Visitors, Usurpers, and Renovators: Glimpses from the History of Egyptian Sepulchral Monuments

Abstract

The Egyptian ideal was to establish an everlasting mortuary cult in order to ensure for the deceased infinite commemoration in this world and eternal life in the otherworld. In order to achieve this bold aim, funerary institutions were endowed with land and income, the priests and personnel were bound strictly to observe their duties and principles, and future offspring were defined as legally constrained to take over the offices and obligations of their fathers. In most instances, however, families became incapable of affording the cult or were extinct after a few generations, personnel left the priesthood, or the funerary institutions were stripped of property and were discontinued. Over time, even royal mortuary cults were ended and royal monuments abandoned. The tombs and memorial monuments then remained uncared for and were left to an uncertain future. As time went by, some of those monuments evolved into local attractions for visitors, some were piously restored, some were usurped or reused, and some were dismantled in order to process the building materials for new edifices. The present contribution aims at tracing the Egyptians’ thoughts and experiences and at illustrating the manifold fates of Egyptian mortuary monuments.

2.1 Introduction

The Egyptians spent considerable time and resources to erect their tombs and cult installations (Dodson & Ikram, 2008; Kanawati, 2001; Taylor, 2001). In order to secure an everlasting mortuary cult, perpetual commemoration, and eternal life for the deceased, they endowed funerary institutions with land and income, appointed priests to perform rites, and hired personnel to administer the estates. Just as the tomb owners’ children were meant to inherit offices and property, the offspring of mortuary priests and further personnel were expected to ensure forever the mortuary cult. However, as time went by, families declined into poverty or became extinct, mortuary personnel deserted their duties, and funerary institutions were deprived of assets and estates. No matter whether it was the tombs and memorials of kings or commoners, as soon as they were uncared for, their future grew uncertain. Some of those monuments fell into oblivion, some became attractions for visitors, some were devoutly restored, some were demolished and processed as spolia, and some were usurped and reused. The present chapter aims at illustrating the ancient Egyptians’ mindset and the eventful history of their mortuary monuments with the aid of Egypt’s rich legacy.

2.1.1 The Egyptian Tomb as a Place of Eternal Life

The Egyptians’ great investment in and care for tombs becomes understandable, when we recall their belief that they would live on as long as their mummified bodies endured and their souls were nourished with offerings (Assmann, 1986, 1996, 2001; Guksch et al., 2003; Kees, 1956; Legros, 2016). In addition to the preparation of the tomb and the burial as such, provisions were made in order to guarantee the continued operation of the mortuary cult. Beyond this material basis, the assertion that the tomb and its supplies had been funded righteously, without inflicting harm to other tombs or people and in exchange for proper payment, became a common topic in inscriptions as early as in the third millennium BC.

Ex. (1) I made this tomb of mine from my own true property. Never did I take away something of any other people. […] I made this tomb of mine on the side of the west in a pure place, where no tomb of any (other) people had existed, for the sake of protection of the property of a man who has gone to his ka (i.e. who has died).¹ (

Table 2.1 List of text examples

Table 2.1)

Ex. (2) He is one beloved of the king and of Anubis atop of his mountain who will not inflict damage on that which exists in this tomb of mine and on all the people who have gone to the West. As for this tomb of my funerary estate, I made it in the shadow of perfect reverence of people and of god. Never was a stone of any (other) people brought for me to this tomb of mine because I am fully aware of the judgement in the West . I had this tomb of mine made in exchange for bread and beer, which I gave to all workmen who worked on this tomb of mine, and I gave them an immensely big payment of linen, as they had requested, so that they thanked god for me because of it. (Table 2.1)

In case someone died and left an unfinished tomb, it was frequently the son who had the work continued and the tomb completed. As a result, altars, libation basins, and false-doors as central objects of the mortuary cult were often inscribed with donation remarks and dedication statements (Grallert, 2001).

Ex. (3) As for this (false-door ), it was his eldest son, the acquaintance of the king, Kawab, who made (this) for him (i.e. his father ) when he was (already) in the West after he had gone to his ka . (Table 2.1)

The natural counterparts of assertions of just funding and erecting a sepulcher are texts, which aimed at perpetuating the intact status of the tomb. Whereas ‘addresses to visitors’ appeal to their morality and integrity (Blumenthal, 1991; Edel, 1944, §§ 3–24; Sottas, 1913), threat formulae were supposed to deter visitors from doing anything harmful to the tomb (Morschauser, 1991; Nordh, 1996). The consequences for damage were severe in this life and the next (cf. Czerwik, 2001), but in case of pious behavior, the tomb owners promised to intercede before the gods in favor of sincere visitors.

Ex. (4) As for every man who will do anything evil to my tomb or who will enter it with the intent of stealing, I will seize his neck like a bird’s, and I will be judged with him in the court of the Great God (i.e. the god of the local necropolis). But with regard to any person who will make invocation offerings or will pour water, he will be pure like the purity of god, and I will protect him in the necropolis. (Table 2.1)

Ex. (5) As for every man who will take away or who will steal a stone or a brick from this tomb of mine, I will be judged with him in the tribunal of the Great God. And I will make an end to him therefore and (I will) see life (again) on earth. (Table 2.1)

From the Pyramid Texts (PT), a set of spells is known which served the same purpose of providing security to the king’s pyramid and warding off all evildoers and enemies (PT 534, 599, 600, 601: Allen, 2015, pp. 171–172 and 265–267; Meurer, 2002, pp. 327–333).

Ex. (6) He who will raise his finger against this pyramid and against this mortuary temple of king Pepi (I) and of his ka , he will have raised his finger against the Palace of Horus (i.e. Hathor) in the (heavenly) Cool Waters! The Lady of the Palace (i.e. Nephthys) will crush for him (i.e. the king) every place of his father Geb (i.e. on earth), because his words have been heard by the ennead of gods! There will be no ground beneath him (i.e. the evildoer), and there will be no ground beneath his house! He is a doomed one, and he is one who consumes his own body! (Table 2.1)

Inscriptions like those quoted are the starting point for the judgement of the dead (Kloth, 2002, pp. 83, 236, 276–279; cf. Spiegel, 1935, p. 60) which is well known from spell 125 in the Book of the Dead (Lapp, 2008). It is thus unsurprising that the assertions of righteous provisions for the afterlife became the core of the ‘ideal biography’ (Edel, 1944; Kloth, 2002; Stauder-Porchet, 2017), which is a text genre consisting of proclamations about the deceased’s virtuous life. An offspring thereof became famous as the ‘negative confessions’ (Maystre, 1937; Yoyotte, 1961, pp. 63–65), which form the very core of spell 125 in the Book of the Dead .

Since funerary estates were bestowed with considerable wealth, particularly in the form of land (Jacquet-Gordon, 1962; cf. Moreno García, 1999), it soon became necessary to decree the specifications for using the current income in order to maintain the mortuary cult in accordance with the canonical offering list (Barta, 1963; Lapp, 1986). Accounts of this kind (Goedicke, 1970) were often detailed and aimed at establishing an arrangement far beyond the lifetime of the personnel hired so that also their future descendants and the then available assets of the funerary estate would serve the tomb’s possessor and his own offspring. In particular, the founders were concerned about legal complications and quarrels within the community of the personnel.

Ex. (7) The mortuary priests of this my funerary estate and their children and, of course, the children of their children who will be born to them all throughout eternity [shall provide me with invocation offerings in this tomb of my funerary estate]. I do not authorize them to sell or to will away (anything) to any people, but instead they shall pass on their share to their children [together with the office of mortuary priest among these mortuary priests]. As for any mortuary priest here who will leave or be taken away to another priestly office, everything which I have given to him shall go on to the mortuary priests of his phyle. I do not authorize [him to take away with him anything which I have given to him]. As for any mortuary priest among them who will go to court against his colleagues, everything which I have given to him shall be taken away (from him) and shall be given to the mortuary priest against whom he went to court. I have not authorized [him to (continue) providing me with invocation offerings here]. (Table 2.1)

The property of royal funerary endowments was of course much richer than that of courtiers and officials. Just as the offspring and mortuary priests of courtiers and officials could not dispose of the assets of the funerary estate, the successor kings could not get involved in internal affairs of their predecessors’ funerary endowments. The kings nevertheless issued elaborate decrees in favor of their predecessors’ endowments (Goedicke, 1967; Strudwick, 2005, pp. 97–128) in order to confirm or restore their internal organization, to protect their personnel from corvée, and to grant overall tax exemptions.

2.2 Visitors

The Egyptian mortuary cult required that relatives, offspring, and personnel of the funerary estate regularly approached the tomb in order to perform the offering ritual and other ceremonies. By the time of the Middle Kingdom, it became common to compensate failing cult provisions with the erection of commemorative stelae and statues in temples or near processional roads such as the ‘Terrace of the Great God (Osiris)’ in Abydos (Simpson, 1974). Those monuments served the same purpose and were thought to convey the benefits which they evoked to their owners. Visitors, who more or less accidentally passed by the tomb or a memorial , were highly welcome to enter the tomb’s chapel or to take a closer look at the inscriptions on a stela or statue. The ‘appeals to the living’ are a bright testimony for this desire (Edel, 1944, §§ 3–5; Müller, 1975; Sainte Fare Garnot, 1938; Sottas, 1913), which has already been met with the ‘address to visitors’ mentioned above. Even though there is a considerable variation among the texts of this genre (cf. Desclaux, 2017; Shubert, 2007), they all have in common that the deceased asks the visitors, their purity provided, to perform offerings or to recite a prayer.

Ex. (8) O you who live on earth, servants like myself! (People) whom the king loves and (people) whom their local god praises are those who will say: ‘A thousand of bread, beer, oxen, fowl, alabaster vessels, and garments for Djau , the son of Djau!’ (Table 2.1)

Ex. (9) O you who live on earth, every lector priest, every scribe, every purification priest, every embalmer, every official who will pass by this stela of mine, be it travelling downstream or be it travelling upstream! If you desire that your local gods may praise you and that you may pass on your offices to your children, then you should say: ‘An offering which the king has given (to) Osiris consisting of (a thousand of) bread, beer, oxen, and fowl for the ka of the steward and companion of the crescent moon Samenekh .’ The breath of the mouth is beneficial for the noble deceased though it is nothing under which to weary. (Table 2.1)

Ex. (10) O you who live on earth, purification priests, lector priests, assistants, divine fathers of this sanctuary, the entire priesthood of the temple alike, and everyone who will pass by this stela, (all) who will read from it aloud! May Osiris, the ruler of eternity, praise you and love you inasmuch as you will say: ‘May the sweet breath of the north wind come to the nose of the first prophet of Osiris, Nebwawi, justified before Osiris!’ (Table 2.1)

Just as the deceased asked their visitors for a favor, the visitors requested from the deceased to intervene in their interest (Moreno García, 2010). Visitors wrote their wishes and sorrows on vessels, stones, linen, or papyrus and deposited these ‘letters to the dead’ (Donnat Beauquier, 2014; Gardiner & Sethe, 1928) in a ritual ceremony near the tomb of the invoked spirit. In many cases, predeceased relatives were asked for a favor, but sometimes it was also local authorities who were requested to continue their work. In the following example, a widow is petitioning her dead husband to intervene for a maidservant who is essential for keeping house and family prosperous.

Ex. (11) Given by Dedi to the priest Antef, born of Iunakht: As for this maidservant Imiu who is sick—can’t you fight for her by night and day with every man who is acting against her and with every woman who is acting against her? Why do you want to have your doorway deserted? Fight for her anew today so that her household be maintained and that water be poured out for you! If there is nothing (helpful) in your hand, your house will be destroyed. Can it be that you don’t recognize that it is this maidservant who fills your house with people? Fight for her! Be vigilant for her! Save her from each man and woman who are acting against her! Please let your house and your children be (firmly) established! May your listening be good! (Table 2.1)

As in most cases, the single preserved letter does not allow for tracing the fate of the requesting people, but, at least in some cases, the deceased’s intercession must have been perceived as successful (el-Leithy, 2003). It may well be that this became the starting point for the veneration of certain deceased as intermediating saints or deities (von Lieven, 2008), which made their tombs popular places of pilgrimage and worship . Developments of this kind occurred all throughout Egypt, with Imhotep (Quack, 2014; Sethe, 1902; Wildung, 1977) and Amenophis, son of Hapu (Galán, 2003; Simmance, 2014; Wildung, 1977) as most prominent exponents who were still venerated in the Graeco-Roman Period. Supported by well-equipped funerary estates which kept the cult functioning for generations, nomarchs and other high-ranking officials were deified from the Old Kingdom on (Krämer, 2019), e.g. Heqaib at Elephantine (Franke, 1994; Habachi, 1981, 1985).

Visitors’ dipinti and graffiti, which can be found all throughout Egypt (Navrátilová, 2010; Peden, 2001), follow their own diction and style (cf. Navrátilová, 2006, 2011a). As a standard, they make statements of admiration for the building visited and remarks of veneration for a person or deity worshipped there or in the near surroundings, but they also serve the purpose of perpetuating the name of the visitor in a famous place.

At Asyut, the tombs of high officials of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom, e.g. the nomarchs of Asyut whose mortuary cults were connected to the local temple of Toth (Kahl, 2012), became places often visited by pilgrims and travelers. The tomb of Ibi-iti-iqer (Kahl & Verhoeven, 2008) even became the destination of excursions of the educated elite and progressing students (Kahl, 2006). Consequently, this tomb preserves more than 150 dipinti and graffiti (Verhoeven, 2013, 2021), among them a considerable number of incipits and famous passages of classical Middle Egyptian literature (Lichtheim, 2006; Parkinson, 2002) like the Enseignement loyaliste of Kairisu (Posener, 1976; Verhoeven, 2009), the Instruction of Amenemhet (Adrom, 2006), the Great Hymn to the Nile (van der Plas, 1986), and The Satire of the Trades (Jäger, 2004). On the edge of piety and touristic curiosity, many visitors’ inscriptions fuse a prayer with remarks about the site visited like the following example of Men with a prayer for his homonymous father.

Ex. (12) Once came the scribe Men, having come to see the beautiful temple of Hathor, lady of Medjeden. And he found it more beautiful in his heart than any other beautiful temple. And then he said: ‘An offering which the king has given to Osiris, lord of Tanakh, to Anubis, lord of Raqereret.’ (This is something) which the truly bright scribe has made, the truly silent one, the one with bright character, the humble one whom the people love for the ka of the scribe Men, the son of the priest of Wepwaut (called) Wepwaut, whom the lady of the house Nut has born and whose brother is Duaw. (Table 2.1)

During the early Middle Kingdom, the kings had their mortuary temples planned and erected according to the model of Old Kingdom precursors (e.g. Pepi II: Jéquier, 1938), as is obvious in the case of Amenemhet I (Arnold, 2016; Jánosi, 2016) and Sesostris I (Arnold, 1992). As part of a general interest in the traditions of the Old Kingdom (Gundacker, 2015, pp. 131–132; for the general background, cf. Oppenheim et al., 2015), the mortuary cult of many kings of the Old Kingdom was reinstated (cf. Wildung, 1968), and artists and officials studied Old Kingdom buildings and reliefs (Freed, 2010, pp. 886–887; cf. the articles in Silverman et al., 2009) as well as texts (Gundacker 2010; Hayes 1937). This interest in the past continued over a millennium and peaked again in the New Kingdom, when, e.g. in Sahure’s mortuary temple, a square grid was drawn on reliefs in order to copy them and plaster casts were taken (Borchardt, 1910, pp. 104–106). At the same time, visitors left astonishing numbers of inscriptions in order to worship the kings of the past and to acclaim their monuments around Memphis (Navrátilová, 2018; Wildung, 1968), in particular at Saqqara and Abusir (Navrátilová, 2015).

Ex. (13) Regnal year 47, second month of the winter season, day 25 (of Ramesses II). Once came the scribe of the treasury Hednakht , the son of Selo, whose mother is Twosret, to take a stroll, to have a joyous time in the west of Memphis together with his brother, the scribe of the vizier, Panakht, and to say: ‘All gods of the west of Memphis, ennead of gods at the forefront of the sacred land, Osiris and Isis, and all great transfigured deceased of the west of Ankhtawi! Grant a beautiful lifetime in following your ka and a beautiful burial after a beautiful age in order to see the west of Memphis as a greatly praised one like you yourselves. It is the scribe of the treasury of the lord of the Two Lands Hednakht, justified, and the scribe [of the vizier], Panakht [who made this inscription …]. (Table 2.1)

By the time of the New Kingdom, the necropoleis of Memphis even had become a playground for sportsmen. According to their stelae, Amenophis II (Der Manuelian, 1987, pp. 181–191; Hassan, 1953, pp. 73–77; Klug, 2002, pp. 223–234) and Tuthmosis IV (Hassan, 1953, pp. 193–197; Klug, 2002, pp. 296–304) both practiced their horses (cf. Decker & Herb, 1994, pp. 191–263) in and around Giza, which must have been a very busy place at the time. Besides ancient cults and monuments, new cults evolved such as that of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramids, who was worshipped in a temple on the remains of the mortuary installations for one of Cheops’ royal wives at Giza (Wildung, 1968, pp. 177–188; Zivie, 1976; Zivie-Coche, 1991), and Sakhmet of Sahure, for whom a cult was installed in Sahure’s mortuary temple at Abusir (Borchardt, 1910, pp. 101–106, 1913, pp. 113–114; Wildung, 2010). At Meidum, Sneferu had been merged with Horus already in the Old Kingdom (Gundacker, 2006, pp. 247–252; Schmitz, 1976, pp. 141–158) and was henceforth venerated in the temple at his pyramid according to numerous dipinti and graffiti (Harpur, 2001, p. 275; Navrátilová, 2011b; Petrie, 1892). Some of the inscriptions display a truly baroque and flowery language and certainly also served the purpose of showing off the skills of their composers. One such dipinto with literary qualities from the time of Tuthmosis III includes a royal eulogy and extensive variations of the usual formulaic passages (Fig. 2.1).

Ex. (14) Regnal year 41, fourth month of the summer season, day 22, under the majesty of Horus ‘strong bull, appearing splendidly in Thebes’, the Two Ladies ‘with enduring kingship like Re in heaven’, Golden Falcon ‘with powerful vigor and with holy appearance’, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Menkheperre, the Son of Re Tuthmosis [III] with beautiful emanations, may he live forever and ever upon the throne of Horus of the living. Indeed, his majesty is a young bull /// body as a perfect youth of twenty years, whose equal has not come about: Khnum formed him /// according to the true rules of full likeness (as) the image of Atum, the creator of mankind, the lord of all. He is a victor, great of vigor in every battlefield. Once came the scribe Aakheperkareseneb, son of the scribe and lector priest of (king) Aakheperkare, Amenmesisu to see the beautiful temple of Horus Sneferu. And he found it as if heaven was within it when Re is rising in it. And then he said: ‘Heaven rains pure and fresh myrrh, and it drops frankincense atop the roof of this temple of Horus Sneferu!’ And he said: ‘O every scribe, every lector priest, every purification priest, and every [man who will pass by and] who knows the transfiguration spells, who reads those time-honored texts to the entire mankind, and who will hear them! [If you would like] that your local gods praise you, you shall come in! (If you would like) that you pass on your offices to your children, you shall come here! (If you would like) that you will be buried in the necropolis of the west of Ptah south of his wall after you have grown old having spent a long time upon earth, you shall say: ‘An offering which the king has given to Osiris, lord of Busiris, the Great God, the lord of Abydos, to Re-Harakhte-Atum, lord of Heliopolis, to Amun-Re, king of the gods, and to Anubis, foremost of the hall of god, who is in the embalming place, lord of the West, so that they may give a thousand of bread, a thousand (jugs of) beer, a thousand oxen, a thousand fowl, a thousand offerings, a thousand provisions, a thousand (portions of) frankincense, a thousand (jars of) balm, a thousand cloths, a thousand (bouquets of) herbs of the field, and a thousand of every good and pure thing which heaven gives, which earth produces, and which the Nile brings forth from its cavern (i.e. its source) for the ka of Horus Sneferu , justified before his father Osiris, the Great God, the lord of the sacred land, and [for the ka of the king’s mother] Merisiankh [I].’ (Fig. 2.1, Table 2.1)

Fig. 2.1

Dipinto of Aakheperkareseneb, Eighteenth Dynasty, pyramid temple at Meidum. (Petrie, 1892, pl. 33)

A comparable syncretism of Cheops with Re can be observed at Beni Hasan, where several tombs of Middle Kingdom nomarchs show graffiti and dipinti of worship (Champollion, 1889, pp. 423–424; Wildung, 1968, pp. 171–173). However, the most remarkable case of deification is certainly king Djer, who reigned in the mid- First Dynasty (Wilkinson, 2005) and may have been apotheosized already in the Old Kingdom, at least he is mentioned as a deity in the Coffin Texts (CT 403 V 180c: de Buck, 1954; Faulkner, 1977, p. 47; cf. Wildung, 1968, pp. 20, 100, and 213). In the early Middle Kingdom, roughly a thousand years after Djer had been laid to rest, his tomb at Umm el Qa‘ab, Abydos (Dreyer, 2013; Dreyer & Regulski, 2015; Dreyer et al., 2018; Petrie, 1901, pp. 8–9), was reinterpreted as that of Osiris himself (U. Effland, 2013) and, consequently, restored and adapted to fit the cultic necessities (Müller, 2006) within a wide-ranging cultic landscape (Effland & Effland, 2010). The veneration of Osiris (Smith, 2017) at Djer’s tomb continued for more than two and a half millennia until the triumph of Christianity in the sixth century AD (A. Effland, 2013; Effland et al., 2012). The starting point for this development may have been a posthumous epithet of Djer, presumably Wennefer ‘existing of perfection’ (Gundacker, 2017, pp. 127–131, 2018b, p. 168), although his Horus name Djer might have contributed as it can be understood as ‘ancestor, forefather’. It is uncertain whether king Djer was remembered as a facet of Osiris at Abydos or whether he was totally absorbed into that deity, but it is interesting to note that, in the third century BC, Manetho compiled a king-list (Jacoby, 1958, no. 619, F2, F3a–b) and called the third king of the First Dynasty Ouennephis (Wennefer ), which, in the sequence of kings, is exactly the place expected for Djer (Fecht, 1960, §§ 85–109; Helck, 1956a, pp. 9–11).

In some instances, tomb owners asked for more than just a prayer or an offering with the particular intent of perpetuating their memory. In the New Kingdom, Khaemhet , owner of a rock tomb at Thebes (TT 57: Brock, 2001; Helck, 1957, p. 1845; Loret, 1889; Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 113–119), asked his visitors to look at the walls of his chapel and read out his sayings, and Nefersekheru , owner of a tomb at Zawiyet Sultan (Osing, 1992, pp. 43–52), encouraged visitors to proclaim the texts from his chapel’s walls so that those unable to read and the workmen may learn about him. Ibi, a high official during the mid-first millennium BC, invited visitors to come into the chapel of his tomb in Thebes (TT 36: Graefe, 1990; Kuhlmann & Schenkel, 1983; Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 63–68) in order to copy texts there for future use (cf. Heise, 2007, pp. 116–120). Fully aware of potential harm to reliefs and paintings, Ibi aimed at regulating future activities and left precise advice for visitors.

Ex. (15) May you copy from wherever you want onto empty papyrus so that my name will come forth (i.e. be known) in the future [eternally], be it many things which catch attention, (be it) inclination to (only) a single thing here. Wherever you want, (there) you may write so that one man will pass on to another the text, (even) after it has been razed to lacunae, so that one may find (portions) thereof as a guideline for posterity. (Table 2.1)

Judging from the many graffiti and dipinti, exhortations like that of Ibi were eagerly followed (cf. Assmann, 1983). Also Ibi himself had previously reproduced scenes from a distant namesake of his, Ibi , whose tomb had been built at Deir el-Gebrawi more than one and a half millennia earlier during the Sixth Dynasty (Davies, 1902a, pp. 36–40, pls. XIII–XVI and XXIV–XXV; Kanawati, 2007). Altogether, there is ample evidence for the copying of scenes and motifs from ancient tombs in the Late Period (Kanawati, 2011), which is indicative for archaism as a major movement in funerary art and beyond during the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Dynasties (Der Manuelian, 1994; Tiradritti, 2008).

The custom of writing a dipinto or a graffito continued all throughout Egyptian history until the end of the Roman Period. Greek and Roman tourists (Adams, 2001, 2007; Foertmeyer, 1989; Perrottet, 2009) were very active and left inscriptions in many places such as the temple of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel (Bernand & Aly, 1956), the pyramids and the Sphinx, which was freed from sand for Nero, at Giza (Perrottet, 2009, pp. 303–304, 307–308; Rutherford, 2012, p. 710; Searby, 2016), the temple of Sethos I at Abydos, which had been erected as a temple for the royal mortuary cult and the cult of Osiris (Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919), and the colossi of Amenophis III at Thebes, which once had marked the entrance to his mortuary temple (Krumeich, 2016). By the third century BC, those monolithic statues had been reinterpreted as representations of king Memnon whom the Greeks knew from Homer’s Odyssey (XI.522: Hartmann, 2010, pp. 202–210; Rosenmeyer, 2018, p. 12). The statues were extremely famous because, following an earthquake in the first century BC, the northern colossus produced a sound at sunrise which was interpreted as Memnon’s voice greeting his mother Eos. Accordingly, there are vast numbers of inscriptions, including four by Balbilla (Bernand & Bernand, 1960, nos. 28–31; Rosenmeyer, 2008, pp. 336–337), lady-in-waiting at Hadrian’s and Sabina’s court, who visited the colossi in AD 130 with the emperor (Holum, 1990).

Ex. (16) By Julia Balbilla, when Augustus Hadrian heard Memnon: Memnon the Egyptian, I have learned, when warmed by the sun’s rays, utters a sound from Theban stone. And when he saw Hadrian, the king of all, before the sun’s rays, he greeted him as well as he could. But when the Titan, driving through the skies with his white horses, held into shadow the second measure of hours, Memnon sent forth a cry again like ringing bronze, sharp-toned. Greeting he sent out his cry for a third time. Then the emperor Hadrian himself offered greetings to Memnon and left on stone for posterity this inscription which indicates all he had seen and all he had heard. And to all it was clear that the gods love him. (Table 2.1)

In the Valley of the Kings at Thebes (Černý, 1973; Wilkinson & Reeves, 1996), the royal tombs of the New Kingdom formed another attraction (Wilkinson, 2016). The Greeks called those tombs syringes (‘flute tubes’) because of their halls and corridors arranged to form long tunnels (Coppens, 2016, p. 471). Between the third century BC and the sixth century AD, the tombs in the easternmost portion of the Valley of the Kings attracted vast numbers of visitors who left more than 250 Demotic and 2000 Greek and Latin graffiti and dipinti (Baillet, 1926; Coppens, 2016 with further references; Weeks, 2016, p. 559). The most famous of the tombs, which the Greeks also attributed to Memnon (Łukaszewicz, 2010), was KV 9 of Ramesses VI, in which c. 700 inscriptions can be found. Though mostly full of admiration, they record dissimilar perceptions of the paintings after all (Abitz, 1989; Piankoff, 1954).

Ex. (17) I, Dioskorammon, looked at this nonsense, and I found it bewildering. (Table 2.1)

Ex. (18) I, Hermogenes of Amaseia, have seen the other syringes and admired them, but when I saw this one of Memnon, I gazed it in amazement beyond all measure. (Table 2.1)

Ex. (19) I have admired the Theban syringes and venerable Memnon because of their artistic technique, (I,) Ouranios the cynic . (Table 2.1)

The tombs in the Valley of the Kings were so famous that several authors of classical antiquity, among them Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica I.46.7–8: Vogel, 1888), Strabo (Geographica XVII.1.46: Radt, 2005), and Pausanias (Graeciae descriptio I.42.3: Pereira, 1973), made mention of them with precise knowledge about their original dedication to house the burials of kings (Coppens, 2016). At least by the time of Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian of the fourth century AD, this information had been lost. In his Res gestae (XXII.15.30: Seyfarth, 1978), the historian explains that the syringes sheltered the knowledge of rituals and rites from the approaching deluge.

2.3 Usurpers

Royal building projects could totally change landscapes and thereby eradicate entire necropoleis. From meager remnants, for example, it has been convincingly deduced that the famous Fourth-Dynasty pyramids at Giza were erected on the Mokkatam rock formation after it had been cleared from a pre- and early dynastic cemetery (Bock, 2007; Jánosi, 2005, pp. 75–76). Similarly, Unas constructed the causeway to his mortuary temple in Saqqara right over a refilled quarry in which some officials’ tombs had been built only a few decades earlier, among them the famous tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep (Moussa & Altenmüller, 1977).

In particular, however, there was fear that tomb structures would be dismantled stone by stone in search of building materials (Loth, 2007, p. 223; Málek, 1992), and, as outlined further above with the aid of Old Kingdom tomb inscriptions, this was not unsubstantiated. The monumental tomb structure of Maya, overseer of the treasury under Tutankhamun and Haremhab, and his wife Meryt at Saqqara (Martin, 2012; Raven, 2001) was in part erected by reuse of blocks from earlier monuments in the near vicinity. Among the spolia, blocks with excellent Old Kingdom reliefs were found, which most likely stem from the nearby pyramid complex of king Unas (Harpur, 1994, 2009). The nearby tomb of Haremhab, constructed when he was generalissimo of Tutankhamun’s army and still far from ascending to the throne, was likewise built in part with spolia (e.g. Harpur, 1996; Martin, 1989), and the same holds true for the tomb of Tia, sister of Ramesses II, and her husband Tia, overseer of the treasury (Martin, 1997). As it seems, the temptation to take advantage of abandoned monuments or at least to drag off stone blocks from a crumbling edifice was too big to resist.

Besides the illegal removal of stone blocks for reuse on a small scale, which was a common phenomenon, the systematic plundering of entire necropoleis can be observed. Early in the Middle Kingdom, Amenemhet I had systematically removed the precious white limestone casing from private and royal monuments of the Old Kingdom for reuse in his own pyramid at Lisht (Arnold, 2016), which is a rich source for spolia (Goedicke, 1971; Jánosi, 2016). Eight centuries later, the exploitation of earlier monuments peaked once more under Ramesses II in order to obtain building materials for his own construction projects (Málek, 1992). The systematic removal of the limestone casing from the pyramid of Sneferu at Meidum, where storage places with stone blocks prepared for transport were found (Posener-Kriéger, 1991), resulted in the partial collapse of the pyramid by the time of the Twentieth Dynasty (Rowe, 1931, pp. 22–23). Since the temple, in which Horus Sneferu was venerated, was buried in debris, the previously steady influx of visitors and their inscriptions ended abruptly. The heaps and hills of rubble and sand lay bare for more than a century, before the site was reopened as a cemetery for the lower classes (Petrie, 1892, pp. 5, 9, 19, and 34; Rowe, 1931, pp. 22–23).

Not only were abandoned tombs and mortuary chapels exploited as sources for building materials, but the sarcophagi and statues placed within them also were objects of interest. Mainly from the New Kingdom onwards, statues found in temples and tombs were reinscribed for reuse both by private individuals and by kings (e.g. Eaton-Krauss, 2015; Fischer, 1974; Helck, 1986; Magen, 2011). In a similar manner, sarcophagi and coffins were taken away from the tombs of their original owners and prepared for reuse. This phenomenon culminated in the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Dynasties (cf. Kitchen, 1995), when the kings at Tanis systematically reused sarcophagi (Dodson, 1988; Montet, 1947, 1951, 1960). Recent research has affirmed the common assumption that, besides religious motives and tendencies to connect with the past, the precarious economic situation of Egypt at the turn of the second to the first millennium BC was a driving force for this development (Cooney, 2017, 2018a, b, c, 2019). Consequently, it is not surprising that the mummy of Psusennes I was laid to rest in a silver coffin, which firstly was placed in a usurped anthropoid black granite sarcophagus of an unknown official of the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty and secondly in a pink granite sarcophagus of Merenptah of the Nineteenth Dynasty (Montet, 1951, pp. 111–126, pls. LXXV–XCVII). The name of the original owner of the anthropoid sarcophagus was replaced with the names of Psusennes I on all occasions, and the same holds true for the pink granite sarcophagus—with the exception of a single instance. The lid of this sarcophagus displays the dead king lying in state as Osiris, and it is precisely the belt of this representation which preserves the name of Merenptah. As it seems unlikely that this most prominent mention of the first owner’s name was overlooked in the process of reworking, the name must have been spared intentionally, perhaps in honoring commemoration of the distant predecessor who had reigned 200 years earlier. In the same fashion, Amenemope was buried at Tanis in a sarcophagus, the lid of which was brought from Giza and, more than one and a half millennia earlier, had belonged to the burial equipment of prince Kadjeded, perhaps a son of Mycerinus (Holden, 1981, p. 101; Montet, 1951, pp. 173–175, 1960, p. 73). Even though this lid was recut to fit a chest of different origin, the name of the first owner, though not a king’s, was spared. Similarly, Takeloth I was entombed in a sandstone sarcophagus which once formed part of the funerary equipment of Imeny, a high official of the Middle Kingdom about a millennium earlier (Jansen-Winkeln, 1987; Montet, 1947, pp. 81–82, pls. XLVII, 1960, p. 74). This fashion of reuse was not confined to the kings of that time, but it was also followed by their highest officials such as general Wendjebawendjed who reused the sarcophagus of Amenophis, third prophet of Amun during the reign of Merenptah, for his own burial at Tanis (Montet, 1951, pp. 70–71). In various ways, this phenomenon continued over centuries until the end of the autochthonous Egyptian culture. The monumental tomb of Ankhhor at Thebes (TT 414: Bietak & Reiser-Haslauer, 1978, 1982) is an excellent example from the Ptolemaic period, when Saite anthropoid coffins of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty were reused by officials without replacement of the first owners’ names. It is interesting to see that the reusers had demotic name plaques attached to their mummies in order to have their identities specified in spite of the names on the coffins (Budka, 2008, pp. 58–61, 2010). Accordingly, they must have retained those names deliberately, perhaps in order to commemorate the original owners.

It is futile to speculate whether in all those cases of reuse the sarcophagi were no longer needed by the original owners, be it that the burials had been totally devastated or be it that they were restored in a substantially different manner, or whether they were obtained by plundering prima facie. At least it can be safely stated that tomb robbery posed a particular problem all throughout Egyptian history (Aston, 2020; Clark, 2016; Näser, 2001, 2004).

In the late fourth millennium BC, ‘Scorpion I’, one of the earliest kings of Egypt, was laid to rest with rich possessions in tomb U-j in the necropolis of Umm el-Qa‘ab at Abydos. Yet at the time of discovery, the tomb structure had collapsed due to fire and the store rooms had been looted (Dreyer, 1998). In this instance, it is reasonable to assume that the plundering took place considerable time after the burial, perhaps in a period when the mortuary cult had already ceased to function. However, there is also evidence that, sometimes, the workmen responsible for building or closing and sealing the tombs were responsible for the theft not long after burial. A possible example for this is mastaba 17 at Meidum (Petrie, 1892, pp. 11–14), which served as the resting place for an unknown high-ranking official or prince in the reign of Sneferu early in the Fourth Dynasty (Gundacker, 2006, pp. 109–114). This man must have died while his monumental tomb was still under construction so that his mummy and the grave furnishings were interred directly into the burial chamber before the superstructure was erected. Accordingly, the mastaba, a massive cuboid building of 100 m in length, 50 m in width, and more than 10 m in height, was built right above the isolated burial chamber without a shaft or corridor to the outside; yet the burial had been ransacked in antiquity (Petrie et al., 1910, p. 14). In fact, the excavators discovered a thieves’ tunnel which had been dug in the shortest possible distance from outside the mastaba to the unfinished burial apartments. It is thus obvious that the intruders were fully aware of the architectural layout of the entire building and misused their knowledge to steal what they deemed valuable (Petrie et al., 1910, pp. 14–17).

During the Twentieth Dynasty, tomb robbers’ activities in the necropoleis of Thebes grew to epidemic proportions (Caminos, 1977; Goelet, 2016; Strudwick, 2013). At that time, the evolving social and economic crisis certainly provided an ideal breeding ground for the rapid spread of that practice (Vernus, 1993). Already in the reign of Ramesses III, payment and supply had become so irregular that the workmen of Deir el-Medina (Davies, 2018a; Demarée, 2016; Endesfelder, 2018; Gabler, 2018), who were responsible for digging the rock tombs in the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens, came out on strike (Eyre, 1987; Janssen, 1992; Müller, 2004) and demanded compensation from the temple treasuries (Haring, 1997). In the reign of Ramesses IX, a first ground-shaking wave of robberies became known to the public and the highest state authorities (Peet, 1930, p. 28). The preserved records indicate that not only were the workmen (Davies, 1999; Romer, 1984) of Deir el-Medina heavily involved in the plundering activities, but also the priests of the local temples, their workmen, and the necropolis police. Even the highest local officials must have been aware of what was going on and must have tolerated this or maybe even presided over a network. It is not known who exactly was involved or not, and if so, to what degree (cf. Capart et al., 1936, pp. 187–188), and it may well be that the entire affair was only made public in order to get rid of rivals within the network. Anyway, at some point, Paser, the mayor of East Thebes, reported to the king about a list of plundered and damaged funerary monuments, but since his report did not match the account of Paweraa, the mayor of West Thebes and chief of the necropolis police (Vogel, 2016), it became inevitable to start an investigation. Ironically, this was directed by many of the entangled local authorities, among them Paser, Paweraa, and Khaemwaset, governor of the nome of Thebes and vizier (Peet, 1930, pp. 30–34; Vernus, 1993). The procedure of investigation included at least two on-site inspections, which in part produced manipulated results. It is unclear how this came about, but the sealing of some tombs may have been rigged since the authorities of West Thebes were in possession of the necropolis seals:

Ex. (20) Regnal year 16, third month of the inundation season, day 18, under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the Two Lands ‘Neferkare whom Re has chosen’ […], the son of Re, lord of the diadems ‘Ramesses [IX] whom Re loves’ […], beloved of Amun-Re, king of the gods, and of Re-Harakhte, may he be gifted with life forever and ever. Today were sent out the inspectors of the great and noble necropolis, the scribe of the vizier and the scribe of the overseer of the treasury of pharaoh, in order to investigate the tombs of the kings of the past and the tombs and resting places of the blessed deceased of the past which are in the west of the town (of Thebes) by the governor of the town (of Thebes) and vizier Khaemwaset, by the king’s butler Nesamun, the scribe of pharaoh […] and superintendent of the house of the divine adoratrice of Amun-Re, king of the gods, by the king’s butler Neferkare-emperamun, the herald of pharaoh, who (all) had the thieves dragged to the west of the town (of Thebes), (namely the thieves) against whom the mayor of West Thebes Paweraa, the chief of the Medjayu (police) of the great and noble necropolis of millions of years of pharaoh on the west (bank) of Thebes, had made an accusation and about whom a report had been made to the vizier, to the officials, and to the butlers of pharaoh […]. The pyramid of king Sekhemre-shedtawi, son of Re Sobekemsaf [II] […]: It was found as having been violated by the thieves by tunneling into the burial chamber of its pyramid (superstructure) from the outer court of the (rock-cut) tomb of the overseer of the granaries of king Menkheperre (Tuthmosis III), Nebamun. The burial place of the king was found empty of its lord and (similarly) the burial place of the king’s great wife Nebukhaas, his queen consort, the thieves having laid their hands on them. The vizier, the officials, and the butlers had this investigated, and the nature of the (assault of) having laid hand on them, which the thieves had made against this king and his royal wife, were discovered. […] Total: Pyramids of the kings of the past investigated today by the inspectors and found to be intact: 9 pyramids, (and such) found as having been violated: 1; total: 10. […] The tombs and graves in which the blessed deceased of past times who had lived in the town (of Thebes), and the people of the land, rest on the west (bank) of the town (of Thebes): They were found as having been violated by thieves all together, with their owners pulled out from their coffins and sarcophagi so that they (now) are thrown out onto the desert height, with their funerary furniture stolen which had been given to them together with the gold and silver and the equipment which had been in their coffins. […] (Table 2.1)

Even though the damage to the officials’ tombs had become unmissable, a cover-up concerning the tombs of kings, queens, and princes was attempted with only a single king’s tomb reported as having suffered damage. The reports are of particular interest as some of the tombs can be localized (Polz, 2007; Polz & Seiler, 2003), but the deplorable state of preservation of those monuments makes it difficult to examine the credibility of the ancient reports for the time of Ramesses IX.

The next day, the coppersmith Pakharu, who had been accused of having looted tombs in the Valley of the Queens, among them that of Isis, a queen consort of Ramesses III, was taken there in order to reveal which tombs he had violated.

Ex. (21) […] The officials said to him (i.e. the coppersmith Pakharu): ‘Go ahead of us to the tomb which you mentioned (as that) from which you have brought the things.’ And the coppersmith went ahead of the officials to a tomb of a couple of royal children of king ‘Wesermaatre whom Re has chosen’ […], the Great God, in which no burial had ever been made and which had been left open, and also to the house of the workman of the necropolis Ameneminet, son of Huy, which is in this spot, saying: ‘Look, (these are) the places in which I was!’ The officials had this coppersmith questioned in a most severe inquisition right in this great valley. And it could not be found that he was aware of any (other) places except for the two places to which he had directed (their) hand. And he made an oath to the lord […] on condition of being beaten with sticks, (having cut off) his nose and his ears, and being impaled, saying: ‘I know no place here within these places except this tomb which is open and this house to which I have directed your hand!’ And the officials inspected the seals of the great places at this site of beauty in which the king’s children, the king’s wives, the king’s mothers, and the perfect male and female ancestors of pharaoh […] rest. They were (all) found intact. (Table 2.1)

This on-site inspection must have been a put-up affair from beginning to end, since the coppersmith Pakharu cannot have picked up the stolen objects from an unfinished tomb which had never seen a burial. It is also big a surprise that the tomb of queen Isis was recorded as undisturbed (Capart et al., 1936, p. 187). Nevertheless, the plan worked out, and thus a triumphal procession was performed, which celebrated the good success of the inspection and marginalized the damage. In spite of this, Paser, the mayor of East Thebes, felt ridiculed by Paweraa, the mayor of West Thebes and chief of the necropolis police, and repeated his accusations in public (Caminos, 1977; Peet, 1930, pp. 31–36). His charges were nevertheless officially declined shortly after by a court consisting of the highest local officials who made reference to the inspection reports. As a result, only small fry were arrested, questioned, in part with bastinado, put on trial, and, eventually, punished in the way already indicated in the oath of the coppersmith Pakharu, i.e. death by impalement in the worst case (Müller-Wollermann, 2004). Pakharu himself was not sentenced to death, but he must have awaited some other kind of punishment according to the records.

The surviving testimonies of thieves who were questioned in court are a very interesting source of information as they relate first-hand how the tomb robbers proceeded (Capart et al., 1936; Peet, 1930).

Ex. (22) Regnal year 16, third month of the inundation season, day 22, under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the Two Lands ‘Neferkare whom Re has chosen’, the son of Re, lord of the diadems ‘Ramesses [IX] who has splendidly appeared in Thebes, whom Re loves continually’, beloved of Amun-Re, king of the gods, and of Re-Harakhte, may he be gifted with life forever and ever. Inquisition of the men who were found to have violated the tombs upon the west of Thebes, against whom an accusation has been made […]. There was brought Amunpanefer, the son of Onurisnakht, a stone mason of the temple of Amun-Re, king of the gods […] And he said: ‘I was engaged with work under the supervision of Ramessesnakht who (then) was first prophet of Amun-Re, king of the gods, together with the other companions, the stone masons who were with me. And I developed the habit of plundering the tombs together with the stone mason […] Hapiwer, the son of Merenptah. And when regnal year 13 of pharaoh, our lord, had begun, this is four years before now, I joined with the carpenter Sethnakht […], with the decorator Hapiaa […], with the fieldworker Amunemhab […], with the carpenter Irienamun […], with the libation officiant Kaemwaset […], and with the boatman of the mayor of the town (of Thebes) Ahay […]; total: 8 men. And we went to rob the tombs according to our habit, to which we stuck incessantly. And we found the pyramid of king Sekhemre-shedtawi […], son of Re Sobekemsaf [II] […], this not being at all of the kind of the pyramids and the tombs of the officials to which we were used to go to rob incessantly. And we took our copper tools and broke through into this pyramid of this king right into its underground apartments. And we found its burial chamber, and we took ignited torches in our hands, and we descended downwards indeed. And we worked through the rubble which we found at the mouth of its aperture. And we found this god lying at the back of his resting place. And we found the resting place of the king’s wife Nebukhaas, his queen consort, in the spot right at his side, and it was protected and shielded with plaster and covered with rubble. And we worked through this too, and we found her resting there in the like manner. And we opened their sarcophagi and their coffins in which they were. And we found this noble mummy of this king, it being equipped with a scimitar, and a large number of amulets and jewels of gold being upon his neck, and his head being covered with gold upon it; and this noble mummy of this king was adorned with gold over and over; and his coffins were sheeted with gold and silver on the inside and on the outside and inlaid with all kinds of precious stones. And we collected the gold which we found on this noble mummy of this god together with the amulets and jewels which were on his neck and (the sheeting of) the coffins in which he was resting. And we found the king’s wife in exactly the same state. And we collected all which we found on her in the same manner. And we set fire to their coffins. And we took their funerary furniture which we had found with them, namely objects of gold, silver, and bronze. And we divided them amongst us, and we made from the gold which we had found […] eight shares so that 20 deben of gold (i.e. roughly 1.8 kg) came to us per each man of the eight people, which makes 160 deben of gold (i.e. roughly 14.4 kg), with the fragments of the funerary furniture not being counted in. And we crossed over (the river Nile) to the town (of Thebes). And after a few days, the district commanders of the town (of Thebes) heard that we had been looting in the west. And they arrested me, and they imprisoned me in the office of the mayor of the town (of Thebes, i.e. Paser). And I took the 20 deben of gold which had come to me as (my) share, and I gave them to the scribe of the quarter of the landing place of the town (of Thebes) Khaiemipet. And he set me free. And I joined (again) my companions, and they provided me with a share once more. And I remained in the habit of robbing the tombs of the officials and people of the land who rest in the west of Thebes until today together with the other thieves who are with me. And a large number of people of the land rob as well, being companions, companions (indeed)!’ Total: People who had been in the pyramid of this god: 8 men. Their inquisition was made with beating with sticks, and their feet and their hands were twisted. They (all) confessed in the same manner. The governor of the town (of Thebes) and vizier Khaemwaset and the royal butler Nesamun, the scribe of pharaoh […] had the thieves taken in front of them to the west of the town (of Thebes) in regnal year 16, third month of the inundation season, day 19. And the thieves directed (their) hand to this pyramid of this god which they had violated. […] (Table 2.1)

The questioning of Amunpanefer was particularly delicate as it revealed that personnel of Paser, the mayor of East Thebes, were corrupt and involved in the flight of a detainee. This is even the more true as another papyrus, Papyrus British Museum 10054 (Peet, 1930, pp. 52–71), records another incident of the same kind once more involving Khaiemipet. The gold he had accepted from Amunpanefer this time was robbed from the tomb of Tjanefer, third prophet of Amun during the reign of Ramesses III (TT 158: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 268–271; Seele, 1959). Despite all that, it seems, all instances of tomb robbery were explained away as crimes of aberrant individuals, and thus the case was closed soon after. However, only a year later, in regnal year 17 of Ramesses IX, another case was brought to court and revealed that, above all, tombs in the Valley of the Queens, such as that of queen Isis, which already earlier had been subject of rumors, had indeed been devastated (Caminos, 1977; Vernus, 1993). Eventually, it was disclosed that a considerable number of people from Deir el-Medina were involved in looting and in receiving of and dealing in stolen goods (Peet, 1930, pp. 72–79; cf. Cooney, 2014; Gasperini, 2018; Phillips, 1992). As a result, the trials, over which the same officials presided as in the year before, continued and were followed by strict judgements and severe punishments. Even though, as a consequence, the number of workmen at Deir el-Medina was drastically reduced (Davies, 2017, 2018b), the problems persisted all throughout the Twentieth Dynasty so that further judicial steps against tomb robbers had to be taken (Vernus, 1993). For the reign of Ramesses XI, which in part suffered under civil war (Jansen-Winkeln, 1992, 2016; Niwiński, 1992), there are again detailed records (Peet, 1920, 1930), among them Papyrus British Museum 10052 (Peet, 1930, pp. 135–169) which openly refers to the death penalties executed under the authority of the vizier Khaemwaset under Ramesses IX, although it cannot be proven that they cost the lives of Amunpanefer and his gang (Peet, 1930, p. 151). As indicated above, the background of the looting activities, the real extent of the damage, and the involvement of officials remain unclear, but the truth is certainly much more complicated and compromising than what can be found in the official documents.

Another phenomenon of interest is that of usurping an older tomb (Eaton-Krauss, 2015; Helck, 1986), be it abandoned or be it emptied and taken over by force. The characteristic feature of this kind of reuse is the total erasure of the former owner’s name and titles so that the new possessor could pretend to use the tomb pristinely in his or her own name. Among the early examples for this is the mastaba of Ihy , vizier under Unas at the end of the Fifth Dynasty, which shortly after completion was usurped by princess Idut, a daughter of Unas. Ihy’s names and titles were erased all throughout the tomb, and there are only a few instances, in particular on the sarcophagus, where scratching out was insufficient (Kanawati et al., 2003; Macramallah, 1935). In the Middle Kingdom, the mastaba of prince Zatju, perhaps a son of Userkaf in the early Fifth Dynasty, at Saqqara (Mariette, 1889, pp. 302–304) was taken over by Nefertememsaf (Spencer, 1982). The mortuary chapel of Zatju contained two false-doors, the smaller one of which was set against the north end of the west wall opposite the entrance. Nefertememsaf chose this to become the center of his mortuary cult and, for that reason, had its inscriptions totally replaced with his own name, titles, and depictions (Fig. 2.2). The larger false-door to the south thereof was preserved as it was but covered with thick layers of plaster which only fell off after a fire in the nineteenth century.

Fig. 2.2

False-door of prince Zatju, usurped and recarved by Nefertememsaf; dotted lines in lower portion indicate traces of first layout for prince Zatju. (Spencer, 1982, p. 23, fig. 2; courtesy of A. J. Spencer)

In the well explored necropoleis at Thebes, many more instructive examples of New Kingdom date can be found (Kampp, 1996, pp. 123–129; Polz, 1991). In the reign of queen Hatshepsut, Nebamun, overseer of the granaries, had a rock tomb (TT 65: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 129–132) excavated and his mortuary chapel decorated with reliefs. Almost 400 years later, under Ramesses IX, Iimiseba usurped the tomb and had the reliefs covered with plaster and painted over so that no traces of the original owner remained (Bács, 1998; Vértes, 2015). Obviously, Iimiseba had no interest whatsoever in preserving the name and memory of this tomb’s prepossessor, Nebamun, whose name is only known from a damaged wall where the plaster has spalled off (Kampp, 1996, pp. 285–287; Polz, 1991, p. 308). In the same way, Menkheperreseneb , first prophet of Amun under Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II, had his rock tomb (TT 112: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 229–230) excavated and the greater part of his mortuary chapel decorated with reliefs (Dorman, 1995; Engelmann-von Carnap, 1999, pp. 115–124). More than 300 years later, during the Twentieth Dynasty, Aashefytemwaset took possession of this tomb. He then had the blank walls decorated, and even though he left the reliefs of Menkheperreseneb unchanged, the latter’s name was replaced with Aashefytemwaset’s in all instances. Menkheperreseneb’s name is only known from the southern portion of the chapel’s broad hall, which Aashefytemwaset had walled off. Since the walls there were inaccessible, it was unnecessary to rework the reliefs (Davies, 1933; Kampp, 1996, pp. 392–394; Polz, 1991, pp. 311–312). The centuries which had elapsed between the first and second owners of TT 65 and TT 112 render it likely that the families of Nebamun and Menkheperreseneb had abandoned the tombs. Iimiseba and Aashefytemwaset thus took possession of practically ownerless tombs and decided to use them in their own personal interest.

At this point, the question may arise as to who could have granted the right to get hold of an abandoned tomb (Lippert, 2008, pp. 49–52). In the New Kingdom, people like Iimiseba and Aashefytemwaset were probably entitled to obtain a forsaken tomb by the king himself (Helck, 1963, pp. 345–349, 1975, pp. 73–75). In the case of the lower classes, by contrast, the local authorities must have administered and regulated the use and reuse of tombs (Polz, 1991, pp. 335–336). Affairs could grow rather complicated, as is illustrated by a lawsuit in the milieu of Deir el-Medina, which is known from two ostraca and a papyrus (Allam, 1973, pp. 43–45, 148–149, and 277–280). In regnal year 21 of Ramesses III, Khainun had discovered that the burial chamber of the tomb in his possession was connected to the tomb owned by Amenemope. He thus cleared his neighbor’s tomb, threw out the burials, and claimed possession of it in court. However, Amenemope knew that, 120 years ago, in regnal year 7 of Haremhab, the superintendent of the house of the town (of Thebes) Tuthmosis had transferred the tomb to Hay who, in lack of a son, passed it on to Hel, his daughter and Amenemope’s foremother. Ever since then, Amenemope’s family had been entitled to hold possession of this tomb. The case was finally settled via an oracular decision by the deified king Amenophis I so that Khainun had to revoke his claim by oath. An addition to the records from regnal year 24 of Ramesses III deals with a similar case raised against Amenemope by another man, Wennefer, but his attempt to take over Amenemope’s family tomb was also eventually rebutted (Polz, 1991, pp. 335–336). In addition to the procedural aspects, the records demonstrate that quarrels over the possession and right to use a tomb were quite common. It is furthermore noteworthy that neither Khainun nor Wennefer shied away from removing burials in order to get hold of a tomb, though the fate of the bodies and the discarded grave goods remains unknown.

2.4 Renovators

As time went by, many monuments required restoration which either was carried out by (distant) offspring or benefactors (Grallert, 2001). Already in the Old Kingdom, inscriptions commemorating the renovation work carried out in predecessors’ pyramid complexes were arranged, e.g. an inscription of Djedkare Isesi in the mortuary temple of his second predecessor Niuserre.

Ex. (23) Horus ‘with everlasting splendid appearance’, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Two Ladies ‘with everlasting splendid appearance’, the everlasting Golden Falcon Djedkare, he made this monument for the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Ni[userre ///]. (Table 2.1)

In the Middle Kingdom, when royal mortuary cults of the past were revived (cf. Wildung, 1968), much effort must have been spent to renovate the temples and shrines. However, it is unclear whether this was an undertaking organized by the central government or a series of individual decisions by local officials. For the New Kingdom, there is evidence for a renovation program initiated by the court royal and carried out by prince Khaemwaset (Fisher, 2001; Gomaà, 1973). Sometimes called ‘the first archaeologist’ (Collombert, 2016), Khaemwaset enrolled a vast agenda of restoring monuments of the past, which is commemorated in inscriptions on many structures in the Memphite region.

Ex. (24) Horus ‘strong bull, whom Maat loves’, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt ‘Wesermaatre whom Re has chosen’, the son of Re ‘Ramesses [II] whom Amun loves’, may he be gifted with life like Re. Horus ‘the flourishing one of the Two Lands’, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Unas, may he be gifted with life forever like Re. Command by his majesty unto the high priest of Ptah and sem priest, the king’s son Khaemwaset: Making last the name of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Unas, after his name could not be found on his pyramid , because of the huge extent of the desire of the sem priest and king’s son Khaemwaset to make splendid the monuments of the kings of Upper and Lower Egypt, which they had made, but the firmness of which was now in the state of decline. And he had enacted for him (i.e. Unas) a decree for his divine offerings [/// the rest is too fragmentary for translation]. (Table 2.1)

Khaemwaset’s activities were not confined to monuments of the kings of the past, but he was also concerned with those of officials and priests. Accordingly, he restored a statue of prince Kawab (Snape, 2011) and transferred it to the temple of Ptah at Memphis after the prince’s tomb had been destroyed.

Ex. (25) The high priest of Ptah and sem priest, the king’s son Khaemwaset, [with a heart rejoicing] over this statue of the king’s son Kawab, it was, who grasped it as something which had been left to the debris in the /// of his (fore)father, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cheops. And the s[em priest and king’s son Khaemwase]t commanded [to bring it to] a place in Memphis, the cool place of the gods, in companionship with the excellent transfigured deceased, before the cult chapel of Rosetjau because of the huge extent of his loving the primeval ones, the noble ones who were before, and the splendor of all they have achieved as a truly effective remedy, a million times. This here shall be compensation (for all that consisting) of all life, perdurance, stability, and multiplication of offerings in [the broad hall (?) for the sem priest and king’s son Kha]emwaset , after he had reestablished all their sacred rites of this temple which had fallen into oblivion [in the memory] of all people, and (after) he had dug a lake at the side of the noble shrine as a work of his heartfelt desire so that there be purification priests going to purify and to fetch libation water from the well of Chephren; and he acted so that he may be given life! (Table 2.1)

It is, however, ironic that the devastation of many edifices which Khaemwaset restored was the result of the exploitation in search for building materials as initiated by his father, Ramesses II. Whether or not Khaemwaset’s activities were carried out in order to compensate this damage remains unclear (Málek, 1992).

Under the heading of tomb reuse , cases of accidental discovery and secondary occupation of older funerary apartments must be mentioned. A particularly interesting instance for this is the tomb of Ninetjer, a king of the Second Dynasty, who had his tomb built at Saqqara (Lacher-Raschdorff, 2014). Already at the beginning of the Third Dynasty, the superstructure (Lacher-Raschdorff, 2014, pp. 153–198; Stadelmann, 1985) and part of an adjacent elite cemetery (van Wetering, 2004) must have been removed by Djoser in order to have his own pyramid complex erected there (Regulski, 2011). When, in the Fifth Dynasty, Unas chose the site immediately to the south of Djoser’s step pyramid enclosure for his own pyramid complex, part of this was also built over Ninetjer’s tomb of which most likely nothing more than the vast subterranean galleries had remained (Dreyer, 2007). Subsequently, high officials had their tombs built close to Unas’ pyramid complex with their burial shafts excavated into the ground (Lacher-Raschdorff, 2011). Accidentally, some of those shafts, e.g. those of Nebkauhor and Iienhor, collided with parts of Ninetjer’s burial apartments (Hassan, 1975a, b, pp. 59–67), which happened again during the New Kingdom and the Late Period (Lacher-Raschdorff, 2014, pp. 97–102). In all those instances, rooms and corridor segments of the underground chamber system were, in part after moderate adaption, used as burial chambers of suitably modest character for individuals who lived centuries or even millennia after Ninetjer (Lacher-Raschdorff, 2011, 2014, pp. 95–102). Even though those intrusive burials did not aim at properly usurping the Second Dynasty galleries, the burial of king Ninetjer had been ransacked at an unknown point in time which is impossible to determine. However, some Second Dynasty chambers contained undisturbed offering depositions at the time of discovery (Lacher-Raschdorff, 2014, pp. 87–94), which renders it unlikely that workmen of later periods caused systematic devastation or aimed at clearing away all earlier remains. Ninetjer’s burial was thus most likely robbed long before the first accidental access during the Fifth Dynasty, when his tomb’s secondary use began.

Another kind of reuse was the deliberate taking over of a mortuary monument in order to make use of it without the erasure of the previous owner’s name . Numerous instances of this kind of reoccupation can be found in the New Kingdom necropoleis at Thebes (Kampp, 1996, pp. 123–129; Polz, 1991). In the reign of Tuthmosis III, Nakhtmin, overseer of the granaries (TT 87: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 178–179), and Menkheperreseneb , his son and successor in office (TT 79: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 156–157), had their tombs dug next to each other. Perhaps during the reign of Tuthmosis IV or somewhat later, descendants of Nakhtmin reused the tomb with only minor architectural changes, leaving the decoration and proper mention of Nakhtmin untouched (Guksch, 1995; Kampp, 1996, p. 341). The same holds true for a second phase of reuse during the Twenty-second Dynasty, when additional funerals were performed. During the Twenty-fifth or Twenty-sixth Dynasty, Horemakhbit took possession of the tomb, presumably by then already abandoned, and added a narthex in brickwork. New texts and representations replaced those of Nakhtmin around the doorway from the outer hall to the longitudinal hall. Furthermore, some walls were covered with plaster indicating that Horemakhbit may have intended to decorate some walls but leave others with the original owner’s design . It seems that he respected portions of the earlier decoration, but this could also be the result of an incomplete or abruptly discontinued usurpation attempt (cf. Guksch, 1995) to eliminate Nakhtmin’s decoration altogether (Polz, 1991, pp. 311 and 315). At the same time, Menkheperreseneb’s tomb was also reused, but in this instance the decoration remained entirely intact (cf. Guksch, 1995; Kampp, 1996, pp. 318–320). Unfortunately, it remains unclear for what reason Nakhtmin’s and Menkheperreseneb’s tombs were chosen for reuse outside their family.

The rock tomb of Djehuti (TT 45: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 85–86), head of all weavers of Amun, was built during the reign of Amenophis II, but the owner’s untimely death left it unfinished, with only the northern portion of the chapel’s broad hall partly decorated in painting (Davies, 1948, pp. 1–10, pls. II–VIII). More than 250 years later, in the Twentieth Dynasty, Djehutiemhab, head of the weavers of the domain of Amun, appropriated this tomb and prepared it for his own burial (Kampp, 1996, pp. 243–244; Polz, 1991, pp. 304–307). However, Djehutiemhab did not remove or replace the decoration of Djehuti, but complemented it by decorating the southern part of the broad hall, by using the blank spaces in its northern part, and, more rarely, by introducing a new scene in place of the marginal scenes of the original decoration program. The only change commonly introduced is the repainting of details of dress and furniture for reasons of personal taste and contemporaneous fashion. In order to represent his entire family, Djehutiemhab furthermore had captions added to figures commissioned by and painted for Djehuti which had not yet borne a name. Accordingly, there are portions of wall which display scenes of Djehuti and scenes of Djehutiemhab side by side (Davies, 1948, pp. 1–10, pls. II–III). One such example is given here (Fig. 2.3) with, from right to left, Djehuti and his wife dedicating an offering above a sub-register with the preparation of meat, and, to the left thereof, Djehuti and his mother seated at a table with offerings in the upper register and Djehutiemhab presenting a lotus bouquet to his seated parents in the lower register. The reasons for Djehutiemhab’s respectful treatment of Djehuti’s scenes is unknown, but one can imagine that he reoccupied Djehuti’s tomb for reasons of similarity of personal names and of profession (cf. Polz, 1991, p. 307).

Fig. 2.3

TT 45, broad hall of chapel, east wall, northern portion (the two arrows pointing down indicate the name of Djehuti, the arrow pointing up indicates the name of Djehutiemhab). (Image adapted from Davies, 1948, pl. II; courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society)

Huy, decorator in the temple of Amun at Karnak, built a rock tomb with a single room chapel, half of which was decorated with scenes in his name (TT 54: Porter & Moss, 1960, pp. 104–105), in the reign of Amenophis III on the eve of the Amarna Period (Polz, 1997). In this period of turmoil, the traditional cults were closed and representations and mentions of Amun were erased. Like many structures in the Thebaid, Huy’s chapel suffered damage from this process (Kampp, 1996, pp. 260–261). When in the Nineteenth Dynasty Kel, head of the granary of Khonsu, took possession of this tomb, he restored the texts which had suffered during the Amarna Period and filled the empty wall portions with decorations in his own name (Polz, 1991, pp. 301–303). It is particularly remarkable that an unfinished scene, which Huy had only sketched, was completed by Kel with himself represented as sem priest performing rites in front of Huy and his wife. Not only had Kel added the names and titles of the previous owner of this tomb, but he fully adopted the role of the pious son, designating himself as ‘his (i.e. Huy’s) son who revives his name’ (Polz, 1997, pp. 45, 51, and 126). Kel’s son Khonsu inherited this tomb and had his name added to the decoration without harming anything, and even later users of this tomb left no traces in the decoration. The burial chamber of Huy, and presumably his and his family members’ burials, were respected by Kel, who had a new crypt excavated for himself and his family.

In many instances, a closer look on the decoration, the inscriptions, and the prosopographic data allows us to trace the reasons for reusing tombs and mortuary chapels. These were very diverse and ranged from personal piety to superficial similarities of name and profession. In addition, of course, purely practical reasons such as the economic factor must also be taken into account, although this was certainly not the only and perhaps not even the most important motive for acquiring an old tomb.

Without doubt, the destruction of tombs and plundering of burials must have been a serious and recurrent phenomenon which often caused the need to restore burials and to renew funerary equipment. Periods of political turmoil with a decline of state institutions certainly posed a particular threat. As such it became necessary, in the reign of Haremhab, after the Amarna Period, to inspect and renew the damaged burial of Tuthmosis IV in his tomb in the Valley of the Kings (KV 43: Carter & Newberry, 1904; Newberry, 1904; Porter & Moss, 1964, pp. 559–562).

Ex. (26) Regnal year 8, third month of the inundation season, day 1, under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt ‘Djeserkheprure whom Re has chosen’, son of Re, ‘Haremhab, whom Amun loves’. His majesty, may he live, be prosperous and healthy, commanded that the fan-bearer on the right hand side of the king, the king’s scribe, the overseer of the treasury, the overseer of work in the Place of Eternity (i.e. the Valley of the Kings), the leader of the festival of Amun in Karnak, Maya, the son of the judge Iui, whom the lady of the house Weret has born, shall repeat the burial of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkheprure (Tuthmosis IV), justified, in the noble mansion upon the west of Thebes. (Table 2.1)

Apart from occasional thefts, which primarily targeted aromatic oils before they became rancid, cloth, glass, jewelry and amulets, statuettes, and other easily portable items (Goelet, 2016; Näser, 2001, 2004; Reeves, 1990, p. 275), and security problems during and immediately after the Amarna Period, the burials in the Valley of the Kings were by and large safe until the Twentieth Dynasty (Niwiński 2005). As economic problems increased (Vernus, 1993), the buried treasures caught people’s attention and fell prey to tomb robbers on a growing scale (Aston, 2020; Peet, 1930; cf. Gasperini, 2018). At first, the central authorities were not ready to give up on the Valley of the Kings and the treasures entombed there with the kings but rather aimed at restoring, upholding, and securing the status quo. The investigations and judicial steps which are reflected in papyri of the time and have been mentioned above, provide ample evidence for this effort notwithstanding their limited effectiveness due to corruption. However, towards the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, the political and economic crisis culminated in a civil war with Panehesi, viceroy of Kush, besieging Amenophis, first prophet of Amun, in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu in the ‘year of the hyenas’ (Jansen-Winkeln, 1992, 2016; Niwiński, 1992; Selim, 2017). This altogether made it more and more apparent that conditions changed irreversibly, and so must the measures. Already then, the opulence of the funerary equipment vis-à-vis empty purses was compelling to thieves and state officials alike. The massive treasures of the past thus attracted organized looting by gangs of thieves and systematic despoiling on behalf of the state, not the least in order to pay mercenaries. Thus, it is not surprising that, from the very end of the Twentieth Dynasty onwards, the royal tombs were systematically emptied over a period of 100 years with countless gold and silver objects being smelted down and the state treasury refilled (Jansen-Winkeln, 1995; Niwiński, 2005; Taylor, 1992). The sacrosanctity of the Valley of the Kings having crumbled away, Ramesses XI decided not to use his tomb, the last one built there; his final resting place is thus unknown (KV 4: Ciccarello & Romer, 1979; Dodson, 2016, p. 226; Porter & Moss, 1964, p. 501; Reeves, 1990, pp. 121–123; Wilkinson, 2016, p. 351). His tomb in the Valley of the Kings may have been taken over by Pinudjem I, first prophet of Amun, who also adopted a royal set of names and regal attributes, but, again, it is undetermined whether or not he used this tomb (Dodson, 2000, p. 147).

Even though there was a strong economic motivation for the removal of the royal funerary treasures, this was not carried out with total lack of piety. The mummies of the kings and of the members of the royal families (David, 2016; David & Metcalfe, 2016; Habicht et al., 2016; Harris & Wente, 1980; Hawass & Saleem, 2016; Partridge, 1994; Smith, 1912) were not thrown out and left to the desert, but they were restored, rewrapped, which also allowed for the removal of jewelry and amulets, and buried again without their treasures. In order to identify the mummies and to place them into the correct coffins, many received dockets (Reeves, 1990, pp. 225–243) with names and short notes referring to this process (Näser, 2001, 2004; Taylor, 2016).

Ex. (27) Regnal year 6, third month of the winter season, day 7: On this day, the first prophet of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinudjem [I], son of the first prophet of Amun Piankh, and the overseer of the treasury Painefernefer proceeded to repeat the interment of king Aakheperenre (Tuthmosis II), may he live, be prosperous and healthy. (Table 2.1)

Ex. (28) Regnal year 13, second month of the summer season, day 27: On this day, the first prophet of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Pinudjem [I], son of the first prophet of Amun Piankh, the scribe of the temple, Shedsukhonsu, and the scribe of the place of truth, Butehamun, proceeded to transform the king Wesermaatre (Ramesses III ), whom Amun loves, into Osiris so that he may endure and last forever. (Table 2.1)

Despite all efforts, work carried out on the mummies was in part quite harsh and some mistakes may have occurred, so that the identity of some mummies is disputed (Hawass & Saleem, 2016). Their reburial was, however, not carried out separately in the kings’ respective tombs, but they were concentrated in only a few spots, in part outside the Valley of the Kings. All that was not a straightforwardly planned task, but mummies and minor remains of funerary equipment must have been moved around for decades (Reeves, 1990, pp. 244–260; Taylor, 2016). Late in the Twenty-first and during the Twenty-second Dynasty, the majority of the removed mummies ended up in two royal caches. There they remained for about three millennia until the late nineteenth century, when both of them became known (David, 2016). One cache was situated within the Valley of the Kings in the tomb of Amenophis II (KV 35: Porter & Moss, 1964, pp. 554–556; Piacentini, 2005; Wilkinson & Reeves, 1996, pp. 100–103), where Victor Loret found 20 mummies, among them nine kings of the New Kingdom (Loret, 1899). The other was outside the Valley of the Kings, high up in the cliffs of Deir el-Bahari, where, in the tomb of the first prophet of Amun Pinudjem II (DB 320, also TT 320: Belova, 2003; Graefe, 2003; Graefe & Belova, 2010; Niwiński, 2009; Porter & Moss, 1960, p. 393), at least 53 mummies, among them 12 kings of the New Kingdom (Bickerstaffe, 2006; Trope & Lacovara, 2003), were found. The discovery of the Deir el-Bahari cache is a particularly thrilling detective story, since the Abdel Rassul family from the nearby village of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (van der Spek, 2016) must have been aware of this tomb since around 1871, when they started to sell items from the cache on the antiquities market. Only by 1881, Gaston Maspero, then director of the Egyptian Museum in Boulaq (Cairo), and his assistant, Émile Brugsch, started to search for a tomb of the Twenty-first Dynasty because of the amassed appearance of high-quality artifacts (Brugsch Bey, 1889; Maspero, 1889). Finally, it was a quarrel within the Abdel Rassul family (Bickerstaffe, 2018; Hawass & Saleem, 2016, pp. 34–35), which led to the exposure of the find spot and the immediate transferal of the royal mummies and the scarce leftovers of their grave goods to Cairo. A third cache may have existed in the tomb of Haremhab (KV 57: Davis, 1912; Hornung, 1971; Porter & Moss, 1964, pp. 567–569; Reeves, 1990, pp. 75–79 and 271–278), but looting did much harm to the burial equipment and royal mummies there, which is the reason why no definite conclusion on this matter is feasible.

On the one hand, emptying royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings, separating royal mummies and funerary equipment, taking away the valuables, and translocating the mummies significantly increased the security of the royal mummies. On the other hand, this allowed for reusing sarcophagi and other objects. Accordingly, inter alia, sarcophagi were transported to the new royal necropolis at Tanis, as already discussed above, a wooden coffin of Tuthmosis I , which had been stripped of its gold foil, was reused for the burial of the first prophet of Amun Pinudjem I (Daressy, 1909, pp. 50–63; Dodson, 2000, pp. 36, 47–48, 147), and two ushebti figurines of Ramesses II were transformed into Osiris statuettes for worship (Taylor, 1992, pp. 193 and 197). Finally, albeit rather hesitantly, the royal tombs themselves were reused for some burials of commoners during the Third Intermediate and Late Period (Coppens, 2016; Taylor, 1992, pp. 200–202). Centuries later, the Graeco-Roman Period saw crowds of tourists visiting the Valley of the Kings, as mentioned above.

2.5 Epilogue

With the end of the traditional Egyptian religion and the predominance of Christianity and, subsequently, of Islam, the ancient Egyptian tombs and mortuary cult installations ultimately lost their purpose. However, this did not necessarily mean that those edifices were ignored or ruined beyond recognition. Many temples were reused as churches or monasteries, e.g. the famous mortuary temple of queen Hatshepsut, which became once more renowned as the monastery of Phoibammon (Naville, 1908, p. 1). The fame thereof was so immense that its name became the source for today’s designation of the area, Deir el-Bahari ‘the northern monastery’ (Godlewski, 1986). Similarly, all along the western shore of the Nile at Thebes and in the Valley of the Kings, ancient rock tombs were used as hermitages and chapels by monks (Boud’hors & Heurtel, 2016; Coppens, 2016), and, in part, even as accommodations and stables. Of the latter, the village of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (Simpson, 2003; cf. Fodor, 1989; Kriss & Kriss-Heinrich, 1960, pp. 112–115), which was the home of, among others, the Abdel Rassul family, is a famous example. This village was torn down by Egyptian government authorities only a few years ago and its inhabitants moved to el-Qurna el-Djadida ‘New Qurna’ (Fathy, 1973; Steele, 1997, pp. 191–192). Furthermore, stone blocks and bricks were removed from many sites in order to reuse them, e.g. in Saqqara where many spolia (Grossmann, 2010; Hovestreydt, 2017; Martin, 1994) were used to build the monastery of Apa Jeremiah (Quibell, 1909, 1912; Wietheger, 1992). Likewise, the limestone casing of the pyramids at Giza was taken off to supplement the building materials (Greenhalgh, 2012) for the edifices of Old Cairo (al-Fustat) (Sheehan, 2010) and the mosques and city walls of Cairo (Heiden, 2001, 2002, 2010; Maroko, 2015).

In the long run, all this is nothing more than the continuation of the events for which the ancient Egyptians tried to prepare their monuments and tombs. Whatever efforts they made to build spacious tombs, to fill them with plentiful grave goods, to erect magnificent memorials and cult installations, to celebrate a lavish funeral, and to instigate and regulate mortuary services, as time went by, they became more and more aware of the fact that nothing would last forever. As such, the despair concerning death and afterlife (Jenseitspessimismus) grew (Assmann, 1977a, 1991, p. 215; Hornung, 1990, p. 200) and brought about a blooming, though lamenting, literary genre, the so-called ‘harpist’s songs’ which are often found next to depictions of musicians in tomb chapels, perhaps as a memento mori , but, at the same time, as a carpe diem (Assmann, 1977b, 1991; Fox, 1977; Lichtheim, 1945; Polz, 2003).

Ex. (29) Flourishing is this great one! Good was the fate (of his), and good was the waning (of his). A generation passes, another one remains, since the time of the ancestors. The gods who came into being before long rest in their pyramids, and likewise are buried transfigured nobles in their pyramids. Those who built sepulchers: their (burial) places do not exist (any more)! Look at what has been made out of them! I have heard the words of Imhotep and Hordjedef, which are often quoted as proverbs of them: Look at their (burial) places! Their walls have fallen apart, they have no (burial) places, as if they had never come into being. No one has returned from there (i.e. the netherworld) so that he tell of their state, so that he tell of their needs, so that he comfort our hearts, before we hasten to the place whereto they have gone. Be happy, and your heart (too), be forgetful about it (i.e. death)! It is beneficial for you to follow your heart as long as you exist: Put myrrh on your head, dress yourself in finest linen, anoint yourself with true perfume oil from the god’s offering, provide an overflow of your joy, let your heart not grow weary, follow your heart and your joy, carry out your things on earth, let your heart not wane, until there comes to you that day of mourning! The weary-hearted cannot hear their mourning, and their lamenting cannot save a man from the abyss (of the netherworld)! Refrain: Make (today) a holiday! Weary not of it! Behold, no one can prompt to take his property with him, behold, there is no one who has gone who will return! (Table 2.1)

Already in this lamentation, a way to cope with the predicament of Jenseitspessimismus can be found. It is paramount to be remembered, to have the name pronounced, which revives the name, and, consequently, the human being designated. Formulae such as ‘reviving his name’ (McCleary, 1991; Nelson-Hurst, 2010, 2011) thus became increasingly important. Apart from all efforts to prepare a tomb, a burial, grave goods, memorials, and mortuary cults, the Egyptians sought a new way of perpetuating their memory via immortal writings.

Ex. (30) Truly , if you do this, you are versed in the writings. As to those scribes who know the score since the time which came after the gods, who foretold what will come, their names will last forever, although they are gone, having completed their lifetime, and although all their kin are forgotten. They have not erected for themselves pyramids of bronze and their stelae of iron. They did not know how to leave heirs of [loving] children [who remember them (?)] by pronouncing their names, but they made heirs for themselves of writings, of wisdom texts they had composed. They made for themselves [the papyrus scroll as lector] priest, and the writing board as the loving son. Wisdom texts are their pyramids, the reed pen is their child, the surface of the stone is (their) wife. From great to small, (all) were given among their children. As for the scribe, he is their first. Doors have been installed on their sepulchers, they have fallen apart, their mortuary priests are [gone]. Their stelae are covered with dust, their tombs are forgotten. Their names are pronounced over their books, which they made while they were in existence. Good is the memory of their authors, it is for all time and forever! Be a scribe, put it in your heart, and your name will become the same (as theirs)! More beneficial is a book than an inscribed tomb stone and a solid wall. They (i.e. books) are chapels and pyramids in the heart of those who pronounce their names! Truly beneficent in the necropolis is one’s name in the mouth of the people! Man dwindles away, his corpse is dust, all his kin have crumbled to dust! It is the writings which make him remembered in the mouth of the reciter. More beneficent is a book than a well-built house and a mortuary chapel in the west, better than a well-founded castle and a stela in the temple. Is here anyone like Hordjedef, or another one like Imhotep? No one from our kin has become like Neferti, or Khety, the first of them (all)! I will bring to your attention the name of Ptahemdjehuti and of Khakheperreseneb! Is there another one like Ptahhotep or Kairisu likewise? Those sages who foretold what will come—(all) which came from their mouth has occurred. It can be found as (their) sayings, it is written in their books. The offspring of others are given to them to be heirs as if (they were) their own children. They (themselves) are concealed, (yet) their magic is for the entire world who read in a wisdom text. They have passed away, their names would be forgotten, but their writings make them be remembered ! (Table 2.1)

It is perhaps a lucky coincidence of history that modern research has finally become another way to preserve and keep alive the memory of many ancient Egyptians with Egyptologists taking on the role of the ‘loving son’.