Horwennefer / Ankhwennefer
Horwennefer1, king of Egypt in Upper Egypt, date of birth unknown, parentage unknown2, took the throne in Thebes between 1 Thoth = 13 October and 29 Thoth = 10 November year 18 of Ptolemy IV = 2053, probably changed nomen4 between 1 Payni year 6 = 9 July 199 and 30 Thoth year 7 = 10 November 1995, to Ankhwennefer6, lost Thebes to the forces of Ptolemy V in Phaophi year 7 = 11 November - 10 December 199 or Hathyr year 7 = 10 December 199 - 8 January 1987, driven out of the Thebaid between Epeiph year 14 = 6 August - 4 September 191 and Mesore year 15 = 5 September - 4 October 1908, finally defeated on the southern edge of the Thebaid and captured by Comanos 23 Epeiph year 19 of Ptolemy V = 27 August 1869, brought before Ptolemy V in chains and subsequently executed shortly after 3 Mesore year 19 = 6 September 18610.
Horwennefer/Ankhwennefer's titles as king of Egypt were11:
Two Ladies <unknown>
Golden Horus <unknown>
Throne Name <unknown>
Son of Re (1) @r-wn-nfr mr-Js.t mr-Jmn-Ra-nsw-ntr.w pA ntr aA12
(2) anx-wn-nfr mr-Js.t mr-Jmn-Ra-nsw-ntr.w pA ntr aA13
No wives are known for him. He had at least one son14
 Not in PP. The name was rendered in Egyptian but in Greek letters during his reign as "Ur Gonafor" or "Ur Gonnafor" = "Hyrgonaphor" (graffito pRecueil 11). Until 1977 the demotic name of this king was usually read as "Hormakht" ("Harmachis") or occasionally "Horemhab" ("Harmais"). The correct reading of "Horwennefer" (or "Harwennefer") was established by F. de Cenival, Enchoria 7 (1977) 1, 10f. n. 4.1 by comparison of several examples of the writing of the name from a variety of demotic sources. Its equivalence to "Hyrgonaphor" was then established by K.-T. Zauzich, GM 29 (1978) 157, who noted that the naming protocol of graffito pRecueil 11 corresponded exactly to the demotic naming protocol for Horwennefer. "Horwennefer" is rendered in Greek form by modern scholars as "Haronnophris" (Gr: AronnwfriV; P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 125), though Pestman also notes that the form "Ur Gonafor" suggests that it was understood as two separate words and would therefore be better rendered in Greek as "Horos-Onnophris". Pestman states that Horwennefer assumed his name when he was crowned (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 107 n. 24), but adduces no evidence for this, although there is nothing implausible about, especially since it appears he later changed his name.
The name is most frequently represented as "Haronnophris" in recent literature. The reasons I have chosen the "Egyptological" form are discussed here. Ý
 E. A. E. Reymond, Or 46 (1977) 1, 9, identified Horwennefer (then still known as "Harmachis") with his contemporary Harmachis, High Priest of Ptah at Memphis. This romantic proposal has been roundly rejected and is certainly wrong. J. D. Ray, JEA 66 (1980) 170 noted that K.-T. Zauzich, GM 29 (1978) 157 had established that the names were certainly different. Also, a demotic inscription, no longer legible, on BM 391, Harmachis' funerary stele, was argued by Reymond to have been erased in ancient times in revenge for his rebellion, but Ray noted that it had been transcribed in the 19th century by J. Gardner Wilkinson. J. Quaegebeur in D. J. Crawford et al. Studies in Ptolemaic Memphis 47, 67 (16) n. 3 also noted that Horwennefer apparently had no ties with Lower Egypt, in particular he was called "beloved by Isis and Amonrasonther" but not by Ptah.
He also noted that he had previously established (J. Quaegebeur, JNES 30 (1971) 239, 249ff.) that Harmachis must have died after 194, the date of the wedding of Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I, since he is called on his sarcophagus (Leiden AMT 3) inter alia a priest of the Theoi Epiphaneis, whereas Horwennefer disappeared in 199. Quaegebeur naturally assumed that that was Horwennefer's death date; it now seems likely that he merely changed names. Either way, however, he can't be identified with Harmachis. Ý
 Stele dem. Cairo 38.258, found at Karnak, dated 29 Thoth Year 1 of Horwennefer. For the correlation of this stele to the reign of Ptolemy IV see P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 112ff. texts (e), (g), (h), (i), (s), (v), (gg), (ll), (pp) and (tt), and discussion 128ff.
Bounds for the Theban rebellion are set by inscriptions Edfu IV.8.1-7 and Edfu VII.7.5-7.4 (document e), which state that the gates of the temple were prepared for the hanging of the doors in year 16 of Ptolemy IV = 207/6 but that the rebellion broke out before they were hung and that it lasted until year 19 of Ptolemy V = 187/6.
The date of the loss of Thebes as year 18 of Ptolemy IV = year 1 of Ptolemy V = 205/4 is established by pChoachiti 12 = UPZ 1.162, dated to 22 Hathyr year 54 of Ptolemy VIII = 11 December 117 (document g). This is the record of a court case brought by a certain Hermias related to events stated to have occurred 88 years earlier = 205/4, when Hermias' father went from Thebes to the south during the rebellion which took place in the reign of Ptolemy V, i.e. it implies that Thebes was under Ptolemaic control at the start of 205/4. Since Horwennefer is called "beloved of Amunrasonther" in stele dem. Cairo 38.258 (document h) we know he was crowned at Thebes.
His dates are established relative to those of Ankhwennefer, whose invasion from the south was finally defeated on 23 Epeiph year 19 of Ptolemy V = 27 August 186 (inscription Philensis II -- document tt). Ankhwennefer is attested in Upper Egypt from Thoth (= 12 October - 10 November) year 7 (pdem Berlin Kaufv. 3146 -- document v) to Epeiph (= 6 August - 4 September) year 14 (pdem Ehev. 29 = pdem Marseilles 296 -- document gg, corrected from Hathyr (= the previous 9 December - 7 January) as had previously been read), while Ptolemy V is attested in Upper Egypt in former rebel territory from his year 15 = 191/190 (pdem Louvre 9415 -- document ll), and definitely in control of the Thebaid in mid year 18 = 188/7 (texts SB 6.9367, covering the period 24 Pharmouthi = 30 May to 22 Epeiph = 26 August 187 -- document pp).
Horwennefer is attested up to year 6 (pdem Berlin Kaufv. 3142+3144 -- document s), in which the land later sold in pdem Berlin Kaufv. 3146 was first purchased. This pair of transactions firmly establishes Horwennefer as a predecessor of Ankhwennefer, and that year 6 of Horwennefer was definitely before year 7 of Ankhwennefer.
Comparing the dates of SB 6.9367 (30 May to 26 August 187 -- document pp) to pdem Ehev. 29 (6 August - 4 September year 14 -- document gg), year 14 of Ankhwennefer must be in or before year 17 of Ptolemy V = 189/8 (in fact it is now equated to 192/1). Since Horwennefer's years go as high as year 6, we would normally assume Ankhwennefer year 1 = Horwennefer year 6 or later. But if Ankhwennefer year 14 = year 17 of Ptolemy V or earlier, then Horwennefer year 1 = year 16 of Ptolemy IV or earlier, which is excluded by the Edfu data.
In short, we have to reconcile the maximum of 18 years in which the Ptolemies lost control of Upper Egypt with the highest recorded year numbers of 6 and 14 for the rebel kings. Pestman proposed that to do this it is necessary to assume year 7 of Ankhwennefer follows directly on from year 6 of Horwennefer, and it is hard to see an alternative. The significance of this unusual system is discussed below. It follows that Year 1 of Horwennefer = 205/4, and, from stele dem. Cairo 38.258 (document h), that Ptolemaic control of Thebes was lost between 1 Thoth and 29 Thoth of that year.
On the possible impact of high inflation and Ptolemaic demonetarisation policy as stimuli for the rebellion, see C. C. Lorber, AJN 12 (2000) 67. Ý
 Until very recently it was naturally assumed that Horewennefer and Ankhwennefer were two dfferent kings. W. Clarysse, CdE 53 (1978) 243, 252f., plausibly suggests that Horwennefer's names were chosen for their political significance, to signal the revival of a native kingship by recalling the resurrection of the god-king Osiris by his son Horus, which implies that these are not the birthnames of the two kings. The same remark applies to Ankhwennefer.
However, if the chronology of the period has been correctly established -- and it depends critically on the reading of the date in pdem Ehev. 29 = pdem Marseilles 296 as Epeiph of year 14 rather than Hathyr of year 14 -- then it appears that Ankhwennefer continued using Horwennefer's regnal years, succeeding in year 6 or 7 rather than his own year 1.
This is an extremely unusual action, and its significance is not immediately obvious. There are a few suggested or known precedents for this behaviour in Egyptian history.
It could represent repudiation of some policy of Horwennefer's and a rejection of him as a legitimate pharaoh by his successor. It has been argued that Horemhab of the 18th dynasty took over the regnal years of some of his Amarnan predecessors in this fashion. If this is so for Ankhwennefer, then it is possible that he was actually unrelated to Horwennefer, and had taken power, for example, in a revolutionary coup.
- Another possibility is that Ankhwennefer was Horwennefer's wife, who began to rule as a regent and only later took the throne, continuing his regnal years. The best-known example of this behaviour is again from the 18th dynasty: Hatshepsut, who used the regnal years of Thutmosis III. However, if Ankhwennefer had been female the fact would surely have been noted in Philensis II.
- Two more recent examples of a male ruler annexing years of their predecessor are Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II. However, it seems unlikely that a revivalist regime such as Horwennefer's would have followed Greek precedent in such matters. It is notable that Ptolemy I's Egyptian regnal years did not follow this pattern.
The simplest and, in my view, the most likely explanation is that Horwennefer changed his name to Ankhwennefer. A well-known precedent for such a name change, that also did not affect regnal years, is the adoption of Atenist names and titles by Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten.
The possibility of a name change was noted by M. Chauveau, and explored by A.-E. Veïsse, Les «révolutions égyptiennes» 37f. at his suggestion. In addition to the unusual chronological pattern, and the similarity of the names, she observes that the decree Philensis II, which was issued to mark the end of the rebellion, not only does not mention Horwennefer but describes Ankhwennefer (as "Kher-wennefer", a stigmatisation) as "the enemy of the gods who had begun the revolt in Egypt"; moreover (not discussed by Veïsse), the papyrus SB 24.15972 describes the revolt as "the revolt of Chaonnophris".
In light of this data, I have accepted the suggestion, though it is certainly possible that some other explanation may be found. It should be noted that in the final published version of her thesis (A.-E. Veïsse, Les «révoltes égyptiennes») Veïsse no longer mentions this idea, because she did not regard the evidence as being sufficiently strong to require this solution (pers. comm. 16 October 2005). The caveat being duly noted, in my view the idea of a change of names remains the most reasonable explanation of the peculiar regnal dating dating system of the rebels. Ý
 Last dated text of Horwennefer: pdem Berlin Kaufv. 3142+3144, dated Payni year 6 = 9 July - 7 August 199, concerning the purchase of some land. First dated text of Ankhwennefer: pdem Berlin Kaufv. 3146, dated Thoth year 7 = 12 October - 10 November 199, concerning the sale of the same piece of land. See discussion above on the chronology of Horwennefer. If Horwennefer did change his nomen to Ankhwennefer, it seems a good guess that this took effect on 1 Thoth year 7 = 12 October 199. Ý
 Not in PP. Until 1977 the name of this king was usually read as "Ankhemakht" ("Ankhmachis") or occasionally "Ankhemhab" ("Chamais"). The correct reading of "Ankhwennefer" was established by F. de Cenival, Enchoria 7 (1977) 1, 10f. n. 4.1; K.-T. Zauzich, GM 29 (1978) 157, noted that the name "Ankhemakht" was otherwise unknown. "Ankhwennefer" is rendered in Greek as "CaonnwfriV" ("Chaonnophris"), and W. Clarysse, CdE 53 (1978) 245 noted that a pDublin ined. from Lycopolis contained a reference to the "revolt of Chaonnophris", which confirms the reading. (This papyrus, TCDpGr 274 = SB 24.15972, is translated in B. McGing, AfP 43 (1997) 271, 299ff.). Pestman states that Ankhwennefer assumed his name when he was crowned (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 107 n. 24), but adduces no evidence for this.
The name is most frequently represented as "Chaonnophris" in recent literature. The reasons I have chosen the "Egyptological" form are discussed here. Ý
 Last Theban document dated by Ankhwennefer (Phaophi year 14): pdem BM Andrews 19 (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 114 (w)). First Theban document dated by Ptolemy V (Hathyr year 14): pdemSchriebertr. 26 (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 114 (x)). See discussion on the chronology of Horwennefer for the synchronisation between the year numbers of Ankhwennefer and Ptolemy V. Ý
 Last extra-Theban document dated by Ankhwennefer (Epeiph year 14, corrected from Hathyr as had previously been read): pdem Ehev. 29 = pdem Marseilles 296 (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 116 (gg), 128). First document dated by Ptolemy V demonstrating control of the chora (Mesore year 15): pdem Louvre 9415 (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 118 (ll)). See discussion on the chronology of Horwennefer for the synchronisation between the year numbers of Ankhwennefer and Ptolemy V. Ý
 Inscription Philensis II (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 119f. (tt)). Ý
 The date of the synod recorded in inscription Philensis II (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 119f. (tt)); G. Hölbl, History of the Ptolemaic Empire 156, states that he was imprisoned, but the text is clear that hewas executed. Ý
 See P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 125ff. Graffito pRecueil 11 calls Horwennefer "beloved of Isis and Osiris" -- mr-Js.t jrm Wsjr. J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (2nd edition) 246 (a) gives only @r-wn-nfr for Horwennefer and 246 (b) gives only anx-wn-nfr for Ankhwennefer. Ý
 "Horwennefer beloved of Isis and Amen-Re king of the Gods, the great God". E.g. pdem Berlin Kaufv. 3142+3144. Ý
 "Ankhwennefer beloved of Isis and Amen-Re king of the Gods, the great God". E.g. pdem Ehev. 29 = pdem Marseilles 296. Ý
 Inscription Philensis II (P. W. Pestman in S. P. Vleeming (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes, 101, 119f. (tt)). Ý
1 March 2002: Split into separate entry
28 Dec 2002: Cross linked to Horemakhet HPM
22 Dec 2003: Reformatted chronological analysis; added notes from Veïsse's PhD thesis.
22 Feb. 2004: Combined Horwennefer / Ankhwennefer into a single entry, since I think Chauveau & Veïsse are probably right.
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription
3 Sep 2005: Added notice of Lorber paper on numismatic evidence for the causes of the rebellion -- thanks to Catharine Lorber for sending me a copy
2 Oct. 2005: Add links to translated sources in Clarysse's online lecture notes
2/16 Oct 2005: Note Veïsse's removal of identity proposal (which I still think is likely to be right)
20 Feb 2006: Correct blunder on fictitious pardon.
9 Dec 2010: Fix boken DDbDP links
Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved.