User:Alaa.792/sandbox

The Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep

Commonly known as the “tomb of the two brothers,” the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep is an Egyptian tomb that was uncovered in 1964 in the northern area of Saqqarra in the great necropolis of Memphis, the Old Kingdom Capital. It dates to the 5th Dynasty (ca. 2465 – 2323 BC. This burial chamber was built for two Egyptian males named Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, both of whom served as mortuary priests in the sun temple of King Niuserre. In addition to being mortuary priests, these two men were also the principle manicurists and hairdressers of the king, and thus held the title of “Overseers of Manicurists of the Palace.” This position is identified as one of honor because it allowed them to touch the body of a living god, the king, in the course of their duties. Although this title is typically bestowed only on one individual, in this case both men held the title of “overseer.” The reason this tomb was discovered late into the 20th century is because this tomb was buried under the rubble that resulted from the excavation of the Causeway for the Pyramid of King Unas of the late Fifth Dynasty.

Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep had 9 titles in total which were displayed throughout the complex. Along with being prophets of Ra in the sun temple of Niuserre, Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were also “wab priests” of the king and the mortuary temple of Niuserre, as well as “the king’s administrator, confidant of the king and privy counsellor.” Most interestingly they were also known as “the one whom his lord loves every day” and “the one honored by the great god.” From the decorative program employed in the complex the families of both men can be determined. The family of Niankhkhnum consists of his wife Khentikawes and 6 children and one grandson. Similarly, Khnumhotep was depicted his wife Khenut and his daughter and five sons.

Plan of the Tomb (See for example: Plan of the Tomb) This mastaba tomb is one of the largest in the Saqqara necropolis and appears to have been enlarged and changed in the course of its construction, which occured in 3 phases. This tomb is unusual because it consists of a dual chapel complex. The entrance to the tomb is on the northern side and is followed by the first vestibule carried on two piers. The first vestibule leads through a corridor into two additional rooms, with the doorway to the second chamber on the south wall. A narrow corridor on the western wall of the first room then leads to a large open courtyard. To the south of the open court, lies a short passage and a second vestibule which opens onto a long rectangular chapel oriented on a north-south axis. To the west of the chapel is a small room for offerings. The oldest part of the tomb was carved into the rock, while three of the rooms and the courtyard were added later in stone.

In the offering room, which is also the inner most portion of the tomb, there are two false doors. To the left is the damaged door of Niankhkhnum, while the intact one on the left belongs to Khnumhotep. These doors are the focal points of the entire tomb, due to their symbolic importance as the “doors” to the afterlife. Finally, it is important to note the number of other vertical burial shafts along the east wall of the antechamber, two of which were probably the original shafts for both men.

Decorations in the Tomb

One feature of this tomb is that all the decorative scenes are done in parallel; whereas any scene depicting Niankhkhnum has its mirror image for Niankhkhnum with slight variations. The names and titles of the tomb owners are inscribed symmetrically on the architrave on the pillars in the portico, with the name of Niankhkhnum on the far right hand and Khnumhotep on the far left hand side. On the southern wall of the portico are scenes that depict Khnumhotep spearing fish, with images of his wife and children between his legs. Similarly, scenes of Niankhkhnum as the hunter are also depicted. On the eastern and western walls are images from the funerary rites of both Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. One image shows the statue-shrine of Khnumhotep on its journey by boat to Sais, while large animals are sacrificed as part of his funerary rites. .

Art in ancient Egypt played a major role in religious function. An image of an object substituted for the entire object. For this reason Egyptian art was characterized by conceptualism, whereby an object was represented from multiple perspectives in isolation from its surroundings in order to convey as much information as possible. This characteristic finds expression in the images on the thickness of the doorway into the first room, where registers of food represented in an ordered fashion. Similarly images from daily life are depicted all around the tomb. However, funerary representations of daily life, should not be interpreted literally, and are often subject to open and ambiguous interpretations.

The door of the first chamber is decorated with a representation of rolled mat, cut into stone. The owners of the tomb face each other across the doorway in a mirror image. On the left side of the lintel, stands Khnumhotep and on the right is Niankhkhnum. Both of the men are standing facing each other with butchers between them. See for example this pencil sketch of the image here. On the other side of the door both men are seen standing with their respective sons Ptahshepses and Hemre. Here it becomes important to note that in more traditional representational programs, the presence or absence of a spouse in the decorations is often indicative of complex gendered relationships. The appearance of the families of both men is thus important in understanding the relationship between the two men.

One of the first uncontroversial scenes of the two men is found on the east wall of the second room, in which the tomb owners are depicted with interlinked arms sharing the same chair as they greet the offering bearers and visitors of their tomb. This image is often reserved for husband and wife iconography. Furthermore, Khnumhotep was often portrayed using motifs that were reserved for women, such as smelling lotuses and standing to the left of a male. However, the most controversial image of the tomb owners appears on the western wall of the 6th room. In this image the two tomb owners are depicted in an affectionate posture. Due to the fact that the men are facing each other and the proximity of their faces, many queer theorists have wondered if this was the first recorded “kiss” between two men. However, it is important to note that the families on both men are depicted to the left and right of the men. This image is repeated on the east wall in innermost doorway in the rock cut chapel, though this time without the families on either side. See the image in question here.

Brother or Lovers – the relationship of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep

When Mounir Basta uncovered the tomb, a controversy arose around an image in the tomb in which the two deceased men were seen embracing. Although the families of both men were present in the decorative program only the two men are buried in this tomb, which was considered a rarity in itself. The controversy around this tomb arises from the fact that many of the poses depicting these two men were typical for portrayals of “husband and wife.” However, in keeping with contemporary Egyptian norms, Basta asked whether these two men were brothers, father and son or two officials in the king’s palace, who had enjoyed a cordial friendship in life and wished to keep it after death. This unusual imagery would become the topic of significant debate among Egyptologists surrounding the nature of the relationship between Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep.

Greg Reeder examined the iconography of the tomb of the two manicurists, and would become one of the most significant scholars of much queer narratives. He explores the question of whether they were “brother or lovers,” and comes to the conclusion that that there must have been a deep same-sex affection between the two men. In order to make a more thorough claim, Reeder cross examines the iconography of the tomb and places it within the context of other depictions of tombs that also had the remains of twins at the time. After pointing out that there is no clear textual evidence from the tomb or the remains of the deceased that these men were in any way biologically related, Reeder highlights the unparalleled affection depicted between Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. Reeder relies on several lines of evidence to support his argument that these two men were not twins or bothers. However, due to the fact that Reeder’s arguments are based on interpretations of art, there is nothing conclusive to support his claim.

Central to queer theory is the recognition that all perceptions of gender, masculinity and femininity are socially constructed. For this reason Richard B. Parkinson provides a good analysis of the prevalent notions of masculinity in the Middle Kingdom through analysis of status of masculinity in ancient Egypt. Unlike Reeder, Parkinson is far more aware of the tendency of academics to “project current western conceptions of homosexuality – which is dominated by the notion of a permanently deviant and distinct minority – onto same-sex relations in the past or other societies.” He describes Egypt as a generally heteronormative society and notes that even within the corpus of fictional literature of the Middle Kingdom, terms such as hmjw “back turner” were used in a derogatory manner in reference to same sex desire. His study, which primarily focused on the readings of the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, proved that visual arts and literary works played a major role in the construction of masculinity. He theorizes that masculinity is glamorized in Middle Kingdom elite culture, in which masculinity is presented in terms of “hardness, strength, and dominance, including over other males, and sometimes in sexualized terms.” As such texts that discuss the existence of same sex desire must be viewed within their particular cultural context, thus illuminating the fact that these texts were are not meant to be homo-erotic, but a more animalistic form of superiority. Though Parkinson does not deny the possibility of a historical possibility of same sex relations, but argues that we should avoid monolithic views of history.

Though images of embracing males were common in ancient Egypt, they were normally reserved for kings who merged with the gods, as opposed for two mortal men. This has caused many Egyptologists to propose that these two men were Siamese twins joined at the hips. One of the first Egyptologists to make the argument that Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were in fact twins was Baines. However, it is often argued that Baines even excluded his own assertion that “as one moves towards the focal false doors, the owners cease to relate to other figures, becoming concerned with each other and the next generation, and then with each other only.” The most recent attempt to understand the iconography of the tomb was put forth by David O’Connor who noted that conjoint twins in ancient Egypt were depicted in an over-lapping fashion. In an interview conducted with the New York Times, Dr. O’Connor elaborated on his views. He had compared the images of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep to the iconography of Chang and Eng, who were famous conjoined twins in 1811 in Siam. O’ Connor pointed to the parallels of Chang and Eng, who were also represented arm in arm and through other scenes of proximity. Very much like their Egyptian counterpart, they also engaged in fishing and hunting and both had wives and children.

Yet despite the fact that O’Connor’s theory has gained much academic appreciation, there is one loophole to this theory that is often over looked. Khnumhotep outlived Niankhkhnum, and in fact there is evidence that the later additions to the temple were added later on by Khnumhotep. This historical fact means that if Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum were in fact conjoined twins, they would have had to undergo surgical separation. The earliest surviving example of surgical tools from ancient Egypt, were found in the tomb of royal physician Qar, which is dated to the 6th dynasty. Surgery was popularly used in ancient Egypt, particularly in funerary contexts, whereas missing body parts were reattached to the deceased body. However, it seems highly unlikely that ancient Egyptians would have had the kind of sophisticated medicinal expertise to perform surgical separation of conjoined twins.

The Names of Niankhldrnum and Khrnrmhotep

The names of the two brothers were cited by O’Connor as a testament to their twinship. In the Old Kingdom, it was common practice for parents to give their children similar names. Yet in order to distinguish between the children, the names of children would be modified to express information about the child. For example, the name of a sibling may express his/her relative age, or a physical feature peculiar to that child. The name Niankhkhnum means “life belongs to Khnum” and Khnumhotep means “Khnum is satisfied.” Among the names of the deities occurring in the old kingdom personal names, the god Khnum comes in fifth place after Ptah, Re, Hathor, and Horus. As the god who fashioned human beings, Khnum was responsible for creating the twins. In ancient Egypt, there was a fear of twins, due to their potential danger on the mother and children’s life. So despite the fact that the choice of referring to “Khnum” is thus exceptional in the old kingdom, it may have been seen as appropriate for the twins’ names. In this context, the reference to Khnum can be seen as stressing the graciousness of the god and would present the birth of the twins as a divine act under the protection of the god. Furthermore, the word “Khnum,” aside from being a reference to the god, also meant “joined together.” For this reason, many scholars such as O’Connor have suggested that this play on words was used in a manner so as to describe the twins’ condition of being “united together.”

The Eternal Mystery

Due to the fact that much of the analysis surrounding this tomb is based on interpretations of art, there is no definite answer. Despite the milestones of advances in the technology utilized in understanding ancient Egypt, definitive answers are very difficult to obtain in this sub-field of history. However, it would seem that the evidence is far more in favor of an argument in support of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep's twinship. This is due to the fact that Egyptian society was heteronormative, and the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep is very public in its displays. A survey of Egyptian history shows a tendency to deface parts of Egypt's history that the Egyptians saw as violating the balance of life. For example both Akhenaton and Hatshepsut were both deleted from Egypt's history. It is hard to imagine that if Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were in fact the first homosexual couple, that they would not have experienced a similar fate.

Footnotes