DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4859#0023
The priority
of Nebamun
Henetnofret
the connect-
ing link
THE TOMB OF TWO SCULPTORS AT THEBES
from his father the post of controller, and that of sculptor to the
king (with the superintendency in prospect) from Neferhet, whose son,
Nebamun, was presumably too young yet to take up the succession. The
supposition that Apuki was the older man and the husband of Henetno-
fret's youth is supported by Plate V. While Nebamun sits at the ban-
quet and drinks of an earthly cup, Apuki is seated with Henetnofret
at the meal of the dead. A certain Amenhotpe, who appears both
there and at the funeral of Apuki as if alive, is apparently honored
by Nebamun as one who had passed away. In many scenes Nebamun
has a distinct prominence, such as might be expected in the survivor and
actual constructor of the tomb. He takes precedence of Apuki where the
two act together (Plate XIX), and the scenes in which he is sole actor
are on a larger scale and more brilliantly executed than any in which
Apuki is the chief figure. But, as if to compensate for this, Apuki alone
appears as the unchallenged consort of the lady Henetnofret who, as we
shall see, seems to have shared the affections of both men.
How, then, are we to reconcile these equal pretensions to ownership
with the strictly individual possession by a single head of a household
which is almost universal at Thebes? In the first place, the rule is not
devoid of exceptions at a somewhat later date. Tomb 291, a tiny pyra-
mid chapel, is divided between two men of quite different parentage and
no apparent intimacy, each of whom occupies one half of it, while one
of them appropriates the single ceiling-text in addition. This very clear
example strengthens the evidence for a few other less uncompromising
instances and, as Tomb 291 appears to belong to much the same period
as ours, we may suspect a slackening of the rule from this time onward
and feel ourselves at liberty to admit a breach of it in the case we are
considering.1 In the second place, if the intimate mingling of the two
names in our tomb points to some stronger motive for participation than
economy, ordinary friendship, or professional association, such an incen-
1 This tomb was only discovered last year in the course of excavations at Deir el Medineh for the
Instiiut Francais by Mons. Kuentz, who has kindly permitted me to quote this interesting detail. It shows
how incomplete our knowledge of burial customs still is, notwithstanding the three hundred inscribed tombs
that stand open at Thebes.
8
of Nebamun
Henetnofret
the connect-
ing link
THE TOMB OF TWO SCULPTORS AT THEBES
from his father the post of controller, and that of sculptor to the
king (with the superintendency in prospect) from Neferhet, whose son,
Nebamun, was presumably too young yet to take up the succession. The
supposition that Apuki was the older man and the husband of Henetno-
fret's youth is supported by Plate V. While Nebamun sits at the ban-
quet and drinks of an earthly cup, Apuki is seated with Henetnofret
at the meal of the dead. A certain Amenhotpe, who appears both
there and at the funeral of Apuki as if alive, is apparently honored
by Nebamun as one who had passed away. In many scenes Nebamun
has a distinct prominence, such as might be expected in the survivor and
actual constructor of the tomb. He takes precedence of Apuki where the
two act together (Plate XIX), and the scenes in which he is sole actor
are on a larger scale and more brilliantly executed than any in which
Apuki is the chief figure. But, as if to compensate for this, Apuki alone
appears as the unchallenged consort of the lady Henetnofret who, as we
shall see, seems to have shared the affections of both men.
How, then, are we to reconcile these equal pretensions to ownership
with the strictly individual possession by a single head of a household
which is almost universal at Thebes? In the first place, the rule is not
devoid of exceptions at a somewhat later date. Tomb 291, a tiny pyra-
mid chapel, is divided between two men of quite different parentage and
no apparent intimacy, each of whom occupies one half of it, while one
of them appropriates the single ceiling-text in addition. This very clear
example strengthens the evidence for a few other less uncompromising
instances and, as Tomb 291 appears to belong to much the same period
as ours, we may suspect a slackening of the rule from this time onward
and feel ourselves at liberty to admit a breach of it in the case we are
considering.1 In the second place, if the intimate mingling of the two
names in our tomb points to some stronger motive for participation than
economy, ordinary friendship, or professional association, such an incen-
1 This tomb was only discovered last year in the course of excavations at Deir el Medineh for the
Instiiut Francais by Mons. Kuentz, who has kindly permitted me to quote this interesting detail. It shows
how incomplete our knowledge of burial customs still is, notwithstanding the three hundred inscribed tombs
that stand open at Thebes.
8