DOI Artikel:
Edwards, Amelia Ann Blanford: Relics from the tomb of the priest-kings at Dayr-el-Baharee
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11331#0092
86
RELICS FROM THE TOMB ETC.
Over
the
head of
deceased.
5. May he grant thousands of sepulchral repasts, thousands of pure and good
things
6. to the Osiris, the Second Prophet of
7. Amen King of the Gods; The Royal Son
8. Of the Lord of the two Lands, Aaha
9. Tat-f-Phtah
10. Au-f-Ankh, Justified.
The personage here designated by the name of Aaha Tat-f-Pthah-au-f-Ankh (that is
to say, Aaha, who is called Pthah-au-f-Ankh) is undoubtedly identical with a prince of the
same name whose mummy was discovered in 1881, in the tomb of the priest-kings at Dayr-
el-Bàharee, and whose relies are thus described in Professor Maspero's address to the
Orientalist Congress at Berlin: —
aaaaaa
«No. XXXI. Deux sarcophages à enduit jaune usurpés pour le compte du
( £^ <-=> ^ 1 Gf<in^) ° \ l ^ Q fils royal de Ramsès, T'ot Ptahefonkh dit ailleurs
1 0 I TIN X Taa^aa I I i<SjIQA - 1
^ ^ ' =U=^| ^ ( | fils du roi. » ( Verhandlungen des Funften Internationcden
Orientalisten-Congresses: Afrikanische Section: p. 21.)
To this identification it may be objectée! that the Aaha of the papyrus is styled Second
Prophet ^ | of Amen, whereas the Aaha of Professor Maspero's address is only Third
Prophet. But, although ranked as Second Prophet in the hieroglyphed Introduction to the présent
papyrus, our personage stands as Third Prophet in the hieratic text which follows. We are
therefore free to conclude that he was actually | "', Third Prophet; and that the higher
dignity ascribed to him in the sixth Introductory column is a clérical error on the part of
the scribe.
There remains the question of his parentage. In the papyrus, he is called «Royal Son
of the Lord of the Two Lands». Upon the sarcophagi he is styled, fîrstly «Royal Son of
Rameses » ; secondly « Royal Son of the Lord of the two Lands ». It is unfortunate that the
cartouche of this Rameses should nowhere have been given, as without it we have no
certain means of determining Prince Aaha's place in the history of the period. In Professor
Maspero's Officiai Report, «Z« trouvaille de Dèir-el-Bahari», it is further stated that upon
the leather bands of the mummy of the « Royal Son of Rameses » is stamped the name of
«Wouapout», First Prophet of Amen, under whose pontificate the interment of Aaha Tat-f
Pthah-au-f-Ankh would therefore seem to have taken place. Professor Maspero hence
concludes that this prince must have been buried in the Her-Hor vault during the reign of
Shishak I, at the commencement of the Bubastite Dynasty. If so, his father — a descendant
of the old Ramesside line — would have been Lord of the two Lands by courtesy only.
Or, as it seems to me with even greater probability, Aaha Tat-f Pthah-au-f-Ankh may
have been a son of one the last rois fainéants of the XXt]l Dynasty; in which case his
wrappings and leather bands may possibly have been renewed, and his mummy removed
froni some other tomb to this safer resting-place, under the auspices of Wouapout in the
reign of Shishak I. The fact that one, at least, of the sarcophagi in which this prince's mummy
reposed had been originally made for another occupant, is, I venture to think, in favour of
this suggestion.
RELICS FROM THE TOMB ETC.
Over
the
head of
deceased.
5. May he grant thousands of sepulchral repasts, thousands of pure and good
things
6. to the Osiris, the Second Prophet of
7. Amen King of the Gods; The Royal Son
8. Of the Lord of the two Lands, Aaha
9. Tat-f-Phtah
10. Au-f-Ankh, Justified.
The personage here designated by the name of Aaha Tat-f-Pthah-au-f-Ankh (that is
to say, Aaha, who is called Pthah-au-f-Ankh) is undoubtedly identical with a prince of the
same name whose mummy was discovered in 1881, in the tomb of the priest-kings at Dayr-
el-Bàharee, and whose relies are thus described in Professor Maspero's address to the
Orientalist Congress at Berlin: —
aaaaaa
«No. XXXI. Deux sarcophages à enduit jaune usurpés pour le compte du
( £^ <-=> ^ 1 Gf<in^) ° \ l ^ Q fils royal de Ramsès, T'ot Ptahefonkh dit ailleurs
1 0 I TIN X Taa^aa I I i<SjIQA - 1
^ ^ ' =U=^| ^ ( | fils du roi. » ( Verhandlungen des Funften Internationcden
Orientalisten-Congresses: Afrikanische Section: p. 21.)
To this identification it may be objectée! that the Aaha of the papyrus is styled Second
Prophet ^ | of Amen, whereas the Aaha of Professor Maspero's address is only Third
Prophet. But, although ranked as Second Prophet in the hieroglyphed Introduction to the présent
papyrus, our personage stands as Third Prophet in the hieratic text which follows. We are
therefore free to conclude that he was actually | "', Third Prophet; and that the higher
dignity ascribed to him in the sixth Introductory column is a clérical error on the part of
the scribe.
There remains the question of his parentage. In the papyrus, he is called «Royal Son
of the Lord of the Two Lands». Upon the sarcophagi he is styled, fîrstly «Royal Son of
Rameses » ; secondly « Royal Son of the Lord of the two Lands ». It is unfortunate that the
cartouche of this Rameses should nowhere have been given, as without it we have no
certain means of determining Prince Aaha's place in the history of the period. In Professor
Maspero's Officiai Report, «Z« trouvaille de Dèir-el-Bahari», it is further stated that upon
the leather bands of the mummy of the « Royal Son of Rameses » is stamped the name of
«Wouapout», First Prophet of Amen, under whose pontificate the interment of Aaha Tat-f
Pthah-au-f-Ankh would therefore seem to have taken place. Professor Maspero hence
concludes that this prince must have been buried in the Her-Hor vault during the reign of
Shishak I, at the commencement of the Bubastite Dynasty. If so, his father — a descendant
of the old Ramesside line — would have been Lord of the two Lands by courtesy only.
Or, as it seems to me with even greater probability, Aaha Tat-f Pthah-au-f-Ankh may
have been a son of one the last rois fainéants of the XXt]l Dynasty; in which case his
wrappings and leather bands may possibly have been renewed, and his mummy removed
froni some other tomb to this safer resting-place, under the auspices of Wouapout in the
reign of Shishak I. The fact that one, at least, of the sarcophagi in which this prince's mummy
reposed had been originally made for another occupant, is, I venture to think, in favour of
this suggestion.