Amunhotep Son of Hapu at Medinet Habu

8/13/2019 Amunhotep Son of Hapu at Medinet Habu

1/7

Egypt Exploration Society

Amunhotep Son of Hapu at Medinet HabuAuthor(s): Emily TeeterSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 81 (1995), pp. 232-236Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3821824.

Accessed: 12/12/2013 05:54

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 forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Egypt Exploration Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193 227 1 127 on Thu 12 Dec 2013 05:54:26 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3821824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3821824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees


2/7

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONSRIEF COMMUNICATIONSLeahy has correctly pointed out that the term 'Kushite art' is a misleading designationforEgyptianart of the Twenty-fifthDynasty.40His research and that of others has made it increas-ingly clear that the syle of this dynastywas continuous with that of its immediate past.Throughoutthe period,however, here was also change.The course of this development s stillobscure,but the eventual result was a 'new' style,which is often called 'Saite'.Leahydoes not

deny stylistic change,but in his discussion of style tends to regard t as a phenomenonseparatefrom, and independentof, other aspects of culture and society.41 t is, of course, a truism thatanyformof art is a complex expressionof its culture,but it is often not recognizedthat this wasparticularly rue in ancient Egypt. The very conservatismof this society, in which stronglyinternalizedcontrols were reinforced by systems of overt hierarchicalsupervision,produceddraftsmenand sculptorswho were, of necessity, highly responsiveto anykind of changein theirculturalenvironment.To saythat duringthe Late Period the pre-eminentcentres for sculptureand reliefwere thetemple workshops,42s only to indicatewhich hierarchyhadprimarycontrol over the productionof art,fromconceptto completion.Furtherto deny royalparticipationn this process duringtheTwenty-fifth Dynasty ignores the evidence of the kings' images themselves. Apart from theKushiteheaddress,such iconographicnnovationsas the double uraeus andthe ram's-headneck-lace can only reflectroyalwishes, whetherdirectlyor indirectlycommunicated.43 hese changeswere deliberate,and thus purposeful.So, to some extent,were the retention and revivalof olderartistictraditions,a fact unmistakablydemonstratedby Taharqa'selaboratere-creationof OldKingdom reliefs in his Kushite homeland.44The questions of meaningand motive in Twenty-fifthDynastyroyalrepresentations-and in the representationsof gods andprivatepeopleduringthis time-must be approached,as Leahy says,with the greatestcaution and with strict fidelityto the evidence;and,one might add,with the knowledge hat our answers can never be completeor evenwhollysatisfactory.But the effort is essential to anyunderstandingof Egypt in the LatePeriod.

EDNAR. RUSSMANN

Amunhotep son of Hapu at Medinet HabuPublication f a fragmentaryilded imestonestatueof a seatedfigureholdingan unrolledpapyrus.The statue,ChicagoOIM14321,excavated t MedinetHabu, s identifiedas Amunhotepon of Hapu.The inscriptions nthe backpillarand the papyrus uggestthat the figurewas an intercessoryhroughwhichpetitionscouldberelayedo the godAmun.Demotic exts,graffiti, nd smallfinds,provide vidence hat a cult of Amunhoteponof Hapu lourished t MedinetHabu n the PtolemaicPeriod.ON 2 February 1931, the Architectural Survey of the Oriental Institute excavated a fragmentarywhite limestone statue from the rubbish of a house to the west of the back wall of the Great

4JEA 78, 240. It will, as he notes, persist as a matterof convenience,alongwith 'Saite style' and theparticularly gregious'Ptolemaicart'.41See especiallyJEA 78, 231, 240, where phrases such as 'a fashionablerevival'and 'the naturalprogressionof archaising'have the disadvantageof introducingthe modern, and not directly relevant,conceptsof fashionandprogression.42Leahy,JEA 78, 240.Whilethis is an entirelyplausibleview,it lacksthe supportof even such evidenceas we have for the comparable ituationunderthe Ptolemies.43Thesame can be said of the alterationsof Kushiteroyal conography arriedout underPsammetichusII.44For his dispatchof workmenfrom Memphisto Kawa,see M. F. LamingMacadam,The TemplesofKawa, I (London, 1949), 21, n. 51; II (1955), pl. ix, shows his reliefs copied from Old Kingdom royalmonuments. Traditionalaspects of these haverecentlybeen discussed byA. R. Schulman,'Narmerandthe Unification:A RevisionistView',BES 11(1991/92), 81.

Leahy has correctly pointed out that the term 'Kushite art' is a misleading designationforEgyptianart of the Twenty-fifthDynasty.40His research and that of others has made it increas-ingly clear that the syle of this dynastywas continuous with that of its immediate past.Throughoutthe period,however, here was also change.The course of this development s stillobscure,but the eventual result was a 'new' style,which is often called 'Saite'.Leahydoes notdeny stylistic change,but in his discussion of style tends to regard t as a phenomenonseparatefrom, and independentof, other aspects of culture and society.41 t is, of course, a truism thatanyformof art is a complex expressionof its culture,but it is often not recognizedthat this wasparticularly rue in ancient Egypt. The very conservatismof this society, in which stronglyinternalizedcontrols were reinforced by systems of overt hierarchicalsupervision,produceddraftsmenand sculptorswho were, of necessity, highly responsiveto anykind of changein theirculturalenvironment.To saythat duringthe Late Period the pre-eminentcentres for sculptureand reliefwere thetemple workshops,42s only to indicatewhich hierarchyhadprimarycontrol over the productionof art,fromconceptto completion.Furtherto deny royalparticipationn this process duringtheTwenty-fifth Dynasty ignores the evidence of the kings' images themselves. Apart from theKushiteheaddress,such iconographicnnovationsas the double uraeus andthe ram's-headneck-lace can only reflectroyalwishes, whetherdirectlyor indirectlycommunicated.43 hese changeswere deliberate,and thus purposeful.So, to some extent,were the retention and revivalof olderartistictraditions,a fact unmistakablydemonstratedby Taharqa'selaboratere-creationof OldKingdom reliefs in his Kushite homeland.44The questions of meaningand motive in Twenty-fifthDynastyroyalrepresentations-and in the representationsof gods andprivatepeopleduringthis time-must be approached,as Leahy says,with the greatestcaution and with strict fidelityto the evidence;and,one might add,with the knowledge hat our answers can never be completeor evenwhollysatisfactory.But the effort is essential to anyunderstandingof Egypt in the LatePeriod.

EDNAR. RUSSMANN

Amunhotep son of Hapu at Medinet HabuPublication f a fragmentaryilded imestonestatueof a seatedfigureholdingan unrolledpapyrus.The statue,ChicagoOIM14321,excavated t MedinetHabu, s identifiedas Amunhotepon of Hapu.The inscriptions nthe backpillarand the papyrus uggestthat the figurewas an intercessoryhroughwhichpetitionscouldberelayedo the godAmun.Demotic exts,graffiti, nd smallfinds,provide vidence hat a cult of Amunhoteponof Hapu lourished t MedinetHabu n the PtolemaicPeriod.ON 2 February 1931, the Architectural Survey of the Oriental Institute excavated a fragmentarywhite limestone statue from the rubbish of a house to the west of the back wall of the Great

4JEA 78, 240. It will, as he notes, persist as a matterof convenience,alongwith 'Saite style' and theparticularly gregious'Ptolemaicart'.41See especiallyJEA 78, 231, 240, where phrases such as 'a fashionablerevival'and 'the naturalprogressionof archaising'have the disadvantageof introducingthe modern, and not directly relevant,conceptsof fashionandprogression.42Leahy,JEA 78, 240.Whilethis is an entirelyplausibleview,it lacksthe supportof even such evidenceas we have for the comparable ituationunderthe Ptolemies.43Thesame can be said of the alterationsof Kushiteroyal conography arriedout underPsammetichusII.44For his dispatchof workmenfrom Memphisto Kawa,see M. F. LamingMacadam,The TemplesofKawa, I (London, 1949), 21, n. 51; II (1955), pl. ix, shows his reliefs copied from Old Kingdom royalmonuments. Traditionalaspects of these haverecentlybeen discussed byA. R. Schulman,'Narmerandthe Unification:A RevisionistView',BES 11(1991/92), 81.

23232 yEA 81EA 81

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.127 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:54:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONSTemple at Medinet Habu. The statue, now registered as 14321 in the collection of the OrientalInstitute Museum, Chicago, portrays a figure seated on an unadorned high-backed seat (pl. XXII,1-2).1 The feet, with heavy ankles and splayed toes, rest on the rectangular base. The figure,which measures 25 cm in height to the break at the base of the neck, wears an ankle-length kiltwhich is wrapped just at the breastline. A 'sash' or undergarment2 emerges from the top of theapron and crosses the chest to the left shoulder. Jewellery consists of a broad collar, anklets,armlets and bracelets. The flesh and clothing of the statue were originally covered with gold leaf,only portions of which are still preserved. The statue's hands hold the two ends of a partiallyunrolled papyrus on the figure's lap. The papyrus and the back pillar are incised with texts.The papyrus bears two horizontal lines of hieroglyphs (pl. XXII, 3):hsb hh hfnw nnsw ntrw ntr cr[rf]htp r ntrw nb(w)'The one who reckons millions and hundreds of thousands3 on behalf of the King of the Gods,the Great God, [great]4 of offerings more than all the gods.'The back pillar bears a single column of text (pl. XXII, 2):/// wr swnw nfr n imyw T;-mri ir-mhrty hr nb s; w;s swdl i;t-T;-mwt rr nb'[...] the chief physician who is good for the people of Egypt, who acts for everyone [with]

protection, dominion and rejuvenation at Djeme every day.'The field records and photographs indicate that the excavators believed that the body was tobe joined with a gilded limestone head which was found three seasons earlier in tomb 27, in thebark chapel of Khonsu to the north of the Amun sanctuary (room 33) of the Great Temple.5 Thathead with a double crown with uraeus was gilded and painted. The eyes and eyebrows were inlaid,although the inlay was already lost at the time of discovery. Excavation records indicate that thematch of the head from tomb 27 with the body from outside the temple was made on the basisof the shared gilding,6 and photographs were taken of the reconstructed statue, which was thenlisted in the field register as a statue of a seated goddess.7 The incongruity of the double crownwith uraeus on a seated figure holding a papyrus raises questions about the proposed reconstruc-tion. Although the head is badly decayed due to the action of salts on the fine-grained limestone,conservators at the Oriental Institute have now demonstrated that the head is too large to beattached to the neck of the body. It may more likely belong to the body of a standing woman withwhich it was discovered, which was given the field number MH 26.7b.The type of figure seated in a chair holding a papyrus on the lap has been classified as a formof scribe statue.8 It originated in the Old Kingdom and was revived in the Late Period, duringwhich time the type was most often used for the many bronze votive statues of Imhotep.9 Thisstyle of statue in stone is quite rare.10

11 thankWilliamM. Sumner,Directorof the OrientalInstitute,and Karen L. Wilson,Curatorof theOrientalInstituteMuseum,for theirpermissionto publishthe statue here. I also thank the late ProfessorJanQuaegebeurand ProfessorEdwardF. Wente fortheir suggestions.2This may be the 'kind of singlet supported by a halterover one shoulder' discussed by BernardV.Bothmer nEgyptianSculptureof the Late Period 700BC toAD 100 (Brooklyn,1960),109-10, No. 87.3Ratherthan rnpwthh hfnwon the basis of the presumedPtolemaic date for the sculpture:Wb. II,153.1.4The presence of the bread-loaf-determinative nder the htp necessitates taking htp as a substantive,hence the readingon the basis of haplography,trr; [r;] htpto retainthe usualdivineepithetntrr;.5Field numberMH 26.7,which was given the same registrationnumber(OIM 14321)as the body.Thehead was found with fragmentsof a statueof a standinggoddess,the flesh of whichwas paintedblue.6Handwrittennote of R. Anthes in Fundliste 30.145 (unpublishedmanuscript n the OrientalInstitute,Chicago).7In the typescriptcatalogueof the small finds from Medinet Habu (c. 1940, unpublished),Anthessuggestedthe identification s Mut.8G. Scott, The Historyand Developmentof the Ancient EgyptianScribe Statue (unpublishedPh.D.dissertation,YaleUniversity,1989),iii.9Scott, Scribe Statue, 406. For general comments about such statues, see D. Wildung,Imhotepund

Amenhotep MAS36;Munich andBerlin,1977),47.'BrooklynMuseum 37.1356E(limestone), in Wildung, mhotep,86, pl. xvii;Louvre 4541 (schist): ibid.,pl. iii; Amsterdam,AllardPierson Museum 7876 (granite): bid. 195-6, pls. xlvii-viii.

1995 233



4/7

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONSThe identification of the person portrayed poses some difficulty. The representation of a figurein the guise of a scribe, as well as the lack of feminine endings in the inscription, indicates thatthe individual is male. The image of a scribe seated on a chair holding a papyrus is limited toa few subjects.11 The combination of figure as a scribe, the reference to swnw, 'physician', onthe back pillar, and the presence of gilding, indicating deification, suggests that the figure wasintended to represent one of the two deified scribe-architects who were later regarded as healers,Imhotep, the architect of king Djoser, or Amunhotep son of Hapu, the architect of AmunhotepIII.Certainly these two men had much in common in addition to their deification on the basis oftheir accomplishments. Both had cults at Thebes in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods.12 The cultof Imhotep was more widespread, with centres in Memphis, Saqqara, Armant, Dendera, andAswan.13In addition to his cult in Thebes, evidence for the veneration of Amunhotep can alsobe cited from nearby Tod.'4 The similar expertise of the two men may explain their closeassociation at Thebes. The near assimilation of the two is demonstrated by the fact that exceptfor representations of Amunhotep in his own mortuary establishment, all representations atThebes show him in conjunction with Imhotep.15 The association between the two gods is mostclearly indicated by reliefs and texts in the Ptah temple at Karnak. On the Fourth Gate built byTiberius, the two deified mortals are honoured in a hymn that refers to their association: 'Thesages praise god for you [Imhotep], and the first among them is your brother, your beloved,Amunhotep-the Great-son of Hapu. He is with you, and he is not far from you, so that your bodiesare completely united ...16This close association of the two deified mortals suggests that a statue of a scribe, gilded toindicate divinity, could portray either Imhotep or Amunhotep. The epithet, wr swnw, 'chiefphysician', which, although it was applied to many doctors,17 is associated with Imhotep ratherthan Amunhotep, might initially suggest that the statue is to be identified as Imhotep. However,the type of dress worn by the statue, and the phraseology of the text on the papyrus indicate thatthe statue portrays Amunhotep. In representations on Theban monuments, Imhotep wears aknee- or mid-calf-length, low-slung kilt which normally exposes his navel area.18In contrast, allthe representations of Amunhotep in Theban temples, as well as at Tod, show him in moreelaborate and concealing clothing with an apron that extends from slightly above the breast tothe ankle. Amunhotep assumed this dress during his lifetime, as indicated by the statue of him

lFor scribes seated on the groundfrom the Late Period,see ESLP, pls. 19-20; Scott, Scribe Statue,391-414.2Summarizedn D. Wildung,EgyptianSaints:Deification n PharaonicEgypt (NewYork,1977),56-64,87, 90ff.13Wildung, aints, 38, 39, 43, 52, 54, 64-7; id., Imhotep,48-87, 194-5, 266; id., 'Imhotep',LA III,145-7.14Wildung,aints, 103, 104fig. 61, andImhotep,241-4, 266,pl. lxii.15Sanctuaryof the temple of Amun,just inside the girdlewall:PM II, 104 (312-13); Wildung,Saints,59-61, fig. 39; id., Imhotep,211-14, pls. liv-v. Ptah temple at Karnak:PM II, 201 (35); Wildung,Saints,59, fig.38;id.,Imhotep, 01-6, pls.xlix-lii; Deir el-Bahari:PMII, 368 (147),402 (9);E. Laskowska-Kusztal,Deir el-BahariIII:Le sanctuaireptolemaiquede Deir el-Bahari (Warsaw, 984)pls. 30-1, 39-40; Wildung,Saints, 63-6, 97-8; id.,Imhotep,222-5, pls. lx-xi. Thoth templeat Kasrel-Aguz:PMII, 528 (2); Wildung,Saints, 102,fig.60; id.,Imhotep, 35-9. Stelae:Wildung,Saints, 105,106fig.62; id.,Imhotep, 15-16, 245-7,pls. lvi, lxiii. Tod: PM II, 197 (4);Wildung,Saints, 104,fig. 61; id.,Imhotep,241-4, pl. lxii.16PM II, 197 (4);Wildung,Saints,59.17P. Ghalioungui,ThePhysiciansofPharaonicEgypt (CairoandMainz,1983),39-42. Forotherexamplesof wrswnw,see Wildung, mhotep,225 (Deir el Bahari)andLaskowska,Deir el-Bahari III, 51, no. 63.18Note that severalbronze figures of Imhotep show him with the breast-high apronwhich is morecharacteristicof Amenhotepat Thebes: cf. Wildung,Saints, 42, fig. 29 (sic) and anotherfigure in thecollectionof the Musee des beaux-arts,Budapest,in V. Wessetzky, Statuetted'Imhotepen bronze avecinscription',Bulletin du Musee hongroisdes beaux-arts 72 (1990), 9. Anotherexampleof this garmentappearson the Amsterdamstatue (Wildung, mhotep,pls. xlvii-viii). However,comparethese two statuesto the many in G. Roeder,AgyptischeBronzefiguren Berlin, 1956), 12-14, where all the examples ofImhotepstatues wear the low-slungkilt.

234 JEA 81



5/7

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONSas an aged scribe.19 In the Ptolemaic reliefs of Amunhotep, a 'sash' that crosses from the middleof the chest up over his left shoulder is added to the wrapped apron.20This combination of longapron and oblique 'sash', which is also portrayed on the Medinet Habu statue, was to remain acharacteristic element of the iconography of Amunhotep son of Hapu through the PtolemaicPeriod. As indicated by Theban scenes where both sages appear together,21 it was employed todistinguish one sage from the other.This identification as Amunhotep is bolstered by the text on the papyruswhich the figure holdsin his hands, which states that the figure 'reckons' for the god Amun. The same phrase isemployed several times in the biographical text which appears on a block statue of Amunhotepson of Hapu from Thebes:22 hsb rr.i tnw hh, 'my papyrus roll reckons the millions [of offer-ings]',23 ... ss iqr n wn mrt tp-hsb n ht nbt dd n hhw hsb n h;w, 'Excellentscribe, in truth,whoreckons everything, who gives to the millions, who reckons the thousands.'24 In contrast, the textwhich appears on the papyrus in the lap of Imhotep statues normally consists of the name andfiliation of Imhotep, although two figures bear more elaborate texts which invoke offerings forImhotep.25The style of dress and the form and vocabulary of the text on the papyrus indicate that theChicago statue represents Amunhotep. The presence of an elaborate statue of Amunhotep atMedinet Habu is not unexpected, for not only is the temple near his own mortuary complex,26but there is considerable evidence for a cult of Amunhotep at Medinet Habu proper. Demotictexts refer to the srs (placeof veneration)of Amunhotepat Djeme,27 o a ml-sanctuary,28nd topriests of Amunhotep at Djeme.29 A fragment of a statue, now in St. Petersburg, refers to theka of Amunhotep receiving funerary offerings at Djeme.30 Holscher excavated funerary conesstamped with the name and titles of Amunhotep at Medinet Habu.31This combination of textual

19CG42127: G. Legrain,Statueset statuettesde rois et de particuliers,I (Cairo, 1906), pl. lxxv;statuesof him as a youthfulscribeportrayhim with a kilt that reachesonly to his waist. For the possibilityof thislaterstatuebeing a reworkedMiddleKingdom representation, ee Scott,ScribeStatue,295.20See furthern. 2 above.The exampleson the stele in Munich and fromthe Tod templemayhave hadthe 'sash' indicated n paint.The dress and 'sash' combinationalso appearson a stelophorosstatuein theBritishMuseum,EA 65443 (S. QuirkeandJ. Spencer,The BritishMuseumBookofAncientEgypt(London,1992), 57 fig. 38), and the statue in Amsterdam(Wildung,Imhotep,195-6, pls. xlvii-viii). The Londonstatue, which portraysthe priest Nefersematawi,seems to have no associationwith either Imhotep orAmunhotep.A section of the genealogyof Imhotep appearson the backpillarof the Amsterdamstatue,confirmingthat under some circumstances,Imhotep could wear the gown which is so distinctive ofAmunhotepat Thebes. Note also the text on the gate of Tiberius at the Ptahtemple (n. 15 above)for theconceptionthatImhotepandAmunhotepwere combined nto one deity.2 See n. 15.22Cairo CG 583: L. Borchardt,Statuenund Statuettenvon Konigenund Privatleuten,II (Berlin, 1925),pls. 100-4; A. Varille, nscriptions oncernant 'architecteAmenhotepils de Hapou (BdE44; Cairo, 1968),pls.v-viii.23CairoCG 583: Urk.IV,1821.1.24Urk.IV,1815.18-1816.1.25Wildung, mhotep,47f; see Wessetzky,BMusHongr72, 12, and examples in Roeder,Bronzefiguren,12-16. Forexamplesof more extensivetexts,see Roeder,Bronzefiguren, 4,fig. 15;Louvre4541inWildung,Imhotep,37, pl. iii; andBrooklyn37.1356, bid.86-7, pl. xvii.26PM II, 455-6; C. Robichonand A. Varille,Le templedu scriberoyalAmenhotepils de Hapou (FIFAO11; Cairo,1936).27P. dem. Brit. Museum 10240,cited byWildung, mhotep,266-7. I thankR. Ritnerforbringingthis tomyattention.28p.W.Pestman,Recueil de textesdemotiques t bilingues, I (Leiden, 1977),76-80.2Wildung, Imhotep,270-2 174.1-5; Pestman,Recueil,76-80. Anotherunpublisheddemoticostracon,reportedlyfrom Medinet Habu, also refers to Amunhotep:Detroit Institute of Art 1979.133,from thecollectionof R. A. Parker. thankW. H. Peckforbringingthis documentto myattention.30St. Petersburg,Hermitage,18054,cited by Wildung, mhotep,264-5.31OrientalInstituteMuseum 16702, 16704,16711,16999. See also D. Bidoli, 'ZurLage des GrabesdesAmenophis,Sohndes Hapu',MDAIK26 (1970), 11.

1995 235



6/7

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONSand artefactualevidence suggests stronglythat there was a cult of Amunhotepson of Hapu atMedinet Habu in the PtolemaicPeriod,andthatthe Chicagostatueis relatedto that cult.On the basis of the clothing style, the Chicago statue can be assigned to the mid- to latePtolemaicPeriod,for the characteristicclothing appears n reliefs of that era.32The statuewasexcavatedn squareR9,to the west of the backwall of the GreatTemple in the ruinsof a house.Holscher commented that other than the SmallTemple, the site of MedinetHabu hadveryfewremainsfromthe Ptolemaic Period.He concluded that the rest of the site was uninhabitedandabandonedduringthe interval rom the time of Nectaneboto the Roman Period.33Accordingly,he assignedthe house from whichthe statue was recovered o the RomanPeriod.Therefore,onemight considerthe statueto be an heirloom of Ptolemaicdate whichwas moved from the SmallTemple into the Romanhouses to the south-west some centuriesafter its manufacture.As indicatedby the inscriptionon the base of the Cairostatue of Amunhotep,as well as bylaterdocuments,Amunhotepwas regardedas an intermediary f Amun.34The text on the BritishMuseum statueof Amunhoteprelates:O peopleof Upperand LowerEgypt... who come upstreamor downstream o Thebes to prayto the lord of the gods, come to me and I shall relayyourwords to Amunof Karnak.Andmake

an offeringformulaanda libationto me with whatyou have,forI am the spokesmanappointedby the kingto hearyourwords of supplication ..35This role as intermediaryor Amun is reflected in the titles of priests of Amunhotepat Djemewho held 'joint appointments' o Amun.36The text on the papyrusof the Medinet Habu statue (pl.XXII, 3) refers to Amunhotep, whoreckons the millionsand hundreds on behalfof the King of the Gods, the greatGod, [great]ofofferingsmore than all the gods.' The orientationof the text on the papyrusallowedAmunhotepto 'recite'his abilities to petitionerswho might approach he statue. The text on the backpillar(pl.XXII,2) which must havebegunwith the nameAmunhotepson of Hapu,reprisedhis abilityto act as intercessor for the god Amun at Medinet Habu. The gilding of the figure served toemphasizethe divinityof Amunhotep hroughhis associationwithAmun.

EMILYTEETER

32The simple wrappedcloak appearsin Egyptianstatuaryof privateindividualsand scribes from theMiddleKingdomandcontinuesinto the RomanPeriod:see Scott,ScribeStatue, 186, 189-90.33... the additionalact that we foundalmostno specimensof such commonobjectsas potterybelongingto this [Ptolemaic] ime maybe proofthatMedinet Habu was then uninhabited':U. Holscher,ExcavationsatAncientThebes1930/31(OIC 15;Chicago,1932),40.34TheabilityofAmunhotep o actdirectly orthe petitioner s echoedin a demoticostracon romThebeswhere a petitionercalls upon Amunhotepto cure a fever (Wildung, mhotep,264 169); and a demoticinscriptionon an offering slab in Thebes which avows 'MayAmunhotepSon of Hapu give life to ...'(Wildung,mhotep, 265, 171). See also A. A. Sadek,Popular Religionin AncientEgyptduringthe NewKingdom HAB27; Hildesheim,1988),279-80.35BM103:S. R. K. Glanville, Some Notes on Material rom the ReignofAmenophis II,'JEA 15 (1929),3-4; translation from B. Bryanand A. Kozloff,Egypt'sDazzling Sun, AmenhotepIII and His World(Cleveland,1992),251. See also Wildung, mhotep,301-2 forAmunhotepas a 'Nothelfer',and 263-5 forhis associationwithoracles.36Wildung,mhotep, 70-1, 174.2-5.

236 YEA 81



7/7

XXII

1. General view Z. Back pillar

*\ ^..s : v ' .. .. .,. . :B

Oriental Institute, Chicago 14321(Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago)

AMUNHOTEP SON OF HAPU AT MEDINET HABU (pp. 232-6)MUNHOTEP SON OF HAPU AT MEDINET HABU (pp. 232-6)

. Aw. ,.I . ^

ig

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.127 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:54:26 AMAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

Documents

Amunhotep Son of Hapu at Medinet Habu