You are on page 1of 42

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 JEGH 3.

1
Also available online brill.nl/jegh DOI: 10.1163/187416610X487241
VICEROYS, VIZIERS & THE AMUN PRECINCT:
THE POWER OF HEREDITY AND STRATEGIC
MARRIAGE IN THE EARLY 18TH DYNASTY*
J J Shirley
Abstract
The early 18th Dynasty was a time of military and political reorganization and
consolidation in which signicant administrative changes were enacted that were
likely designed to support a powerful and pervasive royal authority.
1
Certainly
the ofces of viceroy of Kush and vizier were a central feature of this, and the
rise of Amun and his priesthood with newly created positions was another
area which King Ahmose and his successors sought to promote. While initially the
kings may have chosen men to ll the positions of viceroy and vizier, and likely
several high posts within the Amun precinct, some ofce-holders were quickly
able to establish family dynasties that would last for several generations. This
paper reviews the connections, both political and familial, between the viceroys,
viziers and various ofcials of the Amun domain. It seeks to demonstrate the
considerable role that one elite family, utilizing heredity, marriage and nepotism,
was able to play in controlling a wide range of positions within the burgeoning
18th Dynasty government.
* A reduced version of this paper was originally given at the 58th Annual ARCE
Meeting, held April 2022, 2007 in Toledo, Ohio. The longer form was then pre-
sented at a workshop inaugurating the Journal of Egyptian History entitled In Search of
Egypts Past: Problems and Perspectives of the Historiography of Ancient Egypt, at the University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, April 2324, 2008. The workshop was hosted by
Professor Thomas Schneider, whom I would like to thank for the invitation. I would
also like to thank Robert Rittner for his suggestion of strategic marriage as a
way to dene the tactics used by early 18th Dynasty elite families. Peter Piccione
generously shared his primary data used for his online GIS database of the Theban
Necropolis, for which I am especially grateful. In addition, I must acknowledge the
work of Ashley Fiutko who patiently and painstakingly created the maps of the
Theban Necropolis for this article. Finally, I am grateful to Betsy Bryan, Violaine
Chauvet, Aidan Dodson, Steve Harvey, Kasia Szpakowska and Raphael Cunniff for
their comments and suggestions, all of which certainly improved the nal product.
Any remaining mistakes or aws of logic are purely those of the author.
1
According to van den Boorns dating of the Duties of the Vizier this was already
occurring under King Ahmose; see van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, 347 ff., 355 ff.,
368 ff. But cf. Spalinger, Review of G.P.F. van den Boorn, for a different view of the
reforms reected in the Duties (he prefers a Middle Kingdom date). See also the
review by Lorton, Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. For a recent
overview of King Ahmoses administration, see Barbotin, hmosis, 99112.
74 j j shirley
Introduction
Our knowledge of the events which occurred at the end of the
Second Intermediate Period into the early 18th Dynasty comes
from a variety of sources, including, e.g., the Kamose stelae, private
autobiographies and archaeological remains at Tell el-Daba and
Abydos. Much of the information that can be gleaned from these
sources focuses on the military campaigns led by the late 17th
Theban rulers and early 18th Dynasty kings against their Hyksos
opponents; and the logistics of these early campaigns, the routes
taken and the reasons for them are all topics that have been con-
sidered by other scholars in detail.
2
The purpose of this paper is to
examine the other side of the edgling 18th Dynasty and bur-
geoning empire. That is, as Egypt found herself once again in com-
mand and control of an extensive area, stretching from Sharuhen
in southern Palestine to Sai in Nubia, how did King Ahmose and
his successors effectively organize the administration of Egypt and
its extending borders? And as Egypts and the kings control
and power continued to grow both internally and externally, how
was the newly (re-)founded bureaucracy formed? Our ability to
examine these issues comes in part from the material culture of
the ofcials who served the early and mid-18th Dynasty kings.
From the evidence it would appear that at its earliest stages three
important areas of administration, namely viceroy, vizier and the
Amun precinct, were connected by family ties. How did this come
about, and was it, as has been suggested,
3
intentional on the part
of King Ahmose and his successors, or rather a testament to the
power of elite families at the beginning of the New Kingdom? By
examining the ofce holders and families found within these three
areas of the government viceroys, viziers and the Amun precinct
we gain a more informed understanding of the interplay between
elite families and the newly established royal line.
2
See, for example, the various publications of Bietak and others on Tell el-Daba
listed at http://www.auaris.at/html/bibliographie_en.html); Harvey, The Cults of King
Ahmose at Abydos, 35 ff. and 303 ff.; Morris, Imperialism, 27113; Spalinger, War, 183;
Spalinger, Covetous Eyes South; Redford, Wars, 18594.
3
See supra note 1.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 75
Viceroys
The position of kings son and overseer of southern countries, or
viceroy,
4
was created during the early 18th Dynasty, perhaps
appearing under Kamose, but certainly in place during the reign
of King Ahmose.
5
A great deal has been written about the order-
ing and chronology of the mid-18th Dynasty viceroys, where the
documentation is problematic at best.
6
However, perhaps because
of this, the viceroys of the early 18th Dynasty have been somewhat
neglected, and an aspect that has not been considered in detail
concerns the involvement of the viceroys in the Amun priesthood.
Nor has the probable familial relationship between the 18th Dynasty
viceroys and viziers been fully explored (see below: Viziers).
The work of Habachi
7
on the family of the earliest ofcials who
held the full title of viceroy has resulted in a solid geneaological
reconstruction spanning ve generations (Fig. 1). Our knowledge
of the familys patriarch, Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit, is slight, based only
on monuments belonging to his son Ahmose-T( j)uro and great-
grandson Tety/Tetitiy. On one of Turos seated statues (BM/EA
1279) Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit is referred to only as the scribe of
divine offerings of Amun s /tp-njr n mn and called simply
Sayit.
8
However, on Tetys block statue (BM/EA 888) he is called a
4
I follow previous scholars in assigning the title of viceroy only to those ofcials
who were both kings son and overseer of southern countries.
5
Spalinger, Covetous Eyes South, 346 f., 351, 353. Cf. Habachi, Knigssohn
von Kusch, 63031; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 11112 (= JARCE 13, 113); Habachi,
Sixteen Studies, 155 f. During the 17th Dynasty, holders of the title and ofce of kings
son appear to have been entrusted with a wide variety of duties. See Polz, Der Beginn
des Neuen Reiches, 305 f.; cf. Schmitz, Untersuchungen zum Titel s-njwt.
6
The earliest work is that of Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia, and Gauthier,
Les ls royaux de Kouch ; followed by Habachi, Sixteen Studies and Knigssohn
von Kusch; Dewachter, Une nouvelle statue du vice-roi de Nubie; Dewachter, Le
vice-roi Nehy; Dewachter, Un nouveau ls royal; Dewachter, Le roi Sahathor
Complements,; Schmitz, Knigssohn. The most recent discussions are those of El-
Sabbahy, Kings Son of Kush under Hatshepsut; Pamminger, Nochmals zum
Problem der Vizekonige; Dziobek Some Kings Sons Revisted; Bcs, A name
with three (?) orthographies. See also Bryan, The Eighteenth Dynasty before the
Amarna Period, 1012; Spalinger, Covetous Eyes South, 346 f., 351, 353.
7
Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, Ch. 35.
8
A sandstone seated statue, possibly from Kerma, BM/EA 1279. Turo gives his
lineage on either side of the statue seat; on the left side he is

r.n s /tp-njr n Imn


S-y

t m-rw. See Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 916, g. 345 (= Kush 9, 21014, pl.
XXXVIII); Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 29 ff. (= Kush 5, 13 ff.); PM VII, 180; Gauthier,
Les ls royaux de Kouch, 185; Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia, 78; British
Museum, Guide, 182 (no. 653). Although the correct ofcial, Eichler, Die Verwaltung
76 j j shirley
viceroy s nsw

my-r swt rsyt and his full name, Ahmose-Satayt,


is used.
9
Tetys block statue also provides additional genealogical
information, solidifying the kinship connections between these men.
The inscription on the back pillar provides Tetys ancestry for three
generations, naming Tety as the son of Ahmose-Patjen, who was
the son of Ahmose-Turo, himself the son of Ahmose-Satayt.
10
In
addition, on the statues front the horizontal line of text along the
bottom indicates that the statue was dedicated by Tetys own son
Hori, a scribe of divine offerings of Amun, thus giving us ve gen-
erations of this family.
11
The father-son relationship between Turo
and Ahmose-Patjen is conrmed by a second seated statue of Turo,
erected at Deir el-Bahri, and made for him by Ahmose-Patjen, who
is referred to as Turos son (s.f ) and called the scribe of divine offer-
ings s /tp njr.
12
The nal male family member is another son of
Ahmose-Patjen, named Amunemhab, who erected a block statue of
his own father at Deir el-Bahri.
13
This Amunemhab, like his father
and brother, functioned within the Amun precinct as a scribe of
divine offerings of Amun and also as a 4th priest of Amun /tp-njr
4 n Imn.
14
Finally, several female members of the family are named
on the monuments of their husbands and sons, though little else is
known about them. Turo names his mother Satiah on the seated
des Hauses des Amun, no. 009, incorrectly gives the name as Ahmose son of (Ta-)yit
rather than Ahmose-Satayt.
9
A quartzite block statue, possibly from Deir el-Bahri, BM/EA 888. See Habachi,
Sixteeen Studies, 669, g. 256, and 789 (= Kush 7, pl. XVXVI); Gauthier, Les ls
royaux de Kouch, 183; Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts V, 9, pl. 25; Schulz, Die Entwicklung
und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus I, 377, no. 218.
10
See above. The inscription, which comprises one horizontal row above three
vertical columns, reads: (1) s nsw _ry-/b /r-tp // Tty (2) s.f s /tp-njr n Imn I/-ms
Pjn m-_rw (3) s s-nsw

my-r swt rsyt I/-ms Twr m-rw (4) s s-nsw

my-r swt rsyt


I/-ms S-tyt m-rw.
11
The inscription reads: s.f s /tp-njr n Imn Hr

ms.n nbt pr Mwt-nsw. Cf. Eichler,


Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 438.
12
A sandstone seated statue from Deir el-Bahri. On the right side of the seat the
last three columns give Turos title and name followed by: (x+2)

r.n

n s.f sn rn
(x+3) [.f s /tp-njr n Imn I/-ms] _d n.f Pjn m-rw r njr . The last column on the
left side reads: . . .

n s mr.f sn rn.f s /tp-njr n Imn. See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 6976,


84 f. (= Kush 7, 4853, 59, g. 37, pl. XVIIXVII); Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple
Part III, 8, pl. IX Ca-f; Helck, Historisch-biographische Texte, 114 ff.
13
A black granite statue from Deir el-Bahri, Chicago OIM 8653. See Habachi,
Sixteeen Studies, 767, g. 32 (= Kush 7, 534, g. 8); Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple
Part III, 2, pl. IV 3, VIIIA; Schulz, Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus
I, 121, no. 47. Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 008.
14
Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 076, who however leaves
out the 4th priest of Amun title.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 77
statue mentioned above (BM/EA 1279)
15
and included the name
of his wife Hapi in the inscription he left on a limestone temple
gateway at Buhen.
16
A seated pair statue of Ahmose-Patjen and
his wife preserves a portion of her name as Tar . . .,
17
and on Tetys
block statue his wife Mutnesu is given as his son Horis mother.
18

From the inscriptions on the statues mentioned above it becomes
clear that two main positions were held by this family: viceroy by
Satayt and Turo, and scribe of divine offerings of Amun by all
but Turo, who, however, was a scribe of the temple and seems to
have had other temple-related positions.
19
Yet the only extensive
information we have on this family concerns Turo and his grandson
Tety, who functioned within the Amun precinct in both priestly
and administrative capacities.
20
Even so, Turo is the only family
member for whom a clear career path can be reconstructed based
on contemporaneously dated inscriptions.
21

15
Turo gives his lineage on either side of the statue seat; on the right side he is
ms.n nbt pr St-

/ mt-rw. See supra note 8.


16
UPenn Museum E10987. The thickness of the door depicts Tjuro and his wife
standing facing each other above a 5-row /tp-d

-nsw inscription; the last line reads


/mt.f nbt pr Hp

. See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 82 (= Kush 7, 57), 156; PM VII, 130;


Randall-MacIver, Buhen, 88; Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia, 29, 1a; Sve-
Sderbergh, Agypten und Nubien, 144 n.7; Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 767, 198, 207
Anm. 7, pl. LXXX 3; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, 136.
17
A black grano-diorite statue, probably from Thebes, MFA 1972.359. See
Simpson, Ah-mose, called Pa-tjenna and Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty
18, 3740; Eggebrecht and Eggebrecht, gyptens aufsteig zur Weltmacht, 206 no. 130.
The end of the 7-column inscription on the right side is partially lost, reading: n k
n T-r //////// /m-njr 4 n Imn nb //// Imn //// which, based on the space avail-
able, could plausibly be restored with their son Amunemhabs name as // [

n s.sn]
/m-njr 4 n Imn nb [nsty n twy ?] // [s /tp-njr n Imn] Imn-m-/b. Although Simpson
suggested that the broken area could give the name of Tar . . .s father (Simpson,
Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty 18, 40), it seems more likely that it is
the sons name as the dedicator of the statue. This interpretation is supported by
the left side of the seat where following the only 5-column inscription the remaining
space is taken up by a male gure in an offering pose with his right arm outstretched
and reaching into the nal column of the inscription, containing Ahmose-Patjens
name. This side is likewise damaged, though there would be space below Patjens
name either for a dedication or inclusion of lineage, while above the gure additional
text could have been placed.
18
BM/EA 888, see supra note 9. Her name and liation is included in the line of
text also giving their son Horis name: s.f s /tp-njr n Imn Hr

ms.n nbt pr Mwt-nsw.


19
Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 008 (Ahmose-Satayt), no.
009 (Ahmose-Patjen), no. 076 (Amunemhab), no. 438 (Hori), no. 547 (Tety); she does
not include Turo in her catalog.
20
Tetys titles are listed on his block statue, BM/EA 888; see supra note 9.
21
Cf. Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 819 (= Kush 7, 5664), 156-57. As all of Tetys
titles come from his one block statue, BM/EA 888, any chronological reconstruction
of his career would be both relative and speculative.
78 j j shirley
Satiah
nbt pr
Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit
s /tp-njr n Imn
s-nsw

my-r swt rsyt


Amunemhab
s /tp-njr n Imn
/m-ntr 4 n Imn (? )
Ahmose-Turo/Tjuro/Tjuri Hapi
s /wt / s/-njr

t njr

my-r kw
/m-njr tp
jsw n Bhn
s-nsw (n)

my-r swt rsyt


Ahmose-Paten/Patjen/Patjena Ta-r///
s /tp-njr n Imn _krt nswt
Tety/Tetitiy Mutnesu
s /tp-njr n Imn nbt pr
/ry st m pr Imn
/mw m pr Pt/
s oot
_ry-/o /r-t
/m-njr w Tfnwt
/m-njr Hr

my-r so
sm n pr dwt
Hor(i)
s /tp-njr n Imn
Fig. 1 Genealogy of the Early 18th Dynasty Viceroys and Their Families.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 79
Before becoming viceroy, Turo, like his father, was a member of
the priesthood. Two grafti, one from Abu Simbel
22
and the other
from Abuhuda,
23
document that he was the scribe of the temple
(or perhaps shrine),
24
gods father, overseer of cattle, /ty-, and high
priest. A statuette which may have belonged to Turo also gives the
title w b-priest of Montu, lord of Thebes.
25
The Abu Simbel inscrip-
tion, and thus the time frame for which Turo held these positions,
can be rmly dated to in or before year eighteen of King Ahmose
by the paleography of Turos name, which is written in its full form,
Ahmose-Turo, with the

/-, or moon-, sign (Gardiner N11/12)


turned upwards.
26
The inscriptions Turo left on the North Temple
gateway at Buhen,
27
which he erected for King Ahmose, indicate
that before regnal year eighteen Turo also became the commander
(jsw) of the fortress at Buhen.
28
Although only Turos shortened
name is given, on the lintel of the gateway the writing of King
Ahmose and his mother Ahhoteps names are done with the points
of the

/-sign facing upwards, indicating a pre-year eighteen date.


The progression of Turos career is enhanced by his Deir el-Bahri
statue inscription mentioned above
29
and its similarities to the
22
Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 81 (= Kush 7, 56); Gauthier, Les ls royaux de Kouch,
182; Lepsius, Denkmler, Text V, 168. The text reads: ir.n s /wt/s/ njr it-njr

my-r kw
/ty- /m-njr tpy I/-ms _d.f Tw-r m-rw.
23
Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 82 (= Kush 7, 57); Weigall, Antiquities of Lower Nubia, 139;
Maspero, Notes de voyage, 159; PM VII, 119. The text reads: s /wt/s/ njr Tw-r.
24
/wt njr = WB III, 5.1: in titles of temple ofcials, e.g. temple scribe. s/ njr =
WB III, 465.6: temple building for offerings and 465.7: in titles alone or with gods
name following.
25
The limestone statuette comes from Deir el-Bahri and dates to early Dynasty
18. It was dedicated by Turos son and likely intended as a votive piece. See Hall,
Hieroglyphic Texts V, 8, pl. 24, no. 40960.
26
Based on dated inscriptions King Ahmose changed the writing of his name
around regnal year 18, turning the i/ moon-sign downwards. See Vandersleyen, Une
stle dAmosis where he revises the year 17 date he posited in Les Guerres dAmosis,
205 ff. See also the recent discussion by Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 1420, 57 f.,
which mentions the possible existence of a year 22 writing of Ahmoses name with
the i/-sign facing upwards.
27
Upenn Museum E10987. See supra note 16. According to Smith, the lintel,
jambs and right thickness, which were found reused in the oor of Chamber E,
were originally part of the doorway between chambers E and D of the temple, and
were inscribed not earlier than King Ahmoses year twelve, but it is unclear why he
concluded this; see Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 767, 198, 207 Anm. 7.
28
Below the kings titulary on both jambs are three rows of text that read: (1)

n
jsw (2) n Bhn (3) _wr

w/m n. On the right thickness the gures of Turo and his wife
Hapi stand facing each other with ve rows of text below containing the /tp-d

-nsw
formula for the k of (3) jsw n Bhn (4) _wr

w/m n (5) /mt.f nbt pr Hpy.


29
See supra note 12.
80 j j shirley
text of Seni, the viceroy who succeeded Turo during the reign of
Thutmose I.
30
While the sides and rear of Turos seated statue
contain the typical /tp-d

-nsw formula, the inscriptions along the


front and around the pedestal seem to form a narrative of Turos
career. Based on what remains, it appears that the front inscriptions
formed one unit and the pedestal another, with each side of the
pedestal designed to be read before moving to the next, starting at
the right. A plausible reconstruction is that Turo was in charge of
inspecting the entire Medjay,
31
then was involved with or perhaps
rewarded with items worked in gold before being sent or brought
as viceroy to the Southern Countries.
32
Although it seems likely
that Turo had these duties while commander at Buhen, the use of
the verb / in reference to becoming viceroy, as well as the dam-
aged condition of the inscription, do leave open the possibility that
Turo held another, as yet unknown title.
While the rst dated inscription for Turo as viceroy comes from
the early years of Amunhotep Is reign, it is possible that he was
promoted by King Ahmose sometime after year eighteen. This is
suggested by both the provenance of several of Turos monuments
and the writing of his name on them. A scarab of the viceroy
Turo was found in a grave at Semna, and a fragment of a sandstone
statue and a jar-sealing on which Turo is called kings son were
both found at Buhen.
33
In addition, on BM/EA 1279 which was
30
Urk.IV, 39 ff. and 141 f. See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 84 f. (= Kush 7, 59 f.), 156
f.; Breasted, Second Preliminary Report, 105; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos.
34243; Pamminger, Nochmals zum Problem der Vizekonige; el-Sabbahy, Kings
Son of Kush under Hatshepsut; Dziobek, Some Kings Sons Revisted; Save-
Soderbergh, 1941, 2089; Dewachter, Le vice-roi Nehy; Simpson, Heka-Nefer and
the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna, 334; Spalinger, Covetous Eyes South,
353; Helck, Verwaltung, 41920.
31
Based on the vertical inscription on the statues front. Along the left front of
the statue (the only vertical inscription remaining): ///// s

p.n.f M_yw m

/d.f n t
n mr (sic mn ?) /ry-

b ////. The right side of the pedestal is lost, but in comparison


to Senis Kumma inscription, may have contained the beginning of this inscription
with Turos titles and name, cf. Urk. IV, 1412.
32
The front contains the phrases (1) . . . bkw m nbw and (3)

w p/.n.

(continuing
on the left side) (1) swt rsyt m s nswt

my-r swt rsyt. While it is uncertain whether


the inscriptions formed a contiguous narrative, it does seem likely, especially given
the comparison to Senis inscription (Urk. IV, 3941). Cf. Habachi, Sixteen Studies,
85 (= Kush 7, 59).
33
The scarab was found in grave S.711 at Semna (no. 2445); see Habachi,
Sixteen Studies, 86 (= Kush 7, 60). Only a fragment of the statue base was found; see
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 156 n.7; Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 132 no. 1629, 198, 208, pl.
31, 3. According to Smith, it was found as part of the ll for the enclosure wall of
the South Temple, which was built during the reign of Hatshepsut. The jar-sealing
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 81
found near Kerma and which was likely erected during Turos
lifetime, he is referred to as the viceroy Ahmose-Turo, with his full
name written with the

/-sign facing downwards.


34
King Ahmose
changed the paleography of his name around year eighteen in
precisely this manner an alteration that the elite would certainly
have quickly followed in their own names. This combined evidence
could support the idea that during the last half of King Ahmoses
reign Turo was promoted to succeed his father Satayt as viceroy
after having served in priestly capacities and as commander of
Buhen during the rst half of King Ahmoses reign, while has
father was still viceroy.
35

Whether Turo was promoted by King Ahmose is uncertain, but
his grafti at Semna West
36
and Uronarti, the latter with the year
and prenomen of Amunhotep I (Djeserkare),
37
demonstrate that
certainly by year seven or eight of Amunhotep I (c.1518/17 BCE)
Turo was kings son, overseer of southern countries, i.e., viceroy.
Turo apparently served as viceroy throughout Amunhotep Is twenty
year reign, and was sent a royal decree by Thutmose I announc-
ing his ascension to the throne.
38
The last known date for Turo as
viceroy is from year three of Thutmose I (c.1501 BCE), when he
was involved in clearing a canal near the 1st cataract that was used
by Thutmose on his return from campaigns in Kush.
39

It would thus seem that Turo, like his father, was rst a member
of the priesthood before becoming viceroy. However, Turo also
came from the commanders palace (Block A, Room 4) and Smith dates it to later
in Turos career (Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 208).
34
See supra note 8. This writing is also used on Turos sandstone seated statue
from Deir el-Bahri (see supra note 12), though this has the name restored, and on his
grandson Tetys statue, BM/EA 888 (see supra note 9).
35
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 156; Gauthier, Les ls royaux de Kouch, 185; cf.
Sve-Sderbergh, Agypten und Nubien, 197 n. 7.
36
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 82 (= Kush 7, 57); Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia,
29, 1b; Breasted, Second Preliminary Report, 108.
37
Inscribed on the walls of Amunhotep Is temple to Dedwen and Montu. See
Habachi Sixteen Studies, 823 (= Kush 7, 578); Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia,
29, 1c; Urk. IV 78 (29); cf. PM VII, 14344.
38
Preserved on stelae from Quban (Berlin 13725) and Wadi Halfa (CM 34006). See
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 83 (= Kush 7, 58), 157; Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia,
29, 1d; PM VII, 84, 141; Urk IV, 7981; Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 198, 208.
39
Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 33, 12, g. 6-Inscr. 1 (= Kush 5, 15, plate V, Insc.
1) and 834 (= Kush 7, 589); Reisner, The Viceroys of Ethiopia, 29, 1e; de
Morgan, Catalogue, 85, 13 and 19; Urk. IV 8990 (34)BC; PM V, 250. Cf. Helck,
berlegungen zur Geschichte, 28384; Schmitz, Knigssohn, 456; Smith, Buhen,
207; Morkot, Studies in New Kingdom Nubia I, 30; Kadry, Ofcers and Ofcials,
10; Spalinger, Covetous Eyes South, 351.
82 j j shirley
appears to have followed a somewhat planned path, moving from
the priesthood to military commander of Buhen and then to the
civil position of viceroy.
40
This could suggest that his father, for
whom only the two titles scribe of divine offerings of Amun
and viceroy are known, may have been hand-picked out of the
priesthood for the post of viceroy by King Ahmose as part of his
efforts to form a strong government whose top ofcials would have
clear loyalty to the king.
41
In contrast, Turos more uid path to
the viceroyalty reects Satayts ability to groom his son for the post
and demonstrates that this family had some degree of power in
Nubia, at least for a short time, since Turo was unable to retain
control, and the viceroy who succeeded him during the reign of
Thutmose I was not his son Ahmose-Patjen, but an unrelated man
called Seni.
42

In fact, when one compiles the titles listed by Turos family on
their various monuments (see Fig. 1) what becomes apparent is
that it is not the position of viceroy that was held by this family
throughout the early-mid 18th Dynasty, but rather that of scribe
of divine offerings of Amun. With the exception of Turo, every
known male relative for six generations held this position, though,
as was noted above, Turo also started out in the priesthood as the
scribe of a temple or shrine. Indeed, by the fourth generation the
family seems to have been well entrenched in the priesthood overall,
both as priests and administrators. The connection between Turos
family and the Amun precinct will be returned to below, following
a discussion of the familial relationship between the early 18th
Dynasty viceroys and viziers.
40
The promotion of Turo from military commander to viceroy is accompanied
by the transition from military to civil ofcials being placed in charge of the newly
re-won and re-furbished fortress in Lower Nubia as witnessed by Turos successor at
Buhen being termed mayor rather than commander. See most recently Spalinger,
Covetous Eyes South, 351.
41
Cf. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, 347 ff., 355 ff.
42
See supra note 30. Of note is that Seni also held Amun-related titles before
becoming viceroy, he was an overseer (of something) under King Ahmose (Urk.
IV, 39 ff.), during the reign of Amunhotep I he became overseer of the granary of
Amun to direct construction work at Karnak and mayor of Thebes (Urk. IV, 142),
and became kings son and overseer of southern countries under Thutmose III
(Urk. IV, 41.8). Whether or not Seni should be equated with the mayor of Thebes
Seni-res, known from the tomb of his son Djhutynefer, TT317, is uncertain, but
if Ineni (the architect of Thutmose Is tomb) did in fact take over the position of
overseer of the granaries of Amun from Seni in year 3 when Seni became viceroy,
then it seems plausible that Ineni also became mayor of Thebes at this time, taking
over for Seni/Seni-res; cf. Dziobek, Ineni, 125.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 83
Viziers
While the position of viceroy was created at the start of the 18th
Dynasty, that of vizier seems to not have been re-introduced until
the reign of Thutmose I.
43
The rst known vizier, Imhotep, served
under Thutmose I, but it is his successor Ahmose-Aametu who
presents us with a line of viziers that is in many ways the example
par excellence of the ability of ofcials at the beginning of the 18th
Dynasty to retain control over a position through multiple genera-
tions and several kings, from Thutmose I through the early years
of Amunhotep II.
Beginning with Ahmose-Aametu the ofce of vizier is trace-
able through three generations of the same family on the basis
of numerous monuments.
44
Although our knowledge of Ahmose-
Aametus ancestors and early career is extremely sparse,
45
that of
his descendants is not. Indeed, the majority of our information
about his family comes from the monuments of Aametus son and
successor as vizier Useramun,
46
as well as Useramuns nephew,
and also successor, Rekhmire. This extensive family dominated
the vizierate by employing the staff of old age (mdw

w) and
heredity to maintain their position.
47
In Useramuns case, he was
appointed as a mdw

w for his aging father; a process he recorded


in his lower tomb (TT131) in the so-called Co-Installation Text.
48

After becoming vizier in year ve of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III,
Useramun retained his position until sometime between years 28
43
While there are references to viziers during the 13th and 16th Dynasties, none
are known for the 15th, 17th or even early 18th Dynasties; Imhotep, who served
under Thutmose I, is the rst attested vizier. See Hornung, Amunophis I, 202;
Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 ff.
44
For a useful listing of this family and their monuments see Dziobek, Denkmler,
10328.
45
For a complete list of Aametus monuments, with full citations, and including
the titles Aametu held on each monument see Dziobek, Denkmler, 10311. Aametus
personal monuments include his unpublished tomb in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (TT83)
and a statue from Karnak (Nr. E134). In addition, he is depicted and/or mentioned
in TTs 131, 100, 228, 122, and 82, Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no. 17, as well as on
several statues, stele and funerary cones belonging to his relatives. For TT83, see also
the discussion in Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 28284.
46
For a complete discussion of Useramun, including his career and monuments,
see Dziobek, Denkmler and Die Grber des Vezirs.
47
See Shirley, Culture of Ofcialdom, 8095.
48
The text is located on the west end of the southeast wall and includes a pre-
sentation scene of Useramun and his father before Thutmose III. See the discussion
in Dziobek, Denkmler, 1621.
84 j j shirley
and 34 of Thutmose IIIs sole reign.
49
He was succeeded as vizier
by his nephew Rekhmire, who appears to have inherited the ofce
due to his family ties and perhaps because none of Useramuns
own sons were eligible.
50
Rekhmire certainly stresses his kinship to
both Usermaun and Aametu in his own tomb, TT100, above those
of his own parents, perhaps in an effort to emphasize his familial
right to inherit the position. Before becoming vizier Rekhmire also
held several administrative posts within the Amun precinct which
may have assisted in his rise to vizier over Useramuns other sons.
51

Indeed, in addition to the vizierate, Aametu and his descendants
can be found throughout the Amun domain both priestly and
administrative a feature which will be more fully explored below
(Thebes and the Amun Cult).
First however, the relationship between the viziers and viceroys
during the early 18th Dynasty will be examined. The connection
between these two ofces, and the ofce-holders, is based on the
Silsilah shrine of Useramun.
52
On the north wall of the shrine
Useramun stands offering to his parents with three registers of
offering bearers behind him. In the bottom register Useramuns
siblings are depicted ve brothers on the left and three sisters,
53

49
Year 5 is provided by Papyrus Turin 1. Year 28 of Thutmose III is the last
attested date for Useramun as vizier, provided by a stela in the tomb of his steward,
Amunemhat TT82, PM I.1, 16367. Papyrus Louvre E.3226 provides the earliest
date for Rekhmire as vizier, in year 34 of Thutmose III.
50
For this argument, see Dziobek, Denkmler, 12628.
51
Prior to becoming co-vizier, Useramun was an ofcial in the Amun priesthood;
cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, 1001. Rekhmire, unlike Useramuns sons who were primarily
priests in the Amun precinct, does not seem to have had many of the same Amun
and Karnak related titles held by Useramun. Signicantly, Rekhmire did not have any
titles that dealt with the divine seal, and his positions were primarily administrative in
nature. In addition, in contrast to Useramun, most of Rekhmires Amun or Karnak
related titles seem to be those that come under his jurisdiction as vizier (e.g. overseer
of all craftsmen of Amun, controller of all work in Karnak) rather than necessar-
ily being titles that he held independent of assuming this ofce (Helck, Verwaltung,
45ff.; Kees, Priestertum, 81. See also Allen, The High Ofcials of the Early Middle
Kingdom, 15 and Quirke, The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom, 118
on this trend in the Middle Kingdom.) This may suggest that a specic path to the
vizierate through the Amun priesthood did not exist, or perhaps that an administra-
tive role in the Amun precinct was important and thus Rekhmires placement within
the precinct was more signicant than that of Useramuns sons.
52
Shrine 17; see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl. 46.
53
All of the children are called s.f / st.f with reference to Ahmose-Aametu. The
brothers are, from right to left:

my-r nt Amunemhat,

my-r n n Imn Neferhotep (see


Shirley, One Tomb, Two Owners, forthcoming, for the restoration of the name),
wb n Imn Neferweben, wb n Mwt Nacht/Amunnacht, and wb Hor; the sisters from
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 85
along with Useramuns wife Tuiu, and three other female relatives
on the right.
54
At the head of the row of women stands the kings
son and overseer of southern countries Turo. No liation is given
for Turo, making his relationship to Aametus family and reason
for inclusion in this scene unclear.
Dziobek has suggested that Turos presence in the Silsilsah shrine
was due to him being a distinguished colleague and a generational
contemporary of Aametus and hence a family friend. In support
of this he posits that the children of both Turo and Aametu were
active in the priesthood connected to Deir el-Bahri, but that Turos
wife being Hapi likely precludes an intermarriage of these families.
55

However, as we do not know anything about Aametus siblings,
Turos wife Hapi, whose parents are likewise unknown, certainly
could have been a relative of Aametu. As will be seen below, there
is also a similarity in name-patterns between Aametus and Turos
families which is germane to the discussion and may indicate an
even closer relationship. In addition, a familial connection is sug-
gested by the nature of the Silsilah shrines as family monuments
that often depict multiple generations, and the fact that the per-
sons depicted in the shrines as recipients, as well as those around
them, when identiable, are exclusively family members.
56
Thus
the question of a family relationship, either through marriage or
blood, must be re-visited.
While Aametu and Turo could have been colleagues of differ-
ent ages and thus loosely contemporary the relative ages of
Aametu and Turo are relevant for ascertaining a marital or lial
bond between the men, and hence should be reexamined. Dziobek
suggests that Turo left or retired as viceroy just as Aametu became
left to right: Ahmose, Ahhotep, Sentihotep. See Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.
46; Dziobek, Denkmler, 11219, pl. 67. Aametus sons are also found in TT100
of Rekhmire in the same order, with Useramun placed between Amunemhat and
Neferhotep; see Davies, Rekh-mi-r I, pl. IX; Dziobek, Denkmler, pl. 8.
54
Tuiu, called /mt s.f, follows the sisters, with the three nal women standing
behind her. The rst of these, deginated /mt s.f Baket is probably a sister-in law of
Useramun, with perhaps two more sisters or even daughters of Useramun, st.f Baket
and //[Nofretar]i, at the end of the row. Cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, 11419.
55
Dziobek (Denkmler, 136 f.) bases the Deir el-Bahri connection on the nd spot
of several statues. See discussion below.
56
It was not unusual to include ones colleagues in contemporary tomb scenes, as
banquet guests alongside family members, for example in TT82 of the viziers steward
Amunemhat and TT56 of the scribe of counting bread Userhat. However this practice
was apparently not followed at Silsilah, see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, 4 ff.
86 j j shirley
vizier, so there would not have been a large age difference between
them.
57
However, if one retired as the other attained his highest
position, it implies that not only would they not really be colleagues,
but could also be rather distant in age. Indeed, when the careers
of Aametu and Turo are charted it becomes clear that at the very
least there was a generation gap between them and thus can not
be truly labeled as close contemporaries with regard to age. We
know that Useramun succeeded his father Aametu as vizier in year
ve of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III (c.1474 BCE). Following Dziobek,
if we assume Aametu was approximately sixty years of age at this
time, then Aametu was born during the latter half of Ahmoses
reign, c.1534 BCE and had a roughly forty-year career spanning the
reigns of Amunhotep I to the early years of Hatshepsut/Thutmose
III, having become vizier under Thutmose I.
58
This estimated date
of birth accords well with the paleography of Aametus full name,
Ahmose-Aametu, in his tomb (TT83), as the points of the

/-sign
are turned downwards.
59
Turo however was already a commander of Buhen under King
Ahmose and early in the reign of Thutmose I retired or was
replaced as viceroy.
60
Indeed, from Turos earliest inscriptions it
57
Dziobek, Denkmler, 136 f.
58
Dziobek, Denkmler, 111. Dziobek assumes that Aametu had a 40 year career
that began around age 20 under Amunhotep I (c.1514 BCE) and that he became
vizier around age 40 under Thutmose I (c.1494 BCE). The assertion by Polz, Der
Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 284, that Aametu was born at the end of Dynasty 17 and
built his tomb late in the reign of King Ahmose or early Amunhotep I does not
seem plausible as this would place him at an extremely advanced age in year 5 of
Hatshepsut/Thutmose III.
59
It should be noted, however, that Aametus mothers name Iahhotep is also
written this way in his tomb. While it is possible that Aametu changed the writing
of his name to follow his king (as Turo did), this seems less likely given that even if
Aametu was born in the rst half of King Ahmoses reign, he would only be around
10 when the change occurred and around 20 when King Ahmose died a rather
early age and career stage to be so concerned with pleasing the king. In addition,
the writing of Iahhotep could perhaps be explained as a result of the paleographic
change; the same form is used for Turos parents names on his sandstone statue
(BM/EA 1279), and certainly their names could originally have been written with the

/-sign turned upwards.


60
On this issue it is interesting to note that around year two or three Thutmose
I campaigned in Upper Nubia, leaving inscriptions at the 3rd and 4th cataracts.
Could it be, as Dziobek suggested (Some Kings Sons Revisted, 31f.), that Turo
was replaced as viceroy following these campaigns due to his inability to effectively
control or police Egypts southern border in Lower Nubia? And following from this
it might be possible to suggest that Turo took up his position immediately preceding
Amunhotep Is campaigns to the 2nd cataract in year eight.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 87
seems likely that by King Ahmoses seventeenth year, c.1532 BCE,
Turo was at least in his mid-twenties, and quite possibly older, since
he held several priestly positions and had become commander of
Buhen by this point. If we put Turo at age twenty-ve in 1532
BCE then he was born c.1557 BCE in the late 17th Dynasty.
Our inscriptional evidence for Turos career as viceroy spans the
seventeen years from year seven of Amunhotep I to year three of
Thutmose I (c.15181501 BCE), during which time Turo would
have aged roughly from thirty-nine to fty-six.
61
In Thutmose Is
third year however, Aametu would have been only around thirty-
three, making him twenty-three years younger than Turo a not
insignicant difference.
This age difference can only be lessened by making Turo younger
and/or Aametu older, however such attempts result in unlikely
career scenarios. If Turo was born in c.1552 BCE and thus only
twenty when he was commander of Buhen which seems to be a
very young age for such a position of authority we are still left
with an eighteen year gap between the two men (with Aametu
born in c.1534 BCE).

On the other hand, if we increase Aametus
age to seventy upon his retirement in c.1474 BCE, this places his
birth at c.1544 BCE in the early years of King Ahmoses reign.
While long lives were not unknown for Egyptian royalty and the
elite, seventy is still a rather advanced age to postulate for Aametus
retirement.
62
Regardless, there is still a thirteen year gap (with Turo
born in c.1557 BCE) between the two men.
The only way that Turos presence in the Silsilah shrine can
be explained as due to his being a colleague also contemporary
in age with Aametu is if Turo was only twenty when he became
commander of Buhen, thus born in c.1552 BCE, and Aametu was
nearing seventy when he retired, thus born in c.1544 BCE, which
results in only an eight year gap between them. This would mean
that as Turo retired and Aametu became vizier they would be fty-
one and forty-three respectively. However, as already mentioned,
61
This age range also allows for the possibility that Turo was promoted earlier by
King Ahmose, becoming viceroy in his late twenties or early thirties.
62
It may be worth noting here that in the Co-Installation Text in Useramuns
lower tomb (TT131) Thutmose IIIs courtiers request that Useramun be made as a
staff of old age (mdw

w) for his father Aametu because the vizier had reached old
age and his back was bowed with the weight of his responsibilities. The accompany-
ing scene does depict Aametu as slightly bent over, as if with a bowed back. Perhaps
then this is a representation of Aametus advanced age?
88 j j shirley
twenty seems a very young and unlikely age for Turo to already be
the highest military authority in Buhen as its commander, even given
his fathers position as viceroy; particularly because during King
Ahmoses reign Buhen was of signicant importance for Egypts
control of Nubia. Likewise, Aametu retiring at sixty is already an
advanced age, so adding another ten years seems equally dubious.
Thus the evidence and chronology indicate that there is certainly
a generation gap between Turo and Aametu and they are around
twenty-three years apart, making Turo signicantly closer in age to
Aametus parents than Aametu himself, and refuting the idea that
they were colleagues and generational contemporaries.
So if Aametu and Turo were not in fact colleagues and contem-
poraries in age, but instead were most likely a full generation apart,
why is Turo depicted in the Silsilah shrine? This brings us back
to the issue of a possible familial relationship. As noted above, a
familial connection is suggested by the nature of the Silsilah shrines
as exclusively family monuments. Dziobek is correct in asserting
that an intermarriage of the families did not exist, but not for the
reason he gives that Turos wife being Hapi precludes a marriage
between him and Aametus family; Turos marriage is in fact irrel-
evant. Rather, an intermarriage is not probable because the most
likely reconstruction is that Aametu and Turo were lially related.
It has already been mentioned that we know almost nothing about
Aametus ancestors or how he became vizier. Aametus fathers name
is unknown, but based on a ceiling inscription from his Theban
tomb (TT83) his mothers name was likely Iahhotep (I /-/tp).
63

We know Turos parents were Ahmose-Satayt and Satiah (St- /),
and based on the preceding discussion of the age gap between
Turo and Aametu, we can posit that Turo and Aametus mother
Iahhotep were close in age. The similarity in the names of these
four individuals incorporating Ahmose in the mens and Iah
in the womens names makes it possible to suggest that Iahhotep
was a sister of Turo, named in part after their mother Satiah in
a similar fashion to Turos full name Ahmose-Turo which follows
the pattern of their father. The reason for Turos inclusion in the
63
Found in the portico of TT83; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, 103, 111. Although
damaged, personal inspection by the author conrms that the name is written with
the

/ points turned down.


viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 89
Silsilah shrine is now clear: he was an honored family member who,
as viceroy, had held a position of great importance (Fig. 2).
Thus already at the very beginning of Dynasty 18 we have one
family holding, for multiple generations, the most important admin-
istrative positions as the respective heads of newly reunied and
re-bureaucratized Egypt, vizier, and re-conquered Nubia, viceroy.
Polz has suggested that the Theban 17th Dynasty kings entrusted
the duties traditionally assigned to the vizier to the kings son (s
nsw).
64
This possibility accords well with the familial relationship
between the viceroys and viziers proposed here and strengthens
the power of this family. Rather than having the position of vice-
roy move out of the family just as that of vizier enters into their
control, it can be suggested that Ahmose-Satayt and Turo were
both viziers in their capacity as kings sons, as well as viceroys;
and that shortly after the position of vizier was re-instituted it was
placed in this familys hands.
65
In addition, this extended family
also held positions throughout the Amun domain, the next area
for discussion.
Thebes and the Amun Cult
Within the Amun precinct based in Thebes we nd yet another area
of administration that was burgeoning in importance at the start
64
Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 f.
65
Was Thutmose I wary of having both Egypt and Lower Nubia effectively under
the control of one family, thus resulting in the replacement of Turo with an unrelated
man, who it must be noted, also had Theban and Amun connections? Seni also held
Amun-related titles before becoming vizier: he was an overseer (of something) under
King Ahmose (Urk. IV, 39 ff.), during the reign of Amunhotep I he became the
overseer of the granary of Amun and mayor of Thebes (Urk. IV, 142), and became
kings son and overseer of southern countries under Thutmose III; see Urk. IV,
41.8; Breasted, Second Preliminary Report, 105; Davies and Macadam, Corpus,
nos. 34243; Helck, Verwaltung, 41920; Dziobek, Ineni, 125. Although other titles are
unknown for Amunemnekhu, viceroy at least in yr. 18 of Hatshepsut-Thutmose III),
and nothing can be said of the elusive In . . . of year 20, it is clear that with the sole
reign of Thutmose III, and continuing under Amunhotep II, all the known viziers
have titles that reect both a military background and a close personal relationship to
the king, likely reecting a change in policy of the king. It is interesting to note that
under Thutmose IV the additional titles held by the viziers once again include a lack
of military and prevalence of Amun-related ofces, but whether this is a true return
to the earlier situation is unclear as the rise of the Ptahmose family in Memphis is
certainly also a factor. See discussions by Bryan, Thutmose IV, 244, 268 and Murnane
The Organization of the Government, esp. 202 ff. for Ptahmose.
90 j j shirley
M
u
t
n
e
s
u
n
b
t

p
r
R
e
k
h
m
i
r
e

M
e
r
y
t

5

s
o
n
s

3

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

m
y
-
r

n

w
t

j

t
y

m
y
-
r

I
m
n
e
t
c
.
S
a
t
i
a
h
n
b
t

p
r
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
S
a
t
a
y
t
/
S
a
y
i
t

s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n
s

-
n
s
w


m
y
-
r

s
w
t

r
s
y
t
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
T
u
r
o
/
T
j
u
r
o
/
T
j
u
r
i

H
a
p
i
s


/
w
t

/

s
/
-
n
j
r
j
s
w

n

B
h
n
s

-
n
s
w

(
n
)


m
y
-
r

s
w
t

r
s
y
t
e
t
c
.
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
A
a
m
e
t
u


T
a
-
a
m
e
t
u
j

t
y
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
P
a
t
e
n
/
P
a
t
j
e
n
/
P
a
t
j
e
n
a

T
a
-
r
/
/
/
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

_
k
r
t

n
s
w
t
A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
b
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n
/
m
-
n
t
r

4

n

I
m
n

(
?
)
T
e
t
y
/
T
e
t
i
t
i
y
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n
/
r
y
-
s


m

p
r

I
m
n
e
t
c
.
H
o
r
(
i
)
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n
U
s
e
r
a
m
u
n

T
j
u
i
u

N
e
f
e
r
w
e
b
e
n

B
e
t
a
u

6

s
o
n
s

5

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

m
y
-
r

n

w
t

j

t
y


w

b

n

I
m
n

_
k
r
t

n
s
w
t
s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n
e
t
c
.
?


I
a
h
h
o
t
e
p
M
e
n
k
h
e
p
e
r
r
e
s
o
n
e
b

2

s
o
n
s

1

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s


/
t
p
w
-
n
j
r

(
t
p
)

n

I
m
n
F
i
g
.

2

F
a
m
i
l
y

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
:

T
h
e

E
a
r
l
y

1
8
t
h

D
y
n
a
s
t
y

V
i
c
e
r
o
y
s

a
n
d

V
i
z
i
e
r
s
.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 91
of the New Kingdom, and perhaps even earlier.
66
King Ahmose
created two important new positions relating to the god Amun:
the ofces of high priest of Amun and Gods Wife of Amun. The
latter was certainly designed to strengthen royal ties to the priest-
hood as not only did King Ahmose establish the position for his
wife Ahmose-Nefertari, he bequeathed the ofce and its associ-
ated holdings to her and her chosen successors in perpetuity.
67
As
Barbotin notes, the position of high priest of Amun heightened the
power and prestige of the cult of the god as well as its servants, as
witnessed by the earliest ofce holders, who were also important
ofcials within the civil administration and the palace.
68
This early linking of the Amun cult with the civil and palace
administration is also seen in the both the viceroy and vizerate
families discussed above. As already observed with the viceroys, all
known members of Turos family held the position scribe of divine
offerings of Amun, and Turos grandchildren held several other
priestly and administrative posts as well. In the case of the viziers,
their descendants are placed throughout the Amun domain in a
wide variety of priestly and administrative ofces. This likely came
about through the marriage of the vizier patriarch, Aametu, into
the prominent Theban family of the mayor of Thebes and architect
of Thutmose Is tomb, Ineni. Inenis career, like Aametus, spanned
the reigns of Amunhotep I into the early years of Hatshepsut/
Thutmose III.
69
In addition to being mayor of Thebes, Ineni
also held a number of mid to upper-level administrative positions
66
Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 304 f.) suggests that already by the early to
mid 17th Dynasty the Theban rulers were refocusing their attention on Amun-Res
cult, especially at Karnak.
67
Recorded on the Donation stele, erected in Karnak. See, in general, Gitton,
Les divines pouses; Graefe, Untersuchungen . . . Gottesgemahlin des Amun; and the references
in Barbotin, hmosis, 106 ff.
68
Barbotin, hmosis, 106 ff. The rst known high priests are Djhuty, who served
under King Ahmose and was also overseer of the seal-bearers (

my-r tmw), and


Minmonth called Senires, who served under Kings Ahmose and Amunhotep I, and
in addition to being high priest of Amun and rst gods father of Amun held the
(probably) honoric title s_wt b

ty. See Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,


nos. 561 and 247; cf. Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prtres, 22628.
69
Ineni mentions his role in the construction of Thutmosis Is tomb in Thebes
in the lengthy autobiographical stele in his tomb, TT81 (PM I.1
2
, 15963), l.1114,
Urk. IV, 578. For the full text see Urk. IV, 5362; Dziobek, Ineni, 4455, pls. 34c,
42, 50, 63. Compare the shorter, less well preserved stele on the opposite wall, Urk.
IV, 626; Dziobek, Ineni, 559, pl. 51. For his career, see Dziobek, Ineni, 12241, and
his brief discussion in Denkmler, 111.
92 j j shirley
connected to the granaries and storehouses of the Amun temple
precinct, while several of his brothers were priests (Fig. 3).
70
In fact,
Ineni appears to have been childless, and it may be that he was
able to use his inuential positions within the Amun precinct and
Thebes to introduce his brothers into the priesthood.
Ineni depicted his many siblings in his tomb several times, and
included among them is a sister named Taametu, who became the
wife of the vizier Aametu (Fig. 3).
71
This marriage had a wide-rang-
ing impact on Aametus family. Seven of Aametus eight sons were
all priests or temple administrators, and of these four were involved
in the Amun priesthood, both at Karnak and Deir el-Bahri, while
two more were priests in the larger Karnak precinct, and the seventh
was concerned with the funerary cult of Thutmose I.
72
The vizierate
familys presence within the larger Amun priesthood and precinct
continues through the next two generations. Four of Useramuns
ve sons and one of his daughters were certainly involved with the
70
Inenis father was also connected to the Amun precinct, though in what capac-
ity is unclear. Among Inenis brothers Pahery was a steward and/of the high priest
of Amun, Userhat was a wb-priest of Amun and Qen was a priest of Mut. Inenis
positions include overseer/controller of work in Karnak, overseer of the granaries
of Amun as well as overseer of the treasury, all ofces and every seal in the house
of Amun. For a complete list, see Dziobek, Ineni, 12223. For Inenis positions and
placement in the Amun domain, see also Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun,
260 f., no. 144, and her individual discussions of the titles he held.
71
Taametu is depicted in Inenis tomb standing behind Ineni and his wife
Ahhotep-T( j)uiu at the east end of the west side of the north wall of the portico.
She is the uppermost gure of the three sisters included here. Dziobek, Ineni, 336,
pl. 3, 48, 60.
72
Useramun held several Amun-related positions before inheriting the vizierate; see
Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 175. According to Dziobek, Denkmler,
1001, Useramuns movement through the temple ranks can be reconstructed as:
tm(.

) pss nb m Ipt-swt tm(.

) pssw nw tw nbw m /wt njr nt Imn s (w)t nbt pst s tmw


njr s /_ nbw s tmt njr ntImn [

my-r tmt ntImn]

my-r pr.wy /_ nbw. The last two titles,


as well as a few others, were likely held in conjunction with Useramuns position
as vizier because they fall within the framework of the viziers total responsibilities.
Neferhotep was an

my-r n n Imn and possibly a 2nd priest of Amun (in Karnak or


perhaps Deir el-Bahri), Neferweben (the father of Rekhmire) was a wb-priest of Amun,
and Amunmes was a scribe of the treasury of Amun. In the larger Karnak precinct
are Nacht(amun), a wb-priest of Mut, and Aakheperkare, a /m-priest of Montu.
Hor was a wb-priest, chief lector-priest in the funerary temple of Aakheperkare
(Thutmose I), and possibly overseer of the temple of Amun, referring to that of
Thutmose I. In general, see the material provided by Dziobek, Denkmler, 11214
and Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 370, 123, 348, 082, and 435;
on the identication of Neferhotep as the owner of TT122 and the son of Aametu,
see Shirley, One Tomb, Two Owners, forthcoming.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 93
Amun precinct at a variety of levels;
73
and the sons of his brother
Hor were priests in Thutmose Is funerary temple like their father.
74

Finally, a number of the same positions turn up among Useramuns
grandsons
75
as well as his nephew the vizier Rekhmires sons,
76
all
Aametus great-grandchildren (Fig. 3).
In total, out of the three generations descending from Ahmose-
Aametu nearly half of the thirty-nine children whose names and
titles are known served within the Amun precinct, from lowly wb-
priests to upper level administrators, including some daughters.
77

In this regard it is especially signicant that some of Aametus sons
held the same or similar titles as their maternal uncles, i.e. Useramun
and Ineni, Nacht(amun) and Qen, Neferweben and Userhat, and
may even have served under their uncles. In subsequent gen-
erations we again see a transmission of titles between fathers and
sons, uncles and nephews.
78
The fact that one of Rekhmires sons,
73
Baket was a chantress of Amun (myt nt //[Imn]//), she was not, however, the
wife of the steward of the vizier Amunemhat (TT82). Samenkhet, Merymaat, Mery
and Amunemhat shared various titles, including wb-priest, scribe of the divine seal
and /m-priest, and Merymaat also held several upper level priestly posts. See Dziobek,
Denkmler, 12027; Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 057, 282, 487.
74
Dziobek, Denkmler, 113, 117 f., 126 f.
75
Dziobek, Denkmler, 125 ff. Merimaats son Aapehty was a 3rd priest of Amun
in Djser-djeseru, not unlike his father, while Bakets son Amunemhat was an overseer
of the n of Amun, like his uncle Rekhmire (and Rekhmires son Mery) and great
uncle Neferhotep.
76
Rekhmires eldest son, Menkheperresoneb, was a (chief ) scribe of divine offer-
ings of Amun and 2nd priest of Amun. See also Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses
des Amun, no. 263. (There is not a son named either Amunhotep (Urk. IV, 1138)
or Neferhotep who had the title of /m-njr snnw n Imn, this inscription in fact carries
the name of Menkheperresoneb (Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl. LXX). Kees reference
to a son of Rekhmire with this title (Priestertum, 20, 23) is not in fact followed up,
rather he mentions a son of Useramun, the same Menkheperresoneb discussed here.)
Amunhotep, like his uncle Useramun, was a scribe of the divine seal of Amun,
and Mery was an overseer of the n of Amun. The restoration of a son named
Amunemhat with the title of

my-r n n Imn is unlikely (Urk. IV, 1157), and I would


follow Davies (Davies, Rekh-mi-r II pl. XXXVI, XXXVIII) in restoring the inscription
with the name of Rekhmire, based both on the placement of the inscription, and the
fact that Rekhmire bears this title elsewhere in this same scene. See also Eichler, Die
Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, no. 274. Rekhmires daughter Takhat and a grand-
daughter named Henuttawy were both chantresses of Amun (myt nt Imn). They are
both found in the passage scene that depicts Rekhmire being greeted upon his return
from Hutsekhem; see Davies, Rekh-mi-r II, pl. LXXLXXI).
77
18 out of 39 known descendants = 46%.
78
Samenkhet and Merymaat, Useramuns two eldest, both had titles that their
father also held (wb-priest and scribe of the divine seal in Karnak), while Merymaats
priestly position in Deir el-Bahri placed him in the same position as his paternal
94 j j shirley

?

I
a
h
h
o
t
e
p

I
n
i
t
e
f
/
I
n
e
n
i

S
a
t
d
j
h
u
t
y



s

b

_
k
r
t

n
s
w
t



/
/
/

n

I
m
n

A
h
m
o
s
e
-
A
a
m
e
t
u

T
a
-
a
m
e
t
u

P
a
h
e
r
y

Q
e
n

U
s
e
r
h
a
t

8

s
o
n
s

2

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

I
n
e
n
i

I
a
h
h
o
t
e
p

T
u
i
u

j

t
y



m
y
-
r

p
r

(
n
)

/
o
-
o
j
r

o

M
o
t

w

b

n

I
m
n




m
y
-
r

n
w
t
y

n

I
m
n



/
o
-
o
j
r

n

I
m
n






m
y
-
r

t
m
t

n
b
t

m

p
r

I
m
n









m
y
-
r

p
r
w
y

/
_

o
o
o









m
y
-
r

w
t

o
o
t

p
r

m

I
m
n








e
t
c
.
A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t

A
m
u
n
m
e
s

A
a
k
h
e
p
e
r
k
a
r
e

N
a
k
h
t
(
a
m
u
n
)

5

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

m
y
-
r

n
r
t

s


p
r
-
/
_

n

I
m
n

/
m
-
n
j
r

n

M
n
j
w

w

b

n

M
w
t

U
s
e
r
a
m
u
n

T
j
u
i
u

N
e
f
e
r
h
o
t
e
p

/
/
/
-
h
e
n
u
t
e
f
-
/
/
/

N
e
f
e
r
w
e
b
e
n

B
e
t
a
u

H
o
r

?


m
y
-
r

n

w
t

j

t
y


m
y
-
r

I
m
n

(
?
)

w

I
m
n

_
/
r
t

o

o
t

_
r
,
-
/
o

o

s

w
t

n
b
t

/
m
-
n
j
r

s
n
n
w

n

I
m
n




(

p
r
-
k

-
r

)

s


/
_

n
b
w


s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n


A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t


m
y
-
r

p
r
w
y

/
_

n
b
w


m
y
-
r

I
m
n


m
y
-
r

n
w
t
y

n

I
m
n

e
t
c
.

S
a
m
e
n
k
h
e
t

M
e
r
i
m
a
a
t

?

B
a
k
e
t

?

A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t

1

s
o
n
,

3

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

R
e
k
h
m
i
r
e

M
e
r
y
t

5

s
o
n
s

H
o
r

M
e
r
i
m
a
a
t
w

b

n

I
m
n

s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

y
t

n
t

I
m
n

o

o

o

I
m
n

6

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s


m
y
-
r

n

w
t

j

t
y

_
r
y
-
/
b

n

_
r
y
-
/
b

n
s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

/
m
-
n
j
r

s
n
n
w

n

I
m
n





m
y
-
r

I
m
n

(

p
r
-
k

-
r

)

(

p
r
-
k

-
r

)

n

I
m
n

/
m
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n




e
t
c
.

m

Q
s
r
-
_
s
r
w

A
a
p
e
h
t
i

A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t

M
e
n
k
h
e
p
e
r
r
e
s
o
n
e
b

A
m
u
n
h
o
t
e
p

M
e
r
y

T
a
k
h
a
t

/
m
-
n
j
r

3
-
n
w

n

I
m
n


m
y
-
r

I
m
n

s


/
t
p
w
-
n
j
r

(
t
p
)

n

I
m
n

s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n


m
y
-
r

I
m
n

y
t

n
t

I
m
n
F
i
g
.

3

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

M
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
:

T
h
e

V
i
z
i
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

T
h
e
b
a
n

F
a
m
i
l
y

o
f

I
n
e
n
i
.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 95
Menkheperresoneb, was a scribe of the divine offerings of Amun,
is also noteworthy to the present discussion since it is a position
we have seen was also held by the viceroy Turos family for six
generations.
Yet despite the immediate and ubiquitous presence of Aametus
children throughout the Amun precinct, Aametu held only titles
connected to the vizierate.
79
This suggests that although Aametu
was a powerful ofcial as vizier, able to pass the position to his son
Useramun,
80
it was Aametus marriage to Inenis sister Taametu
that enabled his sons to ourish in the Amun domain. Inenis posi-
tions certainly would have enabled him to help his brother-in-laws
children as well as his own family. Likewise the (here proposed)
family relationship of Aametus mother as a sister of Turo, linking
Aametus family and that of the viceroys who were also temple
administrators and priests, would have enhanced this ability. Thus,
familial nepotism played an integral role in how Aametus descen-
dants gained their positions in the Amun precinct (Fig. 4).
uncle Hor, and in addition, Hors two sons (Hor and Merimaat) followed in their
fathers footsteps as _ry-/b priests of Aakheperkare. Rekhmires son Mery was also
an

my-r n n Imn, like his great-uncle, Useramuns brother Neferhotep, and second
or third cousin Amunemhat; see Shirley, One Tomb, Two Owners, forthcoming,
for a discussion of Amunemhats relationship to the family.
79
Other than vizier, his titles include chief magistrate, spokesman of Nekhen,
priest of Maat, spokesman who makes peace in the entire land, overseer of the six
great law courts, and overseer of the city (sb jyty r Nn /m-njr mt r shrr m t r-_ //
[r.f ]//,

my-r /wt wrt 6,

my-r n

wt). The only possible reference to a position within


the Amun priesthood may occur in col. 24 of the Co-Installation text of Useramun,
but there is a lacuna here. Although Helck (Die Berufung des Vezirs Wr) and
Davies (The Graphic Work of the Egyptian Expedition, 50) restore Aametu as a
scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun during the reign of Thutmose I,
Dziobek, in comparison with Stele Uriage lines 35, has convincingly shown that it
is Useramun who is being referred to, see Dziobek, Denkmler, 78. Although Aametu
was also called divine father, beloved of the god, this should probably be viewed
as an epithet indicating Aametus status. Likwise, Aametus title priest of Maat is
perhaps really an epithet connected to his function as a vizier.
80
The eldest, Amunemhat, was the overseer of the prison (

my-r nrt), possibly in


Thebes (Dziobek, Denkmler, 11617). Sections of the Duties indicate that the vizier
administered over the prison and appointed various ofcials within it, including the
overseer of police (Van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, Sec. 67, 12045, Sec. 17,
25064, and 309 ff, esp. 31727). If, as Van den Boorn suggests, the prison was
a functional extension of the viziers administrative apparatus

(Van den Boorn,
Duties of the Vizier, 325), then it seems quite possible that Aametu may have used his
inuence as vizier to place his son Amunemhat as overseer of the prison. Indeed,
especially if the institution of the great prison was somewhat separate from that of
vizier, then it would have greatly beneted Aametu to have his son in such a posi-
tion of authority.
96 j j shirley
F
i
g
.

4

T
h
e

E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d

F
a
m
i
l
y
:

V
i
c
e
r
o
y
s
,

V
i
z
i
e
r
s

&

t
h
e

A
m
u
n

P
r
e
c
i
n
c
t
.
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
S
a
t
a
y
t
/
S
a
y
i
t


S
a
t
i
a
h
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

n
b
t

p
r
s

-
n
s
w


m
y
-
r

s
w
t

r
s
y
t
H
a
p
i

A
h
m
o
s
e
-
T
u
r
o
/
T
j
u
r
o
/
T
j
u
r
i

?

I
a
h
h
o
t
e
p

s


/
w
t

/

s
/
-
n
j
r

t
s
w

n

B
h
n

s

-
n
s
w

(
n
)


m
y
-
r

s
w
t

r
s
y
t

e
t
c
.
A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
b

T
e
t
y
/
T
e
t
i
t
i
y

M
u
t
n
e
s
u
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

n
b
t

p
r
/
m
-
n
j
r

4

n

I
m
n

(
?
)

/
r
y

s


m

p
r

I
m
n

e
t
c
.
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
P
a
t
e
n
/
P
a
t
j
e
n
/
P
a
t
j
e
n
a

T
a
-
r
/
/
/
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

_
k
r
t

n
s
w
t
H
o
r
(
i
)
s


/
t
p
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n
A
h
m
o
s
e
-
A
a
m
e
t
u

T
a
-
a
m
e
t
u

P
a
h
e
r
y

Q
e
n

U
s
e
r
h
a
t

8

s
o
n
s

2

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

I
n
e
n
i

I
a
h
h
o
t
e
p
-
T
u
i
t
u
j

t
y



m
y
-
r

p
r

(
n
)

/
m
-
n
j
r

n

M
w
t

w

b

n

I
m
n




m
y
-
r

n
w
t
y

n

I
m
n


/
o
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n








m
y
-
r

t
m
t

n
b
t

m

p
r

I
m
n











m
y
-
r
-
p
r
w
y

/
_
-
n
b
w











m
y
-
r

w
t

n
b
t

m

p
r

I
m
n










e
t
c
.

A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t

A
m
u
n
m
e
s


A
a
k
h
e
p
e
r
k
a
r
e


N
a
k
h
t
(
a
m
u
n
)


5

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

m
y
-
r

n
r
t


s


p
r
-
/
_

n

I
m
n


/
m
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n


w

b

n

M
w
t

U
s
e
r
a
m
u
n

T

o
i
o

N
e
f
e
r
h
o
t
e
p

/
/
/
-
h
e
n
u
t
e
f
-
/
/
/

N
e
f
e
r
w
e
b
e
n

B
e
t
a
u

H
o
r

?


m
y
-
r

n

w
t

j

t
y



m
y
-
r

I
m
n


w

b

n

I
m
n

_
k
r
t

n
s
w
t

_
r
y
-
/
b

n

s

w
t

n
b
t


/
m
-
n
j
r

s
n
n
w

n

I
m
n

(
?
)





(

p
r
-
k

-
r

)

s


/
_

n
b
w

s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n


A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t


m
y
-
r

p
r
w
y

/
_

n
b
w



m
y
-
r

I
m
n


m
y
-
r

n
w
t
y

n

I
m
n

e
t
c
.
S
a
m
e
n
k
h
e
t

M
e
r
i
m
a
a
t

?

B
a
k
e
t

?

A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t

1

s
o
n
,

3

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s

R
e
k
h
m
i
r
e

M
e
r
y
t

5

s
o
n
s

H
o
r

M
e
r
i
m
a
a
t
w

b

n

I
m
n

s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n

y
t

n
t

n

I
m
n


w

b

n

I
m
n

6

d
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
s


m
y
-
r

n

w
t

j

t
y

_
r
y
-
/
b

n


_
r
y
-
/
b

n
s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

/
m
-
n
j
r

s
n
n
w

n

I
m
n








m
y
-
r

I
m
n

(

p
r
-
k

-
r

)

(

p
r
-
k

-
r

)

n

I
m
n

/
m
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n








e
t
c
.


m

Q
s
r
-
_
s
r
w

A
a
p
e
h
t
i

A
m
u
n
e
m
h
a
t

M
e
n
k
h
e
p
e
r
r
e
s
o
n
e
b

A
m
u
n
h
o
t
e
p

M
e
r
y

T
a
k
h
a
t

/
m
-
n
j
r

-
n
w

n

I
m
n


m
y
-
r

I
m
n

s


/
t
p
w
-
n
j
r

(
t
p
)

n

I
m
n

s

t
m
t
-
n
j
r

n

I
m
n


m
y
-
r

I
m
n

y
t

n
t

I
m
n
I
n
i
t
e
f
/
I
n
e
n
i

S
a
t
d
j
h
u
t
y
s

b


_
k
r
t

n
s
w
t
/
/
/

o

I
m
n
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 97
Through a comparison of the priestly and temple administra-
tive titles held by various members of these three interconnected
families a new pattern emerges. Although the Amun precinct has
traditionally been viewed as a source from which the king could
draw elites for higher ofce,
81
the prevalence of Aametus extended
family throughout the Amun domain suggests that it served rather
as a kind of dumping ground for younger sons and daughters a
location into which ofcials could place their children. The compara-
tively large number of mid- and lower-level titles held by the family
indicates that being a priest or administrator in the Amun domain
was not necessarily a path for attaining higher ofce. However, it
would certainly provide the family with greater wealth and ensure
that all sons, and even some daughters, held ofce. While the
position of high priest of Amun is not held by this family, their
authority over the administrative area of the temple was extensive,
with Ineni, Aametus sons Amunemhat, Useramun and Neferhotep,
Rekhmire and his son Mery, and another Amunemhat all in upper-
level overseer positions. Although for Useramun and Rekhmire
these are likely connected to their position as vizier, it nonetheless
indicates a degree of power relating to the Amun precinct in Thebes
that can not be dismissed. In addition, there is a strong probability
that several members of both Aametus and Turos family served
the Amun cult centered in the west bank royal funerary temples,
in addition to or instead of the main cult at Karnak. This is sug-
gested by the ndspots of statuary in the area of Deir el-Bahri
82
as
well as several priestly positions relating to the royal temples.
83
The
81
See Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, Ch. 11 and the sources
therein.
82
A statue and stauette of Turo, two statues of his son Ahmose-Patjen, and a
statue of his grandson Tety were all found in the vicinity of Deir el-Bahri. See
supra with notes 9, 12, 13, 17 and 25. It thus seems possible that the role of Turos
descendants as scribes of divine offerings was in fact connected to the cult of Amun
at Deir el-Bahri. Also found at Deir el-Bahri are a statue base of Aametus son
Neferhotep (Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple Part III, tf. 7, 4; cf. Dziobek, Denkmler,
109), while a statue of his son Hor likely came from Thutmose Is funerary temple
and was probably erected by his sons (cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, 113). In addition, two
grafti at Deir el-Bahri give the names and titles of Useramuns son Merymaat and
Merymaats son Aapehti (Wente, Some Grafti from the reign of Hatshepsut, 51,
Anm. 17, 18; Dziobek, Denkmler, 122, 12526).
83
Aametus son Neferhotep was an

my-r n n Imn and a 2nd priest of Amun (in


Karnak or perhaps Deir el-Bahri due to his statues ndspot). Aametus son Hor was
a wb-priest, chief lector-priest in the funerary temple of Aakheperkare (Thutmose
I), and possibly overseer of the temple of Amun, referring to that of Thutmose I.
In addition, Hors two sons (Hor and Merimaat) followed in their fathers footsteps
98 j j shirley
almost immediate presence of this family in the west bank Amun
cult further implies that it was a central feature of royal construc-
tions already at the beginning of the dynasty, perhaps as early as
the reign of Amunhotep I.
It now becomes clear how at the earliest stages of the 18th Dynasty
the most important and arguably inuential areas of civil admin-
istration, namely viceroy and vizier, as well as the administration
of the Amun precinct, were held in the hands of essentially one
large extended family that had used heredity, strategic marriage and
familial nepotism to create a signicant powerbase. The consider-
able authority that this family must have wielded, both in the court
and in Thebes, is reected not only through titles and lineage, but
also on the ground in the placement of their tombs.
Theban Tombs
Beginning at the outset of the New Kingdom, the Theban Necropolis
was already developing as the primary burial ground of the New
Kingdom elite. Although the known locations of tombs belonging
to some of the earliest ofcials are still few, it is nevertheless clear
that starting in the late 17th Dynasty Thebes was becoming a place
of funerary importance. At this early stage the placement of both
royal and private tombs is largely clustered in the necropolis of Dra
Abu el-Naga, but as the 18th Dynasty solidies under King Ahmose
and Amunhotep I new areas of the Theban west bank cliffs are
explored for private tombs, including sections of Asasif and Sheikh
Abd el-Qurna.
84
How and why specic tomb sites were chosen is
still not entirely clear, though certainly rock quality, visibility from
the plain below, and location relative to royal mortuary temples were
as _ry-/b priests of Aakheperkare. Useramuns son Merymaat was a priest of Amun
in Qsr-_srw (Hatshepsuts funerary temple) and on a Deir el-Bahri grafto is referred
to as the scribe of the divine seal of Amun, and Merymaats son Aapehti was a 3rd
priest of Amun in Qsr-_srw. Finally, Amunemhat, the son of Neferhotep or grandson
of Useramun (see Shirley, One Tomb, Two Owners, forthcoming, for a discussion
of this ofcial and his relationship to the vizierate family) was also an overseer of the
n of Amun. In general, see the material provided by Dziobek, Denkmler, 10427, as
well as Eichler, Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun, nos. 370, 435, 282, 153.
84
See the work of Polz in Dra Abu el-Naga, e.g. Polz, The Royal and Private
Necropolis; Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches; and Polz, et al., Bericht ber die 6., 7. und
8. Grabungskampagne.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 99
all factors.
85
Indeed, one might presume that given the relatively
undeveloped expanse of the Theban west bank, tombs constructed
during the early New Kingdom were placed in particular spots for
specic reasons.
It is all the more striking then that all of the known tombs
belonging to the extended family under discussion were constructed
along the upper slope of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, facing east across
the low desert plain toward the Nile River and the royal mortuary
temples.
86
The tombs in question belong to Ineni (TT81), Ahmose-
Aametu (TT83), Ahmose-Aametus sons the vizier Useramun (TT61
and TT131), overseer of the n Neferhotep (TT122) and scribe
of the Amun treasury Amunmes (TT228), and Ahmose-Aametus
grandson the vizier Rekhmire (TT100). Neferhotep also shared his
tomb with the overseer of the n Amunemhat, who is yet another
member of the family (Fig. 5).
87

The tombs of Ineni and Aametu were constructed during the
early 18th Dynasty, when the necropolis was certainly still in its
initial stages of development and thus there were many potential
sites available with excellent rock quality and vantage points to the
plain below (Fig. 6). The remaining tombs were fashioned during the
mid-18th Dynasty, between the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose
III, a time when the Qurna hillside witnessed a dramatic increase
in tomb construction, and presumably securing a location of quality
was becoming more difcult (Fig. 7). A cursory examination of the
placement of these six tombs on the Qurna hillside does at rst
make it appear as though they are separated spatially and thus one
might argue that they are not intentionally connected. However, an
analysis of the spatial layout of the relevant tombs in fact supports
the idea of a family precinct (Figs. 68).
Inenis tomb (TT81), whether it utilized a pre-existing Middle
Kingdom saff-tomb or was newly constructed, is placed at an excel-
lent vantage point along the high ridge of Qurna, with a view of
85
See, e.g., Helck, Sozial Stellung und Grabanlage; Englemann von-Carnap,
Soziale Stellung und Grabanlage and Die Struktur des thebanischen Beamtenfriedhofs;
Romer, Who Made the Private Tombs of Thebes?
86
The temples of Thutmose III and Amunhotep II are in direct view of Qurna,
though that of Amunhotep I / Ahmose-Nefertary is not far removed.
87
The tomb, which has chapels dedicated to two different men, was originally built
for Useramuns brother Neferhotep and later utilized by a man named Amunemhat.
I have suggested elsewhere that Amunemhat was another member of the family
either Neferhoteps son or perhaps Useramuns grandson. For a discussion of this
relationship, see Shirley, One Tomb, Two Owners, forthcoming.
100 j j shirley
F
i
g
.

5

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

S
h
e
i
k
h

A
b
d

e
l
-
Q
u
r
n
a
,

d
e
t
a
i
l

o
f

u
p
p
e
r

s
l
o
p
e
,

w
i
t
h

t
o
m
b
s

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

l
a
b
e
l
e
d
.

P
h
o
t
o
:

R
a
i
m
o
n
d

S
p
e
k
k
i
n
g
/
W
i
k
i
p
e
d
i
a


L
i
c
e
n
c
e
:

C
C
-
b
y
-
s
a
-
3
.
0
.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 101
F
i
g
.

6

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

S
h
e
i
k
h

A
b
d

e
l
-
Q
u
r
n
a
,

M
i
d
d
l
e

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

a
n
d

E
a
r
l
y

1
8
t
h

D
y
n
a
s
t
y

t
o
m
b
s
,

w
i
t
h

t
o
m
b
s

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

l
a
b
e
l
e
d

a
n
d

o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
.

M
a
p

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

b
y

A
s
h
l
e
y

F
i
u
t
k
o

u
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

K
a
m
p
p
,

D
i
e

t
h
e
b
a
n
i
s
c
h
e

N
e
k
r
o
p
o
l
e
;

P
e
t
e
r

P
i
c
c
i
o
n
e

s

G
I
S

w
o
r
k

o
n

t
h
e

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

o
n
-
l
i
n
e

a
t
:

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
m
a
p
s
.
c
o
f
c
.
e
d
u
/
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
/
o
l
g
i
s
2
0
0
9
/
v
i
e
w
e
r
.
h
t
m
;

S
u
r
v
e
y

o
f

E
g
y
p
t

m
a
p
s

o
f

t
h
e

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
;

a
n
d

G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
.

T
h
e

m
a
p

w
a
s

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

A
r
c
G
I
S

A
r
c
M
a
p

9
.
3
.
1
.
102 j j shirley
F
i
g
.

7

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

S
h
e
i
k
h

A
b
d

e
l
-
Q
u
r
n
a
,

M
i
d
d
l
e

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

m
i
d
-
1
8
t
h

D
y
n
a
s
t
y

t
o
m
b
s
,

w
i
t
h

t
o
m
b
s

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

l
a
b
e
l
e
d

a
n
d

o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
.

M
a
p

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

b
y

A
s
h
l
e
y

F
i
u
t
k
o

u
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

K
a
m
p
p
,

D
i
e

t
h
e
b
a
n
i
s
c
h
e

N
e
k
r
o
p
o
l
e
;

P
e
t
e
r

P
i
c
c
i
o
n
e

s

G
I
S

w
o
r
k

o
n

t
h
e

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

o
n
-
l
i
n
e

a
t
:

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
m
a
p
s
.
c
o
f
c
.
e
d
u
/
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
/
o
l
g
i
s
2
0
0
9
/
v
i
e
w
e
r
.
h
t
m
;

S
u
r
v
e
y

o
f

E
g
y
p
t

m
a
p
s

o
f

t
h
e

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
;

a
n
d

G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
.

T
h
e

m
a
p

w
a
s

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

A
r
c
G
I
S

A
r
c
M
a
p

9
.
3
.
1
.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 103
the entire plain.
88
At around the same time, Aametu built a por-
tico tomb (TT83) similar to Inenis, and placed it on a direct path
leading down the slope from Inenis tomb.
89
Although Aametus
tomb is not as high up, it is more centrally located and built on a
section where the cliff projects outward, contributing to the tombs
ability to be noticed. Continuing on this route the cliffside path
leads down to the lower tomb of Useramun (TT131), which has
an elaborate niched faade not unlike the pillared porticos of his
father and uncle. Thus, as we move down the slope it becomes
clear that the tombs of these family members are intentionally
placed along the same path, tying the owners together in death as
they were in life (Fig. 8).
Useramun had not one but two tombs, the lower one (TT131)
just mentioned and directly up the hillside from it an upper tomb,
TT61. From the plain looking up, or from TT61 looking down,
they are clearly in a direct line with each other, and the pyrami-
dal shape of the upper tomb was apt to have been intentionally
made so that it would rise above and crown the pyramid that once
topped the lower tomb.
90
Once again the family members have
intentionally placed their tombs along a route leading down the
slope the path leading from Useramuns upper tomb towards his
lower tomb crosses TT122, the tomb shared by Useramuns brother
Neferhotep
91
and another family member named Amunemhat
(Fig. 8).
92
Perhaps Amunemhat, who may have lived during a time
when the familys fortunes were declining, was trying to heighten
88
Dziobek, who published the tomb (Ineni, 1720), categorizes it as a re-used
Middle Kingdom saff-tomb; but contra this is Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 284
ff.), who views it as a new 18th Dynasty construction. On the architectural develop-
ment of 18th Dynasty Theban tombs in general, see Dziobek, The Architectural
Development; Englemann von-Carnap, Die Struktur des thebanischen Beamtenfriedhofs;
Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole; Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, esp. 279 ff.
89
Ahmose-Aametus and Inenis tombs were likely constructed chronologically
very close together, with the decoration nished by Hatshepsuts becoming co-regent.
Both began their careers under Amunhotep I and were in their highest positions of
power under Thutmose I. Thus, Polzs dating of Ahmose-Aametus tomb (TT83)
signicantly earlier does not seem tenable (Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 28286);
see also supra with note 58.
90
See Dziobek, Eine Grabpyramide, Theban Tombs and Die Grber, which
include drawings and photographs depicting the juxtaposition of these tombs.
91
The family relationship is based on the depiction in TT122 of Neferhotep
offering to both his parents, the vizier Ahmose-Aametu and his wife Taametu, and
his brother, the vizier Usermaun along with his wife Tjuiu.
92
See supra note 87.
104 j j shirley
F
i
g
.

8

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

S
h
e
i
k
h

A
b
d

e
l
-
Q
u
r
n
a
,

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s

a
n
d

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
o
m
b
s

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

a
r
e

l
a
b
e
l
e
d

a
n
d

o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
.

M
a
p

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

b
y

A
s
h
l
e
y

F
i
u
t
k
o

u
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

K
a
m
p
p
,

D
i
e

t
h
e
b
a
n
i
s
c
h
e

N
e
k
r
o
p
o
l
e
;

P
e
t
e
r

P
i
c
c
i
o
n
e

s

G
I
S

w
o
r
k

o
n

t
h
e

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
,

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

o
n
-
l
i
n
e

a
t
:

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
m
a
p
s
.
c
o
f
c
.
e
d
u
/
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
/
o
l
g
i
s
2
0
0
9
/
v
i
e
w
e
r
.
h
t
m
;

S
u
r
v
e
y

o
f

E
g
y
p
t

m
a
p
s

o
f

t
h
e

T
h
e
b
a
n

N
e
c
r
o
p
o
l
i
s
;

a
n
d

G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
.

T
h
e

m
a
p

w
a
s

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

A
r
c
G
I
S

A
r
c
M
a
p

9
.
3
.
1
.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 105
his prestige by utilizing a family members tomb higher up the hill
while at the same time strengthening the link to his ancestors, all
at less cost than building a new tomb. In addition, this cluster of
tombs is connected by natural pathways along the cliffside. Thus
we see that TT122 is located at roughly the same contour level
as the tomb of Ahmose-Aametu (TT83), while Useramuns upper
tomb (TT131) is topographically in a similar position to the tombs
of his father (TT83) and uncle (TT81) (Fig. 8).
At this point, the beginning of what one could call a family
complex is becoming clearer, and this concept of planned topo-
graphical positioning is further supported by examining the remain-
ing known tombs of this family, TT228 of Ahmose-Aametus son
Amunmes and TT100 of Ahmose-Aametus grandson Rekhmire.
These two tombs are placed at either end of the Qurna upper
necropolis, at the outskirts of the central family complex.
Nonetheless, Amunmes tomb, although around the cliffside, is at
approximately the same contour level as that of Useramuns lower
tomb (TT131), as is Rekhmires. Rekhmire may also have been try-
ing to emulate his uncle and predecessor, as the lower position of
his tomb allows for both an expansive courtyard area and elaborate
faade, like that of TT131. Also, as with the higher tombs, there
are clear natural routes along the cliff that connect these three
lower tombs to each other (Fig. 8).
By calculating both the direct vertical and horizontal distances as
well as those of the natural pathways between the tombs, two things
become clear. First, that the central cluster of tombs TT81, TT83,
TT61 and TT122 are all within a very short distance of each
other, approximately 46 to 190 meters apart.
93
This makes them
very well-spaced for processional stops during festivals and other
times when family members might visit the tombs of their ancestors.
Second, even the three remaining tombs which are further away
TT100, TT131 and TT228 are placed along routes that con-
nect them easily with the other tombs belonging to their relatives,
surely not a coincidence. Finally, these three tombs provide points
of access from the oodplain and the royal mortuary temples up
onto the necropolis, ensuring that they would by passed during
93
These are the pathway distances based on paths now visible. As the crow ies
the direct distances are less, e.g. TT 61 and TT122 are only about 25 meters apart
vertically.
106 j j shirley
festival processions, when the tombs would have been visited as
well (Fig. 8).
The construction of the tombs belonging to this family complex
would have been completed between the reigns of Thutmose I and
the early years of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III, at a time when the
necropolis was just beginning to develop. This allowed for the tombs
to be spread out at key vantage points while still being related to
each other spatially and probably aesthetically as well looking
from the oodplain up towards a relatively blank cliffside these
tombs would have been very noticeable. It may be as well that
their placement had a commemorative purpose: serving the entire
family, and especially those members who may have been unable
to build their own tombs, as a cultic complex.
94
As mentioned above, private tomb locations at the end of the
17th Dynasty were mainly concentrated in Dra Abu el-Naga, with
the Asasif and Qurna also witnessing tomb construction at the
outset of Dynasty 18. Thus, at the time this family complex was
being developed, we nd the tombs of contemporary high ofcials
in other locations. For example, the tomb of the high priest of
Amun Djhuty (reign of Ahmose) has been located by Polz in the
Asasif,
95
and that of Minmonth (reigns of Ahmose-Amunhotep I) is
TT232 in Dra Abu el-Naga.
96
Aametus likely predecessor as vizier,
Imhotep (reign of Thutmose I), has his tomb in the Valley of the
Queens (no.46),
97
while early predecessors of Ineni as mayor of
Thebes and overseer of the granary of Amun have tombs in Dra
Abu el-Naga (respectively Tetiki, TT15 and Panacht, tomb A.20,
both reign of Ahmose).
98
The tombs of known mid- and lower-level
ofcials dating to the early 18th Dynasty are likewise concentrated
in the Asasif and Dra Abu el-Naga,
99
while Qurna has very few
tombs, located both on the lower plain and the upper slope. There
94
According to Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 308 f.) the shaft tombs of the late
Second Intermediate Period and early 18th Dynasty either have superstructures for
practicing the funerary cult meant to be shared by the shaft owners or are located
near royal tombs and thus utilized the royal cult place. The family complex of built
tombs discussed here could perhaps be seen as a development of this practice.
95
Winlock Tomb 1; see Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 14555.
96
PM I, 1
2
, 32829; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, 50711; Polz, Der Beginn
des Neuen Reiches, 28082.
97
PM I, 2
2
, 755.
98
TT15: PM I, 1
2
, 267; tomb A.20: PM I, 1
2
, 453.
99
Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 13862) discusses and attributes several unpub-
lished tombs excavated by Winlock in the Asasif to ofcials of the late 17th and early
18th Dynasty through Amunhotep I.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 107
are only a few tombs contemporary with the construction of Ineni
and Aametus tombs that are also located in the same vicinity, and
they are primarily Middle Kingdom(-style) saff-tombs not (yet) re-
used or newly constructed in the early 18th Dynasty, along with a
few T-shaped tombs (Fig. 6).
100
All of these factors lend support
to the idea that a family complex was being created by Aametu
and his descendants.
As use of the Qurna necropolis expanded during the reigns of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III the remaining tombs of the fam-
ily complex are built, and additional tombs appear around them
(Fig. 7). This fact does not diminish the family complex, but rather
heightens it as these new tombs belong to ofcials who would have
served under or alongside Useramun, Neferhotep, Amunemhat,
Amunmes and Rekhmire they are all priests or administrators
connected to the Amun precinct.
101
In addition, such high ofcials
as Hatshepsuts steward Senenmut (TT71) and her high priest of
Amun Hapuseneb (TT67), and the overseer of the seal Sennefri
(TT99; time of Hatshepsut-Thutmose III) also have their tombs
in the vicinity, solidifying the development of Qurna during this
period as the chosen spot of the highest elite.
102
Conclusions
We have now seen how one family with claims to both the viceroy-
alty and vizierate at the outset of the 18th Dynasty strengthened
itself through a strategic marriage into the family of the mayor
of Thebes and Amun precinct administrator. The inuence and
power thus created allowed them to utilize heredity and family
100
Only three owners are known, all of whom have t-shaped tombs: User, the
scribe and steward of Thutmose I whose tomb is perhaps a bit later in date (Thutmose
I-Hatshepsut, TT21), Tjay, the overseer of the fowl-houses, presumably of the Amun
precinct (early Dynasty 18, TT349), and Amunemhat, the noble at the head of his
people (reign of Ahmose-Amunhotep I, tomb C.2).
101
The most obvious of these subordinates is Useramuns own steward, Amunemhat
whose tomb, TT82, is located in the midst of the family complex due to his long-
standing relationship with the family. The author presented a paper discussing the
development of Qurna during the 18th Dynasty at ARCE 2008.
102
With a few exceptions [TT11, overseer of the treasury Djhuty; TT112, HPA
Menkheperresoneb; TT146, overseer of the granary of Amun Nebamun; TT155,
rst herald Intef; TT294, overseer of the granary of Amun Amunhotep; tomb A.4,
mayor of Thebes Wensenu] the contemporary tombs located in Khokha, the Asasif
and Dra Abu el-Naga belong primarily to mid and lower-level ofcials connected to
the Amun precinct or funerary temples.
108 j j shirley
inuence to retain control of the vizierate and place several gen-
erations of children in positions throughout the Amun domain,
and to create a family precinct of tombs in a select section of the
developing Theban necropolis. The question remains, was this a
strategy developed by the early 18th Dynasty kings to ensure the
stability and strength of the newly re-unied country, or rather a
testament to the power of elite families at the beginning of the
New Kingdom?
Based on the evidence presented here, I would suggest that it
was not so much a planned strategy on the part of King Ahmose
and his successors as a situation that developed due both to the
circumstances of the time and the power of the families in charge.
Certainly King Ahmose would have appointed men whom he
trusted, and likely those with close connections to Thebes and the
early royal court, as part of his efforts to centralize and strengthen
both his own kingship and Egypt generally.
103
The significant
changes brought on by the early Second Intermediate Period had
the effect of reinforcing the traditional world-view in the 17th and
early 18th Dynasties, including a pre-existing social structure in
which hereditary inheritance of positions was a normal occur-
rence.
104
King Ahmose would in fact not need to create such a
policy, but would have recognized the value of having two of the
highest ofces in the land, as well as important positions connected
to Thebes and the Amun cult, held by one family. As the late 17th
and early 18th Dynasty kings focused on ousting foreigners, cam-
paigning at home and abroad, and re-building a newly re-unied
country, a situation in which independent trusted families began to
intermarry would have created the kind of internal stability that
is needed in times of chaos. The continuation and expansion of
this familys power into the mid-18th Dynasty is perhaps due in
part to the internal uncertainty of Hatshepsuts regency and ascen-
103
The prevalence and pattern of royal names used among all three families, i.e.
Ahmose and Ahhotep combined with a second name (a pattern also followed by the
royal family at this time, as their monuments indicate; cf. Vandersleyen, Ahmose,
100), as well as the use of the moon-sign, does suggest at least a close relationship
to the new line of kings if not a direct kinship. In addition, Inenis fathers name,
Intef, hearkens back to the kings of the 17th Dynasty. See also Polzs conclusions
(Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 ff.) that the administrative changes wrought by the
late 17th and early 18th Dynasty kings were designed in part to create a royal fam-
ily-oriented government.
104
Cf. OConnor, Social History, 189f.; Cruz-Uribe, A Model for the Political
Structure of Ancient Egypt.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 109
sion to the throne,
105
while certainly in the time of Thutmose III
the king was away from Egypt much of the time and may have
depended on a few established elite families, like Aametus, to keep
order at home. Thus a process began under King Ahmose, or
perhaps earlier, continued to be utilized by him and his successors
as they began to replace foreign rule, disunity and the instability
of war with the stability of a newly reunied Egypt and the power
of a permanent, lially connected, government. However, if left
unchecked the natural result of titular inheritance would be for
inuence to expand and power to be consolidated among fewer and
fewer families. And by the reign of Amunhotep II, a time when
Egypts stability and royal power were assured, it is clear that this
extended familys power was no longer an asset but a potential
danger and had to be curbed.
106
It is precisely at this time as well
that the family disappears from the Theban necropolis the last
known tomb belongs to Rekhmire also the last in the family to
hold the position of vizier,
107
and along with his children the last
family members about whom anything is known.
Abbreviations
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
BMMA Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Gardiner Gardiner, A.H. Egyptian Grammar. 2nd revised ed.
London: Oxford University Press, 1950.
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
PM I.1 Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I:
The Theban Necropolis, Part 1: Private Tombs. 2nd edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
PM I.2 Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient
Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I: The
Theban Necropolis, Part 2: Royal Tombs and Smaller Cemeteries.
2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
105
Cf. Dziobek, Denkmler, 14448.
106
See Shirley, Culture of Ofcialdom, for an in-depth discussion of the administrative
changes that took place between the reigns of Thutmose III and Amunhotep II.
107
Under Amunhotep II the position of vizier is given to an entirely new ofcial,
Amunemopet, whose cousin Sennefer as mayor of Thebes also had administrative
control of the Amun precinct.
110 j j shirley
PM V Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings V:
Upper Egypt, Sites. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1962.
PM VI I Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings VII:
Nubia, The deserts, and Outside Egypt. 2nd edition. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1962.
Urk. IV Sethe, K. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Urkunden des
gyptischen Altertums, 4. Issued in 22 parts. Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 19061958.
WB III Erman, A. and H. Grapow , eds. Wrterbuch der
Aegyptischen Sprache. Vol. III. Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1955.
References
Allen, J. The High Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom. In The Theban
Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, eds. N. Strudwick, and J. Taylor, 1429.
London: British Museum Press, 2003.
Bcs, T. A name with three (?) orthographies: The case of the kings son, overseer
of southern foreign lands, Penre. Sudan & Nubia 13 (2009): 3037.
Barbotin, C. hmosis et le dbut de la XVIIIe dynastie. Les grands pharaons. Paris:
Pygmalion, 2008.
Breasted, J.H. Second Preliminary Report of the Egyptian Expedition. AJSL
25 no.1 (1908): 1110.
British Museum. A Guide to the Egyptian galleries (sculpture). London: British Museum,
1909.
Bryan, B. The reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1991.
. The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.15501352 BC).
In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 218271. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Caminos, R.A. and T.G.H. James. Gebel es-Silsilah I. The Shrines. ASE 31. London:
Egypt Exploration Society, 1963.
Cruz-Uribe, E. A Model for the Political Structure of Ancient Egypt. In For his
Ka: essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer, ed. D.P. Silverman, 4553. SAOC 55.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994.
Davies, N. de G. The Graphic Work of the Egyptian Expedition, 19251926.
Part II. BMMA 21 no.3 (1926): 4151.
. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-r at Thebes III. PMMA 11. New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1943.
Davies, N. de G. and M.F.L. Macadam. Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones.
Part I: Plates. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957.
Dewachter, M. Une nouvelle statue du vice-roi de Nubie Ousersatet a Khartoum.
Archologia 72 (1974): 5458.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 111
. Le vice-roi Nehy et lan 52 de Thoutmosis III. Rd 28 (1976): 151153.
. Un nouveau fils royal de la XVIIIe dynastie: Qenamon. Rd 32
(1980): 6673.
. Le roi Sahathor Complements. Rd 35 (1984): 195199.
Dziobek, E. The Architectural Development of Theban Tombs in the Early
Eighteenth Dynasty. In Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology, eds.
J. Assmann, G. Burkard, and V. Davies, 6979. Studies in Egyptology.
London/New York: Kegan Paul International, 1987.
. Eine Grabpyramide des fruhen NR in Theben. MDAIK 45 (1989):
109132, 519.
. Das Grab des Ineni Theben Nr. 81. AV 68. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp
von Zabern, 1992.
. Some Kings Sons Revisited. GM 132 (1993): 2932.
. Die Grber des Vezirs User-Amun Theben Nr. 61 und 131. AV 84. Mainz am
Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994.
. Theban Tombs as a Source for Historical and Biographical Evaluation:
The Case of User-Amun. In Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Neue Perspektiven
archologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.13.6.1993, eds.
J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp, 129140. SAGA 12.
Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995.
. Denkmler des Vezirs User-Amun. SAGA 18. Heidelberg: Heidelberger
Orientverlag, 1998.
Eggebrecht, A and E. Eggebrecht, gyptens aufsteig zur Weltmacht. Maink am Rhein:
von Zabern, 1987.
Eichler, S. Die Verwaltung des Hauses des Amun in der 18. Dynastie. SAK Beihefte 7.
Hamburg: Buske, 2000.
El-Sabbahy, A.-F. Kings Son of Kush under Hatshepsut. GM 129 (1992): 99102.
Englemann von-Carnap, B. Soziale Stellung und Grabanlage: Zur Struktur
des Friedhofs der Ersten Hlfte der 18. Dynastie in Scheich Abd el-Qurna
und Chocha. In Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Neue Perspektiven archologischer
Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.13.6.1993, eds. J. Assmann,
E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp, 107128. SAGA 12. Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995.
. Die Struktur des thebanischen Beamtenfriedhofs in der Ersten Hlfte der 18. Dynastie.
Analyse von Position, Grundrigestaltung und Bildprogram der Grber. ADAIK 18.
Berlin: Achet, 1999.
Gauthier, H. Les fils royaux de Kouch et le personnel administratif de lEthiopie.
RT 39 (1921): 179238.
Gitton, M. Les divines pouses de la 18e dynastie. CNRS 61 (Annales Littraires de
lUniversit de Besanon 306). Paris: Les Belles-Lettres, 1984.
Graefe, E. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltund und Geschichte der Insitution des Gottesgemahlin
des Amun vom Beginn des Neuen Reiches bis zur Sptzeit. A 37. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1981.
Habachi, L. Knigssohn von Kusch. In Lexikon der gyptologie III, eds. W. Helck
and E. Otto, 630640. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1980.
. Sixteen Studies on Lower Nubia. Cahiers supplmentaires des ASAE 23.
Cairo: Institut Francais dArcheologie Orientale, 1981.
Hall, H.R., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part V.
London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914.
Harvey, S. The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos. PhD Dissertation. University of
Pennsylvania, 1998.
112 j j shirley
Helck, W. Die Berufung des Vezirs Wr. In Hermann Grapow zum 70. Geburtstag
gewidmet, ed. O. Firchow, 10717. gyptologische Studien. Institut fr
Orientforschung 29. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955.
. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Probleme der Agyptologie 3.
Leiden/Koln: Brill, 1958.
. Sozial Stellung und Grabanlage (Bemerkungen zur thebanischen
Nekropole). JESHO 5, no. 3 (1962): 225243.
.berlegungen zur Geschichte der 18. Dynastie. Oriens Antiquus 8 (1969):
281327.
. Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie.
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975.
Hornung, E. Amunophis I. In Lexikon der gyptologie I, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto,
201203. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975.
Kadry, A. Officers and Officials in the New Kingdom. Studia Aegyptiaca 8. Budapest:
Universite Lorand Eotvos, 1982.
Kampp, F. Die thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis
zur XX. Dynastie. Theben 13. 2 vols. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern,
1996.
Kees, H. Das Priestertum im gyptischen Staat, vom Neuen Reich bis zur Sptzeit.
Pd 1. Leiden/Koln: Brill, 1953.
Lefebvre, G. Histoire des grands prtres dAmon de Karnak jusqua la XXI
e
Dynastie. Paris,
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929.
Lepsius, R. Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Theben. Text. Volume V. Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1901.
Lorton, D. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Cd 70 (1995):
123132.
Maspero, G. Notes de voyage. ASAE XI (1911): 145161.
de Morgan, J. Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions de lgypte antique.
Volume I: Haute gypte. Vienna: Adolphe Holzhausen, 1894.
Morkot, R. Studies in new Kingdom Nubia I: Politics, Economics and Ideology;
Egyptian Imperialism in Nubia. Wepwawet 3 (1987): 2949.
Morris, E. The Architecture of Imperialism. Probleme der Agyptologie 22. Leiden:
Brill, 2005.
Murnane, W.J. The Organization of Government under Amunhotep III. In
Amunhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, eds. D. OConnor, and E.H. Cline,
173221. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.
Naville, E. The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari Part III. Memoir EEF 32.
London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1913.
OConnor, D. New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552664 B.C.
In Ancient Egypt: A Social History, eds. B.G. Trigger, et al., 183278. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Pamminger, P. Nochmals zum Problem der Vizekonige von Kusch unter
Hatschepsut. GM 131 (1992): 97100.
Polz, D. The Royal and Private Necropolis of the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Dyasties
at Dra Abu el-Naga. Cahiers supplmentaires des ASAE 34/II. Cairo: Institut
Francais dArcheologie Orientale, 2005.
. Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende. Deutsches
Archologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 31. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 2007.
Polz, D., U. Rummel and A. Piccato. Bericht ber die 6., 7. und 8.
Grabungskampagne. MDAIK 55 (1999): 34470.
viceroys, viziers & the amun precinct 113
Quirke, S. The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom. Rd 37 (1986):
107130.
Randall-MacIver, D. Buhen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum,
1911.
Redford, D.B. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. CHANE 16. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Reisner, G.A. The Viceroys of Ethiopia. JEA 6 (1920): 2855.
Romer, J. Who Made the Private Tombs of Thebes? In Essays in Egyptology in
honor of Hans Goedicke, eds. B. Bryan and D. Lorton, 211232. San Antonio,
TX: Van Siclen Books, 1994.
Sve-Sderbergh, T. Agypten und Nubien. Lund: H. Ohlssons, 1941.
Schmitz, B. Untersuchungen zum Titel z nswt Knigssohn. Habelt Dissertationsdrucke,
Reihe gyptologie 2. Bonn: Habelt Verlag, 1976.
Schulz, R. Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus: eine Untersuching zu
den sogenannten Wrfelhockern. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1992.
Shirley, J J. The Culture of Officialdom. PhD Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University,
2005.
. One Tomb, Two Owners: Theban Tomb 122 Re-Use or Planned
Family Tomb? In Z. Hawass and J. Houser Wegner (eds.), Studies in Honor
of David P. Silverman. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities (distributed by
American University in Cairo Press), forthcoming in 2010.
Simpson, W.K. Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. New
Haven/Philadelphia: Yale University Press, 1963.
. Ah-mose, called Pa-tjenna. BMFA 70 nos. 361362 (1972): 116-117.
. Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty 18. BMFA 77 (1979): 36-
49.
Smith, H.S. The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions. London: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1976.
Spalinger, A.J. Review of G.P.F. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration
in the Early New Kingdom. Varia Aegyptiaca 8 (1992): 5762.
. Covetous Eyes South: The Background to Egypts Domination of Nubia
by the Reign of Thutmose III. In Thutmose III: A New Biography, ed. E. Cline
and D. OConnor, 344369. London: Thames and Hudson.
. War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
2005.
van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom.
Vandersleyen, C. Les guerres dAmosis. Fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie
(Monographies Reine lisabeth 1), Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique Reine
Elisabeth, 1971.
Vandersleyen, C. Ahmose. In Lexikon der gyptologie I, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto,
99101. Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975.
. Une stle de lan 18 dAmosis Hanovre. Cd 52 (1977): 223244.
Weigall, A.E.P. Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia: the first cataract to he Sudan
frontier, and their condition in 190607. Oxford: H. Hart, 1907.
Wente, E.F. Some Graffiti from the reign of Hatshepsut. JNES 43 (1984):
4754.