Karomama Revisited

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 Abbreviations AF ÄA ÄAT AAWB ADAIK ÄF AH AJA ÄMP ASAE AV B-CK BAe BAEDE BAR Int. Ser. BD-Papyri BdE BeiträgeBf BES BIE BIFAO BM BN BOREAS BSFE BTAVO Reihe B BzÄ CAA CdE CFEETK Cairo CG/CGC CHANE CK CNMAL CRAIBL CRIPEL CT DAIKS DE Dict. Eg. CT Archäologische Forschungen (Berlin). Ägyptologische Abhandlungen (Wiesbaden). Ägypten und Altes Testament (Wiesbaden). Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo (Glückstadt/ Hamburg/New York). Ägyptologische Forschungen (Glückstadt/Hamburg/New York). Aegyptiaca Helvetica (Basel/Genève). American Journal of Archaeology (New York/Baltimore). Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung (Berlin). Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (Le Caire). Archäologische Veröffentlichungen (Berlin/Mainz). Base de données Cachette de Karnak. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca (Bruxelles). Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología (Madrid). British Archaeological Reports, Internat. Series (London). Book of the Dead Papyri. Bibliothèque d’Étúde (Le Caire). Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde (Mainz). Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar (New York). Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte (Le Caire). Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire). British Museum (London). Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris). Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations (Uppsala). Bulletin de la Société francaise d’égyptologie (Paris). Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B – Geisteswissenschaften (Wiesbaden). Beiträge zur Ägyptologie der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien (Wien). Corpus Antiquitatim Aegyptiacarum, Lose-Blatt-Katalog ägyptischer Altertümer (Mainz). Chronique d’Égypte (Bruxelles). Centro franco-egyptien d’étude des temples de Karnak (Karnak). Catalogue Général du Musée du Caire (Le Caire). Culture and History of the Ancient Near East (Leiden). The Karnak Cachette Database Project (L. Coulon, E. Jambon). Collections of the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (Leiden). Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris). Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et égyptologie de Lille (Lille). A. de Buck. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 7 vol. OIP 34, 49, 64, 67, 73, 81, 87. 1935–1961 (Chicago). Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo Sonderschriften (Mainz). Discussions in Egyptology (Oxford). R. van der Molen. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts. 2000 (Leiden). 246 EA EAO EESOP EGU EME ENiM ERA EVO FCD FHN FIFAO GHPE GM GM Beihefte GOF IV GWA HÄB HdO HPA IBAES IFAO INRAP JARCE JE JEA JEOL JNES JSSEA KHM ÄOS KoptHWb KRI KSG L. E. LÄ LD LED LGG LP LRL MAFTO MÄS MB MDAIK MENES MFA ABBREVIATIONS Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society (London). Égypte – Afrique et Orient (Avignon). Egypt Exploration Society. Occasional Publications (London). Egyptologische Uitgaven (Leuven). Études et Mémoires d’Égyptologie (Paris). Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne (Montpellier). Egyptian Research Account (London). Egitto e Vicino Oriente (Pisa). R. O. Faulkner. Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. 1962 (Oxford). T. Eide – et al. (eds.). Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. 4 vol. 1994–2001 (Bergen). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire). Golden House Publications. Egyptology (London). Göttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion (Göttingen). Göttinger Miszellen. Beihefte (Göttingen). Göttinger Orientforschungen. IV. Reihe. Ägypten (Wiesbaden). God’s Wife of Amun. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge (Hildesheim). Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden/Köln). High Priest of Amun. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie (Berlin). Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire). Institut national de recherches archéologiques préventives (Metz). Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt (Boston/New York). Journal d’Entrée du Musée du Caire (Cairo). Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (London). Jaarbericht van het Vooraziat-Egypt. Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux (Leiden). Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago). Journal of the Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities (Toronto). Kunsthistorisches Museum, Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung (Wien). W. Westendorf. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. 1965–1977 (Heidelberg). K. A. Kitchen. Ramesside Inscriptions. 1969–1990 (Oxford). Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen (Wiesbaden). Lower Egypt(ian). Lexikon der Ägyptologie (Wiesbaden). K. R. Lepsius. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. 1900 (Berlin). L.H. Lesko. A Dictionary of Late Egyptian. 5 vol. 1982-1990 (Berkeley/ Providence). C. Leitz (Hrsg.). Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. OLA 110-116. 2002 (Leuven). Late Period. Late Ramesside Letters. Mission Archéologique Française de Thèbes-Ouest. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien (Berlin, München). Museo Baracco (Roma). Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (Wiesbaden/Mainz). Menes. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches (Wiesbaden). Museum of Fine Arts (Boston). ABBREVIATIONS MIFAO MMA MMAF MMJ MonAeg NK NLR OBO OIC OIM OIP OLA OMR Or OrAnt PÄ pBerlin pBM PC pGreenfield pHarkness pLeiden pLouvre PM PMMAEE pMunich PT Ptol. Lexikon QV RAPH RdE Rec.Trav. RSE SAGA SAK SAKB SAOC SARS SCA SEAP SHR SL SMB SMPK SOAS SNM 247 Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire). Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York). Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire. IFAO (Le Caire). Metropolitan Museum Journal. Metropol. Museum (New York). Monumenta Aegyptiaca (Bruxelles). New Kingdom. Nile Level Record. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Fribourg, Göttingen). Oriental Institute Communications (Chicago). Oriental Institute Museum (Chicago). Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. (Leuven). Opening of the Mouth Ritual. Orientalia. Nova Series (Roma). Oriens antiquus (Roma). Probleme der Ägyptologie (Leiden). Papyrus Berlin. Papyrus British Museum. Papyrus Carlsberg (Kopenhagen). Papyrus Greenfield. Papyrus Harkness. Papyrus Leiden. Papyrus Louvre. B. Porter – R. L. B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. 7 vol. 1927-1995 (Oxford). Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian Expedition (New York). Papyrus München. Pyramid Texts. P. Wilson. A Ptolemaic Lexicon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu. OLA 78. 1997 (Leuven). Valley of the Queens. Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire. IFAO (Le Caire). Revue d’Égyptologie (Paris/Louvain). Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes (Paris). Rassegna di Studi Etiopici (Roma). Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens (Heidelberg). Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur (Hamburg). Studien zur Altaltägyptischen Kultur. Beihefte (Hamburg). Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations (Chicago). Sudan Archaeological Research Society (London) / Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publications (London). Supreme Council of Antiquities (Cairo). Studi di Egittologia e di Antichità Puniche (Bologna, Pisa). Studies in the History of Religion (Leiden). Gardiner Sign List. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Berlin). Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz. School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London (London). Sudan National Museum (Khartoum). 248 SRaT SSEA Publications SSR Stockholm MM TÄB TIP TLA TT Turin ME U. E. UC UGAÄ UMR VA VA Ass Wb Wb Med. Texte WVDOG YES ZÄS ABBREVIATIONS Studien zu den Ritualszenen Altägyptischer Tempel (Dettelbach). Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Publications (Mississauga). Studien zur Spätägyptischen Religion (Wiesbaden). Medelhavsmuseet Egyptiska Advelingen (Stockholm). Tübinger Ägyptologische Beiträge (Bonn). Third Intermediate Period. Thesaurus Lingua Aegyptiae. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Theban Tomb. Museo Egizio (Torino). Upper Egypt(ian). University College (London). Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens (Leipzig, Berlin, Hildesheim). Unités Mixtes de Recherche (Lyon). Varia Aegyptiaca (San Antonio). Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, Assur Sammlung. (Berlin). A. Erman – H. Grapow (Hrsg.). Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. 1926–1963 (Leipzig, Berlin). H. von Deines – W. Westendorf. Wörterbuch der medizinischen Texte. 1961–1962 (Berlin). Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (Berlin/Leipzig). Yale Egyptological Studies (New Haven). Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (Leipzig, Berlin). 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 Karomama Revisited Claus Jurman “There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns, that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”1 The following pages are devoted to the God’s Wife of Amun Karomama G, primarily known through her famous bronze statue that was brought to the Louvre by Jean-François Champollion in 1829.2 The recent re-localisation of her tomb by the French archaeological mission working at the Ramesseum (MAFTO)3 has renewed interest in Karomama G and at the same time demonstrated how little we still know about the divine consorts of Amun during the early Third Intermediate Period. While, admittedly, this paper cannot claim to present completely new evidence, it aims at putting existing data into a new perspective, thus re-assessing Karomama’s position and role within the socio-political system of mid22nd Dynasty Thebes. Introduction The sources for the God’s Wives of Amun officiating from the 13th till the 9th centuries BC are distributed quite unevenly among the individual office holders. While some are known only by their names attested on unprovenanced funerary items, others have left a more substantial record which may comprise grave goods, votive objects, official stelae, bronze statuary or even relief decoration on the walls of religious buildings. Studies on the God’s Wives of the Ramesside and the early Third Intermediate Period have thus been obliged to trace the complex development of the office within the boundaries set by the limited availability of sources. Not surprisingly, the major developmental stages delineated by Sander-Hansen,4 Yoyotte,5 Graefe,6 Gosselin7 and others are represented by those God’s Wives for whom comparatively many sources are available (i.e. Isis, Maatkare A, 8 Shepenwepet I). Whether these “peaks” in the quantitative distribution of the archaeological record also correspond to the actual contemporaneous significance of the respective office holders, is a question not easily answered. 1 Former U.S. Secretary of State Donald B. Rumsfeld during a press conference at the Pentagon on 12 February 2002. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk, last accessed on 30 September 2015. The notion of “known unknowns” was, to the best of my knowledge, first introduced to the sphere of historical studies by Classicist James G. Keenan. Cf. Keenan 2014. 2 Yoyotte 1972, 31–34. 3 Press release: Martinez 2014 (http://www.mafto.fr/2014/12/reecouverte-de-la-tombe-de-karomama-auramesseum/, last accessed on 30 September 2015). 4 Sander-Hansen 1940, 5–15. 5 Yoyotte 1972, 45–50. 6 Graefe 1981, vol. II, 101–112, §§ 42–45. 7 Gosselin 2007, 225–270, §§ 144–146. 8 For reasons of recognisability, the revised reading “Kamaatra” is not adopted here. Cf., however, Graefe 2009. 62 CLAUS JURMAN Doubtless, each of the three divine votaresses mentioned above departed from some traditions inherited from their respective predecessors and had her part in the partial re-shaping of the office. For example, the genealogical status of Isis as a royal offspring and the lack of any evidence for her having entered an official marriage9 find continuation in the next dynasties, even if not all God’s Wives of the 21 st and 22nd Dynasties were demonstrably daughters of reigning kings or High Priests.10 Isis is also significant for providing a kind of ideological link between the origins of the Theban office in the early 18 th Dynasty and its re-interpretation during the early first millennium BC. It might not be accidental that the renewed prominence of the God’s Wife during the late 20th Dynasty coincides with increased attention accorded to the cults of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertary by high Theban dignitaries. Isis herself features prominently in the double cult installation of the high priests of Amun Ramessesnakht and his son Amenhotep (K93.11/K93.12)11 and she might have been buried in the vicinity of the monastery of Deir el-Bakhit, where Lepsius found several fragments of sandstone blocks with inscriptions mentioning her installation as God’s Wife of Amun.12 Another important step in the office’s development mark the adoption of a prenomen and the occasional use of a double cartouche by Maatkare A, as they put emphasis on the quasi-royal status of the priestess, at the least within the religious sphere.13 Finally, Shepenwepet I is known to have been installed in the office by her father Osorkon III14 and stands at the beginning of a continuous sequence of princesses succeeding each other in a virtual genealogical line established through adoption. Straddling three dynasties (23rd–26th), the line inaugurated by Shepenwepet I highlights the great political importance of the office and its representatives at least from the late 8th century BC onward. This seems to correspond perfectly with the monumental record, since, starting with Shepenwepet I, every God’s Wife of Amun is associated with at least one religious building project within the sacred landscape of Karnak and its immediate surroundings.15 The erection of tomb chapels within the precinct of the funerary complex of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu can also be traced back to Shepenwepet I.16 Nevertheless, the following paragraphs provide some grounds for reassessing what have been considered chronological cornerstones in the development of the office of God’s Wife. Significance There are two main reasons why Karomama G provides an ideal starting point for investigations into the development of the office of God’s Wife during the 22nd Dynasty. First, her dossier of contemporaneous archaeological sources is significantly larger than those of her immediate predecessors and successors. The sources are also distributed across different categories such as votive sculpture, monumental architecture and funerary equipment, thus offering a potentially more representative picture than for those God’s Wives who are known only from their shabtis. Second, Karomama G is associated with important steps in the ideological development of the office of God’s Wife, although we can naturally not be sure that the innovations had not already been introduced during the tenure of a poorly documented predecessor. Following in the footsteps of Maatkare A and Mehytemwesekhet,17 Karomama G adopts the prenomen Mw.t-m-HA.t (supplemented by the epithet sA.t-Jmn) which associates her closely with Mut, the 9 Gitton – Leclant 1977, 794; but see Graefe 1981, vol. II, 107–108, § 44. However, whether Isis figured as an innovator in that respect depends on whether the God’s Wife and Royal Wife Tity officiated under Ramesses III or during the reigns of the last Ramessides. Cf. Gosselin 2007, 207, § 118. See also El Hawary in this volume. 11 See most recently Rummel 2014, 379–388. 12 Rummel 2013, 217–218. 13 Gosselin 2007, 235–237, §§ 136–137; Lefèvre 2009, 33–35, fig. 1; Dodson 2012, 129. 14 See, e.g., Ayad 2009, 15, 124. 15 Koch 2012, 112–139. 16 Hölscher 1954, 16–20. Cf., however, Koch’s contribution in this volume. 17 There can now be hardly any doubt that the God’s Wife Mehytemwesekhet bore the same prenomen as her probable successor Karomama G. For shabtis of similar style and iconography naming either ^Mw.t-m-HA.t-[sA.t]10 KAROMAMA REVISITED 63 divine consort of Amun-Re.18 Like previous God’s Wives she is referred to as nb.t-tA.wj (see, e.g., Isis)19 and Hnw.t tA.wj. In addition, she also bears two royal titles not previously attested for a living Divine Adoratress, namely sA.t Ra and nb.t xa.w.20 As sA.t Ra21 she is clearly linked to Tefnut in her role of daughter of the sun god,22 an identification also demonstrated by the inscription on the base of Louvre N 500, where the kingly phrase “appearing on the throne of Horus” is transformed into “appearing on the throne of Tefnut”.23 Karomama is also the first God’s Wife who was indubitably involved in the construction/decoration of an Osirian chapel in the north-eastern district of Karnak (see below). At present, she is also the only God’s Wife preceding Shepenwepet I whose burial place in the vicinity of a former temple sanctuary can be securely localised.24 Notwithstanding these undisputed facts, a closer look at the monuments related to Karomama G leads to the impression that her tenure could have been even more significant for the development of the office than previously thought. Collecting and assessing the data or, compiling all the known knowns Prior to any attempt at probing yet unknown aspects of Karomama’s tenure it seems advisable to provide a systematic overview of the presently available, uncontested evidence (see also table 1).25 PRIVATE VOTIVES a) Bronze striding statue of the God’s Wife (Louvre N 500) 26 Unquestionably the most intriguing artefact related to Karomama G is her famous bronze statue in the Louvre, which depicts her officiating with extended arms, both hands originally holding sistra, now lost. Despite its relatively large size (ht. 59.5 cm) and exceptional quality27 the image was dedicated – according to its inscriptions – not by the God’s Wife herself but by her Chief Treasurer Iahentefnakht.28 Since by the 22nd Dynasty, the main economic resources of the pr dwA.t-nTr lay in the hands of its highest officials,29 it is not surprising that the jmj-r A pr-HD n dwA.t-nTr Iahentefnakht was in a position to commission a votive bronze statue, provided with costly inlays that would have done credit to a royal workshop. Apart from its high quality and aesthetic appeal the statue is significant for two reasons. First, its inscriptions furnish the most elaborate collection of titles, epithets and phrases characterising Karomama’s ideological/religious position within Theban society. Jmn¿ or ^MHy.t-(m)-wsx.t-mry.t-Mw.t¿ see Yoyotte 1972, 46–47; Schlick-Nolte 1999, 315–316, cat. 99; Janes 2002, 88–91, no. 45a–b; Jansen-Winkeln 2007a, 194, no. 11.24. 18 Found only on the top of the base of Louvre N 500. Cf. Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 88; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 226, no. 25.13. 19 Gosselin 2007, 208, § 118. 20 Troy 1986, 177. 21 The first God’s Wife accorded the title sA.t Ra is actually Ahmose-Nefertary. However, it occurs only in the early 21st Dynasty in tomb TT A18 on a relief depicting her together with her deified son Amenhotep I. See Manniche 2011, 81–82, fig. 55. 22 Sander-Hansen 1940, 22; Troy 1986, 139, 149–150; Leclant 1957, 166–171. 23 Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 88; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 226, no. 25.13. During the Kushite period, the identification of the God’s Wife with Tefnut became a standard feature in the religious conception of the office. Cf. Bonnet 1952, 771; Leclant 1965, 372–373. 24 From a certain perspective one could, of course, argue that Maatkare A too was finally laid to rest within a sacred place (i.e. TT 320 as the burial place of deified Amenhotep I). 25 For previous dossiers of Karomama G see Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 86–91; Yoyotte 1972, 48; Koch 2012, 87–89, 113. See also Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 154, no. 19.1, 160, no. 20.2, 226–228, nos. 25.13–17. 26 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 226–227, no. 25.13. For the provenance of N 500 see Yoyotte 1972, 33–34. 27 For a technical description of the statue see Delange – Meyohas – Aucouturier 2005. 28 For the latter see Graefe 1981, vol. I, 19–20, no. j45. 29 Cf. Graefe 1981, vol. II, 114–116, § 46. 64 CLAUS JURMAN Table 1: Overview of the attestations of Karomama G with titles and cartouches KAROMAMA REVISITED 65 It is one of but two monuments30 to feature Karomama’s prenomen ^Mw.t-m-HA.t-sA.t-Jmn¿ and also the only one referring to the religious-political motif of “appearing on the throne of Tefnut” (see above). Judging by the self-presentation of Iahentefnakht on the sides of the statue’s base, the image was probably originally destined to function as a figurative appliqué standing at the prow of the sacred barque of Amun when it was carried in processions. During the rest of the time the image was perhaps placed in a shrine or under the canopy that is referred to in Iahentefnakht’s text.31 Louvre N 500 is also important for hinting at building activities initiated by the pr dwA.t-nTr and its officials. In the inscription on the base Iahentefnakht further states that he “established a sanctuary on earth” for his mistress (SAa.n=j xm=s m tA) and “created an image of her lord Osiris” (msj.n=j twtw n nb=s Wsjr).32 This could be taken as an indication that Iahentefnakht was involved in the construction and furnishing of a sanctuary devoted at least in part to the cult of Osiris, such as those known from the 23rd and 25th–26th Dynasties (see below). b) Fragmentary limestone statuette of the goddess Maat (Karnak Cachette no. 1070) 33 The small fragment was found in 1956/57 during a partial re-excavation of the Court de la cachette at Karnak. Like Louvre N 500, it was dedicated by the God’s Wife’s Chief Treasurer Iahentefnakht and is probably an iconic representation of the goddess Maat, which Karomama G would have offered to Amenemope, Lord of Thebes, in the course of specific rituals.34 The designation sA.t-Ra not only associates Karomama G with Tefnut,35 but – quite fittingly – also equates her with the goddess Maat, depicted in the sculpture, who bears the epithet “daughter of Re” in the texts as well.36 In the absence of a royal cartouche it is impossible to suggest a date for these two votives other than “tenure of Karomama G, mid-9th century BC”. c) Reused theriophorous statue from Western Thebes (Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278)37 The limestone statue excavated by Lepsius within the Ramesseum complex in November 184438 depicts a kneeling man who holds before him a pedestal with tapering sides, crowned by the protome of a ram. Although the statue is abraded and the man’s head is missing, the relief on the front of the pedestal has been preserved. It depicts an enthroned ram-headed manifestation of Amun-Re, Lord of Luxor (Jp.trsj.t), receiving adoration by the sistrum-playing God’s Wife Karomama – the latter an almost perfect two-dimensional counterpart of her three-dimensional representation Louvre N 500. As can be clearly seen on the published photographs of the statue,39 the image of Amun-Re and its caption are late 18th/early 19th Dynasty40 originals, while the depiction of the God’s Wife and all other inscriptions are additions of the 22nd Dynasty. The text immediately above Karomama informs us that the secondary dedicant of this adapted statue was the Chief Choachyte of the Pharaoh Harsiese (Hrj wAH-mw n pA pr-aA ¡r-sA-As.t) named ˹Mw.t˼-j[?...], son of the Chief Choachyte of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt [...] (sA n Hrj wAH-mw n nswt-bj.t [...]). The filiation continues in the partially preserved line below the scene, 30 The other being Chapel e in North Karnak. See below. Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 87, 89, 90, n. i–j; Yoyotte 1972, 34. 32 Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 90–91, w. n. l. 33 Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 86–88; Cachette de Karnak online (http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/, last acessed on 30 September 2015). 34 Cf. Ayad 2009, 61. Karomama is erroneously labelled Maatkare. 35 Cf. Leitz 2002, vol. VI, 106c. 36 Troy 1986, 61–65. 37 Graefe 1981, vol. I, 195–198, P2, pls. 1*, 2; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 227, no. 25.14; Brandl 2008, 239–240, no. U-3.1. 38 Lepsius 1849–58, pt. III, pl. 256h (“Aus Qurna”), but cf. Lepsius 1900, 136 (“Beim Ausgraben im Ramesseum fanden wir [...].”). Yoyotte 1972, 43. 39 See Graefe 1981, vol. I, pl. 2. 40 For the dating of the statue’s manufacture, according to stylistic criteria, see Brandl 2008, 240, no. U-3.1. 31 66 CLAUS JURMAN from which we learn that the dedicator’s father Basa also held an office associated with the divine adoratress Karomama ([...dwA.t-nTr n] Jmn ^Krmm-mry.t-Mw.t¿). Though the inscriptions offer no direct link between Mw.t-j[...] and Karomama, the statue’s find spot and association with funerary equipment from her tomb,41 the fact that she is the main human protagonist in the scene on the front and is unquestionably associated with the dedicator’s father, leads to speculation about whether Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 could not have stood within a chapel at or near her tomb.42 The chronological implications of Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 will be considered below. ROYAL (?) VOTIVE d) Sandstone stela with King Harsiese I (Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 14995)43 The lunette, decorated in sunk relief, is all that remains of this limestone stela that was purchased in Luxor. The scene shows the god Amun-Kamutef being presented two nw-jars by King Harsiese I while the God’s Wife Karomama G who accompanies him raises one arm in a gesture of adoration. In lieu of any information on the stela’s precise provenance and raison d’être, its main interest lies in the association of Karomama G with Harsiese I, who contested the throne at Thebes during the early years of Osorkon II’s reign (see below). BURIAL As with many of her predecessors, the largest group of artefacts in Karomama’s dossier derive from her funerary equipment. e) Tomb within the Ramesseum complex Items of Karomama’s funerary equipment, said to have been found in the rear part of the Ramesseum, were purchased by Lepsius in the 1840s from the art dealer Triantaphyllos,44 but the actual location of her tomb seems to have escaped the German team. It was not until December 2014 that the French Mission Archéologique Française de Thèbes-Ouest (MAFTO) under the supervision of Benoît Lurson succeeded in locating Karomama’s burial place below the pavement of the northern sanctuary in the temple adjacent to the Ramesseum (now usually referred to as the Temple of Ramesses II’s mother Tuya).45 Though plundered, the 5 m deep burial shaft and the stone-lined burial chamber still preserved in situ important assemblages of offerings and funerary ceramics as well as a selection of broken shabti figurines enabling the identification of Karomama as the tomb owner. The tomb’s location has to be considered in connection with the general development of the Ramesseum site after the Ramesside period. With the gradual abandonment of the funerary temple and the cessation of cultic activities within it, the area became an increasingly popular burial ground for members of the middle and higher Theban clergy from the 21 st Dynasty onward.46 The fact that the Ramesseum complex also produced shabtis bearing the cartouche names of Mehytemwesekhet/Mutemhat (in complementary distribution, cf. n. 17)47 and Qedmerut48 suggests that Karomama was not the first God’s Wife of Amun to choose the defunct New Kingdom temple complex for her burial place. 49 41 Lepsius 1849–58, pt. III, pl. 256b–c, f–g; Lepsius 1900, 136–137. Cf. Yoyotte 1972, 44. 43 Roeder 1924, 210; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 154, no. 19.1. 44 Lepsius 1900, 136–137. For Giorgios “Wardi” Triantaphyllos, who shared a house with d’Athanasi at Qurna, see Bierbrier 2012, 544. 45 Martinez 2014 (http://www.mafto.fr/2014/12/reecouverte-de-la-tombe-de-karomama-au-ramesseum/, last accessed on 30 September 2015). 46 Aston 2009a, 237–253; Martinez 2015, 220–221. 47 Lepsius 1849–58, pt. III, pl. 256d–e. These shabtis were probably acquired by Lepsius together with those of Karomama G. At least two specimens were in the possession of Antoine Barthélemy Clot Bey from whence they 42 KAROMAMA REVISITED 67 f) Canopics (Berlin ÄMP inv.-nos. 2105–2106) Lepsius reports two canopic jars of Karomama G, acquired from Triantaphyllos together with the shabti figurines.50 The inscriptions on these jars, which themselves are unfortunately lost, 51 refer to Karomama as Hm.t-nTr, nb.t tA.wj and nb.t xa.w, while the pair of cartouches is composed of the divine adoratress title ^dwA.t-nTr n Jmn¿ and the nomen ^Krmm-mry.t-Mw.t¿. g) Shabtis Not counting the three dozen fragmentary shabtis recently retrieved from Karomama’s tomb in the Ramesseum52 and the single piece found at about the same location during the excavations of Quibell in 1896,53 over a dozen shabtis of the God’s Wife are known in collections around the world.54 The Egyptian Museum in Berlin possesses 9 shabtis: ÄMP inv.-nos. 303–305, 323–324 (workers), 325 (overseer), 340, 964, 966 (of unspecified type)55 while the Louvre has a single overseer shabti (E 3535).56 Two worker shabtis entered the Egyptian Museum in Cairo as CG 48544 and CG 48572. 57 Although Newberry rendered the text painted on the front of the latter , a look at the plate in his volume leaves no doubt that the statuette belongs to the corpus of Karomama G, making it extremely likely that the barely legible text originally read as on CG 48544. Another mummiform worker shabti, purchased by Victor Schoelcher in Luxor, entered the collection of the Musée National de Ceramique de Sèvres (MNC 3640) in 1846.58 Finally, in 1994 the British Museum acquired a shabti of Karomama G from the art market (EA 74324).59 Unlike the shabtis of Mehytemusekhet, those of Karomama G (both workers and overseers) are characterised by a uraeus fronting her fillet/diadem. This iconographic feature indicating a quasi-royal status of the God’s Wife (qua inheritance or qua office) was, however, no innovation of the 9th century BC. A uraeus is already present on the shabtis of the first God’s Wife of the 21st Dynasty, Maatkare A.60 What differentiates Karomama’s shabtis from those of her predecessors (including Mehytemwesekhet’s) is the adoption of the bag-shaped wig and the position of her arms, which are not crossed but with fisted hands facing each other. Both features find close parallels in Tanite and Heracleopolitan shabtis dating to the mid-9th century BC.61 entered the collections of the Louvre. Cf. Aubert – Aubert 1974, 166 (mistakenly also attributing the Berlin shabtis of Mehytemwesekhet to Clot Bey); Bovot 2003, 330–334, cat. 162–163. 48 Quibell 1898, 12–13, pl. II (fourth from the right), V (name); Aubert – Aubert 1974, 166–167, pl. 51, fig. 120. 49 For other shabtis of the God’s Wife Mehytemwesekhet see Erman 1899, 240; Janes 2002, 88–91, no. 45a–b. 50 Lepsius 1849–58, pt. III, pl. 256a–c; Lepsius 1900, 136–137. 51 I am indebted to Jana Helmbold-Doyé for her kind assistance in retrieving information on the artefacts relating to Karomama G in the collection of the Egyptian Museum Berlin. 52 Martinez 2014 (http://www.mafto.fr/2014/12/reecouverte-de-la-tombe-de-karomama-au-ramesseum/, last accessed on 30 September 2015). 53 Quibell 1898, 12–13, pl. II, 11 (fifth from the right), V (name). 54 A shabti of Karomama G, whose present whereabouts are unknown, was reported by Müller in the possession of the American collector John F. Lewis. The shabti was acquired (probably in Luxor) by Lewis’s father in 1845. Müller 1904, 33. Cf. Bovot 2009, 72. 55 Cf. Roeder 1924, 338. As Jana Helmbold-Doyé kindly informs me (email of 23 June 2015), a study of the shabtis in the Berlin Museum is currently being prepared by Jan Moje who has independently identified Karomama G as the owner of ÄMP 340, 964 and 966. 56 Bovot 2003, 334–335, cat. 164; Bovot 2009, 72. The specimen was reportedly purchased from the collection of Rousset Bey in 1868. 57 Newberry 1957, 404, pl. XXXIII (top left). 58 Bulté 1981, 87–89, cat. 110, pl. F. 59 Vassilika 1996, 194, no. 14; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 228, no. 25.17. 60 Cf. e.g. Bovot 2003, 329, cat. 161 (Louvre E 25377); Bovot 2009, 67, 69 w. figs. 61 Cf. Aubert – Aubert 1974, 166, pls. 42–45, figs. 100–109; Pérez Die 2010, vol. II, 436, 466–469, figs. 486–506. CLAUS JURMAN 68 ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS h) Chapel e, North Karnak (fig. 1c)62 Fig. 1: Comparison of the ground plans of some Osirian chapels at Karnak. a) Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet (plan adapted from Azim et al. 1998, plan 4); b) Chapel J (plan adapted from Azim et al. 1998, plan 4); c) Chapel e (plan adapted from Mariette 1875, pl. 1) One of the most important “knowns” in relation to Karomama G is her presence in at least one relief in Chapel e at North Karnak, depicting her beside King Takeloth II.63 She is thus the first God’s Wife of Amun known to date who appears in the decoration of an Osirian chapel. Chapel e was part of an east-westerly row of small shrines running parallel to the non-contemporaneous southern enclosure wall of the Temple of Montu at Karnak. Apart from the two western-most chapels featuring reliefs of the God’s Wives Amenirdis I and Nitocris respectively, all of these structures have unfortunately disappeared since their initial superficial documentation by Auguste Mariette in the 1870s. Of Chapel e not even a single foundation stone is visible on the ground today. Thus, all information on the chapel and its decoration derives from Mariette’s terse remarks and his perfunctory sketch of the ground plan published in his book on the temples of Karnak in 1875.64 On page 10 he described the decorative programme as follows: Le temple e remonte à la XXIIe dynastie. On lit sur la porte la légende de Taharka, aimé d’Ammon. Des scènes d’adoration au nom d’Osorkon II et d’une reine appelée, sans préfixes, 62 Porter – Moss 1972, 15; Koch 2012, 113. Mariette 1875, 10. 64 Mariette 1875, 10, pl. 1. The plan in Porter – Moss 1972, pl. IV, 3 derives from Mariette’s. 63 KAROMAMA REVISITED 69 occupent la première chambre, qui est dédiée à Ammon. Sur les murs de la deuxième chambre paraissent Takellothis II appelé et sa femme en présence d’un Osiris qui reçoit le nom de inscriptions désignent par le titre de et d’un autre Osiris que les . The entrance to the chapel,65 i.e. its outermost part, had obviously been decorated during the reign of Taharqa, and it is not improbable that the entire first room (perhaps an open court rather than a roofed space) was like room 1 of the Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet within the precinct of Amun-Re, an addition of the Kushite period. If so, the reliefs of Osorkon II and the “queen” named need to be assigned to the northern wall of room 1 which would have formed the façade of the original structure of the 22nd Dynasty.66 Whether the queen mentioned by Mariette can be equated with Karomama G or should be identified with Osorkon’s chief wife Karoma B will be considered below. The second room was apparently dedicated to the cult of Osiris in two specific manifestations (see below). Mariette gave the names of the ritualists officiating before the god as Takeloth II (unequivocally identified by his cartouches) and the latter’s “wife”, the God’s Wife, Mistress of the Two Lands ^Mutemhat, Daughter of Amun¿, with pure hands, Mistress of the Diadems ^Karomama, beloved of Mut¿ (Hm.t-nTr nb.t tA.wj ^Mw.t-m-HA.t-sA.t-Jmn¿ wab(.t) a.wj nb(.t) xa.w ^Krmm-mry.t-Mw.t¿. Mariette’s description thus makes it clear that Karomama G was also a contemporary of Takeloth II with whom she is associated – at least through juxtaposition – on the walls of room 2. Any direct connection with Osorkon II depends on the interpretation of the woman’s name in the cartouche in room 1 as documented by Mariette. Even if his inexplicit conviction that every non-divine adult woman accompanying a king must be his wife be disregarded, the evidence remains ambiguous. In the absence of preserved titles such as Hm.t-nswt or Hm.t-nTr the spelling of the name and more general considerations of decorum during the 22nd Dynasty must suffice. Assuming that Mariette’s copy of the cartouche in room 1 is faithful one cannot help but notice a potentially significant difference in spelling as compared to the cartouche with the nomen found in room 2 and with most of the uncontested attestations of Karomama G. Whereas the cartouche in room 1 shows only one <m> grapheme, its counterpart in room 2 has two, corresponding to the differentiation between the variants Krm and Krmm (or, in the pleonastic notation of Third Intermediate Period group writing, KA-r A-a-m-a and KA-r A-m-a-m-a).67 Even though it is still unclear whether Krm and Krmm are actually different, if closely related, variants of a single name68or merely the result of different spelling conventions, the distribution patterns of the 65 Interestingly enough, Mariette’s plan actually shows two separate entrances, one at either side of the chapel’s middle axis. See fig. 1c, and below, p. 15. 66 Possibly, Mariette’s “première chambre” is actually room 2 on fig. 1c. Room 3 would then correspond to Mariette’s “deuxième chambre”. 67 Treated as graphematic variants in Colin 2006, vol. II, 96–102. 68 If this were the case, it would still provide no counterargument that prohibits attributing attestations of both Krm and Krmm to a single individual. Even today variants of given names are occasionally used interchangeably according to custom, context, milieu and personal preferences which can change over time. It may suffice to cite CLAUS JURMAN 70 two forms are quite distinct. Whereas the “Great Royal Wife” of Osorkon II is consistently referred to as Krm (> Karoma B),69 most attestations of the God’s Wife of Amun Karomama G are spelled with two <m> (see table 1). Exceptions do occur, however. Thus, the majority of Karomama’s shabtis show 70 71 an abbreviated spelling with one <m> or even more consonants omitted (> usually or ). An exceptionally crude rendering of her name on Louvre E 5335 reduces the consonantal skeleton to k-r: (for ).72 The two canopic jars formerly in Berlin exhibited yet another spelling, namely .73 On the other hand, individuals usually named Krm are occasionally designated as Krmm. For example, the mother of the High Priest of Amun Osorkon B (later Osorkon III), Karoma D/F, is called ^˹K˼rmm-˹mry.t-Mw.t˼¿ in the first part of the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon ^Kr˹m˼-mry.t-Mw.t¿ in those parts belonging dating to the reign of Takeloth II,74 but to the reign of Shoshenq III.75 On two Nile level records of Osorkon III the name of his mother even ^Kmm-mry.t-Mw.t¿,76 which is either a misspelling of Krm or an abbreviation appears as (diminutive?) of Krmm. In the light of the onomastic evidence it cannot, therefore, be excluded that the woman depicted beside Osorkon II in room 1 of Chapel e is in fact identical to the person accompanying Takeloth II in room 2. The dearth of evidence for Libyan Period temple reliefs depicting king and queen in close proximity77 speaks in favour of this interpretation as well. While the prominent position accorded to Queen Karoma B in the Bubastite Sed-festival cycle of Osorkon II78 seems to contradict the previous statement, the fact that major parts of it clearly rely on 18th Dynasty models79 could account for its apparent exceptionality. Of course, given our present state of knowledge, the possibility remains that Karoma B was granted a similar status in monumental art as afforded Tiye in the reign of Amenhotep III.80 Though I tend to take Mariette’s description of room 1 as an indication that Karomama G was not only a contemporary of Osorkon II, but also acknowledged by him as an important religious representative of the Theban region, I concede that the available information does not provide conclusive evidence for any far-reaching hypothesis. Be that as it may, there is at least a certain probability that, contrary to the initial statements about Chapel e being completely destroyed, a small part of its decorative programme has been preserved. When Varille undertook excavations in the Temple of Maat opposite the Temple of Montu in North Karnak he discovered, not far from the southern façade of the 1st pylon’s western tower, a fragmentary the examples of the former US president William/Bill Clinton and the current director of the Bavarian State Opera in Munich Nikolaus Bachler who headed the Burgtheater in Vienna for many years under the name “Klaus Bachler”. 69 Cf. Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 501 with reference to the attestations, esp. 113, no. 18.13. 70 Martinez 2014 (http://www.mafto.fr/2014/12/reecouverte-de-la-tombe-de-karomama-au-ramesseum/, last accessed on 30 September 2015). 71 Lepsius 1849–58, pt. III, pl. 256f–g; Bulté 1981, pl. F, cat. 110. 72 Bovot 2003, 389, cat. 164. 73 Lepsius 1849–58, pt. III, pl. 256b–c. 74 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 162, no. 20.7; Epigraphic Survey 1954, pl. 17, l. 14 and 18, l. 18. Although parts of Karomama’s cartouche with the nomen in the Chronicle’s lunette are now obliterated, the spelling can be established with great confidence on the basis of traces and their position. 75 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 187, no. 22.21; Epigraphic Survey 1954, pl. 20, l. 8. 76 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 293, no. 29.2–3; Beckerath 1966, 49, fig. I, nos. 6–7. 77 One of the few potential exceptions is a relief fragment in Edinburgh (NMS no. 1967.2) showing Shoshenq I with strips of cloth in his hands followed by a woman offering a wig with diadem who could be his principal queen. See Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 26–27, no. 12.31; Fazzini 1988, 5, 19, pl. XXXII, 1. 78 Cf. Fazzini 1988, 18–19, pls. XI, XIV. 79 Lange 2009, 212–214. 80 For the prominence of Tiye in monumental art of the 18 th Dynasty see Bayer 2014, 382–384. KAROMAMA REVISITED 71 a modius, surmounted by a vulture-form appliqué – on a woman’s head (Fig. 2a).81 Iconographic parallels from the Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet82 imply that the woman in question can only be a God’s Wife, crowned or sanctified by her divine consort. The slightly raised relief is delicately executed and shows a very distinctive sfumato-like rendering of the eyes which recalls royal relief sculpture from the time of Osorkon II and Osorkon III. Particularly close parallels are the image of Queen Karoma B on the left side of a private block statue from Saqqara (Brooklyn Museum no. 37.595 E,83 Fig. 2b) and the re-used relief of Osorkon III and his son Takeloth G from the forecourt of the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak (Fig. 2c).84 Given the proximity of the find spot indicated by Varille to Chapel e, there is a good chance that the relief actually belongs to its original 22nd Dynasty decoration.85 Fig. 2a: Fragmentary sandstone relief found at the Temple of Maat, North Karnak, no. 1705 (Varille 1943, pl. LXXVI, no. 46, © IFAO) Fig. 2b: Queen Karoma B depicted on the side of a block statue from Saqqara, Brooklyn Museum no. 37.595 E (Photo of the author, courtesy of Brooklyn Museum) Chronology and genealogy or, approaching the known unknowns Karomama’s chronological position within the 22nd Dynasty can be established through the presence of the royal names associated with her, namely those of Osorkon II (Chapel e, but with some reservations, see above), Harsiese I (Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 14995) and Takeloth II (again Chapel e) (see Fig. 3). She must therefore have officiated as God’s Wife at least from around the middle of the 9 th century BC and could probably have lived into its last quarter.86 What still remains obscure is Karomama’s placement within the genealogy of the 22nd Dynasty and her familial relationship to other members of the royal line (see Figs. 4a–c). 81 Varille 1943, pl. LXXVI, no. 46. For the exact find spot cf. Varille’s site map on pl. I. Cf. Ayad 2009, 128, fig. 3.6. 83 Jacquet-Gordon 1964–65, 45, fig. 3. 84 Lauffray 1980, 55–56, pl. XIII b. 85 The only other possible candidate – a hypothetical, now-lost portal of the 23rd Dynasty building phase of the Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet depicting Shepenwepet I – is by far less likely owing to its distance from the Temple of Maat. 86 Cf. Dodson 2012, 129, 197–198, chronological table, Appendix 3, 267, n. 88. 82 72 CLAUS JURMAN Fig. 2c: Osorkon III and Prince Takeloth on a relief retrieved from the forecourt of the Temple of Khonsu (Lauffray 1980, 55–56, pl. XIIIb, courtesy of CFEETK) Fig. 3: Attestations of Karomama G in terms of relative chronology KAROMAMA REVISITED Fig. 4a: Genealogical chart of the mid-22nd Dynasty according to presupposition A Fig. 4b: Genealogical chart of the mid-22nd Dynasty according to presupposition B, scenario 1 73 74 CLAUS JURMAN Fig. 4c: Genealogical chart of the mid-22nd Dynasty according to presupposition B, scenario 2 Unlike Maatkare A and Shepenwepet I, Karomama G is nowhere designated king’s daughter, which has been interpreted as an indication that she was not the offspring of a reigning king.87 However, absence of evidence should not be equated with evidence of absence, all the more so, since sA.t-nswt by no means accompanies all attestations of Maatkare A and Shepenwepet I, and the categories of attestations – elaborate captions on monumental reliefs and coffin ensembles88 – have not been preserved for Karomama G. On the other hand, certain genealogical options which would be in line with royal descent seem chronologically possible, but appear unlikely on other grounds. Had Karomama G been the daughter of King Harsiese I, for example, her caption on Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 14995, where she is shown together with him, would probably (though not necessarily) have included a filiation (see also below).89 Unfortunately, the single piece of evidence elaborating on Karomama’s descent offers no straightforward information. Though one of the captions on the theriophorous statue from the Ramesseum (Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2778) designates Karomama G explicitly as “daughter of the Royal Wife of the Lord of The two Lands” (sA.t n Hm.t-nswt n nb tA.wj), the following sign group at the end of the column remains ambiguous and the structure of the filiation as a whole is elusive. In theory, the column’s last group could be the name of Karomama’s royal mother written without a cartouche. However, it could also simply provide another generic title of an unnamed Hm.t-nswt. The first option was advocated by Yoyotte90 who was unaware of another filiation present on ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 that was highlighted by Graefe in his re-publication of the statue in 1981.91 This crudely carved line beneath another cartouche of Karomama-merit-Mut to the left of the first is difficult to decipher but should probably be read sA.t ˹¦(A-nj.t)-sAj˼, “daughter of Tentsai” ( 87 ). Taking these two pieces Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 93; Payraudeau 2014, 121 w. n. 34. Cf. Jansen-Winkeln 2007a, 10, no. 3.13, 82, no. 6.27; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 315, no. 30.3. 89 Cf. Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 93. 90 Yoyotte 1972, 48. Less sure, Kitchen 1995, 323, § 282 w. n. 445, 577, § 514. 91 Graefe 1981, vol. I, 196, no. P2, pl. 1*. 88 KAROMAMA REVISITED 75 probably be read sA.t ˹¦(A-nj.t)-sAj˼, “daughter of Tentsai” ( ). Taking these two pieces of information at face value leads to the conclusion that Karomama G was the daughter of a Royal Wife named Tentsai and, by definition, of royal descent herself, unless one assumed that the widowed Tentsai married a king only after she had given birth to Karomama G. Even as a king’s stepdaughter Karomama might have been eligible to bear the title sA.t-nswt, however. Provided that Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 is a trustworthy source at all, it must be asked whether the strange way of splitting the genealogical reference and duplicating the God’s Wife’s cartouched name has been interpreted correctly. There is indeed reason to believe that this is not the case. In a personal communication, Karl Jansen-Winkeln has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that it would make much more sense to read the two seemingly separate captions of Karomama G as a continuous text divided into two groups due to insufficient space.92 Understood in this way, the inscription would commemorate two generations of the God’s Wife’s maternal ancestral line: | ^[Kr]mm-mry.t-Mw.t¿ sA.t n Hm.t-nswt n nb tA.wj Hnw.t tA.wj 2| ^Krmmmry.t-Mw.t¿ sA.t ¦(A-nj.t)-sAj. Consequently, the mother of Karomama G would be a queen also called Karomama and provided with the epithet “beloved of Mut”. Tentsai would not be the mother but grandmother of Karomama G. In the following section, I consider the possible genealogy of Karomama G and her parents, supposing that the mother of Karomama G was either a queen named Tentsai (presupposition A) or that she was a like-named Queen Karomama (presupposition B). In both cases, the many attestations of the name Krm/Krmm within the royal family tree of the 22nd Dynasty make it necessary to analyse carefully the possible equations of Karomama G with any of her known royal namesakes. PRESUPPOSITION A (TRADITIONAL VIEW: MOTHER OF KAROMAMA G IS TENTSAI) (see Fig. 4a) Karoma A, the wife of Shoshenq I known only from a posthumous source, will be excluded from consideration since her chronological position precludes any relation with Karomama G.93 The next candidate, Karoma B, is well attested as chief wife of Osorkon II and occupies a prominent position alongside her husband in the Sed-festival reliefs from Bubastis.94 She is also entitled Royal Wife on monuments of her sons Shoshenq D95 and Hornakht C;96 thus she can hardly have assumed the role of a God’s Wife at Thebes in later life. If Karoma B is actually the same as the queen Karoma whose burial was found at Tell Moqdam/Leontopolis in 1915,97 an identification with Karomama G is impossible simply on logical grounds. One of the three princesses depicted together with Karoma B on a relief block from the Bubastite Sed-festival cycle bears the same name as her putative mother and is commonly referred to as Karoma C( ).98 That none of Osorkon II’s daughters in the relief bears any titles other than sA.t-nswt n X.t=f mry.t=f need not necessarily speak against the hypothesis of Karoma C and Karomama G being the same person, for the specific context of the Sed-festival scene required Osorkon’s family members to fulfil a narrowly defined role within the composition. 99 92 Personal communication (email of 4 October 2015). That the craftsman responsible for carving the secondary inscriptions did in fact not have much choice in placing the texts is borne out by the fact that the main dedicatory text is split into three parts, each positioned and orientated differently. 93 Kitchen 1995, 106, § 85, 292, § 249. 94 Kitchen 1995, 322, § 281; Fazzini 1988, 18–19, pls. XI, XIV; Naville 1892, pls. II, 10, III, 13, IV, 1, IV bis, 1, 14, V, 5, XVI, 8. 95 Jansen-Winkeln 2005, 76. 96 Montet 1947, 68, fig. 22. 97 The attribution of the burial to a queen Karoma is not absolutely certain as the only inscribed object found could theoretically have been reused. See the analysis by Aston (2009a, 64–65, § 6) who nevertheless favours an identification with Karoma B. 98 Naville 1892, pl. IV, 1; Kitchen 1995, 322, § 281. The <t> is in all probability only a superfluous grapheme often found in the Third Intermediate Period at the end of female personal names of foreign origin. Cf. e.g. Colin 2006, vol. II, 39–41. 99 See also p. 10 for remarks about the influence of older models on the Bubastite reliefs. 76 CLAUS JURMAN Also the presumable date of the event commemorated (year 30 rather than year 21 of Osorkon II100 ) would be compatible with the reconstructed floruit of Karomama G. Should Karoma C have become God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes by initiative of her royal father, her installation would furthermore have continued a tradition known from the reign of Ramesses VI and later attested for Dynasties 23, 25 and 26. However, there is one major obstacle to this solution.101 Although Karoma C is not explicitly labelled a daughter of Karoma B in the Bubastite relief, her position within a row of princesses following Osorkon II’s chief queen strongly suggests that she was born of Karoma B. Such a scenario would conflict with the information gleaned from ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 (> presupposition A) which calls Karomama G the daughter of a royal wife named Tentsai (see above). Consequently either the implicit maternal filiation on the Bubastite relief does not reflect the actual genealogical relationship of the persons involved and was simply meant to present the royal family as a generic entity, or the identification of Karomama G with Karoma C has to be abandoned altogether. Instead of considering the possible identity of Karoma C and the God’s Wife Karomama G, Kitchen pondered whether Karoma C might have ended up as Karoma E (see below), a “songstress of the interior (palace) of Amun” during the reign of Takeloth II.102 The fourth Karoma of the 22nd Dynasty, Karoma D, is known from the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon to have been the principal wife of Takeloth II and mother of the High Priest of Amun Osorkon B.103 Granted the identity of the latter with King Osorkon III,104 she has to be equated with Ka(ro)mama F who is mentioned as Osorkon’s mother on three Nile level records at the quay of Karnak.105 However, anyone inclined to identify Karomama D/F with Karomama G faces two challenges. First, Karomama G is nowhere attested as Hm.t-nswt – neither on the famous bronze statue with its elaborate inscriptions nor on any item of her funerary equipment. If she had become Takeloth II’s wife after having fulfilled her duties as officiating God’s Wife, her royal status would have been completely suppressed in the extant record of her burial. If, however, her installation as God’s Wife post-dated her marriage to Takeloth II, it would be hard to imagine why her prestigious office should not have been mentioned in the lunette of the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon or the references to Osorkon III’s mother in NLR nos. 5– 7. Second, Karoma D is provided with a filiation herself in the lunette of part A of the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Within the caption belonging to the High Priest of Amun Osorkon B she is qualified as “daughter of the High Priest of Amun-Re, King of the Gods, Commander of Heracleopolis Magna and Commander Nimlot (C), King’s Son of the Lord of the [Two Lands] ^Osorkon, Son of Bastet, beloved of Amun¿” (sA.t n Hm-nTr tpj n Jmn-Ra nswt nTr.w jmj-r a mSa n Nnj-nswt HAwtj Nmrt sA-nswt nb [tA.wj] ^Wsjrkn-sA-BAst.t-mry-Jmn¿.106 As daughter of Nimlot C she would have had the same father as the Theban High Priest Takeloth F (commemorated in Chapel J, see below). If the latter became king towards the end of Osorkon II’s reign, as has been proposed by Jansen-Winkeln and others,107 this would mean that Takeloth II married his sister or half-sister.108 In any event, the filiation “daughter of Nimlot” is incompatible with the information that Karomama G’s mother was a royal wife (> Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278), since Nimlot C never attained the kingship. Although Karomama G obviously maintained close ties with Takeloth II (see comments on Chapel e above), it is very unlikely in light of the available evidence that she was his wife as well. She would then also be the only documented God’s 100 Cf. Wente 1976, 278; Beckerath 1991, 31; Hornung – Staehelin 2006, 36. Dodson does not seem to take the evidence of ÄMP 2278 into account when suggesting the probable identity of Karoma C and Karomama G. See Dodson 2012, 107. 102 Kitchen 1995, 107, § 86, n. 114. Elsewhere (p. 329, § 290), Kitchen claims that Karoma E was a daughter of Takeloth II. 103 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 162, no. 20.7. 104 With few exceptions this has now become the communis opinio among Egyptologists. Cf. Aston 2009b, 20–21; Dodson 2012, 128. 105 In one instance, the mother’s name is lost. See Beckerath 1966, 49, fig. I, nos. 5–7. 106 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 162, no. 20.7; Epigraphic Survey 1954, pl. 17, l. 14–17. 107 Jansen-Winkeln 1995, 138–139; Dautzenberg 1995, 24. 108 Aston suggests, however, that Takeloth II need not be identical with Takeloth F and could have been the son of Harsiese I and a queen Shepensopdet buried at Heracleopolis Magna. Aston 2009b, 17–18. 101 KAROMAMA REVISITED 77 Wife of Amun of the Third Intermediate Period who was married to a reigning king and gave birth to a royal heir. The last candidate from the genealogical pool of the 22 nd Dynasty is Karoma E, a Songstress of the Interior (Palace) of Amun109 who is known from a Theban donation stela dated to year 25 of Takeloth II under the pontificate of Osorkon (B) (Cairo, JE 36159).110 Although the inscription twice refers to her as sA.t-nswt, it is by no means certain that she was a daughter of Takeloth II. But even if not, her equation with Karomama G appears extremely unlikely, given that Hsj.wt n Xnw Jmn were subordinate to the God’s Wife of Amun,111 while Karomama G would have been in office by the 25th year of Takeloth II for more than three decades at least.112 Summing up the results of analysis of presupposition A, none of the equations is self-evident nor without its problems. While some options seem outright impossible, the rejection of others depends on the trustworthiness attributed to the crucial source ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 which reports the name of Karomama’s mother. Interestingly enough, a woman named Tentsai113 is also attested as the mother of the High Priest of Amun Takeloth G on two of his monuments, a limestone block from Middle Egypt (Cairo JE 65841114 ) and a stone vessel found at Assur (Berlin, VA Ass. 2258115). If Takeloth G were identical with the son of Osorkon III and later king, Takeloth III, an identification of TentsaiTakeloth G with TentsaiKaromama G is out of the question.116 However, Payraudeau has advocated the possibility that the two sources do not actually refer to the later Takeloth III but to Takeloth F (= Takeloth II) whose father Nimlot C held offices similar to those of the Takeloth of JE 65841, Ass. 2258 and a donation stela from Gurob.117 If so, Nile level record no. 4 dating to year 6 of a king Takeloth, son of Isis, whose mother is likewise called Tentsai,118 should also be attributed to Takeloth II instead of Takeloth III.119 If the equation Takeloth G (excluding the reliefs found below the forecourt of the Temple of Khonsu which would still refer to prince Takeloth, son of Osorkon III120 ) = Takeloth F = Takeloth II be correct, then both mortal protagonists depicted in room 2 of Chapel e would have had like-named mothers. However, since we know that Takeloth F descended from Nimlot C, his mother could not have been a queen. While this does not preclude the possibility of identifying Takeloth F with Takeloth G (the latter’s mother is never referred to as royal wife and only bore the title wr.t xnr.t on Cairo JE 65841), it would render unfeasible the identity of TentsaiTakeloth G and TentsaiKaromama G. 109 Cf. Koch 2012, 189, 245, no. 64. See also above, n. 102. Legrain 1903, 183, no. 3; Maspero 1903, 185–186; Meeks 1979, 612, n. 21, 667, no. 22.7.25; Fazzini 1988, pl. XXXIII, 2; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 161, no. 20.6; Ritner 2009, 379–380, no. 84. 111 Cf. Koch 2012, 188–196. 112 Considering that she was already a God’s Wife during the reign of Harsiese I, a contemporary of Osorkon II. 113 Kitchen 1995, 95–96, § 76. 114 Gauthier 1937, 16–24, pl.; Mokhtar 1983, 130, 170, pl. XXIV; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 297, no. 29.11; Moje 2014, 376–377, no. Her/08/Bev/01. 115 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 297, no. 29.11–12; Onasch 2010, 72, no. 222-1 (with incomplete and faulty copy of the hieroglyphic text), pl. 13; Moje 2014, 376, no. Her/087MRe/01. 116 Another Tentsai, who was apparently the daughter of King Takeloth III, is attested on a block statue of AnkhTakeloth (Vienna, KHM ÄOS 5085) from the 25th Dynasty. See De Meulenaere 1982, 221–222; JansenWinkeln 2009, 356, no. 52.17. 117 Payraudeau 2004, 80 w. n. 12; Payraudeau 2014, 579, no. 235. For the donation stela from Gurob see Loat 1905, 8, pl. XVIII, 2, XIX; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 312, no. 29.32. Payraudeau’s identification was initially rejected by Jansen-Winkeln (see Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 297, no. 29.11), but has now been adopted by him (personal communication, email of 4 October 2015). 118 Beckerath 1966, 49, fig. I, no. 4. 119 Beckerath has argued that the mention of the king’s mother tied NLR no. 4 to NLR nos. 5–7, in which the name of Osorkon III’s mother is indicated, and thus established a chronological proximity (Beckerath 1966, 44). This conclusion appears straightforward but is by no means incontestable. At least it would not come as a total surprise if Takeloth II left a record on the quay at Karnak during the time he was uncontested ruler at Thebes. 120 Lauffray 1980, 55–56, pl. XIII b; Fazzini 1988, 19, pl. XVI; Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 294, no. 29.5. Cf. Payraudeau 2004, 80. 110 78 CLAUS JURMAN The outcome of these deliberations is rather sobering, as none of the paths taken seems to lead to any conclusive result.121 In theory, the interpretation of Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 according to presupposition A would still allow for the possibility that Karomama G was a daughter of Osorkon II and one of his lesser (or earlier/later?) wives named Tentsai (A).122 Alternatively, she might as well have been the daughter of King Harsiese I and an as yet unattested wife,123 despite the absence of a filiation on ÄMP inv.-no. 14995. Apart from being associated with Harsiese I on the Berlin stela, the fact that the choachyte responsible for the secondary dedication of Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 held close ties with both Harsiese I and Karomama G may point to a family relationship between the two. In this connection one may be reminded that only three inscriptions within the chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet124 attest the parentage of Shepenwepet I – all of them might easily have fallen victim to demolition. Jacquet-Gordon’s hypothesis that Karomama G was the daughter of Prince Shoshenq Q, the son of Osorkon I,125 is hardly convincing since it does not take into account the queenly titles of Karomama’s mother. There is no indication that Shoshenq Q ever came to power, and it is also quite unlikely that he married a fourth wife in addition to the three already attested. 126 The third possibility coming to mind is that Karomama G was the daughter of Takeloth II, but born and installed as God’s Wife well before the latter came to rule the Thebais. This could also account for the fact that the only source hinting at her royal parentage, Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278, is associated with Karomama’s burial by its find spot, thus probably reflecting quite a late stage of her life or even constituting a posthumous record. One could argue against this option, highlighting that the theriophorous statue was dedicated by a chocachyte of King Harsiese I and should thus not allude to the family of Takeloth II for chronological reasons. However, the statue’s inscriptions do not explicitly state that Harsiese I was still alive at the time the monument was dedicated. Quite the contrary, the title Hrj wAH-mw n pA pr-aA ¡r-sA-As.t clearly designates a funerary priest performing his services to benefit a deceased individual.127 PRESUPPOSITION B (PROPOSAL OF JANSEN-WINKELN: MOTHER OF KAROMAMA G IS A QUEEN KAROMAMA-MERIT-MUT) (see Figs. 4b–c) Jansen-Winkeln’s reinterpretation of the filiation preserved on Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 (see above, p. 75 with n. 92) offers additional options for reconstructing the family tree of the 22nd Dynasty. While it has no impact on rejecting the equations Karomama G = Karoma A or Karoma B (see above), it opens up the theoretical possibility of identifying the mother of Karomama G with the chief queen of Osorkon II, Karoma B (Fig. 4b). In that case Karomama G could well be identical with the princess Karoma C, who appears as (a yet?) title-less royal daughter in the Sed-festival reliefs of her father at Bubastis (see above). Tentsai (A) would then be the mother of Karoma B and – judging from the latter’s title sA.tnswt,128 also of queenly status. Tempting as it may be, this reconstruction is not without its shortcomings. Thus, the writing of Karoma B’s name with double m is not attested elsewhere, and neither is the epithet mry.t-Mw.t – during the period in question normally associated only with God’s Wives of Amun.129 To counter these two arguments one would have to assume that Krmm was a valid equivalent of Krm at least in the Theban region. Special considerations of local Theban theology could 121 Yoyotte, too, failed to arrive at a solution for the conundrum. Yoyotte 1972, 48. Two known children of Osorkon II were also not born by Karoma B, namely Tjesbastetperu A, born of Isetemkheb G, and Nimlot C, born of Djedmutiuesankh IV. Cf. Kitchen 1995, 322, § 281. 123 Aston suggests identifying Harsiese’s chief wife with the queen Shepensopdet attested by shabtis from Heracleopolis Magna. Aston 2009b, 17–18. See also Dodson 2012, 106. 124 Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 315, no. 30.3; Legrain 1900, 149. 125 Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 93. 126 For the family background of Shoshenq Q see Dodson 2012, 96–97. 127 For the choachytes of the Late Period see Vleeming 1995. 128 See Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 113, no. 18.13. 129 However, Jansen-Winkeln has indicated to me an attestation of mry.t-Mw.t as an epithet of Queen Karotjet on the Hermopolis stela of Osorkon III. Personal communication (email of 4 October 2015). Cf. Jansen-Winkeln 2007b, 295, no. 29.5. 122 KAROMAMA REVISITED 79 also have motivated the adoption of the epithet mry.t-Mw.t by Karoma(ma) B. Perhaps it was meant to indicate her special status as the mother of the officiating God’s Wife of Amun and was bestowed upon her quite late in her life. A second scenario (see Fig. 4c) has even more far-reaching consequences for reconstructing the genealogy of the 22nd Dynasty. As already mentioned above, it is noteworthy that in the 22nd Dynasty the rare name Tentsai occurs on monuments associated with two royal individuals, namely Takeloth G and Karomama G or – to be more precise, with her mother Karomama (according to presupposition B). In the likely case of Takeloth G and Takeloth F being one and the same, Tentsai would have been wife of Nimlot C and therefore mother of Takeloth F/G, later to become Takeloth II. Since Takeloth II’s wife Karomama D/F is also attested as being the daughter of Nimlot C, she is ideally suited to equate with the Karomama-merit-Mut presented on Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 as the mother of Karomama G. However, with Takeloth F and Karomama D/F being both children of Nimlot C and Tentsai, Takeloth II would in fact have married his own sister who bore him a daughter destined to become God’s Wife of Amun. Unfortunately, this reconstruction raises other concerns. Disregarding modern reservations about the likelihood of incestuous marriages130 is it chronologically feasible? As Karomama G is attested as God’s Wife during the reign of Harsiese I (see Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 14995) and thus also under Osorkon II (see Fig. 3),131 she would have had to be installed by her father Takeloth F (or even by her great grandfather Osorkon II?) some time before the former managed to attain the throne. In addition, the Songstress of Amun Karoma E (see above) is attested as a royal daughter in year 25 of Takeloth II. If she were a daughter of that king it would be strange, though not impossible, that another homonymous child of his had become God’s Wife.132 All in all, the last of the options presented, by contrast to the others, has still two major advantages. It does justice to the genealogical information preserved on Berlin ÄMP inv.-no. 2278 without resorting to the makeshift explanation of a duplicated filiation while keeping the number of distinct individuals used to reconstruct the stemma of the 22nd Dynasty to a minimum, i.e., only one queen Tentsai and only one queen Karomama-merit-Mut. Even if the last of the proposed reconstructions should eventually prove incorrect, the following paragraphs will present clues suggesting that the association between Karomama G and Takeloth F/II could nevertheless go back to a time when the latter had not yet attained royal status. Another look at Chapel J or, treading the realm of (un)known unknowns As highlighted above, the historical importance of Karomama G rests to a large extent on the fact that she is the first God’s Wife of Amun associated with an Osirian chapel in the north-eastern sector of Karnak. This need not imply, of course, that her immediate predecessors were not involved in similar building projects, but we do not possess unequivocal evidence to prove it. Nevertheless, there might exist a tiny remnant of such a hypothetical precursor to Chapel e in form of a sandstone window grill which was found near an anepigraphic chapel (so-called Chapel I) in the “Osirian” north-eastern quarter of the precinct of Amun-Re at Karnak.133 It bears two antithetic cartouches, one with the name of the sA.t-nswt Henuttawy, and the other with the name of a certain Maatkare.134 Presupposing that the cartouches refer to two separate individuals and that the two women were in some way related, it would be highly likely that the architectural element commemorates at least one God’s Wife of the 21st For the problems connected with the reconstruction of consanguineous marriages see Černý 1954. For a recent account on the chronological position of the Theban interlude of Harsiese I see Dodson 2012, 107– 108, 198, chronological table, Appendix 3. 132 Of course, one could speculate that Karoma E was named and inaugurated into her office in commemoration of her sister or half-sister who might have died before Cairo JE 36159 was commissioned. 133 Porter – Moss 1972, 203; Chevrier 1951, 554–555 (“deuxième édifice”); Barguet 1962, 15 w. n. 4; Redford 1973, 17, fig. 1, B, 28–29. 134 Chevrier 1951, 554–555; Leclant 1951, 462 η. After its discovery, the block was inserted in the enclosure wall of the CFEETK building at Karnak. Cf. Leclant 1953, 85, n. 1. 130 131 80 CLAUS JURMAN Dynasty (e.g. Maatkare A and her mother Henuttawy A/Q135 or the God’s Wives Maatkare A and Henuttawy D). While the precise nature and function of Chapel I remain obscure, the small amount of data known about Chapel e suggests that the latter served a purpose comparable to those Osirian chapels dating from the 23rd, 25th and 26th Dynasties. The architectural layout, for example, of Chapel e (Fig. 1c) resembles that of the Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet (> proportions and room structure, see Fig. 1a)136 as well as the Chapel of Osiris Wep-ished (Chapel J), whose façade with two doors seems to correspond as well to analogous features of Chapel e (Fig. 1b). With its differentiation between the outer parts of the shrine primarily devoted to the cult of Amun, and the inner parts dominated by Osiris and his entourage,137 Chapel e conforms to a basic scheme of decoration encountered in many of the later Osiris chapels.138 The two manifestations of Osiris attested in room 2 could also be indicative of the chapel’s raison d’être. Apart from Osiris-Khontamenty, Mariette mentions Osiris United-with-Maat ( ).139 While the epithet is not attested for Osiris elsewhere, 140 it is reminiscent of many names attributed to royal funerary installations of the New Kingdom such as Xnm.t-nHH, Xnm.t-WAs.t, Xnm.t-PtH etc.141 Though I do not intend to push the point too far, it would not be difficult to imagine that the Osirian chapels of the Third Intermediate Period played some part in guaranteeing the osirification of the individuals shown in their decoration and thus also fulfilled functions previously associated with socalled “mortuary temples”. Although we do not know whether Chapel e corresponded precisely to the “sanctuary on earth” of Karomama G, mentioned by Iahentefnakht in his inscription on Louvre N 500 (see above),142 it seems reasonable to assume that private (i.e. non-royal) commitment constituted an important factor in the creation of the Karnak chapels during Dynasties 22–26. In this respect, Chapel J comes to mind, an unfortunately poorly preserved structure in the north-eastern sector of the main temple precinct of Karnak which has recently been re-studied by Olivier Perdu.143 In his paper he concludes that certain aspects of the decorative programme of the bi-partite sanctuary could be understood as reflecting the political situation of the 22nd Dynasty towards the end of Osorkon II’s reign.144 Emphasising Osiris Wep-ished and the cult of the “Great Mound” of Karnak in its eastern room, with the child-god Horus poised to follow his father as legitimate successor on the throne in its western room, the chapel’s most prominent male divinities obviously correspond to the two male protagonists included in the (preserved parts of the) decoration, namely Osorkon II and his grandson, the High Priest of Amun, Takeloth F.145 The latter’s prominence on the chapel’s façade – he is not only depicted on the eastern doorjamb of the western entrance but also figures as the beneficiary of the offering formulae written on the two djed-pillars flanking the eastern entrance – seems to foreshadow Takeloth’s imminent rise to power in the Thebais and his adoption of royal prerogatives. Even though the identity of Takeloth F and Takeloth II cannot be established beyond any doubt, it would be a strange coincidence if two separate Takeloths had been involved at about the same time in commissioning building projects initiated by or at least begun under Osorkon II. There is yet another factor which needs to enter into the equation. In the decoration of Chapel e, room 2, Takeloth II and the God’s Wife Karomama G were apparently depicted in proximity to one another. Having personally examined the remains of relief on the western façade of Chapel J, I believe that a similar association could originally 135 This is also the assumption of Jansen-Winkeln who presents the block’s inscription under the heading “Gottesgemahlin Maatkare A” in Jansen-Winkeln 2007a, 81, no. 6.24. 136 In both cases the outermost room seems to be an addition of the 25th Dynasty. For Osiris Heqa-Djet see Leclant 1965, 47–54, § 12. 137 Mariette mentions Osiris-Khontamenty and Osiris Khenem-Maat (see above). Mariette 1875, 10. 138 See, e.g., Jurman 2006, 114–116, pl. 37. 139 Mariette 1875, 10. 140 The attestation of Chapel e is not even included in Leitz 2002, vol. VI, 16c. 141 Nelson 1942, 127–128; Morkot 1990, 326. 142 Cf. Jacquet-Gordon 1967, 91, n. 1. 143 Perdu 2010. For a previous analysis see Fazzini 1988, 13–14, pl. V. 144 Perdu 2010, 118–121. 145 Note that Chapel J constitutes the only known source for the High Priest of Amun Takeloth F, unless the identity of Takeloth F and Takeloth G (see above) be accepted. KAROMAMA REVISITED 81 have been presented there as well.146 To the right of the scenes decorating the right outer door jamb of the western room, which show a king (quite likely Osorkon II) libating and receiving a gift (sign of life?) from a goddess (Isis?), there is a large, seemingly undecorated surface (Fig. 5). Fig. 5: Western part of the façade of Chapel J (© CFEETK) Fig. 6: Outlines of a female figure toward the right of the westernmost door jamb of Chapel J (drawing by the author) However, a closer look at the upper part of the wall (at the height of the 2nd register) reveals the apparently unfinished outlines of a large female figure turned towards the entrance, with her left (near) arm at her side (Fig. 6). The right hand is not discernible on the preserved portions of the scene, but it might have been raised in a gesture of adoration. The iconography of the woman’s figure and her orientation towards the interior of the sacred space seems incompatible with an identification of her as a goddess. Instead, there are grounds for assuming that she represents another human protagonist of high social status associated with Takeloth F and Osorkon II – perhaps one of Osorkon’s queens, but the most suitable candidate would surely be Karomama G.147 She was already in office during the later reign of Osorkon II148 and could easily have been associated with the role of Isis, the third divinity of some prominence featuring in the iconographic programme of Chapel J.149 Should this hypothesis prove correct, Chapel J would provide an excellent example of integrating the God’s Wife of Amun into symbolic strategies meant to enhance royal legitimacy. The fact that the building predates the well-known Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet by several decades would make Karomama G a true precursor of Shepenwepet I and highlight her importance in the development of the office of God’s Wife during the Third Intermediate Period. 146 The examination took place in June 2002. Depictions of God’s Wives with their arms at their sides are indeed attested. See, e.g., Leclant 1965, 128–129, § 36, K, pl. LXXI, D; Christophe 1951, 99, pl. XLV, 36. However, in Chapel J the available space to the woman’s left does not allow for the depiction of a god or another human being. 148 Otherwise she could not have been depicted together with Harsiese I on Berlin ÄMP 14995. 149 As Redford has demonstrated, the “Temple of Isis of the Great Mound” mentioned in the inscriptions of the well-known couple Hor IX/XI and Shepensopdet A (Cairo CG 42226 and CG 42228) refers unquestionably to Chapel J. Redford 1986; Perdu 2010, 11. For comprehensive documentation and analysis of the inscriptions see Jansen-Winkeln 1985, vol. I, 142, no. A 12, 149, n. 55–56, 159, no. A 13, 162, n. 6. 147 82 CLAUS JURMAN Acknowledgements I am indebted to Karl Jansen-Winkeln for reading an earlier version of this paper and his immensely valuable comments on it. Thanks are also due to the following colleagues for their kind help with photographic documentation and for providing additional information on the tomb of Karomama G: Dr. Jana Helmbold-Doyé, Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, SMPK Dr. Benoît Lurson, MAFTO & Universität Leipzig Dr. Laurent Coulon, Université Lumière-Lyon 2 & CFEETK Dr. Christophe Thiers, CFEETK Bibliography Aston 2009a David A. Aston. Burial Assemblages of Dynasty 21–25. Chronology – Typology – Developments. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 21. Vienna. Aston 2009b David A. Aston. Takeloth II, a King of the Herakleopolitan/Theban TwentyThird 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 21 st–24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007. EGU 23. Leiden/Leuven, 1–28. Aubert – Aubert 1974 Jacques-F. Aubert – Liliane Aubert. Statuettes égyptiennes. Chaouabtis, ouchebtis. Paris. Ayad 2009 Mariam Ayad. God’s Wife, God’s Servant. The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525 BC). London/New York. Azim et al. 1998 Michel Azim – Fridrik Bjarnason – Patrick Deleuze – Patrick Dexyl – Alain Émonet – Jean-Claude Golvin – Christian Guthmann – Marcel Kurz – Françoise Le Saout. Karnak et sa topographie, Vol. 1 : Les relevés modernes du temple d’Amon-Rê 1967–1984. Monographie du Centre de recherches archéologiques 19. Paris. Barguet 1962 Paul Barguet. Le Temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak. Essai d’exegèse. RAPH 21. Cairo. Bayer 2014 Christian Bayer. Teje. Die den Herrn Beider Länder mit ihrer Schönheit erfreut. Eine ikonographische Studie. Ruhpolding/Wiesbaden. Beckerath 1966 Jürgen von Beckerath. The Nile Level Records at Karnak and Their Importance for the History of the Libyan Period. In: JARCE 5, 43–55. Beckerath 1991 Jürgen von Beckerath. Gedanken zu den Daten der Sed-Feste. In: MDAIK 47, 29–33. Bierbrier 2012 Morris L. Bierbrier. Who Was Who in Egyptology. 4th revised edition. London. Bonnet 1952 Hans Bonnet. Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin. KAROMAMA REVISITED 83 Bovot 2003 Jean-Luc Bovot. Les serviteurs funéraires royaux et princiers de l’Ancienne Égypte. Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Égyptiennes. Paris. Bovot 2009 Jean-Luc Bovot. Les serviteurs funéraires des divines adoratrices d’Amon au musée du Louvre. In: EAO 56, 65–78. Brandl 2008 Helmut Brandl. Untersuchungen zur steinernen Privatplastik der Dritten Zwischenzeit. Typologie – Ikonographie – Stilistik. Berlin. Bulté 1981 Jeanne Bulté. Catalogue des collections égyptiennes du Musée National de Céramique à Sèvres. Paris. Cachette de Karnak http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/ (last accessed on 30 September 2015). Černý 1954 Jaroslav Černý. Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt. In: JEA 40, 23–29. Chevrier 1951 Henri Chevrier. Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak 1950–1951. In: ASAE 51, 549–572. Christophe 1951 Louis A. Christophe. Karnak-Nord III (1945–1949). Fouilles conduites par C. Robichon. FIFAO 23. Cairo. Colin 2006 Frédéric Colin. Les Libyens en Égypte (XVe siècle a.C.–IIe siècle p.C,). Onomastique et histoire, vols. I–II (online-version of PhD thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1996) https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00120038/file/ColinV1.pdf and https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00120038/file/ColinV2.pdf, last accessed on 30 September 2015). Dautzenberg 1995 Norbert Dautzenberg. Bemerkungen zu Schoschenq II., Takeloth II. und Pedubastis II. In: GM 144, 21–29. Delange – Meyohas – Aucouturier 2005 Élisabeth Delange – Marie-Emmanuelle Meyohas – Marc Aucouturier. The statue of Karomama, a testimony of the skill of Egyptian metallurgists in polychrome bronze statuary. In: Journal of Cultural Heritage 6, 99–113. De Meulenaere 1982 Herman De Meulenaere. Une princesse libyenne ignorée. In: CdE 57, 218–222. Dodson 2012 Aidan Dodson. Afterglow of Empire. Egypt from the Fall of the New Kingdom to the Saite Renaissance. Cairo/New York. Erman 1899 Adolf Erman. Ausführliches Verzeichnis der aegyptischen Altertümer und Gipsabgüsse, Königliche Museen zu Berlin. 2Berlin. Epigraphic Survey 1954 The Epigraphic Survey. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. The Bubastide Portal. OIP 74. Chicago. Fazzini 1988 Richard A. Fazzini. Egypt, Dynasty XXII–XXV. Iconography of Religions XVI/10. Leiden/New York/Copenhagen/Cologne. 84 CLAUS JURMAN Gauthier 1937 Henri Gauthier. Un curieux monument des dynasties bubastites à Héracléopolis Magna. In: ASAE 37, 16–24. Gitton – Leclant 1977 LÄ II (1977) 792–812 s.v. Gottesgemahlin (M. Gitton – J. Leclant). Gosselin 2007 Luc Gosselin. Les divines épouses d’Amon dans l’Égypte de la XIX e à la XXIe dynastie. Études et Mémoires d’Égyptologie 6. Paris. Graefe 1981 Erhart Graefe. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltung und Geschichte der Institution der Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des Neuen Reiches bis zur Spätzeit, Bd. I: Katalog und Materialsammlung; Bd. II: Analyse und Indices. ÄA 37. Wiesbaden. Graefe 2009 Erhart Graefe. kA mAat raw “Ursprung der Maat ist Re”. In: Wouter Claes – Herman De Meulenaere – Stan Hendrickx (eds.). Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. OLA 191. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, 313–319. Hölscher 1954 Uvo Hölscher. The Excavations at Medinet Habu V: Post-Ramessid Remains. OIP 66. Chicago. Hornung – Staehelin 2006 Erik Hornung – Elisabeth Staehelin. Neue Studien zum Sedfest. AH 20. Basel. Jacquet-Gordon 1964–65 Helen Jacquet-Gordon. A Statue of a Son of Karoma. In: Brooklyn Museum Annual 6, 43–49. Jacquet-Gordon 1967 Helen Jacquet-Gordon. A Statuette of Ma’et and the Identity of the Divine Adoratress Karomama. In: ZÄS 94, 86–93. Janes 2002 Glenn Janes. Shabtis – A Private View. Ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes in European private collections. Paris. Jansen-Winkeln 1985 Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Ägyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie. ÄAT 8/1–2. Wiesbaden. Jansen-Winkeln 1995 Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Historische Probleme der 3. Zwischenzeit. In: JEA 81, 129–149. Jansen-Winkeln 2005 Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Der Prinz und Hohepriester Schoschenk (D). In: GM 207, 75–80. Jansen-Winkeln 2007a Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Inschriften der Spätzeit. Teil I: Die 21. Dynastie. Wiesbaden. Jansen-Winkeln 2007b Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Inschriften der Spätzeit. Teil II: Die 22.–24. Dynastie. Wiesbaden. Jansen-Winkeln 2009 Karl Jansen-Winkeln. Inschriften der Spätzeit. Teil III: Die 25. Dynastie. Wiesbaden. Jurman 2006 Claus Jurman. The Osiris Chapels of the Third Intermediate Period and the Late Period at Karnak. In: Hedvig Győry (ed.). Proceedings of a Symposium held in Memory of László Kákosy. Aegyptus et Pannonia III. Budapest, 107– 130. KAROMAMA REVISITED 85 Keenan 2014 James G. Keenan. “Known Unknowns”: Thoughts on Lost (Papyrus) Evidence. Paper presented on 5 November 2014 at the 5th International Conference of the Research Network Imperium & Officium, Vienna, 5–7 November 2014, see: http://iowp.univie.ac.at/sites/default/files/201411_NFN%20Konferenz_Folde r_online.pdf, last accessed on 30 September 2015. Kitchen 1995 Kenneth A. Kitchen. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). 3Warminster. Koch 2012 Carola Koch. „Die den Amun mit ihrer Stimme zufriedenstellen“. Gottesgemahlinnen und Musikerinnen im thebanischen Amunstaat von der 22. bis zur 26. Dynastie. SRAT 27. Dettelbach. 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. Lauffray 1980 Jean Lauffray. Les travaux du Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak, de 1972 à 1977. In: Cahiers de Karnak VI. Le Caire, 1–65. Leclant 1951 Jean Leclant. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte, 1950–1951. In: Orientalia 20, 453–475. Leclant 1953 Jean Leclant. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte, 1951–1952. In: Orientalia 22, 82–105. Leclant 1957 Jean Leclant. Tefnout et les Divines Adoratrices thébaines. In: MDAIK 15, 166–171. Leclant 1965 Jean Leclant. Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne. BdE 36. Le Caire. Lefèvre 2009 Dominique Lefèvre. Karomama et les divines adoratrices de la Troisième Période intermédiaire. In: EAO 56, 33–42. Legrain 1900 Georges Legrain. Le temple et les chapelles d’Osiris à Karnak. Premier Article: Le temple d’Osiris-Hiq-Djeto. In: RecTrav 22, 125–136, 146–149. Legrain 1903 Georges Legrain. Notice sur le temple d’Osiris Neb-Djeto. In: ASAE 4, 181– 184. Leitz 2002 Christian Leitz (Hrsg.). Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Bd. I–VII. Leuven/Paris/Dudley. Lepsius 1849–58 Carl R. Lepsius. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien nach den Zeichnungen der von seiner Majestät dem Koenig von Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm IV nach diesen Ländern gesendeten und in den Jahren 1842–1845 ausgeführten wissenschaftlichen Expedition, Teil I–VI. Berlin. Lepsius 1900 Carl R. Lepsius. Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien nach den Zeichnungen der von seiner Majestät dem Koenig von Preussen Friedrich 86 CLAUS JURMAN Wilhelm IV nach diesen Ländern gesendeten und in den Jahren 1842–1845 ausgeführten wissenschaftlichen Expedition. Text, herausgegeben von Eduard Naville unter der Mitwirkung von Ludwig Borchardt bearbeitet von Kurt Sethe, Bd. III: Theben. Leipzig. Loat 1905 William Leonard Stevenson Loat. Gurob. ERA 10. London. Manniche 2011 Lise Manniche. Lost Ramessid and Post-Ramessid Private Tombs in the Theban Necropolis. CNI Publications 33. Copenhagen. Mariette 1875 Auguste Mariette. Karnak. Étude topographique et archéologieque avec un appendice comprenant les principaux textes hiéroglyphiques découverts ou recueillis pendant les fouilles exécutées à Karnak. Leipzig. Martinez 2014 Philippe Martinez. La tombe de la divine adoratrice Karomama (XXII e dynastie) retrouvés dans le Temple de Touy, au Ramesseum. (http://www.mafto.fr/2014/12/reecouverte-de-la-tombe-de-karomama-auramesseum/, last accessed on 30 September 2015). Martinez 2015 Philippe Martinez. Rediscovery and archaeological exploration of the Ramesseum/ Redescubrimiento y exploración arqueológica del Ramesseum. In: Myriam Seco Álvarez – Asunción Jódar Miñarro (eds.). The Temples of Millions of Years in Thebes/Los Templos de Milliones de Años en Tebas. Granada, 195–241. Maspero 1903 Gaston Maspero. Note additionnelle. In: ASAE 4, 185–186. Meeks 1979 Dimitri Meeks. Les donations aux temples dans l’Égypte du Ier millénaire avant J.-C. In: Edward Lipiński (ed.). State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978. OLA 6. Leuven, 605–687. Moje 2014 Jan Moje. Herrschaftsräume und Herrschaftswissen ägyptischer Lokalregenten. Soziokulturelle Interaktionen zur Machtkonsolidierung vom 8. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Topoi. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 21. Berlin/Boston. Mokhtar 1983 Mohamad Gamal el-Din Mokhtar. Ihnâsya el-Medina (Herakleopolis Magna). Its Importance and Its Role in Pharaonic History. BdE 40. Cairo. Montet 1947 Pierre Montet. Les constructions et le tombeau d’Osorkon II à Tanis. La nécropole royale de Tanis I. Paris. Morkot 1990 Robert E. Morkot. Nb-MAat-Ra-United-with-Ptah. In: JNES 49, 323–337. Müller 1904 Wilhelm Max Müller. Some Small Egyptian Monuments Dispersed in America. In: RecTrav 26, 32–34. Naville 1892 Édouard Naville. The Festival-hall of Osorkon II in the Great Temple of Bubastis (1887–1889). EEF 10. London. Nelson 1942 Harold H. Nelson. The Identity of Amon-Re of United-with-Eternity. In: JNES 1, 127–155. KAROMAMA REVISITED 87 Newberry 1957 Percy E. Newberry. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, Nos 46530–48575. Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi, Troisième fascicule. Le Caire. Onasch 2010 Hans-Ulrich Onasch. Ägyptische und assyrische Alabastergefäße aus Assur. Fundgruppen 2, WVDOG 128. Wiesbaden. Payraudeau 2004 Frédéric Payraudeau. Le règne de Takélot III et les débuts de la domination koushite à Thèbes. In: GM 198, 79–90. Payraudeau 2014 Frédéric Payraudeau. Administration, société et pouvoir à Thèbes sous la XXIIe dynastie bubastide, vol. I–II. BdE 160. Le Caire. Perdu 2010 Olivier Perdu. La chapelle « osirienne » J de Karnak. In: Laurent Coulon (éd.). Le culte d’Osiris au Ier millénaire av. J.-C. Actes de la table ronde internationale tenue à Lyon Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (université Lumière-Lyon 2) les 8 et 9 juillet 2005. BdE 153. Cairo, 101– 121. Pérez Die 2010 María del Carmen Pérez Die. Heracleópolis Magna (Ehnasya el Medina, Egipto). La Necrópolis “real” del Tercer Período Intermedio y su reutilización, vol. I–III. Madrid. Porter – Moss 1972 Bertha Porter – Rosalind L. B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, Vol. II: Theban Temples. 2Oxford. Quibell 1898 James Edward Quibell. The Ramesseum. ERA 2. London. 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. New Light on Temple J at Karnak. In: Orientalia 55, 1–15. Ritner 2009 Robert K. Ritner. The Libyan Anarchy. Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period. Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta. Roeder 1924 Günther Roeder. Ägyptische Inschriften aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Zweiter Band: Inschriften des Neuen Reichs. Leipzig. Rummel 2013 Ute Rummel. Gräber, Feste, Prozessionen: Der Ritualraum Theben-West in der Ramessidenzeit. In: Gregor Neunert – Katrin Gabler – Alexandra Verbovsek (Hrsg.). Nekropolen: Grab – Bild – Ritual. Beiträge des zweiten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 2) 2. bis 4.12.2011. GOF IV/54. Wiesbaden, 207–232. Rummel 2014 Ute Rummel. War, death and burial of the High Priest Amenhotep: the archaeological record at Dra’ Abu el-Naga. In: SAK 43, 375–397. Sander-Hansen 1940 Constantin E. Sander-Hansen. Das Gottesweib des Amun. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Skrifter I/1. Kopenhagen. 88 CLAUS JURMAN Schlick-Nolte 1999 Birgit Schlick-Nolte. Schabti-Aufseher für die Gottesgemahlin für [sic, C.J.] Mut-em-hat/Mehit-en-usechet. In: Ralf Busz – Christoph Löhr (Hrsg.). Türkis und Azur. Quarzkeramik im Orient und Okzident. Staatliche Museen Kassel, Universität Gesamthochschule Kassel. Wolfratshausen, 315–316, cat. 99. Troy 1986 Lana Troy. Patterns of Queenship in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala. Varille 1943 Alexandre Varille. Karnak I. FIFAO 19. Le Caire. Vassilika 1996 Eleni Vassilika. Museum Acquisitions, 1994: Egyptian Antiquities Accessioned in 1994 by Museums in the United Kingdom. In: JEA 82, 193–195. Vleeming 1995 Sven P. Vleeming. The Office of a Choachyte in the Theban Area. In: Sven P. Vleeming (ed.). Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Papyrologica LugdunoBatava 27. Leiden, 241–255. Wente 1976 Edward F. Wente. Review of Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). In: JNES 35, 275–278. Yoyotte 1972 Jean Yoyotte. Les adoratrices de la Troisième Période intermédiaire. A propos d’un chef-d’œuvre rapporté d’Égypte par Champollion. In: BSFE 64, 31–52.