Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom Monika Doli ska 1 2 3 4 Feast of the Valley – its name and date .................................................................... Itinerary of the procession ........................................................................................ The temples in the Ramessid period: votive monuments ......................................... Graffiti ...................................................................................................................... 71 76 79 82 If we want to recreate a picture of Deir el-Bahari in the period of activity of three great temples, we should look at various small facts, especially those connected to the Feast of the Valley. Unfortunately the emerging picture is far from clear. However, we can propose some conclusions. 1 Feast of the Valley – its name and date The roots of the Feast of the Valley – as we know it from representations in Theban tombs, mainly of 18th dynasty date1 – reach back to the Middle Kingdom. The image of the bark of Amun with characteristic ram’s head on the prow appears amongst reliefs of Mentuhotep Nebhepetre’s temple.2 The oldest written evidence dates back to the beginning of the 12th dynasty. A graffito recorded by Winlock at Deir el-Bahari3 and a stela in the Louvre4 report about feasts of Amun in the shemu season. In the first case the destination of the procession is given as the Valley of Nebhepetre. A feast of Amun and his river journey is mentioned on a stela CG 20476 of the 12th dynasty.5 We are lacking information from the late 12th dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period about festivities at Deir el-Bahari, although the temple of the “father” of the Theban dynasty – remembered as the king who united the country and erected the first monumental structure on the Theban necropolis – was not forgotten.6 The next records concerning this feast are to be found in the 18th dynasty, in the temple of Queen Hatshepsut. But the texts are not unequivocal. The unique occurrence of the name of the feast is evidently a later, 1 2 3 4 SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, passim. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari, XIth Dyn. Temple I, pl. XIII B. WINLOCK, Rise and Fall, pl. 40, No. 1. P. VERNUS, Études de philologie et de linguistique (VI), in: RdE 38, 1987, 163–181. The author comments upon the question of two possible ways of translating the phrase m Hb.w=f tpyw šmw as “on his first summer festivals” or “on (the occasion of) his summer festivals” and opts for the second one. 5 LANGE/SCHÄFER, Grab- und Denksteine des MR II, 73–74; SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 94. 6 Cf. D. ARNOLD, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari, Mainz 1974, vol. I, 67–68, 94–95. 72 Monika Doli ska probably post-Amarna addition.7 Original texts (what is left of them) give us the following names of feasts: “the Feast of Djeser-djeseru”, “Beautiful Feast of the Ruler”, “Beautiful Feast of I shemu”, “all feasts of heaven and earth”.8 The question arises of whether it is possible to identify all these feasts. “Feast of Djeser-djeseru” seems to be a general term for a festival celebrated in the temple of Hatshepsut. We meet it in the 18th dynasty Theban tombs in the context of the Feast of the Valley,9 exactly like the slightly later terms “Feast of Djeser-akhet”10 and “Feast of Djeseru”.11 The actual name “Feast of the Valley” or “Feast of the Western Valley” appears for the first time in the anonymous tomb TT 129, dating back to the end of the reign of Tuthmosis III/beginning of the reign of Amenhotep II,12 and in the tomb of Userhat, TT 56, from the reign of Amenhotep II.13 Earlier it was evidently not used. Instead, we find descriptions of a yearly water-procession of Amun or of episodes of the feast, e.g. bringing bouquets from temples of living or dead rulers. It is worth noting that although we hear about feasts of Amun in the plural, only one riverine journey is always reported14 in connection with the festival later named the “Feast of the Valley”. It seems then that Amun of Karnak visited Deir el-Bahari once a year.15 In the temple of Hatshepsut in the navigation scene on the Eastern wall of the Upper Court, next to the name “Feast of Djeser-djeseru” is another name: “Beautiful Feast of the Ruler”. It could be just another term for the same festival. Either the actual king or Mentuhotep, “father” of the Feast of the Valley is meant by this. The next term: “Feast of I shemu” resembles the name of the 5-day feast of Amun which started on the first day of the new moon,16 as did the Feast of the Valley.17 This feast is perhaps also mentioned in a fragment of the calendar of Amenhotep I from Karnak, as the first summer festival of Amun.18 But as far as we know, nothing connects this feast with the West Bank. Why should it be mentioned on the walls of the Hatshepsut’s temple? 7 J. KARKOWSKI, Notes on the Beautiful Feast of the Valley as represented in Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari, in: 50 Years of Polish Excavations in Egypt and the Near East, Warsaw 1992, 163. 8 Ibid., 164; ID., in: Geheimnisvolle Königin Hatschepsut, Warschau 1997, 107. 9 TT 85 Amenemhab called Mahu: SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 108; Urk. IV, 919. 10 TT 86 Mencheperre-seneb: DAVIES, Menkheperrasonb, 3, pl. III; SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 115; Urk. IV, 928–929. 11 TT 76 Tjenena: SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 109; TT 247 Samut: ibid., 123. 12 W. SCHENKEL, Die Gräber des P3-tnf.j und eines Unbekannten in der thebanischen Nekropole (Nr. 128 und 129), in: MDAIK 31, 1975, 129–132; F. KAMPP, Die Thebanische Nekropole, vol. 1, Mainz 1996, 418. 13 SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 123; C. BEINLICH-SEEBER/A.G. SHEDID, Das Grab des Userhat (TT 56), Mainz 1987, 55, fig. 19. 14 SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 99 (TT 125 and TT 345); LD III, 9 d (TT 345). 15 See however A. EGBERTS, In Quest of Meaning. A Study of the Ancient Egyptian Rites of Consecrating the Meret-Chests and Driving the Calves, Egyptologische Uitgaven 8, Leiden 1995, 407 ff. 16 SCHOTT, Festdaten, 104, No. 139; Medinet Habu III, pl. 167, 1451 ff. 17 SCHOTT, Festdaten, 107, No. 150–151; Medinet Habu III, pl. 142, 135–136, 159–160. 18 A. GRIMM, Die kalendarischen Fixierung des jhhj-(Freuden-) Festes nach dem Festkalender des Königs Amenophis I. aus Karnak, in: GM 43, 1994, 76 fig. 1. Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 73 Apart from the hypothesis assuming that this feast also included a procession going to Deir el-Bahari19 there is another possible explanation. Perhaps here again is a reference to the Feast of the Valley, celebrated at that time – the time of construction of the temple of Hatshepsut – in the first month of the shemu season. What exactly do we know about the date of this feast? The date “Second month of shemu” appears in the Medinet Habu calendar, and in fact only there. The name of the tenth month is also suggestive: Payni, “That of the Valley (feast)”. We must bear in mind, however, that the problem of incompatibility of dates of certain feasts with months which took their names from them belongs to these mysteries of the Egyptian calendar which for nearly hundred years have enabled scholars to demonstrate their argumentative skills.20 The name of the month should not therefore be decisive in this respect. Most illuminating here are the dates of the Feast of the Valley which can be found in hieratic graffiti in the temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir el-Bahari.21 It appears that this feast was not tied to the second month of the shemu season but rather to the specific time of the year, corresponding to our April. Out of five graffiti with dates attributed to specific rulers, three speak of the second month of shemu22 and two of the third month of shemu23 as the time of a visit to Djeser-akhet. We can tentatively add one more graffiti with the third shemu date which fits a series, though there is no reference to the Feast of the Valley in the text.24 It is highly probable that most visits to Deir el-Bahari in the shemu season were connected with this festival. There are also 9 graffiti with a shemu date but no name of the king, and one which can be dated to the first year of Ramesses V but is not literally connected to the feast; most of them are dated back to the second month of shemu, one is dated back to the third month of shemu. Even though the majority of the graffiti do not mention the feast (texts are usually very short), they seem to have been made on the occasion of the festive visit in the Valley. In the case of graffiti dating back to years of specific rulers a certain regularity can be observed: graffiti dating from the reign of Ramesses II and Tausert concern the second month of shemu, those dating from the 20th dynasty – the third month of shemu. While trying to explain this fact, the shift of the lunar year in relation to the civil year comes to mind. Thanks to the Medinet Habu calendar we know that the Feast of the Valley was tied to the first day of a new lunar month (psDntyw) – that is why different days of the month appear in texts, dependent of the phases of the moon in a given month. 19 Cf. n. 15 above. 20 E.g. A. GARDINER, Mesore as the first month of the Egyptian year, in: ZÄS 43, 1906, 136–144; ID., The problem of Month-Names, in: RdE 10, 1955, 9–31; PARKER, Calendars, §§ 142–253; ID., The Problem of Month-Names: A Reply, in: RdE 11, 1957, 85–107; R. KRAUSS, Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und seine chronologische Verwertbarkeit, in: Ägypten und Levante III, 1992, 84–85. 21 M. MARCINIAK, Encore sur la Belle Fête de la Vallée, in: ET V, 1971, 53–64; ID., Les inscriptions hiératiques du temple de Thoutmosis III, Deir el-Bahari I, Warszawa 1974, passim; A.I. SADEK, An Attempt to Translate the Corpus of the Deir el-Bahari Hieratic Inscriptions (I), in: GM 71, 1984, 67– 91; (II), in: GM 72, 1984, 65–86. 22 DB 31: II shemu 23, year 22 of (probably) Ramesses II; DB 32: II shemu 20, year 3 of (probably) Merneptah; DB 3: II shemu 28, year 7 of Tausert. 23 DB 10: III shemu 9, year 7 of Ramesses III; DB 9: III shemu 9, year 6 of Ramesses IV or (more probably) VII. 24 DB 36: III shemu 1, year 21 of Ramesses III. Monika Doli ska 74 Assuming, as Krauss does, that the Sothic date from the Ebers papyrus – III shemu 9 from the regnal year 9 of Amenhotep I – corresponds to 1506 BC,25 and bearing in mind that the heliacal rising of Sothis was observed in that epoch around the 11th of July on Elephantine and around the 12th of July in Thebes (both localities are probable as places of observation), it is easy to convert dates from graffiti into our yearly dates. All of them fall in April: II II II III III III shemu 22, year 22 of Ramesses II shemu 20, year 3 of Merenptah shemu 28, year 7 of Tausert shemu 9, year 7 of Ramesses III shemu 1, year 21 of Ramesses III shemu 9, year 6 of Ramesses VII (DB 31) (DB 32) (DB 3) (DB 10) (DB 36) (DB 9) falls approx. on falls approx. on falls approx. on falls approx. on falls approx. on falls approx. on 24th 9th 13th 21st 9th 10th April; April; April; April; April; April. And around 1470 BC, when the first stage of construction of the temple of Hatshepsut was nearly finished, I shemu started around 24th April. On the base of the above list we can conclude that: primo, the date of the Feast of the Valley (in the New Kingdom) was tied to the fixed season of the year (astronomical, not civil), falling in our April; secundo, at the beginning of the 18th dynasty the first festival in the shemu season was the Feast of the Valley, which later moved to the II month and still later, during the 20th dynasty – to month III of the shemu season. It is then possible that the term “Feast of I shemu” in the temple of Hatshepsut applies to the Feast of the Valley. Moreover, also the first festival of the shemu season mentioned in the calendar of Amenhotep I can be actually the Feast of the Valley. Knowing the dates of lunar cycles one could try to compare the dates of graffiti with the dates of psDntyw in specified years. This difficult task was undertaken by Rolf Krauss who examined five dates with royal names.26 He got satisfactory results in four cases: a visit to Deir el-Bahari took place on the first day after psDntyw in two cases, once on a day of psDntyw, once three days after psDntyw. In the case of the date found in DB 32 the difference is bigger (5 days), but probably year 3 in question is Merenptah’s, not Ramesses II’s (as Sadek rightly pointed, in the third regnal year of Ramesses II the Ramesseum was not fit to accommodate a procession – its construction had just started – so Amun’s visit to this temple in regnal year 3 must have happened in the reign of the next ruler). In each case the dates given in graffiti point to the beginning of the tenth lunar month. It is an open question whether Egyptians determined the date of the feast by counting the tenth psDntyw after the heliacal rising of Sothis or simply chose psDntyw after the harvest which in Egypt fell in March. One can imagine another connection: by analogy to our Easter, which is controlled 25 R. KRAUSS, Altägyptische Sirius- und Monddaten aus dem 19. und 18. Jahrhundert vor Christi Geburt (Berliner Illahun-Archiv), in: Ägypten und Levante VIII, 1998, 117. For our purpose the exact date is (fortunately) irrelevant; the accepted date serves as a basis for further calculations. The shift from 1506 to 1517 – the other often accepted date for the 9th year of Amenophis I – would change calculated dates by no more than 3 days. 26 ID., Sothis- und Monddaten, HÄB 20, Hildesheim 1985, 136–144. Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 75 by the first full moon after the spring equinox, here we deal perhaps with the first new moon day after the spring equinox. We have too few dates to prove it, however. What was the date of celebration of the Feast of the Valley given in the Medinet Habu calendar? We should bear in mind that the temple calendar did not have to reflect the reality of the time when it was inscribed on the walls of the temple. The Medinet Habu calendar is mostly a re-edition of the calendar from the Ramesseum.27 Only five initial lists are Ramesses III’s addition to the original calendar and there we find the Feast of the Valley (lists 3-4), celebrated during two days in the second month of the shemu season and affected by the lunar cycle. It is then worth noting following facts: − − − − Five initial lists mentioning additional endowments of Ramesses III were composed at the very beginning of the reign of this ruler, when the Feast of the Valley could still have fallen in I shemu, depending on phases of the moon (though it had already started to approach II shemu). As the last section of the calendar is missing, due to the lack of space on the outer wall of Medinet Habu temple (the last recorded feast is the feast of Amun in I shemu), we have no information about the real length of the Feast of the Valley. Considering the fact that on that occasion the holy bark of Amun visited many temples of past rulers, it is probable that two days reported in lists 3 and 4 were the days when the bark rested in Medinet Habu (and received additional offerings ordered by Ramesses III), the feast actually lasting much longer. Dates of festivals taken over from the Ramesseum calendar were not updated in Medinet Habu: the entry of the rising of Sothis in I akhet, for example, was valid for the beginning of reign of Ramesses II, not Ramesses III. Also the date of the Min festival, recorded as I shemu 11, was actually in the period of the reign of Ramesses II – at that time the first month of shemu fell in harvest time, and the Feast of Min was connected with the harvest.28 The coincidence of dates of two important feasts celebrated in I shemu – the Feast of Min and the Feast of I shemu – is surprising. The former (list 66) seems to have been celebrated on the eve of the latter (list 67).29 The Feast of Min, exhaustively illustrated on the north wall of the second court, according to the calendar was celebrated on one day. In return, “the Feast of Amun of I shemu” lasted five days, but we know almost nothing more about it.30 Either both feasts were celebrated together as the joint festival of Min-Amun – which would better suit the scale of the feast represented on the reliefs of Medinet Habu temple – or the coincidence in time of these two feasts can be ex- 27 H. NELSON/U. HÖLSCHER/S. SCHOTT, Work in Western Thebes, 1931–33, Chicago 1934, 1–63; B.J.J. HARING, Divine Households, Leiden 1997, 53–55. 28 PARKER, Calendars, §§ 203–204, 238–241; R. KRAUSS, Sothis- und Monddaten, 142–144. 29 SCHOTT, Festdaten, 104: the Feast of Min was determined by the eve of psDntyw; the Feast of I shemu coincided with psDntyw. 30 SCHOTT, Festdaten, 105, gives two more records connected perhaps with this feast (Nos. 143 and 144). Monika Doli ska 76 plained in this way that the latter was probably celebrated in Karnak.31 Therefore there is no need to link it with the festival celebrated at Deir el-Bahari. So we see that excessive importance should not be attached to the date of the Feast of the Valley as given in the Medinet Habu calendar. This date, valid in the reign of Ramesses II, perhaps also at the beginning of reign of Ramesses III, was no longer celebrated as early as his seventh regnal year. These findings refer only to the New Kingdom. In the earlier period very few references mention only the feast of Amun in the shemu season, falling then roughly between September and November (Amenemhat I) or between August and October (Senuseret III) in the 12th dynasty – that is, at the time of Nile flood. Was this later considered to be an inconvenient time for the riverine procession and was the feast moved to the season of low water? 2 Itinerary of the procession What we know for certain is that the itinerary changed with each ruler, or strictly speaking, with the construction of each royal memorial temple. In the Middle Kingdom the procession headed for the temple of Mentuhotep Nebhepetre at Deir el-Bahari. However, it is difficult to decide where the bark rested and if it could have got into the sanctuary (certainly not through the ambulatory, as the columns would not have permitted it to pass).32 Perhaps the procession went to a hypothetical Hathor shrine, wherever that may have been situated.33 This situation probably changed when a brick structure of Amenhotep I was erected in the northern part of the vast court of Mentuhotep’s temple. The fact that it was built in this place strongly supports its connection with the Feast of the Valley but what exactly its role was is hard to say.34 The temple of Hatshepsut, Djeser-djeseru, provides us with the first details of the feast. We find out, for instance, that the bark of Amun arrived at the bark-shrine to spend a night there and on the way back visited the temple of Tuthmosis I, Khenemet-ankh.35 The location of this temple is not known but it functioned for a long time, into the reign of Ramesses IX at least,36 and the number of known priests ascribed to this temple is comparable to the 31 32 33 34 R. KRAUSS, Sothis- und Monddaten, 166 ff. D. ARNOLD, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep I, 79, n. 327. G. PINCH, Votive offerings to Hathor, Oxford 1993, 4–6. M. BIETAK, Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, vol. I, Wien 1978, 25; D. ARNOLD, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep I, 68. 35 J. KARKOWSKI, in: 50 Years of Polish Excavations, 161. 36 Its priests appear in Tomb-robberies Papyri: Khonsuemheb, in pBM 10053 rt. 6, 16; Pa-nakht-res, in pBM 10054 rt. 3, 3; perhaps also Karo, in pBM 10.221. Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 77 number of priests of Tuthmosis III.37 Texts in several 18th dynasty Theban tombs testify to the participation of Tuthmosis I’s temple in the Feast of the Valley.38 The Hathor shrine, built as a part of Hatshepsut’s temple, played an important role in the celebrations of this feast. Besides Amun, Hathor was the main figure of the feast. In her chapel as well as in the whole temple are many representations of this goddess in cow form, protecting and nourishing the king, or in human form, accompanying Amun. Reliefs on the walls of the hypostyle hall of the Hathor shrine show scenes of the riverine procession, and the reference to the yearly journey of Amun suggests that the Feast of the Valley is intended here, although probably not only that: the procession may have been connected with a feast of Hathor,39 or generally – with any feast in which Hathor played an important part. This chapel had a separate ramp and could have been approached from the lower court of the temple of Hatshepsut. We can imagine that in the time of Hatshepsut the festival procession with the bark of Amun coming from Karnak met in some place the bark of Hathor carried out from her chapel and the joint procession went up to the upper terrace of the temple, to celebrate festal rituals in the midst of the sanctuary, confirming the divine descent and authority of the pharaoh.40 Naturally, Tuthmosis III “was not amused” at that idea with regard to Hatshepsut, when he decided to restore maat and to correct history by excluding the queen from it. The temple of Djeser-akhet, erected with great determination, and a new Hathor shrine had to replace Hatshepsut’s constructions as a destination of the procession during the Feast of the Valley. Thanks to references to visited temples which can be found in texts in Theban tombs41 we can visualize following picture: During the joint reign of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III the bark of Amun visited the temples Djeser-djeseru and Heneket-ankh. In the later years of Tuthmosis III and in the reign of Amenhotep II references to Djeser-djeseru disappear and the new temple of Tuthmosis, Djeser-akhet, replaces it in the context of the Feast of the Valley. Sporadically we can encounter names of the temples of Tuthmosis I (Khenemet-ankh) and a small temple at Medinet Habu (Djeser-set). In the later part of the reign of Amenhotep II the name of his temple, Iab-akhet also appears. But in the reign of Tuthmosis IV the name Djeser-djeseru comes back, used interchangeably with the name Djeseru, and references to Djeser-akhet disappear. Does that mean that the procession returned to the temple of Hatshepsut? Not necessarily so. It seems probable that in the middle of the 18th dynasty various variants of the name “Djeseru” were used, without referring to the specific temple. The reason for this was probably the element “djeser” in the name of both temples; besides, they were situated side by side and visually formed one unit. Moreover, the Hathor shrine of 37 B.J.J. HARING, Divine Households, Egyptologische Uitgaven 12, Leiden 1997, 428–431 and 431–435. 38 TT 84 Iamunedjeh: SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 118; Urk. IV, 136, 955; TT 49 Neferhotep: SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 109; DAVIES, Neferhotep I, 62, pl. 53C and 64–65, pl. 55A. 39 Several graffiti from the temple of Tuthmosis III have been dated to IV akhet 1, the date of the feast of Hathor: DB 17, DB 63, DB 114, possibly DB 58 and DB 7. Cf. M. MARCINIAK, Les inscriptions hiératiques, Table 1, 41–42 (corrected). 40 J. KARKOWSKI, in: 50 Years of Polish Excavations, 164. 41 Convenient list of occurrences is assembled by D. NIEDZIÓŁKA, The Mortuary Temple of Amenophis II. Another Case of Temple Renaming?, in: ET XVII, 1995, 263, fig. 1. 78 Monika Doli ska Tuthmosis III was built actually on the area of Mentuhotep’s temple and after the reign of Tuthmosis the shrine was probably linked more to this latter temple than to Djeser-akhet in general feeling. In later times the names of individual temples were often not distinguished and the neutral term “Djeseru” or “Djeseret” was used.42 Besides, Tuthmosis III made sure that the enlarged bark of Amun had no chance to enter the bark-shrine of Hatshepsut’s temple. The fact of the enlargement done by him is proved beyond doubt by the fact that the entrance to Tuthmosis’ own bark-shrine in Djeserakhet had to be widened during the construction of the temple, after part of its decoration had been completed.43 With 5 carrying poles instead of a previous 3, the width of the bark together with priests grew to 2,20 m, as estimated by Legrain.44 Tuthmosis III widened the entrance to the bark-shrine in his temple to 2,34 m, so the bark could easily pass through with no risk to the priests’ elbows. But the parallel entrance in the temple of Hatshepsut was and stayed 1,34 m wide and even the portal opening to the upper court, with an inner width of 1,58 m, became too narrow. So the visit of the bark of Amun to the upper terrace of Hatshepsut’s temple was made impossible. Was then the Hathor shrine of Hatshepsut still visited during the Feast of the Valley? There was another, perhaps rival shrine – erected by Tuthmosis III. Can we imagine the procession ascending and descending one ramp after another? After the building of Djeser-akhet, Djeser-djeseru (slightly remodelled by Tuthmosis) still was an important temple of Amun with all the chapels in use. The causeway of Hatshepsut remained the processional route even when both other causeways had been blocked by the construction of the temple of Ramesses IV.45 So probably it was the main route and the procession went first to the Hathor shrine of Hatshepsut, then to the temple of Tuthmosis III (at least during his reign and at the beginning of the reign of his successor, when his own temple was not ready) and to the Hathor shrine of Tuthmosis. Supposedly the temple of Mentuhotep was also visited. Unfortunately the question of architectonic links between all three temples is not fully solved, so it is difficult to establish the exact itinerary of the festal procession. Probably a direct link existed between the Hathor shrine of Hatshepsut and the middle terrace of her temple, but to proceed to the Hathor shrine of Tuthmosis it was necessary to go down and then climb the ramp again. There is also a possibility that the bark (barks?) of Hathor left the shrine (shrines) and was (were) carried downstairs (perhaps to the hypothetical bark station at the foot of the ramp of Tuthmosis) and met Amun there. From the survey of find-spots of Hathoric votive offerings (unfortunately, for the most part poorly recorded), found by missions operating at Deir el-Bahari, comes the conclusion 42 OTTO, Topographie, 62. 43 This question has been studied by J. Wierci ska. Cf. J. WIERCI SKA, Les dimensions de la barque d’Amon suivant les données du Temple de Thoutmosis III à Deir el-Bahari, in: ET XVI, 1992, 263– 269; M. DOLI SKA, Some Remarks about the Function of the Tuthmosis III Temple at Deir el-Bahari, in: Ägyptische Tempel – Struktur, Funktion und Programm (Akten der Ägyptologischen Tempeltagungen in Gosen 1990 und in Mainz 1992), HÄB 37, Hildesheim 1994, 37–38. 44 G. LEGRAIN, La logement et transport des barques sacrées et des statues des dieux dans quelques temples égyptiens, in: BIFAO 13, 1917, 1–76. 45 M. BIETAK, Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, vol. I, Wien 1978, 28. Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 79 that ex-votos could be associated with both Hathor shrines as well as with an area not exactly specified devoted to the goddess in the temple of Mentuhotep.46 The continuity of the cult in the Hathor shrine of Hatshepsut after her death is confirmed in a way by the title of “Controller of Young Cows of Amun in Djeser-djeseru”, borne by the mayor of Thebes Sennefer in the reign of Amenhotep II.47 This confirms that both shrines functioned together but we are still lacking proof that both participated in the celebration of the Feast of the Valley. Moreover, it is impossible to say whether after the death of Tuthmosis III the bark of Amun still visited Djeser-akhet (in spite of the invitingly widened entrance) or whether it was satisfied with visiting only Hathor. As has been said, references to Djeser-akhet in the context of the Feast of the Valley abruptly end as early as the reign of Amenhotep II. If we recall the elevated location of the temple and visualize a very steep ramp that must have led upstairs, we should not be surprised that priests would have easily given up the climbing with the holy burden on their shoulders … We do not know if even in the time of Tuthmosis III the bark of Amun spent a night in Djeser-akhet. More probably, it went for a night rest to Heneket-ankh, then returned in grand style to Karnak. This route was probably longer with each reign: if at the beginning the itinerary included Djeser-akhet, Heneket-ankh, Khenemet-ankh and perhaps also Djeser-set in Medinet Habu – as is suggested by references to festal bouquets coming from these temples48 – later, before the night rest in the temple of the actual ruler (if such a temple was ready), the procession visited temples of all the royal ancestors. The exact route is hard to establish, as after the reign of Tuthmosis IV references to individual temples largely disappear. Instead, we hear about the repose of Amun during his journey to the West, to visit the gods of the West (the kings in their temples)49 or we meet requests related to the Feast of the Valley, for accompanying the god in temples and temple enclosures.50 So the temples of ancient rulers were still visited on this occasion. 3 The temples in the Ramessid period: votive monuments The period of destruction came, followed by the period of repair. Mutilated images and names of gods were more or less carefully restored, first by order of Horemheb,51 then 46 G. PINCH, Votive offerings, 3–25; J. AKSAMIT, Some small Hathoric ex-votos from the Tuthmosis III Temple at Deir el-Bahari, in: Essays in honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipi ska, Warsaw Egyptological Studies I, Warsaw 1997, 5–13. 47 E. BROVARSKI, Senenu, High Priest of Amun at Deir el-Bahari, in: JEA 62, 1976, 68. 48 Cf. note 41. 49 Urk. IV, 1650. 50 SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest, 94 (stela from a Theban tomb, reign of Amenhotep III). 51 PM II2, 356 (74,2); Urk. IV, 2135, in Djeser-djeseru. Tutankhamun’s activity at Deir el-Bahari is possible but not proved. 80 Monika Doli ska Ramesses II.52 Restoration texts in Djeser-djeseru speak of it as a temple of “father of fathers, Tuthmosis”. Horemheb first of all restored images of the bark of Amun (adding his own cartouches and rebuses of his name) and some more important scenes; this task was finished probably by Ramesses. Restoration works were done in all three temples and all of them continued to function. They must have been very popular, as on the area of those two temples which had been completely buried – of Mentuhotep and Tuthmosis – many statues and stelae were found, dedicated by lesser and greater notables from the end of the 18th dynasty to the beginning of the 20th dynasty. Many of them were donated by officials serving under Ramesses II, connected in various ways with the restoration of the temples. Fragments of three statues of the vizier Paser were found in all three temples.53 Two of them, found in the temple of Mentuhotep, bear inscriptions which mention Akh-isut. Another high official, Amenemone, left in the temple of Tuthmosis as many as three votive objects: two statues and a libation basin.54 One of these statues is especially interesting: Amenemone, represented in a begging attitude and nearly bald, calls himself an is (bald) and a wHmw (messenger, herald, intermediary) of Hathor, and invites visitors to address to him petitions which he readily would pass on to the goddess in return for a drop of wine or beer; cold water also would do. Now this statue was found with the remains of the wall separating the entrance portico from the hypostyle hall of Djeser-akhet. So probably it stood in the portico, in a place that must have been accessible to visitors, people outside the temple staff. Aside from famous statues of Amenhotep son of Hapu (who claims to be an intermediary appointed by the king) which were set up in front of the 10th pylon at Karnak,55 there are about 10 other statues of wHmw,56 owned by people of various ranks, from an ordinary “servant in the Place of Truth” Amenopet57 to the Royal Butler and Steward Neferronpet.58 It would be interesting to know what conditions one should have fulfilled to become wHmw: was it linked to certain priestly duties (but other titles of these people do not indicate that) or to a position in society, attained thanks to individual attributes? Or perhaps this epithet had no connection with any reality and expressed simply the wish to play a role connected with a goddess (apart from Amenhotep son of Hapu, in every case the divinity addressed is a goddess, most often Hathor). 52 E.g. PM II2, 356 (74,3), in Djeser-djeseru; NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari II, pl. V D and III, pl. XXXV, 5 in Akh-isut. 53 Two statues from the west court of Akh-isut: PM II2, 395 (1: Brit. Mus. 687; 2: Univ. Mus. E.534 in Philadelphia and Liebighaus 271 in Frankfurt am Main); One statue from Djeser-djeseru with a fragment from Djeser-akhet: PM II2, 375 (Cairo Mus. 561) and J. LIPI SKA, The Temple of Tuthmosis III. Statuary and votive monuments, Deir el-Bahari IV, Warsaw 1984, 36–37, No. 36. 54 Ibid., 21–25, No. 18 (begging statue, Luxor Mus. J. 141); 37, No. 37 (fragments of a family monument); 56, No. 80 (fragment of a libation bowl). 55 Urk. IV, 1833–1835. 56 J.J. CLÈRE, Les chauves d’Hathor, OLA 63, Leuven 1995; ID., Deux statues « gardiennes de porte » d’époque ramesside, in: JEA 54, 1968, 143–144. 57 Deir el-Medina 219: BRUYÈRE, Deir el Médineh (1935–40), fasc. II, FIFAO 20, 1952, 96–97, fig. 216. 58 Louvre E. 4214: Urk. IV, 1856; B.M. BRYAN, in: Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, Cleveland 1992, 242–243 (with previous bibliography). Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 81 J.J. Clère juxtaposes statues of wHmw with statues of people described in inscriptions as ihy, bAk, Hm, iry or is of a goddess.59 They seem to fulfil the same role – they encourage visitors to give them offerings and in return they promise to forward their petitions to the goddess, so they all may be called intermediary statues. This invitation is often addressed to women and young girls looking for a husband – but not when the owner of a statue is a soldier like Amenemone. Many of these statues are the so-called “begging statues” (again like that of Amenemone), shown with a hand cupped under the mouth as if drinking water or some other beverage. From the area of Deir el-Bahari, namely from Akh-isut come two other statues of this type: the block statue of the Royal Butler Tjau60 (an ihy of Hathor) and a fragment of a block statue of an unknown person61 (an is of Hathor). We do not know exactly where they had been set. Presumably the statues of this kind stood in the temples where the goddesses addressed were worshipped, in places with general access so they could have fulfilled their role of intermediaries. Although texts inscribed on all of these statues speak of above-mentioned functions connected with a goddess, usually the career of their owners is definitely secular, often outstanding: Amenemone was Commander of the Army, Royal Messenger in All Foreign Countries, Chief of Medjay and Overseer of Works in the Ramesseum.62 Was it then, as Clère supposed, that the claimed familiarity with Hathor or other goddess was to convince visitors to use the services of an intermediary in return for offerings? Why then are only goddesses involved? The popularity of the cult of Hathor is perhaps some explanation of this phenomenon. Beside statues and stelae, references to priests inform us about the functioning of the Deir el-Bahari temples in that period. The vizier Paser addresses “priests and scribes of Akh-isut”;63 there are also references to wab priests from Akh-isut or priests of Hathor from Akh-isut.64 We know also about priests of Tuthmosis III but with no reference to specific temples, like Khonsu, Khaemwase and Khay from TT 31, in the reign of Ramesses II.65 It is possible then that priests were attached to the memorial temple of Tuthmosis, Heneket-ankh as well as to Djeser-akhet or perhaps to all temples at Deir el-Bahari. Combining priestly duties in several temples on the West Bank is evident in many cases; it is easier to recognize it in the earlier period, where names of temples were more often recorded. A certain Amen59 Two of these statues (CG 1203 and one in Brighton Museum) belong to the High Priest of Onuris Minmose who was a nephew of Amenemone. On these statues Minmose is described once as is of Isis and once as iry of Onuris. 60 BM 1459: NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari III, 7–8. 61 BM 41645: ibid., 8. 62 On the career of Amenemone see J. LIPI SKA, Amenemone, Builder of the Ramesseum, in: ET III, 1969, 41–49. 63 NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari III, 6, pl. X.B. 64 E.g. Tjanefer, a priest of Hathor, Nebhepetre Mentuhotep and Amon-Re in Akh-isut from the end of the 18th dynasty, cf. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari I, 61, pl. XXVI.B. 65 DAVIES, Seven Private Tombs, 19–22, 25, pls. XIII–XVI, XIX. This family combined priestly duties in several royal memorial temples: the father of Khonsu Neferhotep as well as Khonsu’s brother Mentuhotep were attached to the temple of Amenhotep II; another brother of Khonsu Iuy was attached to Khenemet-ankh; Khonsu himself was connected with the cult of Tuthmosis III, Amenhotep II and Tuthmosis IV; his son Khaemwase was a priest of Tuthmosis III, cf. B.J.J. HARING, Divine Households, Appendix 2. Monika Doli ska 82 hotep under Tuthmosis III was a wab-priest of Amun in Akh-isut, Djeser-djeseru and Heneket-ankh, a wab-priest and Steward of Tuthmosis I and a ka-priest of processional statues of Tuthmosis I and III.66 A certain Ra under Amenhotep II was the High Priest of Amun in Heneket-ankh, Djeser-akhet, Men-isut and Djeser-set, and moreover he was the High Priest of Hathor in Heneket-ankh and of Amun of Tuthmosis III in Heneket-ankh.67 On the other hand, priests like Pahemnetjer or Amenemheb from the Ramessid Period, Scribes of Offerings of All the Gods of Thebes,68 were attached possibly to the temples of the West Bank, but no names are specified. It is likely that periodical presentation of offerings in temples of previous rulers was a duty of priests of the mortuary temple of the actual ruler and usually it was not reflected in their titles. As regards the later history of temples we only learn when a temple for some reason has preserved its economic importance, like the temple of Tuthmosis I as late as at the end of the 20th dynasty.69 After the reign of Ramesses II dated monuments are scarce: a stele from Djeser-akhet with a representation of Panehesi adoring Amun-Re and cartouches [of Merneptah],70 where Panehesi serves probably as an intermediary of an unknown person in the bottom (unpreserved) register;71 a statue of Nedjem, god’s father and wab-priest of Amun from the temple of Merneptah, dedicated by his son, found at the entrance to the chapel of Hathor of Tuthmosis III;72 we can add perhaps a sort of votive wall-decoration dedicated by chancellor Bai and featuring king Siptah adoring [divinities], carved and painted on the west face of the base of mastaba-shaped structure of Mentuhotep.73 4 Graffiti It is hard to say when the first graffiti started to appear. Presumably as early as in the 18th dynasty pilgrims flocking near temples during great festivals or individually visiting Hathor to worship her and dedicate a votive offering to her and left written sentences wherever they could and had access to. H.R. Hall reports quite a number of graffiti found in Akh-isut, especially in the North Lower Colonnade. Some of them have been whitewashed, probably during the restoration of reliefs after the Amarna erasures. Also in Djeser-akhet some graf- 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Urk. IV, 1501–1502. Urk. IV, 1458. TT 284 and 364, PM I.12, 366 and 427. HELCK, Materialien I, 91, 118. J. LIPI SKA, Deir el-Bahari IV, 51, No. 71. Cf. P.PAMMINGER, Magistrale Intervention: Der Beamte als Mittler, in: SAK 23, 1996, 281–304. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari III, 7, pl. IV.5 and X.A. NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari I, 14, 33; II, 12, pl. X.K; III, pl. XIV.3. Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 83 fiti were covered with whitewash. Most of graffiti date however back to the Ramessid period.74 Graffiti – not painted out – sometimes appear in the most unexpected places. I have especially in mind the graffiti of the scribe Paraemheb who blatantly covered with his own signatures the walls of the Hathor shrine of Djeser-akhet.75 It seems strange that such noticeable graffiti could remain in a shrine which still functioned and attracted crowds. Although the statue of the Hathor cow hid to great extent the graphic excesses on the walls, it does not seem to be good enough reason to leave them in peace. On the area of Tuthmosis III’s temple dozens of well-preserved graffiti have been found. And the next question arises: what conditions enabled the writing of so many graffiti in various parts of the temple? After M. Marciniak had published most extant graffiti (i.e. 142),76 further studies of reliefs from Djeser-akhet made it possible to determine the original position of some of them. As it turned out, although the majority came from columns and walls of the hypostyle hall (which was known already), some graffiti were made in the western rooms of the temple. One graffito was written on a 19th dynasty statue77 and a long, unfortunately unreadable text covered the back and sides of the granite statue of Tuthmosis III, found north of the granite portal.78 Is it possible then that pilgrims coming during festivals were admitted to the inner sanctuaries? It could sometimes have happened that some paid priest was an intermediary in passing petitions to the deity (several graffiti could have been done only by a member of the temple staff, as is shown by their location, e.g. on window gratings)79 but in most texts it does not seem likely: most often a scribe signs who addresses petitions or worships gods on behalf of himself and his family80 or on behalf of his superior;81 sometimes it is a priest82 or temple clerk who commemorates his (official?) visit to Djeser-akhet.83 To determine the time when temples became accessible to lay people – when they stopped functioning – the dated graffiti are of paramount importance. Unfortunately, amongst around 30 graffiti with dates, only a few can be linked to individual kings. The earliest dates are from the reign of Ramesses II: regnal year 2 (DB 13), year 22 (DB 31), year 32 (DB 17). The latest date is regnal year 6 of (probably) Ramesses VII (DB 9) and before that, year 1 and (twice) unspecified years of Ramesses V (DB 2, DB 92, DB 137). 74 NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari I, 24–26, pl. VIII.6; III, pl. XVI.3. Beside graffiti there were also incised footprints (e.g. on a statue of Amenhotep I, BM 683), covered with whitewash as well, certainly when temples were going to be reopened. 75 NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari I, 65, pl. XXVIII. 76 Cf. n. 21. 77 J. LIPI SKA, Deir el-Bahari IV, 31–33, No. 25. Probably the same person, chantress of Amun Paiusekhmet, left graffito DB 118 on a column. 78 Ibid., 14, No. 3. 79 J. LIPI SKA, The Temple of Tuthmosis III. Architecture, Deir el-Bahari II, Warsaw 1977, 29. 80 E.g. DB 1, 4, 9, 29, 36. 81 E.g. DB 2, 3, 69. 82 E.g. DB 128, 129. 83 E.g. DB 13, 17, 61, 82, 94, left by treasury scribes. After the reign of Ramesses II we have no information of official visits to Djeser-akhet, although some high officials continued to pay a visit to the holy place (like vizier Hori, DB 51, or sem-priests from the mortuary temples of Ramesses II, III and IV, DB 129). 84 Monika Doli ska We know that Ramesses II contributed to the restoration of temples at Deir el-Bahari so we can presume that at least at the beginning of his reign the temples functioned; however, it could have changed later. In spite of his restoration activity which he boasted of, Ramesses II did not much care for the temples of his ancestors: e.g. he used blocks from constructions by Tuthmosis III (probably Heneket-ankh) in the Ramesseum.84 Let us have a look at the authors of three graffiti dating from the reign of Ramesses II: − − − DB 13: a graffito of the scribe of the treasury of the domain of Amun, Amen-tay-nakht, made in the storeroom of ritual vases. Perhaps a visit to Deir el-Bahari was one of his administrative duties or was connected to restoration works in the temple (year 2 of Ramesses II). DB 31: a graffito of the scribe Ashakhet of the House of Khonsu (and) of Amun of Opet, made when he came and offered to Hathor during the Feast of the Valley. There are three possibilities: either a temple scribe was allowed to enter the hypostyle hall of Djeser-akhet, or he made the graffito through the agency of a priest of that temple (in this case it was not specifically stated that the graffito “was made by” the author), or the temple was not already functioning in this period (year 22 of Ramesses II, II shemu 22). DB 17: a graffito of the treasury-scribe Amenemheb called Nakhtamun from the Ramesseum, made on the occasion of the visit during the feast of Hathor (year 32 of Ramesses II, IV akhet 1). Again there are three possibilities, as above. In the case of the graffito DB 3, dating from regnal year 7 of Tausert, the subjects concerned were visitors without any priestly titles (a scribe Djehutyemheb and a chief of Medjay) who visited the temple during the Feast of the Valley (when Amun reposed in the temple of Tausert). It would be hard to accept that lay visitors could have access to the hypostyle hall while the temple was functioning. It seems therefore likely that Djeser-akhet – as probably both other temples – was not functioning any more but remained a sacred place in the vicinity of Hathor shrines which were still open and awaited the arrival of procession during the Feast of the Valley in the shemu season and during the feast of Hathor in the IV month of akhet. In the case of some temples we can presume to what extent the people could participate in religious festivities. E.g. in the Luxor temple during the Feast of Opet the peristyle court was accessible to common people.85 Perhaps also the great hypostyle at Karnak sometimes was open to the faithful, as its dedication text seems to suggest.86 The same is implied by rekhyet-figures carved on columns of the upper court of Djeser-djeseru. However, we are lacking such hints in Djeser-akhet. As a matter of fact, the lack of space would have prevented crowds from gathering in the hypostyle hall of this temple. It is then highly improbable that Djeser-akhet was functioning in the period when most graffiti were made. Besides, no priests connected with the temples of Tuthmosis III are 84 RICKE, Totentempel, 7. 85 L. BELL, The New Kingdom “Divine” Temple: The Example of Luxor, in: Temples of Ancient Egypt, London, New York 1997, 164–170. The presence of rekhyet-figures carved on columns can be an indication that people were able to approach the court. 86 J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Profane et sacré dans le temple égyptien, in: BSEG 21, 1997, 31. Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 85 recorded after Ramesses II (cf. n. 65), priests from Djeser-djeseru disappear even earlier, and the last reference to priests of Akh-isut is an invocation of the vizier Paser (cf. n. 63). The number of graffiti recorded on 8 standing, partly preserved columns of the Djeserakhet temple is strikingly high. On one fragmentary column, 1,75 m high, there are nearly 30 graffiti! Perhaps in no other site in Egypt was the devotional activity of this kind so intensive.87 One cannot help thinking about modern sacred places like Czestochowa in Poland or Lourdes in France, filled with various ex-votos and inscriptions – thankful or imploring. At Deir el-Bahari a huge number of votive offerings was recovered, mostly dating from the 18th dynasty, the evidence of great popularity of the Hathor cult at that place.88 The 19th and 20th dynasty graffiti became just another form of expressing adoration of and expectation from the goddess. The latest date which can be probably identified on graffiti is regnal year 6 of Ramesses VII (DB 9, cf. n. 23). The graffito mentions the celebrations of the Feast of the Valley,89 even though the monumental temple of Ramesses IV, which was never finished, already blocked processional avenues leading to Akh-isut (completely) and Djeser-akhet (partly). From the fact that the temple was built in that specific place one can draw various conclusions (apart from one apparently obvious: that the processional way was not needed because processions stopped going to Deir el-Bahari). Firstly, the procession could still go to the valley using the causeway of Hatshepsut. Having visited the shrines of Hathor the procession could perhaps head for Deir el-Medina, to visit a local Hathor shrine: that the bark of Amun visited Deir el-Medina, besides later evidence,90 is indirectly shown in representations of Userhat on Ramessid stelae found in the area of the temple of Hathor.91 Secondly, perhaps the proximity of the Valley and its Feast was the cause of the founding of the temple by Ramesses IV in that part of Asasif. It was situated exactly on the axis of the causeway of Mentuhotep,92 which may mean that Ramesses wanted to stress the connection with the old temple and the Hathor shrine, as still being the destination of the procession during the Feast of the Valley. The problem is still unsolved – when and why the temple of Tuthmosis III, as well as the temple of Mentuhotep, was given to stonecutters who made use of the precious sandstone (and to lesser extent limestone) from their walls and columns.93 The lack of pilgrims’ graffiti after the reign of Ramesses VII is easy to explain – times were not favourable to 87 Cf. J. YOYOTTE, Les pèlerinages dans l’Égypte ancienne, in: SourcesOr III, 1960, 16–74; A.I. SADEK, Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom, HÄB 27, 1987. 88 G. PINCH, Votive offerings, passim. Various small offerings are characteristic of Hathor shrines at different sites, evidence of her popularity and approachability. Comparative material can be found only in two temples of other deities: in the shrine of Sekhmet of Sahure at Abusir and in the temple of the Sphinx at Giza (ibid., 78–79). 89 Cf. K.A. KITCHEN, Ramesses VII and the Twentieth Dynasty, in: JEA 58, 1972, 190–191, for a visit of Ramesses VI in Thebes on the occasion of the Festival of the Valley. 90 E.g. an inscription in the Ptolemaic temple of Hathor at Deir el-Medina, mentioning the Festival of the Valley, cf. PIEHL, Inscr. I, pl. 167 H, a, b. 91 BRUYÈRE, Deir el-Médineh (1935–40), fasc. II, FIFAO 20, 1952, 7, fig. 76 (Cairo Museum No. 43591) and 44, fig. 127 (No. 157). 92 A. LANSING, in: BMMA. The Egyptian Expedition 1934–1935, Dec. 1935, 6–12. 93 Examples of unfinished sandstone bowls (?) are illustrated in J. LIPI SKA, Deir el-Bahari II, pl. 11–12. 86 Monika Doli ska pilgrimages and festivities. The late 20th dynasty was an especially sombre period in the history of Egypt. Raids by desert tribes, attacks by bands of military marauders, growing grain prices, hunger, corruption, tomb robberies, and civil war – it was not a good time for festival celebrations. The last reference to Djeser-akhet, as well as to Akh-isut,94 occurs in the tomb of the Chief of the Altar and Chief of the Temple Archives of the Estate of Amun Imiseba (TT 65) under Ramesses IX.95 These temples are listed there together with several other Amun temples on both sides of the river (e.g. Djeser-djeseru) as the source of mortuary offerings for the owner of the tomb. It is possible then that they survived until that period, although it is unlikely that they still had any economic importance.96 Some time after this the demolition and extraction of stones started. What was the reason to treat both aged but still venerated temples in such a way? This question would be easier to answer if we knew what happened to the stone recovered from them, as well as from the many limestonelined tombs of the 11th dynasty located around Deir el-Bahari.97 Blocks from these temples were not found reused in any later building.98 Certainly there was great demand for small regular blocks and for big bowls or mortars. Perhaps the temples were handed over to stonecutters after being robbed in the Year of Hyenas: regnal year 9 or 19 of Ramesses XI99 or later – after another outbreak of unrest and robbery in the 21st dynasty. An earthquake could also have been the reason for the initial demolition. The complete annihilation of the temples was averted thanks to the (next?) rock fall.100 Under heaps of stone, rubble overwhelmed parts of walls, columns and architraves in the temples of Tuthmosis and Mentuhotep, statues of kings and nobles, votive offerings to Hathor, a statue of Amun from Akh-isut, fragments of two cult statues of Amun from Djeser-akhet and the virtually undamaged statue of the Hathor cow in its speos, as well as the entrance to the tomb of Mentuhotep. It must have happened after year 16 of Ramesses IX when the special commission checked royal tombs during the trial of tomb-robbers and found the tomb of Mentuhotep untouched (which also means unburied). Another indication of the still free access to this area is the intrusive burial of Har(em)kenesi dating from the early 21st dynasty, found in the chamber of tomb 7 situated close to the Hathor shrine of 94 Apart from a statue of Ahmes son of Smendes (JE 37075) from the beginning of Ptolemaic Period. Ahmes claims to be a prophet of Amenopet of Akh-isut, cf. H.W. FAIRMAN, A Statue from the Karnak Cache, in: JEA 20, 1934, 1–4. This epithet seems to me difficult to explain in view of the fact that the temple Akh-isut had been buried under rocks for some 700 years at the time of the fashioning of the statue. 95 LD III, 236a. 96 Imiseba, as a chief of temple archives and descendant of a family of archivists, could well have been familiar with names of more or less ancient temples. 97 E.g. from the tomb of Khety, cf. H. WINLOCK, in: BMMA. The Egyptian Expedition 1922–1923, Dec. 1923, 16–18, fig. 10. 98 Tuthmoside blocks found in foundations of the Ramessid temple in Asasif did not come from Djeserakhet. Also characteristic Mentuhotep sandstone did not surface in any other structure (D. ARNOLD, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep I, 69, n. 213). 99 On this troubled epoch see e.g. K. JANSEN-WINKELN, Das Ende des Neuen Reiches, in: ZÄS 119, 1992, 22–37; A. NIWI SKI, Le passage de la XXe à la XXIIe dynastie. Chronologie et histoire politique, in: BIFAO 95, 1995, 329–338. 100 There are some indications pointing to two rock falls: decorated fragments found between two layers of rock (Prof. J. Lipi ska’s personal communication). Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom 87 Tuthmosis.101 It is the latest evidence of any activity taking place there, preceding the disappearance of two temples from view and from the memory of future generations. Djeser-djeseru must have been damaged to a lesser degree and could have retained some of its status in the 21st dynasty: burials of priests of Amun do not invade the temple area but keep right outside the enclosure. But in the 22nd dynasty temple priests were replaced by embalmers and temple rooms changed into burial grounds. 101 NAVILLE, Deir el-Bahari I, 47; Bristol City Museum H.641. Cf. A. NIWI SKI, 21st Dynasty Coffins from Thebes, Mainz 1988, 112, no. 45. Other intrusive burials found in several other 11th dynasty tombs in the area of Mentuhotep’s temple are either earlier (the burial of a weaver Nakht from the beginning of the 20th dynasty, cf. PM I.22, 656) or undated.