THE CURIOUS CASE OF HERESANKH, A PERFECT PLAYER OF THE SISTRUM OF MIN AND A PRIESTESS OF THE KING’S SISTER PHILOTERA

The present paper aims to resolve problems around the identification of Heresankh, a perfect player of the sistrum of Min and a priestess of the king’s sister Philotera, and to propose her position within the powerful family of high priests of Memphis during the Ptolemaic rule. The study reveals that she most likely belonged to the secondary branch of the same family, both lines having the joint ancestor in the priest Anemhor, who was in fact the father of Nesisti-Pedubast, the earliest known high priest of Ptah under the Hellenistic Dynasty. She most likely lived between 249 BC and 183 BC. The marriage union of her related parents, Neferibre and Herankh, must have influenced her social standing at Memphis since Heresankh is the only known priestess of the most important sanctuaries within the Memphite necropolis, namely the Sarapieion, the Osirion of Rutiset and the Anoubieion, all located at Saqqara and Abusir.

ranking sacerdotal position within ancient Egyptian temple. 6 A text on the stela London BM EA 389 testifies about her funeral in year 22 of an unnamed Ptolemaic king and that funerary rites were conducted by her son called Nesisti. 7 Heresankh died when she was at the age of 66 years, 5 months and 5 days. Unfortunately, the burial place of Heresankh is presently unknown, but was certainly located somewhere in the vast necropolis of Saqqara, possibly in the area of the Sarapieion, or even further north near Abusir. 8 The burial date was used as a starting point to calculate her year of birth and to chronologically position her family within the Memphite society during the Ptolemaic era. According to a modern consensus, a year 22 is believed to correspond to year 22 of Ptolemy II, 9 meaning that Heresankh could have been born around 330 BC and died in 263 BC. Later, another dating was proposed,to year 22 of Ptolemy III (226/225 BC), 10 but have been somewhat neglected in modern historiography. 11 In fact, the choice between Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III is only based on the career of the only other known priest of Philotera at the time, Nesisti-Pedubast, the earliest known Ptolemaic high priest of Memphis himself, and assumption that he served in the cult of Philotera before or after Heresankh. Both chronologies position Heresankh in the late fourth to theearly third centuries BC, which now seems to be highly improbable scenario, especially since another known priest of Philotera needs to be taken into account, 12 together with stylistic similarities and differences between numerous studied monuments (such as layout and material, depictions and decoration, dimensions), text composition, palaeography, and prosopographical data.
Nevertheless, not all researchers agreed with H. de Muelenaere's dating of Heresankh's monuments. Already P. Munro  , and uniform depictions and decorations (winged sun-disc with pendent uraei is at the top, while beneath is a scene of the deceased presenting libations to the enthroned figure of the god Osiris with an offering-table in between; below are lines of hieroglyphic text, composed in similar way) as the stela of Heresankh. This correspondence further indicates that Heresankh could have lived between 249 BC and 183 BC. Historical implications of this alternative dating have never been discussed in modern historiography. This paper aims to resolve current dating issues regarding Heresankh and propose her placement within a secondary branch of the family of Ptolemaic high priest of Ptah united with a main branch by a marriage.

The cult of Philotera and Heresankh
The first chronological clue is the cult of Philotera, the deceased sister of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. 17 Heresankh is the only known priestess of the cult of Philotera. In fact, the only two other known priests of Philotera in Egypt belong to the family of the high priests of Ptah. The first one is Nesisti-Pedubast, the earliest known high priest of Ptah under the Ptolemies, 18 who was promoted during the reign of Ptolemy II and was dead likely by year 37 of the same ruler (248 BC). 19 Another one is also called Nesisti, who was the son of high priest Horemakhet and his wife Nefertiti, himself being in all likelihood his father's successor as the highest priest of Memphis in the early second century BC and served probably under Ptolemy V and Ptolemy VI. 20 He was the priest of both Arsinoe II and Philotera mentioned together (god's servant of the Goddesses of Two Lands Arsinoe and Philotera, Hm-nTr nTrtjnwtAwjJrsnAt PjldrAt), 21 which is in accordance with Greek literary tradition where a reference to the worship of both sisters together is preserved. 22 Similarly, priests of Arsinoe IIare attested in the family of high priest of Ptah for the first four generations: it seems that after the death of high priest Nesisti, the son of high priest Horemakhet, sometimes after 183 BC, this title was apparently transferred to Heru III (174-131 BC), high priest of Letopolis certainly sometimes after the deaths of his father, high priest Heru II, in 164 BC and probable brother, high priest Psamtik, before 131 BC, 23 probably related by marriage to the family of high priest Nesisti. 24 The main question that arise from this reconstruction is whether Heresankh was the leader of the cult of Philotera before or after the appointment of Nesisti-Pedubast. Firstly, the death of Heresankh in 263 BC seems to match perfectly commonly accepted date of the appointment of Nesisti-Pedubast as a high priest of Memphis in 263/262 BC. 25 Thompson also comments that the apomoira, or "portion" tax, was assigned for the cult of Arsinoe II to be maintained in each temple in regnal year 23 of Ptolemy II (263 BC) and connects it to the appointment of new high priest. 26 If so, Nesisti-Pedubast would have succeeded Heresankh as leader of the cult of Philotera. The main objections to this scenario are (1) the date of Nesisti-Pedubast's promotion as a high priest of Ptah, (2) his social status at Memphis before he was appointed to the highest priesthood, (3) his close cooperation with Ptolemy II and his court, and (4) temporal uncertainty of the introduction of the cult of Philotera in traditional temples and clear intention that two sisters need to be worshiped together, at least initially.
His funerary stela, London BM EA 379, 27 documents that, among many positions he received from the Ptolemaic king, Nesisti-Pedubastwas appointed as the priest in the cults of both royal sisters, Philotera and Arsinoe II respectively, commemorating the introduction of the royal cult in Memphis. When exactly Philotera died and was deified are uncertain at present, 28 but she certainly predeceased her well-known sister Arsinoe II, 29 who may have died in 268 BC. 30 Since the mortuary cult of Arsinoe II started to appear outside Alexandria only after year 20 of Ptolemy II (266/265 BC), 31 it seems more likely that Nesisti-Pedubast was a rather perfect candidate for the first priest of bothking's deified sisters, which again perfectly corresponds to Greek literary tradition and his personal promotion by Ptolemy II as the highest-ranking official in the ancient capital of Egypt and the centre of traditional kingship and culture. 32 Since only three indigenous individuals are known to be officiating the cult of Philotera in Egypt, two of them together with her sister Arsinoe II, it is highly probable that her cult was introduced to the indigenous temples together with the cult of Arsinoe II, making Nesisti-Pedubast her initial priest and Heresankh his successor. Otherwise, after the death of Nesisti/Pedubast sometimes before 248 BC, the cult of Philotera would completely disappear from surviving records, only to be revived in the first half of the second century BC under his great-grandson Nesisti, three generations afterwards. Nesisti-Pedubast's successors as high priests of Memphis, Anemhor II and his son Horemakhet, were only known as the priests of Arsinoe II. 33 Previous scenario would 24 Thompson 2012 2 : 122 n. 121 states that priests of Arsinoe II are Ahmose, Heru II and Psamtik, which is incorrect. 25  make unnecessary chronological gap in title holders, which could be successfully filled with the career of Heresankh as the priestess of Philotera. It is therefore plausible that the title returned to the main family branch of high priests of Ptah after Heresankh's death in 183 BC, when a high priest Nesisti, son of Horemakhet, succeeded the position from her and reunited the cult of Philotera with the cult of Arsinoe II.

The formal careers of Heresankh and Nesisti-Pedubast
Nesisti-Pedubast claims da he was chosen by the king among others in Memphis to fill the city's highest religious position, which seems to disappear from the records after the reign of the Persian king Xerxes I (486-465 BC). 34 He was probably well in his 40s when he was chosen as high priest of Memphis and priest of the dynastic cult by Ptolemy II. 35 Although his funerary stela London BM EA 379 lacks clear internal dating except the mention of 23 years of his office in Memphis (m rnp 23.t) in line 2 of the main text, 36 the sequence of numerous titles he had received from the Ptolemaic king specified in lines 3, 4 and 5 was certainly arranged according to their significance in administrative and cultic organization and unveils his supremesocio-political status at Memphis at the time: great [governor] of Memphis ([HAtjpat] wr m Inb-@D), 37 god's servant of the king's daughter, the king's sister Philotera (Hm-nTr n sA.t nsw sn.t nswPjjlwtrA), god's servant of the king's daughter, the king's sister, the king's wife, the daughter of Amon-Re, master of the Two lands, Arsinoe, the goddess who loves brother, beloved of Isis, the mother of Apis (Hm-nTr n sA.  '. Also, her statue has been found within the Sarapieion itself. 44 Additionally, among all known female members of the priestly families at Memphis during the Ptolemaic era, her social status is still unprecedented: at present, Heresankh is the only known priestess of the temples within the Memphite necropolis. Her uppermost rank in the social hierarchy of Memphis must have been connected to her ancestry. All other known women in Memphis during the Ptolemaic period are usually only sistrum players of various divinities. For example, all known consorts of Ptolemaic high priests of Ptah were usually designated as sistrum players. 45 Besides, the only other known perfect player of the sistrum of Min, the lord of Senut, 46 is Berenice, the daughter of a priest Meryptah and his wife Arsinoe, who died probably sometimes between 141-132 BC after a life of 64 years, 8 months and 26 days. 47 Also, according to the currently available sources, access to the highest offices within the sanctuaries at Saqqara and Abusir has been restricted only to the family of high priests of Ptah and their closest relatives. 48 Therefore, both H. de Meulenaere and J. Quaegebeur were right when they presumed that Heresankh belongs to the same family as Nesisti-Pedubast, 49 though for different reasons than those presented here.

Who was Heresankh?
Several scenarios were proposed for the identity of Heresankh. H. de Meulenaere initially proposed that Neferibre and Herankh, Heresankh's parents, 50 were identical with close examination of this break by the present author, it is highly plausible that the next sign should be Gardiner O6, 'mansion, temple, enclosure (Hw.t)', while in abreak could have been written Gardiner D28, 'soul (kA)'. A new reading would therefore be @wt-kA-PtH ('Enclosure of the ka of Ptah'), the name of themain cult centre at Memphis, but from the New Kingdomonwards also used to refer to the city itself (cf. the like named parents of a priest Neferibre, dedicant of the stela Vienna 130. 51 According to assumptions that Heresankh died in year 22 of Ptolemy II and was a predecessor of Nesisti-Pedubast in the cult of Philotera, she was placed in the generation of Nefer(ibre), the grand-father of Nesisti-Pedubast, 52 who was therefore identified with Neferibre B of Vienna 130 (Fig. 1). In that case, Heresankh would have been the great-aunt of Nesisti-Pedubast, who subsequently might have inherited her position in the cult of Philotera. This reconstruction is solely based on the dating of Vienna 130 to the early fourth century BC by H. de Meulenaere. However, neither the dating of the stelae London BM EA 389 and Vienna 130, nor prosopographical information support this scenario. Since the stela London BM EA 389 is similar to the stela London BM EA 391 of high priest Horemakhet, as already mentioned above, the stela Vienna 130 shows striking similarities to another monument dedicated by a member of the family of high priests of Ptah, i.e. the so-called Saqqara stela of Nefertiti, the daughter of the same Horemakhet and his wife Nefersobek: instead of usual Htp-dj-nsw formula on the beginning of the texts, both texts start with words of gods (Dd mdw jn), while employment of hieroglyphic sign Gardiner W18 in noun qbhw, 'libation', instead of usual hieroglyphic sign Gardiner W15, and noun mDt, 'ointment', before Spst, 'ritual jar' is consistent. 53 The Htp-dj-nsw formula is also absent from the London stela of Horemakhet and the Bologna stela of Ahmose. On the other hand, P. Munro wrongly considered her as the daughter of high priest Anemhor II, 54 who was the father of high priest Horemakhet, assuming that Heresankhs of the London stela and the Louvre statue are two different women. 55 This idea is repeated recently, when M. Panov 53 Panov 2017a: 395. This has been already proposed by J. Quaegebeur (1974: 74-75). 54 Munro 1973: 162. 55 Coincidently, the mother of Horemakhet had the same name as the mother of Heresankh, Herankh (PP III 6041 = PP IX 6052a), who is prominently attested on monuments of her sons. Nevertheless, these two women cannot be identical for various reasons, although are chronologically close.
389". 56 Ultimately, it has been proposed that Heresankh could have been the daughter of another Neferibre, the son of high priest Nesisti-Pedubast, 57 which shall be revisited below.
The identification of her father should be a starting point for possible solution. Although it is almost certain that the name Neferibre was somewhat common during this period, it should be noted that the total number of leading priestly families at Memphis during the Ptolemaicera was, although impossible to calculate, rather small and that most of the preserved monuments in fact belong to them. Also, each of their members tends to have been connected to one another in a certain way since most of them had worked in the same or complementary state institutions and temples or moved in the same circles. Finally, certain families strictly controlled specific priestly offices at Memphis for generations and tended to extend their power to other priestly sectors in and beyond the city itself in various ways, using massively heredity, marriage and nepotism, as well as to combine their religious positions with different administrative offices.
If Heresankh was living as early as year 22 of Ptolemy II, either her father Neferibre A or her probable brother Neferibre B can be identified with Nefer(ibre), the grandfather of high priest Nesisti-Pedubast.Nefer (ibre) Bakry 1972: 75;Devauchelle 1983: 135, 138;Panov 2017a: 157. the statue Alexandria 27806 respectively might be the one and the same. The main problem remains the dating of the stela Vienna 130. Earlier dating to the fourth century BC should be abandoned respecting already mentioned similarities to the Saqqara stela of Nefertiti, the daughter of high priest Horemakhet, who certainly died in the first half of the second century BC. Therefore, neither Neferibre A nor Neferibre B of Vienna 130 could be the same individual as Nefer(ibre), the grandfather of high priest Nesisti/Pedubast.
The connection between two families is Heresankh herself. As already mentioned above, the same sanctuaries in the Memphite areaspecified in the titularies of the people attested on the stela Vienna 130 are mentioned in the titulary of Heresankh on her Louvre statue, showing that she served as the only known priestess in the same temples as her father Neferibre A and the two ancestors of high priest Nesisti/Pedubast respectively, while a full brother-sister relationship for her and Neferibre B is beyond certain. The internal organization of a text on the stela Vienna 130 is also helpful here. More specifically, the line 6 contains the names of Anemhor and Neferibre, the same ones of the father and grandfather of Nesisti/Pedubast, both holding the same sequence of Memphite priestly titles: 'god's servant of Ptah, master of the secrets of the house of Ptah and of Rosetjau (Hm-nTr PtH Hrj sStA n pr PtH RA-sTAw)'. This set of titles covers the responsibilities for both the temple of Ptah within the city of Memphis and the Memphite necropolis, which perfectly corresponds to the titularies of Neferibre and his son Anemhor on the stela Vienna 82 and the statue Alexandria 27806 respectively. Nevertheless, the position of these names in the text of Vienna 130 is problematic. Both names hold the last and the penultimate position in a line of seven individuals: Neferibre son (sA) of Neferibre born to Herankh sA Psamtekmen sAPeteharendjotef sA Anemhor sA Neferibre. This would usually be interpreted as a linear ascent as it was already suggested by D. H. Kelley, who proposes to see here a linear paternal line of priests of Ptah reaching the First Persian Period (Fig. 2), hence identifying Neferibre son of Neferibre as the grand-father of Nesisti-Pedubast, but in reality only following the identifications made by H. de Meulenaere. 61 However, the usual practice, when naming both parents and the ancestors of a father, was to name the father's ancestors before naming the mother. 62 The problem was caused by the writing of the name of Neferibre's mother between the name of his father and other names. H. de Meulenaere suggested that this could be an error and that it should be written 'his son (sA=f)' instead of only 'son (sA)' before four individuals named after Herankh, citing examples from the Sarapieion, 63 and transforming them into four sons of Neferibre B and not his ancestors. Additional argument for this proposal is the lineage of a priest Psamtekmen, attested on two undated statues Chicago F 31697 and Aquitaine 8636, 64 where he is designated as the son of Neferibre and Heru. This Neferibre is therefore identified with Neferibre B, the brother of Heresankh.  Both of his arguments are unsustainable. In so far available non-royal stelae from the Sarapieion, 65 if the names of the children of dedicant are mentioned, they are always followed by the name(s) of their mother(s), which is clearly lacking on the stela Vienna 130. Possible solution is to suppose that a scribe originally intended to name the ancestors of the dedicant's mother, meaning that sA of Psamtekmen is an error for sA<.t> of Psamtekmen. This has already been proposed by P. Munro. 66 The feminine -t is found also omitted on the already mentioned Saqqara stela of Nefertiti, which is securely dated to the early second century BC. 67 If we add to these arguments that the funerary stela London BM EA 389 of Heresankh is similar to the funerary stela London BM EA 391 of high priest Horemakhet, the father of Nefertiti, it seems plausible that Heresankh and Neferibre were in fact contemporaries to high priest Horemakhet and his family. This only further speaks in favour of the death of Heresankh in year 22 of Ptolemy V, instead of Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III. As a result, Herankh, the mother of Heresankh, in fact belonged to the family of close relatives of high priests of Ptah, both lines having the joint ancestor in Anemhor, the father of high priest Nesisti-Pedubast (Fig 3.).  [-nTr] sDmndmsTj wr bAw Hrj sStA n prWsjr Rw.t-jsw.t Hm-nTr $nm xntjwArt=f)' 68 on both statues, while Psamtekmen of the stela Vienna 130 is 'divine father, god's servant, master of secrets of the Sarapieion, of the Osirion of Rutiset, and of the Anoubieion (jt-nTr Hm-nTr Hrj sStA n prWsjr-@p prWsjr Rw.t-jsw.t prInpw)', like his probable father Peteharendjotef, but distinctive from his probable grand-father Anemhor and his probable great-grand-father Neferibre. If we accept that individuals on Vienna 130 are maternal ancestors of its dedicant, that means that Psamtekmen on the statues Chicago F 31697 and Aquitaine 8636 could have been a son of Neferibre B, the brother of Heresankh, himself being named after his maternal great-grandfather, again a usual practice in Memphis for centuries. 69 If so, he should be designated as Psamtekmen B. His father is styled 'the like-titled (mj-nn)', meaning that he held all mentioned titles before them being transferred to his son. When we compare two sets of titles of Neferibre B of Vienna 130 and titles of the like-named individual on Psamtekmen B's statues, they are again fully complementary.

Conclusion
According to this reconstruction, Heresankh was the daughter of Neferibre, who was the son of Nesisti-Pedubast, a high priest of Memphis appointed by Ptolemy II. On the other hand, her mother, Herankh, was the grand-daughter of the brother of the same Nesisti-Pedubast, named Peteharendjatef, making this couple closely related: Neferibre married his first cousin's daughter. Heresankh also had a full brother, Neferibre B, who himself had a son named Psamtekmen B.Together with Heresankh's own son Nesisti, Psamtekmen B is the last known male member of this secondary branch. Heresankh herself lived very likely between 249 BC and 183 BC. Her significance as an offspring of two lines of the same powerful priestly family lies in the fact that she is the only known priestess of the most important sanctuaries in the Memphite necropolis, namely the Sarapieion, the Osirion of Rutiset and the Anoubieion, all located at Saqqara and Abusir. No other woman is known to have attained such high social standing in Memphis during the Ptolemaic period until Taneferhor or her daughter were named 'the great wife of Ptah (tA Hm.t aA.t PtH)" in 44/43 BC. 76