[HOME]

Paibast-Heresankh(?)

 

Paibast-heresankh(?)1, probably great wife of Ptah2, daughter of Psherenamun I3 by Taneferher4, born c. year 3 or 4 of Cleopatra VII = 50/49 or 49/85, installed as great wife of Ptah in year 9 of Cleopatra VII = 44/36, later chronology and career unknown.

[1] Not in PP. Named in stele BM 184, but the reading is unclear. J. Quaegebeur overlooked this daughter in compiling the genealogy in D. J. Crawford et al, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis 47. H. Brugsch, as quoted in C. Maystre, Les grands prêtres de Ptah de Memphis 208f, gives the name as ...bast called Ho... [i.e. Her...]. E. A. E. Reymond, From the Records of a Priestly Family from Memphis 228 transliterates the name as PAy-BAst Dd.ty n.s Hr.s.-sanx, and translates it as Paibast called Heres-s'ankh; she then interprets the next sentence as identifying her as the Great Wife of Ptah. D. Devauchelle, CdE 58 (1983) 135, 141 has no coment on this. J. Quaegebeur, Anc. Soc. 3 (1972) 77, 90 transliterates the same passage as <illegible> Dd.t(w).n-s Hr-nfr(?) n rn, and translates it as "she was called Hernefer(?) by name". He suggests that the first part probably carried the name of the eldest daughter. He interprets the following sentence as identifying her mother as the Great Wife of Ptah.

Quaegebeur's suggestion that two daughters were named seems most improbable to me, since the other four daughters are not named. There is no obvious reason why the list should be cut short at two. Reymond's reconstruction of a double-barrelled name avoids this complication, especially since the eldest daughter also becomes the great wife of Ptah, so is clearly named for this reason. Asfor the name itself, the element "Heres-ankh" is closer to other dynastic names than "Hernefer" -- confusion between nfr and anx being a well-known problem. Whether Reymond's reading of the first element of the first name is correct is not possible to judge -- the text is evidently obscure. Ý

[2] Stele BM 184. J. Quaegebeur, Anc. Soc. 3 (1972) 77, 91 thinks it is most unlikely that the daughter rather than the mother is being named as great wife of Ptah, but that is the most sensible intepretation of the text. In Quaegebeur's view, the sequence is: "She bore 6 daughters, including <name lost> and Hernefer. She was made great wife of Ptah in year 9. She also bore him a son Psherenamun II." E. A. E. Reymond, From the Records of a Priestly Family from Memphis 229f gives instead the following sequence: "She bore 6 daughters, including Paibast-Heresankh, who was made great wife of Ptah in year 9. She also bore him a son Psherenamun II." This is a much more coherent and logical sequence of statements.

The reason for Quaegebeur's scepticism is evidently due to the fact that Taneferher's daughter was at most 5 or 6 years old in year 9. But I do not see the problem. Her cousin Imhotep-Pedubast was undoubtedly installed as High Priest of Memphis at the age of 7. Ý

[3] Stele BM 184. Ý

[4] Stele BM 184. Ý

[5] Inferred from her installation as great wife of Ptah in year 9. Presumably she was old enough to take part in the necessary ceremonies. Ý

[6] Stele BM 184; see discussion above. The date is not explicitly attached to a ruler, but is assigned to Cleopatra VII rather than Augustus because BM 184 is the funerary stele of Taneferher, who buried in year 7 of Augustus. Ý

Update Notes:

4 April 2002: Created page

Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved