See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262174750

The smiting of the enemies scenes in the mortuary temple of Ramses III at
Medinet Habu

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

3 3,863

2 authors, including:

José Das Candeias Sales

Universidade Aberta
85 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by José Das Candeias Sales on 09 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Volume 1
2012
 The smiting of the enemies scenes
in the mortuary temple of Ramses
III at Medinet Habu

José das Candeias Sales

Universidade Aberta; CHUL

Abstract:

The ritual scenes of smiting the enemies are a topos of the Egyptian ico-
nography of military nature which goes through Egyptian history almost in
its entirety, from the 4th millennium BC until the 2nd century AD.

Regarding to the New Kingdom there are numerous known and signifi-
cant cases that we can evoke as examples. There is, however, one extraor-
dinary example, by the profusion of that kind of scenes in almost every
room and its components, which arises a noteworthy emphasis: the
mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, built for Ramses III (c. 1182 – 1151
BC), second pharaoh of the 20th Dynasty and for many scholars the last
great pharaoh of the New Kingdom.

In this text we will pass in detailed review these scenes, explaining and
interpreting the underlying ideological message as the function of its recur-
rent and appealing iconographic utilization, as in the function of the space-
architectural localization where they are to be found at the Medinet Habu
complex.

Keywords: Medinet Habu, ideology, ritual scenes, symbology, winning

pharaoh.
86 José das Candeias Sales

Resumo

As cenas rituais de massacre dos inimigos são um topos da iconografia

egípcia de cariz militar que atravessa quase toda a história egípcia, do IV
milénio a.C. ao séc. II d.C. No que ao Império Novo diz respeito, são inú-
meros os casos conhecidos e significativos que se podem evocar a título de
exemplo. Há, porém, um caso extraordinário, pela profusão deste tipo de
cenas praticamente em todas as suas divisões e componentes, que suscita
um merecido destaque: o templo funerário de Medinet Habu, edificado
para Ramsés III (c. 1182-1151 a.C.), segundo faraó da XX dinastia e para
muitos estudiosos o último grande faraó do Império Novo.

Neste texto procuraremos passar em detalhada revista essas cenas,

explicando e interpretando a mensagem ideológica que lhes estava subja-
cente, quer em função da sua recorrente e apelativa utilização iconográfica
quer em função da localização espacio-arquitectónica em que se encon-
tram no complexo de Medinet Habu.

Palavras-chave: Medinet Habu, ideologia, cenas rituais, simbologia,

faraó vencedor.
 87

The ritual scenes of smiting the enemies are a topos of the Egyptian ico-
nography of military nature that runs through almost all Egyptian history,
from the 4th millennium BC to the 2nd century AD1. Wherein the New
Kingdom is concerned, there are numerous known and significant cases
that can be evoked. There is, however, one extraordinary case, by the pro-
fusion of this kind of scenes in almost the entirety of its rooms and ele-
ments, which raises a worthy evidence: the mortuary temple of Medinet
Habu (25º 42’ N, 32º 36’ E) built to Usermaetre Meriamun Ramses Heka-
iunu, or Ramses III (c. 1182 – 1151 BC), second pharaoh of the 20th Dy-
nasty and, for many scholars, the last great pharaoh of the New Kingdom
and even of the independent Egypt2.

The temple in question, authentic hymn to the megalomania and

enlarged royal ego and one of the best preserved and most important
monuments of the Egyptian mortuary architecture3, was constructed in the
southern end of the Theban necropolis, on the western bank, next to an
earlier small shrine (Small Temple, Dsr st, “sacred place”), erected by the
18th Dynasty pharaohs (started by Amenhotep I and finished by
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III)4. Its architectural layout spread for over

1 Cf. Sales, J, das C., Poder e Iconografia no antigo Egipto, 115-138.

2 Cf. Lalouette, Cl., L’empire des Ramsès, 344; Grimal, N., Histoire de L’Égypte ancienne, 334; Redford, S., The harem
conspiracy, 141; Clayton, P., Chronique des pharaons, 161.
3 Cf. Murname, W. J., United with eternity, 1; Haeny, G., “New kingdom “mortuary temples” and “mansions of

millions of years” in Shafer B. E. (ed.), Temples of ancient Egypt , 87; Clayton, P., Op. Cit., 1995, 162; Shaw, I., The
Oxford history of Ancient Egypt, 305; Málek, J., Egyptian art, 319.
4 Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. II. The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty, 11 (fig. 19) and 47

(fig. 41). The temple of the 18th Dynasrty, in its turn, was built over another from the 11th Dynasty, and was an
important religious sanctuary conceived as the place where the original mound had emerged from Nun, the
original ocean, when the formation of the world. It was also there, according to the Egyptian thought, that the
primordial god Amun Kematef manifestated for the first time and where Amun of Luxor regenerated himself in
the Ten Days Festival. According to other interpretation, in ancient times this place was considered as the place
of the tomb of Amun. Cf. Arnold, D., The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 143, 144; Wilkinson, R. H.,
The complete temples of Ancient Egypt, 194; Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., 77; Haeny, G., Op. Cit., 121. Horemheb at the
final of the 18th Dynasty and Seti I in the beginning of the 19th restored the monument. The same was made by
Pinedjem I in the 11th century BC. Later, in the kushite period, pharaoh Shabaka replaced the former entrance
with a pylon that his nephew Taharka would usurp. Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 26, 52, 53. The small entrance
door built during the 26th dynasty would be, in the 29th dynasty, usurped by Nakhtnebef (Nectanebo I), founder
88 José das Candeias Sales

7000 sq m, with thousands of iconographic representations, with emphasis

for those who represent the pharaoh Ramses III as an indisputable winner
over his multiple and distinct enemies, adjusts particularly well to the con-
cept of Hwt nt HH m rnpwt, “temple of millions of years”, associated to the
Egyptian mortuary temples5.

Know by the essential name of Xnmt-nHH, “united with eternity”6, this

temple with its 150m long, projected by Pairy-Sutemheb from the year 5 of
Ramses III, it follows the model of the Ramesseum, constructed in the
vicinities, c. 1 km to the north, by Ramses II, and its decoration is even
today impressive due to the abundant traces of paint still patent7. The tem-
ple is aligned in the southeast – northwest axis, but conventionally the
southeast side turned to the Nile is ascribed as east8. Despite the decline
suffered by this temple after the death of Ramses III, it is admitted that the
cult rituals continued to unroll in this sanctuary until the Roman period,
even though then centred in the “Small Temple”, the sacred place of a
special form of Amun (Imn n Dsr st, “Amun of the sacred place”)9.

of the last native dynasty. During the Saitic period it was added a portico with eight papyriform columns. In
Roman and Ptolemaic times, there were also changes in the interior colonnade, in the court and in the portico
(for instances, emperor Antoninus Pio erected a new portico with eight massif columns and a wide court in the
front of the monument) - Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 26-31, 54-59, 60; Baines, J.; Málek, J., Atlas of Ancient Egypt,
98; Wilkinson, R. H., Op. Cit., 196. Therefore, rigorously, the Small Temple is a conglomerate of structures of
different periods, being the temple of the 18th dynasty its essential nucleus.
5 The Egyptian mortuary temples, like Medinet Habu, were built with the aim of supporting the deceased life (in

this case, the pharaoh) in the Afterlife. It was hoped that this “royal residences” allowed the mystic union of the
Pharaoh with the god for “millions of years”. Hence the designation for which they were recalled. Cf. Haeny,
G., Op. Cit., 86.
6 The complete designation of the temple was “Temple of Usermaatre Meriamun united with eternity in the

domain of Amun of western Thebes”. Like Nelson demonstrated, in this formula there are 5 key-elements. 1)
the type of edifice designation (“temple” or “address”); 2) the coronation name of Ramses III; 3) the building
status incorporated in “Amun’s dominion”; 4) the topographic localization and, 5) the element that classifies and
distinguishes the building: “united with eternity”. Cf. Nelson, H. H., “The identity of Amon-Re of United-with-
Eternity” in JNES, Vol. 1, Number 2 (1942): 128. The subjacent idea to this designation is well captures trough
an inscription on the second court where it says: “While Ra travels in the solar bark, crossing the skies every day so it shall
be the temple of Ramses III, everlasting as the sky horizon”.
7 Nevertheless, the atmospheric conditions, the erosion and vandalism seriously damaged the temple walls, to

the point of some appearing today almost without inscriptions, when, a century ago, as documented in pictures
and photographs, were well carved and even painted. Cf. Weeks in Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., V.
8 Cf. Wilkinson, R. H., Op. Cit., 193.

9 Cf. Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 1, 2; Baines, J.; Málek, J., Op. Cit., 97, 98; Manley, B., Atlas historique de l’Egypte

ancienne, 78; Strudwick, N. and H., Thebes in Egypt, 90; Wilkinson, R. H., Op. Cit., 194; Wildung, D., O Egipto. Da
Pré-história aos Romanos, 145.
 89

Therefore, the main temple constitutes an extraordinary architectonic

monument, both for its inside and the outside, as for the gigantic pylons
and for the two magnificent open air courtyards (each one in the sequence
of the two pylons), decorated with columns (1st court, to the left) and
pillars of addorsed statues of the pharaoh (1st court, to the right) or with
Osiriac pilasters porticoes and Papyriform columns (2nd court), as for the
transitional portico between the second court and the first hypostyle hall
and by the three hypostyle halls (the last two of reduced dimensions) to
which are associated several rooms for the resident gods and goddesses 10,
offering chambers and the shrine for the bark of the god Amun, nowadays
much destroyed11.

Besides the mortuary temple, the Medinet Habu complex (ancient DAm.t
or TAm.t, “males and females”12) originally comprised a royal palace, ad-
ministrative buildings, housing for its priests and officials, storehouses,
stables, manoeuvre courts, a garden, a nilometer (constructed by Nakhtne-
bef/Nectanebo I) and a S-ntr or sacred lake (20 x 18 m), probably
constructed in the Ptolemaic period, constituting an important administra-
tive centre to the life of Western Thebes, from which more than 62.000
Egyptians depended on13.
10 Besides the rooms consecrated to the gods of the Theban triad, Amun, Mut and Khonsu, there were other 48
rooms dedicated, among others, to the mortuary cult, to Ramses III deified, to a queen and to the royal children,
to Ptah, to Osiris, to Montu, to the Heliopolitan Enead and to Re-Harakhty. Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of
Medinet Habu, Vol. III, 15-21; Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., 43-59; Haeny, G., Op. Cit., 122. It is not always easy to
understand the function of every room and consequently the plan of this area of the temple, as well recognized
by Uvo Hölscher: “It is difficult to comprehend the plan of the temple at Medinet Habu, especially the maze of subsidiary rooms
at the rear, which seem to have been into the confines of the temple and thus seem to some extent to be unnatural in location and
form. The fact that we know little or nothing of the individual purposes of many of the rooms adds to our difficulty in understanding
the plan.” Hölscher. U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. III., 22.
11 The royal osirified statues of the main temple second court of Medinet Habu were significantly destroyed

early in the Christian era, by the Copts, who converted that place into a Christian church. Wilkinson, R. H., Op.
Cit., 197.
12 The name Medinet Habu is the Arabic designation which means “city of Habu”, which may derive from the

name of the 18th Dynasty architect Amenhotep, son of Hapu, whose mortuary temple was located c. 300 m
north, or from hebu, the ancient name of the ibex, symbol of Thoth, which as a Ptolemaic temple a few hundred
meters to the south. Djamet or Tjamet were the Egyptian designation and, according to the popular belief, it was
on this sacred place that were buried the original gods of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad, which are four male gods
(with frog heads) and four female goddesses (with serpent heads). This designation is, probably, the prototype
for the Greek designation  used to classify the whole metropolis. Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medi-
net Habu, Vol. II, 43; Siliotti, A., Guide to the Valley of the Kings and to the Theban necropolises and temples, 124, 125.
13 It was to this centre of the Egyptian administration that the Deir el-Medina workers on strike went to com-

plain to the vizier Ta (at the Ramesseum) and to obtain their due missing payment.
90 José das Candeias Sales

The whole complex, with 66 sq km, was surrounded by an exterior rec-

tangular wall of mud brick (315 x 210 m), with 18 m high and 10 m width,
that by itself gave the appearance of an imposing fortress14, to which was
associated an unusual monumental entrance or massive pylon, cubic, de-
nominated migdol, situated to the east, inspired in the architecture of the
Syrian military citadels, built in sandstone and mud brick15. The temenos de-
noted and still denotes the intended and unmistakable appearance of a for-
tress, serving as an effective protection against the marauder nomadic as-
saults (“fortress to the gods”), to which the local inhabitants lately also ap-
peal as a refuge during the civil war after the end of the 20th Dynasty.

A complete description of the Medinet Habu complex cannot forget

the mortuary chapels of the dwAt-nTr n Imn, “Divine Adoratrice of
Amun”, Shepenuepet I16, Amenirdis I17, Shepenuepet II18, Amenirdis II19,
Mehetenueskhet20, Nitocris21 and Ankhnesneferibre22, of the 22nd to the
26th Dynasties, who then ruled Egypt, at least nominally on behalf of the
king, located to the left of the precinct comprised between the entrance

14 As J. Murnane describes it, Medinet Habu is “a huge complex of stone gleaming against mud brick ramparts” Murname,
W.J., Op. Cit., 1. See also Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. IV, 1.
15 It is also usual to call to the migdol “pavilion-door”. The upper floors, built in mud brick, constituted the

harem dependencies which, unfortunately, didn’t survive to our days. The other entrance to the complex, to the
west, is not as well preserved. Cf. Redford, S., Op .Cit., 95, 96; Schulz, R.; Sourouzian, H., “Los templos: dioses-
reyes y reyes-dioses” in Schulz, R. e Seidel, M. (coord.), Egipto. O mundo dos faraós, 196.
16 23rd Dynasty. Princess. Daughter of Osorkon III. Lived during the last years of Theban independence relative

to the Nubian control, c. 754 BC. She was appointed “Divine Adoratrice” by her brother, pharaoh Takelot III.
Cf. Dodson, A.; Hilton, D., The complete royal families of Ancient Egypt, 226 and 230.
17 25th Dynasty. Princess. Daughter of Kashta. Amenirdis I was appointed “Divine Adoratrice” by her brother,

pharaoh Piankhy, having shared this position with Shepenuepet I. This last occupied the office under the reigns
of Shabaka and Shabataka. Cf. Ibidem, 236 and 238.
18 25th Dynasty. Princess. Daughter of pharaoh Piankhy, c. 710 BC, first king of the Kushite Dynasty. Therefore,

she was sister of pharaohs Taharka and Shabaka. She hold office from Taharka’s reign until year 9 of Psametek
I’s reign. Cf. Ibidem, 236 and 240.
19 25th Dynasty. Princess. Daughter of Taharka and was “Divine Adoratrice”, sharing this position with Shepe-

nuepet II, whom she adopted in the reign of Psametek I. Cf. Ibidem, 236 and 238.
20 26th Dynasty. Queen. Wife of Psametek I and mother of Nitocris. Cf. Ibidem, 244 and 246.
21 26th Dynasty. Princess. She was daughter of king Psametek I. Became heiress of Shepenuepet II and

Amenirdis II, whom they adopted. Cf. Ibidem, 244 and 247.
22 26th Dynasty. Princess. She was daughter of pharaoh Psametek II and sister of Uahibre. By imposition of her

brother, she was adopted by Nitocris, to whom she succeeded in 584 BC. Cf. Ibidem, 244 and 246.
 91

migdol and the first pylon of the temple23. From the four original chapels
built in the 8th – 6th centuries BC, in the present-day only two remain. The
superstructure has the shape of a temple with pylon, with a small
columned court and the cultic chamber in an inner rectangular space.24

Less preserved, it should be also mentioned, near the northern part of

the wall, the memorial temple of Horemheb, usurped by Ay, his predeces-
sor in the pharaonic office. Built in stone and surrounded by mud brick
walls, the temple was only a little smaller than the temple of Ramses III,
with a temenos measuring 258 x 145m. The first entrance pylon measured
65 x 9m25.

For an accurate understanding of the military and/or paramilitary

figures present in the several surfaces of this Egyptian sacred space it is
necessary to frame in its essential features the time and the reign of the last
great pharaoh of Egypt. Ramses III was the son of the pharaoh User-
khaure-Setepenre Setnakht (founder of the 20th Dynasty) and of Queen
Tiy-Merenaset. He ruled Egypt for about 31 years, in a time characterized
by significant internal convulsions – Deir el-Medina workers strike (in his
29th year of reign, the first strike known in History, after two months of
salary delays) and a conspiracy plotted in his own harem (ipt, or Xnrt) or
coup d’état26 – as well as external, resulting, particularly from the political

23 The “Divine Adoratrice (of Amun)” played an intermediary role between temporal (pharaoh) and religious
(high priests of Amun) powers and, unlike the “God’s Wife” (hemet netjer), they were not the wife but the
pharaoh’s daughter who consecrated all of their lifes to the office and to the great god Amun.
24 Cf. Arnold, D., Op. Cit., 145.

25 The temple had four pylons. Between the third and fourth pylon there was the royal palace, practically square,

with modest dimensions: 21,6 x 22,0m. Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. II. 65, 75, 80, 81,
113 – fig. 95.
26 With the aim of placing his son Pentauere on the throne, one of Ramses III secondary wives, Tiy, conspired

to murder the pharaoh (Poisoning? Poisonous serpent bite? Sorcery/magic?). The plot was discovered and the
about forty conspirators involved (concubines, scribes, other high rank officials, inspectors, guards and their
wives, a military commander from Kush, called Bonemuese, etc) were taken into trial. Some of the judges of this
process eventually were also involved in the case by the conspirators. From what it seems, after having nomi-
nated the 12 judges of the criminal process, the king didn’t live long enough to assist the verdict and the sen-
tence – the several conspirators were condemned to suffer mutilations (cutting of ears or nose) or to suffer
death, by execution or by suicide (ten: the ones of higher rank, among them Pentauere) –, having died, with 65
years, c. 16 days after, very likely as a result of the conspiracy. The king was buried in the Valley of the Kings, in
tomb n.º 11 (KV 11), succeeding him his son Ramses IV, by the time with more than 40 years old. Cf. Redford,
S., Op. Cit., 7-25; 110-114. Contradicting all thesis of his death due to the conspiracy, Ramses III’s mummy (one
92 José das Candeias Sales

unrest in the eastern Mediterranean (Aegean islands and Asia Minor) after
the fall of Mycenae and the Trojan War.

This situation led to an embattled movement of repositioning of peo-

ples and ethnic groups from the region, towards the west-east of the
southern coast of Anatolia and, thereafter bending from north to south,
with attacks to several neighbouring regions (making disappear the king-
doms of Hatti, Ugarit and Cyprus) and, inclusively, in the 8th year of Ram-
ses III reign (1174 BC.), with the invasion of Egypt by sea by the so-called
“Sea Peoples”, a conglomeration of migrant peoples from eastern Mediter-
ranean of 14th – 12th centuries BC27.

Even though in the course of their history, Egyptians didn’t stood out
military at sea, the battles with the Sea Peoples ended with victories of
Ramses III who, to the effect, relied on his line of diligent archers, which,
from land, stopped that the foreign invaders landed on the Nile banks and,
then, with his Egyptian navy ships stroke the final blow to the invaders.

Already in his 5th year of reign (1177 BC), Ramses III had to face – also
with relative military success (once that had no decisive character) – a
coalition of tribes generically known as the Tjehenu, where punctuated the
Libu, the Seped and the Meshuesh, which invaded the western Delta, un-
der the pretext that the pharaoh had interfered in the succession of their
chief28.
of the found in the Deir el-Bahari cache; today in the Cairo Museum) shows, however, that he died of natural
causes. There are no traces of violent death. The drafts of the four sessions of the process open against the
conspirators under the reign of Ramses IV survive until present days through the Turin Judicial Papyri (hence
designated for being archived in the Turin Museum) and with several fragments, some in very bad conservation
state, as being: Papyrus Rollin, Papyrus Varzy, Papyrus Lee 1 and 2, Papyrus Rifaud I (A, B e C) and Papyrus Rifaud II
(E) – Cf. Redford, S., Op. Cit., 3. See also, Vernus, P., Affaires et scandales sous les Ramsès, 141-156.
27 The Medinet Habu list and the Papyrus Harris (in times part of the official archives of the temple, today in the

British Museum) gives detailed information about the Sea Peoples and the Philistines of the attacks from the
time of Ramses III. The first attack of the Sea Peoples to Egypt occurred on the 19th Dynasty, in the 5th regnal
year of Merenptah (c. 1208 BC), when they allied with the Libyans and reached to the Delta. Fortunately to
Egypt, Merenptah forces fought back and killed over 6000 invaders and imprisoned 9000, besides capturing
horses, weapons and cattle. This victory is commemorated in the so-called “Israel Stele”, found in 1896. Cf.
Valbelle, D., Les neuf arcs. 146. See also Shaw, I., Op. Cit., 305 and Partridge, R. B., Fighting pharaohs. Weapons and
Warfare in Ancient Egypt, 263. The advance in the time of Ramses III it wasn’t a simple act of war: it was driven
by the express wishes of introducing and fixing them in Egyptian territory. It was an entire people on the move,
with their wives, children, and belongings.
28The invasion of Egyptian lands by the Libyans became moreover a recurrent problem during the 19 th Dynasty.
 93

In the 11th year of his reign (1171 BC), Ramses III had to face a new
Libyan coalition, also in the western Delta. This infiltration was trans-
formed in a serious attempt to invade the Delta. The confrontation in the
name of the Delta defense (= Egypt) led to a new considerable Egyptian
victory, radical this time, as narrated in the temple of Medinet Habu, with
the capture of the Libyan chief and with the allocation of many prisoners
as mercenaries in the Faiyum and in the Delta29.

Peace was restored and the Egyptian borders made safe. It was in the
end of this conflict, enhanced the credibility of Ramses III as a competent
ruler, that the great complex of Medinet Habu was finished30.

Regardless of these military conflicts have occurred, according to the

Egyptian sources which wants us to think, in battles (concentrated attacks,
organized and concerted of peoples in coalition) or in a series of bellic epi-
sodes, skirmishes and raids, the Egyptian propagandistic celebration used
it to give a wide iconographic expression on the available surfaces in
Medinet Habu complex.

The migdol scenes

The entrance to the Medinet Habu complex is made nowadays through

the migdol, situated about 80m from the mortuary temple. This is a pavilion
with two towers of two storeys31, topped with battlements, originally 22m
high. In pharaonic times, the migdol supervised, in the area immediately
ahead, the pier which, through two canals, connected the temple to the

Cf. Valbelle, D., Histoire de l’état pharaonique, 323. See also Gardiner, A., Egypt of pharaohs. An introduction, 283, 284,
285; Pritchard, J. B., ANET, 262-263; Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 13; Lalouette, Cl., Op. Cit., 309; Dias, G. C., “Os
“Povos do mar” e a “Idade Obscura” no Médio Oriente Antigo” in Cadmo 1 (1992): 148.
29 Cf. Gardiner, A., Op. Cit., 287; Grimal, N., Op. Cit., 334. See also Valbelle, D., Les neufs arcs, 147.
30 Therefore, there were three campaigns under the orders of Ramses III: two against the Libyans (year 5 and 11)

and another against the Sea Peoples (year 8). It is accepted that Medinet Habu temple has been completed in
Ramses III year 12, after the final campaign against the Libyans. Cf. Shaw, I. Op. Cit., 305.
31 The internal divisions, with 4.56 m x 1,85 m, had two windows and their decoration has scenes with religious

and intimate-erotic scenes. Cf. Araújo, L. M. de, “Medinet Habu” in Araújo, L. M. de (dir.), Dicionário do antigo
Egipto, 552.
94 José das Candeias Sales

usual bed of the Nile and allowed the arrival of vessels, especially of the
Egyptian divinities processional barks, of the pharaoh at times of formal or
ceremonial visits, of dignitaries of foreign countries and of the complex
everyday service personnel32.

The walls of the large entrance door on the outside are decorated with
abundant and deliberately impressive images of a gigantic and haughty
pharaoh smiting Egypt’s enemies, like dominated captives, kneeling, which
appear seized by their hair. The “ritual offering” is made to Amun which,
in turn, gives the pharaoh the victory weapon khepesh 33. From the quantita-
tive point of view, these scenes can be compared to the also stereotyped
scenes showing the king in the presence of the gods, emphasizing his role
as mediator and guarantor of order.

In addition, in the inferior registers of the migdol there are represented

the Egyptian traditional enemies, according to the same defeat iconogra-
phy: kneeling, with their necks tied and hands bound behind their backs34.
To the left there are Nubians (Nebesyw) and Libyans (Tjehenu, Tjemehu, Mesh-
wesh or Libu), while at the right there are representations of the Asiatic
princes from the time of Ramses III (Hittites and Amorites), as well as
semi nomadic peoples (Tjekker, Sherden, Shasu, Tiuresh, Philistines)35. The
“Nubian war” and the “Syrian war” are Ramses III fictitious conflicts, in
much copied from the walls of the Ramesseum, turned mandatory by the
Egyptian ideology of domination36. The inclusion of these plastic and
ideological accounts in the migdol showing the pharaoh “destroying the
chiefs from all lands” aim to increase Ramses III role in history.

32 Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. IV, 11-13. The Medinet Habu temples were the aim of
the processions celebrated during the religious festivities, e.g. the “Beautiful Festival of the Valley”. Cf. Schulz,
R.; Sourouzian, H., Op.Cit., 197. About the divine processions at Medinet Habu, Marie-Ange Bonhême and
Annie Forgeau say: “Au Nouvel Empire, à Médinet Habou, se recensent cent soixante-deux jours de solennités exceptionelles.”
Bonhême, M.-A.; Forgeau, A., Pharaon. Les secrets du pouvoir, 148.
33 The khepesh, curve weapon of bronze, was introduced in Egypt by the Hyksos and was rapidly adopted by the

Egyptians.
34 Cf. Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 1980, 7, fig. 4.
35 Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 5 and plate 6; Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 6.

36 Nubia was, at the time, a well submissive colony who didn’t pose any major problems to the Egyptian crown.
 95

On the inside of the high entrance door, facing east, six other groups
arise, each representing the pharaoh dominating the enemies: two in the
upper register, two in the middle register and two in the lower register.
The two figures from the upper register and the two in the lower one show
a relaxed Ramses III, resting the hatchet on his shoulder. This typology
follows the one by Ramses II at Beit el-Uali37. On the north wall of the
migdol passageway, a new scene shows the pharaoh with the atef crown on
his head with six uraei and with a mibet mace-axe in his hand aided by an
aggressive lion in the “maatic” action of dominating two kneeling Asiatic
enemies38.

All these reliefs placed in this transitional place between the unpro-
tected and chaotic world (outside the complex walls) and the orderly and
protected world (inside the temenos) fulfil the explicit magical purpose of
establishing the pharaoh as the capable and responsible element, according
to the Egyptian way of thought, of sustaining and repelling Egypt’s
invaders, the same is to say, the chaos forces (isfet) always ready to sub-
merge the world created by the demiurge gods in the beginning of times39.
The Medinet Habu migdol, as a microcosmic structure, glorifies the
pharaoh as the champion of battles, whether real or symbolic.

Therefore, it can be said that Medinet Habu’s entrance tower fulfilled a

double function of protection: on one hand as a physical structure,
imposing and powerful, served as a defence for its “owners” (its wide
upper window even allowed to launch a destructive attack upon the
invaders); on the other hand, through the magic message released from the
reliefs, acted as “supplementary defense” against all potential assaults from
Egypt’s enemies. Hence, Ramses III architects searched to provide the
sacred space with all precautions and conditions of durability and eternity,
as the name of the temple presupposed, creating in this way the formidable
and unique defensive impression of the complex.

37 Cf. Hall, E. S., The pharaoh smites his enemies. A comparative study, 37, figs. 68, 69; Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., plate 19.
38 Cf. Hall, E. S., Op. Cit., 37 and fig. 72. The lion bites the elbow of one of the enemies. This scene is also an
imitation of the similar scenes of Ramses II. Cf. Partridge, R. B., Op. Cit., 272.
39 Cf. Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 6.
96 José das Candeias Sales

The scenes of the entrance pylon

The entrance pylon of Medinet Habu mortuary temple is one of the

most impressive pylons of Egyptian religious buildings: originally
measuring 66m x 24m x 11m40. The upper part of the massif on the right
(north) is today much destroyed. Two recesses were made on both mas-
sifs, which occupied almost half of the wall, vertically, allocated to support
the four festive masts projected above the top of each massif, adorned
with colourful banners41.

The pylon was decorated with colossal statues, incised, painted with
bright colours, of the pharaoh offering to the gods (to Amun-Re in the
southern massif; to Amun-Re-Harakhty on the northern massif) the ene-
mies captured and subdued. In the pylon façade, the pharaoh bears the
pschent crown of the unified Egypt, offering the Asiatic enemies, while on
the right appears with the desheret from the northern Egypt and offers Nu-
bian and Libyan enemies, in this way referring to the typical dualism that
simultaneously express the unity of the pharaonic power and of the king-
dom42.

Besides the enemies directly seized by their hair by the pharaoh, who is
preparing, in the scene to the left, to strike the coup de grâce with his mace-
axe in an half-moon profile (mibt mace-axe) and, in the scene to the right,
with his pyriform mace (hedjet mace), the lower registers of the pylons’ two
massifs show two extensive lines of small figures which represent the con-
quered enemies of Egypt43. Their heads and their arms tied behind their
backs are well distinguished, being the rest of the bodily elements replaced

40 Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. III, 4.

41 The four poles were dedicated to two pairs of goddesses of the Egyptian pantheon profoundly associated to
Egypt and to the protection of royalty: Isis (south) and Nephthys (north) – the mother and the aunt of the
falcon god Horus from which the pharaoh was the incarnation – and Nekhbet (south) and Wadjit (north), dei-
ties who symbolized, respectively, Upper and Lower Egypt upon which the pharaoh ruled. Cf. Murname, W. J.,
Op. Cit., 20.
42 Cf. Sales, J. das C., “Coroas” in Araújo, L. M. de (dir.), Dicionário do Antigo Egipto, 241, 242.

43 There are almost 250 names of peoples, although most of them are unknown to us. Similar representations

appear in earlier topographic lists of Thutmose III (seventh pylon of the temple of Amun, at Karnak) and of
Ramses II (in the temple of Abydos) and in another list of Ramses III, at Karnak.
 97

by an oval shield (in fact, a fortress plan), in which is inscribed the name of
the country or the name of the people. In the right massif, the enemies are
figured in the same way behind the god Re-Harakhty who holds and drags
them with several chains, like domestic pets pulled by their leashes44.

In both inscription-scenes, the gods offer to the thankful pharaoh the

khepesh – a kind of metal (bronze) curved scimitar – or victory weapon45.
The victory is a gift from the gods; they are, in the end, the real winners.
Such is the message which Medinet Habu’s first pylon proclaims through
its gigantic iconographic representations and inscriptions. Pharaoh and
deities stand out by their visual and iconic accented role.

In the context of the Egyptian spatial-architectonic conceptions, the

first pylon is a physical structure which acts as a protective barrier that
magically establishes the demarcation of spaces: “Clearly, the pylon was seen as
the last barrier between the world-image contained in the temple and the chaos out-
side”46. Besides this apotropaic dimension, as in the migdol, the representa-
tions located in this free access area assumed, simultaneously, a propagan-
distic character: “Ces représentations étaient destinées à être vues par les fidèles, qui
n’avaient pas accès à l’intérieur: le temple sert ainsi de lieu d’affichage. Mais en même
temps, dans la mesure où il est une représentation de l’univers centrée autour de la per-
sonne du dieu dont le roi assure le service, il est le lieu où ce dernier témoigne de son ac-
tion en faveur du dieu dans tous les domaines où elle doit s’exercer.”47

The inner surface of the first pylon (southwest wall), adjacent to the
area where the palace was built, shows Ramses III in his chariot hunting
three powerful wild desert bulls: two are already pierced and dominated
(with their paws in the air), while the pharaoh with his arch and bows

44 Cf. Hall, E. S., Op. Cit., 36 and fig. 65. The victory hymns recorded on both massifs of the first pylon of Medi-
net Habu, complements of the iconographic representations, are very enlightening. The hymn recorded on the
southern massif, expresses the military eulogy of Ramses III through words said by Amun, while in the hymn
recorded on the northern massif is Re-Harakhty who praises the pharaoh.
45 In the case of Re-Harakhty’s scimitar, it is surmounted by a curious falcon head, equal to the head of the god

himself. To Emma Swan Hall it is the most complex and compact representation of a victory scene ever per-
formed Cf. Ibidem, 36 and fig. 65.
46 Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 20.

47 Grimal, N., Op. Cit., 340.

98 José das Candeias Sales

chase the third who flees towards the river, where nourished Nile tilapia
(Tilapia nilotica) quietly swim48. The theme is traditional, but the treatment
achieved in this true masterpiece of relief from the 20th Dynasty is innova-
tive by the painstaking care in the execution and in the detail of the inci-
sions and by the enormous scale used. A row of soldiers, in a fair modest
scale, form a frieze below this representation. With this emblematic
hunting scene in great scale it emphasizes the operation of dominion of
the adverse forces of Nature by the irreplaceable Egyptian pharaoh49.

In Medinet Habu, hunt and war are thus assimilated, in spatial terms
and in symbolic terms: the massacre of the rebels or the hunting of the
great and fierce animals in the desert areas or in swamps (chaotic areas)
constitute two actions that Egyptian ideology gives to the brave pharaoh,
responsible for pushing back any possibility for the surrounding chaos (the
enemies or the wild animals) to penetrate in Egypt.

The northern outer walls

The outer walls on the north side of the building also represent impor-
tant historical battles and victory scenes, showing Ramses III and his ar-
mies triumphant over Nubians, Libyans and Sea Peoples who attacked
Egypt during his reign. As Dominique Valbelle writes, “Cette victoire éclatante
constitue l’un des thèmes décoratifs les plus spectaculaires et les plus originaux de son
Temple de Millions d’années à Medinet Habou, l’équivalent pour Ramsès III de la
bataille de Qadech”50.

Due to temple orientation, many of these scenes are practically invisible

without the sunlight, whereby in most cases, only in the early morning one

48 Cf. Manniche, L., L’art égyptien, 240; Wildung, D., Op. Cit., 144; Málek, J., Op. Cit., 320; Schulz, R.; Sourouzian,
H., Op. Cit., 198.
49 Cf. Bonhême, M.-A.; Forgeau, A., Op. Cit., 1988, 214.

50 Valbelle, D., Histoire de l’état pharaonique, 323. One of the main ideological characteristics of Ramses III reign

was precisely the admiration-emulation, almost obsessive, of the monarchic manifestations of Ramses II. Cf.
Ibidem, 324.
 99

can obtain a minimal satisfactory observation and yet still stained by the
destructions imposed by time and by history51.

The military reliefs start with Ramses III Nubian campaign (badly
damaged), to be followed by the ones regarding the conflict of year 5 (c.
1177 BC) with the Libyans (first Libyan war). The image of the pharaoh,
of great dimensions, wearing the khepresh crown and in his chariot, emerges
like a proud and confident conqueror, aided by the omnipresent Amun,
whose banners with the rams head mark the highlighted presence.

By the order and “arrangement”, the Egyptian armies and the merce-
naries and cavalry associated to the Egyptians contrast with the enemies,
defeated and captured, who appear figured in the most varied and con-
torted positions. Order (maat) and chaos (isfet) and its representatives are
thus clearly prefigured, according to the Egyptian worldview, on the out-
side military reliefs of Medinet Habu.

The existential devaluation of enemy forces receives the assistance of

an additional and significant reason in the iconographic treatment: the
counting of cut off right hands and genitals scenes52. Result of a diligent
action of zealous army scribes who proceed in rigorous counting, we see
piles of enemy hands, cut off (38.000, according to numerical data – surely
exaggerated – provided by the inscriptions) and of phalluses (25.000),
which can give us the idea of the Libyan force in confrontation with Ram-
ses III (well superior to the one faced by Merenptah about 30 years ear-
lier53), at the same time as they witness the intentional barbarous costume
of enemies’ mutilation, thus eternally weakened and debased, absolutely
prevented of any attempt to reorganize themselves, militarily or ethnical-
ly54. The “trophies” of war thus represented by Egyptians symbolize and
51 Cf. Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., 11.
52 The hands severing was a practice more common than cutting the penis off.
53 The informations related to the attacks of Merenptah’s reign (c. 1213 – c. 1203 BC) came to us through a long

list from the temple of Karnak, from the Athribis’ stele, from the fragment of the Cairo column and from the
famous “Israel Stele” (stele from year 5 of Merenptah), dating from c. 1231 or 1207 BC, conform the adopted
chronologies. All these texts were translated by Breasted, 1906 and Kitchen, 1972. Cf. Dias, G. C., Op. Cit., 148.
54 This information can be compared with the ones reporting the same event in the second open-air court,

where the values mentioned are, respectively, 3000 hands and 3000 phalluses.
100 José das Candeias Sales

mean the effective massacre of the enemies, in this particular case the
Libyans, and intend to show the magnitude of the Egyptian victory.

The exterior walls also record the seven scenes concerning the new
battle of the 8th year of Ramses III, this time against the Sea Peoples: in the
first the pharaoh appears presiding to the distribution of the military
equipment to his army (henty-spears), helmets, pedjet-bows, cheser-arrows,
quivers, mesu- and nekhen- swords and ikem-shield). In the next scene, the
army is on the move marching to the battle, with the disposition of coastal
forces, in Palestinian territory, to cope with the two enemy fronts on their
way to Egypt.

Several episodes of the battle are recorded as well as the corresponding

Egyptian exultation to the achieved victory. In a first moment it appears,
oddly, the triumphant Ramses III, hunting lions. Also here there is obvi-
ously an assimilation of the enemies (representatives of chaos) to the wild
animals (another way of chaos manifestation), whereas, in both cases, it is
the duty of the Pharaoh to dispose its “ordering” or dominance through
victory or through hunt.

Interesting in all Medinet Habu’s context and, in an even more general

way, in Egyptian art, is the representation of the scene of maritime con-
frontation between Egyptians and Sea Peoples, in all likelihood to have
occurred in the verdant Delta region: four Egyptian vessels with prows
ending in lion heads, with its 20 – 22 rowers, besides archers and other
common soldiers, completely destroy the enemy fleet (five vessels, even
though smaller than the Egyptians55), among hundreds of adversary bodies
thrown to the water in the midst of the turmoil, pierced with arrows and
deadly wounds, which contrast with the calm and efficient Egyptian sol-
diers. This is the first major naval battle to be recorded56. Even though
better armed here than in the land battle, the Sea Peoples face, to rejoice
55 In three of them follow Philistenes, recognizable by their helmets with plumes. On the other two are figured
the Sikala, wearing helmets with horns. The Egyptian ships were equipped with topsail baskets (the oldest to be
recorded), where guards scrutinized the “battlefield” and helped the archers in the orientation of their lines of
fire, thus obtaining a strategic advantage towards the enemy. Cf. Partridge, R. B., Op. Cit., 269, 270.
56 Cf. Valbelle, D., Les neuf arcs, 148.
 101

and encomiastic of Egyptian ideology, a new military setback. Through the

image, according to convention, it are highlighted the superiority and
bravery of the king and the mortal terror caused to the invaders who, obvi-
ously, attack on their own.

Much significant of the ideological background that supports the

military representations of Medinet Habu is the scene in which Ramses III
presents captives from the Libyan and Asiatic wars to the god Amun-Re of
Karnak, to his consort Mut and to the son of both, the moon-god
Khonsu. The Egyptian major military victories are assigned to the great
god of Thebes; it is Amun who aids and gives victory to the pharaoh and,
consequently, the pharaoh must bestow the god, not only with military
spoils, but also with the production of the appropriate scenes allusive to
this acknowledged “gratefulness”. Symbolically the winner is Amun.

The celebration of victory over the Sea Peoples does not exhaust the
“military record” of the northern exterior walls of Medinet Habu mortuary
temple. The Libyans continued their infiltration movements in the Delta
and, three years after, in the 11th year of Ramses III (c. 1147 BC), the
Meshwesh returned to charge. The reliefs show the reunion of the two
armies in the north-western area of the Delta, near the so-called “City of
Ramses III”57. Once again, the Egyptian forces came out as winners, cap-
turing Meshesher, chief of the Meshwesh, showed in one representation,
trapped, escorted by Egyptian guards armed with axes, quivers and bows58.
It seems to have been the coup de grâce over the Libyan bellic urges: a dele-
gation led by Keper, Meshesher’s father, sets the terms of deposition of
weapons, before Egyptian firmness. The western frontier was, so far,
secure59. Also in this case, Medinet Habu victorious records represent the
pharaoh presenting / dedicating the defeated to Amun-Re and Mut.

57 These campaign reliefs, without obeying to the chronological order of the historical events, are located at the
bottom of two registers in the outer space that mediates between the first and the second pylon of the temple.
58 Cf. Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 18, fig. 13.

59 However, as is known, the descendants of these Libyans rise again against Ramses III successors and

eventually came to occupy the Egyptian throne for almost 200 years (21st Dynasty; 945 – 712 BC).
102 José das Candeias Sales

The Southern exterior walls

In the temple exterior, to the south, there stood the royal palace, occu-
pying, in the rear, the space that lies between the first and the second py-
lons. This is the only structure belonging to the mortuary temple set of the
20th Dynasty built on the exterior. This is why many authors (including
Uvo Hölscher) prefer to call this kind of palaces “temple-palace”, so as to
distinguish them from the “palace-residence”60.

Medinet Habu “temple-palace”61, with a quadrangular plan, with its ves-

tibules, its six audience rooms (the larger one with twelve palmiform
columns, disposed in four rows of three columns each), the throne room
(with four columns and a dais for the royal throne), the royal dormitory
and the bath rooms, directly connected through three entrance doors and
the “Window of Royal Appearances”, to the first open-air court, was, like
the majority of domestic structures, built in mud bricks (except the doors
and columns), and seems to have functioned simultaneously as a royal re-
sort whenever Ramses visited the temple to officiate in certain ceremonies
and as a spiritual building for the extra-earthly life62.

Similarly, the southern exterior façade of the temple-palace pre-

sented the same representation, still seen today. Besides the wall-side posts
of the “Window of Royal Appearances” (central element of the façade) in
which the pharaoh faces two enemies, in an infighting scene and raises a
threatening scimitar, there is also another similar scene in the remaining
surface of the façade, where the pharaoh pierces with a long spear the
Libyan enemy subdued by his hair63. In all these situations, the enemies are
represented with their backs to the interior of the temple, therefore the
pharaoh being always in “front” as if moving towards the interior. Sym-

60 Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 37.

61 It is important to attend to the fact of frequently speaking of the “first palace” and of the “second palace” of
Medinet Habu. Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit, 37. The “first palace” is the one contemporaneous of the mortuary
temple.
62 Cf. Wilkinson, R. H., Op. Cit., 198; Redford, S., Op. Cit., 100; Shaw, I.; Nicholson, P., British Museum dictionary of

Ancient Egypt, 178.

63 Cf. Hölscher, U, Op. Cit., 38 and plates 26 and 30; Partridge, R. B., Op. Cit., 10.
 103

bolically the space belongs to Amun and the pharaoh ritually offers him
the massacred enemies, thus adjusting particularly well to this conception
to the material distribution of the scenes on the available occupied sur-
faces.

The interior porticoes of the palace equally allowed some attention

to the ritual-warrior dimension and this is currently noticed in the existing
lintels nowadays on the ground (harem’s court northern entrance door),
where the pharaoh, properly equipped with the royal regalia (khepresh
crown, uraeus and the victory weapon) is represented in full melee with his
enemies, again in an infighting combat (holds the kneeling enemy by an
arm) from where he obviously arises as winner64.

First court: the appearing and royal victories room

Medinet Habu’s first court (48 x 35m) consisted of a space with double
functionality, in the way that it was not just the mortuary temple’s open
court, but it was also the court of the attached royal palace65. The centre of
the first court constitute the place where occurs the axis intersection of
temple and palace66. Relating to the temple, it worked as a vestibule where
the offerings were accumulated and prepared for the rituals occurring on
the interior. Hence, consistently with this dimension, the figurations of the
upper register of the north wall refer to the daily ritual episodes, morning
and evening, celebrated in the temple67.

64 Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., plates 32 and 35.

65 Let it be said that the main palace (palace-residence) was located in the eastern Delta, in the city of Pi-Ramses,
Egypt’s capital over a period of at least 120 years, including the reign of Ramses III. Cf. Redford, S., Op. Cit., 90.
The palace of Medinet Habu may never have effectively served as a royal residence complex, being used by the
pharaoh to these ceremonial acts during the religious festivals which took place in Medinet Habu. Cf. Baines, J.;
Málek, J., Op. Cit., 99; Sourouzian, H.; Stadelmann, R., “The temples of New Kingdom” in Ziegler, Ch.; Ti-
radritti, F. (eds.), The pharaohs, 179. Therefore, its main purpose would not be to accommodate the sovereign
during his existence, but to play a ritual role for his mortuary cult, through the presence of a statue of himself.
Cf. Manniche, L., Op. Cit., 228; Schulz, R.; Sourouzian, H., Op. Cit., 197.
66 Cf. Hölscher, U.,The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. IV, 27.
67 Cf. Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., 22, 23.
104 José das Candeias Sales

For those who enter the courtyard, to their right (north), seven columns
with addorsed statues of the king wearing the atef crown on his head, arms
crossed holding the sceptres hekat and nekhakha68, are turned to the eight
papyriform columns, with open capitals of the south portico, that is, to the
palace façade. In full vitality and vigour, the pharaoh is represented as an
active agent in the cosmic order and it is established a “magical dialogue”
with the painted and inscribed scenes on the south portico columns.

In these, the pharaoh is shown according to the same military iconogra-

phy from the exterior. Also here, Ramses III presents Libyan and Sea Peo-
ples captives to the Theban divine couple Amun-Re and Mut. Being all
decorated to the same height and with the same kind of massacre scene
incised (only varying the crown worn by the pharaoh69), the columns pro-
duce an interesting scenic game which, in some angles, it is possible to
capture in the whole: the pharaoh overcomes the several kneeling enemies
whom he offers to a different Egyptian deity which, in turn, gives him the
victory weapon. For what it seems, the same motif and the same effect
existed in the interior colonnade of the first palace, at least judging by the
reconstitution of these columns70.

The second Libyan war appears copiously illustrated on the interior wall
of the first pylon, while in the façade of the second pylon (north) a long
inscription narrates the campaign of year 871. The south wall of the first
open air courtyard was planned as the palace façade and, for that, the
representations today visible behind the south colonnade of the first court
are programmed scenes to flank the “Window of Royal Appear-
ances” (1,04m width)72. Meaningfully from the ideological point of view,
68 Almost all of these statues were also destroyed by Copts. Flanking the royal statues (identified as “the
sovereign, perfect as the king in the throne of Atum, wearing the atef as Re-Harakhty”), in smaller size, there are
statues of a prince and of a princess, without any onomastics identification. On the mirror of one of the bases of
these statues, by the way very deteriorated, appears Ramses III figured as an animated cartouche, with two arms
which holds the vanquished enemies by their hair. Cf. Partridge, R. B., Op. Cit., 5.
69 Cf. Hall, E. S., Op. Cit., 35.
70 Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. III, 47 and plate 7.

71 Cf. Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., 21.

72 About this window Murname writes: “The window was reconstructed during the last century, using a stone that was first

believed to be part of the original. On closer inspection (…) it appears that this fragment actually came from the Ramesseum (…),
which had been built over a century before.”, Murname, W.J., Op. Cit., 24. On the other hand, Lise Manniche associates
 105

the king “appeared” in a window framed doubly by his own representa-

tions slaughtering Egypt’s enemies (Libyans and the Sea Peoples): in the
first frame appear two representations (one on each side) occupying the
whole height of the window, where the pharaoh with the khepresh in his
head holds his enemies by the hair, who are standing on their feet, with
their arms bound behind their backs, holding passively on his other hand
an akhu axe, rectangular in configuration, then follow-up on the rest of the
surface, almost with twice the height of the window, two other figures of
the pharaoh, now in an active pose, with the atef crown on his head and a
mace-axe in hand, slaying the kneeling captives73. Complementarily, bellow
these four representations, there is an abutment constituted by a row of 20
prisoners of war heads (Nubians alternating with Libyans and Asiatics) 74.
Imagine the impressive scenic effect obtained when the king, alive to ac-
company any ritual or activity in the courtyard (e.g. tribute reception; the
grant concessions to his subjects), dressed with all the eloquent regalia
inherent to his condition, appeared on the window of appearances… As
mentioned in a local inscription: “The king appeared as divine son of Re in his
august palace, as Re’s horizon when he shines in the skies”75.

The second pylon and the second court: the festival court

The second pylon (16m high) shows the monarch’s glorious military
campaigns and contains (exterior wall, north side) the longest hieroglyphic
inscription known, precisely the literary account of the confrontations
between Ramses III and the Sea Peoples.

them to the constructions of Amenhotep IV: “(la) grande fenêtre (…) rapelle la Fenêtre d’Apparition des bâtiments
d’Aménophis IV”. Manniche, L., Op. Cit., 1994, 228.
73 Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 38 and plate 3.

74 Six of these heads are just below of the “Window of Royal Appearances” and the other fourteen are

distributed for both sides (seven each side). Nowadays, in situ remain only three on each side. Cf. Hölscher, U.,
Op. Cit., 40 and plate 3.
75 Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 4. The palace façade, mainly the doorjambs of the entrance doors and the “Window

of Royal Appearances”, were modified at the end of the reign of Ramses III, at the same time as it was
constructed the Second Palace. In subsequent periods (Roman and Coptic) the “Window” was even more
destroyed, in order to be adapted as a lateral entrance to the court. Cf. Hölscher, U., Op. Cit., 43, 44.
106 José das Candeias Sales

The second court (38 x 42m) is surrounded by papyriform columns: to

the north and south and to the east and west by statues of the king as a
mummified Osiris addorsed to the pilasters. The second court is therefore
also decorated with a portico of Osiriac pillars. It was the king’s chosen
place to carry out the annual festivals connected with the royal rebirth,
such as the “Beautiful Festival of the Valley”, the festival of Sokar-Osiris
and the festival of Min76. Thus, the iconographic decoration of this court is
mainly dedicated to those major religious festivals and only the military
reliefs on the lower register of the south wall (episodes of the Libyan war
and the long inscription of the campaigns of years 5 and 8) break this
theme.

During the Coptic period occupation, it was on this court that the Holy
Church was erected which ultimately destroyed many of the details of the
Pharaonic period, namely in the king’s Osiriac pillars from which only one
pair survives, although incomplete77.

Saite portico of the Small Temple

To complete this “tour” on the theme of the ritual smiting of captives

in Medinet Habu’s complex, there must be mentioned the scenes present
on the eastern intercolumnar wall of the portico built during the Saitie pe-
riod and usurped by Nakhtnebef (Nectanebo I) on the Small Temple.
There, it is possible to see the 30th Dynasty pharaoh Kheperkare Nakhtne-
bef, wearing the shendjit and the pschent on his head, clutching a bundle of
enemies (ten exactly, divided in two groups of five each) extraordinary
armed with knives and daggers78. A deity who seems to be the warrior
goddess Neith, holding a bow and arrows, although smaller than the

76 William J. Murname gives an excellent description of the rituals associated to these festivities, in Murname, W.
J., Op. Cit., 28-38.
77 Cf. Murname, W. J., Op. Cit., 26.

78 Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. I, Plate 18; Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu,

Vol. III, Plate 31. The identification is made through de coronation name Kheperkare that appears within a
cartouche surmounting a ka-banner, usually used to mention the Horus name of the pharaoh and not the
praenomen.
 107

pharaoh and the captives, presides to the scene, in the way performing the
same role as Amun-Re and Re-Harakhty played in other scenes towards
Ramses III: receive the ritual offering from the pharaoh and helps him and
sanctions his military victory.

The founder of the Egyptian 30th Dynasty historically had to face a

“mixed” army formed by Persians and Greeks who penetrated in Egypt
through the west of the Delta (Mendes) in order to avoid the fortress of
Pelusium, in the eastern Delta. Only the delay of the invaders in the final
assault to Memphis and the climatic conditions (flooding of the Nile)
allowed Nakhtnebef to regroup his army, to gain a certain advantage of
dislocation and thus, to counterattack in a successful way, expelling them
from the country. The ritual representation on the portico of the Small
Temple may allude to this protective action of the Egyptian pharaoh.

Although today with the upper part incomplete, there are in this
place (western inter-columnar wall) another scene similar to the later,
where the enemies also appear armed79. Besides the legs and the bodies of
the enemies, it is also clearly seen on the surviving register the legs and feet
of the pharaoh. By the traditional body positioning (sole of the foot more
advanced completely firm on the ground and heel high on the farthest
foot, to transmit a certain idea of tension, of movement and of potency),
one realizes that, as in the other case, he was preparing to strike, with the
necessary intensity, the coup de grâce, eventually with an hatchet like in the
nearby scene. Here, the scene is “presided” by a male divinity, however
impossible to be identified with exactitude.

Conclusion

The apotheotic military representations in the various dependencies of

Medinet Habu’s complex, with more or less historical view or in a more or
less poetic style, with special emphasis to the ones on the mortuary temple

79 Cf. Hölscher, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. I, Plate 18.
108 José das Candeias Sales

of Ramses III, have an archetypal value thus making them escape the
passage of historical time. Through the apotropaic representations of the
massacre of the enemies’ scenes, Ramses III eternally wins the Libyans and
the Sea Peoples confederates (whom historically he won on the battlefield,
even though relating of proportion it is impossible to accurately determine
from the unilateral considerations of Egyptian sources), to the ones he
adds, although fictitious, the ones his homonymous ancestor Ramses II
won. In this undifferentiated but intentionally modelled form, he wins all
Egypt’s enemies.

Medinet Habu’s reliefs bet on a constant transposition and transference

of the historical and mythical dimensions. History becomes an element of
cult and, namely, this justifies the military scenes of Ramses III on the
temple’s interior, in the first and second courts, side-by-side with the
commemoration of elements purely religious or more political in charac-
ter80. The pharaoh’s warrior acts (like an armed arm of the deities) mani-
fest the immutable established order by the gods in the beginning of times
and, therefore, are the fulfillment of a pact registered in the immemorial
time. Inscribed in a temple of the “million of years”, reaffirm that mystical
bond for all eternity. In the case of Medinet Habu, the own formula of the
temple’s theological designation (“united with eternity”) it’s a strengthen-
ing of this vision: a mortuary temple is, by definition, an immemorial tem-
ple; a temple of the immemorial.

The first addressee of the temple’s reliefs is the deity and, in that sense,
the adopted scenography must always reflect an idealized version of his-
tory that, therefore, is fixed for all eternity. Secondarily, the temple’s visi-
tors (whether contemporaneous or future comers), accordingly with the
areas they have access, also receive impressive “history lessons”, always in
conformity to the established norm and to the defined rule of glorification
by tradition. To these, it is usually the pharaoh who stands out, not just as
victorious the triumpher in war, but also as an ubiquitous provider of ritual
and myth.

80 Cf. Grimal, N., Op. Cit., 340.

 109

Despite its selected or stereotyped repetitiveness, the smiting of the

enemies scenes at Medinet Habu constitute a paradigmatic case of figura-
tive syntax in which the brave and dynamic pharaoh (in this specific case,
Ramses III), theoretically provided with superhuman abilities, favourite of
the gods of victory, transforms the chaos into order, even when his mili-
tary movements towards the adversary, real or fictitious, are more defen-
sive than offensive.

Invincible, infallible, avenger, in active poses, proud and dominant:

here is the king that the coloured reliefs, usually on a colossal scale, of the
preeminent mortuary temple of Medinet Habu proclaimed.
110 José das Candeias Sales

Bibliography

AAVV, Les artistes de Pharaon. Deir el-Médineh et la Vallée des Rois, Paris,
Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 2002.

AAVV, La construction pharaonique du Moyen Empire à l’époque gréco-romaine.

Contexte et principes technologiques, Paris, Picard, 2004.

ARAÚJO, L. M. de, “A luta pela sobrevivência do Egipto: a expulsão

dos “Povos do mar”“ in SANTOS, A. R. dos, VARANDAS, J. (coord.), A
Guerra na Antiguidade III, Lisboa, Centro de História/ Caleidoscópio, 2010,
97-150.

ARAÚJO, L. M. de, “Da teoria à prática: o exercício do poder real no

Egipto faraónico” in Clio 5 (2001): 33-57.

ARAÚJO, L. M. de, “Medinet Habu” in ARAÚJO, L. M. de (dir.),

Dicionário do antigo, Lisboa, Editorial Caminho, 2001, 551-553.

ARNOLD, D., The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture, Cairo,

The American University in Cairo Press, 2003.

BAINES, J., MÁLEK, J., Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, Phaidon Press
Ltd, 1984.

BENSON, D. S., Ancient Egypt’s Warfare, Ohio, Bookmasters, 1995.

 111

BONHÊME, M.-A., FORGEAU, A., Pharaon. Les secrets du pouvoir, Pa-

ris, Arman Colin, 1998.

BREASTED, J. H., Ancient records of Egypt; historical documents from the ear-
liest times to the Persian conquest. Volume III: The nineteenth dynasty, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1906.

CARREIRA, J. N., “Legitimação do poder no Egipto faraónico” in Clio

5 (2001): 19-33.

CLAYTON, P., Chronique des pharaons. L’histoire règne par règne des souve-
rains et des dynasties de l’Égypte ancienne, Paris, Casterman, 1995.

COTTRELL, L., The warrior pharaohs, London, Evans Brothers, 1968.

DIAS, G. C., “Povos do mar” in ARAÚJO, L. M. de (dir.), Dicionário do

Antigo Egipto, Lisboa, Editorial Caminho, 2001, 708.

DIAS, G. C., “Os “Povos do mar” e a “Idade Obscura” no Médio

Oriente Antigo” in Cadmo 1 (1992): 145-155.

DODSON, A., HILTON, D., The complete royal families of Ancient Egypt,
Cairo, The American University of Cairo Press, 2004.

DONADONI, S., L’art égyptien, Paris, Librairie Générale Française,

1993.
112 José das Candeias Sales

GARDINER, A., Egypt of pharaohs. An introduction, Oxford, Clarendon

Press, 1961.

GRANDET, P., Ramsés III. Histoire d’un règne, Paris, Éditions Pygmalion,
1993.

GRIMAL, N., Histoire de L’Égypte ancienne, Paris, Fayard, 1988.

HALL, E. S., The pharaoh smites his enemies. A comparative study, Munique-
Berlim, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1986.

HAENY, G., “New kingdom “mortuary temples” and “mansions of

millions of years”“ in SHAFER B. E. (ed.), Temples of ancient Egypt , Cairo,
The American University in Cairo Press, 2005, 86-126.

HöLSCHER, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. IV. The Mortuary
Temple of Ramses III, Part II, Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1951 (http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/oip55.pdf).

HöLSCHER, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. III. The Mortuary
Temple of Ramses III, Part I, Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1941 (http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/oip54.pdf).

HöLSCHER, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. II. The Temples of
the Eighteenth Dynasty, Chicago, The University of Chicago/ Orinetal Insti-
tute Publication, 1939 (http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/oip41.pdf).
 113

HöLSCHER, U., The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. I. General plans and
viwes, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1934 (http://oi.uchicago.edu/
pdf/oip21.pdf).

KITCHEN, K. A., Ramesside Inscriptions, IV, Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 1972.

LALOUETTE, Cl., L’empire des Ramsès, Paris, Fayard, 1985.

McDERMOTT, B., Warfare in Ancient Egypt, Gloucestershire, Sutton

Publishing Ltd., 2004.

MÁLEK, J., Egypt. 4000 years of art, Londres, Phaidon Press Limited,
2003.

MÁLEK, J., Egyptian art, Londres, Phaidon Press Limited, 1999.

MANNICHE, L., L’art égyptien, Paris, Flammarion, 1994.

MANLEY, B., Atlas historique de l’Egypte ancienne. De Thèbes à Alexandrie:

la tumultueuse épopée des pharaons, Paris, Éditions Autrement, 1998.

MARTÍNEZ BABÓN, J., Faraones Guerreros. Historia militar de Egipto

desde la dinastía I hasta la XXVI, Barcelona, Libreria Mizar, 2008.

MURNAME, W. J., United with eternity. A concise guide to the monuments of

Medinet Habu, Chicago/ Cairo, The Oriental Institute, University of Chi-
cago/ The American University in Cairo Press, 1980.
114 José das Candeias Sales

NARDO, D., The history of weapons and warfare. Ancient Egypt, San Diego,
Lucent Books, 2002.

NELSON, H. H., “The identity of Amon-Re of United-with-Eternity”

in JNES, Vol. 1, Number 2 (1942): 127-155.

NEWBERRY, P. H., Warrior pharaohs: the rise and fall of the Egyptian Em-
pire, London, Book Club Associates, 1980.

PARTRIDGE, R. B., Fighting pharaohs. Weapons and Warfare in Ancient

Egypt, Manchester, Peartree Publishing, 2002.

PRITCHARD, J. B. (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts - Relating to the Old

Testament (=ANET), 3ªed. com suplemento, Princeton/ New Jersey,
Princeton University Press, 1969.

REDFORD, S., The harem conspiracy. The murder of Ramses III, Dekalb,
Northern Illinois University Press, 2002.

SALES, J. das C., Poder e Iconografia no antigo Egipto, Lisboa, Livros Hori-
zonte, 2008.

SALES, J. das C., “As fórmulas protocolares egípcias ou formas e pos-

sibilidades do discurso de legitimação no antigo Egipto” in Cadmo 16
(2007): 101-124.

SALES, J. das C., “Coroas” in ARAÚJO, L. M. de (dir.), Dicionário do

Antigo Egipto, Lisboa, Editorial Caminho, 2001 a, 241, 242.
 115

SALES, J. das C., “Faraó” in ARAÚJO, L. M. de (dir.), Dicionário do

Antigo Egipto, Lisboa, Editorial Caminho, 2001 b, 364-368.

SANDARS, N. K., The Sea Peoples, warriors of the ancient Mediterranean-

1250-1150 BC, Londres, Thames & Hudson, 1980.

SCHULZ, R., SOUROUZIAN, H., “Los templos: dioses-reyes y reyes-

dioses” in SCHULZ, R. e SEIDEL, M. (coord.), Egipto. O mundo dos faraós,
Colónia, Könemann, 2001, pp. 153-215.

SHAW, I., The Oxford history of Ancient Egypt, Londres, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2000.

SHAW, I., Egyptian warfare and weapons, Aylesbury, Shire Publications,

1991.

SHAW, I., NICHOLSON, P., British Museum dictionary of Ancient Egypt,

Londres, British Museum Press, 1995.

SILLIOTI, A., Guide to the Valley of the Kings and to the Theban necropolises
and temples, Luxor, A.A. Gaddis & Sons Publishers, 1996.

SMITH, W. S., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 3ª ed., New Ha-
ven/ London, Yale University Press, 1998.

SOUROUZIAN, H.; STADELMANN, R., “The temples of New

Kingdom” in ZIEGLER, Ch.; TIRADRITTI, F. (eds.), The pharaohs, Lon-
don, Thames & Hudson, 2002, pp. 161-193.
 116 José das Candeias Sales

SPALINGER, A. J., War in ancient Egypt. The New Kingdom, Oxford,

Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

STRUDWICK, N. e H., Thebes in Egypt. A Guide to the Tombs and Temples

of Ancient Luxor, London, Cornell University Press, 1999.

VALBELLE, D., Histoire de l’état pharaonique, Paris, PUF, 1998.

VALBELLE, D., Les neuf arcs. L’Égyptien et les étrangers de la Préhistoire à la

conquête d’Alexandre, Paris, Armand Colin, 1990.

VERNUS, P., Affaires et scandales sous les Ramsès. La crise des valeurs dans
l’Égypte du Nouvel Empire, Paris, Éditions Pygmalion/ Gérard Watelet, 1993.

VERNUS, P., YOYOTTE, J., Les pharaons, Paris, MA Editions, 1988.

WILDUNG, D., O Egipto. Da Pré-história aos Romanos, Lisboa, Taschen,

1998.

WILKINSON, R. H., The complete temples of Ancient Egypt, London,

Thames & Hudson, 2000.

View publication stats