EGYPTE

PHARAONIQUE

The coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and mother of Ahmose

D UI~ING the past de .adc, hc « \hhot p problem» has been dealt with in a number or studies (I). A passing remark made by M. G i tLon provided the impetus for the reconsideration or the idcnlity or the worna n ill! rlcd ill the corn n inscribed rot' a Queen AI1110 Lep discovered in 1859 a l Dra Ab u'l Naga (2). Consensus nuwadaysno longer ascribes this burial to Queen Ahhotep, wife of Scqcni-en-Re and moth r or Ahmose, but rather to an otherwise undocurn mted queen or

he same name (3). Since uhj .cts [) aring Abrnose's name are the latest dated items included with the burial, it has been presumed that this Ahhotep died and was buried during his reign (4). The oversize collin CG I} 1006 found in the Deir I Bahari ca he (TT 320~) is, then, attributable without res rvation to Ahrnose's mother Ahhotep, This coffin's style and form suggesL its manufacture (and the burial of the aged lady) d uring the reign 0 I' Am anho tep 1.

Crucial to the assign 111 .nt or the coffins to two din rent queens bearing the same name are wo Iucturs. The inscription on the Dra \bu'l Naga coffin includes only Lhe Lilies appropriate Lo a royal wile; the absence or the title King's Mother would seem to preclude the identification of its owner as Queen Ahhotcp, mother or Ahrnose (6). Secondly.

(I) Sec the rclurcnecs cited by ~1. GITTON. I.e« diuines epouses de /(1 fg' u!Jnflslie.

II rr .. in H convenient summary or Lhc st,1 tc or the question. (2) '-'~pou,\'e rill tlieu ,\tllnes Nl-ref'I{~rJl, :37 n. 10:).

(3) First suggested ibirl. as II. fi8; adopted and elaboral ·,1 by A. i10TH, Serapis 4, 1077/78. :Jl IT. - Accordlng ttl chis hypothesis. l hc Dra Ahu'l Naga eoff'in is the only 'vidence for the existence or the lady.

(4) So, c.g .. L. TIWY. GM :15, 197!1. 8'1. Bill see Iurther, below. (5) For which see now E. Tllo)M,\S • .fARCE 16, HI7~. w'>rr.

(6) For the cof'Iin, sec the description arul illustra tion in F. \¥. VUN BISSJNr., Ein /IwlianiMlwr G'rub[uml {lU.~ dem AIl{rJn!l des Nenen Heiclus, unnumbered paw with

HJ5

I~GYPTE P!]A HAON I QUE

~~~L~aI~fl·~l:J!~~@DIl € Ir~~~~\\~fj ~Eal

c .. ], :J

-
~ 196

-- '0
-e.
' .... ":.
C
<.>
-
,.;, <:
,03
ti: ..L. TH I': CO!'FI NS OF QUEEN 1\1111 OTEP

according to G. Maspcro, the Dra Abu'I Naga collin could not have fit inside CG Ii 1 OO(} (1), prohibi Li ng lhe si 111 ultancnus usc or them as B set of inner and outer col li ns for a si nglc burial.

Becan tly, E .. Thomas questioned the second premise. Noti ng a commen! made by G. Daressy in his description or the Deir el Bahari cof'Iin to the el'lect that the back had been cut. open and then « sewn )) together again, Thomas conti n ued : \. IT the slit in the back or the A 11- hotep cartonnage, Cairo (-j 1 006 .. allowed the introduction or the Ahhotcp coffin of 1859, contrary to Masperc's view, the matter of the Ahhnteps Illay be solvable in the Cairo Museum 0) (2). This solution would still leave unresolved problems, as L. Troy 11<1$ pointed out in another context, for it is not only Maspern's objection that must he met (3). If bothcoff'ins did belong Lo one and the same royal woman, can the Dra Abu"] Naga burial with its equipment bearing the names of Karnose and AI1m08e be reconciled with a luneral under Arnenhotep I? And if the eolf'ins were intended to form a set, how and when did they become separated?

The issue is complicated by the lact that only the lid or the Dra Abu'] Naga coffin is preserved ('1). H is the Lid alone that. was assigned the CG number 285m .. Its similarity Lo Seqeni-en-He's allows an approximation or the depth or Lilt' missing case to be made, since the king's coffin, CG 61001, is preserved in its entirety. Both lids are 2..12 m. in length; Seqeni-cn-Re's is slightly broader at its widest point - 70 em. versus 66 em. for CG 28501 - and 2 em" shallower - 26-28 em .. versus 30.5 em. On analogy with CG 61001, Ahhotep's complete coffin had an approx-

COi1HHentaIY to pts. X.I and X II: 1-7, - The liLle, .King·s Daughter and IGng's Sisler, bnt.h appropriate Lo Seqeni-en-Re's consort, are also lacking. However, their absence has not generally been considered significanl - hill see TROY, CM .:)0, l!iiH. g:-;. For tile inscription. see Figure l.b (p. H)6).

(1) Us motnies rOljules d,~ Deir el-Buhari, 545. - In CdR 5.3, I !17S. 207 IT., B.

Schmitz suggest<,d l.hat CG 6 J()()6 and the Dra A hu"] Nagt' col'Iin rep.-esc.,. t respectively the outer and inner coffins or a single Queen Ahhntep, the mother of Ahmose, Subsequent studies rejected her thesis, ci Ling Maspcru - see, e.g .. TROY, G1H 50. lUSt, 88 n, Sli: C. HI.;\Nl(lcNllP.BC, v,q.< Dr':L,I)I,N, GN/ 54, H!82, .3911.1. The problem of how II rul wlwn the coffins, if made for lilt: same person, eventually became separated was not cnnsidcred in Schrnilz's article.

(2) Serapis 0 (= Fs Nirns). H180, 175 n .. 37. So. too, earlier . .J A RCE 15. 1979. \)2 11.21'>.

(;)) (1M so, H)!-lL 88.

(4) Apparently, like the mummy, it, could not ill;' saved. See p. 202, note 4, below.

197

1~(\YI'T~: l'llAHAONIQ1JE

FIG. £. - eli tilOOl (deLail). Mlur DIIHESSY. Ccrcueils des rucheites rlJ!J'I/r·s (CCil, pl. 11 198

TIlE GOFFINS OJ" lJUEEN AllllOTEP

FH;.3. - CG 285(11 (detail). Phnt o D .. Johannes (l.lIlIrlesy II{ IIII' German ,trthr!po!oY;"1I1 lnstilule, Cuiro;

19B

EGYPTE PI-lAHAONIQIJI:::

irnatc depth of about (iO ern. Comparing these measurements wilh those given in Lilt' Caialoque gh1h'a/ for the AhhoLep 'orrin from Deir el Bahari, iL is .lcar that the .ornplctc Dra Abu'l Naga 'orrin could no have l'it inside the tormer, confirming Maspero's comment. Whether even lh e I id alone cou lei be accornmoda ted with i n CG (j 1 006 is q uestionable sin .c the latter with a maximum depth of /\8 ern. at chest h ight is quite shallow. Indeed, it is unlikely that when CG £51006 was mad, the intention was La insert an inner coffin. Like CG 61003, the collin or A hrnose-N el'erta ri, CG fi 1006 docs not have a lid, properly speaking. Only the l'rnnt half of the head and shoulders with crossed arms anrl hands of hoLh hesc of'Iins is s rparately made to serve as a « lid) of sorts (Fig. I.a) (I). The sli across the back of CG 61006 is clearly an alteration whose purpose may well have been to allow the insertion or an inner coffin, a procedure that had proved impossible with the original design. But if this were the complete Dra Abu' Nasa coff'in , or even its lid alone over the mummy, the craf'tsrnan made an elTOI' in his calculations (2).

H. garrlless of the l'act that Lh .omplet Ahhotcp 'orrin from Dra Abu'l Nag:'1 could not have fit inside CG 61006, I believe it likely that both coffins were in fact created [01' the same woman, but. at dillerent moments in her lifetime.

The idea that the Dra ABu'1 laga coffin was made en suite with S qeni- 11·Re's originated with H. E. Winlock whose description or the correspondences between the two merits quotation in full:

Tho pho ographs ... cannot show how Josely similar these two coffins must have been originally. The stripping of the gold from that 01' Ta'n II has changed its entire surface aspect, but an examination of the

(I) This arrangement is not adequately described in the Calalogue [{hl/iral, q.v, nor ill til' comment of 1-1. E. W1NI.OCK. The Tomb o] Quee.n Menjet-Amun (11 Thebes, 5S r. Th· construct.inn contrasts with thut of the 'offin or Qu en Merytarnun which they resemble nthcrwise. Mcrytamun's cof'Iin i~ quite traditicnnl with the body divided lenglh-wise intn an upper (lid) and lower hall (see ibltl., 19 cr. with rig. 6, and d. fh.AN1<".NI!F.fl(; Vt\N DEl.JmN. C1H :':14, 1\)82. :3.5).

(2 CL the similar errors or rn iasurernent mad" in Lhe riLLing or Merytarnun's cor[ins (W'NLoel;. TIIT/lb fir N/f'rytl·Amun. HI) and those of Maiherperi (according tu.I. E. Qllilwll's account oI Lhl' discovery of KV 3G. in E[/ypl Exploralion Fund Arctuieolo!liml Report 18!)S·18~lO. 2()). In boLh cUSPS. the «mistakes. are less understandable than in Ahhntep's, since presumably bol.h Merytamun's colf'ins and those nf Matherperi were made en suite which was certainly nut so wilh CG 2l!f,Ul and CG 01006.

200

TilE COFFI NS 01' QUEE~ AHl-IOTI':1'

origin' Is shows that hoth were covel' 'd with the same lhin, greenishyellow, gold leal', and where I hey can be tra ced, the incised r{shi ucsigns and the necklaces arc idcutical Oil bot h The wood some IlllpOl'ted coniferous species and the carpentry of boLh arc Lh ' sa me. Their forms differ only ill that Lilt: man WC'H'S the twmrs h 'address or a king and the woman has lernininc curls. Finally. the eyes 01' AI~~OLp's coffin arc setin Irarnes or massive gold - a most unusual lea Lure - and since the thieves found it worth while to steal those from the coffin of Ta'n II we may conclude that his were made in the same fashion (1).

As a comparison oJ Figs. 2 and :3 demonstrates, the ra(;i~ll features and expressi n are identical, although the theft or the inlaid eyes from Seqeni-en-Re's coffin nhscurcs the similarity or the yo form and placement with Ah hotep's. Her brows are quite straight above the rnnl or the nose and across the forehead. ill contrast to his ar 'jling brows, which ar , howe er not original, but like the blue banding and cosmetic stri ps datable to the (1 restnra lion » of thc cofl'i n prior to its deposi lion in T'T320.

Additional parallels not cxplicitel . remarked by 'Winlock include: (1) the gilded, separately-made cars (now missing l'rorn Scqcnl-cn-Re's coffin lid); (2) placement and form of the winged vulture rum cobra on the chest: and (3) design and execution of the block border lrarning the band 01' text down boLh lids. The inscriptions themselves which beth began will' the (lip dj njsui! Iorrnula (2) follower! by the invocation or Ptah-Sokar and OSiris, are reproduced her in my ban I opies (3). '1'11' identical reversals in the orthography of Ptah-Sokar and Osiris (cl.

(1) .lEA HI, H)~4, 251 11.5. Cf .. toe. Lhe recent coruments of .I.-P. COBTEe,:IA. I, CR!1!1ple des phuruons au !vi 11.j{~~ rlu Caire. 2nd ed, HJfHl, 84. - As noted ahuve, the dimensions "I' lhe cul'l'in lids are closety Comparable. ]'lOTH. Serupis 4. 1977178.31. surely understates tho relationship between the 'orrins when she writes that « ill style the [Dra A 1111'1 Nagai coffin resernhles » Scqeni-eu-Rc's.

(2) IlesLorcd in lhe case or Scqcni-en-Re ; SeC G. DAIlESS\', Cerruei! des corheltes rmtales, 2.

(3) These ",'e not Iacsimil 'S hut r present nev rtheless ;111 improvement over the available copies ill I'rinlerJ hierogtyphs LhaL do nul atternp to reproduce orthographic or paleogra phic p('cIIIL~I'i Lies. For the inscriptions on eli 28~{11. d. VON HISS] NG. Grub(und and the copy made hy Maunier ami published by M SI'F.1I0, RT 12. 1892. 21:'. My copy or the text Oil CG 111001 ,"I1(\C"S only the nriginal portions. - lol' I hal the addil.inn of Un' urueus to the white 1:,I'OWI1 in Ahhotcps l llle bflml nr!' MI js III1USII;1I if not IJ nique (d. I hi' wrilillgs collected by (i. BI<UNTON, A SA E 4\). 1\)49. 01) rr, and O. 1'''111)]1, tun: 2!J. 1977. (jl) I'Ll. whereas the determinative for siris [ollcwing 011 the wriling or Seqen i-en-Hes IHHJ'I\'n lacks both <I urueus lind M heard.

201

EGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

Fig. 1, b and c) are paralleled in the inscription on the back pillar of Louvre E.15682, the contemporaneous statue of Prince Ahmose (1).

Discrepancies should not go unmentioned, however. The inscription on Seqeni-en-Re's coffin continues « under» the feet on the lid and down over the foot end of the case (2) whereas Ahhotep's is complete on the upper surface of the lid. The block border framing an empty (i.e., uninscribed) field continues, however, « under» the feet of her coffin, according to von Bissing's description (3). This is flanked by kneeling figures of Isis and Nephthys. The corresponding areas on Seqeni-enRe's lid have been damaged beyond recognition in the successful attempt to strip the gold foil. Ahhotep's case, in contrast to her lid, was not gilded (4), and the body of her uraeus is straight, not looped, like Seqeni-en- Re' s.

Despite these anomalies, I believe it likely that Winlock was right: both coffins were commissioned as a pair by the king for himself and his spouse. Being made during the reign of Seqeni-en-Re, his wife's coffin was inscribed with the titles appropriate to her status as his consort (5); King's Mother does not occur, since Ahhotep was priviledged to it only

(1) Louvre E.15682. The back is illustrated by WINLOCK, JEA 10, 1924, pl. XX.

For the statue, see, most recently, W. V. DAVIES, The Statuette of Queen Tetisheri. A reconsideration, BM Occasional Paper 36, 1984, 13 n. 39 (where the head is described as « dubious ») and G. ROBINS, GM 56, 1982, 71 ff., considering the historical implications of the inscriptions.

(2) Cf. DARESSY, Cercueils des cachettes roy ales, pl. I.

(3) Grabfund. This area is not visible today in the Cairo Museum, since the lid is exhibited upright, standing on the foot end in the case.

(4) See Maunier's description, RT 12, 1892, 214 f.: « La boite de momie a le couvercle [my italics] entierement dore., .. » and cf. VON BISSING, Grabfund: « Sargkasten fehlt. Er war bei der Auffindung vorhanden, schwarz angestrichen und ist spater (laut Museumsinventar) zerfallen ». The black painting is curious; note that Kamose's case (see p.203, note 5, below) was painted yellow (so DARESSY, ASAE 9, 1908, 62), presumably in imitation of gilding.

(5) A possibility mentioned by TROY, GM 35, 1979,86 n. 21. - The absence of the titles King's Daughter and King's Sister from the coffin was remarked above, p. 195, note 6. I believe it improbable that the coffin was made for a second wife of Seqenien-Re, who, like the mother of Ahmose, was also named Ahhotep but was neither King's Daughter nor King's sister; cf. ROBINS, GM 56, 1982, 71 ff., however, who, on the basis of the inscriptions on the Louvre statue (s. note 1, above), postulates the existence of a third Ahhotep, in addition to Ahmose's mother and the supposed wife of Kamose.

202

THE COFFINS OF QUEEN AHHOTEP

later, after the death of her husband and, at the latest, with the accession of Ahmose (1).

If this proposal be accepted, there are two alternatives as to the subsequent fate of the Dra Abu'l Naga coffin. Either it was used for the burial of Queen Ahhotep, mother of Ahmose, sometime during the reign of Amenhotep I (s. further, below) or it was requisitioned for the burial of another member of the Ahmoside family.

The latter alternative presumes the inscribed burial goods, all supposedly found in the coffin with the mummy, date the interment at the earliest to the time of Ahmose. The objects bearing this name provide only a terminus post quem, however (2) ; the burial may have taken place later (3). The richness of the furnishings found with the mummy precludes the identification of the secondary owner as anyone other than a member of the ruling family. If she were Kamose's widow, as has been postulated (4), it is noteworthy that she was given a considerably more resplendent coffin than allotted her husband who was buried in a coffin suitable for a private person rather than one made with a king in mind (5). Lastly, the inscriptions of the coffin were not altered to name a new owner. Hence the lady remains anonymous - an admittedly

(1) Whether Kamose was also her son is moot; see ROBINS, GM 56, 1982, 71 ff. (2) Just as the form of the moon hieroglyph used in the writing of Ahhotep on CG 28501 dates only the manufacture of the coffin to the years before Ahmose's year 22 at the latest but reveals nothing about the date of the interment for which it was ultimately employed.

(3) Perhaps even after Ahhotep had acquired her new coffin?

(4) See GITTON, Les divines epouses, 12 n.15. to which add ROTH, Serapis 4, 1977/78, 35 f.

(5) The contrast was already remarked by BLANKENBERG VAN DELDEN, GM 54, 1982, 37. For Kamose's coffin, see WINLOCK, JEA 10, 1924, 260 f. with pl. XXI, right. - By the same token, the coffin CG 61002, found in the Deir el Bahari cache and customarily described as Ahmose's own coffin, cannot have belonged to him originally. As in Karnose's case, a uraeus is lacking. A primary association of the coffin that did contain Ahmose's mummy (61057) with the king rests on the presence of a pectoral, painted on the lid, whose design incorporates the king's nomen and praenomen. The form of the moon hieroglyph used in the writing of the nomen precludes a dating of the painting prior to the reign of Thutmosis III (see CI. VANDERSLEYEN, Les guerres d'Amosis, MRE I, 220 n. 1, who nevertheless maintains, in LA I, 100, that the coffin originally belonged to Ahmose). THOMAS, The Royal Necropoleis of Thebes, 236, states unequivocally that « Ahmose I was found in a Dyn. 18 coffin to which his cartouche had been added, probably in Dyn. 21. »

203

EGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

unsatisfactory state of affairs, or she, too, was named Ahhotep (1). The tomb prepared to received her burial presumably lay not far from the site where Mariette's workmen unearthed the coffin in the last century (2).

Alternatively, Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and mother of Ahmose, was laid to rest in the coffin provided for her by her husband, with funerary equipment contributed by her son and his immediate predecessor Kamose, the items naming these kings being heirlooms. The burial took place during the reign of Amenhotep I who ordered for his grandmother an imposing coffin inscribed with her full titulary, in the style current for coffins of contemporaneous royal women (3). The slit in the back of CG 61006 remarked by Daressy could represent a hurried - and ultimately futile - alteration in an attempt to facilitate the insertion of the older coffin with the mummy. When this proved impossible, those responsible for the arrangements may have simply deposited both coffins in the tomb (4).

Where Ahhotep was buried is unknown, but it is unlikely that she was interred beside the husband who had predeceased her. For if she had been buried with Seqeni-en-Re, in the coffin he had ordered for her, Ahhotep's mummy together with CG 28501 should have been removed to TT 320, the Deir el Bahari cache, along with his. Since, however, she was not found there, presumably Ahhotep possessed her own tomb in the gebeZ above Dra Abu'I Naga (5) that remained inviolate under the

(1) Those who have identified the (original) owner as Kamose's queen believe she was also called Ahhotep (see, e.g., ROTH, Serapis 4, 1977/78, 35), presuming the name, like Ahmose, was relatively common in the family.

(2) The actual find spot is presumed to be a cache where the burial was secreted to protect it from depredation subsequent to the tour of inspection recorded in pAbbott; see WINLOCK, JEA 10, 1924,274. - Winlock's reconstruction of the location of the tombs mentioned in that papyrus is untenable, however, since the position of the tomb of Amenhotep I, a crucial fixed point in the commission's route, is not known (d. the detailed critique of F.-J. SCHMITZ, Amenophis I. Versuch einer Darstellung der Regierungszeit eines ag. Herrschers .... , 205 ff.).

(3) Cf. the coffins of Ahmose Nefertari, CG 61003, and of Merytamun (WINLOCK, Tomb of Meryet-Amun, 19 ff., with pIs. XXI-XXVI), assuming that the latter was a contemporary of Amenhotep I (for which see GITTON, Les divines epouses, 49 ff., and ROBINS, JEA 73, 1987, 275).

(4) As was done in Maiherperi's case, according to Quihell's version of the discovery (see p.200, note 2, above).

(5) Cf. THOMAS, Royal Necropoleis, 17l.f., 235.

204

EGYPTE PHARAONIQUE

later Ramessides. The separation of Ahhotep's two coffins could then have occurred subsequently, when her mummy, still associated with CG 28501, was hidden for safe-keeping beneath the rubble of the plain below her tomb (1). According to this scenario, the oversize coffin CG 61006 - and perhaps any burial equipment not included in the inner coffin with the mummy as well - was appropriated at that time with an eye to its possible reemployement. An indeterminate number of years later, it was indeed put to good use, for the interment of Pinedjem I (2) and thus found its way ultimately to the Deir el Bahari cache.

Marianne EATON-KRAUSS

(1) See p. 204, note 2, above, and cf. GITTON, Les divines epouses, 21, for Thomas' assignment of Dra Abul'I Naga {< A» to Ahhotep. Cf. Maspero's reconstruction of events that he himself immediately rejected, however, having seen that the Dra Abu'l Naga coffin did not fit into CG 61006 (Momies royales, 545): {' Le corps et le cercueil interne [the Dra Abu'l Naga coffin] auraient ete enleves, puis caches en attendant Ie partage, les voleurs pris et mis a mort, avant d'avoir pu completer leur oeuvre. Le grand cercueil, laisse dans le tombeau, aurait ete transporte dans la cachette [TT 320] avec celui de Nofritari [CG 61003] .... ,)

(2) THOMAS, JARCE 16, 1979,88,92 n. 25, assigned the mummy of an anonymous lady (CG 61076) to the coffin as well, but added that she could not locate her reference for this attribution originally suggested in Royal Necropoleis, 237. - According to G. E. SMITH, The Royal Mummies (CG), 56 f., CG 61076 represented {< most of the bones of the skeleton of a young woman about 21 years of age », an estimate incompatible with what is now assumed to have been Ahhotep's career. Furthermore, the remains were supposedly «found in Baqt's coffin,» not in CG 61006. Cf. also GITTON, Les divines epouses, 10 n.3.

205