DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4859#0020
THE TOMB AND ITS OWNERS
to participation in the burial privilege of the tomb, implied a proposed
interment there, remains unproved. But even this is far from ownership,
or rights independent of the owner's generosity. Thus, the common pro-
fession of the two men whose names appear as apparent owners on the
walls of the tomb, and whose lack of close blood relation is made indu-
bitable by the record of their different parentage on both sides (Plate
XVII), cannot be taken without more ado as a sufficient ground for
their sharing a common tomb, since even the closest family tie would not
justify it in ordinary practice.
Let us turn to the situation revealed in the records of this tomb.
They are unfortunately not complete, and the difficulty is aggravated
by the deficiency of the Egyptian language in terms for family and social
ties, no single words being available to express those that extend beyond
the closest relationships (of parents to children and of children to one
another), and still less any which refer to connection by marriage. This
default even includes the tie of marriage itself; for, by a curious mis-
use of speech, the usual word for wife (hemet) was more or less aban-
doned during the Eighteenth Dynasty in favor of the equivocal term
senet, "sister."1
The two men named in the tomb are called Apuki and Nebamun.
The father of the former was one Senennuter, "superintendent of artisans
in Herihirmeru,"2 and with the rank of "controller"3 in some department,
no doubt that afterwards administered by his son, "controller of the bal-
1 Whether this occurs because in a time of conquest concubinage became more prevalent with the acqui-
sition of female prisoners; because, by imitation of royal precedent, marriage with full or half sisters was increas-
ingly practised throughout society; or owing to a disinclination to give the wife the legal prerogatives or pres-
tige associated with the status of a hemet, is not yet clear. Nor is any rule apparent by which the use of the
two terms was differentiated. In Tomb 80 there seems to be an instructive episode. Thotnufer there sits with
his wife Takhat (senet having been later changed to hemet). Behind them stands a second female figure, "his
senet, Meryt," apparently a later introduction. Before this trio a second senet sits, or offers a sistrum, and
this, I presume, is a true sister. Her name, however, may also be Meryt, though differently written; so that it
is just possible that Thotnufer afterwards married this sister, and placed her behind his chair.
2 This is not a known temple or building. But it may be an alias for Ilerihiramun, the variant possibly
showing the first symptom of that hostility to Amon which a little later disrupted the kingdom. The latter was
one of the temples of Amon at Thebes, perhaps a part, or even the whole, of the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el
Bahri (Davies, Tomb of Puyemre, I, p. g5; II, pp. 79-81).
3 Slwti seems here used vaguely to indicate a small official, as sib is applied to a greater one, and rpcti
to one of still higher rank, flattery being of course used in each case.
Even wives
and relatives
have no rights
in it
Egyptian
terms for rela-
tions by blood
and marriage
The two men
buried in the
tomb
to participation in the burial privilege of the tomb, implied a proposed
interment there, remains unproved. But even this is far from ownership,
or rights independent of the owner's generosity. Thus, the common pro-
fession of the two men whose names appear as apparent owners on the
walls of the tomb, and whose lack of close blood relation is made indu-
bitable by the record of their different parentage on both sides (Plate
XVII), cannot be taken without more ado as a sufficient ground for
their sharing a common tomb, since even the closest family tie would not
justify it in ordinary practice.
Let us turn to the situation revealed in the records of this tomb.
They are unfortunately not complete, and the difficulty is aggravated
by the deficiency of the Egyptian language in terms for family and social
ties, no single words being available to express those that extend beyond
the closest relationships (of parents to children and of children to one
another), and still less any which refer to connection by marriage. This
default even includes the tie of marriage itself; for, by a curious mis-
use of speech, the usual word for wife (hemet) was more or less aban-
doned during the Eighteenth Dynasty in favor of the equivocal term
senet, "sister."1
The two men named in the tomb are called Apuki and Nebamun.
The father of the former was one Senennuter, "superintendent of artisans
in Herihirmeru,"2 and with the rank of "controller"3 in some department,
no doubt that afterwards administered by his son, "controller of the bal-
1 Whether this occurs because in a time of conquest concubinage became more prevalent with the acqui-
sition of female prisoners; because, by imitation of royal precedent, marriage with full or half sisters was increas-
ingly practised throughout society; or owing to a disinclination to give the wife the legal prerogatives or pres-
tige associated with the status of a hemet, is not yet clear. Nor is any rule apparent by which the use of the
two terms was differentiated. In Tomb 80 there seems to be an instructive episode. Thotnufer there sits with
his wife Takhat (senet having been later changed to hemet). Behind them stands a second female figure, "his
senet, Meryt," apparently a later introduction. Before this trio a second senet sits, or offers a sistrum, and
this, I presume, is a true sister. Her name, however, may also be Meryt, though differently written; so that it
is just possible that Thotnufer afterwards married this sister, and placed her behind his chair.
2 This is not a known temple or building. But it may be an alias for Ilerihiramun, the variant possibly
showing the first symptom of that hostility to Amon which a little later disrupted the kingdom. The latter was
one of the temples of Amon at Thebes, perhaps a part, or even the whole, of the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el
Bahri (Davies, Tomb of Puyemre, I, p. g5; II, pp. 79-81).
3 Slwti seems here used vaguely to indicate a small official, as sib is applied to a greater one, and rpcti
to one of still higher rank, flattery being of course used in each case.
Even wives
and relatives
have no rights
in it
Egyptian
terms for rela-
tions by blood
and marriage
The two men
buried in the
tomb