[HOME]

Nefer(ibre?)

 

Nefer(ibre?)1, god's father, prophet, master of the secrets of the temple of Ptah of Rosetau, of the Serapeum, of the Osireion of Rutiset, and of the Anubeion2, father of Anemhor I3, here probably identified with4 Neferibre5, god's father, sm-priest, prophet of Ptah, master of the secrets of the temple of Ptah of Rosetau6, son of Neferibre and Herankh7, father8 probably by Herib9 of Psamtekmen, Peteharendjatef, Anemhor and Neferibre10.

[1] PP IX 5646a, incorrectly equated with PP IX 5647. Name given by E. A. E. Reymond, Or 47 (1977) 1, 6 as Maatre-nefer (Gr. Marresnuphe), citing stele BM 379. J. Quaegebeur in D. J. Crawford et al, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis 47, 65 notes that Reymond's citation to BM 379 is in error. E. A. E. Reymond, From the Records of a Priestly Family from Memphis 59 no 1 gives the name as Maatre-naneferhor (Gr. Marres-nanufeho), citing statue Alexandria 27806 and stele Vienna 82, however her translation of Alexandria 27806 (p115) gives the name as (Gr.) "Nufeho" (Neferhor), and her notes on Vienna 82 (p128) indicates that only traces of "Naneferhor" are visible. Neither justifies the element "Maatre". The possibility that "Maatre" is a misreading of "Maat-kheru" -- true of voice = deceased can be dismissed since she gives Vienna 82 as reading "Maatre-naneferhor <maat-kheru>". Since this element of the name has no apparent justification, I regard it as an error by Reymond.

Quaegebeur has no commentary on the father of Anemhor. D. Devauchelle, CdE 58 (1984) 135, 139 (l. 19), comments that the reading on stele Vienna 82 for the father of Anemhor is in a lacuna, and that only Nanefer... can possibly be read.

H. S. K. Bakry, MDAIK 28 (1972) 75 reads statue Alexandria 27806, of which only the torso survives, as naming a Pedubast HPM [son of name lost] son of Nesisti HPM son of Anemhor son of Nefer<het>. J. Quaegebeur in D. J. Crawford et al, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis 47, 55 n. 2 notes that the final syllable is in a damaged area and comments that the name "Neferhet" does not occur in this period. He objects that Anemhor and Nefer... cannot be ancestral to Pedubast since they do not have the title HPM. He also notes that none of the individuals are named as "deceased", and therefore assumes they were all living at the time the statue was made. By analogy with de Meulenaere's analysis of stele Vienna 157, he argues that the stele should be interpreted as naming Pedubast HPM son of Nesisti HPM and his son Anemhor and his son Nefer... The lacuna between Pedubast HPM and Nesisti HPM is not sufficient to cover additional generations. On these bases he identifies these individuals with the future Anemhor II HPM and his brother Neferibre, and argues that the statue shows [Nesisty =] Pedubast I, HPM, son of Nesisty I [= Anemhor], and that Pedubast I succeeded his father as HPM before his death. Therefore the statue has no relevance to the ancestry of Anemhor.

E. A. E. Reymond, From the Records of a Priestly Family from Memphis 112ff. no 15 accepts Bakry's reading that the statue gives a lineal ascent, from Pedubast HPM to Neferhor (Gr. Nufeho), but identifies the Pedubast of the statue with her Pedubast I = Quaegebeur's Pedubast II (as here), requiring that the lacuna between Pedubast HPM and Nesisti HPM covers not one but three generations. This arrangement is accepted in the most recent treatment of the statue, G. Gorre, Les relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides 318-320. In addition Gorre argues that the Pedubast of this statue is given certain titles which are shared with Pedubast II in statues Alexandria 17533 and 17534, and not by any intervening HPMs.

D. Devauchelle, CdE 58 (1984) 135, 138 thinks this reconstruction is too long for the lacuna, concluding that it only contained titles of Nesisty I (Gorre does not address whether he thinks there is room for this titulary). He agrees with Quaegebeur that no additional generations are lost: Pedubast HPM is directly a son of Nesisti HPM. But, since he does not accept Quaegebeur's theory that Anemhor I was also known as Nesisty I, this means that the Pedubast HPM of Alexandria 27806 does not correspond to any of the known Pedubast HPMs. (This is also true even if the lacuna contains only one extra generation, as Bakry supposes.) Since the Anemhor and Nefer.... of the statue are not HPMs, he prefers to reconstruct them as Anemhor and his father, with the Pedubast HPM of Alexandria 27806 being an HPM who perhaps lived briefly and was not ancestral to the later line. Thus, Reymond, Gorre and Devauchelle all conclude, by different lines of argument, that the name of the father of Anemhor was Nanefer... or Nefer....

The four reconstructions of Alexandria 27806 are shown here:

      

Of the four reconstructions, I find Devauchelle's the most plausible, even though Quaegebeur's reconstruction minimises the number of individuals. In my opinion, Devauchelle's analysis of the available space is sufficient to invalidate Reymond, notwithstanding Gorre's objections, since Gorre has not shown that the space is sufficient to include both the ancestors and their most important titles (as the surviving titles for Nesisti and Amenhor, and the proposed analogy to Alexandria 17533/17534, would require). While certain titles may be shared between Alexandria 27806 and Alexandria 17533/17534, Gorre admits (Les relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides, 320 n. 903) that only a small part of these titles survives on Alexandria 27806, and quite similar, if not exactly identical, titles are documented for the intervening HPMs. Finally, the three statues did not form a set: while Alexandria 17533/17534 showed Pedubast II seated (E. Breccia, ASAE 8, 62 at 64), Alexandria 27806 showed its Pedubast HPM standing. Thus, while it is not impossible that there are missing generations, Devauchelle's arguent that three is unlikely is accepted here.

Against Quaegebeur:

I therefore accept Devauchelle's arguments that Anemhor's father was called Nefer.... or Nanefer.... J. Quaegebeur, CdE 49 (1974) 59, 74 notes that on stele Vienna 157 Neferibre (PP III 5645) and his father are so-called in the hieroglyphic but Naneferpare in demotic, so the Na- element is essentially optional.

D. H. Kelley, JAMS 12 (1995) 25, supposed that "Marres-nuphe" was actually intended to be a Ptolemaicist's transcription for "Neferibre". It can be seen that this is not correct. However, Bakry's and Reymond's readings indicate that a rounded glyph such as "Hr"was part of the final part of the name. The glyph for jb would also fit, which would allow the name to be completed as Neferibre. This is a name which well attested elsewhere in the family history. Thus I am inclined to agree with Quaegebeur's and Kelley's conclusion, if not their reasoning, that the name was "Neferibre". Ý

[2] Stele Vienna 82 (per Reymond). Statue Alexandria 27806 has very similar but not quite identical titles for the first part of this string: god's father, beloved of the god, master of the secrets of the temple of Ptah at Rutistet. E. A. E. Reymond, Or 47 (1977) 1, 6 calls him a high priest of Memphis, but implicitly retracts this in E. A. E. Reymond, From the Records of a Priestly Family from Memphis 59 no 1.

J. Quaegebeur, CdE 49 (1974) 59, 66f. n. 1, notes that the Egyptian toponym "rwt-ist" (Rutiset) has been frequently misread (e.g. by Reymond, passim) as "rwt-kdjt" (Rakoti -- Alexandria). He identifies (in D. J. Crawford et al, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis 47, 48f. n. 4) Rutiset as Busiris in the Memphite nome, by contrast to Rosetau -- Busiris in the Letopolite nome. I have made this correction throughout when using Reymond's and Bakhry's translations. Ý

[3] Stele Vienna 82 line 19, statue Alexandria 27806. See discussion above on the latter statue. Ý

[4] This suggestion, based on stele Vienna 157, was first made by D. H. Kelley, JAMS 12 (1995) 25, who also concluded that Anemhor's father was called Neferibre, though for different reasons than those presented here. H. de Meulenaere, CdE 34 (1959) 244, proposed to identify the parents of the dedicant of stele Vienna 157, Neferibre (PP III 5645), son of Neferibre (PP III 5646) and Herankh, with the like-named parents of Heresankh (PP III 5524), named on Louvre N 2456 as priestess of Philotera, who he further identifies with the Heresankh of stele BM 389 who died in a year 22 at the age of 66.

De Meulenaere's equations are open to the objection that the name Neferibre and Herankh are common in this period. Also, stele Vienna 157 contains no strong internal dating evidence. While de Meulenaere, following Spiegelberg, regarded it as certainly early Ptolemaic, W. Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inscriften aus der K. K. Hofmuseum in Wien 93 dated it as Saite, while P. Munro, Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen 342, dates it c. 50 B.C., based on stylistic comparisons to BM 184 and BM 188, both dated to 23 B.C. J. Quaegebeur, CdE 49 (1974) 59, 74 rejects these comparisons, comparing the proscenium on this stele to that of Nefertiti, daughter of Horemakhet HPM, which is securely dated to the early second century.

Since Heresankh and Nesisti-Pedubast are the only known officiants in the cult of Philotera, it seems plausible that they were closely related, and de Meulenare's equations provide a plausible means of doing so. His proposal has been accepted by J. Quaegebeur (in D. J. Crawford et al, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis 47, 60 n. 7). Since the cult of Philotera is not well attested, and appears not to have survived long, the death of Heresankh can be dated to year 22 of either Ptolemy II (i.e. she lived 330-264) or Ptolemy III (292-226).

De Meulenaere, followed by Quaegebeur, chose the first pair of dates. J. Quaegebeur, JNES 30 (1971) 239, 246 further noted that Nesisti-Pedubast was named as a priest of Philotera and of Arsinoe II in BM 379, and that his son, Anemhor II, lived 289-217. He therefore argued that Heresankh was closely related to Nesisti-Pedubast, and proposed to identify her father with Neferibre son of Nesisti HPM, a brother of Anemhor II. D. J. Thomson, Memphis Under the Ptolemies 128, followed this reconstruction, but chose to date Heresankh to the period 292-226. Clearly, this is because the de Meulenare / Quaegebeur dates make her nearly 40 years older than her putative uncle; but, as Kelley noted (JAMS 12 (1995) 25, 35), the suggested relationship has Heresankh born and dying before her uncle on both chronologies, and is therefore highly improbable.

Kelley seems to regard this as a sufficient basis to propose the identity of Heresankh's father with Neferibre father of Anemhor. But there is another chronological observation to be made first. BM 379 notes that Nesisti-Pedubast began receiving honours from the king in year 23. Quaegebeur comments that it is unclear whether this is his 23rd year, or year 23 of Ptolemy II (=263/2). If we suppose the latter, and if Heresankh died in year 22 of Ptolemy II, then Nesisti-Pedubast becomes her successor in leading the cult of Philotera, and his appointment marks the assimilation of that cult in the cult of Arsinoe II. Since Nesisti-Pedubast's successor was born in 289, Nesisti-Pedubast himself is plausibly in his forties or fifties at the time of Heresankh's death. On this reconstruction Heresankh is very likely to have been in the previous generation or perhaps the one before. That is, either her father Neferibre or her probable brother Neferibre can be identified with Nefer(ibre), the grandfather of Nesisti-Pedubast. Since the latter is known to have had a son Anemhor (PP III 5440), the latter is preferred; this Anemhor can be identified with Anemhor the father of Nesisti-Pedubast HPM.

The titles of Neferibre (PP III 5645) as given on Vienna 157 are close to the titles given to Nefer.... in Vienna 82 and Alexandria 27806, so do not constitute grounds for objection. In fact the titles of his father, Neferibre (PP III 5646), when combined with the titles of Alexandria 27806, correspond closely to the full set of titles given in Vienna 82.

The two scenarios in the literature for attaching Vienna 157 + Louvre N 2556 (+ BM 389) to the main line of Vienna 82 (+ BM 379) are shown above. The second reconstruction is, I believe, more chronologically plausible than the first, and gives a reasonable explanation of Heresankh's relationship to the main line. However it cannot be regarded as proven. Against it one can argue that, since Anemhor II was certainly born in 289, and very probably had an older brother Pedubast, his grandparents, including Anemhor I, cannot have been born much later than c. 330, i.e. at the same time as Heresankh. Thus the reconstruction implies a sizeable age difference between Neferibre and Heresankh, of up to c. 20 years.

There is one other way to combine Vienna 157 + Louvre N 2556 with Vienna 82: to make Heresankh the daughter of Anemhor's brother Neferibre, not his grandfather. This requires that both Neferibres married Herankhs, with the second *Herankh being otherwise unknown.

On the minimal chronology suggested above, Anemhor I was born c. 330 at the latest, but could have been born say two decades earlier, so either chronology for Heresankh could work. However, the later chronology is genealogically a much more comfortable fit. But, it is difficult to reconstruct the history of the cult of Philotera on this basis. As noted above, the earlier chronology for Heresankh suggests a succession in the cult of Philotera from Heresankh to Nesisti-Pedubast, while a succession in the reverse direction implies a continuity of this unpopular cult well into the reign of Ptolemy III. For this reason the earlier chronology is preferred here, and hence this genealogical reconstruction is rejected in favour of Kelley's.

Nevertheless, no reconstruction associating Louvre N 2456 + Vienna 157 with Vienna 82 is entirely satisfactory in the chronology it implies. On the early chronology for Heresankh, one would prefer to place her in the generation preceding Nesisti-Pedubast; on the late, in the following generation. But neither seems to be possible, unless one dissociates her entirely from the line of Vienna 82. Given the close associations in offices of the individuals involved, however, this is not an attractive proposition.

Finally, while here accepting Kelley's proposed identification of Heresankh's brother with the father of Anemhor, my argument here differs from his on a crucial point: he regards Vienna 157 as giving a linear ancestry stretching well back into the Persian period. I accept the argument of de Meulenaere, as given below, that Vienna 157 names the sons of Neferibre. Ý

[5] PP III 5645. Ý

[6] Stele Vienna 157 -- see PP IX 5645. Ý

[7] Stele Vienna 157 (H. de Meulenare, CdE 34 (1959) 244). Ý

[8] Stele Vienna 157 is dedicated by Neferibre son of ("sA") Neferibre and Herankh, sA Psamtekmen sA Peteharendjotef sA Anemhor sA Neferibre. This would normally be interpreted as a linear ascent, and is so understood by D. H. Kelley, JAMS 12 (1995) 25, 37, who proposes to see here a linear line of prophets of Ptah covering the Persian period. It was generally understood to be a linear ascent until H. de Meulenare, CdE 34 (1959) 244, noted that the normal practice, when naming both parents and the ancestors of a father, was to name the father's ancestors before naming the mother.

One possible resolution is to suppose that Neferibre originally intended to name the ancestors of his mother, i.e. that sA Psamtekmen is an error for sA<t> ("daughter of") Psamtekmen. This is the solution proposed by P. Munro, Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen 342. However, de Meulenare noted that no emendation was required if in this instance sA <name> was understood to mean "his son" rather than "son of". He cited the example of group statue Alexandria 35 (G. Daressy, ASAE 5 (1904) 113 at 122) in which, according to de Meulenare, the sons of the dedicator are listed exactly this way. This proposal has been generally accepted since, though it should be noted that Daressy regarded Alexandria 35 as giving a line of 5 ancestors, not a set of 5 sons. Nevertheless, Vienna 157 is clearly anomalous if interpreted as giving a line of ancestry, and de Meulenaere's argument seems plausible enough to me. It is accepted here. Ý

[9] Named on two unpublished statues of Psamtekmen (Bordeaux inv. 1055 and Chicago Field Museum 31697) as his mother and wife of Neferibre -- see H. de Meulenare, CdE 34 (1959) 244, 245 n. 3, who identifies this Psamtekmen with Psamtekmen (PP III 5878) son of Neferibre (PP III 5645). Ý

[10] Stele Vienna 157 (H. de Meulenare, CdE 34 (1959) 244). Ý

Update Notes:

12 March 2002: Created page
31 October 2002: Updated to note Munro's dating of Vienna 157 to c. 50.
8 November 2002: Updated to note Quaegebeur's objection to Munro's dating of Vienna 157 to c. 50.
14 August 2010: Comments on Gorre's acceptance of Reymond's reconstruction of Vienna 27806, note Daressy's interpretation of Alexandria 35.

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