ou 173, (1999) 13 A new daughter of Ramesses II ?° by Bart R. Hellinckx Christian Leblane’s recent book about the family of Ramesses I, Neferuri, “I wméeske- ‘Mont, contains a very detailed genealogical tee ' We reproduce a small section ft (the names have been transcribed into Anglo-Saxon fashion) [smote Ramesses) Retna] [stemakh From the above family tee, it would appear that Leblanc has found evidence to identify the hitherto unknown mother of the King’s Daughter Nebitawy as the Great Royal Wife Istoofet Unfortunately, if one expect to learn that he as found a new inscription which definitively solves this historical problem, one's hopes are deceived. In the opening section of chapter five.” he explains that he has deduced Nebttawy’s filation fom the position of her statue on the facade of the Great Temple of Abu Simbel Besides and between the legs ofthe giant seated statues of the King are smaller standing sculptures of his relatives. Three of his daughters are represented tothe north of the entrance and three other of his female descendants to the south. As itis known that fone of the princesses at the north side (Meryetamun) is a daughter of Nefertar, wheres itis established beyond doubt that one of those at the south side (Bint-Anath) isa child of Itnofet, Leblane considers it not unlikely thatthe our others of which the maternal line is unknown had the same mother as the princess with whom they ae associated on the monument. As Nebtiawy is represented on the southside together with Bint-Anath, this would mean tht she 100 is daughter of Istnofrer Although Leblanc’s suggestion to read the Abu Simbel favade as a kind of genealogical tableau is very interesting, the conclusions based on it remain forthe presen rather hypothetical, the more so asthe two statues that depict the eldest son of the 1wo Great Royal Wives are positioned precisely on the opposite side of the one that is supposed to show their daughters" Tam gate o Prot, Haro Willems rhs commens and suggestions ao Wid Erhes for covecting ms English 'C Leone, efron. “Limon. Epes, ese ke Rams I Pais 19). 296-97 fg abla, Nfertors, 233-27 with ig 63 * eblane feria 226. menos this anomaly. bt his epaaton tha it expresses the union which ts tence the to families -scems ab fecha toa ‘The lower section ofthe family tree holds even a bigger surprise. Whereas it was already evident fiom Nebitawy’s titles ‘Royal Wife’ and “Great Royal Wife that she was married to Ramsesses I, there was no indication so far that she gave birth to a child However, the genealogical tree unmistakably shows that Nebttawy and Ramesses had a daughter with the name Istemakh Contrary to what one might perhaps expect. this part of Leblanc reconstruction of the flation appears to be based on direct, ie. inseriptona, evidence, We quote: i est manifeste ton ca, que Nebettaony donna naissance, aa moins une petite princesse: Ces! d me perle en comalin, retronsée @ Copios et anjourd hui conservie dans es collections de musée du Caire, que Ton doit cette information qui nous révée, de surerot, som ident: ‘Que se fasse I illumination pour [ssemakh, nie de Osiris, la filled rs, aimee de lu, Nebenaouy:jusfice en pave!" So, it would appear that Leblanc has traced bead (CGC 12072; JE 27739) of which the inscription reveals that Nebttawy had a daughter called Istemakh, His ‘discovery’ not only makes it possible to adda piece to the enormous puzzle ofthe family of Ramesses Hits also historically informative in two other ways. Firstly, the "new" princess seems to confirm Leblane’s view that the ‘mother of Nebriawy is Istnofret because the theophoric element in he name possibly alludes to her supposed grandmother In the words of Leblanc Sigoufcanfpeut-dtre ce nom Usisemath ~ “Isisen-gloire” ~ qui pourrait, come wt ‘pews hommage posthume, faire revivre avec une certane nostalgie cela d° "Tsslae Belle”, ladkfunte mére de Nebettaony® Secondly, the fact that this princess does not Figure inthe processions of Ramesses I's offspring depicted on the temple walls seems to indicate that these lists do not include the children who came forth from his marriage with his own daughters. Further on in his book, Leblanc uses this ‘observation in conection with Hentmire, a King’s relative of unknown descendaney " By refering to the case of Istemakh, he demonstrates that Hentmire’s absence from the lists does not prove that she was nota daughter ofthe King. According o him, she isk Istemakh ‘a file d'une file- epouse de Ramses I ‘Leblane’s two deductions may seem quite logical, but, unfortunately, they are based on a false premiss: Nebettawy did not have a daughter called Istemakh, The alleged existence ofthis princess 's due toa gross misreading ofthe inscription on the aforementioned bead. Before entering into meant ome nthe et "Thema (1 mane superfuoes sign fr the nmol “<> seem 1. The plaral determinate of is «ical acount fr bu ae everson amar with funeran ex knows. no two aestion ofthe tm pl a= ‘vat ale and eqns exhibit ich small fen spexplnbe, vans6 inscription which Leblanc reads asthe name ofthe new princes is just «part of this Formula" We may follow the translation of Alan Shorter, who devoted a short study 16 the sweret-amulet spell “Give light to Isis with (or a) the biliant one’ or “May Iss, a the brillant one, give light 10 ime’ The first column of bead A contains the introductory’ formula, the owner's tes, his name, 38 well asa double indication of hs status inthe netherworld. “Words spoken by the Osis. the mayor, the vizier Paser, justified’. Although inthe second column of bead B the introductory formula is absent and the two signs aftr the cartouche ae uncertain the content seems to be largely the same’ “the Osiris, the King’s daughter, his beloved, (Nebettawi] .justied Contrary to Reisner, whose copy of the inscription was reproduced in KR.” Daressy considered the fist andthe second hieroglyph after the cartouche as them andthe fwsign and interpreted the last Iieroalyphs as a waiting of hyp in peace’ (the unclassified mr-sign Gardiner Aa 13/18 = the lat and offering mat Jip Gardiner R 4) tt clearly appears from his translation that Leblane fas followed the reading of Daressy. Although the colour photosraph of the bead reproduced in Leblane's book” does not enable us to decide which ofthe two readings (if any) is core, the analogy between the inscriptions on the two beads is sufficient clear and proof tha stem is not a name Tt now remains to be seen which part ofthe insription has been translated by Leblanc as the fition formula “née de’ As he does not mention a tansiteration, we believe there are two possibilities. Perhaps he considered the eye after the S-bird asthe ur-eye (Gardiner signlist D4) And he did read iri "whom. made". However, a is clear fom the photograph ofthe bead in Leblane's book and fom the anlogous inscription on bead A, the sign certainly depicts an eve that is touched up with paint (Gardiner D 5-6). Shorter interpreted the siun as a determinative ‘which indicates thatthe “brant one" (2h 7) is an epithet of the soar eve and this s probably correct " Another possibility is that Leblanc may have identified the hieoelyph afer the ese asthe three foxes’ skins tied together (Gardner F 31) This might have ld to the reading mst “whom bore’. However, the photograph and the analogous inscription on bead A show unmistakably that itis the hieromiyph ofthe radiant sun (Gardiner N 8) Is presence can easily be explained itis second determinative of 3. which stresses thatthe “brillant one emis sunbeams ‘The proposed reading of the inscription is coafimed by a substantial number of parallel texts Besides on the objet of Paser (Dead A). exactly the same spell occurs on two other ywert-beads and on one snake's head amulet In addition, si instances (one swerer-bead, four snake's heads and one Bok of she Dead papyrus) exhibit minor or major variants of the Formula. An appendix provides alist of all these examples ‘As there can not be the slightest doubt that Leblane’s reading of the inscription on the Cairo bead is incorrect, all the conclusions based on it should be revised First, Ramses Ml and Nebtawy did not have a daughter called Istemakh, Until proof of the contrary turns up it should "Rema the sme mistake was made by Pei concrine a sins inscribe ona sakes ead amet in Unhersy College se WME Petre, Scand mks wh Names (BSAE & ERA PIs sar. Londo, 1917) pl ai N15) Foe this am of the ape. DS "A.W! Shomer "Noteson some fray ats 21 (1938. 174 Caso AW Short. “Amls sn Mond and O Myers The facie, T(MEES 81, London 194.12 GA Reise. mult (CGC: Ca. 17). "6 Daves ‘Remarquc ee Re Tr VE (INS, 81 (8 28) " Lebtae. wear pl opp B11) "Shonen 131,17ww ‘be assumed that the royal couple had no child Secondly the indirect argument thatthe mother of Nebttawy was Isnofret because the name of her daughter contained an allusion to that of her ‘grandmother ~ which already from the outset was not very comincing - has now become completely discredited. Thirdly, the fact that “princess Istemakh’ is not inchide inthe processions ofthe royal children doesnot prove that these lists are incomplete as it is rather unlikely that non existant persons were taken into account! Consequently, the section of the genealogical te reproduced at the beginning of this note should be amended inthe folowing way. The lower personage has to be skipped completely. In addition, the ull line which indicates that Nebettai is child of the marriage of Isinfiet and Ramesses has to be replaced by a dotted one in order 10 Visualize thatthe relationship is hypothetical, ie solely deduce from the postion of Nebtassy’s statue onthe facade of The Great Temple of Abu Simbel. The resuling family tree is undoutedly much fess innovating asthe one in Leblane’s bok, but itis certainly mach eloser to the truth Although the bead is historically not that importam as it would appear from Leblanc’s ‘exposition, its importance is stl considerable As a swerer-amulet insribed for Nebttawy. i isin all probability @ unique remnant of the Queen's mummy equipment. In what circumstances the ‘object was transferred from the tomb of Nebttawy in the Valley ofthe Queens (QV’ 60) to Coptos, ‘one cannot say. Likewise, the reason why the inscription does not meation one of her later queenly tiles ean only be guessed at Appendix Instances ofthe shd-formula in connection with n swere or snake's head amulet Version A This isthe most frequently attested version ofthe formula: sd 38 m Sh “Give light to Isis with (or a3) the biliant one" or "May Isis, asthe biliant oe, give light to me" 1. Present locaton: Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 5269 (CGC 12012) Object ype: sweret-bead Ovner:D3-or-rri, Because the publication mentions a queston-mark after the i sign (recumbent bubals Gardiner E 8) the reading ofthat sign appears to be uncertain [As the catalogue in which this object is described does also contain a snake's head inscribed for a certain H3-rw-n-r) (CGC 5486, Reisner, Amulet, I, 39), we wonder whether both objects do not belong to the same ovsner Although such a relationship between the two amulets was not noted in the catalogue, it would provide a plausible explanation for the uncertain sig’ instead of a tecumbent bobalis, it might be a recumbent lon with the phonetic value rw (Gardiner E 23) (On the other hand, one i obliged to assume that the frst sign too was misread8 However, asthe d3-sign(fredrill Gardiner U 28) and the b3-sign (lotus Gardiner M12) are not dissimilar in general shape, the possibilty cannot be completly ruled Provenance: usknown, ‘Date: probably New Kingdom ‘Bibliography: Reisner, Amulets, 1, 99, pl. vit, Shorter, JEA 21, 174 2 Prevent location: Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 19145 (CGC 12019) Objet ype: sweret-bead ‘Ovner:wab-priest Bk) Provenance: tomb of B3ky in Saqga unknown) ‘Date: probably New Kingdom ‘Bibliography: Reiser, Amulet, 1,100, pl. vii, Shorter, JEA 21, 174 ‘Note: From the same same tomb, and inscribed for the same person are three other amulets: avi-knot, a wad-scepre and a snake's head. See Reiner, Amulet, 1, 20, >. 38 (CGC 5357, $423, $483), discovered in March 1862; postion presently 3. Preset location: Cairo, Eayptin Museum JE 27739 (CGC 12072) Object ype: sweretbead ‘Owner: Queen Nebettaw Provenance: Coptos (1887 9) Dare: 19th Dynasty reign of Ramesses IL ibliography: Daressy, RecTrav 11,81 (§ 25) Reisner, Amulets, |, 110, H. Gautier, Lak, MI (MIFAO 19, Caio, 1914), 106 [E]. KRI Il, 926 (No. 394A), RITA TL (Oxford, 1996), 606, RITANC, Il (Oxford, 1999), 629; Leblanc, Neferar, 229,235, ns, 13-14, col pl. opp. 9. 119 4. Present location: Pats, Musée du Louvre E 71 (AF. 2434) Object ype: sweretbead ‘Over: Apis-bull, votive Funeray gif from the mayor and vizier P3sr Provenance: Serapeum in Saggara, burial of Apis IX (old No. 1) are: Sth Dynasty, year 30 of Ramesses If Bibliography: Mariette, Le Sérapeum de Memphis découvert et décri (Pati, 1857), pL. 11 (op); P. Piet, Musée national du Lowe: catalogue de Ja salle historique de la galerie égyprienne (Paris, 1873), 126 (No. $30), P. Piet, Recueil inscriptions inedies hu Musée égyption dh Lowwre, 1 (Pais, 1878), 85, WME. Pete, A History of Egopr, IT (London, 1905), 98, KRI, 1, 366 (No. 130B. i), KRJ, TM (Oxford, 1980), 35 (No. 486), V.A Donotue, “The Vizier Paser, JEA 74 (1988), 110 (XI, No, 1): RITA Th, 199; RITANC, 1,20 " Neer the ams, or the objets ate mentioned nT Schnee. eatschePeromennamen i aypichen Oeton des ene Revco (OBO U1 Frere 1992).Presen location: Paris, Musée du Louvre (E2) 3448 (Object ype: snakes head (Owner: Apis-bll Provenance: Serapeum in Sagqara, burial of Apis IX (old No. Il) Dare: 1th Dynasty, year 30 of Ramesses I ‘Bublingraphy: Mariette, Le Sérapéum. 14, ph 1; Perret, Catalogne de fa salle historique, 126 (No. $31), C. Moller-Winkler, Die agypnschen Objek-Amulette (OBO SAS, Freburg, 1987), 419 (0) Version B ‘The only difference with version is that it includes a suixpronomen s after the word 3h. sd 1n() 38.07 3. May Iss give light to me with he Briliance’ 1. Present location: Paris, Musée du Louvte AF 6,796 Object pe: swererbead ‘Owner: Apis-bull votive funerary gift from the King's son, the sem-priestMT-m-W3s. Provenance: Serapeum in Saqgara, Apis IX (old No. I} Dare: Vth Dynasty, year 30 of Ramesses I Bibliography Mariette, Le Sérapéum, pl L. Perret, Catalogue de la sale historique, 125 (No. 525), Petre. Mistry, Ml, 36, Shorter, JFA 21, 174, nS. F. Gomaa, Chacmovese, Sob Ramses" Il und Hoherpriester von Memphis (AA. 27, Wiesbaden, 1973), 78 (No. 20), 108. fig. 8 fonly a part ofthe inscription]. KRIMI, 368 (No. I31E- i), C Ziegler, “Les bijoux au temps des pharaons’, Jes dossiers de Farcheologle No. 40 (1980), pl. p. 31 (below: lef), RITA TI, 201; RITANC, 221-222 Yersion © It stars inthe same way as version A, but it continues differemly: sadn 38. 3]... 2) m4 381 ‘m s3ucn War N “The lght-iving belongs to you, Isis, the. belong to you, Isis (The amulet) is the protection ofthe Osiris N'"” 1, Present location: Milan, Ospedale Maggiore Object wpe: Book of the Dead papyrus (the so-called “Papyrus Busca’) with a spell entitled Spell ofthe swere-bead of carnelian’ Ovner: chef ofthe draughismen Prhsms seme ht thi erson ofthe formula ss lag the ame ttre as Book fhe De spell 16 which dicted to snot Iolo amet rhe ort Ant SPB mI Set C me 3l WES) HN See E Nail, Deng Tench dere Dest (Bern 86) AW. and omg ‘easton of €Homang. as Trench der. ete (Dv thc dt lon Welt, Rete der le Oven 1 Zane 199), 386120 Provenance: unknown, |. Munro, Unmersuchngen zu den TovenbuelPapyri der 1%: Pynastie (SIE, London, 1988), 272, 305, suggested Thebes on the basis of the papyrus’ resemblance to another papyrus known tobe from Thebes.” Date: probably 19th Dynasty Bibliography: Naville, Das dgypuische Totenbuch. Finfeinng, 90 fincorrest transcription ofthe tte) F.Chiappa, 1! papiro Busca (Milan, 1972), pl 23 (11. 103-106) {photographic edition and translation of the tile). M. Herma van Voss, “Teksten over amuletten in de Papyrus Busca’. in KR. Veenhot (ed ), Schrijvend verleden (MVEOL. Leiden, 1983), 290 [translation ofthe tie] ‘Version D ‘Though similar to version A, its much longer and it does not mention Isis. / ur hd m 3h..F Salk ‘ni m br seme hrily).ink s mh bw.f oft °O, Great One, who shines with his eye, may you shine for me inthe god’s land, for 'am a man, justified, whose abomination is esi Present locarion: Cato, Egyptian Museum ‘Object type: snake's head Owner: King Psusennes 1 Provenance: Tani, NRT IL Dare: 215% Dynasty Bibliography P. Montel, La néeropole royale de Tans, W (Pats, 1981), 147 (No, fig, 56, plexi, H. Stiesin and C. Ziegler, Fam: vergessene Schat Pharaonen (Musich, 1987), pl 39, Muller-Winkler, OhjedicAmulee, 419 o ‘Note: tn te inscription vd m 3h bas been replaced by hr “Adorned One’. Moreover, ‘the of the verb sis absent 2. Presen location: Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden Inv. No L.IIL17 (De Leseluze) Object pe: snake's head COvener no information Provenance: no information Date: probably New Kingdom ‘Bibliography: HD. Schneider, Shabis, (CNMAL 2. Leiden, 1977), 133, 156. 12 ‘Note: Schneider, who does not reproduce the hieroglyphic te, translates the lst part ofthe spell as "am a man, true and free from ex 3. Present location: London, University College (Petrie collection) Object npe: snake's head ‘Ovener: the royal scribe, overseer of horse Pits (reading of name and tiles uncertain) Provenance: information Dare: probably New Kingdom 3 OE-TG Allen. The Hk ofthe Dao ime Fath Dav (SAOC 97. Chicago. 197248)aa Bibliography: Pewie, Hisory, M1, 100, WM F Pett, Ammlets (London, 1914), 26 (No 97), pl. XIL, Petre, Scarabs and Cylinders, pl xii (No. 187), Mller- Winkler, Objek-Amulerte, 420 (&) ‘Note: This object contains a shorter and somewhat corrupt version of the formula Te stars inthe same way as version A, but Thoth (or Horus) takes the place of Iss and it does not ‘mention the 3e tee: vd.) Det (or Hr) “May Thoth (or Horus) give ight to me 1. Present location: London, British Museum EA 26245 (Object type: snake's head Owner: Rms Provenance: 99 information Date: probably New Kingdom Bibliography: Shorter, JEA 21, 175 "Note: Shorter reads Horus, the explanatory label inthe museum reads Thoth