Abstract
The pharaonic Beautiful Festival of the Valley has already been studied extensively by various scholars. However, no adequate research has hitherto been carried out into the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. This paper proposes what the final phase of the festival would have looked like and argues that it did not merge with the Decadal Festival, as became the opinio communis. The Graeco-Roman archaeological data from the Theban necropolis were plotted in GIS (ArcGIS 10.7.1) to determine that these finds can still be linked to the processional paths used for the Valley Festival, as was the case in older periods. The indications provided by the spatial distributions together with papyrological sources and landscape analysis support the hypothesis that the Valley Festival continued to be celebrated into the Graeco-Roman Period.
Keywords
Introduction
The Beautiful Festival of the Valley (HAb nfr n int) was celebrated annually at Thebes. 1 First attested in the Middle Kingdom, it came to be the most prominent public religious festival in the Theban area during the New Kingdom, by which Amun crossed the Nile and made several stops at the various Mansions of Millions of Years. The procession started at the temple of Karnak on the east bank, went through al-Asāsīf and ended at the temple of Hatshepsut in Dayr al-Baḥrī on the west bank. 2 Although the festival has been intensively studied, most researchers have been mainly interested in how it was celebrated during the New Kingdom (particularly, the Eighteenth Dynasty) and the Late Period (Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties). This focus has resulted in a relative lack of research concerning the question as to how the festival was celebrated during the Graeco-Roman Period. According to the opinio communis, the Valley Festival in the Ptolemaic Period had come to coincide with the Decadal Festival, which traditionally ended at Madīnat Habū. 3 It might be expected that, if this were true, it should be reflected in the spatial distribution of relevant archaeological assemblages in the Theban necropolis. However, little research has thus far been carried out to assess to what extent the evidence confirms this expectation. Although Budka 4 and Strudwick 5 have examined some Graeco-Roman finds and Seyfried 6 has collected much of the relevant textual material, none of this has been associated directly with the Beautiful Festival of the Valley. The aim of the present article is to investigate whether the spatial distribution of the Graeco-Roman funerary assemblages may contribute to our understanding of the Valley Festival during the final stages of its existence in the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods.
Research area and methodology
The dataset used for this research consists of both textual data, mainly drawn from papyri, including the well-known P. Survey 48 7 from the Hermias trial, and Graeco-Roman archaeological data from the Theban west bank. 8 Tombs are spread throughout the entire Theban necropolis; if we assume that the Valley Festival had no impact on the spatial distribution, the reuse of tombs in the Graeco-Roman Period would likely be scattered throughout the necropolis. By using Geographic Information Systems (ArcGIS 10.7.1) the spatial distribution of these finds will be visualised, since this material has not yet been structurally associated with each other. Moreover, these distributions can indicate whether or not Madīnat Habū (i.e. the Decadal Festival) was still considered important and whether it can possibly be linked to the processional axis and secondary paths used for the Valley Festival. A number of maps, including those of Bietak, 9 Eigner 10 and Kampp 11 were georeferenced on Esri’s World Imagery Map, then all collected archaeological data were added to the maps and chronologically classified.
Analysis
The religious landscape
The topic of the Theban religious landscape has been extensively discussed in the literature. Its spatial layout essentially goes back to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. In the mid-Eleventh Dynasty, a processional road leading from Karnak to al-Tārif was probably already created. The construction of Mentuhotep II’s temple led to an adaptation of the orientation of this processional road in the well-known Karnak–Dayr al-Baḥrī axis. 12 Recent geomorphological research has moreover revealed that a secondary branch of the Nile, along the edge of the western desert, facilitated the navigation of the bark of Amun from the main channel of the Nile towards Hatshepsut’s road until the end of the New Kingdom. However, the landscape in the Graeco-Roman Period was strongly comparable with the current Theban landscape, as the secondary waterway had disappeared by then. 13 From the end of the Late Period until the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, the month of Pauni, in which the festival was traditionally held, 14 corresponded to July–August or August–September, 15 the period of the inundation. As the Theban floodplain was completely submerged during much of this period, one could reach the supposed Hatshepsut Valley Temple by boat (until c. 168 BC). Thus, also in the early Ptolemaic Period the festival was held at a time when the temple of Dayr al-Baḥrī could be easily reached by water.
A new perspective on the opinio communis
As has already been stated in the introduction, the opinio communis is that the Valley Festival had come to merge with the Decadal Festival towards the Graeco-Roman Period. Although there presumably were cult-topographic connections between the various parts of the Theban region, this does not necessarily imply a complete merger of the festivals. While Amun annually went from Karnak to Dayr al-Baḥrī during the Valley Festival, Amenophis went from Luxor to Madīnat Habū every ten-day ‘week’ during the Decadal Festival. According to Traunecker, the cult statue of Amenophis possibly went to both Dayr al-Madīna and Dayr al-Baḥrī (see fig. 1) during the merged festival. Traunecker also suggests that the chapel of Achoris, 16 originally an intermediate station at Karnak, was the starting point of a direct procession towards the temple of Madīnat Habū. If we accept this hypothesis, both the available archaeological and papyrological data pose problems, as will be argued below. 17
Spatial distribution of the Graeco-Roman material in the Theban necropolis (●: Graeco-Roman, △: Roman, ■: Ptolemaic). 17 The black line indicates the axis of the Valley Festival. 1: Dayr al-Baḥrī, 2: al-Asāsīf, 3: Dirā‛ Abū al-Naj‛, 4: al-Khūkha, 5: al-Shaykh ‛Abd al-Qurna, 6: al-Asāsīf South, 7: Qurnet Murā‛ī, 8: Dayr al-Madīna 9: Bab al- Mu‛allaq, 10: Valley of the Queens, 11: Madīnat Habū.
Bommas has argued that, during the Decadal Festival, bronze situlae were used, 18 which are only in evidence in Madīnat Habū and not at al-Asāsīf. In the latter area, only pottery situlae 19 have been found. These different types of situlae are unlikely to have been used in the same festival, especially because the bronze situlae from Madīnat Habū contained an image of the god Amenophis, which strongly suggests a connection with the Decadal Festival. This iconographic detail is not paralleled by equally clear indications on the pottery situlae from al-Asāsīf. Another problem with the hypothesis that the festivals had syncretised derives from the papyrological data. The Valley Festival is referred to in P. Survey 48 as ‘the annual crossing of the great god Amun towards Memnoneia’. Both Memnoneia and its Demotic counterpart 6Amt are unclear geographical designations 20 and could point to different areas on the west bank (including the entire Theban necropolis) and not only to Madīnat Habū. 21 Moreover, in Egyptian the Greek title pastophoros (παστοφόρος Ὰμενώφιος τοῦ ὲν τοῖς Μεμνονέοις) is referred to as iry-aA n Imn-Ipy n pA-imnt n Niwt (the doorkeeper of Amenophis in the west of Thebes). 22 These titles thus equate Memnoneia with the more general geographical description ‘the west of Thebes’. Therefore, P. Survey 48 indicates the crossing of Amun towards the west of Thebes in general, rather than towards Madīnat Habū, specifically. Lastly, there used to be considerable building activity between the temple of Karnak and the Nile during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. For instance, a quay was restored after the reign of Achoris. 23 Harbour-like structures were still in use in this area and may indicate that processions were still going west from Karnak. This is inconsistent with the idea that the Valley Festival amalgamated with the Decadal Festival. The above-mentioned information proves it rather unlikely that both festivals coincided by the Graeco-Roman Period.
Another hypothesis in the literature concerns the possible existence of a road between Madīnat Habū and Dayr al-Baḥrī. 24 According to Eigner there is still a path along this line today, 25 although he doubts whether this north-south connection was used for the Valley Festival. 26 Kampp questions the existence of the road in general. 27 Only a few of the tombs on this line were reused after the pharaonic period (see below) and it is highly doubtful whether this road had any significance for the Valley Festival in both the pharaonic and Graeco-Roman Periods.
Textual sources
Four Ptolemaic temple texts contain explicit references to the festivals. Two passages from the Karnak temple 28 refer to the Valley Festival, confirming the assumption that the procession still departed from Karnak in that period. Two other texts, from Dayr al-Madīna 29 and Edfu, 30 contain a reference to the Decadal Festival as well as the Valley Festival. 31 The fact that both festivals are referred to individually in these texts is a strong indication that the two festivals continued to exist separately. While the temple context in these essential sources indicates that the Valley Festival still existed under its original name HAb nfr n int, other textual sources, mainly papyrological ones, refer to an annual crossing or διάβασις. 32
P. EA BM 10209 (c. 305 BC), a hieratic liturgical text that presumably had to be recited during the Valley Festival banquet inside the tombs, refers to water, milk and wine libations. 33 These correspond to the offerings most frequently made by the Theban choachytes. 34 In addition, the iry-aA, 35 a priestly office taken up by the choachytes, is mentioned in the same papyrus as part of an invocation to the deities. Although this is not a direct reference to these priests, this liturgical text suggests that the Theban choachytes made libations for the deceased during the Valley Festival, as they did during the Decadal Festival. 36 This is also indicated by P. Survey 48 and 61, both belonging to the archive of Osoroeris, son of Horos. 37 According to P. Survey 48, 38 the choachytes had the privilege of being allowed to walk at the front of the procession and pour the libations during ‘the annual crossing of Amun towards Memnoneia’ (τοῦ Ἄμμωνος διαβάσεσιν εἰς τὰ Μεμνόνεια). The annual nature of this festival does not indicate a connection to the Decadal Festival; moreover, this suggests that the choachytes were also involved in other festivals. P. Survey 61, 39 the foundation (smn) of the association of Amenophis containing a list of ‘drinking days’ on which the members of the association came together, mentions one day in the month of Pauni (the second month of Sjemu, day 18), which is possibly an implicit reference to the Valley Festival.
Further papyri and inscriptions 40 provide information about the festival in the Graeco-Roman Period. UPZ II 202 and 203, 41 tax receipts from the Royal Bank of Thebes (130 BC), mention orders by the vice-Thebarch for the payment of repair work on the sacred bark, which crossed the Nile annually. Apart from the vice-Thebarch, the Ptolemies also realised how important the festival was for Thebes. In a decree of Ptolemy V found on the dromos of Karnak, 42 both Memnoneia and diabasis are mentioned, and instructions are given for the crossing of the holy bark with the golden belts. Another royal document, stela BM 1066, dated 115 BC (mid-July), describes the visit of Ptolemy IX to the city of Thebes. He made this trip during the beginning of the annual flood, probably to attend the festival. In general, when the Ptolemaic king himself was not able to visit the city, he sent the epistrategos. 43 The Valley Festival was still considered significant as it was mentioned by private individuals on their statues. 44 The group statue of PA-Sri-tA-isw even mentions ‘while you have heard my supplications on the day of the Valley Festival, so that I am rejuvenated by it’. This expression presumably refers to the fact that the Valley Festival was believed to lead to the regeneration of the deceased in the Theban necropolis, as it had done since the Middle Kingdom. The idea that the festival was instrumental in this is therefore still applicable in the second century BC.
All the textual sources discussed imply the continued importance of the Valley Festival in the Graeco-Roman Period, as it was mentioned in a royal decree, by private individuals, on temple walls, and even during the Hermias trial where it is emphasised as an important task of the Theban choachytes. Nonetheless, all these textual data do not give any direct information as to how or where the festival was celebrated in the Theban necropolis. A look at the archaeological data, however, offers indications that are highly significant.
Geographic Information Systems-analyses
By the Graeco-Roman Period, the construction of new tombs had become rare and new decoration was only occasionally added to the existing graves. The reuse of older tombs in the Theban necropolis had become standard practice, although sometimes secondary shafts were added. 45 The question is, of course, to what extent the reuse of these tombs can be considered as expressing a link to the Valley Festival? In this connection, it should be pointed out that the tombs from the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties were built with an orientation towards the processional axis of Hatshepsut or towards Karnak temple itself. 46 Besides the already existing processional roads of Mentuhotep II, Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, small roads and secondary paths emerged in the al-Asāsīf necropolis, which made less formalised movements around the tombs possible during the Valley Festival. Hatshepsut’s path, however, remained the main axis. Moreover, some of the Saite tombs are orientated towards the point where the procession appeared from behind Hill 104, while it was on its way to Dayr al-Baḥrī. Hill 104 was shaped by cutting out Hatshepsut’s road and by severing its southern part for the causeway of Thutmose III. 47
Accordingly, it is relevant to investigate the spread of Graeco-Roman secondary burials across the Theban landscape. In this area, tombs are located everywhere. If Graeco-Roman tombs show an even spread across the entire area, this could be taken as an indication that a connection to the ritual area of Dayr al-Baḥrī and al-Asāsīf was not of significant concern for those who selected a new burial place. If, however, the places chosen for the secondary burials tend to be located in areas that have a connection with the Valley Festival (that is, with an orientation towards the processional axis of Hatshepsut or towards Karnak temple), this would suggest that the selected places revealed a specific interest for this environment. The previously discussed pottery situlae already indicated some of those connections. The purpose of the analyses is to visualise spatial distribution patterns in the material remains of the Graeco-Roman era. However, one should pay attention to the reliability of certain analyses, especially those based on the quantity or different types of Graeco-Roman material. Some al-Asāsīf tombs are published in much greater detail than other Theban tombs and could therefore lead to a bias in the analyses. Moreover, there is also a bias in the recording and publishing of Graeco-Roman finds from al-Asāsīf, as this is the current state of publication. Although caution is advised, this paper presents a representative data set that reflects the centres of gravity of the reuse. One spot in the middle of a tomb indicates the reuse during the Graeco-Roman Period (see figs 1–2). The spot, however, does not specify the quantity of find material, nor the exact location of the finds inside the tomb. 48
The map in figure 1, which depicts the distribution of the Graeco-Roman finds, clearly shows a concentration on al-Asāsīf, Dayr al-Madīna and the Valley of the Queens; however, the reuse in the Valley of the Queens is almost exclusively Roman. This distribution suggests that both the core area of the necropolis (near al-Asāsīf) and partly Dayr al-Madīna were used during the Graeco-Roman Period. In the Roman Period, however, the focus shifted partly to the Valley of the Queens. When looking at al-Asāsīf, one can see that the focus mainly lies on the processional roads of Mentuhotep II and Thutmose III, which had not been in use since the Late Period, as these had been partly covered by later construction, from the Third Intermediate Period onwards. Therefore, these roads could no longer have served as processional roads on the usual scale. On the contrary, the Hatshepsut-road was not overbuilt, which suggests that this road had to be kept open, arguably for a procession from Karnak. In addition, the Graeco-Roman finds (fig. 2) seem to be concentrated around the secondary paths through the necropolis, which could also have been used as processional roads from the Late Period onwards. Moreover, two of the three tombs 49 that contain direct textual references to the Valley Festival from an earlier period were reused as well.
Concentration of the Graeco-Roman finds on the secondary paths in al-Asāsīf. 48
Archaeological data
In al-Asāsīf (2), the tombs of Anch-Hor, Padihorresnet, Psamtek, Mutirdis, Esbanebded, Bakenamun and Harwa were reused. 50 Most of these tombs are either orientated towards the processional road of Hatshepsut or towards the point where the procession appeared from behind Hill 104. 51 Strudwick already suggested that the reuse of tombs in this area could be connected to the Ptolemaic shrine of Amenhotep, son of Hapu, in Dayr al-Baḥrī. 52 However, even the Lichthof of Anch-Hor (see further), which was connected to the processional roads with the main purpose of the Valley Festival, was adapted as late as the fourth century BC. Besides these Saite tombs, the Middle Kingdom tomb of Ipi was also reused. 53 Graeco-Roman finds at this location in the necropolis seem to support the idea of a Valley Festival that still went from Karnak towards Dayr al-Baḥrī through al-Asāsīf. In al-Asāsīf South (6) the tombs of Karabasken and Karakhamun were reused. 54 Apart from these monumental tombs, the smaller ones, excavated by the Austrian mission, were also reused in this period. All of them are located at the backside of Hill 104. 55 In conclusion, many Graeco-Roman finds were discovered in al-Asāsīf. In this necropolis, and especially in TT 414, some early Ptolemaic libation vessels were found as well as the previously mentioned pottery situlae. 56 These indicate that libations were made in the reused tombs of al-Asāsīf, perhaps in connection with the Valley Festival.
In some of the monumental tombs of al-Asāsīf (2), 57 Graeco-Roman material was found inside the Lichthof. 58 These underground open courtyards could only be accessed through subterranean passages of which the entrances are often located close to the processional road of Hatshepsut. It has been shown that the location of these entrances can be directly related to the Valley Festival. 59 From the Late Period onwards, offerings were presented inside this open courtyard instead of the superstructure’s forecourt. 60 Since material remains were found in some of the courtyards, this location inside the tombs was still considered important, probably because of the Valley Festival. More extensive libation installations were built during the Graeco-Roman era inside three of the monumental al-Asāsīf tombs (TT 37, 411 and 414). These can all be considered as Grab am Tempeldromos. 61 These three offering places are located very close to Hatshepsut’s processional road and are situated in an almost parallel line with it (see fig. 3). There is a chance that the libations made inside these tombs were related to the festival, but it is difficult to determine whether these libations were made in connection with the Valley Festival or for other rites that took place in the necropolis. 62 However, it is certain that these offering places do not seem to have been chosen at random, but rather because of their location close to Hatshepsut’s processional road. 63
Offering places in al-Asāsīf (TT 37, 411 and 414). The black line indicates the axis of the Valley Festival. 63
Apart from al-Asāsīf, tombs in Qurnat Murā‛ī (7), 64 Dirā‛ Abū al-Naj‛ (3), 65 al-Shaykh ‛Abd al-Qurna (5) 66 and al-Khūkha (4) 67 were reused in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. Although these tombs are not located in the vicinity of the processional road of Hatshepsut or orientated towards it, some of them can provide indications about the Valley Festival. For example, TT 11 and 12, located in Dirā‛ Abū al-Naj‛ (3) can be linked to the Valley Festival in earlier periods, as they have an orientation towards Karnak and are located on the original processional axis to al-Tārif. 68 Moreover, extensive burials were found in TT 157, the so-called Thunabounoun, in Dirā‛ Abū al-Naj‛ (3). 69 The Ptolemaic and Roman finds from al-Khūkha (4) seem to be concentrated around TT 32 (Djehutymose). The frequency and quantity of objects are comparable with the Graeco-Roman finds from al-Asāsīf. 70 Most of the reused tombs in al-Khūkha are slightly orientated towards the processional road of Hatshepsut and within the whole Theban necropolis, they are located fairly close to the processional road and al-Asāsīf. The last two principal areas where Graeco-Roman material was found are Dayr al-Madīna (8) 71 and the Valley of the Queens (10), although the latter mostly contained material from the Roman Period. 72 Furthermore, in the Valley of the Eagle, more specifically in the Bab al-Mu‛allaq (9), material ranging from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period was found. According to Strudwick, the Valley of the Eagle can be seen as an extension of Dayr al-Madīna. 73
In addition, other places in the Theban necropolis contained Graeco-Roman material as well, but here it concerns a different type of tomb use, as these were not reused tombs but newly built ones. The only main site in the necropolis where new tombs were built in this period is Madīnat Habū (11). Apart from a few Ptolemaic tombs, 200 domed mudbrick tombs were built in the third and fourth centuries AD. Since these tombs are of a much later date and concern a different type of tomb use, they are not considered significant for this research. 74 Strudwick also indicates that ‘the layout of this cemetery seems very different to that in the Assasif’. 75 In the south of Thebes, in the temple of Dayr al-Šalwīṭ (second century AD), a Roman cemetery was built. But again, there is no reuse of older tombs. 76 Lastly, no Graeco-Roman material was found in the Ramesseum area 77 nor the Mansion of Millions of Years of Thutmose III. 78
The Beautiful Festival of the Valley possibly came to an end when Ptolemy Soter II destroyed Thebes in 88 BC or perhaps during the attack by the prefect Cornelius Gallus in 29 BC. In addition, the priestly office of the choachytes would have disappeared completely in the wake of this invasion. The social position of these Theban priests had already deteriorated in the first century BC because of the attacks on Thebes by Ptolemy IX to suppress the insurrection within the city. 79 However, the demise of the function seems to coincide with the likely end of the Valley Festival, although it is not clear when exactly that happened.
Synthesis
In most cases, there are few correlations between archaeological and papyrological sources for the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. Thanks to textual sources, we know that the Theban choachytes played a role in the Valley Festival and that they were responsible for the libations. The archaeological material, however, is not specific enough to determine which parts of the libations were linked to the daily cult of the dead and which parts were associated with the festivals celebrated in the Theban necropolis. The Graeco-Roman finds distribution is not scattered throughout the entire necropolis, but is mainly located near the Karnak–Dayr al-Baḥrī axis. The people undoubtedly selected their tombs to be concentrated in the vicinity of the processional roads. In other words, they preferred to reuse the tombs that were orientated towards Dayr al-Baḥrī. These selections could also have been made because of the shrine of Amenhotep was located inside this temple, as Strudwick suggested several years ago. 80 Nevertheless, tombs with an orientation towards Karnak were reused as well (TT 11, 12, and 414). As early as the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties the western tombs in al-Asāsīf were orientated towards Hill 104, which was the result of cutting out Hatshepsut’s road. In contrast, tombs from where visual contact with this point was impossible are orientated towards Karnak. As these tombs were also reused in the Graeco-Roman Period, this constitutes additional evidence for the assumption that it was thus primarily the Valley Festival that played an important role in Theban religion rather than other aspects of theology, because of the Karnak–Dayr al-Baḥrī axis. Moreover, as other types of situlae were used in Madīnat Habū as in al-Asāsīf, this implies that the Decadal and Valley Festival continued to exist separately.
Another interesting question addresses whether the procession included stops, as was the case in the New Kingdom. According to Bataille and Wilkinson, the temples of Amenophis III and Seti I were processional stops until the Roman Period, 81 even though the term ‘Mansion of Millions of Years’ was no longer used to designate them in this period. 82 As was pointed out in this article, the Karnak–Dayr al-Baḥrī axis remained the main axis of the Valley Festival during the Graeco-Roman Period, but it cannot be ruled out that Amun made other stops during this period. Tombs like TT 11 and 12 were reused for their orientation towards Karnak, but possibly also for their proximity to the temple of Seti I. According to Montserrat and Meskell, a stop was made in Dayr al-Madīna. 83 However, this is very difficult to substantiate, especially since the reuse here is generally of a later date than in the rest of the necropolis. The last remaining question concerns the starting point of the procession inside Karnak, potentially the central sanctuary of Philip Arrhidaeus, but there is no conclusive evidence to confirm this.
Conclusion
The Beautiful Festival of the Valley was still considered to be of importance during the Graeco-Roman Period according to P. Survey 48. The choachytes, priests-undertakers, walked at the front of the procession during ‘the annual crossing of Amun towards Memnoneia’. As to the exact form of the Valley Festival, so far only speculations had been made and it was generally accepted that the festival merged with the Decadal Festival; however, this paper has demonstrated that both festivals continued to exist separately. The papyrological sources used in this research describe investments in new anchors for the bark and the most important delegates still going to Thebes for the annual crossing or διάβασις. Archaeological sources provide less specific information about the festival than the ones from older Egyptian periods, but when all archaeological material was plotted using GIS, it became clear that al-Asāsīf was still important and that the Karnak–Dayr al-Baḥrī axis can still be considered as the main axis of the Graeco-Roman HAb nfr n int.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This paper presents some of the conclusions of the Master’s thesis I submitted to the Department of Archaeology of KU Leuven University in September 2019. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Manfred Bietak for his permission to use the maps of the al-Asāsīf necropolis. Furthermore, many thanks to Prof. Dr. Katelijn Vandorpe and Prof. Dr. Harco Willems for reading and commenting on a preliminary version of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1.
2.
Early publications on the New Kingdom Valley Festival are G. Foucart, ‘Etudes thébaines: La belle fête de la vallée’, BIFAO 34 (1930); and S. Schott, Das Schöne Fest vom Wüstentale: Festbräuche einer Totenstadt (AAWLM 11; Wiesbaden, 1952).
3.
During the Decadal Festival, libations were made by choachytes. For Egyptian wAH.w mw, see A. Lajtar, Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: A study of an Egyptian temple based on Greek sources (JJP Supplements 4; Warsaw, 2006), 65. For the amalgamated festival, see C. Traunecker, F. Le Saout, and O. Masson, La chapelle d’Achôris à Karnak (Recherche sur les civilisations Synthèses 5, Mémoires du CFEETK 2; Paris, 1981), I, 134–5.
4.
J. Budka, Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruktur im Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Ergebnisse der österreichischen Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1969 – 1977 (DGÖAW 59 = UZK 34; Vienna, 2010), 39–78, 398–490.
5.
N. Strudwick, ‘Some aspects of the archaeology of the Theban necropolis in the Ptolemaic and Roman Period’, in N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban Necropolis: Past, present and future (London, 2003), 167–88.
6.
K.-J. Seyfried, Bemerkungen und Quellen zum ḥab nfr n jnt, dem “Schönen Fest des Tales” in Theben (GM 13; Göttingen, 2013).
7.
P. Survey 48 = P. W. Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes (Second Century BC): A survey of the Demotic and Greek papyri contained in the archive (StudDem 2; Leuven, 1993). This is the only textual source on the Graeco-Roman Valley Festival frequently referred to in the literature.
8.
Studied areas: al-Asāsīf, al-Shaykh ‛Abd al-Qurna, Qurnet Murā‛ī, al-Khūkha, Dirā‛ Abū al-Naj‛, the Valley of the Queens and Dayr al-Madīna.
9.
M. Bietak and E. Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor: Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris (DGÖAW 7 = UZK 5; Wenen, 1982), I.
10.
D. Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der thebanischen Nekropole (DGÖAW 8 = UZK 6;Vienna, 1984), I.
11.
F. Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole: Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie (Theben 13; Mainz, 1996), I–II.
12.
D. Polz and U. Rummel, ‘Topographical archaeology in Dra’ Abu el-Naga: Three thousand years of cultural history’, MDAIK 68 (2012), 123–7; U. Rummel, ‘Gräber, Feste, Prozessionen: Der Ritualraum Theben-West in der Ramessidenzeit’, in K. Gabler, G. Neunert, and A. Verbovsek (eds), Nekropolen: Grab -Bild – Ritual (GOF 54; Wiesbaden, 2013), 210; H. Willems, ‘Dayr al-Barsha and Dayr al-Bahri: Two ritual landscapes in the time of Mentuhotep II’, in C. Geisen (ed.), Ritual Landscape and Performance: Proceedings of the international conference on ritual landscape and performance, Yale University, September 23-24, 2016 (YES 13; New Haven, 2020), 25–45; U. Rummel, ‘Landscape, tombs, and sanctuaries: the interaction of monuments and topography in Western Thebes’, in C. Geisen (ed.), Ritual Landscape and Performance: Proceedings of the international conference on ritual landscape and performance, Yale University, September 23-24, 2016 (YES 13; New Haven, 2020), 89–119.
13.
W. H. J. Toonen, A. Graham, B. T. Pennington, M. A. Hunter, K. D. Strutt, D. S. Barker, A. Masson-Berghoff, and V. L. Emery, ‘Holocene fluvial history of the Nile’s west bank at ancient Thebes, Luxor, Egypt, and its relation with cultural dynamics and basin-wide hydroclimatic variability’, Geoarchaeology 33 (2018), 274, 285; W. H. J. Toonen, A. Graham, A. Masson-Berghoff, J. Peeters, T. G. Winkels, B. T. Pennington, M. A. Hunter, K. D. Strutt, D. S. Barker, V. L. Emery, L. Sollars, and H. Sourouzian, ‘Amenhotep III’s mansion of millions of years in Thebes (Luxor, Egypt): Submergence of high ground by river floods and Nile sediments’, JAS Reports 25 (2019), 8.
14.
In the Graeco-Roman Period the festival was still held in the month of Pauni, see P. Survey 48, VIII, 17–18 (117 BC); UPZ II, 202, 203 (130 BC). By the second half of the Graeco-Roman Period, the month of Pauni fell in June, just before the annual flood.
16.
According to Traunecker the ‘western Dsr-st of the Horizon’ is mentioned on the chapel of Achoris. He argues that this refers to the temple of Thutmose III in Dayr al-Baḥrī, to which the Valley Festival was orientated. The chapel also mentions the Xnm.t-anx.t, which mainly refers to the Ogdoad, and therefore to Djeme, towards which the Decadal Festival was orientated, see Traunecker, et al., La chapelle d’Achôris à Karnak, I, 96–7.
18.
M. Bommas, ‘Situlae and the offering of water in the divine funerary cult: A new approach to the ritual of Djeme’, in A. Amenta, M. Luiselli, and M. N. Sordi (eds), L’acqua nell’ antico Egitto: Proceedings of the First International Conference for Young Egyptologists, 15th-18th of October 2003 in Chianciano Terme (Rome, 2005), 261–71.
19.
Some bronze situlae, like BM EA 38212 and BM EA 38214, possibly came from the al-Asāsīf necropolis, and TT 414 (Anch-Hor) has even been proposed as find spot for BM EA 38212. However, both situlae only contain images of the deceased and not of the god Amenophis. See J. Budka, ‘The Use of Pottery in funerary contexts during the Libyan and Late Period: A view from Thebes and Abydos’, in L. Bareš, F. Coppens, and K. Smoláriková (eds), Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE: Proceedings of an International Conference Prague, September 1-4, 2009 (Prague, 2010), 41.
20.
Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes, 411–14; K. Vandorpe, ‘City of many a gate, harbour for many a rebel’, in S. P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period (PLB 27; Leiden, 1995), 222–3; L. Uggetti, ‘The God Djeme’, RdE 67 (2016), 157–77.
21.
The northern part of Djeme usually refers to Dayr al-Madīna, while the southern part includes Madīnat Habū. For this reason, the term is exceedingly common in the temple of Dayr al-Madīna (see TLA lemma n. 550363; Thesaurus Linguae Agyptiae <
> accessed 10.12.2019). However, Memnoneia can also indicate the entire Theban necropolis; Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes, 411–14.
22.
iry-aA was originally read as wn-pr, see F. Hoffmann and J. F. Quack, ‘Pastophoros’, in A. M. Dodson, J. J. Johnston, and W. Monkhouse (eds), A Good Scribe and an Exceedingly Wise Man: Studies in honour of W.J. Tait (London, 2014), 127–54.
23.
For these structures, see J. Lauffray, ‘La Tribune du quai de Karnak et sa favissa: Compte rendu des fouilles menées en 1971-1972 (2e campagne)’, KARNAK 5 (1975), 65; M. Boraik, ‘Karnak’s Quaysides: The embankments from the New Kingdom to the Kushito-Saito Period’, in E. Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis: New discoveries and research 2012-2014 (Cairo, 2017), 13–15.
24.
E. Lanciers, ‘The Isis cult in Western Thebes in the Graeco-Roman Period (Part II)’, CdÉ 90 (2015), 394–6.
25.
26.
Eigner, MDAIK 39, 49.
27.
Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, I, 120–2.
28.
The first one is situated in the Central Sanctuary of Philip Arrhidaeus, see G. Legrain, ‘Le logement et transport des barques sacrées et des statues des dieux dans quelques temples égyptiens’, BIFAO 13 (1913), 23–5; W. J. De Jong, Het hart van de Amon-tempel in Karnak: de Ipet-soet (Onderwerpen uit de Egyptologie 5; Amsterdam, 1986), 74, 110; E. Blyth, Karnak: Evolution of a Temple (New York, 2006), 226; Seyfried, Bemerkungen, 99. The second passage can be found in the temple of Mut, see A. Spalinger, ‘A religious calendar year in the Mut Temple at Karnak’, RdÉ 44 (1993), 176: ‘Beer tinted with didi is abundantly poured for her at these occasion(s) of the Valley Feast, it being more precious/ sublime (?) than blood, being the work of the beer goddess (= beer) in order to appease her heart in her anger’; Seyfried, Bemerkungen, 102.
29.
Ptolemaic entrance of the temple of Dayr al-Madīna: P. Du Bourguet and L. Gabolde (ed.), Le temple de Deir al-Médîna (2nd rev. edn, MIFAO 121; Cairo, 2008), 74; Seyfried, Bemerkungen, 102.
30.
Chapel of the throne of Re of Edfu: M. E. A. Ibrahim, The Chapel of the Throne of Re of Edfu (BAe 16; Brussels, 1975), 45–6; E. Chassinat, Le Temple d’Edfou (2nd edn revised by S. Cauville and D. Devauchelle, MIFAO 11; Cairo, 1990), I, 289 n. c–d; D. Klotz, Caesar in the City of Amun: Egyptian temple construction and theology in Roman Thebes (MRE 15; Turnhout, 2012), 389; Seyfried, Bemerkungen, 101.
31.
Both festivals are mentioned on the statue of Ns-xmniw (Cairo JE 37128; second century BC) see K. Jansen-Winkeln, Biographische und religiose Inschriften der Spätzeit aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo Teil 1 Übersetzungen und Kommentare (ÄUAT 45; Wiesbaden, 2001), 114–15; and K. Jansen-Winkeln, Biographische und Religiose Inschriften der Spätzeit aus dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo Teil 2 Texte und Tafeln (ÄUAT 45; Wiesbaden, 2001), 381–2.
32.
Trismegistos Words <https://www.trismegistos.org/words/detail.php?lemma=&morph_type=noun> accessed 15.12.2019.
33.
P. BM EA 10209, 21–2; F. M. H. Haikal, Two Hieratic Funerary Papyri of Nesmin (BAe 15; Brussels, 1972), II, 11–16; M. Smith, Traversing Eternity: Texts for the afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Oxford, 2009), 178–92. Another liturgy in which reference is made to the Valley Festival is P. Leiden T32, see F. R. Herbin, Le livre de parcourir l’éternité (OLA 58; Leuven, 1994), 5–7, 47–72.
34.
Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes.
35.
P. BM EA 10209, 21.
36.
The embalming ritual on P. Bulaq III potentially refers to the festival, although it is not entirely clear whether it contains a general reference to ‘the valley’ as a toponym or an actual reference to the festival itself, see P. Bulaq III, 21: ‘When Amun of Karnak is in the Valley’; S. Sauneron, Rituel de l’embaumement, Pap. Boulaq III, Rap. Louvre 5.158 (Cairo, 1952), 7–8; S. Töpfer, Das Balsamierungsritual. Eine (Neu-) Edition der Textkomposition Balsamierungsritual (Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 13; Wiesbaden, 2015), 3–32. Both BM 10209 and P. Bulaq III could contain copied versions of older texts, but it is rather unlikely that older texts were transcribed without knowing what they meant. Furthermore, classical texts refer to the festival. For Diodoros (1, 97, 9), see Foucart, BIFAO 34, 9; M. Bietak, ‘La belle fête de la vallée: l’Asasif revisité’, in C. Zivie-Coche and I. Guermeur (eds), Parcourir l’éternité, hommages à Jean Yoyotte (Turnhout, 2012), I, 138–9. For Homer (A, 425), see A. Bataille, Les Memnonia : recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie grecques sur la nécropole de la Thèbes d’Egypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine (PIFAO 23; Cairo, 1952), 14, 148. For both passages, see J. Lindsay, Men and Gods on the Roman Nile (London, 1968), 290.
38.
P. Survey 48 in Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes.
39.
P. Survey 61 in Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes.
40.
Rock inscription 17, Wādī al-Hūl: J. C. Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert. 1: Gebel Tjauti rock inscriptions 1-45 and Wadi el-Hôl rock inscriptions 1-45 (OIP 119; Chicago, 2002), 132–3. For the Roman inscriptions in the sanctuary of Amenhotep, son of Hapu, see Lajtar, Deir el-Bahari, 65, 205–7. According to Lajtar these inscriptions are only indirectly connected to the Valley Festival.
41.
R. Bogaert, ‘Un cas de faux en écriture à la Banque Royale thébaine en 131 avant J.-C.’, CdÉ 63 (1988), 149–50.
42.
G. Wagner, ‘Inscriptions grecques du temple de Karnak (I)’, BIFAO 70 (1971), 17–18; F. Perpillou-Thomas, Fêtes d’Egypte ptolémaïque et romaine d’après la documentation papyrologique grecque (StudHell 31; Leuven, 1993), 71; A. Cabrol, Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes (OLA 97; Leuven, 2001), 719–20.
43.
C. Traunecker, ‘Thèbes, été 115 avant J.-C.: les travaux de Ptolémée IX Sôter II et son prétendu Château de l’Or Karnak’, in C. Thiers (ed.), Documents de théologies Thébaines tardives (D3T 2) (CENiM 8; Montpellier, 2013), 218–20; P. W. Pestman, Il processo di Hermias e altri documenti dell’archivio dei Choachiti (P. Tor. Choachiti) (Turin, 1992), xx.
44.
Statue of Ns-xmniw (Cairo JE 37128; second century BC), Jansen-Winkeln, Biographische und Religiose Inschriften, 114–15 and the statue of PA-Sri-tA-isw (Cairo JE 36576; second century BC), Jansen-Winkeln, Biographische und Religiose Inschriften, 145–6, 393–9.
45.
S. P. Vleeming, ‘The office of a choachytes in the Theban area’, in S. P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period (PLB 27; Leiden, 1995), 151; Budka, Bestattungsbrauchtum, 190.
46.
E. Graefe, ‘Untersuchungen des Montuhotep-Aufweges im Bereich der belgischen Konzession vor dem Pylon des Grabes Nr. 196’, MDAIK 36 (1980), 175; Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor, I, 26–31; Eigner, MDAIK 39, 32–3, 95–113.
47.
Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor, I, 30–1; Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, I, 120–2.
48.
Esri. ‘Imagery’. Scale: 1:3000. ‘World Imagery Map’. 02.10.2019. <http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9> accessed 07.04.2020. The map that was georeferenced on Esri’s World Imagery Map came from Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor, I, .
49.
The tombs of Ibi (TT 36) and Basa (TT 389) were reused, while in the tomb of Montemhat (TT 34) no Graeco-Roman material was found. For this research, the possible connection between the tombs that contain Valley Festival images from the New Kingdom and the reuse of these tombs in the Graeco-Roman Period was explored, but there appears to be no connection. Only six (TT 36, 41, 52, 79, 253, 389) out of 60 tombs that contain such images were reused (10%). For a list of images from the Valley Festival see Schott, Das Schöne Fest.
50.
For Padihorresnet, see PM I/I, 302; Graefe, MDAIK 36, 175; E. Graefe, ‘A mummy portrait of Antinous from Thebes’, in M. L. Bierbrier (ed.), Portraits and Masks: Burial customs in Roman Egypt (London, 1997), 54. For Psamtek and Mutirdis, see D. Arnold, ‘Fünfter Vorbericht über die vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo im Qurna unternommenen Arbeiten’, MDAIK 26 (1970), 4–7; Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 174; PM I/I, 613. For Esbanebded and Bakenamun, see Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, I, 480, 485; PM I/I, 287, 301. For Harwa see PM I/I, 68–9; F. Tiradritti, ‘Archaeological activities of the museum of Milan in the tomb of Harwa (TT 37) and Akhimenru (TT 404) October-December 2001’, ASAE 79 (2005), 170–3.
51.
According to Bietak, the access pylons of these tombs had stairs, so that the visitors on the roof of the pylons could see the Valley Festival procession appear from behind Hill 104; see Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor, I, 31–2.
52.
Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 183.
53.
Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor, I, 146–51; J. Budka, ‘Totenkult im Tempelgrab, Zu rituellen Handlungen in Elitegräbern des 1. Jahrtausends v.Chr. in Theben’, in G. Thür (ed.), Grabrituale: Tod und Jenseits in Frühgeschichte und Altertum (Schriften des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften 3, ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften 467; Vienna, 2014), 43–5; A. Morales, S. Falk, M. Osman, R. Sánchez Casado, H. Shared, K. Yamamoto, and E. H. Zidan, ‘The Middle Kingdom Theban Project: Preliminary report on the Freie Universität Mission to Deir el-Bahari, First and Second Seasons (2015-2016)’, SAK 45 (2016), 277.
54.
Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, I, 489 and II, 604; PM I/I, 324, 441–2; E. Pischikova, F. Y. Abd el Karim, R. Ahmed Ali, and E. El Din Kamal El Noby, ‘Tombs of Karakhamun and Karabasken, 2012-14: Fieldwork’, in E. Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis, New Discoveries and Research 2012-14 (Cairo, 2017), 28. Both tombs have entrances orientated towards the east, most likely towards a connection between al-Asāsīf and Madīnat Habū. See also Budka, Bestattungsbrauchtum, 62–3 and Eigner, MDAIK 39, 40–1. Although, a possible connection with the Karnak temple cannot be excluded completely, see E. Pischikova, ‘The History of the South Asasif Necropolis and its Exploration’, in E. Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis, Thebes: Karakhamun (TT223), and Karabasken (TT 391) in the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (Cairo, 2014), 37.
55.
All of these tombs were published in Budka, Bestattungsbrauchtum, 493–662.
56.
Budka, in Bareš, et al. (eds), Egypt in Transition, 41.
57.
TT 37, 196 and 414 in al-Asāsīf; TT 223 and 391 in al-Asāsīf South.
58.
Lichthof is the usual term for this specific location inside an al-Asāsīf tomb, see Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten, I, 116–23. I will use the term ‘open courtyard’ instead, see Pischikova, in Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis, 26–8.
59.
Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des Anch-Hor, I, 146–51.
60.
Budka, Bestattungsbrauchtum, 482; Budka, in Bareš, et al. (eds), Egypt in Transition, 38–41.
61.
Budka, in Thür (ed.), Grabrituale, 44–5.
62.
Budka, in Thür (ed.), Grabrituale, 42–3.
64.
TT 380: Ankhefenrahorakhty, see Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, II, 601 and PM I/I, 435. This is one of the rare tombs that had been altered architecturally during the Ptolemaic Period.
65.
Tombs of Nebwenenef and Pennesuttawy, see Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, I, 443–5; PM I/I, 266; Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 172; Tombs of Djehuty, Heray and Bakenkhonsu, see Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, I, 192, 428 and II, 573; PM I/I, 24–5, 609; Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 172. Potentially, many more tombs were reused during the Graeco-Roman Period in the central part of Dirā‛ Abū al-Naj‛, as the listed tombs are derived from the current state of publication and accessible data.
66.
TT 41, 52, 79, 99, 361 and 376. In general, see Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 175–6; for TT 41 see J. Assmann, Das Grab des Amenemope (TT 41) (Theben 3; Mainz, 1991), 17, 244; for TT 52 see D. Laboury, ‘Une relecture de la tombe de Nakht’, in R. Tefnin (ed.), La Peinture égyptienne ancienne: Un monde de signes à préserver. Actes de Colloque International de Bruxelles, avril 1994 (MonAeg 7; Brussels, 1997), 64; for TT 99, see H. Navrátilová, ‘Sennefer’, in J. Mynářová and P. Onderka (eds), Thebes: City of Gods and Pharaohs (Prague, 2007), 129–31.
67.
TT 32, 43, 51, 178, 183, 253 and -400-. In general, see Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 175–6; G. Schreiber, Z. Vasáros, and A. Almásy, ‘Ptolemaic and Roman burials from Theban Tomb -400-’, MDAIK 69 (2013), 187–226. For TT 32, see L. Kákosy and V. Gyózó, ‘The unique Tomb of Djehutymes at Thebes’, EA 8 (1996), 34–6. See also N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick, The Tombs of Amenhotep, Khnummose and Amenmose at Thebes (Nos. 294, 253 and 254) (Griffith Institute Monographs; Oxford; 1996), I–II, 141–3, 159.
68.
Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, II, 443–5, Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 172; M. Galán, ‘The tombs of Djehuty and Hery (TT 11-12) at Dra Abu el-Naga’, in J.-Cl. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists (OLA 150; Leuven, 2007), 782.
69.
Pestman, The Archive of the Theban Choachytes, 451.
70.
Schreiber, et al., MDAIK 69, 187–226.
71.
TT 214, TT 216, TT 217, 1006, 1059, 1141, 1142, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1196, 1215, 1332, 1407, 1447, 1450, 2001, 2003 and 2005. See the reports of Bruyère about the excavations at Dayr al-Madīna: B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1927) (FIFAO 5:2; Cairo, 1928); B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1928) (FIFAO 6:2; Cairo, 1929); B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1929) (FIFAO 7:2; Cairo, 1930); B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1933-1934) (FIFAO 14; Cairo, 1937); B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1948-1951) (FIFAO 26; Cairo, 1953); B. Bruyère and A. Bataille, ‘Une tombe gréco-romaine de Deir el Médineh’, BIFAO 36 (1936), 145–174; see also G. Nagel, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1928) (FIFAO 6:3; Cairo, 1929), 18; D. Montserrat and L. Meskell, ‘Mortuary Archaeology and Religious Landscape at Graeco-Roman Deir el-Medina’, JEA 83 (1997), 179–97; Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 176–8.
72.
QV 9–13, 33, 51, 53, 58, 73–5 and 78, G. Lecuyot, ‘Les tombs VdR 9 à 13 de la vallée des reines’, Memnoneia 3 (1992), 89–129; A. Macke, C. Macke-Ribet, and J. Connan, Ta Set Neferou, une nécropole de Thèbes-ouest et son histoire V: Momification. Chimie des baumes. Anthropologie. Paléopathologie (Cairo, 2002), 63.
73.
L. Gabolde, H. I. Amer, P. Ballet, M. Chauveau, P.-H. Laferrière, and D. Le Fur, ‘Le “Tombeau Suspendu” de la “Vallée de l’Aigle”. [Annexe - Analyse d’un fragment de tissu doré du grand linceul (no 21)]’, BIFAO 94 (1994), 231–3; Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 178.
74.
U. Hölscher, Post Ramessid Remains: The excavation of Madinat Habu Volume V (OIP 66; Chicago, 1954), 42–4.
75.
Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 178.
76.
Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 179.
77.
‘Rien ne permet d’affirmer qu’il y ait eu une occupation gréco-romaine ou copte en ces lieux’, see M. Nelson, A. M. Loyrette, and G. Lecuyot, ‘Dégagement du secteur K situé à l’extérieur de la clôture des annexes ouest du Ramesseum’, ASAE 68 (1982), 25.
78.
Some tombs could have been used in the Late Period and perhaps even in the Ptolemaic Period; B. Bader and M. Seco Álvarez, ‘Results of five years of pottery analysis in the Temple of Millions of Years of Thutmosis III in Western Thebes (2011-2015)’, ÄUL 26 (2016), 157: ‘The topsoil from 910-North 4-L1 and 910-North 3-L1 were heterogeneous and contained pottery from possibly the Ptolemaic Period’. However, this information is not specific enough to plot tombs that only ‘perhaps’ contained Graeco-Roman pottery in GIS.
79.
Traunecker, et al., La chapelle d’Achôris à Karnak, I, 134; A. Winkler, ‘On the Longevity of the χοαχύται in Thebes and Elsewhere’, JAC 29 (2014), 55; A. Monson, From the Ptolemies to the Romans: Political and economic change in Egypt (Cambridge, 2012), 259.
80.
Strudwick, in Strudwick, et al. (eds), The Theban Necropolis, 183.
81.
Bataille, Les Memnonia, 89; R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (London, 2000), 174.
82.
M. Ullmann, König für die Ewigkeit, Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren, Eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten (ÄUAT 51; 2002, Wiesbaden), 675–6.
83.
Montserrat and Meskell, JEA 83, 194–5.