LHMP #585 Reeder 2000 Same-Sex Desire, Conjugal Constructs, and the Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep

Anyone who follows queer history has probably at some point seen reference to the ancient Egyptian tomb of two men with a marriage-like framing. This article provides a detailed review of the tomb, the evidence regarding the men’s relationship, and the documentary context for interpreting it. While this topic is not about women – and it’s unlikely that we’d find a parallel example with women – the methodology for examining it provides a useful framework.

The tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep dates to the 5th dynasty (ca 2400 BCE). The two shared the same job title “manicurist of the king and the inspector of manicurists of the palace.” [Note: As described they both had this dual title, not each having one half. Contemplate for a moment the social structure in which “inspector of manicurists” is a job titled!]

The tomb includes several depictions of the two in arrangements and postures typically found for married couples. Initially, scholars worked to find explanations for the symbolism that did not raise the specter of a same-sex couple. One promising argument was that they were brothers – perhaps twins. Although there seems to have been no positive evidence for this in the tomb, Reeder takes the time to show that the term “sn” (brother) was also used in metaphorical senses for a close bond of friendship or affection. So even if the tomb had included such a reference, it wouldn’t be proof of blood relationship, or cancel out the import of the conjugal symbolism.

In analyzing the pictorial symbolism, Reeder makes use of Nadine Cherpions 1995 catalogue and analysis of husband-wife imagery in the 4th through 6th dynasties. It should be noted that the two men are depicted as being married to women (with children). But in a variety of scenes, where typically tomb imagery would show a husband-wife pair, this tomb shows the two men, with the wives being relegated to marginal depictions, or absent, or in one case initially represented and then removed from the image.

In several images, the two men are shown in an intimate embrace, with a range of closeness, in “type scenes” that typically would show husband and wife. Other images show one of the men leading the other by the hand, or sitting together. (The article has line drawings and detailed descriptions of the images.) In one banquet scene, a group of performers are instructed (in the accompanying text) to “play the one about the Two Divine Brothers,” i.e., Horus and Set, who in myth had a sexual encounter.

One interesting detail is that, in all the imagery, Khnumhotep is consistently shown in the position and context in which a wife normally appears – a position of slightly less prominence, or positioned behind in, or holding and smelling a lotus flower (adjuster associated with female figures). [Note: Within the highly stratified and hierarchical Egyptian society of the time, this may indicate nothing more than a relative difference in social status. It need not indicate that their relationship was envisioned in terms of male-female gender roles.]

Reeder provides a brief discussion of evidence regarding Egyptian attitudes towards homosexuality at the time. While male-female marriages were the norm, and there seems to have been some antipathy toward anal sex, during the 4th through 6th dynasties there seems to have been a variety of ways of depicting conjugal relations and this variety may have enabled the application of such symbolism to other types of relationships.

In sum, within a high-status tomb, two men are shown performing an intimate relationship using the symbolic vocabulary of marriage, and shown to displace in importance the men’s coexisting marriages to women.