Observations Regarding the Symbolism of the Blue and Cap Crowns as used in Iconographic Motifs of the Ramesside Period

Observations Regarding the Symbolism of the Blue and Cap Crowns as Used in Iconographic Motifs of the Ramesside Period Steven Gregory Introduction The similarity of the two crowns here discussed has long been recognised in modern scholarship (Davies 1982, 70, n.15; Harris 1973, 10, n.33), although the specific purpose of each crown remains uncertain. The circumstances in which the various pharaonic crowns were worn are now known largely from the extant iconographic representations. In these depictions the use of a particular crown may be thought to be invested with some meaning, to represent some abstract state or ideal which may have symbolic reference to a king or to the office of kingship itself. From the study of such representations the blue crown has generally been considered to express the legitimate succession of the king but has also been interpreted as representative of the king’s mortal nature or, perhaps more often, as a ‘war crown’. The cap crown has often been said to identify a royal or divine son; yet it has also frequently been given ‘priestly’ connotations (Harris 1973, 10, n.33; Wente 1979, xv). The latter aspect provides the focus of the present study which investigates portrayals of festivals relating to the rituals of kingship, as used in the decoration of the Theban monuments of the New Kingdom. This study demonstrates that during the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Dynasties iconographic motifs evolved which provide a relatively secure context from which the symbolic nature of the blue and cap crowns may be considered further, concluding that it may be inappropriate to suggest that the cap crown denotes any specifically ‘priestly’ aspect of its wearer. The Blue and Cap Crowns in Historiography The apparent ‘priestly’ connotations of the cap crown were noted by Harris (1973, 10, n.33) who discussed the ‘close-fitting cap (with rings)’, as often confused with the blue crown, worn in the Nineteenth Dynasty by Seti I and by Ramesses II, and in the Twentieth Dynasty by Ramesses III and IV, and subsequently by Herihor. However, Harris makes no suggestion as to the nature of the evidence from which the ‘priestly’ inference may be drawn. Nevertheless, Ertman (1976, 64) refers to Harris’ identification of the cap crown as symbolic of kings acting in the role of ‘son and/or priest of a deity’, an inference he supports with a reference to the pictorial representations of Herihor, ‘the priest who ruled in Dynasty XXI, [who] seemed to favour the cap-crown over the khepresh possibly to emphasize his dedication to and worship of the gods’. Perhaps the strongest association between the cap crown and priestliness is made by Wente (1979, xv) who, in his preface to the Oriental Institute of Chicago’s publication of the iconography of the Court of Khonsu Temple, seems to echo the remarks of Ertman in emphasising the ‘priestly nature’ of this headdress. Wente (1979, xv) points out that there are more than one hundred scenes in the Court which depict Herihor and that in ninety-seven 84 Steven Gregory percent of them the king wears the ‘close-fitting skullcap that is worn by a king when his high priestly function is emphasised.’ Wente (1979, xv) qualifies his observations further by noting that, in the scenes in which he wears the skullcap, Herihor also wears the leopard-skin robe often worn by high priests, but never wears the ‘artificial beard associated with kingship’. However, in subsequent reviews of Wente’s work, opinions regarding the priestly nature of the skullcap seem divided. Kitchen (1981, 301–302), with direct reference to Wente’s analysis, claims that Herihor’s wearing of ‘the close-fitting skullcap’ is one of the factors which serve to demonstrate that ‘while posing as a ‘king’, Herihor’s real role was really that of a priest’. This view was reiterated by Vernus (1984, 164) who, noting the ninety-seven percent of scenes in which Herihor wears the ‘calotte ecclésiastique’, concludes that, ‘c’est avant tout en tant que grandprêtre d’Amon que Herihor accomplit les functions du pharaon’. However, Russmann (1981– 1982, 104–105) finds that Wente’s interpretations of the ‘skullcap’, as worn by Herihor, may be ‘premature’, and that his use of it may otherwise represent ‘an early stage of late Egyptian notions about royal iconography’. Davies (1982, 69–76) presents lexicographical evidence to show that the blue khepresh crown, first attested iconographically at the beginning of the New Kingdom – although textual references establish its existence as early as the reign of Neferhotep III in the Thirteenth Dynasty – was, in its original form, the cap crown. Davies was unable to identify the specific function of either crown but does state that ‘the early representations of the cap-crown … shed little, if any, light on the special function of the original khepresh. Contemporary parallels show the king performing similar rituals before the same range of gods, wearing the same dress and ornament, but adorned with a variety of head-dresses. If there is any special significance to the use of the cap-crown, as opposed to, for example, the nemes headcloth or bag-wig in such rituals, it is far from clear. There is good evidence to support the view that the khepresh in its fully developed blue-crown form functioned as the symbol of coronation, and thus of legitimate succession, to be worn, as Leclant has indicated ‘quand on veut insister sur la caractère d’héritier, de successeur de Pharaon’’ (Davies 1982, 75). Davies (1982, 75) further suggested that the cap crown may also have served as a symbol of legitimate succession, but accepted that the ‘present evidence’ did not allow certainty in this respect. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Leahy (1992, 227) ‘if legitimation were integrally or exclusively bound up with the blue crown, one might expect the Kushites to have worn it, since they had the same need to justify their right to rule as the Persians or the Ptolemies’. Leahy (1992, 239) remarks further that ‘the features common to the two crowns – coiled uraeus, disc decoration, inner lining, and probably material – and striking similarities between them in some representations suggest that they remained in some sense complementary, and may even have continued to share the same name. To quote Russmann (1981–1982, 105), “…the contrasting patterns of their use throughout the New Kingdom and Late Period suggest that the significance of the cap at any one time was largely a product of its relationship to the blue crown, whether as equivalent, alternative or (possibly) opposite”. One might reverse this formulation, since the cap was the older of the forms. In a period of high profile for the cap, c.750–600 BC, the blue crown is scarcely to be seen’. It seems, however, that for the great variety of headdresses adopted by ancient Egyptian kings there is little which can be said with certainty regarding the specific purpose or symbolism of most of them. In a study of the aspects of royal crowns Goebs (1998, 460) suggested that crowns are a part of the insignia which reflect the transformation of the mortal king into a supernatural being integrated into the ‘cosmic sphere’. Goebs (1998, 460) concluded that ‘the detailed symbolism of the many crowns in different contexts and their The Blue and Cap Crowns 85 multiple combinations remains to be established’. However, in a subsequent article (2001, 321–322) she does suggest that the cap crown identified the wearer as the ‘royal or divine son’ and that the blue crown, which may have evolved from the cap crown, ‘came to be the quintessential crown of the living ruler, which could incorporate the symbolism of other headdresses’. Yet the priestly aspect of the cap crown has continued to find expression in scholarly discussion. Teeter (1997, 12) cited Wente’s remarks regarding the skullcap in her comment that Herihor’s ‘usurpation of royal power’ finds expression within the court of the Temple of Khonsu; the ‘primary area where the high priest depicted himself as king’. Perhaps more surprisingly, while presenting an interpretation of the evidence in rebuttal of claims denying Herihor’s kingship, Thijs (2005, 75, n.23) remarks: ‘that Herihor stressed the priestly side of his kingship also seems evident from the depictions of king Herihor on the walls of the Temple of Khonsu: e.g. the iconographic emphasis in the priestly skullcap’. As Wente (1979, xv) suggests, Herihor’s decoration of Khonsu Temple does provide a corpus of material which lends itself to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. However, it is also clear that the themes adopted by Herihor are those firmly established in earlier repertoires of Theban temple decoration (Wente 1979: xv–xvi). Therefore, to determine the extent to which the wearing of a skullcap – without a royal beard – may define a priest, or a king, or even a priestly aspect of kingship, I conducted a series of surveys in other Theban monuments of the New Kingdom. The Blue and Cap Crowns in Iconography Firstly it seems pertinent to point out that, in all the images I have examined, priests do not appear to wear skullcaps. The majority of priests depicted in Theban temple scenes are those carrying the barques of the king and the Theban Triad in festival processions (Figure 1) and these are invariably shown as bald or shaven-headed. When images of specific priests appear, such as the images of the High Priest, Amenhotep (Figure 2), the same trend applies – although it remains possible that further details indicating some form of headdress may have been added in paint which has subsequently worn away. Here it may be of interest to note, however, that Herodotus (II, 37) comments that the bodies of Egyptian priests were completely shaven. He further notes that priests wore linen garments, and ‘shoes of the papyrus plant’, but makes no mention of any skullcap. While inconclusive in itself, and some 600 years after the floruit of Herihor, the testimony of Herodotus does lend some weight to the argument that priests, in ancient Egypt, were not identified by the wearing of any specific headdress. Regardless as to whether the commentary of Herodotus may be pertinent to the present discussion, I found nothing on the head of any priest depicted in the New Kingdom monuments of Thebes which resembled the headdress adopted by Herihor as king, and which is afforded priestly connotations by Wente, Teeter, Kitchen, and others. Herihor’s headdress is augmented with a diadem, streamers, and – perhaps most importantly as an indicator of kingship – with a single uraeus. This headdress, which may be more appropriately designated the cap crown, is amply attested in iconographic representations decorating many Theban monuments yet, in every instance I noted, was worn not by a priest, nor by a high priest of Amun, but by a king. As noted by Quirke and Spencer (1992, 70) ‘the separate nature of the king is expressed in the clothing and crowns that only the king could wear’; and in this respect, as pointed out by Leahy (1992, 238), a ‘depiction, including the cap and diadem, was a perfectly acceptable image of a pharaoh within the Egyptian tradition’. 86 Steven Gregory Figure 1. Priests carrying the barque of Amun in a scene inscribed for Ramesses II. South wall, Hypostyle Hall, Temple of Amun, Karnak. (Photograph by Spencer Dean). Figure 2. The High Priest of Amun, Amenhotep, before Ramesses IX. East wall, north–south axis, Temple of Amun, Karnak. (Photograph courtesy of Kenneth Griffin). The Blue and Cap Crowns 87 Nonetheless, it is true to say that the cap crown, as worn by Herihor, is never accompanied by the royal beard. Therefore, in attempting to discern the extent to which the beard may define kingship in the New Kingdom, I conducted further examination in a number of Theban monuments. During these surveys, which were conducted in areas that offered a variety of scenes representing a specific king in his performance of a variety of duties and in the presence of diverse deities, it became apparent that, while the cap crown is not worn with great frequency in comparison with other headdresses, it is never worn with a beard by any of the kings noted. It became equally apparent that the blue crown, a headdress depicted in many more scenes than the cap crown, was also invariably worn without a beard. A clear example of this phenomenon was found on the walls of the Great Hypostyle Hall of Karnak, decorated by Seti I and Ramesses II (Nelson 1981, pls.1–257), where eighteen scenes were noted in which the king wore the blue crown and in seven he wore the cap – in none of these images does the king wear the beard. Further assessments were conducted in other areas: the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu; the Amun temple at Karnak; Luxor Temple; and in the West Bank temples of Seti I and Merenptah and, while exact numbers are not reproduced here, some general observations may be made: • When wearing crowns which have some geographical connotation – the red crown of Lower Egypt; the white crown of Upper Egypt and the double crown of the unified Two Lands – the king is normally depicted wearing a beard. • When wearing the nemes headcloth the king is normally depicted wearing a beard. • When wearing the Nubian wig the king is normally depicted wearing a beard. • When wearing the khat headcloth the king is normally depicted without a beard. • When wearing the blue crown the king never wears a beard. • When wearing a cap crown the king never wears a beard. Some confirmation of these generalities is offered in Table 1, which relates to a survey conducted in the Ramesseum. One of the main points ensuing from this investigation is that Ramesses II, whose kingly status is unlikely to be questioned, is depicted more often without the beard than with – and again, the beard is never worn in association with either the blue or cap crowns. While the results of such research do not identify the purpose of the beard it can be said with some certainty that while the artificial beard has been identified as a symbol adopted by kings since the Early Dynastic Period (Quirke and Spencer 1992, 71–72) it does not define kingship as, if such were the case, it might be expected that it would be worn on all occasions in which a king performs royal duty. Rather the beard seems to define some aspect of kingship; an aspect related either to a specific function which a king performs, or to the nature of kingship itself. Moreover, perhaps of greatest interest in the present discussion is that neither the blue or cap crown ever appear to be worn in association with the beard – thus the lack of a beard can no more imply ‘priestliness’ for the wearer of the cap crown than for the wearer of the blue crown. The absence of a beard on occasions in which the king is shown wearing the blue crown has also been noted by Hardwick (2003, 119–120) who proposes that the blue crown itself identifies the king as being active in his ‘mortal state’ – and perhaps the same could be said for the cap. The difficulty in gaining any deeper understanding as to the nature of such headdresses is seemingly one of establishing a secure context for comparison. The difficulty in establishing the relationship between the crowns was summarised by Leahy (1992, 227) who comments that ‘given the paucity of well-dated material surviving from Steven Gregory 88 the period between the New Kingdom and the Ptolemies, it is almost as difficult to establish a reliable picture of the frequency or context of depiction for any item of royal headgear as it is to assess its significance, and any conclusions must be correspondingly cautious’. Location Headdress Red Crown White Crown Double Crown Blue Crown Cap Crown Nemes Headcloth Khat Headcloth Nubian Wig Total Hypostyle Hall with beard 1 6 2 without beard Astronomical Room with beard without beard Second Court with beard 15 1 9 2 3 9 4 14 1 2 15 without beard 12 3 0 6 9 7 23 32 Table 1: association of crowns and beards in the Ramesseum* *Criteria: it should be noted that in compiling the information for this table individual crowns were noted only where sufficient detail remained to identify with certainty the type of crown originally portrayed and, in respect of that crown, where sufficient detail remains of the lower face and upper torso to suggest the presence or absence of a beard. It should also be noted that a number of ‘combination’ crowns were omitted from the results of this survey as I am unable, at present, to identify with certainty which element of such a crown should be assessed in relation to the presence of a beard. The absence of a secure corpus of material is also noted by Myśliwiec (1988, 89) in a study of royal headdresses focussed on the period between the Twenty-first and Thirtieth Dynasties. He remarks that ‘iconographic records constituting the basis for our observations are much more scarce than the New Kingdom ones. That is why one can hardly detect any rules or preferences typical of particular kings’. However, I believe that a secure context does exist in a motif used in the portrayal of festival processions of the New Kingdom – perhaps ironically, the very motif used by Wente (1979, xv) as evidence for the specific combination of the skullcap and leopard-skin as denoting a ‘king’s high priestly function’. This motif appears on the pedestal supporting the barque of Amun as depicted in the Second Court of the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu (Figure 3) and shows four figures of a king, each with arms raised in support of an overarching pt symbol. It is of particular note that there appears to be nothing in the text surrounding the motif which overtly suggests a ‘priestly function’. In fact the motif itself is securely bounded within the frame of the barque pedestal and is thus remote from any descriptive text other than a single cartouche before each of the four kings. Wente does not appear to offer any explanation as to why such a function should be assumed. Nevertheless, allowing that the motif is symbolic and not purely decorative, the question remains as to its purpose. The Blue and Cap Crowns 89 The twA pt Motif in Depictions of New kingdom Festival Processions Interpretation of the twA pt Motif The motif, as found on the barque pedestals discussed here, has been described as a scene showing ‘kings holding up the sky’ (Porter and Moss 1972, 310, 418, 500). Kurth (1975, 2, 96–98) identifies the motif as an example of the twA pt which, as a visual expression of the concept that the sky was supported on pillars, was expressed pictorially from the time of the Pyramid Texts to the First Millennium AD; the supports of the sky being variously shown as images of sceptres, gods, or the king. Kurth (1975, 105–106) further remarks that the ‘Himmelsträger’ varied from monument to monument in accordance with ancient Egyptian concepts of the world and I believe that, as used in the context of the scenes depicting Theban festival processions, the motif expresses more than a notion describing the physical structure of the universe; it rather articulates a specific concept. The motif was, I propose, a visual metaphor defining one of the fundamental aspects of kingship. Figure 3. Motif depicting four kings inscribed on the pedestal supporting the barque of Amun. Second Court, Temple of Ramesses III, Medinet Habu (Photograph by Steven Gregory). The Theban temples provided the stage upon which the rituals relating to the legitimisation of kingship were enacted and the evolution of the iconography applied to these monuments, reflecting the underlying ideologies of the rituals performed, can be traced in the extant architecture of the Theban landscape from the Middle Kingdom to the late Ramesside Period (Ullmann 2007, 4–12). This artistic and architectural expression of ideology was given a new impetus in the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, and formalised in the extensive reworking of the ritual landscape by Amenhotep III (Assmann 2001, 194; Niwiński 1988, 16– 17; Silverman 1995, 70–72) and, during the New Kingdom at least, the ideological principles upon which the legitimacy of the king was founded was expressed in what was perhaps the most important of these rituals to be portrayed, the Opet Festival (Bell 1985, 251; Kemp 1989, 90 Steven Gregory 206). In the Opet Festival the god, Amun, transformed each new king from a mortal human into the mortal embodiment of the divine ka, the spiritual essence carried by each successive royal ancestor since the beginning of time, and it is within this ideological context that the related iconography should be considered. Once transformed the new king, as the divine son of Amun, was empowered to maintain the order of the universe created from the chaos of the Nun, a concept defined by the ancient Egyptians as ma’at. In the context of the artistic expression of ritual it is the efficacy of the king as the upholder of ma’at which appears to have been presented symbolically in the twA pt motif, a motif which was added as a further refinement to the depiction of barque pedestals in scenes portraying Theban festivals such as the Opet and Festival of the Valley in the post-Amarna Period – as will be discussed further below. In interpreting the symbolism of this motif it is of note that, almost invariably, it appears only on the pedestal of the Amun barque. Moreover, it is important to note that it is not an image depicting ‘kings’ holding up the sky as, although a number of figures are present, only one king is in fact represented. This is apparent from the Medinet Habu example cited by Wente (1979, xv, n.39) where each figure is identified by cartouche as being Ramesses III himself. Images of Ramesses III are also identified by cartouche in this motif as applied to the three dimensional example of a pedestal which is situated in the Temple of Khonsu (Figure 4). A similar, three-dimensional example exists from the reign of Seti I – now in the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien (Kurth 1975, abb.15) – on which each figure is again identified by cartouche as Seti. Furthermore, a similar motif occurs some eight hundred years later in a scene in the Amun temple at Karnak, each figure is identified as the Macedonian pharaoh, Phillip Arrhidaeus (University of Chicago and Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey 1940, pl.217). In this respect the number of kings shown in the twA pt motif may be viewed as aesthetic rather than ideological, and a matter which does not affect the interpretation of the iconography. In fact there are examples of the twA pt in which one figure supports the sky – as in the altar inscribed for the Kushite king, Atlanarsa, at Gebel Barkal (Reisner 1918, pl.14). Therefore it seems clear that, regardless of the number of figures used, the motif describes an activity of the one living king. Secondly, it is of note that the task which the king performs is not that of merely ‘holding up the sky’. The king is shown standing on the ground; a position in which he could be said to be keeping the earth and sky apart. The image therefore presents a visual statement in which the king is seen to uphold the ordered state of the universe created at the beginning of time (Teeter 1997, 1–3), a state only maintained by the constant effort of both men and the gods to prevent a return to the universal chaos of the Nun which existed before time. The return to disorder was perhaps, in Egyptian philosophy, ultimately inevitable; and would be signalled by the destruction of the world as the two poles, the sky and the earth – as represented by the creator god and Osiris respectively – collided. This notion is expressed in Coffin Text 1130: ‘I have placed millions of years between me and that Weary-hearted one, the son of Geb; then I shall dwell with him in one place. Mounds will be towns. Towns will be mounds. Mansion will destroy mansion’ (Parkinson 1991, 31–33, n.5). The Blue and Cap Crowns 91 Figure 4. Altar inscribed for Ramesses III. Temple of Khonsu, Karnak. (Photograph by Steven Gregory). Evolution of the twA pt motif Kurth (1975, 105–106) suggests that the earliest examples in which the twA pt motif occurs on the supports for shrines and the gods’ barques originate from the time of Seti I, although the surviving pictorial representations indicate that it may have been introduced, in some form, a little earlier in the post-Amarna Period. Depictions of festival processions showing the barque of Amun, at rest upon a pedestal, survive from the reign of Hatshepsut. However, in these early scenes the twA pt motif is not shown; nor is it evident in similar scenes inscribed for Amenhotep III in the central barque shrine at Luxor Temple although it does occur in the Solar Court and Colonnade Hall – areas also constructed in the reign of Amenhotep III. As suggested above, the kingship rituals enacted in festival processions appear to have been formalised in the reign of Amenhotep III, when the most complete extant depiction of the Opet Festival procession was commenced, as inscribed on the inner faces of the walls abutting the central axis of Luxor Temple as it passed through the Colonnade Hall. It is therefore tempting to ascribe the advent of the motif to this reign, however, while the Colonnade Hall was initially constructed by Amenhotep III the process of decoration was continued by Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and Seti I (Johnson 1990, 29–31; Leprohon 1999, 301–302). Thus, the reworking of the images over a number of reigns makes it difficult to establish with certainty when the twA pt motif was introduced and the absence of the motif in Amenhotep’s scenes in the central barque shrine does suggest that the use of the twA pt motif, in the context of the present discussion, was a post-Amarna development. To the north of the Colonnade Hall scenes show the Amun barque at rest at Karnak and here the motif is inscribed on the pedestals, although the figures in the motif are not identified 92 Steven Gregory by cartouche. In the surrounding inscriptions the cartouches of both Horemheb and Seti I appear yet these are unhelpful in attributing the motif to either reign because, as pointed out by Brand (2000, 90), the southern part of the Colonnade Hall had been left uncarved on the death of Tutankhamun, and Horemheb had been content to usurp the cartouches of Tutankhamun and Ay in the completed decoration (Gaballa 1976, 86). The decoration of the southern part of the Hall was completed by Seti I, as seems certain from the king’s unaltered cartouche in those scenes (Brand 2000, 90) but here the pedestals supporting the Amun barque, shown at rest in Luxor Temple, contain no motifs. That the motif does occur in a scene showing the Amun barque in the Solar Court is equally unreliable as while a cartouche of Seti I appears, the scene itself has, on stylistic grounds, been attributed to Amenhotep III (Johnson 1990, 28–30, ill.2); although, as suggested above, it seems unlikely that the twA pt motif appeared in the original work in the reign of Amenhotep III. Thus, while Seti I subsequently added his cartouche, the pedestal motif could again have been added by any earlier king in the post-Amarna Period. Nevertheless, while the adoption of the motif in festival iconography cannot be securely assigned to Seti I – as suggested by Kurth (1975, 105–106) – he does play an important role in its evolution. With the suspension of Amun festivals in the Amarna Period (Jacquet-Gordon 2006, 3) some artistic innovation in the post-Amarna Period is perhaps unsurprising, and some evidence that the floruit of the early Ramesside kings was an important period in the development of the twA pt motif, as applied in representations of barque processions, may be found in Seti’s temple at Abydos where the motif occurs on barque pedestals in chapels dedicated to Re-Harakhti, Ptah, and Amun. These chapels, and the Osiris Suite, were among the first areas of the temple to be decorated and the relief work was completed prior to Seti’s death; it therefore seems safe to attribute the work to Seti himself rather than to his successor, Ramesses II – although the latter may have completed some of the final colouring in these areas (Brand 2000, 160). On the north wall of the chapel of Re-Harakhti a form of the twA pt motif occurs in which, while supporting the sky, the four kings kneel. The leading king of this group wears the cap crown, the others the blue crown – and all wear the short kilt. The motif on the south wall of the chapel shows a similar group, altered only in that the leading king’s figure now wears the leopard-skin robe (Calverley and Broome 1935, pls.15, 18). In the chapels of Ptah and Amun the more usual version of the motif depicting four standing kings – three wearing short kilts and a blue crown led by a figure in cap crown and leopard-skin robe – appears on each pedestal (Calverley and Broome 1935, pls.5, 10, 23). An anomalous version appears on the pedestals of the king’s barque in which four fecundity figures are shown beneath the pt hieroglyph, each figure carrying a tray of offerings (Calverley and Broome 1935, pl.35). Here it is of note that, in a discussion of the distinction between the blue and cap crowns as occurring in the Abydos temple of Seti I, Harris (1973, 10 and n.34) excludes from his remarks representations of the king wearing the cap ‘incorporated in stands for divine barks’. The reason given for such exclusion is that the representations in question are ‘clearly statuettes’. It seems likely, although not certain, that Harris here refers to images of the king wearing blue and cap crowns in representations of the twA pt motif, however, the basis for his interpretation of the images as ‘statuettes’ is unclear. Returning to the inscriptions in Luxor temple, a common factor is that the twA pt motifs, both in the Colonnade Hall and Solar Court, each show four kings with each king figure dressed identically in the short kilt and blue crown. That none of these images show a king in the cap crown, or leopard-skin robe, points to this adaptation being a development which evolved during Seti’s reign, and probably in the process of decorating his Abydos monument. Further adaptations made by Seti I are apparent in the examples of the motif which occur in The Blue and Cap Crowns 93 both Amun barque shrines in his temple at Qurna where, in each example, five kings are shown. Here the leading figure again wears a cap crown and leopard skin robe, a format which remains in Seti’s scenes on the north side of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, although here only four kings in total are shown. The four-king version of the motif, with the leading figure dressed in leopard-skin robe and cap crown, becomes the standard and is used in the images carved for Ramesses II on the south wall of the Great Hypostyle Hall. It is remarkable that in scenes inscribed for Ramesses II in the triple barque shrine situated in the Peristyle Court at Luxor Temple the twA pt motif appears in the chambers dedicated to Mut and Khonsu in addition to that of Amun; yet it is entirely absent from the shrines of Seti II and Ramesses III in the First Court of the Temple of Amun at Karnak. The motif again occurs on the pedestal supporting the Amun barque depicted in the Second Court in the Temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu – the example referred to by Wente (1979, xv, n.39) as indicative of the priestly nature of the cap crown and leopard-skin robe – and, whereas it is absent from a similar scene inscribed for Ramesses XI in the Hypostyle Hall within the Khonsu temple, it is shown on the Amun barque portrayed by Herihor in the Court. Thus, while the use of the motif is somewhat inconsistent in the later Ramesside Period, its form, as devised in the reign of Seti I, remains constant. Conclusions It seems that the twA pt motif, as used in iconography depicting aspects of the ritual festivals of the New Kingdom, thus provides a relatively secure context in which the relationship of the blue and cap crowns may be considered. In this context the twA pt motif is applied in specific circumstances. While the pedestal physically supports the barque of the king’s divine father, Amun, the motif showing the king holding apart the earth and sky presents a visual metaphor which may be interpreted as signifying the principal duty performed by the living king for Amun – the maintenance of universal order, ma’at. Moreover, the iconographic development of the motif as applied in such circumstances can be charted chronologically. The initial form of the motif seems to be that showing a number of representations of the king with each figure similarly dressed in short kilt and blue crown, and this is subsequently superseded by a revised form which consistently describes the leading figure in a different costume, the cap crown and leopard-skin robe. As it has been established, above, that each figure represents the same living king, each performing the same function, it seems unlikely that the cap and blue crowns are to be seen here as opposites. It seems equally unlikely that the cap is used, in the context of the motif, merely as an alternative to the blue crown without there being some iconographic value in making such a change. Rather it is more probable that, as the motif developed, a decision was made to emphasise a particular aspect of kingship by adjusting the appearance of the leading figure. That the adjustment was made to the leading figure in a motif relating to kingship ritual implies that it symbolises an important aspect of that ritual and I propose that this specific iconography, the cap crown and leopard-skin robe, mark nascent kingship – it denotes the rebirth of the divine ka in the body of the mortal king, thereby identifying the wearer as the son of Amun. In this interpretation the blue and cap crowns may be seen as complementary in that, while both may be said to define the legitimate status of the mortal king, the cap crown of the leading figure provides visual confirmation of the manner in which the king acquires his earthly power through the mystical transformation of the ritual of the Opet Festival. 94 Steven Gregory The relevance of the cap crown as symbolic of nascent kingship is also implicit in images inscribed for both Seti I and Ramesses II in the Hypostyle Hall of the Amun temple where these kings each wear the cap crown when accompanying the Amun barque in procession. It is also of note that, in each case, the cap-crowned head of the living king is superimposed upon another motif depicting the line of royal ancestors in the form of the souls of Pe and Nekhen (Figure 5). In these images, as I have discussed elsewhere (Gregory 2007, 138), it does not seem accidental that the cap-crowned head of the large scale figure of the king falls exactly into the line of the ancestors, and that some iconographic significance is implied is suggested by the altered spacing in the ‘ancestor’ motif to accommodate the large-scale image of the living king. Figure 5. A scene inscribed for Ramesses II showing the cap-crowned head of the king superimposed upon the ‘ancestor motif’. South wall, hypostyle hall, Temple of Amun, Karnak. (Photograph courtesy of Kenneth Griffin) It is also pertinent to note that the theme of emergent kingship by the process of divine recreation is implied in instances of the use of the cap crown elsewhere. I have noticed that it is often worn in the presence of ithyphallic gods as, for example, by Seti I before the ithyphallic Amun-Re on columns within the Great Hypostyle Hall. Ramesses IV wears the cap while censing an androgynous deity which appears to be Amun-Re-Kamutef with the head of Sekhmet, as depicted in one of the small rooms abutting the shrine in Khonsu Temple. Perhaps of most significance is the one example of the cap crown known to have survived into modern times, that found on the mummy of Tutankhamun (Goebs 2001, 324). This headdress was described as being manufactured of ‘fine cambric-like linen’ which has decayed leaving the diadem which held it in place augmented by a uraeus (Griffith Institute, Carter No. 256,4,t). Here it seems that the king was not so much dressed in the appropriate regalia for death, but for his rebirth as the next manifestation of the divine ka; death being overcome by the transference of the ka from father to the son who is born once more as Horus (Assmann 2001, 107–108). The Blue and Cap Crowns 95 Thus, while the interpretation of icons describing these aspects of the mythology of kingship would benefit from further research, it appears reasonable to propose that, rather than indicate any element of ‘priestliness’, the cap crown, like the blue, identifies its wearer as a legitimate and current reincarnation of divine royalty. Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity. University of Birmingham Acknowledgements I am grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Tony Leahy, for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of the material in this article which formed part of my thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of M.Phil.; I am similarly grateful for comments made in the examination of that thesis by Dr. Martin Bommas and Dr. John Taylor. Thanks are also due to Mr. Spencer Dean for his assistance during the work on this project carried out in Thebes. Bibliography Assmann, J. (2001) The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (translated by D. Lorton). London, Cornell University Press. Bell, L. (1985) Luxor temple and the cult of the royal ka. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44, 251–294. Brand, P. J. (2000) The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis. Leiden, Brill. Calverley, A. M. and M. F. Broome (1935) The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos, II: The Chapels of Amen-Re, Re-Harakhti, Ptah, and King Sethos. London, The Egypt Exploration Society the University of Chicago Press. Davies, W. V. (1982) The origin of the blue crown. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68, 69–76. Ertman, E. L. (1976) The cap-crown of Nefertiti: its function and probable origin. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 13, 63–67. Gaballa, G. A. (1976) Narrative in Egyptian Art. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Goebs, K. (2001), Crowns. In D. B. Redford (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 1. 321–324. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Goebs, K. (1998) Some cosmic aspects of the royal crowns. In C. J. Eyre (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists: Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995. 447–460. Leuven, Uitgeverij Peeters. Gregory, S. R. W. (2007) High Priest or King: A Study of Elements of Theban Temple Iconography to Determine the Role of Herihor. Unpublished M.Phil thesis, University of Birmingham. Griffith Institute, The (2000–2004) Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation; The Howard Carter Archives. http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/256,4,t-c256-4st.html. Hardwick, T. (2003) The iconography of the blue crown. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89, 117–141. Harris, J. R. (1973) Nefertiti rediviva. Anta Orientalia 32, 5–15. Herodotus. (1992) The Histories (translated by G. Rawlinson). London, Everyman. Jacquet-Gordon, H. (2006) The festival on which Amun went out to the treasury. In P. J. Brand (ed.) Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. 1–4. Memphis, The University of Memphis Department of History. Johnson, W. R. (1990) Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: styles and intentions. In M. Berman (ed.) The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis. Papers presented at the International Symposium held at the Cleveland Museum of Art, 20–21 November 1987. 26–46. Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press. 96 Steven Gregory Kitchen, K. A. (1981) Review of University of Chicago and Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey. The Temple of Khonsu, Volume 1: Scenes of King Herihor in the Court. Bibliotheca Orientalis 38, 301– 302. Kemp, B. J. (1989) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London, Routledge. Kurth, D. (1975) Den Himmel stützen: die “TwA pt” Szenen in den ägyptischen Tempeln der griechischrömischen Epoch. Bruxelles, Fondation égyptologique reine Elisabeth. Leahy, M. A. (1992) Royal iconography and dynastic change 750–525 BC: the blue and cap crowns. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 78, 223–240. Leprohon, R. J. (1999) Review of Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple. Volume 1. The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonade Hall, with Translation of Texts, Commentary and Glossary. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 58, 301–303. Myśliwiec, K. (1988) Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI – XXX. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp Von Zabern. Nelson, H. H. (1981) The Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. Volume I, Part 1: The Wall Reliefs. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Niwiński, A. (1988) 21st Dynasty Coffins from Thebes: Chronological and Typological Studies. Mainz am Rhein, Philip von Zabern. Parkinson, R. B. (1991) Voices from Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Middle Kingdom Writings. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. Porter, B. and Moss, R. L. (1972) Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, II: Theban Temples. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Quirke, S. and J. Spencer (eds.) (1992) The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt. London, British Museum Press. Reisner, G. A. (1918) The Barkal temples in 1916. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5, 99–112. Russmann, E. R. (1981–1982) Review of University of Chicago and Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey. The Temple of Khonsu, Volume 1: The Scenes of King Herihor in the Court. Serapis 7, 103–106. Silverman, D. P. (1995) The nature of Egyptian kingship. In D. O’Connor and D. P. Silverman (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Kingship. 49–92. Leiden, Brill. Teeter, E. (1997) The Presentation of Maat: Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt. Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Thijs, A. (2005) In search of king Herihor and the penultimate ruler of the 20th Dynasty. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 132, 73–91. Ullmann, M. (2007) Thebes: origins of a ritual landscape. In P. F. Dorman and B. M. Bryan (eds.) Sacred Space & Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes. 3–25. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. University of Chicago and Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey (1940) Medinet Habu, IV: Festival Scenes of Ramesses III. Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vernus, P. (1984) Review of University of Chicago and Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey. The Temple of Khonsu, Volume 1: The Scenes of King Herihor in the Court. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70, 163–165. Wente, E. F. (1979) Preface. In University of Chicago and Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey The Temple of Khonsu, Volume 1: The Scenes of King Herihor in the Court. ix–xvii. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.