American University in Cairo

AUC Knowledge Fountain

Sociology, Egyptology & Anthropology Sociology, Egyptology & Anthropology

Department: Faculty Work Department

2016

Gender, Ritual, and Manipulation of Power

Mariam Ayad Dr.

Follow this and additional works at: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/sae_fac

Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Religion Commons

 Meike Becker, Anke Ilona Blöbaum
and Angelika Lohwasser (Eds.)

“Prayer and Power”

Proceedings of the Conference on the
God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the
First Millennium BC
ÄGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT
Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments
Band 84

Gegründet von Manfred Görg

Herausgegeben von Stefan Jakob Wimmer und Wolfgang Zwickel
 Meike Becker, Anke Ilona Blöbaum
and Angelika Lohwasser (Eds.)

“Prayer and Power”

Proceedings of the Conference on the
God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the
First Millennium BC

2016
Ugarit-Verlag
Münster
Umschlag-Vignette: The God’s Wives of Amun, Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II, in the chapel of
Amenirdis I in Medinet Habu (photo: A. Lohwasser)

Ägypten und Altes Testament, Band 84

Meike Becker, Anke Ilona Blöbaum and Angelika Lohwasser (Eds.)

“Prayer and Power”. Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in
Egypt during the First Millennium BC

© 2016 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster

www.ugarit-verlag.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-218-4
ISSN 0720-9061

Printed on acid-free paper

Participants of the conference “Prayer and Power. The God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the
1st Millenium BC”, June 25th–27th 2015 at the University of Münster
 Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. IX

Meike Becker, Anke Ilona Blöbaum, Angelika Lohwasser

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Amr El Hawary
The Figurative Power of Prayer. The “Ode to the Goddess” (EA 194)
as a Theological Justification for Establishing the Office of the God’s Wife
of Amun as an Institution at the End of the 20th Dynasty ......................................................................... 9

Meike Becker
Female Influence, aside from that of the God’s Wives of Amun,
during the Third Intermediate Period ...................................................................................................... 21

Raphaële Meffre
Political Changes in Thebes during the Late Libyan Period
and the Relationship between Local Rulers and Thebes ......................................................................... 47

Claus Jurman
Karomama Revisited ............................................................................................................................... 61

Mariam F. Ayad
Gender, Ritual, and Manipulation of Power. The God’s Wife of Amun (Dynasty 23–26) .................... 89

Robert G. Morkot
The Late-Libyan and Kushite God’s Wives. Historical and Art-historical Questions ......................... 107

Angelika Lohwasser
“Nubianess” and the God’s Wives of the 25th Dynasty.
Office Holders, the Institution, Reception and Reaction ...................................................................... 121

Wienke Aufderhaar
The Sphinxes of Shepenwepet II .......................................................................................................... 137

Carola Koch
Between Tradition and Innovation – the Hwwt-kA of the God’s Wives ................................................ 155

Mariam F. Ayad
Reading a Chapel .......................................................................... ....................................................... 167

Anke Ilona Blöbaum

The Nitocris Adoption Stela. Representation of Royal Dominion and Regional Elite Power ............. 183

Aleksandra Hallmann
Iconography of Prayer and Power.
Portrayals of the God’s Wife Ankhnesneferibre in the Osiris Chapels at Karnak ................................ 205

Olivier Perdu
Une épouse divine à Héracléopolis. Suite ............................................................................................. 223

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 245

Indices ................................................................................................................................................... 249

 Gender, Ritual, and Manipulation of Power.
The God’s Wife of Amun (Dynasty 23–26)

Mariam F. Ayad

In the aftermath of civil war and a period of intense intra-dynastic turmoil, Osorkon III and Takeloth III,
the last rulers of the Libyan Twenty-third Dynasty, commemorated the installation of Shepenwepet I,
the daughter of the former and sister of the latter, as God’s Wife of Amun by erecting a chapel de-
dicated to Osiris, Ruler of Eternity in East Karnak. The chapel depicts Shepenwepet engaged in
exclusively royal rites of affirmation, and sets the precedent for later God’s Wives’ iconographic
depiction and building activity. The God’s Wives’ appropriation of royal iconography increases under
the Kushite rule of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, and culminates in Shepenwepet II’s celebration of the sed-
festival. The gradual rise in the power of the God’s Wife coincides with a deliberate marginalization of
the office of the High Priest of Amun and its holders. By the end of the Saite Twenty-sixth Dynasty, the
high priesthood is bestowed on a woman, Ankhnesneferibre, who later becomes God’s Wife of Amun at
Thebes. This paper examines the ritualistic duties of the God’s Wife of Amun and attempts to link the
concurrent rise of their power and the decline of the high priesthood to the tumultuous political situation
of Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period.
During a period spanning almost two centuries (c. 740–525 BCE), a group of five women attained
unprecedented status and power. They all held the title and position of God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes.1
The first was the Libyan Shepenwepet I, who was succeeded in office by two Kushite princesses:
Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II. Lastly, two Saite princesses Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre held the
office of God’s Wife. Each of these God’s Wives was a royal princess, the daughter and sister of a
ruling king. None seem to have had spouses – at least none that appear in the historical and archaeo-
logical records.2 Although originally introduced in the early 18th Dynasty, when the founder of the
dynasty Ahmose bestowed the title and office of God’s Wife of Amun on his Chief Royal Wife
Ahmose-Nefertary, the office reached unprecedented heights during the tenure of the God’s Wives of
the Twenty-third to the Twenty-sixth Dynasties. The God’s Wife of Amun of that period dedicated
chapels to the god Osiris – sometimes in association with the ruling king, other times on their own – and
each had a funerary chapel erected in the precinct of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet
Habu3 (Fig. 1). Remarkably, despite their different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and the fact that
they belonged to warring dynasties, these women not only shared several attributes, but each God’s
Wife was able to utilize and build on the power and legitimacy gained by her predecessor. The impetus
for the re-introduction of the office of God’s Wife and giving its holders such unprecedented power and
prestige may be found in the political events immediately preceding the appointment of Shepenwepet I,
the first of this group, as God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes.

1
See, most recently, Ayad 2009 and Koch 2012.
2
Roth 1999.
3
Hölscher 1954, 17–30.
90 MARIAM F. AYAD

Fig. 1: Funerary chapels of the God’s Wives of Amun, Medinet Habu

Appointment to office and legitimation

Shepenwepet I was daughter of Osorkon III and sister of Takeloth III.4 Although no document survives
detailing the circumstances surrounding her appointment, it seems plausible to assume that she attained
her office around the same time that her brother Takeloth was promoted from High Priest of Amun at
Karnak to co-regent.5 Török suggested 761 BC as the year of Shepenwepet I’s appointment into office.6
Scenes preserved on the walls of the chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity at Karnak (Fig. 2) suggest that
the chapel was erected to commemorate her appointment as God’s Wife.7 There, Shepenwepet I appears
more frequently than either her father, the ruling king, or her brother, his co-regents.8
In the chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, not only is Shepenwepet I depicted at the same scale as the
gods in this chapel, but she consecrates offerings to them and is shown crowned by Amun and suckled by
Hathor.9 Scenes of crowning and suckling by the deities were previously an exclusively royal prerogative.
Leclant has suggested that the milk of a goddess imbued the king with his divinity.10 Accordingly, it is not
surprising to encounter suckling scenes among the king’s coronation rites.11 To an Egyptian, seeing She-
penwepet receiving the milk of a goddess, not once, but on three separate occa-sions in the chapel of Osiris,
Ruler of Eternity would have sent a very strong message regarding her (divine) status.

4
Kitchen 1995, 91, 476–477 (table 10).
5
Ayad 2009a, 16; Kitchen 1995, 126–127, 201.
6
Török 1997, 148.
7
Redford 1973, 21.
8
Redford 1973, 20–21; Ayad 2009b, 124–129.
9
PM II, 206 (9a–b); Schwaller de Lubicz, pl. 235; Redford 1973, 21, pl. XX; Fazzini 1988, 20–21; Ayad 2009a,
34–37; Ayad 2009b, 125–128.
10
Leclant 1951 and 1960.
11
Bonhême – Forgeau 1988, 85–86, 272–273; Leclant 1960.
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 91

Fig. 2: Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, Karnak

Likewise, bestowing the proper headgear on a king equally declared his newly acquired status. 12 Both
crowning and suckling are considered an integral part of the royal legitimation process;13 and it is
precisely those scenes that dominate the original, Libyan, façade of the chapel of Osiris, Ruler of
Eternity.
The chapel was later enlarged under Nubian rule, with a third, bigger room added at the entrance of
the Libyan chapel, such that the façade of the original chapel was now incorporated as the southern wall
of this new room. Decoration on the façade of the Nubian addition to the chapel of Osiris, Ruler of
Eternity indicates that it was built during the reign of Shebitqo.14 According to the conventional
chronology of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, Shebitqo reigned from 702–690 BC.15 The traditionally
accepted date of the construction of the Kushite addition is thus traditionally placed closer to c. 706 BC.
Recently though several scholars have suggested a reversal in the order of Kushite kings, by which
Shebitqo, ascending the throne around 712/714 BC, would precede Shabaqo.16 This new order of
Kushite royal succession would impact the proposed date of the construction date of the Kushite
addition to the chapel, placing it closer to 716 BC. These new dates would have Shepenwepet, alive and
performing rituals at the good old age of 70–85, instead of the more unattainable 90–100 years old.17
Rather than erasing her predecessor’s name and cartouche and replacing them with her own,
Amenirdis, the first Kushite God’s Wife, chose not only to keep Shepenwepet I’s name and cartouches
on the walls of this chapel, but she also had Shepenwepet I depicted on the East wall of the Kushite
addition to the chapel as well as on the newly-erected façade. In choosing to do so, Amenirdis
undoubtedly understood and appreciated the legitimating value of the scenes depicting Shepenwepet I.

12
Bonhême – Forgeau 1988, 273–277, 297; Goebs 2008.
13
Bonhême – Forgeau 1988, 85–86; Leclant 1951 and 1960.
14
Kitchen 1995, 386; Ayad 2009a, 38; Ayad 2009b, 18.
15
Kitchen 1995, 383; Török 1997, 166.
16
Bányai 2013; Payraudeau 2014, 127; Broekman 2015.
17
Broekman 2015, 26.
92 MARIAM F. AYAD

Rather than eradicating her memory, Amenirdis decided to build on those scenes that proclaimed
Shepenwepet I’s divine status and use them to validate her own claim to the position/office of God’s
Wife. A close examination of the location and content of the scenes depicting Shepenwepet I in the
Nubian addition reveals the extent of thought and intentionality that went into selecting both the
location and content of those scenes.
On the upper register of the east wall of room 1 (the Nubian addition), Shepenwepet I is depicted
offering Maat to Amun-Re and receiving the menat-necklace from Isis, while Amenirdis I is shown on
the lower register of the same wall receiving life from Amun, and heb-sed symbols from Mut.18
Typically, when a king presents Maat to the gods, he simultaneously receives life from the god with
whom he is depicted in a reciprocal, “tit-for-tat,” kind of transaction.19 But here the presentation of
Maat and the receiving of life are deliberately represented separately. The overall effect of this de-
coupling is that it seems as if one God’s Wife sows and the other reaps. While Shepenwepet I performs
the duties of the officiating king, it is Amenirdis I who is awarded life.20
It is here, in the chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, that Amenirdis appears to build on the legitimacy
gained by Shepenwepet I most clearly. But she does so cognizant of her status as a member of a new,
victorious dynasty. The newly erected façade of the Nubian addition to the chapel features eight
vignettes that adorn the doorway to the chapel.21 Amenirdis I is consistently represented on the eastern
jamb vignettes, while Shepenwepet I appears in the corresponding vignettes on the western jamb. In
choosing to be depicted on the eastern jamb, Amenirdis reserves for herself the more dominant
rightward orientation as she, the officiant, walks into the chapel.22

Regnal dates for the God’s Wives of Amun?

A rather obscure inscription found in the mining region of Wadi Gasus associates the cartouches of (a)
Shepenwepet and (an) Amenirdis. The cartouches are accompanied by the dates 19 and 12,
respectively.23 Although various attempts have been made to explain those dates, the inscription
remains problematic. Baer, Wente and Ritner all accept these dates as belonging to the God’s Wives
Shepenwepet I, and Amenirdis I, respectively, arguing that dates rarely refer to a person other than the
one named in an immediately following cartouche, and that, in view of her acquisition of other royal
attributes, it would be acceptable for a God’s Wife to have dates assigned to her, especially in such a
“remote, semi-independent” area.24 Christophe has challenged the view that the dates belong to the two
God’s Wives, since in no other instance do we find regnal dates referring to the God’s Wife.25 Kitchen
favored an interpretation that assumes that year 12 on the inscription refered to Piye’s 12th regnal year,
and suggested Takeloth III as the most suitable Libyan candidate/ruler for year 19.26 More recently
though Broekman has demonstrated the impossibility of lowering Takeloth III’s dates so that his 19 th
regnal year would coincide with Piye’s 12th year.27 Instead, Broekman supports Jurman’s assertion that,
based on paleographic evidence, these dates were actually two single graffiti inscribed on two separate
occasions – a suggestion that had only been tentatively considered by Kitchen earlier.28
Apart from the iconography of the chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, which seems to be specifically
geared toward the legitimation of Shepenwepet I and, subsequently, Amenirdis I, this inscription
constitutes the only other piece of evidence linking Amenirdis I with her predecessor, Shepenwepet.

18
Schwaller de Lubicz, pl. 234.
19
Bonhême – Forgeau 1988, 132–135; Teeter 1997, 3.
20
Ayad 2009a, 41–42, 44–46, 48–49; Ayad 2009b, 130–131.
21
PM II, 205 (4), XVII.4; Leclant 1965, pl. xxiv, fig. 17; Ayad 2009a, 38–41, 46–47.
22
Ayad 2009a, 47; Robins 1994, 36–38; Arnold 1962, 128; Fischer 1977, 41.
23
Christophe 1952–53; Ritner 2009, 460–461.
24
Baer 1973, 20; Wente 1976, 276; Ritner 2009, 460–461.
25
Christophe 1952–53, 143.
26
Kitchen 1995, 178.
27
Broekman 2009, 94.
28
Jurman 2006, 86–91, also cited in Broekman 2009, 94; see also Kitchen 1995, 177 (§144).
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 93

Now that the inscription has been shown to have been written on two separate occasions, the chapel of
Osiris, Ruler of Eternity remains the only monument clearly associating the Libyan God’s Wife of
Amun, Shepenwepet I with her Nubian successor Amenirdis I.

Adoption into office?

On none of the monuments of Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I is the adoption phraseology found in
conjunction with these two God’s Wives of Amun. In fact, it is only on the monuments of Shepenwepet II,
Amenirdis’s niece and successor, that we first find a God’s Wife referring to her predecessor as “her
mother” (e.g. on the lintel and jambs of the chapel of Osiris, Lord of Life).29 There, as elsewhere,
Shepenwepet II opts for including the name and cartouche of her deceased predecessor rather than using
her own double cartouche.30 Shepenwepet II likewise solidified her status as Amenirdis’ legitimate heir
and successor by erecting a “monument for eternity,” a funerary chapel, constructed of stone, for
Amenirdis and performing funerary rites for her, and on her behalf (Figs. 3–6). 31 A tactic later utilized
by Ankhnesneferibre, who devotes a substantial portion of her so-called “Adoption Stela” to a
description of the “proper” funerary rites she performed for her deceased mother.32

Fig. 3: Dedicatory inscription of Shepenwepet II, west-

ern jamb, funerary chapel of Amenirdis I, Medinet Habu

Fig. 4: Shepenwepet II partnering with the goddess

Seshat in the rite of “Stretching the Cord,” which
symbolized and summed up the construction of a temple,
Courtyard, western half of the southern wall, funerary
chapel of Amenirdis I, Medinet Habu

Adoption, inheritance, and the estate of the God’s Wife

The economic independence of the institution of the God’s Wife of Amun is first documented in the
donation stela of Ahmose-Nefertary.33 The independent status of the God’s Wife is clearly stated on the
stela, where future kings were prohibited from decreasing/taking from the allocations of the God’s
Wife.34

29
Ayad 2009b, 134; PM II 194 (2); Leclant 1965, 28; Legrain 1902, 210.
30
Ayad 2009b, 133–134.
31
Hölscher 1954, 20; Ayad 2009b, 19, 133.
32
Leahy 1996.
33
Harari 1959; Gitton 1975 and 1976; Bryan 2005.
34
Bryan 2005.
94 MARIAM F. AYAD

Fig. 5: Shepenwepet II performaing the rite of Driving the Four Calves, upper register, eastern half of the southern
wall, courtyard, Funerary Chapel of Amenirdis I, Medinet Habu (western half)

The extensive staff associated with the Domain of the God’s Wife further confirms the financial
independence and extensive holdings of her estate.35 But not since the time of Ahmose-Nefertary do we
get a document as explicit as the Nitocris Adoption Stela.36 There, in addition of the endowment bestowed
upon her by her father, various temples throughout Egypt pledge daily and annual contributions to the
estate of the God’s Wife as well as give her vast tracts of land all over Egypt.37 The language of the stela
also indicates that Shepenwepet II was already in possession of substantial wealth38 that needed to be
legally transferred to her successor. It is here that we find the most explicit use of the adoption
phraseology.39 The explicit transfer of property occurs on line 16, which reads, in part:
“. . . she loved her more than anything and made over to her the testament which her
(Shepenwepet’s) father and mother had executed for her; and her eldest daughter
Amonirdis, daughter of King Ta[harqa], justified, did likewise. Their bidding was done in
writing, to wit: ‘Herewith we give to you all our property in country and in town.”40

The inclusion of dates, the presence of court officials who served as witnesses to the document, and the
fact that it was later engraved in stone and set up for all to see at Karnak, indicate the stela’s legality.
The document meets all the criteria of an Imyt-pr document. The Imyt-pr was a legal means of
transferring property, when such a transfer was intended for someone other than the rightful/legal heir.41

35
Graefe 1981.
36
Caminos 1964.
37
Caminos 1964, 75–76 [lines 17–20 and 24–30].
38
Caminos 1964, 75 [line 16].
39
Caminos 1964, 74 [line 3].
40
Caminos 1964, 75 [line 16].
41
Logan 2000; Ayad 2009b, 140.
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 95

Fig. 6: Shepenwepet II pours libations before Re-Horakhty, Isis, and deified Amenirdis I. lower register, eastern
half of the southern wall, courtyard, Funerary Chapel of Amenirdis I, Medinet Habu

To date, the Saite “adoption” decrees of Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre remain without immediate
precedent. No documents survive that may shed light on the installation of the Libyan Shepenwepet I, or
the Kushite Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II.
In the absence of a legal document asserting their right to the new office, each of the Nubian God’s
Wife utilized ritualistic and iconographic means to assert her qualification for the new office and
legitimate her succession to it.

The God’s Wife and royal rituals

Shepenwepet II was not merely satisfied with the performance of mortuary rites for her predecessor at
the funerary chapel of Amenirdis I at Medinet Habu, There, she also assumed the role of Horus when
performing the ritual Driving of the Four Calves for the benefit of the Osirian triad (Fig. 5). In this
instance of the ritual, Amenirdis, deified, replaces Isis, as the feminine, third member of the triad. In the
chapel of Amenirdis, the Driving of the Four Calves appears on the eastern part of the south wall of the
courtyard. On the immediately adjacent eastern wall, a version of the Rite of Striking/Consecrating the
Meret-Chests appears. The two rites were often depicted in close proximity to one another and had
Osirian and agrarian connotations.42 Although the two rituals appear on a limited number of Twenty-
first Dynasty coffins,43 never had the High Priests of Amun been depicted performing either ritual on a
publicly visible monument. Prior to their appearance on the walls of the funerary chapel of Amenirdis,
these two rituals were exclusively royal prerogatives.

42
Egberts 1995.
43
Egberts 1995, 44–46 and 244–246.
96 MARIAM F. AYAD

In the edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake at Karnak, an unnamed God’s Wife, most probably
Shepenwepet II, appears partnering with the King in the Rites of Protection of the Cenotaph of Osiris.44
While the king is batting 4 balls, the God’s Wife draws an arrow through a double-curved bow.45
Elsewhere in the same room, the God’s Wife, most probably Shepenwepet II, partners with four
different priests in the rites of the elevation of the Tst-column, a ritual that was meant to proclaim Amun-
Re’s university dominion, and by extension, the king’s as well.46 In these rites, the God’s Wife partners
with either the highest ranking priests,47 or the King himself, the ultimate high priest of all gods. There,
she also appears on an equal footing, being represented at the same scale as the king.
Shepenwepet II’s depiction in those rituals was not a fluke. For, it was during Shepenwepet II’s
tenure that the God’s Wife of Amun acquired most of the ritualistic functions of the king, the ultimate
High Priest of all the gods of Egypt. Of the five women who held the office of God’s Wife during the
23–26th Dynasties, Shepenwepet II comes across as the one to borrow most extensively from royal
iconography. The ritualistic duties of a God’s Wife may have peaked during the Kushite period,
possibly reflecting an attempt to express Kushite queenship ideology in a manner acceptable to
Egyptians. For whereas it was common for a Kushite queen to appear next to the king in ritual scenes
depicted on Nubian monuments, it is the God’s Wife, not the queen, who appears next to the king in
Theban scenes.48
Blocks recovered from the ramp of the Ptolemaic temple of Montu in North Karnak depict
Shepenwepet II celebrating, on her own, the sed-festival, the ultimate royal rite.49 The sed-festival was
likely a rite of investiture, where the king was imbued with his priestly powers.50 While other royal
women, particularly royal daughters, could previously take part in the celebrations of the sed-festival, as
seen for example in the sed-festival scenes of Osorkon II,51 their role was primarily restricted to playing
the sistrum and other musical accompaniment.52 Never before had a woman celebrated it in her own
right. Bleeker has suggested that it was during the sed-festival that the king acquired his priestly
functions.53 If so, then, what we have here is an official, ritualistic affirmation of the priestly role of the
God’s Wife. Epigraphic evidence suggests that this dismantled building was probably erected and
decorated sometime during the first nine years of Psametik I’s reign, before he affirmed his control over
the Theban region.54 During this transitional period, the God’s Wife and high officials such as
Montuemhat were virtually unaccountable to anyone and probably had complete authority over the
Theban region.
Whatever priestly powers the God’s Wife of Amun may have had under Libyan and Kushite rule,
these were finally codified and given official expression under the Saites. Ankhnesneferibre, the
daughter of Psametik II, and the last of the five women, officially held the title of High Priest(ess) of
Amun, even while she was “heiress apparent” prior to becoming a God’s Wife.55

44
Parker 1979, 62, pl. 25; Leclant 1965, 23, pl. xvii. For the identification of the GWA as Shepenwepet, see Ayad
2007, 6–8. For a discussion of the scene, see Ayad 2009b, 87–90; Fazzini 1988, 22–23, pl. xxvi; Cooney 2000,
34–36.
45
Parker 1979, 62 and pl. 25; Ayad 2007.
46
Parker 1979, pl. 26; Ayad 2007; Ayad 2009b, 96–99.
47
Ayad 2007, 4–6.
48
Lohwasser 2001, 69–70.
49
Perkins 1951; Barguet – Leclant 1954, 109–111, 116, pl. CVI; Ayad 2009b, 110–115; Bonhême – Forgeau 1988,
304–306.
50
Bleeker 1967, 120–123.
51
Lange, 2009.
52
See Epigraphic Survey 1980 for the Tomb of Kheruef (TT 192), where the royal daughters feature prominently
in Amenhotep III’s sed-festival.
53
Bleeker 1967, 122.
54
Ayad 2009b, 111.
55
Leahy 1996, 148 and 157.
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 97

While the Saite God’s Wives may have been equally bold in borrowing royal iconography, their
surviving monuments are so fragmentary that it is almost impossible to ascertain whether they engaged
in similar ritual activities.56

The God’s Wife of Amun and the High Priest(hood) of Amun

Shepenwepet I was probably appointed as God’s Wife only when her brother, Takeloth (III), vacated
the position of the High Priest of Amun to become Osorkon III’s co-regent. Similarly, Piye could have
arranged for Amenirdis I’s appointment into office, probably during his first Egyptian campaign.57
Several arguments favor this assumption. There is no evidence for Kashta ever being in Egypt past
Elephantine and, elsewhere, his name appears only in the filiation of his children.58 Likewise, it is not
clear exactly who was responsible for the appointment of Shepenwepet II, the successor, niece and
adoptive daughter of Amenirdis I. It seems likely though that Shepenwepet II was quite keen on
legitimating her role as God’s Wife.
From the appointment of Takeloth III as a co-regent (in ca. 769 B.C.)59 to the installation of Hare-
makhet, son of Shabaqo, as High Priest of Amun, no High Priests of Amun are attested. 60 The lack of
evidence implies a gap of 40–50 years, during which the position of the High Priest of Amun was left
vacant.61 Török has suggested that Haremakhet’s appointment was ideologically motivated by
Shabaqo’s desire to legitimate his own rule. He similarly views the appointment of the God’s Wife as
ideologically motivated and argues that since there was a recently-appointed incumbent, who was
reasonably young, a royal daughter could not be installed as God’s Wife in Thebes. Accordingly,
Shabaqo, according to Török, had to resort to appointing his son instead.62 However that may be, I
would argue that Haremakhet’s appointment to the priesthood was now possible precisely because the
office of the God’s Wife of Amun had attained so much power, and was so well established by that
point in time that it was deemed “politically safe” to return to the tradition of appointing a royal son to
the high priesthood. That Haremakhet’s appointment coincided with Shepenwepet II’s tenure in office
was thus no coincidence.63
Haremakhet was succeeded in office by his own son Harkhebit.64 Both father and son are named
among the list of witnesses included in the so-called Saite Oracle Papyrus, currently in the Brooklyn
Museum.65 There, the names of Haremakhet and Harkhebi appear at the end of a long list witnesses,
followed by the name of pr-aA (“Pharaoh”) Shabaqo, father of the former and grandfather of the latter.66
In the vignette accompanying the text of the oracle, both father and son are depicted in brown skin
tones, setting them apart from the other priests who are shown in a light shade of pink. But whereas the
senior priest is shown in a very dark shade of brown to indicate his Kushite descent, his son appears in a
lighter shade of dark brown.67 Harkhebi was a traditional Egyptian name, occurring no less than three
times in the text of the oracle. All were members, of various ranks, of the Amun priesthood.68

56
Perdu 2010; Traunecker 2010; Coulon – Masson 2010; Koch 2012.
57
Ayad 2009, Kitchen 1995; Depuydt 1993.
58
Russmann, 116; Kitchen 1995, 151, n. 289; contra Török,1997, 149.
59
Broekman 2009, 96.
60
Kees, 1964, 163–164; Kitchen 1995, 150–151 and 478 (genealogical tables), 197, 201.
61
Kitchen 1995, 197, 201; Török 1997, 168.
62
Török 1997, 168.
63
Török 1997, 168; contra Kitchen 1995, 382.
64
Kees, 1964, 164–168; Kitchen 1995, 151, 197, 390.
65
Parker 1962.
66
Parker 1962, 29.
67
Parker 1962, pl. 1.
68
Parker 1962, 18, 19, and 22.
98 MARIAM F. AYAD

Harkhebi is also mentioned in the Nitocris Adoption Stela, where he pledges to give the newly-installed
Saite God’s Wife “100 debens of bread and 2 hin of milk” daily and “10 cakes, 5 heben of beer and 10
bundles of herbs” on monthly basis.69
Now stripped of all military and political powers,70 a High Priest could no longer pose a threat to the
ruling king. Military leadership of the armies was given to a royal brother, such as Taharqa, while
administrative duties in the Theban area and elsewhere were given to members of the household of the
God’s Wife,71 to local dignitaries,72 or to royal appointees who were brought specifically from Nubia
for the purpose of holding office at Thebes.73
While Kitchen suggested that “with the death or disappearance of Har-Khebi[t], the pontificate of
Amun faded into total insignificance,”74 that was not quite the case. As ‘heiress apparent’, Ankh-
nesneferibre bore the title of Hm-nTr tpy n Imn, or “First Prophet of Amun,” or High Priest of Amun.
The title, which was not modified to reflect Ankhnesneferibre’s gender, appears on line 5 of her
Adoption Stela (Cairo JE 36907).75 Her investiture with the priesthood seems to have been a public
occasion, with the statue of the god Amun brought out of the sanctuary in confirmation of her
appointment, and as a sign of his approval of it.76 Clearly then, the office of the High Priest of Amun
was not abolished, but rather it was re-assigned – progressively and through a rather involved and
gradual process – to the God’s Wife of Amun.77

The God’s Wife of Amun as a politically safe choice?

The potentially disastrous outcome of overly ambitious High Priests found clear expression in the
Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, recorded on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak.78 The text gives an account of
several Theban uprisings that occurred in the ninth century BC, taking place in Takeloth II’s 12th, 15th,
and 26th regnal years. Each time, Osorkon was dispatched to Thebes to vanquish the rebels. In
Takeloth’s 12th year, Osorkon’s titles are given as: “First Prophet of Amun-Re,” “Great General and
Leader,” and “Eldest Son,” i.e. Crown Prince.79 One of the main revolts was led by Harsiese, a High
Priest, who challenged Sheshonq III’s claim to the throne.80 This particular revolt probably occurred
shortly after Sheshonq’s accession to the throne.81 In year 26 of Takeloth II’s reign, Osorkon, then both
crown prince and High Priest of Amun, was dispatched to Thebes, to quell another Theban uprising. But
this time, Osorkon was defeated and stripped of the High Priesthood.82
At the height of the God’s Wife’s power, and for a period of about 50 years starting with the tenure
of Shepenwepet I, the office of High Priest of Amun was vacant. In my view, that was the result of
deliberate state policy. In the aftermath of civil war and bloody power grabs, the powers that be felt it
safer to delegate the highest religious functions to a woman, who could not produce offspring of her
own or put forward a rival claim to the Egyptian throne.
While the initial recreation of the office of God’s Wife in the late 23 rd Dynasty may have been a
rather delayed reaction to the turmoil experienced a number of years earlier, the full ritualistic potential

69
Caminos 1964, 75 [lines 22–23].
70
Kitchen 1995, 201, 382.
71
Graefe 1981; Kitchen, 1995, 370, 387.
72
Kitchen 1995, 390; Leclant 1961. Theban officials such as Montuemhat or Pediamenope constructed huge
funerary monuments (Grabpalast) in the cemetery of Asasif. The size of these monuments attests to their vast
wealth. For the tombs, see most recently, Traunecker 2014 and Gestermann – Gomaà 2014.
73
Pischikova 2014; Schreiber 2014.
74
Kitchen 1995, 405.
75
Leahy 1996, 146–148.
76
Leahy 1996, 157.
77
Ayad 2009b, 116–124.
78
Caminos 1958; Epigraphic Survey 1954.
79
Caminos 1958, 159–160; Ritner 2009a, 359.
80
Ritner 2009a, 366; Epigraphic Survey 1954, pl. 22, lines 2–21; Kitchen 1995, §294.
81
Ritner 2009a, 366.
82
Kitchen 1995, 332.
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 99

of the office of God’s Wife was realized under Kushite rule and specifically during the tenure of
Shepenwepet II. The idea that a woman could be entrusted with rituals the proclaimed/asserted Amun’s
universality and by extension, the king’s global dominion is intriguing. It is around this time that the
office of High Priest of Amun is filled again through the appointment of Haremakhet, son of Shabaqo to
the High Priesthood.83
Not precluding that this appointment served to legitimate the king’s rule, who could not install a
daughter of his own as God’s Wife since that position had been recently filled by Shepenwepet,84 I
would argue that it is precisely the great religious (and undoubtedly political) power attained by the
God’s Wife during the tenure of Shepenwepet II that ultimately allowed for the appointment of a High
Priest of Amun. With military leadership given to a royal brother (e.g. Taharqa) and administrative
duties assigned to various local officials, or those associated with the estate of the God’s Wife, the High
Priest now could no longer pose a danger to the king’s authority.

Bibliography

Arnold 1962 Dieter Arnold. Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in ägyptischen Tempeln des
Neuen Reichs. MÄS 2. Berlin.

Aston 2009 David A. Aston. Takeloth II, A King of the Herakleopolitan/Theban Twenty-
Third Dynasty Revisited: The Chronology of Dynasties 22 and 23. In:
Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The
Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th
Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October
2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 1–28.

Aston 2014 David Aston. Royal Burials at Thebes during the First Millennium BC. In:
Elena Pischikova – Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First
Millennium BC. Cambridge, 15–59.

Ayad 2001 Mariam Ayad. Some Thoughts on the Disappearance of the Office of God’s
Wife of Amun. In: JSSEA 28, 1–14.

Ayad 2007 Mariam Ayad. On the Identity and Role of the God’s Wife of Amun in Rites
of Royal and Divine Dominion. In: JSSEA 34, 1–13.

Ayad 2009a Mariam Ayad. The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule: The Role of the
God’s Wife of Amun. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf
E. Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies
into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden Uni-
versity, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 29–49.

Ayad 2009b Mariam Ayad. God’s Wife, God’s Servant: The God’s Wife of Amun (c.
740–525 BC). London.

Baer 1973 Klaus Baer. The Libyan and Nubian Kings of Egypt, Notes on the
Chronology of Dynasties XXII to XXVI. In: JNES 32, 4–25.

Bányai 2013 Michael Bányai. Ein Vorschlag zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in
Ägypten. In: Journal of Egyptian History 6, 46–129.

83
Kees, 1964, 163–164; Kitchen 1995, 150–151 and 478 (genealogical tables), 197, 382; Török 1997, 168.
84
Török 1997, 168.
100 MARIAM F. AYAD

Barguet – Leclant 1954 Paul Barguet – Jean Leclant. Karnak-Nord IV (1949-1951). Fouilles conduits
par C. Robichon. FIFAO 25. Le Caire.

Bickel 2009 Susanne Bickel. The Inundation Inscriptions in Luxor Temple. In: Gerard P.
F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period
in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties.
Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007.
EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 51–55.

Bleeker 1967 C. Jouco Bleeker. Egyptian Festivals. Enactments of Religious Renewal.

Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) 13. Leiden.

Bonhême – Forgeau Marie-Ange Bonhême – Annie Forgeau. Pharaon. Les secrets du pouvoir.
1988 Préface de Jean Leclant. Paris.

Brandl 2009 Helmut Brandl. Bemerkungen zur Datierung von libyerzeitlichen Statuen
aufgrund stilistischer Kriterien. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J.
Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and
Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at
Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 58–89.

Broekman 2009 Gerard P. F. Broekman. Takeloth III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty. In:
Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The
Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21 st–24th
Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October
2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 91–101.

Broekman 2015 Gerard P. F. Broekman. The Order of Succession between Shabaka and
Shabataka. A different view on the chronology of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
In: GM 245, 17–32.

Bryan 2005 Betsy Bryan. Property and the God’s Wives of Amun. In: Deborah Lyons –
Raymond Westbrook (eds.). Women and Property in Ancient Near Eastern
and Mediterranean Societies (Conference of the Center for Hellenic Studies,
Harvard University, August 2003). Cambridge, MA, 1–15.

Caminos 1958 Ricardo A. Caminos. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. AnOr 37. Rome.

Caminos 1964 Ricardo A. Caminos. The Nitocris Adoption Stela. In: JEA 50, 71–101.

Christophe 1951 Louis-André Christophe. Karnak-Nord III (1945–1949). Fouilles conduites

par C. Robichon. FIFAO 23. Le Caire.

Christophe 1952–53 Louis-André Christophe. La double datation du Ouadi Gassous. In: BIE 35,
141–152.

Cooney 2000 Kathlyn M. Cooney. The Edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake: Ritual
Function and the Role of the King. In: JARCE 37, 15–47.

Coulon 2014 Laurent Coulon. The Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices at Karnak (Naga
Malgata) during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Some Hitherto Unpublished
Epigraphic Material. In: Elena Pischikova – Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.).
Thebes in the First Millennium BC. Cambridge, 565–585.
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 101

Coulon – Defernez 2004 Laurent Coulon – Catherine Defernez. La Chapelle d’Osiris Ounnefer Neb-
Djefaou à Karnak. Rapport des fouilles et travaux 2000–2004. BIFAO 104,
135–190.

Coulon – Masson 2010 Laurent Coulon – Aurélia Masson. Osiris Naref à Karnak. In: Laurent
Coulon (éd.). Le culte d’Osiris au 1er millénaire av. J.–C. Découvertes et
travaux récents. BdE 153. Le Caire, 123–154.

Depuydt 1993 Leo Depuydt. The Date of Piye’s Egyptian Campaign and the Chronology of
the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. In: JEA 79, 269–274.

Dodson 2014 Aidan Dodson. The Coming of the Kushites and the Identity of Osorkon IV.
In: Elena Pischikova – Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First
Millennium BC. Cambridge, 3–12.

Egberts 1995 Arne Egberts. In Quest of Meaning. A Study in the Ancient Egyptian Rites
of Consecrating the Meret-Chests and Driving the Calves. EGU 8. Leiden.

Einaudi – Tiradritti 2004 Silvia Einaudi – Franceso Tiradritti. L’enigma di Harwa. Alla scoperta di un
capolavoro del Rinascimento Egizio. Torino.

Epigraphic Survey 1954 The Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak III: The Bubastite
Portal. OIP 74. Chicago.

Epigraphic Survey 1980 The Epigraphic Survey. The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192. OIP 102.
Chicago.

Fazzini 1988 Richard A. Fazzini. Egypt, Dynasties XXII–XXV. Institute of Religious

Iconography. State University Groningen Iconography of Religions. Section
XVI: Egypt 10; Institute of Religious Iconography 16,10. Leiden.

Fazzini 2009 Richard A. Fazzini. Addendum to the Discussion on the Chapel of Osiris
Heqa-Djet. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper
(eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the
21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–
27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 446–447.

Fischer 1977 Henry G. Fischer. The Orientation of Hieroglyphs. Part I. Reversals.

Egyptian Studies 3. New York.

Gestermann – Gomaà Louise Gestermann – Farouk Gomaà. The Tomb of Mentuemhat (TT 34) in the
2014 Theban Necropolis. A New Approach. In: Elena Pischikova – Julia Budka –
Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First Millennium BC. Cambridge, 201–204.

Gitton 1975 Michel Gitton. L’épouse de dieu. Ahmes Néfertary. Documents sur sa vie et
son culte posthume. Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 15 = Annales
littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 172. Paris.

Gitton 1976 Michel Gitton. La résiliation d’une function religieuse. Nouvelle inter-
pretation de la stèla de donation d’Ahmès Néfertary. In: BIE 76, 65–89.

Goebs 2008 Katja Goebs. Crowns in Egyptian Funerary Literature. Royalty, Rebirth, and
Destruction. Oxford.
102 MARIAM F. AYAD

Gozzoli 2010 Roberto Gozzoli. Old Formats, New Experiments and Royal Ideology in the
Early Nubian Period (ca. 721–664 BCE). In: Ladislav Bareš – Filip Coppens
– Kveta Smoláriková (eds.). Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious
Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE. Prague, 183–207.

Graefe 1981 Erhart Graefe. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltung und Geschichte der
Institution der Gottesgemahlin vom Beginn des Neuen Reiches bis zur
Spätzeit. ÄA 37. Wiesbaden.

Graefe 1998 Erhart Graefe. Die Adoption ins Amt der Hswt ni Imnw und der Smswt dwAt-
nTr (zu Ritner Artikel in GM 164, 1998, 85 ff.). In: GM 166, 109–112.

Graefe 2003 Erhart Graefe. Nochmals zum Gebrauch des Titels dwAt-nTr in der Spätzeit.
In: JEA 89, 246–247.

Harari 1959 Ibrahim Harari. Nature de la Stèle de donation de function du roi Ahmôsis à
la reine Ahmès-Nefertari. In: ASAE 56, 139–201.

Hölscher 1954 Uvo Hölscher. The Excavations of Medinet Habu. V: The Post-Ramessid
Remains. OIP 66. Chicago.

Jurman 2006 Claus Jurman. Namen des Rudjamun in der Kapelle des Osiris-Hekadjet.
Bemerkungen zu Titulaturen der 3. Zwischenzeit und dem Wadi Gasus-
Graffito. In: GM 210, 69–91.

Jurman 2010 Claus Jurman. Running with Apis: The Memphis Apis Cult as a Point of
Reference for Social and Religious Practice in Late Period Elite Culture. In:
Ladislav Bareš – Filip Coppens – Kveta Smoláriková (eds.). Egypt in
Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First
Millennium BCE. Prague, 224–267.

Kahn 2009 Dan’el Kahn. The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule in Egypt:
Revisiting the Reign of Tefnakht. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J.
Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and
Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at
Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 139–148.

Kees 1964 Hermann Kees. Die Hohenpriester des Amun von Karnak von Herihor bis
zum Ende der Äthiopenzeit. PÄ 4. Leiden.

Kienitz 1953 Friedrich K. Kienitz. Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4.
Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende. Berlin.

Kitchen 1995 Kenneth A. Kitchen. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650
BC). Warminster.

Kitchen 2009 Kenneth A. Kitchen. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview
of Fact & Fiction. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E.
Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies
into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden
University, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 161–202.

Koch 2012 Carola Koch. Nicht hinter, sondern neben dem König: Die Gottesgemahlinnen
des Amun. In: Horst Beinlich – Rolf Gundlach – Andreas Pries (Hrsg.).
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 103

Die Männer hinter dem König. 6. Symposium zur ägyptischen Königideologie

/ 6th International Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology. Iphofen, 16–18
Juli 2010. KSG 4,3. Wiesbaden, 53–66.

Koch 2014 Carola Koch. Usurpation and the Erasure of Names during the Twenty-sixth
Dynasty. In: Elena Pischikova – Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in
the First Millennium BC. Cambridge, 397–413.

Lange 2009 Eva Lange. The Sed-Festival Reliefs of Osorkon II at Bubastis: New
Investigations. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E.
Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies
into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden
University, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 203–218.

Leahy 2014 Anthony Leahy. Kushites at Abydos: The Royal Family and Beyond. In:
Elena Pischikova – Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First
Millennium BC. Cambridge, 61–95.

Leahy 2009 Anthony Leahy. Dating Stelae of the Libyan Period from Abydos. In: Gerard
P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The Libyan
Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties.
Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007.
EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 417–440.

Leahy 1996 Anthony Leahy. The Adoption of Ankhnesneferibre at Karnak. In: JEA 82,
145–165.

Leahy 1990 Anthony Leahy (ed.). Libya and Egypt c. 1300–750 BC. London.

Leclant 1951 Jean Leclant. Le rôle du lait et de l’allaitement d’après les textes des
pyramides. In: JNES 10, 123–127.

Leclant 1960 Jean Leclant. The Suckling of Pharaoh as a Part of the Coronation Rites in
Ancient Egypt. Le rôle de l’allaitement dans le cérémonial du couronnement.
In: Proceedings of the IXth International Congress for the History of
Religion. Tokyo and Kyoto 1958. Tokyo, 135–145.

Leclant 1961 Jean Leclant. Montouemhat. Quatrième prophète d’Amon, prince de la ville.
BdE 35. Le Caire.

Leclant 1965 Jean Leclant. Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie
éthiopienne. BdE 36. Le Caire.

Legrain 1900 Georges Legrain. Le temple et les chapelles d’Osiris à Karnak I: Le temple
d’Osiris-hiq-djeto. In: Recueil et travaux 22, 146–149.

Legrain 1902 Georges Legrain. Le temple et les chapelles d’Osiris à Karnak III: La
chapelle d’Osiris, Maître de la Vie. In: Recueil et travaux 24, 208–214.

Logan 2000 Tom Logan. The Imyt-Pr Document: Form, Function, and Significance. In:
JARCE 37, 49–73.

Lohwasser 2001 Angelika Lohwasser. Queenship in Kush: Status, Role and Ideology of Royal
Women. JARCE 38, 61–76.
104 MARIAM F. AYAD

Loth 2009 Marc Loth. Thebanische Totenstelen der Dritten Zwischenzeit: Ikonographie
und Datierung. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E.
Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies
into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden Uni-
versity, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 219–230.

Lull 2009 José Lull. Beginning and End of the High Priest of Amun Menkheperre. In:
Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper (eds.). The
Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st–24th
Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October
2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 240–250.

Muhs 2009 Brian Muhs. Oracular Property Decrees in their Historical and Chronological
Context. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper
(eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the
21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–
27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 265–275.

Myśliwiec 1988 Karol Myśliwiec. Royal Portraiture of Dynasties XXI–XXX. Mainz.

O’Connor 1983 David O’Connor. The New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (1552–
664 BC). In: Bruce Trigger – Barry Kemp – David O’Connor – Alan B.
Lloyd (eds.). Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge, 183–278.

Payraudeau 2003 Frédéric Payraudeau. Les enfants de la rebellion. Note sur un passage de la
Chronique du Prince Osorkon. In: De Kêmi à Birit Nari. Revue Inter-
nationale de l’Orient Ancien 1, 176–80.

Payraudeau 2004 Frédéric Payraudeau. Le règne de Takéot III et les débuts de la domination
koushite à Thèbes. In: GM 198, 79–90.

Payraudeau 2009 Frédéric Payraudeau. Takeloth III. Considerations on Old and New
Documents. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf E. Kaper
(eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the
21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–
27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 291–301.

Payraudeau 2014 Frédéric Payraudeau. Retour sur la succession Shabaqa-Shabataqo. In:

NeHet: Revue numérique d’Égyptologie I, 115–127.

Parker 1962 Richard A. Parker. A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes in the Brooklyn
Museum [Papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.3]. Brown Egyptological Studies 4.
Providence.

Parker – Leclant – Richard A. Parker – Jean Leclant – Jean-Claude Goyon. The Edifice of Taharqa
Goyon 1979 by the Sacred Lake. Brown Egyptological Studies 8. Providence.

Perdu 2010 Olivier Perdu. La chapelle «osirienne» J de Karnak: sa moitié et la situation à

Thebes à la fin du règne d’Osorkon II. In: Laurent Coulon (éd.). Le culte
d’Osiris au 1er millénaire av. J.–C. Découvertes et travaux récents. BdE 153.
Le Caire, 101–122.

Perkins 1951 Ann Perkins. Archaeological News. In: AJA 55.1, 81–100.
 GENDER, RITUAL, AND MANIPULATION OF POWER 105

Pischikova 2014 Elena Pischikova. Kushite Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis:
Conservation, Reconstruction, and Research. In: Elena Pischikova – Julia
Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First Millennium BC. Cambridge,
161–172.

Redford 1973 Donald B. Redford. An Interim Report on the Second Season of Work at the
Temple of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, Karnak. In: JEA 59, 16–30.

Redford 1986 Donald B. Redford. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books. A
Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. SSEA
Publications 4. Mississauga.

Ritner 1998 Robert K. Ritner. Fictive Adoption or Celibate Princesses? In: GM 164,
85–90.

Ritner 1999 Robert K. Ritner. An Oblique Reference to the Expelled High Priest
Osorkon. In: Emily Teeter – John A. Larson (eds.). Gold of Praise. Studies
on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente. SAOC 58. Chicago, 351–
380.

Ritner 2009a Robert K. Ritner. The Libyan Anarchy. Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third
Intermediate Period. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient
World 21. Atlanta.

Ritner 2009b Robert K. Ritner. Fragmentation and Re-Integrations in the Third

Intermediate Period. In: Gerard P. F. Broekman – Robert J. Demarée – Olaf
E. Kaper (eds.). The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies
into the 21st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden
University, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 327–340.

Robins 1994 Gay Robins. Some Principles of Compositional Dominance and Gender
Hierarchy in Egyptian Art. In: JARCE 31, 33–40.

Roth 1999 Ann M. Roth. The Absent Spouse: Patterns and Taboos in Egyptian Tomb
Decoration. In: JARCE 36, 37–53.

Russmann 2001 Edna R. Russmann. Egypt and the Kushites: Dynasty XXV. In: Edwin M.
Yamauchi (ed.). Africa and African in Antiquity. East Lansing.

Schreiber 2014 Gábor Schreiber. Kushite and Saite Period Burials on el-Khokha. In: Elena
Pischikova – Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First
Millennium BC, 235–248.

Spencer 2010 Neal Spencer. Sustaining Egyptian Culture? Non-royal Initiatives in the Late
Period Temple Building. In: Ladislav Bareš – Filip Coppens – Kveta
Smoláriková (eds.). Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development
of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE. Prague, 441–490.

Schwaller de Lubicz Réné A. Schwaller de Lubicz. The Temples of Karnak. Inner Traditions. Paris.
1999

Teeter 1997 Emily Teeter. The Presentation of Maat: Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient
Egypt. SAOC 57. Chicago.
106 MARIAM F. AYAD

Teeter 1999 Emily Teeter. Celibacy and Adoption among God’s Wives of Amun and
Singers in the Temple of Amun: A Re-examination of the Evidence. In:
Emily Teeter – John A. Larson (eds.). Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient
Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente. SAOC 58. Chicago, 405–414.

Török 1997 László Török. The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic
Civilization. HdO I,31. Leiden/New York/Cologne.

Traunecker 2010 Claude Traunecker. Le chapelle d’Osiris « seigneur de l’éternité-neheh » à

Karnak. In: Laurent Coulon (éd.). Le Culte d’Osiris au 1er millénaire av. J.–
C. Découvertes et travaux récents. BdE 153. Le Caire, 155–194.

Traunecker 2014 Claude Traunecker. The ‘Funeral Palace’ of Padiamenope (TT 33): Tomb,
Place of Pilgrimage, and Library. Current Research. In: Elena Pischikova –
Julia Budka – Ken Griffin (eds.). Thebes in the First Millennium BC.
Cambridge, 205–234.

Wente 1976 Edwart F. Wente. Review of Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate
Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.) [1973]. In: JNES 35, 275–278.
 Abbreviations

AF Archäologische Forschungen (Berlin).

ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandlungen (Wiesbaden).
ÄAT Ägypten und Altes Testament (Wiesbaden).
AAWB Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin).
ADAIK Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo (Glückstadt/
Hamburg/New York).
ÄF Ägyptologische Forschungen (Glückstadt/Hamburg/New York).
AH Aegyptiaca Helvetica (Basel/Genève).
AJA American Journal of Archaeology (New York/Baltimore).
ÄMP Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung (Berlin).
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (Le Caire).
AV Archäologische Veröffentlichungen (Berlin/Mainz).
B-CK Base de données Cachette de Karnak.
BAe Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca (Bruxelles).
BAEDE Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología (Madrid).
BAR Int. Ser. British Archaeological Reports, Internat. Series (London).
BD-Papyri Book of the Dead Papyri.
BdE Bibliothèque d’Étúde (Le Caire).
BeiträgeBf Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde (Mainz).
BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar (New York).
BIE Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte (Le Caire).
BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire).
BM British Museum (London).
BN Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris).
BOREAS Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern
Civilizations (Uppsala).
BSFE Bulletin de la Société francaise d’égyptologie (Paris).
BTAVO Reihe B Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B –
Geisteswissenschaften (Wiesbaden).
BzÄ Beiträge zur Ägyptologie der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der
Universität Wien (Wien).
CAA Corpus Antiquitatim Aegyptiacarum, Lose-Blatt-Katalog ägyptischer
Altertümer (Mainz).
CdE Chronique d’Égypte (Bruxelles).
CFEETK Centro franco-egyptien d’étude des temples de Karnak (Karnak).
Cairo CG/CGC Catalogue Général du Musée du Caire (Le Caire).
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East (Leiden).
CK The Karnak Cachette Database Project (L. Coulon, E. Jambon).
CNMAL Collections of the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (Leiden).
CRAIBL Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris).
CRIPEL Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et égyptologie de Lille
(Lille).
CT A. de Buck. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 7 vol. OIP 34, 49, 64, 67, 73, 81, 87.
1935–1961 (Chicago).
DAIKS Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo Sonderschriften
(Mainz).
DE Discussions in Egyptology (Oxford).
Dict. Eg. CT R. van der Molen. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts.
2000 (Leiden).
246 ABBREVIATIONS

EA Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society

(London).
EAO Égypte – Afrique et Orient (Avignon).
EESOP Egypt Exploration Society. Occasional Publications (London).
EGU Egyptologische Uitgaven (Leuven).
EME Études et Mémoires d’Égyptologie (Paris).
ENiM Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne (Montpellier).
ERA Egyptian Research Account (London).
EVO Egitto e Vicino Oriente (Pisa).
FCD R. O. Faulkner. Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. 1962 (Oxford).
FHN T. Eide – et al. (eds.). Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. 4 vol. 1994–2001
(Bergen).
FIFAO Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire).
GHPE Golden House Publications. Egyptology (London).
GM Göttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion (Göttingen).
GM Beihefte Göttinger Miszellen. Beihefte (Göttingen).
GOF IV Göttinger Orientforschungen. IV. Reihe. Ägypten (Wiesbaden).
GWA God’s Wife of Amun.
HÄB Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge (Hildesheim).
HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden/Köln).
HPA High Priest of Amun.
IBAES Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie (Berlin).
IFAO Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire).
INRAP Institut national de recherches archéologiques préventives (Metz).
JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (Boston/New York).
JE Journal d’Entrée du Musée du Caire (Cairo).
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (London).
JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziat-Egypt. Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux (Leiden).
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago).
JSSEA Journal of the Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities (Toronto).
KHM ÄOS Kunsthistorisches Museum, Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung (Wien).
KoptHWb W. Westendorf. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. 1965–1977 (Heidelberg).
KRI K. A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions. 1969–1990 (Oxford).
KSG Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen (Wiesbaden).
L. E. Lower Egypt(ian).
LÄ Lexikon der Ägyptologie (Wiesbaden).
LD K. R. Lepsius. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. 1900 (Berlin).
LED L.H. Lesko. A Dictionary of Late Egyptian. 5 vol. 1982-1990 (Berkeley/
Providence).
LGG C. Leitz (Hrsg.). Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen.
OLA 110-116. 2002 (Leuven).
LP Late Period.
LRL Late Ramesside Letters.
MAFTO Mission Archéologique Française de Thèbes-Ouest.
MÄS Münchner Ägyptologische Studien (Berlin, München).
MB Museo Baracco (Roma).
MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo
(Wiesbaden/Mainz).
MENES Menes. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des
Alten Reiches (Wiesbaden).
MFA Museum of Fine Arts (Boston).
 ABBREVIATIONS 247

MIFAO Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie

orientale (Le Caire).
MMA Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York).
MMAF Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française
au Caire. IFAO (Le Caire).
MMJ Metropolitan Museum Journal. Metropol. Museum (New York).
MonAeg Monumenta Aegyptiaca (Bruxelles).
NK New Kingdom.
NLR Nile Level Record.
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Fribourg, Göttingen).
OIC Oriental Institute Communications (Chicago).
OIM Oriental Institute Museum (Chicago).
OIP Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago).
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. (Leuven).
OMR Opening of the Mouth Ritual.
Or Orientalia. Nova Series (Roma).
OrAnt Oriens antiquus (Roma).
PÄ Probleme der Ägyptologie (Leiden).
pBerlin Papyrus Berlin.
pBM Papyrus British Museum.
PC Papyrus Carlsberg (Kopenhagen).
pGreenfield Papyrus Greenfield.
pHarkness Papyrus Harkness.
pLeiden Papyrus Leiden.
pLouvre Papyrus Louvre.
PM B. Porter – R. L. B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. 7 vol. 1927-1995 (Oxford).
PMMAEE Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian Expedition
(New York).
pMunich Papyrus München.
PT Pyramid Texts.
Ptol. Lexikon P. Wilson. A Ptolemaic Lexicon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the
Temple of Edfu. OLA 78. 1997 (Leuven).
QV Valley of the Queens.
RAPH Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire. IFAO (Le Caire).
RdE Revue d’Égyptologie (Paris/Louvain).
Rec.Trav. Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes
et assyriennes (Paris).
RSE Rassegna di Studi Etiopici (Roma).
SAGA Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens (Heidelberg).
SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur (Hamburg).
SAKB Studien zur Altaltägyptischen Kultur. Beihefte (Hamburg).
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations (Chicago).
SARS Sudan Archaeological Research Society (London) / Sudan Archaeological
Research Society Publications (London).
SCA Supreme Council of Antiquities (Cairo).
SEAP Studi di Egittologia e di Antichità Puniche (Bologna, Pisa).
SHR Studies in the History of Religion (Leiden).
SL Gardiner Sign List.
SMB Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Berlin).
SMPK Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz.
SOAS School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London (London).
SNM Sudan National Museum (Khartoum).
248 ABBREVIATIONS

SRaT Studien zu den Ritualszenen Altägyptischer Tempel (Dettelbach).

SSEA Publications Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Publications (Mississauga).
SSR Studien zur Spätägyptischen Religion (Wiesbaden).
Stockholm MM Medelhavsmuseet Egyptiska Advelingen (Stockholm).
TÄB Tübinger Ägyptologische Beiträge (Bonn).
TIP Third Intermediate Period.
TLA Thesaurus Lingua Aegyptiae. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der
Wissenschaften (Berlin).
TT Theban Tomb.
Turin ME Museo Egizio (Torino).
U. E. Upper Egypt(ian).
UC University College (London).
UGAÄ Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens (Leipzig,
Berlin, Hildesheim).
UMR Unités Mixtes de Recherche (Lyon).
VA Varia Aegyptiaca (San Antonio).
VA Ass Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, Assur Sammlung. (Berlin).
Wb A. Erman – H. Grapow (Hrsg.). Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache.
1926–1963 (Leipzig, Berlin).
Wb Med. Texte H. von Deines – W. Westendorf. Wörterbuch der medizinischen Texte.
1961–1962 (Berlin).
WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
(Berlin/Leipzig).
YES Yale Egyptological Studies (New Haven).
ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (Leipzig, Berlin).