Egypt Exploration Society

Was Queen Mutnedjemet the Owner of Tomb 33 in the Valley of the Queens?Author(s): Elizabeth ThomasSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 53 (Dec., 1967), pp. 161-163Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3855589 .

Accessed: 09/09/2013 07:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:20:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

while in the Middle Kingdom, whereas Mentuhotpe combined in his tomb the pyramid form with a rock-cut tomb, the accepted norm eventually was the rock-cut tomb which persisted into the New Kingdom. The mastaba-form corresponds to a stage before the rise of a solar religion, whereas the rock-cut tomb signifies the combination of the solar religion with Osirian ideas. Political and social trends have affected the size and elaboration of the tombs pertaining to the higher and lesser nobility. A basic factor which related to all forms of tombs was a social one, namely the desire to avoid the interference of robbers. It must not be forgotten that sculpture and reliefs were also affected by this changing background.

Reliefs It is customary to assert that there is a lack of perspective2 in the technique adopted in the Egyptian

reliefs. Perspective is a modern term which stresses the form as it is momentarily seen rather than the permanent and immortal scheme.3 The Egyptian motive was to represent each form in its abiding aspect which gives it individuality. That is why we have the diagrammatical method which is con- sistently followed in the reliefs. A feature of the same method is the avoidance of the representation of movement, since movement is something changing and transitory, whereas the aim of the art is to convey permanence and immortality. Again, this static attitude has changed little with the change of the political and social background.

Convention and freedom It might appear that one result of the conventions governing the art which related to royalty and

nobility was a certain restrictive force which prevented the artist giving full sway to his powers. It is rather striking that when other subjects are represented, namely, animals, or men and women of the lower classes, then the artist's use of his freedom has produced some outstanding masterpieces ;4

the same truth applies to jewellery.

Conclusion From this general expose the nature of Pharaonic art and its place in the modern theoretical

framework appears evident to us. Egypt has a wealth of monuments and fine artistic achievements. In spite of numerous discoveries and theories, we can still quote Champollion, who wrote in i824: 'The history of Egyptian art, as it appears to me, is still in need of deep study; for all evidence points to the fact that we both evaluate this art and ascertain (or, delineate) the style of its production, even the extent of its correspondence to reality, in a hasty manner.' ABD-EL-MOHSEN BAKIR

Was Queen Mutnedjemet the owner of Tomb 33 in the Valley of the Queens?

DR. ERIK HORNUNG has referred me to Robert Hari's Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, a study that should have been noted or queried several times in my Royal Necropoleis of Thebes. Hari's proposal that the tomb QV 335 should be identified as the tomb of this queen warrants special

I As clear examples compare particularly the statues of the Twelfth Dynasty which show rather a 'juxta- position' of two styles; see Aldred, Development of Ancient Egyptian Art (Middle Kingdom), 25.

2 Cf. the use of the term aspective of Egyptian art used by Emma Brunner in the recent new edition of Schaifer, Agyptische Kunst.

3 Thus what is known as surrealism, which is more concerned with mental rather than with visual expression, may originate in the theory of transparency in ancient Egypt; e.g. cattle fording stream in Steindorff, Grab des Ti., pl. I 12 and the flower vases above the musicians in Davies, Tomb of Nakht, pl. I7.

4 As examples see 'papyrus harvest' in Blackman, Meir, II, pl. 3; Davies, Rock Tombs of El-Amarna, In, pl. 31.

5 His QV 37 (pp. 238-40 particularly), after Porter and Moss, Top. Bibl. I (ist ed.), 39, rather than the revised identification of this and other tombs resulting from my investigations of 1959-60 and incorporated in Top. Bibl. I (2nd ed.), pt. ii, 749 ff. For my plan and discussion of QV 33 see Necropoleis, 200, 212, and Index I.

while in the Middle Kingdom, whereas Mentuhotpe combined in his tomb the pyramid form with a rock-cut tomb, the accepted norm eventually was the rock-cut tomb which persisted into the New Kingdom. The mastaba-form corresponds to a stage before the rise of a solar religion, whereas the rock-cut tomb signifies the combination of the solar religion with Osirian ideas. Political and social trends have affected the size and elaboration of the tombs pertaining to the higher and lesser nobility. A basic factor which related to all forms of tombs was a social one, namely the desire to avoid the interference of robbers. It must not be forgotten that sculpture and reliefs were also affected by this changing background.

Reliefs It is customary to assert that there is a lack of perspective2 in the technique adopted in the Egyptian

reliefs. Perspective is a modern term which stresses the form as it is momentarily seen rather than the permanent and immortal scheme.3 The Egyptian motive was to represent each form in its abiding aspect which gives it individuality. That is why we have the diagrammatical method which is con- sistently followed in the reliefs. A feature of the same method is the avoidance of the representation of movement, since movement is something changing and transitory, whereas the aim of the art is to convey permanence and immortality. Again, this static attitude has changed little with the change of the political and social background.

Convention and freedom It might appear that one result of the conventions governing the art which related to royalty and

nobility was a certain restrictive force which prevented the artist giving full sway to his powers. It is rather striking that when other subjects are represented, namely, animals, or men and women of the lower classes, then the artist's use of his freedom has produced some outstanding masterpieces ;4

the same truth applies to jewellery.

Conclusion From this general expose the nature of Pharaonic art and its place in the modern theoretical

framework appears evident to us. Egypt has a wealth of monuments and fine artistic achievements. In spite of numerous discoveries and theories, we can still quote Champollion, who wrote in i824: 'The history of Egyptian art, as it appears to me, is still in need of deep study; for all evidence points to the fact that we both evaluate this art and ascertain (or, delineate) the style of its production, even the extent of its correspondence to reality, in a hasty manner.' ABD-EL-MOHSEN BAKIR

Was Queen Mutnedjemet the owner of Tomb 33 in the Valley of the Queens?

DR. ERIK HORNUNG has referred me to Robert Hari's Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, a study that should have been noted or queried several times in my Royal Necropoleis of Thebes. Hari's proposal that the tomb QV 335 should be identified as the tomb of this queen warrants special

I As clear examples compare particularly the statues of the Twelfth Dynasty which show rather a 'juxta- position' of two styles; see Aldred, Development of Ancient Egyptian Art (Middle Kingdom), 25.

2 Cf. the use of the term aspective of Egyptian art used by Emma Brunner in the recent new edition of Schaifer, Agyptische Kunst.

3 Thus what is known as surrealism, which is more concerned with mental rather than with visual expression, may originate in the theory of transparency in ancient Egypt; e.g. cattle fording stream in Steindorff, Grab des Ti., pl. I 12 and the flower vases above the musicians in Davies, Tomb of Nakht, pl. I7.

4 As examples see 'papyrus harvest' in Blackman, Meir, II, pl. 3; Davies, Rock Tombs of El-Amarna, In, pl. 31.

5 His QV 37 (pp. 238-40 particularly), after Porter and Moss, Top. Bibl. I (ist ed.), 39, rather than the revised identification of this and other tombs resulting from my investigations of 1959-60 and incorporated in Top. Bibl. I (2nd ed.), pt. ii, 749 ff. For my plan and discussion of QV 33 see Necropoleis, 200, 212, and Index I.

I6I I6I

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:20:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS consideration and also the publication of the one cartouche now visibly inscribed, to be found on the left end wall of the first room, shown in the accompanying figure.

As this illustration indicates, the tomb is just accessible, being now filled irregularly to within two to three feet, approximately, of its original ceiling. The decoration, in shallow relief, is poly- chrome on a white ground. Both accessible cartouches are yellow, this colour representing gold,

FIG. i. The corner of the left and end walls of the first room in Tomb 33 of the Queen's Valley.

as usual. For each Lepsius records hieroglyphs that were simply inscribed-'spater', he reasonably suggests-in black ink: (t I\C\.I In the first, to the right of the entrance where neither Professor Wente nor I could read anything in 1959, the bird's head is shown hatched by Lepsius; the other cartouche, found by Lepsius on the left end wall, and, thus obviously that of our figure, was purportedly intact. When we saw it, the bird's head was damaged. Is it possible that the damaged name contained in Lepsius's first cartouche is actually that of our cartouche and that only this cartouche was actually inscribed ? In any case, we had reason to emend only the I of Lepsius to O.2 And in my photograph the i-vulture appears certain, granted that the a was simply placed in the larger blank space, over the back rather than in its customary position in front of the bird. The body and legs of the ;- and mwt-vultures could not admit confusion if delineated with the care given the sculptured signs of this tomb. But this portion of the inked bird is conceivably comparable with the poorly incised mwt-vultures of Hari's figs. 58, 6o, and 63, in contrast with the distinctive example in fig. 6i. Is it, therefore, possible to suppose with him that the otherwise unknown Tanedjemy[t] is, or was actually meant to be, Mutnedjemet?

Certainly the vulture should be re-examined in the tomb. More importantly, however, the photograph indicates and I have said, that positive evidence of ownership may remain on the tomb walls or in its fill, as may also be the case with the partly or totally inaccessible tombs nos. 27-29,

x L., D. Text, IlI, 236. 2 Cf. Gauthier, Livre des rois, III, 228.

i62

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:20:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

31, and 32 below 33, and 34 and 35 above it.I In QV 31 the visible cartouches were apparently never inscribed in any manner; if these cartouches, those in QV 33 and others in the necropolis, were once excised and later replastered (perhaps a possibility), no evidence of such changes was apparent to me.2 If QV33 is indeed the tomb of Mutnedjemet, the neighbouring tombs may include those of her contemporaries before the reign of Ramesses I. Thus it is scarcely necessary to urge once more that these tombs be carefully cleared before further loss of potential historical evidence can occur.

With further regard to Hari (pp. 239 f.), the Queens' Valley was used by the early part of the Eighteenth Dynasty for pit-tombs,3 not first in the Nineteenth Dynasty. His 'No 6i is actually an unnumbered tomb, my 'A';4 we agree that Mut-Tuy, wife of Sethos I, was the probable owner. But since in the entire wdi, as yet, only one tomb (QV 36) has been found in which the owner is simply snt-nswt, 'king's daughter' with no cartouche,5 another tomb for 'Ankhesenamun is more likely. If it were quarried in this valley, perhaps it lies below QV 33, for sites do tend to follow along chronologically as Hari suggests. However, the rule is not inflexible.

Regarding his hypothesis that Mutnedjemet 'a ete releguee dans l'ombre a la fin' of Horemheb's reign, one may ask if the presence on her canopic jar of a single civil title, hmt-nswt wrt, following two denoting religious functions, is as significant in the scope of the limited texts of this funerary object as Hari believes (p. 226). ELIZABETH THOMAS

Vizier Mentehetef fIN his famous review of Helck's Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs,6 erny

c,} \ mentioned some viziers who, until then, had been unknown. One of them is Rrmssw Mnt(-hr)-ntf, whom he placed, although with some hesitation, between the viziers

-~ Kha<emwese and Wennofrg. Definite proof of this supposition is to be found in a text > which, although known for a long time, seems never to have been studied carefully.

l At the rear of the temple of Month in the Northern group of the Karnak complex, on the back wall of this temple in what is clearly a chapel, added to the building at a later

, date, there occurs a text of Wennofre, one of the viziers of Ramesses XI.7 The upper part (^ i of this text, nearly all that is left of it, was pubis,hed long ago by Bouriant,8 and more 3 recently Varille reproduced a photograph of the inscriptions and the scene in between / them.9 However, in studying them in situ, it seemed possible to recognize some signs in Js the lower parts of the lines, which are mainly destroyed, particularly of the fifth and last 8M line at the right side. These signs were not mentioned by Bouriant, while Varille's photo-

graph is not clear enough to recognize them. Repeated studyI0 at different hours and therefore with different lighting enabled me to decipher some signs of his father's name, which is written behind the figure of the vizier.

I The tomb plans, as far as possible, are gathered in Necropoleis, 200, and the discussions listed in Index I; all are corridor-tombs with the possible exception of QV 32. The omitted QV 30 is the pit-tomb of Nebiry.

2 Both inked and sculptured cartouches occur in QV 74 (Duatintipet); inking is possible in one case in 73 (Henuttawy??), cf. Necropoleis, 218.

3 Ibid. 184-8; tombs of two princesses and two officials, whether primarily or secondarily, have been definitely identified.

4 Ibid. I60, 213-15. It is perhaps represented on the i: Io000 map of the Survey of Egypt by the small rectangle west of QV 66. Does Ballerini intend to indicate here and in the similar rectangle south of QV 3, also unnumbered, what he believed to be unfinished shafts?

5 Necropoleis, 2I2 f. 6 Bibl. Or. i9 (I962), 140 ff.; cf. particularly I42a and I43b. 7 Porter and Moss, Top. Bibl. II, 5 (19). 8 Rec. trav. 13, 272 f. 9 Varille, Karnak, pl. LXX.

O10 This study was made during a stay in Luxor made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (ZWO). I gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr. Wente, who discussed the problem with me in front of the text itself and could agree with me on the reading of the signs.

31, and 32 below 33, and 34 and 35 above it.I In QV 31 the visible cartouches were apparently never inscribed in any manner; if these cartouches, those in QV 33 and others in the necropolis, were once excised and later replastered (perhaps a possibility), no evidence of such changes was apparent to me.2 If QV33 is indeed the tomb of Mutnedjemet, the neighbouring tombs may include those of her contemporaries before the reign of Ramesses I. Thus it is scarcely necessary to urge once more that these tombs be carefully cleared before further loss of potential historical evidence can occur.

With further regard to Hari (pp. 239 f.), the Queens' Valley was used by the early part of the Eighteenth Dynasty for pit-tombs,3 not first in the Nineteenth Dynasty. His 'No 6i is actually an unnumbered tomb, my 'A';4 we agree that Mut-Tuy, wife of Sethos I, was the probable owner. But since in the entire wdi, as yet, only one tomb (QV 36) has been found in which the owner is simply snt-nswt, 'king's daughter' with no cartouche,5 another tomb for 'Ankhesenamun is more likely. If it were quarried in this valley, perhaps it lies below QV 33, for sites do tend to follow along chronologically as Hari suggests. However, the rule is not inflexible.

Regarding his hypothesis that Mutnedjemet 'a ete releguee dans l'ombre a la fin' of Horemheb's reign, one may ask if the presence on her canopic jar of a single civil title, hmt-nswt wrt, following two denoting religious functions, is as significant in the scope of the limited texts of this funerary object as Hari believes (p. 226). ELIZABETH THOMAS

Vizier Mentehetef fIN his famous review of Helck's Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs,6 erny

c,} \ mentioned some viziers who, until then, had been unknown. One of them is Rrmssw Mnt(-hr)-ntf, whom he placed, although with some hesitation, between the viziers

-~ Kha<emwese and Wennofrg. Definite proof of this supposition is to be found in a text > which, although known for a long time, seems never to have been studied carefully.

l At the rear of the temple of Month in the Northern group of the Karnak complex, on the back wall of this temple in what is clearly a chapel, added to the building at a later

, date, there occurs a text of Wennofre, one of the viziers of Ramesses XI.7 The upper part (^ i of this text, nearly all that is left of it, was pubis,hed long ago by Bouriant,8 and more 3 recently Varille reproduced a photograph of the inscriptions and the scene in between / them.9 However, in studying them in situ, it seemed possible to recognize some signs in Js the lower parts of the lines, which are mainly destroyed, particularly of the fifth and last 8M line at the right side. These signs were not mentioned by Bouriant, while Varille's photo-

graph is not clear enough to recognize them. Repeated studyI0 at different hours and therefore with different lighting enabled me to decipher some signs of his father's name, which is written behind the figure of the vizier.

I The tomb plans, as far as possible, are gathered in Necropoleis, 200, and the discussions listed in Index I; all are corridor-tombs with the possible exception of QV 32. The omitted QV 30 is the pit-tomb of Nebiry.

2 Both inked and sculptured cartouches occur in QV 74 (Duatintipet); inking is possible in one case in 73 (Henuttawy??), cf. Necropoleis, 218.

3 Ibid. 184-8; tombs of two princesses and two officials, whether primarily or secondarily, have been definitely identified.

4 Ibid. I60, 213-15. It is perhaps represented on the i: Io000 map of the Survey of Egypt by the small rectangle west of QV 66. Does Ballerini intend to indicate here and in the similar rectangle south of QV 3, also unnumbered, what he believed to be unfinished shafts?

5 Necropoleis, 2I2 f. 6 Bibl. Or. i9 (I962), 140 ff.; cf. particularly I42a and I43b. 7 Porter and Moss, Top. Bibl. II, 5 (19). 8 Rec. trav. 13, 272 f. 9 Varille, Karnak, pl. LXX.

O10 This study was made during a stay in Luxor made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (ZWO). I gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr. Wente, who discussed the problem with me in front of the text itself and could agree with me on the reading of the signs.

I63 I63

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:20:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions