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 type 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

1
accomplished 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 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.

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.15 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 1,16 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;17 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. Since the Mesopotamian institution started in strength but
then declined in power, whereas the Egyptian one began modestly and worked up to
a powerful finale (Fig. 3), 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
Precursor(s) The High Priestess of Nanna at Ur
had co-opted the masculine/
archaic title EN (= Lord) ca. 2288
or soon after.18
Two ED reliefs from the Ur GIPAR
show (EN?-)priestesses,19 while
the GIPAR itself may date to ED.20
Woolley’s suggestion that the
women in the ED Royal Cemetery
were sacrificed “wives of Nanna”
and their retinues no longer
attracts support.21
A proto- EPN at Ur may have
been Ninmetabarri, dau. of Anbu,
1st king of Mari (C25th-23rd?) in
the Sumerian King-List.22 The
title ZIRRU for such a position has
ED precursors.23
An EPN-like office at Ur seems to
predate Sargon (ca. 2288)24 to the
ED,25 although some trace the
EPN’s start to Sargon26 or to his
grandson Naram-Sin.27
Instigating king / Date Sargon I / ca. 2288
Founder of... Akkadian Empire
King’s origin Akkad (northern Babylonia)
Cult city Ur (southern Babylonia)
First appointee Birth-name unknown (Semitic)
Position in royal house Daughter of Sargon I
Titles in cult EN-priest/ess of Nanna (EPN).31
ZIRRU of Nanna. 32
Spouse (DAM) of Nanna. 33
Insertion into Appointed by king
priesthood
Thone-name/ Enheduana (Sumerian)
prenomen
Decree
GWA / Egypt
God’s Wife (deity unspecified) was a
Middle Kingdom title held by two
non-royal women.28
An aristocratic woman of the First
Intermediate Period was a God’s Wife
of the ithyphallic god Min.29
Ahmose I / ca. 1552
New Kingdom & Dyn 18
Thebes (southern Egypt)
Thebes (southern Egypt)
Ahmose-Nefertari
Daughter of Queen Ahhotep.
Sister or half-sister to Ahmose I.30
Chief Royal Wife to Ahmose I.
God’s Wife of Amun (GWA).
2nd Priest of Amun.34
Position purchased and endowed by
Ahmose I (see Decree below).
Without this endowment, the GWA
would (fictively, at least) be a nmH.t,
i.e. a pauper/orphan.35
None or not known
The “Donation Stele of Ahmose”36
was an im.yt pr.w deed, more
economic and administrative than
religious. Endowed GWA as
perpetual office, independent of
future rulers, to be passed on by non-

3
 hereditary succession, e.g. to an
heiress who too was first declared a
notional nmH.t (orphan).37 Foundat-
ion of office was endorsed by an
oracle of Amun.38
Motivations of king Continue a tradition of some ED
kings.39
Control over the city of Ur,40 Bolster cult of Amun(-Re), Egypt’s
countering power of local ruler supreme god since MK, to gain better
(LUGAL) and establishing a loyal control over newly-unified country.44
power-base in the south.41
Connect pan-Babylonian cultic
system to royal family to
legitimate rule over whole
country.42
Royal access to temple assets.43 Royal access to temple assets.

Table 2. Deity
EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt
45
Name Nanna (Sumerian). Amun(-Re)
Suen/Sin (Akkadian).46
Gender Male Male
Centre of cult Temple of Nanna at Ur, the Temples of Karnak and Luxor at
EKISHNUGAL,47 mother-house of Thebes.55 Karnak = Great Temple of
all moon-temples.48 Amun(-Re).
Temples (also called
EKISHNUGAL) at Babylon, Nippur.
In Ur III & Isin period, subsidiary
temple at Urum49 and for Nanna
of Karzida at Ga’esh (near Ur).50
Also, from at least C14th, cult
centre for Sin at Harran, prob. est.
by merchants from Ur.51 Sin “had
become early on the guarantor of
royal political power in northern
Mesopotamia.”52 Harran temple
attested in Mari Archive (Isin/
Larsa-OB period).53 This became
prominent in Neo-Babylonian era;
mother of Nabonidus was a
priestess there.54
Role Moon-god, in Sargonic times a Creator, supreme god since MK/Dyn
(incl. relationships) son of sky-god An,56 in Ur III-OB 12, unseen and everywhere.63
times the eldest son of Enlil.57 His Since MK, and esp. from NK, linked
cult channelled the moon’s with (Re-)Atum, the creator god of
regenerative power to earth for the Heliopolitan Ennead.64
human and agricultural fertility,
esp. of cattle & sheep.58
Nanna was very popular in OB By Dyn 21, de facto ruler of Egypt;
times, but was never the supreme Theban oracles of Amun set
god.59 (Head of pantheon was government policy.65
Enlil of Nippur, who crowned the
kings of Sumer; Naram-Sin’s dau.
Tutanapshum was first appointee
as Enlil’s EN-priestess).60 Nanna

4
 was father to the most prominent
goddess, Inanna/Ishtar.61
Nanna/Sin was guarantor of the
political order, esp. royal power.62
Astronomical identity Lunar.
Father of Utu/Shamash, the sun-
god.67
Iconography of deity Anthropomorphic.
Associated with bull, lion-dragon
& gazelle.70
Divine spouse Ningal (= “Great Lady”), a
passive and supportive goddess.72
Iconography of spouse Anthropomorphic.
Associated with water-birds (UBI-
birds);74 prob. ZIRRU = hen (esp.
of waterfowl, duck/goose/swan).75
The EPN was the earthly embodi-
ment or representative of Ningal,
Nanna’s divine wife.76
The king was considered to be the son
of Amun(-Re).66
Solar (from NK on, when Amun takes
on all properties of Re). 68
Father of Khonsu, the moon-god.69
Anthropomorphic.
Occasionally ram-headed.71
Mut (= “Mother”).73
Anthropomorphic.
Sometimes lioness (& thence cat);77
hieroglyph = vulture, hence wears
vulture headdress.78
The GWA was the earthly embodi-
ment or representative of Mut,
Amun’s divine wife.79

Table 3. Early phase

EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt
Time-period Akkadian to Old Babylonian, New Kingdom (Dyn 18-20),
2230-1730. 1552-1070.
Pedigree Usually daughter of current king; Great Royal Wife, who often was
sometimes daughter of the herself the daughter of a king/queen.81
previous king and/or sister of the
current king (e.g. Enanedu).
One non-royal EPN known (not at
Ur) in Akkadian period.80
Basic title(s) EN- (or Entu-)priest/ess of Nanna/ God’s Wife of Amun (GWA).
Suen (EPN). 2nd Priest of Amun.85
ZIRRU82 of Nanna/Suen (esp. pre-
Ur III).83
Spouse (DAM) of the god Nanna/
Suen.84
Additional possible [God’s Wife (DAM) of Nanna/ Divine Adoratrice.
title(s) Suen, if not a basic/implicit title] God’s Hand.
These titles were often held by people
other than the GWA.86
Position in temple First. There was no High Priest of Second, under High Priest of Amun
hierarchy Nanna senior to the EPN. (HPA, 1st Priest of Amun).88
In Ur III, second only to king in
social, political & religious
spheres.87
Perception by A symbol of the Sumerian
populace community as a whole (see
Tenure section below).89
Economic manager responsible
for ensuring prosperity of the
community.90
See notes at † and § (left).

5
Better-known Enheduana [1st] (ca. 2288 on),
incumbents dau. Sargon I (Akkad).93
Enmenana, dau. Naram-Sin
† The position of an (Akkad).94
EPN in Barbara Enanepada, dau. Ur-baba/Ur-Bau
Weadock’s sequence (Lagash II, pre-Ur III)95
of putative incumbents Enmahgalana, dau. Amar-Suen
is given in [ ].91 (ca. 2040, late Ur III).96
Enanatuma [10th], dau. Ishme-
§ It has even been Dagan, Isin dyn (1955-1937).97
speculated that Sarai/ Enmegalana, poss. dau. of
Sarah, wife of the Gungunum, mid-Larsa dyn; dead
biblical patriarch by ca. 1902.98
Abram/Abraham, was Enshakiag-Nanna (ca. 1872 on),
an EPN or similar.92 dau. Sumu-el, mid-Larsa dyn.99
Enanedu [13th] (ca. 1828 on),
sister of Warad-Sin & Rim-Sin I,
end of Larsa dyn.100
Notable decrees Kudur-Mabuk, father of Enanedu,
the last named EPN, ordered her
copper mortuary statue to be
overlaid with gold.106
Enanedu recorded on a clay cone
her restoration of the GIPAR and
how she cleansed and secured the
burial site of her predecessors,
with room for future burials
(Table 6, Mortuary cult);107 also a
stone tablet recording her
restorations and cultic
embellishments.108 One of her
inscriptions was found and
translated by Nabonidus (555-
539), who revived the cult.109
Additional/special Continued access to temple assets,
motivations which by Isin/Larsa period includ-
ed large estates and produced
cloth on a commercial scale.111
The estates were so complex that
freelance contractors were needed
to manage them.112
Table 4. Late phase
EPN / Mesopotamia
Time-period Old Babylonian to post-Kassite,
1730-1104.
Pedigree Most not princesses, probably
non-royal.114
Basic title(s) EN- (or Entu-)priest/ess of
Nanna/Sin (EPN).
Additional possible [Spouse (DAM) of the god Nanna/
title(s) Sin, if not a basic/implicit title]
6
Dyn 18:101
Ahmose-Nefertari.
Hatshepsut and her daughter
Neferure.
... these 3 women used GWA as their
preferred sole title.102
Dyn 19:103
Chief Royal Wives of Ramses I, Seti
I, Ramses II & Seti II: Satre, Tuya,
Nefertari-Merymut & Tausret, resp-
ectively.104
Dyn 20: 105
Isis, dau. Ramses VI.
Donation Stele (Dyn 18) of Ahmose,
recovered from 3rd pylon at Karnak
(see Table 1, Decree, above).
Decree of Ramses VI (Dyn 20), who
installed his daughter Isis as GWA
and Divine Adoratrice.110
Continued access to temple assets,
which were vast.
Ramses VI (Dyn 20) was a weak king
who ruled from Piramesse in the
Delta (north) and needed to
strengthen his control over the
powerful priesthood at Thebes
(south).113
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.115
God’s Wife of Amun (GWA).
2nd Priest of Amun.116
Divine Adoratrice.
God’s Hand.
Both titles first combined with GWA
by Maatkare (Dyn 21).117 Amenirdis I
 (Dyn 25) used them, plus 2 more:118
One who is united with the god.119
[Daughter of Osiris].120
King’s wife (factual? honorific?
erroneous?).121
High Priest of Amun (HPA).122
Position in temple First, as in Early phase. Second, as in Early phase.
hierarchy 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.”123
Better-known Daughter of Nebuchadnezzar I of Shepenwepet I, dau. Osorkon III
incumbents Babylon, 1125-1104 (2nd Dyn (Libyan, Dyn 23-24, C8th).126,127
Isin) may have held role.125 Amenirdis I,* dau. Kashta (Nubian,
Dyn 25, late C8th).128
* Amenirdis I was the Shepenwepet II, dau. Piye (Nubian,
inspiration for the Dyn 25, late C8th-early C7th).129
Egyptian princess Nitocris I, dau. Psamtek I (Saite, Dyn
Amneris in Verdi’s 26, late C7th-early C6th).130
opera, Aida.124 Ankhnesneferibre, dau. Psamtek II
(Saite, Dyn 26, C6th).131
Notable decrees Stela/relief of Nebuchadnezzar I The “Adoption Stele of Nitocris,”134
(1125-1104, 2nd Dyn Isin) made by her father Psamtek I, was
depicted the High Priestess of (like the Donation Stele of Ahmose)
Nanna/Sin at Ur and listed her an im.yt-pr.w deed.135 It respected the
accoutrements.132 Its discovery by rights of the incumbent (Shepenwepet
Nabonidus (555-539) at the end of II) and her heiress (Amenirdis II), but
the Neo-Babylonian era enabled ensured the eventual transfer of the
him to revive the cult at Ur.133 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.136
Ankhnesneferibre’s stele presents her
adoption (9 years previously) &
recent investiture in religious & ritual
terms, with a parochial Theban
focus.137
Additional/special HPA vacancy ca. 754-704 increased
motivations power of Amenirdis I (ca. 740-
700).138
Restrain powerful priesthood of
Thebes in politically turbulent
times.139
Consolidate rule of “foreign” kings
(Libyan & Nubian, Dyn 23-25)140 and
the southern power of those ruling
from the Delta, who were initially
Assyrian vassals (Saites, Dyn 26).141
Matriarchal tendencies & familial
power-sharing of Libyans and
Nubians,142 traditionalism/piety of
Kushite and Saite dynasties (Dyn 25-
26).143

7
Table 5. Wax & wane
EPN / Mesopotamia GWA / Egypt
Height of power Early phase, esp. Ur III (= 4 EPNs Late phase. Specifically:
at Ur).144 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.149
Sumerian Temple Hymns,
Adoration of Inanna, etc.)145
b) Reconstruction of GIPAR by b) Dyn 25-26, when GWA eclipsed
Enanedu, poss. as local deputy for the power of the High Priest of
her father.146 Her seal had the Amun.150 Peaked with Shepenwepet
authority of royal dynastic seal.147 II, who rivalled Mentuemhat (mayor
She is the only non-reigning royal of Thebes) as de facto ruler of Upper
to be lauded in a praise-hymn.148 Egypt;151 or with Saite GWAs.152
Hiatuses Early phase Early phase
GIPAR destroyed by Elamites at During 2nd half of Dyn 18 (post-
fall of Ur III (ca. 2003), rebuilt by Hatshepsut, perhaps a rejection of her
Enanatuma (ca. 1955-1937).153 rule).169
No named incumbents after
Enanedu (still alive ca. 1796).154
Power shifted to the “convent of
nuns” at Sippar (=second wives to
Shamash) to which the OB kings
sent their daughters,155 and to the
multiple priestesses of Marduk.156
Still, Hammurabi placed a stele in
the Temple of Ningal.157
Likely hiatus after damage to Ur
by Samsuiluna (1749-1712),158
when the GIPAR may have been
destroyed,159 and subsequent
depopulation of Ur.160 Rebuilt
soon after by another OB king,
and decayed slowly.161 Largely
abandoned in C17-16th because
Euphrates had shifted to west;162
city mainly ruins by 1400.163 C14-
11th, head of Gulf retreated south,
terminating Ur’s life as a port.164
Late phase Late phase
Status uncertain until Kassite king Fully-titled GWAs after Isis (Dyn 20)
Kurigalzu (1332-1308) restored include Maatkare (I) Mutemhat170
the temenos, enlarging the GIPAR (Dyn 21), Shepenwepet I (Dyn 23)
and relocating the Ningal and her successors (to Dyn 26).171
temple.165
Despite continuous occupancy of
The EN-priestess at Ur “certainly position, by year 26 of Psamtek I (i.e.,
existed through Kassite times and 638) the estate of the GWA had
beyond.”166 Her role is “attested allegedly “fallen into ruin,” from
as late as the post-Kassite period which “all men seize things as their
[i.e., after 1155], suggesting that hearts dictate.”172 It was rebuilt for
at least the office was perpetuated Nitocris by her first High Steward,
whenever possible.”167 Ur lapsed Ibi.173
into obscurity in C12th, reviving
somewhat in C8-7th.168

8
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;174 ditto for
Kurigalzu’s Ningal temple.175
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.176
The 2nd Neo-Babylonian king,
Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562),
renovated and rebuilt in the
temenos.177
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.178 In response
to a lunar eclipse in 554, he
installed his daughter as the EPN
En-nigaldi-Nanna at Ur.179 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.180
Revival ended with Persian rule.
After defeating Nabonidus, the
Persian king Cyrus criticised him
for elevating Sin over Marduk and
for appointing his dau. as EPN.181
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.191
Ur III & Isin/Larsa: Also find EN-
priestesses of Enki & Nigublaga,
and subsidiary EPNs at Karzida/
Ga’esh & Urum.192
9
No.
Appointment of princess inconsistent
with customs of Persian rule.182
Descent from a Nubian GWA was
important to Nubian king Aspelta, 3
generations after Nubian withdrawal
from Egypt.183
Aspects of the GWA’s office may
have lingered into the Persian period
(Dyn 27);184 possibly a (non-royal)
priestess sexually consecrated to
Amun at Thebes.185
The office of GWA was not restored
in the religious revivals of Dyn 30 or
the Ptolemaic era.186
Some Ptolemaic priestesses of Amun
reprised the title Adoratrice.187 Titles
and epithets of the Ptolemaic queens
of Egypt seem to be borrowed from
the titularies of the GWAs.188 At
Edfu, one Ptolemaic queen is describ-
ed as a Divine Adoratrice.189
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
21.190
“Wife of Min” known in OK/FIP.193
Some MK-LP use of “God’s Wife”
without deity being named.194 Local
theogamous priestesses known,195 e.g.
TIP/LP: God’s Wife of Neferhotep at
Hutsekhem196 and of Heryshaf at
Heracleopolis (the latter incl. a Saite
princess).197 Divine Adoratrices of

Selection rituals
Divination.201 In early phase, the
ZIRRU was “chosen by means of
(omens taken from the entrails of)
a goat”202 and her selection could
provide the next year-name, as
done for Enmahgalana (ca.
2043).203 Liver extispicy was the
usual selection method (ca.
2000),204 incl. in the Neo-
Babylonian revival (554).205
Training & installation After ritual purification,
undertook novitiate (prob. oral
training by current incumbent).209
Novitiate between selection and
enthronement could last several
years.210
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, given
paraphernalia, entered GIPAR).211
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).
Nanna’s shrine and courtyard/
temple were elsewhere in the
temenos.216
Ningal’s cult and temple were
integrated with that of Nanna and
were overseen by the EPN, her
earthly embodiment or
representative.217
10
other male creator deities (e.g. Atum)
may have sexual function.198
Otherwise, GWA “without direct
parallel in other religious hierarchies
in Egypt,”199 or in Nubia.200
Usually just royal pronouncement.
An oracle was used to confirm the
appointment of Ahmose-Nefertari, the
first GWA.206
An oracle was used to confirm the
appointment of Ramses VI’s dau. Isis,
perhaps a reflection of his lack of
political power.207
Upon adoption, Ankhnesneferibre’s
titles (incl. HPA) were confirmed by
oracle of Amun.208
Late phase: Investiture rites similar to
those for a pharaoh.212 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 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.213
GWA palace recently identified at
Naga Malgata, North Karnak,214 supp-
lanting palace in Medinet Habu.215
Late phase: Amun-Re in iconography;
also Osiris, as many GWAs built
Osirian chapels.218 Medinet Habu, site
of the GWA memorial chapels, is
focused on Amun(-Re) and Osiris
(main text, Residence...).219
Most GWA throne-names incorporate
Mut,220 but otherwise she is largely
supplanted in GWA-sponsored scenes
by the GWA herself.221
Mut was important independent of
Amun(-Re); she had her own
priesthood and temple at Karnak.222
Also, consort of state god of Nubia.223
GWA could embody Hathor224 or
Tefnut,225 sometimes Isis.226 Like
Mut, these could be God’s Hand.227
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).228
These too were “wives of Nanna.”
Cultic roles Lived in relative isolation from
(for sacred marriage, outside world.231 Ritual ablutions
see next section) before entering sanctuary.232
Sang holy songs, esp. the ASILA
(jubilation).233 Presided over
rituals, which were performed by
assistants.234 Banqueted with
deity,235 prepared daily food/beer
offerings to god; provisioned the
cult and donated precious
items.236
Accompanied divine images in
processions, e.g. New Year trip of
Nanna’s statue to Eridu.237
With king, accompanied Nanna’s
statue biannually to Karzida for
AKITI festival.238
Interceded with the god on behalf
of the king.239
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.250
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.251
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),252 which was
decorated with hay & flowers.253
11
Only one GWA at any one time.229
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.230
Ritual ablutions before entering
sanctuary.240 Pre-ritual, bathed in
sacred lake.241
Entertained & honoured gods via
music (esp. sistrum); by pouring
libations & burning incense; by
consecrating food offerings; by
presenting Maat (justice/order/
truth).242
Accompanied the God’s Fathers
(mid-ranking male priests) in
processions & liturgies.243
Partnered with king in provisioning,
protecting & rejuvenating gods.244
Officiated at other Rites of Royal &
Divine Dominion.245 Identified with
Isis in some rites.246
Built temples & dedicated shrines.247
Shepenwepet II (Dyn 25) is only
non-king shown publicly performing
“Driving of the Four Calves” and
“Striking of the Meret-Chests.”248 She
also seems to have celebrated a sed
festival (see Iconography section),
perhaps at her investiture.249
Does not mirror sacred marriage of
king to goddess in Sumerian sense.256
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.257 (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).”258
Some propose sexual stimulation of
Amun by GWA, e.g. in her capacity
as God’s Hand,259 but overall there is
no good evidence for sexual rituals.260
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.261
 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.254 Herodotus links this
directly with practice of Egyptian
GWA-like priestess (see opposite
column).255
Celibacy & Older literature says celibate and
procreation childless,264 though intercourse &
conception via king possible in
sacred marriage rite.265 Much
current literature perpetuates the
belief in the unmarried, childless
or even virginal “spouse of the
deity,” while conceding human
failings.266 Stol267 cites as
evidence the myth of Atrahasis (in
which children are declared taboo
to EN-priestesses), the clandestine
nature of Sargon’s birth to an EN-
priestess in legend,268 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;269 e.g., the seal of
Enanatuma’s son is known.270
Assistant/deputy & Probably had a key assistant (of
key staff same gender) called a LAGAR.280
Below that fall three other senior
ranks; then 5 types of performat-
ive actors; 2 kinds of cantor/
musician; and female votaries.281
Seal(ing)s of an estate supervisor,
hairdresser & two scribes in
Enheduana’s staff have been
found .282
Power Incumbents had “weak legal
authority but strong personal and
mystical spiritual influence.”289
Known via local excursions.290
Considered masculine from Ur
III-OB, poss. reflecting power;291
12
Koch has recently re-envisaged the
Dyn 23-26 GWAs as daughters rather
than spouses of Amun.262
Herodotus links sacred marriage of
GWA-like priestess directly with
practice of an EPN-like priestess in
Babylonia (see opposite column).263
Many early GWAs were Royal
Wives, and thus were not celibate and
often had children.271 However, it is
no longer thought that the king was
required to marry the GWA to
legitimate his rule and succession.272
Much modern literature perpetuates
the belief that Ramses VI (Dyn 20)
stipulated that his daughter Isis
remain unmarried, and that
subsequent GWAs followed suit.273
Rationale is that it prevented these
princesses from engendering rival
dynasties in Thebes.274
Celibacy of Late phase GWAs
accepted by Leahy275 but contested by
Teeter, who argues inter alia that
Amenirdis II was married and had a
child.276 Manassa and Pope too
contest celibacy.277 Bryan says
husbands are conceivable and can
explain lack of evidence.278
Ayad maintains that the powerful
GWAs of Dyn 23-26 were indeed
single and seemingly childless,
although perhaps not ritually
precluded from sexual relations.279
Heiress as main cultic assistant,283 in
Dyn 26 also Sms.wt (Followers).284
Senior cult singers were titled
Chantress of the Interior of Amun;
three D26 heiresses were Great
Chantress of the Interior.285 Many
Chantresses were buried at Medinet
Habu, some in close association with
GWA memorial chapels.286
Administrators of the estate of the
GWA, headed by the High Steward of
the God’s Wife/Adoratrice,287 includ-
ed a “Scribe of counting grain” and an
“Overseer of cattle.”288
Religious authority; successors
reportedly greeted with joy by
populace.296
[For masculinisation, see Represent-
ation..., below.]
 see Representation..., below.
Their blessing probably needed
for appointment of local ruler.292
Head of temple household, a
major institution in the local
economy.293 Scale illustrated by a
receipt naming Enmenana.294
A claim that Enanedu acted as a
money-lender seems
unfounded.295
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.300
No formal “adoption” of heiress;
incumbent seems to have retired
after a new appointment,301
becoming emerita.302 Retirees
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.”303 A documented
exception was Enheduana, ousted
(temporarily) by Lugal-Ane’s
rebellion.304
Many EPNs served at Ur for long
periods (30-40 years),305
providing a unifying link through
times of disunity.306 E.g.
Enanatuma (of Isin) served long
after Gungunum (of Isin’s enemy,
Larsa) had conquered Ur.307
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 the
issues) first person under own name, and
asserted herself before the gods.319
Religious ruler & builder,
13
Dyn 23-26, political power, poss. as
de facto (co-)rulers of Upper Egypt.297
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.298
Nitocris I commanded daily tribute of
190 kg bread, cereals, herbs & milk
from the priests, plus monthly tribute
of cattle and additional foods.299
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.308 Rationale is that it
prevented these princesses aiding
rival claimants to the throne. 309
Others deny that it predates Dyn 22
and point to the Nitocris Adoption
Stele (Dyn 26) as formalising king’s
dau. & adoption pattern.310
These adoptions were motivated by
secular rather than cultic concerns.311
They were bureaucratic devices
relating to inheritance of the office
and its assets, and unrelated to
celibacy or biological motherhood.312
Isis (Dyn 20) reigned for 25-50 yrs.313
Yoyotte estimated ave. 50 yr tenure
for GWAs of Dyn 21-23.314
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.315
Collaboration/delegation was
common, with dynastic overlaps that
required many years of co-operation
between different ethnicities.316
Only ever one GWA at a time, but she
and her heiress(es) were probably
regarded as a single “college.”317
Yes, from Maatkare (Dyn 21) on.
That of Shepenwepet I refers to
Amun and evokes Hatshepsut’s.318
Most other names incorporate Mut,
the divine wife of Amun.
Cartouche from at least Dyn 20,324
regal status of a king by Dyn 26.325
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-
 interceding with god for king.320
Filiation term DUMU suggests
“son” of the king, although may
just be archaism (= son or dau. in
Old Sumerian).321 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);322
“maleness” prob. a reflection of
the role’s power.323
Iconography Depicted in reliefs and statuary.330
Almost all images are from Early
phase.
All crowned (AGA-crown head-
dress, esp. circlet), most
enthroned.331
Flounced/pleated woollen robe
(an attribute of divinity),332
usually covering both shoulders;
long loose hair.333
May appear taller than less
important persons.334
Use of motifs otherwise restricted
to king or deity.335
May be depicted frontally, a pose
normally reserved for
goddesses.336
Building program Enanatuma did extensive (re-)
building in ruined GIPAR;348 built
chapels to Utu and Dagan “for the
life of” the king.349
Enanedu reconstructed the GIPAR
(Table 3, Notable decrees).
Mortuary cult Yes.354 The dead EPNs lived on in
statues, housed in mortuary
chapels; offerings were made
there and/or at graves.355
By Ur III, the outdoor cemetery
14
ances/Crowns, Horus, etc.)326
Donation Stele of Ahmose (Dyn 18)
stipulated that the office of GWA will
pass “from son to son forever;”327 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.328 The death of
Nitocris is recorded using
phraseology for king.329
Depicted in reliefs and statuary.337
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.338
Late phase attire:339 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);340 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.341 Dyn 23-
26 GWAs present Maat to Amun.342
In Dyn 25, Amenirdis I founded a
temple and received sed symbols,
Shepenwepet II had proffering
sphinxes343 and seems to have
celebrated a sed and other king-only
rites (see Cultic roles above).344
Shepenwepet II publicly portrayed the
divine marriage, showing (separately)
Amenirdis I and herself in embrace
with Amun.345 Deceased Amenirdis I
shown deified.346 In Dyn 23-26,
GWA closer to gods than king is.347
Yes, from Dyn 23-26.350 Residence in
N Karnak;351 chapels to Osiris (high-
lighting relationship to the king) in N
& E Karnak;352 GWA funerary
chapels in Medinet Habu.353
Yes. Prob. Ahmose-nefertari (Dyn
18).360 Definitely Dyn 23-26, with
mortuary chapels at Medinet Habu,361
which probably housed cult statues
and would have received offerings.362
 had become vaults under the GWA played role of dutiful “eldest
GIPAR’s residential quarters. son” by officiating in funerary cult of
Exposed again by late Larsa dyn, predecessor; this also legitimated
the graveyard was restored and re- their succession.363
enclosed by Enanedu.356
Food offerings in Isin/Larsa per-
iod continue older tradition.357
Not usually deified after death,358 Not usually deified after death,
although Enanatuma and although Amenirdis I was shown
Enmegalana seemingly were.359 thus.364
Politicization May date to ED with Ninmeta-
barri, dau. of king of Mari.365
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.372
deity (Ishtar, primary goddess of Full exploitation with Shepenwepet I
Akkad)366 as a universal deity (Dyn 23), who had her own governing
superior to her own spouse administration and whom some
Nanna, the moon deity and city- scholars consider to have been de
god of Ur.367 She wrote hymns facto ruler of Upper Egypt.373
that helped to syncretise Inanna
(Sum.) with Ishtar (Akk.) and that Shepenwepet II rivalled Mentuemhat,
drew together temples from 35 mayor of Thebes, as de facto ruler of
different Babylonian cities, Upper Egypt.374
unifying the pantheon.368 Her
poems also express political/legal
outrage at challenges to the
empire that her father had
initiated.369
Enheduana’s writings remained a
tool for unity into OB times.370
Sargon/Enheduana’s unity-
through-religion program was
echoed 1700 yrs later by the Neo-
Babylonian king Nabonidus and
his daughter.371

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 23-26.375 It is this comparison, and the attendant discussion, that forms
the main text of the paper.376 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 entailed377 – 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

15
 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.378 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.379 The unrestored fragment can be seen online.380

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.381 Osorkon III ruled from
Thebes and controlled the country as far as Leontopolis in the Delta.382 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).383

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).384 Equally, it seems likely that the

16
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 EA60006.385 Photo © Trustees of the British
Museum, reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.386

17
 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;387 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.”388 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.389,390

18
 (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.391 (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,392 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;393 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,

19
Fig. 5. Karomama Meritmut, Divine Adoratrice of Amenemope. 394 Louvre
Museum N500. It has been described as “an exceptional piece of work, known by
everybody, used to illustrate many developments about Egyptian civilization.”395 In
the academic literature, Karomama (Dynasty 22) is often treated as a full GWA.396
Her tomb was discovered in 2014. 397 Photograph by Miguel Hermoso Cuesta,
available via Wikimedia Commons,398 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA
3.0.

20
 (a) (b)

Fig. 6. Unidentified EPN, Ur III period.399 Louvre Museum AO 23995. Images ©

2007 Photo RMN / Franck Raux, online via the Louvre, reproduced by permission.400

“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.”401 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.

21
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.402 Image reproduced here under licence.403

22
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,404 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

23
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)405 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.406 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.407 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.”408 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 descent409 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.410
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.411
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 & Simpson412 and Emelianov.413

24
25
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.414 Date-spans in black are from Ayad and
Kitchen;415 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;416 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). 417 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; 418 new
considerations even favour reversing the order of their reigns.419 HPA, High Priest of Amun,
date from Dodson.420 Pre-Dynasty 26 dates are approximate.

26
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.”421 For example, he appointed his daughter Tutanapshum as EN-priestess of
Enlil.422 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).423 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(.y)
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,424 denotes the wife of a god,
whereas the other writing of Hm.t nTr, , would signify a female servant of the
deity.425 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.”426 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,427 but he is clearly nothing more than “le serviteur de la
déesse.”428 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).429
Enanepada called herself “the EN-priestess of Nanna, the ZIRRU of Nanna and the

27
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,430 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; 431 DIRI-compounds are deconstructed in dark red
text.432 The complete inscription survives in an Old Babylonian copy.433

[DA]M of Nanna;”434 and Enanatuma referred to herself as “the ZIRRU of Nanna and
EN-priestess of Nanna in Ur.”435 While admitting that the etymology of ZIRRU is
unknown, Piotr Steinkeller contends that the cuneiform components of this DIRI-
compound436 specify “faithful woman of Nanna,” an epithet that he considers more
appropriate to a servant rather than a spouse.437 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.438 In contrast, the northern Babylonian tradition provided male deities with
female consorts in the form of DAM.DINGIR priestesses.439 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.440 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).441

28
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.442 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.443

The progression in the titulary of the EPN from the Akkadian to Old Babylonian
periods has been examined independently by Westenholz and Steinkeller;444 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 Enmegalana445 and Enanedu446 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.447

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,”448 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.449 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,450
the term EN was gender-neutral.451 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;”452 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);”453 in the same vein, we later encounter “Enannatum, the priest beloved of
Nannar, priest of Nannar in Ur, son of Ishme-Dagan.”454 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.”455

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.456 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
compositions457 – from her writings458 could hint that she did wish to adopt a male

29
(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);459 mark-up as for Fig. 11.460 British
Museum 130729.461 Photo © Trustees of the British Museum, reproduced here
under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.462

30
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.”463 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.”464

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.465 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.466 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.467

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.’468
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.469
Accordingly, each new GWA played the role of dutiful “eldest son” by establishing
and maintaining the mortuary cult for her successor,470 since in so doing she
actually legitimated her own succession.471 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. 472 Karomama
Meritmut (Fig. 5) was probably no longer alive,473 and in any case formal adoption
may not have become the norm until later;474 some scholars think it began only
when Amenirdis I adopted Shepenwepet II as her heiress,475 although Cairo
Museum statue CG 42198 identifies the same Amenirdis with the phrase “her
mother being the Divine Adoratrice Shepenwepet, justified,”476 and inscriptions on
the mortuary chapel of Shepenwepet II do likewise.477 In Dynasty 26, the Adoption

31
Stele of Nitocris renewed the covenant; it too was an im.yt pr.w deed (Table 4,
Notable decrees).

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.”478 The
stele also uses a phrase that Betsy Bryan construes as suggesting a notional sonship
between successive GWAs (Table 6, Representation...).479 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.”480

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”481 (for details, see Table 6, Training and installation), and by Dynasty 26
the GWAs enjoyed “regal status practically indistinguishable from that of the
pharaoh”482 (Table 6, Representation...). The Nubian GWA Shepenwepet II is the
only non-king (and the only non-male besides Hatshepsut)483 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.”484 It seems that
Shepenwepet even held a sed-festival (Table 6, Cultic roles and Iconography),485
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”486 (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 585.487 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,488 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.489 In Dynasty 25, Shepenwepet II
frequently presented herself as the “Female Horus”490 or even the “Female Re.”491

32
An unambiguously feminine persona was presumably essential for someone who
dared to portray herself in public imagery as being sexually intimate with Amun
(Table 6, Iconography). Moreover, “Female Horus” presented her as the female
counterpart of the reigning king,492 a counterpoise that – in Kushite thinking – was
essential for legitimate rule.493 These provocative titles were nevertheless retained
by Shepenwepet’s Saite successors.494

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.495 Within this, immediately to the north-west of the ziggurat,
stood the Shrine of Nanna.496 Attached to the outside of the north-eastern wall of the
ETEMENNIGURU was another enclosure containing the Court of Nanna (Fig. 13).497
The complex of sacred buildings within the temenos, including the ziggurat, formed
the EKISHNUGAL or Temple of Nanna (Fig. 13).498

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.499 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).500 The
site was discovered and excavated in 1924-5 by the joint British Museum/Univers-
ity of Pennsylvania team led by Sir Leonard Woolley.501 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,502 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).503 Adjacent to room C27
was the AGRUN or sacred bedroom, a small room (C28) containing a large bed
dais/bench/platform.504 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.505 By the end of the Neo-Babylonian period, the GIPAR had been relocated
north-east and had fused with the EDUBLALMAH (Fig. 13).506

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.507 By the end of the Larsa
dynasty, the buildings over the tomb complex had apparently collapsed and the
tombs were once again outdoors.508 Enanedu re-enclosed this “place of the Hall-
that-brings-bitterness”509 and secured additional burial space for future burials
(Table 6, Building program and Mortuary cult),510 perhaps by extending the
existing crypts further toward the centre of the GIPAR to include the area under
rooms B14-B17.511 The mortuary chapels for deceased EPNs were probably in the

33
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, 512 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.513 An
artist’s reconstruction of the temenos from this period can be viewed online.514
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, 515 featuring Hercule Poirot, which was televised in
2001/2;516 Christie herself went on to marry Woolley’s assistant, who later became Prof. Sir Max Malloran.517

34
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,518 reproduced here under licence CC BY
3.0.

35
 (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.519 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;520 the colour scheme is purely conjectural.

36
 (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,521
reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

37
 (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,522
reproduced here under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

38
Temple of Ningal;523 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 chapel524 and/or at their graves,525 probably daily, plus monthly (at the
New Moon and Full Moon festivals) and on other holidays.526

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.527 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 23-26.528 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.”529 Specifically, the ruins of very large building
associated with Ankhnesneferibre that were discovered in 1924 (gazetted as a
Temple of Osiris Pameres,530 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,531 numbered in blue and dedicated as follows.
1. Possibly Shepenwepet I.532 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.533

39
Fig. 19 Map of North Karnak – location of the GWA residential quarter and the GWA-
sponsored Osirian chapels.534 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. 535
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). 536 2: Osiris-Onnophris, Lord of Offerings (Wsir-Wnnfr nb DfA.w),
Dynasty 26 (depicting Amasis and Ankhnesneferibre).537 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).538 4: Osiris-Onnophris in the Persea Tree (Wsir-Wnnfr
Hry-ib pA iSd), Dynasty 25 (depicting Amenirdis I and Shepenwepet II).539 5: Osiris, Ruler
of Eternity (Wsir HqA Dt), Dynasty 24-25 (depicting Osorkon III, Takelot III, Shepenwepet I;
Shebitqo and Amenirdis I).540 Blue asterisks (*) mark other Osirian chapels built by/for the
GWAs of Dynasties 25-26.541

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).542 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 1924.543 Ibi specifies that the “house” and its

40
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.544 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.545

The GWAs also built and dedicated chapels to Osiris in North and East Karnak
(Figs. 19 & 20).546 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.547 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.548 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 Dagan549 and
dedicated for the life of the same king.550 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.551 The
Small Temple552 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.553 The mound also
contained a tomb of Osiris, with whom Amun(-Re) was identified in his nightly
journey as the sun-god.554 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.”555 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

41
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.556 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.557 The right hand door-jamb shows Shepenwepet II being embraced
by Isis. 558 Photograph by Neithsabes, alias Sebi, available via Wikimedia Commons; 559
public domain.

42
important cult sites (Figs. 18 & 21-24).560 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),561 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.562

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.563
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,564
the route being adorned with extracts from the Opening of the Mouth ritual, Solar
Hymns and Pyramid Texts.565 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.566 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”567 (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/stairs568 and the visual
programs of the superstructures involve both the deceased GWAs and their living
successors and benefactors.569

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).

43
Fig. 21. Facades of the GWA mortuary chapels at Medinet Habu. At left is the chapel
of Amenirdis I.570 Photograph by Rémih, available via Wikimedia Commons,571 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,”572 and Amun(-Re) was the principal deity worshipped at
Medinet Habu,573 where the GWAs built their memorial chapels. Mut was largely
supplanted in GWA-sponsored iconography by the GWA herself (Table 6, Deity

44
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. 574 At bottom left,
Shepenwepet II offers a hekenou jar to Re-Horakhty, Isis and a deified Amenirdis I. 575
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).576
Photograph by Olaf Tausch, available via Wikimedia Commons,577 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,578 or as “one beloved of Mut.”579 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);580 as prime mover, the God’s Hand is considered
to be simultaneously the consort, mother and daughter of the creator-god.581
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.582 Viewed in this light, the unexpected filiations of the GWA become less
problematic,583 although Carolla Koch has recently argued for a genuine father-

45
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.584
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,585 reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

daughter (rather than spousal) relationship between Amun and the GWA (Table 6,
Sacred marriage).586 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.587 The Egyptian goddess Mut is represented in text
by the vulture hieroglyph (meaning “mother”) and in costume by the vulture

46
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.588 To the right of Shepenwepet’s chapel is what remains of the chapel of
Mehetnusekhet, the biological mother of Nitocris;589 the superstructure is largely missing.
Photograph by Olaf Tausch, available via Wikimedia Commons,590 reproduced here under
licence CC BY 3.0.

headdress, the symbol of divine motherhood (Fig. 7),591 although in iconography her
main association is with the lioness.592 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,593 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,”594 enjoyed considerable
independence from Amun, having her own large temple in Thebes (the Isheru, south
of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak)595 and chapels throughout Egypt. These
were staffed by her own priesthood, who celebrated her rituals and festivals.596 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

47
Ramses VI.597 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.”598 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.599 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.”600 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.601 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.602 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.”603 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 30.604 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.’”605 Accordingly, for the Late
Period, the GWA was probably the supreme female officiant at the Isheru.606 One
GWA – Nitocris I – did in fact build a chapel there.607

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

48
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;”608 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.609 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)610 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.611 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.612 For Anthony Leahy, writing about the GWAs of the
Late Period, “the distinctive requirement was one of celibacy.”613 Of course, the
political rationale for such celibacy – that it prevented the princesses from
engendering alternative dynasties that might contend for the throne614 – 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.”615 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.616

49
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) 617 was thought to stand in for Nanna in the sacred marriage rite.618 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.619
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.620
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.621 Piotr Steinkeller
follows J.S. Cooper in denying that the usual purpose of the sacred marriage was to
produce a royal heir.622

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).623 The bed
was decorated for the occasion with hay & flowers.624 For the GWA, too, current
opinion is that no good evidence exists in favour of sexual rituals.625 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.”626 Mariam Ayad goes further, denying
that there is any sexual dimension to playing the sistrum.627 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).628 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

50
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.629

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;”630 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.”631 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.632 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.633 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.634 This
argument is complicated by the fact that Amenirdis II probably never attained the
rank of GWA, being passed over in favour of Nitocris;635 if this caused her to
relinquish her religious role, she may then have been free to marry.636 In any case,
“Habachi’s speculation [...] is generally rejected.”637 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.”638 The long lives of many GWAs
might be circumstantial evidence that they avoided childbearing.639

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.640 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.641
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

51
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.642 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,643 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.644 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.”645 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.646 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).647 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.648

52
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.”649 Brigitte Lion concurs: “accordingly, among
the female priesthoods, the office of EN of Nanna at Ur seems to have been the
most prestigious.”650 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.651 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,652 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.”653 Enanatuma’s seal had the authority of a
royal dynastic seal and continued to be used into the reign of Warad-Sin,654 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.655
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

53
 manifestly directed outward, invoking the totality of the Double Kingdom as
conceived by the Kushite dynasts.656
The Elevation ritual proclaimed the universal dominion of Amun(-Re) and, by
extension, that of the Egyptian king,657 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,”658 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).659 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.660 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.”661
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.662

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,663 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).664 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

54
 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.665
A female scribe in the service of Nitocris exemplifies the presence of literate
women in the retinues of the GWAs.666

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.667 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.668
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.669 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

55
the position. In Ur,670 Enheduana (Fig. 4b) remained in office until well into the
reign of her father’s third successor;671 Enirziana is estimated to have been installed
in regnal year 17 of her father Shulgi; Enmahgalana in year 4 of her father Amar-
Suen;672 Enshakiag-Nanna in the 23rd year of her father Sumu-el;673 Enanedu in the
5th or 6th year of her brother Warad-Sin.674 In Thebes,675 Shepenwepet I is estimated
to have been designated (and installed, since there was seemingly no incumbent)676
ca. year 11-32 of her father Osorkon III;677 Amenirdis I (Figs. 8) was probably
designated 5-25 years after the accession of her father Kashta;678 Shepenwepet II
(Fig. 25-26) was designated 22-37 years after the accession of her father, Piye,679
while Nitocris I was designated in year 9 of her father Psamtek I (i.e., ca. 655).680
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, 681
reproduced here under licence CC BY-SA 3.0.

56
Fig. 26. Relief of Shepenwepet II on the façade of her mortuary chapel at
Medinet Habu. 682 Original photograph by Asta, derivative work (zoom &
clean) by JMCC1; available via Wikimedia Commons,683 public domain.

57
Fig. 27. Statue of Ankhnesneferibre. Nubian Museum,
Egyptian Museums CG42205. Photograph by tutincommon
(John Campana), available via Wikimedia Commons, 684
reproduced here under licence CC BY 2.0.

58
the year in which her father Psamtek II took the throne.685 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
Kashta686 and that Shepenwepet II was designated 37 years after the accession of
Piye, outcomes encompassed in the ranges already provided.687 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.688 On the last consideration, we should note that three of the GWAs
may have been designated while still children; Nitocris almost certainly was.689
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),690 the latter could serve as assistant or junior partner in the “college” of
supreme priestesses until the existing God’s Wife retired or died.691 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.692 At the very least, it is likely that the elder EN-priestess
trained her successor during a novitiate that could last for several years.693
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,694 or – alternatively – she retired in favour of her protégé once the
latter had become proficient in the role,695 thereafter continuing in the background as
emerita.696 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.

59
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.697
Libyan Nubian
35-47 Ayad.698
0 Koch.699
25-37 Koch; Broekman.700
Amenirdis I Shepenwepet II 10-35 Ayad; Dodson.701
? Koch.
33-40 Koch; Pope.702
Shepenwepet II Nitocris I 2-6 Dodson; Ayad.703
Nubian Saite
6-15 Bryan; Graefe; Pope;
Leahy.704
≤17 Leahy; Pope; Coulon.705
≤17 Koch.706
Nitocris I Ankhnesneferibre 9 Dodson; Leahy; Ayad.707
9 Koch.708
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.”709
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.710 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.711,712

60
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.713
Enmahgalana (28-34)+ (38) Weadock; Westenholz.714
Enanatuma 30+ Stol.715
Enshakiag-Nanna 40 Gadd.716
Enanedu (30-33)+ (36+) Gadd; Stol; Frayne.717

GWA Years a References b,c

Shepenwepet I 40-65 Ayad; Dodson.718
19-42 (?) Koch; Kitchen.719
Amenirdis I 14-25 Ayad; Dodson.720
40 Koch.721
Shepenwepet II 41-50 Dodson; Ayad.722
31+ Koch; Pope.723
Nitocris I 64-68 (50+) Ayad; Dodson; Leahy.724
53 Koch; Coulon; Pope.725
Ankhnesneferibre 61 Ayad; Dodson; Leahy.726
61 Koch.727
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.

61
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.728

In Ur and Thebes, only one person could occupy the supreme position at any given
time (Table 6, Concurrency),729 and an incumbent EPN or GWA could not be
removed from office (Table 6, Tenure...).730 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).731 This continuity provided an important unifying
link through times of social disorder and during dynastic change.732 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).733 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,734 and the existence of their “joint project” at Karnak – the Chapel of Osiris,
Ruler of Eternity.735 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,736 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

62
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.”737
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.738 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),739 and there explicitly
identified Amenirdis as her mother within her titulary, even though there was no
need to do so.740 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.741 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).742

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.743 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.744 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.745 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.746 When Nitocris I arrived in Thebes,
probably still a young child,747 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.”748 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.749 While the

63
Nubian priestesses may have had their reservations about the succession, Nitocris –
who took the “beautiful name” of Shepenwepet750 – seems to have held them in
high esteem.751 (It is unclear which of the two Nubians was formally considered to
be her adoptive mother at the time,752 but Nitocris primarily honours Shepenwepet
II in her monuments753 and later inscriptions invariably list her rather than
Amenirdis II as Nitocris’s mother.754) 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).755 In contrast, the Saite kings are thought to have
progressively turned against the memory of their Kushite predecessors,756 although
a recent reappraisal suggests that this may be an over-reach.757 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.758

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
664/3,759 at a time when Shepenwepet II was God’s Wife and Amenirdis II was her
heiress.760 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.761 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.762

64
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)763
and not of Nanna (as subsequently amended).764 Her appointment coincided with a
rebellion that reduced the state to a petty kingdom not much larger than Ur itself.765
Enmahgalana continued to feature in legal cases dated to the second decade of Ibbi-
Sin’s reign (year 14 or 20),766 so she presumably remained as EPN at Ur at that
stage. In year 23/25 of Ibbi-Sin,767 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.768 Ibbi-Sin himself was carried off in chains to Susa.769
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.770

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,771 but detailed
examination of the sources suggests instead that it concerns the appointment of a

65
princess (whose name begins with Enbara...) as EGIZI of An, a position unrelated to
the EPN and more likely the High Priestess of Isin.772

Enanatuma, the daughter of king Ishme-Dagan of Isin (r. 1955-1937), rebuilt the
GIPAR773 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).774 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.775 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.”776 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).777

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 reign778 –
must have held office only briefly (Fig. 9).779 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).780 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

66
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,781
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

67
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,782 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.”783 “But the
political influence and power of this institution was fruitfully used by the Kushites
to stabilize their rule in Egypt.”784

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”785 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:786
[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.

68
A similarly collaborative situation 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,787 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.788 Either way, the political impacts of the two institutions were
equivalent. In the words of Joan Westenholz:789
[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.

© 2017 Lloyd D. Graham; v.04_29.08.17

Cite as: Lloyd D. Graham (2017) “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

69
 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.
15
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).
16
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.
17
Dodson (2004), esp. p.27; Westenholz (2012).
18
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).
19
Westenholz (2012: 293-4).
20
Weadock (1975: 106).
21
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.”
22
Woolley (1982: 124); Weadock (1975) p. 101 & 105 fn 40; Podany (2010: xv & 38-39); Astour
(2002: 57-58).
23
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.”
24
Westenholz (2012), p. 291 fn 2 & p.297-8; Collon (1999: 20-21); Winter (1987: 193-6).
25
Crawford (2015: 90); Westenholz (2013a: 251); Westenholz (2012: 297-8). Collon (1999: 19)
identifies a possible “priestess-queen” figure on Uruk-period seals.
26
Steinkeller (1999: 125).
27
Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 300).

70
28
Ayad (2009a: 4).
29
Ayad (2009a: 4).
30
Bryan (2003: 1).
31
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296).
32
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296).
33
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Westenholz (2012: 296).
34
Bryan (2003: 3-4).
35
Bryan (2003: 5).
36
Gitton (1976).
37
Bryan (2003: 2-7 & 12); Robins (1993a: 70-71); Ayad (2009a: 6 & 139).
38
Bryan (2003: 5).
39
Feldman & Lewis (2016).
40
Stol (2016: 557); Suter (2007: 321).
41
Westenholz (2012: 300); Steinkeller (1999: 124).
42
Van de Mieroop (2016: 70); Westenholz (2012: 303); Winter (1987: 200-1).
43
Suter (2007: 321); Westenholz (2012: 304).
44
Ayad (2009a: 6); Rosalie David (2014: 21).
45
Stone (2016); Encyclopaedia Britannica (2000).
46
Stone (2016); Encyclopaedia Britannica (2000).
47
Green & Black (2000a: 273); Westenholz (2013a: 255).
48
Kriwaczek (2010: 120).
49
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83 (3).
50
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83 (2); Stone (2016).
51
Green (1992: 35).
52
Green (1992: 35).
53
Thus ca. 1800-1760. Green & Black (2000a: 273); Green (1992: 36).
54
Green & Black (2000a: 273); Van de Mieroop (2016: 298).
55
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 164-5 & 185).
56
Westenholz (2012: 301).
57
Promoted to this position to match the dominance of his city Ur over Babylonia during Ur III. Hall
(1986: 153); Beaulieu (2007: 167).
58
Hall (1985); Hall (1986).
59
Green & Black (2000a: 273).
60
Westenholz (2012: 301); Beaulieu (2007: 166).
61
Volk (1999: 101); Asher-Greve (2013: 230).
62
Green (1992: 36-37).
63
Wilkinson (2003: 92-94); Hart (2005: 14-15 & 20-21).
64
El Hawary (2016: 12); Blöbaum (2016: 197).
65
Shaw (2003a: 326-7).
66
Hart (2005: 15-16).
67
Green & Black (2000a: 272-3); Hrůša (2015: 46).
68
Hart (2005: 14-15); Wilkinson (2003: 92-93).
69
Hart (2005: 86-88); Wilkinson (2003: 113-4).
70
Green & Black (2000a: 273)
71
Hart (2005: 13); Wilkinson (2003: 95).
72
Westenholz (2013b: 49).
73
Faulkner (1962: 106), entries for mwt; Fazzini & Peck (1983: 16).

71
74
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.
75
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.).
76
Westenholz (2012: 302); Westenholz (2013a:249).
77
Hart (2005: 97).
78
Wilkinson (2003: 154); Lohwasser (2016: 123).
79
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.
80
Westenholz (2012: 292). The city is not given, but cannot be Ur if Weadock (2012: 127) is correct.
81
Dodson (2004: 23).
82
“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).
83
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).
84
Suter (2007: 322); Weadock (1975: 101-2); Westenholz (2012: 299).
85
Bryan (2003: 3-4).
86
Ayad (2009a: 3-4).
87
Westenholz (2012: 304).
88
Bryan (2003: 3-4).
89
Westenholz (2012: 304).
90
Weadock (1975: 103).
91
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.
92
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)].
93
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16; Weadock (1975: 127).
94
Sollberger (1965): UET VIII 12; Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.4.33-34; Suter (2007), p.322, 325 &
Fig. 3; Weadock (1975: 127).

72
95
Edzard (1997): RIME 3/1.1.6.12-13; Suter (2007: 322); Weadock (1975: 127).
96
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.
97
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).
98
Weadock (1975: 128).
99
Gadd (1951: 30); Weadock (1975: 128).
100
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).
101
Robins (1993a: 71-77).
102
Robins (1993a: 71); Ayad (2009a: 6).
103
Ayad (2009a: 6); Quirke (2000-3a); Bart (n.d.).
104
Ayad (2009a: 6); Dodson (2004: 23).
105
Ayad (2009a: 8-9); Quirke (2000-3a) ; Bart (n.d.).
106
Westenholz (2013a: 262).
107
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Gadd (1951); Stol (2016: 576); Weadock (1975: 109-10 & 119);
Postgate (1992: 130).
108
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15; Asher-Greve (2013: 228).
109
Gadd (1951: 28); Stol (2016: 575-6).
110
Price (2014).
111
Crawford (2015: 92 & 94).
112
Van de Mieroop (1992: 128).
113
Gardiner (1961: 298); Pemberton (2013: 186); Ayad (2009a: 9); el Hawary (2016: 16).
114
Stol (2016: 584).
115
Ayad (2009a: 142-3); Dodson (2002: 186).
116
By continuation from the Early phase (Table 3, Basic titles).
117
Koch (2012: 65), contra Ayad (2009a: 19) who nominates Amenirdis I (Dynasty 25) as the first.
118
Ayad (2009a: 19).
119
Ayad (2009a: 131).
120
Amenirdis I made three references to Osiris as her father in the Chapel of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity
in East Karnak; Ayad (2009a: 132).
121
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. Or perhaps, as argued most recently by Pope (2015:
363-4), some of the Late phase GWAs – such as Shepenwepet II – were genuinely king’s wives.
122
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.
123
Becker et al. (2016: 1).
124
Vittmann (2007), p.154 fn 83.
125
Brinkman (1996: 114); Weadock (1975: 112 & 128).
126
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.
127
Ayad (2009a: 15-16).
128
Ayad (2009a: 16-18).
129
Ayad (2009a: 18-21).
130
Ayad (2009a: 23-27).
131
Ayad (2009a: 27-28).

73
132
Stol (2016: 575-6); Brinkman (1996: 114); Weadock (1975: 112).
133
Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 394-5).
134
Caminos (1964); Wilkinson (2016: 212-9); Blöbaum (2016).
135
Most recently reiterated by Ayad (2016a: 94) and Blöbaum (2016: 183-4).
136
Bryan (2003: 8-12); Dodson (2002); Koch (2012: 44-50).
137
Ayad (2009a: 120-1 & 140-141); Leahy (1996: 155).
138
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.118 (incl. fn 13).
139
Ayad (2009: 16 & 117).
140
Luft (2010: 426).
141
Shaw (2003a: 353).
142
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.
143
Luft (2010: 427); Shaw (2003a: 350-2).
144
“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).
145
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).
146
Westenholz (2012: 305).
147
Westenholz (2012: 305).
148
Westenholz (2012: 306).
149
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).
150
Dodson (2002: 179).
151
Ayad (2009a: 111 & 118-9); Kemp (2006: 346-7); Graves-Brown (2010: 89).
152
Koch (2012: 77), as discussed in main text section titled Power and Prosperity.
153
Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 107-8).
154
Enanedu held office for at least 30 years; Gadd (1951: 35).
155
Stol (2016: 584-604). Postgate (1992: 131) has them as “daughters-in-law” of Shamash rather
than as the god’s second wives.
156
Stol (2016: 606).
157
Crawford (2015: 92).
158
Van de Mieroop (2016: 123); Crawford (2015: 112).
159
Weadock (1975: 110).
160
Stol (2016: 574). The “convent of nuns” at Sippar outlasted Samsuiluna by a century; Stol (2016:
603).
161
Weadock (1975: 111).
162
Zettler (2011), at 0:14:40-0:15:55.
163
Weadock (1975: 111).
164
Crawford (2015: 118).
165
Crawford (2015: 113).
166
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).
167
Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 393-4); Anagnostou-Laoutides (2017: 83).
168
Zettler (2011), at 0:15:00-015:46.

74
169
Ayad (2009a: 6).
170
Ayad (2009a: 10), contra Ayad (2009a: 15).
171
Ayad (2009a: 15).
172
Ritner (2009: 591).
173
Coulon (2014: 567).
174
Crawford (2015: 119).
175
Weadock (1975: 112).
176
Stol (2016: 574); Weadock (1975: 112).
177
Crawford (2015: 120-6).
178
Stol (2016: 575-6); Weadock (1975: 109); Studevent-Hickman et al. (2006: 394-5).
179
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].
180
Woolley (1982), p.237 (plan); Crawford (2015), p.11 (map) & p.124-127; Weadock (1975: 113).
181
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.
182
Ayad (2009a: 153-4).
183
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.
184
Ritner (1998).
185
Koch (2012: 60).
186
Ritner (1998).
187
Koch (2012: 59).
188
Ayad (2009a: 155).
189
Koch (2012:59).
190
Hoffmeier (1992) p.89-90 & fn 63; Schulman (1979), p.193 & fn 13.; Herodotus III, 1-4 [de
Sélincourt (1972: 203)]; Leahy (1996: 165).
191
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 79-82.
192
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 incl. fn 83.
193
Ayad (2009a: 4); Perdu (2016: 226).
194
Ayad (2009a: 4); Bart (n.d.); Perdu (2016: 225). Perdu indicates that one such institution may
relate to Horus-Re.
195
Pérez Die (1992), p.53 and Pl. XIVb & XVb; Koch (2012: 81-2).
196
Collombert (1995).
197
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.
198
Perdu (2016:229); Graves-Brown (2010: 86).
199
Dodson (2004: 23).
200
Pope (2013: 205); Pope (2014: 227).
201
Stol (2016: 568).
202
Westenholz (2012: 297-8).
203
Finkel & Taylor (2015: 90); Weadock (1975: 101).

75
204
Stol (2016: 569).
205
Stol (2016: 574).
206
Bryan (2003: 4-5).
207
Ayad (2009a: 9).
208
Leahy (1996), p.150 (note m) & 157.
209
Westenholz (2013a: 254-5).
210
Stol (2016: 569).
211
Westenholz (2013a: 254-5).
212
Morkot (2006: 153).
213
Most detailed written account is for Ankhnesneferibre, supplemented by imagery for Nitocris I.
Leahy (1996: 149 & 158-9).
214
Coulon (2014).
215
Kemp (2006: 352-3).
216
Woolley (1982: 139-47); Crawford (2015: 11).
217
Black (2000).
218
Koch (2012: 39).
219
Kemp (2006: 352-3); Robins (2008: 214).
220
Ayad (2009a), p.29 (Table 1.2).
221
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).
222
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 215); Wilkinson (2003: 155-6); Fazzini & Peck (1983); Pinkowski
(2006); el Hawary (2016: 11-12).
223
Lohwasser (2016: 123).
224
Blackman (1921: 12-14); Morkot (2006: 151); Coulon (2014: 581); Koch (2012: 65).
225
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).
226
Ayad (2009a: 90, 95, 102 & 104); Ayad (2016a: 95).
227
Koch (2012: 65).
228
CDLI (2017), Ur III: Amar-Sin, year 9.
229
Leahy (1996: 159); Pope (2014: 212); Koch (2012: 77-79).
230
Robins (2008: 75).
231
Westenholz (2013a: 255).
232
Weadock (1975), p.115-16 & fn 96.
233
Westenholz (2013a: 257).
234
Suter (2007: 340).
235
Suter (2007: 340-1); Westenholz (2013a: 255).
236
Westenholz (2013a: 257); Weadock (1975: 103).
237
Westenholz (2013a: 257).
238
Westenholz (2013a: 257).
239
Stol (2016: 566); Suter (2007), p.320 fn 10; Postgate (1992: 130); Weadock (1975: 103).
240
Ayad (2009a: 121); Robins (1993a: 71).
241
Ayad (2009a: 94); Bryan (2003: 2).
242
Ayad (2009a: 35-70); Robins (1993a: 71); Koch (2012: 74).
243
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

76
 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).
244
Ayad (2009a: 75-82 & 87-102); Koch (2012: 76) .
245
Ayad (2009a: 103-10); Robins (1993a: 71).
246
Ayad (2009a: 90, 95, 102 & 104)
247
Ayad (2009a: 70-74); Koch (2012: 74 & 81).
248
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).
249
Ayad (2009a:110-6); Koch (2012: 41); Pope (2013: 210-1); Ayad (2016a: 96).
250
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
as far afield as Scandinavia, but this Frazerian generalisation has recently come under challenge;
Sundqvist (2016: 7-12).
251
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.
252
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.
253
Westenholz (2013a: 257-8); Suter (2007: 322); Postgate (1992: 130); Steinkeller (1999: 133).
254
Steinkeller (1999), p.134 fn 106.
255
Hdt. 182.1-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114).
256
Robins (1993a: 67-70). However, see also the next endnote.
257
Blackman (1921: 12-4); Koch (2012: 79-80); Rikala (2008), esp. p.124 for the Hathor-Mut
equivalence.
258
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.”
259
Robins (1993b: 153); David (2014: 20); Graves-Brown (2010: 89).
260
Ayad (2009a: 34-51 & 151-2); Graves-Brown (2010: 90).
261
Manassa (2011: 357); Ayad (2009a: 38 & 51).
262
Koch (2012: 79-80).
263
Hdt. 182.1-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114 ).
264
Gadd (1951: 32).
265
Weadock (1975: 102).
266
Lion (2009: 166); Hrůša (2015: 76-7); Scurlock (2014: 106); Postgate (1992: 130).
267
Stol (2016: 568-73).
268
Stol (2016: 572); Sparks (2005: 279); cf. Speiser (2011: 82). See discussion in the section titled
Celibacy and the Sacred Marriage.
269
Suter (2007), p.327 fn 32, citing a presentation by Markus Hilgert at the Oriental Institute,
Chicago (30 May, 2000).
270
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.14; Westenholz (2013a: 268).
271
Ayad (2009a: 9).

77
272
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).
273
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003b: 217-8); Dodson (2004: 24-25); van de Mieroop
(2010: 275); Mark (2017); Morkot (2006: 153).
274
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.’”
275
Leahy (1996: 164).
276
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.
277
Manassa (2011: 359); Pope (2015: 363-4).
278
Bryan (2003: 13).
279
Ayad (2009a: 15, 28, 152 & 154); Ayad (2016a: 89).
280
Westenholz (2013a: 258 & 267); Hrůša (2015: 76).
281
Westenholz (2013a), p.248 (Table 12.1); Hrůša (2015: 76-81).
282
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
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).
283
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).
284
Koch (2012: 82-86).
285
As heiresses, Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre each held the title Hsi.t wr.t n.y Xnw n.y Imn.w; Koch
(2012: 62 & 77). As heiress, Amenirdis II seems to have done likewise with Hsi.t aA.t n.y Xnw
n.y Imn.w; Pope (2015: 358).
286
Li (2011); Corsi (2013).
287
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).
288
Bryan (2003: 2).
289
Westenholz (2012: 304).
290
Westenholz (2012), p.304 & fn 55.
291
Lion (2009); Westenholz (2012: 306); Westenholz (2013a: 267).
292
Westenholz (2012: 301).
293
Westenholz (2012: 304-5); Weadock (1975: 103).
294
Legrain (1937-47): UET III 864.
295
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.
296
E.g., the Adoption Stele of Nitocris. Caminos (1964); Wilkinson (2016: 212-9).
297
Török (2009: 322); Dodson (2002: 179); cf. cautions by Koch (2012: 76-77).
298
Brier (2010).
299
Van de Mieroop (2010: 275); Mark (2017).
300
Weadock (1975: 104-5).

78
301
Weadock (1975), p.104-5 & 128 fn 56; Gadd (1951: 30).
302
Gadd (1951: 30); Stol (2016: 562-3).
303
Gadd (1951: 39). Similarly Stol (2016: 557), Westenholz (2012: 304).
304
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).
305
Gadd (1951: 30 & 35).
306
Westenholz (2012: 304).
307
Van de Mieroop (2016: 96); Stol (2016: 563).
308
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003b: 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).
309
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003b: 217-8).
310
Morkot (2006: 153); Ayad (2009a: 143).
311
Ritner (1998), p.91 & fn 6.
312
Teeter (1999).
313
Ayad (2009a: 9); el Hawary (2016: 16).
314
Leahy (1996), p.164 fn 81.
315
Dodson (2002: 186).
316
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1); Dodson (2002: 186).
317
Caminos (1964: 97); Leahy (1996: 159); Dodson (2002); Pope (2013: 178 & 188); Pope (2014:
212).
318
Ayad (2009a: 30).
319
Stol (2016: 565); Kriwaczek (2010: 122-3).
320
Gadd (1951: 28); Weadock (1975: 103).
321
Lion (2009: 171-3); Stol (2016: 555-6 & 559).
322
Lion (2009: 167-9).
323
Lion (2009); Westenholz (2012: 306); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.32.
324
Graves-Brown (2010: 88); Bart (n.d.), Isis, Dyn 20; Ayad (2009a), p.10, Dyn 21 & p.29 (Table
1.2), Dyn 23-26.
325
Leahy (1996: 155).
326
Ayad (2009: 10 & 155); Török (2009: 322).
327
Bryan (2003: 4); Gitton (1976), p.72 & Pl. XIV.
328
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).
329
Leahy (1996: 148 & 151); Dodson (2004: 27).
330
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).
331
Suter (2007: 331-2 & 339); Collon (1999: 21); Westenholz (2012: 304).
332
Brisch (2007).
333
Suter (2007: 330-1); Collon (1999: 21); Westenholz (2012: 304).
334
Roberts (2004).

79
335
Suter (2007: 341) & Westenholz (2012: 304).
336
Westenholz (2012: 293).
337
Dodson (2004); Ayad (2009a: 34-115); Morkot (2006).
338
Robins (1993a: 71); Graves-Brown (2010: 90).
339
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).
340
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).
341
History of Ancient Egypt (n.d.b); Ayad (2009a: 124-9).
342
Ayad (2009a: 61-70).
343
Koch (2012: 42); Aufderhaar (2016).
344
Ayad (2009a: 42, 103-15, 118 & 132).
345
Ayad (2009a:134-7).
346
Ayad (2009a), p.104-9 and Figs. 2.11 & 2.26; Ayad (2016a: 95).
347
Quirke (2000-3b); Ayad (2009a: 36).
348
Stol (2016: 563); Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 108).
349
Van Koppen (2006: 91-92); Stol (2016: 563); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1-2; Frayne (2017):
COS 2.98.
350
Jurman (2016: 62); Koch (2012: 112-39).
351
Coulon (2014).
352
Koch (2012: 39).
353
Ayad (2009a: 15-22 & 25-27).
354
Kriwaczek (2010: 120); Westenholz (2013a: 262); Weadock (1975: 103-4).
355
Westenholz (2013a: 262); Stol (2016: 561-2).
356
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.
357
Crawford (2015: 91); Weadock (1975: 104).
358
Postgate (1992: 130).
359
Weadock (1975: 104 & 110).
360
Robins (1993a: 72-73).
361
Ayad (2009a: 15-28); Hays (2003); Koch (2012: 29-31 & 36).
362
Koch (2016: 160); Ayad (2016b: 171).
363
Ayad (2009a: 133 & 140).
364
Ayad (2009a), p.104-9 and Figs. 2.11 & 2.26; Ayad (2016a: 95).
365
Woolley (1982: 124-5).
366
Stol (2016: 564).
367
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).
368
Stol (2016: 564-5); Westenholz (2012: 303); Mark (2014); Mark (2010); Feldman & Lewis
(2016); van de Mieroop (2016; 70).
369
Roberts (2004).
370
Gadotti (2011: 195-6).
371
Green (1992: 37); Westenholz (2012: 306).
372
Ayad (2009a: 8-9); Morkot (2006: 153); el Hawary (2016: 16).

80
373
Török (2009: 322); Legrain (1908: 278-9).
374
Ayad (2009a: 111 & 118-9); Kemp (2006: 346-7); cf. cautions by Koch (2012: 76-77).
375
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.
376
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.
377
Mesopotamia: Green & Black (2000b); George (1999: 175-95). Egypt: Shaw & Nicholson
(2008:119-20); Hornung (1999: xvii-xix & 13-152).
378
Roaf (1990: 75).
379
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.
380
Penn Museum, online at https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/251212.
381
Dodson & Hilton (2004: 213-21); Jurman (2016), Figs. 4a & 4b.
382
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 240).
383
Kitchen (2009: 202).
384
Westenholz (2012: 300); Steinkeller (1999: 124).
385
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.
386
Order number: FI-000932680.
387
Ayad (2009a: 16 & 117).
388
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.”
389
Tobin (2003: 163).
390
The legal view of the GWA as a “son,” as detailed in the section titled Gender Issues, makes for
an even closer comparison.
391
Suter (2007), p.323-4 & Fig. 1; Collon (1999: 20-21).
392
Ur Online, object 6612, image B16665_8.jpg, online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/5841/.
393
Ayad (2009a), p.110-5 incl. Fig. 2.28.
394
Ayad (2009a: 10).
395
Delange et al. (2005: 99). Similar praise can be found in Edwards (1982: 578-9).
396
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.
397
Jurman (2016: 66-67).
398
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karomama_Louvre_02.JPG.
399
Suter (2007), p.334 (Table 1) & Fig. 10.
400
Louvre Museum, online at
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=car_not_frame&idNotice=12224&langue=en; non-
commercial reproduction permitted with attribution.
401
Green (1992: 36-37).
402
Fitzwilliam Museum, online at http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/collections/egypt/58993.
403
The Fitzwilliam Museum Images, licence 413-16-17.
404
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amenirdis_Med_Habou_1_c.jpg.
405
Shabaqo, Shebitqo and Necho (Fig. 10), as detailed in the section titled Succession.

81
406
Ayad (2009a: 142-3); Dodson (2002: 186).
407
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.
408
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.
409
Vittmann (2007: 139); Dodson & Hilton (2004: 232-3 & 242).
410
Steinkeller (1999: 126).
411
Van de Mieroop (2016: 348-50).
412
Hallo (1971: 68).
413
Emelianov (2016).
414
Adjusted, where necessary, to match those in Dodson & Hilton (2004: 226-47).
415
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).
416
Dodson (2002: 186).
417
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-
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) and Pope (2015: 361), 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).
418
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.
419
Contra Morkot (2016: 108) stand Broekman (2017); Becker et al. (2017), p. 4 incl. fn 6; Ayad
(2016: 91).
420
Dodson (2002), p.179 fn 1.
421
Van De Mieroop (2016: 70).
422
Steinkeller (1999), p.126 fn 79 & p.129 fn 92.
423
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.
424
Ayad (2009a: 3).
425
Faulkner (1962: 168-9); Ockinga (2012: 160); Graves-Brown (2010: 86).
426
The title of Mariam Ayad’s book, God’s Wife, God’s Servant, is derived directly from this
Egyptian double entendre. Ayad (2009a: xiii).
427
Preys (2002), p.8, p.11 fn 122 & p.12.
428
Cauville (2004: 262 & 320).
429
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16.
430
Ur Online, object 6612, image B16665_5.jpg, online at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/5841/.
431
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.
432
Westenholz (2012: 295-7); Westenholz (2013a: 249-51); Steinkeller (1999: 212-2).
433
Frayne (1993): RIME 2.1.1.16.

82
434
Edzard (1997): RIME 3/1.1.6.12.
435
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.3 & 4.2.5.2.
436
Westenholz (2012), p.296 note 3.
437
Steinkeller (1999: 122); Westenholz (2012), p.295 fn 19.
438
Steinkeller (1999: 123).
439
Steinkeller (1999: 123).
440
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.
441
Steinkeller (1999), p.124 & fn 78.
442
Westenholz (2012: 295); Westenholz (2013a: 267). For other points of disagreement, see
Westenholz (2012: 292) and Westenholz (2013a: 248 & 260).
443
Westenholz (2012: 295, 299 & 301); Westenholz (2013a: 267).
444
Westenholz (2012: 295-99); Steinkeller (1999: 127-8).
445
Frayne (1997): RIME 3/2.1.3.19.
446
Gadd (1951: 27); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.32 & 4.2.14.20.
447
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.
448
On the EPNs at Ur, “... or il semble que ces femmes y assument parfois un genre masculin;” Lion,
(2009: 167).
449
Steinkeller (1999: 105 & 109).
450
Steinkeller (1999: 112).
451
Steinkeller (1999), p.106 & 125 fn 76; Westenholz (2012: 292).
452
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 25.
453
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 48; both “[son]” and “(this)” are present in the original text.
454
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 103; likewise 104.
455
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 114, note (1).
456
Lion (2009: 167-8 & 171-3).
457
In such compositions, EMESAL is used especially when goddesses, women, or priests of Inanna
speak, as well as in cultic laments; Gadotti (2014: 61).
458
Crawford (2014: 20); Whittaker (2002: 637).
459
After Gadd (1951), Pl. XIV.
460
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.
461
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.
462
Order number: FI-000915118
463
Teppo (2008), p.76 & 85 incl. fn 64.
464
Emphasis is in the original text; Wakeman (1985: 20). Enheduana’s exile is discussed in the main
text section titled Survival.
465
Lion (2009: 171-3 & 177).
466
Lion (2009: 167); Westenholz (2012: 306).
467
Lion (2009: 179); Westenholz (2012: 306).
468
Bryan (2003: 4); Gitton (1976), p.71-72 & Pl. XIV.
469
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.”

83
470
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).
471
Ayad p.71.
472
Ayad p.16
473
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.
474
Morkot (2016: 111-2) suggests that the practice developed in the reigns of Osorkon III or Kashta,
but not earlier.
475
Ayad (2009a: 143); Morkot (2006: 153); Ayad (2016a: 93). Koch (2012)’s Tables 1 & 2 (p.11 &
13) seem to favour this too.
476
mwt=s dwA.t nTr ^p-n-wpt mAa-xrw; Jansen-Winkeln (2009:259); Koch (2012: 89).
477
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.
478
Line 3. Caminos (1964: 74); Wilkinson (2016: 213).
479
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)].
480
Bryan (2003: 11).
481
Morkot (2006: 153).
482
Leahy (1996: 155).
483
E.g., Monderson (2007: 32).
484
Ayad (2009a: 133).
485
Ayad (2009a: 103-16); Pope (2013: 210-1).
486
Leahy (1996: 148 & 151); Dodson (2004: 27).
487
Ayad (2016: 98).
488
El Hawary (2016: 11-12); Hallmann (2016: 210-8).
489
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).
490
Ayad (2009a: 155); Aufderhaar (2016: 143-4).
491
Koch (2012: 80-81).

84
492
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).
493
Lohwasser (2016: 126).
494
Aufderhaar (2016: 143-4); Koch (2012: 80-81).
495
Woolley (1982: 141, 237 & 267); Weadock (1975: 111).
496
Woolley (1982: 141).
497
Woolley (1982: 141); Crawford (2015), p.11 (Fig. 1.ii).
498
Woolley (1982: 267).
499
Crawford (2015: 90).
500
Weadock (1975: 102-3). Steinkeller disputes the interpretation in which the GIPAR was actually a
storehouse for food; Steinkeller (1999), p.106 fn 6.
501
Woolley (1982); Weadock (1975).
502
Weadock (1975: 123-4); Asher-Greve (2013: 227).
503
Weadock (1975: 116). See plans in Woolley (1982: 185) and Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa.
504
Westenholz (2013a: 258). See room C28 in Woolley (1982), p.185 (plan) and Weadock (1975), Pl.
XXVIa (plan) & p.115-8.
505
Crawford (2015: 87 & 114-5); Weadock (1975: 111).
506
Crawford (2015: 123); Weadock (1975: 113). For a plan of the temenos in the Neo-Babylonian
period, see Woolley (1982: 237).
507
Weadock (1975: 109-10 & 124); for plan, see Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa.
508
Gadd (1951: 28); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20.
509
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20, lines 34-37.
510
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.14.20; Gadd (1951: 28 & 36-38); Westenholz (2013a: 262); Weadock
(1975: 109-10); Postgate (1992: 130).
511
Weadock (1975: 119).
512
Ur Online, online at http://www.ur-online.org/file-detail/40162/.
513
Room numbers from Woolley (1982), p.185 (“Plan of the Giparu”); other information gleaned
from text in Woolley’s book and from Weadock (1975).
514
Title image in Mandal (2017), bearing the legend “Reconstruction of the sacred precinct at Ur,
circa 21st century BC.”
515
Christie (1936).
516
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.
517
Crawford (2015: 10 & 131).
518
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_Of_Ancient_Ur_Iraq.JPG.
519
Weadock (1975), Pl. XXVIa.
520
Woolley (1982: 188).
521
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/.
522
Ur Online, images B16477_1.jpg (panel a) B16477_2.jpg (panel b), online at http://www.ur-
online.org/subject/2730/.
523
Weadock (1975: 104 & 110).
524
Westenholz (2013a: 262).
525
Stol (2016: 561-2); Weadock (1975), p.110 fn 70.
526
Westenholz (2013a: 262).
527
Kemp (2006: 351).
528
Kemp (2006), p.351-3, incl. Fig. 122.
529
Koch (2012: 52); Coulon (2014: 582).

85
530
Porter & Moss (1972: 19); Coulon (2014: 569).
531
Adapted from Kemp (2006), p.353 (Fig. 122, Phase III) and Koch (2012), p.140 (Abb. 25) & 151
(Abb. 26).
532
Ayad (2009a), p.17 (Fig. 1.1), cf. Koch (2012: 38), who contests the assignation to Shepenwepet I
as speculative and inherently unlikely.
533
Koch (2012: 58).
534
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).
535
After Coulon (2014).
536
Ayad (2009a: 141); Porter & Moss (1972: 17-18); Koch (2012: 38-39 & 128-9).
537
Ayad (2009a: 78-82); Porter & Moss (1972: 193-4); Koch (2012: 55 & 134-5).
538
Ayad (2009a: 75-78); Porter & Moss (1972: 194-5); Koch (2012: 39 & 124-7).
539
Ayad (2009a: 55-58); Corsi (2013); Koch (2012: 38-39 & 121-3).
540
Ayad (2009b); Koch (2012: 25 & 114-20).
541
Koch (2012: 112).
542
Coulon (2014: 567-70).
543
Coulon (2014: 567-70).
544
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.
545
Coulon (2014: 569-70).
546
Ayad (2009a).
547
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.
548
Van Koppen (2006: 92).
549
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.
550
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1.
551
Li (2011).
552
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).
553
Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7).
554
Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7).
555
Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 230).
556
Ayad (2009a: 75).

86
557
Ayad, (2009a: 76-77).
558
Ayad (2009a), legend to Fig. 2.20b (colour plates).
559
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chapelle_Taharka_Chepenoupet.jpg.
560
Kemp (2006), p.353, Fig. 122, Phase III.
561
Koch (2012: 54); Koch (2016: 158).
562
Koch (2012: 37); Koch (2016: 159), opposed by Lohwasser (2016: 126-7).
563
Koch (2012: 29-31 & 36); Koch (2016: 160).
564
Koch (2016: 160).
565
Ayad (2016b).
566
Koch (2016: 160).
567
Robins (2008: 214).
568
Koch (2012: 26 & 31).
569
Koch (2016: 156); Ayad (2016a: 167).
570
Ayad (2009a), p.20 (Fig. 1.4).
571
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Divine_Adoratrice2.JPG.
572
Coulon (2014: 581).
573
Kemp (2006: 351); Robins (2008: 214); Li (2011: 226-7).
574
Ayad (2009a), p.105 (Fig. 2.26) & Fig. 2.25 (colour plates).
575
Ayad, Figs. 2.10-11 (colour plates).
576
Kemp (2006), p.151 (Fig. 54.2); Ayad (2016: 167).
577
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Grabkapellen_07.jpg , augmented
(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.
578
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).
579
Koch (2012: 115 & 132-3).
580
Hart (2005: 41); el Hawary (2106: 12).
581
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).
582
El Hawary (2106: 12).
583
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.
584
Kemp (2006), p.151 (Fig. 54.2); Ayad (2016).
585
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deamb_ch_Am_I_082005.jpg.
586
Koch (2012: 79-80).
587
Suter (2007: 336).
588
Ayad (2009a), p.26 (Fig. 1.5) and location data from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ch_Chep_II_Med_Habou_082005.jpg.
589
Ayad (2009a: 26); Li (2011), p.221 (Fig. 2).
590
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medinet_Habu_Grabkapellen_04.jpg.

87
591
Wilkinson (2003: 153).
592
Hart (2005: 97); Wilkinson (2003: 154).
593
Wilkinson (2003: 153-4); Pinkowski (2006: 47-49).
594
Wilkinson (2003: 153-4). This role was shared with other goddesses.
595
Fazzini & Peck (1983). Also Pinkowski (2006) and Brooklyn Museum (ca. 2015).
596
Wilkinson (2003: 154-6).
597
El Hawary (2016).
598
Ockinga (2010); Benderitter (n.d.).
599
Sullivan (2013), p.158 fn 33.
600
Sullivan (2013: 157).
601
Sullivan (2013: 157).
602
Sullivan (2013: 157).
603
Sullivan (2013: 157).
604
Contardi (2006: 144-5).
605
Sullivan (2013: 157).
606
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.
607
Brooklyn Museum (ca. 2015), slides 47-48.
608
Weadock (1975: 104 & 110).
609
Lion (2009: 166); Hrůša (2015: 76-77); Scurlock (2014: 106); Postgate (1992: 130).
610
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).
611
Stol (2016: 572); Sparks (2005: 279) also reads Sargon’s mother to be an EN-priestess.
612
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 130); Shaw (2003b: 217-18); Dodson (2004: 24-25); Leahy (1996:
164); Mark (2017).
613
Leahy (1996: 164).
614
Ayad (2009a: 117 & 152).
615
Stol (2016: 570-1).
616
Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 106-7.
617
Summers (2000: 247); Steinkeller (1999: 116); Suter (2007: 322).
618
Weadock (1975: 102).
619
Weadock (1975: 102).
620
Black et al. (2001b).
621
Stol (2016), p.573 & fn 105.
622
Steinkeller (1999: 135).
623
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.
624
Westenholz (2013a: 257-8); Suter (2007: 322); Postgate (1992: 130); Steinkeller (1999: 133).
625
Ayad (2009a: 34-51 & 151-2).
626
Manassa (2011: 357).
627
Ayad (2009a: 38 & 51).
628
Koch (2012: 79-80).
629
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.
630
Westenholz (2013a: 268); Suter (2007), p.327 fn 32, citing Markus Hilgert.

88
631
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.1.4.14; Westenholz (2013a: 268).
632
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.”
633
Bryan (2003: 13).
634
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).
635
Dodson (2002); Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1).
636
Habachi (1977: 170).
637
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.
638
David (2014: 20).
639
Becker et al. (2017: 2).
640
Steinkeller (1999), p.134 fn 106.
641
Hdt I 181.5-182.-2; de Sélincourt (1972: 114).
642
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).
643
On “Enheduanna’s Political Persona,” see Westenholz (2012: 299-304).
644
Ayad (2009a: 8-9).
645
Sullivan (2013), p.159 fn 36.
646
Dodson (2002: 179).
647
Leahy (1996: 158).
648
Ayad (2016a: 89 & 97-98); Meffre (2016: 48-51).
649
Van de Mieroop (2016: 70).
650
Lion (2009: 179).
651
Westenholz (2012: 304); Weadock (1975: 103); van de Mieroop (1992: 125-6).
652
Van de Mieroop (1992: 125).
653
Mark van de Mieroop, cited by Westenholz (2012: 305).
654
Westenholz (2012: 305).
655
David (2014: 21).
656
Pope (2013: 193).
657
Ayad (2016a: 96 & 99); Koch (2012: 75-76).
658
Becker et al. (2017: 3-4); Koch (2012: 76-77).
659
Koch (2012: 77).
660
Becker et al. (2017: 3-4). On the various High Stewards, see Vittmann (1978: 100-43) and Koch
(2012: 12-15).
661
Becker et al. (2017: 3), corroborated by Koch (2012: 15).
662
Becker et al. (2017: 3-5).
663
Shaw (2003a: 349); Dodson & Hilton (2004: 234).
664
Roberts (2004).

89
665
Baines & Eyre (1983: 85).
666
Tomb of Ireturu; Baines & Eyre (1983: 82).
667
Gadotti (2011: 195-6).
668
Green (1992: 37).
669
Wakeman (1985); Hart (n.d.a),
670
Weadock (9175: 127-8). Numerical values are consistent (within 1 year) of data in CDLI (2017).
671
Gadotti (2011: 199).
672
Frayne (1997), p.237 3b & 4.
673
Weadock (1975: 128).
674
Gadd (1951: 30); Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.13.15. Westenholz (2012: 306) gives year 8 of
Warad-Sin.
675
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.
676
Ayad (2009a: 16).
677
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.
678
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.
679
Lower value from Dodson (2002), p.186 & fn 47, higher one from Ayad (2009a), p.12 & 22
(Table 1.1).
680
Dodson (2002: 179 & 184); Caminos (1964: 71).
681
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Berlin_025.jpg.
682
The surrounding inscription is transcribed, transliterated and translated (into German) in Koch
(2012), p.161, top of page.
683
Wikimedia Commons, online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bas-
relief_of_Shepenupet_II_at_the_mortuary_temple_of_Ramesses_III_1.jpg.
684
Wikimedia Commons, online at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Ankhenesneferibre_by_John_Campana.jp
g.
685
Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1) & p.27; confirmed by Leahy (1996: 160).
686
Assuming her designation in 747-742 BCE [Broekman (2009: 101); Koch (2012: 181)] and
Kashta’s accession in 760 BCE (Fig. 10).
687
No value can be calculated for Shepenwepet I.
688
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.
689
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).

90
690
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).
691
Caminos (1964: 97) calls it “a college or sisterhood;” see also Dodson (2002). For a recent
summary, see Pope (2013: 178).
692
CDLI (2017), Ur III: Szulgi, years 15 & 17.
693
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.
694
Weadock (1975: 104-5); Gadotti (2011: 199) believes that they often died in office.
695
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.
696
Gadd (1951: 30); Stol (2016: 562-3).
697
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.
698
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.
699
Koch (2012), p.11 & 13, Tables 1 & 2.
700
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
Broekman’s proposal, and (as shown in Table 7) her scheme envisages no overlap between
Libyan and Nubian GWAs.
701
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).
702
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.
703
Shorter estimate from Dodson (2002: 186), longer estimate from Ayad (2009a), p.22 (Table 1.1).
704
Bryan (2003: 12); Graefe (1994); Pope (2013: 187); Leahy (1996: 163).
705
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).
706
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)].
707
Dodson (2002: 186); Leahy (1996: 155 & 157); Ayad (2009), p.22 (Table 1.1).
708
From the adoption of Ankhnesneferibre in 595 BCE to the death of Nitocris I in 586 BCE; Koch
(2012: 55).
709
Pope (2014: 204).
710
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.”

91
711
Pope (2014), p.204 incl. fn 106; Pope (2015: 357-8).
712
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.
713
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.
714
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).
715
Stol (2016: 563). Her tenure is discussed later in the main text (section titled Survival).
716
Gadd (1951: 30).
717
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.
718
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).
719
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).
720
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.
721
Koch (2014: 407).
722
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.
723
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.
724
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

92
 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).
725
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)].
726
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)].
727
Koch (2012: 55 & 58), i.e. from the accession of Ankhnesneferibre in 586 BCE to the arrival of
the Persians in 525 BCE.
728
Figulla & Martin (1953: 544); Weadock (1975), p.104 & 128 fn 156; Gadd (1951: 30).
729
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).
730
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.
731
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.
732
Westenholz (2012: 304 & 306); David (2014: 21).
733
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.
734
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.
735
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.
736
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.
737
Ayad (2009b: 46).
738
Ayad (2009a: 129-32); Ayad (2009b: 46); Ayad (2016a: 92).

93
739
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).
740
Ayad (2009a: 133-37); Ayad (2016a: 93).
741
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).
742
Ayad p.140
743
Ayad (2009a: 143); Morkot (2006: 153); Morkot (2016: 111-2); Ayad (2016a: 93); Koch (2012:
11-2).
744
Ayad (2009a: 130 & 133-5).
745
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).
746
Caminos (1964: 75).
747
Ayad (2009a: 142).
748
Ayad (2009a: 139).
749
Ayad (2009a: 23-26 & 139-40); Dodson (2002). Vittmann (2007: 154) maintains that Amenirdis
II may still have served some time as GWA.
750
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.”
751
Coulon (2014: 582).
752
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).
753
Ayad (2009a: 24); Bryan (2003: 10-11).
754
Pope (2013: 189); Corsi (2013: 539).
755
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).
756
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.
757
Koch (2014), a thorough re-examination of erasures in GWA and other relevant inscriptions.
758
Vittmann (2007: 154); Pope (2013: 185-6).
759
Shaw & Nicholson (2008: 45).
760
Dodson (2002: 186); Morkot (2016: 114).

94
761
Westenholz (1999: 53-54); Westenholz (2012: 301).
762
Kramer (2011: 336), “Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna: The Adoration of Inanna of Ur.”
763
Gadd & Legrain (1928): UET I 292; Legrain (1937-47): UET III 277.
764
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.
765
Weadock (1975: 128); Jacobsen (1987: 447).
766
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.
767
Jacobsen (1987: 447); van de Mieroop (2016: 67 & 87-88).
768
Jacobsen (1987: 447); van de Mieroop (2016: 67 & 87-88).
769
Van de Mieroop (2016: 88).
770
Jacobsen (1987: 449 & 470-71), extract from between lines 20 to 360.
771
Weadock (1975: 128).
772
Westenholz (1993); Stol (2016: 567).
773
Crawford (2015: 90 & 99); Weadock (1975: 108).
774
Van de Mieroop (2016: 96); Stol (2016: 563).
775
Westenholz (2012: 305).
776
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.
777
Frayne (1990): RIME 4.2.5.1.
778
Weadock (1975: 128).
779
Weadock (1975: 128). Stol (2016: 563)’s “previously unknown priestess, En-megal-ana” is
presumably the same individual.
780
Fitzgerald (2002).
781
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.
782
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.
783
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.”
784
Lohwasser (2016: 132).
785
Ayad (2016a: 89).
786
Ayad (2009b: 49).
787
Perhaps due to the greater remoteness of the time-period, preceding the Egyptian counterpart as it
does by well over a millennium.
788
Dodson (2002).
789
Westenholz (2012: 304).

95
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.
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.
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

96
 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.
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

97
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.
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.

98
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.
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.

99
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.
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

100
 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
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

101
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
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.

102
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.
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

103
 & 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.
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.

104
 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.
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.

105
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.
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

106
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.
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.

107
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.
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.
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.

108
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
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

109
 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
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.
2003a The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, I.
2003b 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.

110
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/
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.
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.

111
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].
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 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.

112
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,
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.

113
 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.
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

114