing the name of Taharqo, Cairo JE 65758–65760, could have come from any of the five intrusive burials. Most of the direct descendants of Takeloth III, however, were found in burial pits cut through the floor of the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el- Bahari.39 Excavations throughout the twentieth century AD have brought to light fragments of burials of Takeloth III’s immediate family, and it is a reasonable assumption, that grave goods of other members of his immedi- ate family, which have been known since the 1860s, derived from the excavations carried out here during the second half of the nineteenth cen- tury AD, particularly those undertaken by Maunier and Mariette. These burials included Takeloth III’s daughters, Irbastwedjanefu A, whose cof- fins are now in Paris;40 and Diesenesyt, known through her shabti boxes,41 and his daughter-in-law, Shaamenimes.42 Irbastwedjanefu A’s son, the Priest of Amun, Pakharu, whose coffins are divided between Paris and Cairo,43 was also found here as was Diesenesyt’s father-in-law, the Vizier Padiamonet i, and Diesenesyt’s son, the Priest of Montu, Padiamonet, whose burial was found intact.44 Fragments of Padiamonet i’s burial were first discovered during the winter of 1932–1933, with further pieces found during the winter of 2003–2004, and comprise fragments of wooden cof- fins, a broken cartonnage, linen cloth, canopic jars, wooden figurines, and mud ushabtis.45 The Priest of Montu, Padiamonet, was buried in a set of three coffins, comprising a qrsw-coffin along with a middle and inner an- thropoid coffin, a cartonnage, a bead net, shabti boxes with ushabtis, a canopic chest,46 of the sort which I have elsewhere termed type A,47 and a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, of Raven’s type III.48 Padiamonet’s daughter, another Diesenesyt, obviously named after her grandmother was also bur- 38 Fakhry 1943, 411, pl. xxvii; Munro 1973, 187, fig. 3; Saleh 2007, 197 [nr. 43]. 39 Sheikholeslami 2003, 131–137. 40 qrsw-coffin, Paris Louvre E.3872. Cf. Schmidt 1919, figs 913–914; inner coffin Paris Musée de l’Opéra 17. Cf. Taylor 2003, pl. 62. 41 Bruyère 1957, 14. 42 Barwik 2003, 122–124. 43 qrsw-coffin, Cairo CG 41036. Moret 1913, 298–301; inner coffin, Paris Louvre E.3863. Schmidt 1919, fig. 1135. 44 Bruyère 1957, 11–33, pls. iv–v. 45 Szafranski 2005, 229–230; Majewska 2007, 114 [nr. 46], 118 [nr. 48], 126 [nr. 52]. 46 Luxor J.75. Romano 1979, 170–171 [nr. 263]. 47 Aston 2000, 161–162 48 Mansoor sale catalogue 1952, 38–39 [nr. 133]. Cf. Raven 1978–1979, 263–266. 30 Chapter Two ied here since a wooden stela of hers (Chicago OIM 18280) was found in the debris overlying the temple in the winter of 1930-1931. Diesenesyt’s cousin, and another great grandson of Takeloth III, the Priest of Montu, Nesipakashuty, was also found at Deir el-Bahari during the winter of 1932–1933. His intact burial comprised a qrsw-coffin, an outer coffin, (now Luxor J.347), an inner coffin, a cartonnage, a bead net, and two shabti boxes containing blue glaze ushabtis.49 To the burials found in the 1860s also belong the qrsw-coffin of Shaamenimes’ adopted daughter, Meresamunet,50 her husband, the Priest of Montu, Nespasef ii, known through his coffin, Cairo TR 15/11/16/8 and two shabti boxes formerly in the Sabatier collection;51 and her son, the Priest of Montu, Irthorru i, whose extant grave goods comprise a qrsw-coffin,52 a stela,53 and a Book of the Dead.54 Thanks to the work of Naville, Baraize, and Szafranski, we are fortunate to know how these tombs were constructed. Apparently having no superstructure, the tombs consisted of shallow shafts, cut through various chapels, (cf. fig. 2-6b) such as the Hathor Chapel, which opened into a single burial chamber. Within this chamber were placed three, four, or more burials, as is clear from the fact that Naville found three intact burials in one chamber,55 Baraize discovered four in another,56 although only three were published in any detail,57 whilst Maunier found nine sealed shafts which apparently contained over sixty intact burials.58 In the words of Naville: “A pit had been dug to a depth of about thirteen feet [4 metres], and at the bottom one could see the bricks and stones which closed the entrance. After I had removed them and passed the very narrow opening, I found myself in a small rock-hewn chamber. It was nearly filled with three large wooden [qrsw] coffin cases placed near each other, of rectangular form, with arched lids, and a post at each end of the four corners. On the two nearest the entrance were five wooden hawks, one on each post, and the one about the middle of the lid. Each coffin-case had at the foot of the lid 49 Bruyère 1957, 11–33, pls. i–iii; Payraudeau 2003, 140. 50 Cairo CG 41035. Moret 1913, 290–298, pl. xxxvi. Meresamunet herself may be a direct descendant of Takeloth II, cf. Ritner 1999, 351–359. 51 Legrain 1892, 64 [nrs. 102–103]. 52 Cairo CG 41016+Olomouc 6224A. Moret 1913, 168–174; Verner 1982, 201–205. 53 Cairo TR 20/12/24/14. Munro 1973, 189. 54 Dąbrowska-Smektała 1968, 183–189. 55 Naville 1895, 34–35. Cf. Naville 1898, 10. 56 Baraize 1933, 295–296. 57 Bruyère 1957, 11–33. 58 Brugsch 1860, 8.  Royal Burials at Thebes 31 a wooden jackal, with a long tail hanging over the end. Wreaths of flowers were laid on them, and at the head and feet stood a box containing a great number of tiny glazed ushabtis. The opening of the chamber being very small, it is evident that these large coffin-cases were taken into the tomb in pieces, and put together af- terwards. We opened the one next to the door, and found inside it a coffin in the form of a mummy, with head and ornaments well painted, and a line of hieroglyphs reaching to the feet. We then opened the two others, and found that they also contained coffins, which we hauled up through the opening of the tomb. When we had stored them in our house, we opened the coffins and we found in each an inner coffin, brilliantly painted with representations of gods and scenes from the Book of the Dead. In this at last was the mummy, very well wrapped in pink cloth, with a net of beads all over the body, a scarab with outspread wings, also made of beads, and the four funeral genii. We unrolled one of the mummies: it was carefully wrapped in good cloth. Over the body was a very hard crust of bitumen which we had to use a chisel to break. There were no amulets or orna- ments of any kind, except the beads”.59 These three burials, members of the contemporary Hor A family,60 were those of the Priest of Montu, Djedthothefankh (fig. 2-6c), his mother, Nesmutaatneru, and his wife (?) Tabakenkhonsu, whose tomb groups are now in Oxford (Oxford Ashmolean 1895.153–156), Boston (Boston MFA 95.1407–1409), and New York (New York MMA 96.4.1–4). Surprisingly omitted from Naville’s account are the two wooden stelae, which evi- dently accompanied the burials of Djedthothefankh and Tabakenkhonsu. Ushabtis (Chicago OIM 15767–73, 15796–97) of Takeloth III’s son, the Second Prophet of Amun, Djedptahefankh D61 were found within Tomb Pits 12 and 17 cut through Chapel VII, located in the plain behind Medinet Habu.62 The burials found within these tomb chapels had clearly been plundered in antiquity and have never been fully published. How- ever, the fact that Djedptahefankh’s ushabtis were found here is suggestive that he was indeed buried here. Djedptahefankh D appears as the grandfa- ther of another Djedptahefankh known from the statue Tübingen 1734. The latter Djedptahefankh also records that his father, Montuhotep, was the son of the king’s daughter, Ankh-Karoma(ma) who was herself mar- ried to the Third Prophet of Amun, Padiamunnebnestawy A/B. Padi- amunnebnestawy A/B clearly exercised office in Thebes, and as Ankh- 59 Naville 1895, 34–35. 60 Cf. Raven 1981, 7–21; Taylor 1984, 27–57. 61 Aston and Taylor 1990, 134–135 [4]. 62 Anthes 1951, 25. 32 Chapter Two Karomama is of the same generation as the Second Prophet of Amun, Djedptahefankh D, it is likely, if not entirely proved, that her father was none other than Takeloth III. Ankh-Karomama and Padiamunnebnestawy A/B’s granddaughter, Gautseshen iii is known through her burial equip- ment, comprising a qrsw-coffin,63 middle64 and inner coffin,65 a wooden stela,66 and a shabti box,67 which were also almost certainly found at Deir el-Bahari. It is thanks to the burials of Takeloth III’s family, and the inter- related families of Besenmut i and Hor A, that we are able to reconstruct a typical elite burial of the period between c. 720 and 675 BC. (fig. 2-7). The funerary assemblages of this phase are characterised by qrsw-cof- fins, which have been divided into two sub-types by Taylor. Coffin en- sembles of Taylor’s Type IIIA, which can be tentatively dated to c. 750– 700 BC,68 represent a transitional phase between the coffin ensembles of his Type II, and those of type IIIB, which first appeared around 720 BC, but did not fully replace the Type IIIA ensembles until the early years of the seventh century BC. Type IIIA ensembles are characterised by a qrsw- coffin, a middle (or intermediary) coffin, and, usually, a Type IV carton- nage. In some ensembles this cartonnage case is replaced by an inner wooden coffin with a rectangular pedestal, and decorated in a fashion which shows a more prominent use of texts than previously. The middle (or intermediary) coffins are similar to the outer coffins of Type II ensembles; the coffin lid being decorated with vertical inscriptions, referring to the Htp-di-nsw formula, arranged in one to three columns, sometimes with a solar-disc or small vignette above it, and below the collar.69 The case exterior is generally decorated with a single line of inscription, which differs little from Taylor’s Type II Coffin Case Exterior Design 2.70 The coffin interior may be decorated with a figure of a goddess who appears in profile on the interior of the coffin base (cf. the burials of Tamit and Ankhpakhrod ii, fig. 2-5). 63 Cairo CG 41018. Moret 1913, 187–194, pl. xix. 64 Cairo CG 41063. Daressy 1909, 404–407, pl. xxxii. 65 Ny Carlsberg ÆIN 1522, Jørgensen 2001, 204–241. 66 Seattle 48.223, Vittmann 1978, 5–9, pl. 1 67 Olomouc 4054. 68 Taylor 1985 I, 187. 69 Taylor’s Twenty-fifth Dynasty Intermediary Coffin Design 1. Taylor 2003, 116. 70 Though this is now termed, Twenty-fifth Dynasty Intermediary Coffin Case Exterior Design 1. Taylor 2003, 116.  Royal Burials at Thebes 33 Chart 2-2: Family of Takeloth III (people with names in italics were buried at Thebes). 34 Chapter Two a b d c Fig. 2-6.  Royal Burials at Thebes 35 Fig. 2-7: Theban burial assemblage c. 720–675 BC (after Aston 2011, 24, fig. 7). 36 Chapter Two The inner coffin lids of Type IIIA ensembles are of Taylor’s Twenty- fifth to Twenty sixth Dynasty Inner Coffin Designs 1 and 2.71 Design 1 retains the ram-headed and bird-headed falcons of the earlier cartonnages and are characterised by a predominantly horizontal division and the oc- currence of the judgement scene in the first register, with below, three rows of vertical texts containing the Negative Confession, Book of the Dead chapter (BD) 125. At the foot, between the toes there is often a pictorial representation of a mummified hawk. In Taylor’s Twenty-fifth Dynasty Inner Coffin Design 2, the cartonnage cases, and the inner wooden coffins that replace them, show a mix between the traditional decoration of the earlier cartonnages and the outer coffin lids of Design 1. Generally the cartonnages bear a winged disc below the collar, with various horizontal registers with vignettes showing the deceased offering to Osiris, text columns, various deities, and the Abydos fetish and djed- pillars are usually still predominant, whilst the inner coffin lids are characterised by a single large ram-headed falcon, painted below the collar and above a central inscription which usually incorporates an Abydos fetish. The lower body field is dominated by texts and figures arranged horizontally. The rear of these type IIIA inner coffins invariably bears a representation of a large djed-pillar, Taylor’s Twenty-fifth Dynasty Inner Coffin Back Design 1. Mud ushabtis, which I have earlier termed “Type K”,72 are now the usual type, whilst the shabti boxes are inscribed with the typical shabti formula, BD 6. Such boxes are invariably whitewashed and have a single flat lid, which usually bears a picture of a boat under sail, a lid design which becomes universal on boxes of this type. The text is written in clear blue hieroglyphs in vertical columns around three or all four sides of the box. On those examples where the text is found on only three sides, one of the long sides is reserved for an illustration, which usually shows the deceased offering a shabti to a mummiform seated god holding an anx, which is followed by a snake, a Dw-mountain sign and a crocodile perched on a box.73 Whilst wooden stelae of Types IIc and IIIc may still be found, more often than not, stelae of Type IV (Munro’s Theben IA)74 accompany 71 Taylor 2003, 114–115. In the following the expression “Taylor’s Twenty-fifth Dynasty [. . .] Design” should be read as “Taylor’s Twenty-fifth to Twenty sixth Dynasty [. . .] Design”, but is shortened for convenience. 72 Aston 2009b, 358–359. Faience ushabtis are exceedingly rare, although faience examples with smooth, uncontoured, tapering bodies, no arms, a plain wig, and a beard may occur with elite burials from c. 700 BC onwards. 73 Aston 1994, 33–34. 74 Munro 1973, 24–25, 187.  Royal Burials at Thebes 37 the burials from around 720 BC onwards. Stelae of Type IV are framed on each side by a “door-frame” and bear lines of inscription at the base which makes them, like the following Type V, transitional between the true “Bubastite” or pictorial stelae and the true “Bild-Schrift” stelae of the Late Period.75 Sometime during the first quarter of the seventh century BC stelae of Types V (Munro’s Theben IB) and VI (Munro’s Theben IC)76 also appear. Type V is characterised by a Nut figure, who stands at the left of the scene and leans over, thus forming the top edge with her body whilst her arms and outstretched fingers form the right hand frame line. Type VI stelae appear to be a direct descendant of type II stelae in that they are framed by the imntt and iAbtt symbols, but the pictorial content is markedly different. All stelae of this type are framed by a winged disc at the top, and have at least two lines of text at their base, and in each case the deceased faces three different gods. In comparison with earlier burials, the free standing wooden figures of the four sons of Horus are no longer found, but new styles of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures appear. These, Type V,77 have green faces, wear a tripartite wig bound by a fillet, the ostrich feather crown, somewhat stylised collars and a sash with the ends crossed over the torso. Canopic jars, if provided, were dummy vessels, however, some of these later examples are actually bipartite with a small, unusable, cavity carved into the body. Placed on the mummy may also have been a bead net of Silvano’s type A,78 in which the bead net descends from the height of the shoulder and may extend as far as the ankles, though many stop at the base of the torso. It is characterised by the presence of a winged scarab and figures of the four sons of Horus. The winged scarab and four sons of Horus are always made of a separate material, usually faience, and attached to the bead net. The Families of Rudamun and Peftjauawybast Takeloth III was succeeded by his brother, Rudamun, who was presuma- bly followed by his own son-in-law, Peftjauawybast, who, in turn may have been succeeded by Iny. Whether any of these were buried in Thebes is hard to fathom. Monuments naming Rudamun are scarce, whilst Peft- 75 The motif of the “door-frame” is not a new one since it first appears on some earlier stelae, though it seems to be somewhat rare, cf. BM EA 8540. Bierbrier 1987, 15, pl. 16. 76 Munro 1973, 25–27, 187–190. 77 Aston 1991, 99–101; Aston 2009b, 305–306. 78 Silvano 1980, 84. 38 Chapter Two jauawybast is certainly to be identified with the Peftjauawybast, named as king of Heracleopolis on the Victory Stela of Piye. Iny, however, is known from monuments at Abydos, Karnak, and Elephantine, which implies that during his reign, Dynasty XXIIA was still recognised throughout most of Upper Egypt. One of Rudamun’s daughters, Nesterwy, was definitely buried at Thebes, whilst another (or two others?) were Singers of the Interior of Amun, and presumably lived in Thebes.79 It is also probable that Rudamun had a son, the High Priest of Amun Osorkon F, known from the statue Cairo JE 3716380 and the Abydene stela Turin 1632.81 In view of the latter’s position he undoubtedly held office in Thebes. Taken together, therefore, it is very probable that these three kings were indeed also buried in Thebes. The tomb, or rather burial chamber, of Nesterwy was found beneath room 43 (Chicago numeration) of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III.82 It was first mentioned by Daressy in 1897 when he wrote a report on vari- ous Antiquities Service clearance operations undertaken at Medinet Habu during the years 1859, 1890, and 1894, though it is not clear whether they penetrated the burial chamber. In view of Hölscher’s later reclearance, this appears unlikely. Whether or not it had an associated tomb chapel is un- known, but a block showing Nesterwy and two Osiris figures, Cairo JE 33902,83 found reused in a Ptolemaic structure, probably indicates that such a chapel once existed. What finds were discovered by the Antiquities Service remain unknown, but some of them were evidently inscribed as Daressy was able to determine the name of the owner. The Chicago mis- sion uncovered remains of a wooden coffin, blue faience beads, three shabti boxes, and 365 greenish-blue faience ushabtis. The remains of the three shabti boxes were found together with a separate pile of ushabti fig- ures, which presumably came from a fourth box, which had decayed. Nesterwy, assuming this is not a double burial, is thus unusual in having four shabti boxes instead of the normal two. Unfortunately Hölscher ap- parently had no right to excavate this tomb so none of the objects he found has ever been published but for a ushabti figure of Nesterwy, which pre- sumably came from this burial, now in Leiden (fig. 2-6d).84 A coffin fragment of a Sopdjet, daughter of Peftjauawybast and Ir- bastwedjanefu B, was known to Hay, and, in all probability this coffin 79 Kitchen 1995, 357–358. 80 De Meulenaere 1978, 63–68; Aston and Taylor 1990, 133–134. 81 Munro 1973, 261 82 Daressy 1897b, 170; Hölscher 1954, 32. 83 Daressy 1897a, 20 [nr. 143]. 84 Leiden F.1970/7.4. Schneider 1977 III, 119 [nr. 4.3.0.7].  Royal Burials at Thebes 39 fragment came from Thebes.85 Jansen-Winkeln has suggested that this Sopdjet is probably the same as the Sopdjet(em)hauwet mentioned on the block statue, Moscow I.I.a.5736, and presumed to come from Heracleopo- lis.86 A coffin fragment, Berlin 2100,87 of Rudamun’s grandchild, Padi- amunnebnestawy was also found at Thebes near TT 83 in Qurna.88 The Twenty-first Dynasty Burials of royal members of the other dynasties, spanning the first millen- nium BC, are very rare. Psusennes I’s parents, Pinedjem I and Henettawy A were buried here as indeed were the sisters of Psusennes, Henettawy B and Maatkare A (cf. chart 2-3). All four of them were clearly taken from their original tombs at some point, and later placed in the royal cache, TT 320. The burials of a number of Psusennes I’s nieces and nephews, all of whom were descended from his brother, the High Priest, and (Theban) King, Menkheperre A, however, have also been found in Thebes. Menkheperre’s (presumed) daughter, Henettawy C was found in tomb MMA 60 (fig. 2-8),89 which seems to have originally belonged to an un- known Eighteenth Dynasty queen,90 although Winlock, Niwiński, and Kikuchi believe it was originally cut in the Twenty-first Dynasty.91 It was reused to house a family group of four burials, which date from the pon- tificate of Menkheperre A, or slightly later. The first three burials com- prise those of Henettawy B, Djedmutesankh A, and Henettawy C, whose coffins originally had gilded faces which had been hacked away in antiq- uity, either before, or at the same time as, the next burial, that of Menkheperre C, found intact, was placed in the chamber. During the de- spoliation of the earlier coffins the outer lid of Henettawy C was broken up and the outer lid of Djedmutesankh A’s was placed on top of Henettawy’s outer coffin case. The coffins of all three were subsequently covered with a shroud. 85 Graefe 1990, 85–89, pl. 8a; Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 331. 86 Berlev and Hodjash 2004, 217–220; Jansen-Winkeln 2007, 334–335. 87 Roeder 1924, 540. 88 Rhind 1862, 125–127. 89 Winlock 1924, 24; Roehrig 1988, 162–163. 90 Thomas 1966, 174. 91 Winlock 1924, 24; Niwiński 1984, 78; Kikuchi 2002, 351. 40 Chapter Two Chart 2-3: The Twenty-first Dynasty (people with names in italics were buried in Thebes). Royal Burials at Thebes 41 Fig. 2-8. 42 Chapter Two Menkheperre A’s daughter, the Great Chief of the Harem of Amun in the Third Phyle, Great Chief of the Harem of Mut, Gautseshen A/i, was buried along with other members of her immediate family at the far end of the Bab el-Gasus (or Second Cache) tomb,92 and there can be no doubt that the tomb was indeed usurped by her husband, the Third Prophet of Amun, Tjanefer A, to serve as a family vault, in the same way as TT 320 was taken over as the family tomb of Pinedjem II. In the burial chamber, at the end of the Bab el-Gasus tomb were found the burials of Gautseshen A/i, her husband, Tjanefer A, their sons, the Third Prophet of Amun, Menkheperre B and the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Pinedjem A, together with five other burials, two of which were those of children, one of whom was placed in an anonymous coffin whilst the other was the God’s Father of Amun, Tjanefer. In view of the name, one might speculate that Tjanefer was a grandson of Tjanefer A, who obviously died young. The three re- maining burials were those of the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Nesamun v, an anonymous Wab-priest of Amun, and a Chantress of Amun, Djed- mutesankh, the latter two being found stacked on top of each other along- side the southern wall. In view of this it is possible that these two have nothing to do with Tjanefer A’s family, having been placed there when the Bab el-Gasus was turned into a large cache tomb. Nesamun v’s titles, however, probably indicate that he is indeed a member of Tjanefer A’s family, possibly a son of Pinedjem A. Since Gautseshen A/i was buried with mummy braces bearing the car- touche of Amenemope, and mention the High Priest Pinedjem II, her bur- ial can be dated to the period c. 1001–992 BC. Menkheperre B seems to have died by year 10 of Siamun, c. 976 BC.,93 but as his father was buried in the pontificate of Pinedjem II, since his mummy braces bear the name of that High Priest, then, by simple generation counting, Tjanefer A pre- sumably died very early in Pinedjem II’s pontificate, which would be in keeping with the date of his wife’s burial. Pinedjem A, of the same gener- ation as Menkheperre B may also have died during the last years of the pontificate of Pinedjem II or during the early years of the pontificate of Psusennes “III”. Bierbrier has suggested that an unpublished ushabti of a Third Prophet of Amun, Pinedjem,94 now in Florence, belongs to Pinedjem A.95 If true, then it is possible that Pinedjem A succeeded his brother, Menkheperre B, in office and died during the early years of “Psusennes III”. Pinedjem A was succeeded as Fourth Prophet of Amun by 92 Daressy 1900, 146–148; Niwiński, 1988, table 1. 93 Bierbrier 1975, 49–50. 94 Kees 1953, 170 n. 1. 95 Bierbrier 1975, 49–50.  Royal Burials at Thebes 43 Nespahorentahet or Nesamun v, whose parents are unknown. However, the fact that Nesamun’s coffin was found in the same small chamber of the tomb as the rest of Tjanefer A’s family, may indicate that he too is of this family. Braces found on the mummy of Nesamun v date his burial to the pontificate of Psusennes “III”, c. 976–944 BC. The Osiris shroud found on the body, however, refers to the Third Prophet of Amun and not the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Nesamun, and Niwiński has argued that the coffin is earlier than the pontificate of “Psusennes III”. He suggests that the coffin of the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Nesamun v was usurped by the Third Prophet of Amun, Nesamun vi.96 Niwiński’s Nesamun vi is presumably to be identified with the Third Prophet of Amun, later Vizier, Nes(er)amun vii/A of Kitchen,97 a contemporary of Sheshonq I and Osorkon I. Niwiński’s theory is probably to be rejected for not only would it make this the latest burial found in the cache, but it would be strange that Nes(er)amun vii would be buried with braces of the deceased “Psusennes III”, and in a coffin which made no mention of his vizier status.98 The difference between the writing of Third Prophet of Amun and Fourth Prophet of Amun is only one stroke, and it is quite possible, therefore, that both the coffin and mummy shroud were made for the same person, one of the craftsmen making a mistake in his copying. Kitchen dates Nesamun v to c. 960 BC.99 At some point after 960 BC, so either during the very last years of the Twenty-first Dynasty, or at the beginning of the Twenty-second Dynasty, 145 more burials (147 if the anonymous Wab-priest of Amun and the Chantress of Amun, Djedmutesankh belong with these reburials), were cached in the Bab el-Gasus tomb. These included the burials of Menkheperre A’s daughter, Meretamun, and his sons Ankhefenmut and Hor. Since these three were clearly cached here, nothing can be said of their original tombs. The burials of Tjanefer A, Gautseshen A/i, Menkheperre B, and Pinedjem A were found intact, and reveal the typical ensembles elite The- bans would take with them to the grave. Thus, each was buried with a cof- fin, usually of Taylor’s type IB100 (= Niwiński lid type III/case type 3 or 96 Niwiński 1979, 56. 97 Kitchen 1995, 211, 307, 315, 481. Kitchen’s Nesamun vi is an obscure later priest. 98 Unless, of course, Niwiński’s Nesamun vi is a different person altogether. If so, he is otherwise unknown. 99 Kitchen 1995, 481, table 14. 100 Taylor 1985, I. 121–140. 44 Chapter Two 4101), although Gautseshen A/i was buried in a coffin of Taylor’s type IA (= Niwiński type II102). On the body would be a number of floral garlands, leather braces, scarabs on the chest, a Book of Amduat between the legs, and in some cases, necklaces (Tjanefer A), embalmers’ plaques (Meretamun), and an Osiris shroud (Meretamun, Hor, and Nesamun v). Outside of the coffin they were accompanied by an Osiris figure contain- ing a Book of the Dead, a wooden stela, and two shabti boxes containing blue glazed ushabtis. Members of the High Priest’s family also seem to have been buried with canopic jars. Where information is available it is clear that the Books of Amduat were of Niwiński’s types A.I.1 (Tjanefer A), A.II.1 (Gautseshen A/i, Meretamun, Nesamun v), A.II.2 (Ankhefenmut), and A.III (Menkheperre B), whilst the Books of the Dead were of Niwiński’s type BD. II.1 (Gautseshen A/i), and BD.III.1 (Ankhefenmut, Tjanefer A).103 Yet another daughter of Menkheperre A, Istemkheb D, married the High Priest, Pinedjem II, and since two of their children, the Chantress of Amun, Maatkare and the Chantress of Amun, Great Chief of the Harem in the Fourth Phyle, Harweben, were cached in the Bab el-Gasus tomb, it is likely that Istemkheb D was Pinedjem II’s first wife. The latter clearly usurped TT 320 (“The Royal Cache”) for his own family tomb. TT 320 had a somewhat convoluted history, but most likely it was originally an Eighteenth Dynasty queen’s tomb, most probably made for Ahmose Nef- ertari.104 Conventionally it is assumed that Neskhons A, a second wife of Pinedjem II, who is known, through a graffito written in the tomb shaft, to have been buried in TT 320 in year 5 of Siamun,105 would have been the first person buried in this tomb after the original occupant (Ahmose Nef- ertari?), followed by Pinedjem II, known to have been buried here in year 10 of Siamun,106 and other members of his family until sometime after the burial of Djedkhonsefankh A, the tomb was reused to cache the royal buri- als. In this scenario it is likely that the earliest burials would then have been placed in the burial chamber, as can be demonstrated for the burials of Tjanefer A’s family in the Bab el-Gasus tomb. Sheikholeslami, how- ever, has suggested that the Twenty-first—Twenty-second Dynasties buri- als of the family of Pinedjem II were not installed in the burial chamber of 101 Niwiński 1988, 76–78, 95–97. 102 Niwiński 1988, 71–76. 103 For these types, see Niwiński 1988, 111–209. 104 Aston 2013, 7–13. 105 Maspero 1889, 520–521. 106 Maspero 1889, 522–523.  Royal Burials at Thebes 45 TT 320, but placed in the corridor C.107 Her basic reason being that during the decade between 1871 and 1881, the only items to appear on the art market were all from the family of Pinedjem II, and she suggests that these burials would have been nearest the entrance allowing easy access for the pilfering of the grave goods. That being the case then it may be presumed that the burial chamber had already been used to cache most of the other New Kingdom burials, since, otherwise, they would had to have been manhandled over the Twenty-first—Twenty-second Dynasties coffins, which were already in the way; the dimensions of the latter being such that it would have been almost impossible. This first deposit would thus have taken place before year 5 of Siamun, and only during the reign of Sheshonq I or later would the four burials known to have been found near- est the entrance—Nebseny, which contained the body of an anonymous man, the coffin of Rai, which contained the mummy of Inhapi, Henettawy A, and Seti I, have been added. Interestingly two of these must, at some point, have been in the tomb of Inhapi, so it is possible that the “Inhapi group” was the last to have been added to the cache. On this scenario, therefore, the tomb would have been used for the burial of Ahmose Nef- ertari in year 5/6 of Thutmose I, then sometime during the Twenty-first Dynasty, but certainly between Year 8 of Psusennes I and Year 5 of Si- amun, the Dra Abu el-Naga group of burials was introduced into the burial chamber,108 along with that of Pinedjem I, whose body was found in the coffin of Ahhotep I. If TT 320 is the tomb of Ahmose Nefertari, as I be- lieve it is, then it is clear that these early Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs were not just moved to any tomb, they were moved to one of the most revered tombs in the entire Theban necropolis. Between Year 5 of Siamun and the reign of Sheshonq I, the tomb was used as the family vault of the High Priest Pinedjem II and his immediate relations, who were buried in the corridors. At some time after the burial of Djedptahefankh A, the tomb was again reopened on one (or more) occasions for the caching of the burials found nearest the entrance. The burials of Istemkheb D, Pinedjem II, Neskhons A, and Pinedjem II’s daughter, Nesitanebashru were found intact, and are somewhat richer than the slightly earlier burials of Tjanefer A’s family, in that in addition to the coffins, floral garlands, leather braces, scarabs on the chest, Books of Amduat between the legs, jewellery, embalmers’ plaques, Osiris 107 Sheikholeslami 2008, 387. 108 Year 8 of Psusennes I is the latest date mentioned on any of the dockets found on the coffins or mummy linen of the early Eighteenth Dynasty burials. Such dockets refer to the “official restoration” of the burials that took place either in their own tombs or elsewhere. Cf. Reeves 1990, 225–239. 46 Chapter Two shrouds, Osiris figures containing a Book of the Dead, wooden stelae, shabti boxes containing blue glazed ushabtis, and canopic jars, they were also buried with other items of jewellery, bronze vessels, faience cups, and in the case of Istemkheb D, various basketry boxes containing wigs and food offerings, as well as a pet gazelle.109 Although earlier members of the Theban High Priests of Amun family lived and died during the earlier part of the Twenty-first Dynasty, and thus precede the first millennium, their burials should perhaps be included for the sake of completeness. Every so often it is said that the tomb of Heri- hor, the first of the Theban High Priests to call himself king has been found, and about twenty-five years ago jewellery reputedly from his tomb came onto the art market, including a bracelet now in Hildesheim,110 but whether it came from Herihor’s tomb or not is, of course, unclear. His wife, Nodjmet, however, was found reburied in TT 320, with her surviving grave goods comprising a double coffin (Cairo CG 61024), a mummy shroud, wax sons of Horus within the body, a heart scarab within the body, a menat-collar, a bracelet on her right arm, a bracelet of small cylindrical carnelian beads on each wrist, a bracelet of spherical lapis lazuli beads with carnelian lotus clasps on her right wrist, a bracelet of cylindrical gold beads and lapis lazuli beads arranged alternately also on her right wrist, a Book of the Dead (London BM EA 10541/Paris Louvre E.6258/ex Mook collection), a Book of Amduat (London BM EA 10490), a canopic chest (Cairo TR 20/12/25/11), which contained ushabtis of Pinedjem I and Neskhons A when found, and toilet objects of wood and ivory. Pinedjem I may have originally been buried in the tomb of Ramesses XI, since, just beyond the point where the last initial sketch of Ramesses XI was drawn, Pinedjem added a figure of Amun-Re-Horakhty and added a text in his own name as king.111 Whether or not Pinedjem I was actually buried here is uncertain, but fragments of coffins similar to those of Thutmose I, usurped by him, were found among the debris. His body, and that of his wife, Henettawy A, however, were clearly moved, at some point, to TT 320 where they were found in 1881. Of Pinedjem’s children, Masaharta A and Maatkare A were also found reburied in the royal cache, but Henettawy B was, as mentioned above, found at Deir el-Bahari within MMA 60.112 She was buried with an Osiris shroud and a floral garland within a set of typical Twenty-first Dynasty coffins (Cairo JE 49100– 49102), and was accompanied by an Osiris figure (New York MMA 109 Aston, 2009b, 220–231. 110 Hildesheim RPM 5872, Eggebrecht 1993, 76. 111 Ciccarello 1979. Cf. Dodson, 2012, 49–51. 112 Winlock 1924, 24–28; Winlock 1926, 19–31; Roehrig 1988.  Royal Burials at Thebes 47 25.3.36A–B), which was, somewhat unusually, painted white, and con- tained parts of two Books of Amduat (Cairo JE 51948–51949), and a white shabti box (New York MMA 25.3.21) containing blue glazed ush- abtis. Maatkare A’s and Henettawy B’s contemporary, Nauny, is a somewhat enigmatic figure. She was buried in a set of coffins, clearly usurped from her mother, Tenetbekhen, who was herself a king’s daughter. Nauny was, therefore, the granddaughter of a king, most probably Ramesses XI, but this is far from certain. Her intact burial (fig. 2-9) was found in the tomb of Ahmose Meryetamun, TT 358, also in Deir el-Bahari, which had been reused for the purpose, Nauny’s funeral equipment being scattered in the area between the tomb shaft and the well.113 Whilst her burial is, in many ways, typical of the early Twenty-first Dynasty elite burials at Thebes it is, in some respects, somewhat unique. She was buried in a typical set of cof- fins comprising a mummy board (New York MMA 30.3.25), inner coffin (New York MMA 30.3.24A–B) and outer coffin (New York MMA 20.3.23A–B), and was accompanied by a wig (New York MMA 30.3.35), placed in the inner coffin along with a garland of lotus and persea leaves (New York MMA 30.3.33), whilst a faience pectoral (New York MMA 30.3.34) was placed within the mummy wrappings, and a Book of Amduat (New York MMA 30.3.32) was positioned on her chest. Outside of the coffin she was given an unusual and unique Osiris figure (Cairo JE 55146),114 which contained a Book of the Dead (New York MMA 30.3.31), and seven shabti boxes (Cairo JE 55044, 55080, New York MMA 30.3.26–30)—no other Third Intermediate Period burial ever had so many—containing between them 362 ushabtis. She is also the only royal personage of the first half of the Twenty-first Dynasty, whose burial has come to light, not to have been reburied in one of the cache tombs, TT 320, MMA 60, or the Bab el-Gasus. The Twenty-second Dynasty Burials of the Twenty-second Dynasty royal family are exceedingly rare at Thebes, which is not surprising. Some twenty-five years ago, the CNRS- CEDAE team working behind the Ramesseum discovered a fragmentary stela, Luxor J.184, of Sathorkhnum, great granddaughter of Osorkon I (fig. 113 Winlock 1932, 53–56. 114 Winlock 1930, 24, fig. 26. 48 Chapter Two 2-10a),115 which also implies that she was buried here—to date the only close family member of the Tanite Twenty-second Dynasty known to have been buried in Thebes, unless the God’s Wife, Karomama G is identical with the Karomama, daughter of Osorkon II. Karomama G was also buried behind the Ramesseum, since a number of her ushabtis were found here by Quibell, thus supplementing the canopic jars, Berlin 2105–2106, and other ushabtis of hers, Berlin 303–305, 323–325, which were bought in Luxor by Lepsius. Other fragmentary burials found in the Ramesseum necropolis include those of the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Nakhtefmut A, a great grandson of Sheshonq I, his daughter, Djedmutesankh, and his grandchildren, through the paternal line, Djedmutesankh vi and Takhenemet ii, although since these two were also the grandchildren of king Harsiese through the maternal line, keeping a distinction between the Twenty-second Dynasty and “Dynasty XXIIA” is, at this point, no longer possible. The Twenty-fifth Dynasty The god’s wives of Amun, Amenirdis I, daughter of Kashta, and Shep- enwepet II, daughter of Piye, both Twenty-fifth Dynasty princesses were interred at Medinet Habu (fig. 2-10b–c). Whilst their tomb chapels are rather well preserved, their burials were unfortunately plundered in antiq- uity. Their stone built tombs consist of entrance pylons crowned by ca- vetto cornices, a colonnaded court, and a chapel.116 The chapel is com- posed of a barrel-vaulted cella with a passage around it. Scenes on the outer façade of the pylon show the deceased before Amun, Mut, and Hathor. On the inner walls of the chapel are scenes relating to the de- ceased. The tomb chamber itself comprised a rectangular pit, just large enough to accommodate a stone sarcophagus, dug through the floor of the cella. At the rear of the pit was a deeper pit probably intended for the ca- nopic jars and shabti boxes. 115 Hassanein 1982, 42; Hassanein et al. 1986, 27; Leblanc and Nelson 1997, 82, fig, 18, pl. xxx [b]; Saleh 2007, 41–42, 181. 116 Hölscher 1954, 17–30. Despite the remains of burial equipment from these chapels, it was long debated whether they have actually been used for interments (cf. Budka 2010a, 170–171 with further references). In her recent study, Koch (2012) has put forward good reasons to reject the “tomb idea”. Royal Burials at Thebes 49 Fig. 2-9. 50 Chapter Two a b c d Fig. 2-10.  Royal Burials at Thebes 51 The Twenty-sixth Dynasty Finally the last royal tomb of the first millennium BC to have been found at Thebes is that of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty princesses Nitocris A, daugh- ter of Psamtek I, and her mother, Mehtenweskhet, who both added to the tomb chapel of Shepenwepet II. Since a reused granite sarcophagus (Cairo TR 6/2/21/1) and a few ushabtis of Nitocris (Cairo JE 59707–59711, Chi- cago OIM 14096) have been found at Thebes it is probable that she was indeed buried here, but no grave goods of Mehtenweskhet are known so it is probably unlikely that she was interred here. A sarcophagus, London BM EA 32,117 of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty princess Ankhnesneferibre, daughter of Psamtek II, has also been discovered at Thebes, reused, like that of Nitocris A in Deir el-Medina,118 and this probably implies that she too was once buried at Medinet Habu. Conclusions To conclude, then, there can be no doubt that during the Twenty-first Dyn- asty, burials of the Herihor-Pinedjem I-Menkheperre A family were buried on the west bank of Thebes. Probably they were originally interred as sin- gle burials in tombs usurped for the purpose, Pinedjem I possibly usurping the tomb of Ramesses XI, whilst Nauny was buried within the pre-existing tomb of queen Ahmose Meryetamun. During the later Twenty-first Dyn- asty, most of these royal burials were gathered together and placed in cache tombs, most notably TT 320, MMA 60, and the Bab el-Gasus. Twenty-second Dynasty royal burials are almost non-existent, which is not surprising since one would expect their burials to be located in the north, where indeed such have been found at Tanis, Bubastis, Leontopolis, and Memphis. It is, however, with the rise of the Heracleopolitan/Theban Twenty- third Dynasty (“Dynasty XXIIA”) that Thebes was a royal necropolis per se with at least Harsiese A and Osorkon III being buried here, whilst sev- eral first generation princes and princesses of this family were buried in vaulted tombs at Deir el-Bahari. It is perhaps no surprise that the first of the really powerful god’s wives of Amun, Shepenwepet I, was also a prin- cess of this family, and she initiated a series of royal tombs at Medinet 117 Budge 1885. 118 Cf. Bierbrier 1982, 122–124. 52 Chapter Two Habu, where the successive god’s wives, whether they were Twenty-fifth or Twenty-sixth Dynasty princesses were also buried. Bibliography Anthes, Rudolf. 1943. “Die Deutschen Grabungen auf der Westseite von Theben in den Jahren 1911 und 1913.” MDAIK 12: 1–72. ———. 1951. “On Dating the Burials in the Chapels.” In Excavations at Medinet Habu IV. The Mortuary Temple of Ramesses III, Part II, ed. Uvo Hölscher, 25. OIP 55. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Aston, David. 1991. “Two Osiris Figures of the Third Intermediate Pe- riod.” JEA 77: 95–107. ———. 1994. “The Shabti Box. A Typological Study.” OMRO 74: 21–54. ———. 2000. “Canopic Chests from the Twenty-first Dynasty to the Ptol- emaic Period.” ÄgLev 10: 159–178. ———. 2009. “Takeloth II, A King of the Herakleopolitan/Theban Twenty-third Dynasty Revisited: The Chronology of Dynasties 22 and 23.” In The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007, eds. Gerard P. F. Broekman, Robert J. Demarée, and Olaf E. Kaper, 1–28. EgUit 23. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ———. 2009. Burial Assemblages of Dynasty 21–25: Chronology, Typol- ogy, Developments. CCEM 21; DÖAWW 54. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2011. “Theban Funerary Customs ca. 950–650 BC.” In Proceed- ings of the Colloquium on Theban Archaeology at the Supreme Coun- cil of Antiquities, November 5, 2009, eds. Zahi Hawass, Tamás. A. Bacs, and Gábor Schreibor, 9–32. Cairo: Conseil Suprême des anti- quités de l’Égypte. ———. 2013. “TT 320 and the k3y of Inhapi – A Reconsideration Based on Ceramic Evidence.” GM 236: 7–20. Aston, David, and John H. Taylor. 1990. “The Family of Takeloth III and the ‘Theban’ Twenty-third Dynasty.” In Libya and Egypt, c 1300–750 BC, ed. Anthony Leahy, 131–154. London: Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; Society for Libyan Studies. Baraize, Émile. 1933. “Une nouvelle cachette funéraire à Deir el-Bahari.” RdE 1: 295–296.  Royal Burials at Thebes 53 Barwik, Mirosław. 2003. “New Data Concerning the Third Intermediate Period Cemetery in the Hatshepsut Temple at Deir el-Bahari.” In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, eds. Nigel C. Strudwick, and John H. Taylor, 122–130. London: British Museum Press. Beckerath, Jürgen von. 1999. Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. MÄS 49. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. 2nd edition. Berlev, Oleg D., and Svetlana I. Hodjash. 2004. Sculpture of Ancient Egypt in the Collections of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. Moscow: Vostocnaja literatura. Bierbrier, Morris L. 1975. The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300–664 B.C.). A Genealogical and Chronological Investigation. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies Published for the School of Archaeology and Oriental Studies, The University of Liver- pool. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. ———. 1982. The Tomb-Builders of the Pharaohs. A Colonnade Book. London: British Museum Publications. ———. 1987. The British Museum, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae etc. Part XI. London: The British Museum. Boeser, Pieter A. A. 1926. Beschrijving van de Egyptische verzameling in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden XIII, Lijkvasen en Lijkvasenkisten, Leiden: Brill. Brugsch, Heinrich. 1860. “Vorläufiger Bericht über meine zweite wissen- schaftliche Reise nach Ägypten im Winter 1857–1858.” ZDMG 14: 1– 14. Bruyère, Bernard. 1956. “Une nouvelle famille de prêtres de Montou trou- vée par Baraize à Deir el Bahri.” ASAE 54: 11–33. Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1885. The Sarcophagus of Ānchnesrāneferab, Queen of Ahmes II, King of Egypt, about B. C. 564–526. London: Whiting. Budka, Julia. 2010a. Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruktur im Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Er- gebnisse der österreichischen Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1969– 1977. UZK 34; DÖAWW 59. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2010b. “Kushite Tomb Groups in Late Period Thebes.” In Be- tween the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–2 September 2006, Part Two: Session Papers, eds. Włodzimierz Godlewski, and Adam Łajtar, 503–518. PAM, Supplement Series 2.2, 2. Warsaw: The Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University. Budka, Julia, and Frank Kammerzell. 2007. “Kuschiten in Theben: Eine archäologische Spurensuche.” MSGB 18: 163–177. 54 Chapter Two Ciccarello, Mark. 1979. The Graffito of Pinutem I in the Tomb of Ramesses XI. Theban Royal Tomb Project. [New York]: The Brooklyn Museum Theban Expedition. Dąbrowska-Smektała, Elżbieta. 1968. “Coffins Found in the Area of the Temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir el-Bahari.” BIFAO 66: 183–189. Daressy, Georges. 1897a. “Notes et rémarques.” RecTrav 19: 13–22. ———. 1897b. Notice explicative des ruines de Medinet Habou, Cairo: Imprimerie nationale de France. ———. 1900. “Les sépultures des prêtres d’Amon à Deir el-Bahari.” ASAE 1: 141–148. ———. 1909. Cercueils des cachettes royales (CG 61001–61044). CGC. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Devéria, Théodule. 1863. “Quelques personnages d’une famille pharao- nique de la XXIIe dynastie.” RA 8: 7–15. Dodson, Aidan. 1994. The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt. StudEgypt. London: Kegan Paul International ———. 2012. Afterglow of Empire, Egypt from the Fall of the New King- dom to the Saite Renaissance. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Dodson, Aidan, and Salima Ikram. 2008. The Tomb in Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson. Dunham, Dows. 1950. The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, I: El Kurru. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1955. The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, II: Nuri. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Eggebrecht, Arne. ed. 1993. Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim: die Ägypti- sche Sammlung. Antike Welt, Sondernummer. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Eigner, Diethelm. 1984. Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der Thebanischen Nekropole. UZK 6; DÖAWW 8. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Fakhry, Ahmed. 1943. “Tomb of Paser (no. 367 at Thebes).” ASAE 43: 389–438. Gauthier, Henri. 1914. Le livre des rois d’Égypte: recueil de titres et pro- tocoles royaux, noms propres de rois, reines, princes et princesses, noms de pyramides et de temples solaires, suivi d’un index alphabé- tique, III. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. ———. 1921. “A travers la Basse Égypte II: Un tombeai de Tell Moqdam.” ASAE 21: 21–27. Graefe, Erhart. 1990 “Eine Seite aus den Notizbüchern von Robert Hay.” In Festschrift Jürgen von Beckerath: zum 70. Geburtstag am 19. Feb-  Royal Burials at Thebes 55 ruar 1990, eds. Arne Eggebrecht, and Bettina Schmitz, 85–90. HÄB 30. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Griffith, Francis L. 1909. Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester. 3 vols. Manchester: University Press. Hassanein, Fathy. 1982. “Les dispositions du Ramesseum en bordure des annexes nord, ouest et sud. IV: La stèle de Paf-tchau-(em)-a(ouy)- Bastet, prophète de Montou.” ASAE 68: 40–44. Hassanein, Fathy, Guy Lecuyot, Anne-Marie Loyrette, and Monique Nel- son. 1986. “Les récentes découvertes au Ramesseum.” BSFE 106: 7– 30. Hölscher, Uvo. 1939. Excavations at Medinet Habu II. The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty. OIP 41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1954. Excavations at Medinet Habu V. Post Ramessid Remains. OIP 66. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. 1995. “Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit.” JEA 81: 129–149. ———. 2007. Inschriften der Spätzeit II. Die 22.–24. Dynastie. Wiesba- den: Harrassowitz Verlag. Jørgensen, Mogens. 2001. Catalogue Egypt III: Coffins, Mummy Adorn- ments and Mummies from the Third Intermediate, Late, Ptolemaic and Roman Periods (1080 BC–AD 400). Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyp- totek. Kendall, Timothy. 1999. “The Origin of the Napatan State: El Kurru and the Evidence for the Royal Ancestors.” In Studien zum antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagung für meroitische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/bei Berlin, ed. Steffan Wenig, 3– 117. Meroitica 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kikuchi, Takao. 2002. “Die Thebanische Nekropole der 21. Dynastie: zum Wandel der Nekropole und zum Totenglauben der Ägypter.” MDAIK 58: 343–371. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1995. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100– 650 BC). Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 3rd edition. Kees, Hermann. 1958. Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit. PdÄ 1. Leiden: Brill. Koch, Carola. 2012. “Die den Amun mit ihrer Stimme zufriedenstellen”: Gottesgemahlinnen und Musikerinnen im thebanischen Amunstaat von der 22. bis zur 26. Dynastie. SRAT 27. Dettelbach: Röll. Krauss, Rolf. 2006. “Lunar Dates.” In Ancient Egyptian Chronology, eds. Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and David A. Warburton, 395–431. HbOr 83. Leiden: Brill. 56 Chapter Two Lange, Eva. 2008. “Legitimation und Herrschaft in der Libyerzeit: eine neue Inschrift Osorkons I. aus Bubastis (Tell Basta).” ZÄS 135: 131– 141. Leahy, Anthony. 1985. “The Libyan Period in Egypt: An Essay in Inter- pretation.” LibStud 16: 51–65. Leblanc, Christian, and Monique Nelson. 1997. “Répertoire onomastique des propriétaires des tombes de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire du Ramesseum [I].” Memnonia 8: 61–91. Legrain, Georges. 1892. “Textes recueilles dans quelques collections par- ticuliers I. Collection Sabatier.” RecTrav 14: 54–66. ———. 1905. “Note sur deux monuments provenant de Kouft.” ASAE 6: 122–126. Loth, Marc. 2009. “Thebanische Totenstelen der Dritten Zwischenzeit: Ikonographie und Datierung.” In The Libyan Period in Egypt. Histori- cal and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007, eds. Gerard P. F. Broekman, Robert J. Demarée, and Olaf E. Kaper, 219–230. EgUit 23. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Lull, José. 2002. Las tumbas reales egipcias del Tercer Período Interme- dio (dinastías XXI–XXV): Tradición y cambios. BAR-IS 1045. Oxford: Archaeopress. Majewska, Aleksandra. ed. 2007. Seventy Years of Polish Archaeology in Egypt: Egyptian Museum in Cairo, 21 October–21 November 2007. Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw. Malinine, Michel. 1953. Choix des textes juridiques en hiératique “anor- mal” et en démotique I. Paris: Honoré Champion. Maspero, Gaston. 1889. “Les momies royales de Déir el-Baharî.” In MIFAO I: 511–787. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale Meulenaere, Herman De. 1978. “La statuette JE 37163 du Musée du Caire.” SAK 6: 63–68. Montet, Pierre. 1947–1960. La nécropole royale de Tanis. 3 vols. Paris: [s.n.]. Moret, Alexandre. 1913. Sarcophages de l’époque bubastite à l’époque saïte (CG 41001–41041). CGC. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Munro, Peter. 1973. Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen. 2 vols. ÄgForsch 25. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin. Naville, Édouard. 1895. “The Excavations at Deir el Bahari during the Winter 1894–1895.” AREEF 1894–1895: 33–37.  Royal Burials at Thebes 57 ———. 1898. The Temple of Deir el Bahari III. MEEF 16. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Nelson, Monique. 2003. “The Ramesseum Necropolis.” In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, eds. Nigel C. Strudwick, and John H. Taylor, 88–94. London: British Museum Press. Niwiński, Andrzej. 1979. “Problems in the Chronology and Genealogy of the XXIst Dynasty: New Proposals for Their Interpretation.” JARCE 16: 49–68. ———. 1984. “The Bab el-Gusus Tomb and the Royal Cache in Deir el- Bahri.” JEA 70: 73–81. ———. 1988. 21st Dynasty Coffins from Thebes: Chronological and Ty- pological Studies. Theben 5. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Payraudeau, Frédéric. 2003. “La désignation du gouverneur de Thèbes aux époques libyenne et éthiopienne.” RdE 54: 131–153. Pérez Díe, María Carmen. 2009. “The Third Intermediate Period Necrop- olis at Herakleopolis Magna.” In The Libyan Period in Egypt. Histori- cal and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007, eds. Gerard P. F. Broekman, Robert J. Demarée, and Olaf E. Kaper, 302–326. EgUit 23. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ———. ed. 2010. Heracleópolis Magna (Ehnasya el Medina, Egipto): la necrópolis “real” del Tercer Período Intermedio y su reutilización. 3 vols. Madrid: Gobierno de Espana, Ministerio de Cultura. Porter, Robert M. 2011. “Osorkon III of Tanis: The Contemporary of Piye?” GM 230: 111–112. Quack, Joachim F. 2006. “Das Grab am Tempeldromos. Neue Deutungen zu einem spätzeitlichen Grabtyp.” In Von reichlich ägyptischen Ver- stande. Festschrift für Waltraud Guglielmi zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Karola Zibelius-Chen, and Hans-Werner Fischer-Elfert, 113–132. Philippika 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Quibell, James E. 1898. The Ramesseum. BSAE 3. London: Bernard Quaritch. Raven, Maarten J. 1978–1979. “Papyrus-Sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Statues.” OMRO 59–60: 251–296. ———. 1981. “On Some Coffins of the Besenmut Family.” OMRO 62: 7–21. Redford, Donald B. ed. 2004. Excavations at Mendes: 1: The Royal Ne- cropolis. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 20. Leiden: Brill. Reeves, C. Nicholas. 1990. Valley of the Kings. The Decline of a Royal Necropolis. StudAeg. London: Kegan Paul International. 58 Chapter Two Reisner, George Andrew. 1919. “Discovery of the Tombs of the Egyptian XXVth Dynasty at el-Kurru in Dongola Province.” SNRec 2: 237–254. Rhind, Alexander H. 1862. Thebes: Its Tombs and Their Tenants, Ancient and Present, Including a Record of Excavations in the Necropolis. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. Ritner, Robert K. 1999. “An Oblique Reference to the High Priest Osorkon?” In Gold of Praise. Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, eds. Emily Teeter, and John A. Larsen, 351–359. SAOC 58. Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago. ———. 2009. “Fragmentation and Re-integration in the Third Intermedi- ate Period.” In The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007, eds. Gerard P. F. Broekman, Robert J. Demarée, and Olaf E. Kaper, 327–340. EgUit 23. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Roeder, Günther. 1924. Ägyptische Inschriften aus den Königlichen Mu- seen zu Berlin II. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’schen Buchhandlungen. Roehrig, Catharine H. 1988. “Tomb Group of Henettawy.” In Mummies & magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt, eds. Sue D’Auria, Peter Lacovara, and Catharine H. Roehrig. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Romano, James E. 1979. The Luxor Museum of Ancient Egyptian Art. Catalogue. Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt. Saleh, Heidi. 2007. Investigating Ethnic and Gender Identities as Ex- pressed on Wooden Funerary Stelae from the Libyan Period (c. 1069– 715 B.C.E.) in Egypt. BAR-IS 1734. Oxford: Hedges. Schmidt, Valdemar. 1919. Levende og døde i det gamle Ægypten: album til ordning af sarkofager, mumiekister, mumiehylstre o lign. Copenha- gen: Frimodt. Schneider, Hans D. 1977. Shabtis. An Introduction to the History of An- cient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes with a Catalogue of the Collection of Shabtis in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. 3 vols. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. Schneider, Thomas. 2000. “Die Bestattung Ramses X.” In Das Grab Ram- ses’ X. (KV 18), ed. Hanna Jenni, 104–108. AegHelv 16. Basel: Schwabe. Sheikholeslami, Cynthia M. 2003. “The Burials of Priests of Montu at Deir el-Bahari in the Theban Necropolis.” In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, eds. Nigel C. Strudwick, and John H. Taylor, 131–137. London: British Museum Press. ———. 2008. “A Lost Papyrus and the Royal Cache in TT 320 before 1881.” In The Realm of the Pharaohs: Essays in Honor of Tohfa  Royal Burials at Thebes 59 Handoussa I, eds. Zahi Hawass, Khaled A. Daoud, and Sawsan Abd el-Fattah, 377–400. CASAE 37. Cairo: Publications du Conseil Su- prême des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Silvano, Flora. 1980. “Le reticelle funerarie nell’antico Egitto: proposte di interpretazione.” EVO 3: 83–97. Stadelmann, Rainer. 1971. “Das Grab im Tempelhof: der Typus des Kö- nigsgrabes in der Spätzeit.” MDAIK 27: 111–123. Szafrański, Zbigniew E. 2005. “Deir el-Bahari, The Temple of Hatshepsut Season 2003/2004.” PAM 16: 228–235. Taylor, John H. 1984. “A Priestly Family of the 25th Dynasty.” CdE 117: 27–57. ———. 1985. The Stylistic Development of Theban Coffins during the Third Intermediate Period. 2 vols. PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham. ———. 1988. “A Daughter of King Harsiese.” JEA 74: 230–231. ———. 2003. “Theban Coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty- sixth Dynasty: Dating and Synthesis of Development.” In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, eds. Nigel C. Strudwick, and John H. Taylor, 95–119. London: British Museum Press. Thijs, Ad. 1998. “Reconsidering the End of the Twentieth Dynasty I: The Fisherman Pnekhtemope and the Date of BM 10054.” GM 167: 95–108. Verner, Miroslav. 1982. Tschechoslowakei, Lieferung 1: Altägyptische Särge in den Museen und Sammlungen der Tschechoslowakei. CAA. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. Vittmann, Günther. 1978. “Zwei thebanische Totenstelen der 26. Dynastie im Seattle Art Museum.” WZKM 70: 5–14. Winlock, Herbert E. 1924. “The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes.” BMMA 19, 2: 5–33. ———. 1926. “The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes.” BMMA 21, 2: 5–32. ———. 1930. “The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes.” BMMA 25, 2: 11–27. ———. 1932. The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amūn at Thebes. PMMA 6. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.