Amarna, Before and After

[Wepwawet]

For the readers who may be bemused, or even confused, by this sidelock issue, here are two images, the first shows prince Thutmose with the sidelock typical of the 18th Dynasty, note it is rather round and skinny in profile. The second image, the same as several posts up, shows prince Khaemwaset E with the typical broad sidelock of the 19th Dynasty. The type of sidelock worn by Thutmose is closer to the type of sidelock worn by Ptah himself, though his is usually shown shorter I think. However, this style of sidelock is not limited to being worn on a wig as there is an image of Amunhotep III as a prince not wearing a wig but wearing the exact same style of sidelock.

 

Edited September 10 by Wepwawet
typo

[Wepwawet]

45 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

Well, yes, but that doesn't mean every sem priest of Ptah was a high priest.  Little Khaemwaset, son of Ramesses III wasn't a HP.

No, the issue is a lack of definitive images.

I have found an image in Dodson's "Amarna Sunrise" similar to the one you posted of an unidentified priest wearing a sidelock and wig, but a different individual. The one in Dodson's book is HPPM Ptahmose V

 

Edited September 10 by Wepwawet

[docyabut2]

, Akhnaton, was the only pharaoh of Amarna,and the belief in a one god

 

Did Amenhotep believe in one God?

 

 

1380 – 1336 BCE

He believed in one deity, the Aton, which is often represented by the sun disk. Akhnaton believed that the sun was the only symbol powerful enough to represent the unknowable Great Spirit – the Aton

 

Edited September 10 by docyabut2

[Aldebaran]

One thing about a sem priest I have noticed is that he had the right to wear that leopard or cheetah skin--if he could get hold of one.  In that photo I posted about a page ago from Qurnet Murai, tomb of Amenemone, there is a man wearing one who is behind those efffigies of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye.  His name in a caption there is Usermontu and he is "sm n Hwt NbmaAtra" or sem of the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III.  He has nothing on his head.

[Wepwawet]

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The type of sidelock worn by Thutmose is closer to the type of sidelock worn by Ptah himself

Nope, my mistake as I was for some reason thinking of Khonsu, probably because there is a similarity in their looks.

[Wepwawet]

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The first image shows a Iunmutef priest in the tomb of Seti I, and he wears a wig with sidelock, therefore this is not specific to Ptah. However, there is a difficulty in using the Iunmutef priest as an example for anything as it is possible that no such actual priest, or even position, ever existed in reality. You may think well of course they existed, here he is shown on a wall, but the issue is that nobody, to the best of my knowledge, ever claims to have been an Iunmutef priest. It is thought that the Iunmutef is a construct for specific scenes and that he represents Horus. This is similar to a sem of course, but at least we know for certain that the sem was a real person.

 

 

 

I'm aware that this topic may seem ridiculously arcane, but I think it does highlight one of the issues with trying to discern just what is going on in temple and tomb wall scenes, which are perhaps the most important source of information we have about Ancient Egypt. This issue is who is a real person and who is not real, though to an AE would of course be real. In the post of mine I'm quoting I state that it is thought that the Iunmutef priest may not actually be a priest or even a real person. I feel that I should not let this just hang and should provide a reason, of which there are multiple, but I'l keep it straightforward.

Below is the image of an Iunmutef from the Abydos temple of Seti I. Firstly, is he a priest. He looks like a sem-priest [issue of wig and sidelock aside] and he seems to be acting like a priest, however, the only title he has is Horus - Pillar of his Mother, and in the many times he appears in this temple he nowhere is described as a hem-netjer, a priest to us. However, this is not crucial as priests who hold an appointment beyond their basic rank of hem-netjer are usually just known by that position whether it be high priest, sem, lector or any of the many other positions. The reason I mention this is because in books you will very often find that the author has described them as sem-priest, lector-priest or whatever, but this is to let the reader know that this is a priest and does not reflect the wording associated with them on an image.

In this image there is one aspect that should stick out like a sore thumb and scream that this is not a living mortal. Yes, it's his divine beard, something worn only by a king and a god. You may think, well, the image of an Iunmutef in the post I quote does not have a divine beard, and that is correct, though he does have a short stubby thing. Going through all the images of an Iunmutef in the Abydos temple I find that the addition of the full beard is not universal, and there is a mix of full and stubby beard, yet they all depict the same Iunmutef. I have no explanation for the inconsistency in depicting a divine beard.

Then, and this is a bit more esoteric, there is an issue of what he is doing and saying. Priests of any sort are somewhat rare on temple walls, the reason being that it is the king who is the only real priest, the only man who can act as interlocutor between the gods and the people. Therefore when we see scenes of oferings made to the gods, it is the king who is depicted making the offering, never, ever, a priest. If you see an image of a priest seemingly making an offering, it will not be in a temple scene but usually in their own tomb, or a stela, and likely towards a predecessor. However, at Abydos we see this Iunmutef many times making offerings, not to any of the gods, of which seven manifested themselves at Abydos, but to the king. This is odd, the priests role is to act for the king in serving a god, not serving the king as such. When priests are shown on temple walls or the tomb of a king they are dumb, yet the Iunmutef is far from dumb, and he conducts a "liturgical conversation" between himself and the king, and with other gods, often Isis, his mother. The Iunmutef even offers and speaks to the king with his back turned to gods standing behind him, this is not the act of a mortal man, but of another god, a manifestation of Horus.

That was as straightforward as I could make it, though there is more, and that is mostly about the depiction of the Iunmutef in private tombs, but I think I've done enough I hope to show that this Iunmutef, no matter that they are depicted, has no corporeal existance, just like the gods he appears with.

 

Edited September 11 by Wepwawet

[Kenemet]

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

 

Below is the image of an Iunmutef from the Abydos temple of Seti I. Firstly, is he a priest. He looks like a sem-priest [issue of wig and sidelock aside] and he seems to be acting like a priest, however, the only title he has is Horus - Pillar of his Mother, and in the many times he appears in this temple he nowhere is described as a hem-netjer, a priest to us.

(many errands to run, so this is a drive-by post, but...)

What stands out to me is that title.  Is this an actual human being or is it Horus himself?  Some of the sources I see indicate that it's simply the deity and not a person.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

(many errands to run, so this is a drive-by post, but...)

What stands out to me is that title.  Is this an actual human being or is it Horus himself?  Some of the sources I see indicate that it's simply the deity and not a person.

It's a manifestation of Horus, and also the king, which is slightly difficult to explain briefly. In some scenes the Iunmutef announces himself as "I am Horus, Pillar of his Mother". The mother of Horus is of course Isis and we do see her with the Iunmutef in a number of scenes at Abydos, but what this is really about is Maat, and the king upholding Maat, and infact he is, in the form of the Iunmutef holding up all of creation. There, easy, now we all understand and can go back to sleep 😄

But really the Iunmutef is a concept and a metaphor and other stuff.

Edit: Here are the words of Iunmutef in a scene from the Abydos temple:

Quote

Utterance by Iunmutef. Presentation of the menu for his beloved son, Lord of the Two Lands, Menmaatre, son of Ra, Sety, like Ra

No priest would ever utter these words to his king, only the god Horus can say these words. Another piece of evidence is that I cannot find a scene in which Iunmutef and Horus both appear, it's rather like Clark Kent never appearing with Superman. However, a full search of all the scenes at Abydos will take a long time, and then there are all the scenes in the tomb of Seti I, both temples at Karnak/Luxor for Amun-Ra, the Ramesseum, Medinet Habu and on and on where Iunmutef appears, so all I can say is that I have never noticed, yet, both of then together, while both of them appear with many other gods.

Edited September 11 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

I've been doing some digging and have some information from reading Steven Gregory, who I have quoted a number of times in the past, principally about AE concepts of eternity and time. What I have gleaned, and needed to extrapolate and expand upon, is by no means a fixed reality.

In the case of the Iunmutef, the sidelock may represent a mix of youthfulnes, not being an actual youth, and may be a representation of eternal creation. I think that it is worn over a wig in order to indicate that the wearer is not a youth. But this raises questions about the priests at Heliopolis who were nicknamed "The sidelocked ones". I have always assumed, and been led to assume, that the Heliopolitan priests wore a sidelock without a wig, but then this contradicts the wig element showing they are not actual youths. There are images of High Priests at Heliopolis wearing their "leopard skin", which is in fact not covered with spots but with stars, and this is common knowledge, but they all, bar  I think one, wear a full wig and no sidelock. Images, or verifiable descriptions of Heliopolitan priests below the High Priest are not so easy to find... However, as a metaphor for eternal creation the sidelock perfectly suits the Helipolitan priests who serve Ra and Atum, both creator gods, Which leads me to Ptah, also a creator god, so, without any direct evidence I would suggest that the HPPM wears a sidelock as a metaphor for eternal creation, creation by Ptah.

This still leaves unanswered questions about the sem and exactly why they wear a leopard skin, it being a metaphor for the triumph of Horus over Set may only be part of a greater meaning. It still leaves questions about what headgear, if any, a sem priest at Memphis would wear as there seem to be no images of any of them except the ambiguous images of crown prince Thutmose and prince Khaemwaset, ambiguous as both became HPPM, and, for instance, just when were the images of them made, while only sem, or when they became HPPM combined with sem, nobody knows for sure.

Edited September 11 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

This still leaves unanswered questions about the sem and exactly why they wear a leopard skin, it being a metaphor for the triumph of Horus over Set may only be part of a greater meaning. It still leaves questions about what headgear, if any, a sem priest at Memphis would wear as there seem to be no images of any of them except the ambiguous images of crown prince Thutmose and prince Khaemwaset, ambiguous as both became HPPM, and, for instance, just when were the images of them made, while only sem, or when they became HPPM combined with sem, nobody knows for sure.

Edited 57 minutes ago by Wepwawet

What?  Didn't we both post an image of Ptahmose, not a prince, in his capacity as high priest of Ptah?  

[Wepwawet]

29 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

What?  Didn't we both post an image of Ptahmose, not a prince, in his capacity as high priest of Ptah?  

We did, and he is high priest, not sem, so he is expected to wear a sidelock and wig, the issue is with finding an image of a sem priest of Ptah who is not, and will not become high priest so we can verify what a sem priest of Ptah wears. We cannot do this with any certainty with Thutmose and Khaemwaset because they eventually held the rank of high priest and sem, and we cannot know with any certainty when the images of them date from, when they were only sem, or high priest and sem. I do not believe that they absolutely have to be named as high priest in every case when they are also named as sem, one reason is that as they hold both positions, the images of them may have been made to represent them in a role specific for a sem. This is not semantics or splitting hairs because as they were both HP and sem, then at times they must have had to carry out the functions of sem alone, or, for whatever reason, wanted to be seen specifically as sem.

Edited September 11 by Wepwawet

[atalante]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

I've been doing some digging and have some information from reading Steven Gregory, who I have quoted a number of times in the past, principally about AE concepts of eternity and time. What I have gleaned, and needed to extrapolate and expand upon, is by no means a fixed reality.

In the case of the Iunmutef.....

Wepwawet, 

Here is a paper by Stephen Gregory on the subject of Iunmutef (and the leopard skin, etc.).  You have presumably already read this paper; but I think it is relevant to include the link here.   Gregory says Iunmutef was a symbol of "transferring kingship".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345324965_The_role_of_the_Iwn-mwtf_in_the_New_Kingdom_monuments_of_Thebes_BMSAES_20_25-46

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, atalante said:

Wepwawet, 

Here is a paper by Stephen Gregory on the subject of Iunmutef (and the leopard skin, etc.).  You have presumably already read this paper; but I think it is relevant to include the link here.   Gregory says Iunmutef was a symbol of "transferring kingship".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345324965_The_role_of_the_Iwn-mwtf_in_the_New_Kingdom_monuments_of_Thebes_BMSAES_20_25-46

Yes, I had read it, and I've read his book as well. There's a lot to discuss from that paper, but most of it is extraneous to what is essentially a discussion about whether the KV35 prince could be crown prince Thutmose, so I've not gone into great detail.

However, on "transferring kingship", this really does open up how scenes, of which there are many, should now be interpreted as I think pretty much everybody, myself included, has just seen the Iunmutef as a sem with a different name, and also a real person. What I also find interesting is the use of the leopard skin as a means of showing that the wearer, among other things as Sheshat wears one, is acting for the king. What needs to be understood here is if this is so, then how do we see the sem at the funeral of a commoner, do they really stand in for the king, I don't see that, likewise, given the role of the Iunmutef in the tomb or temple of a king, what are they doing in a private tomb as the deceased is not a king, unless there is an Osiris thing going on here, and Gregory does not go into these aspects.

However, this does all fit into the long held belief that Ay is shown as a sem in the tomb of Tutankhamun to legitimize his power, "transferring kingship", even though as it is hidden from view, occurs magically.

[Aldebaran]

18 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

18 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

What?  Didn't we both post an image of Ptahmose, not a prince, in his capacity as high priest of Ptah?  

We did, and he is high priest, not sem, so he is expected to wear a sidelock and wig, the issue is with finding an image of a sem priest of Ptah who is not, and will not become high priest so we can verify what a sem priest of Ptah wears.

Seems possible that the ones who became high priests were always also sem priests.  Ptahmose was and so was Khaemwaset, son of Ramesses II because he is called "Setne Khaemwas" in Demotic literature.  "stm" was how "sm" became written sometimes in the Ramesside period and "setne" was the result of "stm".   Miriam Lichtheim writes more or less the same on page 125 of her "Ancient Egyptian Literature:  Vol. III, The Late Period.  "The principle title by which the historical Khaemwas called himself was that of setem-priest of Ptah.  In the Demotic tales the title is spelled stme or setne and is used as if it were a personal name."

From this part of Ptahmose in his naos you can see he is 'sm" in the text on both sides, as well as high priest.

 

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Seems possible that the ones who became high priests were always also sem priests

It's difficult to work out, or at least in the only list we have to go by, the one by El-Sharkawy adapted from Wildung, which is not as clear as would be liked. It looks to be that only some of their other titles were included in the list, and for some reason there seems to be more information on their fathers, and a number were not HPPM, but sem, and at least one was sem-priest of Ptah and also High Priest at Heliopolis. At least we do know that there were at times a sem and a HPPM at the same time who were two different men, for instance with Khaemwaset, but, going by the list, the man who was HPPM at that time had been so for either about 22 years, feasible, or about 56 years, not impossible but a bit of a stretch. This is Dedia, 55 on the list. How can we be certain of anything. What I suspect is that if the sem became High Priest, then they would often keep their rank of sem, unless a royal son was given that rank. though there are only two examples, not enough to judge.

There's a question of just what sem means when applied to the son of a king as well. A king can be a sem it seems, allthough never given the title as the only titles he has on becoming king are kingly ones. A high priest of any god is an "avatar" for the king, as it seems is the sem, but does this apply to the (rank and file) sem-priests often seen in copies of a BoD, or to the sem-priests shown in the tomb of a king who are named as sem, but are dressed as lectors. So I think we have to understand exactly, as far as possible, just what a sem is, and what differences there are between them, and why, and is a sem who is a king's son the same as other sems in theological terms, and it's this affair with the Iunmutef which raises this question, not least because I have found one example of the Iunmutef being clearly named as sem on a scene at Abydos.

Edited September 12 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

Speaking of priests and high ranking ones, we can include Aanen of TT120 with them.  He, the brother of Queen Tiye, was a 2nd prophet of Amun and a Heliopolitan seer.  One expected he would have a beautifully decorated tomb.  TT120 became very damaged but restoration was undertaken.

By contrast there is Ay, who serves as an example of how Egyptologists can propose theories with a basis as solid as the sand sifted by Susie at the seashore.  Ay, it almost became universally accepted, was the father of Nefertiti and another brother of Tiye.  But poor Ay is never heard of during the long reign of his so-called brother-in-law, Amenhotep III.  No title, no Theban tomb, not even a notable father he can mention in the tomb he finally gets at Amarna.   His wife, Tey, also mentions no parents, but at least she could claim to have been a royal nurse to Nefertiti, having had a title long before moving with Akhenaten to his new city.  My guess is that her husband, Ay, never a brother of Tiye, had been not much of an anybody until showing himself willing to accompany Akhenaten and Nefertiti.  There, at Akhetaten, he becomes a somebody.  Isn't that the chief reason any of the officials went--in order to become charter members of this new organization under the leadership of Neferkheperure and reap the reward accordingly?  

 

[Wistman]

Neither does Nefertiti say who her parents were.

In the long co-regancy scenario, if that's what we're talking about, I don't conceive of Ay as a nobody, but more likely as a close relative of Yuya, who was still managing the kingdom from Malkata, while Ay accompanied Akhenaten to the new city and gained management experience there at least until Yuya died.

[Aldebaran]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:14 AM, Wistman said:

Neither does Nefertiti say who her parents were.

In the long co-regancy scenario, if that's what we're talking about, I don't conceive of Ay as a nobody, but more likely as a close relative of Yuya, who was still managing the kingdom from Malkata, while Ay accompanied Akhenaten to the new city and gained management experience there at least until Yuya died.

Royals, in their own tombs, don't mention their parents and, of course, the original tomb of Nefertiti has not been found--or at least that we recognize.  Where do you think the parents of Nefertiti should have been mentioned?  She comes to Akhetaten as a goddess [and so she is styled in the tomb of Ay and Tey] the personification of Tefnut.  That goddess's father is the sun.  Tefnut has no mother as Ra spits her out, along with her twin brother, Shu.

I am surprised that you see Yuya as managing anything.  I see him as dead before the end of the reign of Amenhotep III.  But I do think he did live past Year 30 of that king as his mummy mask has the same juvenilizing style as Amenhotep's last portraits.  Thuya, his wife, died first.  A long coregency makes no difference to this as, even though he gets a coregent, Amenhotep III still counts his years as before.  He still lives as long as he would have without a coregency.  It is Akhenaten, as the coregent, who does not live as long as he would have had he needed to wait until his father had died to succeed.  Same with Queen Tiye.  She can also die at a younger age if, as her husband's widow, she does not have to age another full 14 years [or so] prior to her death in the reign of her son as eight years of that reign had already lapsed before Tiye became a widow.  Year 38 of Amenhotep III was, in my opinion, Year 8 of Akhenaten.  He only has 9 years of rule left.  The age of Nefertiti at death is shortened accordingly.  

[Aldebaran]

Off topic, is anyone interested in the site of the original tomb of Amenhotep I?  I am one who follows David A. Aston in thinking that TT320 was a tomb made for Queen Ahmose-Nefertari when she died in the reign of Thutmose I.  She may have originally been intended to be buried with Amenhotep I on Dra Abu el Naga, but that didn't happen for some reason.  Of course, the tomb of the pharaoh there is mentioned first in the pAbbott, an inspection document written in the reign of Ramesses IX.  As Ahmose-Nefertari was considered of importance in the necropolis next to Amenhotep I, it is rather curious that she and her burial are not mentioned while the commission was obviously checking on Dra Abu el Naga.  Probably, her actual tomb spot was then unknown.  However, the original tomb of Amenhotep I was noted and found to be "unharmed".

During the time of Dynasty 21 Amenhotep I was mentioned on the coffins of some 19th Dynasty kings, describing their transfers from one place to another.  I wrote a paper about this and the "qAy of Inhapi" which figured in these transfers.  I maintain that "qAy" was not a word for a tomb and that some scribe did not give modern scholars as much information as they have assumed.

https://www.academia.edu/42129482/Brief_Remarks_On_the_Qay_of_Inhapi

Sometimes it takes me quite some time to consolidate my thoughts on a subject or introduce new information in a dated addendum--although usually not as long as was needed for that paper.  There is what I consider to be a pretty good lecture by Chris Naunton on the tombs that are candidates for the original one of Amenhotep I on Youtube.  I made some notes about these:

KV39--has dual staircases leading into the tomb and dockets naming Thutmose I, Thutmose II and Amenhotep II. There is a way station thought to be 120 cubits above tomb entrance.  This tomb is "at the head of the Valley of the Kings" or not actually part of it.

ANB--vessel with cartouche of Ahmose-Nefertari.  It lies "behind Dra Abu el Naga" and is of a kingly design with a deep well and two pillars in the burial chamber.  Fragments of vessels of Ahmose-Nefertari and Amenhotep I.

TT293--reused for tomb of Ramessesnakht, an important official of later times --but located in the area of 17th Dynasty burials.  Contained 18th Dynasty ceramics.  Double tomb that is north, as the crow flies, from Meniset, temple of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari.

Edited 23 hours ago by Aldebaran