Submit manuscript...
Journal of
eISSN: 2573-2897

Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences

Correspondence:

Received: January 01, 1970 | Published: ,

Citation: DOI:

Download PDF

Abstract

The theme of this article is the non-royal involvement in building activities in the Saite period and it shows how royal prerogatives were probably seized by Saite officials such as Payeftjauemawyneith. This article deals with the concept of royal self-presentation used by a non-royal high official in Late Saite Egypt. In his self-presentation on naophorous statue Louvre A 93, Payeftjauemawyneith confirms his involvement in building activities in a kingly manner. He points out that: “I built the temple of Khentyimentt, as an excellent construction of eternity, at his majesty’s command, that he might see that I was busy in the affairs of Tawer”. It is notable to see an official expressing himself in such a way. Although Payeftjauemawyneith’s self-presentation stresses that he was on a mission on the king’s behalf, reflecting his rule piety toward the deity, he states that was done “at his majesty’s command”. He further does not name the king, and the king’s presence is not that strong. This text reflects a sense of high self-esteem and a rise of individuality in the period. Payeftjauemawyneith’s self-presentation may draw on royal texts dealing with the same activity.

Keywords: self presentation, payeftjauemawyneith, royal self presentation, naophorous statue, Louvre A 93

Introduction

The building activities at Abydos by the Late Saite high official Payeftjauemawyneith narrated in his self-presentationon naophorous statue Louvre A 9311 is similar to those of the kings in their texts. In her monograph on Middle Kingdom self-presentations, M Lichtheim2 excludes royal texts because, in her opinion, they are not “autobiographical”. However, S Quirke2,3−6 does not agree that such texts fall outside autobiography, pointing out that the “Königsnovelle” affords “an analogy with the human autobiography”. He does believe that “the royal ideal” in royal texts differs from “the ideal of officials”; the royal “I” stresses “the ideal of kingship”, while the “I” of officials stresses “the ideal of human behavior in their society”. Royal texts can be also classified “self-presentation” in a sense. However, one should keep in mind the differences between the king as a special kind of human being, similar to a god acting on earth, and the officials who were representatives of the king in the administration, attempting to imitate him. Moreover, the textual formation, themes and concerns, iconography, placement of each self-presentation were different. Therefore, the relations and differences between “royal self-presentation”3 and “non-royal self-presentation” need further exploration. Actually, the royal “I” versus the non-royal “I”4 was different in some inscriptions of the first millennium BC such as that of Payeftjauemawyneith on Louvre A 93, in which he states: xwsj.n(=j) Hwt-nTr nt #ntj-Jmntt m kAt mnxt nt nHH m wD.n=j xr Hm=f mAn=f5 rwD(=j) m jxt &A-wr1

I built the temple of Khentyimentt, as an excellent construction of eternity, at his majesty’s command, that he might see that I was busy (Wb. II, 412.6) in the affairs of Tawer.6,7,8 It is notable to see an official expressing himself in such a way. Although he further states that was done “at his majesty’s command”, he does not name the king, and the king’s presence is not that strong. The royal building activities from the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty,7,9 put great emphasis on the king’s role in creating monuments for the gods. The first building inscription of Taharqa8,10,11 in the Mut Temple at Gebel Barkal (ancient Napata) states:9,11,12 jr(j).n=f m mnw=f10,13 n mwt=f11,14−16 Mwt Np(A)t qd=f12,11,17,18 n=s Hwt-nTr n-mAw(t) m jnr an HD nfr (n) rwD js(t) gm.n Hm=f Hwt-nTr tn qd m jnr m-a (tpjw-)a m kAt nDs(t) wn.jn Hm=f (Hr) rdj(t) qd.tw Hwt-nTr tn m kAt mnx(t) n Dt

It is his monuments that he made for his mother, Mut of Nap(a)ta. He built for her a temple anew in beautiful, white, good sandstone.13 When his majesty found this temple built in stone by (the ancest) ors being as a modest construction, then his majesty caused that this temple be built as an excellent construction for eternity. Furthermore, from the second building inscription is another passage by the same king stating:14 jr(j).n=f m mnw=f n mwt=f Mwt nb(t) pt Hnwt &A-%tj qd=f pr=s saA=f Hwt-nTr=s m-mAw(t) m jnr HD nfr (n) rwD. It is his monuments that he made for his mother, Mut, mistress of heaven, and lady of Tasity. He built her temple, (and) he enlarged her temple anew in white (and) good sandstone.15 The main text of Taharqa’s year 6 stela (Kawa IV) states that when he passed by this temple, while he was not yet a king (line 10):16 gm.n=f Hwt-nTr tn qd.tw m DbA(w)t … He found this temple builtwith bricks … .

In lines 13-14, Taharqa,now king, speaks to his friends:

mk jb=j r qd Hwt-nTr n jt=j Jmn-Ra gm-pA-Jtn Hr-ntt wnn=s qd.tw m DbA(w)t (j)aa.tw m AHt. Look, my wish is to build a temple for my father, Amun-Re of Gempaaten (Kawa), because it is built with bricks and is covered over with earth. This text also describes some of the items within this temple as follows (lines 24-25): wd mnw=s aSA m tA Sd Sw=s: Its many trees were planted in the ground, and its lakes were dug.

The main text of Taharqa’s year 6 stela from Kawa (Kawa V) states (lines 1-3):17 (j)sk Hm=f mrj nTr pw wrS=f m hrw sDr=f m grH Hr HHj Axt n nTrw Hr qd rA-pr(w=sn wA r) mrH18Hr qd rA-pr(w=sn wA r) mrH Hr msj sSmw=sn mj sp tp(j) Hr qd Snaw=sn Hr sDfA1920 Hr smAa n=sn Htpw-nTr m xt nb(t) Hr jrjt wdHw(w)=sn m Damw HD Hmt js(k) gr Htp jb n Hm=f m jrjt n=sn21Axt ra nb

Now his majesty is one who loves god, he spends the day and passes the night seeking what is good for the gods, building (their) temples which had fallen into decay, recreating their images as the primeval time, building their food production places, provisioning their altars, presenting to them divine-offering(s) of everything, and making their offering-tables of electrum, silver, and copper. Now, moreover, the heart of his majesty is satisfied by doing what is good for them every day. The main text of year 10 stela of Taharqa from Kawa (Kawa VI) speaks of the monuments which the king made for his father Amun of Gempaaten (lines 14-15):22 …nbw xAst=f … … … … … … … rd(j).n=f kArjw r=s m stpw nw DsDs mjtt jr(j)w m rmTw nw &A-MHw: … gold of its desert23… … … … … … … He appointed gardeners to it from the best of the Bahariya-Oasis and the likeness was made from the people of the Delta.

The same text goes on as follows (lines 19-21): mH.n=f (st) m mr(t) aSAwt rd(j).n=f Hmw(t)24 r=s m Hmwt25wrw nw &A-MHw HAm jrp m jArrw(t) nw njwt tn aSA st r DsDs rd(j).n=f kArjw r=sn m kArjw nfrw nw mntjw %Tt, He filled (it26) with many servants, and he assigned female servants to it from the wives of the chiefs of the Delta. Wine is pressed from the vineyards of this city; they are more numerous than (those of) the Bahariya-Oasis. He assigned gardeners to them from the good gardeners of the best of the nomads of Asia. Thus, the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty kings took credit for building temples, using the verbal sDm=f form qd=f.These passages show how the involvement with such projects was a royal prerogative. Although Taharqa’s inscriptions use the singular third person of the suffix pronoun, not the first, they are done in the traditional way of this kind of royal inscription. Statements used by Payeftjauemawyneith are closer in phraseology to those of Taharqa. Payeftjauemawyneith’s self-presentation may draw on this text or other royal texts dealing with the same activity. Payeftjauemawyneith’s self-presentation stresses that he was on a mission on the king’s behalf, while Taharqa’s inscriptions reflect royal propaganda to legitimize his rule, the “King’s Novel”, and piety toward the deities. This nonroyal involvement in building activities in the period shows how royal prerogatives were probably seized by Saite officials such as Payeftjauemawyneith.19−26

1To the soul of H. De Meulenaere, one of our great pillars of Late Period Egyptian studies all over the world.

2On the term Königsnovelle, see Hofmann 2004; Spalinger 2011. For more on ideology and propaganda, Leprohon 2015.

3Blumenthal 1984, 88, refers to royal self-presentation in her study of the Teaching of King Amenemhat.

4For more on signs of the “I” (the narrator) in narrating, see Prince 1982, 7-16.

5mAn is subjunctive of mAA, cf. Gardiner 1973, § 452.

6The use of the first person of the suffix pronoun is notable especially in Payeftjauemawyneith’s building activities. The Saite text of Paderpesu (?) on Berlin stela 8438, from Psamtik I’s reign, refers also to a building activity, see Chassinat,1916-1917, 180-82. Paderepsu seems to refer to building a small potter’s studio in the temple of Hor-Merty, not a full temple. The text reads jw qd.n(=j) pr n jqd-nDsn @r-Mrtj-m-r-MHt PA-drp-sw(?) “(I) constructed a potter’s house for Hor-Merty-em-er-mehet, Paderpesu (?)”. The key term is jqd-nDs, “potter” (lit. “small builder”). Although this was certainly something to take pride in, Paderepsu was hardly appropriating royal authority for the modest construction. A. Leahy (Personal Communication) does not think “there is anything specific here” with this non-royal Payeftjauemawyneith’s task of carrying on building activities. He, further, states that the first person of the suffix pronoun was common in nonroyal self-presentations since the Old Kingdom. Although the use of the first person of the suffix pronoun in the self-presentations since the Old Kingdom was common, it was only used to express the protagonist’s life and career concerning his own actions, not to express royal actions and prerogatives. Leahy is correct in pointing out that Egyptians, since the Old Kingdom, took credit for building major things, including temples: for example, Heqaib, Ankhtify, Senenmut, Bakenchons. In all those cases, just as in the present text, they point out that they only accomplished these deeds “at his majesty’s command”. Even when Old Kingdom official describe building their mastabas and sarcophagi, they point out that the king allowed them to do so. For more on non-royal initiatives in Late Period temple building, see Spencer 2010, 441-490.

7For the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty buildings at Kawa, see Welsby 2002, 26-39. http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/bmsaes/issue1/welsby.html. On Taharqa’s inscriptions, see Wolf 1991; Dallibor 2005. On the king and his reign, see Pope 2014. 

8Taharqa’s Memphite foundation stela (Cairo Museum JE 36861) has a similar phraseology, which this king employed in the texts of his building activities; see Meeks 1979, pl. XXXVIII. The main verb usually used for “to build” in Taharqa’s inscriptions is qd, (which evokes the creative activities of Ptah of Memphis, and who, in his Memphite theology, had a great impact on the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty kings). However, he used verb xwsj in lines 2-3 of his year 10 stela from Kawa (Kawa VII): xwsj.tw m jnr m mnw n Dt “being built of stone as a monument of eternity”, (referring to the temple of Amun at Kawa). This stela was located at the first court of the Amun  Temple at Kawa (Temple T), now in Copenhagen under NY Carlsberg Glyptotek Æ.I.N.171310,11

9See Dunham 1970, fig. 3; Eide et al.,1994,132.

10jr(j).n=f is as a nominal sDm.n=f, and on the dedication formula jrj.n=f m mnw=f, see Castle 1993, 99−120.

11Leahy 1987, 57-64, argues that the sDm.n=f is emphatic and the njt=f + god’s name is the emphasized adverbial adjunct. Therefore, Leahy precedes Castle in formulating this proposed theory; Castle 1993, 99 [*], himself confirms this; see also Jansen-Winkeln 1990, 127-156. For a review of the main five grammatical analyses of the dedication formula jrj.n=f m mnw=f and his own, see Depuydt 2001, 83-122.

12The main text of the Dream Stela of Tanutamun, from the Amun Temple at Gebel Barkal (Cairo Museum JE 48863, verso, 22), has qd=f n=f kt h(A)jt n prj(t) r-HA(t)  “He built for him another portico for going outside”.11,17,18

13Lit. “in beautiful, white, good stone of sandstone”.

14See Dunham 1970, fig. 3; Eide et al. 1994, 132-133.

15Lit. “in white and good stone of sandstone”.

16It was located at the first court of the Amun Temple (Temple T) at Kawa; now in the Khartoum Museum as Khartoum 2678.10,11

17It was located at the first court of the Amun Temple (Temple T) at Kawa, now in Copenhagen, under number Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Æ.I.N. 1712.10,11

18The section between pr and mrH is not clear in the original stela; see Macadam 1949, pls. 7-8.

19Here is a crack in the stela, but the word is clear; see Macadam 1949, pls.7-8. 

20Although the Eide et al. 1994, 148, (3), translates “their altars”, it does not transliterate the suffix pronoun =sn which is here used as a possessive adjective; however =sn is written without the three plural strokes perhaps due to the limited space on the stela; see Macadam 1949, pls.7-8. 

21Here also =sn is written without the three plural strokes perhaps due to the limited space on the stela, see Macadam 1949, pls.7-8, and also the previous note. 

22It was located at the first court of the Amun Temple (Temple T) at Kawa, now in Khartoum under Khartoum 2679; Eide et al. 1994, 164, 171-72; Macadam 1949, pls.11-12.

23Not “its foreign country” as in Eide et al. 1994, 171.

24The transcription does not have t as the end, but has the female determinative, see Macadam 1949, pls. 11-12. Since the determinative of the previous word mr(t) refers to the collective meaning of “male and female servants,” and the second Hmw(t) is connected to the wives of the chiefs of the Delta, and if we put in mind the hostile relationship between the rulers of the Delta and the Kushites since the invasion of Piye, this Hmw(t) should be understood as female servants, not male servants, becausethe latterare already included in the word mr(t) and need no repeating here.   

25There is wordplay between Hmt “female servant” and Hmt “wife”. 

26I.e., the city.

References

  1. Winkeln JK. Inschriften der Spätzeit: Teil IV, Die 26. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz; 2014.
  2. Lichtheim M. Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and an Anthology. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht; 1988.
  3. Quirke S. Review of Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies, Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and an Anthology by Miriam Lichtheim. JEA. 1992;(78):330−332.
  4. Hofmann B. Die Königsnovelle: Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz; 2004.
  5. Spalinger A. Königsnovelle and Performance. In: Callender VG, Bareš L, Bárta M, Janák J, Krejčí J, editors. Times, Signs and Pyramids: Studies in Honour of Miroslav Verner on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University; 2011. p. 351−374.
  6. Leprohon RJ. Ideology and Propaganda. In: Hartwig MK, editors. A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2015. p. 309−327.
  7. Chassinat É. À propos d’un passage de la stèle no. 8438 du Musée de Berlin. RecTrav. 1916−1917;38:180−182.
  8. Spencer N. Sustaining Egyptian Culture? Non-Royal Initiatives in Late Period Temple Building.In: Bareš L, Coppens F, Smoláriková K. editors. Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference, Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University in Prague; 2010. p. 441−490.
  9. Welsby D. Kushite Buildings at Kawa. BMSAES. 2002;1(26−39).
  10. Macadam MFL. The Temples of Kawa I. London: Oxford University Press; 1949.
  11. Eide T. Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD I, From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC. Bergen: University of Bergen; 1994.
  12. Dunham D. The Barkal Temples Excavated by George Andrew Reisner. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts; 1970.
  13. Castle EW. The Dedication Formula ir.n.f m mnw.f. JEA. 1993;79:99−120.
  14. Leahy A. Multiple Adverbial Predicates in Ancient Egyptian: (The Formula ir.n.f m mnw.f). In: Ray JD, editors. Lingua Sapientissima: A Seminar in Honour of H. J. Polotsky Organised by the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge and the Faculty of Oriental Studies in 1984. Cambridge: Faculty of Oriental Studies; 1987. p. 57−64.
  15. Winkeln JK. Vermerke: Zum Verständnis kurzer und formelhafter Inschriften auf ägyptischen Denkmälern. MDAIK. 1990;(46):127−156.
  16. Depuydt L. Of their Monuments they Made One for an Esteemed Colleague. On the Meaning of a Formulaic Expression in Egyptian. LingAeg;2001;(9):83−122.
  17. Grimal N. Quatre stèles napatéennes au Musée du Caire. JE 48863-48866. Textes et indices. Cairo: Institut français d’Archéologie orientale; 1981.
  18. Breyer F. Tanutamani: Die Traumstele und ihr Umfeld. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz; 2003.
  19. Blumenthal E. Die Lehre des Königs Amenemhat (Teil I). ZÄS. 1984;111:85−107.
  20. Dallibor K. Taharqo-Pharao aus Kusch: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Kultur der 25. Dynastie, Berlin: Achet-Verlag; 2005.
  21. Gardiner AH. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1973.
  22. Meeks D. Une fondation Memphite de Taharqa (stèle du Caire JE 36861). In: Vercoutter J, editor. Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron 1927-1976 I, Égypte pharaonique. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale; 1979. p. 221−259.
  23. Pope J. The Double Kingdom under Taharqo: Studies in the History of Kush and Egypt, c. 690-664 BC. Leiden: Brill; 2014.
  24. Prince G. Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Berlin: Mouton Publishers; 1982.
  25. Erman A, Grapow H. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. 7 vols, Leipzig: JC. Hinrichs; 1926−1963.
  26. Wolf PM. Die archäologischen Quellen der Taharqozeit im nubischen Niltal. Berlin: Humboldt-University Dissertation; 1991.
Creative Commons Attribution License

© . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.