King’s Daughter, God’s Wife: The Princess as High Priestess

in Mesopotamia (Ur, ca. 2300-1100 BCE) and

Egypt (Thebes, ca. 1550-525 BCE)

Lloyd D. Graham

Abstract

The practice of a king appointing his daughter as the High Priestess and consort of an
important male deity arose independently in the Ancient Near East and Egypt. In
Mesopotamia, the prime example of such an appointee was the EN-priestess of Nanna
(EPN), spouse of the moon-god Nanna/Sin at Ur; in Egypt, its most important
embodiment was the God’s Wife of Amun (GWA), consort of the creator-god Amun(-
Re) at Thebes. Both institutions operated – with interruptions and periods of uncertainty
– for about a millennium (Ur, ca. 2288-1104 BCE; Thebes, ca. 1552-525 BCE). The
office of EPN began strongly, with a peak period that lasted ca. 525 years, whereas the
GWA’s heyday came at the end of its trajectory and lasted only half as long (ca. 265
years). In both cases, the incumbents were powerful royal figures who served as spiritual
and economic leaders of their communities. The cultic roles of the EPN and GWA were
similar, and the “god’s wife” role of both has attracted similar academic controversies
over their sexual, marital and maternal status. This paper, which provides the first
systematic comparison of the two institutions, focuses on comparing the two offices in
their respective periods of peak strength. The analysis reveals that the High Priestesses
were typically political appointments made in turbulent times, often to help the king
secure control over a remote region and/or rival institution. As spiritual leaders, the
incumbents were often instrumental in integrating distinct cultural or ethnic groups
within their respective countries, thereby promoting the royal agenda of national unity.
Despite social and political uncertainties, many of the High Priestesses managed long
incumbencies (EPN typically 30-40 yrs, GWA 40-65 yrs), their tenures thereby spanning
multiple kings and often dynasties as well (e.g., Enanatuma of Isin served long into the
succeeding dynasty of Isin’s traditional enemy, Larsa). Both offices were collaborative
institutions in which the incumbent was potentially assisted by a novice/heiress and
perhaps also a retiree; for the GWAs in particular, the resulting “college” often required
long-term collaboration between women of different ethnicities (possibly 25+ years for
the Libyan/Nubian changeover, and probably 2-15 years for the Nubian/Saite one). For
both types of High Priestess, the long incumbencies and the collaborative nature of their
institutions combined to provide stability and continuity in their respective countries.

Introduction

At the genetic level, the ancient Egyptians were closely related to the inhabitants of
the Near East.1 Connections between the two regions date back to prehistoric times
and include economic migration, trade by land and sea, diplomatic exchanges and
forced relocations arising from war.2 Given this shared heritage and interconnected
history, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that certain religious and cultural motifs
seem to transcend the traditional boundary between Egypt and the Ancient Near
East.3 For example, the search for a murdered god by his sister-consort, and
consequent resurrection/reappearance of the former, is shared by both the Osiris
myth-cycle of ancient Egypt4 and the Canaanite Baal Cycle.5 In both Egypt and
Mesopotamia, the animation of an effigy and activation of its senses is accomplish-
ed by a complex multi-step ritual that is focused on a ceremonial Opening of the
Mouth.6 The temple foundation rituals of Egypt and Mesopotamia also have many

1
elements in common.7 The Egyptian motif of the winged sun-disc as an emblem of
royalty and divinity (Horus Behdety)8 has parallels in the royal/divine winged disc
used in Syrian and Hittite iconography of the early 2nd millennium9 (or earlier)10 and
its successors in neo-Assyrian11 and Achaemenid Persian12 imagery. Likewise, the
protective shen-ring of Egyptian iconography (of which the cartouche is an
elongated form) has significant visual overlap with the “rod and ring” symbol that
symbolises kingship in Mesopotamia.13,14 Attention has been drawn to these
intriguing parallels and, as the source references attest, the regional counterparts
have been subjected to at least some level of comparative evaluation.15

Beyond these instances, however, there is another overlap, a shared pattern in the
nexus of the royal and the divine in Egypt and Mesopotamia that – despite its
importance to both the religious and political domains – has largely gone
unremarked, and certainly has not been subjected to direct comparison.16 The
institution I have in mind is the appointment of the king’s daughter to the position
of High Priestess and consort of an important male deity – in Egypt, as God’s Wife
of Amun (GWA), consort of the creator-god Amun at Thebes; in Babylonia, as EN-
priestess of Nanna (EPN), spouse of the moon-god Nanna at Ur.

Although sharing many features, these institutions arose independently in the two
regions. A comparison of the origins of each office is presented in Table 1,17 while
the two deities – Nanna (Fig. 1) and Amun (Fig. 2) – are compared in Table 2. Each
institution lasted for about a millennium, albeit with interruptions and periods of
uncertainty;18 in Ur, the office of EPN operated ca. 2288-1104 BCE, while in
Thebes, that of the GWA lasted ca. 1552-525 BCE (Fig. 3). In addition, the EPN at
Ur enjoyed a belated revival some 500 or more years after the position had become
extinct (Fig. 3). Both institutions were terminated by the arrival of Persian rule in
their respective region (Babylonia, 539 BCE; Egypt, 525 BCE). As all historical
dates/centuries in this paper are BCE, the era designator will be omitted from this
point onward.

It is convenient to divide the trajectory of each office into an Early and a Late phase
(Fig. 3); the Early phase for each institution is defined and compared with its
counterpart in Table 3, with the Late phase (together with any belated revivals)
being presented similarly in Table 4. The changing fortunes of each institution over
time (i.e., its diachronic trajectory) are the subject of Table 5, which identifies times
of strength, weakness and interruption for the two institutions. Conversely, the
characteristic features and practices of the two offices (as manifested in either
phase, without any requirement for synchronicity) are collated and compared in
Table 6.

The contents of the Tables set the stage and provide the ingredients for the final –
and potentially most meaningful – comparison between the cognate institutions in
Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Mesopotamian institution started in strength but then
declined in power (Fig. 3), a trajectory consistent with a marked decrease in female
professional agency after the Ur III period.19 In contrast, the Egyptian institution
began modestly and worked up to a powerful finale (Fig. 3). Accordingly, it is only
by juxtaposing the features of these analogous offices in their respective peak
periods that the most salient insights can be obtained.

2
TABLES 1-6
Abbreviations: Akk, Akkadian; Brit. Mus., British Museum; C25th, 25th century BCE, etc.; dau.,
daughter; Dyn, Dynasty; ED, Early Dynastic; EPN, EN-priestess of Nanna; esp., especially; FIP,
First Intermediate Period; GWA, God’s Wife of Amun; HPA, High Priest of Amun; incl., including;
LP, Late Period; MK, Middle Kingdom; NK, New Kingdom; OB, Old Babylonian; OK, Old
Kingdom; poss., possibly; prob., probably; Sum, Sumerian; TIP, Third Intermediate Period.

Table 1. Origins of position

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt
Precursor(s) The High Priestess of Nanna at God’s Wife (deity unspecified) was
Ur had co-opted the masculine/ a Middle Kingdom title held by two
archaic title EN (= Lord) ca. 2288 non-royal women.30
or soon after.20 An aristocratic woman of the First
Two ED reliefs from the Ur Intermediate Period was a God’s
GIPAR show (EN?-)priestesses,21 Wife of the ithyphallic god Min.31
while the GIPAR itself may date
to ED.22
Woolley’s suggestion that the
women in the ED Royal
Cemetery were sacrificed “wives
of Nanna” and their retinues no
longer attracts support.23
A proto- EPN at Ur may have
been Ninmetabarri, dau. of Anbu,
1st king of Mari (C25th-23rd?) in
the Sumerian King-List.24 The
title ZIRRU for such a position has
ED precursors.25
An EPN-like office at Ur seems
to predate Sargon (ca. 2288)26 to
the ED,27 although some trace the
EPN’s start to Sargon28 or to his
grandson Naram-Sin.29
Instigating king / Sargon I / ca. 2288 Ahmose I / ca. 1552
Date
Founder of... Akkadian Empire New Kingdom & Dyn 18
King’s origin Akkad (northern Babylonia) Thebes (southern Egypt)
Cult city Ur (southern Babylonia) Thebes (southern Egypt)
First appointee Birth-name unknown (Semitic) Ahmose-Nefertari
Position in royal Daughter of Sargon I Daughter of Queen Ahhotep.
house Sister or half-sister to Ahmose I.32
Chief Royal Wife to Ahmose I.
Titles in cult EN-priest/ess of Nanna (EPN).33 God’s Wife of Amun (GWA).
ZIRRU of Nanna. 34 2nd Priest of Amun.36
Spouse (DAM) of Nanna. 35
Insertion into Appointed by king Position purchased and endowed by
priesthood Ahmose I (see Decree below).
Without this endowment, the GWA
would (fictively, at least) be a nmH.t,
i.e. a pauper/orphan.37
Thone-name/ Enheduana (Sumerian) None or not known
prenomen
Decree The “Donation Stele of Ahmose”38
was an im.yt pr.w deed, more
economic and administrative than
religious. Endowed GWA as

3

Motivations of king Continue a tradition of some ED
kings.41
Control over the city of Ur,42
countering power of local ruler
(LUGAL) and establishing a loyal
power-base in the south.43
Connect pan-Babylonian cultic
system to royal family to
legitimate rule over whole
country.44
Royal access to temple assets.45
perpetual office, independent of
future rulers, to be passed on by
non-hereditary succession, e.g. to an
heiress who too was first declared a
notional nmH.t (orphan).39 Foundat-
ion of office was endorsed by an
oracle of Amun.40
Bolster cult of Amun(-Re), Egypt’s
supreme god since MK, to gain
better control over newly-unified
country.46
Royal access to temple assets.

Table 2. Deity
EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt
47
Name Nanna (Sumerian). Amun(-Re)
Suen/Sin (Akkadian).48
Gender Male Male
Centre of cult Temple of Nanna at Ur, the Temples of Karnak and Luxor at
EKISHNUGAL,49 mother-house of Thebes.57 Karnak = Great Temple of
all moon-temples.50 Amun(-Re).
Temples (also called
EKISHNUGAL) at Babylon,
Nippur. In Ur III & Isin period,
subsidiary temple at Urum51 and
for Nanna of Karzida at Ga’esh
(near Ur).52
Also, from at least C14th, cult
centre for Sin at Harran, prob.
est. by merchants from Ur.53 Sin
“had become early on the
guarantor of royal political power
in northern Mesopotamia.”54
Harran temple attested in Mari
Archive (Isin/ Larsa-OB
period).55 This became prominent
in Neo-Babylonian era; mother
of Nabonidus was a priestess
there.56
Role Moon-god, in Sargonic times a Creator, supreme god since MK/Dyn
(incl. relationships) son of sky-god An,58 in Ur III- 12, unseen and everywhere.65
OB times the eldest son of Since MK, and esp. from NK, linked
Enlil.59 His cult channelled the with (Re-)Atum, the creator god of
moon’s regenerative power to the Heliopolitan Ennead.66
earth for human and agricultural
fertility, esp. of cattle & sheep.60
Nanna was very popular in OB
times, but was never the supreme

4
 god.61 (Head of pantheon was
Enlil of Nippur, who crowned the
kings of Sumer; Naram-Sin’s
dau. Tutanapshum was first
appointee as Enlil’s EN-
priestess).62 Nanna was father to
the most prominent goddess,
Inanna/Ishtar.63
Nanna/Sin was guarantor of the
political order, esp. royal
power.64
Astronomical identity Lunar.
Father of Utu/Shamash, the sun-
god.69
Iconography of deity Anthropomorphic.
Associated with bull, lion-dragon
& gazelle.72
Divine spouse Ningal (= “Great Lady”), a
passive and supportive goddess.74
Iconography of Anthropomorphic.
spouse Associated with water-birds
(UBI-birds);76 prob. ZIRRU = hen
(esp. of waterfowl,
duck/goose/swan).77
The EPN was the earthly
embodi-ment or representative of
Ningal, Nanna’s divine wife.78
Table 3. Early phase
EPN / Mesopotamia
Time-period Akkadian to Old Babylonian,
2230-1730.
Pedigree Usually daughter of current king;
sometimes daughter of the
previous king and/or sister of the
current king (e.g. Enanedu).
One non-royal EPN known (not
at Ur) in Akkadian period.82
Basic title(s) EN- (or Entu-)priest/ess of
Nanna/ Suen (EPN).
ZIRRU84 of Nanna/Suen (esp. pre-
Ur III).85
Spouse (DAM) of the god Nanna/
Suen.86
Additional possible [God’s Wife (DAM) of Nanna/
title(s) Suen, if not a basic/implicit title]
Position in temple First. There was no High Priest
hierarchy of Nanna senior to the EPN.
5
By Dyn 21, de facto ruler of Egypt;
Theban oracles of Amun set
government policy.67
The king was considered to be the
son of Amun(-Re).68
Solar (from NK on, when Amun
takes on all properties of Re). 70
Father of Khonsu, the moon-god.71
Anthropomorphic.
Occasionally ram-headed.73
Mut (= “Mother”).75
Anthropomorphic.
Sometimes lioness (& thence cat);79
hieroglyph = vulture, hence wears
vulture headdress.80
The GWA was the earthly embodi-
ment or representative of Mut,
Amun’s divine wife.81
GWA / Egypt
New Kingdom (Dyn 18-20),
1552-1070.
Great Royal Wife, who often was
herself the daughter of a
king/queen.83
God’s Wife of Amun (GWA).
2nd Priest of Amun.87
Divine Adoratrice.
God’s Hand.
These titles were often held by
people other than the GWA.88
Second, under High Priest of Amun
(HPA, 1st Priest of Amun).90
 In Ur III, second only to king in
social, political & religious
spheres.89
Perception by A symbol of the Sumerian
populace community as a whole (see
Tenure section below).91
Economic manager responsible
for ensuring prosperity of the
community.92
See notes at † and § (left).
Better-known Enheduana [1st] (ca. 2288 on), Dyn 18:103
incumbents dau. Sargon I (Akkad).95 Ahmose-Nefertari.
Enmenana, dau. Naram-Sin Hatshepsut and her daughter
† The position of an (Akkad).96 Neferure.
EPN in Barbara Enanepada, dau. Ur-baba/Ur-Bau ... these 3 women used GWA as
Weadock’s sequence (Lagash II, pre-Ur III)97 their preferred sole title.104
of putative Enmahgalana, dau. Amar-Suen
incumbents is given in (ca. 2040, late Ur III).98 Dyn 19:105
[ ].93 Enanatuma [10th], dau. Ishme- Chief Royal Wives of Ramses I,
Dagan, Isin dyn (1955-1937).99 Seti I, Ramses II & Seti II: Satre,
§ It has even been Enmegalana, poss. dau. of Tuya, Nefertari-Merymut &
speculated that Sarai/ Gungunum, mid-Larsa dyn; Tausret, resp-ectively.106
Sarah, wife of the dead by ca. 1902.100 Dyn 20: 107
biblical patriarch Enshakiag-Nanna (ca. 1872 on), Isis, dau. Ramses VI.
Abram/Abraham, was dau. Sumu-el, mid-Larsa dyn.101
an EPN or similar.94 Enanedu [13th] (ca. 1828 on),
sister of Warad-Sin & Rim-Sin
I, end of Larsa dyn.102
Notable decrees Kudur-Mabuk, father of Donation Stele (Dyn 18) of
Enanedu, the last named EPN, Ahmose, recovered from 3rd pylon
ordered her copper mortuary at Karnak (see Table 1, Decree,
statue to be overlaid with gold.108 above).
Enanedu recorded on a clay cone Decree of Ramses VI (Dyn 20), who
her restoration of the GIPAR and installed his daughter Isis as GWA
how she cleansed and secured the and Divine Adoratrice.112
burial site of her predecessors,
with room for future burials
(Table 6, Mortuary cult);109 also
a stone tablet recording her
restorations and cultic
embellishments.110 One of her
inscriptions was found and
translated by Nabonidus (555-
539), who revived the cult.111
Additional/special Continued access to temple Continued access to temple assets,
motivations assets, which by Isin/Larsa which were vast.
period includ-ed large estates and Ramses VI (Dyn 20) was a weak
produced cloth on a commercial king who ruled from Piramesse in
scale.113 The estates were so the Delta (north) and needed to
complex that freelance strengthen his control over the
contractors were needed to powerful priesthood at Thebes
manage them.114 (south).115

6
Table 4. Late phase
EPN / Mesopotamia
Time-period Old Babylonian to post-Kassite,
1730-1104.
Pedigree Most not princesses, probably
non-royal.116
Basic title(s) EN- (or Entu-)priest/ess of
Nanna/Sin (EPN).
Additional possible [Spouse (DAM) of the god
title(s) Nanna/ Sin, if not a
basic/implicit title]
Position in temple First, as in Early phase.
hierarchy
Better-known Daughter of Nebuchadnezzar I of
incumbents Babylon, 1125-1104 (2nd Dyn
Isin) may have held role.127
* Amenirdis I was the
inspiration for the
Egyptian princess
Amneris in Verdi’s
opera, Aida.126
Notable decrees Stela/relief of Nebuchadnezzar I
(1125-1104, 2nd Dyn Isin)
depicted the High Priestess of
Nanna/Sin at Ur and listed her
accoutrements.134 Its discovery
by Nabonidus (555-539) at the
end of the Neo-Babylonian era
enabled him to revive the cult at
Ur.135
7
GWA / Egypt
TIP & Late Period (Dyn 21-26),
1070-525.
Daughter of king/queen. However,
often were not elevated to GWA
until the later reign of their
brothers.117
God’s Wife of Amun (GWA).
2nd Priest of Amun.118
Divine Adoratrice.
God’s Hand.
Both titles first combined with GWA
by Maatkare (Dyn 21).119 Amenirdis
I (Dyn 25) used them, plus 2
more:120
One who is united with the god.121
[Daughter of Osiris].122
King’s wife (factual? honorific?
erroneous?).123
High Priest of Amun (HPA).124
Second, as in Early phase.
First, when her powers eclipsed
HPA (Dyn 25-26) or when GWA
was also HPA (Ankhnesneferibre,
Dyn 26); see Table 5, Height of
power.
Overall, “the highest-ranking
priestess in Ancient Egypt.”125
Shepenwepet I, dau. Osorkon III
(Libyan, Dyn 23-24, C8th).128,129
Amenirdis I,* dau. Kashta (Nubian,
Dyn 25, late C8th).130
Shepenwepet II, dau. Piye (Nubian,
Dyn 25, late C8th-early C7th).131
Nitocris I, dau. Psamtek I (Saite,
Dyn 26, late C7th-early C6th).132
Ankhnesneferibre, dau. Psamtek II
(Saite, Dyn 26, C6th).133
The “Adoption Stele of Nitocris,”136
made by her father Psamtek I, was
(like the Donation Stele of Ahmose)
an im.yt-pr.w deed.137 It respected
the rights of the incumbent
(Shepenwepet II) and her heiress
(Amenirdis II), but ensured the
eventual transfer of the GWA
position and its assets to Nitocris,
witnessed and dated both in Sais and
in Thebes. Despite his deference,
Amenirdis II does seem to have been
bypassed as GWA.138
Ankhnesneferibre’s stele presents
her adoption (9 years previously) &
recent investiture in religious &
ritual terms, with a parochial Theban
focus.139
Additional/special HPA vacancy ca. 754-704 increased
motivations power of Amenirdis I (ca. 740-
700).140
Restrain powerful priesthood of
Thebes in politically turbulent
times.141
Consolidate rule of “foreign” kings
(Libyan & Nubian, Dyn 23-25)142
and the southern power of those
ruling from the Delta, who were
initially Assyrian vassals (Saites,
Dyn 26).143
Matriarchal tendencies & familial
power-sharing of Libyans and
Nubians,144 traditionalism/piety of
Kushite and Saite dynasties (Dyn
25-26).145

Table 5. Wax & wane

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt
Height of power Early phase, esp. Ur III (= 4 Late phase. Specifically:
EPNs at Ur).146 Also:
a) Literature/propaganda of a) Shepenwepet I (Dyn 23-24)
Enheduana, first named author in considered by some as de facto ruler
history (composer of the of Upper Egypt.151
Sumerian Temple Hymns,
Adoration of Inanna, etc.)147
b) Reconstruction of GIPAR by b) Dyn 25-26, when GWA eclipsed
Enanedu, poss. as local deputy the power of the High Priest of
for her father.148 Her seal had the Amun.152 Peaked with Shepenwepet
authority of royal dynastic II, who rivalled Mentuemhat (mayor
seal.149 She is the only non- of Thebes) as de facto ruler of Upper
reigning royal to be lauded in a Egypt;153 or with Saite GWAs.154
praise-hymn.150
Hiatuses Early phase Early phase
GIPAR destroyed by Elamites at During 2nd half of Dyn 18 (post-
fall of Ur III (ca. 2003), rebuilt Hatshepsut, perhaps a rejection of
by Enanatuma (ca. 1955- her rule).171
1937).155
No named incumbents after
Enanedu (still alive ca. 1796).156
Power shifted to the “convent of
nuns” at Sippar (=second wives
to Shamash) to which the OB
kings sent their daughters,157 and
to the multiple priestesses of
Marduk.158 Still, Hammurabi
placed a stele in the Temple of
Ningal.159
Likely hiatus after damage to Ur
by Samsuiluna (1749-1712),160
when the GIPAR may have been
destroyed,161 and subsequent
depopulation of Ur.162 Rebuilt

8
 soon after by another OB king,
and decayed slowly.163 Largely
abandoned in C17-16th because
Euphrates had shifted to west;164
city mainly ruins by 1400.165
C14-11th, head of Gulf retreated
south, terminating Ur’s life as a
port.166
Late phase
Status uncertain until Kassite
king Kurigalzu (1332-1308)
restored the temenos, enlarging
the GIPAR and relocating the
Ningal temple.167
The EN-priestess at Ur “certainly
existed through Kassite times and
beyond.”168 Her role is “attested
as late as the post-Kassite period
[i.e., after 1155], suggesting that
at least the office was perpetuated
whenever possible.”169 Ur lapsed
into obscurity in C12th, reviving
somewhat in C8-7th.170
Belated survival / Yes.
revival? Pious Neo-Assyrian governor of
Ur, Sinbalatsu-iqbi, found the
GIPAR in ruins ca. 660. He rebuilt
over it to a new plan;176 ditto for
Kurigalzu’s Ningal temple.177
Excavation of the GIPAR site has
revealed a Neo-Assyrian building
(ca. 650) with two tombs of
women in copper coffins,
presumed to be EPNs.178
The 2nd Neo-Babylonian king,
Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562),
renovated and rebuilt in the
temenos.179
Cult revived by Nabonidus, the
last Neo-Babylonian king (555-
539), an arch-traditionalist who
excavated inscriptions of
Nebuchadnezzar I and Enanedu
and restored the Temple of
Nanna (by then, Sin) at Ur.180 In
response to a lunar eclipse in 554,
he installed his daughter as the
EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna at Ur.181
He remodelled the old GIPAR,
restored the Ningal temple, and
built a palatial residence (poss. a
new GIPAR) outside the temenos
in the north of the city.182
Revival ended with Persian rule.
After defeating Nabonidus, the
Persian king Cyrus criticised him
for elevating Sin over Marduk
9
Late phase
Fully-titled GWAs after Isis (Dyn
20) include Maatkare (I)
Mutemhat172 (Dyn 21), Shepenwepet
I (Dyn 23) and her successors (to
Dyn 26).173
Despite continuous occupancy of
position, by year 26 of Psamtek I
(i.e., 638) the estate of the GWA had
allegedly “fallen into ruin,” from
which “all men seize things as their
hearts dictate.”174 It was rebuilt for
Nitocris by her first High Steward,
Ibi.175
No.
Appointment of princess
inconsistent with customs of Persian
rule.184
Descent from a Nubian GWA was
important to Nubian king Aspelta, 3
generations after Nubian withdrawal
from Egypt.185
Aspects of the GWA’s office may
have lingered into the Persian period
(Dyn 27);186 possibly a (non-royal)
priestess sexually consecrated to
Amun at Thebes.187
The office of GWA was not restored
in the religious revivals of Dyn 30 or
the Ptolemaic era.188
Some Ptolemaic priestesses of
Amun reprised the title
Adoratrice.189 Titles and epithets of
the Ptolemaic queens of Egypt seem
to be borrowed from the titularies of
the GWAs.190 At Edfu, one
Ptolemaic queen is describ-ed as a
Divine Adoratrice.191
 and for appointing his dau. as
EPN.183
Table 6. Traditions (either phase)
EPN / Mesopotamia
Pedigree Dau. of king in Early phase,
prob. giving way to non-royals in
Late phase.
Alternative fates Abroad – diplomatic marriage of
princess to foreign ruler.
Parallel institutions Akkadian era: EN-priestesses of
Enlil, Shamash, Utu, Mes-sanga-
Unug at other cities.193
Ur III & Isin/Larsa: Also find
EN-priestesses of Enki &
Nigublaga, and subsidiary EPNs
at Karzida/ Ga’esh & Urum.194
Selection rituals
Divination.203 In early phase, the
ZIRRU was “chosen by means of
(omens taken from the entrails
of) a goat”204 and her selection
could provide the next year-
name, as done for Enmahgalana
(ca. 2043).205 Liver extispicy
was the usual selection method
(ca. 2000),206 incl. in the Neo-
Babylonian revival (554).207
Training & After ritual purification,
installation undertook novitiate (prob. oral
training by current
incumbent).211 Novitiate between
selection and enthronement
could last several years.212
EPN at Ur was probably
installed similarly to EPN at
Karzida, who underwent an
investiture celebration (7 days of
procession, entry to temples of
various deities with sacrifices),
then an enthronement ceremony
(throne-name conferred 4 times,
10
Appointment of princess as GWA
ended with Persian rule, as described
above.
GWA / Egypt
Great Royal Wife (herself often a
royal dau.) in Early phase, giving
way to dau. of current king in Late
phase.
Early phase: Domestic – Egyptian
princesses were not married off to
foreign rulers.
Late phase: Abroad or domestic –
former policy overturned in Dyn
21.192
“Wife of Min” known in OK/FIP.195
Some MK-LP use of “God’s Wife”
without deity being named.196 Local
theogamous priestesses known,197
e.g. TIP/LP: God’s Wife of
Neferhotep at Hutsekhem198 and of
Heryshaf at Heracleopolis (the latter
incl. a Saite princess).199 Divine
Adoratrices of other male creator
deities (e.g. Atum) may have sexual
function.200
Otherwise, GWA “without direct
parallel in other religious hierarchies
in Egypt,”201 or in Nubia.202
Usually just royal pronouncement.
An oracle was used to confirm the
appointment of Ahmose-Nefertari,
the first GWA.208
An oracle was used to confirm the
appointment of Ramses VI’s dau.
Isis, perhaps a reflection of his lack
of political power.209
Upon adoption, Ankhnesneferibre’s
titles (incl. HPA) were confirmed by
oracle of Amun.210
Late phase: Investiture rites similar
to those for a pharaoh.214 GWA
installed by visiting Temple of
Amun followed by large procession
of the priesthood. Initiation rituals
were performed by “the scribe of the
divine book and great wab-priests of
this temple,” with purification by
 given paraphernalia, entered
GIPAR).213
Residence The GIPAR in the temenos at Ur,
associated with the EKISHNUGAL
(Temple of Nanna).
Deity focused upon Ningal, whose temple was in the
GIPAR (Early phase) or beside it
(Late phase). See, however, the
Postscript added in 2019 at the
end of this paper.
Nanna’s shrine and courtyard/
temple were elsewhere in the
temenos.218
Ningal’s cult and temple were
integrated with that of Nanna
and were overseen by the EPN,
her earthly embodiment or
representative.219
Concurrency Only one EPN at Ur (the main
temple) at any one time.
However, the EPN at Ur was
supplemented by EPNs at other
sites (e.g. Amar-Suen named
years for the installations of EPN
at Ur and elsewhere, incl. one for
Nanna of Karzida at Ga’esh).230
These too were “wives of
Nanna.”
Cultic roles Lived in relative isolation from
(for sacred marriage, outside world.233 Ritual ablutions
see next section) before entering sanctuary.234
Sang holy songs, esp. the ASILA
(jubilation).235 Presided over
rituals, which were performed by
assistants.236 Banqueted with
deity,237 prepared daily food/beer
offerings to god; provisioned the
cult and donated precious
items.238
Accompanied divine images in
processions, e.g. New Year trip
of Nanna’s statue to Eridu.239
11
Horus & Thoth, then coronation of
candidate as she kneels before
Amun. Then tying of amulets and
bestowing of regalia, incl. 2-
feathered crown. Also formulation of
a new titulary, with her name now
appearing in a cartouche.215
GWA palace recently identified at
Naga Malgata, North Karnak,216
supp-lanting palace in Medinet
Habu.217
Late phase: Amun-Re in
iconography; also Osiris, as many
GWAs built Osirian chapels.220
Medinet Habu, site of the GWA
memorial chapels, is focused on
Amun(-Re) and Osiris (main text,
Residence...).221
Most GWA throne-names
incorporate Mut,222 but otherwise
she is largely supplanted in GWA-
sponsored scenes by the GWA
herself.223
Mut was important independent of
Amun(-Re); she had her own
priesthood and temple at Karnak.224
Also, consort of state god of
Nubia.225
GWA could embody Hathor226 or
Tefnut,227 sometimes Isis.228 Like
Mut, these could be God’s Hand.229
Only one GWA at any one time.231
The GWA and her staff were located
at Thebes, and no other temple of
Amun in Egypt had a GWA.
Hatshepsut did not hold the title of
GWA concurrently with her dau.
Neferure; it was passed to latter once
Hatshepsut had become king.232
Ritual ablutions before entering
sanctuary.242 Pre-ritual, bathed in
sacred lake.243
Entertained & honoured gods via
music (esp. sistrum); by pouring
libations & burning incense; by
consecrating food offerings; by
presenting Maat (justice/order/
truth).244
Accompanied the God’s Fathers
(mid-ranking male priests) in
processions & liturgies.245
 With king, accompanied Nanna’s
statue biannually to Karzida for
AKITI festival.240
Interceded with the god on
behalf of the king.241
Built, repaired and maintained
temples and chapels. Commiss-
ioned statues of king and deity.
Sacred marriage Mirrors the archaic concept of
sacred marriage between king of
Uruk and goddess Inanna.252
Earlier scholars believed the king
played the part of Nanna in
sacred marriage rite with EPN;
e.g. Ur-Namma’s royal line was
secured via the EPN in Nippur,
who gave birth to Shulgi.253
More recent opinions see a
symbolic (i.e. non-sexual) act in
which the EPN lay down to
music on a sacred bed in
Nanna’s bed-chamber within the
GIPAR, the AGRUN (room C28),254
which was decorated with hay &
flowers.255
It is likely that the sacred
marriage described by Herodotus
[Hdt. I 181.5-182.1] (C5th) is
actually a memory of the union
of EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna (dau.
of Nabonidus, C6th) with Sin at
Ur.256 Herodotus links this
directly with practice of
Egyptian GWA-like priestess
(see opposite column).257
Celibacy & Older literature says celibate and
procreation childless,266 though intercourse
& conception via king possible
in sacred marriage rite.267 Much
current literature perpetuates the
belief in the unmarried, childless
or even virginal “spouse of the
deity,” while conceding human
failings.268 Stol269 cites as
evidence the myth of Atrahasis
(in which children are declared
taboo to EN-priestesses), the
12
Partnered with king in provisioning,
protecting & rejuvenating gods.246
Officiated at other Rites of Royal &
Divine Dominion.247 Identified with
Isis in some rites.248
Built temples & dedicated shrines.249
Shepenwepet II (Dyn 25) is only
non-king shown publicly performing
“Driving of the Four Calves” and
“Striking of the Meret-Chests.”250
She also seems to have celebrated a
sed festival (see Iconography
section), perhaps at her
investiture.251
Does not mirror sacred marriage of
king to goddess in Sumerian
sense.258 However, in Early phase,
the union between the king and
queen, identifi-ed with Amun(-Re)
and Hathor/Mut respectively,
represented the marriage of these
deities.259 (The Early phase practice
of Great Royal Wife = GWA
formalised the queen as Mut.) Her
son, the next king, was the “son of
Amun(-Re).”260
Some propose sexual stimulation of
Amun by GWA, e.g. in her capacity
as God’s Hand,261 but overall there is
no good evidence for sexual
rituals.262 The sound of the sistrum
may evoke the sexual union of
Amun and his consort, but certainly
does not implic-ate the musician in
the sex act.263
Koch has recently re-envisaged the
Dyn 23-26 GWAs as daughters
rather than spouses of Amun.264
Herodotus links sacred marriage of
GWA-like priestess directly with
practice of an EPN-like priestess in
Babylonia (see opposite column).265
Many early GWAs were Royal
Wives, and thus were not celibate
and often had children.273 However,
it is no longer thought that the king
was required to marry the GWA to
legitimate his rule and succession.274
Much modern literature perpetuates
the belief that Ramses VI (Dyn 20)
stipulated that his daughter Isis
remain unmarried, and that
subsequent GWAs followed suit.275
Rationale is that it prevented these
 clandestine nature of Sargon’s
birth to an EN-priestess in
legend,270 law codes from Ur III,
and traditions from OB onwards
(while conceding that late texts
seem to acknowl-edge marriage).
Other recent literature says High
Priestesses were not celibate and
that children are attested in all
periods;271 e.g., the seal of
Enanatuma’s son is known.272
Assistant/deputy & Probably had a key assistant (of
key staff same gender) called a LAGAR.282
Below that fall three other senior
ranks; then 5 types of performat-
ive actors; 2 kinds of cantor/
musician; and female votaries.283
Seal(ing)s of an estate
supervisor, hairdresser & two
scribes in Enheduana’s staff have
been found .284
Power Incumbents had “weak legal
authority but strong personal and
mystical spiritual influence.”291
Known via local excursions.292
Considered masculine from Ur
III-OB, poss. reflecting power;293
see Representation..., below.
Their blessing probably needed
for appointment of local ruler.294
Head of temple household, a
major institution in the local
economy.295 Scale illustrated by
a receipt naming Enmenana.296
A claim that Enanedu acted as a
money-lender seems
unfounded.297
Tenure, succession, A new EPN may have been
and response to new appointed after a set term, or
king or dynasty replaced at a certain age.302
No formal “adoption” of heiress;
incumbent seems to have retired
after a new appointment,303
becoming emerita.304 Retirees
13
princesses from engendering rival
dynasties in Thebes.276
Celibacy of Late phase GWAs
accepted by Leahy277 but contested
by Teeter, who argues inter alia that
Amenirdis II was married and had a
child.278 Manassa and Pope too
contest celibacy.279 Bryan says
husbands are conceivable and can
explain lack of evidence.280
Ayad maintains that the powerful
GWAs of Dyn 23-26 were indeed
single and seemingly childless,
although perhaps not ritually
precluded from sexual relations.281
Heiress as main cultic assistant,285 in
Dyn 26 also Sms.wt (Followers).286
Senior cult singers were titled
Chantress of the Interior of Amun;
three D26 heiresses were Great
Chantress of the Interior.287 Many
Chantresses were buried at Medinet
Habu, some in close association with
GWA memorial chapels.288
Administrators of the estate of the
GWA, headed by the High Steward
of the God’s Wife/Adoratrice,289
includ-ed a “Scribe of counting
grain” and an “Overseer of cattle.”290
Religious authority; successors
reportedly greeted with joy by
populace.298
[For masculinisation, see Represent-
ation..., below.]
Dyn 23-26, political power, poss. as
de facto (co-)rulers of Upper
Egypt.299
Second to HPA (or in Dyn 25-26, his
equal/superior) as head of temple
assets, which were vast. Under
Ramses II (Dyn 19), there were over
50,000 priests of Amun at Thebes.300
Nitocris I commanded daily tribute
of 190 kg bread, cereals, herbs &
milk from the priests, plus monthly
tribute of cattle and additional
foods.301
Many modern authors perpetuate the
belief that Ramses VI (Dyn 20)
stipulated that his daughter Isis and
subsequent GWAs had to adopt the
daughter of each subsequent king as
their heiress.310 Rationale is that it
prevented these princesses aiding
rival claimants to the throne. 311
 remained in the GIPAR as their
tombs are there (see Table 6,
Mortuary cult).
“So important and sacred was
the dignity of these priestesses at
Ur that they were often able to
retain their office undisturbed by
dynastic changes in the civil
government.”305 A documented
exception was Enheduana,
ousted (temporarily) by Lugal-
Ane’s rebellion.306
Many EPNs served at Ur for
long periods (30-40 years),307
providing a unifying link through
times of disunity.308 E.g.
Enanatuma (of Isin) served long
after Gungunum (of Isin’s
enemy, Larsa) had conquered
Ur.309
Thone- Yes (Sumerian).
name/prenomen All names commence with EN-.
Most do not refer to Nanna or to
Ningal, his divine spouse.
Representation and Enheduana, the first certain EPN
self-presentation in at Ur, was a cultural pioneer who
text (incl. gender styled herself as such, wrote in
issues) the first person under own name,
and asserted herself before the
gods.321
Religious ruler & builder,
interceding with god for king.322
Filiation term DUMU suggests
“son” of the king, although may
just be archaism (= son or dau. in
Old Sumerian).323 Gender
considered masculine from Ur
III-OB period, e.g. Enanedu is
“son” of Kudur-Mabuk and
“brother” of Warad-Sin (Larsa, r.
1834-23);324 “maleness” prob. a
reflection of the role’s power.325
Iconography Depicted in reliefs and
statuary.332 Almost all images are
from Early phase.
14
Others deny that it predates Dyn 22
and point to the Nitocris Adoption
Stele (Dyn 26) as formalising king’s
dau. & adoption pattern.312
These adoptions were motivated by
secular rather than cultic concerns.313
They were bureaucratic devices
relating to inheritance of the office
and its assets, and unrelated to
celibacy or biological
motherhood.314
Isis (Dyn 20) reigned for 25-50
yrs.315 Yoyotte estimated ave. 50 yr
tenure for GWAs of Dyn 21-23.316
In Dyn 25-26, the daughter of a new
king was usually adopted as heiress
by the incumbent GWA. Tenures
were long (25-68 yrs) and often
crossed dynastic boundaries.317
Collaboration/delegation was
common, with dynastic overlaps that
required many years of co-operation
between different ethnicities.318
Only ever one GWA at a time, but
she and her heiress(es) were
probably regarded as a single
“college.”319
Yes, from Maatkare (Dyn 21) on.
That of Shepenwepet I refers to
Amun and evokes Hatshepsut’s.320
Most other names incorporate Mut,
the divine wife of Amun.
Cartouche from at least Dyn 20,326
regal status of a king by Dyn 26.327
Late phase GWAs used feminised
versions of the king’s titulary
(female equivalents of Son of Re,
Master of the Two Lands, Master of
Appear-ances/Crowns, Horus,
etc.)328
Donation Stele of Ahmose (Dyn 18)
stipulated that the office of GWA
will pass “from son to son
forever;”329 this reflects the male-
oriented legal terms of the im.yt pr.w
deed. A phrase in the Adoption Stele
of Nitocris may hint at a notional
male filiation between successive
GWAs.330 The death of Nitocris is
recorded using phraseology for
king.331
Depicted in reliefs and statuary.339
Early phase attire: Often dressed as a
MK priestess. Short close-fitting wig
with thin fillet tied at back of head,
ends trailing; sheath dress.340
 All crowned (AGA-crown head-
dress, esp. circlet), most
enthroned.333
Flounced/pleated woollen robe
(an attribute of divinity),334
usually covering both shoulders;
long loose hair.335
May appear taller than less
important persons.336
Use of motifs otherwise
restricted to king or deity.337
May be depicted frontally, a pose
normally reserved for
goddesses.338
Building program Enanatuma did extensive (re-)
building in ruined GIPAR;350 built
chapels to Utu and Dagan “for
the life of” the king.351
Enanedu reconstructed the GIPAR
(Table 3, Notable decrees).
Mortuary cult Yes.356 The dead EPNs lived on
in statues, housed in mortuary
chapels; offerings were made
there and/or at graves.357
By Ur III, the outdoor cemetery
had become vaults under the
GIPAR’s residential quarters.
Exposed again by late Larsa dyn,
the graveyard was restored and
re-enclosed by Enanedu.358
Food offerings in Isin/Larsa per-
iod continue older tradition.359
Not usually deified after death,360
although Enanatuma and
Enmegalana seemingly were.361
Politicization May date to ED with Ninmeta-
barri, dau. of king of Mari.367
15
Late phase attire:341 Often dressed as
a Dyn 18 queen and impersonating
Mut. Crowned by modius with Sw.ty
= 2 tall feathers (sometimes also
with solar disc between horns);
vulture cap or crown (for
Mut/Nekhbet, Isis, Hathor);342 poss.
uraeus. Long lappet or short curly
wig; if unwigged, hair gathered close
to skull by fillet or ribbon (often
with bonnet too). Broad collar;
sometimes shawl. Dress is either
long, loose and multi-layered with
sash, or else a tight sheath.
In Late phase, use of motifs
otherwise restricted to king, as
follows. Shepenwepet I (Dyn 23) is
crowned and suckled by a
goddess.343 Dyn 23-26 GWAs
present Maat to Amun.344 In Dyn 25,
Amenirdis I founded a temple and
received sed symbols, Shepenwepet
II had proffering sphinxes345 and
seems to have celebrated a sed and
other king-only rites (see Cultic
roles above).346 Shepenwepet II
publicly portrayed the divine
marriage, showing (separately)
Amenirdis I and herself in embrace
with Amun.347 Deceased Amenirdis I
shown deified.348 In Dyn 23-26,
GWA closer to gods than king is.349
Yes, from Dyn 23-26.352 Residence
in N Karnak;353 chapels to Osiris
(high-lighting relationship to the
king) in N & E Karnak;354 GWA
funerary chapels in Medinet Habu.355
Yes. Prob. Ahmose-nefertari (Dyn
18).362 Definitely Dyn 23-26, with
mortuary chapels at Medinet
Habu,363 which probably housed cult
statues and would have received
offerings.364
GWA played role of dutiful “eldest
son” by officiating in funerary cult
of predecessor; this also legitimated
their succession.365
Not usually deified after death,
although Amenirdis I was shown
thus.366
 Began for sure with Enheduana, Began with Isis, dau. of Ramses VI
dau. Sargon, who saw herself as (Dyn 20), a king who ruled from the
spiritual leader of the Akkadian Delta and needed to strengthen royal
empire and promoted her father’s control over Thebes.374
deity (Ishtar, primary goddess of Full exploitation with Shepenwepet I
Akkad)368 as a universal deity (Dyn 23), who had her own
superior to her own spouse governing administration and whom
Nanna, the moon deity and city- some scholars consider to have been
god of Ur.369 She wrote hymns de facto ruler of Upper Egypt.375
that helped to syncretise Inanna
(Sum.) with Ishtar (Akk.) and Shepenwepet II rivalled
that drew together temples from Mentuemhat, mayor of Thebes, as de
35 different Babylonian cities, facto ruler of Upper Egypt.376
unifying the pantheon.370 Her
poems also express
political/legal outrage at
challenges to the empire that her
father had initiated.371
Enheduana’s writings remained a
tool for unity into OB times.372
Sargon/Enheduana’s unity-
through-religion program was
echoed 1700 yrs later by the
Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus
and his daughter.373

Accordingly, the Early phase of the EPN at Ur, especially some 525 years within
the Akkadian through Isin/Larsa periods, must be contrasted with the Late phase of
the GWA at Thebes, especially a 265-year span encompassing the TIP/Late Period
Dynasties 23-26.377 It is this comparison, and the attendant discussion, that forms
the main text of the paper.378 Despite the many differences in religious belief
between late 3rd- to early 2nd-millennium Mesopotamia and early- to mid-1st
millennium Egypt – most conspicuously in the importance attached to the afterlife
and the understanding of what it entailed379 – we shall see that the supreme female
high priestly offices share some interesting and unexpected similarities.

The Office of High Priestess

At the start of the respective peak periods, the High Priestess in each country was
the daughter of the current king. In Mesopotamia, the institution of EPN actually

16
 Fig. 1. Nanna. King Ur-Namma (founder of the Ur III dynasty) makes a libation before
the seated figure of the Sumerian moon-god Nanna (Akkadian Sin), who wears the horned
crown of divinity and holds the “rod and ring” combination that symbolises kingship.380
Detail from the Stele of Ur-Namma, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
and Anthropology, object B16676.14. Photo of restoration predating 1901, Public
Domain.381 The unrestored fragment can be seen online.382

began with the installation of Enheduana – daughter of Sargon, the founder of the
Akkadian Empire – at Ur (Table 1; Fig. 4). In Egypt, the GWA’s period of peak
strength began in Dynasty 23 – a period of Libyan rule in the Third Intermediate
Period – with the appointment of Shepenwepet I, daughter of king Osorkon III (r.
777-749), in 754 (Table 4). She was following in the footsteps of Karomama
Meritmut (Fig. 5), a God’s Wife/Divine Adoratrice (= Karomama G) who was
possibly a half-sister of her great-grandfather, Nimlot C.383 Osorkon III ruled from
Thebes and controlled the country as far as Leontopolis in the Delta.384 His son
Takelot served as High Priest of Amun (HPA) up to the time of his accession to the
throne as his father’s co-regent and eventual successor (Takelot III, r. 763-744).385

In both cases, the initial appointments appear to have been politically motivated
and to have been intended to exert royal control over a rival institution and/or a
remote region. It was useful for Sargon, who ruled from Akkad in northern
Babylonia, to have his daughter Enheduana acting on his behalf in a key city of
Sumer, countering the power of the ruler of Ur and establishing a loyal power-
base in the south (Table 1, Motivations of king).386 Equally, it seems likely that the

17
Fig. 2. Amun. Gold-plated silver figure of the Egyptian supreme god Amun(-Re),
Dynasty 26. The figure’s divine beard shows that he is a god, and his headdress identifies
him as Amun. British Museum EA60006.387 Photo © Trustees of the British Museum,
reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.388

18
 Fig. 3. Synoptic timeline. Chronology for the EN-priestess of Nanna (EPN) at Ur
and the God’s Wife of Amun (GWA) in Egypt. The thickness of the salmon-coloured
bars reflects the perceived strength of the office of EPN at Ur and/or the functionality
of its home, the GIPAR; that of the blue bars reflects the perceived strength of the office
of GWA. Dashed lines indicate uncertainty. The vertical scale is necessarily subjective;
note that some thinner segments may have had a non-princess as priestess or even no
incumbent. The millennium-long window during which each office was considered
operational (EPN ca. 2288-1104, GWA ca. 1552-525) is indicated by a dashed
horizontal grey bracket; the notional division of each window into an Early phase and
a Late phase (Tables 3 & 4, respectively) is shown in green, with the boundary marked
by a triangle. The period of peak strength for each office (EPN ca. 2288-1796, GWA
ca. 754-525) is indicated by a solid horizontal magenta-coloured bracket.
Abbreviations: TIP, Third Intermediate Period; Neo-Ass., Neo-Assyrian period; Neo-
Bab., Neo-Babylonian period.

appointment of Shepenwepet as GWA in the year when her brother relinquished the
role of HPA was motivated by a desire to maintain royal influence over the senior
priesthood of Amun;389 the manoeuvre probably shared the same motivation as the
appointment of her predecessor, Isis, by Ramses VI at the end of the New Kingdom
(Table 3, Additional/special motivations). Accordingly, one may consider the
position of High Priestess as “an offshoot of kingship on the local level.”390 The
EPNs and GWAs themselves appear to have done so, inasmuch as they habitually
co-opted iconography, rituals and epithets that were otherwise reserved for the king
(Table 6, Representation... and Iconography). Indeed, as Betsy Bryan has pointed
out, the separateness and independence of the office of GWA – together with its
unusual succession process (Table 6, Tenure...) – constitute a female equivalent to
the description of kingship found in the Teaching for King Merikare, an Egyptian
literary text set in the First Intermediate Period:
The kingship is an excellent office;
It has no son, it has no brother, who can make its monuments endure,
Though each man ennobles his successor,
And each man acts on behalf of him who preceded him,
In hope that his action may be affirmed by another who comes after him.391,392

19
 (a) (b)

Fig. 4. Votive disc of Enheduana. (a) Alabaster relief, found in the GIPAR, depicting
(on its obverse, shown here) the EPN Enheduana officiating in a ritual.393 (b) Close-up
of Enheduana (2nd figure from left). University of Pennsylvania Museum of Arch-
aeology and Anthropology, object B16665. Photo courtesy of Penn Museum, available
via the Ur Online database,394 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

From these considerations, it should come as no surprise to find that both types of
priestess were routinely shown crowned: the EPN wearing the circlet of the AGA-
crown (Figs. 4b & 6), the GWA wearing the vulture head-dress (Fig. 7; an emblem
of queenship), the twin-plumed crown of Amun(-Re) (Fig. 8) and, at times, the
kingly uraeus (Table 6, Iconography). In addition, depictions of the EPN usually
show her enthroned (Fig. 6). Shepenwepet II is likewise shown enthroned in a scene
at North Karnak;395 this GWA seems to have celebrated a sed-festival and other
rites that were ordinarily the exclusive preserve of the king (Table 6, Cultic roles
and Iconography).

It is significant that the deities to which the two High Priestesses were consecrated –
Nanna/Sin, a lunar deity, and Amun(-Re), a solar one – were closely linked with
kingship. It is well known that, from the New Kingdom onward, the king of Egypt
was considered to be the son of Amun, who in turn had taken on all the properties of
the sun-god, Re (Table 2, Role & Astronomical identity). It is perhaps less widely
appreciated that, in Mesopotamia, Nanna/Sin was not just a god of fertility but was
also the guarantor of the political order, and especially of royal power (Table 2,
Role). As Tamara Green has observed, from Ur III to the Neo-Babylonian period,

20
Fig. 5. Karomama Meritmut, Divine Adoratrice of Amenemope. 396 Louvre
Museum N500. It has been described as “an exceptional piece of work, known by
everybody, used to illustrate many developments about Egyptian civilization.”397 In
the academic literature, Karomama (Dynasty 22) is often treated as a full GWA.398
Her tomb was discovered in 2014. 399 Photograph by Miguel Hermoso Cuesta,
available via Wikimedia Commons,400 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

21
 (a) (b)

Fig. 6. Unidentified EPN, Ur III period.401 Louvre Museum AO 23995. Images ©

2007 Photo RMN / Franck Raux, online via the Louvre, reproduced by permission.402

“everywhere we find close ties between the institution of kingship and ‘Father
Nanna, lord of the shining crown,’ whose crescent shape was transformed into a
mitre, the symbol of the royal crown.”403 Some differences in how the EPN and
GWA engaged with Nanna and Amun(-Re), and identified with their divine
consorts Ningal and Mut, respectively, are explored below in the section titled Cult
and Ritual.

22
Fig. 7. A Nubian GWA. “Sandstone relief of a divine consort,” probably the GWA
Amenirdis I or Shepenwepet II. Fitzwilliam Museum E.GA.4542.1943, © The Fitzwilliam
Museum, Cambridge.404 Image reproduced here under licence.405

23
Fig. 8. Amenirdis I. Detail of wall scene from a GWA mortuary chapel, Medinet Habu.
Photo by Neithsabes, derivative work (colour correction) by JMCC1, available via
Wikimedia Commons,406 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

24
Subsequent to the appointment of Enheduana, a newly-nominated EPN was usually
the daughter of the current king, although at times – as, for example, with Enanedu
– she could be the sister of the current king (Table 3, Pedigree; Fig. 9). Likewise,
after the appointment of Shepenwepet I, the daughter of each new Egyptian king
(with a few exceptions)407 was designated as heiress to the incumbent GWA (Table
4, Pedigree; Fig. 10), although she was often not elevated to GWA until the
subsequent reign of one of her brothers.408 The details of succession in Egypt and
Mesopotamia will be discussed later in the sections titled Succession and Survival.
For the moment, it is sufficient to note that each office continued to operate as an
extension and outpost of kingship. This is especially clear in the case of Egypt
(Table 4, Additional/special motivations). Accordingly, some time around 740, the
first Nubian king of Egypt – Kashta – is believed to have installed his daughter
Amenirdis (Fig. 8) as heiress to Shepenwepet I.409 Since this achievement
legitimized the Nubian takeover of Thebes, it constituted for Kashta “the key
moment in the process of the extension of Kushite power over Egyptian
territories.”410 Equally, the designation of Nitocris as heiress to the position of
GWA bolstered the southern power of the Saite dynasty (Dynasty 26), kings of
Libyan descent411 who ruled from the Delta and whose state had begun as Assyrian
vassalship. In Mesopotamia, the value of the EN-priestess as
... a useful and powerful political tool was not lost on the Ur III and Isin kings.
These expanded the use of this institution even further, creating additional en
priestesses. During these particular periods, there existed three separate en
priestesses of Nanna (at Ur, Karzida/Gaesh, and Urum respectively), as well as
those of Enlil, Enki and Ningublaga.412
More needs to be said about the political dimension of the EPN and GWA than is
appropriate for this introductory section. Accordingly, the theme will be reprised
below in the section titled Power and Prosperity, which deals more fully with the
role of the High Priestess as a spiritual and economic leader of her community.

The expansion of the number of EPNs in the Ur III period set up an enduring point
of contrast between the office of EPN and that of GWA, insofar as, at any time
thereafter, the EPN at Ur was likely to have counterparts at secondary temples
elsewhere in Babylonia (Table 6, Concurrency). In contrast, the GWA at Thebes
was invariably the only such office-bearer in Egypt. We should, however, be aware

Fig. 9 (next page). Genealogy of the EPNs during the peak period of the office (Akkad to
Larsa dynasties). EPNs are indicated in salmon-coloured capitals. Queens’ names are given
in black italics. Kings and the date-spans for their reigns are from van de Mieroop.413 All
dates should be regarded as approximate. For the proposed termini to Enheduana’s reign, see
ahead to her entry in Table 8 and footnotes thereto. Relationship data for Gudea comes from
Hallo & Simpson414 and Emelianov.415

25
26
Fig. 10. Genealogy of the GWAs during the peak period of the office (Dynasties 23-26).
Heiresses/adoptees are indicated in blue type; those that took office as GWA are shown in
capitals. Queens’ names are given in black italics.416 Date-spans in black are from Ayad and
Kitchen;417 those for kings give their reigns, while those for GWAs typically cover the year
of their adoption as heiress to the presumed year of retirement or death, whichever is the
sooner. Date-spans in brown are from Dodson;418 for GWA candidates, date of adoption as
heiress in regular type, term as GWA (excluding retirement, if any) in bold type. GWA date-
spans in grey (using the same format) are from Koch (2012 & 2014).419 The tree follows the
traditional filiation for Shabaqo (Shabaka) and Shebitqo (Shabataka), as set forth by Ayad
(2009a), whereas Dodson has Shebitqo as a son of Shabaqo; 420 new considerations even
favour reversing the order of their reigns.421 HPA, High Priest of Amun, date from Dodson.422
Pre-Dynasty 26 dates are approximate.

27
that – both in Mesopotamia and in Egypt – additional princesses were sometimes
installed as High Priestesses of other gods at other cities. Thus, as well as installing
his daughter Enmenana as EPN at Ur, Sargon’s grandson Naram-Sin “expanded this
policy by placing several of his daughters as high priestesses of prominent cults in
other Babylonian cities, a clear attempt to gain a solid foothold throughout the
region.”423 For example, he appointed his daughter Tutanapshum as EN-priestess of
Enlil.424 Similarly, in Dynasty 26 of Egypt, Merytnebes – a daughter of Psamtek II,
and thus a sister of the GWA Ankhnesneferibre – served as a God’s Wife of
Heryshaf at Heracleopolis (Table 6, Concurrency).425 Like the more important
office of GWA, the position at Heracleopolis was occupied by just one woman at a
time, and the incumbent enjoyed the use of an estate.

Besides the presence of subordinate EPNs at secondary temples, another point of

distinction between the EPN at Ur and the GWA is that the former was the head of
the priesthood of Nanna and answerable only to the king, whereas the latter was the
Second Priest of Amun in an institution led by the High Priest of Amun (HPA), who
traditionally was male. However, the powers of the GWA increased over the course
of Dynasties 25-26 to the extent that they eclipsed those of the HPA. Indeed, late in
Dynasty 26, the title of HPA was absorbed by the office of GWA (Table 4,
Position...). This topic too will be reprised in greater detail in the section titled
Power and Prosperity.

Finally, we must consider the most unusual characteristic shared by the EPN and
GWA: the designation of these High Priestesses as “wives of the god.” This
defining feature of the two offices is the subject of the next section.

Spouse or Servant?

The Egyptian term Hm.t nTr embodies an important ambiguity, insofar as Hm.t can
mean either “female servant” or “woman/wife.” In the context of Hm.t nTr n(.t)
Imn.w (God’s Wife of Amun), conclusive support for the latter meaning is provided
by the hieroglyphic orthography, which distinguishes between the two categories:
, the form of Hm.t nTr observed in inscriptions,426 denotes the wife of a god,
whereas the other writing of Hm.t nTr, , would signify a female servant of the
deity.427 In addition, we have depictions of some late GWAs, such as the Dynasty
25 incumbents Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II (Fig. 7), embracing Amun in
manner wholly unbefitting a servant. However, the identical phonology does beg
the question of whether the matrimonial dimension of this priestly office might not
be a later extension to an originally prosaic role; after all, Hm.t nTr ( ) is just the
female counterpart of Hm nTr ( , “servant of the god”), the well-known title usually
translated as “priest “or “prophet.”428 The complementary term Hm nTr.t is poorly
attested; at Dendera, a type of priest in the cult of Hathor who participated in ritual
processions is so titled,429 but he is clearly nothing more than “le serviteur de la
déesse.”430 The inverse term h(A)y nTr.t (“husband of the goddess”) does not seem to
be attested at all.

As we shall see, similar complexities attend the Mesopotamian situation. Enheduana

titled herself “the ZIRRU of Nanna and the DAM (spouse) of Nanna” (Fig. 11).431
Enanepada called herself “the EN-priestess of Nanna, the ZIRRU of Nanna and the

28
Fig. 11. Detail of the surviving inscription on the reverse of Enheduana’s disc (for
obverse, see Fig. 4), with mark-up. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, object B16665. Base photo courtesy of Penn Museum, available via the Ur
Online database,432 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Mark-up (black-on-
white symbols, grey transliteration & translation) shows matches of inscribed glyphs to those
in a standard Sumerian sign-list;433 DIRI-compounds are deconstructed in dark red text.434 The
complete inscription survives in an Old Babylonian copy.435

[DA]M of Nanna;”436 and Enanatuma referred to herself as “the ZIRRU of Nanna and
EN-priestess of Nanna in Ur.”437 While admitting that the etymology of ZIRRU is
unknown, Piotr Steinkeller contends that the cuneiform components of this DIRI-
compound438 specify “faithful woman of Nanna,” an epithet that he considers more
appropriate to a servant rather than a spouse.439 He believes that, in the southern
Babylonian tradition, the High Priest of a goddess such as Inanna or Nanshe was a
male consort (EN or šennu) of the deity, whereas the High Priestesses of male deities
(EREŠ-DINGIR, MUNUS-ZI, ZIRRU, etc.) were merely attendants or companions of the
god.440 In contrast, the northern Babylonian tradition provided male deities with
female consorts in the form of DAM.DINGIR priestesses.441 Steinkeller proposes that
the southern (Sumerian) and northern (Semitic) traditions converged to create the
EN-priestess who was a god’s wife, and that the first holder of such an office in
southern Babylonia was Enheduana.442 As the daughter of an Akkadian king serving
a male god in a Sumerian temple, she certainly combined the requisite credentials
for such an innovation. If Enheduana was indeed the first EPN, then any Early
Dynastic representations of High Priestesses of Nanna at Ur must be interpreted as
ZIRRUs (attendants) rather than as EN-priestesses (consorts).443

29
In (sometimes heated) opposition to Steinkeller, Joan Westenholz argues that there
is no evidence from the Early Dynastic period for the religious male EN (i.e., the
consort of a goddess) as a Southern Babylonian tradition.444 She contends that the
concept of the High Priestess as a “god’s wife” was in fact an indigenous Sumerian
tradition, supported by evidence from the Early Dynastic period (Table 1, Precurs-
ors); accordingly, she does not see Semitic input in the concept of EN-priestess.445

The progression in the titulary of the EPN from the Akkadian to Old Babylonian
periods has been examined independently by Westenholz and Steinkeller;446 from
their analyses, it is clear that the title EN progressively gains in importance,
subsumes the wifely function, and eventually replaces the other titles. Accordingly,
during the Larsa dynasty, the titulary of both Enmegalana447 and Enanedu448 is
simply “EN-priestess of Nanna” (Fig. 12). That the latter still considered herself the
spouse of Nanna is evident from her coy self-description as the “ornament of the
AGRUN,” or sacred bedroom.449

Gender Issues

As the wife of an important male deity and “ornament of the sacred bedroom,” one
might expect an emphasis on the femininity of both types of High Priestess. Yet –
paradoxically – inscriptions written by EPNs indicate that “these women sometimes
assume a masculine gender,”450 and the GWAs too were sometimes treated as if
they were male.

In archaic Mesopotamia, the Sumerian term EN designated the ruler of a city, and
since EN-ship “constituted a normative form of kingship in archaic Babylonia,” the
term originally applied exclusively to males.451 In its later use as a title for the top
priestly office, by which time the king had become known as the LUGAL or ENSI,452
the term EN was gender-neutral.453 Despite this ambiguity, it seems that the early
scholars who translated the Sumerian inscriptions from Ur assumed that many of the
EPNs mentioned therein were male; accordingly, we read of “En-anni-pada, priest
of Nannar, son of Ur-Bau;”454 and are told that “for the life of Ur-Nammu [...] his
father, the en-nirgal-anna, the priest of Nannar, his beloved [son], has dedicated
(this);”455 in the same vein, we later encounter “Enannatum, the priest beloved of
Nannar, priest of Nannar in Ur, son of Ishme-Dagan.”456 That the translators
genuinely took these EPNs to be men is suggested by not just by the gender of
translated terms (e.g., “priest,” “son,” “his”) and of interpolated ones (e.g., “[son]”
for Enirgalana) but by editorial comments such as the footnote “Eginabtum-ku is a
sacred store-house [...] built by Enannatum son of Ishme-Dagan.”457

Much of the responsibility for such early misattributions of gender may be

attributed to the use of the Sumerian filiation term DUMU, which (in the absence of
the female qualifier MUNUS) came to mean “son” but which originally – in the
archaic period – could refer equally to either a son or a daughter.458 Enheduana
styled herself the DUMU of Sargon, and was so called by members of her staff. By
this she may not have intended to be seen as masculine, although the surprising
absence of EMESAL – a women’s dialect of Sumerian used in literary
compositions459 – from her writings460 could hint that she did wish to adopt a male

30
(a)

(b)

Fig. 12. Dedicatory cone of Enanedu. (a) Whole inscription on inscribed head
of fired clay cone. (b) Detail of first two lines (top of left column, line nos. in
green), with transcript (yellow background);461 mark-up as for Fig. 11.462 British
Museum 130729.463 Photo © Trustees of the British Museum, reproduced here
under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.464

31
persona. She was, after all, a devotee of her father’s patron goddess, Inanna/Ishtar
(Table 6, Politicization), “a female deity to whom male power and dominance were
also attributed;” indeed, in one of her hymns, Enheduana was moved to exclaim
that the power “to turn [...] a woman into a man are yours, Inanna.”465 Mary
Wakeman notes Enheduana’s personal identification with the gender-fluid Inanna
when, speaking of the priestess’s successful return to the GIPAR after a period of
exile, she mentions “her claim to have been restored by (or even as) Inanna.”466

Whether or not Enheduana wished to project a male persona, her later successors
appear to have interpreted her use of DUMU in precisely this way.467 From the Ur III
to Isin/Larsa periods, retention of the unqualified term DUMU for the filiation of
EPNs does seem to have acquired masculine connotations; for example, Enanedu
not only calls herself the DUMU of her father, Kudur-Mabuk, but the ŠEŠ – brother! –
of her sibling, king Warad-Sin. In an independent inscription she again describes
herself as ŠEŠ rather than NIN (sister) to Warad-Sin.468 It would seem, therefore, that
a tradition that may have begun as a linguistic archaism developed a life and
meaning of its own, with the EPNs being seen as notionally masculine. In the
patriarchal world of the Ancient Near East, it is easy to imagine such “maleness”
being construed as a reflection of the power and prestige of their position.469

As seen above in the section titled Spouse or Servant?, the title Hm.t nTr (God’s
Wife) is unambiguously feminine and its bearers were all women. Despite this, the
foundation charter of the office of GWA – the Donation Stele of Ahmose (Dynasty
18) – decrees as follows:
[I have given] the office of the second priest of Amun to the god’s wife, great
royal wife, she united to the beauty of the white crown, Ahmose-Nofretari, may
she live! [It] was done for her in an imyt-per, from son to son, heir to heir
[without allowing a challenge] against it by anyone forever and ever.” [...]

Then the majesty of this god said: [this appears to be an oracle coming from the
portable bark of Amun] ‘I am her protector. A challenge to her shall not occur
forever by any king who shall arise in the following of future generations. But
only the god’s wife Nefertary. It belongs to her from son to son forever and ever
in accordance with her office of god’s wife.’470
The reference to the office of God’s Wife being passed “from son to son”
presumably reflects the male-oriented legal terms of the im.yt pr.w deed, which was
the standard means of transferring property outside the usual lines of inheritance.471
Accordingly, each new GWA played the role of dutiful “eldest son” by establishing
and maintaining the mortuary cult for her successor,472 since in so doing she
actually legitimated her own succession.473 The inscriptions of Shepenwepet I
(Dynasty 23-24) mention only her biological mother, perhaps because – at the time
of her appointment – there was no incumbent GWA to adopt her. 474 Karomama
Meritmut (Fig. 5) was probably no longer alive,475 and in any case formal adoption
may not have become the norm until later;476 some scholars think it began only
when Amenirdis I adopted Shepenwepet II as her heiress,477 although Cairo
Museum statue CG 42198 identifies the same Amenirdis with the phrase “her
mother being the Divine Adoratrice Shepenwepet, justified,”478 and inscriptions on
the mortuary chapel of Shepenwepet II do likewise.479 In Dynasty 26, the Adoption
Stele of Nitocris renewed the covenant; it too was an im.yt pr.w deed (Table 4,
Notable decrees).

32
Although this stele refrains from referring to the God’s Wives and their heiresses as
“sons,” Amenirdis II is referred to obliquely as an heir (masc.) in “his seat.”480 The
stele also uses a phrase that Betsy Bryan construes as suggesting a notional sonship
between successive GWAs (Table 6, Representation...).481 Accordingly, she writes
that “Nitocris may be understood to be now claiming a male-type filiation from
Amenirdis II, who likewise claims it from Shepenwepet II.”482

Hatshepsut served both as a GWA and a king, and to facilitate the latter role she
ultimately assumed a male identity. However, it seems that she relinquished the
position of GWA – which had actually provided her favourite title – in favour of her
daughter when she ascended the throne as co-regent to Thutmose III (Table 3,
Better-known incumbents; Table 6, Concurrency). However, the Late phase GWAs
managed to combine elements of the two roles by co-opting kingly rituals for their
own purposes; in so doing, they naturally projected a more masculine persona. Their
investiture involved “accession and coronation rites similar to those for a
pharaoh”483 (for details, see Table 6, Training and installation), and by Dynasty 26
the GWAs enjoyed “regal status practically indistinguishable from that of the
pharaoh”484 (Table 6, Representation...). The Nubian GWA Shepenwepet II is the
only non-king (and the only non-male besides Hatshepsut)485 to have been publicly
shown performing the rituals known as the Driving of the Four Calves (shown
ahead in Fig. 22) and the Striking of the Meret-Chests (Table 6, Cultic roles); in
undertaking the former, “Shepenwepet assumes the role of the ultimate good son,
who not only buried his father, but faithfully protected his tomb.”486 It seems that
Shepenwepet even held a sed-festival (Table 6, Cultic roles and Iconography),487
normally a jubilee reserved strictly for the king. The death of Nitocris is recorded
using phraseology that appears to equate her with the pharaoh, and explicitly states
that “her daughter [...] did for her everything which is done for every beneficent
king”488 (Table 6, Representation...).

In the sacerdotal domain, we should note that the title “High Priest of Amun” was
left in its masculine form, Hm nTr tp.y n(.y) Imn.w, when it was conferred upon
Ankhnesneferibre in 585.489 Perhaps the intention was to emphasise that she was not
merely the “High Priestess of Amun” (and thus potentially still Second Priest of
Amun under a male HPA, as was traditional for the GWA) but in fact the head of
the entire priesthood. Either way, the practice adds to the gender distortion already
noted.

The (presumably inadvertent) masculinisation of the GWA that arose from the legal
terminology of its charter documents as well as the appropriation of male-only royal
rituals and masculine priestly titles was counteracted head-on by further
appropriations. In addition to wearing crowns of femininity and queenship,490 the
GWA adopted feminized forms of kingly titles. From at least Dynasty 20, her
prenomen had appeared in a cartouche (Table 6, Representation...), but from
Dynasty 22 onward she was styling herself Daughter of Re, Mistress of the Two
Lands and Mistress of Appearances/ Crowns.491 In Dynasty 25, Shepenwepet II
frequently presented herself as the “Female Horus”492 or even the “Female Re.”493
An unambiguously feminine persona was presumably essential for someone who
dared to portray herself in public imagery as being sexually intimate with Amun

33
(Table 6, Iconography). Moreover, “Female Horus” presented her as the female
counterpart of the reigning king,494 a counterpoise that – in Kushite thinking – was
essential for legitimate rule.495 These provocative titles were nevertheless retained
by Shepenwepet’s Saite successors.496

Residence and Remembrance

The temenos of Ur refers to the raised sacred precinct of that city, which was
surrounded by a wall (Fig. 13). In its north-western corner stood the ziggurat, which
was surrounded by its own walled enclosure, the resulting courtyard being called
the ETEMENNIGURU.497 Within this, immediately to the north-west of the ziggurat,
stood the Shrine of Nanna.498 Attached to the outside of the north-eastern wall of the
ETEMENNIGURU was another enclosure containing the Court of Nanna (Fig. 13).499
The complex of sacred buildings within the temenos, including the ziggurat, formed
the EKISHNUGAL or Temple of Nanna (Fig. 13).500

The GIPAR (EGIPAR, GIPARU, GIGPARKU) was the residence of the EPN; it was
located within the temenos, south-east of the ziggurat enclosure wall (Table 6,
Residence; Figs. 13 & 14). As with the ziggurat, the four corners of what survives of
the GIPAR are oriented to the cardinal points of the compass.501 Originally the term
may have meant a storehouse, in allusion to the fructifying role of the sacred
marriage between Nanna and the EN-priestess (Table 6, Sacred marriage).502 The
site was discovered and excavated in 1924-5 by the joint British Museum/Univers-
ity of Pennsylvania team led by Sir Leonard Woolley.503 While it is likely that the
EPN’s residence (section A, Fig. 13) and the Temple of Ningal (section C, Fig. 13)
were originally separate,504 the Ur III GIPAR incorporated the Temple of Ningal in its
south-eastern half.* Areas C7 and C27 formed the temple’s courtyard and shrine,
respectively, the latter housing the cult statue (Fig. 15).505 Adjacent to room C27
was the AGRUN or sacred bedroom, a small room (C28) containing a large bed
dais/bench/platform.506 Following the fall of Ur in ca. 2003, Enanatuma of Isin
rebuilt the GIPAR to the Ur III plan (Fig. 16; see ahead to Survival). After the peak
period of the EPN had passed (Table 5, Hiatuses), renovations by the Kassite king
Kurigalzu replaced the original Ningal temple with a new one (Fig. 17) on the
inside face of the south-eastern wall of the ziggurat enclosure or ETEMENNIGURU,
whereupon the old temple area was absorbed into the residential footprint of the
GIPAR.507 By the end of the Neo-Babylonian period, the GIPAR had been relocated
north-east and had fused with the EDUBLALMAH (Fig. 13).508

It is likely that the cemetery of the EPNs was originally outdoors and was later built
over with living areas B18-B26 of the larger Ur III-Isin/Larsa GIPAR (Fig. 13), the
tombs remaining accessible in corbel-vaulted crypts.509 By the end of the Larsa
dynasty, the buildings over the tomb complex had apparently collapsed and the
tombs were once again outdoors.510 Enanedu re-enclosed this “place of the Hall-
that-brings-bitterness”511 and secured additional burial space for future burials
(Table 6, Building program and Mortuary cult),512 perhaps by extending the
existing crypts further toward the centre of the GIPAR to include the area under
rooms B14-B17.513 The mortuary chapels for deceased EPNs were probably in the

* See, however, the Postscript added in 2019 at the end of this paper.

34
Fig. 13. Temenos of Ur in the Ur III-Isin/Larsa period. The GIPAR – residence of the EPN
– is highlighted in green. Leonard Woolley’s map (from Ur Excavations 6, Pl. 53), online
courtesy of Penn Museum, 514 reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Some
Sumerian names have undergone revision since Woolley’s time, so for Dungi read Shulgi;
for Bur-Sin, Amar-Sin; Nannar, Nanna; Gig-par-ku, GIPAR. Apart from the green overlay,
coloured elements are additions to the original image by the present author.515 An artist’s
reconstruction of the temenos from this period can be viewed online.516
As a pop-culture aside, we might note that Woolley’s discoveries at Ur provided the backdrop for Agatha
Christie’s detective novel Murder in Mesopotamia,517 featuring Hercule Poirot, which was televised in 2001/2;518
Christie herself went on to marry Woolley’s assistant, who later became Prof. Sir Max Mallowan.519

35
Fig. 14. Present-day view from the ziggurat of Ur, looking south-east over the temenos.
In the middle distance, the excavated remains of the EHURSAG are just left of centre in photo;
slightly nearer the ziggurat, at far right of photo, is what remains of the north-eastern portion
of the Temple of Ningal within the Ur III-Isin/Larsa GIPAR. In foreground at far left of photo
stands the stump of the EDUBLALMAH, the Place of Judgement, which granted access through
the enclosure wall of the temenos to the sacred precinct within. Photograph by Aziz1005,
available via Wikimedia Commons,520 reproduced here under licence CC BY 3.0.

36
 (a)
(b)

Fig. 15. The Temple of Ningal.* (a) Ground-plan of section C of the Ur III-Isin/Larsa GIPAR,
rotated 90° clockwise relative to orientation shown in Fig. 13. After the 1926 original
reproduced by Weadock.521 The red asterisk marks the position of the viewer for the next
panel. (b) Recreation of the Temple of Ningal in the GIPAR of the Ur III-Isin/Larsa period;
view from the position of the red asterisk in the previous panel, looking through the courtyard
(C7) into the shrine (C27, within which stands the cult statue). After a 1927 line-drawing by
Algernon Stuart (“Algy”) Whitburn;522 the colour scheme is purely conjectural.

* See, however, the Postscript added in 2019 at the end of this paper.

37
 (a)

(b)

Fig. 16. Brick bearing inscription of Enanatuma. (a) Entire brick, (b) close-
up of inscription. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Museum No. 84-26-14. Photos courtesy of Penn Museum,523
reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

38
 (a)

(b)

Fig. 17. Brick bearing inscription of Kurigalzu. (a) Entire brick, (b) close-
up of inscription. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Museum No. B16477. Photos courtesy of Penn Museum,524
reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

39
Temple of Ningal;525 they housed elaborate cult statues, through which the EPNs
were believed to live on (Table 3, Notable decrees; Table 6, Mortuary cult). Food
offerings and libations were made to deceased EPNs by GUDU-priests in the relevant
mortuary chapel526 and/or at their graves,527 probably daily, plus monthly (at the
New Moon and Full Moon festivals) and on other holidays.528

In Egypt, the Late phase GWAs were until recently thought to have lived and been
buried in the mortuary temple complex of Ramses III at Medinet Habu (Table 6,
Residence). This compound (Fig. 18) is located on the west bank of the Nile at
Thebes, across the river from the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak and the
associated Temple of Mut in south Karnak. By the late New Kingdom, the fortified
complex of Medinet Habu had become the main administrative centre for the
western part of Thebes.529 It contained a palace that had originally been designed to
provide temporary accommodation for the king but had later been remodelled as the
residence of a succession of priestly governors; it was therefore presumed that the
final occupants of this palace were the GWAs of Dynasties 23-26.530 While these
GWAs and/or their staff may have made some use of the palace at Medinet Habu, a
“Residential Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices” has recently been identified at
North Karnak, in the area of the modern village of Naga Malgata (Fig. 19).

The residential quarter at Naga Malgata seems with some certainty to have
contained the primary domicile of the Saite GWAs, Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre,
and probably those of their Nubian predecessors as well, allowing it to be seen as an
important “dynastic residence.”531 Specifically, the ruins of very large building
associated with Ankhnesneferibre that were discovered in 1924 (gazetted as a
Temple of Osiris Pameres,532 but since mostly destroyed) had a similar

Fig. 18 Map of Medinet Habu – location of mortuary chapels for GWAs of Dynasties 24-
26. Also marked (blue square) is the Governor’s Palace, which until recently was thought to
be the residence of the GWAs. Mortuary chapels with extant superstructures are shown in
black, while the ground-plans of former buildings in the chapel complex are shown in grey.
The complex is shown enlarged at right,533 numbered in blue and dedicated as follows.
1. Possibly Shepenwepet I.534 2. Amenirdis I. 3. Nitocris I. 4. Shepenwepet II. 5. Mehet-
nusekhet, biological mother of Amenirdis I. To the north-west (and adjacent to 5), possibly a
mud-brick out-house for the storage of cult items or the purification of priests.535

40
Fig. 19 Map of North Karnak – location of the GWA residential quarter and the GWA-
sponsored Osirian chapels.536 RQDA, “Residential Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices” for the
Saite (and probably Nubian) GWAs at North Karnak, modern Naga Malgata. The ground-
plan of the residence/palace of Ankhnesneferibre is shown enlarged at left.537 Osirian chapels
built and/or extended by GWAs of Dynasties 24-26 are numbered in blue and were dedicated
as follows. 1: Osiris, who Perpetually Gives Life (Wsir pA Dd anx), Dynasties 25-26 (depicting
Taharqo, Amenirdis I/II, Shepenwepet II; Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre). 538 2: Osiris-
Onnophris, Lord of Offerings (Wsir-Wnnfr nb DfA.w), Dynasty 26 (depicting Amasis and
Ankhnesneferibre).539 3: Osiris, Lord of Life/He Who Answers the Distressed (Wsir nb anx /
pA wSb iAd), Dynasty D25 (depicting Taharqo, Shepenwepet II and Amenirdis I).540 4: Osiris-
Onnophris in the Persea Tree (Wsir-Wnnfr Hry-ib pA iSd), Dynasty 25 (depicting Amenirdis I
and Shepenwepet II).541 5: Osiris, Ruler of Eternity (Wsir HqA Dt), Dynasty 24-25 (depicting
Osorkon III, Takelot III, Shepenwepet I; Shebitqo and Amenirdis I).542 Blue asterisks (*)
mark other Osirian chapels built by/for the GWAs of Dynasties 25-26.543

configuration and size to the house (pr.w) that was built for Nitocris by her first
High Steward, Ibi, as described in his statue inscription (Table 5, Hiatuses).544 The
inscription suggests that there was a traditional design for the GWA’s equivalent of
the EPN’s GIPAR (Fig. 19, enlargement box), so Ankhnesneferibre may either have
rebuilt the palace of Nitocris in situ or built herself a new one to the same design
close by, at the site excavated in 1924.545 Ibi specifies that the “house” and its

41
associated temples (probably chapels) were embellished with gold, silver and jewels
and adorned with gem-inlaid silver statues of Psamtek and Nitocris, so clearly this
precinct was in fact a palace complex. The nearby ruins of a columned building
associated with Nitocris are likely to be the remains of her wabet (from Egyptian
wab.t, “pure place”), since Ibi also mentions building such a structure for her near
her residence.546 The precinct included the Harem of Amun, in which lived the
“recluses” and female musicians that formed part of the GWA’s staff; indeed, the
“Harem of the [Divine] Adoratrice” remained a toponym at the site into Ptolemaic
times.547

The GWAs also built and dedicated chapels to Osiris in North and East Karnak
(Figs. 19 & 20).548 Their northern location means that the chapels are not far from
the “residential quarter of the Divine Adoratrices” just discussed, which of course
was in North Karnak. In these Osirian chapels, the sponsoring GWA is typically
portrayed serving and being blessed by the gods alongside the cognate king. Her
predecessor is also commemorated in the visual program. In Ur, too, some EPNs
built chapels (Table 6, Building program); those of which we know were built to
honour gods other than Nanna or Ningal and were “dedicated for the life of” the
reigning king. As attested by several clay cone/nail fragments, Enanatuma built a
chapel (the EHILI, the Charming House or House of Luxuriance, described as a
“shining storehouse”) to the sun-god Utu, son of Nanna, and dedicated it for the life
of king Gungunum and possibly for her own life as well.549 The EHILI has not been
discovered in the archaeological record, so its location is unknown; it may simply
have been an annex within the Temple of Nanna or Temple of Ningal.550 Similarly
attested at Ur is another shining storehouse named the E-ESHMEDAGALA (House:
Shrine of the Broad MEs), which Enanatuma also built for the god Dagan551 and
dedicated for the life of the same king.552 Interestingly, Enanatuma’s chapels at Ur –
like the Osirian GWA chapels at Karnak – are dedicated to male gods other than the
consort of the High Priestess and pointedly link their sponsor with the current king.
The dedication of these chapels at Ur will be revisited in the section titled Survival.
In the meantime, let us return our attention to Thebes.

As mentioned above, it has long been thought that the Late phase GWAs were
buried at Medinet Habu, since this is where their mortuary chapels were and where
many Chantresses of Amun associated with those GWAs were interred.553 The
Small Temple554 at Medinet Habu (Fig. 18) was the site of the mound of creation
that contained the primordial deities, and was therefore visited every ten days by the
cult statue of Amun that resided in the Great Temple at Karnak.555 The mound also
contained a tomb of Osiris, with whom Amun(-Re) was identified in his nightly
journey as the sun-god.556 In the words of Gay Robins, “the link between Amun and
Medinet Habu, and the potential for regeneration residing in the mound, made the
site an ideal burial place for the god’s wives of Amun, where they would participate
in the regular renewal of their god and so achieve rebirth for themselves.”557 The
mortuary chapels of some of these GWAs still stand in the forecourt of Ramses III’s
mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Table 6, Mortuary cult); they are located close to
the main gate in the south-eastern enclosure wall, facing the Small Temple and its

42
Fig. 20. Chapel of Osiris, Lord of Life/He Who Answers the Distressed (Wsir nb anx / pA
wSb iAd). Chapel at North Karnak (Fig. 19, no. 3), dedicated by Shepenwepet II and Taharqo.
In symmetrically opposed scenes on the chapel’s exterior, the God’s Wife (right half) mirrors
the king (left half) in attitude and activity.558 The right half of the lintel shows (from left to
right) Shepenwepet II presenting milk to Ptah and then Amenirdis I being embraced by
Hathor. 559 The right hand door-jamb shows Shepenwepet II being embraced by Isis. 560
Photograph by Neithsabes, alias Sebi, available via Wikimedia Commons;561 public domain.

43
important cult sites (Figs. 18 & 21-24).562 However, it now seems likely that these
chapels did not contain the actual tombs. For Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre, these
are now attributed to Deir el Medina (pits 2005 and 2003, respectively),563 which is
located midway between Medinet Habu and the Ramesseum. The tombs of their
Nubian predecessors have not yet been located; they may even have been buried in
their homeland.564

The mortuary chapels at Medinet Habu were Hw.wt-kA (“precincts of the ka”), most
likely miniature temples intended to house the cult statues of deceased GWAs.565
The nested tent-shrine and courtyard structure of the chapel of Amenirdis I (Figs.
18, 22-23) would have supported a processional circuit, possibly for her cult
statue,566 the route being adorned with extracts from the Opening of the Mouth
ritual, Solar Hymns and Pyramid Texts.567 Carola Koch posits the chapel as
conceptually and chronologically intermediate between a Temple of Millions of
Years and the solar courtyard of the Graeco-Roman wabet.568 The decoration of the
funerary chapels revives the traditional scene (abandoned in the Third Intermediate
Period) in which the deceased is shown seated before a laden offering-table,
witnessing priests performing the funerary ritual on their behalf. The GWAs are
typically shown “in the archaising costume of a mid Eighteenth Dynasty queen”569
(Figs. 7-8 & 22; Table 6, Iconography). In keeping with the new view of these
structures as a temples rather than tombs, the crypts lack access shafts/stairs570 and
the visual programs of the superstructures involve both the deceased GWAs and
their living successors and benefactors.571

In overview, then, it seems that both the EPNs and GWAs lived in palaces very near
the temples that were the focus of their ritual activities (Table 6, Residence). The
GWAs built and extended free-standing chapels (mainly dedicated to Osiris)
between the main temple and their residential quarter; the EPNs seem to have
focused their building activities on their residence, the GIPAR (Table 6, Building
program), but at least one EPN built and dedicated chapels with characteristics
analogous to those built by the GWAs. The EPNs were buried adjacent to or within
the GIPAR, while the GWAs were seemingly interred on the opposite bank of the
Nile to their palace at North Karnak, consistent with the Egyptian custom of burial
in the west, or – for non-Egyptian incumbents – were perhaps repatriated to their
homeland. Deceased EPNs and GWAs were both believed to live on in statues,
which were enshrined in the local area and were the subject of regular offerings and
rituals.

Cult and Ritual

The EPN and GWA had similar cultic roles (Table 6, Cultic roles). After ritual
ablutions to purify themselves, they entered the sanctuary; there they entertained
and honoured the god(s) in ritual, music and song, and offered food, drink and
precious goods to the cult statues. They accompanied cult statues, the senior priests
and sometimes the king in ritual processions. They interceded with the gods on
behalf of the king and with the king on behalf of the gods (e.g., for GWA, Fig. 20).

44
Fig. 21. Facades of the GWA mortuary chapels at Medinet Habu. At left is the chapel of
Amenirdis I. 572 Photograph by Rémih, available via Wikimedia Commons, 573 reproduced
here under licence CC-BY-SA-3.0.

They built, maintained and dedicated temples and shrines, commissioning statues.
They provided for the temple personnel.

One cultic difference between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian situation is that the
focus of the EPN was upon Ningal, the goddess whom she embodied or represented,
rather than on Nanna himself (Table 6, Deity focused upon). In the heyday of the
office, the Temple of Ningal lay beside or within the GIPAR, the EPN’s residence
(described in the previous section; Figs. 13 & 15), and served as the focus of her
ritual activities.* In Egypt, the reverse situation seems to have obtained. Although
most GWA throne-names incorporate Mut (Table 6, Throne-name/prenomen), the
ritual activities of the GWA seem to have been focused upon Amun(-Re). For
example, reliefs thought to have adorned the GWA’s residential palace at Naga
Malgata are “mostly centred on the God’s Wife and her relation to Amun and the
Heliopolitan gods,”574 and Amun(-Re) was the principal deity worshipped at
Medinet Habu,575 where the GWAs built their memorial chapels. Mut was largely
supplanted in GWA-sponsored iconography by the GWA herself (Table 6, Deity

* See, however, the Postscript added in 2019 at the end of this paper.

45
Fig. 22. Courtyard of mortuary chapel of Amenirdis I at Medinet Habu, south wall (i.e.,
outer façade of sanctuary). At top far left, Shepenwepet II is shown Driving the Four Calves
before Osiris, Re-Horakhty and a deified Amenirdis I.576 At bottom left, Shepenwepet II
offers a hekenou jar to Re-Horakhty, Isis and a deified Amenirdis I. 577 Within the first
doorway (centre of photo) appears another in quick succession, as the structure consists of
one tent-shrine nested within another (see ground-plan in Fig. 23a).578 Photograph by Olaf
Tausch, available via Wikimedia Commons,579 reproduced here under licence CC BY 3.0.

focused upon and Iconography), although the equivalence of the two is clouded (or
at least softened) by inscriptions that describe the GWA as the daughter of Amun or
Mut,580 or as “one beloved of Mut.”581 The former conundrum can be explained by
recalling that the GWA’s title of God’s Hand comes from the Heliopolitan tradition,
and refers to the hand that (Re-)Atum used to masturbate in order to bring forth the
rest of the Ennead (Table 2, Role);582 as prime mover, the God’s Hand is considered
to be simultaneously the consort, mother and daughter of the creator-god.583
Consistent with this are attestations from the Third Intermediate Period onwards
that describe Mut as the daughter or mother of Amun(-Re), rather than as his
consort.584 Viewed in this light, the unexpected filiations of the GWA become less
problematic,585 although Carolla Koch has recently argued for a genuine father-

46
Fig. 23. Ambulatory of mortuary chapel of Amenirdis I at Medinet Habu. (a) Ground-
plan of the chapel, showing its four-columned courtyard and nested tent-shrine structure.586
The ambulatory is the enclosed space surrounding the inner tent-shrine; the red asterisk
within it indicates the presumed position of the photographer, whose northeast-facing view
is presented in panel b. (b) View within the ambulatory, presumed to be the north-eastern
perspective from the position of the red asterisk in panel a. Photograph by Neithsabes,
available via Wikimedia Commons,587 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

daughter (rather than spousal) relationship between Amun and the GWA (Table 6,
Sacred marriage).588 The interplay between the priesthoods of Amun and Mut,
which is also complex, is addressed later in this section.

As the earthly representative of Ningal and Mut, respectively, both the EPN and
GWA had an association with birds. Ningal is linked with UBI-birds, seemingly
water-fowl such as ducks, geese and swans. Accordingly, a statue from the Ur
GIPAR of a woman seated on a throne flanked by geese may depict Ningal or her
earthly representative, the EPN.589 The Egyptian goddess Mut is represented in text
by the vulture hieroglyph (meaning “mother”) and in costume by the vulture

47
Fig. 24. View into GWA mortuary chapel complex at Medinet Habu from the north.
The façade of the chapel of Amenirdis I is at far left; the doorways to the chapels of
Nitocris I and Shepenwepet II are visible at the rear left and centre, respectively, of the
internal courtyard.590 To the right of Shepenwepet’s chapel is what remains of the chapel of
Mehetnusekhet, the biological mother of Nitocris;591 the superstructure is largely missing.
Photograph by Olaf Tausch, available via Wikimedia Commons,592 reproduced here under
licence CC BY 3.0.

headdress, the symbol of divine motherhood (Fig. 7),593 although in iconography her
main association is with the lioness.594 The passivity of Ningal, who does not have a
role independent of her husband Nanna, contrasts with Mut’s role as the great
mother and fierce protector of the Egyptian king and his land,595 and this difference
is reflected in the animal associations of the two goddesses. Mut, whose savagery is
derived from her role as a destructive “Eye of Re,”596 enjoyed considerable
independence from Amun, having her own large temple in Thebes (the Isheru, south
of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak)597 and chapels throughout Egypt. These
were staffed by her own priesthood, who celebrated her rituals and festivals.598 The
precise relationship between the priesthood of Mut and the GWA, the representative
of Mut on earth, is not entirely clear; a selection of evidence from the Ramesside to
Late Periods will be collated in the next paragraph.

In Dynasty 20, an ode to Mut in the precinct of Mut at Karnak provided a

theological basis for the office of GWA and praised Isis, the GWA appointed by

48
Ramses VI.599 In the same dynasty, the titles of Amenemope (TT148) reveal
substantial overlap between the priesthoods of Amun and Mut, since this individual
– like his father before him – was a Third Priest of Amun and the “High Priest of
Mut in Isheru.”600 A Dynasty 22 decree of Osorkon suggests that the Temple of Mut
in Isheru was (financially, at least) a subsidiary unit of the Temple of Amun at
Karnak.601 In Dynasties 22-23, Nespaneferhor I and his son Hor II served as “scribe
of the temple of Mut, the great one, the lady of Isheru” while also holding the title
“chief scribe of the altar of the estate of Amun.”602 In addition, a First Priest of
Amun in Karnak named Neseramun was head of that precinct’s scribes and leader
of its instructors, as well as “overseer of the temple scribes of Mut, the great, the
lady of Isheru” and “leader of the scribes of the temple treasury” for the temple of
Mut.603 During Dynasties 25-26, several Theban officials again held titles in both
temples. For example, Ankhefenkhonsu, who held priestly titles related to Amun of
Karnak was also “overseer of the shenu of Mut, the great one, the mistress of
Isheru;” Djedkhonsu-iwefankh was both a scribe of the Temple of Amun and
“lesonis priest of Mut, lady of the sky/Isheru;” and Ankhefenkhons IV, the
“overseer of the seal of Mut, the great one, lady of Isheru” was also a senior priest
of Amun in Karnak.604 In Dynasty 26, Neskhonsuwennekh – a signatory to the
Saite Oracle Papyrus – is both “scribe of the sacred books of the house/temple of
Mut” and “overseer of the house of Amun for the first phyle.”605 Likewise Hor, the
Third Priest of Amun at Karnak, was also “a scribe of Mut, the great lady of
Isheru.” Dual roles of this kind continued until at least Dynasty 30.606 Overall, since
it is clear that “Mut’s staff was heavily involved with the Amun precinct” at
Karnak, Elaine Sullivan deduces that the Temple of Mut at Isheru was largely
“subsumed under the umbrella category of ‘the temple of Amun.’”607 Accordingly,
for the Late Period, the GWA was probably the supreme female officiant at the
Isheru.608 One GWA – Nitocris I – did in fact build a chapel there.609

Just as the Temple of Mut in Thebes was a essentially a component of the Great
Temple of Amun at Karnak, so too was the Temple of Ningal a component of the
Temple of Nanna in Ur. As mentioned above, the Temple of Ningal lay within the
GIPAR, the residence of the EPN, while the other components of the Temple of
Nanna were distributed elsewhere around the temenos (Fig. 13). Thus, in both
instances, the temple and priesthood of the goddess were incorporated within the
larger institution dedicated to her divine husband. The GWA appears to have been
the head of the priesthood of Mut and Second Priest of Amun (Table 4, Basic titles)
until the time of Harkhebi, the last male High Priest of Amun (HPA) (Fig. 10), after
which time the GWA seems also to have become the de facto leader of the
priesthood of Amun. In Dynasty 26, the GWA or her heiress was recognised
formally as the HPA; the political dimension of this transition is considered in more
detail in the next section. In Mesopotamia, the EPN seems always to have been the
head of both the priesthood of Nanna and the priesthood of Ningal. The other
noteworthy difference – as discussed at the start of this section – is the EPN’s cultic
emphasis on the goddess, as opposed to the GWA’s focus on the god.

Both the EPNs and GWAs were commemorated by way of mortuary cults (Table 6,
Mortuary cult). Neither type of priestess was usually deified after death, although

49
there were a few exceptions: of the EPNs, Enanatuma and Enmegalana appear in a
list of “the gods of the various shrines of the Ningal temple;”610 among the GWAs, a
deified Amenirdis I appears in scenes adorning her funerary chapel at Medinet Habu
(Table 6, Mortuary cult; Fig. 22).

Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage

Similar academic controversies have attended the sexual, marital and maternal
status of both the EPN and the GWA (Table 6, Celibacy & procreation). In Egypt, it
is self-evident that early GWAs of the New Kingdom could be married and have
children, since many were in fact wives of the king (Table 3, Pedigree). In
Mesopotamia, a late omen text speaks of priestesses sinning against their husbands,
suggesting that they were allowed to marry; motherhood may still have been
forbidden to them, however, as another such text recommends that they adopt a
particular contraceptive strategy. It is unclear whether these omen texts reflect the
reality of later times, a mis-remembering earlier ones, or both. Of course, none of
these considerations bear directly on the circumstances of the EPN and GWA
during their respective peak periods. It is to this comparison that we must now
return our attention.

Older scholarly literature on the named EPNs portray them as celibate and childless.
Much current literature on these women perpetuates the belief in them as unmarried,
childless or even virginal, while conceding that human failings meant that
individuals sometimes fell short of the ideal.611 Normative behaviour was prescribed
in the myth of Atrahasis, which says
Establish high priestesses and priestesses,
Let them be taboo, and so cut down childbirth.
In Sargonic legend, the clandestine nature of this hero’s birth to an EN-priestess (if
that is indeed the correct reading of her identity)612 provides an example of sexual
indiscretion by a High Priestess at the dawn of the Akkadian era, and of the
perceived necessity of concealing its consequences.613 Similarly, the GWAs of
Dynasties 23-26 are often presumed to have been celibate; much modern literature
on the institution perpetuates the belief that Ramses VI (Dynasty 20) had required
his daughter Isis to remain unmarried as GWA, and that subsequent GWAs were
obliged to followed suit.614 For Anthony Leahy, writing about the GWAs of the
Late Period, “the distinctive requirement was one of celibacy.”615 Of course, the
political rationale for such celibacy – that it prevented the princesses from
engendering alternative dynasties that might contend for the throne616 – was as
cogent in Mesopotamia as it was in Egypt.

Accepting the religious strictures of Mesopotamia at face value, Martin Stol argues
from Ur III and Old Babylonian laws and customs that “priestesses [...] had to live a
pure life [...] All of these women were expected to lead flawless and chaste
lives.”617 Accordingly, they were forbidden to bear children or to have sexual
relations, often on pain of death. Stol does however concede that children were
sometimes born to the top-ranking priestesses (EREŠ-DINGIR) of gods other than
Nanna, especially the priestesses of less important gods.618

50
Although the older appreciation of the EPN portrayed her as celibate and childless,
it did permit her one possible path to conception and motherhood: ritual intercourse
with the king, who (in an extension of the archaic concept of the king as the spouse
of a goddess) 619 was thought to stand in for Nanna in the sacred marriage rite.620 For
example, a hymn claims that the royal line of Ur-Namma – founder of the Ur III
dynasty – was secured via an EN-priestess of Nanna from Nippur, on whom he sired
Shulgi, his son and heir. Of this legend, Barbara Weadock writes that
the text tells of the gods’ reward to Ur-Nammu for his piety; they ensure his
royal line by giving him a son, born of the entu-priestess of Nanna in Nippur
and presumably conceived at the time of the celebration of the sacred
marriage in Nippur. Since the king took part in the ritual of the sacred
marriage as Nanna in Nippur and as the en in Uruk, it is reasonable to believe
that he also took the role of Nanna in the rite in Ur.621
A standard translation of the relevant section (lines 15-20) of the hymn, An Adab to
Enlil for Shulgi [= Shulgi G], confirms that the conception of Shulgi – who, as king,
proclaimed himself divine – is specifically attributed to the “sacred marriage”
between Nanna and his EN-priestess:
To that end, Ashimbabbar [= Nanna] appeared shining in the E-kur, pleaded
to his father Enlil and made him bring a childbearing mother (?); in the E-
duga, Nanna, the princely son, asked for the thing to happen. The en
priestess gave birth to the trustworthy man from his semen placed in the
womb. Enlil, the powerful shepherd, caused a young man to emerge: a royal
child, one who is perfectly fitted for the throne-dais, Shulgi the king.622
Martin Stol, however, suggests that the entire claim is “political literary fiction” and
warns that the reference may not even be to an EN-priestess.623 Piotr Steinkeller
follows J.S. Cooper in denying that the usual purpose of the sacred marriage was to
produce a royal heir.624

Consistent with these cautions, current scholars tend to imagine the sacred marriage
of the EPN at Ur as a symbolic (i.e. non-sexual) act which did not involve the king
(Table 6, Sacred marriage). In this understanding, the EPN would consummate the
marriage by lying down – to the sound of sacred music – on the special bed in
Nanna’s bed-chamber, the AGRUN (room C28 within the GIPAR; Fig. 13).625 The bed
was decorated for the occasion with hay & flowers.626 For the GWA, too, current
opinion is that no good evidence exists in favour of sexual rituals.627 Colleen
Manassa writes that “The sound of the sistrum evokes the sexual union of the
creator god with his consort, but does not imply that the bearer of the sistrum is
necessarily involved in the conjugal act.”628 Mariam Ayad goes further, denying
that there is any sexual dimension to playing the sistrum.629 As mentioned in the
previous section, Carolla Koch goes further still, arguing for a father-daughter
rather than husband-wife relationship between Amun and the Dynasty 23-26 GWAs
(Table 6, Sacred marriage).630 Apart from citing scenes that depict Amun in a
parental role with respect to Amenirdis I, Koch contends that a genuine role for the
these GWAs as the “wife of Amun” would have required the king to always have

51
his wife (rather than a daughter or sister) hold the title, and that he certainly would
not have allowed the daughter of a conquered former king to continue in office.631

If the current consensus is that the sacred marriage was purely symbolic, does this
consign the High Priestesses to a life of childless celibacy, punctuated (to those who
found this a privation) only by furtive and well-hidden lapses in sexual continence?
Not necessarily. Some recent literature contends that the EPNs were not celibate
and claims that “children are attested in all periods;”632 that Enanatuma had a son is
known for certain from two sealings that read “A-ab-ba, son of En-an[a]-tuma, en
priestess of the god Nanna.”633 Likewise, the celibacy of the Late phase GWAs is
contested by Coleen Manassa and Emily Teeter, the latter and Jeremy Pope
allowing that some (like their New Kingdom predecessors) may indeed have been
king’s wives (Table 4, Additional possible titles). Mariam Ayad steers a middle
course, proposing that the powerful GWAs of Dyn 23-26 were indeed single and
seemingly childless, although perhaps not ritually precluded from sexual
relations.634 Betsy Bryan accepts husbands as a possibility; while conceding that
evidence for their existence is lacking, she points out that Egyptian women’s
monuments routinely exclude any reference to their male family members,
particularly their husbands.635 Teeter advances as evidence Habachi’s identification
of Amenirdis II with a Nubian princess of the same name who was married to a
vizier named Mentuhotep, and by whom she had a son named Nasalsa.636 This
argument is complicated by the fact that Amenirdis II probably never attained the
rank of GWA, being passed over in favour of Nitocris;637 if this caused her to
relinquish her religious role, she may then have been free to marry.638 In any case,
“Habachi’s speculation [...] is generally rejected.”639 Perhaps the safest summary of
the situation for the later GWAs is that of Rosalie David: “although there is no
record that any God’s Wife had a husband or children, neither is there any
conclusive evidence that they remained celibate.”640 The long lives of many GWAs
might be circumstantial evidence that they avoided childbearing.641

Before ending this section, it is appropriate to give the Greek writer Herodotus (5th
century BCE) special credit for recognising the participation of a High Priestess in a
sacred marriage with her male deity as a common feature of Babylonian and
Egyptian religious practice (Table 6, Sacred marriage). It is likely that the marriage
ritual that he describes for the former is a memory of the EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna’s
union with Sin at Ur in 554, a mere century before his own time (Table 5, Belated
survival/revival), and not – as it claims to be – that of an EN with Bel-Marduk at
Babylon.642 On top of an eight-staged ziggurat, Herodotus says,
stands a great temple with a fine large couch in it, richly covered, and a
golden table beside it. The shrine contains no image and no one spends the
night there except (if we may believe the Chaldaeans who are the priests of
Bel) one Assyrian woman, all alone, whoever it may be that the god has
chosen. The Chaldaeans also say – though I do not believe them – that the
god enters the temple in person and takes his rest upon the bed. There is a
similar story told by the Egyptians at Thebes, where a woman always passes
the night in the temple of the Theban Zeus [i.e., Amun] and is forbidden, so
they say, like the woman in the temple at Babylon, to have any intercourse
with men.643
En-nigaldi-Nanna’s reign as EPN at Ur actually coincided temporally with the reign
of the last GWA, Ankhnesneferibre, at Thebes (Fig. 3). In addition to the similarity

52
in their roles and the short time separating these priestesses from Herodotus, it may
have been this contemporaneity that prompted him to connect the institution of the
Babylonian EN-priestess so directly with that of the Egyptian God’s Wife.644 Given
Herodotus’s precedent, it is all the more surprising that no modern scholars have
seen fit to compare the Mesopotamian EPN with her apparent counterpart in Egypt,
the GWA.

Power and Prosperity

The role of High Priestess was arguably never merely a religious office. A political
dimension for the EPN was present from the outset. The writings of Sargon’s
daughter Enheduana,645 the first incumbent (Fig. 4), helped to legitimate Akkadian
rule over the entirety of Babylonia by syncretising her father’s northern (Semitic)
pantheon with the southern (Sumerian) one, and by connecting this pan-Babylonian
cultic system – in which Sargon’s preferred deity, Ishtar, held pride of place – to the
royal family (Table 6, Politicization). She also wrote poems that expressed political
and legal outrage at challenges to the empire that her father had founded (Table 6,
Politicization). In Egypt, politicization of the GWA had begun in Dynasty 20 when
Ramses VI, a weak king who ruled from the Delta, installed his daughter Isis in the
role in an attempt to rein in the unruly and powerful Theban priesthood (Table 3,
Additional/special motivations; Table 6, Politicization). In their respective periods
of peak power, then, the EPNs at Ur and GWAs at Thebes were not just spiritual
leaders but also political figureheads and economic managers for their communities
(Table 6, Power).

As anticipated in the previous section, the history of the GWA cannot fully be
appreciated without an understanding of the position of High Priest of Amun
(HPA), the GWA’s sole superior in the preeminent priesthood of Egypt’s religious
capital, Thebes. At end of the New Kingdom, the office of HPA had absorbed the
role of Viceroy of Kush, and in Dynasty 20 the HPA Herihor became the de facto
ruler of Upper Egypt.646 By this stage the HPA position was no longer a royal
appointment and had become hereditary, with the incumbent disposing of the office
as he saw fit. The late Ramesside form of the role continued into the TIP, for “the
High Priest of Amun in Dynasty 21 became an army general and effectively ruled
the southern region of the country.”647 In the Late Period, the situation changed;
during Dynasties 25-26, the powers of the GWA increased to the point where they
eclipsed those of the HPA.648 In this period, the GWAs wielded direct political
power on behalf of the king and – alongside local potentates such as the mayor of
Thebes – could be considered de facto rulers of Upper Egypt (Table 5, Height of
power; Table 6, Politicization). At the end of Dynasty 25, there was an apparent
hiatus of ca. 50 years in the office of HPA after Harkhebi, the grandson of Shabaqo
(Fig. 10). Eventually, control of the office was resumed by the crown, whereupon
the title of HPA was bestowed formally (at the time of their adoption by the
incumbent GWA) in Dynasty 26 upon the Saite GWA Ankhnesneferibre and –
following that – her heiress, Nitocris B (Fig. 10).649 Overall, it is clear that the rise
in power of the office of GWA was very much at the expense of the strength and
independence of the office of High Priest.650

53
In Mesopotamia, Sargon’s precedent had set up the EPN of Ur as an important
marker of political authority. To quote Marc van de Mieroop, “for some five
centuries afterwards, the control of the high priesthood of Nanna at Ur remained an
indicator of political prominence in Babylonia. Any ruler who could claim authority
over Ur installed his daughter there.”651 Brigitte Lion concurs: “accordingly, among
the female priesthoods, the office of EN of Nanna at Ur seems to have been the
most prestigious.”652 The office-bearer was head of the Temple of Nanna, which
incorporated that of Ningal; it was a major institution in the economy of Ur and its
hinterland.653 While the political and economic reach of the known EPNs at Ur
seems never to have reached the same scale and intensity as that of the later GWAs
in Thebes, we should recall that their heyday was sustained for about twice as long
(Fig. 3, magenta bracket). Although (like its Theban counterpart) the temple was
probably off-limits for most citizens,654 the EPNs would have been known to the
populace through their religious processions, and their blessing was probably
needed for the appointment of the local ruler (Table 6, Power). By the time of
Enanatuma, “the assets of the temples were manifold: they owned land inside and
outside the city, they were involved in agriculture and animal husbandry, they
controlled the marshes near Ur, they had influence in trade, and they used their
treasuries for profit making purpose.”655 Enanatuma’s seal had the authority of a
royal dynastic seal and continued to be used into the reign of Warad-Sin,656 some
100 years after the end of her tenure (Table 5, Height of power). Both Enanatuma
and Enanedu used their wealth and power to undertake major reconstructions of the
GIPAR at Ur and its associated burial ground (Table 5, Height of power and
Hiatuses; Table 6, Building program; Fig. 16). Similarly, as described above in the
section titled Residence and Remembrance, the GWAs built and dedicated Osirian
chapels in North and East Karnak (Figs. 19 & 20) while constructing mortuary
chapels – and reconstructing those of their predecessors – at Medinet Habu (Table
6, Building program; Figs. 21-24).

The spiritual, economic and political power of the Dynasty 23-26 GWAs is
encapsulated by Rosalie David:
This title [= GWA], to which the king’s daughter (not his wife) was now
appointed, implied that she was the consort of the chief god, Amun. On behalf
of her father, she acted as the head of the god’s temple and estates at Thebes,
one of the largest and most important economic centers in Egypt, which gave
her considerable economic independence and religious authority. Her
reciprocal duty was to secure the loyal support of Thebes and its local nobility
for the king.657
David’s last remark serves as a useful reminder that the position was one of political
obligation as well as prestige and power. For the GWAs of Dynasties 24 and 25, the
kings were Libyan and Nubian, respectively, and the support of Egypt’s religious
capital was essential for the success of their rule; the political and ideological
dimension of the office was therefore paramount. Jeremy Pope observes of the
Nubian dynasty that
the iconography and ritual actions of the God’s Wives in Egypt would suggest
that their office functioned more as an organ of the state than as a cloister;
though their monumental constructions appear to have been mostly confined
to Upper Egypt, the theology and propaganda of rites such as the Protection
of the Cenotaph and the Elevation of the Ṯs.t-Support were manifestly

54
 directed outward, invoking the totality of the Double Kingdom as conceived
by the Kushite dynasts.658
The Elevation ritual proclaimed the universal dominion of Amun(-Re) and, by
extension, that of the Egyptian king,659 just as Enheduana’s theology promoted the
universal power of Ishtar and, by extension, that of Ishtar’s protégé, the Akkadian
king Sargon (Table 6, Politicization).

The most recent academic overviews acknowledge the economic importance of the
Dynasty 23-26 GWAs but caution that their real political power is uncertain. Carola
Koch goes so far as to say of the Nubian GWAs that “their political influence was
severely restricted,”660 while accepting that the Saite ones were equal to the king on
the political level because they did not have to contend with either a High Priest or a
powerful local magnate (Table 5, Height of power).661 There is also a growing
awareness that much of the GWA’s economic power was devolved to her male
officials, especially the High Steward of the estate.662 Such officials were able to
commemorate themselves with “enormous temple-like tombs in the Theban
necropolis – the largest non-royal tombs anywhere in Egypt among them.”663
Overall, the suggestion is that the political power of the GWA herself was probably
somewhat passive, being more closely involved with royal propaganda and
legitimation of the king’s rule.664

At face value, the Nubian rule of Egypt represents an exception to the usual
geographic polarity to the King/High Priestess pairing in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
The usual pattern is that of a king in the north with his daughter in the south. The
Akkadian pairings of Sargon/Enheduana and Naram-Sin/Enmenana conform to this
template, as Akkad lies far to the north of Ur. In the post-Akkadian period – albeit
on a much smaller scale – the geographic situation continued to mirror that initiated
by Sargon, insofar as the capitals of Lagash, Isin and Larsa all lie to the north of Ur.
In Egypt, Ramses VI/Isis and Psamtek I/Nitocris conform to the canonical
north/south pattern, since the former king ruled from Piramesse and the latter from
Sais, both located in Lower Egypt and therefore far to the north of Thebes. For
Dynasty 25, however, the Nubian pairings of Kashta/Amenirdis I and Piye/
Shepenwepet II seem to present the opposite configuration: a king based in the
south at Napata, with his daughter at Thebes, far to its north. But one could view the
traditional polarity as quickly reasserting itself with the selection of the Delta city of
Memphis as the chief royal residence of the subsequent Nubian rulers Shabaqo,
Shebitqo and Taharqo,665 whose reigns as king overlapped extensively with those of
Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II as GWA (Fig. 10).

On the cultural and intellectual front, the prominence of the first EPN, Enheduana,
as an author – and a named author, at that – positions her as the undisputed icon of
female literacy in the ancient world (Table 5, Height of power).666 Sixteen hundred
years after Enheduana’s time, the institution of the GWA in Egypt was also likely to
be an enclave with exceptional rates of female literacy for its place and time. While
noting that most of the powerful political women of the New Kingdom would have
delegated their business writing, Baines & Eyre (1998) observe that

55
 the replacement of princes as high priests of Amun in Thebes by princesses as
divine adoratrices in the later 3rd intermediate period might have been
facilitated if the latter could also exercise some of the former’s worldly
functions. As stated above, the partly female institutions surrounding these
ladies may in any case have been pockets of female literacy.667
A female scribe in the service of Nitocris exemplifies the presence of literate
women in the retinues of the GWAs.668

Half a millennium after her time, Enheduana’s writings remained a political tool in
Mesopotamia (Table 6, Politicization): in Old Babylonian times, her work formed
part of the scribal curriculum, where it served to reinforce a sense of Sumerian unity
and shared heritage in a time of fragmentation.669 Moreover, some 1700 years after
their time, Sargon and Enheduana’s program was echoed by the Neo-Babylonian
king Nabonidus and his daughter, the EPN En-nigaldi-Nanna (Table 5, Belated
survival/revival; Table 6, Politicization). As Tamara Green explains:
It is likely that, whatever Nabonidus’ personal feelings about the god [Sin =
Nanna] may have been, his elevation of the god of Ur and Harran was
grounded in his desire to use religion as a unifying force for the disparate
peoples under his rule, for the power of the Moon god was already venerated
among Arameans and Arabs; [...he also] may have been trying to shore up his
own political prospects by exalting the god so closely connected with
kingship.670
Even today, Enheduana continues to be used as a catalyst for social reform, insofar
as she serves as a poster-child for women’s empowerment and the worldwide
feminist movement.671 The Egyptian GWAs, too, left intangible legacies that
outlasted the women themselves by centuries (Table 5, Belated survival/revival).
For example, the title Divine Adoratrice was reprised by some Ptolemaic priestesses
of Amun, and the titles and epithets of the Ptolemaic queens seem to draw heavily
upon the titularies of the GWAs of Dynasties 23-26.

However tempting it might be to conclude the study in this diachronic afterglow,

there remains an important dimension to the comparison that has yet to be
addressed, and from which will emerge one of the most important conclusions of
the analysis. To rectify this omission and complete the comparison, it is to the
related themes of succession and survival that we must now turn our attention. As
ever, the comparison will be drawn between the two institutions in their respective
periods of greatest strength: the EPN in the Akkadian through Isin/Larsa periods,
and the GWA during Dynasties 23-26.

Succession

In both Mesopotamia and Egypt, a number of seemingly eligible kings (e.g.

Manishtushu, Shulgi, and Abi-sare in Mesopotamia; Shabaqo, Shebitqo and Necho
in Egypt; Figs. 9-10) did not nominate a daughter as High Priestess. For those that
did, the available data suggest that a change of king often did not immediately result
in the installation of a new High Priestess or the designation of a new successor to

56
the position. In Ur,672 Enheduana (Fig. 4b) remained in office until well into the
reign of her father’s third successor;673 Enirziana is estimated to have been installed
in regnal year 17 of her father Shulgi; Enmahgalana in year 4 of her father Amar-
Suen;674 Enshakiag-Nanna in the 23rd year of her father Sumu-el;675 Enanedu in the
5th or 6th year of her brother Warad-Sin.676 In Thebes,677 Shepenwepet I is estimated
to have been designated (and installed, since there was seemingly no incumbent)678
ca. year 11-32 of her father Osorkon III;679 Amenirdis I (Figs. 8) was probably
designated 5-25 years after the accession of her father Kashta;680 Shepenwepet II
(Fig. 25-26) was designated 22-37 years after the accession of her father, Piye,681
while Nitocris I was designated in year 9 of her father Psamtek I (i.e., ca. 655).682
However, Ankhnesneferibre – the final GWA (Fig. 27) – was designated in 595,

Fig. 25. Proffering sphinx of Shepenwepet II. Item ÄM 7972 in the Egyptian Museum,
Berlin. Photograph by Einsamer Schütze, available via Wikimedia Commons,683 reproduced
here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

57
Fig. 26. Relief of Shepenwepet II on the façade of her mortuary chapel at
Medinet Habu.684 Original photograph by Asta, derivative work (zoom & clean)
by JMCC1; available via Wikimedia Commons,685 public domain.

58
Fig. 27. Statue of Ankhnesneferibre. Nubian Museum,
Egyptian Museums CG42205. Photograph by tutincommon
(John Campana), available via Wikimedia Commons, 686
reproduced here under licence CC BY 2.0.

59
the year in which her father Psamtek II took the throne.687 These estimates are
derived using the traditional GWA chronology (Table 7, cyan fill & note b).
Augmentation of the revisionist chronology of Koch (2012) (Fig. 10, grey dates)
with compatible recent proposals of designation dates (Table 7, blue fill & note c)
suggests that Amenirdis I was designated 13-18 years after the accession of
Kashta688 and that Shepenwepet II was designated 37 years after the accession of
Piye, outcomes encompassed in the ranges already provided.689 For the subsequent
GWAs (Nitocris, Ankhnesneferibre) there is full agreement with the values already
given.

In both countries, the recurring delays between royal accession and the designation/
installation of the new king’s daughter may in part reflect issues such as a lack of
perceived necessity for a new priestess (e.g., upon peaceful intra-dynastic
succession while the incumbent GWA was relatively young), a lack of political
power on the part of the new king, or simply a need for the princess to have reached
a minimum age.690 On the last consideration, we should note that three of the GWAs
may have been designated while still children; Nitocris almost certainly was.691
However, even if the new king had the motivation and the means to appoint a
daughter, the incumbent High Priestess was a revered figure who had to be treated
with great respect (Table 6, Tenure...). In Egypt, this was accommodated by the
existing God’s Wife adopting the newly-designated princess as heiress apparent;
with a lesser title (such as Great Chantress of the Interior of Amun or Divine
Adoratrice),692 the latter could serve as assistant or junior partner in the “college” of
supreme priestesses until the existing God’s Wife retired or died.693 This
apprenticeship could be lengthy. For example, in the traditional GWA chronology
(Table 7, cyan fill & note b), Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II are estimated to have
served 26-35 and 10-35 years as heiress apparent, respectively, with both being
installed as GWA long after the reigns of their respective fathers had ended. The
revisionist chronology of Koch (2012) (Fig. 10, grey dates; Table 7, blue fill & note
c) seems to deny any overlap between Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet I but, when it
is augmented with recent proposals of designation dates for Amenirdis I and
Shepenwepet II, apprenticeships of 25-37 and 33-40 years emerge, respectively.
Ankhnesneferibre’s time as understudy (which is securely known) was
comparatively short, a mere 9 years.

In Mesopotamia, a system similar to the Egyptian one may have operated, albeit
without formal adoption (Table 6, Tenure...). For example, the year-list indicates
that Shulgi’s daughter Enirziana was appointed as EN-priestess two years before her
installation took place.694 At the very least, it is likely that the elder EN-priestess
trained her successor during a novitiate that could last for several years.695
Thereafter, the senior EN stayed on in the GIPAR. Either she retained the EN-ship
until she had served out a fixed term, reached a certain age, chosen to relinquish the
role, or died,696 or – alternatively – she retired in favour of her protégé once the
latter had become proficient in the role,697 thereafter continuing in the background as
emerita.698 Some of these options could entail a lengthy delay between the
investiture of a new king and the installation of his daughter as EN-priestess, in
keeping with the delays noted at the start of this section. Most of the options could
countenance some level of power-sharing, whether transitional or long-term.

60
Table 7. Length of term as apprentice/heiress to incumbent GWA
Estimates are for the GWA at Thebes in the institution’s period of peak strength.
Overlap
Incumbent GWA Novice/Heiress (years) a References b,c
Shepenwepet I Amenirdis I 26-35 Ayad; Dodson.699
Libyan Nubian
35-47 Ayad.700
0 Koch.701
25-37 Koch; Broekman.702
Amenirdis I Shepenwepet II 10-35 Ayad; Dodson.703
? Koch.
33-40 Koch; Pope.704
Shepenwepet II Nitocris I 2-6 Dodson; Ayad.705
Nubian Saite
6-15 Bryan; Graefe; Pope;
Leahy.706
≤17 Leahy; Pope; Coulon.707
≤17 Koch.708
Nitocris I Ankhnesneferibre 9 Dodson; Leahy; Ayad.709
9 Koch.710
a
Care has been taken to avoid mixing dates from incompatible chronological schemes. All estimates
of terms should be regarded as approximate.
b
Cyan fill indicates sources that conform to the traditional chronology, which was described thus in
2014: “Over the past century of Egyptological research, historical evidence pertaining to the God’s
Wives and their staffs has been mapped across this line of succession and its accompanying protocol
to produce an elaborate matrix of interdependent dates and a standard narrative of the office’s
evolution.”711
c
Blue fill indicates calculations from recent publications (2012-2016) that use, or are compatible
with, a revisionist chronology for the GWAs. In 2012, Carola Koch proposed that the titles “God’s
Wife,” “Divine Adoratrice” and “God’s Hand” do not denote different levels of seniority; she further
asserted that these titles were only ever used by the incumbent GWA, and never by an heiress prior
to the death of her predecessor.712 Her thesis, which leads to a different chronology for the GWAs
from Shepenwepet I to Nitocris I (Fig. 10, grey dates), runs contrary to many assumptions
underpinning the traditional scholarship (note b), but is gaining significant – if qualified –
support.713,714

61
Table 8. Length of term in office (excluding apprenticeship/retirement).
Estimates are for the EPN at Ur and the GWA at Thebes in their respective periods of peak strength.

EPN Years a References

Enheduana 77 Weadock; Gadotti.715
Enmahgalana (28-34)+ (38) Weadock; Westenholz.716
Enanatuma 30+ Stol.717
Enshakiag-Nanna 40 Gadd.718
Enanedu (30-33)+ (36+) Gadd; Stol; Frayne.719

GWA Years a References b,c

Shepenwepet I 40-65 Ayad; Dodson.720
19-42 (?) Koch; Kitchen.721
Amenirdis I 14-25 Ayad; Dodson.722
40 Koch.723
Shepenwepet II 41-50 Dodson; Ayad.724
31+ Koch; Pope.725
Nitocris I 64-68 (50+) Ayad; Dodson; Leahy.726
53 Koch; Coulon; Pope.727
Ankhnesneferibre 61 Ayad; Dodson; Leahy.728
61 Koch.729
a
Care has been taken to avoid mixing dates from incompatible chronological schemes. EPNs for
whom there is insufficient data to estimate a period of tenure are not listed. All estimates of terms
should be regarded as approximate.
b
Cyan fill indicates sources that conform to the traditional chronology, as explained in note b to
Table 7.
c
Blue fill indicates calculations that use the revisionist chronology of Koch (2012), as explained in
note c to Table 7.

62
Consistent with this idea, one text names two EN-priestesses (Enshakiag-Nanna and
her successor, Enanedu) together in a list of donors that includes various other
members of Larsa’s royal family.730

In Ur and Thebes, only one person could occupy the supreme position at any given
time (Table 6, Concurrency),731 and an incumbent EPN or GWA could not be
removed from office (Table 6, Tenure...).732 In consequence (Table 6, Tenure...),
many High Priestesses served for long periods: typically 30-40 years in
Mesopotamia, with Enheduana achieving twice that, and 31-65 years in Egypt,
perhaps with one low outlier (14-25 years) and about four GWAs each achieving 40
or more years in office (Table 8).733 This continuity provided an important unifying
link through times of social disorder and during dynastic change.734 A further
contributor to stability was the apprenticeship/retirement system and the scope that
it afforded for collaboration and delegation among representatives of the old and
new regimes. The traditional GWA chronology indicates that the overlaps between
members of the Theban “college” of the God’s Wife and her designated successor
required co-operation between women of different ethnicities for periods of around
35 years (after the rulership changed from Libyan to Nubian; Table 7, cyan) and for
up to 41 years (after it changed from Nubian to Saite).735 Another calculation from
the traditional chronology estimates the Libyan/Nubian overlap at 21-33 years,
rising to 35-47 years when the inferred retirement period of Shepenwepet I is
included (Table 7, cyan). As mentioned above, when the revisionist chronology of
Koch (2012) is augmented with Gerard Broekman’s recently proposed designation
date for Amenirdis I, an overlap of 25-37 years is suggested (Table 7, blue). A
lengthy overlap is consistent with the fact that Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I are
referenced jointly in various independent inscriptions, seemingly while both were
alive,736 and the existence of their “joint project” at Karnak – the Chapel of Osiris,
Ruler of Eternity.737 The apprenticeship of Saite newcomer, Nitocris, at the hands of
Nubian incumbent, Shepenwepet II, is conservatively estimated in the traditional
chronology at 2-6 years; while it may well have been as long as 15 years, it was
certainly less than 17 years (Table 7, cyan). The revisionist chronology, too,
suggests that Nitocris was heiress for 17 years or less (Table 7, blue). It is the
possible retention of Amenirdis II – a Nubian – in the “college” headed by Nitocris
that potentially prolongs the Nubian/Saite overlap to 41 years. The twin themes of
continuity and collaboration within the office of High Priestess, and the effect of
these trends on society in Egypt and Mesopotamia, will be reprised in the final
section of this paper.

One should not forget that the intra-dynastic succession of GWAs was often
smoothed and reinforced by pre-existing biological and familial ties. In Thebes,
Shepenwepet II was the niece of Amenirdis I,738 while Ankhnesneferibre was the
grand-niece of Nitocris I (Fig. 10). Similarly, in Ur, Enmenana was not just
Enheduana’s appointed successor but also her grand-niece (Fig. 9). In contrast,
subtle differences in self-presentation suggest that a veiled rivalry may sometimes
have existed when the God’s Wives of Amun represented different dynasties/
ethnicities. The contrasting actions of Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II provides a

63
possible illustration of such tension. Amenirdis I, the first Nubian GWA,
respectfully retained all of the imagery depicting her Libyan predecessor,
Shepenwepet I, in the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity (Fig. 19, no. 5). Indeed,
the close association of the two women in the Nubian extension, and their balanced
representations on its façade, are “reminiscent of instances of royal co-regency.”739
However, Amenirdis used subtle visual cues (i.e., the dominance of rightward
orientation) to portray herself as the main officiant and claimed (in no less than
three places) to be the daughter of Osiris, thereby avoiding any filiation that
acknowledged Shepenwepet as her senior.740 In contrast, Shepenwepet II – the
second Nubian GWA – repeatedly gave a place of honour to Amenirdis in scenes on
the North Karnak chapels of Osiris, Lord of Life (Fig. 19, no. 3; Fig. 20) and of
Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree (Fig. 19, no. 4),741 and there explicitly
identified Amenirdis as her mother within her titulary, even though there was no
need to do so.742 In this and other scenes it is clear that, rather than competing with
her intra-dynastic predecessor, Shepenwepet II was using the (adoptive) filial
relationship to legitimise her position.743 Likewise, Ankhnesneferibre, the second
Saite GWA, emphasised her adoption by her intra-dynastic predecessor, Nitocris I,
in a publicly displayed decree (Table 4, Notable decrees).744

Of course, other factors may also have contributed to the seemingly more reserved
attitude of Amenirdis I toward her predecessor. As mentioned above (Gender
issues), the novitiate may not yet have been formalised as an adoption and/or the
notional filiation may not yet have assumed the importance that was later attached
to it.745 Moreover, the traditional GWA chronology allows for Shepenwepet I to
have been alive (but – as mentioned above – no longer God’s Wife) when
Amenirdis was taking care to avoid acknowledging her as her senior, whereas
Amenirdis was dead when Shepenwepet II was honouring her and highlighting their
relationship.746 Similarly, Nitocris I was dead at the time when Ankhnesneferibre’s
inscription was composed. Still, the emotional distance between Amenirdis and her
antecedent survived the death of both parties; Amenirdis’s funerary chapel at
Medinet Habu (Figs. 21-23) provides her pedigree as “royal daughter” and “royal
sister” in relation to the relevant Nubian ruler but continues to avoid any mention of
her Libyan predecessor, Shepenwepet I.747 The revisionist chronology of Koch
(2012) offers radically different explanation for the lack of filial piety, namely that
Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I did not in fact overlap (Table 7, blue fill).

The impact of the next dynastic change in the Late Period – from Kushite to Saite –
on the office of GWA is a matter of official record. The Nitocris Adoption Stela
(Table 4, Notable decrees) presents the Saite newcomer’s reception by the
incumbent Nubian God Wife, Shepenwepet II, and the latter’s Nubian heir apparent,
Amenirdis II, in the most affable terms.748 When Nitocris I arrived in Thebes,
probably still a young child,749 Shepenwepet II reportedly found her new charge
delightful and loved her “more than anything.” She and Amenirdis II promptly
declared Nitocris as their successor, to be established on their throne “firmly and
enduringly till the end of eternity.”750 Despite Psamtek I’s promise not to supplant
the existing heiress, Amenirdis II seems to have been passed over in favour of
Nitocris, who – in the fullness of time – became the next God’s Wife.751 While the

64
Nubian priestesses may have had their reservations about the succession, Nitocris –
who took the “beautiful name” of Shepenwepet752 – seems to have held them in
high esteem.753 (It is unclear which of the two Nubians was formally considered to
be her adoptive mother at the time,754 but Nitocris primarily honours Shepenwepet
II in her monuments755 and later inscriptions invariably list her rather than
Amenirdis II as Nitocris’s mother.756) Moreover, rather than erecting her funerary
chapel at Medinet Habu as a free-standing entity, Nitocris enlarged that of
Shepenwepet II and squeezed her own into a small space between those of her
Nubian predecessors (Fig. 24).757 In contrast, the Saite kings are thought to have
progressively turned against the memory of their Kushite predecessors,758 although
a recent reappraisal suggests that this may be an over-reach.759 Either way,
Amenirdis II – who of course was the daughter of the last Nubian king to rule Egypt
– may ultimately have left Thebes and returned to Napata.760

Survival

In Mesopotamia, dynastic challenges and changes in the Akkadian through

Isin/Larsa periods sometimes resulted in far greater upheavals to the circumstances
of the EN-priestesses of Nana in Ur than were endured by the Late Period God’s
Wives of Amun in Thebes (Table 5, Hiatuses). Not only was Babylonia more prone
to political fragmentation and destructive warfare, but the time-period in scope at Ur
is twice as long as that under consideration at Thebes. The Elamite destruction of Ur
ca. 2003, which ended the tenure – and most probably the life – of the EPN
Enmahgalana, is documented below. The only Theban episode in any way
comparable to this would be the Assyrian sack of Thebes by Assurbanipal in
664/3,761 at a time when Shepenwepet II was God’s Wife and Amenirdis II was her
heiress.762 But the office of GWA survived the Assyrian attack unscathed, and the
two women went on to receive Nitocris I (the daughter of the Assyrian appointee,
king Psamtek I) as heir apparent in 656.

Enheduana, the daughter of Sargon of Akkad, endured a dynastic challenge and the
potential overthrow of her father’s empire during the reign of her nephew, Naram-
Sin (r. 2211-2175; Fig. 9). Toward the end of her term she fell foul of Lugal-Ane, a
leader of the Great Rebellion who had risen up against the centralised authority of
the Akkadian king in an attempt to seize power for himself.763 In consequence,
Enheduana found herself evicted from the GIPAR and condemned to the privations of
exile; we know of her tribulations because she recorded them in her hymn, the
Adoration of Inanna. There she wails to the eponymous goddess that she is
condemned to wander
... in an inimical land,
There I will die, while singing the holy song [...]
I have been attacked most cruelly [...]
I, accustomed to triumph, have been driven forth (from) my house,
Was forced to flee the cote like a swallow, my life is devoured,
Was made to walk among the mountain thorns,
The life-giving tiara of en-ship was taken from me [...]
The fruitful bed has been abolished.764

65
In the end, however, Enheduana’s fervent prayers to Inanna for revenge were
answered; Lugal-Ane’s rebellion was quashed, and Enheduana returned to the
GIPAR.

Enmahgalana was installed in year 4 of her father, Amar-Suen (Ur III, r. 2044-2036;
Fig. 9). An EN-priestess named Enirsiana, who was appointed in year 10 of Ibbi-Sin
(Ur III, r. 2026-2003), was probably an EN of Inanna (as the original text states)765
and not of Nanna (as subsequently amended).766 Her appointment coincided with a
rebellion that reduced the state to a petty kingdom not much larger than Ur itself.767
Enmahgalana continued to feature in legal cases dated to the second decade of Ibbi-
Sin’s reign (year 14 or 20),768 so she presumably remained as EPN at Ur at that
stage. In year 23/25 of Ibbi-Sin,769 when Enmahgalana would have been in office
for about 38 years (Table 8), the Elamites and their neighbours launched a
successful attack on southern Mesopotamia. After a protracted siege, Ur fell; the
city was ravaged by the invading mountain-people, and its inhabitants were either
killed or deported as slaves.770 Ibbi-Sin himself was carried off in chains to Susa.771
The buildings of the sacred temenos at Ur were destroyed, and Enmahgalana was
presumably captured or killed. The tone of the Lament for Ur, which describes the
aftermath of the Elamite destruction, echoes the despair of Enheduana during her
exile some 170 years earlier:
Nanna was abandoning Ur,
and his sheepfold, to the winds,
Suen [= Sin] was abandoning Ekishnugal [= the Temple of Nanna in Ur]
and his sheepfold, to the winds
His consort Ningal was abandoning it,
and her sheepfold, to the winds,
And her Agrunkug [= the Temple of Ningal in Ur] Ningal was abandoning
and her sheepfold, to the winds [...]
Ur has been given over to the winds [...]
Its anointed one never walks in (his) wig [...]
Its high priestess lives no more
in the gipar temple [...]
O father Nanna, your purification priest
no longer perfects
pure cups for you [...]
Your goodly high priestess
the very Ekishnugal one,
chosen in your ardent heart,
No longer proceeds in her joy
from the temple close to the gipar.
In the Ahua, your house of festivals,
they no longer celebrate
the festivals [...]
Verily, they are garrotted
as with a string in the dirt.772

Unlike Ur, Isin had successfully withstood the Elamite attack. Under Ishbi-Erra (r.
2019-1987; Fig. 9) and his son Shu-ilishu, the Dynasty of Isin began the task of
restoring Ur. References to an appointment in year 19 of Ishbi-Erra are thought by
some to refer to the installation of an EPN named Ninziana,773 but detailed
examination of the sources suggests instead that it concerns the appointment of a

66
princess (whose name begins with Enbara...) as EGIZI of An, a position unrelated to
the EPN and more likely the High Priestess of Isin.774

Enanatuma, the daughter of king Ishme-Dagan of Isin (r. 1955-1937), rebuilt the
GIPAR775 in what may have been the first proper restoration of that building since the
Elamite sack of the city (Fig. 16). She was still in office long after Ur had been
conquered by king Gungunum of Larsa (r. 1932-1906), the city that was Isin’s
habitual foe. Indeed, she served as EN-priestess for at least 30 years, dying under the
rule of the subsequent Larsa king, Abi-sare (r. 1905-1895)(Table 6, Tenure...; Fig.9)
(Table 8).776 As mentioned above (in the section titled Power and Prosperity) her
seal continued to be used, with the authority of a royal seal, into the time of Warad-
Sin of Larsa (r. 1834-1823). Clearly these achievements involved a major political
realignment on Enanatuma’s part.777 Also as mentioned above (in the section titled
Residence and Remembrance), she built a chapel named the EHILI to the sun-god
Utu, son of Nanna, “for the life of Gungunum, the strong man, king of Ur [...] and
dedicated it for the sake of his life.”778 Similarly attested is another such structure
called the E-ESHMEDAGALA, which Enanatuma also built and dedicated for the life
of Gungunum (Table 6, Building program).779

It seems likely that Enanatuma was succeeded by a daughter of Gungunum named

Enmegalana, who – given that the latter had died by year 3 of Abi-sare’s reign780 –
must have held office only briefly (Fig. 9).781 It is of course possible that, in a
situation similar to that of the Dynasty 24/25-26 GWAs in Thebes, Enmegalana (of
Larsa) had served an apprenticeship with Enanatuma (of Isin) prior to her accession.

Although Enshakiag-Nanna, daughter of the mid-Larsa ruler Sumu-el (r. 1894-

1866), held office for 40 years (Table 8) and served under no fewer than seven
kings, she did not witness a major dynastic dislocation. She did, however, see the
Larsa (sub-) dynasty of Samium/Abi-sare cede to that of Nur-Adad, which in turn
yielded to that of Kudur-Mabuk (Fig. 9).782 Her successor Enanedu, daughter of the
last-named king, was EPN for at least 30 years (Table 8; Fig. 12). Serving under her
brothers Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin I of Larsa (Fig. 9), she too avoided the turbulence
of outright dynastic change.

Conclusion: Stability and Solidarity

This paper has sought to compare the institution of EN-priestess of Nanna (EPN) at
Ur with its later analogue in Egypt, the office of God’s Wife of Amun (GWA). Both
types of High Priestess served as the consort of an important male deity linked with
kingship: the EPN was the earthly spouse of the Mesopotamian moon-god
Nanna/Sin, while the GWA was the human wife of the Egyptian creator-god
Amun(-Re). The GWA, who resided in Thebes, was the only such office-bearer in
Egypt at any one time. While several EPNs could hold office concurrently at
different sites across Babylonia, the one in Ur was invariably the most important.
We have seen that, as institutions, the EPN and GWA both spanned about a
millennium (Ur, ca. 2288-1104 BCE; Thebes, ca. 1552-525 BCE), albeit with
interruptions and periods of uncertainty for both (Fig. 3). The office of EPN began

67
strongly, with a peak period that lasted ca. 525 years and involved 11 known
incumbents (Fig. 9), whereas the GWA’s heyday came at the end of its trajectory
and lasted only half as long (ca. 265 years), with just 5 office-bearers (Fig. 10).
Both institutions were terminated by the arrival of Persian rule. While early GWAs
were kings’ wives first and kings’ daughters second, the office of GWA evolved
over time – presumably by natural selection – to match the Mesopotamian situation,
where the usual practice was for a king to nominate his daughter as High Priestess
and God’s Wife. Since it is this arrangement that obtained during the peak period of
the EPN and GWA alike, we may conclude that this formula was especially
effective in the context of ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian societies.

In the respective periods of strength of the two institutions, the incumbents were
typically princesses whose political purpose was to assist the king in controlling a
remote region and/or rival institution. These women were powerful royal figures
whose served as religious, political, cultural and economic leaders of their
communities. As heads of the major temples in their respective regions, they
brought the assets of these wealthy institutions within the purview of the crown. The
cultic roles of the EPN and GWA were similar, although the former focused her
energies upon Ningal, the goddess of whom she was the earthly representative,
whereas the latter directed her energies toward Amun(-Re), her divine husband.
Although the current consensus is that the “sacred marriage” was in both cases
symbolic, the quotidian sexual, marital and maternal status of the High Priestesses
remains controversial. Despite femininity being central to the role of a divine
consort, both offices are somewhat affected by a paradoxical gender distortion,
namely the notional masculinisation of the incumbents. Other similarities between
the two types of priestess – such as undertones of servitude in their titles, their
associations with specific birds, and their construction of chapels with analogous
features – were also explored.

Carola Koch (2012) presents something of a minority report on the Late phase
GWAs. If Koch’s sometimes radical views are correct, there may be more
conceptual distance between these Egyptian princess-priestesses and their
Mesopotamian counterparts than is suggested by the traditional understanding of
each office. In particular, Koch sees the Dynasty 23-26 God’s Wife as a daughter
rather than a spouse or consort of Amun; claims that the titles “Divine Adoratrice”
and “God’s Hand” are not junior titles and are only ever borne by the incumbent
GWA; presents a revisionist chronology in which Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I
appear not to overlap; does not allow that a GWA might retire in favour of her
heiress; and denies that the Nubian incumbents wielded significant political power.
Indeed, if one were to combine Koch’s idea of the Late phase GWA as a daughter
of Amun with recurring suggestions that at least some of them were kings’ wives,783
the Late phase office could form the topic of counter-paper titled “God’s Daughter,
King’s Wife!” Other of Koch’s claims, such as her re-assignment of the GWA
structures at Medinet Habu as mortuary chapels for which the cognate tombs lie
elsewhere, have little impact on the analysis in the present paper and are argued so
convincingly that they have simply been accepted. All of Koch’s opinions have
been recognised separately at the appropriate locations throughout the paper, but
their collective origin in a single cohesive source is what warrants a special mention
in this coda. If, in the fullness of time, some of Koch’s more controversial

68
suggestions (or revisionist proposals from other sources) are proven correct, it
would of course be worth re-examining the data from Mesopotamia to see if the
corrections applied to our understanding of the GWA might not also be relevant to
our appreciation of the EPN at Ur. (As the GWAs of interest are 1500 years closer
to us than the cognate EPNs, it makes sense to use the more abundant data for the
former to formulate possibilities for the latter.) In the meantime, however, we can
still draw many inferences from the comparison in the present paper which are
likely to prove enduring, and to this end we may resume our summary.

Both types of High Priestess were spiritual leaders who were often instrumental in
reconciling and integrating distinct cultural or ethnic groups within their respective
countries, thereby furthering the royal agenda of national unification. For example,
Enheduana’s writings helped to unite the Semitic Akkadians of northern Babylonia
with the non-Semitic Sumerians of the south, and enhanced the authority of the
Sargonic dynasty by connecting the resulting pan-Babylonian pantheon to the royal
family. Similarly, the religious leadership of the Libyan and Nubian GWAs of
Dynasties 23-25 demonstrated the deep commitment of the corresponding royal
houses to upholding Egyptian religious norms, and thereby helped to legitimize the
rule of Egypt by a series of non-indigenous kings. In Dynasty 26, the Saites – kings
of Libyan descent whose dynasty had begun as an Assyrian vassalship – were
naturalised and rehabilitated in the same way. With their enthusiastic revival of
archaic Egyptian practices in piety and art,784 the various “foreign” elites appear
almost more Egyptian than the Egyptians themselves. As Angelika Lohwasser
observes, “the GWA epitomized continuity of the traditional rituals for the state god
Amun. [...] The (Nubian) GWAs were considered Egyptian by the Egyptians – and
it seems by the Kushites, including the GWAs themselves, as well.”785 “But the
political influence and power of this institution was fruitfully used by the Kushites
to stabilize their rule in Egypt.”786

Although the office of High Priestess in Ur was subject to greater upheavals than its
counterpart in Thebes, we have seen that the incumbents of both institutions often
served for long periods: typically 30-40 years in Ur, with one exceptional term of
ca. 77 years, and 40-65 years in Thebes, possibly with one low term of 14-25 years
(Table 8). This longevity provided the relevant community with a unifying link
through times of social and political disorder. In both institutions, specific
incumbents (e.g., Enanatuma and Shepenwepet I) are known or are widely believed
to have successfully straddled dynastic change, remaining in office long into the
new dynasty. For the GWA, we also saw that apprenticeship (via adoption of the
new king’s daughter), collaboration and delegation were common, requiring co-
operation between women of “different ethnic and cultural backgrounds [... who]
belonged to warring dynasties”787 over long periods, e.g. probably 2-15 years for the
Nubian/Saite overlap, and potentially 25 years or more for the Libyan/Nubian one.
Thus, writing of Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I, Mariam Ayad observes:788
[T]he authority of the office of the God’s Wife [...] imbued the incumbent,
Libyan or Nubian, with the ability to serve the gods. It is the harmonious
co-existence, and association, of these two women that served to achieve a
smooth transition of power in the Theban region. For it is in their capacity
as the ultimate religious authority in Thebes that the two women were able
to negotiate the dynastic transition from Libyan to Nubian rule.

69
 Fig. 28. Continuity across a dynastic divide. A generic scheme to highlight a key
benefit of the institution.789 HP, High Priestess (i.e., EPN/ GWA); Dau, daughter.

A similarly stabilising and collaborative situation (exemplified generically in Fig.

28) seems to have obtained, albeit without the formality of adoption, in the GIPAR at
Ur. Although novitiates at Ur may have been limited to a few years, and evidence of
protracted role-sharing is lacking,790 it is likely that any contemporaneous
incumbent, trainee and retired EPNs were considered to form a unitary “college,”
just as has been suggested for the God’s Wives of Amun.791 Either way, the political
impacts of the two institutions were equivalent. In the words of Joan Westenholz:792
[T]he en-priestess [...] embodied the wider community of Ur in her union
with Nanna. She was a symbol of the Sumerian community as a whole. For
this reason [...], these en-priestesses who outlived their fathers and some
even their dynasties, could not be removed from office and could thus
continue to serve and provide the unifying link even in periods of disunity.
In other words, whether the princess officiated alone or shared aspects of the High
Priestess role with her designated successor and/or predecessor, the outcome of her
long reign was the same: stability and continuity, even in times of political and
social distress.

Postscript

Subsequent to the release of this article, Manfred Bietak published a paper in which he
proposes a re-assignment of the temple in section C of the Ur III-Larsa period GIPAR to
Nanna rather than to Ningal.793 If this is correct, the cultic focus of the EPN may have been
much more on Nanna than on his wife Ningal. This adjustment would reduce or remove one
of the perceived differences between the EPN and the GWA (Cult and Ritual section).

70
© 2017 Lloyd D. Graham, excluding third party and public domain content; v.09_18.11.19

Cite as: Lloyd D. Graham (2017-19) “King’s Daughter, God’s Wife: The Princess as High Priestess
in Mesopotamia (Ur, ca. 2300-1100 BCE) and Egypt (Thebes, ca. 1550-525 BCE),” online at
https://www.academia.edu/34248896/King_s_Daughter_God_s_Wife_The_Princess_as_High_Priest
ess_in_Mesopotamia_Ur_ca._2300-1100_BCE_and_Egypt_Thebes_ca._1550-525_BCE_

URLs for photographs reproduced in the figures are provided directly in footnotes to the figure
legends. Creative Commons licence terms (CC BY 3.0, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, etc.) are available at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/.

Endnotes
Abbreviations: COS, Context of Scripture; RIME, Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia – Early
periods; UET, Ur Excavations – Texts; items within these series are listed by entry number.
1
Schuenemann et al. (2017).
2
E.g., Mumford (2013). David Wengrow (2006: 13) writes “In the second millennium BC, as from
the time of their inception, the principal dynastic powers of South-West Asia and North-East
Africa were related through material interests and exchanges, even as they remained culturally
and politically divided.”
3
Indeed, the existence of predynastic cultural/trade contacts between Mesopotamia and Egypt (in the
Uruk and Naqada IIIA/B periods, repectively) is attested by the presence of Mesopotamian
iconography (Sumerian attire and Master of Animals motif) on the carved handle of the
Egyptian “Gebel el-Arak Knife,” which is believed to have come from Abydos [Seidlmayer
(2010: 26, Fig. 31); Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 124-5); Étienne (n.d.)]. Writing of
Mesopotamian and Iranian cylinder seals, especially those from Uruk and Susa, David
Wengrow (2006: 191) writes that “it must be assumed that, towards the end of the fourth
millennium, small numbers of such objects became entangled within larger exchange networks
extending between South-West Asia and the Mediterranean coast, and that the images carried
on them were absorbed into a creative process then underway among local elites within Egypt.
[...] In some well known cases, such as the ‘master of animals’ design on the Gebel el-Araq
Knife-handle (fig 2.4), the decorative content of a foreign seal appears to have been transposed
directly on to a locally crafted, Egyptian object. Such direct appropriations are no longer in
evidence after the time of the Narmer Palette.” For his full discussion of Egyptian cultural
borrowings from Mesopotamia and Iran, see Wengrow (2006: 187-95).
4
The motif is well developed in the Osiride legends preserved by Plutarch, but it is present even in
Middle Kingdom versions of the myth. E.g., Wilkinson (2003: 118-20); Hart (2005: 117 &
124).
5
McDevitt (2014); Mettinger (2001: 55-81); Ginsberg (2011), esp. p.133-4 identifying Anat as
Baal’s sister and lover.
6
Blackman (1924); Sparks (2005: 147-9); Westenholz (2013a: 258-9); Beckerleg (2009); Walker
and Dick (1999); Lorton (1999), esp. p.147 fn 37; Dick (2017).
7
Zettler (1986: 36).
8
Hart (2005: 74-75); Shonkwiler (2014).
9
Lumsden (1990: 93-97); Teissier (1996: 95-101).
10
Michaux-Colombot (2008).
11
Ataç (2006), esp. p.83.
12
Maras (2009); Secunda (2010: 260-1).
13
Abram (2011), p.17 & fn 10.
14
One version of the “rod and ring” appears incidentally in Fig. 1.

71
15
For a good overview, see Ataç (2015).
16
Commendably, Herodotus [Hdt I 181.5-182.2] connected the “sacred marriage” of the High
Priestess in Thebes with a corresponding Babylonian practice (discussed below in Celibacy and
the Sacred Marriage). Similarly, some modern scholars mention the categories of
Mesopotamian en-priestess and Egyptian God’s Wife in quick succession, without providing
any detail, e.g., Solvang (2003: 43). Surprisingly, the recent 543-page compendium titled
Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity
devotes only a tangential paragraph to the GWA (Rikala 2008: 124-5) and – in a different paper
– a single sentence to the EPN (Lapinkivi 2008: 17).
17
For convenience of layout and reference, Tables 1-6 (all of which are called by the end of the next
paragraph) appear as a single group, uninterrupted by text, figures or page-breaks, starting on
the next page. Figure placements commence after Table 6. Tables 7-8, which belong together,
are also presented as a single group at the place where Table 7 is first called.
18
Dodson (2004), esp. p.27; Westenholz (2012).
19
Van Buylaere (2019), esp. p.44.
20
Stol (2016: 555). Although not listed as a separate title at this stage, it forms the initial part of the
ceremonial name Enheduana; Westenholz (2012: 300). Lion (2009: 170) cautions that, prior to
this, “no document of the archaic Sumerian period mentions an EN of Nanna.” EN-ship in its
original sense (see main text, Gender Issues) was the distinctive form of kingship in archaic
Uruk ca. 3000, where the king was EN (Lord) of Inanna, goddess of that city, in a sacred
marriage. See Westenholz (2012: 292); Westenholz (2013a: 248-9); Beaulieu (2007: 167);
Steinkeller (1999: 103-11).
21
Westenholz (2012: 293-4).
22
Weadock (1975: 106).
23
Woolley (1982: 92-4); Crawford (2015: 54-56); Stol (2016: 471-5); Van de Mieroop (2016: 65-
66). Nevertheless, Collon (1999: 20) keeps alive the idea that “the large number of women
might indicate that they were priestesses of Nanna.”
24
Woolley (1982: 124); Weadock (1975) p. 101 & 105 fn 40; Podany (2010: xv & 38-39); Astour
(2002: 57-58).
25
Steinkeller (1999: 121) writes: “Still other types of high priestesses documented in the ED period
are munus-zi and zirru [; ...] zirru was the high priestess of Nanna at Ur.”
26
Westenholz (2012), p. 291 fn 2 & p.297-8; Collon (1999: 20-21); Winter (1987: 193-6).
27
Crawford (2015: 90); Westenholz (2013a: 251); Westenholz (2012: 297-8). Collon (1999: 19)
identifies a possible “priestess-queen” figure on Uruk-period seals.
28
Steinkeller (1999: 125).
29
Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 300).
30
Ayad (2009a: 4).
31
Ayad (2009a: 4).
32
Bryan (2003: 1).
33
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296).
34
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296).
35
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296).
36
Bryan (2003: 3-4).
37
Bryan (2003: 5).
38
Gitton (1976).
39
Bryan (2003: 2-7 & 12); Robins (1993a: 70-71); Ayad (2009a: 6 & 139).
40
Bryan (2003: 5).
41
Feldman & Lewis (2016).
42
Stol (2016: 557); Suter (2007: 321).
43
Westenholz (2012: 300); Steinkeller (1999: 124).
44
Van de Mieroop (2016: 70); Westenholz (2012: 303); Winter (1987: 200-1).

72
45
Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 304).
46
Ayad (2009a: 6); Rosalie David (2014: 21).
47
Stone (2016); Encyclopaedia Britannica (2000).
48
Stone (2016); Encyclopaedia Britannica (2000).
49
Green & Black (2000a: 273); Westenholz (2013a: 255).
50
Kriwaczek (2010: 120).
51
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83 (3).
52
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83 (2); Stone (2016).
53
Green (1992: 35).
54
Green (1992: 35).
55
Thus ca. 1800-1760. Green & Black (2000a: 273); Green (1992: 36).
56
Green & Black (2000a: 273); Van de Mieroop (2016: 298).
57
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 164-5 & 185).
58
Westenholz (2012: 301).
59
Promoted to this position to match the dominance of his city Ur over Babylonia during Ur III. Hall
(1986: 153); Beaulieu (2007: 167).
60
Hall (1985); Hall (1986).
61
Green & Black (2000a: 273).
62
Westenholz (2012: 301); Beaulieu (2007: 166).
63
Volk (1999: 101); Asher-Greve (2013: 230).
64
Green (1992: 36-37).
65
Wilkinson (2003: 92-94); Hart (2005: 14-15 & 20-21).
66
El Hawary (2016: 12); Blöbaum (2016: 197).
67
Taylor (2003: 326-7).
68
Hart (2005: 15-16).
69
Green & Black (2000a: 272-3); Hrůša (2015: 46).
70
Hart (2005: 14-15); Wilkinson (2003: 92-93).
71
Hart (2005: 86-88); Wilkinson (2003: 113-4).
72
Green & Black (2000a: 273)
73
Hart (2005: 13); Wilkinson (2003: 95).
74
Westenholz (2013b: 49).
75
Faulkner (1962: 106), entries for mwt; Fazzini & Peck (1983: 16).
76
Suter (2007), p.336 incl. fn 60. A section of the fragmentary A Balbale to Nanna (also known as
Nanna B) reads: “I shall …… to the beautiful young reeds. Mistress, …… the treasures (?) of
the ubi-birds. I will gather their eggs for you, and I shall …… the nest. High priestess of
Nanna, …… the ubi-birds.” Black et al. (2001a), lines 32-37.
77
Suter (2007: 336); Stol (2016: 558); Westenholz (2012), 295 fn 19; Asher-Greve (2013), p.182
(incl. fn 787) & p.230; Tinney & Jones (n.d.).
78
Westenholz (2012: 302); Westenholz (2013a:249).
79
Hart (2005: 97).
80
Wilkinson (2003: 154); Lohwasser (2016: 123).
81
Lohwasser (2016: 123). As #ai-nfr.w-Mw.t is probably a subjunctive, “May the perfection of Mut
appear” [Ayad (2009a: 29)], there is no need to contend – as does Lohwasser (2016: 124) – that
“Amenirdis I represents herself as the living personification of Mut, while the following GWAs
construct their names as a title expressing a link to the goddess but not embodiment of her.”
The extent to which the GWA may be identified with Mut is discussed in the main text section
titled Cult and Ritual.
82
Westenholz (2012: 292). The city is not given, but cannot be Ur if Weadock (2012: 127) is correct.
83
Dodson (2004: 23).

73
84
“Originally a term for a god’s servant, but later understood as a variant of the high-priestess
office.” Steinkeller (1999); van Koppen (2006: 91). See under table heading Iconography of
spouse for an avian association. The term ZIRRU was adopted into Akkadian with the meaning
“High Priestess of Sin;” in contrast, the native Akkadian term zirru means “reed fence.”
Oppenheim (1961: 136).
85
Kriwaczek (2010: 120); Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 295-6 & 305); Stol (2016: 558);
Asher-Greve (2013: 230-1). The title ZIRRU is still used by some post-Ur III EPNs such as
Enanatuma (Isin dynasty); van Koppen (2006: 92).
86
Suter (2007: 322); Weadock (1975: 101-2); Westenholz (2012: 299).
87
Bryan (2003: 3-4).
88
Ayad (2009a: 3-4).
89
Westenholz (2012: 304).
90
Bryan (2003: 3-4).
91
Westenholz (2012: 304).
92
Weadock (1975: 103).
93
Westenholz (2013a: 251). Weadock (1975: 127-8) provides a list of known EN-priestesses of
Nanna at Ur, with filiation and dates. Note however that Enirsiana and Ninziana (who are
included by Weadock as En-nir-si-anna and Nin-zi-anna, respectively) are very unlikely to be
EPNs, as discussed in the main text section titled Survival.
94
The biblical patriarch Abram/Abraham – whose origins are associated with Ur (Gen 11: 27-32) –
is conventionally ascribed to a time at the end of the 3rd millennium or in the early 2nd
millennium [Monson & Lancaster (2014), p.40 and foldout chart facing it]; traditionalists
narrow the date-range to 2166-1991 BCE [Bauer (2007), p.128 fn]. If Abraham existed and his
dating is broadly correct, he would probably have grown up in Ur at a time when the EPN there
was a powerful and well-known individual. The name of Abraham’s father, Terah, and the
names of other relatives suggest that his forefathers and immediate family may have been
followers of Nanna/Sin [Hamilton (1990:363); Hartley (2000: 131); Bauer (2007: 128)].
Moreover, Harran – the place to which Terah relocated his family from Ur, and thus the first
stop on Abraham’s journey to Canaan (Gen 12: 1-5; Acts 7: 2-4) – was the main cult centre for
Nanna/Sin in the north [Kriwaczek (2010: 163); Summers (2000)]. One scholar – Savina
Teubal – has gone so far as to propose that Sarai/Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was herself an EPN or
similar [Teubal (1984), assessed by Vancil (1993: 37-41) and, less charitably, by Milne (1987:
122)].
95
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Weadock (1975: 127).
96
Sollberger (1965): UET VIII 12; Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.4.33-34; Suter (2007), p.322, 325 &
Fig. 3; Weadock (1975: 127).
97
Edzard (1997): RIME 3/1.1.6.12-13; Suter (2007: 322); Weadock (1975: 127).
98
Frayne (1997): RIME 3/2.1.3.19 & year-name p.237; Westenholz (2012: 304-5); Weadock (1975:
128); van de Mieroop (2016: 85), Fig. 4.3.
99
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.3-4 & 13 and RIME 4.2.5.1-2; Suter (2007), p.329-330 & Fig. 9; Stol
(2016), p.560-563 & Fig. 43; Weadock (1975: 128).
100
Weadock (1975: 128).
101
Gadd (1951: 30); Weadock (1975: 128).
102
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15 & 32, and RIME 4.2.14.20; Weadock (1975: 128); Westenholz
(2012: 306); Westenholz (2013a: 251); Stol (2016: 566); Gadd (1951).
103
Robins (1993a: 71-77).
104
Robins (1993a: 71); Ayad (2009a: 6).
105
Ayad (2009a: 6); Quirke (2000-3a); Bart (n.d.).
106
Ayad (2009a: 6); Dodson (2004: 23).
107
Ayad (2009a: 8-9); Quirke (2000-3a) ; Bart (n.d.).
108
Westenholz (2013a: 262).
109
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Gadd (1951); Stol (2016: 576); Weadock (1975: 109-10 & 119);
Postgate (1992: 130).

74
110
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15; Asher-Greve (2013: 228).
111
Gadd (1951: 28); Stol (2016: 575-6).
112
Price (2014).
113
Crawford (2015: 92 & 94).
114
Van de Mieroop (1992: 128).
115
Gardiner (1961: 298); Pemberton (2013: 186); Ayad (2009a: 9); el Hawary (2016: 16).
116
Stol (2016: 584).
117
Ayad (2009a: 142-3); Dodson (2002: 186).
118
By continuation from the Early phase (Table 3, Basic titles).
119
Koch (2012: 65), contra Ayad (2009a: 19) who nominates Amenirdis I (Dynasty 25) as the first.
120
Ayad (2009a: 19).
121
Ayad (2009a: 131).
122
Amenirdis I made three references to Osiris as her father in the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity
in East Karnak; Ayad (2009a: 132).
123
Teeter (1999: 411-2); Morkot (2006: 148 & 151). In an unrelated context, Pope (2013: 194) tells
us that “epitheta of the God’s Wives in Egypt were themselves borrowed from a still earlier
source – the institution of queenship;”. Perhaps this , together with the origins of the institution
among the Great Royal Wives of the New Kingdom, underpins an occasional honorific use of
the term Hm.t nsw in respect of later GWAs. Indeed, Pope (2015: 363-4) has argued that some
of the Late phase GWAs may genuinely have been king’s wives. Most recently, however, a
better photograph of the inscription on the sarcophagus of Nitocris I has caused him to abandon
the claim that Shepenwepet II was there accorded the title of Hm.t nsw. Accordingly, there are
now no known instances of Shepenwepet II being described as a king’s wife; Pope (2018: 51).
124
Ankhnesneferibre and Nitocris B were both appointed HPA while heiresses. The eventual
absorption of this title by the GWA is discussed in the section titled Power and Prosperity.
125
Becker et al. (2016: 1).
126
Vittmann (2007), p.154 fn 83.
127
Brinkman (1996: 114); Weadock (1975: 112 & 128).
128
Due to the existence of incompatible chronological schemes, specific calendar dates are not
included here. Specific dates from the various schemes are presented ahead in Fig. 10.
129
Ayad (2009a: 15-16).
130
Ayad (2009a: 16-18).
131
Ayad (2009a: 18-21).
132
Ayad (2009a: 23-27).
133
Ayad (2009a: 27-28).
134
Stol (2016: 575-6); Brinkman (1996: 114); Weadock (1975: 112).
135
Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 394-5).
136
Caminos (1964); Wilkinson (2016: 212-9); Blöbaum (2016).
137
Most recently reiterated by Ayad (2016a: 94) and Blöbaum (2016: 183-4).
138
Bryan (2003: 8-12); Dodson (2002); Koch (2012: 44-50).
139
Ayad (2009a: 120-1 & 140-141); Leahy (1996: 155).
140
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.118 (incl. fn 13).
141
Ayad (2009: 16 & 117).
142
Luft (2010: 426).
143
Taylor (2003: 353).
144
Ayad (2009a: 119-20); Becker (2016: 38-41). While not denying the prominence of Kushite royal
women in affairs of state, Koch (2012:24) cautions that the Kushite social system was not
matrilineal.
145
Luft (2010: 427); Taylor (2003: 350-2).

75
146
“Not surprisingly it is from the Third Dynasty of Ur that come the greatest number of attestations
and clearest indications of worship [of Nanna];” Stone (2016). The calculation of four EPNs for
the Ur III period is from Weadock (1975: 127-8), minus Enirsiana (see main text section titled
Survival).
147
She may of course have been a compiler/editor rather than author, or even have been credited
honorifically with creations from a later time; Stol (2016: 565-6).
148
Westenholz (2012: 305).
149
Westenholz (2012: 305).
150
Westenholz (2012: 306).
151
Török (2009: 322). Some scholars (Ayad, Dodson and others) seem to consider Shepenwepet’s
political prominence less important than the influence exerted by her Nubian and Saite
successors (Dyn 25-26).
152
Dodson (2002: 179).
153
Ayad (2009a: 111 & 118-9); Kemp (2006: 346-7); Graves-Brown (2010: 89).
154
Koch (2012: 77), as discussed in main text section titled Power and Prosperity.
155
Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 107-8).
156
Enanedu held office for at least 30 years; Gadd (1951: 35).
157
Stol (2016: 584-604). Postgate (1992: 131) has them as “daughters-in-law” of Shamash rather
than as the god’s second wives.
158
Stol (2016: 606).
159
Crawford (2015: 92).
160
Van de Mieroop (2016: 123); Crawford (2015: 112).
161
Weadock (1975: 110).
162
Stol (2016: 574). The “convent of nuns” at Sippar outlasted Samsuiluna by a century; Stol (2016:
603).
163
Weadock (1975: 111).
164
Zettler (2011), at 0:14:40-0:15:55.
165
Weadock (1975: 111).
166
Crawford (2015: 118).
167
Crawford (2015: 113).
168
Weadock (1975: 112). Conversely, Brigitte Lion appears to believe that there was no EPN at Ur
between Enanedu and the Neo-Babylonian revival of the office a millennium later, when
Nabonidus appointed his daughter En-nigaldi-Nanna as EPN; Lion (2009: 180).
169
Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 393-4); Anagnostou-Laoutides (2017: 83).
170
Zettler (2011), at 0:15:00-015:46.
171
Ayad (2009a: 6).
172
Ayad (2009a: 10), contra Ayad (2009a: 15).
173
Ayad (2009a: 15).
174
Ritner (2009: 591).
175
Coulon (2014: 567).
176
Crawford (2015: 119).
177
Weadock (1975: 112).
178
Stol (2016: 574); Weadock (1975: 112).
179
Crawford (2015: 120-6).
180
Stol (2016: 575-6); Weadock (1975: 109); Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 394-5).
181
Stol (2016: 574-5); Garrison (2012: 45); Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 393-5). Nabonidus’s
daughter’s name was originally misread as Bel-shalti-Nanna [Stol (2016), p.576 fn 119] and the
reading persists in some modern literature [Crawford (2015), p.126 & Fig. 9.iii].
182
Woolley (1982), p.237 (plan); Crawford (2015), p.11 (map) & p.124-127; Weadock (1975: 113).

76
183
The criticism is recorded in the Cyrus Cylinder; Arnold & Michalowski (2006: 426-9). The
authors caution that Cyrus’s criticism of the appointment of En-nigaldi-Nanna as EPN is not
entirely certain, as their translation glosses over a grammatical difficulty.
184
Ayad (2009a: 153-4).
185
Pope (2013: 197-8). Although Ayad (2009a: 154) claims the time interval to be 200 years, Pope
(2014: 220) points out that its duration is actually around 60 years. The ancestor (whose
identity has been effaced) is usually assumed to be Amenirdis II [Pope (2014: 220-2)], who
may have returned to Nubia after she was displaced as heiress by Nitocris (main text,
Succession). Recently, Pope (2015) has proposed Shepenwepet II as the ancestor. Lohwasser
(2016: 129) does not believe that the ancestor was a genuine GWA or heiress, merely a
priestess of Amun at Thebes.
186
Ritner (1998).
187
Koch (2012: 60).
188
Ritner (1998).
189
Koch (2012: 59).
190
Ayad (2009a: 155).
191
Koch (2012:59).
192
Hoffmeier (1992) p.89-90 & fn 63; Schulman (1979), p.193 & fn 13.; Herodotus III, 1-4 [de
Sélincourt (1972: 203)]; Leahy (1996: 165).
193
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 79-82.
194
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83.
195
Ayad (2009a: 4); Perdu (2016: 226).
196
Ayad (2009a: 4); Bart (n.d.); Perdu (2016: 225). Perdu indicates that one such institution may
relate to Horus-Re.
197
Pérez Die (1992), p.53 and Pl. XIVb & XVb; Koch (2012: 81-2).
198
Collombert (1995).
199
Koch (2012: 81); Perdu (2016: 225-6). The God’s Wife of Heryshaf, which is the subject of Perdu
(2016), was not confined to royal women, but in the Saite period was occupied by a daughter of
Psamtek II; see main text section titled The Office of High Priestess.
200
Perdu (2016:229); Graves-Brown (2010: 86).
201
Dodson (2004: 23).
202
Pope (2013: 205); Pope (2014: 227).
203
Stol (2016: 568).
204
Westenholz (2012: 297-8).
205
Finkel & Taylor (2015: 90); Weadock (1975: 101).
206
Stol (2016: 569).
207
Stol (2016: 574).
208
Bryan (2003: 4-5).
209
Ayad (2009a: 9).
210
Leahy (1996), p.150 (note m) & 157.
211
Westenholz (2013a: 254-5).
212
Stol (2016: 569).
213
Westenholz (2013a: 254-5).
214
Morkot (2006: 153).
215
Most detailed written account is for Ankhnesneferibre, supplemented by imagery for Nitocris I.
Leahy (1996: 149 & 158-9).
216
Coulon (2014).
217
Kemp (2006: 352-3).
218
Woolley (1982: 139-47); Crawford (2015: 11).
219
Black (2000).

77
220
Koch (2012: 39).
221
Kemp (2006: 352-3); Robins (2008: 214).
222
Ayad (2009a), p.29 (Table 1.2).
223
For example, Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II were substituted for Mut in depictions of the
“divine marriage” at the Chapel of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree (East Karnak), images
that are clearly based on the depiction of Mut embracing Amun in the Hypostyle Hall of
Karnak. Ayad (2009a: 134-5).
224
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 215); Wilkinson (2003: 155-6); Fazzini & Peck (1983); Pinkowski
(2006); el Hawary (2016: 11-12).
225
Lohwasser (2016: 123).
226
Blackman (1921: 12-14); Morkot (2006: 151); Coulon (2014: 581); Koch (2012: 65).
227
Pope (2014: 206 & 224); Pope (2013: 179-181, 201 & 206-7); Manassa (2011: 355); Leahy
(1996: 149); Koch (2012: 80-81); Coulon (2014: 581); el Hawary (2016: 12-13).
228
Ayad (2009a: 90, 95, 102 & 104); Ayad (2016a: 95).
229
Koch (2012: 65).
230
CDLI (2017), Ur III: Amar-Sin, year 9.
231
Leahy (1996: 159); Pope (2014: 212); Koch (2012: 77-79).
232
Robins (2008: 75).
233
Westenholz (2013a: 255).
234
Weadock (1975), p.115-16 & fn 96.
235
Westenholz (2013a: 257).
236
Suter (2007: 340).
237
Suter (2007: 340-1); Westenholz (2013a: 255).
238
Westenholz (2013a: 257); Weadock (1975: 103).
239
Westenholz (2013a: 257).
240
Westenholz (2013a: 257).
241
Stol (2016: 566); Suter (2007), p.320 fn 10; Postgate (1992: 130); Weadock (1975: 103).
242
Ayad (2009a: 121); Robins (1993a: 71).
243
Ayad (2009a: 94); Bryan (2003: 2).
244
Ayad (2009a: 35-70); Robins (1993a: 71); Koch (2012: 74).
245
Ayad (2009a: 122); Robins (1993a: 71); Bryan, (2003: 2). A God’s Father ranked higher than a
wab-priest but below a Hm nTr; Contardi (2006: 145). The latter group were led by the First,
Second, Third and Fourth Priests of Amun, the first-mentioned being the HPA; the sequence
from wab-priest to HPA is exemplified by the career of the Ramesside priest Bakenkhons;
Frood (2007: 41). There seems to have been no priestly rank of God’s Father in the
Mesopotamian cult of Nanna. On the other hand, God’s Mother is a known female title within
the Hittite priesthood; Taggar-Cowen (2006: 335-68). From Dynasty 21, the title of God’s
Mother also appears in Egypt, usually in relation to Khonsu (as child) and sometimes in relation
to Hathor (as mother); Perdu (2016: 226-8).
246
Ayad (2009a: 75-82 & 87-102); Koch (2012: 76) .
247
Ayad (2009a: 103-10); Robins (1993a: 71).
248
Ayad (2009a: 90, 95, 102 & 104)
249
Ayad (2009a: 70-74); Koch (2012: 74 & 81).
250
Ayad (2009a: 103-10); Ayad (2016a: 95); Koch (2012: 28 & 75). There was a brief period in the
late New Kingdom/early Third Intermediate Period when some members of the High Priest of
Amun’s family co-opted the ritual for private funerary use; Koch (2016: 156).
251
Ayad (2009a:110-6); Koch (2012: 41); Pope (2013: 210-1); Ayad (2016a: 96).
252
Green & Black (2000c); Steinkeller (1999: 116); Suter (2007: 322). For recent treatments of this
phenomenon as a metaphor with parallels beyond ancient Mesopotamia, see e.g. Lapinkivi
(2008); Pongratz-Leisten (2008). Until recently, the sacred marriage of the king to a fertility
goddess or figure who represented the sovereignty of the land was accepted as having diffused

78
 as far afield as Scandinavia, but this Frazerian generalisation has recently come under
challenge; Sundqvist (2016: 7-12).
253
Weadock (1975: 102); Jacobsen (1957), p.126 fn 80; Wakeman (1985: 17-18); Black et al.
(2001b), lines 15-20; cf. caution in Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 105. See discussion in the section
titled Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage.
254
A small room with a large bed platform adjacent to C27, the shrine of the Ningal temple;
Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Wooley (1982), p.185 (plan); Weadock (1975) Pl.
XXVIa (plan) & p.115-118.
255
Westenholz (2013a: 257-8); Suter (2007: 322); Postgate (1992: 130); Steinkeller (1999: 133).
256
Steinkeller (1999), p.134 fn 106.
257
Hdt. 182.1-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114).
258
Robins (1993a: 67-70). However, see also the next endnote.
259
Blackman (1921: 12-4); Koch (2012: 79-80); Rikala (2008), esp. p.124 for the Hathor-Mut
equivalence.
260
Accordingly, Koch (2012: 65) observes that the title of God’s Wife alludes to the king’s “divine
descent by a proclaimed marriage of his mother with a god.”
261
Robins (1993b: 153); David (2014: 20); Graves-Brown (2010: 89).
262
Ayad (2009a: 34-51 & 151-2); Graves-Brown (2010: 90).
263
Manassa (2011: 357); Ayad (2009a: 38 & 51).
264
Koch (2012: 79-80).
265
Hdt. 182.1-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114 ).
266
Gadd (1951: 32).
267
Weadock (1975: 102).
268
Lion (2009: 166); Hrůša (2015: 76-7); Scurlock (2014: 106); Postgate (1992: 130).
269
Stol (2016: 568-73).
270
Stol (2016: 572); Sparks (2005: 279); cf. Speiser (2011: 82). See discussion in the section titled
Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage.
271
Suter (2007), p.327 fn 32, citing a presentation by Markus Hilgert at the Oriental Institute,
Chicago (30 May, 2000).
272
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.14; Westenholz (2013a: 268).
273
Ayad (2009a: 9).
274
Robins (1993a: 67); Rikala (2008: 124-5). The idea that the husband of the GWA would become
king is central to the plot of the novel The God’s Wife (Voedisch 2011: 54).
275
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-8); Dodson (2004: 24-25); van de Mieroop
(2010: 275); Mark (2017); Morkot (2006: 153).
276
Ayad (2009a: 117 & 152); Teeter (1999: 406). Ritner (2009: 460) quotes Baer in describing the
GWAs as “celibate priestesses who secured the allegiance of Thebes to the crown by providing
‘a politically harmless titular head for the domain of Amun.’”
277
Leahy (1996: 164).
278
Teeter (1999: 411-2), following Habachi (1977: 169-70); cf. reservations in Ayad (2009a: 21) and
critique in Russmann (1997), p.36 fn 125. The issue is discussed in the section titled Celibacy
and the Sacred Marriage.
279
Manassa (2011: 359); Pope (2015: 363-4), but cf. Pope (2018: 52).
280
Bryan (2003: 13).
281
Ayad (2009a: 15, 28, 152 & 154); Ayad (2016a: 89).
282
Westenholz (2013a: 258 & 267); Hrůša (2015: 76).
283
Westenholz (2013a), p.248 (Table 12.1); Hrůša (2015: 76-81).
284
Kriwaczek (2010: 121); Hafford (2012); Hart (n.d.a). Source publications are Frayne (1992):
RIME 2.1.1.2003 (seal U8988; UET I 271) for hairdresser Ilum Pal[il]; RIME 2.1.1.2005
(sealing U11684) for scribe [x]-kituš-du ; RIME 2.1.1.2004 (seal U9178) for the estate
supervisor/majordomo Adda (the equivalent of the High Steward of a GWA). The seal for

79
 scribe Sagadu, whose inscription is interpreted online by William Hallo [Hart (n.d.b.)], is in the
Rosen Collection; see Eisenberg (1998), p.30 Fig. 23 (No. 64).
285
Assuming these designations were junior titles used by the heiress(es), an assumption common to
much of the existing scholarship but recently contested by Koch (2012: 44-50 & 62-65).
286
Koch (2012: 82-86).
287
As heiresses, Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre each held the title Hsi.t wr.t n.t Xnw n.y Imn.w; Koch
(2012: 62 & 77). As heiress, Amenirdis II seems to have done likewise with Hsi.t aA.t n.t Xnw n.y
Imn.w; Pope (2015: 358).
288
Li (2011); Corsi (2013).
289
Koch (2012: 12-15) describes these functionaries (High Steward/Chief Steward/Great Overseer of
the House); their Egyptian names are listed by History of Ancient Egypt (n.d.a). No less than
eight statues of Harwa, the High Steward of Amenirdis I, are held by the Berlin Museum;
David (2014: 19). Later in Dynasty 25 he was followed by Akhamenrau; Koch (2012: 14). In
Dynasty 26, Nitocris I was served by Ibi, Pabasa, Padihorresnet, and Anchhor, while
Ankhnesneferibre’s High Stewards were Sheshonq A, Padineith and Sheshonq B; Koch (2012:
15).
290
Bryan (2003: 2).
291
Westenholz (2012: 304).
292
Westenholz (2012), p.304 & fn 55.
293
Lion (2009); Westenholz (2012: 306); Westenholz (2013a: 267).
294
Westenholz (2012: 301).
295
Westenholz (2012: 304-5); Weadock (1975: 103).
296
Legrain (1937-47): UET III 864.
297
Westenholz (2012: 306); cf. the source inscription in Figulla & Martin (1953): UET V 343,
which names the two lenders as Belshametabum and Namtinibani. None of the records for
Enanedu in Figulla & Martin (1953): UET V show her lending money for interest.
298
E.g., the Adoption Stele of Nitocris. Caminos (1964); Wilkinson (2016: 212-9).
299
Török (2009: 322); Dodson (2002: 179); cf. cautions by Koch (2012: 76-77).
300
Brier (2010).
301
Van de Mieroop (2010: 275); Mark (2017).
302
Weadock (1975: 104-5).
303
Weadock (1975), p.104-5 & 128 fn 56; Gadd (1951: 30).
304
Gadd (1951: 30); Stol (2016: 562-3).
305
Gadd (1951: 39). Similarly Stol (2016: 557), Westenholz (2012: 304).
306
Kriwaczek (2010: 122-4); Stol (2016: 564-5). Similarly Ninshatapada, a daughter of King Sin-
kashid of Uruk and a High Priestess of Meslamtaea, the god of Durum, was exiled under Rim-
Sin I of Larsa, the brother of Enanedu after he conquered Uruk; Stol (2016: 577).
307
Gadd (1951: 30 & 35).
308
Westenholz (2012: 304).
309
Van de Mieroop (2016: 96); Stol (2016: 563).
310
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-8); Becker et al. (2017: 1). El Hawary (2016:
16) sees Isis as the prototype adoptee, being “the first God’s Wife who was enthroned through
adoption by her predecessor, the divine grandmother Isis” (i.e., Ramses VI’s mother, Isis).
311
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-8).
312
Morkot (2006: 153); Ayad (2009a: 143).
313
Ritner (1998), p.91 & fn 6.
314
Teeter (1999).
315
Ayad (2009a: 9); el Hawary (2016: 16).
316
Leahy (1996), p.164 fn 81.
317
Dodson (2002: 186).

80
318
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1); Dodson (2002: 186).
319
Caminos (1964: 97); Leahy (1996: 159); Dodson (2002); Pope (2013: 178 & 188); Pope (2014:
212).
320
Ayad (2009a: 30).
321
Stol (2016: 565); Kriwaczek (2010: 122-3).
322
Gadd (1951: 28); Weadock (1975: 103).
323
Lion (2009: 171-3); Stol (2016: 555-6 & 559).
324
Lion (2009: 167-9).
325
Lion (2009); Westenholz (2012: 306); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.32.
326
Graves-Brown (2010: 88); Bart (n.d.), Isis, Dyn 20; Ayad (2009a), p.10, Dyn 21 & p.29 (Table
1.2), Dyn 23-26.
327
Leahy (1996: 155).
328
Ayad (2009: 10 & 155); Török (2009: 322).
329
Bryan (2003: 4); Gitton (1976), p.72 & Pl. XIV.
330
Bryan (2003: 11). Betsy Bryan connects this construction, which she interprets as “she is born to”
NN, with the terminology commonly used to describe male filiation, e.g. the relative form [son
X] ir(i).n [father Y], “[son X] whom [father Y] made” [Allen (2010: 364)] and the passive
participial construction [son X] ir(i.y) n [father Y] “[son X] who was made by [father Y]”
[Faulkner (1962: 25)], and on this basis suggests that “Nitocris may be understood to be now
claiming a male-type filiation from Amenirdis II, who likewise claims it from Shepenwepet II;”
Bryan (2003: 11). However, the grammar on the stele is consistent with other interpretations
that do not imply male filiation, such as “she is made over to NN,” as preferred by other
translators; Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 214).
331
Leahy (1996: 148 & 151); Dodson (2004: 27).
332
E.g., part of a diorite statue of Enanatuma has been found in the Ningal temple within the GIPAR
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.13; Franz van Koppen (2006: 92).
333
Suter (2007: 331-2 & 339); Collon (1999: 21); Westenholz (2012: 304).
334
Brisch (2007).
335
Suter (2007: 330-1); Collon (1999: 21); Westenholz (2012: 304).
336
Roberts (2004).
337
Suter (2007: 341) & Westenholz (2012: 304).
338
Westenholz (2012: 293).
339
Dodson (2004); Ayad (2009a: 34-115); Morkot (2006).
340
Robins (1993a: 71); Graves-Brown (2010: 90).
341
Ayad (2009a: 34-115 & 124-41); Morkot (2006: 148-53); Koch (2012: 73-4). As Queen/Mut,
Ayad (2009a: 1), Pope (2013: 194 & 197), Koch (2012: 73). Unwigged, Ayad (2009a: 88 & 91-
95). As Dyn 18 queen, Robins (2008: 214).
342
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 215); Morkot (2006: 150); Hallmann (2016: 213). Probably in origin
an expression of femininity; el Hawary (2016: 11-2). On the various types of headgear worn by
Ankhnesneferibre and some previous GWAs, and the distinction between the vulture
cap/headdress and vulture crown, see Hallmann (2016: 212-7).
343
History of Ancient Egypt (n.d.b); Ayad (2009a: 124-9).
344
Ayad (2009a: 61-70).
345
Koch (2012: 42); Aufderhaar (2016).
346
Ayad (2009a: 42, 103-15, 118 & 132).
347
Ayad (2009a:134-7).
348
Ayad (2009a), p.104-9 and Figs. 2.11 & 2.26; Ayad (2016a: 95).
349
Quirke (2000-3b); Ayad (2009a: 36).
350
Stol (2016: 563); Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 108).

81
351
Van Koppen (2006: 91-92); Stol (2016: 563); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1-2; Frayne (2017):
COS 2.98.
352
Jurman (2016: 62); Koch (2012: 112-39).
353
Coulon (2014).
354
Koch (2012: 39).
355
Ayad (2009a: 15-22 & 25-27).
356
Kriwaczek (2010: 120); Westenholz (2013a: 262); Weadock (1975: 103-4).
357
Westenholz (2013a: 262); Stol (2016: 561-2).
358
Stol (2016: 561-2); Postgate (1992: 130); Weadock (1975) p.109-10, 119, 124 & Pl. XXVIa;
Gadd (1951: 28 & 36-38); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Westenholz (2013a: 262). The
graveyard/tomb complex is discussed in the section titled Residence.
359
Crawford (2015: 91); Weadock (1975: 104).
360
Postgate (1992: 130).
361
Weadock (1975: 104 & 110).
362
Robins (1993a: 72-73).
363
Ayad (2009a: 15-28); Hays (2003); Koch (2012: 29-31 & 36).
364
Koch (2016: 160); Ayad (2016b: 171).
365
Ayad (2009a: 133 & 140).
366
Ayad (2009a), p.104-9 and Figs. 2.11 & 2.26; Ayad (2016a: 95).
367
Woolley (1982: 124-5).
368
Stol (2016: 564).
369
Kriwaczek (2010: 122); Stol (2016: 564-5); Wakeman (1985: 18-19); Mark (2014); Mark (2010).
Some refuse to go as far as crediting Enheduana with a “new theology” that replaced Enlil with
Inanna; Westenholz (2012: 303).
370
Stol (2016: 564-5); Westenholz (2012: 303); Mark (2014); Mark (2010); Feldman & Lewis
(2016); van de Mieroop (2016; 70).
371
Roberts (2004).
372
Gadotti (2011: 195-6).
373
Green (1992: 37); Westenholz (2012: 306).
374
Ayad (2009a: 8-9); Morkot (2006: 153); el Hawary (2016: 16).
375
Török (2009: 322); Legrain (1908: 278-9).
376
Ayad (2009a: 111 & 118-9); Kemp (2006: 346-7); cf. cautions by Koch (2012: 76-77).
377
In synchronic terms, we are therefore comparing Mesopotamia at the time of the Egyptian late
Old Kingdom through late Middle Kingdom with Egypt at the time of the Neo-Assyrian and
Neo-Babylonian empires in Mesopotamia.
378
References are primarily cited in the footnotes to the tables, as the latter are the main repository of
detailed information and the sources from which it has been drawn. To avoid cluttering the
discussion with endnotes, references will be repeated only sparingly in the main text.
379
Mesopotamia: Green & Black (2000b); George (1999: 175-95). Egypt: Shaw & Nicholson
(2008:119-20); Hornung (1999: xvii-xix & 13-152).
380
Roaf (1990: 75).
381
As a faithful representation of a two-dimensional work of art in the Public Domain, the image is
also deemed to be in the Public Domain;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag.
382
Penn Museum, online at https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/251212.
383
Dodson & Hilton (2004: 213-21); Jurman (2016), Figs. 4a & 4b.
384
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 240).
385
Kitchen (2009: 202).
386
Westenholz (2012: 300); Steinkeller (1999: 124).

82
387
British Museum, online at
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?object
Id=154939&partId=1&searchText=60006&images=true&page=1.
388
Order number: FI-000932680.
389
Ayad (2009a: 16 & 117).
390
Suter (2007: 323 & 341). Similarly, Angelika Lohwasser (2016: 122) writes that the Nubian
GWAs “managed to tie together the two most influential institutions of their time – territorial
kingship and the sacral realm.”
391
Tobin (2003: 163).
392
The legal view of the GWA as a “son,” as detailed in the section titled Gender Issues, makes for
an even closer comparison.
393
Suter (2007), p.323-4 & Fig. 1; Collon (1999: 20-21).
394
Ur Online, object 6612, image B16665_8.jpg, online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/5841/.
395
Ayad (2009a), p.110-5 incl. Fig. 2.28.
396
Ayad (2009a: 10).
397
Delange et al. (2005: 99). Similar praise can be found in Edwards (1982: 578-9).
398
E.g., Edwards (1982: 556); Jurman (2016). Similarly, Koch (2012: 44-50 & 62-65) maintains that
Divine Adoratrice was not a junior title and was only ever used by an installed GWA.
399
Jurman (2016: 66-67).
400
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karomama_Louvre_02.JPG.
401
Suter (2007), p.334 (Table 1) & Fig. 10.
402
Louvre Museum, online at
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=12224&langue=en; non-
commercial reproduction permitted with attribution.
403
Green (1992: 36-37).
404
Fitzwilliam Museum, online at http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/collections/egypt/58993.
405
The Fitzwilliam Museum Images, licence 413-16-17.
406
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amenirdis_Med_Habou_1_c.jpg.
407
Shabaqo, Shebitqo and Necho (Fig. 10), as detailed in the section titled Succession.
408
Ayad (2009a: 142-3); Dodson (2002: 186).
409
This is the conventional wisdom within the traditional chronology for the GWAs; see ahead to
notes b & c to Table 7. The revisionist program of Koch (2012) will be addressed later,
especially in the section titled Succession and in Tables 7 & 8.
410
Török (2009: 322); Meffre (2016), p.48 incl. fn 10; Schulz (2009); Morkot (2016: 110 & 112);
Lohwasser (2016: 125-6). On the other hand, Ayad (2016a: 97) and Koch (2012: 24) favour the
idea that Amenirdis was actually appointed by her brother, Piye.
411
Vittmann (2007: 139); Dodson & Hilton (2004: 232-3 & 242).
412
Steinkeller (1999: 126).
413
Van de Mieroop (2016: 348-50).
414
Hallo (1971: 68).
415
Emelianov (2016).
416
Adjusted, where necessary, to match those in Dodson & Hilton (2004: 226-47).
417
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) and genealogical charts on p.12 & 23. Dates for Libyan kings
have been refined using the more specialised chronological study of Kitchen (2009: 202).
418
Dodson (2002: 186).
419
Koch’s revisionist chronology is at odds with the traditional chronology of Ayad and Dodson for
the earlier GWAs in the figure; see ahead to Table 7, notes b & c. The term for Shepenwepet I
is inferred from Koch (2012: 11), Table 1, using Kitchen (2009: 202) as the best estimate of
regnal dates for Osorkon III (786-758 BCE), Takelot III (763-744 BCE) and Sheshonq V (767-

83
 730 BCE). The death of Amenirdis I and consequent installation of Shepenwepet II is estimated
to be 677-670 BCE from Koch (2012: 42-43 & 282), Pope (2015: 361) and Coulon et al. (2018:
276, incl. fn 28), rounded to ca. 674 BCE for brevity in the figure. Koch (2014: 407) specifies a
40-year incumbency for Amenirdis I, which provides for her installation in 717-710 BCE,
rounded to ca. 714 BCE in the figure. The death of Shepenwepet II and succession of Nitocris I
is estimated to have occurred no later than 639 BCE, as it is known that Ibi was installed as the
first High Steward to Nitocris in that year; Koch (2012: 15); Pope (2013: 187); Coulon (2014:
567).
420
Ayad (2009a: 12), cf. Dodson & Hilton (2004: 236-7). Also, Koch (2012: 43) calls Amenirdis I
the great-aunt of Shepenwepet II, whereas in the figure she is simply the latter’s aunt.
421
Contra Morkot (2016: 108), who favours retaining the traditional order, stand Broekman (2017);
Becker et al. (2017), p. 4 incl. fn 6; Ayad (2016: 91); Coulon et al. (2018).
422
Dodson (2002), p.179 fn 1.
423
Van De Mieroop (2016: 70).
424
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 fn 79 & p.129 fn 92.
425
Koch (2012: 81); Perdu (2016). In office, she bore the titles Hmt-nTr (God’s Wife), mwt-nTr (God’s
Mother), dwA(t)-nTr (Divine Adoratrice) and, as her most important epithet, im(.yt) bAH / im(.yt)
mtwt (rendered by Purdue as “Dépositaire de la Semence,” Depository of the Seed). The first,
third and last titles are in relation to the god Heryshaf and relate the priestess to Hathor, while
the second title is in relation to the god Somtous, son of Heryshaf and Hathor.
426
Ayad (2009a: 3).
427
Faulkner (1962: 168-9); Ockinga (2012: 160); Graves-Brown (2010: 86).
428
The title of Mariam Ayad’s book, God’s Wife, God’s Servant, is derived directly from this
Egyptian double entendre. Ayad (2009a: xiii).
429
Preys (2002), p.8, p.11 fn 122 & p.12.
430
Cauville (2004: 262 & 320).
431
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16.
432
Ur Online, object 6612, image B16665_5.jpg, online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/5841/.
433
Volk (1999: 43-74). The figure departs from the convention used in the main text, where
Sumerian words (other than proper names) are given in small capitals. In the figure, capitals
have been reserved for the components of DIRI-compounds.
434
Westenholz (2012: 295-7); Westenholz (2013a: 249-51); Steinkeller (1999: 212-2).
435
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16.
436
Edzard (1997): RIME 3/1.1.6.12.
437
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.3 & 4.2.5.2.
438
Westenholz (2012), p.296 note 3.
439
Steinkeller (1999: 122); Westenholz (2012), p.295 fn 19.
440
Steinkeller (1999: 123).
441
Steinkeller (1999: 123).
442
Steinkeller (1999: 124). Steinkeller’s hypothesis explains why the general identification of
DAM dingir – “spouse of a divinity” – with EN remains controversial; Westenholz (2012), p.299
fn 32.
443
Steinkeller (1999), p.124 & fn 78.
444
Westenholz (2012: 295); Westenholz (2013a: 267). For other points of disagreement, see
Westenholz (2012: 292) and Westenholz (2013a: 248 & 260).
445
Westenholz (2012: 295, 299 & 301); Westenholz (2013a: 267).
446
Westenholz (2012: 295-99); Steinkeller (1999: 127-8).
447
Frayne (1997): RIME 3/2.1.3.19.
448
Gadd (1951: 27); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.32 & 4.2.14.20.
449
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20, lines 1-9. Note that Weadock’s reading of line 7 from the same
section as “a [woman with] loins suitable by [their] purity for the entu-ship” [Weadock (1975),
p.101& fn 10] seems no longer to be supported.

84
450
On the EPNs at Ur, “... or il semble que ces femmes y assument parfois un genre masculin;”
Lion, (2009: 167).
451
Steinkeller (1999: 105 & 109).
452
Steinkeller (1999: 112).
453
Steinkeller (1999), p.106 & 125 fn 76; Westenholz (2012: 292).
454
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 25.
455
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 48; both “[son]” and “(this)” are present in the original text.
456
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 103; likewise 104.
457
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 114, note (1).
458
Lion (2009: 167-8 & 171-3).
459
In such compositions, EMESAL is used especially when goddesses, women, or priests of Inanna
speak, as well as in cultic laments; Gadotti (2014: 61).
460
Crawford (2014: 20); Whittaker (2002: 637).
461
After Gadd (1951), Pl. XIV.
462
Convention as for Fig. 11. In a departure from the convention used in the main text, capitals have
again been reserved for the components of DIRI-compounds.
463
British Museum, online at
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?object
Id=1353451&partId=1&searchText=Enanedu&images=true&museumno=1949,1013.1&page=
1.
464
Order number: FI-000915118
465
Teppo (2008), p.76 & 85 incl. fn 64.
466
Emphasis is in the original text; Wakeman (1985: 20). Enheduana’s exile is discussed in the main
text section titled Survival.
467
Lion (2009: 171-3 & 177).
468
Lion (2009: 167); Westenholz (2012: 306).
469
Lion (2009: 179); Westenholz (2012: 306).
470
Bryan (2003: 4); Gitton (1976), p.71-72 & Pl. XIV.
471
Bryan (2003: 4). On the other hand, Morkot (2016: 110) takes the declaration to mean that “the
office was initially hereditary within the descendants of Ahmose-Nefertary.”
472
Note that a similar practice operated in Mesopotamia; in Ur during the Ur III-Isin/Larsa period, “it
was the duty of the eldest son to look after the graves;” Crawford (2015: 107). Although a
man’s inheritance was divided between all of his children, the eldest son received a larger share
to help him maintain the funerary estate; Crawford (2015: 101 & 107).
473
Ayad p.71.
474
Ayad p.16
475
As mentioned earlier (main text, The Office of High Priestess) Karomama was possibly the
daughter of Osorkon II [Dodson (2004: 212-23); Jurman (2016), Figs. 4a & 4b]. This would
place her in the generation of Shepenwepet’s great-grandfather, meaning that she was unlikely
to have survived to the time of Shepenwepet’s designation. Another daughter of Osorkon II,
Tashakheper, may have served briefly as Adoratrice between Karomama and Shepenwepet
[Guilleux (2016); Bart (n.d.)], but, for identical reasons, is unlikely to have been in office when
Shepenwepet was designated. An alternative or additional possibility to Tashakheper is the
even more enigmatic Qedmerut [Morkot (2016: 111)]. A recently-considered alternative
genealogy [Jurman (2016), Fig. 4c] repositions Karomama as Shepenwepet’s aunt, in which
case the former could well have been in office when the latter was designated. Either way,
though, there is no indication that Shepenwepet was adopted by an existing God’s Wife or
Divine Adoratrice.
476
Morkot (2016: 111-2) suggests that the practice developed in the reigns of Osorkon III or Kashta,
but not earlier.
477
Ayad (2009a: 143); Morkot (2006: 153); Ayad (2016a: 93). Koch (2012)’s Tables 1 & 2 (p.11 &
13) seem to favour this too.

85
478
mwt=s dwA.t nTr ^p-n-wpt mAa-xrw; Jansen-Winkeln (2009:259); Koch (2012: 89).
479
E.g., Koch (2012: 161). However, as this chapel was built by Nitocris, the filiation could be an
anachronism reflecting the norms of Dynasty 26.
480
Line 3. Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 213).
481
In line 4, the stele uses the term ir(i).t(w)=s n NN, which can be read “she is made for/by NN,”
where NN is the adoptive mother’s name [Bryan (2003: 10)]. Bryan connects this construction,
which she interprets as “she is born to” NN, with the terminology commonly used to describe
male filiation, e.g. the relative form [son X] ir(i).n [father Y], “[son X] whom [father Y] made”
[Allen (2010: 364)] and the passive participial construction [son X] ir(i.y) n [father Y], “[son X]
who was made by [father Y]” [Faulkner (1962: 25)], and on this basis makes the suggestion
quoted in the main text. Teeter (2003: 409) observes that “the use of the term ir.t n
(“engendered of”) [...] was more often associated with reference to a male antecedent but was
also employed for women,” and provides examples of the latter. The expression on the stele is
also consistent with other interpretations that do not imply male filiation, such as “she is made
over to NN,” as preferred by other translators [Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 214)].
482
Bryan (2003: 11).
483
Morkot (2006: 153).
484
Leahy (1996: 155).
485
E.g., Monderson (2007: 32).
486
Ayad (2009a: 133).
487
Ayad (2009a: 103-16); Pope (2013: 210-1).
488
Leahy (1996: 148 & 151); Dodson (2004: 27).
489
Ayad (2016: 98).
490
El Hawary (2016: 11-12); Hallmann (2016: 210-8).
491
Ayad (2009a: 10); Török (2009: 322); Jurman (2016: 63). By and large, these epithets were not
newly minted by the GWA, e.g. Mistress of the Two Lands has precedents among queens and
other royal women dating as far back as the Middle Kingdom; Aufderhaar (2016: 138).
492
Ayad (2009a: 155); Aufderhaar (2016: 143-4).
493
Koch (2012: 80-81).
494
Aufderhaar (2016: 144-5). The concept of the GWA as a counterpart to the king is of course not
novel, being evident from early Dynasty 21; Koch (2012: 282).
495
Lohwasser (2016: 126).
496
Aufderhaar (2016: 143-4); Koch (2012: 80-81).
497
Woolley (1982: 141, 237 & 267); Weadock (1975: 111).
498
Woolley (1982: 141).
499
Woolley (1982: 141); Crawford (2015), p.11 (Fig. 1.ii).
500
Woolley (1982: 267).
501
Crawford (2015: 90).
502
Weadock (1975: 102-3). Steinkeller disputes the interpretation in which the GIPAR was actually a
storehouse for food; Steinkeller (1999), p.106 fn 6.
503
Woolley (1982); Weadock (1975).
504
Weadock (1975: 123-4); Asher-Greve (2013: 227).
505
Weadock (1975: 116). See plans in Woolley (1982: 185) and Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa.
506
Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Woolley (1982), p.185 (plan) and Weadock (1975),
Pl. XXVIa (plan) & p.115-8.
507
Crawford (2015: 87 & 114-5); Weadock (1975: 111).
508
Crawford (2015: 123); Weadock (1975: 113). For a plan of the temenos in the Neo-Babylonian
period, see Woolley (1982: 237).
509
Weadock (1975: 109-10 & 124); for plan, see Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa.
510
Gadd (1951: 28); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20.
511
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20, lines 34-37.

86
512
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Gadd (1951: 28 & 36-38); Westenholz (2013a: 262); Weadock
(1975: 109-10); Postgate (1992: 130).
513
Weadock (1975: 119).
514
Ur Online, online at http://www.ur-online.org/file-detail/40162/.
515
Room numbers from Woolley (1982), p.185 (“Plan of the Giparu”); other information gleaned
from text in Woolley’s book and from Weadock (1975).
516
Title image in Mandal (2017), bearing the legend “Reconstruction of the sacred precinct at Ur,
circa 21st century BC.”
517
Christie (1936).
518
Murder in Mesopotamia (2001/2), Season 8, Episode 2 in Agatha Christie’s Poirot (TV Series);
DVD. UK: Carnival Film & Television and USA: A&E Television Networks.
519
Crawford (2015: 10 & 131).
520
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_Of_Ancient_Ur_Iraq.JPG.
521
Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa.
522
Woolley (1982: 188).
523
Ur Online, images 84-26-14_1.jpg (panel a) and 84-26-14_2.jpg (panel b), online at
http://www.ur-online.org/subject/38970/.
524
Ur Online, images B16477_1.jpg (panel a) B16477_2.jpg (panel b), online at http://www.ur-
online.org/subject/2730/.
525
Weadock (1975: 104 & 110).
526
Westenholz (2013a: 262).
527
Stol (2016: 561-2); Weadock (1975), p.110 fn 70.
528
Westenholz (2013a: 262).
529
Kemp (2006: 351).
530
Kemp (2006), p.351-3, incl. Fig. 122.
531
Koch (2012: 52); Coulon (2014: 582).
532
Porter & Moss (1972: 19); Coulon (2014: 569).
533
Adapted from Kemp (2006), p.353 (Fig. 122, Phase III) and Koch (2012), p.140 (Abb. 25) & 151
(Abb. 26).
534
Ayad (2009a), p.17 (Fig. 1.1), cf. Koch (2012: 38), who contests the assignation to Shepenwepet I
as speculative and inherently unlikely.
535
Koch (2012: 58).
536
Building identifications are from Porter & Moss (1972) and Coulon (2014). In contrast, the
master-map of Karnak in Koch (2012: 112) assigns the Chapel of Osiris who Perpetually Gives
Life (Wsir pA Dd anx) [= building 1 in my Fig. 19] to the item titled “Columned Building of
Nitocris” on my map; the Columned Building of Nitocris is assigned by Koch to the structure
titled “Residence of Ankhnesneferibre” on my map. However, her detailed ground-plan of the
Columned Building of Nitocris [Koch (2012: 131)] is consistent with my assignations rather
than those on her master-map. The confusion may in part reflect the fact that this chapel, which
had originally stood somewhere in the area of modern Naga Malgata (i.e., the region where the
“Columned Building of Nitocris” is found) was completely destroyed, and that – in the
Ptolemaic era – blocks from it were reassembled at the Montu precinct (which adjoins building
1 in my Fig. 19); Koch (2012: 40 & 128).
537
After Coulon (2014).
538
Ayad (2009a: 141); Porter & Moss (1972: 17-18); Koch (2012: 38-39 & 128-9).
539
Ayad (2009a: 78-82); Porter & Moss (1972: 193-4); Koch (2012: 55 & 134-5).
540
Ayad (2009a: 75-78); Porter & Moss (1972: 194-5); Koch (2012: 39 & 124-7).
541
Ayad (2009a: 55-58); Corsi (2013); Koch (2012: 38-39 & 121-3).
542
Ayad (2009b); Koch (2012: 25 & 114-20).
543
Koch (2012: 112).
544
Coulon (2014: 567-70).

87
545
Coulon (2014: 567-70).
546
Porter & Moss (1972: 19); Coulon (2014: 569); Ritner (2009: 590-1), line 20 of inscription; Koch
(2012: 53). The range of meanings for wab.t includes embalming-place, tomb, kitchen, offering-
slab and refectory [Faulkner (1962: 57)]. Coulon seems to envisage a sacred structure and Koch
a sanctuary or embalming-place, whereas Ritner opts for a refectory.
547
Coulon (2014: 569-70).
548
Ayad (2009a); Coulon et al. (2018).
549
Van Koppen (2006: 91-92). Rather than seeing the final portion of the inscription as “for his life,”
a repeat of the initial (undisputed) dedication for the life of Gungunum, Stol (2016: 563) reads
it as “for her life,” an alternative reading consistent with Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.2 and
Frayne (2017): COS 2.98.
550
Van Koppen (2006: 92).
551
A West Semitic corn god and minor deity in the Sumerian pantheon; Black & Green (1992: 56).
Clearly he was honoured by Enanatuma’s father, Ishme-Dagan of Isin.
552
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1.
553
Li (2011).
554
The Small Temple is in the forecourt of Ramses’ mortuary temple, adjacent to the Migdol gate
(the “Eastern High Gate”) in the south-eastern segment of the enclosure wall; it abuts the
Ptolemaic pylon that gives access to the compound from the Roman Courtyard beyond the
enclosure wall. There has been a shrine on the site since the Middle Kingdom; the Small
Temple ruins visible today are of the structure built in Dynasty 18 by Hatshepsut and Thutmose
III. The GWA chapels, which are also in the forecourt of Ramses’ mortuary temple, face the
Small Temple. Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 197).
555
Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7).
556
Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7).
557
Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 230).
558
Ayad (2009a: 75).
559
Ayad, (2009a: 76-77).
560
Ayad (2009a), legend to Fig. 2.20b (colour plates).
561
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chapelle_Taharka_Chepenoupet.jpg.
562
Kemp (2006), p.353, Fig. 122, Phase III.
563
Koch (2012: 54); Koch (2016: 158).
564
Koch (2012: 37); Koch (2016: 159), opposed by Lohwasser (2016: 126-7).
565
Koch (2012: 29-31 & 36); Koch (2016: 160).
566
Koch (2016: 160).
567
Ayad (2016b).
568
Koch (2016: 160).
569
Robins (2008: 214).
570
Koch (2012: 26 & 31).
571
Koch (2016: 156); Ayad (2016a: 167).
572
Ayad (2009a), p.20 (Fig. 1.4).
573
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Divine_Adoratrice2.JPG.
574
Coulon (2014: 581).
575
Kemp (2006: 351); Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7).
576
Ayad (2009a), p.105 (Fig. 2.26) & Fig. 2.25 (colour plates).
577
Ayad, Figs. 2.10-11 (colour plates).
578
Kemp (2006), p.151 (Fig. 54.2); Ayad (2016: 167).
579
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Grabkapellen_07.jpg , augmented

88
 (by the present author) in lower left register with details from a closer photo by Neithsabes of
the same panel (also under licence CC BY SA 3.0), online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chep_II_Am_I_Med_Habou.jpg.
580
E.g., sA.t n(.t) Imn.w Xt=f mr(r.t)=f , “the natural daughter of Amun, whom he loves;” Koch
(2012: 79). Other expressions in Koch (2012: 116-7, 122, 130-1, 133, 139-41, 151, 155).
581
Koch (2012: 115 & 132-3).
582
Hart (2005: 41); el Hawary (2106: 12).
583
El Hawary (2106: 12). Similarly, the ithyphallic form of Amun is called “the bull of his mother,”
meaning that he impregnates his mother to bring about his own conception; he therefore serves
both as sire and son. Hart (2005: 21).
584
El Hawary (2106: 12).
585
The GWAs also claim other parents among the gods, such as Anubis, Osiris, Thoth, Wepwawet
and Hathor, so perhaps it is not surprising to find Mut recruited as a mother; Koch (2012: 117-
8, 120, 125, 141, 150, 154, 167, 169). Also, once the adoption scheme had been established, a
GWA could be considered the daughter of Amun and Mut insofar as she was the (adoptive)
daughter of the previous GWA, the earthly embodiment/representative of Mut.
586
Kemp (2006), p.151 (Fig. 54.2); Ayad (2016).
587
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deamb_ch_Am_I_082005.jpg.
588
Koch (2012: 79-80).
589
Suter (2007: 336).
590
Ayad (2009a), p.26 (Fig. 1.5) and location data from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ch_Chep_II_Med_Habou_082005.jpg.
591
Ayad (2009a: 26); Li (2011), p.221 (Fig. 2).
592
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Grabkapellen_04.jpg.
593
Wilkinson (2003: 153).
594
Hart (2005: 97); Wilkinson (2003: 154).
595
Wilkinson (2003: 153-4); Pinkowski (2006: 47-49).
596
Wilkinson (2003: 153-4). This role was shared with other goddesses.
597
Fazzini & Peck (1983). Also Pinkowski (2006) and Brooklyn Museum (ca. 2015).
598
Wilkinson (2003: 154-6).
599
El Hawary (2016).
600
Ockinga (2010); Benderitter (n.d.).
601
Sullivan (2013), p.158 fn 33.
602
Sullivan (2013: 157).
603
Sullivan (2013: 157).
604
Sullivan (2013: 157).
605
Sullivan (2013: 157).
606
Contardi (2006: 144-5).
607
Sullivan (2013: 157).
608
Pinkowski (2006: 48). As we saw in the section Residence and Remembrance, the GWA
residential quarter was in North Karnak; it was therefore relatively remote from the Temple of
Mut in south Karnak.
609
Brooklyn Museum (ca. 2015), slides 47-48.
610
Weadock (1975: 104 & 110).
611
Lion (2009: 166); Hrůša (2015: 76-77); Scurlock (2014: 106); Postgate (1992: 130).
612
Speiser (2011: 82) translates the term as “changeling,” with a footnote saying that there is no
indication as to the nature of her change (which potentially could be social, religious or
national).
613
Stol (2016: 572); Sparks (2005: 279) also reads Sargon’s mother to be an EN-priestess.

89
614
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003: 217-18); Dodson (2004: 24-25); Leahy (1996: 164);
Mark (2017).
615
Leahy (1996: 164).
616
Ayad (2009a: 117 & 152).
617
Stol (2016: 570-1).
618
Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 106-7.
619
Summers (2000: 247); Steinkeller (1999: 116); Suter (2007: 322).
620
Weadock (1975: 102).
621
Weadock (1975: 102).
622
Black et al. (2001b).
623
Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 105.
624
Steinkeller (1999: 135).
625
A small room with a large bed platform adjacent to C27, the shrine of the Ningal temple;
Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Woolley (1982), p.185 (plan); Weadock (1975), Pl.
XXVIa (plan) & p.115-8.
626
Westenholz (2013a: 257-8); Suter (2007: 322); Postgate (1992: 130); Steinkeller (1999: 133).
627
Ayad (2009a: 34-51 & 151-2).
628
Manassa (2011: 357).
629
Ayad (2009a: 38 & 51).
630
Koch (2012: 79-80).
631
Koch (2012: 79-80). For the later GWAs, she sees the title “God’s Wife” as a priestly title like the
male title “God’s Father,” with neither to be taken literally.
632
Westenholz (2013a: 268); Suter (2007), p.327 fn 32, citing Markus Hilgert.
633
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.14; Westenholz (2013a: 268).
634
Ayad (2009a: 15, 28, 152 & 154). However, Ayad (2016a: 98) appears to endorse a deliberate
prohibition against child-bearing, describing the GWA of this period as “a woman, who could
not produce offspring of her own or put forward a rival claim to the Egyptian throne.”
635
Bryan (2003: 13).
636
Teeter (1999: 411-2), like Vittmann (2007: 154), follows Habachi (1977: 169-70), but she
mistakenly writes “Montuemhet” for Mentuhotep, an error replicated by Graves-Brown (2010:
88). Montuemhat, the governor of Thebes, did indeed have a Nubian wife of royal blood, but
she was called Wedjarenes; Russmann (1997). An independent confusion of Montuemhet with
Mentuhotep – “another man entirely” – by Lazlo Török has recently been identified by Pope
(2014: 172).
637
Dodson (2002); Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1).
638
Habachi (1977: 170).
639
Morkot (2016: 113). Amongst other shortcomings, Habachi’s identification of the name of
Mentuhotep’s wife remains controversial, being based upon a reconstruction of incomplete text;
Ayad (2009a: 21). Edna Russmann pre-empted Morkot’s recent judgement by almost two
decades when, in respect of Mentuhotep’s wife, she wrote that Habachi’s “speculation that she
is to be identified with the Divine Consort Amenirdas II seems to me untenable;” Russmann
(1997), p.36 fn 125.
640
David (2014: 20).
641
Becker et al. (2017: 2).
642
Steinkeller (1999), p.134 fn 106.
643
Hdt I 181.5-182.-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114).
644
Koch (2012: 60) observes that, if Herodotus was in fact reporting a contemporary Egyptian
practice (as he claims to be doing), then a priestess consecrated sexually to Amun was still a
feature of the Theban temple in in the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes (as noted in Table 5,
Belated survival/revival).
645
On “Enheduanna’s Political Persona,” see Westenholz (2012: 299-304).

90
646
Ayad (2009a: 8-9).
647
Sullivan (2013), p.159 fn 36.
648
Dodson (2002: 179).
649
Leahy (1996: 158).
650
Ayad (2016a: 89 & 97-98); Meffre (2016: 48-51).
651
Van de Mieroop (2016: 70).
652
Lion (2009: 179).
653
Westenholz (2012: 304); Weadock (1975: 103); van de Mieroop (1992: 125-6).
654
Van de Mieroop (1992: 125).
655
Mark van de Mieroop, cited by Westenholz (2012: 305).
656
Westenholz (2012: 305).
657
David (2014: 21).
658
Pope (2013: 193).
659
Ayad (2016a: 96 & 99); Koch (2012: 75-76).
660
Becker et al. (2017: 3-4); Koch (2012: 76-77).
661
Koch (2012: 77).
662
Becker et al. (2017: 3-4). On the various High Stewards, see Vittmann (1978: 100-43) and Koch
(2012: 12-15).
663
Becker et al. (2017: 3), corroborated by Koch (2012: 15).
664
Becker et al. (2017: 3-5). The claim of passivity is critiqued by Pope (2018: 53).
665
Taylor (2003: 349); Dodson & Hilton (2004: 234).
666
Roberts (2004).
667
Baines & Eyre (1983: 85).
668
Tomb of Ireturu; Baines & Eyre (1983: 82).
669
Gadotti (2011: 195-6).
670
Green (1992: 37).
671
Wakeman (1985); Hart (n.d.a),
672
Weadock (9175: 127-8). Numerical values are consistent (within 1 year) of data in CDLI (2017).
673
Gadotti (2011: 199).
674
Frayne (1997), p.237 3b & 4.
675
Weadock (1975: 128).
676
Gadd (1951: 30); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15. Westenholz (2012: 306) gives year 8 of
Warad-Sin.
677
For consistency, dates used in the calculations underpinning this sentence were taken exclusively
from the traditional GWA chronology – using either the detailed breakdown in Dodson (2002:
168) or, alternatively, exclusively from Ayad (2009a), p.12, 15, 22 (Table 1.1) & 23-24. In
Ayad’s Table 1.1, start dates for the “Approximate dates (in office)” are typically the years in
which the named princesses were designated “heiress apparent” as opposed to their elevation to
GWA proper.
678
Ayad (2009a: 16).
679
Shorter date from Dodson. Longer date from Ayad (2009a), p.15-16 & 22 (Table 1.1), but using
Kitchen (2009: 202) to refine the accession date for Osorkon II to 786, as in Fig. 10; without
this modification, the delay calculated from Ayad’s dates would be 23 years (i.e., within the
time-span currently reported in the main text). According to Ayad (2009a: 16 & 117), the
appointment of Shepenwepet I seems to have been designed to fill the vacuum left by the
promotion of her brother, until then the High Priest of Amun, to the role of co-regent (as
Takelot III) in 754, ruling alongside his father.
680
Shorter time from Dodson (2002: 186), longer from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1), assuming
accession of Kashta in 760 BCE [Ayad (2009a: 11)] for both.

91
681
Lower value from Dodson (2002), p.186 & fn 47, higher one from Ayad (2009a), p.12 & 22
(Table 1.1).
682
Dodson (2002: 179 & 184); Caminos (1964: 71).
683
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Berlin_025.jpg.
684
The surrounding inscription is transcribed, transliterated and translated (into German) in Koch
(2012), p.161, top of page.
685
Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bas-
relief_of_Shepenupet_II_at_the_mortuary_temple_of_Ramesses_III_1.jpg.
686
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Ankhenesneferibre_by_John_Campana.jp
g.
687
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.27; confirmed by Leahy (1996: 160).
688
Assuming her designation in 747-742 BCE [Broekman (2009: 101); Koch (2012: 181)] and
Kashta’s accession in 760 BCE (Fig. 10).
689
No value can be calculated for Shepenwepet I.
690
Ayad (2009a: 16 & 24). Ayad (2016a: 99) suggests that the presence of the recently-installed
Shepenwepet II as GWA prevented Shabaqo from nominating a daughter to the position,
although of course there is no a priori reason why such a daughter (if available) could not have
been designated as heiress, just as Amenirdis II was in the subsequent reign of Taharqo.
691
E.g. Koch (2012: 51). Nitocris’s youth was not the only reason for the delay; her father Psamtek’s
struggle to wrest control of Thebes from the Nubians occupied the first 9 years of his reign;
Bryan (2003: 8). The other two candidates for designation while still children are Amenirdis I
and Ankhnesneferibre; Ayad (2009a: 24 & 142-3); Leahy (1996: 160-2).
692
Pope (2015: 357-8) highlights the lack of positive evidence for the use of Divine Adoratrice as a
junior title held by the heiress, pointing instead to evidence for use of the title Great Chantress
of the Interior of Amun, as set forth by Koch (2012: 62-63 & 77).
693
Caminos (1964: 97) calls it “a college or sisterhood;” see also Dodson (2002). For a recent
summary, see Pope (2013: 178).
694
CDLI (2017), Ur III: Szulgi, years 15 & 17.
695
Westenholz (2013a: 254) & Stol (2016: 569). Frayne (1997: 237) observes for Ur III that a delay
of 9 years between oracular designation of an individual and her installation as EN would be
unprecedented in length.
696
Weadock (1975: 104-5); Gadotti (2011: 199) believes that they often died in office.
697
Weadock (1975), p.104-5 & 128 fn 56; Gadd (1951: 30). Hybrid options include the possibility
that the designated princess did not commence her novitiate until the incumbent EN-priestess
was nearing the end of her term.
698
Gadd (1951: 30); Stol (2016: 562-3).
699
Lower interval from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1), taking her best-guess of 740 BCE for
Amenirdis’s designation as heiress; higher interval from Dodson p.186.
700
For consistency, all dates in this calculation are from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.129-30.
It uses her full date-range of possibility (747-735 BCE) for Amenirdis I’s designation as
heiress, which happens to straddle nicely the independent estimate of Broekman (2009: 101)
that Amenirdis’s arrival in Thebes occurred in Piye’s 5th regnal year, equivalent to ca. 742 BCE
if one accepts that Piye’s rule commenced ca. 747 BCE [Kitchen (2009: 202), happily in
perfect agreement with Ayad (2009a: 12)]. It is also consistent with the estimate of Ritner
(2009: 460) that “Amonardis I was adopted as junior votaress in the eighth year of
Shepenwepet I,” which is 746 BCE using Ayad’s date of 754 BCE for Shepenwepet’s
installation. In Ayad’s chronology, Shepenwepet I relinquished the role of God’s Wife ca. 714
BCE but was still alive – and thus presumably co-resident with Amenirdis I – ca. 700 BCE.
701
Koch (2012), p.11 & 13, Tables 1 & 2.
702
For Amenirdis I, apprenticeship starting 747-742 BCE; Broekman (2009: 101), compatible with
the assessment of Koch (2012: 181) on the same object. Koch does not comment on

92
 Broekman’s proposal, and (as shown in Table 7) her scheme envisages no overlap between
Libyan and Nubian GWAs.
703
Lower interval from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1), taking her best-guess of 740 BCE for
Amenirdis’s designation as heiress; higher interval from Dodson (2002: 186).
704
Adoption of Shepenwepet II ca. 710 BCE from Pope (2015: 361), who was working in full
awareness of Koch (2012). If we assume that Amenirdis I was designated at around 15 years of
age at her nomination in 747-742 BCE, then she would have been 47-52 years old when
Shepenwepet II was adopted in 710 BCE, cf. the expectation of Koch (2012: 43-44) that
Amenirdis was “presumably relatively young” at the time of Shepenwepet’s adoption.
705
Shorter estimate from Dodson (2002: 186), longer estimate from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1).
706
Bryan (2003: 12); Graefe (1994); Pope (2013: 187); Leahy (1996: 163).
707
Ibi, the first High Steward to Nitocris I, was installed in year 26 of Psamtek I (639 BCE),
requiring Nitocris to have been GWA by then; Leahy (1996: 163); Pope (2013: 187); Coulon
(2014: 567).
708
Based on Nitocris being adopted in 656 BCE [Koch (2012: 51)] and Shepenwepet II having died
before 639 BCE, the time when Ibi was installed as the first High Steward to GWA Nitocris
[Coulon (2014: 567); Pope (2013: 187)].
709
Dodson (2002: 186); Leahy (1996: 155 & 157); Ayad (2009), p.22 (Table 1.1).
710
From the adoption of Ankhnesneferibre in 595 BCE to the death of Nitocris I in 586 BCE; Koch
(2012: 55).
711
Pope (2014: 204).
712
Koch (2012: 44-50 & 62-5), esp. p.63, which translates into English as “It was not at the time of
adoption, but after the death of the former incumbent, that the princess became the God’s Wife,
Divine Adoratrice, and God’s Hand.”
713
Pope (2014), p.204 incl. fn 106; Pope (2015: 357-8).
714
An objection to Koch’s view might perhaps be raised using the inscription on a cultic vessel –
Rome Museo Barracco MB 277, mentioned elsewhere in this paper and also in Koch (2012),
p.64 fn 24 – which recent opinion sees as dedicated jointly by the Hermopolitan king Nimlot D,
Shepenwepet I and Amenirdis I; Meffre (2016: 52-53 & 56); Broekman (2009: 99). The
women’s paternal filiation is given, thereby making certain their identities. Shepenwepet is
there titled “Divine Adoratrice” and Amenirdis “God’s Hand,” and both names are in
cartouches; Meffre (2016: 52-53 & 56); Broekman (2009: 99). Koch’s position could of course
be defended by proposing that the vessel is not a co-dedication – on the vessel as it now stands,
Nimlot (r. ca. 750-725 BCE; Kitchen (2009: 202)) is actually qualified as maA Hrw – and that
the inscription was made ca. 720-695 BCE, naming Amenirdis (the incumbent GWA) and
Shepenwepet (her deceased predecessor, albeit without a maA Hrw) using a different GWA-only
title for each.
715
The calculation assumes that Enheduana was not installed immediately upon Sargon’s accession,
but in his year 3; it would presumably have taken some time to arrange the practicalities of the
position, which may initially have been met by resistance; Steinkeller (1999: 125). Enheduana
survived the Great Rebellion in Naram-Sin’s reign, which may have occurred soon after his
accession; Jacobsen (1979); Steinkeller (1982: 258). She had time to return to her office and
compose the Adoration of Inanna (main text, section titled Survival) before her death. The
conservative assumption that she died in Naram-Sin’s year 3 (together with the assumption that
she was installed in Sargon’s year 3) fixes her term of office at 77 years. Gadotti (2011: 199)’s
assertion that Enheduana retained office until well into Naram-Sin’s 36-year reign begins to
strain the limits of the human life-span.
716
Installed in Amar-Sin year 4 [Weadock (1975: 128)], Enmahgalana continued to feature in legal
cases dated to the second decade of Ibbi-Sin’s reign (his year 14 [Loding (1976): UET IX 115;
Westenholz (2012: 304-5)] or 20 [Legrain (1937-47): UET III 45], representing her 28th or 34th
year, respectively), so she presumably remained as EPN at Ur at that stage [Westenholz (2012),
p.304 fn 56]. Enmahgalana probably held office until the fall of Ur to the Elamites in 2003, a
term of about 38 years. Her tenure is discussed later in the main text (section titled Survival).
717
Stol (2016: 563). Her tenure is discussed later in the main text (section titled Survival).
718
Gadd (1951: 30).

93
719
The estimate of over 30 years in office is from Gadd (1951: 35). Enanedu’s cone inscription
[Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20] is provisionally dated by Frayne to year 30 of Rim-Sin or
later, which would see Enanedu in office at least 36 years after her installation. Stol’s slightly
different datings (Stol 2016: 563) give her about 33 years in office at the time of the inscription.
720
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1); Dodson (2002: 186). Full interval from Ayad is included because
she asserts that Shepenwepet I did not serve an apprenticeship period as heiress; Ayad (2009a:
16).
721
Koch (2012), p.11 (Table 1), using Kitchen (2009: 202) as the best estimate of regnal dates for
Osorkon III (786-758 BCE), Takelot III (763-744 BCE) and Sheshonq V (767-730 BCE). On
this basis, Koch’s table suggests that Shepenwepet I’s term ran ca. 786-767 BCE (19 years) or
786-744 BCE (42 years).
722
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 14 years from the end of Shepenwepet I’s term to the end
of Amenirdis I’s term; Dodson (2002: 186) has Amenirdis I in office for 25 years. Morkot
(2016: 113) estimates that she lived for at least 50 years.
723
Koch (2014: 407).
724
Dodson (2002: 186) has Shepenwepet II in office for 41 years; Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1)
allows 50 years from end of Amenirdis I’s term to the end of Shepenwepet II’s term.
725
Based on Amenirdis I dying ca. 677-670 BCE [Koch (2012: 42-3 & 282), Pope (2015: 361)] and
Shepenwepet II dying ca. 639 BCE, around the time when Ibi was installed as the first High
Steward to GWA Nitocris [Koch (2012: 15); Coulon (2014: 567); Pope (2013: 187)].
Consistent with Koch (2012: 44), which attributes “several decades in office” to Shepenwepet
II.
726
Nitocris’s presence in Thebes is attested for almost 71 years, Mar 656- Dec 586 BCE [Dodson p.
186; Morkot (2016: 113)]. Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 64 years from end of
Shepenwepet II’s term to the end of Nitocris’s term. Compared to Dodson (2002: 186)’s
estimate of 68 years for Nitocris I’s tenure, Leahy (1996: 156) is perhaps more conservative,
estimating it at “over 50 years,” reflecting the idea that Nitocris had been installed as GWA
only a few years before the appointment of her first High Steward, Ibi, in year 26 of Psamtek I
(639 BCE); Leahy (1996: 163); Pope (2013: 187); Coulon (2014: 567).
727
Based on Shepenwepet II dying ca. 639 BCE, around the time when Ibi was installed as the first
High Steward to Nitocris [Koch (2012: 15); Coulon (2014: 567); Pope (2013: 187)], and
Nitocris dying in 586 BCE when Ankhnesneferibre is known to have become GWA [Koch
(2012: 55)].
728
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) allows 61 years from end of Nitocris’s term to the end of
Ankhnesneferibre’s term; Dodson (2002: 168) too has Ankhnesneferibre in office for 61 years.
There is general agreement that Ankhnesneferibre’s incumbency lasted over 60 years [Leahy
(1996: 160); Morkot (2016: 113)] and that, collectively, she and Nitocris – the last of their kind
– reigned as GWAs for at least 113 years [Leahy (1996: 162-3)].
729
Koch (2012: 55 & 58), i.e. from the accession of Ankhnesneferibre in 586 BCE to the arrival of
the Persians in 525 BCE.
730
Figulla & Martin (1953: 544); Weadock (1975), p.104 & 128 fn 156; Gadd (1951: 30).
731
Pope (2013: 188); Dodson (2002: 186); Leahy (1996: 159); Pope (2014: 212). Despite this agreed
dictum, the boundaries between incumbencies can be somewhat unclear. Even the Egyptian
situation, for which far more information is available, is such that Mariam Ayad’s table listing
“Approximate dates (in office)” for the Dynasty 23-26 God’s Wives [Ayad (2009a), p.22
(Table 1.1)] gives a time-span for each that seemingly incorporates their apprenticeships (as
remarked earlier in the legend to Fig. 10). This gives the impression that the overlaps could in
practice amount to co-regencies, an idea encouraged by the same author’s descriptions of
iconography portraying a God’s Wife and her heiress as “reminiscent of instances of royal co-
regency;” Ayad (2009b: 46). Others have explicitly postulated co-regency of GWAs [refs. in
Leahy (1996: 159 fn 50)], a view contested strongly by Leahy (1996: 159-60) and Koch (2012:
77-79).
732
Stol (2016: 557); Westenholz (2012: 304); Morkot (2006: 153). Oddly, a particular EPN for
Nanna of Karzida at Ga’esh was allegedly installed three times; CDLI (2017), Ur III: Amar-
Sin, year 9.

94
733
In Egypt, this longevity in office perpetuated a trend established in the New Kingdom. For
example, Isis, the daughter of Ramses VI, was GWA for over 25 years, serving under 4 kings;
Ayad (2009a: 9). El Hawary (2016: 16) estimates her political influence at almost 50 years.
734
Westenholz (2012: 304 & 306); David (2014: 21).
735
For consistency, all dates in this sentence are calculated from Dodson (2002: 186). As explained
below in the main text, the increase over Dodson’s estimate of Nitocris’s term as heiress in
Table 7 is because the calculation assumes the retention of Amenirdis II in the “college” headed
by Nitocris.
736
E.g., a cultic vase, Rome Museo Barracco MB 277 [Meffre (2016: 52-3 & 56); Broekman (2009:
99)]; a stele, Cairo JE 40716 [Meffre (2016), p.54 incl. fn 65]; the exterior of the Chapel of
Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, in East Karnak [Morkot (2016: 112)]. The Wadi Gasus graffiti [Ritner
(2009: 460-1)] may or may not be synchronous [Kitchen (2009: 174-5)], with Broekman (2009:
94) following Claus Jurman’s opinion that the two inscriptions are independent, a position
endorsed by Koch (2012: 42-43), albeit with a different absolute chronology.
737
Koch (2012: 115); Koch sees Shepenwepet I as dead before the Nubian extension was built,
whereas Ayad (2009a: 130) sees her as alive but retired.
738
Hays (2003), p.90 fn 7; Dodson (2004: 26). Had Amenirdis II succeeded Shepenwepet II as
GWA, this would have afforded another example of inheritance by a niece (Fig. 10). Note that
Koch (2012: 43) describes Shepenwepet II as a grand-niece (rather than niece) of Amenirdis I.
739
Ayad (2009b: 46).
740
Ayad (2009a: 129-32); Ayad (2009b: 46); Ayad (2016a: 92).
741
Alessio Corsi concurs with Ayad (p.134 & fn 99) in identifying the Amenirdis represented in the
chapel of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree as Amenirdis I rather than Amenirdis II; Corsi
(2013: 540).
742
Ayad (2009a: 133-37); Ayad (2016a: 93).
743
Ayad (2009a: 133-37). Even so, the phraseology (“Shepenwepet, her mother [being] Amenirdis”
rather than “Shepenwepet, daughter of Amenirdis” ) has been carefully chosen to avoid
subordinating the current incumbent to her predecessor; Ayad (2009a: 144).
744
Ayad p.140
745
Ayad (2009a: 143); Morkot (2006: 153); Morkot (2016: 111-2); Ayad (2016a: 93); Koch (2012:
11-2).
746
Ayad (2009a: 130 & 133-5).
747
Ayad (2009a: 143-4). It has even been speculated that, rather than perpetuating Shepenwepet’s
mortuary cult – as required by tradition – Amenirdis may even have authorised the destruction
of her predecessor’s funerary chapel; Ayad (2009a: 145). However, the building in question
Ayad (2009a), p.17 (Fig. 1.1)] may not even have been Shepenwepet’s funerary chapel; Koch
(2012: 38).
748
Caminos (1964: 75).
749
Ayad (2009a: 142).
750
Ayad (2009a: 139).
751
Ayad (2009a: 23-26 & 139-40); Dodson (2002). Vittmann (2007: 154) maintains that Amenirdis
II may still have served some time as GWA.
752
For this reason, she is sometimes listed as Shepenwepet (III); Dodson (2002), p.184 fn 32 & 36.
Leahy (1996: 161) believes that the name, which is recorded in the Adoption Stele, was a
diplomatic gesture on her father’s part toward his Theban subjects. Bryan (2003: 8) interprets it
as a “nickname.”
753
Coulon (2014: 582).
754
Caminos (1964: 79 & 98) and Bryan (2003: 10-11) believe that Nitocris’s adoptive mother was
Amenirdis II, a position seemingly endorsed by Koch (2012), p. 44 fn 401. In contrast, Rosalie
David believes that it was Shepenwepet II; David (2014: 21).
755
Ayad (2009a: 24); Bryan (2003: 10-11).
756
Pope (2013: 189); Corsi (2013: 539).

95
757
Bryan (2003:11-12); Ayad (2009a: 26); Koch (2012: 31). As an alternative to modesty and
deference, Koch (2012: 54) suggests that the memorial precinct at Medinet Habu may have
been less important to the Saite princess Nitocris, who would have been buried locally and
could have focused her efforts on a Theban tomb, than to her Nubian predecessors, who may
have been buried far away in their homeland. Additionally or alternatively, there may already
have been a mud-brick building (such as an out-house for the storage of cult items or the
purification of priests; Fig. 18) in the position where Nitocris might have been expected to build
her memorial chapel; Koch (2012: 58).
758
The conventional wisdom is that, within 12 years of Nitocris’s adoption, it was no longer
permitted to write the Nubian kings’ names in Egypt, and that existing inscriptions were
subsequently subjected to damnatio by Ankhnesneferibre’s father, Psamtek II [Pope (2013:
183); Lohwasser (2016: 130)], even though the statuary and inscriptions of the Nubian God’s
Wives were often spared in deference to the sanctity of their office [Morkot (2006: 148], which
of course was quintessentially Egyptian [Lohwasser (2016: 131)]. Coulon (2014: 582)
specifically contrasts the devotion of Nitocris to the Nubian GWAs that preceded her with the
Saite damnatio of their fathers. The erasure of cartouches belonging to Kashta and Piye can be
seen in Fig. 26.
759
Koch (2014), a thorough re-examination of erasures in GWA and other relevant inscriptions.
760
Vittmann (2007: 154); Pope (2013: 185-6).
761
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 45).
762
Dodson (2002: 186); Morkot (2016: 114).
763
Westenholz (1999: 53-54); Westenholz (2012: 301).
764
Kramer (2011: 336), “Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna: The Adoration of Inanna of Ur.”
765
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 292; Legrain (1937-47): UET III 277.
766
Most notably, it is so amended in Frayne (1997: 363), a change accepted (with a footnoted
reservation) by Weadock (1975: 128) when compiling the canonical list of EPNs at Ur.
767
Weadock (1975: 128); Jacobsen (1987: 447).
768
Legrain (1937-47): UET III 45 says year 20 of Ibbi-Sin, but Westenholz (2012: 304-5) identifies
Loding (1976): UET IX 1156 as a duplicate of this document, and it is dated to year 14, a date
that Westenholz favours.
769
Jacobsen (1987: 447); van de Mieroop (2016: 67 & 87-88).
770
Jacobsen (1987: 447); van de Mieroop (2016: 67 & 87-88).
771
Van de Mieroop (2016: 88).
772
Jacobsen (1987: 449 & 470-71), extract from between lines 20 to 360.
773
Weadock (1975: 128).
774
Westenholz (1993); Stol (2016: 567).
775
Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 108).
776
Van de Mieroop (2016: 96); Stol (2016: 563).
777
Westenholz (2012: 305).
778
Van Koppen (2006: 91-92). As remarked previously, Stol (2016: 563) reads the final portion of
the dedication “for her life,” an alternative reading consistent with Frayne (1990): RIME
4.2.5.2 and Frayne (2017): COS 2.98.
779
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1.
780
Weadock (1975: 128).
781
Weadock (1975: 128). Stol (2016: 563)’s “previously unknown priestess, En-megal-ana” is
presumably the same individual.
782
Fitzgerald (2002).
783
Teeter (1999: 411-2); Morkot (2006: 148 & 151); Pope (2015: 363-4), as flagged in Table 4,
Additional possible titles, and discussed in footnote thereto.
784
Shaw (2003: 350-2); Robins (2008: 208-13); Pinkowski (2006: 48); Hays (2003: 97-99).
Moreover, Angelika Lohwasser (2016: 124-5) observes that visual depictions of the Libyan,
Nubian and Saite GWAs do not present any distinguishing markers of ethnicity.

96
785
Lohwasser (2016: 131-2). Expanded by Lohwasser (2016: 131): “The GWA were felt to be
Egyptian. They had Egyptian names, were dressed in Egyptian costume and held a purely
Egyptian office.”
786
Lohwasser (2016: 132).
787
Ayad (2016a: 89).
788
Ayad (2009b: 49).
789
Naturally, all of the specific details are hypothetical.
790
Perhaps due to the greater remoteness of the time-period, preceding the Egyptian counterpart as it
does by well over a millennium.
791
Dodson (2002).
792
Westenholz (2012: 304).
793
Bietak (2018: 16).

97
Bibliography

All URLs were accessed July 2017, unless stated otherwise. As mentioned earlier, URLs for photographs
reproduced in the figures are provided directly in footnotes to the relevant figure legends.

Abram, M.
2011 A New Look at the Mesopotamian Rod and Ring: Emblems of Time and
Eternity. Studia Antiqua 10: 15–36.
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol10/iss1/5/
Allen, J.
2010 Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of
Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anagnostou-Laoutides, E.
2017 In the Garden of the Gods: Models of Kingship from the Sumerians to the
Seleucids. London and New York: Routledge.
Arnold, B.T. and Michalowski, P.
2006 Achaemenid Period Historical Texts Concerning Mesopotamia. Pp. 407–30 in
The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, ed. M.W. Chavalas.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Asher-Greve, J.M.
2013 Images. Pp. 149–275 in Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles,
Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, ed.
J.M. Asher-Greve & J.G. Westenholz. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259.
Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
Astour, M.C.
2002 A Reconstruction of the History of Ebla (Part 2). Pp. 57–196 in Eblaitica:
Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, ed. C.H. Gordon and G.A.
Rendsburg. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Ataç, M.-A.
2006 Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture. Art Bulletin
88: 69–101.
Ataç, M.-A.
2015 Egyptian Connections with the Larger World: Ancient Near East. Pp.423–46
in A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, ed. M.K. Hartwig. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Aufderhaar, W.
2016 The Sphinxes of Shepenwepet II. Pp. 137–54 in Prayer and Power:
Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during
the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser.
Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Ayad, M.F.
2009a God’s Servant, God’s Wife: The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525 BC)
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

98
Ayad, M.F.
2009b The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule: The Role of the God’s Wife of
Amun. Pp. 29–49 in The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural
Studies into the 21–24th Dynasties, Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden
University, 25–27 October 2007, ed. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée and O.E.
Kaper. Leiden/Leuven: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten/Peeters.
Ayad, M.F.
2016a Gender, Ritual, and Manipulation of Power: The God’s Wife of Amun
(Dynasty 23–26). Pp. 89–106 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the
Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium
BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes
Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Ayad, M.F.
2016b Reading a Chapel. Pp. 167–81 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the
Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium
BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes
Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Baines, J. and Eyre, C.J.
1983 Four Notes on Literacy. Göttinger Miszellen 61, 65-96.
Bart, A.
n.d. Ancient Egypt: God’s Wife of Amun. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis University.
http://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/God's_W
ife_of_Amun.html
Bauer, S.W.
2007 The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of
Rome. New York and London: W.W. Norton.
Beaulieu, P.-A.
2007 Mesopotamia. Pp. 165–72 in Ancient Religions, ed. S.I. Johnston. Cambridge,
MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Becker, M.
2016 Female Influence, Aside from that of the God’s Wives of Amun, During the
Third Intermediate Period. Pp. 21–46 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the
Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium
BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes
Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Becker, M., Blöbaum, A.I., Lohwasser, A.
2016 Introduction. Pp. 1–8 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on
the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M.
Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84.
Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Beckerleg, C.L.
2009 The “Image of God” in Eden: The Creation of Mankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24
in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient
Egypt. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

99
Benderitter, T.
n.d. Tombs of Ancient Egypt: TT148, Tomb of Amenemope. France: Osirisnet.
http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/amenemope148/e_amenemope148_01.
htm
Bietak, M.
2018 The Giparu of Ur as a Paradigm for Gender-related Temple Types in the
Ancient Near East. Pp. 9–24 [English section] in Lawrence E. Stager Volume,
eds. H. Geva and A. Paris. Eretz-Israel – Archaeological, Historical and
Geographical Studies 33. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Black, J.A
2000 Ningal. P. 213 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P.
Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Black, J. and Green, A.
1992 Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Black, J.A.; Cunningham, G.; Fluckiger-Hawker, E.; Robson, E.; and Zólyomi, G.
2001a A Balbale to Nanna (Nanna B): translation. Oxford: The Electronic Text
Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL).
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr41302.htm#para3
Black, J.A.; Cunningham, G.; Fluckiger-Hawker, E.; Robson, E.; and Zólyomi, G.
2001b An Adab to Enlil for Shulgi (Shulgi G): translation t.2.4.2.07. Oxford: The
Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL).
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.2.07#
Blackman, A.M.
1921 On the Position of Women in the Ancient Egyptian Hierarchy. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 7: 8–30.
Blackman, A.M.
1924 The Rite of Opening the Mouth in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 10: 47–59.
Blöbaum, A.I.
2016 The Nitocris Adoption Stela. Representation of Royal Dominion and Regional
Elite Power. Pp.183-204 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference
on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M.
Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84.
Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Brier, B.
2010 Review of God’s Wife, God’s Servant: The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525
BC), by Mariam F. Ayad. Journal of the American Oriental Society 130: 103-
5.
Brinkman, J.A.
1996 Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia (1158–722 B.C.). Rome:
Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.

100
Brisch, N.
2007 Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond.
Symposium held February 23–24, 2007. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/symposia/religion-and-power-divine-
kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond-0
Broekman, G.P.F.
2009 Takeloth III and the End of the 23rd Dynasty. Pp. 91-102 (and panel discussion
p. 443) in The Libyan Period in Egypt: Historical and Cultural Studies into the
21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University, 25-27
October 2007, ed. G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée and O.E. Kaper. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, and Leuven: Peeters.
Broekman, G.P.F.
2017 Genealogical considerations regarding the kings of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty
in Egypt. Göttinger Miszellen 251: 13–20.
[Brooklyn Museum]
ca. 2015 Brooklyn Museum and the Precinct of Mut. New York: Brooklyn Museum.
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/
Bryan, B.
2003 Property and the God’s Wives of Amun. Paper III.1 in Women and
Property in Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Societies, ed. D. Lyons
and R. Westbrook. Cambridge, MA/Washington, DC: Harvard University/
Center for Hellenic Studies. http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/1219
Caminos, R.A.
1964 The Nitocris Adoption Stela. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50: 71–101.
Cauville, S.
2004 Dendara. V-VI. Index Phraséologique – Les Cryptes du Temple d’Hathor,
vol. II. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 132. Leuven: Peeters.
[CDLI]
2017 Year-Names. Los Angeles: Cuneiform Digital Library
Initiative (University of California, Los Angeles; University of Oxford; Max
Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin).
http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yearnames.htm
Christie, A.
1936 Murder in Mesopotamia. UK: Collins.

Collombert, P.
1995 Hout-Sekhem et le Septième Nome de Haute Égypte: La Divine Oudjarenes.
Revue d’Égyptologie 46: 55–79.
Collon, D.
1999 Depictions of Priests and Priestesses in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 17–25 in
Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second
Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life, held at the
Middle Eastern Culture Centre in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996,
ed. K. Watanabe. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.

101
Contardi, F.
2006 The Stela of Seshen-Nefertem from the Tomb of Sheshonq (TT 27). Orientalia
75: 141–155.
Corsi, A.
2013 The Songstress Diesehebsed in the “Chapel of Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea
Tree” in Karnak. Pp.537–43 in Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the
16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March
2012 [SOMA 2012], Vol. I., ed. L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G.
Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini. BAR International Series 2581. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Coulon, L.
2014 The Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices at Karnak (Naga Malgata) During the
Twenty-Sixth Dynasty: Some Hitherto Unpublished Epigraphic Material. Pp.
565–85 in Thebes in the First Millennium BC, ed. E. Pischikova, J. Budka and
K. Griffin. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Coulon, L.; Hallmann, A.; and Payraudeau, F.
2018 The Osirian Chapels at Karnak: An Historical and Art Historical Overview
Based on Recent Fieldwork and Studies. Pp.271-293 in Thebes in the First
Millennium BC: Art and Archaeology of the Kushite Period and Beyond,
[GHP Egyptology 27], eds. E. Pischikova, J. Budka, K. Griffin, London:
Golden House Publications.
Crawford, H.
2014 An Exploration of the World of Women in third-Millennium Mesopotamia.
Pp. 59–74 in Women in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Crawford, H.
2015 Ur: The City of the Moon God. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
David, R.
2014 Voices of Ancient Egypt: Contemporary Accounts of Daily Life. Santa
Barbara: Greenwood.
De Sélincourt, A. (trans.)
1972 Herodotus: The Histories. London: Penguin.
Delange, E.; Meyohas, M.-E.; and Aucouturier, M.
2005 The Statue of Karomama, a Testimony of the Skill of Egyptian Metallurgists
in Polychrome Bronze Statuary. Journal of Cultural Heritage 6: 99–113.
Dick, M.B.
2017 Revised and Corrected Texts of C. Walker and M. Dick’s Induction of the Cult
Image in Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual (2001) [The Neo-
Assyrian Text Corpus Project: State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts. I.]
New York: Siena College, Standish Library Digital Scholarship.
https://sites.google.com/a/siena.edu/mis-pi/home
Dodson, A.
2002 The Problem of Amenirdis II and the Heirs to the Office of God’s Wife of
Amun during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 88:
179–86.

102
Dodson, A.
2004 The God’s Wives of Amun. Ancient Egypt 4.6: 22–27.

Dodson, A. and Hilton, D.

2004 The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.
Edwards, I.E.S.
1982 Egypt: From the Twenty-Second to the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. Pp. 534–81 in
The Cambridge Ancient History, III/1: The Prehistory of the Balkans, the
Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC, ed. J.
Boardman, I. Edwards, N. Hammond, and E. Sollberger. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Edzard, D.O.
1997 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 3/1: Gudea and His
Dynasty. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Eisenberg, J.M.
1998 Glyptic Art of the Ancient Near East: A Seal Upon Thine Heart. Minerva –
International Review of Ancient Art & Archaeology 9.3: 25-32.
El Hawary, A.
2016 The Figurative Power of Prayer. The “Ode to the Goddess” (EA 194) as a
Theological Justification for Establishing the Office of the God’s Wife of
Amun as an Institution at the End of the 20th Dynasty. Pp. 9-20 in Prayer and
Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt
during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A.
Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Emelianov, V.
2016 The Identity of Gudea as a Historical and Cultural Problem. Pp. 63–76 in
Kings, Gods and People: Establishing Monarchies in the Ancient World, ed.
T.R. Kämmerer, M. Kõiv and Vladimir Sazonov. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 390/4; Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia 4. Münster: Ugarit
Verlag.
[Encyclopaedia Britannica, eds.]
2000 Sin: Mesopotamian God. Encyclopaedia Britannica online.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sin-Mesopotamian-god
Étienne, M.
n.d. Dagger from Gebel el-Arak. Paris: Louvre.
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/dagger-gebel-el-arak
Faulkner, R.O.
1962 A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Fazzini, R.A. and Peck, W.H.
1983 Excavating the Temple of Mut. Archaeology 36.2: 16–23.
Feldman, M. and Lewis, M.
2016 Sargon the Great and the Charismatic Rulers of Ancient Akkad of
Mesopotamia. OpenStax CNX, Jun 17, 2016.
http://cnx.org/contents/e0b4aa89-4bf4-4c59-a7a4-5b5a627c73b1@2

103
Figulla, H.H. and Martin, W.J.
1953 Ur Excavations: Texts. V. Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian
Period. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania.
Finkel, I. and Taylor, J.
2015 Cuneiform. London: British Museum.
Fitzgerald, M.A.
2002 The Rulers of Larsa. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.
Frayne, D.
1990 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 4: Old Babylonian Period
(2003–1595 BC). Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Frayne, D.
1993 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 2: Sargonic and Gutian
Periods, 2334-2113 BC. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Frayne, D.
1997 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 3/2: Ur III Period (2112–
2004 BC). Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Frayne, D.
2017 Gungunum. COS 2.98 in Context of Scripture Online, ed. W. Hallo.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211-436X_cos_aCOSB_2_98
Frood, E.
2007 Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Gadd, C.J.
1951 En-an-e-du. Iraq 13: 27–39.
Gadd, C.J. and Legrain, L.
1928 Ur Excavations: Texts. I. Royal Inscriptions. London: Trustees of the British
Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.
Gadotti, A.
2011 Portraits of the Feminine in Sumerian Literature. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 131: 195-206.
Gadotti, A.
2014 Sumerian Wisdom Literature. Pp. 59–74 in Women in the Ancient Near East,
ed. M.W. Chavalas. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Gardiner, A.H.
1961 Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press.
Garrison, M.B.
2012 Antiquarianism, Copying, Collecting. Pp. 27–47 in A Companion to the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, ed. D.T. Potts. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
George, A. (trans.)
1999 The Epic of Gilgamesh. London: Penguin.
Ginsberg, H.L.
2011 Poems About Baal and Anath (The Baal Cycle). Pp. 107–34 in The Ancient
104
 Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton
and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Gitton, M.
1976 La Résiliation d’une Fonction Religieuse: Nouvelle Interprétation de la Stèle
de Donation d’Ahmès Néfertary. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale 76: 65–89.
Graefe, E.
1994 Der autobiographische Text des Ibo, Obervermögensverwalter der
Gottesgemahlin Nitokris, auf Kairo JE 36158. Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 50: 85–99 & Taf. 10–14.
Graves-Brown, C.
2010 Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. London: Continuum.
Green, A. and Black, J.A.
2000a Sîn (Suen). Pp. 272–3 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P.
Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Green, A. and Black, J.A.
2000b Death and Funerary Beliefs and Customs. Pp. 88–89 in Dictionary of the
Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Green, A. and Black, J.A.
2000c Sacred Marriage. P.247 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P.
Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Green, T.M.
1992 The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran. Leiden and
Boston: Brill.
Guilleux, J.
2016 Égypte – Les Divines Adoratrices d’Amon. France: Antikforever.
http://antikforever.com/Egypte/Dyn/Divines_Adoratrices.htm.
Habachi, L.
1977 Mentuhotp, the Vizier and Son-in-law of Taharqa. Pp. 165–70 in Ägypten und
Kusch (Fritz Hintze zum 60. Geburtstag), ed. E. Endesfelder, K.-H. Priese, W.-
F. Reineke, and S. Wenig. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten
Orients 13. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hafford, B.
2012 Ur Digitization Project: Item of the Month, June 2012. Penn Museum Blog, 25
June, 2012. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
and Anthropology. https://www.penn.museum/blog/museum/ur-digitization-
project-item-of-the-month-june-2012/
Hall, M.G.
1985 A Study of the Sumerian Moon-God, Nanna/Suen. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
Hall, M.G.
1986 A Hymn to the Moon-God, Nanna. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38: 152–66.

105
Hallmann, A.
2016 Iconography of Prayer and Power: Portrayals of the God’s Wife
Ankhnesneferibre in the Osiris Chapels at Karnak. Pp. 205–22 in Prayer and
Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt
during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A.
Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Hallo, W.W.
1971 Mesopotamia and the Asiatic Near East. Pp. 1–184 in The Ancient Near East:
A History. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hamilton, V.P.
1990 The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-19. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans.
Hart, G.
2005 The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hart, M.
n.d.a The En-hedu-ana Research Pages: Enheduana’s Visual Evidence. USA:
Angelfire. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/enheduanna/Enhedvisual.html
Hart, M.
n.d.b The En-hedu-ana Research Pages: Enheduana Documentary, Radio Interview
& New Visual Evidence.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/enheduanna/Whatsnew.html
Hartley, J.E.
2000 Genesis. New International Biblical Commentary, Old Testament 1. Peabody:
Hendrickson.
Hays, H.M.
2003 A New Offering Table for Shepenwepet. Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt 40: 89–102
[History of Ancient Egypt]
n.d.a History of Ancient Egypt – High Steward.
https://sites.google.com/site/historyofancientegypt/high-stewards
[History of Ancient Egypt]
n.d.b History of Ancient Egypt – God’s Wife of Amun: Shepenwepet I.
https://sites.google.com/site/historyofancientegypt/god-s-wife-of-
amun/shepenwepet-i
Hoffmeier, J.K.
1992 The Wives’ Tales of Genesis 12, 20 and 26 and the Covenants at Beer-Sheeba.
Tyndale Bulletin 43.1: 81–100.
Hornung, E.
1999 The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press.
106
Hrůša, I.
2015 Ancient Mesopotamian Religion: A Descriptive Introduction, trans. M. Tait.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Jacobsen, T.
1957 Early Political Development in Mesopotamia. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 52:
91–140.
Jacobsen, T.
1979 Iphur-Kishi and his Times. Archiv für Orientforschung 26: 1-14.
Jacobsen, T.
1987 The Harps that Once... Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
Jansen-Winkeln, K.
2009 Inschriften der Spätzeit. III. Die 25. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Jurman, C.
2016 Karomama Revisited. Pp. 61–88 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the
Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium
BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes
Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Kemp, B.
2006 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London and New York: Routledge.
Kitchen, K.A.
2009 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: An Overview of Fact & Fiction.
Pp. 161-202 (and panel discussion p. 443) in The Libyan Period in Egypt:
Historical and Cultural Studies into the 21st-24th Dynasties. Proceedings of a
Conference at Leiden University, 25-27 October 2007, ed. G.P.F. Broekman,
R.J. Demarée and O.E. Kaper. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, and Leuven: Peeters.
Koch, C.
2012 Die den Amun mit ihrer Stimme zufriedenstellen: Gottesgemahlinnen und
Musikerinnen im thebanischen Amunstaat von der 22. bis zur 26. Dynastie.
Dettelbach: Röll.
Koch, C.
2014 Usurpation and the Erasure of Names During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty.
Pp. 397–413 in Thebes in the First Millennium BC, ed. E. Pischikova, J. Budka
and K. Griffin. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Koch, C.
2016 Between Tradition and Innovation – The Hwwt-kA of the God’s Wives.
Pp. 155–65 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s
Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I.
Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit
Verlag.
Kramer, S.N.
2011 Sumerian Hymns. Pp.330–40 in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts
and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press.

107
Kriwaczek, P.
2010 Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization. London: Atlantic.

Lapinkivi, P.
2008 The Sumerian Sacred Marriage and Its Aftermath in Later Sources. Pp. 7–41in
Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early
Christianity, ed. M. Nissinen and R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Leahy, A.
1996 The Adoption of Ankhnesneferibre at Karnak. Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 82: 145–65.
Legrain, L.
1937–47 Ur Excavations: Texts. III. Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur.
London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania.
Legrain, M.G.
1908 Notes d’Inspection. LXI. Sur un Stele Acheté à Louqsor. Annales du Service
des Antiquités de l’Égypte 9: 277-83.
Li, J.
2011 The Singers in the Residence of the Temple of Amen at Medinet Habu:
Mortuary Practices, Agency, and the Material Constructions of Identity.
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47: 217-30.
Lion, B.
2009 Sexe et Genre (2). Des Prêtresses Fils de Roi. Topoi Supplement 10: 165–82.
Loding, D.
1976 Ur Excavations: Texts. IX. Economic Texts from the Third Dynasty. London:
Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania.
Lohwasser, A.
2016 “Nubianess” and the God’s Wives of the 25th Dynasty. Office Holders, the
Institution, Reception and Reaction. Pp. 121–36 in Prayer and Power:
Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during
the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser.
Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Lorton, D.
1999 The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 123–210 in Born in
Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near
East, ed. M.B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Luft, U.
2010 A Different World: Religious Conceptions. Pp. 417–31 in Egypt: The World
of the Pharaohs, ed. R. Schulz and M. Seidel. Potsdam: H.F. Ullmann.
Lumsden, S.P.
1990 Symbols of Power: Hittite Royal Iconography in Seals. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Manassa, C.

108
2011 Review of God's Wife, God's Servant, The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525
BC), by Mariam Ayad. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47:
355–9.

Mandal, D.
2017 Realm Of History – Animations Present The Reconstruction Of Ur, One Of
The Richest Ancient Sumerian Cities Of The Bronze Age. Article posted 27
July, 2017.
https://www.realmofhistory.com/2017/07/27/reconstruction-ur-city-sumerian/
Maras, S.S.
2009 Iconography, Identity and Inclusion: The Winged Disk and Royal Power
During the Reign of Darius the Great. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Mark, J.
2010 Ancient History Encyclopedia: Enheduanna – Poet, Priestess, Empire Builder .
UK: Ancient History Encyclopedia Ltd. http://www.ancient.eu/article/190/
Mark, J.
2014 Ancient History Encyclopedia: Enheduanna. UK: Ancient History
Encyclopedia Ltd. http://www.ancient.eu/Enheduanna/
Mark, J.
2017 Ancient History Encyclopedia: God's Wife of Amun. UK: Ancient History
Encyclopedia Ltd. http://www.ancient.eu/God's_Wife_of_Amun/
McDevitt, A.
2014 Ancient Egypt – The Mythology: The Gods: Baal
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/baal.htm
Meffre, R.
2016 Political Changes in Thebes during the Late Libyan Period and the
Relationship between Local Rulers and Thebes. Pp. 47–60 in Prayer and
Power: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt
during the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A.
Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Mettinger, T.N.D.
2001 The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising” Gods in the Ancient Near
East. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Michaux-Colombot, D.
2008 The royal Hittite title “My Sun” and the Winged Sun Disk. Pp. 329–53 in
ICANAS 38.1 [Proceedings of the 38th International Congress of Asian and
North African Studies, Ankara, 10-15th Sep 2007, Vol. 1: Religion], Ankara,.
http://www.ayk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MICHAUX-
COLOMBOT-Dani%C3%A8le-THE-ROYAL-HITTITE-TITLE-
%E2%80%98MY-SUN%E2%80%99-AND-THE-WINGED-SUN-DISK.pdf
Milne, P.
1987 Review of Texts of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives,
by Phyllis Trible, and Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis, by
Savina J. Teubal. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 16, 121–3.

109
Monderson, F.
2007 Hatshepsut’s Temple at Deir el Bahari. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Monson, J.M. and Lancaster, S.P

2014 Regions On the Run: Introductory Map Studies in the Land of the Bible.
Rockford, IL: Biblical Backgrounds.
Morkot, R.
2006 A Kushite Royal Woman, Perhaps a God’s Wife of Amun. Pp. 147–58 in
Egyptian Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, ed. K.N. Sowada and B.G.
Ockinga. Sydney: Meditarch.
Morkot, R.
2016 The Late-Libyan and Kushite God’s Wives. Historical and Art-Historical
Questions. Pp. 107–120 in Prayer and Power: Proceedings of the Conference
on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during the First Millennium BC, ed. M.
Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser. Ägypten und altes Testament 84.
Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Mumford, G. D.
2013 Egypt and the Levant. Pp. 69–89 in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology
of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE, ed. A.E. Killebrew and M. Steiner. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ockinga, B.G.
2010 The Tomb of Amenemope (TT 148). I. Architecture, Texts and Decoration.
Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports 27. Oxford: Aris and Phillips.
Ockinga, B.G.
2012 A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern.
Oppenheim, A.L. (ed.)
1961 The Assyrian Dictionary, Vol. 21. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
Pemberton, D.
2013 The Civilization of Ancient Egypt. New York: Rosen.
Perdu, O.
2016 Une Épouse Divine à Héracléopolis. Suite. Pp. 223–43 in Prayer and Power:
Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s Wives of Amun in Egypt during
the First Millennium BC, ed. M. Becker, A.I. Blöbaum and A. Lohwasser.
Ägypten und altes Testament 84. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Pérez Die, M.C.
1992 Excavaciones en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna). Madrid:
Minister de Cultura.
Pinkowski, J.
2006 Egypt's Ageless Goddess: A Modern Pilgrim Visits the Temple of Mut.
Archaeology 59.5, 44–49.
Podany, A.H.
2010 Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near
East. New York: Oxford University Press.

110
Pongratz-Leisten, B.
2008 Sacred Marriage and the Transfer of Divine Knowledge: Alliances between
the Gods and the King in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 43–73 in Sacred
Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early
Christianity, ed. M. Nissinen & R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Pope, J.
2013 The Problem of Meritefnut: A “God’s Wife” During the 25th–26th Dynasties.
Journal of Egyptian History 6: 177–216.
Pope, J.
2014 The Double Kingdom under Taharqo: Studies in the History of Kush and
Egypt, c. 690–664 BC. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Pope, J.
2015 Shepenwepet II and the Kingdom of Kush: Implications of a Recent Study.
Pp. 357–64 in Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy M.
Bryan, ed. K.M. Cooney and R. Jasnow. Atlanta: Lockwood.
Pope, J.
2018 Review – “Prayer and Power”: Proceedings of the Conference on the God’s
Wives of Amun in Egypt During the First Millennium BC, ed. M.Becker, A.I.
Blöbaum, and A. Lohwasser. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections
19: 50–53.
Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B.
1972 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs,
and Paintings. II. Theban Temples. Oxford: Griffith Institute and Clarendon
Press.
Postgate, J.N.
1992 Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London
and New York: Routledge.
Preys, R.
2002 Les Complexes de la Demeure du Sistre et du Trône de Rê: Théologie et
Décoration dans le Temple d’Hathor à Dendera. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 106. Leuven: Peeters.
Price, C.
2014 Egypt at the Manchester Museum: Texts in Translation #12: The Stela of the
God’s Wife, Princess Isis (Acc. no. 1781). Manchester: Manchester Museum.
https://egyptmanchester.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/texts-in-translation-12-
the-stela-of-the-gods-wife-princess-isis-acc-no-1781/
Quirke, S. (ed.)
2000–3a God’s Wife of Amun. London: University College London/Petrie Museum of
Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/thebes/late/godswife2.html
Quirke, S. (ed.)
2000–3b God’s Wife of Amun in the Late Period. London: University College
London/Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/thebes/late/godswife.html
Rikala, M.
2008 Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: Circumstantial

111
 Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation. Pp. 115–44 in Sacred Marriages: The
Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. M.
Nissinen and R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Ritner, R.K.
1998 Fictive Adoptions or Celibate Priestesses? Göttinger Miszellen 164: 85–90.
Ritner, R.K.
2009 The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period.
Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature.
Roaf, M.
1990 Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Abingdon, UK:
Facts on File/Andromeda.
Roberts, J.
2004 Enheduanna, Daughter of King Sargon: Princess, Poet, Priestess (2300 B.C.)
Transoxiana 8, paper 7.
http://www.transoxiana.org/0108/roberts-enheduanna.html
Robins, G.
1993a The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt. Pp. 65–78 in Images of
Women in Antiquity, ed. A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt. London: Routledge.
Robins, G.
1993b Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Mus Press.
Robins, G.
2008 The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Russmann, E.R.
1997 Mentuemhat’s Kushite Wife (Further Remarks on the Decoration of the Tomb
of Mentuemhat, 2). Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 34: 21–
39.
Schuenemann, V.J.; Peltzer, A.; Welte, B.; van Pelt, W.P.; Molak, M.; Wang, C-C.;
Furtwängler, A., Urban, C.; Reiter, E.; Nieselt, K.; Tessmann, B.; Francken, M.; Harvati, K.;
Haak, W.; Schiffels, S.; Krause, J.
2017 Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan
African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods. Nature Communications 8: e15694.
Schulman, A.R.
1979 Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 38: 177–93.
Schulz, R.
2009 A Situla Carrying the Names of Kashta and Amenirdis I and
its Historical Implications. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the
American Research Center in Egypt, Dallas, Texas, April 24–26, 2009.
Abstract pp.103–4 in Conference Booklet, online at
https://www.arce.org/files/user/page157/2009_AM_booklet.pdf
Scurlock, J.
2014 Medicine and Healing Magic. Pp. 101–43 in Women in the Ancient Near East,
ed. M.W. Chavalas. London & New York: Routledge.
Secunda, N.V.
2010 Changes in Achaemenid Royal Dress. Pp. 255–74 in The World of

112
 Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near
East, ed. J. Curtis and St. John Simpson. London: I.B. Tauris.
Seidlmayer, S.
2010 The Rise of the State to the Second Dynasty. Pp. 25–39 in Egypt: The World
of the Pharaohs, ed. R. Schulz and M. Seidel. Potsdam: H.F Ullmann.
Shaw, I.
2003 Exploring Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, I. and Nicholson, P.
2008 The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum
Press.
Shonkwiler, R.L.
2014 The Behdetite: A Study of Horus the Behdetite from the Old Kingdom to the
Conquest of Alexander. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Sollberger, E.
1965 Ur Excavations: Texts. VIII. Royal Inscriptions, Part II. London: Trustees of
the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.
Solvang, E.K.
2003 A Woman’s Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and their
Involvement in the House of David. London and New York: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Sparks, K.L.
2005 Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background
Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Speiser, E.A.
2011 The Legend of Sargon. Pp. 82–83 in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of
Texts and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
Steinkeller, P.
1982 The Question of Marḫaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran
in the Third Millennium B.C. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie 72: 237–65.
Steinkeller, P.
1999 On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early
Sumerian Kingship. Pp. 103–137 in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near
East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City
and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Centre in Japan (Mitaka,
Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996, ed. K. Watanabe. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag
C. Winter.
Stol, M.
2016 Women in the Ancient Near East, trans. H. and M. Richardson. Boston/Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Stone, A.
2016 Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses: Nanna/Suen/Sin (god). Oracc
and the UK Higher Education Academy.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/nannasuen/

113
Studevent-Hickman, B.; Melville, S.; and Noegel, S.
2006 Neo-Babylonian Period Texts from Babylonia and Syro-Palestine. Pp. 382–
406 in The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, ed. M.W.
Chavalas. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sullivan, E.A.
2013 A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes: Excavations at South Karnak (2004-2006).
BAR International Series 2538. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Summers, G.D.
2000 Harran. P.140 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bienkowski and
A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sundqvist, O.
2016 An Arena for Higher Powers: Ceremonial Buildings and Religious Strategies
for Rulership in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Suter, C.E.
2007 Between Human and Divine: High Priestesses in Images from the Akkad to
the Isin-Larsa Period. Pp. 317–61 in Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context:
Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, ed. J. Cheng and M.H.
Feldman. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26. Leiden and Boston:
Brill.
Taggar-Cowen, A.
2006 Hittite Priesthood. Heidelberg: Winter.
Taylor, J.
2003 The Third Intermediate Period (1069-664 BC). Pp. 324–63 in The Oxford
History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teeter, E.
1999 Celibacy and Adoption Among God’s Wives of Amun and Singers in the
Temple of Amun: A Reexamination of the Evidence. Pp. 405–14 in Gold of
Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, ed. E. Teeter
and J.A. Larson. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 58. Chicago: Oriental
Institute.
Teissier, B.
1996 Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle
Bronze Age. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press and Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht
Teppo, S.
2008 Sacred Marriage and the Devotees of Ishtar. Pp. 75–92 in Sacred Marriages –
The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, ed. M.
Nissinen & R. Uro. Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns.
Teubal, S.J.
1984 Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis. Chicago and London:
Swallow/Ohio University Press.
Tinney, S. and Jones, P.
n.d. Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project [ePSD]: Ubi [Bird].

114
 Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology. http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5886.html
Tobin, V.A.
2003 The Teaching for King Merikare. Pp. 152–65 in The Literature of Ancient
Egypt, ed. W.K. Simpson. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Török, L.
2009 Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt,
3700 BC-AD 500. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Van Buylaere, G.
2019 The Decline of Female Professionals – and the Rise of the Witch – in the
Second and Early First Millennium BCE. Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 14:
37–61.
Van de Mieroop, M.
1992 Old Babylonian Ur: Portrait of an Ancient Mesopotamian City. Journal of the
Ancient Near Eastern Society 21: 119–30.
Van de Mieroop, M.
2010 A History of Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Van de Mieroop, M.
2016 A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000–323 BC. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
Van Koppen, F.
2006 Old Babylonian Period Inscriptions. Pp. 88–106 in The Ancient Near East:
Historical Sources in Translation, ed. M.W. Chavalas. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Vancil, J.W.
1993 Sarah: Her Life and Legacy. Pp. 37–68 in Essays on Women in Earliest
Christianity, Vol. 2, ed. Carroll D. Osburn. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Vittmann, G.
1978 Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit: Genealogische und
prosopographische Untersuchungen zum thebanischen Priesterund
Beamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie. Vienna: Institut für Afrikanistik und
Ägyptologie.
Vittmann, G.
2007 A Question of Names, Titles, and Iconography. Kushites in Priestly,
Administrative and other Positions from Dynasties 25 to 26. Mitteilungen der
Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin 18: 139–61.
Voedisch, L.
2011 The God’s Wife. Stamford, CT: Story Plant.
Volk, K.
1999 A Sumerian Reader. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 18. Rome: Editrice Pontifico
Istituto Biblico.
Wakeman, M.K.
1985 Ancient Sumer and the Women's Movement: The Process of Reaching behind,

115
 Encompassing and Going Beyond. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 1.2:
7-27.
Walker, C. and Dick, M.B.
1999 The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian
mīs pî Ritual. Pp. 55–122 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of
the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M.B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Weadock, P.N.
1975 The Giparu at Ur. Iraq 37: 101–28.

Wengrow, D.
2006 The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East
Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Westenholz, A.
1999 The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. Pp. 17–117 in Mesopotamien
– Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, Annäherungen 3 [Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
160/3], Part 1, ed. W. Sallaberger & A. Westenholz. Freiburg, Switzerland:
Universitätsverlag Freiburg and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Westenholz, J.G.
1993 Review of A Contribution to the Early Isin Craft Archive, by G.T. Ferwerda,
and Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the
Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šū-ilišu, by M. van de Mieroop. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 52: 292–96.
Westenholz, J.G.
2012 EN-Priestess: Pawn or Power Mogul? Pp. 291–312 in Organization,
Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings
of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25th July
2008, ed. G. Wilhelm. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Westenholz, J.G.
2013a In The Service of The Gods: The Ministering Clergy. Pp. 246–74 in The
Sumerian World, ed. H. Crawford. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Westenholz, J.G.
2013b Plethora of Female Deities. Pp. 29–135 in Goddesses in Context: On Divine
Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual
Sources, ed. J.M. Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 259. Freiburg, Switzerland: Academic Press and Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Whittaker, G.
2002 Linguistic Anthropology and the Study of Emesal as (a) Women’s Language.
Pp. 633–44 in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, ed. R. Whiting
and S. Parpola. Proceedings of the 45th Recontre Assyriologique
Internationale. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Wilkinson, R.H.
2003 The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and
Hudson.

116
Wilkinson, T. (trans.)
2016 Writings from Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin.
Winter, I.J.
1987 Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Office of
EN-Priestess, and the Weight of Visual Evidence. Pp. 189–201 in La Femme
dans le Proche Orient Antique (Proceedings of the Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, Paris, July, 1986), ed. J.M. Durand. Paris: Éditions Recherche
sur les Civilisations.
Woolley, L.
1982 Ur “of the Chaldees” – The Final Account, Excavations at Ur, Revised and
Updated by P.R.S. Moorey. London: Herbert Press.
Zettler, R.L.
1986 From Beneath the Temple: Inscribed Objects from Ur. Expedition 28.3: 29–
38. https://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/28-
3/From.pdf
Zettler, R.L.
2011 Biblical Ur of the Chaldees. Great Sites of the Ancient World [Lecture Series],
Penn Museum podcast. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology.
https://itunes.apple.com/bb/itunes-u/iraqs-ancient-past/id431257055?mt=10

117