Dating the Tombs of the Egyptian Old Kingdom 9781905739820

The decorated tombs of the Egyptian Old Kingdom offer detailed knowledge of a society that in all probability was the fi

890 160 4MB

English Pages 198 [206] Year 2014

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Dating the Tombs of the Egyptian Old Kingdom
 9781905739820

Table of contents :
Cover
Title page
Copyright page
Dedication
Acknowledhments
Contents page
Preface
Introduction
1.1 The need to date private tombs
1.2 The proposed dating system
1.3 Defining the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period
1.3 Defining the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period
Stages in the development of the dating system
1.6 The dating of
provincial tombs
Prosopography for
Tomb Groups A and B
2.1 Data from Giza
2.2 Data from Saqqara
2.3 Data from tombs of Upper Egypt
2.4 The use of personal relationships
2.5 Dating for the prosopography
2.6 Prosopography (Groups A and B)
2.7 Groups A and B officials
Establishing Dating Criteria
3.1 Dress of the male tomb owner
3.2 Adornment of the tomb owner
3.3 The ‘animal skin’ garment
3.4 Tomb owner at the offering table
3.5 Bread and reeds on offering table
3.6 Lists and offerings associated with table
3.7 Priestly figures performing rites
3.8 The offering table
3.9 The female figure
3.10 The banquet scene
3.11 Stools and chairs
3.12 Marsh scenes
3.13 Figures and desriptions of Criteria 1-104
3.14 Tables to establish dating criteria
Testing the Criteria
4.1 Giza tombs
4.2 Saqqara tombs
4.3 Provincial tombs
4.4 Testing the Criteria
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
5.1 The validity of the criteria
5.2 Reliability of the system
5.3 Question of archaizing tombs
5.4 Need for more criteria
5.5 A time lag between cemeteries?
Bibliography
Back cover

Citation preview

Dating the Tombs of the Egyptian Old Kingdom

Joyce Swinton

Archaeopress Egyptology 2

Archaeopress Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 905739 82 0 ISBN 978 1 905739 88 2 (e-PDF)

© Archaeopress and J Swinton 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

For Leonie A friend indeed

Acknowledgements

For almost a quarter of a century I have had the privilege of studying Egyptology at Macquarie University. Working in such a supportive environment has put me in debt to generous scholars, among them: Associate Professor Boyo Ockinga, Susanne Binder, Linda Evans, Beth Thompson and Alex Woods. In particular I have Professor Naguib Kanawati to thank for tolerance and intellectual support as I battled my way through three degrees in the subject, one of which provided the foundation for the present publication. As always my husband, Stuart, accepted with generosity and good humour a domestic regime built around a wife’s constant abstraction to ancient times. Most of all I am in debt to Leonie Donovan, a very good friend, for the many long hours she has spent formatting and preparing this and a previous work for publication. Without Leonie’s formidable computer expertise neither volume would have seen the light of day. In addition, when ‘my batteries were low’ she quietly and tactfully used her specialised knowledge in Egyptology to alert me to errors in the manuscript and check doubtful references. Needless to say, any remaining errors are all my own work. Sydney, Australia

i

ii

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

PREFACE

vii

CHAPTER

CHAPTER

CHAPTER

1–8

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 1.1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.5 1.6

The need to date private tombs Chronological confusion The proposed dating system Defining the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period Dating criteria for the end of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period Methodology used in this study: establishing dating criteria Two groups of tombs Categories of tombs Time scale to be used Stages in the development of the dating system The dating of provincial tombs

2

PROSOPOGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2

Data from Giza Data from Saqqara Data from tombs of Upper Egypt The use of personal relationships Dating for the prosopography Prosopography (Groups A and B) Group A and B offcials Explanatory notes to the Catalogue of Officials Catalogue of Officials according to their prosopography number and group

3

ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA

3.1 3.1.1. 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6

Dress of the male tomb owner (CRITERIA 1–8) The flared kilt The short, tight-fitting kilt Choice of kilt Kilt styles and dating criteria Horizontal buckle and stiff tag Criteria based upon kilt styles

49 49 50 50 54 54 55

3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

Adornment of the tomb owner (CRITERIA 9–12) The beaded collar The amulet Wigs Criteria based upon male adornment

55 55 56 56 56

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3

The ‘animal skin’ garment (CRITERIA 13–24) The long robe depicting an animal skin worn by males and females The animal skin worn over the kilt Criteria based upon the animal skin

57 57 57 58

1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 9–48 9 10 11 12 12 14 44 44 45 49–96

iii

3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

Tomb owner at the offering table (CRITERIA 25–30) Dress of the male at the offering table Posture of the male seated at the offering table Criteria based upon the tomb owner at the offering table

59 60 60 61

3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4

Bread and reeds on offering table (CRITERIA 31–38) Height of half loaves Reeds on the offering table Orientation of half loaves and reeds Criteria based upon bread and reeds on the offering table

62 62 62 62 63

3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5

Lists and offerings associated with table (CRITERIA 39–50) The offering lists The pictorial display of food The xA list Ewer and basin Criteria based upon offerings and lists

64 64 64 65 65 66

3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4

Priestly figures performing rites (CRITERIA 51–59) Individual funerary priests Row of funerary priests Criteria based upon priestly figures performing rites The offering table (CRITERIA 60–63) Height of offering table Offering table pedestal Lipped rim of table Criteria based upon the offering table

67 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 68

3.9 3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3 3.9.4 3.9.5

The female figure (CRITERIA 64–72) The wife of the deceased at the offering table The pose of the female Reduction of the size of the standing wife Female adornment Criteria based upon the female figure

68 69 69 70 70 71

3.10 3.10.1 3.10.2 3.10.3 3.10.4 3.10.5

The banquet scene (CRITERIA 73–78) Appearance of the banquet The flywhisk The high backed armchair The lotus Criteria based upon the banquet scene

72 72 72 73 73 74

3.11 3.11.1 3.11.2 3.11.3 3.11.4 3.11.5 3.11.6 3.11.7

Stools and chairs (CRITERIA 79 – 93) The armchair The stool and chair with low back Chair legs and feet Tomb owner’s stool or chair Chair leg supports Mat or platform beneath the tomb owner’s chair and feet Criteria based upon the tomb owner’s chair

74 74 75 75 75 75 76 76

3.12 3.12.1 3.12.2 3.12.3 3.12.4 3.12.5

Marsh scenes (CRITERIA 94–104) ‘Papyrus pulling’ scenes The ‘pleasure cruise’ scene The tomb owner fishing and fowling Family members accompanying the tomb owner Criteria based upon marsh scenes

77 77 78 78 78 79

iv

3.13 3.14

CHAPTER

CHAPTER

3.14.1

Figures and description of Criteria 1-104 Tables to establish dating criteria Criteria Table 1: Criteria 1–24 Criteria Table 2: Criteria 25–50 Criteria Table 3: Criteria 51–78 Criteria Table 4: Criteria 79–104 Explanatory notes to the tables

4

TESTING THE CRITERIA

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.4 4.4.1

Giza Tombs Saqqara Tombs Provincial Tombs The tombs of Naga ed-Der The tombs of the Northern Cliff, Deir el-Gabrawi Testing the Criteria: Charts A to G-G Explanatory note to the charts

5

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

The validity of the criteria Reliability of the system Question of archaising tombs Need for more criteria A time lag between cemeteries?

80–95 96–135 96 106 116 126 136 137– 168 137 141 143 144 145 147 168 169–172 169 170 170 171 171 173

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

v

vi

Preface

This work, a system for dating the tombs of officials of the Old Kingdom, is based on criteria drawn from a typological study of the iconography of 114 dated tomb chapels. To avoid circular reasoning, these monuments, which provide the basic data for the system, had to be dated by evidence that does not derive from wall scenes. From this typological study 104 features have been identified as having a ‘life span’ that lies wholly or partly within the Old Kingdom. These features are accepted as dating criteria and are supported by Tables of their occurrence in the 114 tombs used to establish criteria.

as the testing produced few discrepant results. The dates provided by this method were then compared with the dates assigned to the same tombs by other methods. While there was considerable agreement with the most recently dated tombs, the dating of other tombs tended to support earlier rather than later dates. While testing showed up some weaknesses in the system, which cannot provide secure dating for tombs in the first half of Dynasty 4 or the last half of Dynasty 6, the system appears valid and reliable for the dating of tombs in the second half of Dynasty 4, Dynasty 5 and the first half of Dynasty 6.

To test the reliability of the criteria and the validity of the system as a dating tool, the criteria have been applied to tombs which either are very broadly or contentiously dated, or have been recently dated by scholars using the latest techniques and knowledge. The resulting ‘criteria profiles’, submitted as CHARTS A to G-G, show the criteria and system to be both reliable and valid inasmuch

This work was originally presented in 2002 as an M.A. Honours thesis. Since then, reports of a number of important Old Kingdom tombs have been published. Taking these monuments into consideration has required updating the work and amending many important details, although the principles on which the system is based have not changed.

vii

Chapter 1  Introduction  1.1 

repertoire, apart from variation and development of detail, it presented an apparently unchanging picture of ‘everyday life’.2

The need to date private tombs 

The cemeteries of the Old Kingdom are witness to the earliest society in which administration and policymaking by a unified government and a complex ‘theology’ extended well beyond the reaches of a citystate. This society was not a static system. There are many indications of change. Between early Dynasty 4 and late Dynasty 6 for example, there were reductions in the size of pyramids and in the quality of their construction. The architecture and decoration of private tombs was also subject to a series of modifications. All these significant changes may have been the result of economic and social pressures but they also may have been influenced by developing beliefs about the afterlife. Economic and social pressures possibly contributed to a fluctuation of the relative powers of the king and the central administration, culminating in competing claims and royal family feuds. A situation of this nature may have led to the change from Dynasty 4 when the highest administrative and priestly positions were occupied by important members of the royal family, to Dynasty 5 when members of the royal family appear to have been deliberately excluded from political and administrative power. ‘New’ men who had, as far as we can tell, no traceable royal blood, were appointed to many high positions and the practice was initiated of bestowing the titles ‘sA nswt’ (‘king’s son’) and ‘sA nswt n Xt.f’ (‘king’s son of his body’) on high or favoured members of the official classes who do not appear to have been members of the royal family. Yet much of this is speculative as evidence of the historical dynamic of the Old Kingdom is at best fragmentary.

As few tombs provide evidence on which they may be dated it is difficult to place the data they provide in chronological order. The typology of tomb architecture shows a number of major changes, but does not offer a secure dating system. The many variations and individual modifications in tomb design, as well as long periods of overlapping of styles make it difficult to date tombs according to architectural features and patterns. Yet tucked away in these cemeteries is a wealth of historical data about the men on whom the governance of Egypt depended for over 400 years. They were true bureaucrats whose life’s work was the maintenance of an orderly society. They measured success by royal recognition and, seemingly, a hierarchy of ponderous titles. Their funerary inscriptions rarely descend to the vainglorious recollection of battle and bloodlust; rather they suggest that the height of endeavour for this class was administrative service, and its reward the approval of the king they served. Judging from the way these officials had themselves and their families depicted, the culmination of a successful life was a benign and prosperous old age with the satisfaction of seeing dutiful sons succeed them. Occasionally the monuments reflect something of the officials’ individual lives, of their values and moral code, affections, hopes and fears, even the policies they administered and perhaps initiated to meet changing conditions. Yet this information is subtly conveyed on the tacit expectation that the visitor to the tomb understood the assumptions of the worldview on which their society rested. The introduction of new titles only hints at administrative and religious developments. There may have been power struggles at the pinnacle of the country’s administration. Obscure comments like those of Wnj3 who claimed to have enjoyed accelerated promotion and presided in camera over a case against a queen, and the deliberate defacement of the name and face of important officials such as occurred in the tomb of the vizier, Ra-wr [63]4, raise this possibility.

While inscribed and decorated tombs of the Old Kingdom cemeteries of Giza and Saqqara offer an almost continuous record for the period, they seem to throw little light on historical developments. The reason lies partly in the kind of data that the tombs provide; inscriptions largely comprise repetitive religious/magical formulae, lists of titles,1 formularized statements such as the ‘appeal to the living’, brief captions labelling a scene or the plain speech of working people. These inscriptions rarely anchor the structure in precise time. Rather than welldated events, depictions of scenes usually present standard features such as the ‘offering scene’ and aspects of ‘daily life’. Once a theme was added to the pictorial 1

2

The power and duties of holders of many of these titles are barely understood. Even the manner of holding titles is obscure. Strudwick raises the question of whether strings of titles inscribed in tombs represent ‘the accumulation of a lifetime’ (Baer [1960] 35) or whether they merely were a list of titles held by the tomb owner at the time the tomb was decorated. He is, however, unable to answer the question with any certainty. Strudwick (1985) 174.

3 4



Kent Weeks notes that these ‘unchanging’ pictures may reflect changes in the Egyptian worldview which we do not easily detect and that there has been little rigorous assessment of significant attributes of various classes of scenes: Weeks (1979). The possibility that, over a period of more than 400 years, the significance of such attributes may change also needs to be considered. It may be misleading to judge the meaning of Dynasty 5 funerary art in terms appropriate to Dynasty 4. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 98-110. El Fikey (1980) pls. 1, 2, 5, 9; Kanawati (1981a) 1.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  present level of dating may be adequate for certain types of studies, but assigning many monuments to ‘the second half of Dynasty 4’ or merely to ‘Dynasty 6’ does not provide the chronological precision needed to act as a framework for the investigation of historical change. Moreover, when scholars begin using the evidence offered by private tombs to research into the period, a basic lack of agreement in dating monuments tends to emerge.10 Very few Old Kingdom tombs, stelae and coffins contain uncontroversial evidence of their date. Consequently, when factors such as inscribed statements or personal relationships recorded in or inferred from inscriptions fail to provide a secure date, these monuments may be dated according to a variety of techniques of relative dating or merely scholarly judgements. The assorted dating systems in use are derived from architectural, iconographic and epigraphic style changes and from key occurrences such as the introduction of the name of Osiris into funerary invocations. Dating a monument may entail selecting factors drawn from a number of dating systems, some of which are themselves based on a chronology of monuments that has no proven validity. Furthermore the dates provided by these systems are often of necessity based on minor changes of style, which are only credible as dating criteria if they are part of a well based typology, as old and new features and styles frequently overlap for a considerable length of time. In addition, the archaeological context of Egyptian tombs, as well as the archaeological methods used, rarely provides a clear stratification either for remains of the tomb itself or for any artefacts it may contain, which have usually suffered disturbance before being excavated.

Scholars of the Old Kingdom appear reluctant to extract broad ‘non-funerary’ inferences from the mass of funerary data, perhaps because the exposition of wide ranging hypotheses, of necessity based on limited and contentious data, will expose them to scholarly criticism.5 In particular, significant developments may have occurred towards the end of Dynasty 5. The emaciated figures on the Causeway of Unis may be ‘sand-dwellers’ but their depiction on this royal construction may represent a significant situation for the Old Kingdom state. After the construction of the pyramid of Neuserre at Abusir, the location for the king’s burial place changed to Saqqara, where it remained for the rest of the Old Kingdom, and kings stopped building sun temples. In the second half of Dynasty 5 before the reign of Unis, the name of Osiris was introduced into the offering formulae in private tombs. In the reign of Unis, last king of Dynasty 5, the recording of religious texts inside the pyramids was adopted. In the following reign of Teti, there appears to have been an important change in the ranking and status of priestly titles of royal pyramids.6 Very few customary themes were ever dropped from the pictorial repertoire of private tombs, but the sSS wAD (‘pulling papyrus’) scene may, in fact, disappear from tombs of males at this time.7 In addition, the steady impoverishment of Memphite funerary architecture from the end of Teti’s reign on suggests that a growing economic problem challenged the late Old Kingdom state. Such a cluster of changes hints at political, economic and religious development, yet this cannot be adequately hypothesized without placing the data in a more precise chronological framework. The tombs of Old Kingdom officials constitute a large proportion of the available source material from which a history of this period might be derived. Without an acceptable chronological ordering of the basic data, however, the full potential of this rich body of historical evidence will not be accessible.8 1.1.1 

All this makes any refinement of the dating of Old Kingdom monuments hazardous. Studies such as Nigel Strudwick’s ordering of false doors according to stylistic features,11 Yvonne Harpur’s researches into decorative developments12 and H.G. Fischer’s identification of iconographic and epigraphic changes each provide a chronology.13 These works provide valuable insights into the changing world of the Old Kingdom but conclusions drawn from such studies may contradict one another, while the bases on which these systems assign dates are sometimes unclear, creating further problems.

Chronological confusion 

Yvonne Harpur comments that there is surprisingly little disagreement on the dating of Old Kingdom tombs, many of which can be dated with ‘reasonable accuracy’.9 The 5

6 7

8

9

Attempts to get beyond the chronological confusion include Klaus Baer’s study of variable title sequences14, based where possible on securely dated monuments. However, the complexity of his method and the quantity of data he used has made it time consuming to rework the evidence and check Baer’s steps. Strudwick has aptly pointed out that Baer’s time divisions are uncomfortably

Works such as Strudwick’s enquiry into role and powers of high officials (Strudwick [1985]) and Kanawati’s examination of tombs as an economic product (Kanawati [1977]) make use of available date to offer inferences about the historical dynamic of the Old Kingdom. However, they need updating as they depend on the chronological sequencing of tombs. Baer (1960) 245-58. Harpur (1987), providing a list of tombs with the major figure (male) active in marsh scenes, shows few Dynasty 6 tombs with this scene (Table 6.18 pp. 335-339). Although Harpur assigns a conventionally accepted Dynasty 6 date to some of the tombs, it is unlikely that a sSS wAD scene occurs in a tomb that dates beyond the reign of Unas. All of the ‘Dynasty 6’ instances (JAsn [3]. %nb (PM 101), KA.j-m-anx (PM 132), Ftk-tA (PM 351), Nj-anx-Ppjj of Zawyet el-Amwat) are probably to be dated to Dynasty 5. Roth provides a good example of how the architectural evidence provides insights into the historical dynamic and how such interpretations can only be strengthened by establishing a chronological order for that evidence. Roth (1995) 23-47. Harpur (1987) 2.

10

11 12 13 14



Harpur provides a comprehensive summary of dating criteria in current use. Its eclectic nature helps to explain the level of scholarly disagreement over the dating of many monuments. Harpur (1987) 35-36. Strudwick (1985) 35-52. Harpur (1987) passim. Fischer (1959) 244-48. Baer (1960) passim.

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION  precise.15 In particular, Baer’s system for dating Dynasty 6 monuments has concerned scholars, for his conclusions are often at variance with dates arrived at by other methods, particularly with regard to provincial tombs.16 Dynasty 6 is an especially difficult area in which to apply a system such as Baer’s, and he clearly needed a greater number of securely dated monuments than the dynasty provides. However, Baer’s use of titles to provide dating criteria has rich potential. Perhaps a simpler approach would have yielded more accessible results.

have a ‘life span’ or part of a ‘life-span’ within the Old Kingdom, are then classed as ‘dating criteria’, and can be applied to date other monuments. To avoid the problem of circular reasoning which sometimes affects typological studies, the duration of these features is established by means that are independent of any other system of relative dating. The defining dates for each criterion, that is the base data on which the system rests, have not been drawn from any other ‘relative’ criteria of the same kind. The system offers 104 criteria but a ‘bank’ of some hundreds of established criteria is needed if it is to be applied to a variety of tombs. Dating criteria derived from stylistic changes often have a long life span; in the context of the Old Kingdom they may cover a number of reigns. Consequently, when only a few such criteria are applied to a monument they may not give an exact date. (See CHAPTER 4: TESTING THE CRITERIA and CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING COMMENTS). Furthermore, using this method to assign a date to a monument will gain substantial acceptance only if the dating is confirmed by as many criteria as possible.20 This system should not be applied mechanically. Some criteria will carry more weight and conviction than others. Chronological gaps in the supporting evidence for each criterion need to be taken into account. Inferences drawn from chapel decoration may not apply to coffins, stelae or burial chambers.

A more recent study, which sets out to avoid the logical circularity that sometimes besets methods of relative dating, is presented by Cherpion,17 who makes use of royal cartouches to establish dating criteria but uses a sophisticated logic to avoid bare reliance on their occurrence in a tomb. Instead, the presence of cartouches provides earliest and latest dates for her criteria. Her system, however, also has its methodological difficulties,18 while a few of her criteria rest on too small a quantity of data to provide secure conclusions.19 The most serious problem with Cherpion’s system is that reliance on cartouches tends to set too early a time limit for some criteria. Offices in royal funerary establishments outlasted the king in question sometimes by hundreds of years. This provided office holders in the king’s funerary establishment with the opportunity to inscribe the king’s cartouche in their tomb perhaps two or three hundred years or more after the death of that king. When this is the latest cartouche present in a number of tombs, the system tends to skew results by providing dates that are too early.

It may never be possible to date some Old Kingdom monuments more precisely than within one or two generations. Yet, even these limits will enable a systematic order to be applied. A sufficiently precise chronological ordering of monuments and the evidence they offer should then be available to support further investigation into the historical dynamic of the Old Kingdom. Evidence from dated monuments should make possible the delineation of historical processes such as the growth of social conscience and responsibility as witnessed, for example, in the development of ‘ideal biographies’. It should become possible to track the emergence of new features like the introduction of Osiris into the funerary formulae, and administrative and technological change.

Other methods of dating depend on the recognition of changes in tomb architecture, in the false door, in the depiction of standard iconographic features such as furniture and personal adornment, and epigraphic variations, some of which show progressive change. Although these features appear to have a dating capability, their perceived ‘life span’ rests either on the conventionally accepted dates of monuments on which the depictions are found or on a system that is not fully researched or explained. When these criteria are used to date a monument, a combination of ‘proofs’ is frequently drawn from a number of uncalibrated dating systems, while contradictory data is merely acknowledged or even ignored. Without a clear and unequivocal method of establishing the ‘life span’ of architectural, iconographic and palaeographic styles and changes, the value of these features as dating criteria is questionable. 1.2 

It is the aim of the present study to contribute to the development of a system of dating Old Kingdom monuments by establishing dating criteria which can be applied to a majority of private tombs and applying these criteria to certain monuments with broad or contentious dating.

The proposed dating system 

This study proposes to establish earliest and latest dates for the adoption and discard of certain features in style and content of the depictions of the tomb owner and related scenes. These features, which can be shown to 15 16 17 18 19

1.3  

Defining the end of the Old Kingdom and the  First Intermediate Period  

Two major features of the First Intermediate Period are the breakdown of administrative unity centred on

Strudwick (1985) 4. Baer (1960) 274-95. Cherpion (1989) 23. Baud deals with these problems in detail. Baud (1997) 51-96. Critères 51, 62, 63 and 64 have less than five supporting occurrences. Cherpion (1989) 196, 204-5.

20



Increases to the ‘bank’ of criteria would be possible with the inclusion of epigraphic and palaeographic criteria, and there are many more pictorial criteria to be identified. Further extension is beyond the scope of the present study but may be feasible in the future.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  There may have been a time-lag of some generations between the decline in prosperity and the actual breakdown of administrative unity. To judge by their tombs, declining prosperity appears to have been affecting even the highest class in the capital by the reign of Pepy I.29 Whether there was political upheaval or not, this development would have brought about cultural change which could have been reflected in standards of craftsmanship.

Memphis and the economic decline. While these two features were roughly parallel in time they may not have been precisely coeval. Moreover, although there was conflict, the entire First Intermediate Period probably was not a time of constant dissension. Certain parts of the country may have experienced intervals of peace. From the death of Pepy II to the return of unity (about Year 38 of the reign of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II) is sometimes accepted as the First Intermediate Period, although there is no broad agreement as to when the First Intermediate Period began. Manetho21 includes Dynasties 7 to 10 in his First Intermediate Period. To judge by the evidence of the cramped mastabas of the high officials of the later years of Pepi II,22 severe economic hardship may have overtaken the country towards the end of that long reign, possibly exacerbated by an aging king’s feebleness. Moreover, Manetho’s date does not seem to be the most appropriate division of time. Pepy II’s reign was followed by a diminished, although not ineffective, form of kingship. The collapse of central power may have been progressive, beginning with the assertion of provincial initiative, but still with notional acknowledgement of the central power. This may be the significance of the proactive policies of Ankhtifi while claiming to have been posted to Moaalla by ‘Horus’.23 The description, ‘end of the Old Kingdom’, is therefore reserved for the political changes, that is, the ultimate breakdown of central Memphite authority. 1.3.1 

The national picture of social and cultural change may have been quite complex. It is conceivable that the capital, drawing on the produce of many provinces, would reflect a reduction in the total wealth and productivity of the country at an earlier date than would some individual, well managed or better endowed provinces. With a drop in production, some provincial administrators may have decided to retain a greater proportion of agricultural produce in their province depriving the capital of its usual income. The national economic picture, then, would be very uneven; a drop in affluence in the capital and some provinces, with other provinces maintaining earlier Old Kingdom levels of affluence for a longer time. Such a time-lag may have produced a lack of uniformity in standards of craftsmanship across the provinces of Egypt. These remarks, merely supposition, are intended to stress that the evidence from the decline in standards of craftsmanship may be expected to reflect a complex pattern of change affecting capital and individual provinces at different times.

Dating criteria for the end of the Old Kingdom  and First Intermediate Period? 

This bears on the usefulness of late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period monuments to provide valid dating criteria. Ideally, monuments of this period should be studied province by province. The above considerations and the absence of an adequate number of securely dated monuments from either the capital or the provinces from the end of the Old Kingdom and from the First Intermediate Period, however, make it impossible to use the proposed dating system beyond the reign of Pepy II.

It is accepted that the classical style of art, epitomized by the canon of proportion for the human body, degenerated in the late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. However, aspects of this breakdown cannot be used uncritically as criteria for dating. Departures from the canon occurred for other reasons and at other times.24 Provincial work sometimes shows a clumsiness at a much earlier period. In her doctoral dissertation on the Cusite Nome, Gillam states that enlarged eyes are an indicator of late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period art.25 Yet Jsj [11] of Edfu26 and Qrrj [98] of El Hawawish,27 both securely dated to early Dynasty 6, show this feature. While isolation from the capital and a dearth of craftsmen skilled in the Memphite crafts may account for these early occurrences of artistic variation, some changes of style in the representation of the human figure may be related to the so-called ‘Second Style’.28

21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28

1.4  

Methodology used in this study: establishing  dating criteria 

In order to maximise data from which dating criteria are drawn, the study is largely confined to the most frequently occurring iconographic features in private tombs and on Dynasty 4 tomb stelae. These include the representation of the male tomb owner wearing differing styles of clothing and collars of different widths, both as a standing and seated figure. The pose and adornment of the major female figure and her size in relation to the tomb owner have also been used, as have elements of certain scenes: the offering table, banquet and marsh scenes.

Waddell (1971) 57-73. Jequier (1929) passim. “For Horus wished to reestablish it, because he brought me to reestablish it.” Lichtheim (1988) 25. This leads to the question of whether changes in the representation of the human figure and features were due to artistic ‘degeneration’ or the introduction of the ‘Second Style’. Russmann (1995) 269279, Brovarski (2008) 49-90. Gillam (1991) 136, footnote 15. Ziegler (1990) No. 9, pp. 78, 79, 81. Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 22a. Russmann (1995) 269-279 and Brovarski (2008) 49-90.

29



Kanawati (2003) passim

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION  1.4.1 

is that the defining dates for a criterion must conform with all relevant Group A monuments and with most of Group B. Where a small number of Group B tombs provide conflicting evidence, each anomaly was investigated to judge whether it should be discounted as wrongly dated or required the chronological extension of the criterion in question, or destroyed the criterion’s validity. These judgements are included in the study.

Two groups of tombs 

Tombs providing evidence to establish criteria are divided into two groups: Group “A” consists of monuments that are essentially self dating and usually refer by pertinent inscription to the king(s) served by the tomb owner. By itself, this group is neither large enough nor sufficiently well distributed in time to support acceptable dating criteria. The number of Old Kingdom tombs securely dated by inscription to a particular reign is relatively small, especially in Dynasties 4 and 5 when such precision usually depends on an exceptional situation. Thus, the majority of tombs do not provide evidence of the reign in which the tomb owner lived. Consequently, a second group of monuments was established.

1.4.2 

Monuments included on Groups A and B are categorized according to their original location and cemetery. The purpose in establishing location is to check whether iconographic features show a variation from one location to another. For example, do features emerge later and last longer in the provinces than at the capital? There is a further question of whether new features first appear in the chapels of the highest officials. Strudwick finds different dates for the introduction of features of the false door between Giza and Saqqara and between officials of different status.31 However, in this study, attempting to class chapels according to the status group of their owner as well as location, fragments the group of chapels into categories that are too small to provide useful subgroups of individual criteria.

Group “B” consists of monuments whose date is established by inference. To avoid circular argument, the tombs in this list are restricted to those where evidence of their date does not derive from decorative elements of a tomb. Instead, three kinds of data have been relied on to date a monument: location (the position of tombs vis à vis royal monuments and tombs of other, well dated officials), personal relationships and archaeological evidence such as workmen’s graffiti and order of construction. As these dating results may be less certain, the tombs in this list have been given a date that is broad enough in time to encompass a span of reasonable dating possibilities. This has not proved an insuperable obstacle to the dating system proposed in this study as the method of dating depends on the coincidence of the maximum number of criteria that can be applied to the decoration of an individual tomb (see Charts A to G-G and ‘Concluding Comments’).

Most dating criteria have an existence which spans a number of reigns. To assign a precise date to a chapel with a number of scenes requires a ‘bank’ of many established criteria. Rarely does the application of a few criteria with a long ‘life span’ provide a precise date for a monument. 1.4.3 

Time scale to be used 

The time scale used is that of dynasties and reigns rather than years, because monuments in Groups A and B can be assigned to a reign but rarely to a year within the reign. Ephemeral rulers, such as Nebka/Wehemka of Dynasty 4 and Userkare of Dynasty 6, are not included. The outcome of this study is not materially affected either by the existence of kings who may have come to the throne for a year or so or by the exact number of years for more substantial reigns. However, whether a king reigned for 10 or 30 years is significant, as some of the tombs in Group B are dated by inferences concerning generations of family members.

Ideally, a tomb in Group B should offer evidence from all three categories and an absence of contra-evidence, but such a situation is rare. Consequently, evidence in two categories, together with an absence of contra-evidence, have been made the yardstick for Group B. Occasionally, particularly strong evidence from just one category is accepted. Ultimately, however, in the choice of Group B monuments there is a degree of subjectivity with which the writer is unhappy, but cannot avoid. Other tombs with one or more cartouches have been used as a further check on the dating of Group B. The date for the final appearance of a criterion, established from Group B, has been checked against tombs bearing the cartouche of a king later than the criterion’s final date. If the criterion was found on one of these monuments, it clearly extended the final date of the criterion.

The chronology for the Old Kingdom in terms of length of reigns and dynasties is beset with difficulties. The two basic sources, the Turin Canon and sources based on Manetho, do not always agree and contain some important lacunae. For this study the most significant problems occur in late Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6. The length of reigns for Unis, Teti and Pepy I given by the Turin Canon and Manetho have recently been questioned by von Beckerath, who suggests a reign length of 20 years for Unis, as opposed to the 30 and 33 years given

Group B extends the number and chronological range of monuments used.30 As some monuments in this group may have wrongly inferred dates, the principle followed 30

Categories of tombs  

Refer to CHAPTER 2, 2.6 PROSOPOGRAPHY (GROUPS A AND B), pp. 14–44 and 2.7.2 CATALOGUE OF OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO THEIR PROSOPOGRAPHY NUMBER AND GROUP, pp. 45–47.

31



Strudwick (1985) 9-52.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  by the Turin Canon and Manetho.32 Kanawati proposes a further reduction to 15 years for Unis. By accepting that the HAt-sp took place every year rather than every two years, he proposes the further reduction of the reigns of Teti and Pepy I to 11 and 25 years respectively.33 The reduction of the reign of Unis to 20 years, as proposed by von Beckerath, and the reductions of the reigns of Teti and Pepy I are acceptable. The further reduction of Unis’ reign to 15 years and the drastic reduction of the reign of Pepy II to 33+ years may be too great. A reign of 60 years for Pepy II, taking in his childhood, would allow for him to be succeeded by a son of perhaps 50 years of age and allow for two Hb-sd festivals which could have been 30 years apart.

further dating difficulties. It has yet to be established that these two categories of monuments present either the same stylistic changes or the same range of dates for these changes either in relation to each other or to the depictions on chapel walls. Stage 3: Identification and dating of criteria A search of the published reports of tombs in Groups A and B was made to identify iconographic features whose life spans could be established. This was achieved by plotting the occurrence of these features on TABLES 1–4 to establish their earliest and latest attested appearances. Images on Dynasty 4 stelae are also used because they were once embedded in the tomb’s structure.35 Altogether, 104 iconographic features with an existence that spans more than one reign were accepted as criteria. .

A twenty year generation span has been used to take into account both an early marriage age and a high incidence of youthful mortality, which would mean that the eldest son did not always survive to succeed his father in office or estate.

Stage 4: Testing the system The validity and reliability of the proposed system was tested by applying it to tombs that were either contentiously or very broadly dated, or had been recently dated by scholars using up-to-date knowledge and techniques. See CHARTS A to G-G. The first tomb to be tested, however, was that of *jj.36 Although this tomb is generally accepted as later Dynasty 5, it contains both ‘old’ and ‘new’ iconographic features and styles that present a considerable challenge for testing the validity of this type of dating system.

This study establishes earliest and latest dated occurrences of the adoption and abandonment of certain features in style and content of the depictions of the tomb owner and related scenes, thus providing each feature with a ‘life span’ or part of a ‘life span’ within the Old Kingdom. It is not possible to judge whether or for how long the iconographic features selected as dating criteria continue beyond the reign of Pepy II. Consequently dating tables (see TABLES 1–4 ) showing criteria lasting well into Pepy II’s reign do not indicate that this was the final occurrence of these criteria but that beyond this date there are no securely dated monuments to show how long each feature survived. 1.5 

Stage 5: Drawing conclusions Conclusions regarding the reliability of the criteria lifespans and the validity of the system were drawn from CHARTS A to G-G. See CHAPTERS 4 and 5. 1.6  

Stages in the development of the dating  system34 

Few provincial monuments are self-dating as only a small number of tombs of provincial officials provide evidence such as the name of the king whom the tomb owner served. These monuments are located in the provinces of Upper Egypt where other means of dating, by kinship or location for example, are often not accessible. As a result, the principle of dating has traditionally been to assign most of these undated tombs, particularly where depictions of major figures depart from the customary Memphite canon and style, to the end of the Old Kingdom or later. For Dynasty 6, the only exceptions were the self-dating tombs of Jbj [8], +aw:^mAj and +aw [114] on the southern cliff of Deir el-Gebrawi, Jsj [11] and KAr [96] of Edfu and Qrrj [98] of el Hawawish. Nearly all the important tombs in the most fertile region of Upper Egypt (Meir, Akhmim, Deir el-Gebrawi and Naga ed-Der) were thus traditionally dated to the end of Dynasty 6 or later. This late dating of the monuments inevitably shaped the interpretation of the historical evidence they offered.

Stage 1: Identification of the dated tombs that provide the  basis for the system See CHAPTER 2: 2.7.2 CATALOGUE OF OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO THEIR PROSOPOGRAPHY NUMBER AND GROUP for a complete list of tombs (pp. 45-47). Stage 2: Establishing the categories of monuments to be used Monuments in Groups A and B are categorized according to their original location and date. See CHAPTER 2: 2.6 PROSOPOGRAPHY (GROUPS A AND B) and CHAPTER 3: TABLES 1–4 (pp. 96–137) for individual entries. Stelae, apart from those from Dynasty 4 tombs, and all coffins are omitted from Groups A and B as they present 32 33

34

The dating of provincial tombs 

von Beckerath (1997)148-55. The highest known count for Teti is 11: Kanawati-Abder-Raziq (2000) 41, pl. 19. The highest confirmed count for Pepy 1 is 25. The reduction of lengths of reigns to these HAt-sp figures allows the careers of a number of officials to have a more realistic timespan. Kanawati-Abder-Raziq (2000) 22-23. See in CHAPTER 2: 2.6 PROSOPOGRAPHY FOR (GROUPS A AND B), pp. 9–13, for the stages required by epigraphic and palaeographic criteria.

35 36



Manuelian (2003) xxxi. See CHART R. This tomb was decorated by a master craftsman who was not afraid to introduce new features and details into scenes. Épron-Daumas (1939); Wild II (1953); Wild III (1966).

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION  Kanawati was strengthened. This situation allows the tomb of KA.j-hp:*tj to be added to Group A and the other three tombs to Group B.41

Between 1980 and 1990 Naguib Kanawati of Macquarie University, Sydney and his team excavated the neglected site of el Hawawish, the cemetery for Akhmim and province of Upper Egypt 9.37 The first monuments to be investigated were the important tombs of KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109], $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] and KA.j-hp:*tj [108], governors of the province.38 It was generally accepted by most scholars that these tombs dated to the end of the dynasty or later but features of the monuments led Kanawati to date them to a somewhat earlier period.39 This was confirmed when two inscribed pieces of a stone block, one from the Louvre and the other from Chicago, were shown to be part of a whole and much of the inscription could be read. The provenance of the block proved to be the tomb of one of the three governors, KA.jhp:*tj who recorded his appointment to Upper Egypt 9 by Merenre.40 A further feature associated the tombs of $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] and KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] with that of KA.j-hp:*tj [108]: the tombs on the escarpment at el Hawawish from the second half of Dynasty 5 to late Dynasty 6 follow each other up the side of the cliff in chronological order. As the important, well decorated tombs of $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw and KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr and a neighbouring tomb of a woman named Nbt [51] were located on a level not far above that of KA.j-hp:*tj, now firmly dated to mid Dynasty 6, their earlier dating by

As Old Kingdom scholars reluctantly absorbed this new el Hawawish chronology, Kanawati began applying earlier dating to other provincial cemeteries.42 While the redating of KA.j-hp:*tj, $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr and Nbt of el Hawawish is well supported, the new dating for tombs elsewhere in Upper Egypt rests on a more circumstantial base and needs further investigation. With these four new tombs supporting Groups A and B, the present system has been used to date other provincial tombs. Other additions to the list of tombs used in this study Since the present work was first presented in 2001 a significant number of tomb reports have been published, some of which contain inscriptions or features that provide a date for the construction of the monument and thus have been added to the present study. These tombs, now added to the tables establishing the life spans of criteria, are: [M]rrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj [37] (A group), Jn.wMn.w [7] (A Group), Rmnj:Mrwj [68] (B group), ^psjpw-PtH [94] (A group), Jsj (Edfu) [11] (A group) and QAr [97] (Edfu) (A group).43

41

42 37 38 39 40

Kanawati (1980-1992) El Hawawish, vols I–X. Kanawati (1980-1982) El Hawawish, vols I–III. Kanawati I (1980) 13-14; Kanawati II (1981) 11-14. Kanawati III (1982) 7-32; Kanawati VI (1986) 61, Fig. 11; McFarlane (1987) 63-70, pl. 1.

43



See prosopographical entries for further detail regarding the dating of these tombs in 2.6: PROSOPOGRAPHY (GROUPS A AND B), 14–44 Kanawati GM III (1989); Kanawati GM 121 (1991); Kanawati Hagarsa I (1993); Kanawati–McFarlane (1993); Kanawati Hagarsa III (1995). See prosopographical entries for these additional tombs in 2.6: PROSOPOGRAPHY (GROUPS A AND B): 24, 16, 33, 39, 17 and 39 resp.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM 



Chapter 2  Prosopography for Tomb Groups A and B  The starting point for this study was to set up a ‘bank’ of securely dated tombs from which the dating criteria could be drawn. The tombs from which the dating criteria have been drawn are located in the Memphite sites of Giza, Saqqara, Medum and Abusir and provincial sites, Quseir el-Amarna, Deir el-Gebrawi, el-Hawawish and Edfu. 2.1 

Exterior mud brick chapels  Reisner’s Type 1a. Chapels built against the southern end of the mastaba face where the chief niche is found. Stelae were attached to the west wall of the inner L-shaped offering room: G1203 [105], G1205, G1207, G1227, G1235, G4560. (Khufu to Khafre).47

Data from Giza   (Numbers in square brackets [ ] refer to the prosopography number)

Reisner’s Type 1b. Mud brick chapels built around the stela. An adjoining small stone room may have been decorated: G4260. probably Khufu).48

The data from Giza are drawn from of stelae and decorated walls of tomb chapels of both mastabas and rock-cut tombs. There is little doubt that the construction of the original cemeteries of Giza (G4000, G1200 and G2100 in the West Field, and G7000 in the East Field) were established in the reign of Khufu. Their location and relationship to Khufu’s pyramid and, in some instances, the personal relationships of their owners strongly suggest this. However, it is less easy to ascertain the chronological development of these monuments and even more difficult to date the monuments of the later cemeteries, the Cemetery en Echelon located west of Khufu’s pyramid and the GIS cemetery to the south.

Reisner’s Type 1c. Multi-roomed brick chapels of various kinds, all later than Types 1a and 1b, with the slab stela as a later addition: G1201 [19], G1225. (Khafre to Menkaure).49 Stone chapels  Reisner’s Type 2b. L-shaped external stone offering rooms built around a niche at the southern end of mastaba. The west wall is lined with ‘white’ stone: G2110 [52] (probably not later than Menkaure.).50

Reisner’s study of the Giza necropolis categorised mastaba cores, casings, shafts, burial chambers, chapels and rock-cut chapels according to typological principles based on features of their construction.44 From these categories he drew dating implications. Some of his assigned dates, however, are problematic; they appear impressionistic as Reisner did not always provide the evidence on which they were based. Moreover, apart from the earliest mastabas in the nucleus cemeteries, Reisner’s typological categories span broad and sometimes loosely defined periods of time. Where he was able to be more exact, in the case of the original mastabas of the nucleus cemeteries, other obstacles to dating the tombs and their decoration occur. Very few of the earliest tombs were decorated or have their decoration preserved,45 and while the core, casing and chapel of the mastaba may provide a reasonably precise date, there may have been a gap in time to the actual decoration of the tomb, as Reisner noted.46 Thus it has been necessary to be selective in using Reisner’s findings to date chapels.

Reisner’s Type 3. L-shaped interior stone chapels with one niche either built in original or additional core work: G1201 (Type 1c above), G1223, G1225 (Type 1c above), G4150 [5], G7060 [55], G7070 [83], G7130-7140 [73], G7410+7420 [39], G7550 [112], G7660 [101], G7760 [31], GIS No.3 [75] (probably not later than Menkaure.).51 Reisner’s Type 4a. Interior stone chapels with a 2-niche offering room built in mastabas enclosing old cores of the four nucleus cemeteries of the West Field: G4000, G1200, G2100 and Cemetery en Echelon): G2041, G2155, G4520 [72], G4940 [90], G4970 [60], G5080 [91], G5150 [88], G5170 [92]. These chapels belong to a group of eleven assigned by Reisner to a date from the end of the reign of Menkaure to Neferirkare.52

The following categories were developed by Reisner but their present use in the dating of monuments is limited: 47 48 49 44 45 46

50

Reisner (1942) 29-31. Reisner (1942) 305-306. Reisner (1942) 306.

51 52



Reisner (1942) 187-191. Reisner (1942) 192. Reisner (1942) 193. Reisner (1942) 201, 211. Reisner (1942) 203-211. Reisner (1942) 214.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Later examples of the L-shaped mastaba chapel are harder to date by typology as the style continued to be constructed throughout Dynasty 5.

Dynasty 5 Giza tombs have had to be dated, where possible, by inscription, finds, proximity and personal relationships.

Giza rock‐cut chapels 

2.2  

Reisner dated these chapels partly by location, partly by personal relationships and partly by tomb typology.53 The earliest rock-cut tombs were those of the queens and sons of Khafre excavated in the scarp used as a quarry for the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre, but Reisner dated them no earlier than Menkaure as they would not have been constructed while stone was being quarried for Khafre’s pyramid.

The Saqqara necropolis spans the entire Old Kingdom from the Archaic period to the end of the era. The majority of its known tombs are mastabas; the Saqqara site has only a few rocky scarps in which to construct a rock-cut tomb. To judge by the existing record, Saqqara was virtually ignored as a necropolis from the reign of Khufu until early Dynasty 5, when it was again the chosen burial ground for royal officials as well as for the kings of the beginning and later years of the dynasty. While Giza reclaimed some of its popularity as a burial site later in Dynasty 5, Saqqara remained the site of choice for most powerful officials living in the capital through the second half of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6.

Reisner was able to separate these rock-cut tombs into two groups. The earlier tombs have two rooms, one north-south and the other east-west, while the later group has a chapel with an east-west axis and a cruciform appearance. The two groups are distinct with each chapel having variations.

The tombs of Saqqara have been judged easier than those of Giza to date by location on the grounds that officials built their tombs around the pyramid of the king they served.63 However, this is only true in any substantial way of the Unis and Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. The location of burials in Saqqara is confused by a number of factors:  For over 75 years, from Sahure to Neuserre, Dynasty 5 kings built their pyramids to the north at Abusir. A number of Old Kingdom tombs have been located around these pyramids64, but if many officials of these kings were buried at Saqqara, location does not seem to be dating factor. For example the large area, labelled ‘North of the Step Pyramid’ by the Topographical Bibliography65, contains tombs from Neferirkare to, probably, Dynasty 6, as well as a large Archaic cemetery.  The presence of the Step Pyramid and its enclosure appears to have attracted the pyramids of both Userkaf and Unis, and probably of Teti. As a result, the cemetery area available around each comparatively small pyramid was limited. Tombs, at least of the time of Unis and Teti, are to be found on the fringes of the area labelled ‘Around Teti Pyramid’ by the Topographical Bibliography.66  Kanawati has noted that there is a distinct change in the style of the tombs that run in a north-south line to the immediate west of Teti’s pyramid and the tombs of his viziers. Kanawati believes that these tombs are part of a late Dynasty 5 cemetery and he expects that smaller Dynasty 6 tombs will be found interspersed among the Dynasty 5 tombs, because the area for the Teti cemetery was so limited.67  The pyramids of Djedkare, Pepy I and Mernere are situated further south, closer to the village of Saqqara. The Topographical Bibliography only lists six Old

The following categories developed by Reisner have been used in the dating of some rock-cut chapels: Reisner’s Type RC(i). Two rooms (N-S hall and E-W offering chamber): LG 87 [48], LG 89 [86], LG 90 [113], G7530+7540 [40], MQ No.1 [76]: @mt-Ra54, Nj-wsr-Ra [46].55 56 Reisner’s Type RC(ii). Cruciform shaped chapel with doorways and passages connecting rooms lying in the E/W medial axis of the tomb: Nb.j-m-Axtj [49], LG 86.57 According to Reisner and Junker, tombs with new chapel styles appeared at Giza in Dynasty 5, while the older chapel types continued to be constructed.58 The new styles included ‘corridor’ chapels, east-west offering rooms, chapels with pillared rooms and multi-roomed chapels.59 Junker assigned the appearance of mastabas with multiple shafts to Dynasty 560 and tombs with decorated burial chambers to late Dynasty 5.61 These styles overlap with one another over long periods of time and often appear in tombs built in the spaces between the older, free standing mastabas. As a result, neither location nor a typology of mastaba and chapel types provide chronological patterns of changing styles that can be used to date tombs of the second half of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6.62 Consequently, after the early reigns of 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Data from Saqqara 

Reisner (1942) 219. Reisner (1942) 228-229. Hassan IV (1943) 185-188. Reisner (1942) 220-232. Reisner (1942) 233-236. Reisner (1942) 258, 304. Reisner (1942) 302. Junker XII (1955) 43-46. Junker IV (1940) 43-46. Perhaps this perception awaits the detailed excavation and study that Roth has given to the Cemetery of Palace Attendants. Roth was able to establish a pattern of change within this cemetery. Roth (1995) 1-2, 13-19.

63 64 65 66 67

10 

Baer (1960) 48; Harpur (1987) 9. Porter–Moss (1974) 340-349. Porter–Moss (1981) Plans 42, 45, 46. Porter–Moss (1981) Plan 42. Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) 7-8.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  classifications, which consequently provide little aid to exact dating.71

Kingdom tombs for the entire region around these pyramids.68 While some of the officials of the three kings were buried in Giza or in the main Saqqara necropolis further north, it is possible that more tombs are to be found around these southerly pyramids. The combined reigns of the three kings add up to some 75 years.

2.3  

A range of dates has been assigned to many provincial tombs. Apart from those tombs which can be reliably dated by inscription, the tombs of the provinces of Upper Egypt seem to have given rise to more debate over dating than the tombs in the capital cemeteries. Possible reasons for this:  Many provincial tombs are cut into the cliffs bordering the Nile. Consequently, their orientation, plan and construction vary according to the direction of the cliff face and the quality of rock. This means that they do not easily fit into a typology based either on Memphite tombs or on tombs of other provincial cemeteries. Comparisons usually have to rely on selected features of the tomb, which increases the possibilities of comparing provincial tombs with other Memphite or tombs of other provinces according to a variety of individual features and has tended to produce a range of dating for tombs and cemeteries rather than agreement on chronology.  Artistic links between the tombs of certain provincial cemeteries and those of the capital suggest that local craftsmen had some acquaintance with the themes and styles of decoration in the capital. This has led to suggestions that the provincial tombs with these features were close in time to the Memphite tombs whose decoration they reflected.72 Harpur lists the possible artistic links between Memphis and the provinces of Deshasha, Zawyet el-Amwat, el-Sheikh Said, Deir el-Gebrawi, el-Hawawish and Meir. She also notes the possibilities of artistic links among provinces.73 This reliance on different features for dating has led to a variety of dates being assigned to the same monument. A dependence on artistic features which echo Memphite decoration has led to an earlier dating of some tombs, while the occurrence of unusual or ‘degenerated’ art-forms has led other scholars to propose a later date for the same tombs, often to the end of the Old Kingdom or even in the First Intermediate Period.74  Reliance on different kinds of artistic and archaeological evidence may also lead to dating dispute. Brovarski and Kanawati have applied strikingly different dates to the tombs of the elHawawish nomarchic family that includes $nj:^psjpw-Mnw [80] and KA.j-Hp:*tj-jqr [109]. Brovarski has dated the family to the end of the Old Kingdom and into the Heracleopolitan Period75 while Kanawati dates these nomarchs from mid to late Dynasty 6.76

As a result, location is not a particularly helpful factor in the dating of Saqqara tombs, except for the two areas already referred to:  The first of these, to the north of the Teti pyramid, contains the officials of Teti and his successors. This factor has been used in the dating of: Jn.w-Mn.w [7], Jrj:&tj-snb [10], JSfj:&wtw [12], anx-m-a-@r:%sj [15], Wr-nww [20], WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH [22], MrjjRa-mrj-PtH-anx:Nxbw [32], Mrw:&tj-snb:Mrj-Ra-snb: Ppjj-snb [35], (M)rrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj [36], MrrwkA.j:Mrj [38], MHj:MH-n.s [42], Nj-kAw-Jssj [47], NfrsSm-Ra:^Sj [58], NDt-m-pt:&jt [62], Ra-wr [63], Rmnj:Mrwj [68], @sj r/u %Sm-nfr [69], #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj [79], %anx-w(j)-PtH:@tp-n(j)-PtH [82], KA.(j)-apr(w) [99] and KA-gm-nj:Mmj [111]. The most securely dated of these chapels are, of course, those dated by inscription.  The second area is along the Unis Causeway the construction of which probably began quite early in the reign of that king. The pyramid of Unis stands close to the south-west corner of the enclosure of the Step Pyramid. When the causeway linking the mortuary and valley temples of Unis was built, construction work and rubble covered the tombs south of the Step Pyramid and thus provides a secure terminus ante quem date for those tombs. This factor has been used in the dating of: Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44], Nfr and KA-HA.j [53], Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] and Nfr-sSm-PtH, [57] and %xntjw [87]. Location and proximity have also been supporting factors in the dating of the following:  Around the pyramid of Userkaf: D45 Pr-sn [25]  Around the pyramid of Unis: Nbt [50], #nwt [78] and %SsSt:Jdwt (r/u from JHjj) [93]. Tomb typology at Saqqara  The structure and materials of the tombs of Saqqara have not been the subject of a systematic investigation, such as that by Reisner at Giza. Harpur has modified Reisner’s chapel typology to nine groups which she has applied to decorated Saqqara chapels.69 Under ‘L-shaped offering rooms’ she has included the Saqqara tombs listed in her publication as plans 30 to 37 and 78 to 81.70 These chapels are spread over most of the Saqqara cemeteries and, according to Harpur’s dating, range from the beginning of Dynasty 5 to the reign of Pepy I. This spread of time is true of Harpur’s other chapel 68 69 70

Data from tombs of Upper Egypt  

71 72 73 74

Porter–Moss (1981) 671-674. Harpur (1987) 59-60. Harpur (1987) 390-93 410-411.

75 76

11 

Harpur (1987) Tables 5.1-5.13, pp. 315-322. Kanawati–Mcfarlane (1993) 18-19. Harpur (1987) 10-11. Kanawati dates the decorated tombs of Naga ed-Der to early to mid Dynasty 6 (Kanawati–McFarlane [1992] pp. 55-61) while Peck dates the same tombs to Dynasties 8-9. (Peck [1958] pp. 40ff, 79-80). Brovarski (1985) 131-137; (2013) 108-111. Kanawati X (1992) 96-107.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  to each other) and, correspondence of titles.84

As a result of the variety of dating techniques in use, conflicting dates have been assigned to many provincial tombs. Jntj of Deshasha has been dated to mid Dynasty 5 by Petrie, to mid Dynasty 6 by Smith and more recently to the reign of Djedkare by Kanawati.77 Jttj:^dw from the same cemetery has been dated to the reign of Teti by Petrie, to late Dynasty 6 by others and back to Teti by Kanawati.78 Both KA(.j)-xnt (A2 and A3) of elHammamiya have been dated from the reign of Khufu (Petrie) to early Dynasty 5 (Kees), mid Dynasty 5 (Brunner) and more recently to early Dynasty 5 (Kanawati). Kanawati reversed the order of the two officials, arguing that A3 was the father of A2.79 KA.j-mnfrt (A3) of el-Hagarsa has been dated from the reign of Khufu (Petrie) to the first half of Dynasty 5 (Brunner) and to mid Dynasty 5 or slightly later (Kanawati).80 Mrjj of the same cemetery was dated to Dynasty 6 by Petrie, to the First Intermediate Period by Smith, to Pepy II or Dynasty 8 by Harpur and to Pepy II by Fischer, Edel and Kanawati.81

JAbtt [2] + KA-pw-nswt:KAj [110] Jbj [6] + +aw++aw:^mAj [114] Jsj [11] + QAr [96] Jdw [14] + QAr [97] anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II [16] + PEPY I PtH-Htp I [26] + Axtj-Htp [1] + PtH-Htp II [27] PtH-Spss [29] + NEUSERRE Mr-jb.j [34] + Nn-sDr-kA.j [59] Mrrw-kA.j [38] + Mrjj-&tj [33] + NDt-m-pt [62] Mrs-anx II [39] + KHUFU Mrs-anx III [40] + Nj-wsr-Ra [46] + KHUFU Nfr-mAat [56] + SNEFRU Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] + @mt-nw [77] NTr-wsr [61] + Ra-Spss [67] Ra-wr [64] + Mrs-anx III [40] Ra-Spss [67] + Pr-nb [23] #wfw-XA.f I [73] + #wfw-XA.f II [74] + KHUFU #wn-Ra [76] + KHAFRE #mt-nw [77] + Mrs-anx III [40] $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] + KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] %nDm-jb:Jntj [84] + %nDm-jb:MHj [85] %SAt-Htp:!tj [88] + WHm-kA.j [21] %Sm-nfr II [91] + Jj-mrjj [4] %Sm-nfr II [91] + %Sm-nfr III [92] ^pss-kA.f-anx [95] + Jj-mrjj [4] + Jtjj [13] + Nfr-bAw-PtH [54] KA.j-wab [100] + KHAFRE KA.j-wab [100] + Mnw-Dd.f [31] + KA.j-m-sxm [101] + _wA-n-@r [112] KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] + KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] + KA.j-nj-nswt III [104] KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] + WHm-kA.j [21] KA.j-nj-nswt III [104] + Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx:Nxbw [32] KA.j-nfr [105] + KA.j-swDA [107]

The use of personal relationships 

A signal problem in establishing relationships is the coincidence of names, many of which seem to have been popular at certain times during the Old Kingdom. A further confusing factor is the custom of officials to name their sons after their own fathers, so that names reappear after a generation, or to give the same name to more than one son.83 These considerations have made it necessary to have the support of the names of both parents when establishing parent-child relationships and to look to other factors such as location (tombs in close proximity

78 79 80 81 82

83

the

Probable relationships 

‘Personal relationships’ includes family relations and individuals appearing in the tombs of others as kaservants, attendants or ‘brothers of the endowment’. Where tombs of children or grandchildren are dated from evidence of parents or grandparents, or vice-versa, a period of 20 years is allowed for each generation.82 With other relationships it is more difficult to judge whether the two persons were contemporaries or not. Where possible, other factors such as a comparison of tombs have been included in the dating process. When such evidence has not been available it has been assumed that the tomb of the junior figure is one generation later.

77

possible,

The following list contains both secure and probable relationships. It is given here to provide an overall view of the relationships that have contributed to establishing dating criteria. The detailed evidence establishing relationships is discussed under the individual names in the Prosopography.

The diversity of dates assigned to these and other provincial tombs suggests that typological features such as chapel types, construction, materials, decoration and location are open to widely differing interpretations. 2.4  

whenever

2.5  

Dating for the prosopography 

As mentioned previously, the dating system used in this study is that of dynasties and reigns. It is not possible to apply absolute year dates to Old Kingdom monuments and in most instances, even a year date within an individual reign cannot be applied to a tomb. Consequently, the tombs in Groups A and B are dated to reigns and where a reign is of considerable length, it is usually feasible to divide it chronologically into ‘early’, ‘middle’ and ‘late’ years. This division is essential for the unusually long reign of Pepy II in Dynasty 6, who may

Cited with references in Kanawati–McFarlane (1993) 17. Cited with references in Kanawati–McFarlane (1993) 42. Cited with references in El-Khouli–Kanawati (1990) 11-12, 16. Cited with references in Kanawati Hagarsa I (1993) 12. Cited with references in Kanawati Hagarsa I (1993) 57. A 20 year gap between generations has been preferred as it takes into account a parenthood beginning on average earlier in life than it does today as well as the much higher early mortality rate. According to Harpur, some women’s names were quite common at Giza. Harpur (1987) 13-14.

84

12 

With the correspondence of titles there is the further problem that children are frequently not given their full titles in the tombs of their parents.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  have occupied the throne for 60 to 90 years. Kings who ruled for only two or three years have not been included in the study.85 Unless such a royal name appears in the tomb, it is impossible to trace the construction or decoration of the monument so precisely and even the occurrence of such a name in a tomb may not identify the date of construction and/or decoration. A further difficulty concerns certain tombs of Group B, which are dated by inference regarding the generations of a single family. In these instances the generations have to be coordinated with lengths of three or more reigns. This is a particular problem for monuments of late Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 where modern scholars have investigated the lengths of reigns given in the Turin Canon and by Manetho86 and have offered different time periods. Kanawati, for example, has reduced the reigns of three of the four kings of Dynasty 6: Teti to 11 years, Pepy I to 25 years and Pepy II to 33+ years.87 Such a drastic reduction of Teti’s reign in particular presents a problem of accounting for the unusually large number of viziers who served at least in part of the reign. This study, therefore, follows the more conservative reduction of reign lengths offered by von Beckerath.88

85

86 87

88 89

III.1 III.2 III.3 III.4 III.5

19 years 19 years 8 years 4 years 24 years

Dynasty 4 %nfrw #wfw +d.f-Ra #a.f-Ra Mn-kAw-Ra ^pss-kA.f

IV.1 IV.2 IV.3 IV.4 IV.5 IV.6

35 years 23 years 9 years 26 years 28 years 5 years

8 years 13 years 20 years 7 years 11 years 31 years 9 years 38 years 15-20 years

Dynasty 6 &tj (Wsr-kA-Ra Ppjj I Mr-n-Ra Ppjj II (Yr 1-20?) (Yr 20-40?) (Yr 40-64?)

VI.1 VI.2 VI.3 VI.4E VI.4M VI.4L

10-15 years 2 years) 35-45 years 6-10 years 20 years 20 years 24 years

Abbreviations ‘E’: early years of reign ‘M’: middle years of reign ‘L’: later years of reign Categories of Tombs Group A: securely dated tombs Group B: tombs dated by inference Location of Tombs CF: Central Field, Giza EF: East Field, Giza ESP: East of the Step Pyramid, Saqqara GIS: Cemetery GIS, Giza NSP: North of the Step Pyramid, Saqqara TPC: Teti Pyramid, Saqqara UPC: Around Pyramid-complex of Unas, Saqqara WF: West Field, Giza WSP: West of the Step Pyramid, Saqqara

Kings,  notation  and  lengths  of  reigns  accepted  for  this  study  Notation

V.1 V.2 V.3 V.4 V.5 V.6 V.7 V.8 V.9

*Dynasty 3 is included here on account of the dating of @sjj-Ra [70].

The notation for reign dates follows that established by Harpur:89  Roman numeral = Dynasty  Arabic numeral = King (by number within each dynasty)  E = early in reign; M = middle years of reign; L = later years of reign.

King Dynasty 3* Nb-kA +sr %xm-xt Nb-kA-Ra @wnj (?)

Dynasty 5 Wsr-kA.f %AHw-Ra Nfr-jr-kA-Ra ^pss-kA-Ra Nfr-f-Ra Nj-wsr-Ra Mn-kAw-@r +d-kA-Ra:Jssj Wnjs

Length of reign

Identification LG: Lepsius Giza number LS: Lepsius Saqqara number MM: Mariette mastaba PM: Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography, volume and page number r/u: tomb re-used by… Note on transliteration Both Gardiner S29 and O34 are written as ‘s’.

Ephemeral rulers such as Nebka/Wehemka of Dynasty 4 and Userkare of Dynasty 6. Gardiner (1959); K. Ryholt (2004); Waddell (1971). Kanawati accepts an annual cattle count. The highest known count for Teti is 11: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) 22-23, 41 pl. 19. While this allows the careers of a number of officials to have a more realistic time-span, a reign of 33+ years for Pepy II is doubtful. von Beckerath (1997) 148-163. Harpur (1987) passim.

13 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  2.6   

The evidence for a father-son relationship between PtHHtp I and Ax.t-Htp includes the following: in D62 there is an ‘oldest’ son named Ax.t-Htp who shares two titles with Ax.t-Htp of D64.99 While evidence of just two titles is a weak case for a father-son relationship between PtH-Htp I of D62 and Ax.t-Htp of D64, as Strudwick points out, D62 and D64 are situated close to each other and both have a complex chapel with an east-west offering chamber. 100

Prosopography (Groups A and B) 

The Prosopography is arranged according to the transliterated Egyptian hieroglyphic alphabet. [1] Ax.t-Htp

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

Assigned date: V.8L-V.9E Saqqara WSP V.8 D 64 PM III 598-600 Xrj-tp nswt90; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA Snwtj jmj-rA njwt Mn-swt-Nj-wsr-Ra; jmj-rA njwt NTrj-swt-Mn-kAw@r; jmj-rA njwt Nfr-+d-kA-Ra

Paget and Pirie considered the possibility that PtH-Htp I of D62 was the son of PtH-Htp II of D64. They speculated that Djedkare was the first king mentioned in PtH-Htp II’s inscription out of respect for a reigning king and suggest that D64 was therefore constructed in this reign.101 This, however, is unlikely in view of the difference between the titles of PtH-Htp I, on the one hand and those of Ax.tHtp and PtH-Htp II, on the other. The case for a father-son relationship between PtH-Htp I and Ax.t-Htp is by no means secure.

References: Davies Ptahhetep II (1901); Hassan Saqqara I (1975) 83-4, pls. 61, 62 [E], 63 [A,B].

The date for the construction of the tomb of Ax.t-Htp is assigned to a period from late Djedkare to early in the reign of Unis on the following grounds. It is unlikely that PtH-Htp I, Ax.t-Htp and PtH-Htp II all served as viziers at the same time. The presence of cartouches means the tomb can be no earlier than Djedkare. Although PtH-Htp II may have survived into the reign of Teti, none of the three men is as late as Teti or, as viziers they would have built their tombs in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery. They therefore should be dated from Djedkare to Unis. PtH-Htp I is probably to be dated earliest because he does not have any high ranking pyramid titles which head the title strings of the other two. Ax.t-Htp is to be dated from late Djedkare to the reign of Unis.

The owners of the two adjacent tombs, D62 and D64, are PtH-Htp I [26], Ax.t-Htp [1] and PtH-Htp:*fj [27], who are probably members of the one family. All three have Djedkare as their latest cartouche.91 The chapel of PtHHtp:*fj (II)92 is located in the tomb of Ax.t-Htp. From the evidence of their titles and the situation of his chapel and that of PtH-Htp II, Ax.t-Htp was most probably the father of PtH-Htp II.93 Whether PtH-Htp I was the father of Ax.t-Htp and grandfather of PtH-Htp II is less certain. The two tombs (D62 and D64) may have been built less than a generation apart, as the cartouches suggest. While PtH-Htp I held no royal priestly titles, Ax.t-Htp held six pyramid titles which are given high ranking in his title strings94, as is the case for PtH-Htp (II):*fj.95 Baer has pointed out that titles marking priesthoods and officials of pyramids and royal institutions were raised to the highest rank, beginning in the reigns of Djedkare and Unis.96 This suggests that PtH-Htp I preceded Ax.t-Htp. A granary official named QA.j-Hp appears in the tombs of PtH-Htp I and may be the same man as a QA.j-Hp in PtH-Htp II’s chapel.97 On the other hand, the QA.j-Hp in PtH-Htp II’s chapel could be a son who succeeded to the office of his father, the QA.j-Hp in PtH-Htp I’s chapel. Then the owners of tombs D 62 and D64 could be a generation or more apart; the three men are unlikely to have held the office of vizier simultaneously.98 90

91

92 93 94

95 96

97

98

[2] JAbtt

Group B

Assigned date: IV.4-6

Location: Giza WF Latest cartouche: IV.1 Identification: G4650 PM III 134-35 sAt nswt n Xt.f Highest ranking title: Reference: Junker I (1929) 216-27, pls. 35, 36, figs. 50, 51. Harpur notes that JAbtt may be either the daughter of a king or just a noblewoman honoured with an independent burial and the title of sAt nswt n Xt.f.102 Her tomb was partly reconstructed after her death by her ka-servant, KApw-nswt:KAj [110], which suggests that he was younger than JAbtt. Allowing a generation gap between the two would place JAbtt in late Dynasty IV, still perhaps rather late after the construction of the original core mastaba,

Strudwick suggested that as Dynasty 6 progressed, the title ‘Xrj-tp nswt’ changed from a ranking title associated with a particular function to a more general ranking function. Strudwick (1985) 18283. PtH-Htp I: Hassan Saqqara I (1975) pl. 36; Axt-Htp: Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls 6, 14. PtH-Htp II has a chapel in D64. See prosopography for PtH-Htp II [26]. He was jmj-rA njwt and sHD Hm(w)-nTr of ‘Mn-swt-Nj-wsr-Ra’, ‘Nfr+d-kA-Ra’ and ‘NTr-swt-Mn-kAw-@r’ Paget et al. (1898) pls. 33, 35, 41. Baer (1960) 266-67. To judge from the title strings of Mrrw-kA.j [37] and anx-m-a-@r [15], pyramid titles ranked above tAjtj sAb TAtj. PtH-Htp I [26]: Murray (1905) pl. 14 (3). PtH-Htp II [27]: Paget et al. (1898) pls. 31, 34. While it is quite possible that two of these men held the viziership at the same time, three simultaneous viziers is much less likely.

99

100 101 102

14 

Furthermore, PtH-Htp II’s title of tAjtj-sAb TAtj only occurs on his sarcophagus. Hassan Saqqara I (1975) 67, pls. 52, 53. A son named Ax.t-Htp is recorded in D62 with the titles of Xrj-tp nswt and mdw rxjt, which were held by Ax.t-Htp of D64. [Murray (1905) pls. 9, 12] Strudwick (1985) 87. Paget et al. (1898) 33-34. Harpur (1980) 250.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Highest effective titles:

which according to Reisner was completed by year 15 of Khufu.103 [3] JAsn

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking title: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.8L-9

Reference: Weeks (1994) 31-57, 71-74, Colour pls. 3a-7b, pls. 11b31b, figs.2-4, 6, 25-46.

Giza WF IV.2 G2196 PM III 82 rx nswt jmj-rA 6 xntj(w)-S pr-aA; sHD wabw; Hrj-sStA; sHD xntj(w)-S

Scholars have applied two separate Dynasty 5 dates to this tomb: Harpur and Cherpion to the reign of Nfr-jr-kARa110 and Reisner, Strudwick and Weeks to the reign of Neuserre.111 The dating by Kent Weeks followed his reexcavation of the G000 Cemetery. To judge from the introduction to his publication, Weeks was satisfied to accept Reisner’s judgement on the dating of the ^pss-kA.fanx family group of tombs.112 Reisner considered ^psskA.f-anx [95], Jj-mrjj’s father, to have been born in the reign of Shepseskaf113 as his name suggests and to have been estate steward for one of Neferirkare’s sons, whom Reisner assumed to be the future king, Neuserre. He therefore concluded that Jj-mrjj’s service largely took place in the reign of Neuserre.114

Reference: Simpson (1980) 16-23, pls. 33-45, figs. 27-38. This is a mastaba with an unusual internal rock-cut chapel. While a range of dates (see below) has been assigned to the tomb, it is built against the rear of that of Pn-mrw104, who is dated by his relationship with %Sm-nfr III [92] to the reign of Djedkare or early Unis.105 As %Smnfr III [92] is dated from Menkauhor to the early years of Djedkare106, Pn-mrw should not be dated to late in the reign of Unis, as Harpur does.107 Pn-mrw is more likely to date to Djedkare. Harpur tacitly acknowledges this by commenting that a late Dynasty 5 date for JAsn is not ruled out. Harpur ultimately dates JAsn to VI.1M-2M? on the basis of architectural evidence (without providing details), on the dating of the neighbouring mastaba (presumably that of Pn-mrw) and on the general style of reliefs.

^pss-kA.f-anx’s highest titles occur in his son’s tomb and that of his grandson, Nfr-bAw-PtH [54]115 and not in his own (G6040). This suggests that Jj-mrjj constructed his tomb at a comparatively early age before his father’s career was over. Similarly, some of Jj-mrjj’s titles appear in the tomb of his son, Nfr-bAw-PtH [54] rather than in his own, which again suggests that Jj-mrjj’s tomb was completed before his own career had ended.116 If ^psskA.f-anx [95] had been born during or soon after the short reign of Shepseskaf, his son may not have constructed his own tomb before the reign of Neuserre. Consequently, Jjmrjj’s tomb decoration is dated to Neuserre.

Simpson, who published the tomb of JAsn, does not offer a date. However, from the evidence of the shafts he believed that JAsn might have usurped the mastaba and corridor linking it with that of Pn-mrw, yet built his own rock cut chapel in which the decoration in many places “appears clumsy, hasty and inept”.108 This suggests a degree of urgency, which might account for re-using a tomb. The closeness of the tombs of JAsn and Pn-mrw and Simpson’s judgement that the decoration on the south wall of JAsn’s chapel might have been a direct copy of the south wall of %Sm-nfr II [91] suggest a personal link between JAsn and Pn-mrw and the %Sm-nfr family.109

[5] Jwnw

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

104 105

106 107

108 109

Assigned date: IV.2L-4 Giza WF G4150 PM III 124 sA nswt jmj-rA sAw ^maw; wr mDw ^maw

References: Junker I (1929), 169-81, pls. 25[b], 26, 27, figs, 29-31; Manuelian (2003) 98-103.

Assigned date: V.6

This is an original stone-built core mastaba with one stela, a single shaft and no niche.117 According to Reisner, the block of five mastabas of his type (II b), to

Giza WF V.3 G6020 = LG 16 PM III 170-74 rx nswt

110 111

103

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

For these reasons a date of late Djedkare to Unis is assigned to the decoration of JAsn’s chapel. [4] Jj-mrjj

jmj-rA pr; jmj-rA pr Hwt-aAt; wab nswt; Hm-nTr Nj-wsr-Ra; Hm-nTr Nfr-jr-kA-Ra; Hm-nTr-#wfw; HmnTr %A-Hw-Ra; sS pr mDAt

Reisner’s evidence was drawn from the growth and development of the cemetery and the occurrence of stelae. Reisner (1942) 78-9, 83. Simpson (1980) 16. Pn-mrw describes %Sm-nfr III as his ‘jtjj’ in his tomb inscription, which might make the two men contemporaries or Pn-mrw slightly the younger. Reisner–Fisher (1914) pl. 11[a], 247. Junker III (1938) 13-14; Strudwick (1985) 140. Harpur (1980) 36-7. Baer considers the two officials to be more or less contemporary. Baer (1960) 71. Simpson (1980) 16. Simpson (1980) 18.

112.

113

114 115

116 117

15 

Respectively, Harpur (1987) 265 [14] and Cherpion (1989) 150. Respectively, Reisner (1939) 31-32, Strudwick (1985) 139 and Weeks (1994) 5. Weeks reprints, without comment on dating, Reisner’s 1939 article on Cemetery G6000, published in the Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Volume 27, 29-35. Weeks (1994) 4-6. Reisner does not give his reasons for dating ^pss-kA.f-anx, but it may have been a matter of names. Weeks (1994) 5. Jj-mrjj [4]: Weeks (1994) pl. 11b, figure 7; Nfr-bAw-PtH [54]: Weeks (1994) pl. 5. Weeks (1994) pl. 4. Reisner (1942) 39-40.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  jrj-pat; HAtj-a; smr watj jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA stp-sA pr-nswt nb; jmj-rA ^ma(w); jmj-rA Snwtj; xtm(tj) bitj; XrjHbt Hrj-tp; tAjtj sAb TAtj sHD Hm(w)-nTr Mn-nfr-Ppjj

which G 4150 belongs, was built first in the choice location of Cemetery G 4000.118 The stela, covered up when the mastaba was enlarged and provided with a chapel, records the tomb owner as sA nswt.119

Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Jwnw may have been either a son or grandson of Khufu, but from the proximity of G 4150 to the great mastaba of @m-jwnw (G 4000) and the similarity of names, Jwnw could have been a son of @m-jwnw, who may have been the director of the construction of Khufu’s pyramid and the surrounding nucleus cemeteries.120 @m-jwnw, according to Junker, was a son of Nfr-mAat [55] of Medum121, which might account for Jwnw’s title of sA nswt rather than sA nswt n Xt.f. which might be expected of a son of Khufu.122 In either case a date for his tomb construction between late in Khufu’s reign to that of Khafre is suggested.

Pyramid titles: Reference: Kanawati Teti VIII (2006).

[6] Jbj

Group A

In the dating of this tomb, the similarities between it and the nearby tomb of Nj-kAw-Jssj [47] have been taken into consideration. Both tombs possess a decorated section comprised of two small, square-shaped rooms, leading to a larger, oblong offering room with a north-south alignment. Both originally had only one burial chamber, although each had a second added at a later date. Each has a shaft opening into the floor of an undecorated room at the very east of the tomb, parallel to the offering room. To accommodate the mouth of this shaft, the western side in both tombs extends out under the wall between rooms V and III, with the walls built above a large limestone beam running north to south over the western section of the shaft. Finally, the burial chambers in each tomb lie directly under the false doors, both being cut to the west.125

Assigned date: VI.3-4E

Location: Deir el-Gebrawi Latest cartouche: VI.4 Identification: Davies No 8 PM IV 243-44 jrj-pat; HAtj-a Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Hrj-tp aA n &A-wr; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp References: Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) 8-24, pls. 3-23; Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) 11-73, pls. 1-58.

As a result of these similarities, Kanawati suggests that the two were constructed at around the same time.126 The tomb of Nj-kAw-Jssj [47] has been firmly dated to late in Teti’s reign127 while the presence of the cartouche of Pepy I in the tomb of Jn.w-Mn.w suggests that this tomb may have been constructed a little later than that of NjkAw-Jssj. Furthermore, the cartouche on the western wall of room I originally read ‘Nefersahor’, but has been chisled out and replaced with the name ‘Meryre’. That Pepy I originally assumed the throne name Nefersahor, but changed it to Meryre early in his career, suggests the tomb was constructed at the very beginning of the reign of Pepy I, before he had assumed the name of Meryre. As such, a date of late Teti to early Pepy is suggested for Jn.w-Mn.w.

Jbj was the founder of a line of three nomarchs who administered Upper Egypt Nome 12.123 His biography establishes that Jbj was first appointed nomarch of Nome 12 by Mernere. As Jbj’s title of Hrj-tp aA n &A-wr does not appear in his biography, it was presumably some time later, perhaps early in Pepy II’s reign, that Upper Egypt 8 was added to his office. His son, +aw:%mAj [114], became Hrj-tp aA of Upper Egypt 12 during his father’s lifetime124 but it is unlikely that +aw:%mAj was a very young man at the time as the appointment was to a high administrative post. From the evidence of the care taken to educate the sons of nomarchs, these positions may have been bestowed on men of some maturity. This suggests that Jbj was not very young when first appointed Hrj-tp aA, lived a normal lifespan for his time (perhaps 50 to 60 years) and constructed his tomb either in the reign of Mernere or in the earlier years of Pepy II’s reign. [7] Jn.w-Mn.w Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: 118 119 120

121 122 123

124

Group A

[8] Jrj-n-Ra

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: VI.1L-VI.2E

Assigned date: V.4-7

Giza WF G4970 annex PM III 144 jmj-rA Hm(w)-kA; wab nswt; sHD Hm(w)-nTr

Reference: Junker III (1938) 3, 146, 148, 156-63, pl. 9[a], figs. 23-24.

Saqqara TPC VI.2 PM n/r

According to Junker Jrj-n-Ra was the son of KA.j-nj-nswt III [104], which would make him a probable greatgrandson of KA.j-nj-nswt I [102]. KA.j-nj-nswt I is dated in Porter and Moss to early Dynasty 5128 and Jrj-n-Ra to late Dynasty 5. However, KA.j-nj-nswt I’s mastaba was enlarged around the original core and given an interior

Reisner (1942) 66. Junker I (1922) pls. 26, 27, figure 31. This argument is proposed by Bolshakov (1991) 16. @m-jwnw was jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt as well as tAjtj-sAb TAtj. Junker I (1922) 151-3. #wfw-xa.f I [73] and KA.j-wab [100] were sA nswt n Xt.f. Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pl. 23; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 142:9-13; Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) 19-20, 54-5, pl. 54. Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pls. 3, 5; Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) 28, pl. 45-46.

125 126 127 128

16 

Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) p. 16. Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) p. 17. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000), pp. 69 – 70. Porter–Moss (1974) 78-79.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Highest effective titles:

two-niched chapel (Reisner’s Type: 4a) Consequently, dating KA.j-nj-nswt I to late Dynasty 4 makes a date in mid Dynasty 5 preferable for Jrj-n-Ra. (See KA.j-nj-nswt I [102]). [9] Jrj-n-kA-PtH

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Pyramid titles:

Reference: El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) 7-11, pls. 1-4.

Assigned date: V.6E-8L

This tomb lies to the north of the Teti pyramid and is located in the street leading to the mastaba of the vizier, @sj [68], to which it is close.135 Only the antechamber and chapel, that is the western part of the tomb, were excavated owing to the limit of the excavating concession. In this section three limestone blocks were found, which ‘almost certainly’ belong to the mastaba.136 On one of these blocks, the lintel, &tj-snb’s name has been deliberately changed to ‘Jrj’, but not on the other blocks which form two parts of an architrave and where an alteration was not possible. According to El-Khouli and Kanawati, the alteration may reflect the unsettled changeover of rule from Teti to Userkare to Pepy I.137

Saqqara UPC PM III 644 rx nswt qbH-nmt; jmj-rA aD (-jH) jaw/abw-rA-nswt(?)

Reference: Moussa–Junge (1975) 29-45, pls. 8-14. This rock-cut chapel is a single trapezoid shaped room with the entrance in the short north wall. It was cut in a wide ditch to the south of the Unis causeway. The ditch may have originally been a quarry.129 Moussa and Junge compare the chapel with Reisner’s rock tomb type RC (IVa), a corridor chapel which, according to Reisner imitated mastaba chapels of his type (5). Reisner dated both RC (IVa) and mastaba chapel type (5) to Dynasties 5 and 6.130

The titles Jrj held relating to the pyramid of Teti and the name &ti-snb suggest a date under the reign of this king for the early years of Jrj’s service.138

The ultimate terminus ante quem for this tomb is the construction of the Unis causeway.131 The unfinished condition of the front part of the east wall could indicate that Jrj.n-ka-PtH either abandoned the tomb or was buried close in time to the closure caused by the Unis causeway. Moussa and Junge note a small platform in front of the doorway connected with the foundation of the tomb of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44], but do not discuss its possible significance. However, the actual construction of the tomb could be considerably earlier as architectural features may be interpreted to suggest that this tomb was the earliest in the row.132 Moussa and Junge consider the tomb to be slightly older than that of %xntjw [87] and Nfrsxm-PtH [57], which is dated no earlier than Neuserre whose cartouche it contains.133 Jrj-n-kA-PtH’s tomb is adjacent to that of %xntjw and Nfr-sxm-PtH.134.

[11] Jsj

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: 129 130 131 132 133 134

Group A

Assigned date: VI.2

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification:

Edfu VI.2 PM V 201

Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

jrj-pat; HAtj-a; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; Hrj-tp aA n spAt; HqA Hwt; smsw hAjt ///

References: Alliot (1933) 8-21, (1935) 19, 27-28; Michalowski et al. (1950) 40-60; Edel (1954) 11-17; Ziegler (1990) 87-91. Jsj is securely dated to the reign of Pepy I by inscription.139 He was an official of Djedkare and Unis, and was appointed tAjtj sAb TAtj, Hrj-tp aA n spAt by Teti. His tomb, which records a son named Ppjj-snb, was most probably decorated in the reign of Pepy I.

This suggests there may have been a length of time between construction and usage, including wall decoration, of the tomb. As the tomb of %xntjw and Nfrsxm-PtH is no earlier than Neuserre, the decoration of Jrjn-kA-PtH’s tomb must be given a date range from early Neuserre to a period before the reign of Unis. [10] Jrj:&tj-snb

jmj-rA st xntj(w)-S pr-aA; sS a(w) nswt pr-aA Hm-nTr +d-swt-&tj; xntj-S +dswt-&tj

[12] JSfj:&wtw

Group A

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Assigned date: VI.2

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM n/r. See Reference below. smr pr; Sps nswt

135

Moussa–Junge (1975) 9. Reisner (1942) 256. Moussa–Junge (1975) 35. Moussa–Junge (1975) Appendix. See prosopography for %xntjw [87] and Nfr-sxm-PtH [57]. Robbers had broken through from one tomb into the other. Moussa–Junge (1975) 31.

136 137 138

139

17 

Assigned date: VI.1L-2

Saqqara TPC See anx-m-a-@r [15] PM III 515 smr watj

@sj’s biography makes it most likely that his tomb was constructed in the reign of Teti. El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) 7-8. El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) 3-4. Kanawati (2003) 69-70; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) 15, 22-23, pl. 52. Alliot (1933) 22ff., pl. 14 1-2; Edel (1954) 11-17.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Highest effective titles:

jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA sqbbwj; jmj-rA Snwtj; jmj-rA djdjt pt qmAt (tA); Hrj-sStA n nswt m swt.f nbt; Hrj-sStA n wDt-mdw nbt StAt nt nswt

Highest effective titles:

Pyramid title: Reference: Simpson (1976b) 19-31, pls. 15-33, figs. 10-14, 33-43.

References: Badawy (1978); Kanawati–Hassan (1997)

The link between Jdw and QAr [97] is that each is mentioned in the other’s chapel. Neither can be earlier than the reign of Pepy I, who is mentioned in both tombs. As each has a son with the same name as the other official, it is likely that they are father and son. The problem is to decide their exact relationship. Simpson argues that Jdw is the father as QAr’s full name, QAr:Mrjjr-nfr, may be an indication that this official was born in the reign of Pepy I. Further support for this is the presence of a BnDt, who appears in both tombs. In the tomb of QAr she is a sister, while a BnDt appears in Jdw’s tomb as a daughter.144 It is possible that the two BnDts are the same person which would confirm the relationship of the tomb owners with Jdw being the father of QAr.

JSfj:&wtw is depicted as ‘eldest son’ in his father’s tomb where he has a false door.140 While the date of JSfj:&wtw’s false door is based on the dating assigned to the tomb of his father, anx-m-a-@r [15], it may have been a later addition to anx-m-a-@r’s tomb but perhaps not much later. Presumably an official with JSfj:&wtw’s high titles would have built himself a tomb in the course of his career. Consequently it is possible that JSfj:&wtw died at a comparatively young age, before constructing his own tomb, and was therefore provided with a false door in his father’s tomb. The room in which the false door is housed is largely uninscribed and even the false door is unfinished.

The suggested date for the tomb of Jdw is therefore VI.2.

While a date from the end of Teti’s reign to the early years of Pepy I is assigned to the false door, the end of Teti’s reign is a preferred date as there is no mention of Pepy I in anx-m-a-@r’s tomb. [13] Jtjj

Group B

[15] anx-m-a-@r:%sj Group A Assigned date: VI.1M-2E Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.6

Location: Giza WF Latest cartouche: V.6 Identification: G6030=LG 17 PM III 174 rx nswt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: jmj-rA xst pr-aA Reference: Weeks (1994) 59-60, 79-80, pls. 32a-33a, figs.2-4, 7, 76-81

Pyramid titles:

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: 140 141

142 143

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM III 512-15 jrj-pat; HAtj-a tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt m tA r-Dr.f; Xrj-Hbt Hrj- tp xntj-S +d-swt-&tj; sHD Hm(w)nTr +d-swt-&tj

References: Badawy (1978) 11-55, figs. 16-64; Kanawati-Hassan (1997).

Jtjj’s tomb is one of the four large nucleus mastabas that form the complex of the ^pss-kA.f-anx family (see Jj-mrjj [4]). Like the other three nucleus mastabas, it has an external chapel. LG 17 lies to the east of the mastaba of his brother-in-law Jj-mrjj, whose sister Wsrt-kA, Jtjj married.141 Reisner speculated that Jj-mrjj paid for the construction of Jtjj’s chapel although there is no evidence to support this.142 As the brother-in-law of Jj-mrjj, Jtjj is likely to have constructed his tomb in the reign of Neuserre, the last king for whom he was a priest according to his inscription.143 [14] Jdw I:Nfr

jmj-rA wp(w)t Htp(wt)-nTr m prwj; jmj-rA Hwt-wrt; Hrj-sStA n wDa mdwt; sS a(w) nswt Xft-Hr xntj-S Mn-nfr-Ppj

There has been much discussion about the relative chronology of the mastabas to the immediate north of the Teti pyramid. These are the tombs of anx-m-a-@r:%sj [15]; WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH [22]; Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj [38]; Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj [58]; #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj [79]; KA.jgmnj:Mmj [111]. Firth, for example, based his chronological ordering (Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj; KA.j-gmnj:Mmj; Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj) on the increase in number of rooms within each mastaba and on the increasing area of decoration.145

Assigned date: VI.2

Strudwick takes into account that the high quality relief work of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA.j-gmnj:Mmj degenerates in the tombs of anx-m-a-@r:%sj (showing a small area of rough work), of Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj (which has whole parts in rough work including the entire chapel of his son, Mrjj&tj), and in most of the work in the tomb of #ntjkA.j:Jxxj.146

Giza EF VI.2 G7102 PM III 185-86 Xrj-tp nswt

Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pl. 59a. Weeks (1994) p. 51 [2.117] fig. 41, pl. 26 and p. 59 [3.2] fig. 47, pl. 32b. Quoted in Weeks (1994) 5. Weeks (1994) 60 [3.9] fig. 52, pl. 32c.

144

145 146

18 

Simpson (1976b) pl. 10b, figure 266 and pl. 24, figure 38, respectively. Firth–Gunn I (1926) 15. Strudwick (1985) 101.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  right thickness of the doorway of the mastaba and in the northern chapel.154

Kanawati has noted that the mastabas of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA.j-gmnj:Mmj are similar in shape (exactly square), while those of WDA-XA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH, anx-m-a@r:%sj, Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj and #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj are rectangular, but does not think this factor puts them clearly in chronological order.147 He does, however, give more weight to the fact that Nfr-sSm-Ra deliberately left some rooms undecorated and did not case his burial chamber with limestone or decorate it. This sets his tomb apart from those of KA.j-gmnj:Mmj, anx-m-a-@r:%sj, MrrwkA.j:Mrj and #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj.148

In view of the above considerations the relative order assigned to these mastabas is: Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj VI.1E-M The tombs of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA-gmnj:Mmj are probably close in time. KA-gmnj:Mmj VI.1E-M The tombs of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA-gmnj:Mmj are similar in shape and quality of reliefs. Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj appears to have a favoured position in the first E-W row of tombs north of the Teti pyramid. Unlike the tomb of Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj, which also is in this row, the tombs of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA-gmnj:Mmj have their entrances on their eastern façade.

Kanawati has also established that anx-m-a-@r:%sj used the external northern wall of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and the external south wall of WDA-XA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH in constructing his tomb, but was unable to judge whether the tombs of anx-m-a-@r:%sj and WDA-XA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSmPtH were built as a single unit, as the joining of the two walls has been hidden by modern restoration.149 While anx-m-a-@r:%sj may have built his tomb after Nfr-sSmRa:^Sj, A.B. Lloyd insists that the tombs of anx-m-a@r:%sj and WDA-XA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH were built as a unit.150

Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj VI.1M-L A vizier whose tomb, in a less favoured position, shows whole areas of deteriorating relief work. The mastaba is similar in shape to that of anx-m-a-@r: %sj and #ntj-kA:Jxxj.

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA.j-gmnj:Mmj appear to occupy the best positions vis à vis Teti’s pyramid and would have been freestanding when originally constructed. WDA-HA&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH’s tomb may have been built behind (that is, to the north of) Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj because, unlike the owners of the other five major tombs, WDA-HA&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH was not a vizier. Moreover he must have begun work on his mastaba before reaching the apex of his career, as his tomb contains evidence of his promotion.

WDA-xA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH VI.1M-2E Evidence suggests he was promoted under Pepy I.155 anx-m-a-@r:%sj VI.1M-2E A vizier whose tomb had a slightly less favoured position. The mastaba, which contains only a small amount of poorer quality relief, is similar in shape to that of Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj and #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj. #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj VI.1L-2 This tomb contains generally poorer quality of relief work and more frequent mention of titles connected with Pepy I. The mastaba is of similar shape to those of anx-m-a-@r:%sj and Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj. It is located at the north-eastern corner of the Teti pyramid.

WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH’s titles connect him with the pyramid of Teti while his son held titles associated with the pyramid of Pepy I.151 Apart from the chapel of his son, WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH’s tomb is likely to have been decorated during the reign of the king he served in high office.

[16] anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II Group A Assigned date: VI.2-4E

Facing the north-west corner of the Teti pyramid, the great tomb of the vizier, Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj, occupies a less favourable position; while that of the vizier, #ntjkA.j:Jxxj, is even less favoured152. Even if the cartouche of Pepy in the chapel of ‘Ppjj-anx’, Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj’s son, is a later addition153, it need not have been significantly later and does not rule out the possibility of MrrwkA.j:Mrj having served late in the reign of Teti and into that of Pepy I. In #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj’s tomb the title ‘sHD HmnTr mn nfrw Ppjj’ occurs on the lintel, right jamb and

147 148 149 150 151 152 153

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Saqqara South VI.2 PM n.r. mwt nswt; Mn-anx Nfr.kA-Ra; Hmt nswt Mn-nfr Mrjj-Ra

References: Baud (2005) 428 [38]; Leclant–Minault-Gout (2000) 245, pl. 1. anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II was a wife of Pepy I and it is likely that he built her funerary complex. But she outlived both Pepy I and Merenre and as the mother of Pepy II she acted as regent for the boy king. Her entrance lintel refers to her as the ‘royal mother’.

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998), 15. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998), 15-16. Kanawati–Hassan (1997), 18. Lloyd et al (2008) 1, 3. Strudwick (1985) 111. Porter–Moss (1981) Plan 52. Duell II (1938) pp. 4-5, pl. 104, pp. 154-5. The chapel is itself a later extension to Mrrw-kA.j’s tomb; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) 13, 18, pls. 41, 42.

154 155

19 

James (1953) pls. 7, 13. Strudwick (1985) 111 and Note 2.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  [17] WAS-PtH:Jsj

Group A

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

an internal chapel were among the largest and belonged to the most important people.158 In fact, Wp-m-nfrt’s mastaba is one of the largest in the Western Cemetery and its dating by Reisner is supported by Peter Der Manuelian who notes that the tombs of Cemetery G1200 developed chronologically from east to west with Wp-mnfrt’s mastaba on the extreme east. Manuelian is also of the opinion that Wp-m-nfrt’s stela differs so markedly from those of his contemporaries that it probably represents the transitional stage from the older pre-Khufu style.

Assigned date: V.3

Saqqara NSP V.3 D 38 PM III 456 HAtj-a tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; Hrj- sStA n pr-dwAt; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp

References: Mariette (1889) 392-3; Mogensen (1918) 7-11, pls. 10, 11[12]; Leclant (1952) p. 231 [b]; James (1961) 20-21, pl. 21[2]; Borchardt (1964) 40-2, 129, 144 pls. 69, 70; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 40-45 [27].

[20] Wr-nww

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles:

According to his biography WAS-PtH:Jsj was taken ill in front of Neferirkare.156 His tomb was subsequently built by his son, who carried out the king’s order to make a record of what had happened. This suggests that WASPtH:Jsj died as a result of his illness, most probably in the reign of Neferirkare. [18] Watt-@t-hr

Group A

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Watt-@t-hr was the eldest daughter of Teti and the wife of Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj [38]. Although Mrrw-kA.j had another wife, either deceased or simply relegated in status, Watt@t-hr is the only wife to appear in Mrrw-kA.j’s tomb. Her relationship to Teti and Mrrw-kA.j clearly date her tomb to mid to lateTeti.

[21] WHm-kA.j

Assigned date: IV.2

Assigned date: V.2-3

Giza WF D 117 PM III 114-15 rx nswt jmj-rA pr; sS pr mDAt; sS nfrw

Reisner identified a clear grouping of L-shaped chapels with two false doors, all belonging to the period late Dynasty 4 to the end of Neferirkare. Most of these were his Type (4a) chapel. Many were situated in the nucleus cemeteries163 but others were chapels attached to mastabas outside the nucleus cemeteries and built on

This mastaba is identified by Reisner as one of the original cores in the nucleus cemetery G1200.157 Wp-mnfrt’s stela, in place on the eastern façade, was covered by additional masonry perhaps when an internal chapel was added. Reisner notes that the mastabas finished with

158 159 160 161 162

157

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Reference: Kayser (1954).

Location: Giza WF Identification: G1201 PM III 57 sA nswt; rx nswt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: mDh sS(w) nswt; wr mDw ^maw References: Klebs (1922) p. 8, figs. 5, 104; Reisner (1942) 193, 203, 385-7, figs. 104, 216-17, pl. 17[a]; Smith (1963) 2-13; Manuelian (2003) 32-40, figs. 5-22.

156

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM III 519 jmj-jb n nswt m jdbwj.f; HrjsStA n pr-dwAt; sS mDAt-nTr Xntj-S +d-swt &tj

Wr-nww’s tomb is built against the west wall of the free standing mastaba of Mrrj [36], the oldest of a group of tombs immediately north of Mrrw-kA and KA-gmnj in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery.159 While Mrrj’s tomb may therefore be not much later than those of the viziers of Teti and Pepy I, Davies, who re-excavated and published the two tombs160, leaves open the possibility that the tomb of Wr-nww is considerably later.161 On the other hand, the chapel of Wr-nww is of stone, like the mastaba of Mrrj. Furthermore, the tomb of +sj, which abuts the south walls of Mrrj and Wr-nww, is constructed of bricks of an ‘earlier’ type, according to the plan of this group of tombs.162 This suggests that the mastaba of Wr-nww may be earlier than that of +sj. As there is no evidence to resolve this issue, Wr-nww should therefore be dated from late Pepy I to early in the reign of Pepy II.

Assigned date: VI.1M-L

Saqqara TPC PM III 525-534 sAt nswr (smswt) nt Xt.f Hm(t)-nTr Nt mHtt jnb; Hm(t)nTr @wt-@r nbt nht (m swt.s nb(w)t)

Group B

Assigned date: VI.2L-4E

Pyramid title: Reference: Davies et al. (1984) 21-9, pls. 22-32, 36, Text-fig. 3.

Reference: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2008).

[19] Wp-m-nfrt

Group B

Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 40-45. Reisner (1942) 193.

163

20 

Reisner (1942) 203. Davies et al. (1984) pl. 1. They were originally cleared by Z.Y. Saad in 1942. Davies et al. (1984) 1. Davies et al. (1984) pl. 1. Davies does not date his sequence of brick types. Reisner (1942) 214.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  independent sites.164 WHm-kA.j’s tomb lies on the northern fringe of Cemetery G4000.

A cluster of associations suggests that Pr-nb’s tomb is to be dated to late in the reign of Djedkare or early in that of Unis. A block of stone meant for the tomb of anx-Jssj (QS910=No. 85) appears to have been delivered to the site of Pr-nb’s tomb by mistake168, which suggests that the two tombs were being constructed at the same time. Baer points out that anx-Jssj’s tomb is very similar to that of KA.j-m-*nnt (D7)169, who is dated indirectly by inscription to the reign of Djedkare.170 Furthermore, Prnb’s tomb is built against that of Ra-Spss [67], a vizier of Djedkare171 who very probably was his father and is mentioned in the biography of KA.j-m-*nnt 172, inscribed before the casing was added to the latter’s tomb.

This tomb is unusual in that it contains a chapel with the depiction of three generations of the tomb owner’s family (parents, tomb owner and children). WHm-kA.j’s wife, @tp-jb.s has the same name as a daughter or granddaughter of %SAt-Htp:!tj [88] and both women have the title of rx.t nswt.165 While no other figure appears in both tombs to support this identification, if accepted it suggests that WHm-kA.j may have been a generation younger than %SAt-Htp:!tj. WHm-kA.j also appears in the chapel of KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] as a scribe.166 All three officials have chapels belonging to the groups identified by Reisner. The period he assigned to their construction spans about two generations. If WHm-kA.j were of the younger generation, he would have constructed and decorated his tomb in the latter part of the period, Sahure to Neferirkare.

[24] Pr-sn

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

[22] WDA-HA-&tj:%Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH Group A Assigned date: VI.1M-2E Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

Saqqara TPC VI.2 PM III 515-16 jrj pat; HAtj-a jmj-rA prwj nbw; jmj-rA Hwt-wrt; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp jmj-xt Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj; sHD Hm-nTr +d-swt-&ti; xntj-S +dswt-&ti; jmj-xt Hm(w)-nTr Mn-nfrPpjj

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

[25] Pr-sn

166 167

Assigned date: V.2

According to inscription, Sahure granted Pr-sn funerary offerings from the chapel of Queen Nfr-Htp.s, mother of Userkaf.173 The chapel is therefore dated to Sahure.

Assigned date: V.8-9

Saqqara NSP V.8 QS 913 PM III 497-98 smr watj jrj nfr-HAt; Hrj-sStA pr dwAt …; Hrj-tp Nxb; xrp aH

[26] PtH-Htp I Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: 168 169

165

Group A

Location: Saqqara NSP Latest cartouche: V.2 Identification: D 45 PM III 577-78 Highest effective titles: jmj-rA jswj (n) Xkr(w) nswt Reference: Petrie–Murray (1952) 20-22, pls. 9, 10.

Reference: Lythgoe–Ransom Williams (1918).

164

Giza WF IV.2 LG 20-21 PM III 48-49 rx nswt jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; wr mD ^ma; sS a nswt

This is one of a distinct group of chapels in the Giza West Field identified as ranging in date from Menkaure to the end of Neferirkare. The group of chapels are all of Reisner’s chapel Type (4a) with an L-shape and two false doors. Located in the far north-west corner of the West Field, Pr-sn’s tomb is one of the later tombs in this category and is therefore dated from Sahure to Neferirkare.

Situated in the ‘Rue de Tombeaux’, this tomb lies to the north of anx-m-a-@r [15] and to the south of KA(.j)-apr(w) [99] who, like Nfr-sSm-PtH, was not a vizier. There is inscriptional evidence that Nfr-sSm-PtH’s mastaba was completed under Pepy I.167 (For discussion of dating see anx-m-a-@r [15].) Group A

Assigned date: V.2-3

References: Leclant (1952) 240-1; Reisner (1942) 217, 311; LD Erg., pl. 8, 83[a] and [b]

References: Capart (1907) Vol. 2, pls. 74-101; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 200-1 [38 (129)]; Lloyd et al. (2008).

[23] Pr-nb

Group B

170

Reisner (1942) 216. Junker II (19) 183, fig. 30; Kayser (1964) 37. Junker II (19) 150-52, pl. 6 figure 18. JEA 66 (1980) 2 (Editorial Foreword).

171 172 173

21 

Group B

Assigned date: V.8

Saqqara WSP V.8 D 62 PM III 596-98

Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 183.12 and 17. Baer (1960) 60. Both tombs have false doors in north-south offering rooms rather than east-west rooms, they have an entrance with two pillars and complex chapels. Strudwick (1985) 71-72. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 180-86. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 179-80. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 181-86 [25 (116), B-E]. Roeder (1901-24) vol. 1, 20-22; Mariette (1889) 300.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

jrj pat; HAtj-a; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA prwj-nwb; jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-r Snwtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt

mAat, eldest daughter of (probably) Userkaf and Nfr-Htp.s. According to the biography on his false door, it is likely that his tomb was built and decorated during the reign of Neuserre.174

References: Murray (1905) 11-18; Hassan Saqqara II (1975) 25-61; Mariette (1889) 351-6; Harpur–Scremin (2008).

[29] PtH-Spss

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

The latest cartouche in PtH-Htp I’s tomb is that of Djedkare. There is some evidence that PtH-Htp I was the father of Ax.t-Htp in the nearby tomb, D64. If so, the reign of Djedkare is the most probable date for this tomb. See Ax.t-Htp [1] [27] PtH-Htp (II):*fj Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

Group B

Assigned date: V.9

[30] PtH-Spss II

Highest effective titles:

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

PtH-Htp (II):*fj was the son of Ax.t-Htp [1] and has a chapel in his father’s tomb. Although he bore many of the high titles of his father, he did not construct his own tomb, which might have been expected of an official of his high rank. This suggests a particularly close relationship with his father or an unexpected, perhaps early, death for PtH-Htp (II):*fj. If he succeeded to the post of vizier after the death of his father, his chapel would have been decorated, or at least have had its decoration completed, in the reign of Unis. See Ax.t-Htp [1]

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification:

Abusir V.6 PM III 340-42 HAtj-a; sA nswt; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt; XrjHbt Hrj-tp

This is an unusually large mastaba with a brick enclosure and a complex interior chapel. PtH-Spss was very probably the son-in-law of Neuserre and married to the princess #a-mrr-nbtj, daughter, of the king. This relationship is emphasised by the size and location of PtH-Spss’s tomb, which is situated near Neuserre’s pyramid at the north-east corner of the funerary complex.175 It is therefore probable that the tomb was constructed and decorated during the reign of Neuserre.

Saqqara WSP V.8 D 64 PM III 600-04 smr watj; smr watj n(j) mrwt; Xrj-tp nswt tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA Hwt-wrt; jmj-rA ^maw jmj-rA njwt (sHD wab(w)) Mnswt-Nj-wsr-Ra; jmj-rA njwt (sHD Hm(w)-nTr) NTr-swt-MnkAw-@r; jmj-rA njwt (sHD Hm(w)-nTr) Nfr-+d-kA-Ra

Group A

Assigned date: V.6L

Reference: Verner (1977).

References: Davies Ptahhetep I (1900); Paget et al. (1898) 25-34, pls. 31-41; Hassan Saqqara II (1975) 63-84.

[28] PtH-Spss

Group A

Assigned date: VI.1-2

Saqqara NSP VI.1 E 1-2+H 3 PM III 460-61 wr xrp(w) Hmwt m prwj; xrp Hmwt(jw) nbt; Hrj-sStA n nTr.f; Hrj-sStA n sDAwt nTr Hm-nTr Nfr-jswt-Wnjs; jmj-xt Hm(w)-nTr +d-jswt-&tj

References: Murray (1905) 26-8, pls. 28-34; Mariette (1889) 377-9. PtH-Spss II shares a tomb complex with %Abw:Jbbj [81] who was high priest of Ptah under Unis and Teti, according to his biography. Although the relationship between the two men is not specified, the association was probably close; %Abw:Jbbj states that he had both a son and grandson named PtH-Spss. The mastaba includes a second chapel that opens into the north of its façade. The owner of this chapel is PtH-Spss II. As the mastaba is clearly dated to the reign of Teti by inscription, the construction of this second chapel is therefore assigned to the reign of Teti or the early years of Pepy I. See %Abw:Jbbj [81].

Assigned date: V. 6

Saqqara NSP V.6 C 1, H 14 (incorrectly) PM III 464 wr xrp Hmw m prwj nswt; HrjsStA n kAt nbt; jmj-rA pr

[31] Mnw-Dd.f

References: Mariette (1889) 110-114; James (1961) 17, pl. 17; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 51-3 [32, A, B].

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification:

PtH-Spss was also Hm-nTr of the sun temples of Userkaf, Sahure, Neferirkare and Neuserre. He was married to !a-

174 175

22 

James (1961) 17, pl.17. Verner (1979) 672.

Assigned date: IV.4-5

Giza EF IV.2 G7760=LG 60 PM III 203-04

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Highest ranking titles: References: Reisner (1942) 209; LD 2, 33 [a, b]

sA nswt; sA nswt n Xt.f

Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

This is one of eight nummulitic mastabas [Reisner’s Type (IVa)] built in immediate succession to the massive core mastabas of the nucleus Eastern Field. According to Reisner, this group of mastabas has interior chapels of “grey limestone” with one niche and are decorated by what Reisner calls the “old technique”, that is “not sized relief”.176 In Reisner’s opinion, all were constructed between the middle of the reigns of Khafre and Menkaure for members of the royal family of Khufu, who were mostly grandsons.177

Pyramid titles:

References: Duell I (1938) 2-3; Wreszinski (1923) 8[A], 90, 101; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004).

Reisner speculated that Mnw-Dd.f was the son of KA.j-wab [100] and @[email protected] II.178 Mnw-Dd.f was sA nswt n Xt.f179, which would probably mean grandson of a king if he were the son of KA.j-wab and @[email protected] II, although the father-son relationship with KA.j-wab is tenuous. Allowing two generations from Khufu to Mnw-Dd.f brings a probable date for the tomb to IV.4-5. [32] Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx:Nxbw Group A Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj was a son of Mrrw-kA.j [38] with a chapel in his father’s tomb.182 According to Nims this chapel was decorated later than that of Mrrw-kA.j.183 As three of Mrjj&tj:Mrj’s titles include the cartouche of Pepy I, it is probable that Mrjj-&tj:Mrj was an official of that king. It is remarkable that an official of such high rank did not build himself a tomb but it is possible that he died unexpectedly early before officials usually began making preparations for their afterlife. In which case, the decoration of the chapel is not likely to be later than mid Pepy I, perhaps less than a generation after Mrrw-kA.j had his rooms decorated. See Mrrw-kA.j [38].

Assigned date: VI.2

Giza WF VI.2 G2381-G2382 PM III 89-91 smr watj jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; xrp SnDwt nbt; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp jmj-rA wp(w)t nswt Mn-nfrMrjj-Ra-Ppjj; jmj-rA xntj(w)-S Mn-nfr-Mrjj-Ra-Ppjj

[34] Mr-jb.j

Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Location: Latest cartouche: 176

177 178 179 180 181

Assigned date: IV.6-V.2

Giza WF IV.2 G2100-I-ann= LG 24 PM III 71-72 sA nswt n Xt.f; sA nswt; rx nswt; smr watj; smr jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; xrp aH; wr mD(w) SmA(w)

References: Junker II (1934), 121-35, fig. 11; LD II, pls. 18-22.

Although Nxbw’s chapel in the %nDm-jb tomb-complex was reduced to a heap of debris, Reisner found and pieced together two biographical inscriptions. According to these Nxbw lived and worked during the reign of Pepy I as an expedition leader undertaking construction work for the king.180 He made three expeditions to Wadi Hammamat, where he also left inscriptions.181 Consequently, it is likely that Nxbw constructed and decorated his tomb in this reign. Group B

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification:

References: Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 215-19 [47(138)]; Dunham (1938); See PM III 89-91.

[33] Mrjj-&tj:Mrj

PM III 536-37 sA nswt n Xt.f; jrj pat; HAtj-a; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA Hwt-wrt 6; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt; XrjHbt Hrj-tp; xrp SnDwt nbt Hm-nTr Mn-nfr-Mrjj-Ra-Ppjj; xntj-S Mn-nfr-Mrjj-Ra-Ppjj; xntj-S +d-swt &tj; sHD Hm(w)nTr Mn-nfr-Mrjj-Ra-Ppjj; sHD Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj

This is one of a distinct group of chapels in the Giza West Field identified as ranging from Menkaure to the end of Neferirkare. However, unlike the others in the group, G2100-I-ann was built around the southern end of a mastaba core rather than enclosing an old core.184 It was one of a sub-group with chapels decorated with ‘sized’185 relief, which Reisner considered to be a newer decorative technique.186 The group of chapels are all of Reisner’s chapel type (4a) with an L-shape and two false doors.

Assigned date: VI.2M

Saqqara TPC VI.2

Reisner does not make clear what he meant by ‘not sized’. It is assumed that he meant unsealed with any type of size or filler. Reisner (1942) 309. Reisner (1942) 209. LD II, 33b. Dunham (1938) 1-8. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 215-21. Sethe (1933) Urk. I,93, 94.

182

183 184 185 186

23 

He is called ‘king’s eldest son of his body’ in the chapel of his mother, Watt-Xt-@r, because she was Teti’s daughter. Nims (1938). Nims (1938) 638-47. Reisner (1942) 216. Reisner (1942) 300-301: Reisner probably means ‘incised’ relief. Reisner (1942) 311.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  of features favour a Teti to Pepy I date for the tomb. Its entrance is on the favoured eastern side and the doorway to the tomb is framed with blocks of coarse brown limestone, as are the doorways of KA-gmnj [111], NfrsSm-Ra [58], anx-m-a-@r [15], WDA-HA-&tj:^sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH [22] and #ntj-kA.j [79]. This material may have been used to imitate quartzite, as quartzite was used in the Teti funerary temple as it is not used in the Unis cemetery.190 Furthermore, Wr-nww’s [20] tomb was built against Mrrj’s original outer west wall.

Reisner assumed from the position of the mastaba and the inscription in the chapel that Mr-jb.j was a grandson of Khufu. This relationship is far from proven, but it is possible from the title, sA nswt n Xt.f. Reisner preferred a late Dynasty 4 date for Mr-jb.j but Junker considered early Dynasty 5 more likely.187 Either date is credible, but as Mr-jb.j’s daughter, Nn-sDr-kA.j [59], has a chapel in the same group, a date from Menkaure to Sahure is preferred to allow for a generation between the two chapels.

Furthermore the wall of the burial chamber immediately behind the sarcophagus is cut into a shelf to support the lid and provide working room. Such a shelf exists in the burial chambers of KA-gmnj [111], anx-m-a-@r [15] and Nfr-sSm-Ra [58]. Two wDAt-eyes accompany the exterior inscription on the sarcophagus, as they do on the sarcophagi of anx-m-a-@r and #ntj-kA.j [79].

[35] Mrw:&tj-snb:Mrj-Ra-snb:Ppjj-snb Group B Assigned date: VI.1-2E Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

Saqqara TPC VI.2 PM III 520 HAtj-a; smr watj; Sps nswt jmj-rA Snwt nbt; xrp Sndwt nbt; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp jmj-rA wp(w)t +d-swt-&tj; jmjrA xntj(w)-S +d-swt-&tj; xntj-S +d-swt-&tj; sHD Hm(w)-nTr xntj(w)-S +d-swt-&tj

Location and archaeological evidence suggest a date for this chapel from late Teti to Pepy I. [37] [M]rrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj Group B

Reference: Lloyd et al. (1990), 3-20, figs. 1-3, pls 1-12, 29-31.

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

The dating of this tomb is based upon the change of the tomb owner’s name from &tj-snb to Ppjj-snb and Mrj-Rasnb, which appears in the tomb inscriptions. This suggests that the tomb owner began to build his tomb in the reign of Teti and completed it in the reign of Pepy I. However, the distribution of the three names throughout the tomb suggests that most of the tomb was constructed during the reign of Teti.188 The decoration presumably would have been completed early in the reign of Pepy I. [36] Mrrj

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Highest effective titles:

Pyramid titles:

Assigned date: VI.1L-2

This tomb, originally constructed for [M]rrj [ 37], was reused by a female with three names Mrjj-Nbtj, Mr-Nbtjanx-&tj and %mwt and the titles of rxt nswt, xntjt-S. It is situated opposite the tomb of @sj [69], dated by inscription to the reign of Teti, and in the east-west row of tombs to the north of KA-gm-nj [111]. In both decoration and erasure of names this tomb is similar to others in this cemetery that are dated to the reign of Teti, notably MHj:MH-n.s [42] and @sj [69], while the shape of the false door resembles that of JSfj, son of anh-m-a@r:%sj [15]. Mrjj-Nbtj probably re-used the tomb early in the reign of Pepy I.

Saqqara TPC PM III 518-19 HAtj-a; smr watj jmj-rA prwj nwb; jmj-rA prwjHD; jmj-rA pHwj pr-aA; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt

Mrrj’s tomb is one of a group of seven tombs that stand at the same level as the mastaba of Mrrw-kA.j [38], forming the lowest level of what was once a stratified site.189 Thus the excavators consider that this mastaba, although small, could be contemporary with the nearby larger mastabas which can be dated to Teti and Pepy I. Judging from their construction, Mrrj’s tomb is the earliest of this group of seven small mastabas. A number

188 189

Saqqara: TPC VI.1 PM n/r [M]rrj:smr watj; Mrjj-Nbtj: rxt nswt [M]rrj: jmj-rA aHAw; jmj-rA prwj-nbw; jmj-rA swt Spswt praA; sHD pr-[nsw]t; Mrjj-Nbtj: xntjt-S jmj-xt Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj; xntj[-S] +d-swt-&tj

Reference: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2001) 30-40, pls. 44, 45.

Reference: Davies et al. (1984) 2-20, 30-5, pls. 2-21, 23, 33-5, 37-40, Text figs. 2-3.

187

Assigned date: VI.1L-2E

[38] Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Junker II (1934) 121-35. Lloyd et al. (1990) 6, Note 2. Davies et al. (1984) 1.

190

24 

Group A

Assigned date: VI.1L

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM III 525-34 jrj pat; HAtj-a; smr watj

Davies et al. (1984) 2 and Note 1.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Highest effective titles:

Pyramid titles:

tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA prwj HD; jmj-rA prwj-nwb; jmj-rA Hwtwrt 6; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA Snwtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt xntj-S +d-swt-&tj; sHD Hm(w)nTr +d-swt-&tj

Reference: Dunham–Simpson (1974) Mrs-anx III was the daughter of KA.j-wab [100] and @[email protected] II, both of whom appear in her tomb and were the children of Khufu.193 The tomb of Mrs-anx III is rock-cut, not uncommon in the second half of Dynasty 4, but unusual in its position beneath a mastaba with a small ruined interior chapel, G7530-7540 in Cemetery G7000. The subterranean chapel is reached by stairs situated in the street between G7530-7540 and its eastern neighbour.194

References: Duell I and II (1938); Firth–Gunn (1926) Vol. 1, 23-27, 131-50; Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010); Kanawati Mereruka III:2 (2011).

Columns of inscription framing the entrance to this tomb give the dates of Mrs-anx’s death and burial. On the right side of the entrance the queen is said to have died in “Year of the first count, month 1 of Shemu, day 21”. On the left she is said to have been buried “Year after the first count, month 2 of Peret, day 16”.195 No particular king is mentioned. These dates could refer to a number of reigns. Reisner worked from quarry marks on the back of two casing stones from the mastaba core G7530 (“Year 7, month 4 of Proyet, Day 10” and “Month 3 of Shomu, Day 21”196) to arrive at Year 13 or 14 of Khafre for “year 7”. Dunham, on the other hand, believed the façade inscriptions giving the dates of Mrs-anx’s death and burial refer to the early years of Menkaure.

This is the second largest of the tombs of powerful officials in the group immediately north of Teti’s pyramid. However, its position is less favourable than that of KA.j-gmnj:Mmj [111] suggesting that it was a slightly later construction, for both men were viziers. The cartouche of Pepy occurs in the name of Mrrw-kA.j’s son, whose tomb is a later addition to his father’s tomb. (For discussion of dating see anx-m-a-@r:%sj [15].) [39] Mrs-anX II

Group B

Assigned date: IV.2-4

Location: Giza EF Identification: G7410+G7420 PM III 194 sAt nswt n Xt.f Highest ranking titles: Reference: Reisner (1942) pp. 115, 121, 125, 205, 308.

A study of Mrs-anx ‘s skeletal remains judged her to have been about fifty at the time of death.197 Her father, KA.jwab, probably died before or soon after the death of his father, Khufu.198 Mrs-anx must therefore have been born before or around the time of Khufu’s death. If she had reached adulthood before the death of Khufu, the entrance inscription date would seem to refer either to the reign of Khafre or Menkaure. If she were only an infant at the time of Khufu’s death then the inscription could refer to the first and second years of Shepseskaf.

This twin mastaba is situated in the fourth line which is immediately behind the small pyramid, G1-a. Although they were found nearly destroyed, Reisner was convinced that the chapels of the four northern double mastabas followed on from the early chapels of the Western Field. Only fragments of relief were recovered from G7410, which was reconstructed as an L-shaped one-niched interior chapel of white limestone, while the other half of the mastaba, G7420, was unused but perhaps intended for @r-bA.f, possibly the husband and brother of Mrs-anX II.191 Simpson considered Mrs-anX II to be a daughter of Khufu192, while von Beckerath thought she might have been a wife of Khafre. This is perhaps unlikely in view of the situation of her tomb in the most prestigious part of the Khufu necropolis.

[41] Mr-sw-anx

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

192

Giza CF PM III 269-70 smr Ra-wr jmj-rA jdw(w) n Xnw; sHD Hm(w)-kA

Mr-sw-anx may be dated by his relationship with Ra-wr [64] as he was the overseer of the young men of the endowment of Ra-wr and described himself as ‘smr Ra-wr jmAxw.f’. In the tomb of Ra-wr there is a biographical reference to Neferirkare, although the tomb itself, very complex, may be rather later. Mr-sw-anx, under the patronage of Ra-wr, may have been a generation younger

Assigned date: IV.4-6

Giza EF IV.3 G7530+G7540 PM III 197-99 mAAt @r-%tx; Hmt nswt; wrt Hts; sAt nswt nt Xt.f; sAt nswt smrt @r mrt.f; Hm(t)-nTr +Hwtj; Hm(t)-nTr @wt-@r; nbt Jwnt; Hm(t)-nTr BA-pf

193 194 195 196

191

Assigned date: V.6-8

Reference: Hassan I (1932) 104-17, figs. 177-187.

As a daughter of Khufu, Mrs-anX II, may be dated to the period from the reign of Khufu to that of Khafre. [40] Mrs-anx III

Group B

197

Reisner (1942) 307-8. Simpson (1975) in: LÄ VI, 78.

198

25 

Reisner (1927) Dunham–Simpson (1974) 1. Smith (1952) 126. Dunham–Simpson (1974) 3, pl. 2a, fig. 2. Dunham–Simpson (1974) 21-22. See prosopography for KA.j-wab [100].

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  than his patron, in which case his tomb would date from the reign of Neuserre to that of Djedkare.

Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

[42] MHj:MH-n.s

References: LD II, pls. 4-7; Sethe (1933) Urk. I. 5-7; Goedicke (1966) 1-62.

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: VI.2E

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM n/r Sps nswt pr-aA; smr watj jmj-rA xntj(w)-S; jmj-rA st xntj(w)-S pr-aA; sHD xntj(w)-S

MTn’s chapel is one of the few cruciform chapels with preserved reliefs, which include the tomb owner’s autobiography. This biographical information dates him to late Dynasty 3 or early Dynasty 4.

References: Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) 7-11, pl.1; Kanawati GM 83 (1984) 31-38; El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) 12-17 pls 4-9; Edel (1981) 88ff.

[44] Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp Group A Assigned date: V.6L-8E Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

The remains of the tomb of MHj:MH-n.s lie to the northeast of the pyramid of Teti. According to Kanawati, the officials of Teti were only allotted a limited space in this cemetery, which is bounded by Teti’s pyramid complex, the Queens’ pyramids, large Dynasty 5 mastabas to the east and the Archaic cemetery to the north. The construction of mastabas in the Teti Cemetery progressed from west to east parallel with the northern boundary of the Teti pyramid complex and then turned northward. A narrow east-west street further to the north has provided more tombs probably dating to the reign of Teti or soon after. The tomb of MHj:MH-n.s is in this street.199

Highest effective titles: Pyramid titles:

This tomb was buried by the construction of the causeway of Unis. Moussa and Altenmüller accept the middle years of the reign of Neuserre as the earliest limit for its construction as both tomb owners were priests of Re in the sun temple of Neuserre and wab priests of the pyramid of Neuserre202. Moussa and Altenmüller give the latest limit as five years into the reign of Unis, when they assume the causeway was being built. However, they base their precise date for the construction of the tomb (end of Neuserre to Menkauhor) on the archaeological evidence of foundation stones with quarry inscriptions including the names of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp in the tomb of PtH-Spss [29] of Abusir. This suggests that the two tombs were being built at the same time. As PtH-Spss married a woman named #a-mrr-nbtj, who was probably a daughter of Neuserre, Moussa and Altenmüller date PtH-Spss from the second half of the reign of Neuserre into the reign of Menkauhor. Nj-anx$nmw and $nmw-Htp appear in PtH-Spss’s tomb.

The above suggests that MHj:MH-n.s decorated his tomb during the brief reign of Userkare.201 For the purpose of this study the date is rendered as early Pepy I.

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: 199 200 201

Group B

Saqqara UPC V.6 PM III 641-44 mHnk nswt mrrw nb.f; mHnk nswt m kAwt jrjt anwt sHD jrjw anwt pr-aA; jmj-rA jrjw anwt pr-aA; jrj jxt nswt Hm-nTr Ra m ^spw-jb-Ra; wab Mn-jswt-Nj-wsr-Ra

Reference: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977); Harpur–Scremin (2010).

In the debris in front of the tomb were found three pieces of inscribed stone, which were originally part of the architrave across the façade of the tomb. The smaller piece of stone, cut to replace a corner of one of the larger stones, was inscribed with the cartouche of Teti that formed part of the phrase ‘jmAx.f x(r) &tj’. This is the only royal name found in the tomb. The phrase ‘jmAx.f x(r) &tj’ (or jmAxw xr) accompanied by the name of a king is usually interpreted to mean that the official served the king named. The block bearing the phrase is of poorer quality stone and the hieroglyphs are smaller and less well crafted than the inscription on other blocks. Kanawati interprets this as a replacement of the king’s name. He surmises that the original king named was Userkare who succeeded Teti, and that his name was replaced with that of Teti when Teti’s son, Pepy I, regained the throne. MHj wished to establish his loyalty to the house of Teti.200

[43] MTn

rx nswt HqA H(w)t aAt; sAb Hrj-%qr; sS; jmj-rA wpwt

This dating is supported by the additional burial in the tomb of @m-Ra and his wife *st, Nj-anx-$nmw’s son and daughter-in-law. Assuming @m-Ra and *st were a generation later than the tomb owners, their false doors would date to the time just before Unis came to the throne.

Assigned date: IV.1-2

Saqqara NSP IV.1 LS 6 PM III 493-94

Menkauhor only reigned for eight years according to the Turin Canon. Assigning a date early in the reign of Djedkare as the latest date for the decorative elements

Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) 7-11. El-Khouli–Kanawati (1984) 9-10. El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) 12, 14-15, pl. 6.

202

26 

Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) 44-45.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  relating to the two tomb owners offers a slightly greater time span than accepted by Moussa and Altenmüller. [45] Nj-anx-%xmt

Group A

As a son of Mrs-anx III [40] and Khafre, Nj-wsr-Ra’s tomb is to be dated from late in the reign of Khafre to the reign of Menkaure.

Assigned date: V.2

[47] Nj-kAw-Jssj

Location: Saqqara NSP Latest cartouche: V.2 Identification: D 12 PM III 482-83 smr pr Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: wr swnw; wr swnw pr-aA References: Mariette (1889) 202-5; Borchardt I (1937) 169-73, pl. 39; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 38-40 [26, A, B].

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles

Group B

Assigned date: IV.4-5

The mastaba was originally free standing but other tombs were built against it. One of these is the tomb of @sj [69], whose biography describes service under Djedkare, Unis and Teti, suggesting that the tomb was constructed in the reign of Teti. This makes it likely that the tomb of NjkAw-Jssj was built quite early in Teti’s reign.209

This is an unfinished rock-cut tomb in the scarp first used as a quarry for the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre and later as a cemetery. Reisner suggested that the earlier tombs in this cemetery were those nearest the Khafre causeway, where the queens and sons of Khafre were buried.204 Nj-wsr-Ra’s tomb is southwest of this family group.

Nj-kAw-Jssj has the same titles as the official of this name to whom Teti’s Abydos decree was addressed and as the official depicted on the causeway of Unis.210 His name suggests that he was born and began his service under Djedkare. His skeletal remains are those of a man in his early forties.211 If both Unis and Teti had reigns of 15 and 11 years respectively212, Nj-kAw-Jssj may have died in the middle years of the reign of Teti.

Although they are not mentioned in Nj-wsr-Ra’s unfinished tomb, his parents were probably Khafre and Mrs-anx III [40]. Two pillars inscribed with figures of this queen flank the central opening of the main room of her tomb. In front of each depiction of the queen is painted a figure of a young boy. The boy on the east pillar is described as ‘sA nswt n Xt.f, _wA-Ra’, and on the west pillar as ‘sA nswt n Xt.f, Nj-wsr-Ra-anx’. Dunham notes that the painted insertions of the two boys, one with a name compounded with the cartouche of Neuserre, the sixth king of Dynasty 5 and an ankh sign, indicate that the chapel was either accessible up to or reopened in Dynasty 5.205 While the two painted figures in Mrs-anx III’s tomb have been considered to be later additions, in the tomb of Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] who is a son of Khafre, _wAw[-Ra] and a Nj-wsr-Ra appear as the tomb owner’s brothers.206 From this evidence Dunham surmises that both men were the sons of Mrs-anx III [40] and Khafre and that the cartouche and ankh sign were added later.207

204 205 206 207

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM n/r jrj pat; HAtj-a; smr watj jmj-js; jmj-rA wabtj; jmj-rA prwj-nbw; jmj-rA ^maw; Hrj wrw; Xrj Hbt

The site for Nj-kAw-Jssj’s tomb may have been included in the original planning of the Teti cemetery as it is to the immediate north of the mastaba of KA-gmnj [111]. In common with the other original mastabas in this cemetery, the tomb is built entirely of stone; it is almost square and has a staircase leading to the roof. However, it has some features in common with the later tombs, which were constructed in the second half of Teti’s reign: the shaft opens into the floor of the chapel rather than the roof of the mastaba and the chapel occupies the total ground area of the mastaba.208

Location: Giza CF Identification: PM III 234 sA nswt n Xt.f; smr watj Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Xrj-Hbt; Hrj wDb(w) n jt.f References: Hassan IV (1943) 185-8, figs. 131-3, pl. 40; Reisner (1942) 231-2, fig. 137.

203

Assigned date: VI.1M

Reference: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000).

Nj-anx-%xmt’s tomb is securely dated to the reign of Sahure, who presented him with a false door (CG 1482).203 [46] Nj-wsr-Ra

Group A

[48] Nj-kAw-Ra

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Giza CF IV.4 LG 87 PM III 232 jrj pat; HAtj-a; sA nswt n Xt.f; sA nswt n Xt.f smsw; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; Xrj Hbt Hrj-tp (tp n jt.f)

References: LD II, pl. 15[a, b]; LD Erg., pl. 35.

Borchardt I (1937) pl. 39, pp. 169-73; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 38-40 [26 A,B]. Reisner (1942) 220. Dunham–Simpson (1974) 13, footnote 21, pl. 6a, fig. 6. Hassan IV (1943) 125, 144-45, 185-88, fig. 85, Dunham–Simpson (1974) 5.

208 209 210 211 212

27 

Assigned date: IV.4-6

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) 17-18. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) 19. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) 20. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) 21-22. See p. 14 above.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  therefore, probably a son of Khafre and may have been an ‘eldest’ son of the king.219 Strudwick considers that Nb.jm-Axtj would have been born after Khafre had come to the throne.220 In this case, Nb.j-m-Axtj would have constructed his tomb in either the reign of Menkaure or Shepseskaf.

This is one of the rock-cut tombs excavated into the scarp from which limestone for the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre were quarried. Reisner believed that the earlier tombs in this cemetery were those nearest the Khafre causeway, where the queens and sons of Khafre were buried and that they first began to use the quarry in the reign of Menkaure. LG 87 is one of these tombs and was classed by Reisner as belonging to his type RC(i), which he believed to be the older of his two rock-cut tomb categories.213

[50] Nbt

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

As sA nswt n Xt.f smsw and Xry Hbt Hry-tp n jt.f, Nj-kAw-Ra was very probably the son of a king. Reisner believed, from the names of his estates, that he was the son of Khafre and Queen Pr-[snt], whose tomb, LG 88, is to the immediate south-west of LG 87.

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Although Nbt was not ‘sAt nswt’ and nothing is known about her own family background221, there is little doubt that that she was a wife of Unis. Her titles indicate that she was a queen, while the location of her tomb close to the funerary temple of Unis makes it reasonably certain that she was married to him. The cartouche of Unis was found on one of the mastaba blocks and on the lower part of a small statuette found in the tomb.222

Assigned date: IV.5-6

As a queen, Nbt is likely to have had her tomb constructed and decorated during the reign of her husband.

Giza CF IV.4 LG 86 PM III 230-32 jrj-pat; sA nswt n Xt.f [smsw]; smr watj; smr watj n jt.f tAjtj sAb TAtj; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp; sS mDAt nTr n jt.f

[51] Nbt

216 217 218

Assigned date: VI.4E-M

Nbt’s tomb is situated close to the tombs of two powerful nomarchs, $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] and KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109], strongly suggesting that she was closely related to one or both men. Kanawati speculates that she may have been the first wife of KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]. On the other hand, the architecture of Nbt’s burial chambers with their

Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] and Mrs-anx III [40] are depicted in each other’s tombs in a mother-son relationship.218 He was

215

Group B

Location: El Hawawish Identification: (Kanawati) H27, PM n/r Xkrt nswt watt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Hm(t) nTr @wt-Hr References: Kanawati III (1982) 37-42, figs. 24-25, 27-28; Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 127-129, 250-252.

This rock-cut tomb in the scarp used as a quarry for the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre is one of the closest to the Khafre causeway. Reisner believed the rock-cut tombs closest to the Khafre causeway were the first to be constructed in the quarry.216 LG 86 was classed by Reisner as belonging to his type RC(i), which he believed to be the older of his two rock-cut tomb categories.217

214

Saqqara UPC V.9 PM III 624 Hmt nswt mrt.f; mAAt @r-%tX; smrt @r; wrt Hts

This is a large double mastaba situated to the north-east of the pyramid of Unis. The two tombs within the mastaba belong to Nbt (eastern tomb) and #nwt [78] (western tomb) and they are almost identical in size and plan.

References: Hassan IV (1943) 125-50, pl. 36 [A]-37, figs. 73-102; LD II, pls. 12 [a-c].

213

Assigned date: V.9

Reference: Munro (1993).

A date of ‘rnpt sp 12’ occurs in the tomb.214 Regardless of how the cattle count is interpreted, only the reigns of Khafre or Menkaure lasted long enough to have such a date, but whether the year ‘rnpt sp 12’ refers to Khafre or Menkaure is uncertain. Reisner did not believe the members of Khafre’s family could have used the quarry as a cemetery until quarrying for the king’s pyramid had finished and that the quarry was mainly used by Khafre’s family in the reign of Menkaure.215 The date, ‘rnpt sp 12’, is therefore more likely to refer to the reign of Menkaure, in which case Nj-kAw-Ra was the vizier of that king and decorated his tomb in his reign. [49] Nb.j-m-Axtj

Group B

219

Reisner (1942) 220, 310. This date is in a will in favour of Nj-kAw-Ra’s wife and children. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 16-17 [13]. Reisner (1942) 219. Reisner (1942) 219-20, Reisner (1942) 220, 310. Harpur thinks that as Nb.j-m-Ax.tj was depicted as an adult but without the title of vizier in his molther’s tomb, he did not hold that

220

221 222

28 

position at the time of her death. Thus, her depiction in Nb.j-mAxtj’s tomb is posthumous. Harpur (1987) 16, note 20. ‘smsw’ would fit a space between ‘n Xt.f’ and ‘Nb.j-m-Ax.t’ on the entrance drum. Hassan IV (1943) fig. 74. Kings’ sons, not born of the principal queen, were probably born during their fathers’ reign as only a reigning king practised polygamy. There is no evidence in Dynasty 4 of any prince or official doing so. Strudwick (1985) 7. Munro (1993) 20. Saad (1940) 683-4.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Altenmüller believe it was still in use when closed by Unis. In shaft 8 a wooden box was found with an inscription that it was placed in the burial chamber on the 6th year of counting, 4th month of prt, 22nd day.225

short sloping passages leading to horizontal corridors that open into the burial chambers are very similar to the arrangements in the tomb of $nj-anxw (H15) and McFarlane argues that Nbt is more likely to have been a contemporary of $nj-anxw than of KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr. This means, however, that even if Nbt were not contemporary with KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr and $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw she must have lived within a generation of them. KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr and $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw are dated to early to mid Pepy II by their location and association with the securely dated KA.j-Hp:*tj (M8). [52] Nfr

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Moussa and Altenmüller speculate whether the tomb was built and first used in the reign of Neferirkare and was still in use when Unis came to the throne, a period of at least 75 years. This is a very long span of time to account for three generations.226 By identifying Nj-kAw-Ra, an offering bearer appearing on Nfr’s false door, with NjkAw-Ra of mastaba D 50 who probably lived under Neuserre, Moussa and Altenmüller narrow the date for the decoration of the tomb to the reign of Neuserre.

Assigned date: IV.4

Giza WF G2110 PM III 72-4 rx nswt jmj-rA prwj-HD; HqA Hwt; sS a nswt; wr mD Smaw; Hrj-sStA n nswt m swt nbt

[54] Nfr-bAw-PtH

According to Reisner, G2110 was an original core mastaba. It has an L-shaped, one-niched, exterior stone offering room constructed around the southern niche.223 The chapel suffered serious damage but the pieces, scattered in museums around the world, show that it was fully decorated and must therefore be one of the earliest fully decorated chapels in the Western Field.

Nfr-bAw-PtH was the son of Jj-mrjj [4] and grandson of ^pss-kA.f-anx [95]. Both men appear in his tomb227 and he appears in that of Jj-mrjj, his father.228 The nucleus tombs of the group, Cemetery G6000, are those of the ^pss-kA.fanx family. Weeks, who published Cemetery G6000, does not attempt to date any of these tombs. Instead, he quotes in full Reisner’s 1939 article, which he describes as a still “very useful study”.229

Reisner decided that the finishing of the earlier cores of the three nucleus cemeteries of the Western Field had been interrupted on the death of Khufu and not resumed until the reign of Khafre.

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Group B

According to Reisner, ^pss-kA.f-anx chose a bare rock area on the side of an old quarry and built his mastaba on the best site. His son, son-in-law and grandson built their mastabas nearby forming a complex family group of tombs. Reisner dated the birth of ^pss-kA.f-anx to the reign of Shepseskaf, presumably by virtue of his name, and attributed his position of ‘estate steward’ to a son of Neferirkare whom he identified as the future king Neuserre.

Assigned date: V.6

Saqqara UPC PM III 639-41 rx nswt jmj-rA Hsww prwj; wa m wrw Hsww Dt; Xrp Hsww; sHD Hsww sHD pr-aA; sHD wabt; Hrj-sStA nswt

References: Moussa–Altenmüller (1971); Lashien (2013)

225

226

This tomb is one of a group of tombs cut into the rock of a natural ditch. A long section of the Unis Causeway is set in this depression and its construction buried the group of tombs. The tomb chapel of Nfr and KA-HA.j is L-shaped with four false doors in the west wall and 11 shafts. It was planned as a double tomb for father and son.224 Moussa and 223 224

Assigned date: V.6L

Location: Giza WF Latest cartouche: V.6 Identification: G6010=LG 15 PM III 639-41 rx nswt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: jmJ-rA pr; jmj-rA Hwt aAt Reference: Weeks (1994) 21-29, 63-67, col.pls. 2a-2c, pls. 1a-11a, figs.2-4, 6, 9-24.

References: Reisner (1942) 201, 422-5. See also Ziegler (1990) No. 26.

[53] Nfr and KA-HA.j

Group B

227

Reisner (1942) 201, 306-7. Lashien argues that KA-HA.j constructed the tomb making provision for his son, Nfr, who died before his father. Lashien (2013) 11-16.

228 229

29 

Moussa and Altenmüller think that the wooden box may refer to the third generation buried in this tomb in the reign of Djedkare. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) 18. This assumes that the tomb was constructed during the adult lifetime of Nfr, son of KA.HA.j and was last used by the third generation, the children of Nfr. Moussa and Altenmüller believe that the tomb was constructed when Nfr was adult because the false doors of Nfr and KA.HA.j are positioned either side of a palace façade false door suggesting that this was the original design. According to Moussa–Altenmuller, in a dedicatory inscription on the false door of KA.HA.j, Nfr is called the builder of the tomb and the donor of KA.HA.j’s false door. Moussa–Altenmuller (1971) 14. Lashien, on the other hand argues that this conclusion is based on a mistranslation and that KA.HA.j was the original builder of the tomb. Lashien (2013) 11. Kanawati considers that the orientation of these depictions indicate that Jj-mrjj and ^pss-kA.f-anx were already dead when the sculptures were being crafted. Kanawati (1981b) 216. Weeks (1994) pls. 4, 5, 12b, 16, 28 (LD II, 54) Weeks (1994) 4; Reisner (1939) 29-35.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Nfr-bAw-PtH appears as an adult in his father’s tomb.230 It is probable therefore, that he was born before Neuserre came to the throne. However, Neuserre would have been the king he served, in whose reign he built and decorated his tomb.

throne.236 In this case, Nfr-mAat would have been a mature man during the reign of Sneferu, when he would have constructed his tomb.

[55] Nfr-mAat

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: References: Mariette (1889) 530-1; LD II, pl. 17[a-c].

[57] Nfr-sSm-PtH

Assigned date: IV.2-4

Giza EF IV.1 G7060= LG 57 PM III 183 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; sA nswt; sA nswt n Xt.f; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; Hrj-tp Nxb; xrp aH

Nfr-sSm-PtH See [22] WDA-xA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH

Assigned date: IV.1 [58] Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj Group A Assigned date: VI.1E-M

Location: Medum Latest cartouche: IV.1 Identification: Petrie 16 PM IV 92-4 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; sA nswt smsw Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: tAjtj sAb TAtj; smA Mnw References: Petrie (1892) 14-16, 24-29, 39-40, pls. 16-28; Harpur (2001).

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

The tomb of Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj is situated in a prime position vis à vis the pyramid complex of Teti. As the first tomb in the ‘Rue de Tombeaux’ it is situated in the first row of tombs that runs parallel with the northern perimeter of the Teti pyramid. There is, therefore, little doubt that NfrsSm-Ra:^Sj served under Teti. However there are indications that this tomb may be a little earlier than the great tombs of the highest officials of Teti and Pepy I. Both Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj and KA-gm-nj [111], Teti’s earliest viziers, constructed a square shaped mastaba and only used a relatively small portion of the interior for their chapel. But KA-gmnj decorated all his chapel walls, while

Bolshakov dates Nfr-mAat to the reign of Sneferu through his likely relationship to @m-jwnw.235 According to Bolshakov, @m-jwnw was responsible for the construction of the Great Pyramid and surrounding nucleus cemeteries, which would make him an adult when Khufu ascended the

231 232 233 234 235

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM III 511-12 HAtj-a; smr watj jmj-rA prwj-nbw; jmj-rA prwjHD; jmj-rA Hwt-wrt; jmj-rA Hwtwrt 6; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA ^mAw; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt xntj-S +d-swt-&tj

Pyramid titles: References: Capart (1907) 17-26, pls. 9-17; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 11-38, pls. 3-19, 39-60.

Nfr-mAat may have been either the son of Huni and therefore a brother of Sneferu,234 or he could have been a son of Sneferu as his tomb is near the Medum pyramid, which was probably completed by Sneferu even if begun by Huni.

230

Saqqara UPC PM III 645 mHnk-nswt m pr a jmj-rA Hmtjw; jmj-rA Hmtjwnbw

The presence of a cartouche of Neuserre237 and the date terminus ante quem provided by the construction of the causeway of Unis which blocked this tomb, provide a range of possible dating. As the tomb owners, Nfr-sSmPtH and %xntjw are likely to be father and son, the suggested time for the construction of the tomb has been brought back approximately one generation before the closure of the tomb on the hypothesis that it would have been constructed either before or immediately after the death of the father. The decoration of the chapel must also lie within the date range of Neuserre to Djedkare as the beginning of the construction of the causeway would have been a great dis-incentive to start or continue work on the tomb.

According to Reisner, the relief in this one-niched interior chapel is of the ‘old technique’, that is ‘not sized’ relief232 and was built between the middle years of Khafre and the middle years of Menkaure.233 Reisner’s opinion of this feature supports an estimated dating for Nfr-mAat as a grandson of Sneferu, who probably constructed his tomb 40 to 50 years after the death of Sneferu. Group B

Assigned date: V.6-8E

Reference: Moussa–Junge (1975), 11-27, fig. 1, pls. 1-7.

According to inscription on his false door and that of his son, %nfrw-xa.f [83], Nfr-mAat was the son of Nfrt-kAw, eldest daughter of Sneferu.231 Whether his mother was born early or late in the reign of Sneferu is not known.

[56] Nfr-mAat

Group B

Weeks (1994) pl. 28 (LD II, 54). The figure of Nfr-bAw-PtH has almost disappeared but its position suggests the depiction of an adult. LD II, 16. Reisner (1942) 309. Reisner (1942) 308-9. Schmitz (1976) 65-66. Junker I (1922) 151-53, 157-61.

236 237

30 

Bolshakov (1991) 11-20. Moussa–Junge (1975), Illustr. 1.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj seems not to have intended to do so; the coarse stone used in some of the rooms of Nfr-sSmRa:^Sj’s chapel suggest that they were never meant to be decorated. Furthermore Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj’s burial chamber is not cased with limestone and contains no decoration. KA-gmnj and later high officials of Teti decorated their tomb chambers.238 These features, according to Kanawati, suggest that Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj was the first high official to be buried in the Teti cemetery and accordingly dates to the first half of Teto’s reign.

anx appears in his tomb and his chapel is of the exterior mud brick type.243

[59] Nn-sDr-kA.j I

References: Murray (1905) 19-24, pls. 20-5, 32; Mariette (1889) 164-74.

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

[61] NTr-wsr

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.2-3

Giza WF IV.2 G2101 PM III 72 sAt nswt Hmt-nTr @wt-@r; Hmt-nTr #wfw

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles:

[62] NDt-m-pt:&jt

Assigned date: IV.5-V.1

Giza: Cemetery en Echelon IV.4 G4970 PM III 143-44 jmj-rA aH; jmj-rA wp(w)t (3 nomes); jmj-rA nswtjw sSm-tA; Hm-nTr #wfw HqA Hwt aAt (3 nomes); Hrj-sStA; sAb

[63] Ra-wr

244

242

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

243

241

Saqqara TPC PM n/r rx.t nswt Hm(t)-nTr Nt mHtt jnb.s wpt(t) wAwt; Hm(.t)-nTr @wt-@r nbt nht

NDt-m-pt’s mastaba lies to the north east of KA-gm-nj [111] among other mastabas built in the reign of Teti.246 Although he does not appear in her tomb, NDt-m-pt was certainly the mother of the vizier, Mrrw-kA.j [38]. She appears in her son’s tomb247 and their two mastabas are close to each other. NDt-m-pt was given a separate tomb in this small cemetery where space must have been at a premium and reserved for the highest officials. Presumably this was a high honour bestowed on her because her son who was married to the eldest daughter of Teti, was much favoured by this king.

As Nswt-nfr was administrator of Nomes 8 and 10, Kanawati is inclined to date his working life to Dynasty 4 rather than Dynasty 5. Kanawati’s reasons are that Nswtnfr held priesthoods of Khafre, a dwarf named +d.f-Ra-

240

Assigned date: VI.1L

Reference: Kanawati–Hassan (1996) 11-30, pls. 3-11, 36 – 43.

Nswt-nfr’s stone built mastaba, which has an L-shaped chapel with two false doors, is situated in the most westerly row of the Cemetery en Echelon.241 Reisner believed that this cemetery was laid out as a unified plan probably in the second half of the reign of Khafre, and that the mastaba cores, all of his type (IIa), were constructed before the end of Menkaure’s reign.242 Reisner further classed G4970 with his group of twoniched type (4a) chapels which he dated from Menkaure to the end of the reign of Neferirkare.

239

Group A

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Reference: Junker III (1938) 163-87, pl. 5, 11, figs.9b, 25-31.

238

Saqqara NSP D1=S 901 PM III 485 Xrj-tp nswt jmj-rA Hwt-wrt; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; Hrj-sStA n wDt-mdwt nbt nt nswt

As Ra-Spss is securely dated to the reign of Djedkare245, and his relationship with NTr-wsr cannot be settled, it is necessary to date NTr-wsr’s tomb between the latter years of Neuserre and the beginning of the reign of Unis.

Nn-sDr-kA.j I was the daughter of Mr-jb.j [34], in whose tomb she is called ‘king’s daughter’.239 In turn, Mr-jb.j appears in Nn-sDr-kA.j I ‘s tomb.240 As Mr-jb.j’s tomb is assigned a date between Shepseskaf and Sahure, his daughter’s adjacent tomb may be dated from Sahure to Neferirkare. Group: B

Assigned date: V.7-8

NTr-wsr was related to Ra-Spss [67], but whether as father or son is unclear. Their tombs, which are near each other, each show a figure as a son who is named after the other man.244

Reference: Junker II (1934) 97-121, figs, 1-10, pls. 3[a, b, c] 4[b]

[60] Nswt-nfr

Group B

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 15-16, 21-22. LD II, 22(a). Junker II (1934) pl. 3, fig. 8 p. 118. Porter–Moss (1974) Plan 16. Reisner (1942) 81-2.

245 246 247

31 

Assigned date: VI.2E-L Saqqara TPC PM III 558 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA ^ma; xrp SnDwt nbt; Xrj-Hb Hrj-tp

El-Khouli–Kanawati (1990) p. 15 and Notes 24 and 28. Son named Ra-Spss in NTr-wsr’s tomb. [Murray (1905) Volume 1, pls. 21 and 23]. Son named NTr-wsr in the tomb of Ra-Spss. [LD II, 60 (left and right); LD II, 61 (6)]. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 179-80. Kanawati–Hassan (1996) 12-13. Duell II (1938) pls. 150, 171.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  subsidiary northern niche. Reisner believed that G5470 was the last of the chapels of this type constructed in the Cemetery and that it was built prior to the accession of Djedkare but used in his reign.256

Reference: El-Fikey (1980). The location of Ra-wr’s tomb at the south-east corner of Teti’s pyramid suggests he was vizier some time after #ntj-kA.j [79], whose career lasted into Pepy I’s reign and whose tomb is situated at the north-east corner of Teti’s pyramid.248 Ra-wr does not appear in the funerary temple of Pepy II, nor did he build his tomb near the pyramid of Pepy II, as did the later viziers of that reign.249 Accordingly, Ra-wr’s career, until his presumed disgrace250, probably took place in the reign of Pepy I.

According to Junker, Ra-wr II may have been the son of %Sm-nfr II [91] and brother of %Sm-nfr III [92]. Junker consequently gives him a date of late Dynasty 5.257 This dating is supported by a seal of Djedkare which was found in the main shaft.258 [66] Ra-Htp

Group B

Assigned date: IV 1L-2E

Malek has suggested that this Ra-wr was the same person as the figure defaced on the Dahshur decree of Pepy I.251 Strudwick, however, argues that the two cannot be identical.252 With this question remaining open and Kanawati’s surmise that there was a second conspiracy in the reign of Pepy I (unsubstantiated)253, the date for Rawr’s tomb is assigned the time span covering the reign of Pepy I.254

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

[64] Ra-wr

Ra-Htp’s tomb, like that of Nfr-MAat [56], is a large mudbrick mastaba with cruciform chapels for himself and his wife, Nfrt.259 It was probably built a little later than that of Nfr-MAat as it is situated in the middle of the row of mastabas which begins with Nfr-MAat;260 It has a rockcut shaft and burial chamber, while Nfr-MAat’s tomb has an open pit chamber with a sloping passage. Nfr-MAat’s chapel was added to the original structure during a second phase of construction, while Ra-Htp’s chapel was part of the original construction, again suggesting the construction of Ra-Htp’s chapel as later than that of Nfr-MAat.261

Group A

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

References: Petrie (1892) 15-17, pls. 9-15; Harpur (2001)

Assigned date: V.3

Giza CF V.3 PM III 265-69 smr watj; smr watj n(j) mrwt jrj nfr-HAt; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt; xrp aH; xrp SnDwt; Xrj-Hbt

Reference: Hassan I (1932) 1-61, pls. 1-20, 25-8, 32. This is a large chapel complex with a cruciform rock-cut offering room. In his biography, Ra-wr refers to an incident that occurred during the reign of Neferirkare.255 The chapel is securely dated to this reign or soon after. [65] Ra-wr II

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles:

According to Bolshakov, both tombs have features that precede the practices which were typical in the reign of Khufu. These include the construction of the substructures of the tombs, the bricking up of the chapels and the artistic style of the murals and and statues. Bolshakov notes that none of these features is associated with tombs that are contemporary with Khufu.262 However, these are negative arguments rather than evidence. Bolshakov’s argument that @m-Jwnw (G4000) was both the son of Nfr-MAat and planner and organizer of Khufu’s pyramid and surrounding cemeteries, may suggest that Nfr-MAat’s tomb belongs to the reign of Snefru263, but it does not carry the same force for that tomb of Ra-Htp.

Assigned date: V.8-9

Giza WF V.8 G5470=LG 32 PM III 162-3 sAb jmj-rA sS(w); wr mD ^ma; sAb aD-mr

Reference: Junker III (1938) 223-35, figs.44-6, 48; LD II, pl. 84; LD Erg., 25-6; Junker VIII (1947) 38-40, fig. 12. This tomb in the Cemetery en Echelon was classed by Reisner as his chapel type (4b), that is, without a large 248 249 250 251 252 253 254

255

Medum PM IV 90-92 rx nswt; sA nswt n Xt.f jmj-rA mSa; aD-mr wjA; wr mD ^ma; HqA Hwt

The construction and decoration of Ra-Htp’s chapel is dated from late in the reign of Snefru to early in the reign of Khufu. [67] Ra-Spss

El Fikey (1980) 1; Porter–Moss (1981) Map LI. Kanawati (1981a) 206-7. El Fikey (1980) 46; Kanawati (1981a) 204. El Fikey (1980) 46. Strudwick (1985) 115. Kanawati (1981a) 214-17. Accepting Kanawati’s argument that the size and position of Ra-wr’s tomb make it probable that he was one of the latest of Pepy I’s viziers. Kanawati (1981a) 207-9. Hassan I (1932) pl. 12 p. 15

256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263

32 

Group A

Reisner (1942) 217. Junker III (1938) 14. Junker III (1938) 13, 226, fig. 45 [7] Petrie (1892) 15-17. Reisner (1936) fig. 116. Reisner (1936) 121-23. Bolshakov (1991) 13-15. Bolshakov (1991) 15-18.

Assigned date: V.8

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Saqqara NSP V.8 LS 16=MM S 902 PM III 494-96 Xrj-tp nswt tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA Snwtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt

Pyramid titles:

Reference: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999)

References: LD II, pls. 60-64; LD Erg., Pl. 39 [a]; Sethe (1932-33) Urk. I, 179-80 [24 (115)].

@sj’s biography is inscribed on the western thickness of the entrance to his chapel. It recounts his service under Djedkare, Unis and Teti, making it clear that the tomb was decorated in the reign of Teti. His appointment as vizier only appears on a pillar, which suggests that the promotion came later in his career. Everywhere in his tomb @sj’s entire figure is erased, suggesting a fall from grace, perhaps at the end of Teti’s reign.266

This tomb is securely dated to the reign of Djedkare by a letter from the king to the tomb owner, which is inscribed in the open court at the front of his tomb.264 However, RaSpss may have built and decorated most of his multi-room chapel before Djedkare appointed him vizier as the title, tAjtj sAb TAtj, does not occur elsewhere in the tomb. [68] Rmnj:Mrwi

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest Effective titles: Pyramid titles:

[70] @sjj-Ra

Assigned date: VI.1L-2E

Saqqara TPC PM n.r. smr watj; smr pr; Sps nswt jmj-rA pHww; jmj-rA Hwt-jHwt; jmj-rA st xntj(w)-S pr-aA; HrjsStA n nswt nt s(w)t.f nb(t) jmj-rA wp(w)t xntj(w)-S +d swt &tj; Hm-nTr +d swt &tj

[71] #ww-wr

Highest effective titles:

tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA wp(w)t Htpt-nTr m tA r-Dr.f; jmj-rA wDa267

265

Assigned date: V.8

Giza CF V.3 LG 95 PM III 254-55 jmj-rA mSa jdw-nfrw; jrj-xt nswt; sAb; jmj-rA sS(w); sS a nswt pr-aA

References: Hassan V (1944) 237-56, pl. 26[B], 27-8; LD II, pl. 43 [a,b,c,d], 44 [a,b,c]; LD Erg., 38, 39 [d]; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 46-8 [29].

266

264

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: VI.1L

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM n/r Xrj-tp nswt

Saqqara NSP III.2 A3=S 2450 PM III 437-39 mDH sS(w) nswt; wr mDw ^maw

Two pieces of a clay seal with the imprint of Neterkhet (+sr), second king of Dynasty 3, were found among the debris of the burial chamber. Quibell describes how these pieces were in “almost the last basketful of earth from the the burial chamber”.269 This fact has led Cherpion to state that it is almost certain that the tomb was constructed in +sr’s reign.270

The location of the mastaba and Rmnj’s relationship by marriage to Teti give the tomb a probable date of late Teti to early Pepy I.

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Assigned date: III.2

The tomb of @sjj-Ra is situated in the Archaic Cemetery which lies along elevated ground overlooking Abusir village.267 The mudbrick tomb has a main room and a long narrow corridor with rectangular niches down one side. The mastaba is almost entirely filled with mudbricks.268

This mastaba is situated in the fourth east-west row of tombs in the far north-west corner of the Teti cemetery. It is similar in size and architecture to the other tombs in this area, which all date to the period of late Teti to Pepy I. However, the high quality of the tomb’s decoration and the fact that Rmnj had a decorated burial chamber suggest that his status was more elevated than that of the officials buried around him. Kanawati surmises that this was due to Rmnj’s marriage to two princesses, one of whom, probably named %SsSt, was a daughter of Teti.265

Group A

Group: B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles: Reference: Quibell (1913) 3-12.

References: Kanawati (2009); Woods (2006) 137.

[69] @sj r/u %Sm-nfr

mdw (nb StA) n Hwt wrt 6; jmjrA pr Hrj(w)-wDb(w); jmj-r sS a nswt jmj-xt Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj; wab +d-swt-&tj; xntj-S +d-swt&tj; sHD Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj

268

Quibell (1909) pl. 61 [2] p. 24. Sethe (1933) Urk. 1 179-80 [24 (115)]. Kanawati (2009) 15-18.

269 270

33 

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) 15-16. Porter–Moss (1981) Plan 45. Quibell (1913) pp. 3, 12. Quibell (1913) pp. 3, 4, 12. Cherpion (1989) 24, Note 25.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  This is a partly rock-cut tomb with a façade cased in local limestone.

[74] #wfw-xa.f (II)

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

A son called #ww-wr appears on the entrance lintel of the adjacent tomb of Ms-sA.271 Two factors make this #wwwr the probable owner of LG 95: #ww-wr’s serdab (LG 95) is built against the wall of Ms-sA and a drum with the names of Ms-sA and #ww-wr was found among the entrance debris of LG 95.272 #ww-wr, who could be the official of that name mentioned in the Abusir papyri, may be dated to the reign of Djedkare. [72] #wfw-anx

Group B

Group B

Assigned date: V.6

Giza EF V.6 G7150 PM III 190-91 sA nswt jmj-rA kAt nswt; [jmj-rA] mSa; jmj-rA smjwt jmntt; wr mD(w) Smaw; Hrj-sStA n nb.f

Reference: Simpson (1978) pp. 21-27, pls.30-45, figs. 36-50.

Assigned date: V.1

#wfw-xa.f II’s tomb is directly south of the great double mastaba of #wfw-xa.f I [73]. It was first constructed as a small free-standing stone structure with an interior northsouth chapel. In three further stages it was extended to the south providing a serdab and an exterior chapel.275 Although the two tombs are so close and the names of the tomb owners are identical, there is no clear evidence that #wfw-xa.f II was the grandson of #wfw-xa.f I, as Reisner surmised. However, it is probable, considering the propensity of tomb owners at Giza to construct tombs in family clusters, that there was a relationship between the two men.

Location: Giza WF Latest cartouche: V.1 Identification: G4520 PM III 129 rx nswt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: jmj-rA Hsww pr-aA; xntj-S pr-aA Reference: Reisner (1942) 215-6, 503-7, pls. 65[a,b], 66[a], 67[a,b] #wfw-anx’s chapel is two niched, of Reisner’s type (4a), situated in the ‘old traditional’ position in the south east corner of the mastaba.273 It belongs to a group of chapels that Reisner assigned to the years from the end of Menkaure to Neferirkare. Its monolithic stela, donated by Userkaf, and a box sealing with the Horus name of the same king found in the shaft narrow the date of the chapel.

#wfw-xa.f II was jmAxw xr three kings, Sahure ,Neuserre and a third king whose name is difficult to read.276 If ‘jmAxw xr’ combined with the name of a king refers to service during the lifetime of the king, then it is likely that Neuserre was the last king served by #wfw-xa.f II.

[73] #wfw-xa.f (I)

[75] #wfw-Dd.f

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: IV.4-6

The mastabas of Cemetery GIS, excavated by Junker, were poorly constructed of inferior stone. Junker found that granite powder had been scattered prior to the erection of the mastaba cores. He consequently dated the cores to Menkaure, assuming that the powder had spread from the working when the pyramid of Khafre was being cased in granite. On the other hand, this row of ten mastabas is very close to the pyramid of Khufu on its southern flank. Reisner interpreted the cemetery as a continuation of of Cemetery G7000 and tended to date the mastaba cores to late Khufu or the reign of Khafre, raising the question of why cores built in the reign of Menkaure would be located so far from his pyramid.277

This is one of the great double mastabas of the Eastern Field. #wfw-Xa.f I was most probably a son of Khufu as he was sA nswt n Xt.f. But whether his tomb was decorated in the reign of Khufu or of Khafre is less certain. His mother was a queen (“she who sees Horus and Seth”). This could be Henutsen, a secondary queen, although the name is missing from the inscription.274 @wfw-Xa.f I may only have been in his twenties when his father died. We do not know the age at which officials generally decorated their tombs, but the evidence suggests that they usually waited until their career was well advanced. In this case, he is more likely to have decorated his tomb under Khafre or later.

272 273 274

Assigned date: IV.4-5

Location: Giza GIS Latest cartouche: IV.2 Identification: GIS No. 3 PM III 219 sA nswt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Hrj wDb… Reference: Junker X (1951) 42-64, pls. 7, 11, 12, figs. 24-9.

Giza EF IV.2 G7130+G7140 PM III 188-90 jrj-pat; sA nswt; sA nswt n Xt.f; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; wD mdt (n) Hr(jw) wDbw; sAb

Reference: Simpson (1978) pp. 9-20, pls.11-29 , figs. 19-35.

271

Group B

Reisner classed #wfw-Dd.f ‘s decorated interior chapel as his Type (3) in which the one-niched chapel was

Hassan V (1944) pl. 57 [A], fig. 152. Hassan V (1944) pl. 26 [A], fig. 100. Reisner (1942) 214. Simpson (1978) 11 fig. 26. Henutsen is suggested as the mother of #wfw-xa.f I owing to the proximity of her pyramid.

275 276 277

34 

Simpson (1978) 21, pls. 30, 31, fig. 36 Simpson (1978) 24, fig. 42. Reisner (1942) 74. However, very few tombs have been discovered around the pyramid of Menkaure.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  and reused in nearby tombs of a much later date.283 #nwt’s tomb has a groundplan showing the striking similarity to that of the tomb of Nbt.284

constructed after the core. He seems to have assigned these chapels to later Dynasty 4.278 [76] #wn-Ra

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Assigned date: IV.5 Nothing is known about #nwt’s family background and her relationship to Unis and Nbt is unclear.285 The situation of the tomb in relation to the pyramid of Unis and its comparability to that of Nbt make it likely that #nwt was also a wife of Unis, in which case it would have been decorated during that reign.

Giza Menkaure Cemetery IV.5 MQ1 PM III 293-94 sA nswt n Xt.f smsw; smr watj n jt.f

Reference: Reisner (1942) 152, 226-7. See PM III 293-4.

[79] #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj Group A

This is a partly decorated rock-cut tomb. #wn-Ra was the ‘eldest’ son of Menkaure and #a-mrr-nbtj II.279 His tomb may therefore be assigned to the reign of Menkaure [77] #mt-nw

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Assigned date: IV.6-V.1

Highest effective titles:

Giza WF IV.2 G5210=LG 43 PM III 155 rx nswt jmj-rA pr; jmj-rA hm(w)-kA; Hm-nTr #wfw; sAb jmj-rA sS(w); sS

Pyramid titles:

This is probably the latest tomb in the cluster of tombs of important officials north of the Teti pyramid. The workmanship of its relief does not match the standard of that of KA.j-gmnj:Mmj [111], anx-m-a-@r:%sj [15] and Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj [38].286 There is evidence that #ntjkA.j:Jxxj expanded his tomb perhaps when promoted by Pepy I.287

Although G5210 has an exterior stone chapel of his Type (8f), Reisner classed the chapel with his ‘decorated chapels types (3) and (4a)’ because its decoration ‘more or less’ followed the pattern of L-shaped chapels.280 Yet #mt-nw is clearly of a later date than that assigned by Reisner to chapels of his Type (8f).281 In his tomb #mtnw records his service to KA.j-wab [100] and his wife, @tp-Hr.s, and to their daughter, Mrs-anx III [40].282 This suggests that he may have been of the same generation as Mrs-anx III and would therefore have built his tomb close in time to hers, perhaps at the end of Dynasty 4 or the very beginning of Dynasty 5. Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Reference: Munro (1993).

See prosopography for anx-m-a-@r:%sj [15]. [80] $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw Group B Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.9

Saqqara UPC PM III 623-24 mAAt @r-%tX; Hm.t nswt

279 280

281 282

Assigned date: VI.4E-M

El Hawawish (Kanawati) H24 PM n/r HAtj-a; smr watj jmj-rA ^ma (m spAwt mHtjt); jmj-rA Sma (m spAwt); jmj-rA Hm-nTr; Hrj-tp aA n #nt-Mnw

Reference: Kanawati II (1981) 7-42, pls. 1-9, figs. 1-27; Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 102-107, 127-139. According to Kanawati who excavated and reported on this tomb and that of its neighbours (H26 and H27), the two tomb owners, $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw (H24) and KA.jHp:*tj-jqr (H26) [109], were clearly related to each other. Yet it is difficult to judge which was father and which was the son as each had an eldest son with the same name

#nwt has a tomb in the double mastaba which she shares with Nbt [50]. However, most of #nwt’s decoration has disappeared, as blocks of facing stone were stripped off 278

Saqqara TPC VI.2 PM III 508-11 jrj-pat; HAtj-a (mAa); smr watj (mAa) tAjtj sAb TAtj (mAa); jmj-rA prwjHD; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA Snwtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; sHd Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj; sHD Hm(w)-nTr Mn-nfr-Mrjj-Ra Ppjj

Reference: James (1953)

References: Mariette (1889) 517, 519-21; LD II, pl. 26.

[78] #nwt

Assigned date: VI.1L-2

Reisner (1942) 311. Reisner (1942) 347-48. A roofed, exterior, multiple-roomed chapel built against the façade of the mastaba, attached to the chief niche. Reisner (1942) 185-86, 312. Reisner (1942) 272-73. #mt-nw appears twice in the tomb of Mrs-anx III. Dunham– Simpson (1974) 4, pl. 2c, fig. 3b and pp. 5, 15 pl. 8 fig 7.

283 284 285 286 287

35 

Saad (1940) 684. Munro (1993) fig. 2. Munro (1993) 20. Strudwick (1985) 101. James (1953) 16-19.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  as the other tomb owner.288 For the purpose of a chronological study, however, it is more significant that the two tombs were constructed within a short time of each other by the same craftsman, %nj, who inscribed a statement in H26 that he had decorated both tombs.289

Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 82-4 [5,C,D]; El-Khadragy (2005) pp. 169-199. %Abw-jbbj shares a funerary complex with PtH-Spss II [30], who was probably his son or grandson. The inscription on the outer jambs of the false door, where %Abw-jbbj states that he served both Unis and Teti, firmly dates this tomb to the reign of Teti.

There is no clear evidence that either #nj:^psj-pw-Mnw or KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr was the son of KA.j-hp:*tj [108], who is securely dated to Merenre. Kanawati has considered the possibility that $nj-anxw (H15) may have been the son of KA.j-hp:*tj [108] and in consequence has dated the two nomarchs (#nj:^psj-pw-Mnw and KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr) somewhat later, from mid to late Pepi II. On the other hand, the unfinished condition of the tomb of $nj-anxw (H15) suggests he probably died prematurely, while the position of H15, which is higher on the cliff face than than H24 and H26 casts doubt on the proposition that $nj-anxw preceded #nj:^psj-pw-Mnw and KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr. The tombs on this cliff face follow each other upwards in chronological order and no other decorated tomb is located between M8 and H24/ H26. It is therefore more likely that either #nj:^psj-pw-Mnw or KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr succeeded to the nomarchy quite soon after the death of KA.j-hp:*tj [108] and constructed their tombs rather earlier than Kanawati suggests. As the families of high officials tended to name eldest sons after the grandfather, so that names alternated, it is probable that #nj:^psj-pwMnw preceded KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

[82] %anx-w(j)-PtH:@tp-n(j)-PtH Group A Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Pyramid titles:

Group A

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Pyramid and sun temple titles:

This mastaba is situated at the head of the second eastwest street behind KA-gmnj’s [111] mastaba. The tombs of high officials who served Teti are located in both the first and second streets. This cemetery was probably planned during the reign of Teti and allotments of land made to the high officials who served this king.291. [83] %nfrw-xa.f

Assigned date: VI.1

Saqqara NSP VI.1 MM E1, 2 + H3 PM III 460-61 snfrw jb n nb.f ra nb jmj-rA kAt nb(t) nt nswt; wr xrp(w) Hmwt m prwj n(j) Ra Hb; xrp Hmwt(jw) nbt; Hm-nTr PtH; Hm-nTr %kr; Hrj-sStA n nswt m s(w)t.f ra nb Hm-nTr Ra m NXn-Ra; wr xrp(w) Hmwt Hm-nTr Ra-@r-Axtj m %tb-jb-Ra; Hm-nTr Ra m ^spw-jb-Ra; jmj-xt Hm(w)-nTr Nfr-swt-Wnjs; jmj-xt Hm(w)nTr +d-swt &t j

291

293

290

Assigned date: IV.4-5

This is the most westerly of a row of three mastabas immediately to the south of pyramid GI-c and probably belongs to the same family. According to Reisner, the mastabas were “obviously built one after the other”.292 From east to west, the three tomb owners are: Queen Nfrt-kAw, an ‘eldest’ (smsw.t) daughter of Sneferu and perhaps a wife of Khufu, Nfr-mAat [55], either her son or her brother293, and his son, %nfrw-xa.f.294

292

289

Group B

Location: Giza EF Latest cartouche: IV.2 Identification: G7070=LG 56 PM III 183-84 HAtj-a; smr watj Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Hrj-sStA; xtm(tj)-bjtj References: Mariette (1889) 530, 532-4; Reisner (1929) pl. 3[3-4]; LD II, pl. 16.

References: Mariette (1889) 373-85, 412-15; Borchardt I (1937) 91-101, pl. 21; Borchardt II (1964) 31-4, pl. 65;

288

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM n/r smr watj jmj-jb n nswt xntj jdbwj.f; jmjrA Swj pr-aA; wr jdt; wr swnw ^maw MHw; Hrj-sStA n wDtmdw nbt; Hrj-sStA n nswt m s(w)t.f (nbt); sS mDAt-nTr jmj-rA wpwt xntjw-S +d-swt&tj; xntj-S +d-swt-&tj

Reference: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 39-71, pls. 61-78.

Situated on the same level as H26 and with a clear filial relationship between the two tomb owners, although it is unclear which is the father and which the son, the tombs of $nj-^psj-pw-Mnw and KA.j-hp: *tj-jkr are assigned the same date.290 [81] %Abw: Jbbj

Assigned date: VI.1

Kanawati X (1992) 129-130. Kanawati I (1980) 19, fig. 8. Kanawati notes that a study of the painting techniques in both tombs suggests that the decoration of H26 began before that of H24 but was completed after H24. Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 129.

294

36 

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 40-41. Porter–Moss (1974) Plan 18. %nfrw-xa.f and Nfr-mAat are mentioned in each other’s tombs but the relationship between Nfr-mAat and Nfrt-kAw is less certain. NfrmAat’s mother was named Nfrt-kAw but the names of her sons are not known. LD II, 17. Simpson thinks that Nfr-mAat was an older brother of Khufu: in LÄ V, 992-4. Reisner (1929) 97-99.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  Highest effective titles:

%nfrw-xa.f may have been a grandson or great grandson of Sneferu. Allowing a lapse of about 40 to 60 years between the death of Sneferu and the construction of %nfrw-xa.f ‘s tomb would date the monument from the reign of Khafre to that of Menkaure. [84] %nDm-jb:Jntj

Group A

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

References: Mariette (1889) 546-7[a]; Hassan IV (1943) 103-23, pls. 33--4; LD II, pls. 41-42; LD Erg., pl. 36-7; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 166 [15 (106)].

Assigned date: V.9E

Giza WF V.8 G2370=LG 27 PM III 85-7 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; HAtj-a mAa; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; jmj-rA sS a nswt

In his tomb %xm-kA-Ra records that he was jmAxw xr Khafre, Menkaure, Shepseskaf, Userkaf and Sahure.299 As his mother was a queen named @Dt-Hknw300, his father was probably Khafre. That his father was a king is suggested by the repetition of ‘n jt.f’ and ‘n Xt.f’ in his titles. As Sahure is named in his tomb, it is most likely that he decorated his chapel in the reign of Sahure.

References: Mariette (1889) 497, 499; LD II, pls. 76-8; LD Erg., pls. 17-22; Brovarski (2001) 23-89, pls. 11-57, figs. 16-73.

[87] %xntjw

Group A

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.9M

Giza WF V.9 G2378=LG 26 PM III 87-9 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; HAtj-a mAa; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA Snwtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt

[88] %SAt-Htp:!tj

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Assigned date: V.2

Giza CF V.2 LG 89 PM III 233-34 sA nswt n Xt.f; jrj pat; HAtj-a; sA nswt n Xt.f smsw; smr watj; smr watj jt.f

300

296

297 298

Assigned date: IV.6 - V.2

Giza Cemetery en Echelon IV.2 G5150=LG 36 PM III 149 sA nswt n Xt.f smsw tAjtj sAb TAtj(?)301; jmj-rA kAt nbt nswt; Hrj-sStA n kAt nbt nswt

This tomb is situated in the Cemetery en Echelon. Reisner believed this cemetery was laid out in three lines of mastabas in an ordered pattern, probably between Year 13 of Khafre and the accession of Menkaure. Junker dated the chapel to early Dynasty 5302 with which Kanawati agrees. Kanawati further narrows the date of the tomb to the middle of the reign of Sahure by raising the possibility that the tomb owner is the same person who appears in a prominent position in Sahure’s funerary temple.303 However, variations in titles between the two men that weaken the case and the fact that %SAt-Htp:!tj’s funerary estates bear the name of Khufu suggest that a broader date range needs to be adopted. 299

295

Assigned date: V.6-V8E

References: Junker II (1934) 172-95, figs. 23-33, pls. 15, 16[a,b]; LD II, pls. 23-5; Kanawati Giza II (2002) 11-30, pls. 39-48.

%nDm-jb:MHj built his father’s tomb in the early years of the reign of Unis.297 In his own tomb %nDm-jb:MHj is described as jmAxw xr Djedkare and Unis.298 %nDmjb:MHj most probably built his tomb after that of his father, perhaps in the middle years of the reign of Unis. Group A

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

References: Marriette (1889) 498-99; LD II, pls. 73-5; LD Erg., pls. 12-16; Brovarski (2001) 133-160, pls. 103-126, figs. 95-130.

[86] %xm-kA-Ra

Group B

Location: Saqqara UPC Latest cartouche: V.6 Identification: PM III 645 mHnk-nswt m pr a Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: jmj-rA Hmtjw; jmj-rA Hmtjw-nbw Reference: Moussa–Junge (1975) 11-27, fig. 1, pls. 1-7. For dating see Nfr-sxm-PtH [57]

While %nDm-jb:Jntj served under Djedkare295, his tomb was built just after his death by his son, %nDm-jb:MHj [85] in the reign of Unis.296 [85] %nDm-jb:MHj

tAjtj sAb TAtj; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp; XrjHbt Hrj-tp n jt.f; xrp aH; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt

301

Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 59.12 and 63.11. A cartouche of Unis has been found above the head of a depiction of MHj in %nDm-jb:Jntj’s tomb. Strudwick (1985) 133 Note 4. Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 64.3. LD II, 75; Mariette (1889) 500-502.

302 303

37 

Hassan IV (1943) fig. 64. Hassan IV (1943) fig. 62. This title is based on an inscription on a nameless pair of statues found in the serdab. It does not appear elsewhere in the tomb. Junker II (1934) 188-93, pl.25a, fig. 34. Junker II (1934) 172-4. Kanawati Giza II (2002) 18.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  [89] %SAt-sxntjw

Group B

Kanawati, however, prefers to extend the date for %Sm-nfr I from Sahure to Neuserre on the basis of the appearance of an estate named Jj-mrjj in %Sm-nfr I’s tomb.310

Assigned date: IV.2

Location: Giza WF Identification: G2120 PM III 74 Highest effective titles: Xrj-(Hbt) Hrj-tp References: Reisner (1942) 425-30, pl. 39[a]; Leprohon (1985) 59-62; Manuelian (2006) 76, fig. 98.

[91] %Sm-nfr II

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest effective titles:

Reisner classed G2120 as one of the initial cores in Cemetery G2100 and thus one of the earliest mastabas in the West Field. Consequently he dated its construction to the reign of Khufu.304 Fragments of the stela of %SAtsxntjw have been found, which also suggests an early date for the mastaba.305 [90] %sm-nfr (I)

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.2-3

Giza WF IV.3 G4940=LG 45 PM III 142-3 rx nswt jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA kAt nswt; wr mD(w) ^ma; Hrj-sStA; Xrj-tp nswt; sAb aD-mr

[92] %sm-nfr III

307

308 309

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.8

Giza WF V.3 G5170 PM III 153-54 HAtj-a; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; jmj-rA sS a nswt; Hrj-sStA n wDt-mdw nbt nt nswt; hrjsStA n pr-dwAt

References: Brunner-Traut (1977); Strudwick (1985) 139f. (131); Altenmüller (2008) A wooden chest with sealings of lector priests of Sahure and Neferirkare was found in the shaft of the tomb of +Atj313, giving this tomb a probable date in the reign of Neferirkare or a little later. From this find Junker argued that %Sm-nfr III should be dated to the reign of Menkauhor on the following grounds: Ra-wr II [65] had built his tomb against the rear wall of +Atj, and %Sm-nfr III had constructed his tomb against the rear wall of Rawr II [65]. Allowing for a lapse of time between the three constructions would date %Sm-nfr III to Menkauhor.314 However, this only allows about 35 years at the most between +Atj and %Sm-nfr III, again according to Junker, his greatgrandson. Consequently, a date in the reign of

If %Sm-nfr I is accepted as the father of %Sm-nfr II, then his tomb would probably have been decorated in either the reign of Sahure or Neferirkare. This may appear surprisingly late for a mastaba originally built in mid Dynasty 4, but other tombs dated from late Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5 are similarly situated.309

306

Giza WF V.6 G5080 PM III 146-47 jmj-r sS a nswt; jmj-r kAt nbt nswt

The tomb of %Sm-nfr II may be dated from that of his son, %Sm-nfr III [92]311, who probably decorated his tomb in the years from the reign of Menkauhor to that of early Djedkare. If %Sm-nfr II had constructed his tomb a generation before his son, this would have been in the reign of Neuserre, whose cartouche appears in the chapel. Further support for this date comes from an indication that there was a connection between %Sm-nfr II and Jjmrjj [4]. %Sm-nfr II has an estate named ‘grgt Jj-mrjj’ and Junker believed that a scene in %Sm-nfr II’s tomb was copied from Jj-mrjj.312

Reisner judged this tomb, situated in the cemetery en echelon, to be one of the original mastabas of the planned cemetery constructed probably by Khafre and at least before the end of Menkaure’s reign.306 The chapel is of Reisner’s Type 4(a), L-shaped with two false doors.307 %Sm-nfr I may be part of a family that included %Sm-nfr II [91], %Sm-nfr III [92], +Atj and Ra-wr II [65]. Junker, who argued that %Sm-nfr I was the son of +Atj and father of %Sm-nfr II, dated %Sm-nfr I to early Dynasty 5.308 The tomb of %Sm-nfr III probably dates to early in the reign of Djedkare, and %Sm-nfr II and %Sm-nfr III are mentioned as father and son in each other’s inscriptions. The evidence for %Sm-nfr I’s relationship to %Sm-nfr II is much more tenuous, depending on identical names and location of tombs.

305

Assigned date: V.6

References: Kanawati Giza II (2002) 51-64, pls. 58-65; Altenmüller (2008).

References: LD II, pls. 27-9; Kanawati (2002) 51-65, pls. 38-51; Altenmüller (2008).

304

Group B

A block in the west wall has a quarry mark and “Hat sp 12”, a date that could refer to Khufu. Reisner (1942) 76, Note 1. Reisner (1942) pl. 39[a]. Reisner (1942) 82, An interior, L-shaped, two-niched chapel of white limestone. Reisner (1942) 214. Junker III (1938) 14. Nswt-nfr [60], KA.j-swDA [107] and %SAt-Htp:!tj [88] are all in the Cemetery en Echelon.

310 311

312 313

314

38 

Kanawati Giza II (2002) 54-55. Harpur notes the close similarity between the decorations of the tombs of %Sm-nfr II and III. Harpur (1987) Junker III (1938) 71. G5370, PM 161. Junker VII (1944) 231-41, pls. 38[b], 39, figs. 96a,b, 97. Junker III (1938) 13-14.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  This mudbrick mastaba consists of a four-room chapel with scenes painted on plaster in two rooms. The only stone element is a false door set in a stone niche. It is the first tomb in the second east-west street in the Teti cemetery and was built against the mastaba of Nj-kAwJssj [47]. As the disgraced(?) vizier @sj [69] built his mastaba against that of ^psi-pw-PtH [94], the latter’s tomb must belong to the second half of Teti’s reign.

Djedkare seems more probable. [93] %SsSt:Jdwt

Group B

Assigned date: V.9 – VI.1

Location: Saqqara UPC Latest cartouche: VI.1 Identification: PM III 617-19 r/u from JHjj sA.t nswt n Xt.f; sA.t nswt Highest ranking titles: References: Macramallah (1935); Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003).

[95] ^pss-kA.f-anx

This tomb is a core mastaba which was enlarged by the addition of an exterior chapel. Reisner judged ^pss-kA.fanx to have been born in the reign of Shepseskaf and to have been estate steward for a son of Neferirkare, whom Reisner assumed to be Neuserre.319 ^pss-kA.f-anx’s highest titles occur in the tomb of his grandson Nfr-bAwPtH [54]320 and not in his own, so he probably was not an old man when he constructed his tomb. The cartouche of Neuserre does not appear in his own tomb making it likely that the tomb was decorated before Neuserre came to the throne.

Kanawati argues that this large tomb was reallocated to Jdwt because she was a daughter of Teti who died early in Teti’s reign before he had begun construction of his cemetery, as the name of one of her attendants, &tianx(w), was added to the tomb.317 This hypothesis suggests that the tomb could not have been built later than the beginning of the reign of Teti but fits in with Strudwick’s argument for its construction under Unis, indicating a date late in his reign for much of its decoration.

[96] QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr Group A Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

As the latest cartouche, that of Teti, occurs in the new inscriptions of Jdwt,318 the alterations to the decoration would then date to that reign. However, the location of this tomb may suggest that Jdwt was a daughter of Unis who died in the reign of Teti.

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

316 317 318

Assigned date: VI.3-4E

Edfu VI.3 PM V, 200 smr watj; jmj-jb n nswt Hrj-tp aA m spAt; Xrj-Hbt; jmj-rA xntj(w)-S pr-aA; jmj-rA ^maw; jmj-rA Hm(w)-nTr

References: Alliot (1933); El-Khadragy (2002).

Assigned date: VI.1M – L

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM n/r HAtj-a; smr watj imj-rA pr.wj-HD; imj-rA Swj praA; irj nfr-HAt sHD Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&ti

QAr is dated by inscription. In his autobiography he states that he was appointed to Edfu by Merenre. As he records tying the fillet under Teti and having a considerable Memphite career before being sent to Edfu, he would not have been a young man when he received his Edfu appointment. Accordingly, his tomb has to be dated to the reign of Merenre or the beginning of Pepy II’s reign.

Pyramid titles: References: Quibell–Hayter (1927) 20-23; Abder-Raziq (1985) 219-30, pls 1-4; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2001) 11ff., pls. 15, 37, 42.

315

Assigned date: V.3–5

Location: Giza WF Latest cartouche: IV.3 Identification: G6040=LG 18 PM III 175 rx nswt Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: jmj-rA pr; jmj-rA pr Hwt-aAt Reference: Weeks (1994) 61-62, 85-88, Col. pls. 8, pls. 33b-37b, figs. 2-4, 8, 53-57.

This tomb was originally constructed for a vizier named JHjj who may have served Unis. It is located in a series of mastabas opposite the queens’ mastabas in the Unis cemetery. Travelling eastwards, these are the tombs of Jjnfrt (vizier under Unis) Wnjs-anx (most likely a son of Unis315), JHjj and MHw (who served from the reign of Unis until the reign of Pepy I). Strudwick suggests that the tombs of JHjj, Jj-nfrt and Wnis-anx were constructed simultaneously in the reign of Unis.316 The large mastaba has a multi-roomed chapel and lies between the tombs of Wnjs-anx and MHj, north of Queens #nwt [78] and Nbt [50] and immediately south of the temenos wall of the Step Pyramid.

[94] ^psi-pw-PtH Group B

Group B

[97] QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr Location: Latest cartouche: Identification:

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) 29. Strudwick (1985) 57. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) 69 – 70. Macramallah (1935) 9-10; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) pl. 53e.

319 320

39 

. Weeks (1994) 5. Weeks (1994) 24, pl. 5.

Group B Assigned date: VI.2L-3 Giza EF VI.2 G7101 PM III 184-85

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Pyramid Titles:

sS nswt xft Hr; Xrj-tp nswt; smr watj Hrj-sStA n kAt nbt; sS a nswt Xft Hr (mAa) jmj-rA njwt Axt-#wfw; jmj-rA njwt NTrj-Mn-kAw-Ra; xntj-S Mrjj-Ra-mn-nfr

[100] KA.j-wab

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Reference: Simpson (1976b) 1-18, pls. 1-14, figs. 1-9, 15-32.

Highest effective titles:

See Jdw [14]. The balance of evidence is that Jdw was the father of QAr, whose tomb therefore is likely to be dated no earlier than late Pepy I. If he had been born in the long reign of Pepy I, as his name suggests, he is likely to have built his tomb near the end of that reign or in that of Merenre. [98] Qrrj

Group A

Assigned date: VI.2

[101] KA.j-m-sxm

Assigned date: IV.5

Giza EF G7660=LG 59 PM III 201-02 smr watj n jt.f xrp aH

Strudwick considers that KA.j-m-sXm was a true son of a king because he has ‘n jt.f’ attached to a title.326 This makes it unlikely that he was a son of KA.j-wab [100], as Reisner thought.327 At the same time, he would not have been a son of Khafre, whose family’s tombs were excavated in the scarp from which the limestone for Khafre’s pyramid had been quarried. As a junior son of Khufu, KA.j-m-sXm’s tomb was probably added at a later date in Cemetery G7000.

Saqqara TPC PM n/r jrj pat; HAtj-a; Xrj-tp nswt jmj-rA Hwt-wrt; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA sSwy; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt

The chapel of G7660 was included by Reisner in his chapel type (3a), an L-shaped, interior stone chapel with one niche. Reisner noted that mastaba cores constructed with the intention of providing recesses for interior chapels of this type all occupy later positions in the nucleus cemeteries. Reisner does not make it altogether clear, but appears to put KA.j-m-sXm’s tomb in this category. Whether a junior son or grandson of Khufu, the reign of Menkaure seems to be the date for the construction of the tomb that meets most of the above considerations.

Reference: Kanawati–Hassan (1996) 35-51, pls. 13-23, 46-55. The tomb of KA(.j)-apr(w) is located in the ‘Rue de Tombeaux’, where the tombs are to be dated to the reign of Teti. According to Kanawati this, the most favoured section of the Teti Pyramid Cemetery was a planned development, with allotments conferred on high officials and royal relatives.322 There is evidence, however, that work on the various tombs did not begin at the same time. Certainly work began on the tomb of WDA-HA-&tj:Nfr sSmPtH/%Sj [22] in the reign of Teti and was completed in the reign of Pepy I.323 Its neighbour, the tomb of KA(.j)-apr(w) would have approximately the same dating.

324

323

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles: Reference: LD II, pl. 32.

[99] KA(.j)-apr(w)321 Group B Assigned date: VI.1L-2E

322

Giza EC IV.2 G7110-G7120 PM III 187 jmj-js; jrj pat; HAtj-a; sA nswt; sA nswt n Xt.f; sA nswt n Xt.f smsw; smr watj n(j) mrwt tAjtj sAb TAtj; wr mD(w) ^maw; [w]r 5 [pr-+Hwtj]

As the eldest son of Khufu and his principal wife, Mrtjt.s, KA.j-wab may have been in line of succession to the throne after the death of his father.324 According to Simpson, his large double mastaba has the pre-eminent position in the Eastern Cemetery.325 However, based on the relatively smaller size of the blocks in their cores, Simpson also decided that these Eastern Cemetery double mastabas were later in date than the mastabas of G4000, and actually date to early in the reign of Khafre.

In a brief autobiography in his tomb Qrrj records that he served under Pepy I. As he mentions no later king, it is presumed that he constructed his tomb in the reign of Pepy I, although Kanawati notes that this makes him the only known official to have been buried in the provinces in that reign apart from the expedition leaders at Elephantine and the special situation of Abydos, the seat of the southern vizier.

321

Assigned date: IV.4

Reference: Simpson (1978) pp. 1-5, pls. 1-11, figs. 1-18.

Location: El Hawawish Latest cartouche: VI.2 Identification: Q15 PM n/r Highest effective titles: Xrj-tp nswt pr aA; sHD Hm-nTr Reference: Kanawati VI (1986) 47-51, pls. 3, 8-9, figs. 20-22.

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Group B

325

Kanawati–Hassan (1996) 35-51. Kanawati–Hassan (1996) 37-8. Strudwick (1985) 111.

326 327

40 

Three inscribed fragments found to the southern side of the façade of the tomb may be read as identifying KA.j-wab as the son of Khufu and Mrt-jt.s, Simpson (1980), 3. Simpson (1980) 2. Strudwick (1985) 165. Reisner (1942) 208.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  [102] KA.j-nj-nswt I

Group B

Location: Giza: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

much smaller than that of KA.j-nj-nswt I [102]. In the burial chamber was found a sealing with the Horus name of Neuserre belonging to a lector priest333 but there can be no assurance that this dates the tomb.

Assigned date: IV.4-6

WF IV.2 G2155=G4870 PM III 78-9 sA nswt n Xt.f; smr watj Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt ; Hrj-tp Nxb; xrp Sndwt

There is little doubt that KA.j-nj-nswt I and II are father and son as each is mentioned in the other’s chapel.334 Allowing 20 to 25 years between the decoration of the two chapels would give a date for KA.j-nj-nswt II’s chapel either in the reign of Sahure or Neferirkare.

Reference: Junker II (1934) 135-72, pls.1, 6, 5-8, 10-11, Figs. 7, 16-21.

[104] KA.j-nj-nswt (III) Group B

The tomb of KA.j-nj-nswt I has been given a range of dates from Khufu to early Dynasty 5. The excavator of the tomb, Junker, could not decide on the date. As Cherpion notes, Junker changed the dating of G2155 several times.328

Location: Giza: WF Identification: PM III 80 rx nswt Highest ranking titles: Hrj-sStA Highest effective titles: Reference: Junker VIII (1947) 177-8, fig. 93.

G2155 is one of eleven mastabas in the nucleus Cemetery G2100 which Reisner divided into an eastern and a western group. Reisner further argued that the eastern group containing G2155 was constructed later than the western group, although still in the reign of Khufu. KA.jnj-nswt I’s mastaba may have been the last in the group to be finished. The mastaba was enlarged around the original core and given an interior two-niched chapel of Reisner’s Type (4a).329 Reisner identified eleven chapels of this type in mastabas enclosing old cores in the four nucleus cemeteries and generally assigned them to the period from the end of Menkaure to the end of Neferirkare.330.

KA.j-nj-nswt III is probably the son of KA.j-nj-nswt II [103]. The father is not mentioned in his son’s tomb, but a son named KA.j-nj-nswt figures prominently in KA.j-njnswt II’s tomb.335 The other factor leading to the conclusion that the relationship of the two men was father and son is the location of KA.j-nj-nswt III’s tomb which appears to have been built on to the northern end of G2155. A date from Shepseskaf to the first half of the reign of Neuserre would allow for a gap of a generation between the decoration of the two tombs.

The consistent use of the name of Khufu in the tomb may suggest that KA.j-nj-nswt I was either a son or grandson of Khufu. If KA.j-nj-nswt I were a junior son of Khufu, his mastaba may date from the reign of Menkaure; if a grandson, the reign of Shepseskaf is more likely. [103] KA.j-nj-nswt (II) Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

[105] KA.j-nfr

Group B Assigned date: V.2-3 Giza WF IV.2 G2156 PM III 79-80 rx nswt wr-mD(w) ^ma(w); (nj) nst xntt; Hrj-sStA n nb.f

A graffito from KA.j-nfr’s tomb states: rnpt-Hsbt 5 Smw sw 5(?) - “year of the 5th occurrence, […] month of Smw, day 5(?)”. This suggests a date early in the reign of Khufu for the construction of the tomb, which is supported by the fact that the tomb is located on the eastern edge of Cemetery 1200, the earliest part to have been constructed.337

KA.j-nj-nswt II’s mastaba, built against the east wall of G2155 between the chapel and the northern niche, is

333

330 331 332

Assigned date: IV.2

Reisner inferred from the types of mastaba cores and prevalence of slab stelae that Cemetery G1200 was founded at about the same time as Cemetery G4000. The exterior brick chapel, built against the southern end of the core mastaba, was classed by Reisner as his Type (1a). There was an open recess for a slab stela in the west wall of the offering room.336

Junker attempted to date KA.j-nj-nswt II’s tomb according to the typology of canopic jars found in the tomb.331 This dating has been challenged332, and it is doubtful whether a typology of Old Kingdom canopic jars is capable of yielding such a precise date..

329

Group B

Location: Giza: WF Identification: G1203 PM III 57 Highest effective titles: jmj-rA wp(w)t; xrp tmA(tjw) References: Reisner (1942) 389-92, pl. 17[b]; Manuelian (2003) 42-45.

Reference: Junker III (1938) 145-56, figs. 19-22.

328

Assigned date: V.4-6E

Cherpion (1989) 118-19; Junker II (1934) 137. Reisner (1942) 66-68. Reisner (1942) 214. Junker III (1938) 145-56. Cherpion (1989) 118-19.

334 335 336 337

41 

Junker III (1938) 150. This sealing is now in Hildesheim Museum (No. 2502). Junker II (1934) pl. 6, fig. 18. Junker III (1938) figs. 21, 22. Reisner (1942) 187. Manuelian (2003) 43-44.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  [106] KA.j-nfr

Group B

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: IV.6-V.2

Giza WF IV.5 G2150 PM III 77-8 smr watj jmj-r wp(w)t; mdw rxjt; xrp aH; smsw jst

References: Kanawati III (1982) 7-32, pls. 1-9; figs. 1-21; Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 97-124; McFarlane (1987).

Reference: Reisner (1942) 437-45, figs. 257-58, 261-64, 266, pls. 40[a,b], 39[b].

According to a stone block that originated in this tomb, the tomb owner was appointed as nomarch by Merenre. As he had already prepared a tomb for himself at Memphis, KA.j-Hp:*tj would not have been a young man when he constructed his Akhmim tomb, which would have taken place either late in the short reign of Merenre or at the very beginning of Pepy II’s reign, although there is no evidence for a Pepy II date. KA.j-Hp:*tj’s high titles suggest that he spent much of his adult life in Memphis.

According to Reisner, Cemetery G2100 consists of eleven original cores which can be divided into two distinct groups. The eastern group, to which G2150 belongs, was constructed slightly later of the two groups. G2150 has an interior chapel of Reisner’s Type (4). It is fully decorated and has estates with the name of Menkaure.

[109] KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr Group B

KA.j-nfr’s wife is ^pst-kAw, but he is depicted with another woman named Mrs-anx, entitled ‘rx.t nswt’. Reisner raises the possibility that she is KA.j-nfr’s mother and the wife of Nfr [52], who is dated to Khafre. KA.jnfr’s son was probably KA.j-swDA [107].

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

KA.j-nfr may be dated from Shepseskaf to Sahure. [107] KA.j-swDA

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: V.2-3

As the probable son of KA.j-nfr [106]339, KA.j-swDA can be dated from Sahure to Neferirkare. Group A Assigned date: VI.3-4E el-Hawawish VI.3 (Kanawati) M8 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; HAtj-a mAa; smr watj

340 341 342 338 339

el-Hawawish (Kanawati) H26 jrj-pat; HAtj-a; HAtj-a mAa; smr watj jmj-rA Hm(w)-nTr; jmj-rA ^ma; jmj-rA Sma; jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA Hm-nTr; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp; Hrj-tp aA n #nt-Mnw; smA Mnw

Despite a range of dates from late Dynasty 6 to Dynasty 11 having been previously assigned to this monument, in his 1980 report Kanawati dated the tomb to mid Pepy II on iconographic and architectural grounds.340 An interesting discovery later supported this or even a slightly earlier date. By 1988 two pieces of a broken, inscribed block had been matched together making it possible to relate a name from one piece to autobiographical material on the other. This identified the name as KA.j-hp:*tj:*t, the tomb owner of M8 who had been sent to U.E. 9 by Merenre.341 It was probable that the administrators (M8 and H24/H26) were of the same family, but whether they were father and son or grandfather and grandson342 is uncertain as a further major but unfinished rock cut tomb of $nj-anxw (H15), located on the level above M8, matches the original size of the tombs of $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw (H24) and KA.j-hp:*tjjqr (H26).343 Kanawati has speculated that $nj-anxw may have been the heir of KA.j-hp:*tj:*t. As the el-Hawawish tombs follow each other up the side of the cliff in a general chronological order,344 the situation of these tombs on a level above that of M8 provides a chronological framework. If indeed $nj-anxw did succeed

This tomb is in the Cemetery en Echelon, which Reisner considered was later than Cemeteries G4000 and G2100.338 However, the tomb is situated two rows to the east of the three north-south rows which Reisner identified as constituting the unified ‘en Echelon’ plan built in the reign of Khafre.

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Assigned date: VI.4E-M

Reference: Kanawati I (1980)12-37, figs. 5-22.

Giza WF G5340=LG 37 PM III 159 Smr jmj-r wp(w)t; mdw KA-HD; xrp aH

References: Junker VII (1944) 158-84, figs. 67-71, pls. 28, 34-5; LD II, pl. 85[b]; LD Erg., pls. 27-8.

[108] KA.j-Hp:*tj:*t

jmj-rA Hm(w)-nTr; jmj-rA ^ma; jmj-rA Sma; jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA Hm-nTr; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp; Hrj-tp aA n #nt-Mnw; smA Mnw

Reisner (1942) 69. The two officials hold the same titles of jmj-rA wp(w)t, xrp aH, smr. Junker VII (1944) 161-3.

343 344

42 

Kanawati I (1980) I3-14. McFarlane (1987) 63-70. It is possible that KA.j-hp:*tj:*t was the great-grandfather of KA.jhp:*tj-jqr. Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 106. Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 102-104 Kanawati X (1992) 24, pls. 6-9, figs. 12-21.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B 

References: von Bissing I (1905); von Bissing II (1911); Harpur–Scremin (2006).

Accordingly, a date in the first third of the reign of Pepy II is assigned to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr (H26).

From his tomb inscription, KA.j-gmnj:Mmj began his career under Djedkare but may not have been appointed tAjtj sAb TAtj until the reign of Teti.350 However, the position of his tomb, a premier one in relation to the pyramid of Teti, strongly suggests that he did not build it before Teti came to the throne. Several other factors including the square plan of the mastaba and the position of the entrance in the eastern façade are consistent with other tombs dated to the same period.351

[110] KA-pw-nswt:KA.j Group B Assigned date: V.3-5 Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Giza WF G4651 PM III 135 rx nswt jmj-rA pr; jmj-rA prw msw nswt; jmj-rA Hm(w)-kA; sS a nswt

Reference: Junker III (1938) 123-45, pls. 7-8, figs. 14-18.

See prosopography for anx-m-a-@r:%sj [15]. [112] _wA.n-@r

KA-pw-nswt, a ka-servant of JAbtt [2] against whose northern wall he constructed his much more modest tomb, recorded that he rebuilt JAbtt’s chapel.346 His name appears in JAbtt’s tomb.

346 347 348 349

Giza WF G7550=LG 58 PM III 200 sA nswt n Xt.f; smr watj n jt.f

Strudwick, however, agrees with Baer that titles with ‘n jt.f’ at this time indicated a true son of a king. He therefore classes _wA.n-@r as a son of Khufu, as the sons of Khafre are buried in the scarp used as a quarry for the pyramid of Khafre.354

The construction and decoration of KA-pw-nswt’s tomb is therefore dated between Neferirkare and Neferefre.

345

Assigned date: IV.4-5

This tomb is one of four mastabas identified by Reisner as being built in immediate succession to the massive core mastabas of the Eastern Field. It has a one-niched interior chapel that is decorated in ‘old technique’, that is, according to Reisner, relief that is not sized, by which he probably meant that no filling or size was used.352 The owner of G7550 was further identified by Reisner as a son of KA.j-wab [100] and @[email protected] II, perhaps because it fitted in with his view that this was a group of one-niched decorated chapels of Khufu’s grandsons, who were sons of the older children of Khufu.353 Accordingly, Reisner dated the construction of the chapels from mid Khafre to mid Menkaure.

Junker dated KA-pw-nswt’s tomb and the rebuilding of JAbtt’s tomb to mid Dynasty 5 on the grounds of the different type of construction and the blocking of the street. An earlier date is just as likely. According to Reisner, the earliest chapel of this type, G4631, was constructed in the reign of Userkaf.349

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Group B

Location: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Reference: LD II, pl. 82a

The tomb of KA-pw-nswt is located in what Reisner judged to be the oldest nucleus cemetery, but it is not one of the original mastabas. It is built between G4650 and G4660 completely blocking the street between the two tombs.347 G4651 is clearly later than the two larger mastabas on either side. Its construction is also different with a facade of small blocks of limestone, whereas the facades of the other two mastabas are constructed of much larger blocks. Reisner classed KA-pw-nswt’s chapel as Type (5a), a plain, interior corridor chapel.348

[111] KA-gm-nj:Mmj Group A

sHD +d-swt-&tj; sHD Hm(w)-nTr +d-swt-&tj

Pyramid titles:

KA.j-hp:*tj:*t (M8), it would only have been for a short period as the unfinished condition of this intervening tomb (H15) suggests that the period of time was less than a full generation 345

Assigned date: VI.1E-M _wA.n-@r may be a son or grandson of Khufu. Khufu’s later children would be close in age to his earliest born grandchildren. A date for the chapel of _wA.n-@r in the period mid-Khafre to mid Menkaure is probable.

Saqqara TPC VI.1 PM III 521-25 jrj pat; HAtj-a; smr watj tAjtj sAb TAtj (mAa); jmj-rA prwjHD; jmj-rA Hwt-wrt 6; jmj-rA sS a nswt; jmj-rA Snwtj; jmj-rA kAt nbt nt nswt

$nj-anxw (H15) is probably mentioned as a son in the tomb of KA.jhp:*tj:*t (M8) Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 102. Junker III (1938) 123f. Porter–Moss (1974) Plan 15. Reisner (1942) 258-59. Reisner (1942) 255.

350 351 352 353 354

43 

Sethe (1933) Urk. I. 194-5. Kanawati (2003) 87. Reisner (1942) 308-9. Reisner (1942) 309. Strudwick (1985) 165.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  [113] _bHnj

Group A

Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles: Highest effective titles:

Assigned date: IV.5

Highest effective titles:

Giza WF IV.5 LG 90 PM III 235-36 smr watj jrj nfr HAt; Hrj-sStA n pr-dwAt; Hrj-tp Nxb; xrp aH; Xrj-Hbt Hrjtp

References: Hassan IV (1943) 159-84, figs. 116, 117, 119 and 122. LD II, pl. 36-7; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 18-21 [14].

References: Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) 2, 1-13, pls. 2-15, 21; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 145-7 (33); Kanawati Gebrawi III (2011).

_bHnj’s rock-cut tomb in the Central Field355 is one of the most securely dated early chapels. In a niche above rock-cut statues of the tomb owner is an inscription describing the construction of the tomb on the order of Menkaure.356 [114] +aw:^mAj and +aw Group A Location: Latest cartouche: Identification: Highest ranking titles:

Deir el-Gebrawi VI.4 Davies No 12 PM IV 244-46 (+aw:^mAj) jrj-pat; HAtj-a; smr watj (_aw) jrj-pat; HAtj-a; smr watj

Groups A and B officials 

2.7.1 

Explanatory notes to the Catalogue of Officials NO: NAME: GROUP A Group: B Group:

LATEST CARTOUCHE: PORTER-MOSS PAGE NO:

355 356

+aw:^mAj was the son of Jbj [6] who, according to biographical inscription was appointed nomarch of Upper Egypt 12 by Merenre.357 +aw:^mAj inherited his father’s titles and position but probably did not survive for long as he did not construct a tomb for himself. He was, in turn, succeeded by his son, +aw. Probably quite soon after the deaths of his father and grandfather, +aw constructed a joint tomb for his father and himself.

Assigned date: VI.4E

2.7 

(+aw:^mAj) jmj-rA wpwt Htp(w)t-nTr m prwj; jmj-rA prwj-HD; jmj-rA ^ma; jmj-rA Snwtj; Hrj-tp aA (U.E. 12); Hrjtp aA (U.E. 8); Hrj-tp Nxb; HqA Hwt; xrp SnDt nbt (+aw) jmj-rA ^ma; Hrj-tp aA (U.E. 12); Hrj-tp aA (U.E. 8); HqA Hwt; Xrj-Hbt Hrj-tp; xrp SnDt nbt

It is therefore likely that there is a gap of only one generation or less between the tombs of Jbj and +aw:^mAj+aw, and that the joint tomb was constructed and decorated fairly early in the reign of Pepy II.

The number attached to each tomb owner in the Prosopography. Always in square brackets. Tomb owner’s name in transliteration. List is alphabetical. These tombs are securely dated, usually by reference to reigning king. These tombs are dated according to location, personal relationships or archaeological evidence. The cartouche of the latest king appearing in the tomb. The pages in the Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings.Volumes III, IV and V, in which the tomb is referenced.

FIELD NO:

The numbering applied to individual tombs in selected cemeteries.

DATE OF TOMB:

The dating applied to tombs in the Prosopography. See pp 14 – 44.

Porter–Moss (1974) Plan 22. Hassan IV (1943) pl. 48; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 18-21 [14].

357

44 

Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pl. 23; Sethe (1933) Urk. I, 142:9-13.

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  2.7.2 

Catalogue of Officials according to their prosopography number and group 

NO.

NAME

GROUP

LATEST CARTOUCHE

PORTER-MOSS PAGE NO.

FIELD NO.

DATE OF TOMB

[1]

Ax.t-Htp

B

V.8

599-600

D 64

V.8L-9E

[2]

JAbtt

B

IV.1

134

G4650

IV.4-6

[3]

JAsn

B

IV.2

82

G2196

V.8L-9

[4]

Jj-mrjj

B

V.3

170-74

G6020=LG16

V.6

[5]

Jwnw

B



124

G4150

IV.2L-4

[6]

Jbj

A

VI.3-4

IV 243-44

Davies No 8

VI.3-4E

[7]

A

VI.2

n/r



VI.1L-2E

[8]

Jn.w-Mn.w Jrj-n-Ra

B



144

G4970 Annexe

V.4-7

[9]

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

B



644



V.6E-8L

[10]

Jrj:&tj-snb

B

VI.1

n/r



VI.2

[11]

Jsj

A

VI.2

V 201

(Edfu)

VI.2

[12]

JSfj:&wtw

A



515



VI.1L-2

[13]

Jtjj

B

V.6

174



V.6

[14]

Jdw I:Nfr

B

VI.2

185-86

G7102

VI.2

[15]

anx-m-a-@r:%sj

A

VI.1

512-15



VI.1M-2E

[16]

anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II

A

VI.2

n/r



VI.2-4E

[17]

WAS-PtH:Jsj

A

V.3

456

S 14 = D 38

V.3

[18]

Watt-@t-hr

A



525-34



VI.1M-L

[19]

Wp-m-nfrt

B



57

G1201

IV.2

[20]

Wr-nww

B

VI.1

519



VI.2L-4E

[21]

WHm-kA.j

B



114-15

D 117

V.2-3

[22]

WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH

A

VI.2

515-16



VI.1M-2E

[23]

Pr-nb

A

V.8

497-98

QS 913

V.8-9

[24]

Pr-sn

B

IV.2

48-49

LG 20-21

V.2-3

[25]

Pr-sn

A

V.2

577-78

D 45

V.2

[26]

PtH-Htp I

B

V.8

596-98

D 62

V.8

[27]

PtH-Htp (II):*fj

B

V.8

600-04

D 64

V.9

[28]

PtH-Spss

A

V.6

464

C 1, H 14

V.6

[29]

PtH-Spss

A

V.6

340-42

(Abusir)

V.6L

[30]

PtH-Spss II

B

VI.1

460-61

E 1-2+H 3

VI.1-2E

[31]

Mnw-Dd.f

B

IV.2

203-04

G7760=LG 60

IV.4-5

[32]

Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx:Nxbw

A

VI.2

89-91

G2381-2382

VI.2

[33]

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj

B

VI.2

536-37



VI.2M

[34]

B

IV.2

71-72

G2100-I-ann=LG 24

IV.6-V.2

B

VI.2

520



VI.1-2E

[36]

Mr-jb.j Mrw:&tj-snb:Mrj-Ra-snb: Ppjj-snb Mrrj

B



518-19



VI.1L-2

[37]

(M)rrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj

B

VI.1

n/r



VI.1L-2E

[38]

Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj

A

VI.1

525-34



V1.1L

[39]

Mrs-anx II

B



194

G7410+7420

IV.2-4

[35]

45 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  NO.

NAME

GROUP

LATEST CARTOUCHE

PORTER-MOSS PAGE NO.

FIELD NO.

DATE OF TOMB

[40]

Mrs-anx III

B

IV.3

197-99

G7530+7540

IV.4-6

[41]

Mr-sw-anx

B



269-70



V.6-8

[42]

MHj:MH-n.s

B

VI.1

n/r



VI.2E

[43]

B

IV.1

493-94

LS 6

IV.1-2

A

V.6

641-44



V.6L-8E

[45]

MTn Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp Nj-anx-%xmt

A

V.2

482-83

D 12

V.2

[46]

Nj-wsr-Ra

B



234



IV.4-5

[47]

Nj-kAw-Jssj

A

VI.1

n/r



VI.1M

[48]

Nj-kAw-Ra

B

IV.4

232

LG 87

IV.4-6

[49]

Nb.j-m-Axtj

B

IV.4

230-32

LG 86

IV.5-6

[50]

Nbt

B

V.9

624



V.9

[51]

Nbt

B



n/r

H27

VI.4E-M

[52]

Nfr

B



72-4

G2110

IV.4

[53]

Nfr and KA-HA.j

B



639-41



V.6

[54]

Nfr-bAw-PtH

B

V.6

169-70

G6010=LG 15

V.6L

[55]

Nfr-mAat

B

IV.1

183

G7060=LG 57

IV.2-4

[56]

Nfr-mAat

B

IV.1

IV 92-4

Petrie: 16

IV.1

[57]

Nfr-sSm-PtH (+ %xntjw)

B



645



V.6-8E

[58]

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj

A

VI.1

511-12



VI.1E-M

[59]

Nn-sDr-kA.j I

B

IV.2

72

G2101

V.2-3

[60]

Nswt-nfr

B

IV.4

143-44

G4970

IV.5-V.1

[61]

NTr-wsr

B



485

S 901=D 1

V.7-8

[62]

NDt-m-pt:&jt

A



n/r



VI.1L

[63]

Ra-wr

B



558

(El Fikey)

VI.2E-L

[64]

Ra-wr

A

V.3

265-69



V.3

[65]

Ra-wr II

B

V.8

162-63

G5470=LG 32

V.8-9

[66]

Ra-Htp

B



IV 90-2

(Medum)

IV.1L-2E

[67]

Ra-Spss

A

V.8

494-96

LS 16=MM S 902

V.8

[68]

Rmnj:Mrwj

B



n/r



VI.1L-2E

[69]

@sj r/u %Sm-nfr

A

VI.1

n/r



VI.1L

[70]

@sjj-Ra

B

III.2

437-39

A 3=S 2450

III.2

[71]

#ww-wr

B

V.3

254-55

LG 95

V.8

[72]

#wfw-anx

B

V.1

129

G4520

V.1

[73]

#wfw-xa.f I

B

IV.2

188-90

G7130+7140

IV.4-6

[74]

#wfw-xa.f II

B

V.6

190-91

G7150

V.6

[75]

#wfw-Dd.f

B

IV.2

219

GIIIS

IV.4-5

[76]

#wn-Ra

B

IV.5

293-94

MQ1

IV.5

[77]

#mt-nw

B

IV.2

155

G5210=LG 43

IV.6-V.1

[78]

#nwt

B

623-24



V.9

[79]

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

A

508-11



VI.1L-2

[44]

VI.2

46 

CHAPTER 2:  PROSOPROGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B  NO.

NAME

GROUP

LATEST CARTOUCHE

PORTER-MOSS PAGE NO.

FIELD NO.

DATE OF TOMB

[80]

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

B



n/r

H24

VI.4E-M

[81]

%Abw:Jbbj

A

VI.1

460-61

E 1, 2 + H 3

VI.1

[82]

%anx-w(j)-PtH:@tp-n(j)-PtH

A

VI.1

n/r



VI.1

[83]

%nfrw-xa.f

B

IV.2

183-84

G7070=LG 56

IV.4-5

[84]

%nDm-jb:Jntj

A

V.8

85-7

G2370=LG 27

V.9E

[85]

%nDm-jb:MHj

A

V.9

87-9

G2378=LG 26

V.9M

[86]

%xm-kA-Ra

A

V.2

233-34

LG 89

V.2

[87]

%xntjw (+ Nfr-sxm-PtH)

B

V.6

645



V.6-8E

[88]

%SAt-Htp:!tj

B

IV.2

149

G5150=LG 36

IV.6-V.2

[89]

%SAt-sxntjw

B



74

G2120

IV.2

[90]

%Sm-nfr I

B

IV.3

142-43

G4940=LG 45

V.2-3

[91]

%Sm-nfr II

B

V.6

146-47

G5080

V.6

[92]

%Sm-nfr III

B

V.3

153-54

G5170

V.8

[93]

%SsSt:Jdwt (r/u from JHjj )

B

VI.1

617-19



[94]

^psj-pw-PtH

B

V1.1

n/r



V.9-VI.1 VI.1M-L

[95]

^pss-kA.f-anx

B

V.3

175

G6040=LG 18

V.3-5

[96]

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

A

VI.3

V. 200

(Edfu)

VI.3-4E

[97]

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

B

VI.2

184-85

G7101

VI.2L-3

[98]

Qrrj

A

VI.2

n/r

Q 15

VI.2

[99]

KA.(j)-apr(w)

B



n/r



VI.1L-2E

[100]

KA.j-wab

B

IV.2

187

G7110-7120

IV.4

[101]

KA.j-m-sxm

B



201-02

G7660=LG 59

IV.5

[102]

KA.j-nj-nswt I

B

IV.2

78-9

G4870=2155

IV.4-6

[103]

KA.j-nj-nswt II

B

IV.2

79-80

G2156

V.2-3

[104]

KA.j-nj-nswt III

B



80



V.4-6E

[105]

KA.j-nfr

B



57

G1203

IV.2

[106]

KA.j-nfr

B

IV.5

77-8

G2150

IV.6-V.2

[107]

KA.j-swDA

B



159

G5340=LG 37

V.2-3

[108]

KA.j-Hp:*tj:*t

A

VI.3

n/r



VI.3-4E

[109]

KA.j-Hp:*tj-jqr

B



n/r



VI.4E-M

[110]

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

B



135

G4651

V.3-5

[111]

KA-gm-nj:Mmj

A

VI.1

521-25



VI.1E-M

[112]

_wA.n-@r

B



200

G7550=LG 58

IV.4-5

[113]

_bHnj

A

IV.5

235-36

LG 90

IV.5

[114]

©aw:¥mAjand ©aw

A

VI.4E

IV 244-46

Davies No. 12

VI.4E

47 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM 

48 

Chapter 3   

Establishing Dating Criteria  ‘apron’ meets the hem of the kilt changes over time, this garment provides dating criteria.

The 104 dating criteria identified in this chapter are drawn from the funerary iconography of dated tombs listed in ‘Group A’ or ‘Group B’.358

STYLE 1: In the earliest depictions of the flared ‘apron’ kilt the defining line(s) of the ‘apron’ meet the hem between the wearer’s legs (Figures 1 (a) and (b)). STYLE 2: Through much of Dynasty 5 the line(s) meet the hem over the wearer’s rear leg (Figures 2 (a) and (b)). STYLE 3: By late Dynasty 5 the line(s) are extended to the rear corner of the kilt (Figures 3 (a) and (b)). STYLE 4: In Dynasty 6 they appear to protrude beyond the back line of the kilt (Figure 4). The line/s sometimes project beyond the back of the kilt or disappear as though wrapping around the edge of the kilt. STYLE 5: The single interior line defining the ‘apron’ (Figure 5) is usually applied to the left facing figure and accompanies all styles of the flared kilt.

Unless otherwise stated, all descriptions of features relate to the tombs included in the Prosopography and listed as Groups A and B. 3.1   

Dress of the male tomb owner   CRITERIA 1 – 8  

Two basic styles of kilt Old Kingdom officials were usually depicted in relief sculpture and painting wearing two basic styles of kilt: 1. A skirt-like garment that flared out at the front of the wearer. The length of this style varies, with the hemline depicted from the calf of the leg to just above the knee.

As these changes occur, the kilt grows shorter, with the lower hem rising from mid-calf length to just above the knee. As the kilt becomes shorter, the flared angle at the front of the ‘apron’ becomes more acute. The depiction of the tomb owner as an older, portly figure wearing a long flared kilt shows the same style changes, as do depictions of lesser figures such as adult sons and priests. When they are in the same scene, lesser figures depicted wearing kilts with ‘aprons’ usually show exactly the same style [hem-length and direction of internal line(s)] as that of the tomb owner.

2. A short, tight-fitting garment extending from waist to mid-thigh. According to the monuments in Groups A and B, the short tight-fitting kilt was the earlier style worn by officials. (See 3.1.4, p. 55.) Apart from the animal skin robe, the short, tightfitting garment is the only style depicted before the reign of Khufu, when examples of the second, flared style first occur.

Normally the flared kilt is depicted as plain material but occasionally the material is decorated with stripes probably intended to represent pleats. #wfw-xa.f I [73] as a standing portly figure wears a flaring kilt decorated with bands of vertical pleats.360 The standing figure of KA.j-nfr [106] wears a flared ‘apron’ kilt completely decorated by vertical pleats.361 On the lintel of the door to his tomb(?) the seated figure of PtH-Spss [28] wears a kilt with the ‘apron’ pleated horizontally, while the standing figures of #ntj-kA.j [79] and Jdw [14] wear flared kilts that are fully pleated. Mrrj’s [36] kilt has a complex pattern of narrow horizontal and diagonal pleats,362 and the portly standing figure of Wr-nw [20] wears a long kilt whose apron is decorated at the top by seven horizontal pleats.363 With so much variation, the depiction of stripes does not provide a dating criterion.

Both styles continued at least to the end of the reign of Pepy II. 3.1.1 

The flared kilt  

The flared kilt first occurs in the second half of Dynasty 4 worn by standing figures who are not always the tomb owner, although persons of some importance. In Mrs-anx III [40], for example, the flared kilt is worn by the tomb owner’s father, KA.j-wab [100], her son, Nb.j-m-Axtj [49], her steward, @mt-nw [77], and the sculptor, Ra-Hajj.359 THE FIVE STYLES OF THE FLARED KILT When the flared kilt has a triangular apron-like front, the ‘apron’ may have a single or double line defining its edge within the outline of the kilt. The single or double line meets the hem of the kilt at a point that varies from between the legs of the wearer to the rear corner of the kilt. As the point at which the single or double line of the

360 361

358

359

See Chapter 2, 2.7.2 CATALOGUE OF OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO THEIR PROSOPOGRAPHY NUMBER AND GROUP, pp. 45–47. Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 4, 7, 12, 5, respectively. The name of the sculptor, Ra-HAjj, was read by Reisner but is now illegible.

362 363

49 

Simpson (1978) fig. 7. Respectively, KA.j-nfr [105]: Reisner (1942) fig. 263; PtH-Spss [28]: James (1961) N. 682; #ntj-kA.j [79]: James (1953) pl. 7; Jdw [14]: Simpson (1976b) figs. 33, 34. Davies et al (1984) pl. 9. Davies et al (1984) pl. 24.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   While the seated figure of the deceased is portrayed wearing a flared kilt from late Dynasty 4 onwards (Figure 8), for a comparatively short period of time in the second half of Dynasty 5 he is shown dressed in a flared kilt when seated at his offering table (Figure 19). In Groups A and B the last instance occurs in the tomb of #ww-wr [71]. Here a figure of the deceased is shown on either side of the offering table on the panel of his false door wearing a flared kilt.364 3.1.2 

3.1.3 

It is not easy to trace any clear development in the choice of kilts over time. While the very earliest data (Dynasty 3 and early Dynasty 4) have a Saqqara and Medum provenance, from the reign of Khufu onwards through the remainder of Dynasty 4, the sources of our data are the Giza tombs. The Giza data present a complex picture because the cemeteries comprising the Giza necropolis vary according to the status of tomb owners, with the East and Central Fields and Cemetery GIS catering to the highest officials who were members of the royal family. In early Dynasty 5 Saqqara gradually became the necropolis of choice, although a number of powerful families, such as the %nDm-jb clan continued to use Giza. After the early years of Pepy I’s reign the location of Memphite data becomes quite cloudy with very few Memphite tombs that can be included in groups A and B. In the provinces of Upper Egypt there are no tombs dated earlier than Pepy I in groups A and B.

The short, tight‐fitting kilt 

Variations of this style appear throughout the Old Kingdom: Kilt with pleated (striped?) overlap This is the earliest style variation observed in Groups A and B as it is worn by the standing figure of @sjj-Ra [70] from Dynasty 3.365 It appears to consist of a length of material wound round the hips, overlapping at the front of the body. The overlap is shown as striped, probably intending to convey diagonal pleats, and curves upward across the front of the body to the wearer’s waist. The kilt is often held in place at the waistline by a horizontal buckle and stiff, vertical tag. This style of kilt is first depicted on both the standing and seated male figure, worn alone or beneath an animal skin. It appears to have been the most formal of all kilt styles for it is retained in the offering table scene to the end of the reign of Pepy II. In Dynasty 6 a fully pleated version of this kilt is occasionally seen, usually on seated figures.

Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5 At Medum: According to the monuments of Groups A and B, in early Dynasty 4 the choice of kilt for the tomb owner lay between the short, tight-fitting kilt with a plain or pleated overlap and the Ra-Htp kilt.367 Neither, however, is worn in the most solemn scene, the tomb owner at his offering table where he wears a long animal-skin robe (Figure 13). At Saqqara: Unfortunately after MTn [43] who is depicted wearing a short tight fitting kilt, Groups A and B do not provide any more evidence at Saqqara until the reign of Sahure in early Dynasty 5.

Kilt with a plain overlap This variation is also seen at first with the horizontal buckle and stiff upright tag. As the short tight kilt becomes reserved for the seated figure in Dynasty 5, it gradually loses its buckle and tag fastener so that the waistband becomes a plain strip of material with no evident fastening. This plain kilt originally appears on both standing and seated figures but in time is largely reserved for the seated figure. As the large wall depiction of the tomb owner at his offering table becomes more frequent, possibly less attention is paid to the offering table scene on the panel of the false door. When this happens the figure on the panel is more likely to be given a plain kilt, while that in the major offering table scene may retain the half-striped version.

At Giza: From the reign of Khufu to that of Neferirkare the chosen style of kilt at Giza appears to vary according to the cemetery. Consequently, a distinction needs to be made between the tombs of the West Field and those of the other Giza cemeteries (East Field, Central Field and Cemetery GIS), although any generalisation drawn from depictions is limited by the heavy loss of high quality limestone on which scenes were usually inscribed. East Field, Central Field and Cemetery GIS (Khufu to Neferirkare) As in the early cruciform chapels at Saqqara and Medum, there is considerable scenic development to accompany the variety of kilts depicted in the chapels of the East and Central Fields at Giza. In Dynasty 4, the more elevated members of the royal family show a greater variety of kilt styles, including the flared kilt. The East Field owners of mastabas are usually members of the royal family of Khufu, while the owners of rock-cut tombs in the Central Field usually belong to Khafre’s family. The Ra-Htp style of kilt is not seen on either the deceased or his attendants in the tomb depictions from these cemeteries. The short

The Ra-Htp style of kilt (Figures 6 (a) and 6 (b)) This kilt, named after Ra-Htp [66] the first known wearer, by Nadine Cherpion366 has a much shorter life span than the kilt with overlap. In the monuments of Groups A and B it first appears early in Dynasty 4 at Medum and Saqqara, where it is seen on minor figures, even on offering bearers, as well as worn by the tomb owner. Its shortened life span provides dating value.

364 365 366

Choice of kilt 

Hassan V (1944), 250, fig.108. Quibell (1913) pls. 30-32 (CG 1427-1430). Cherpion (1989) 61-2, Critère 37.

367

50 

The Ra-Htp kilt: Figures 6 (a) and 6 (b).

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  The chapels of the Central Field of the second half of Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5 seem to have continued the developments of the East Field. At the entrance to his rock-cut chapel, the two standing figures of _bHnj [113] are depicted wearing a mid-calf length flared kilt. One of these may have an ‘apron’ front. The seated figure of the tomb owner, depicted before banquet registers, wears the short, half pleated kilt.380

kilt was worn with an overlap, which could be plain or pleated. From early Dynasty 4 elite tomb owners also had themselves and occasionally their attendants depicted wearing a flared kilt of just below the knee to mid-calf length.368 This flared kilt was depicted in a number of styles: quite plain with no internal markings369, with an ‘apron’ defined by either a single or by double lines that ran from the knot at the wearer’s waist to meet the hem at a point between the legs. In the proposed dating criteria, this earliest version of the flared kilt with ‘apron’ is called FLARED KILT STYLE 1.370 Occasionally, the kilt was pleated.371 In the tomb of Mrs-anx III [40] the portly figure of the queen’s father, KA.j-wab [100], wears a flared kilt of mid-calf length. As he faces left with his back turned to Mrs-anx and her mother, a single line defines the ‘apron’.372

The West Field (Khufu to Neferirkare) Officials buried in early mastabas with L-shaped chapels in the West Field had themselves portrayed mainly wearing the short, tight-fitting kilt. In Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5 the characteristics of the kilt portrayed on the deceased and his attendants in West Field tombs differ considerably from those of the East and Central Fields. The flared kilt is not seen until the end of Dynasty 4 in West Field tombs,381 while the Ra-Htp kilt is worn, although with decreasing frequency, until early Dynasty 5.382 The tomb owner at the offering table continues to be portrayed wearing a long robe in at least one offering table scene until early Dynasty 5383 and the animal skin is worn with both the flared kilt and short kilt with an overlap.

Until the end of Dynasty 4, the flared kilt is only seen on standing figures.373 Whether depicted as a wall relief or on the panel of the false door, the deceased at the offering table wears a short kilt with an overlap, which may or may not be pleated. The animal skin, nearly always reserved for the tomb owner, is later depicted in combination with both the short tight and the flared kilt. #wfw-xa.f I [73], son of Khufu, wears a variety of kilt styles: in a family scene he wears a flaring striped kilt beneath an animal skin374 and a mid-calf length kilt with an overlap and slight flare as he leans on a staff facing his wife.375 More formally #wfw-xa.f I wears the short, tightfitting kilt in a presentation scene and as he stands with his mother, who was a queen.376 As a seated figure, either before the offering table or reviewing presentations and receiving offerings, #wfw-xa.f I is depicted wearing the short, half pleated kilt.377 While much of the decoration of Nfr-mAat [55], a royal vizier and probable son of a king, is destroyed, the figures of the tomb owner standing either side of the false door are depicted wearing the flared kilt with ‘apron’.378 %nfrw-xa.f [83], son of Nfr-mAat [55], also appears as a standing figure facing left on the entrance of his chapel, holding staff and folded cloth and wearing a flared knee-length kilt, as does his own son behind the tomb owner.379 These kilts, however, lack the internal line/s defining the ‘apron’.

368 369

370

371 372 373

374 375 376 377 378 379

The persistence of the short, tight-fitting kilt in the West Field may have been due to the lower status of the officials buried there, or to their not being closely related to the royal family. It may, however, have also been due to the limited wall space of the L-shaped chapels, especially those with two false doors, which may have inhibited the portrayal of the tomb owner viewing ‘daily life’ activities. The West Field chapels of this date range show little development of scenes beyond those of family groups, presentation of offerings and, of course, the offering table. The wall space needed for two false doors would have curtailed the development of scenes of activities and ‘everyday life’, and would have maintained the dominance of the false door(s), offerings, and the funerary meal. The ideology behind the decoration appears to be dominated by the false doors and the ritual meal. These chapels include, from Groups A and B, Nfr [52], Mr-jb.j [34], Pr-sn [24], WHm-kA.j [21], %SAt-Htp:!tj [88], KA.j-nfr [106], Nn-sDr-kA.j [59]; ^pss-kA.f-anx [95], KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110], %Sm-nfr I [90] and Nswt-nfr [60].

Nfr-mAat [55] is dated IV.2-4. %nfrw-Ha.f [83] in LD II, 16; Nj-wsr-Ra [46] in Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 133. Nfr-mAat [55] in LD II, 17a; Nj-wsr-Ra [46] in Hassan IV (1943) fig.133; _bHnj [113] in LD II, 36a; Mrs-anx III [40] in Dunham– Simpson (1974) fig. 12; Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] in LD II, 13; Nj-kAw-Ra [48] in LD II, 15; Ra-wr [63] in Hassan I (1932) pl. 11. Simpson (1978) pl. 25. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 4. The first seated figure to be depicted wearing a flared kilt is Nj-kAwRa [48], who is dated to Dynasty 4, Khafre to Shepseskaf. LD Erg. 35 lower. Simpson (1978) pl. 7. Simpson (1978) pl. 25. Simpson (1978) pl. 26. Simpson (1978) pls. 29, 30, 31. LD II, 17a. LD II, 16.

On the West Field, the earliest developments of kilt style and scene content beyond the depictions typical of Lshaped chapels occur with Pr-sn [24] where, above the doorway, the seated tomb owner and his wife view scenes of boats and fishing.384 The first bold changes in scene content combined with frequent depiction of the flared kilt in the West Field occur in the multi-roomed chapel of 380 381

382 383 384

51 

LD II, 36a, b, c. The first occurrence of a flared kilt in West Field tombs of groups A and B is in KA.j-nfr [106]. WHm-kA.j [21]: Kayser (1964) 24-5, 32-3. WHm-kA.j [21]: Kayser (1964) 32. LD Erg., 8.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   Jj-mrjj [4].385 Jj-mrjj has himself and his father depicted wearing a flared ‘apron’ kilt in all standing poses, including a scene of pulling papyrus, and seated in two banquet scenes.386 The only scene, seated or standing, where the major figure wears a short, tight-fitting kilt is at the offering table.387 The scenic content of this chapel is greatly expanded to include manufacturing, fighting boatmen, food preparation, agriculture, palanquin and pavilion scenes. It is possible that the architectural style of the chapels of Cemetery G6000 and the dramatic development of scenes in Jj-mrjj were partly due to the freedom afforded by the location of the family complex, which was considerably west of the main layout of the West Field.388

tie on the shoulder, is combined with the flared kilt.393 The adjustment of the double or single line of the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt so that it meets the hem over the wearer’s rear leg or even at the rear corner of the kilt seems to follow a more consistent development. This may have been copied from changes in royal dress style as it is observed on tomb owners who were high officials or close to the throne394 (FLARED KILT STYLES 2 and 3). The depiction of more than one of the ‘Flared Kilt’ styles in the same tomb may have served an added intention of suggesting in tomb decoration the passage of time in the tomb owner’s life.395 At the same time, tomb decorations tended to show other ‘experimental’ features. There was a tendency to combine features of the banquet scene with those of the offering table scene.396 Occasionally, there were changes to the lower portion of the half loaves on the offering table so that they begin to suggest papyrus stalks.397 Sometimes the orientation of the half loaves was arranged to create a distinctive pattern of pairs.398 More importantly perhaps, the theme of the tomb owner fishing and fowling was introduced.399 In the same period of time the tomb owner’s wife was reduced in size compared to her husband and was relegated to a kneeling position at of her husband’s foot.400 Some of these ‘experiments’ became permanent changes, while others did not survive into Dynasty 6. That this ‘experimental’ approach affected tomb decoration in both Giza and Saqqara is illustrated in the chapels of #wfw-xa.f II [74], Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] and Ni-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]. #wfw-xa.f II is depicted wearing a number of kilt styles: the short, tight kilt with an overlap, as both a portly older figure and a younger, slimmer figure in a flared ‘apron’ kilt and in a leopard skin over a flared kilt.401 He wears a flared kilt in his two offering table scenes, in one of which he accepts a lotus from his son, usually a feature of the banquet scene.402

Early Dynasty 5 At Saqqara: Apart from the Dynasty III and early Dynasty IV tombs, the first Saqqara chapels in Groups A and B are those of Nj-anx-%xmt [45] Pr-sn [25] and WAS-PtH:Jsj [17], all dated to early Dynasty 5. With the exception of Nj-anx%xmt where the important male figures seated or standing, wear a short, tight-fitting kilt, Pr-sn and WASPtH:Jsj show stylistic patterns similar to those of the Giza East Field with important figures depicted wearing the flared kilt.389 Harpur notes that the scenes in Pr-sn are comparable to those of the offering chapel of Mrs-anx III [40].390 For example, as in the offering room of Mrs-anx III, Pr-sn’s east wall has marsh activities with a (probable) fowling scene. The damaged depiction of Prsn seated before an offering table is the earliest instance in Groups A and B of a seated figure wearing a flared kilt at the offering table.391 Mid to late Dynasty 5 At Giza and Saqqara: From the reign of Neuserre onwards, there is little distinction between Saqqara and Giza or between the East, West and Central Fields of Giza in the style of depicted kilt. In early Dynasty 5 Saqqara tombs, however, give the impression of experimenting with the rules of decorum for portrayals in tomb chapels. These ‘experiments’ in the dress of the deceased do not always follow a discernible logical pattern. The tomb owner may be portrayed wearing a flared kilt at the offering table.392 Occasionally, one feature of the animal skin, such as the 385

386 387 388 389

390 391 392

In the tomb of Nfr and KA-HA.j, Nfr(?)403 wears an unusual outfit that seems to have combined features from different styles. The bound shoulder tie, which normally holds up the animal skin, in this case merely sits on the 393 394

395

396

This may have been due to royal dispensation, as Reisner identified Jj-mrjj’s father, ^pss-kA.f-anx [95] as the steward of Neuserre while he was still a prince. Reisner attributed both the major additions to ^pss-kA.f-anx’s tomb and the original construction of the tombs of his son and son-in-law, Jtjj [13], to the reign of Neferirkare, but the major changes to the two latter tombs to early in the reign of Neuserre, whom Jj-mrjj now served. Reisner (1939) 29-35. Weeks (1994) figs. 26, 31, 33, 40, 41, pls. 12b, 15a, 24b, 26 Weeks (1994) fig. 44. Weeks (1994) inside front and rear covers. Nj-anx-%xmt [45]: Mariette (1889) 203, 205; Pr-sn [24]: Petrie– Murray (1952) pl. 10; WAS-PtH:Jsj [17]: Mariette (1889) 270. Harpur (1987) 88. Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 10. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 4, 20 pl. 88; #wfw-Ha.f II [74]: Simpson (1978) figs. 49, 50.

397

398

399

400 401 402 403

52 

Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 2. #wfw-Ha.f II [74]: Simpson (1978) figs. 43, 46; Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 12, 19, 26. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 8, 12, 13, 18, 19, 26; #ww-wr [71]: Hassan V (1944) figs. 102, 103; PtH-^pss [29]: Verner (1977) figs. 13, 46, 72, 74. #wfw-Ha.f II [74]: Simpson (1978) figs. 49. #wfw-Ha.f II [74]: Simpson (1978) figs. 49; Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 4, 25, pl. 88. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 26. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5 and 6. PtH-^pss [29]: Verner (1977) fig. 16. #wfw-Ha.f II [74]: Simpson (1978) figs. 44, 46. #wfw-Ha.f II [74]: Simpson (1978) figs. 49, 50. Moussa and Altenmüller identified the un-named figure depicted on the north end of the east wall of the corridor as Nfr [53], while in a recent study Lashien suggests that the figure represents KA-HA.j as she maintains that the corridor actually belongs to the father, KAHA.j. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) 19, n.74, 24; Lashien (2013) 11– 16 , pls. 2, 3(a), 81.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  protect the tomb from unwelcome attention. The portrayal of the seated figure in a short kilt on tomb facades and entrances is not completely consistent. The figures on the east and south facades of the entrance architrave of Nfr-%Sm-Ra [58] wear the flared ‘apron’ kilt. This architrave was found in pieces and may have consisted of two rows of seven figures facing each other across the entrance to the tomb.412 Two figures on either side wear a short, tight kilt. Other figures, except on the panel of the false door, are depicted in a flared ‘apron kilt.

wearer’s far shoulder. It is combined with a flared kilt with the curved overlap (usually seen with the short, tight kilt) and a waist tie consisting of a buckle, upright tag and rounded knot.404 On the serdab wall Nfr (?) is depicted standing, facing registers of offerings, offering bearers and musicians. He and three smaller male figures, probably his sons, are all portrayed in a fully pleated flared ‘apron’ kilt, the only instance in Groups A and B of minor figures wearing this style of kilt.405 In the chapel of Ni-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] one of the offering table scenes is immediately above registers of musicians and dancers, normally features of the banquet scene.406 While the tomb owners are depicted wearing the short kilt in this offering table scene, they wear flared kilts in other table scenes.407 Each is portrayed in an offering table scene holding a lotus, again a feature associated with the banquet.408 In their fishing and fowling scenes, both owners are depicted wearing a truncated flared kilt rather than the SnDwt, suggesting that the theme of the tomb owner fishing and fowling was a recent addition to the funerary repertoire of officials.409 By the reign of Djedkare there are few, if any, differences in the styles of kilt depicted in Giza and Saqqara tombs.

On the exterior frieze facade of KA-gm-nj’s [111] tomb, the seated figures of the tomb owner wear a short kilts with pleated overlap. In the first depiction the deceased holds a sceptre and staff, has a broad collar, short beard and short curly wig decorated with a headband. The second representation is identical except that KA-gm-nj wears a long wig without a headband.413 The standing figures of Mrrw-kA.j [38] on either side of his entrance doorway show the deceased wearing a flared ‘apron’ kilt. Within his tomb Mrrw-kA.j is only depicted in a short kilt painting the seasons, a solemn occasion in honour of these gods, at his offering table and receiving offerings.414 In all other scenes, in standing and seated poses, his kilt is flared, usually with an ‘apron’ front, as is that of his sons, attendants and priests. anx-m-a-@r [15] wears a short, tight-fitting kilt as he sits with one arm raised in a gesture of welcome or invocation on the north side of the entrance recess of his tomb. The companion figure on the south side wears a flared ‘apron’ kilt.415 The only other depiction of anx-m-a-@r wearing a short kilt is on the east wall of Room III where he wears the elaborate ‘Bat’ regalia.416 Scenes in #ntj-kA.j [79] may suggest a relaxation of the portrayal of dress conventions, as he is depicted in a short tight kilt in a variety of standing and seated representations within his tomb.417

Later Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 Memphite and provincial: The portrayal of the deceased at the offering table wearing a flared kilt was comparatively short lived. In Groups A and B the last instance occurs in the tomb of #ww-wr [71], where the deceased is shown in a flared kilt on either side of the offering table on the panel of his false door.410 After this occurrence, the tomb owner is invariably seen at the offering table in a short kilt with either a plain or pleated overlap. While the tomb owner and his attendants are depicted wearing flared kilts in family scenes, reviewing offering bearers, animal parades, farming and marsh activities and on their tomb entrance, the short, tight kilt is increasingly reserved for what appears to be the most solemn and important occasions. In Ax.t-Htp [1], JAsn [3], Pr-nb [23], NTr-wsr [61], Ra-wr II [65] and %nDm-jb:MHj [85], the short, tight kilt is only portrayed in the offering table scene.411

The dress conventions of the Teti cemetery seem to have applied in other parts of the Saqqara necropolis. In his chapel north of the Step Pyramid %Abw:Jbbj [81] is only seen wearing the short, tight-fitting kilt in offering table scenes and seated, with a long wig and holding a staff, on the lower lintel of his false door facing a ‘Htp dj nswt’ inscription.418 In the north chapel of this tomb complex PtH-^pss II [29] is only depicted in a short, tight kilt at the offering table scene.419 The disgraced vizier Ra-wr [63] whose tomb is situated to the south of the Mortuary Temple of the Teti Pyramid only wears the short kilt at the offering table.420

With the opening of the Teti cemetery in early Dynasty 6 the seated figure wearing the short kilt began to be portrayed on tomb facades and entrances, as well as in the offering table scene. This new location may have indicated the importance of the figure of the tomb owner, perhaps to impress the passer-by and draw his attention to a Htp-dj-nswt incantation, or by appropriate threats to 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411

Groups A and B suggest that the same dress conventions may not have been applied so rigorously at Giza in

Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 2. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 26. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 25. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 4, 20, pl. 88. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 20, 25. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5, 6. Hassan V (1944), 250, fig. 108. Respectively, Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls. 24, 34; Simpson (1980) figs. 33, 35; Lythgoe–Ransom Williams (1918) fig. 35; Hayes I (1990) fig. 52; Murray (1905) pl. 24; LD II 75, 84; LD Erg., 15.

412 413 414

415 416 417 418 419 420

53 

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 22-23, pls. 4a, 42, 43. LD II, 97. Duell I (1938) pls. 7, 62, 64; Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pls. 66(a), 87(b), 88(b), 90, 107, 109. Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pls. 34, 35. Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pl. 44. James (1953) pls. 5, 6, 7, 29, 31. Borchardt II (1964) 1418, 1565. Murray (1905) pls. 28, 29, 30. El Fikey (1980) pls. 5, 6, 7, 9.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   double line defining the ‘apron’ against the kilt runs from the knot at the waist to meet the hem of the kilt between the wearer’s legs.

Dynasty 6. QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97] is depicted wearing a flared ‘apron’ kilt in his representation as a seated, gesturing figure north of the doorway into Room E.421 He also wears a short, tight kilt beneath an animal skin as he stands holding a staff diagonally across his chest.422

In STYLE 2 (Figures 2 (a) and (b)) the single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ against the flared kilt runs from the knot at the waist to meet the hem of the kilt over the wearer’s rear leg. In Groups A and B this is a Dynasty 5 feature.

According to Groups A and B, the provinces adhered to the Dynasty 6 convention of reserving the short kilt for offering table and other solemn scenes and portraying a flared kilt for all other occasions. Qrrj [98] of El Hawawish wears a short kilt with a plain overlap at his offering table, and a flared ‘apron’ kilt as a standing figure.423 Jsj [11] of Edfu is depicted in a half pleated short kilt at his offering table.424 KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109] of El Hawawish wears a flared kilt in all representations except at the offering table, where his kilt is short and tight fitting.425 Almost all representations of Jbj [6] of Deir el-Gebrawi have him wearing a flared kilt unless at the offering table. The only exceptions of the seated Jbj wearing the short, tight kilt occur when he faces his false door with his arm stretched out as though to an offering table.426 While he actually faces the top half of the door, this may have originally been an offering table scene. By his legs is a stand of tall jars, common in offering table scenes at this time. Above the false door are piles of food and containers; and on the far side of the false door are two registers of offering bringers with the men on the lower register proffering fowl and a haunch of meat. In the second exception Jbj views registers of men being severely punished, linen being washed perhaps in preparation for his embalming and harpists.

For STYLE 3 (Figures 3 (a) and (b)) the single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt at the lower rear corner of the garment. It has a long period of existence from early Dynasty 5 to well into the reign of Pepi II STYLE 4 (Figure 4) constitutes the single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt protruding beyond the rear corner of the kilt or appearing to wrap around it. At first the protrusion is scarcely visible but becomes bolder as Dynasty 6 progresses. Occasionally the double line appears to be cut off flush with the rear line of the kilt, perhaps to give the impression of being hidden behind the kilt. This is essentially a Dynasty 6 style although it first appears late in Dynasty 5.  STYLES 1, 2 and 3 overlap in time in later Dynasty 5 when it is not uncommon to see more than one of these styles portrayed in the same tomb. This is a feature of Jrj-n-Ra [8], PtH-^ss of Abusir [29], NfrbAw-PtH [54], Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44], Ra^pss [67], %Sm-nfr III [92], #ww-wr [71], PtH-Htp I [26], Ax.t-Htp [1] and %nDm-jb:Jntj [84]. STYLES 1 and 2 are not seen in Dynasty 6, but STYLES 3 and 4 continue throughout the dynasty in Memphis and the provinces. The changes from STYLE 1 to STYLE 4 are particularly useful dating tools as they all occurred in Dynasty 5 (Neferirkare Kakai to Unis) while the time period in which all the first three styles appear in the same tomb is narrowed to Niuserre to late Niuserre/early Djedkare/Isesi .

+aw and +aw:^mAj [114] are depicted in all standing and seated poses wearing a flared kilt, except at the offering table where the short plain kilt, sometimes with an overlap in front, is shown. The only exception is the seated figure in front of the palanquin scene.427 Here the seated tomb owner is portrayed wearing a short tightfitting kilt as he faces a ‘Htp dj nswt’ inscription. 3.1.4 

Kilt styles and dating criteria  Figures 1–5 

A single inner line defines STYLE 5 (Figure 5). This style has a long existence from late Dynasty 4 to well into the reign of Pepi II.

The shape of the triangular ‘apron’ changed in Dynasty 5 providing altered styles for the flared kilt. These progressively changing features provide dating criteria. The original style of kilt, here called STYLE 1 (Figures 1 428 (a) and (b)) is first seen in Nfr-mAat [55] (IV.2-4) and is the only flared ‘apron’ style in Groups A and B until the reign of Sahure.429 According to this style the single or 421 422 423 424 425 426

427

428 429

3.1.5 

Horizontal buckle and stiff tag   Figure 7 

Apart from the Ra-Htp kilt, which was ‘fastened’ at the waist by a soft knot from which hung a short sash, the

Simpson (1976b) pl. 12b, fig. 28. Simpson (1976b) pl. 9f, fig. 21. Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 22a. Ziegler (1990) 9. Kanawati I (1980) figs. 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20(a, b), 22. Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pls. 17(a); Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) pls. 46-50, 69-70, Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 8; Kanawati Gebrawi III (2011) pls. 63, 76. LD II, 17a. In Pr-sn [24] the sons of the deceased are depicted on the jambs of the false door wearing flared ‘apron’ kilts of Style 2, although the tomb owner wears a short kilt: Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 9. In Mrs-

anx III [40] on the south jamb of the entrance doorway, the figure of #mt-nw is depicted in a flared ‘apron’ kilt of mid calf length which has a double line protruding beyond the rear of the kilt. This is Style 4, which otherwise is not seen until the end of Dynasty 5. This kilt style depiction is the only one of its kind in the tomb of Mrs-anx III. According to Dunham and Simpson there are other indications that later additions have been made to the depictions in this tomb, suggesting that the tomb remained accessible to funerary ritual into the second half of Dynasty 5. This circumstance may also explain the completely atypical kilt style of #mt-nw: Dunham –Simpson (1974) 5, 7-8, pl. 2, fig. 3b. See also prosopographical entry for Nb.j-m-Axtj [49].

54 

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  (V.2-3) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

short, tight-fitting kilts of the officials of Dynasties III and IV were held at the waist by a horizontal buckle and stiff tag. This style is seen at Saqqara (@sjj-Ra [70])430 and in the L-shaped chapels of the Giza West Field necropolis. There were some variations to this style: MTn’s [43] overlapped kilts have only the stiff tag,431 #wfw-xa.f I [73] is shown wearing an unusual pleated flaring kilt that has both a stiff tag and a soft rounded knot at the waist,432 Mr-jb.j [34] is sometimes shown with a kilt fastened only by the horizontal buckle, as is Pr-sn [25] standing at the foot of the jambs of his false door.433 In Dynasty 4 the soft rounded knot at the waist belonged to the flared kilt. In Mrs-anx III [40], KA.j-wab [100] and Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] both have flared kilts with rounded knots at the waist, as does the painter, Ra-Hajj.434 The knot appears whether the flared kilt is shown with an ‘apron’ or plain and is occasionally depicted as a loop, as in #wfw-xa.f , Nb.j-m-Axtj and ^pss-kA.f-anx [95].435

CRITERION 4 Figure 4 FLARED KILT STYLE 4: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt protrude beyond the rear corner of the kilt, or appear to wrap around it. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] CRITERION 5 Figure 5 The ‘apron’ of the flared kilt is defined by a single inner line. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Mrs-anx III [40] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] CRITERION 6 Figures 6 (a) and (b) The short, tight fitting version called the Ra-Htp kilt by Cherpion. (IV.1) – (V.6-8) Nfr-mAat [56] to Mr-sw-anx [41]

By mid Dynasty 5 the horizontal buckle and stiff tag associated with short, kilts began to be omitted particularly for the seated figure, where it is partly obscured by the wearer’s arm. By the beginning of Dynasty 6 the horizontal buckle and stiff tag fastening was only depicted on the most ceremonial occasions and on the highest officials, such as anx-m-a-@r [15] wearing the Bat regalia or #ntj-kA.j [79] in the formal regalia of a vizier.436 3.1.6  

CRITERION 7 Figure 7 Horizontal buckle and stiff tag on waistband of short tight kilt. (III.2) – (VI.1L-.2) @sjj-Ra [70] to #ntj-kA.j [79]

Criteria based upon kilt styles 

CRITERION 1 Figures 1 (a) and (b) FLARED KILT STYLE 1: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt between the wearer’s legs. (IV.2-4) – (V.6L-8E) Nfr-mAat [55] to Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]

CRITERION 8 Figure 8 The seated tomb owner wearing a flared kilt. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Nj-kAw-Ra [48] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

CRITERION 2 Figures 2 (a) and (b) FLARED KILT STYLE 2: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt over the wearer’s rear leg. (V.2) – (V.9M)437 Pr-sn [25] to %nDm-jb:MHj [85]

3.2    

The following items (collar, pendant amulet and wig) are categorised here as ‘adornment’. However, it is recognised that their depiction may have a much more solemn significance such as indicating office or status or to provide protection for the wearer.

CRITERION 3 Figures 3 (a) and (b) FLARED KILT STYLE 3: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt at the lower rear corner of the garment. 430 431 432 433 434 435

436

437

Adornment of the tomb owner  CRITERIA 9 – 12 

3.2.1 

The beaded collar    Figures 9 and 10 

The beaded collar is shown worn by both men and women and was sometimes depicted on children. On a male, it was most frequently worn alone but occasionally teamed with a pendant amulet. Collars vary in pattern and colour but largely consist of threaded beads of semiprecious stones. The wsx collar is penannular with five longitudinal rows of beads and an outer border of drop beads. The Snw collar also consists of multiple rows of beads but lacks the lower border of drop beads and has four trapezoidal zones.438 Both styles provide a broad

Quibell (1913) pl. 29. LD II, 3, 4. Simpson (1978) fig. 27. LD II, 18, 19 and Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 9, respectively. Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 4, 12, 5. Simpson (1978) fig. 34, LD II, 13, Weeks (1994) pl. 56, respectively. Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pl. 44 and James (1953) pl. 16, respectively. A figure of the tomb owner wearing a STYLE 2 kilt appears at the foot of the false door of @sj [69] [Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) pls. 40, 42, 63] but is unlikely to be anything more than a careless piece of work as it is only one of eight figures.

438

55 

Brovarski (1997) 144.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   collar and it is not always possible to discern which style is depicted. Accordingly, for the purpose of establishing a dating criterion no distinction is made between the two styles.

3.2.2 

An amulet could be worn in two ways: either attached to a beaded cord that held the amulet to the neck or on a longer cord that allowed the amulet to hang halfway down the wearer’s chest (Figure 11). The beaded collar was not teamed with the amulet worn high at the neck, while the amulet that hung down the chest was usually worn with a collar. The two instances in Groups A and B of the amulet worn high at the neck are insufficient to support a dating criterion.445 The pendant amulet, however, is much better supported, from Mrs-anx III [40] to Mrjj-&tj [33]. The wearing of an amulet, whether high at the neck or halfway down the chest, has been adopted as a dating criterion.

These collars appear throughout the Old Kingdom in all scenes but are less frequently depicted from Dynasty 3 and the first half of Dynasty 4. No depiction of @sjj-Ra [70] wearing this collar survives and MTn [43] only wears it at the offering table, where it is teamed with a long robe.439 In Groups A and B, this is the only Dynasty 4 instance of the collar worn with the long robe at the offering table. No female is depicted wearing the collar until, at the earliest, the reign of Khafre (Mnw-Dd.f [31] and Mrs-anx III [40]).440 In Groups A and B, Mrs-anx III provides the first instance of the collar teamed with an animal skin worn by a female.

3.2.3 

In Dynasty 5, the wearing of the beaded collar becomes more frequent and is more often teamed with an animal skin. By Dynasty 6 the portrayal of the collar is almost universal. The only significant exceptions are the depiction of the tomb owner as an older figure wearing a long kilt, which often omits the collar, perhaps to suggest a retired figure in a relaxed pose.

440 441 442

443

444

Wigs   Figure 12 

Males and females are depicted wearing two basic wig styles: short and curly or shoulder length. Cherpion builds on the work of Fischer446 to divide the short wig worn by the male into three separate styles, each providing a dating criterion.447 Groups A and B of this study do not offer sufficient evidence for such finely distinguished features. However, they do support a dating criterion based on the longer, shoulder-length wig that exposes the male wearer’s ear.

While the individual conventions mentioned above for depicting the collar seem to be associated with a time factor, all of them actually span most of the Old Kingdom and therefore do not offer useful dating criteria. The most useful feature for dating purposes is the width of the collar, which broadened as the Old Kingdom progressed. Earliest depictions show the collar narrower than the breadth of the wearer’s arm.441 The collar first shows signs of widening for members of the royal family, such as the mother of Mrs-anx III [40], and #wfw-xa.f I [73].442 While the quantity of surviving depictions make the collar useful as a dating criterion, the gradual increase of the width of the collar makes it difficult to establish criteria from its width. Consequently, a distinction has been drawn between the outside edge of the collar, depicted as either above, or level with and lower than the wearer’s armpit. Throughout Dynasty 4 and the first half of Dynasty 5, the collar did not reach the wearer’s armpit.443 In Groups A and B the first instances of this greater depth occur in the reign of Neuserre and the last instance of the narrow version is seen in KA-gmnj:Mmj.444 In Dynasty 6, the collar tends to grow even broader and more splendid.

439

The amulet    Figure 11 

3.2.4 

Criteria based upon male adornment 

CRITERION 9 Figure 9 The narrow collar that does not reach as low as the wearer’s armpit. (IV.1-2) – (VI.1E-M) MTn [43] to KA-gm-nj:Mmj [111] CRITERION 10 Figure 10 The broad collar that reaches at least to the wearer’s armpit. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) Jj-mrjj [4] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] CRITERION 11 Figure 11 The amulet either pendant or worn at the neck. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2M) Mrs-anx III [40] to Mrjj-&tj [33] CRITERION 12 Figure 12 The shoulder-length wig that exposes the male wearer’s ear. (VI.1M-2E) – (VI.4E-M) anx-m-a-@r [15] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

LD II, 3. Respectively, LD II, 60 and Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 3b, 4, 7, 12. Nfr-MAat, LD II, 17a-c. Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 4, 7, and Simpson (1978) pl. 25, respectively. Using the armpit as a measurement of the breadth of the collar is merely a convenient yardstick. Harpur–Scremin (2006) figs. 11, 30.

445

446 447

56 

These are @sjj-Ra [70]: CG 1429, Quibell (1913) pl. 3 and MTn [42]: LD II, 3, 5, 6. Fischer (1959) 238-9. Cherpion (1989) 55-56.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  3.3   

was assumed by the lector priest with his professional skills in magic to make the deceased into an effective ‘Ax’.

The ‘animal skin’ garment  Criteria 13 – 24  

The animal skin worn as a garment, perhaps denoting a ‘sm’ priest, is here called either a leopard skin if portrayed with spots, or generically an ‘animal skin’. If two different kinds of skins (spotted leopard and the rare black leopard) are, in fact, portrayed in Old Kingdom tombs, no distinction is made in inscriptions to indicate this, only the presence or absence of spots, which does not affect the dating criteria drawn from the data. 3.3.1  

The significance of the depiction of a tomb owner wearing an animal skin in the Old Kingdom is obscure. Statistical analysis of instances sheds very little light. The animal skin appears to have been more frequently depicted in Dynasties 4 and 5 than in Dynasty 6. Apart from the long robe, in Dynasty 4, 15 out of 21 tombs and in Dynasty 5, 29 out of 42 tombs show the tomb owner wearing an animal skin. However, out of 29 tombs in all of Dynasty 6, the tomb owner is depicted wearing an animal skin in only 16 tomb chapels.

The long robe depicting an animal skin worn by  males and females   Figure 13 

By far the most frequent scene in Dynasties 4 and 5 in which the tomb owner wears the animal skin is at the offering table when in the second half of Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5, the animal’s pelt gradually takes the place of the long robe. The next most frequent scene in which the skin is worn is that of the family group. Apart from these two types of scenes (offering table and family group), the animal skin is occasionally worn by the tomb owner in presentation scenes, on a jamb of the false door, or facing priests who make ritual offerings and gestures.

The earliest possible indication in the Old Kingdom of an animal skin being worn is in the offering table scene. Here, the tomb owner sits at table wearing a long robe that leaves the near shoulder bare and is tied on the far shoulder by straps. In a number of instances, the garment is spotted to indicate that it is an animal skin (Figures 13 and 16). The pattern of spots does not always appear. In Groups A and B, apart from the animal face on the long robe in KA.j-nj-nswt I [102]448 where it is unusually depicted in profile against the wearer’s body, only the bare shoulder, shoulder straps (Figure 16) and occasional pattern of spots suggest that this robe was made out of animal skin or simulated a pelt and that it was a garment of particular distinction. 3.3.2  

Three wall scenes of the tombs of Groups A and B, show the animal skin worn in unusual instances. In Nswt-nfr [60]451 a row of seven standing male figures on the top register, probably sons, all wear the animal skin. A female, Mrs-anx III [40], wears the animal skin, possibly owing to her rank as queen.452 On one occasion a tomb owner wearing an animal skin ‘inspects’ work activities. This is the standing figure of Jj-mrjj [4] wearing a pelt as he faces registers of marsh activities.453

The animal skin worn over the kilt   Figures 14 and 15 

The animal skin showing the legs and tail is seen from the reign of Sneferu onwards, and in tombs of late Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5 the tomb owner may be depicted wearing either the long robe or the skin. After the Old Kingdom, the animal skin is associated with the duties of the ‘sm’ priest responsible for the ‘opening of the mouth’ ceremony. Old Kingdom tombs do not have depictions of this scene and the duties of the ‘sm’ in the Old Kingdom are not clear. Wilson notes that the title ‘sm’ appears in the Old Kingdom, but that the ‘sm’ priest is not depicted in the funerary ritual of that time. His opinion was that first the ‘wt’ priest, and then in Dynasty 5 the lector priest, occupied the prominent role in Old Kingdom funerary ritual that the ‘sm’ priest assumed in the Middle Kingdom and later.449 Scenes in Mrrw-kA.j [38], anx-m-a-@r [15], Jdw [14], Jbj [6] and +aw [114] for example, show the funeral procession to the tomb, but no ‘sm’ priest. The depiction of funeral scenes in the Old Kingdom concentrated more on the journey by land and water to the tomb than on the rites at the tomb. Evidence from Dynasty 4 suggests that the ‘wt’ (embalmer) priest carried out the rite of giving speech to a statue rather than to the body of the deceased.450 In Dynasty 5, this function

STYLE 1: The animal skin, rear paws hanging down, worn over a kilt (Figure 14) Features of the animal skin vary over time. The long robe, fastened on one shoulder and reaching the wearer’s ankles, which may be made of animal skins, is not seen after early Dynasty 5. When the actual animal skin is worn, it is depicted in two basic styles. The earlier STYLE 1, which shows the paws, tail and sometimes the face of the animal, leaves the near shoulder of the wearer bare but is bound by a tie on the far shoulder. The tail of the animal appears to wrap around the wearer’s waist from the rear and curve over his hip to hang centrally down his body reaching below the hem of the kilt. The narrow lower paws also hang down, usually one behind the wearer’s rear leg and the other between his legs, often partly obscured by the tail. If shown, the animal face is situated on the wearer’s hip. The style is usually worn with a short, tight-fitting kilt and is mainly seen in tombs dated to Dynasty 4 and the first half of Dynasty 5.454

451 448

449 450

452

Junker II (1934) fig. 16. In this tomb all depictions of the animal skin show the animal’s face in profile. Wilson (1944) 205. _bHnj [113] LD II, 35.

453 454

57 

Junker III (1938) fig. 28; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 52. Dunham–Simpson (1974) pl. 20d, fig. 7. LD Erg., IV; Weeks (1994) fig 40. In a notable exception, the portly figure of #wfw-Xa.f I [73] wearing a leopard skin over a flaring striped kilt. Simpson (1978) fig. 7.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   exceptionally large face depicted in profile against the wearer’s body just above his waist. This feature also appears on KA.j-nj-nswt I’s seated figure wearing a long robe.460 While the changes in the position of the animal’s face have a clear chronological aspect, the number of instances supporting these criteria is limited.

The, portrayals in the tomb of Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] consistently show the standing tomb owners wearing an animal skin that appears to be in Style 1 but with the transitional feature of a paw with claws on the shoulder. In three depictions of the seated figure wearing a skin, the right-facing figure has the animal’s tail crossing the wearer’s lap from back to front and then hanging down over his thigh.455 Pr-nb [23] also portrays this style,456 which suggests that it may have continued into the reign of Djedkare.

3.3.3  

CRITERION 13 Figure 13 The long robe with a neckline that leaves one shoulder bare, perhaps simulating animal skin worn by men and women. (III.2) – (V.2-3) @sjj-Ra [70] to Wxm-kA.j [21]

STYLE 2: The animal skin worn over a kilt is reversed (Figure 15) The major style change (STYLE 2) in the wearing of the animal skin occurred in mid to late Dynasty 5, when the method of draping the skin across the wearer’s body was reversed. This new style brought the paw of the animal up to the left shoulder near the tie, and the face of the animal to waist height or above. On the standing figure, either the rear paws were now shown one against each of the wearer’s legs with the tail hanging down between them or with one rear leg of the animal apparently behind the wearer’s body. The paw on the shoulder appeared frequently for the remainder of the Old Kingdom. The position of the animal head in this style, originally at waist height, tended to rise to chest height as Dynasty 6 progressed. Also when the skin was reversed bringing the paw over the wearer’s shoulder, the lower paws tended to lose their natural shape. They either became very broad and rounded protuberances with a few defining claws or, conversely, sharpened into an angled corner without a full set of claws (Figures 15, 16 and 17).

CRITERION 14 Figure 14 STYLE I of the animal skin. The narrow lower paws hang down behind the wearer with the tail of the animal appearing to wrap around the wearer’s waist. (IV.1-2) – (V.6) MTn [43] to !wfw-ha.f [74] CRITERION 15 Figure 15 STYLE 2 of the animal skin reverses the way the skin is draped over the wearer. The paw of the animal is brought up to the left shoulder near the tie, and the face of the animal to waist height or above. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.4E-M) Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

The diagonal top line of the animal skin appears to be edged by one or two strips of material which are depicted as one, two, three or four parallel lines. The single band, shown as one or two lines (Figure 14), was the earlier version, although in Groups A and B it is seen for the last time in an unclear depiction in the tomb of Mrrj [36].457 The later version indicating two strips of material is mainly a feature of Dynasty 6 (Figures 15 and 16).

CRITERION 16 Figure 14 The diagonal top line of the animal skin appears to be bound by one strip of material, depicted as one or two parallel lines. (III.2) – VI.2) @sjj-Ra [70] to Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx:Nxbw [32] CRITERION 17 Figure 15 The diagonal top line of the animal skin appears to be bound by two or more strips of material, depicted as three or four parallel lines. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nj nswt I [102] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

The skin could be worn either with a close, tight-fitting kilt or with a flared kilt. The tight-fitting kilt is the earlier combination but the flared kilt and skin is seen from #wfw-xa.f I [73] onwards.458 An earlier depiction on NfrmAat [55] is not particularly clear.459 A further style change occurred when the belt of the kilt, always seen beneath the skin jn the earliest portrayals, is sometimes depicted over the animal skin from early Dynasty 5 on.

CRITERION 18 Figure 15 When the animal skin was reversed, the lower paws began to broaden tending to lose their natural shape. They either became very broad and rounded with a few defining claws or, conversely, sharpened into an angled corner without claws. (V.7-8) – (VI.4E-M) NTr-wsr [61] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

The final feature to provide dating criteria is the position of the animal face, which as the Old Kingdom progressed, gradually travelled up the body of the wearer from lower hip to chest level (Figures 14, 15 and 17). An unusual occurrence in KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] shows the standing tomb owner wearing an animal skin with an 455 456 457 458 459

Criteria based upon the animal skin 

Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pls 29, 32, 39; Lashien (2013) pls. 84, 85. Hayes I (1990) fig. 52. Davies et al (1984) pl. 7. Simpson (1978) fig. 27 LD II, 17a.

460

58 

Junker II (1934) figs. 16, 18. The short animal skin has a number of unusual features and the deceased is portrayed holding the animal’s tail in a ritual gesture.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  CRITERION 19 Figure 16 The animal skin is worn over a tight kilt. (IV.1-2) – (VI.4E-M) MTn [43] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

It is likely that the portrayal of the deceased or his kA at a ritual meal was intended to provide, through the magic of depiction, the sustenance needed for continued existence of the kA in the after-life. In time, the ritual meal was combined with the performance of priestly rituals that culminated in the deceased becoming an ‘Ax’, a transformed, effective spirit, adding to the scene’s significance.

CRITERION 20 Figure 15 The animal skin is worn over a flared kilt. (IV.2-4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr-mAat [55] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

While the portrayal of the tomb owner at table did not change significantly in the Old Kingdom, there were accretions and modifications to the associated iconography and epigraphy. Lists of necessities and luxuries were modified or added to. The scene was expanded to include priests performing pre-prandial rites, piles of food offerings, family members, pet animals and treasured possessions. The posture and dress of the deceased shows changes as do the styles of associated furniture.

CRITERION 21 Figure 15 A belt is depicted over the animal skin. (V.2-3) – VI.2L-4E) Wxm-kA.j [21] to Wr-nww [20] CRITERION 22 Figure 14 The animal’s face appears on the pelt below the level of the wearer’s waist (IV.4-6)461 – (VI.1M) #wfw-xa.f I [73] to Nj-kAw-Jssj [47]

The survival of the scene in so many chapels, together with its modifications, makes it particularly valuable in providing dating criteria. It offers the least broken record over time of any theme, permitting the appearance and disappearance of features and modifications to be tracked with some accuracy. Certain changes to the scene may have been the result of the borrowing of symbols of royal status and power. It is likely that these were first depicted in the chapels of members of the royal family and the most powerful or favoured officials. For example, while the chair leg in the shape of a lion’s leg and paw did not become a commonplace depiction in officials’ tombs until Dynasty 6, it is seen earlier on the chairs of a select few royal figures and officials in Dynasty 4.463 Other changes appear to have been a consequence of the sculptor’s need of space for additional features. The inclusion of a ewer and basin, racks of jars and even human and animal figures beneath the offering table may account for the displacement of the basic ‘xA’ offering list from its original position beneath the offering table to the side of the table or above it.

CRITERION 23 Figure 17 The animal’s face appears on the pelt at the level of the wearer’s waist. (V.6L-8E) – (V.9M) Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] to %nDm-j:MHj [85] CRITERION 24 Figure 15 The animal’s face on the pelt appears above the wearer’s waist level. (VI.1E-M)462 – (VI.4E-M) KA-gm-nj [111] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] 3.4   

Tomb owner at the offering table  CRITERIA 25 – 30  

The short-lived appearance of some features may indicate experiments in style at a time when the pattern of depiction had not yet been settled, or the abandonment of such an experiment. These changes, which mainly belong to Dynasty 5, such as the tomb owner seated at the offering table wearing a flared kilt and the tomb owner holding a piece of cloth to his breast, have only limited support no doubt due to the brief existence of the feature.464 Certain amendments, such as the tomb owner seated at the offering table receiving a proffered lotus rather than stretching out his hand to the bread on the table,465 appear to be the result of a fusion or confusion of themes,466 as the acceptance of a lotus by the tomb

The offering table scene is the most consistently depicted theme in Old Kingdom tomb chapels. It also has a high survival rate compared to other scenes as it is usually located deep within the chapel, on and close to the false door. The depictions of the phases of agricultural, marsh or manufacturing activities vary from tomb to tomb and scenes are never repeated in the same chapel. Sometimes scenes combine phases of an activity or an activity is omitted. The offering table, on the other hand, appears on early dynastic stelae and on false door panels throughout the Old Kingdom and is often repeated on some other part of the chapel wall. The offering table scene was clearly the essential inclusion in the funerary pictorial repertoire.

463

461

462

464

This date omits the instance of MTn [43] who appears to have a belt over his long robe. LD II, 3. KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] (IV.4-6) has a depiction with a number of unusual features including the animal’s face in profile. Otherwise, this feature does not occur in Groups A and B until KA-gmnj [111].

465

466

59 

The offering table scene on the panel of the false door of MTn [43] LD II, 3. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 4. In this study the word ‘bread’ will be used to denote all the upright offerings on the table, whether they are shaped as half loaves or reeds, unless there is reason to refer specifically to reeds. Brunner-Traut (1977) cover page.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   The animal skin worn at the offering table The animal skin worn at the offering table is very much a feature of the first half of Dynasty 5, but it appears in this scene at other times in the Old Kingdom. The tomb owner depicted wearing an animal skin at table, therefore, does not provide a dating criterion, as INSET I indicates:

owner, usually from a son, is a theme established in Dynasty 5 for inclusion in the banquet scene. Some of the innovations introduced in Dynasty 5 became established. The unguent jar held to the face and the folded strip of cloth held in a hand, occasional features in Dynasty 5, became common depictions in Dynasty 6. As the Old Kingdom progressed, modifications made the offering table scene more complex. By the reign of Pepy II, the scene often included the tomb owner’s family, pet animals, ewer and basin set(s), racks of jars and caskets containing possessions of value such as hand mirrors. The ‘spelling out’ of the ritual ceremony by a row of priests performing the rites of glorification (Figure 48), as well as the large canonical list of offerings above the table (Figure 31) further expanded the scene. Sometimes a wife or a second male figure is depicted seated at the opposite side of the offering table.467 3.4.1  

INSET I Date

6

11

7

Dyn. V.1-6

5

26

20

11

62

Dress of the male at the offering table 

Dyn. V.7-9

-

15

8

2

25

57

2

INSET II

Long wig

8

3

Teamed with a short tight kilt

19

19

Teamed with tight kilt and panther skin

15

19

Teamed with a flared kilt Total 96

5

8

47

49

However, preference for being depicted wearing a long wig at table grew over time, as INSET III indicates. INSET III

Preference for short or long wig Short

Long

Early Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5: the short wig more popular

34

17

In mid Dynasty 5: the trend reversed

12

33

8

46

54

96

In Dynasty 6: the long wig was overwhelmingly preferred Total

Although a trend in the type of wig worn at the offering table may be seen, this feature’s appearance in Groups A and B offers no dating criterion except for the long wig that exposes the ear. This criterion is included in the study of male dress. 3.4.2  

470

59

Wig Worn at the offering table Short/no wig

Teamed with a long robe

The depiction of the tomb owner wearing a flared kilt at the offering table (Figure 19) is reserved to Dynasty 5. It appears to have been an experiment that did not survive into Dynasty 6.

469

24

Choice of wig for the offering table scene The choice of depicting the tomb owner wearing a short or long wig at the offering table does not show any marked preference until Dynasty 6. As INSET II suggests, of the 96 depictions in Groups A and B in Dynasties 4 and 5, the short wig is worn on 47 occasions and the long wig on 49.

The style of kilt worn at the offering table From the second half of Dynasty 4 onwards, the tomb owner at table is increasingly depicted wearing a short tight kilt (Figure 18), sometimes partly striped and sometimes in combination with a short leopard or panther skin fastened at the far shoulder. By Dynasty 6 the custom was firmly established that at the offering table the tomb owner should be depicted wearing this short kilt.

468

Total

Dyn. IV

Dyn. VI

The long robe worn at the offering table (Figure 13) Until mid Dynasty 4 the tomb owner at table is usually shown wearing a long robe, which reaches almost to the ankles, leaves the near shoulder bare and is fastened on the far shoulder by ties. The robe is sometimes decorated with spots suggesting a leopard skin.468 In Groups A and B this garment is seen on slab stelae, the panels of the false doors and on chapel walls.469 In the L-shaped chapels of the Giza West Field the long robe continued into the beginning of Dynasty 5. Occasionally, in the later chapels of this type, when there is more than one table scene the tomb owner is depicted sometimes wearing the long robe in one table scene and the short garment in another.470

467

Male dress at the offering table Long Short Animal Flared robe robe skin kilt

Posture of the male seated at the offering table 

Deceased holding a cloth at the offering table (Figures 18, 19 and 20) A single or folded strip of cloth is sometimes shown in the hand of the tomb owner or other major figure in Dynasty 4. In Groups A and B the tomb owner seated at the offering table gripping a folded cloth first appears in the tomb of Pr-sn [25] in early Dynasty 5.471 In this scene, the tomb owner, seated to the right of the table and

The offering table scene of Ppjj-anx-Hrj-jb is a good example. Blackman Meir VI (1924) pl. 12. It is not possible to tell whether a skin is leopard or a plain panther skin. Consequently, in this study it will be referred to as an ‘animal skin’ unless there is need to been a plain panther skin. In Groups A and B the long robe is exclusive to the tomb owner seated at the offering table but this is not always the case. See ElKhouli–Kanawati (1990) pl. 49 (c). Consequently, it is included as two separate criteria. See CRITERION 13. WHm-kA.j: Kayser (1964) p. 25 (upper top right) and p. 32; and KA.jnj-nswt I: Junker II (1934) figs 15 and 18.

471

60 

Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 10.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  mid to late Dynasty 5 the posture of the right facing figure sometimes adopts new actions for the left hand, supporting the idea that this was a time of innovation. For example, $nmw-Htp [44] is depicted holding a lotus to his face with his left hand,478 PtH-Htp (II):*fj [27] is shown holding a jar of unguent to his nose479 also with his left hand, while the portrayal of the left hand holding a piece of cloth appears more frequently. However, the rightfacing figure with the near hand stretched out to bread and the far hand clenched to the breast continued throughout the Old Kingdom.

facing left, holds a folded strip of cloth in his near hand, which is held above his knee. This scene of Pr-sn is followed in the first half of Dynasty 5 by variations in the posture of the figure holding the folded strip of cloth at the offering table. In a table scene located on a lintel, WAS-PtH:Jsj [17], seated to the left of the table and facing right, holds a folded cloth in his near hand over his knee and reaches to the bread of the table with his far hand, as does Jtjj [13].472 #wfw-xa.f II [74]473, seated to the left of the table and facing right, shows even greater innovation; he holds a cloth in his near hand while receiving a lotus from his young son in his far hand. This is one of the few instances where the figure seated at the offering table does not reach for the bread/reeds with either hand. By the second half of Dynasty 5 a pattern had been established for the folded cloth held by the tomb owner at table: for the left facing figure, the cloth was held in the near hand over the seated tomb owner’s thigh or knee: for the figure facing right, the cloth was shown held at the breast in the far hand. Thus, the figure at table was always seen to be reaching to the bread with the right hand. At the same time, it was possible to avoid the artistic awkwardness of superimposing the lines of the near arm over those of the further arm.

Deceased holding bAS flask to nose (Figure 21) The folded cloth held in the hand was probably a symbol of status or official position rather than of ritual, for it occurs in a variety of scenes. On the other hand, the bAS flask held to the nose was probably a pose with ritualistic import, although it is occasionally depicted in scenes other than that of the offering table.480 Held to the nose by the far hand of right facing figures, it was also a solution to the artistic problem of superimposed arms. Indeed, in Groups A and B there is only one exception, that of %SsSt:Jdwt [93] facing left before an offering table and reaching to the bread with her far arm, over which is superimposed a bent near arm that holds a flask to her nose.481 %SsSt:Jdwt is dated from the reign of Unis to that of Teti.

Seated to the right of the offering table, left-facing figures are depicted in a variety of postures. The most common pose in Dynasties 4 and 5 has the near hand resting on or just above the knee while the far hand reaches out to the bread (Figure 20). In Dynasty 5 new actions were sometimes given to the near (left) hand of the left facing figure. The near hand of Pr-sn [25]474 holds a cloth over the tomb owner’s knee and that of KA.j-nfr [106] holds a flywhisk.475 Ni-anx-$nmw [44] twice rests his near arm on the arm of his high-backed chair and $nmw-Htp476 holds a lotus over his knee. All these postures avoid the near arm overlapping the far arm.

3.4.3  

CRITERION 25 Figure 13 The tomb owner at the offering table wears the long robe. (III.2) – (V.2-3) @sjj-Ra [70] to WHm-kA.j [21] CRITERION 26 Figure 18 The tomb owner at the offering table wears the short, tight fitting kilt, with or without an animal skin. (IV.4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr [52] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

In the predominant offering table scene the tomb owner, seated to the left of the offering table, faces to the viewer’s right. The customary posture associated with this orientation is for the near hand to be stretched out to the bread on the table and the far hand to be brought up to the breast, perhaps clutching a strap hanging down from the far shoulder. This posture was established by early Dynasty 4.477

CRITERION 27 Figure 19 The tomb owner at the offering table wears the flared kilt. (V.2) – (V.8) Pr-sn [25] to #ww-wr [71]

While the far hand of these right-facing figures shows some variety of gestures, all poses avoid the need to depict the right arm overlapping the left as it stretched out to the table. In Dynasty 4, this was usually achieved by bringing the clenched left (far) hand to the breast. From 472 473 474 475 476 477

Criteria based upon the tomb owner at the  offering table  

CRITERION 28 Figure 20 The left facing tomb owner at the offering table holds a cloth in the near hand over the knee. (V.2) – (VI.4E-M) Pr-sn [25] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

WAS-PtH:Jsj: Mariette (1889) 270; Jtjj: LD II, 59a. Simpson (1978) fig. 49. Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 10. Reisner (1942) 439 fig. 259. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 4, 20, 25. @sjj-Ra: Quibell (1913) pl. 29; Ra-Htp: Petrie (1982) pl. 15; MTn: LD II, 3.

478 479 480

481

61 

Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig.20. Paget et al. (1898) pl. 38. Mrrw-kA.j [38] facing offering bearers: Duell II (1938) pl. 117; Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 108. Macramallah (1935) pl. 15; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) pl. 67.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   CRITERION 29 Figure 19 The right facing tomb owner at the offering table holds a cloth to his breast in the far hand. (V.6L-8E) – (VI.3-4E) Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] to Jbj [6]

difference appears to depend on the location of the scene within the chapel rather than on date. See INSET IV. The height of the reeds in relation to the tomb owner’s head therefore does not prove a dating criterion. The final category is that of the offerings on the table, presumably reeds, shown only in outline. In Groups A and B this characteristic only appears in two provincial chapels, those of Jbj [6] and +aw [114],484 both dated to the reign of Pepy II.

CRITERION 30 Figure 21 The figure seated at the offering table holds a bAS flask to the nose. (V.9) – (VI.4E-M) PtH-Htp (II):*fj [27] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

INSET IV Location of Scene

3.5    

482

Bread and reeds on offering table   CRITERIA 31 – 38 

Height of half loaves 

For the first category the length of the half loaves, from tip to table surface, is less than the length of the tomb owner’s upper arm, measured from tip of elbow to top of shoulder. This usually results in the loaves being depicted no higher than the tomb owner’s bent elbow. Some of these depictions indicate that the product was baked in a bDA mould (Figure 22). The second category consists of half loaves, probably baked in an aprt mould. Their length, from tip of loaf to table surface, is equal to or greater than the length of the tomb owner’s upper arm measured from tip of elbow to top of shoulder. These half loaves are depicted reaching above the tomb owner’s bent elbow. This category is first seen in later Dynasty 4 but is predominantly a Dynasty 5 feature (Figure 23).

Reeds on the offering table  

483

17

25

7

3.5.3  

In chapels of Groups A and B true reeds, the fourth category of offerings on the table, do not appear until Dynasty 6 (Figures 25, 28, 29). While the height of the reeds varies from below the level of the shoulder of the seated tomb owner to above his head, the height 482

6

Elsewhere in chapel

Number of half loaves and reeds on the offering table The number of half loaves depicted on the offering table varies in Groups A and B from as few as 8 to as many as 27. The number increases over time. The average number in Groups A and B for Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5 is 10.9 but rises to 16.9 in Dynasty 6. There is, however, no pattern to provide dating criteria as there are occasional early instances of tables with a large number of half loaves and late instances of tables with few reeds.488

The third category, also a Dynasty 5 feature, represents what appears be the transitional phase between the depiction of half loaves and that of reeds. The bottom part of the ‘half loaf’ narrows somewhat suggesting the outline of the stalk of a reed, but does not yet portray a clearly defined stalk (Figure 24). 3.5.2 

Panel of false door

Significance of the change from half loaves to reeds The changing shape of the offerings from half loaves to reeds has been variously interpreted. Selim Hassan believed that the change was essentially a misinterpretation by craftsmen of the later Old Kingdom.485 Recent Egyptologists reject this view. Cherpion, for example, argues that the change from half loaves to reeds represents a change of symbolism.486 She sees the progressive elongation of the half loaves as stages in the transformation of bread to reeds, brought about by changing views about the afterlife. Barta thinks that the introduction of loaves baked in the aprt mould brought about the lengthening and straightening of the bread shapes.487 This lengthening allowed the shapes to be turned into reeds, thus giving symbolic expression to another, already existing hope for an afterlife in the ‘Field of Reeds’. While the ‘half-loaves’ do show a significant lengthening from early in Dynasty 5 onwards, it is doubtful whether there is sufficient evidence to settle the argument whether or not later Old Kingdom officials altered the height and shape of the items on their offering tables because they came to believe they had an afterlife in the ‘Field of Reeds’.

Shape and size of half loaves and reeds The categories of bread and reeds are based on the major changes in the shape and length of the upright forms on the offering table. While the principle of measuring the height of the half loaves in relation to the seated tomb owner established by Cherpion has been followed,483 different bread heights have been used here to reduce the number of heights for the half loaves and reeds used as criteria. 3.5.1  

Height of reeds in relation to Tomb owner in Dynasty 6 to shoulder height above shoulder height

Orientation of half loaves and reeds  

The other aspect of the half loaves and reeds used for dating criteria is their orientation. The straight vertical edges of the half loaves may all face towards the tomb 484

485

For convenience and ease of reading, the tall shapes on the offering table will be referred to as ‘bread’ regardless of shape, unless it is necessary to refer specifically to ‘reeds’. Cherpion (1989) 42-49.

486 487 488

62 

Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pl. 19 and Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 9 respectively. Hassan V (1944) 170-72. Cherpion (1989) 45, note 60. Bárta (1995) 31-5. Mr-jb.j [34] has 16 half loaves, LD II, 19.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  (III.2) – (V.8L-9) @sjj-Ra [70] to JAsn [3]

owner or may all face away from him. The half loaves arranged around a central axis may have some or all of their straight vertical edges pointing towards the centre (Figure 26), or they may point outward (Figure 23). For reeds arranged around a central axis, the straight edges of the ‘blades’ incorporating the ‘stem’ may point inward (Figure 28) or the straight edges of the ‘blades’ may point outward489 (Figure 29). In Dynasty 4, most offerings of half loaves are grouped around a central axis with their straight edges facing inward. There are only two exceptions. In the chapel of Mrs-anX III [40] the straight edges of the bread face the seated tomb owner whether she sits to the left or the right of the offering table.490 In the panel scene of the northern false door of Mr-jb.j [34] the straight edges of the half loaves all face away from the tomb owner.491 The arrangement of the straight edges of the half loaves facing inward around a central axis remained the most frequent depiction for bread offerings in Dynasty 5.

CRITERION 32 Figure 23 HALF LOAVES HEIGHT 2: The height of half loaves is equal to or greater than the length of the tomb owner’s upper arm measured from tip of elbow to top of shoulder. (IV.4-5) – (VI.2) _wA.n-@r [112] to Qrrj [98] CRITERION 33 Figure 24 A transitional phase occurs between the depiction of half loaves and that of reeds where the indentation at the bottom of the half loaf is slight (V.6) – (V.9-VI.1) #wfw-xa.f II [74] to %SsSt:Jdwt [93] CRITERION 34 Figure 25 True reeds are depicted with a clearly defined short stalk. (V.9) – (VI.4E-M) Nbt [50] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

When the upright shapes on the table begin to take on the appearance of reeds, the overwhelming preference is to show the straight edges of the blades arranged around a central axis, facing inward. Sometimes, as in %Sm-nfr I [90], the axis is not centred.492 The first depiction of half loaves arranged in pairs occurs in Pr-sn [25].493 Both variations appear to be experiments, which were not carried into Dynasty 6.

CRITERION 35 Figure 26 HALF LOAVES ORIENTATION 1: The half loaves are arranged around a central axis with their straight edges facing inward. (III.2) – (VI.2E-L) @sjj-Ra [70] to Ra-wr [63]

In Dynasty 6 the overwhelming representation of the forms on the offering table is as reeds frequently arranged around a central axis with the straight edges of the blades facing inward and in eight scenes with their straight edges facing outward. Only Qrrj [98] of El Hawawish (VI.2) departs from the depiction of reeds to present what may be intended as half loaves of bread.494

CRITERION 36 Figure 27 HALF LOAVES ORIENTATION 2: The half loaves are arranged around an axis with their straight edges facing outward. (V.2-3) – (V.8) %Sm-nfr I [90]496 to %Sm-nfr III [92] or {VI.2 Qrrj [98]}

A particularly unusual portrayal of reeds on the offering table was a feature of the Deir el-Gebrawi tombs of Jbj [6] and his son and grandson, +aw - +aw:^mAj [114]. In these tombs only the outline of the reeds is drawn. The few other tombs with this feature, identified by Cherpion but not included in Groups A and B, all date to Dynasty 6.495 3.5.4  

CRITERION 37 Figure 28 REEDS ORIENTATION I: The reeds (or forms in transition to becoming reeds) are arranged around a central axis with their straight edges facing inwards. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) #wfw-xa.f II [74] to Nbt [51]

Criteria based upon bread and reeds on the  offering table 

CRITERION 31 Figure 22 HALF LOAVES HEIGHT 1: the height of half loaves is less than the length of the tomb owner’s upper arm, measured from tip of elbow to top of shoulder. 489

490 491 492

493 494 495

CRITERION 38 Figure 29 REEDS ORIENTATION II: Reeds (or forms in transition to becoming reeds) are arranged around a central axis with their straight edges facing outwards. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Although the orientation of reeds is the same as that for half loaves, they are treated as separate criteria because the depiction of reeds on the table follows chronologically the depiction of half loaves. Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 7 and 9. LD II, 19. The tomb owner faces his wife across the offering table. The half loaves are arranged so that the straight edges of the larger number face the tomb owner and the straight edges of a smaller number face the wife. LD II, 27. Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 10. Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 32a. Cherpion (1989) Critère 21, pp. 49, 171, fig. 33

142

63 

Only the outer two half loaves have their straight edges facing outward. The inner half loaves are arranged in pairs. Kanawati Giza I (2001) pls. 23, 47.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   3.6    

items (numbers 60 and following) appear on the south wall of the chapel.504

Lists and offerings associated with table  CRITERIA 39 – 50  

The next steps in establishing the canonical list appear in Mrs-anx III [40], _bHnj [113], Nj-kAw-Ra [48] and %xmkA.Ra [86], whose lists are organised into compartments.505 In Dynasty 5 the inclusion of the canonical list of offerings seems to have occurred later and more slowly in the tombs of non-royal officials in both Giza and Saqqara. In the Giza West Field, WHm-kA.j [21], %SAtHtp:!tj [88] and KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] have non-canonical lists of over 70 items on their south walls.506 KA.j-nfr [106] has only 24 items on his east wall list, although they are in compartments.507 For non-royal officials, the true canonical list emerges first in the chapel of %Sm-nfr I [90]508 and appears in full form, compartmentalised, on the south wall of KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110].509

Lists of offerings were subject to considerable changes of composition, position and representation as the Old Kingdom progressed.497 Together with the general trend to increase the variety of supplies listed or depicted in the offering table scene, there was also a marked increase in the variety of containers, bowls, jars, vases and flasks which were depicted. In the first half of Dynasty 4, offering table scenes in Groups A and B are on false door panels and slab stelae. Their offering lists consist of three main groupings. 3.6.1  

The offering lists   

The linen list (Figure 30) An organised linen list, sometimes ending in a list of animals and fowl, is often located on the opposite side of the offering table to the tomb owner. This list of linens of varying qualities is essentially a Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5 feature.

At Saqqara, the canonical list appears for the first time on the false door architrave of WAS-PtH:Jsj [17].510 The canonical list may have taken longer to establish itself away from the false door at Saqqara. This impression, however, may simply be due to lack of data for Groups A and B for, by mid Dynasty 5, Nfr and KA-HA.j [53], not officials of the highest rank, have a canonical list on the south wall of their chapel.511 Unfortunately, the early evidence at Saqqara from Groups A and B is very scant.

Offering lists of food, drink, clothes and articles of use In the earliest scenes a general-purpose list of foods and drinks appears above the loaves of bread on the offering table and in the space between the offering table and the compartmentalised linen list. A further basic list of items each described as xA is usually located beneath the table (Figure 34). While this xA list tends to consist of some or all of a small group of basic items, the general (noncanonical) list varies greatly from one monument to another. MTn [43] and Ra-Htp [66],498 for example, have 74 items between them, but only 15 in common. Nfr [52]499 emphasises food and drink while MTn [43]500 and Ra-Htp [66]501 pay more attention to clothing and furniture. These differences suggest that individual choice played an important part in the composition of the offering lists.

3.6.2  

1. Depiction of foods on registers (Figure 32) With the appearance of the great canonical offering list, the older ideographic lists, which were usually situated above or to the side of the offering table, gradually disappeared and a new, pictorial style of listing offerings emerged in the table scene. The pictorial displays of food and drink were either in an orderly fashion on registers reminiscent of the banquet scenes or a piled jumble of foods and containers beneath and beyond the offering table. In Groups A and B, the first instance is in the offering table scene of WHm-kA.j [21] on the south wall of the chapel.512 Here, three registers of assorted breads and other foods are arranged in neat rows next to the offering table. Depictions of food offerings also occur in WASPtH:Jsj [17]; in his false door panel scene two registers of food and drink offerings are depicted immediately above the half loaves on the offering table.513

The canonical offering list (Figure 31) In the second half of Dynasty 4 the tombs of members of the royal family in the East Field of the Giza necropolis begin to show major offering lists, which were probably the immediate predecessors of the great, compartmentalised lists of Dynasties 5 and 6.502 In the chapel of #wfw-xa.f I [73] provides one of the first examples of the new list, although it is not divided into compartments. The list is in two parts, on the panel of the false door and on the south wall of the chapel, but the items mainly follow the order described by Barta. In #wfw-xa.f I’s [73] chapel the first items of the canonical list appear on the panel,503 and the later

2. Jumbled piles of food offerings (Figure 33) The depiction of food offerings in jumbled piles also provides a dating criterion. Usually located on the 504 505

497

498

499 500 501 502 503

The pictorial display of food  

506

The order and chronological introduction of what is termed the ‘canonical’ list has been investigated by Barta (1963) passim. LD II, 3 and Petrie (1892) pl. 12 respectively. See also Hassan V (1944) 103-106. Reisner (1942) fig. 241 LD II 3 Petrie (1892) pl. 12 Barta (1963) 47-88. Simpson (1978) fig. 31.

507 508 509 510 511 512 513

64 

Simpson (1978) fig. 32; Barta (1963) 47-50. Respectively, Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 9; LD II 35; LD Erg. pl. 35; LD II, 42c. See also Hassan IV (1943) fig. 63. Kayser (1964) 32; Junker II (1934) 184, fig. 33; and pl. 10, fig. 21 respectively. Reisner (1942) fig. 260. LD II, 28. Junker III (1938) fig. 17, p. 135. Mariette (1889) 268-9. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 26. Kayser (1964) 32. Mariette (1889) 269.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  In Dynasty 6, until the reign of Pepy II, the xA list is frequently distributed beneath, above and to the side of the table. In Groups A and B, the xA list is not seen at all beneath the offering table in chapels securely dated to Pepy II. While the distribution of the xA list provides dating criteria, it is doubtful whether this absence can be used as a further dating criterion for the list is sometimes absent in earlier scenes.523

opposite side of the offering table to the seated tomb owner, and sometimes above or beneath the table, the assorted foods are shown in bowls and on platters or are simply piled on top of each other, suggesting a varied and plentiful diet for the deceased. Intermingled with the foods are vases of drinks or oils. The first instance of the jumbled piles of offerings may be in the offering table scene of Pr-sn [25] in early Dynasty 5,514 but the depiction has suffered too much damage for certainty. The first clear occurrences in Groups A and B are seen in KA.j-nj-nswt II [103], #wfw-xa.f II [74] and Ni-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44].515 The piles of foods continued to be a popular feature in Memphite and provincial chapel scenes to the reign of Pepy II.516

3. dbHt-Htp (‘food requirements’) (Figure 36) From late Dynasty 5 onwards, the custom appears of adding the phrase ‘dbHt-Htp’ usually to the xA list beneath the offering table. The first instances in Groups A and B are in the offering table scenes on the north and south walls of Ax.t-Htp [1].524 The last occurrence in Groups A and B is in the tomb of $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]. It thus offers a dating criterion for the period V.8-9 to VI.4E-M.

3. Piled foods on the offering table The scene of the tomb owner seated at a table on which are arranged uncut loaves of bread and other foods is confined to a small number of Dynasty 5 and early Dynasty 6 tombs such as that of KA.j-nfr [106],517 and again much later of QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]518. This may be considered insufficient data to provide a reliable dating criterion.

3.6.4    Ewer and basin   The provision of ewer and basin to provide libations for a ritual cleansing was clearly an important preparation for the funerary meal. Varying shapes of ewer and basin, always portrayed close to the deceased, are depicted in the chapels of Groups A and B in both the offering table and banquet scenes. These may be divided into two main groupings according to shape. The earlier style is most clearly shown on the panel of Ra-Htp’s [66] false door and on the stela of Jwnw [5].525 The spouted jar stands tall in the basin, in some cases suggesting that it is at least twice the height of the basin. Its sides begin to narrow well above the top of the basin. This style of ewer and basin is invariably seen in chapel scenes from @sjj-Ra [70]526 to _bHnj [113],527 and frequently to mid Dynasty 5 (Figure 37).

3.6.3    The xA list      1. The xA list beneath the offering table (Figure 34) A basic ideographic list, associated with signs for ‘thousand’ (xA), was almost invariably depicted with the offering table. In the earliest scenes of Dynasty 4, the xA sign was not confined to this list. It was included in the linen list and sometimes used to denote the number of offerings in the old uncanonical list.519 However, the basic xA list usually consisted of about six elements or less, with t [bread], Hnqt [beer], Apd [poultry], kA [oxen], Ss [alabaster bowls] and mnxt [linen, clothes] being the most common elements. At this time, the basic xA list is consistently found beneath the offering table.

In the later style, the spouted ewer sits much lower in the basin so that not much more than the arched top of the ewer and the spout appear above the rim of the basin. Sometimes the shoulders of the ewer are almost as wide as the mouth of the bowl. In other depictions the arched top of the ewer is more rounded and the shoulders of the vessel are narrower than the mouth of the bowl. There are many minor gradations of these features. Consequently, they have been grouped together and the height and shape of the spouted ewer above the mouth of the basin has been made the basic distinguishing feature between the first and second styles. The earliest instances of the second style are seen in late Dynasty 4.528 It is the predominant style of the second half of Dynasty 5 and continues well into Dynasty 6529 (Figure 38 (b)).

2. The xA list beside/above the offering table (Figure 35) In Dynasty 5, some elements of the xA list (bread and beer) are found for the first time above the offering table on the lintel and architrave of WAS-PtH:Jsj [17].520 There appears to be no reason for this change except a lack of space for all the signs beneath the table. A similar reason must account for the next instance of the removal of some of the xA list to the side of the offering tables of ^pss-kA.fanx [95] and Jj-mrjj [4],521 who are close in time to WASPtH:Jsj. Jj-mrjj’s list is expanded to eleven items. In their false door panel scenes, KA-HA.j ,Wr-bAw and %n-jt.f, in the chapel of Nfr and KA.HA.j [53], also have expanded xA lists which continue above the offering tables.522

523 524 514 515

516 517 518 519 520 521 522

525

Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 10. Junker III (1938) fig. 22; Simpson (1978) fig. 50; Wild (1966) pl. 161; Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 20 respectively. For example, see Davies Gebrawi II (1902) pl. 9. Reisner (1942) fig. 260 . Simpson (1976b) fig. 19a. Wp-m-nfrt: Smith (1946) 160 pl. 32[b]. James (1961) 20-1, pl. 21 [2]. Weeks (1994) fig. 54 and LD Erg. pl. 4b, respectively. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pls. 32, 38, 39.

526 527 528

529

65 

James (1953) pl. 21. Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls. 24, 34. Petrie (1892) pl. 15 and Smith (1946) 160 pl. 32[b]. Quibell (1913) pl. 29. LD II, 36c. The earliest instances in Groups A and B of the second style of ewer and basin occur in banquet scenes in Nj-kAw-Ra [48] (LD Erg. pl. 35) and %xm-kA.Ra [86] (Hassan IV [1943] 117, fig. 62). The earliest instance of this style in an offering table scene is on the architrave of the false door of WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] (Mariette [1889] 268). Jbj: Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pl. 19.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   CRITERION 41 Figure 32 The depiction of foods on registers near offering table. (IV.2-4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr-mAat [55] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Position of the ewer and basin The ewer and basin set may be depicted ‘floating’ without any base line, near the tomb owner’s face or arm (Figure 39), on a low table or stand (Figure 38 (a)), or resting flat on the base line of a register. In Groups A and B, the ‘floating’ depiction occurs in the offering table scene from @sjj-Ra [70] in Dynasty 3 to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110]530 in early to mid Dynasty 5. This location becomes less frequent in Dynasty 5. From the time of WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] on, the ewer and basin set is also positioned on a base line above the offering table or, occasionally, beside the table. The earliest depiction of a ewer and basin situated on a stand in an offering table scene also occurs in WAS-PtH:Jsj.531 The latest instance of the ewer and basin above the table is in %nDm-jb:MHj [85],532 by which time the final location beneath the offering table is well established. In Groups A and B, the earliest example of this ultimate position occurs in the tomb of Nfr and KAHA.j [53].533 Locating the ewer and basin beneath the offering table (Figure 38 (a)) grew increasingly popular in the second half of Dynasty 5 and, in Dynasty 6 it became the almost invariable position, frequently alongside racks of jars and vases.534

CRITERION 42 Figure 33 The depiction of jumbled piles of foods near offering table. (V.2-3) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] CRITERION 43 Figure 31 The xA list is depicted wholly beneath the offering table. (IV.1-2) – (VI.2L-3) MTn [43] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97] CRITERION 44 Figure 35 The xA list at least partly beside or above the offering table. (V.3) – (VI.4E-M) WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

The other manner of depicting the ewer and basin set was to show it in the hands of a kA priest who offers it to the tomb owner. This was usually a feature of the offering table scene, but the first occurrence in Groups A and B is on the inner jamb of the niche in the chapel of #wfw-xa.f I [73].535 On the third lowest register, a male figure, facing the false door, pours from the ewer into the bowl. The scene is inscribed, ‘djt qbHw’ (‘giving libations’). The last instance of the proffered ewer and basin occurs in dated to late Dynasty 5. In almost all offering table scenes, from Dynasty 3 to late Dynasty 6, the set of ewer and basin occupies a position close to the seated tomb owner. The set also occurs in most banquet scenes, suggesting the importance of purification in matters of ritual.

CRITERION 45 Figure 36 The phrase ‘dbHt-Htp’ is added to the xA list. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] CRITERION 46 Figure 37 The ewer and basin set with spouted ewer standing tall and rounded in the basin as on stela of Jwnw. (III.2) – (V.3-5) @sjj-Ra [70] to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110] CRITERION 47 Figures 38 (a) and 38 (b) In this ewer and basin set the spouted ewer sits low in the basin with only the arched top of the ewer and the spout appearing above therim of the basin, as on Nj-kAw-Ra. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Nj-kAw-Ra [48] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

3.6.5    Criteria based upon offerings and lists   CRITERION 39 Figure 30 The appearance of a linen list. (IV.1-2) – (V.2-3) MTn [43] to %Sm-nfr I [90] CRITERION 40 Figure 31 The appearance of the canonical list. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Mrs-anx III [40] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

530

531 532 533 534

535

CRITERION 48 Figure 39 The ewer and basin set ‘floats’ without any base line near the tomb owner’s face or arm. (III.2) – (V.3-5) @sjj-Ra [70] to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110]

Quibell (1913) pl. 29 and Junker III (1938) fig. 16 (panel of left false door). Mariette (1889) 268. LD Erg. pl. 16. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pls. 38, 39. The number of jars and vases depicted beneath the offering table increases over time: one jar in WAS-PtH:Jsj [17], two in PtH-Htp (II):*fj [27], three in %Abw:Jbbj [81], four in Mrrj [36] and five in #ntj-kA.j [79], but there are insufficient instances of each number to provide dating criteria. Simpson (1978) fig. 32.

CRITERION 49 Figure 38 (a) The ewer and basin set is shown on a stand in an offering table scene. (V.3) – (VI.4E-M) WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

66 

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  CRITERION 50 Figure 38 (a) The ewer and basin set is depicted beneath the offering table. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] 3.7    

Priestly figures performing rites  Criteria 51 – 59  

3.7.1  

Individual funerary priests   

INSET V C. No.

Priests performing ritual actions began to be included near the offering table when the scene spread from the confines of a stela to a chapel wall in the second half of Dynasty 4. In Groups A and B, the earliest instances are in the tombs of #wfw-xa.f I [73], Nfr [52] and Mrs-anx III [40].536 With an enlarged area for the depiction a selection of three or four priests were added to the scene. These figures, often the sons of the deceased, face the tomb owner across the table, standing, kneeling or squatting in a ritual pose, sometimes offering libations or censing. Offering bearers bringing haunches of beef, fowl, rolls of linen, burning incense or offering sacred oils frequently accompany the priests who perform the ritual. Sometimes no distinction is made between the two individuals who are all described as ‘Hm-kA’.

40

(IV.4) Nfr [52] (IV.4) Nfr [52] (IV.4-5) #wfw-Dd.f [75] (IV.4-6) #wfw-xa.f I [73]

52

41

53

42

54

43

55

44

(V.6) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53]

56

45

57

46

(V.8L-9E) Ax.t-Htp [1] (V.8-9) Ra-wr II [65]

58

47

(V.7-8) NTr-wsr [61]

(VI.4E-M) KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109] (V.8L-9) JAsn [3] (V.8L-9) JAsn [3] (VI.2L-3) QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97] (VI.2L-3) KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109] (VI.4E-M) KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109] (VI.4E-M) KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109] (VI.3-4E) Jbj [6]

Row of funerary priests    Figure 48 

By the end of Dynasty 5 the priests began to be shown as small figures on their own register, usually level with the face of the deceased. From this time on, a clearer distinction seems to have been made between those who performed rites and those who brought offerings. In the table scenes of KA-gmnj [111], Mrrj [36], QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97], #ntj-kA.j [79], and perhaps Jbj [6], the priests performing ritual occupy a separate register.538 While they may be depicted on a much smaller scale than the offering bearers, their position, often close to the face of the deceased or facing him across the table, suggests that the rites they perform are now distinguished from the functions of the leading offering bearers. 3.7.3  

Criteria based upon priestly figures performing  rites 

CRITERIA 51 – 58 See INSET V and Figures 40–47 CRITERION 59 Figure 48 A row of funerary priests on their own register, usually located at head height to the seated tomb owner whom they face.

Funerary priests are depicted in more than 30 different poses in Groups A and B, although some of the differences in gesture are minor. While some of the most frequently depicted gestures occur throughout the Old Kingdom, a number of priestly gestures and poses are confined to a certain period and therefore offer dating criteria as indicated in INSET V.537

537

Priestly gestures as dating criteria from to

51

3.7.2  

A key symbolism of the offering table scene was the transformation of the deceased into an Ax, a glorified spirit. This process saw its culmination in the ritual meal. The figures, depicted singly or in groups, in the row facing the tomb owner performed part of the ritual. They might include a priest pouring a libation, another censing, a figure kneeling before a low offering table and a standing figure, one arm outstretched, speaking the necessary formula. Three or four lector priests, kneeling on one knee, one fist to breast and the other raised, uttered the magic that transformed the deceased into an Ax. Sometimes figures read from scrolls. Usually, the last figure, depicting the final phase of the ritual, walks away dragging a broom to wipe out the footprints.

536

Fig.

(V.7-8) – (VI.4E-M) NTr-wsr [61] to KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]

Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. Ziegler (1990) No 26; Simpson (1978) fig. respectively. Figure 40: Ziegler (1990) No 26 and James (1953) pl. 21, respectively. Figure 41: Ziegler (1990) No 26 and Simpson (1980) fig. 33, respectively. Figure 42: Simpson (1980) fig. 31 and Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pl. 34, respectively. Figure 43: Simpson (1980) fig. 31 and Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 19, respectively. Figure 44: Junker 10 (1951) 53 fig. 25 and Junker III (1938) 75 fig. 9b, respectively.

538

67 

Figure 45: Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 32 (left false door, right of panel) and Davies Gebrâwi II (1902), pl. 19, respectively. Figure 46: Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pl. 34 and Blackman 4 (1914-53) pl. 9, respectively. Figure 47: LD II, 84 (left) and Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) II pl. 19, respectively. Respectively, Bissing (1911) pl. 18-19; Davies et al. (1984) pl. 12; Simpson (1976b) figs. 25, 29; James (1953) pl. 14; Blackman Meir V (1953) pl. 34; Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 19.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   3.8    

recorded is in the tomb of Ra-wr II [65],541 dated to late in Dynasty 5.

The offering table  CRITERIA 60 – 63 

Three features of the offering table show change over time. These are the height of the table in relation to the seated tomb owner, the pedestal on which the table rests, and the table surface itself, which was occasionally lipped at the edge like a modern tray. 3.8.1  

3.8.3    Lipped rim of table      Figure 52    Tables with lipped edges are mainly a Dynasty 6 style. The earliest occurrence in Groups A and B is in the well dated chapel of WAS-PtH:Jsj [17],542 but this feature is not seen again until Mrrw-kA.j [38] where the edges of the table on the panel of the false door appear just slightly raised.543

Height of offering table  

The level of the offering table is shown below, level with and above the tomb owner’s knee throughout much of the Old Kingdom (Figures 18–23, 49, 50). However, the table surface depicted below the level of the sitter’s knee (Figure 50) does not appear until late in Dynasty 4. This depiction tapers off in Dynasty 6 when the table surface level with the seated tomb owner’s knee becomes predominant.

3.8.4  

CRITERION 60 Figure 49 The surface of the table is depicted level with the tomb owner’s knee. (IV.2-4) – (VI.4EM) Nfr-mAat [55] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

From mid Dynasty 5 on, the preponderance of depictions show the table surface level with the tomb owner's knee with the unoccupied hand either now holding a cloth to the breast or a flask to the nose. (Figures 18, 19, 22, 23)

CRITERION 61 Figure 50 The surface of the table is depicted below the height of the tomb owner’s knee. (IV.2) – (VI.4E-M) ¤SAt-sxntjw [89] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

While a trend to lowering the height of the table surface is clear, the table surface above the level of the tomb owner’s knee appears occasionally throughout the Old Kingdom. The table higher than the tomb owner’s knee therefore does not offer a useful dating criterion. See INSET VI. INSET VI

CRITERION 62 Figure 51 The table rests on a separate pedestal. (IV.2) – (V.8-9) Wp-m-nfrt [19] to Ra-wr II [65]

Height of table surface relative to seated tomb owner Table surface Table surface at above knee level knee level or below

CRITERION 63 Figure 52 The surface of a table has a lipped edge. (V.3) – (VI.4E) WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] to +aw [114]

No. of instances in: Dynasty 4 to mid Dynasty 5

34

25

Mid to late Dynasty 5

8

43

Dynasty 6

14

57

3.8.2    Offering table pedestal  

3.9      

The pedestals of tables in the offering scene have two basic forms, although both consist of a central column. The first, seen in @sjj-Ra [70], is a single shaft, which splays out at the bottom, sometimes into two separate supports539 (Figure 50). The second style appears to consist of two pedestals, one standing on top of the other, to raise the height of the table. The column thickens where the two pedestals meet (Figure 51). The single shaft first appears, in Groups A and B, in the tomb of @sjj-Ra and the double pedestal in Jwnw [5].540 Both styles are features of Dynasties 4 and 5. From mid Dynasty 5 onwards, however, there is a marked preference for the depiction of the pedestal as a single narrow shaft. In Dynasty 6, there is not one example of a double pedestal in Groups A and B. The last example

540

The female figure  CRITERIA 64 – 72  

CRITERIA 95 and 105 in other sections of this study also relate to the female. Wives and other mature females of the tomb owner’s family are invariably depicted as slim, young women, presumably of child-bearing age and sexually desirable. This female figure matched the typical portrayal of the male tomb owner, who is repeatedly shown as a vigorous young male with broad shoulders and slim hips at the height of his vigour. In the second half of the Old Kingdom a growing number of male tomb owners had themselves also depicted in one or two scenes as a much older, portly but stately figure, perhaps who had reached the pinnacle of a successful career. Yet in the Old 541

539

Criteria based upon the offering table 

542

Quibell (1913) pl. 29. Junker I (1922) fig.31.

543

68 

LD Erg., 26. Mogensen (1918) pls 10-11. Duell I (1938) pl. 62.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5 of the absence or meagre appearance of the wife and daughters may be due to tomb damage.553 But there are a curiously large number of high officials’ tombs, of late Dynasty V to early Dynasty VI date, where no wife appears in depiction. Some of these tombs have sufficient decoration preserved to make the absence of a wife noticeable. Prior to this reduction in the appearance of female family members, from mid to late Dynasty 5 the size of the wife relative to the tomb owner is also reduced until she is no larger than the usual portrayal of children. This inevitably required the wife’s posture and place in scenes to change from sitting or standing next to her husband to standing or kneeling at his feet. This change was not invariable; the wives of of %nDm-jb:Jntj [84] and %nDm-jb:MHj [85], whose Giza tombs date to the reign of Unis, are depicted of normal size standing with their husbands.554

Kingdom no female member of an elite family, not even the mother of the (adult) tomb owner, is depicted as elderly. This contrast in portrayals may imply the accepted attitude of males towards females at this time. However elite females, particularly wives, are included in a variety of scenes such as seated at their husband’s offering table or sedately embracing him, suggesting respect and perhaps affection. Even the depiction, from mid Dynasty 5 on, of the wife as a much smaller figure need not be interpreted as a reduction in status as this portrayal was applied to wives who were daughters of the reigning king like Watt-@t-hr [18], eldest daughter of Teti and wife of Mrrw-kA.j [38]. There are only seven females with their own tombs in Groups A and B. Six of these women, Mrs-anx II [39], Mrs-anx III [40], Nn-sDr-kA.j [59]544, %SsSt:Jdwt [93], Nbt [50] and #nwt [78], were all of high rank, wives of kings or ‘king’s daughter’. %SsSt:Jdwt was a ‘king’s daughter of his body’.545 Nbt [49] and #nwt [78] were probably queens of Unis. Only NDt-m-pt [62], the mother of MrrwkA.j [38], carried no high title.546 In her son’s tomb she is depicted standing ‘behind’ him, whereas Mrrw-kA.j’s wife, a ‘king’s daughter of his body’ is placed before her husband.547 NDt-m-pt may have been granted a separate tomb because of her son’s high position.

In establishing dating criteria from the depiction of the adult female, no distinction has been made between female tomb owners and females appearing in the tomb of a relative. Criteria drawn from the depiction of the female relate to pose, gesture and relative size as well as dress and adornment. 3.9.1  

Four wives have chapels in their husband’s tomb: Nfrt, wife of Ra-Htp [66]; Jtt, wife of Nfr-MAat [56]; Nfrt-kAw, wife of #wfw-xa.f I [73] and Watt-@t-hr, wife of MrrwkA.j [38].548 A further wife and a mother have their own false door in a male tomb owner’s chapel. These are the wife of Nfr [52], and the mother of Mr-sw-anx [41].549 All other significant female figures in Groups A and B are portrayed in the tomb of a male relative sharing a scene with the tomb owner.

Wives were sometimes included in their husbands’ offering table scenes. In Groups A and B the depiction of the wife seated opposite the tomb owner at the offering table occurs first in Ra-Htp [66] and continues through the Old Kingdom. The wife seated behind (beside?) the tomb owner at the offering table, however, does provide a dating criterion. The earliest instance of this arrangement in Groups A and B is in WHm-kA.j [21] and the latest in Jbj [6].555

As secondary figures, wives may be depicted in almost as many scenes as the tomb owner, even at their own offering table, as in Ra-Htp,550 WHm-kA.j [21]551 and Nfr and KA-HA.j [53].552

In early Dynasty 6, the wife might be presented kneeling at the feet of the tomb owner as he sits at the offering table. This depiction is only seen in WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj:NfrsSm-PtH [22], Mrrw-kA.j [38] and Jsj of Edfu [11] in Groups A and B.556

Wives may also be depicted in their husbands’ tombs on a much smaller scale than the husband (Figures 55, 56). This reduced figure may stand behind or in front of her husband or kneel or squat at the tomb owner’s feet, as is invariably the case in the scene of the deceased fishing or fowling. While this depiction of the wife may have been a matter of individual choice, the chronological pattern of depiction suggests that there was an element of custom or required decorum in the manner and frequency of the depiction of wives and daughters. The instances in

3.9.2  

545 546

547 548 549 550 551 552

The pose of the female 

Standing beside the tomb owner (Figure 54) Most of these figures are the wife of the tomb owner. Mothers and sisters are less frequently depicted standing beside the tomb owner.557 The semi-profile method of depiction gives the impression of the wife standing 553

544

The wife of the deceased at the offering table  Figure 53    

Nn-sDr-kA.j’s [59] title is inscribed in the tomb of her father, Mr-jb.j [34]. Macramallah (1935) pl. 9. NDt-m-pt’s titles are: Hm(t)-nTr Nt mHtjt jnb.s wpt wAwt, Hm(t)-nTr @wt-@r nbt nht, rxt nswt, Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pls. 5, 40. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2008). See CHAPTER 2: PROSOPOGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B. See CHAPTER 2: PROSOPOGRAPHY FOR TOMB GROUPS A AND B. Petrie (1892) pl. 15. Kayser (1964) 25. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 32.

554 555

556

557

69 

See their prosopography: Nj-wsr-Ra [46], #wfw-Dd.f [75], _bHnj [113] in CHAPTER 2. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2008) pls. 74, 76, 82. Kayser (1964) 24, 25, 32 and Blackman Meir IV (1924) pl. 2, respectively. Capart (1907), Duell I (1938) pls. 57, 64 and Ziegler (1990) No. 9, respectively. Nfr-MAat [56] (sister): Petrie (1892) pl. 17; #wfw-xa.f I [73] (mother): Simpson (1978) fig. 26; Mrs-anx III [40] (mother): Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 4, 7; Mr-jb.j [34] (mother): LD II, 20, 21. Mr-jb.j’s mother, %djt, was a ‘king’s daughter of his body’. No wife is depicted in this tomb.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   The height of the standing female, relative to that of the male tomb owner, may present problems of interpretation. A wife, mother or sister of a tomb owner may be depicted equal in height to the male tomb owner, between a head to head and shoulder shorter than the male, or much shorter, half the male’s height or less (Figure 56). The depiction of the female around shoulder height of the male may be just a realistic portrayal of relative size.562 Consequently, the depiction of the female whose head reaches, or almost reaches the height of the male’s shoulder has not been used to establish dating criteria. There are also problems in interpreting the portrayal of the wife of slightly less than half her husband’s height) as she stands beside. Some depictions show the wife standing ‘in front’ of the husband, in the position normally occupied by a son or daughter.563 The first instances of this feature in Groups A and B occur in the tomb of Nfr and KA-HA.j [53]. Three times the unnamed ‘tomb owner’ is depicted standing with a much smaller female figure ‘in front’ of him. Two of these portrayals are on the east wall and flank scenes of goats, marsh pursuits and cattle. The left-hand portrayal of the tomb owner depicts the accompanying female as a young girl, naked except for an ornate collar and amulet, standing in front of the tomb owner. She has the sidelock of youth and holds a lotus to her nose with one hand and a lapwing in her other hand. Neither figure is named, yet the excavators’ caption is “The tomb-owner in company of his wife”. This female could be a daughter rather than a wife.564

behind her husband but was probably intended to show her standing beside him, although as a secondary figure. There are only two depictions of royal mothers in Groups A and B but both portray the mother standing ‘in front’ of her child, although the child is the tomb owner. These are in the tombs of Mrs-anx III [40] and #wfw-xa.f I [73].558 Two poses for the female relative standing beside the tomb owner are common in the Old Kingdom. The first, occurring throughout the Old Kingdom, depicts the wife with her arm around her husband’s shoulders, resting her hand on his far shoulder. Her near arm usually hangs down at her side. In another pose that offers a dating criterion, the wife holds the husband’s arm nearest to her, placing her other arm around his shoulders (Figure 54). A minor variation is for the wife’s far hand to be placed on the tomb owner’s waist or chest rather than his arm. A further pose has the standing female linking arms with the male instead of embracing his shoulders. Wife kneeling beside the male tomb owner The depiction of the wife standing beside her husband with an arm around his shoulders, holding his nearest arm with her other hand virtually disappears in later Dynasty 5 and early Dynasty 6. A new pose depicting the wife kneeling at the feet of the standing or seated tomb owner is introduced (Figure 55). In tombs such as that of MrrwkA.j [38], where the wife is still represented, this kneeling pose is dominant for late Dynasty 5 and early Dynasty 6. However, the pose gives way to the full size depiction of the wife standing or seated beside the tomb owner in provincial tombs in the second half of Dynasty 6. 3.9.3  

In the right hand scene, a small female figure wearing adult dress and wig stands beside the tomb owner, also unnamed. An even smaller female figure on the other side of the tomb owner is naked, has a sidelock and holds the tomb owner’s staff. The tomb owner and his wife depicted on the right could be either KA-HA.j [53] and his wife, Mrt-jt.s, or Nfr and his wife, #nsw. I am inclined to think it is the latter pair as their relative sizes correspond with those to the right of their false door.565

Reduction of the size of the standing wife 

The wife’s apparently affectionate gestures become infrequent towards the end of Dynasty 5 and are rarely seen in early Dynasty 6 tombs. This trend is probably linked to other changes in the portrayal of the wife. In Groups A and B the latest instances in Dynasty 5 of a wife approximately the same height as her husband, whom she stands next to and embraces, occur in #ww-wr [71] (V.8) and %nDm-jb:Jntj [84] (V.9E) (Figure 54). In the second half of Dynasty 5 the wife of the deceased is steadily reduced in size until she is depicted scarcely bigger than the usual height of sons and daughters559 (Figures 55 and 56). This representation is not invariable and may relate to whether the wife’s inclusion in a scene is integral or merely an addition. For example, full size depictions of the wife also appear in the tomb of MrrwkA.j [38] (early Dynasty 6).560 In the provinces full size wives stand beside Jbj [6] and +aw [114].561

3.9.4  

559

560 561

 

Wigs All female wigs exposed the ear. Commonly, females are depicted wearing a long wig with the near side tresses hanging to the front of the wearer’s shoulder. Presumably, the profile depiction of the face prevented the artist showing a similar hair arrangement on the far shoulder. This style is seen throughout the Old Kingdom (Figures 54, 56 and 61).

562 558

Female adornment 

Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 7 and Simpson (1978) fig. 26, respectively. This is also true of the depiction of mothers. Compare the depiction of the mother in Mr-jb.j [34] (LD II 20, 21) with that of NDt-m-pt [62] in Mrrw-kA.j [38] Duell II, pls. 149, 159; Kanawati Mereruka III.1 (2010) pl. 71. Kanawati Mereruka III.1 (2010) pls. 71, 76, 78, 80 and 98. Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 12.

563

564

565

70 

Wives of Nfr-MAat [56], #wfw-xa.f I [73], Mnw-Dd.f [31], Nb.j-mAxtj [49], Nfr [51], Mrrw-kA.j [38] and PtH-^pss II [30]. These are Nfr and KA-HA.j [53]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pls. 2 and 30; Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp, [44]: Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 19 and Mrrw-KA.j [38]: Duell (1938) pl. 15; Kanawati– Abder-Raziq (2008) pls. 74, 76, 82. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 29. Lashien identifies the female as ‘his daughter’, Lashien (2013) pl. 81, p. 25. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 29. Lashien (2013) pl. 82, p. 28.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  The other common style, first seen on Mrs-anx III [40]566 is a short, close fitting wig, sometimes curly, also exposing the ear. In Dynasties 4 and 5, this wig is usually worn without any other head adornment. The only exception is Mrs-anx III, who combines the wig with a fillet567 and streamer headband. This combination headdress (short wig, fillet and streamers) is not seen again in Groups A and B until Nbt [50] (V.9). Perhaps the style was reserved for queens until the end of Dynasty 5. Both the short wig worn alone and combined with the fillet and streamers are common depictions in Dynasty VI (Figure 58).

stripes on the shoulder straps.568 The only other net (or beaded) dress in Groups A and B is on the wife of %xntjw [87],569 dated to V.6-8E. A further style of striped shoulder straps is seen in QAr:Mrrj-Ra-nfr [97].570 These stripes run vertically and are much narrower. Nfrt, wife of Ra-Htp [66], and probably Jtt, wife of Nfr-MAat [56]571; both wear a long robe which is very similar to the long panther skin robe seen on male tomb owners in Dynasty IV and early Dynasty 5. This robe leaves one shoulder bare and is tied on top of the other shoulder with straps. Mrs-anx III, standing beside her mother, wears a proper leopard skin with tail, face and paws over her dress.572 No other female in Groups A and B wears an animal skin and these meagre occurrences are insufficient to provide dating criteria.

Jewellery In the Old Kingdom, female tomb owners and relatives of tomb owners are shown wearing a choker or ‘dog collar’, the broad beaded collar, bracelets on one or both arms and anklets. Amulets worn as a neck pendant are mainly seen on daughters who have not yet reached maturity and occasionally on males.

3.9.5  

CRITERION 64 Figure 53 The wife or mother is seated behind (beside?) the tomb owner at the offering table. (V.2-3) – (VI.2) WHm-kA.j [21] to Qrrj [98]

The beaded collar, bracelets and anklets are depicted throughout the Old Kingdom. Bracelets may be a broad ornate band, which is seen in tombs at all periods of the Old Kingdom, or a series of plain narrow bands worn together, commonly called ‘bangles’. Multiple bangles are not depicted in Dynasty VI and thus provide a dating criterion (Figures 59 and 61).

CRITERION 65 Figure 54 The wife embraces her husband with both arms, placing one hand on his arm, waist or chest and putting her other arm around his shoulders. (IV.4-5) – (VI.1M-2E) _wa-n-@r [112] to WDA-HA-&tj:%Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH [22]

The choker, an ornament fitting closely around the neck, may be worn alone or teamed with the broad collar. Both styles are first seen in the second half of Dynasty IV but the choker worn alone has a shorter time span. In Groups A and B the choker does not appear in Dynasty VI tombs (Figures 59 and 60).

CRITERION 66 Figure 55 The wife kneels at the feet of her husband. This does not include the female on a skiff accompanying fishing and/or fowling activities. (V.6) – (VI.2M) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] to Mrjj-&tj:Mrj [33]

Female dress There is little variation in female dress in the Old Kingdom. Women are usually depicted wearing a tight fitting gown of just above ankle length. The body of the dress ends in a straight line beneath the female’s breasts. Two shoulder straps hold the body of the dress in place. These straps meet together forming a V shape where they join the dress and taper towards the shoulder. This style does not change; it is depicted as an almost transparent dress that clings to the outline of an ideal female body and appears to expose one breast. No examples of such a dress have been found. Dresses that have been found are of much coarser woven linen, preventing any ‘seethrough’ effect and would have hung loosely on the body. Tomb portrayals were probably not intended to be a depiction of reality, but to convey, in the case of a female family member, her sexual/child-bearing value (Figure 54).

CRITERION 67 Figure 56 The wife is depicted on a much smaller scale than the tomb owner as she stands next to him. (V.6) – (VI.4E) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] to +aw [114] CRITERION 68 Figure 57 The short, close fitting wig without the fillet with streamer is worn by a female. (IV.1L-2E) – (VI.4E-M) Ra-Htp [66] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

The only major variation in dress style shows the shoulder straps decorated with horizontal stripes. The rest of the dress is usually plain although Mrs-anx III [40] is depicted in a net (or beaded?) dress, which has horizontal

568 569 570 571

566 567

Criteria based upon the female figure 

572

Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 4, 7, pl. 20d. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 4.

71 

Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 4. Moussa–Junge (1975) fig. 3. Simpson (1976b) fig. 25. Petrie (1892) pls. 15, 18, respectively. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 7, pl. 20d and Murray (1905) pl. 24, respectively.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   ^pss [67],575 dated to the reign of Djedkare. Possible earlier Saqqara banquet scenes may occur in the tombs of Nfr and KA-HA.j [53],576 and Ni-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44].577 These scenes, however, show indications of confusing or combining the themes of the banquet and the offering table, and in the case of Ni-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp the scene is predominantly that of the offering table with one or two ‘banquet’ themes, such as musicians and armchairs, added.

CRITERION 69 Figure 58 The short, close fitting wig worn by a female is teamed with the fillet with streamer(s). In the tombs of Groups A and B, this criterion first appears in Mrs-anx III [38] but is not seen again until Nbt [50] (V.9). (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E) Mrs-anx III [40] to +aw [114] CRITERION 70 Figure 59 The choker is worn alone by a female (without the beaded collar). (IV.1L-2E) – (V.6L-8E) Ra-Htp [66] to Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]

The earliest banquet scene in Groups A and B appears in the chapel of Mrs-anx III [40].578 In a much damaged depiction, the queen holds a lotus to her nose with her far hand while her other hand holds two or three blooms on her knee. The scene appears to be a relaxed family group in which the queen is accompanied by an unnamed figure (possibly a son) kneeling at her feet and a pet dog. The latest unambiguous depiction of a banquet in Groups A and B is that of Ra-wr II [65].579 Seated in an armchair, the tomb owner holds what is probably a flywhisk over his near shoulder. His far hand reaches forward with the palm turned upward, perhaps to receive a lotus. In other banquet scenes this is the gesture of the deceased receiving a lotus, but in Ra-wr II’s chapel this part of the scene is destroyed. Banquet scenes, if any, in Dynasty 6 chapels are less easily categorised and it is doubtful whether a true, unequivocal banquet scene occurs in Dynasty 6, either in the capital or in the provinces.

CRITERION 71 Figure 60 The choker is worn with the beaded collar by a female. (IV.4-6) – (V.8) #wfw-xa.f I [73] to %Sm-nfr III [92] CRITERION 72 Figure 61 Multiple bangles are worn by a female. (IV.1L-2E) – (VI.2L-3) Ra-Htp [66] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97] 3.10    

The banquet scene  CRITERIA 73 – 78  

Themes offering dating criteria are the banquet scene itself, the tomb owner seated in his armchair and the tomb owner holding a flywhisk and receiving a lotus. The depictions used to establish criteria in this section are drawn mainly from banquet scenes, but other occurrences of these features are also included when it appears that their life span extends beyond that of the actual banquet scene.

The description ‘banquet’ refers to the scene where the tomb owner sits, usually in a high-backed armchair, before registers of different kinds of foods and containers. This scene, with dancers and musicians, has a more relaxed air than that of the deceased at the offering table. In the banquet scene, the tomb owner rests his near arm over the arm of his chair, sometimes holding a flywhisk over his shoulder. While the offering table scene is still formal and restricted in late Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5, in the banquet scenes a pet animal may be depicted beneath the tomb owner’s chair or a game such as ‘senet’ played near his feet. Musicians, dancers and clappers frequently occupy a lower register. Offering bearers may make presentations. In some scenes, the deceased receives a lotus from a small male figure, often identified as his son. Usually one or two ewer and basin sets are depicted close to the tomb owner. Nearly all banquet scenes of this kind, particularly the early ones, are found in Giza in late Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5.573

3.10.2   The flywhisk      Figure 63  The first instance of the tomb owner holding a flywhisk in Groups A and B occurs in the chapel of _bHnj [113],580 who holds a flywhisk over his far shoulder. The deceased appears to be banqueting at leisure, with a pet monkey depicted beneath his chair. The latest banquet scene with the deceased holding a flywhisk is in Ra-wr II’s [65] chapel.581 Most of the scenes with the flywhisk resting on the deceased’s shoulder depict the deceased facing right and reaching towards a proffered lotus with their far hand. Ra-^pss [67], although clearly at a banquet, holds his flywhisk forward in his far hand, as though it were a flagellum.582 In a palanquin scene +aw [114],583 dated to early in the reign of Pepy II, is also shown

3.10.1   Appearance of the banquet     Figure 62  At Saqqara, the banquet theme probably appears later than at Giza, although it may occur in Pr-sn [25],574 dated to V.2. This depiction is too badly damaged for certainty. The first unambiguous instance at Saqqara is not until Ra-

575 576 577 578 579 580 581

573 574

582

Harpur (1987) 80. Murray (1905) pl. 10.

583

72 

LD II, 61a. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 26. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 25. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 9. LD Erg., 26. LD II, 36c. LD Erg., 26. LD II, 61a. Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 8.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  are registers of mixed foods, but in the scene on the south wall of the chapel there are also two registers of musicians, dancers and clappers beneath the offering tables.591

holding a flywhisk over his shoulder. The inclusion of the flywhisk may have been a useful artistic device, as it gave an appropriate occupation to one hand. In banquet scenes it also took the deceased’s near arm out of the line of the farther arm outstretched to the lotus.

3.10.4    The lotus    Figures 62 and 63  

3.10.3   The high backed armchair    Figures 62 and 63 

The lotus flower is a frequent minor theme in Old Kingdom chapel scenes. It is seen with stem bent over the arm of offering bearers, tied to the stern of a skiff on which the deceased stands, as a decorative element in headdresses and held in various ways by family members of the deceased and by the tomb owner, male and female. Family members holding the lotus usually appear in scenes where a wife or daughter squats or stands close to the deceased. Standing female tomb owners hold a long stemmed lotus where a male would be depicted holding a staff. Occasionally, a son depicted as a young child holds a lotus flower. In the banquet scenes of Groups A and B at Giza, the tomb owner is frequently portrayed seated in a high-backed armchair, receiving a lotus flower from a small male figure, sometimes identified as his son. The scene suggests a particularly close family tie and mostly occurs in tombs constructed in family clusters. In Groups A and B it twice links three generations, ^pss-kA.f-anx [95], Jj-mrjj [4] and Nfr-bAw-Pth [54],592 and %Sm-nfr II [91], %Sm-nfr III [92] and his son, possibly %Sm-nfr IV,593 as well as KA.j-swDA [107] with his son, KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] and (probably) KA.j-nj-nswt III [104].

In Groups A and B, the first depiction in a banquet scene of the deceased seated in a high-backed armchair occurs in ^pss-kA.f-anx [95] in Giza (Cemetery G6000) and the latest depiction is in Ra-wr II.584 The high-backed armchair is also seen in Dynasty 6 chapels but the context is not that of a banquet as defined above, although the relevant scenes do have similar elements. QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97] is twice depicted seated in a high-backed armchair with his near hand resting on the arm of the chair.585 In a displaced block, located by Simpson to the west wall of the first landing,586 QAr is seated before a table piled high with mixed foods and flasks, which may be a banquet scene. On the north wall of an inner room (Room D) he is again seated in an armchair with two dogs depicted under his chair, beneath which, are two kneeling female figures, both identified as QAr’s sisters. Two final dates may therefore be given to the criterion of the armchair: an earlier date for its final depiction in the banqueting scene proper and a later date for the final depiction. Combined elements The combining of elements from the banquet and offering table scenes appears to be a mid Dynasty 5 ‘experimental’ feature, which may not have survived into Dynasty 6.587 #wfw-xa.f II [74]588 combines a depiction of his son presenting him with a lotus with the offering table and registers of varied foods. Elements of the banquet and offering table scene are even more intermingled on the south wall of KA.j-nfr [106], where the tomb owner is seated in a high backed armchair holding a flywhisk over his shoulder and faces registers of offerings, all characteristics of a banquet.589 His far hand reaches out to an offering table on which are heaped loaves of bread, a plucked bird and a couple of unidentifiable items, instead of the customary row of half loaves. Beneath the table are two xA signs associated with ideographic signs for beer and bread. In the tomb of Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] a portly figure leans on a staff, facing registers of offerings and offering bearers.590 On the two lowest registers a small figure offers him a flywhisk, musicians play and a low table is heaped with assorted foods. In all the offering table scenes of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] there

The lotus theme occurs so frequently that it is tempting to suggest it had an important symbolic meaning even in the Old Kingdom. By the time of the New Kingdom, the lotus is clearly a symbol of creation and rebirth and is closely associated with Re and Nefertem.594 In the Old Kingdom, however, in the absence of enlightening chapel inscriptions it is difficult to establish such a symbolic intent. Female family members are depicted holding a lotus in many different scenes including that of the deceased fishing and fowling in the marshes. Depictions of women holding a lotus may have been a decorative detail or a useful artistic device. Holding a lotus to the nose may have been a means to suggest the privileged position of the female who, as a member of a high official’s family, is at leisure to enjoy the flower’s delicate scent. It is likely, also, that the lotus has a generalised sexual/reproductive connotation.

591 584 585 586 587

588 589 590

592

Weeks (1994) fig. 57 and LD Erg., 26 respectively. Simpson (1976b) pl. 4a, fig. 18a and pl. 10b, fig. 26b. This landing (A 2) is part of the upper stairway. Simpson (1976b) 2. In Memphite and provincial tombs of Dynasty 6 there are scenes of musicians, dancers and clappers but they do not accompany the image of the tomb owner relaxing in an armchair associated with portrayals of foods and drinks. Kanawati Mereruka III:2 (2011) 24; Kanawati Gebrawi III (2011) pls. 49, 69; Kanawati Gebrawi III (2011) pls. 59, 72. Simpson (1978) fig. 50. Reisner (1942) 439, fig. 259. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 26.

593

594

73 

Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 25. In his own chapel Jj-mrjj is depicted presenting a lotus to his father, ^pss-kA.f-anx. Jj-mrjj and his son, Nfr-bAw-PtH, appear in this scene. Weeks (1994) fig. 43 pl. 29; LD II, 53a. In a banquet scene in his own chapel %Sm-nfr II receives a lotus from his son (unnamed). Smith (1946) 287, fig. 141. In a banquet scene in his own chapel %Sm-nfr III receives a lotus from a son named %Sm-nfr. Brunner-Traut (1977) INSERT 4; Junker III (1938) 202-3, pl. 2. Old Kingdom references to the symbolism of the lotus are confined to the Pyramid Texts. In the pyramid of Unis the king states: “I appear as Nefertem, as the lotus-bloom which is at the nose of Rea” (Faulkner [1969] Utterance 249, p. 61).

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   (IV.2-4) – (VI.2) Nfr-MAat [55] to Jdw I:Nfr [14].

The banquet scene in which a small male figure presents a lotus to the deceased, however, does appear to have greater significance (Figures 62 and 63). In Groups A and B the scenes of lotus presentation occur in Giza chapels dating from late Dynasty 4 to late Dynasty 5, a period when the solar cult had come to the fore. The presentation of the lotus by the eldest son, who as ‘sm’ priest gives the deceased the power to eat and speak, may well have been symbolic of the ‘rebirth’ of the deceased.

CRITERION 74 Figure 63 The tomb owner holds a flywhisk over his shoulder. (IV.5) – (VI.4E) _bHnj [113] to +aw [114] CRITERION 75 Figure 63 The seated tomb owner holds or receives a lotus. (IV.4-6) – (V.8L-9) Mrs-anx III [40] to JAsn [3]

Holding or receiving the lotus (Figure 63) Banquet scenes with the deceased holding or receiving a lotus provide a dating criterion. The earliest depiction occurs in Mrs-anx III [40] and the latest in JAsn [3].595 It may also occur in Ra-wr II [65]596 who holds out his hand with palm facing up in a gesture that is usually given to the action of receiving a lotus, although no flower is depicted.

CRITERION 76 Figure 63 The deceased is seated in a high-backed armchair. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2L-3) Nj-kAw-Ra [48] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

Ways of holding the lotus (Figures 58, 60 and 62) Tomb owners and family figures are seen holding lotus flowers with both coiled and straight stems throughout the period in which the lotus appears. The hand holding a coil in the stem of the lotus is always depicted as a fist gripping the doubled stem. Mrs-anx III [40] is depicted holding the coiled stem of a lotus flower in her fist (her whole hand) and the straight stem of another lotus with only thumb and forefinger.597 The next scene, in time, with a major figure holding a straight stemmed flower is that of NTr-wsr [61], which shows the kneeling wife gripping the stem in a fist.598 This closed fist grip becomes the normal depiction for holding flowers with straight and coiled stems but there are exceptions. There are two banquet scenes in the tomb of Jj-mrjj [4]. In one of these scenes Jj-mrjj is the main figure seated in a high backed armchair holding a lotus to his nose.599 In the other scene the tomb owner’s father, ^pss-kA.f-anx [95], is seated in an armchair, his far arm outstretched to receive a lotus from the small figure of his son.600 ^pss-kA.f-anx’s hand is turned palm up, slightly cupped, as he takes the stem of the flower between thumb and forefinger. This feature is repeated in %Sm-nfr II [91], KA.j-swDA, [107] KA.j-nj-nswt II [103], #wfw-xa.f II [74] and JAsn [3] who slip the stem between the two middle fingers. Ra-wr II [65]601 holds out his hand as though receiving a flower, although neither lotus nor figure offering the flower appears, and #ww-wr may hold a straight-stemmed lotus with a cupped hand.602   3.10.5   Criteria based upon the banquet scene 

CRITERION 77 Figure 64 A lotus with a straight stem is held in a clenched fist. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) Jj-mrjj [4] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] CRITERION 78 Figure 63 The lotus is held or received with palm of the hand upturned. (V.2-3) – (V.9) KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] to Nbt [50] 3.11    

Three basic styles of seat are depicted in the Old Kingdom. Stools without back or armrests may seat one or two people. Chairs with a low back that reaches the height of the seated person’s waist or just above and is covered by a flat cushion may also seat one or two persons. Armchairs have a back that reaches up to the seated person’s head and armrests that that reach the sitter’s armpit. As the seated tomb owner is depicted in scenes other than that of the offering table and other family members are sometimes portrayed seated, all instances of stools and chairs have been used in developing the following criteria.

CRITERION 73 Figure 62 The inclusion of the banquet scene. 595

596 597 598 599 600 601 602

Stools and chairs   CRITERIA 79 – 93  

3.11.1   The armchair    Figures 62 and 63 

Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 9 and Simpson (1980) fig. 32 respectively. LD Erg., 26. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 3b. Murray (1905) pl. 24. Weeks (1994) fig. 37 pl. 20. Weeks (1994) fig. 43 pl. 29. LD Erg., pl. 26a. Hassan V (1944) fig. 106.

In Groups A and B, only chairs with armrests have backs that reach well above the seated person’s waist. Stools and chairs without armrests and only low or no back are by far the most common type of seat throughout the Old Kingdom. They occur in almost all scenes except

74 

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  the banquet. Although double seats with the wife (or occasionally with the deceased’s mother) seated behind (beside?) the tomb owner appear in a variety of scenes, the majority are in the offering table scene. The armchair, for one or two persons, has a more restricted depiction. It most frequently appears in a banquet scene and in Groups A and B it first occurs in late Dynasty 4. The latest instance of an armchair is in the tomb of QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97].603

3.11.4   Tomb owner’s stool or chair   The presence or absence of a cushion for the tomb owner’s chair, and the style of the cushion, have been grouped into categories of depiction.609 The first category is the absence of any cushion (Figure 67). The degree of popularity of this style of seat does not vary until mid Dynasty 5, after which it becomes decidedly rare. The second category, the cushion stretched across the entire seat of a stool (Figures 65 and 68), appears quite frequently until mid Dynasty 5.610 It is not seen again in Groups A and B. The cushion only shown at the back of the stool constitutes a category that has been sub-divided into three styles (Figure 68), and a further category is the flattened cushion draped over the visible low chair back (Figure 66).

3.11.2   The stool and chair with low back    The style of the back of the chair offers dating criteria. Apart from the armchair, seats in Groups A and B are depicted as stools with no back support until #wfw-xa.f II [74]604 in mid Dynasty 5 (Figures 65, 67 and 69). The chair with a low back remains rare until late in the dynasty (Figures 64 and 66). In Dynasty 6 however, almost all seats are depicted with a low back. These two features, the stool and the low-backed chair, provide strong dating criteria because there are so many depictions to support their date limits. In Groups A and B, the only exceptions to the stool with no back support in Dynasty 4 and the first half of Dynasty 5 are in Mrsanx III [40]. On the panel of her false door, the queen is seated on an unusual chair with a low back covered by a flat cushion.605 In her banquet scene, however, she is seated on a decorated stool that has no back support.606 It is likely that these unusual chair depictions are due to the exceptionally high status of Mrs-anx III as the wife of a king.

The cushion appearing only at the rear of the seat on stools with no back support occurs from the second half of Dynasty 4611 to the reign of Pepy I. In Dynasty VI the latest depiction of this feature occurs in QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97].612 These cushions have many variations of shape and gradations of size so that it is difficult to separate them into subgroups. Some may hide a low chair back, but in view of the Egyptian’s propensity to show all the characteristic features of an object, a doubt remains. The three groups of these cushions are: the small rounded cushion, which cannot be mistaken for anything other than a cushion on its own (Figure 68), the small cushion with pointed top and a straight vertical back (Figure 68) which appears a little later, and the large cushion with rounded top suggesting the shape of the flat cushion that covers the low chair back, a still later feature (Figure 68). The first two groups are not seen after the end of Dynasty 5, while the third group still occurs in the reign of Pepy I.

The only exceptions to the depiction of chairs with a low back support in Dynasty 6 are the plain stools on which Mrrw-kA.j [38] and #ntj-kA.j [79]607 sit as they paint the seasons. It may be surmised that these styles are due to the special nature of the scene honouring the gods of the seasons.

3.11.5   Chair leg supports    All chairs and stools in Groups A and B are depicted with some style of pedestal that raises the carved hooves or paws forming the feet above ground level, perhaps to protect the carved feet from damage. These supports are depicted in four basic shapes. The first shape is as a single trapezium resting on its broad base (Figures 67 and 70) and the second is an inverted trapezium resting on its narrow base (Figures 65 and 72). A double trapezium with a smaller inverted trapezium resting on a large upright trapezium constitutes the third shape (Figures 64 and 71). Occasionally the pedestals are depicted as cylinders with perpendicular rather than sloping sides. These straight-sided supports are usually seen on one leg of the chair and teamed with an inverted trapezium on the

3.11.3   Chair legs and feet    Chair legs were depicted in two basic styles, either carved in the shape of a bull’s leg and hoof (Figure 65) or as a lion’s leg and paw (Figures 66 and 67). The bull’s leg style offers a strong dating criterion with much supporting evidence. It was the more common style until late Dynasty 5 and is not seen in any chapel after the reign of Pepy I either in Groups A and B or any other chapel with a cartouche later than that of Pepy I.608 While the lion chair leg is rare until mid Dynasty 5, it occurs occasionally from early in Dynasty 4. The depiction of pairs of lion legs on a chair (Figure 66), however, does have date limits. The first instance is dated to the reign of Neuserre. This feature continues to be seen, usually at Saqqara, until the reign of Pepy I. 603 604 605 606 607

608

609

Simpson (1976b) fig. 26. Simpson (1978) fig. 50. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 7. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 8 Duell I (1938) pl. 7; Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 66a and James (1953) pl. 10. Cherpion (1989) 159.

610

611

612

75 

While the principle for classing the different styles of cushion established by Cherpion (Cherpion [1989] pp. 26-31) has been followed, the categories differ as the data in Groups A and B do not support all Cherpion’s classes. KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110] Junker III (1938) figs. 15 and 17. Nswt-nfr [60]: Junker III (1938) figs. 9b, 30 . _wa-n-@r [112]: LD II, 82a; Mrs-anx III [40]: Dunham–Simpson (1974), fig. 9; Nfr [52]: Reisner (1942) fig. 241 (panel of false door); Nfr-mAat [55]: LD II, 17c. Simpson (1976b) fig. 28.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   CRITERION 80 Figure 63 A high backed armchair. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2L-3) Ni-kAw-Ra [48] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

other leg. Where this fourth shape occurs, it is likely that the perpendicular side is a variant of the inverted trapezium, perhaps to give the chair legs stability. In some depictions it is difficult to decide whether a pedestal is an inverted trapezium or a cylinder because the sides have just a hint of a slope. A notable feature throughout the Old Kingdom is the willingness to depict differing styles of pedestals in one chapel. This is particularly true of mid Dynasty V when the inverted trapezium was giving way to the double trapezium.

CRITERION 81 Figure 65 The chair is a stool with no arms or back. (III.2) – (VI.1E-M) @sjj-Ra [70] to Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj [58]

Some pedestals are decorated with horizontal bands, while others appear to have plain surfaces. When the double trapezium pedestals have horizontal bands, the bands are usually depicted only on the upper trapezium. The depiction of the single trapezium on its broad base becomes larger towards the end of the Old Kingdom. On this enlarged style the upper half or third of the pedestal is occasionally shown with bands and the lower half with smooth sides, suggesting that the enlarged trapezium was actually constructed of two pieces. In Groups A and B, this feature only appears in the provinces, in the reign of Pepy II.

CRITERION 82 Figure 65 The legs of the chair have the shape of a bull’s leg and hoof. (III.2) – (VI.2) @sjj-Ra [70] to Jdw [14] CRITERION 83 Figure 66 The chair is depicted with pairs of lion legs. (V.6L) – (VI.2) PtH-^pss [29] to Jdw [14]

The pedestal depicted as a trapezium resting on its broad base is seen throughout the Old Kingdom and therefore does not offer a dating criterion. The inverted trapezium or straight-sided pedestal was much more popular than the double trapezium in the first half of the Old Kingdom, but in Groups A and B is not seen after the end of Dynasty 5.613 The double trapezium pedestal is only seen once in Dynasty IV614 and infrequently in the first half of Dynasty V. It begins to grow in popularity in the reign of Neuserre, and in Dynasty VI, apart from the trapezium on its broad base, is the only other style of support to be seen. The rings around the pedestal do not offer a dating criterion as they are depicted throughout the Old Kingdom.

CRITERION 84 Figure 67 The seat of the stool has no cushion of any kind. (III.2) – (V.6-8) @sjj-Ra [70] to Mr-sw-anx [41] CRITERION 85 Figure 65 A cushion appears the length of the seat. (IV.1) – (V.3-5) Nfr-mAat [56] to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110] CRITERION 86 Figure 68 The cushion (of any shape) only appears at the back of the seat, but is not draped over a chairback. (IV.2) – (VI.2L-3) %SAt-sxntjw [89] to QAr/Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

3.11.6   Mat or platform beneath the tomb owner’s  chair and feet   Occasionally, the tomb owner is depicted sitting in a chair that rests on a thick mat or, more likely, a low platform (Figure 74). Apart from one instance in Dynasty 4,615 this platform is not seen until early Dynasty 5. It then appears sporadically until the reign of Pepy I and is a feature more characteristic of early Dynasty 6 than of Dynasty 5.

CRITERION 87 Figure 69 Small and rounded cushion only appears at the back of the seat (IV.1) – (V.6L-8E) Nfr-MAat [56] to Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]

3.11.7   Criteria based upon the tomb owner’s chair  CRITERION 79 Figure 64 Chairs and stools that seat two persons. (IV.4) – (VI.3-4E) Nfr [52] to Jbj [6]

CRITERION 88 Figure 70 Small cushions pointed at the top and with a straight vertical back, only appear at the back of the seat. (IV.2-4) - (V.9) Nfr-MAat [55] to Nbt [50]

613

CRITERION 89 Figure 71 Large cushions rounded at the top that suggest the shape of a flattish cushion covering a low chair back.

614

615

JAsn: [3] Simpson (1980) fig. 35 and #ww-wr [71]: Hassan V (1944) fig. 102 (lintel of false door) are the latest instances. _bHnj [113]: LD II, 36c. This is probably an instance of an early borrowing of a royal feature by a high and privileged official. KA.j-nfr [105]: Reisner (1942) pl. 17b.

76 

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  fishing and fowling scenes may imply merely a new depiction of an outdoor activity for the male tomb owner. Miroslav Barta has proposed that the second half of Dynasty 5 was a transitional phase in the depiction of bread loaves on the offering table, from half loaves to reed shapes. He further argues that the reed shapes came to symbolise entrance into an afterworld envisaged as the Fields of Reeds and Offerings.618 This interpretation could be extended to include the fishing and fowling scenes, which perhaps symbolise ritual activities on entry into such an afterworld. It is possible that the dates here proposed for the last attestation of in the chapel of a male tomb owner (V.9)619 and the earliest occurrence of the fishing and fowling scene (V.6L-8)620 coincided with the emergence of Osiris in the offering formula.621 These dates not only provide dating criteria but are also suggestive of a changing (or added) view of the official’s afterlife. The fishing and fowling scenes near or flanking the tomb entrance may have magically provided the deceased’s entry into an afterlife conceived of as the Field of Reeds.

(V.6L) – (VI.2L-3) PtH-^pss [29] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97] CRITERION 90 Figure 64 The flat cushion is draped over a visible chair back. (V.2-3) – (VI.4E-M) %Sm-nfr I [90]616 to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] CRITERION 91 Figure 72 The socle, the support beneath the chair leg, is shaped as an inverted trapezium, sometimes combined with a straight-sided pedestal attached to two of the chair legs. (IV.1-2) – (V.8L-9) MTn [43] to JAsn [3] (?$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]) CRITERION 92 Figure 73 The chair leg is supported by a double trapezium pedestal. (IV.5) – (VI.4E-M) _bHnj [113] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

3.12.1   ‘Papyrus pulling’ scenes    Figures 75 and 76 

CRITERION 93 Figure 74 The tomb owner is seated on a chair placed on a mat or low platform. (IV.2) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nfr [105] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] 3.12    

The earliest type of marshland scene with the tomb owner at the centre of the action, called here ‘sSS wAD’ scenes, has a number of defining characteristics. The tomb owner, standing on a canoe or skiff, appears to hold or pull one or two stalks of papyrus. If the tomb owner is male, he may hold an uprooted stalk aloft as though it were a spear.622 The male tomb owner, who wears a knee length flared kilt, which sometimes has a pointed ‘apron’, is depicted against the backdrop of a papyrus thicket. One or more punters or oarsmen accompany the tomb owner on the boat.

Marsh scenes  CRITERIA 94 – 104  

The marsh scenes dealt with here have the tomb owner central to the action rather than standing or seated to one side merely watching the activities of others. In Groups A and B there are four types of scenes of this nature. Of these scenes, that of the tomb owner fishing and fowling appears to succeed and take the place of the ‘pulling papyrus’ (sSS wAD) scene.

In Groups A and B the sSS wAD scenes do not appear in the same tomb as the fishing and fowling scenes.623 Moreover, male tombs with sSS wAD scenes are almost all earlier than those with fishing and fowling scenes.624 Occasional inscriptions make it possible to link the sSS wAD activity with the rites of Hathor. An inscription over the stern of the canoe on which Mrs-anx III [40] stands

While there is evidence to suggest that the sSS wAD scenes had a ritual significance, to my knowledge, no Old Kingdom scene has any inscription to suggest a symbolic or ritual significance for the theme of the deceased actively fishing and fowling. However, there is a marked difference between the location within the chapel of the sSS wAD scenes and the fishing and fowling scenes. The former scenes are usually located within the chapel while the fishing and fowling scenes tend to be closer to the chapel entrance, sometimes flanking the doorway.617 No inscription offers a reason for the changed position of the marsh scenes in which the deceased was portrayed as central to the action. Although a special ‘afterlife’ significance may be hypothesised for these themes, the

618 619 620

621

622

623 616

617

The publication of the tomb of ZSm-nfr I (Kanawati Giza I [2001] pls. 23a, 47) makes it clear that the wife’s cushion is draped over a visible chair back, in contrast to LD II, 27. The tomb owner’s cushion is of the earlier rounded style. For example, %nDm-jb:Jntj [84] and %nDm-jb:MHj [85], PM (1974) Plan 26.

624

77 

Barta (1995) 31-5. JAsn [3] (V.8L-9) Simpson (1980) fig. 30. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] (V.6L-8) Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5, 6, pl. 74. There is no reference to Osiris in Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp but see Begelsbacher–Fischer (1981) 125 for the dating of earliest references to Osiris. Hassan dates @mt-Ra of Giza from late Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 5. [Hassan IV (1943) 43-65], which would take the earliest reference to Osiris back half a dynasty. This date is suspect. See CHART A. Harpur argues that depictions of the tomb owner either holding two stalks of papyrus which are still rooted or holding one of them aloft are variant aspects of the same rite. Harpur (1980) 54-5. The ‘pleasure cruise’ does occasionally occur in a tomb which also has either a sSS wAD scene or a fishing and/or fowling scene. *jj is seen both pulling papyrus and on a ‘pleasure cruise’. Wild (1966) pls. 46, 118. Ra-Spss [67] and %nDm-jb/Jntj [84] have scenes of the tomb owner on a ‘pleasure cruise’ and fowling. A fowling and a sSS wAD scene both appear in the Giza tomb of KA.jm-anx (PM 131) but the sSS wAD scene is in the burial chamber.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM   reads, ‘She pulls papyrus for Hathor in the marshland with her mother’.625

3.12.3   The tomb owner fishing and fowling     The third and fourth categories of scenes are the more common depiction of the male tomb owner standing in a skiff in a majestic pose, either spearing fish or about to hurl a throwstick (Figures 78–80). These categories are clearly defined. The fisherman’s spearing action is complete. He has two fish on the end of his spear, which is held in a ‘mound’ of water that is depicted rising above the normal level of the waterway. The fowler is depicted at the beginning of his action. He holds one, two or three live birds in his forward hand. His rear hand holding the throwstick is raised above his head as though he is about to throw.

However, some of the scenes classified here as ‘ sSS wAD’ have been treated as ambiguous and have been variously interpreted as fishing or fowling scenes. The horizontal ‘pole’ (papyrus stalk sometimes partly split?) held aloft by the tomb owner has been described as a spear.626 Vandier interpreted the sSS wAD scenes of this kind as ‘preparation for the hunt’,627 but this scene can be interpreted differently. In the tomb of JAsn [3] the tomb owner holds aloft a papyrus stalk as though it were a spear and is described in the accompanying inscription as: ‘Pulling papyrus for Hathor in the marshland by the xntj-S JAsn’.628

The papyrus thicket is depicted in front of the tomb owner and does not frame him.636 In most scenes he wears the short, so-called ‘sporting kilt’,637 which became the regular style worn by the tomb owner fishing and fowling and occasionally by his son (Figures 78 and 79). It was clearly borrowed from royal style. The complete kilt is short and wrapped tightly around the hips. It overlaps in front from right to left. A further piece of material hangs down beneath the point where the overlap crosses. This borrowing of a royal kilt style may have been tentative at first. In the earliest fishing and fowling scenes the deceased wears a kilt that combines features of the regular and sporting kilts (Figure 81). Ni-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]638 wear a truncated flared kilt with an overlap in front which is bordered by a narrow strip of material from the waist knot to the hem. It is not quite the SnDwt. The SnDwt, however, appears to have become accepted dress for officials, who by early Dynasty 6 regularly wear it in fishing and fowling scenes. Ra-Spss [67]639 even had himself and his son depicted wearing the SnDwt kilt in a scene that appears to be more a ‘pleasure cruise’ than a fishing or fowling scene. His stance is not that of the spearing action and he holds a folded cloth in his rear hand.

Harpur draws together data from Ftk-tA of Abusir629, an inscription from Mrrw-kA.j [38]630 and the frequent placement of sSS wAD scenes close to the scene often called ‘Journey to the West’ to infer an association between the sSS wAD activity and ‘Journey to the West’ theme.631 A further possibility is presented by Ftk-tA. Here two boats sail north and are inscribed above, ‘Coming downstream to pull papyrus for beautiful Hathor’. Three more boats have the accompanying inscription, ‘Coming upstream after pulling papyrus for beautiful Hathor, Mistress of the Sycamore’.632 If, as Harpur suggests,633 the scenes in Mrs-anx III [40] and in JAsn [3] represent two stages in the sSS wAD ceremony, the boating scene in Ftk-tA may indicate that the locale or, perhaps, the original locale of the ceremony was north of Memphis in the marshes of the Delta.634 3.12.2   The ‘pleasure cruise’ scene     The second group of scenes, sometimes referred to as a ‘pleasure cruise’, is rare in Groups A and B. The male or female tomb owner stands in a canoe but is otherwise inactive.635 The male tomb owner wears a knee length flared kilt, which sometimes has a pointed ‘apron’. The papyrus thicket may be depicted as a backdrop to the figure of the tomb owner or may be depicted in front of him (Figure 77).

625

626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634

635

3.12.4   Family members accompanying the tomb owner   The tomb owner’s closest family members, depicted on a much smaller scale, often accompany him on the skiff. These are usually his wife, eldest son and daughter. The females are often depicted as very small figures kneeling at the feet of the tomb owner or standing by his leg or on the prow of the skiff. Other family members and followers are depicted in registers and on base lines either side of the skiff. The females accompanying the tomb owner often wear a headband with a flower at the back of the head and streamers. In some Dynasty 6 scenes, the tomb owner wears a similar style of headband. Sometimes family members are depicted in a more active

‘sSS.s wAD n @wt @r m pHw Hna mwt.s’, Dunham–Simpson (1974) pl. 4, figs 4, 9-10. HESPOK 178. Vandier IV (1964-78) 738-46. Simpson (1980) 20-21 pl. 44(a). LD Erg. (1913) 40 Duell II (1938) pls 140-42; Harpur (1980) 58-59. Harpur (1980) 58-59. LD Erg. (1913) 40 Harpur (1980) 58. In the marsh scene of #w-ns of Zawyet el-Meitin (not included in Groups A and B), the tomb owner is dressed in a flared kilt with pointed ‘apron’ and a long scarf-like piece of cloth draped over his shoulder. Framed against a papyrus thicket, he stands in a boat manned by a crew of more than 15 oarsmen and appears to hurl an object that is clearly a throwstick. Here, the apparent confusion of elements may be the result of the change from one category of marsh scenes (sSS wAD) to another (fishing and fowling). LD II, 106a. Ra-Spss [67] wears the much shorter ‘sporting’ kilt in his ‘pleasure cruise’ scene. LD II, 60 (right).

636

637

638

639

78 

In the fishing scene of +aw [114] the papyrus thicket appears to be behind the spearer. Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. 5. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-xtp [44] the earliest tomb owners to have a ‘fishing and fowling’ scene, wear a shortened version of the flared kilt. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5, 6, pl. 74. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5, 6. pls. 74-5. @tp-Hr-Axtj also wears a modified SnDwt, [Mohr (1943) 64, fig. 34]. LD II, 60.

CHAPTER 3:  ESTABLISHING DATING CRITERIA  CRITERION 99 Figure 80 The papyrus thicket is shown in front of the tomb owner. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Mrs-anx III [40] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

pose. A wife may point towards the papyrus thicket or a son may mimic the tomb owner’s stance and hunting action. 3.12.5   Criteria based upon marsh scenes 

CRITERION 100 Figure 81 The tomb owner is depicted wearing a kilt that is flared or combines features of the regular and sporting kilts as he stands on a skiff. (V.6) – (V.9E) Jj-mrjj [4] to %nDm-jb:Jntj [84]

CRITERION 94 Figure 75 A female is depicted ‘pulling papyrus’. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2-4E) Mrs-anx III [40] to anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II [16] CRITERION 95 Figure 76 A male is depicted ‘pulling papyrus’. (IV.5-6) – (V.8L-9) Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] to JAsn [3]

CRITERION 101 Figures 78 and 79 The tomb owner wears the SnDwt (short sporting kilt) in fishing and fowling scenes. (V.8) – (VI.4E-M) Ra-^pss [67] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 96 Figure 77 The ‘pleasure cruise’ scene with the tomb owner standing inactive on a skiff. (IV.2-4) – (VI.1L) Mrs-anx II [39] to Mrrw-kA.j [38]

CRITERION 102 Figure 79 Male tomb owners (and their sons) wear headbands with one long and one short streamer. (VI.1E-M) – (VI.4E-M) KA-gmnj:Mmj [111] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 97 Figure 78 The deceased fowling: stands on a skiff preparing to hurl a curved throwstick. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.4E) Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] to +aw [114]

CRITERION 103 Figures 78 and 79 The son of the tomb owner is depicted on a considerably smaller scale copying the throwing or spearing action of the tomb owner. (VI.1L-2E) – (VI.3-4E) Rmnj:Mrwi [68] to Jbj [6]

CRITERION 98 Figure 79 The deceased fishing: stands on a skiff having speared two fish that are on his harpoon. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.4E-M) Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 104 Figures 78 and 80 The wife or daughter of the tomb owner in the skiff is depicted pointing towards the papyrus thicket. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.3-4E) Jrj.n.kA-PtH [9] to Jbj [6]

79 

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM 3.13

Figures and descripƟons of CÙ®ã›Ù®ƒ 1–104

CRITERION 1 Fig. 1 (a): after Junker III (1938) fig. 16 Fig. 1 (b): after Junker III (1938) fig. 18 FLARED KILT STYLE 1: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt between the wearer's legs. (IV.2-4) – (V.6L-8E) Nfr-mAat [55] to Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]

Fig. 1 (a)

Fig. 1 (b)

CRITERION 2 Fig. 2 (a): after Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 26 Fig. 2 (b): after Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) fig. 8 FLARED KILT STYLE 2: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt over the wearer’s rear leg. (V.2) – (V.9M)640 From Pr-sn [25] to %nDm-jb:MHj [85]

Fig. 2 (a)

Fig. 2 (b)

Fig. 3 (a)

Fig. 3 (b)

CRITERION 3 Fig. 3 (a) after Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pl. 9 Fig. 3 (b) after Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pl. 29 FLARED KILT STYLE 3: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt meet the hem of the kilt at the lower rear corner of the garment. (V.2-3) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 4 Fig. 4: after Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pl. 20 FLARED KILT STYLE 4: The single or double lines defining the ‘apron’ of the flared kilt protrude beyond the rear corner of the kilt, or appear to wrap around it. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 4

CRITERION 5 Fig. 5: after Junker III (1938) fig. 18 The ‘apron’ of the flared kilt is defined by a single inner line. (IV.4-6 ) – (VI.4E-M) Mrs-anx III [40] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Fig. 5

CRITERION 6 Fig. 6 (a): after Junker III (1938) pl. 10a Fig. 6 (b): after Cherpion (1989) fig. 53a The short, tight fitting version called the Ra-Htp kilt by Cherpion. (IV.1) – (V.6-8) Nfr-mAat [56] to Mr-sw-anx [41]

Fig. 6 (a)

Fig. 6 (b)

640 A figure of the tomb owner wearing a STYLE 2 kilt appears at the foot of the false door of @sj [69] [Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) pls. 40. 42, 63]

but is unlikely to be anything more than a careless piece of work as it is only one of eight figures.

80

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 7 Fig. 7: after Hassan I (1932) fig. 140 See also Fig. 14 Horizontal buckle and stiff tag on waistband of short tight kilt. (III.2) – (VI.1L-.2) @sjj-Ra [70] to #ntj-kA.j [79]

Fig. 7

CRITERION 8 Fig. 8: Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pl. 35 The flared kilt worn by the seated tomb owner. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Nj-kAw-Ra [48] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Fig. 8

CRITERION 9 Fig. 9: Lashien (2013) pl. 84 The narrow collar that does not reach as low as the wearer’s armpit. (IV.1-2) – (VI.1E-M) MTn [43] to KA-gm-nj:Mmj [111]

Fig. 9

CRITERION 10 Fig. 10: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 64a The broad collar that reaches at least to the wearer’s armpit. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) Jj-mrjj [4] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 10

CRITERION 11 Fig. 11: Kanawati–Abder Raziq (2004) pl. 45 The amulet either pendant or worn at the neck. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2M) Mrs-anx III [40] to Mrjj-&tj [33]

Fig. 11

CRITERION 12 Fig. 12: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pl. 44 The shoulder-length wig that exposes the male wearer’s ear. (VI.1M-2E) – (VI.4E-M) anx-m-a-@r [15] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 12

81

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERION 13 Fig. 13: after Cherpion (1989) fig. 54 The long robe with a neckline that leaves one shoulder bare, perhaps simulating animal skin worn by men and women. (III.2) – (V.2-3) @sjj-Ra [70] to Wxm-kA.j [21]

CRITERION 14641 Fig. 14: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 45 STYLE I of the animal skin. The narrow lower paws hang down behind the wearer with the tail of the animal appearing to wrap around the wearer’s waist. (IV.1-2) – (V.6) MTn [43] to #wfw-xa.f II [74]

CRITERION 15 Fig. 15: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 74 STYLE 2 of the animal skin reverses the way the skin is draped over the wearer. The paw of the animal is brought up to the left shoulder near the tie, and the face of the animal to waist height or above. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.4E-M) Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Fig. 13

CRITERION 16 Fig. 14 The diagonal top line of the animal skin appears to be bound by one strip of material, depicted as one or two parallel lines. (III.2) – VI.2) @sjj-Ra [70] to Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx:Nxbw [32]

14

CRITERION 17

16

7

Fig. 15 The diagonal top line of the animal skin appears to be bound by two or more strips of material, depicted as three or four parallel lines. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nj nswt I [102] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

22

CRITERION 18 Fig. 15 When the animal skin was reversed, the lower paws began to broaden tending to lose their natural shape. They either became very broad and rounded with a few defining claws or, conversely, sharpened into an angled corner without claws. (V.7-8) – (VI.4E-M) NTr-wsr [61] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

641

Fig. 14: STYLE 1 of the animal skin

Numbers on Figs. 14–15 indicate the features in these drawings that pertain to the corresponding criterion number.

82

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 19 Fig. 16: Kanawati II (1981) fig. 15 The animal skin is worn over a tight kilt. (IV.1-2) – (VI.4E-M) MTn [43] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

17 15 24

CRITERION 20 Fig. 15 The animal skin is worn over a flared kilt. (IV.2-4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr-mAat [55] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

21

18 20

CRITERION 21 Fig. 15 A belt is depicted over the animal skin. (V.2-3) – (VI.2L-4E) Wxm-kA.j [21] to Wr-nww [20]

CRITERION 22

Fig. 15: STYLE 2 of the animal skin

Fig. 14 The animal’s face appears on the pelt below the level of the wearer’s waist. (IV.4-6)642 – (VI.1M) #wfw-xa.f I [73] to Nj-kAw-Jssj [47]

CRITERION 23 Fig. 17: Kanawati II (1981) fig. 26 The animal’s face appears on the pelt at the level of the wearer’s waist. (V.6L-8E) – (VI.9M) Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] to %nDm-j:MHj [85] Fig. 16

CRITERION 24 Fig. 15 The animal’s face on the pelt appears above the wearer’s waist level. (VI.1E-M)643 – (VI.4E-M) KA-gm-nj [111] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

CRITERION 25 Fig. 13 The tomb owner at the offering table wears the long robe. (III.2) – (V.2-3) @sjj-Ra [70] to WHm-kA.j [21] Fig. 17 642 643

The date omits the instance of MTn [43] who appears to have a belt over his long robe. KA.j-nj-nswt I [102] (IV.4-6) has a depiction with a number of unusual features including the animal’s face in profile. Otherwise, this feature does not occur in Groups A and B until KA-gmnj [111]

83

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERION 26 Fig. 18: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 90 The tomb owner at the offering table wears the short, tight fitting kilt, with or without an animal skin. (IV.4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr [52] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 27

Fig. 18

Fig. 19: after Cherpion (1989) fig 30 The tomb owner at the offering table wears the flared kilt. (V.2) – (V.8) Pr-sn [25] to #ww-wr [71]

CRITERION 28 Fig. 20: Kanawati II (1981) fig. 24 The left facing tomb owner at the offering table holds a cloth in the near hand over the knee. (V.2) – (VI.4E-M) Pr-sn [25] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 19

CRITERION 29 See Fig. 19 The right facing tomb owner at the offering table holds a cloth to his breast in the far hand. (V.6L-8E) – (VI.3-4E) Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] to Jbj [6]

Fig. 20

CRITERION 30 Fig. 21: Kanawati II (1981) fig. 23 The figure seated at the offering table holds a bAS flask to the nose. (V.9) – (VI.4E-M) PtH-Htp (II):*fj [27] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Fig. 21

CRITERION 31 Fig. 22: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 53 HALF LOAVES HEIGHT 1: the height of half loaves should be no greater than the length of the owner’s upper arm, measured from tip of elbow to top of shoulder. (III.2) – (V.8L-9) @sjj-Ra [70] to JAsn [3]

Fig. 22

84

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 32 Fig. 23: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 63 HALF LOAVES HEIGHT 2: The height of half loaves is equal to or greater than the length of the tomb owner’s upper arm measured from tip of elbow to top of shoulder. (IV.4-5) – (VI.2) _wA.n-@r [112] to Qrrj [98]

CRITERION 33 Fig. 24: after Simpson (1978) pl. 49 A transitional phase occurs between the depiction of half loaves and that of reeds where the indentation at the bottom of the half loaf is slight. (V.6) – (V.9-VI.1) #wfw-xa.f II [74] to %SsSt:Jdwt [93]

Fig. 23

CRITERION 34 Fig. 25: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl 90 See also Fig. 18 True reeds are depicted with a clearly defined short stalk. (V.9) – (VI.4E-M) Nbt [50] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 35

Fig. 24

Fig. 25

Fig. 26

Fig. 27

Fig. 28

Fig. 29

Fig. 26: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 53 HALF LOAVES ORIENTATION 1: The half loaves are arranged around a central axis with their straight edges facing inward. (III.2) – (VI.2E-L) @sjj-Ra [70] to Ra-wr [63]

CRITERION 36 Fig. 27: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 63 HALF LOAVES ORIENTATION 2: The half loaves are arranged around an axis with their straight edges facing outward. (V.2-3) – (V.8) %Sm-nfr I [90]644 to %Sm-nfr III [92]. See also Qrrj [98] VI.2

CRITERION 37 Fig. 28: Kanawati Teti IX (2009) pl. 49 REEDS ORIENTATION I: The reeds (or forms in transition to becoming reeds) are arranged around a central axis with their straight edges facing inwards. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) #wfw-xa.f II [74] to Nbt [51]

CRITERION 38 Fig. 29: Kanawati II (1981) pl 24 REEDS ORIENTATION II: Reeds (or forms in transition to becoming reeds) are arranged around a central axis with their straight edges facing outwards. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] 644

Only the outer two half loaves have their straight edges facing outward. The inner half loaves are arranged in pairs. Kanawati (2001) pls. 23, 47.

85

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERION 39 Fig. 30: after Manuelian (2003) pl. 16. The appearance of a linen list. (IV.1-2) – (V.2-3) MTn [43] to %Sm-nfr I [90]

Fig. 30

CRITERION 40 Fig. 31: Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) pl. 53a The appearance of the canonical list. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Mrs-anx III [40] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 31

CRITERION 41 Fig. 32: Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) pl. 53b The depiction of foods on re gisters. (IV.2-4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr-mAat [55] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 32

CRITERION 42 Fig. 33: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pl. 50 The depiction of jumbled piles of foods. (V.2-3) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Fig. 33

86

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 43 Fig. 34: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 43 See also Fig 31 The xA list is depicted wholly beneath the offering table. (IV.1-2) – (VI.2L-3) MTn [43] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

CRITERION 44 Fig. 35: Kanawati–Evans, Meir II (2014) pl 94 The xA list at least partly beside and/or above the offering table. (V.3) – (VI.4E-M) WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] Fig. 34

CRITERION 45

Fig. 35

Fig. 36: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pl. 49 The phrase ‘dbHt-Htp’ is added to the xA list. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

CRITERION 46 Fig. 37: after Manuelian (2003) pl. 26 The ewer and basin set with spouted ewer standing tall and rounded in the basin as on stela of Jwnw. (III.2) – (V.3-5) @sjj-Ra [70] to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110]

Fig. 36

CRITERION 47 Fig. 38 (a) and 38 (b): Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pl. 49 In this ewer and basin set the spouted ewer sits low in the basin with only the arched top of the ewer and the spout appearing above the rim of the basin, as on Nj-kAw-Ra. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Nj-kAw-Ra [48] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 37

CRITERION 48 Fig. 39: Kanawati Giza I (2001) pl. 47 The ewer and basin set ‘floats’ without any base line near the tomb owner’s face or arm. (III.2) – (V.3-5) @sjj-Ra [70] to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110]

CRITERION 49 Fig. 38 (a) The ewer and basin set is shown on a stand in an offering table scene. (V.3) – (VI.4E-M) WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

Fig. 38 (a)

Fig. 38 (b)

CRITERION 50 Fig. 38 (a) The ewer and basin set is depicted beneath the offering table. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 39

87

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERIA 51 Fig. 40: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (9) Priestly gesture: standing man holding a censer. (IV.4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr [52] – KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]

CRITERIA 52 Fig. 41: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (3) Priestly gesture: standing man holding up ewer and basin. (IV.4) – (V.8L-9) Nfr [52] – JAsn [3]

Fig. 40

Fig. 41

Fig. 42

Fig. 43

Fig. 44

Fig. 45

Fig. 46

Fig. 47

CRITERIA 53 Fig. 42: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (5) Priestly gesture: kneeling man holding a nw pot in each hand. (IV.4-5) – (V.8L-9) #wfw-Dd.f [75] – JAsn [3]

CRITERIA 54 Fig. 43: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (13) Priestly gesture: standing man proclaiming. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2L-3) #wfw-xa.f I [73] – QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

CRITERIA 55 Fig. 44: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (16) Priestly gesture: squatting man proclaiming. (V.6) – (VI.3-4E) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] – KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]

CRITERIA 56 Fig. 45: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (17) Priestly gesture: walking man dragging a broom. (V.8L-9E) – (VI.4E-M) Ax.t-Htp [1] – KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]

CRITERIA 57 Fig. 46: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (4) Priestly gesture: standing man pouring a libation into a jar held by a kneeling man. (V.8-9) – (VI.4E-M) Ra-wr II [65] – KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]

CRITERIA 58 Fig. 47: after Junker III (1938) fig. 10 (15) Priestly gesture: standing man reading from a scroll. (V.7-8) – (VI.3-4E) NTr-wsr [61] – Jbj [6]

88

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 59 Fig. 48: Kanawati Mereruka III.1 (2010) pl. 88 (a) A row of funerary priests on their own register, usually located at head height to the seated tomb owner whom they face. (V.7-8) – (VI.4E-M) NTr-wsr [61] to KA.j-Hp:*tj-jkr [109]

Fig. 48

CRITERION 60 Fig. 49: Kanawati–Abder Raziq (2003) pl. 70 The surface of the table is depicted level with the tomb owner’s knee. (IV.2-4) – (VI.4E-M) Nfr-mAat [55] to £nj:¥psj-pw-Mnw [80] Fig. 49

CRITERION 61 Fig. 50: Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) pl. 67 The surface of the table is depicted below the height of the tomb owner’s knee. (IV.2) – (VI.4E-M) ¤SAt-sxntjw [89] to KA.j-hp:§tj-jqr[109]

Fig. 50

CRITERION 62 Fig. 51: Kanawati Giza I (2001) pl. 47 The table rests on a separate pedestal. (IV.2) – (V.8-9) Wp-m-nfrt [19] to Ra-wr II [65] Fig. 52

CRITERION 63 Fig. 52: Kanawati IV (1983) fig. 28 The surface of the table has a lipped edge. (V.3) – (VI.4E) WAS-PtH:Jsj [17] to +aw [114]

Fig. 51

CRITERION 64 Fig. 53: Kanawati Teti IX (2009) pl. 51 The wife or mother is seated behind (beside?) the tomb owner at the offering table. (V.2-3) – (VI.2) WHm-kA.j [21] to Qrrj [98]

Fig. 53

89

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERION 65 Fig. 54: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 52 The wife embraces her husband with both arms, placing one hand on his arm, waist or chest and putting her other arm around his shoulders. (IV.4-5) – (VI.1M-2E) _wa-n-@r [112] to WDA-HA-&tj:%Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH [22]

CRITERION 66 Fig. 55: Lashien (2013) pl. 84 The wife kneels at the feet of her husband. This does not include the female on a skiff accompanying fishing and/or fowling activities. (V.6) – (VI.2M) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] to Mrjj-&tj:Mrj [33]

Fig. 54

CRITERION 67 Fig. 56: Lashien (2013) pl. 85 The wife is depicted on a much smaller scale than the tomb owner as she stands next to him. (V.6) – (VI.4E) Nfr and KA-HA.j [53] to ©aw [114]

CRITERION 68 Fig. 57: Kanawati Giza I (2001) pl. 47 The short, close fitting wig without the fillet with streamer is worn by a female. (IV.1L-2E) – (VI.4E-M) Ra-Htp [66] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80] Fig. 55

Fig. 56

Fig. 57

Fig. 58

Fig. 59

Fig. 60

CRITERION 69 Fig. 58: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 64 (b) The short, close fitting wig worn by a female is teamed with the fillet with streamer(s). In the tombs of Groups A and B, this criterion first appears in Mrs-anx III [38] but is not seen again until Nbt [50] (V.9). (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E) Mrs-anx III [40] to +aw [114]

CRITERION 70 Fig. 59: after Simpson (1978) pl. 64 The choker is worn alone by a female (without the beaded collar). (IV.1L-2E) – (V.6L-8E) Ra-Htp [66] to Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]

CRITERION 71 Fig. 60: Lashien (2013) fig. 84 The choker is worn with the beaded collar by a female. (IV.4-6) – (V.8) #wfw-xa.f I [73] to %Sm-nfr III [92]

90

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 72 Fig. 61: Lashien (2013) pl. 86 Multiple bangles are worn by a female. (IV.1L-2E) – (VI.2L-3) Ra-Htp [66] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

CRITERION 73 Fig. 62: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 64 The inclusion of the banquet scene. (IV.2-4) – (VI.2) Nfr-MAat [55] to Jdw I:Nfr [14]

Fig. 61

CRITERION 74 Fig. 63: after Brunner-Traut (1977) beilagen 4 The tomb owner holds a flywhisk over his shoulder. (IV.5) – (VI.4E) _bHnj [113] to +aw [114]

CRITERION 75 Fig. 63 The seated tomb owner holds or receives a lotus. (IV.4-6) – (V.8L-9) Mrs-anx III [40] to JAsn [3]

CRITERION 76 Fig. 63 The deceased is seated in a high-backed armchair in a banquet scene. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2L-3) Nj-kAw-Ra [48] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

Fig. 62

CRITERION 77 Fig. 64: Kanawati Mereruka III:2 (2011) pl. 81 A lotus with a straight stem is held in a clenched fist. (V.6) – (VI.4E-M) Jj-mrjj [4] to $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw [80]

CRITERION 78 Fig. 63 The lotus is held or received with palm of the hand upturned. (V.2-3) – (V.9) KA.j-nj-nswt II [103] to Nbt [50] Fig. 63

CRITERION 79 Fig. 64 Chairs and stools that seat two persons. (IV.4) – (VI.3-4E) Nfr [52] to Jbj [6]

CRITERION 80 Fig. 63 A high backed armchair. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2L-3) Ni-kAw-Ra [48] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

Fig. 64

91

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERION 81 Fig. 65: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 43 The chair is a stool with no arms or back. (III.2) – (VI.1E-M) @sjj-Ra [70] to Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj [58]

CRITERION 82

Fig. 65

Fig. 65 The legs of the chair have the shape of a bull’s leg and hoof. (III.2) – (VI.2) @sjj-Ra [70] to Jdw [14]

CRITERION 83 Fig. 66: Kanawati-Hassan (1997) pl. 68 The chair is depicted with pairs of lion legs. (V.6L) – (VI.2) PtH-^pss [29] to Jdw [14] Fig. 66

CRITERION 84 Fig. 67: after Cherpion (1989) fig. 2 The seat of the stool has no cushion of any kind. (III.2) – (V.6-8) @sjj-Ra [70] to Mr-sw-anx [41]

CRITERION 85 Fig. 65 A cushion appears the length of the seat. (IV.1) – (V.3-5) Nfr-mAat [56] to KA-pw-nswt:KA.j [110]

Fig. 67

CRITERION 86 Fig. 68: after Cherpion (1989) fig. on p. 31 The cushion (of any shape) only appears at the back of the seat, but is not draped over a chairback. (IV.2) – (VI.2L-3) %SAt-sxntjw [89] to QAr/Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

Fig. 68

CRITERION 87 Fig. 69: Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 63 Small and rounded cushion only appears at the back of the seat. (IV.1) – (V.6L-8E) Nfr-MAat [56] to Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]

Fig. 69

92

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 88 Fig. 70: Lashien (2013) pl. 86 Small cushions pointed at the top and with a straight vertical back, only appear at the back of the seat. (IV.2-4) – (V.9) Nfr-MAat [55] to Nbt [50]

Fig. 70

CRITERION 89 Fig. 71: after Cherpion (1989) fig. 6 Large cushions rounded at the top that suggest the shape of a flattish cushion covering a low chair back. (V.6L) – (VI.2L-3) PtH-^pss [29] to QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr [97]

CRITERION 90 Fig. 64 The flat cushion is draped over a visible chair back. (V.2-3) – (VI.4E-M) %Sm-nfr I [90]645 to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

Fig. 71

CRITERION 91 Fig. 72: Kanawati Giza I (2001) pl 50 The socle, the support beneath the chair leg, is shaped as an inverted trapezium, sometimes combined with a straight-sided pedestal attached to two of the chair legs. (IV.1-2) – (V.8L-9) MTn [43] to JAsn [3]

Fig. 72

CRITERION 92

Fig. 73

Fig. 73: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 90 The chair leg is supported by a double trapezium pedestal. (IV.5) – (VI.4E-M) _bHnj [113] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 93 Fig. 74: Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pl. 100 The tomb owner is seated on a chair placed on a mat or low platform. (IV.2) – (VI.4E-M) KA.j-nfr [105] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109] Fig. 74 645

The publication of the tomb of %Sm-nfr I [Kanawati Giza I (2001) pls. 23a, 47] makes it clear that the wife’s cushion is draped over a visible chair back, in contrast to LD II, 27. The tomb owner’s cushion is of the earlier rounded style.

93

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

CRITERION 94 Fig. 75: after Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 4 A female is depicted ‘pulling papyrus’. (IV.4-6) – (VI.2-4E) Mrs-anx III [40] to anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II [16]

Fig. 75

CRITERION 95 Fig. 76: Kanawati Giza I (2001) pl. 36 A male is depicted ‘pulling papyrus’. (IV.5-6) – (V.8L-9) Nb.j-m-Axtj [49] to JAsn [3]

Fig. 76

CRITERION 96 Fig. 77: Kanawati–Abder Raziq (2003) pl. 54 The ‘pleasure cruise’ scene with the tomb owner standing inactive on a skiff. (IV.2-4) – (VI.1L) Mrs-anx II [39] to Mrrw-kA.j [38]

Fig. 77

94

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

CRITERION 97 Fig. 78: Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) pl. 68 The deceased fowling: stands on a skiff preparing to hurl a curved throwstick. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.4E) Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] to +aw [114]

CRITERION 98 Fig. 79: Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) pl. 67 The deceased fishing: stands on a skiff having speared two fish that are on his harpoon. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.4E-M) Jrj-n-kA-PtH [9] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 99

Fig. 78

Fig. 80: Kanawati–Evans Meir II (2014) pl. 88 The papyrus thicket is shown in front of the tomb owner. (IV.4-6) – (VI.4E-M) Mrs-anx III [40] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 100 Fig. 81: after Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) pl. 6 The tomb owner is depicted wearing a kilt that is flared or combines the features of the regular and sporting kilts as he stands on a skiff fishing or fowling. (V.6) – (V.9E) Jj-mrjj [4] to %nDm-jb:Jntj [84] Fig. 79

CRITERION 101 Figs. 78 and 79 The tomb owner wears the SnDwt (short sporting kilt) in fishing and fowling scenes. (V.8) – (VI.4E-M) Ra-^pss [67] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 102 Fig. 79 Male tomb owners (and their sons) wear headbands with one long and one short streamer. (VI.1E-M) – (VI.4E-M) KA-gmnj:Mmj [111] to KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr [109]

CRITERION 103 Figs. 78 and 79 The son of the tomb owner is depicted on a considerably smaller scale copying the throwing or spearing action of the tomb owner. (VI.1L-2E) – (VI.3-4E) Rmnj:Mrwi [68] to Jbj [6]

Fig. 80

CRITERION 104 Fig. 78 and 80 The wife or daughter of the tomb owner in the skiff is depicted pointing towards the papyrus thicket. (V.6E-8L) – (VI.3-4E) Jrj.n.kA-PtH [9] to Jbj [6]

Fig. 81

95

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM 3.14

Tables to establish daƟng criteria

CRITERIA TABLE 1: CRITERIA 1–24

MALE DRESS: KILT

KILT: Flare Style 3

KILT: Flare Style 4

KILT with single line

Ra-Htp Style of Kilt

Stiff Buckle and Tag

Seated in Flared Kilt

Narrow Collar

Broad Collar

Amulet

Long Wig exposing ear

CRITERION NO.

ORNAMENT

KILT: Flare Style 2

DATE

KILT: Flare Style 1

NO. Prosopography / Group

TOMB OWNER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

@sjj-Ra

[70] B

III.2

Nfr-mAat

[56] B

IV.1

6+

MTn

[43] B

IV.1-2

11+

Ra-Htp

[66] B

IV.1L-2E

6+

Wp-m-nfrt

[19] B

IV.2

KA.j-nfr

[105] B

IV.2

Nfr-mAat

[55] B

IV.2-4

[5] B

IV.2L-4

Nfr

[52] B

IV.4

#wfw-Dd.f

[75] B

IV.4-5

Nj-wsr-Ra

[46] B

IV.4-5

#wfw-xa.f I

[73] B

IV.4-6

2+

[2] B

IV.4-6

1

Nj-kAw-Ra

[48] B

IV.4-6

1

Mrs-anx III

[40] B

IV.4-6

4

[102] B

IV.4-6

[88] B

IV.4L-6

_bHnj

[113] A

IV.5

2+

KA.j-m-sxm

[101] B

IV.5

1

Nb.j-m-Axtj

[49] B

IV.5-6

1

Nswt-nfr

[60] B

IV.5-V.1

KA.j-nfr

[106] B

IV.6-V.2

Jwnw

JAbtt

KA.j-nj-nswt I %SAt-Htp:!tj

2+

1

2+

2+

2+ 2+ 1

2+

1

1 2+

1 2+

2+ 2+

2+ 2+ 2+ 1

2+ 2+ 2+

1

1 1

2+

96

2+

6+

1

2+

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

ANIMAL PELT WORN BY TOMB OWNER

Long Animal Skin Robe

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 1

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 2

SKIN: 1 band at neck

SKIN: 2+ bands at neck

SKIN with Broad Paws

Short Kilt + Animal Skin

SKIN over Flared Kilt

BELT over Animal Skin

SKIN: Face BELOW waist

SKIN: Face at WAIST level

SKIN: Face ABOVE waist

REFERENCE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

1

TOMB OWNER

Quibell (1913) pls. 29, 30, 31, 32.

@sjj-Ra

Petrie (1892) pls. 17,18, 23, 24, 26.

Nfr-mAat

1

1

1

LD II, 3 - 7.

MTn

2+ 2+

2+

1

Petrie (1892) pls. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15.

Ra-Htp

1

1

Reisner (1942) pl. 17[a].

Wp-m-nfrt

Reisner (1942) plate 17[b]; Manuelian (2003) fig. 23.

KA.j-nfr

LD II 17a, c.

Nfr-mAat

Junker I (1929) pls. 26, 27, fig.31.

Jwnw

Ziegler (1990) No. 26.

Nfr

Junker X (1951) fig. 25.

#wfw-Dd.f

Hassan IV (1943) pl. 40B, fig. 133.

Nj-wsr-Ra

2+

Simpson (1978) figs. 25-33.

#wfw-xa.f I

1

Junker I (1929) fig. 51.

JAbtt

2+

1 1 1

1

2+

1

1

2+

2+

1

1

1

1

1?

LD II, 15; LD Erg., pl. 35 (upper and lower). Nj-kAw-Ra 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+

2+

2+

2+ 2+

2+

2+

2+

1

1

6+

2+

1

1

1

1

2+? Junker II (1934) figs. 15, 16, 18, 19 1

1

6+ 1

Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 3b, 4, 7, 8, 12 Mrs-anx III

1

KA.j-nj-nswt I

Junker II (1934) figs. 25, 28; Kanawati Giza %SAt-Htp:!tj II (2002) pls. 43(a), 44, 45, 47. LD II, 36a, b, c.

_bHnj

LD II, 32.

KA.j-m-sxm

LD II, 12.

Nb.j-m-Axtj

Junker III (1938) figs. 9b, 27, 28, 30; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 52, 53, 56, 57.

Nswt-nfr

Reisner (1942) figs. 257-9, 262-3.

KA.j-nfr

97

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 1: CRITERIA 1–24 (cont.)

MALE DRESS: KILT

KILT: Flare Style 3

KILT: Flare Style 4

KILT with single line

Ra-Htp Style of Kilt

Stiff Buckle and Tag

Seated in Flared Kilt

Narrow Collar

Broad Collar

Amulet

Long Wig exposing ear

CRITERION NO.

ORNAMENT

KILT: Flare Style 2

DATE

KILT: Flare Style 1

NO. Prosopography / Group

TOMB OWNER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Mr-jb.j

[34] B

IV.6-V.2

#wfw-anx

[72] B

V.1

Pr-sn

[25] A

V.2

Nj-anx-%xmt

[45] A

V.2

2+

%xm-kA-Ra

[86] A

V.2

2+

Wxm-kA.j

[21] B

V.2-3

Pr-sn

[24] B

%Sm-nfr I

6+

11+ 1

1

1

2+

?

2+

V.2-3

1

2+

[90] B

V.2-3

1

2+

KA.j-nj-nswt II

[103] B

V.2-3

KA.j-swDA

[107] B

V.2-3

WAS-PtH:Jsj

[17] A

V.3

Ra-wr

[64] A

V.3

^pss-kA.f-anx

[95] B

V.3-5

[110] B

V.3-5

Jrj-n-Ra

[8] B

V.4-7

Jj-mrjj

[4] B

V.6

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

Jtjj

[13] B

V.6

1

1

%Sm-nfr II

[91] B

V.6

1

PtH-Spss

[29] A

V.6L

1

Nfr andKA-HA.j

]53] B

V.6

1

#wfw-xa.f II

[74] B

V.6

1

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

[9] B

V.6E-8L

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

2+

1

1

1 2+

2+ 2+

2+ 2+

1

1 1

6+

2+ 2+

2+

1

1

1

1

6+ 1

1 1

98

1

2+ 2+ 1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

ANIMAL PELT WORN BY TOMB OWNER

Long Animal Skin Robe

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 1

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 2

SKIN: 1 band at neck

SKIN: 2+ bands at neck

SKIN with Broad Paws

Short Kilt + Animal Skin

SKIN over Flared Kilt

BELT over Animal Skin

SKIN: Face BELOW waist

SKIN: Face at WAIST level

SKIN: Face ABOVE waist

REFERENCE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2+

2+

2+

1

1

1

2+

TOMB OWNER

LD II, 18-21.

Mr-jb.j

Reisner (1942) pl. 65b.

#wfw-anx

Petrie–Murray (1952) pls. 9, 10.

Pr-sn

2+

2+

1

Mariette (1889) 203/205.

Nj-anx-%xmt

1

1

1

LD II, 42.

%xm-kA-Ra

2+

2+

2+

Kayser (1954) 24, 25, 32, 33, 37.

Wxm-kA.j

1

1

1

LD II, 83a.

Pr-sn

1

1

2+

LD II, 27, 29a, b; Kanawati Giza I (2001) pls. 42, 46, 47, 48, 51.

%Sm-nfr I

Junker III (1938) figs. 20-22.

KA.j-nj-nswt II

Junker VII (1944) figs. 70, 71.

KA.j-swDA

1

2+

1

Borchardt (1964) pl. 69; Mariette (1889) 270WAS-PtH:Jsj 1. 1

2+

1

6+

6+

1

1 1

2+

Hassan I (1932) pl. 11, figs. 5, 25.

Ra-wr

1

Weeks (1994) figs. 56, 57.

^pss-kA.f-anx

Junker III (1938) pls. 7a, figs. 14-17.

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

Junker III (1938) figs. 24 a, b, c, d.

Jrj-n-Ra

1

6+

Weeks (1994) figs. 26, 31, 32; 36, 30-44; LD Jj-mrjj II, 49, 50, 53, 54; LD Erg., pls. 4, 6.

1

1 1

1

1

Weeks (1994) figs. 50, 52; LD II, 59a.

Jtjj

Smith (1946) 291 fig. 141; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 62-64.

%Sm-nfr II

James (1961) No. 682.

PtH-Spss

Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pls. 7, 26, 29, 30, 32; Lashien (2013) pls. 81, 82, 84-86.

Nfr andKA-HA.j

Simpson (1978) figs. 44, 47, 49, 50.

#wfw-xa.f II

Moussa–Junge (1975) pl. 10, Illus. 3.

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

99

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 1: CRITERIA 1–24 (cont.)

MALE DRESS: KILT

KILT: Flare Style 3

KILT: Flare Style 4

KILT with single line

Ra-Htp Style of Kilt

Stiff Buckle and Tag

Seated in Flared Kilt

Narrow Collar

Broad Collar

Amulet

Long Wig exposing ear

CRITERION NO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

%xntjw

[87] B

V.6-8E

Nfr-sSm-PtH

[57] B

V.6-8E

Mr-sw-anx

[41] B

V.6-8

Nfr-bAw-PtH

[54] B

V.6L

PtH-Spss

[29] A

V.6L

Nj-anx- $nmw and $nmw-Htp

[44] A

V.6L-8E

NTr-wsr

[61] B

V.7-8

PtH-Htp I

[26] B

V.8

2+

1

Ra-Spss

[67] A

V.8

1

2+

%Sm-nfr III

[92] B

V.8

#ww-wr

[71] B

V.8

Ra-wr II

[65] B

V.8-9

Pr-nb

[23] A

V.8-9

Ax.t-Htp

[1] B

V.8L-9E

JAsn

[3] B

V.8L-9

%nDm-jb:Jntj

[84] A

V.9E

%nDm-j:MHj

[85[ A

V.9M

PtH-Htp II: *fj

[27] B

V.9

Nbt

[50] B

V.9

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj

[58] A

VI.1E-M

1

2+

KA-gmnj:Mmj

[111] A

VI.1E-M

1

6+

[81] A

VI.1

2+

1

%Abw:Jbbj

ORNAMENT

KILT: Flare Style 2

DATE

KILT: Flare Style 1

NO. Prosopography / Group

TOMB OWNER

?

1

2+

1

1

1

2+

2+

6+

1

2+ 6+

6+ 2+

2+

2+ 6+ 2+ 6+

2+ 6+

1

6+ 11+ 2+ 6+

1

2+ 1

1

6+ 2+

1

2+ 2+

1

1

2+

2+

2+ 2+

2+ 2+ 2+

1

2+

1

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

1

1

2+

2+ 1

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

1

1 1

6+ 2+

2+

1

2+ 2+ 1

6+

1

1

100

2+ 2 2+

2+

6+ 6+ 6+

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

ANIMAL PELT WORN BY TOMB OWNER

Long Animal Skin Robe

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 1

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 2

SKIN: 1 band at neck

SKIN: 2+ bands at neck

SKIN with Broad Paws

Short Kilt + Animal Skin

SKIN over Flared Kilt

BELT over Animal Skin

SKIN: Face BELOW waist

SKIN: Face at WAIST level

SKIN: Face ABOVE waist

REFERENCE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

2+

1

1

2+

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 2.

Nfr-sSm-PtH

Hassan I (1932) figs. 178, 181, 182.

Mr-sw-anx

Weeks (1994) figs. 9; LD II 55-58.

Nfr-bAw-PtH

Verner (1977) pls. 1, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 2425, 38-39, 46, 49, 53, 67, 69, 70-74, 76, 7778. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 4-6, 11, 13, 19-21, 25, 26, 72, 74, 88.

2+ 2+

1

1

1

2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1 1

2+

Nj-anx- $nmw and $nmw-Htp

Murray (1905) pls. 21, 23-25.

NTr-wsr

Murray (1905) pls. 8, 9.

PtH-Htp I

LD II, 61a, b, 63, 64; LD Erg., 41.

Ra-Spss

Simpson (1980) figs. 30-33, 35, 36.

1

2+

PtH-Spss

%Sm-nfr III #ww-wr Ra-wr II

Lythgoe–Ransom Williams (1918) figs. 30, Pr-nb 31, 35; Hayes I (1978) fig. 52. Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls. 4, 13, 14, 18, Ax.t-Htp 20, 24. 28, 29, 34.

1

2+ 2+

%xntjw

LD Erg. 25, 84.

1

1

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 1, pl. 3.

Brunner-Traut (1977) Front cover, pls. 2, 3, 6, fig. 14. Hassan V (1944) figs. 102, 103a, 106, 111.

1

TOMB OWNER

JAsn

Brovarski (2001) pls. 17, 34-36, 37a, 40, 42, %nDm-jb:Jntj 54. 68a, 78a. Brovarski (2001) pls. 106-110, 114, 118b, %nDm-j:MHj 124, 126, 129. Paget et al (1898) pls. 32, 35, 38, 39.

PtH-Htp II: *fj

Munro (1993) pl. 11.

Nbt

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) pls. 43(a), 44(a), 45(a), 46-58. Harpur–Scremin (2006) figs. 4, 11, 13, 15, 2+ 17, 18, 24, 25, 30, 32, 35, 36. Mariette (1889) 382, 184, 414, 415; Borchardt, (1937) pl. 21; Borchardt, (1964) pl. 65.

101

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj KA-gmnj:Mmj %Abw:Jbbj

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 1: CRITERIA 1–24 (cont.)

MALE DRESS: KILT

KILT: Flare Style 3

KILT: Flare Style 4

KILT with single line

Ra-Htp Style of Kilt

Stiff Buckle and Tag

Seated in Flared Kilt

Narrow Collar

Broad Collar

Amulet

Long Wig exposing ear

CRITERION NO.

ORNAMENT

KILT: Flare Style 2

DATE

KILT: Flare Style 1

NO. Prosopography / Group

TOMB OWNER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Nj-kAw-Jssj

[47] A

VI.1M

anx-m-a-@r

[15] A

VI.1M-2E

1

6+

WDA-HA-&tj: ^Sj: Nfr-sSm-PtH

[22] A

VI.1M-2E

1

1

Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj

[38] A

VI.1L

11+ 6+

@sj

[69] A

VI.1L

2+ 2+

PtH-Spss II

[30] B

VI.1-2E

2+

Mrw:&tj-snb

[35] B

VI.1-2E

2+

Jn.w-Mn.w

[7] A

Rmnj:Mrwi

2+

2+ 2+ 1

1

2+ 2+

6+

11+

2+ 1

2+

VI.1L-2E

2+ 6+

6+

[68] B

VI.1L-2E

2+

2+

KA(.j)-apr(w)

[99] B

VI.1L-2E

1

2+

Mrrj

[36] B

VI.1L-2

2+ 2+

6+

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

[79] A

VI.1L-2

2+ 6+

Ra-wr

[63] B

VI.2E-L

2+ 2+

Jsj

[11] A

VI.2

Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx: Nxbw

[32] A

VI.2

1

Qrrj

[98] A

VI.2

1

Jdw I:Nfr

[14] B

VI.2

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj

[33] B

VI.2M

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

[97] B

VI.2L-3

Wr-nww

[20] B

VI.2L-4E

[6] A

VI.3-4E

Jbj

1

1

1

2+

11+

2+

2+

1

1

1

2+

2+

2+

1

2+ 1 2+

1

1

2+

1

6+ 2+

102

2+

6+

2+ 6+

2+ 2+

6+

2+

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

ANIMAL PELT WORN BY TOMB OWNER

Long Animal Skin Robe

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 1

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 2

SKIN: 1 band at neck

SKIN: 2+ bands at neck

SKIN with Broad Paws

Short Kilt + Animal Skin

SKIN over Flared Kilt

BELT over Animal Skin

SKIN: Face BELOW waist

SKIN: Face at WAIST level

SKIN: Face ABOVE waist

REFERENCE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

1

2+

2+

2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

1

1

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) pls. 43, 44, 48Nj-kAw-Jssj 50, 52, 54. 65. Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pls. 33, 35, 36, 42, anx-m-a-@r 2+ 44, 45, 46, 60b. Capart (1907) pls. 77, 93, 99, 101; Lloyd et WDA-HA-&tj: ^Sj: Nfr-sSm-PtH al (2008) pls. 4:2, 6:1, 7, 8, 17-19, 21, 22. Duell and Kanawati References: Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj 2+ see below Table Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) @sj pls. 40. 42, 63. Murray (1905) pls. 28-31.

PtH-Spss II

Lloyd et al (1990) pls. 4, 5, 8-11.

Mrw:&tj-snb

Kanawati Teti VII (2006) pls. 40-43, 47-50.

Jn.w-Mn.w

Kanawati Teti IX (2009) pls. 43, 45-47.

Rmnj:Mrwi

Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pls. 49b, 51, 53.

KA(.j)-apr(w)

Davies et al (1984) pls. 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17. James (1953) pls. 5-7, 10, 12-14, 16. 19, 21, 23, 28, 29, 32, 43. El Fikey (1980) pls. 1-3, 5-7. 9, 10, 16.

Mrrj #ntj-kA.j:Jxxj Ra-wr

Ziegler (1990) 81, No. 9; Jsj Brovarski (2008) figs 8a. Reisner (1913) 5, p.56; Dunham (1938) pl. 3; Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx: Smith (1958) p. 57,59; Brovarski (2008) figs. Nxbw 1a,b.

2+ 2+

1

TOMB OWNER

1

Kanawati V (1985) fig. 22a.

Qrrj

Simpson (1976b) figs. 39-41.

Jdw I:Nfr

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pls. 44-47, 49Mrjj-&tj:Mrj 51, 53-55. 1 2+

1 1

1

1

2+

Simpson (1976b) figs. 19-22, 25, 26, 28.

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

Davies et al (1984) pls. 24, 26, 27.

Wr-nww

Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pls. 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18; Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) pls. Jbj 45, 48, 50, 52-54, 56-58.

103

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 1: CRITERIA 1–24 (cont.)

KILT: Flare Style 3

KILT: Flare Style 4

KILT with single line

Ra-Htp Style of Kilt

Stiff Buckle and Tag

Seated in Flared Kilt

Narrow Collar

Broad Collar

Amulet

Long Wig exposing ear

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

[114] A

VI.4E

Nbt

[51] B

VI.4E-M

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

[80] B

VI.4E-M

2+

1

[109] B

VI.4E-M

2+

1

3

4

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

CRITERION NO.

ORNAMENT

KILT: Flare Style 2

CRITERION NO. ©aw and ©aw:¥mAj

MALE DRESS: KILT

DATE

KILT: Flare Style 1

NO. Prosopography / Group

TOMB OWNER

2+ 2+

2+

11+

2+ 1

1

2

1

5

1

6

7

8

9

11+

6+

2+

2+

10

11

12

Duell References for Mereruka (Criteria 1 - 30): Duell 1 (1938) pls. 7-9, 14. 23A, C, 26, 35, 37, 39, 41, 46, 57, 62, 64, 67, 83, 88, 91, 94, 96, 102B, 103A, 104; Duell II (1938) pls. 112, 113, 117, 120, 128, 130, 138, 142-144, 158, 159, 167, 168, 171-181, 183, 185-187, 217-219A; 212A. Kanawati References for Mereruka (Criteria 1 - 30): Kanawati Mereruka III:2 (2010) pls. 63, 64, 66, 72, 74. 77. 78, 87, 88, 94, 95, 88-102; Kanawati Mereruka III.2 (2011) pls. 64, 65, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 88, 89-91. Numbers in grey and black squares refer to the number of instances a criterion appears in a tomb. Key: '2+' = 2-5 instances; '6+' = 6-10 instances; '11+' = 11 or more instances.

104

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

ANIMAL PELT WORN BY TOMB OWNER

Long Animal Skin Robe

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 1

ANIMAL SKIN: Style 2

SKIN: 1 band at neck

SKIN: 2+ bands at neck

SKIN with Broad Paws

Short Kilt + Animal Skin

SKIN over Flared Kilt

BELT over Animal Skin

SKIN: Face BELOW waist

SKIN: Face at WAIST level

SKIN: Face ABOVE waist

REFERENCE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

1

Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pls. 3-13; Kanawati Gebrawi III (2011) pls. 44-46, 48, ©aw and ©aw:¥mAj 50, 53. 54, 56-58.

1

Kanawati III (1982) fig. 27. 2+

13

14

15

2+ 2+ 2+ 2+

16

1

1

17

18

1

1 19

20

TOMB OWNER

21

22

23

Nbt

Kanawati II (1981) figs. 7-9, 11, 12, 15, $nj:^psj-pw-Mnw 16(b), 17-21, 23-26. Kanawati I (1980) figs. 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr 20(a, b), 22.

24

105

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 2: CRITERIA 25–50

ORIENTATION II: Reeds

ORIENTATION I: Reeds

ORIENTATION II: loaves

ORIENTATION I: loaves

REEDS on offering table

LOAVES: Transitional to reeds

HALF LOAVES: Height 2

BREAD/REEDS ORIENTATION

HALF LOAVES: Height 1

bAs flask held to nose at off. table

Cloth held to BREAST at off. table

Cloth held over KNEE at off. table

FLARED KILT at offering table

DECEASED AT TABLE

SHORT KILT at offering table

DATE

LONG ROBE at offering table

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 @sjj-Ra

[70] A

III.2

Nfr-mAat

[56] B

IV.1

MTn

[43] B

IV.1-2

Ra-Htp

[66] B

Wp-m-nfrt

[19] B

IV.2

%SAt-sxntjw

[89] B

IV.2

KA.j-nfr

[105] B

IV.2

Nfr-mAat

[55] B

IV.2-4

[5] B

IV.2L-4

Nfr

[52] B

IV.4

#wfw-Dd.f

[75] B

IV.4-5

_wa-n-Hr

[112] B

IV.4-5

[73] B

IV.4-6

[2] B

IV.4-6

Nj-kAw-Ra

[48] B

IV.4-6

Mrs-anx III

[40] B

IV.4-6

[102] B

IV.4-6

Jwnw

#wfw-xa.f I JAbtt

KA.j-nj-nswt I %SAt-Htp:!tj _bHnj

[88]B

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

IV.1L-2E 2+

2+

2+

1

1

1

1

2+

2+

2+

1

1

1

IV.4L-6

[113] A

IV.5

Nswt-nfr

[60] B

IV.5-V.1

#mt-nw

[77] B

IV.6-V.1

1

1

1

1

2+

1

1

1

2+

1 1

2+

1

1 1

1

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

106

1

2+

1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

BENEATH table

on stand in offering table scene

Ewer and basin 'FLOATING'

AS IN Nj-kAw-Ra

AS ON STELA of Jwnw

EWER AND BASIN

dbHt-Htp ' added to xA LIST

xA LIST above or beside table

xA LIST beneath table

JUMBLED FOODS

FOODS ON REGISTERS

CANONICAL LIST

LINEN LIST

OFFERING LISTS

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1

1

Quibell (1913) pl. 29

@sjj-Ra

1

1

Petrie (1892) pl. 20

Nfr-mAat

1

1

1

1

LD II, 3

MTn

1

2+

2+

2+

Petrie (1892) pls. 13, 15

Ra-Htp

Reisner (1942) pl. 17[a]

Wp-m-nfrt

Reisner (1942) pl. 39[a]

%SAt-sxntjw

Reisner (1942) pl.1

KA.j-nfr

LD II, 17c

Nfr-mAat

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

Junker I (1922) pls. 26, 27, fig.31

Jwnw

2+

2+

2+

Ziegler (1990) No. 26; Reisner (1942) fig. 241

Nfr

Junker X (1951) pl. 17[a] fig. 25

#wfw-Dd.f

LD II, 82a

_wa-n-Hr

2+

Simpson (1978) figs. 31, 32

#wfw-xa.f I

1

Junker I (1922) fig. 51

JAbtt

LD Erg., pl. 35

Nj-kAw-Ra

1

1 1

1

2+

Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 7, 8, 9

Mrs-anx III

2+

2+

Junker II (1934) figs. 15, 16, 18

KA.j-nj-nswt I

Junker I (1934) figs. 25, 28, 30; Junker III (1938) fig. 9a; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 43a, 45, 46

%SAt-Htp:!tj

1

LD II, 36c.

_bHnj

1

Junker III (1938) figs. 9b, 27; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 53, 56, Nswt-nfr 57

2+

2+ 1

LD II 26

107

#mt-nw

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 2: CRITERIA 25–50 (cont.)

ORIENTATION II: Reeds

ORIENTATION I: Reeds

ORIENTATION II: loaves

ORIENTATION I: loaves

REEDS on offering table

LOAVES: Transitional to reeds

HALF LOAVES: Height 2

BREAD/REEDS ORIENTATION

HALF LOAVES: Height 1

bAs flask held to nose at off. table

Cloth held to BREAST at off. table

Cloth held over KNEE at off. table

FLARED KILT at offering table

DECEASED AT TABLE

SHORT KILT at offering table

DATE

LONG ROBE at offering table

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 KA.j-nfr

[106] B

IV.6-V.2

1

1

2+

Mr-jb.j

[34] B

IV.6-V.2

2+

2+

2+

KA.j-swDA

[107] B

V.1-2

1

%xm-kA-Ra

[86] A

IV.4-V.1

Pr-sn

[25] A

V.2

Nj-anx-%xmt

[45] A

V.2

1

1

1

[103] B

V.2-3

1

1

1

Wxm-kA.j

[21] B

V.2-3

Nn-sDr-kA.j I

[59] B

V.2-3

6+

2+

%Sm-nfr I

[90] B

V.2-3

1

W AS-PtH:Jsj

[17] A

V.3

1

^pss-kA.f-anx

[95] B

V.3-5

1

[110] B

V.3-5

2+

[4] B

V.6

1

Jtjj

[13] B

V.6

1

Nfr and KA-HA.j

[53] B

V.6

6+

#wfw-xa.f II

[74] B

V.6

2+

%Sm-nfr II

[91] B

V.6

[9] B

V.6E-8L

%xntjw

[87] B

V.6-8E

1

1

1

Nfr-sSm-PtH

[57] B

V.6-8E

1

1

1

KA.j-nj-nswt II

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j Jj-mrjj

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

1 1

2+

1

1

1

108

1

2+

2+

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

2+

6+

6+

2+ 2+

1

2+

1

1

1 1 1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

BENEATH table

on stand in offering table scene

Ewer and basin 'FLOATING'

AS IN Nj-kAw-Ra

AS ON STELA of Jwnw

EWER AND BASIN

dbHt-Htp ' added to xA LIST

xA LIST above or beside table

xA LIST beneath table

JUMBLED FOODS

FOODS ON REGISTERS

CANONICAL LIST

LINEN LIST

OFFERING LISTS

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Reisner (1942) fig. 257, 259, 261

KA.j-nfr

2+

LD II, 19

Mr-jb.j

1

Junker VII (1944) fig. 70

KA.j-swDA

LD II, 41

%xm-kA-Ra

Petrie–Murray (1952) 20-22, pls. 9, 10.

Pr-sn

Mariette (1889) 203/205

Nj-anx-%xmt

Junker III (1938) fig. 20

KA.j-nj-nswt II

1

2+

2+

1

1 1

1

1

2+

1 1

1 1

1

1 1

1 2+

2+

Kayser (1964) 24-25, 32-33

Wxm-kA.j

6+

1

Junker II (1934) figs. 7, 9, 10

Nn-sDr-kA.j I

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

2+

2+

1

2+

2+

1

2+

1 1

1

1

1

1

2+

1

2+ 2+

2+ 2+

2+

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

LD II, 27; Kanawati Giza I (2001) pls. 41-43, 47 Mariette (1889) 268, 270; James (1961) 2. No. 1278

1

1

1

%Sm-nfr I WAS-PtH:Jsj

Weeks (1994) figs. 54, 57

^pss-kA.f-anx

Junker III (1938) fig. 14, 16, 17

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

Weeks (1994) fig. 41, 43, 44; LD Erg. 4

Jj-mrjj

Weeks (1994) fig. 51, 52; LD II, 59a Jtjj 1

Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pl. 26, 32, 38; Lashien (2013) pls. 85, 86

Nfr and KA-HA.j

Simpson (1978) fig 49, 50

#wfw-xa.f II

1

2+

Kanawati Giza II (2002) pl. 63

%Sm-nfr II

1) 2+

1

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 3, 14

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

1

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 1

%xntjw

1

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 2

Nfr-sSm-PtH

109

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 2: CRITERIA 25–50 (cont.)

ORIENTATION II: Reeds

ORIENTATION I: Reeds

ORIENTATION II: loaves

ORIENTATION I: loaves

REEDS on offering table

LOAVES: Transitional to reeds

HALF LOAVES: Height 2

BREAD/REEDS ORIENTATION

HALF LOAVES: Height 1

bAs flask held to nose at off. table

Cloth held to BREAST at off. table

Cloth held over KNEE at off. table

FLARED KILT at offering table

DECEASED AT TABLE

SHORT KILT at offering table

DATE

LONG ROBE at offering table

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Mr-sw-anx

[41] B

V.6-8

Nfr-bAw-PtH

[54] B

V.6L

Nj-anx- $nmw and $nmw-Htp

[44] A

V.6L-8E

NTr-wsr

[61] B

V.7-8

PtH-Htp I

[26] B

V.8

Ra-Spss

[67] A

V.8

%Sm-nfr III

[92] B

V.8

#ww-wr

[71] B

V.8

Ra-wr II

[65] B

V.8-9

1

Ax,t-Htp

[1] B

V.8L-9E

2+

JAsn

[3] B

V.8L-9

1

%nDm-jb:MHj

[85[ A

V.9M

2+

PtH-Htp II:*fj

[27] B

V.9

2+

Nbt

[50] B

V.9

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj

[58] A

VI.1E-M

2+

KA-gmnj:Mmj

[111] A

VI.1E-M

2+

%anx-w(j)-PtH: @tp-n(j)-PtH

[82] A

VI.1

%SsSt:Jdwt

[93] B

VI.1

%Abw:Jbbj

[81] A

VI.1

Nj-kAw-Jssj

[47] A

VI.1M

anx-m-a-@r

[15] A

VI.1M-L

1 2+ 2+ 2+

2+ 1

1

1

1

1

2+ 2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

1

1 2+

2+

1

1

1

2+

2+

1

2+ 1

2+

1

2+

2+

2+

1

2+

1 2+

1

2+

2+

2+ 2+

2+

2+

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

1

110

1

2+

1 2+

1

2+

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

BENEATH table

on stand in offering table scene

Ewer and basin 'FLOATING'

AS IN Nj-kAw-Ra

AS ON STELA of Jwnw

EWER AND BASIN

dbHt-Htp ' added to xA LIST

xA LIST above or beside table

xA LIST beneath table

JUMBLED FOODS

FOODS ON REGISTERS

CANONICAL LIST

LINEN LIST

OFFERING LISTS

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2+ 1

1 1

Hassan I (1932) fig. 182, 185

Mr-sw-anx

Weeks (1994) fig. 22; LD II, 58b

Nfr-bAw-PtH

1

1

1

6+ 6+

6+

6+ 2+ Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) pl. 4

Nj-anx- $nmw and $nmw-Htp

2+ 2+ 2+ 2+

2+

2+

Murray (1905) pls. 21, 23

NTr-wsr

Murray (1905) pls. 9, 16

PtH-Htp I

1

1

1

1

2+

2+ 1 1

1 2+ 2+

1

2

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

1

1

1

LD II, 61

Ra-Spss

1

1

Brunner-Traut (1977) pl. 5

%Sm-nfr III

Hassan V (1944) pl. 250, fig. 111

#ww-wr

LD II, 84; LD Erg., 26; Junker III (1938) figs. 46, 47 Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls. 24, 34

2+

2+

1

1

2+

1

Simpson (1980) figs. 33, 35

1

1

1 LD II, 75; LD Erg., 15, 16

Ra-wr II Ax,t-Htp JAsn %nDm-jb:MHj

1

2+ 2+

2+

2+ 2+ Paget et al (1898) pls. 35, 38, 39

PtH-Htp: (II)*fj

2+

2+

1

1

Nbt

2+

2+

2+

2+

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) pl. 58 Bissing (1905) pls. 16-17, 20-21, 34; 2+ 2+ Harpur–Scremin (2006) figs. 30, 32, 33 Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 2+ 2+ pls. 67, 68

2+ 1

2+

2+

1 2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

2+ 1

1

2+

2+ 1

1

1

1

1

Munro (1993) pls. 26, 27, 30

Macramallah (1935) pls. 14, 15, 17; 2+ 2+ Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) pls. 66-71

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj KA-gmnj:Mmj %anx-w(j)-PtH: @tp-n(j)-PtH %SsSt:Jdwt

Borchardt, (1937) pl. 21; %abw:Jbbj Borchardt, (1964) pl. 65 Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) Nj-kAw-Jssj pls. 58, 63,-65 Kanawati–Hassan (1997) pls. 63, 64, anx-m-a-@r 1 68

2+

111

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 2: CRITERIA 25–50 (cont.)

ORIENTATION II: Reeds

ORIENTATION I: Reeds

ORIENTATION II: loaves

ORIENTATION I: loaves

REEDS on offering table

LOAVES: Transitional to reeds

HALF LOAVES: Height 2

BREAD/REEDS ORIENTATION

HALF LOAVES: Height 1

bAs flask held to nose at off. table

Cloth held to BREAST at off. table

Cloth held over KNEE at off. table

FLARED KILT at offering table

DECEASED AT TABLE

SHORT KILT at offering table

DATE

LONG ROBE at offering table

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj: Nfr-sSm-PtH

[22] A VI.1M-2E

2+

Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj

[38] A

VI.1L

2+

NDt-m-pt

[62] A

VI.1L

@sj

[69] A

VI.1L

Mrrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj

[37] B

VI.1-2E

PtH-Spss II

[30] B

VI.1-2E

2+

1

Mrw:&tj-snb

[35] B

VI.1-2E

2+

1

Jn.w-Mn.w

[7] A

VI.1L-2E

2+

Rmnj:Mrwi

[68] B

VI.1L-2E

2+

KA(.j)-apr(w)

[99] B

VI.1L-2E

1

Mrrj

[36] B

VI.1L-2

2+

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

[79] A

VI.1L-2

2+

MHj-mH-n.s

[42] B

VI.2E

1

Jsj

[11] A

VI.2

1

Qrrj

[98] A

VI.2

1

Jdw I:Nfr

[14] B

VI.2

2+

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj

[33] B

VI.2M

Ra-wr

[63] B

VI.2L-3

2+

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

[97] B

VI.2L-3

1

Wr-nww

[20] B

VI.2-4E

1

[6] A

VI.3-4E

2+

Jbj

2+ 1

6+

2+

2+

2+

2+

1

1

2+

2+ 1

1

1

2+

2+

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

1

2+

2+

1

1

2+

2+

1 1

1 1

1

1 1

2+

2+

2+ 1

2+ 2+ 1

1

112

2+

2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

BENEATH table

on stand in offering table scene

Ewer and basin 'FLOATING'

AS IN Nj-kAw-Ra

AS ON STELA of Jwnw

EWER AND BASIN

dbHt-Htp ' added to xA LIST

xA LIST above or beside table

xA LIST beneath table

JUMBLED FOODS

FOODS ON REGISTERS

CANONICAL LIST

LINEN LIST

OFFERING LISTS

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2+ 2+ 2+

1

2+

1

2+

1

1

2+ 1

1 1

2+

Capart (1907) pls. 95, 99, 100, 101; WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj: Lloyd et al (2008) pls. 17, 19, 21, 22 Nfr-sSm-PtH Duell and Kanawati References: Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj 2+ 2+ see below Table 1

2+

1

1

1 Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pls. 40, 42 NDt-m-pt

2+

2+ 2+

2+

Kanawati-Abder-Raziq (1999) pls. 40, 42, 57, 61. 63, 64

@sj

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2001) pl. 45 Mrrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 1 1

1 2+

2+

1

1

2+

2+ 2+ Lloyd et al (1990) pls. 9, 10, 11

1

2+

2+ 2+

2+

1

1

2+

2+ 2+

1 2+ 2+ 2+

1

2+

2+ Murray (1905) pls. 28, 29, 30

Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) pls. 50, 51, 53-56

Jnw-Mnw

Kanawati Teti IX (2009) pls. 49-52

Rmnj:Mrwi

1 Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pl. 51

2+

2+ 2+ Davies et al (1984) pls. 2, 11, 12, 14 Mrrj

2+

1

2+

1

2+ James (1953) pls. 13, 14, 19, 21

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

1

1 El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) pl. 8

MHj-mH-n.s

1

1 Ziegler (1990) 81, No. 9

Jsj

Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 22a

1

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

2+

2+

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

2+

2+ 2+ 2+

1

KA(.j)-apr(w)

1

1

2+ 2+

Mrw:&tj-snb

1

1

1

PtH-Spss II

2+ Simpson (1976b) figs. 39, 40, 41 Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pls. 49-51

2+

2+

2+ El Fikey (1980) pls. 5, 6, 7, 9 Simpson (1976) figs.19a,b, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32

Qrrj Jdw I:Nfr Mrjj-&tj:Mrj Ra-wr QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

2+ 2+

2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1 Davies et al (1984) pl. 26

2+

1

Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pls. 7, 9, 2+ 18, 19; Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) Jbj pls. 51-58

113

Wr-nww

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 2: CRITERIA 25–50 (cont.)

ORIENTATION II: Reeds

ORIENTATION I: Reeds

ORIENTATION II: loaves

ORIENTATION I: loaves

REEDS on offering table

LOAVES: Transitional to reeds

HALF LOAVES: Height 2

BREAD/REEDS ORIENTATION

HALF LOAVES: Height 1

bAs flask held to nose at off. table

Cloth held to BREAST at off. table

Cloth held over KNEE at off. table

FLARED KILT at offering table

DECEASED AT TABLE

SHORT KILT at offering table

DATE

LONG ROBE at offering table

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 KA.j-hp:*tj

[108] A

VI.3-4E

©aw and ©aw:¥mAj

[114] A

VI.4E

Nbt

[51] B

VI.4E-M

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

[80] B

VI.4E-M

1

1

[109] B

VI.4E-M

2+

2+

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

CRITERION NO.

6+

1

1

1

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Duell References for Mereruka (Criteria 25-50): Duell I (1938) pls. 57, 62, 64; Duell II (1938) pl. 117; Kanawati References for Mereruka (Criteria 25-50): Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) pls. 87, 88, 90, 97; Kanawati Mereruka III:2 (2011) pls. 95-98, 100 Numbers in grey and black squares refer to the number of instances a criterion appears in a tomb. Key: '2+' = 2-5 instances; '6+' = 6-10 instances; '11+' = 11 or more instances.

114

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

BENEATH table

on stand in offering table scene

Ewer and basin 'FLOATING'

AS IN Nj-kAw-Ra

AS ON STELA of Jwnw

EWER AND BASIN

dbHt-Htp ' added to xA LIST

xA LIST above or beside table

xA LIST beneath table

JUMBLED FOODS

FOODS ON REGISTERS

CANONICAL LIST

LINEN LIST

OFFERING LISTS

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2+ 2+

1

2+

1 2+ 2+ 2+

1

1

1

6+

Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pls. 8, 9, 2+ 2+ 11, 12, 13; Kanawati Gebrawi III (2013) pls. 64, 66, 68

©aw and ©aw:¥mAj

1

2+

1

1 Kanawati III (1982) figs. 26, 27

Nbt

1

2+

1

2+ Kanawati II (1981) figs. 23, 24, 25

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

2+ Kanawati I (1980) figs. 17, 18

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

2+

2+

2+

Kanawati III (1982) figs. 14, 17

KA.j-hp:*tj

1

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

115

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 3: CRITERIA 51–78

Lipped Edge

Double Pedestal

Table surface BELOW TO's knee

Table LEVEL with TO's knee

Row of Funerary Priests

OFFERING TABLE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 47)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 46)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 45)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 44)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 43)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 41)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 42)

PRIESTLY FIGURES

DATE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 40)

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Nfr-mAat

[56] B

IV.1

Ra-Htp

[66] B

IV.1L-2E

Wp-m-nfrt

[19] B

IV.2

1

[105] B

IV.2

1

%SAt-sxntjw

[89] B

IV.2

Nfr-MAat

[55] B

IV.2-4

Mrs-anx II

[39] B

IV.2-4

[5] B

IV.2L-4

Nfr

[52] B

IV.4

#wfw-Dd.f

[75] B

IV.4-5

_wa-n-@r

[112] B

IV.4-5

Mnw-Dd.f

[31] B

IV.4-5

#wfw-xa.f I

[73] B

IV.4-6

Nj-kAw-Ra

[48] B

IV.4-6

Mrs-anx III

[40] B

IV.4-6

[102] B

IV.4-6

2+ 2+ 2+

%SAt-Htp:!tj

[88] B

IV.4L-6

1

2+ 2+

#wn-Ra

[76] B

IV.5

_bHnj

[113] A

IV.5

KA.j-m-sxm

[101] B

IV.5

Nswt-nfr

[60] B

IV.5-V.1

1

1

#mt-nw

[77] B

IV.6-V.1

KA.j-nfr

[106] B

KA.j-nfr

Jwnw

KA.j-nj-nswt I

1 1

1 1

1

2+ 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

IV.6-V.2 2+

1

1

1

1 2+

1

1

2+

2+

1 1

1

116

1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

Held in upturned palm

Straight stem in clenched fist

Armchair in Banquet scene

Receiving/Holding Lotus

Flywhisk

Banquet Scene

Multiple bangles

BANQUET/LOTUS

Choker and wsx Collar

Choker worn alone

Short Wig plus fillet and streamers

Short Wig without Fillet

Standing Wife much smaller

Female kneels (NOT on skiff)

Wife embraces TO with both arms

Female 'behind' TO at off. table

FEMALE FIGURE

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

2+

1

2+

1 1

1

2+

2+

1 1

1

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

2+

2+

Nfr-mAat

Petrie (1892) pls. 10, 13, 15

Ra-Htp

Reisner (1942) pl. 17[a]

Wp-m-nfrt

Manuelian (2003) figs. 23, 24

KA.j-nfr

Manuelian (2003) figs. 98. 99

%SAt-sxntjw

LD II, 17c

Nfr-MAat

HESPOK (1946) fig. 63

Mrs-anx II

Junker I (1929) pls. 26, 27, fig. 31

Jwnw

Reisner (1942) fig. 241; Ziegler (1990) No. 26

Nfr

Junker X (1951) pl. 17[a] fig. 25

#wfw-Dd.f

LD II, 83b

_wa-n-@r

LD II, 33b

Mnw-Dd.f

Simpson (1978) figs. 31-33

#wfw-xa.f I

LD Erg., pl. 35 (lower)

Nj-kAw-Ra

Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 3b, 4, 7, 8, 9

Mrs-anx III

Junker II (1934) figs. 15, 16, 18

KA.j-nj-nswt I

Junker II (1934) figs. 25, 28, 29, 30; Junker III (1938) fig. 9a; Kanawati %SAt-Htp:!tj Giza II (2002) pls. 49(a), 45, 46

1 1

1

Petrie (1892) pls. 17, 27

HESPOK (1946) fig. 153

#wn-Ra

LD II, 36c

_bHnj

LD II, 32

KA.j-m-sxm

Junker III (1938) figs. 9b, 27, 28; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls.52, 53, 56

Nswt-nfr

LD II, 26

#mt-nw

Reisner (1942) figs. 257-59, 261, 263 KA.j-nfr

1

117

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 3: CRITERIA 51–78 (cont.)

Lipped Edge

Double Pedestal

Table surface BELOW TO's knee

Table LEVEL with TO's knee

Row of Funerary Priests

OFFERING TABLE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 47)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 46)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 45)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 44)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 43)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 41)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 42)

PRIESTLY FIGURES

DATE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 40)

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Mr-jb.j

[34] B

IV.6-V.2

Pr-sn

[25] A

V.2

Nj-anx-%xmt

[45] A

V.2

%xm-kA-Ra

[25] A

V.2

Wxm-kA.j

[21] B

V.2-3

Pr-sn

[24] B

V.2-3

Nn-sDr-kA.j (I)

[59] B

V.2-3

%Sm-nfr I

[90] B

V.2-3

KA.j-nj-nswt II

[103] B

V.2-3

KA.j-swDA

[107] B

V.2-3

WAS-PtH:Jsj

[17] A

V.3

Ra-wr

[64] A

V.3

^pss-kA.f-anx

[95] B

V.3-5

2+

2+

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

[110] B

V.3-5

1

2+

KA.j-nj-nswt III

[104] B

V.4-6E

1

Jj-mrjj

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

1 1

2+ 2+ 2+

2+

1

1 1

2+ 2+ 2+ 1

1

1

1

2+

1

1 1

1 2+

[4] B

V.6

Jtjj

[13] B

V.6

1

Nfr and KA-HA.j

[53] B

V.6

2+

#wfw-xa.f II

[74] B

V.6

%Sm-nfr II

[91] B

V.6

2+

[9] B

V.6E-8L

1

%xntjw

[87] B

V.6-8E

1

Nfr-sSm-PtH

[57] B

V.6-8E

1

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

1

2+ 1 2+

118

2+

1

1

2+

1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

Held in upturned palm

Straight stem in clenched fist

Armchair in Banquet scene

Receiving/Holding Lotus

Flywhisk

Banquet Scene

Multiple bangles

BANQUET/LOTUS

Choker and wsx Collar

Choker worn alone

Short Wig plus fillet and streamers

Short Wig without Fillet

Standing Wife much smaller

Female kneels (NOT on skiff)

Wife embraces TO with both arms

Female 'behind' TO at off. table

FEMALE FIGURE

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 1

LD II, 19-22a

Mr-jb.j

LD II, 83a

Pr-sn

Mariette (1889) 203

Nj-anx-%xmt

Hassan IV (1943) 117, fig. 62

%xm-kA-Ra

Kayser (1964) 24, 25, 32, 33, 37

Wxm-kA.j

1

LD II, 83b

Pr-sn

1

Junker II (1934) figs. 7, 9, 10

Nn-sDr-kA.j (I)

LD II, 27; Kanawati Giza I (2001) pl. 47

%Sm-nfr I

2+

1 2+

7

6+

1

2+ 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1 Junker III (1938) figs. 20, 21, 22 1

1 1

2+

1

1

1 1

2+ 2+ 1

1

2+

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

1

1

2+

1

1

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

1

119

KA.j-nj-nswt II

Junker VII (1944) figs. 70, 71

KA.j-swDA

Mariette (1889) 268; James (1961) BM No. 1278; Mogensen (1918) pls. 10-11

WAS-PtH:Jsj

Hassan I (1932) fig. 5

Ra-wr

Weeks (1994) figs. 54, 56, 57

^pss-kA.f-anx

Junker III (1938) figs. 14-17

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

Junker VIII (1947) fig. 93

KA.j-nj-nswt III

Weeks (1994) figs. 33, 36, 44, 45; Jj-mrjj LD II, 53; LD Erg., 4b, 5. Weeks (1994) figs. 51, 52; LD II, Jtjj 59a Moussa-Altenmüller (1971) pls. 2, 7, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 37; Nfr and KA-HA.j Lashien (2013) pls. 82, 84-86 Simpson (1978) figs 49, 50

#wfw-xa.f II

HESPOK (1946) 287, fig. 141; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 63, 64

%Sm-nfr II

Moussa-Junge (1975) Illus. 3

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 1

%xntjw

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 2

Nfr-sSm-PtH

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 3: CRITERIA 51–78 (cont.)

Lipped Edge

Double Pedestal

Table surface BELOW TO's knee

Table LEVEL with TO's knee

Row of Funerary Priests

OFFERING TABLE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 47)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 46)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 45)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 44)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 43)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 41)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 42)

PRIESTLY FIGURES

DATE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 40)

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Mr-sw-anx

[41] B

V.6-8

1

Nfr-bAw-PtH

[54] B

V.6L

1

PtH-Spss

[29] A

V.6L

Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp

[44] A

V.6L-8E

NTr-wsr

[61] B

V.7-8

PtH-Htp I

[26] B

V.8

Ra-Spss

[67] A

V.8

%Sm-nfr III

[92] B

V.8

Ra-wr II

[65] B

V.8-9

#ww-wr

[71] B

V.8

Pr-nb

[23] A

V.8-9

Ax.t-Htp

[1] B

V.8L-9E

JAsn

[3] B

V.8L-9

%nDm-jb:Jntj

[84] A

V.9E

%nDm-jb:MHj

[85[ A

V.9M

PtH-Htp II: *fj

[27] B

V.9

Nbt

[50] B

V.9

#nwt

[78] B

V.9

%SsSt:Jdwt

[93] B

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj

[58] A

KA-gmnj:Mmj

[111] A

%anx-w(j)-PtH: @tp-n(j)-PtH

[82] A

1

2+ 6+ 11+ 2+

1

2+

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

1

1 1

1 2+

1

1

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1 1

1

1

1

V.9-VI.1

2+

1

VI.1E-M VI.1E-M VI.1

1

1

1

1

120

1

1

1

2+ 2+ 1

1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

Held in upturned palm

Straight stem in clenched fist

Armchair in Banquet scene

Receiving/Holding Lotus

Flywhisk

Banquet Scene

Multiple bangles

BANQUET/LOTUS

Choker and wsx Collar

Choker worn alone

Short Wig plus fillet and streamers

Short Wig without Fillet

Standing Wife much smaller

Female kneels (NOT on skiff)

Wife embraces TO with both arms

Female 'behind' TO at off. table

FEMALE FIGURE

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Hassan I (1932) fig. 185 1 2+ 2+

1

1 1

2+

1

1

1 Weeks (1994) figs. 10, 20, 22

1 1

1

2+ 2+

1 1

2+

1

1

1

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

?

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1

2+ 2+ 1

2+ 2+

1 1

2+

1

PtH-Spss

Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 4, 19, 20, 25, 26, 72, 88,

Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp

Murray (1905) pls. 21, 23, 24

NTr-wsr

Murray (1905) pl.9

PtH-Htp I

LD II 60, 61a

Ra-Spss

Brunner Traut (1977) cover page, pl. 5 LD II, 84, LD Erg., 26a; Junker III (1938) fig. 47 Hassan V (1944) figs. 102, 106, 108; 1 LD II, 44 Lythgoe–Ransom Williams (1918) fig. 35; Hayes I (1978) fig. 52 Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls. 31, 34

1

2+

2+ 2+

1

121

Nfr-bAw-PtH

Verner (1977) pls. 13, 16, 22

1

1

Mr-sw-anx

%Sm-nfr III Ra-wr II #ww-wr Pr-nb Ax.t-Htp

Simpson (1980) figs. 32, 33, 356

JAsn

LD II, 78

%nDm-jb:Jntj

LD II, 73, 24; LD Erg., 11, 12

%nDm-jb:MHj

Paget et al. (1898) pl. 35, 38

PtH-Htp II: *fj

Munro (1993) pls. 9a, 12, 14, 16-18, 24, 30, 32a

Nbt

Munro (1993) pl. 32a

#nwt

Macramallah (1935), pls. 7, 14, 15, 16A,B; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) pls. 54, 61, 65, 67-69 Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) pls 48, 49, 54, 57 Bissing (1905) pl. 6; Bissing (1911) pl. 18-19; Harpur–Scremin (2006) figs. 30-34. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) pls. 67, 68, 71, 76

%SsSt:Jdwt Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj KA-gmnj:Mmj %anx-w(j)-PtH: @tp-n(j)-PtH

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 3: CRITERIA 51–78 (cont.)

Lipped Edge

Double Pedestal

Table surface BELOW TO's knee

Table LEVEL with TO's knee

Row of Funerary Priests

OFFERING TABLE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 47)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 46)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 45)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 44)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 43)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 41)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 42)

PRIESTLY FIGURES

DATE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 40)

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 %Abw:Jbbj

[81] A

VI.1

WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj: Nfr-sSm-PtH

[22] A

VI.1M-2E

2+

1

Mrrw-kA.j

[38] A

VI.1L

1

1

NDt-m-pt

[62] A

VI.1L

@sj

[69] A

VI.1L

PtH-Spss II

[30] B

VI.1-2E

2+

Mrw:&tj-snb

[35] B

VI.1-2E

1

Mrrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj

[37] B

VI.1-2E

Jn.w-Mn.w

[7] A

VI.1L-2E

1

Rmnj:Mrwi

[68] B

VI.1L-2E

2+

KA(.j)-apr(w)

[99] B

VI.1L-2E

Mrrj

[36] B

VI.1L-2

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

[79] A

VI.1L-2

MHj-mH-n.s

[42] B

VI.2E

1

Jsj

[11] A

VI.2

1

Jdw I:Nfr

[14] B

VI.2

Qrrj

[98] A

VI.2

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj

[33] B

VI.2M

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

[97] B

VI.2L-3

Ra-wr

[63] B

VI.2L-3

2+

Wr-nww

[20] B

VI.2L-4E

1

[6] A

VI.3-4E

Jbj

1

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

1

2+

1

2+

1

1

1

1 2+

2+ 2+

1 1

2+ 2+ 1

2+

1

2+ 6+ 2+ 2+

1

2+ 2+ 2+

1

2+ 1

1

2+ 1

1

2+

122

1

1

1

1

2+

2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+

6+

1

1

1

1

2+

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

Held in upturned palm

Straight stem in clenched fist

Armchair in Banquet scene

Receiving/Holding Lotus

Flywhisk

Banquet Scene

Multiple bangles

BANQUET/LOTUS

Choker and wsx Collar

Choker worn alone

Short Wig plus fillet and streamers

Short Wig without Fillet

Standing Wife much smaller

Female kneels (NOT on skiff)

Wife embraces TO with both arms

Female 'behind' TO at off. table

FEMALE FIGURE

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

2+ 2+

1

6+ 6+

1

1 11+

2+ 1

1

11+ 6+

2+ 1 2+

2+

1

6+

2+

Mariette (1889) 382, 412. 413; Borchardt (1964) pl. 65; Borchardt (1937) pl. 21 Capart (1907) pls. 91, 93, 95; Lloyd et al (2008) pls. 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 Duell and Kanawati References: see below Table

%Abw:Jbbj WDA-HA-&tj:^Sj: Nfr-sSm-PtH Mrrw-kA.j

Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pl. 40

NDt-m-pt

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) pl. 63, 64(a), (b)

@sj

Murray (1905) pls. 28-30

PtH-Spss II

Lloyd et al (1990) pl. 11

Mrw:&tj-snb

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2001) Mrrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj pls. 44, 45 Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) Jn.w-Mn.w pls.44, 50 (b), Kanawati Teti IX (2009) pls.48, 49, Rmnj:Mrwi 50 Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) pl. 51

KA(.j)-apr(w)

Davies et al (1984) pls. 2, 11, 12, 14 Mrrj

1 1 2+

2+

1

1

1 1

2+ 2+ 1

1

2+ 1

2+

1

James (1953) pls. 10, 13, 14, 19, 21

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) pl. 8

MHj-mH-n.s

Ziegler (1990) pp. 78, 81, No. 9

Jsj

Simpson (1976) figs. 38-41

Jdw I:Nfr

Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 22a

Qrrj

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) pls. 47, 49-51, 53, 54 Simpson (1976) figs. 18A, 19A, 22, 25, 29-32

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

El Fikey (1980) pls. 5-7, 9

Ra-wr

Davies et al (1984) pl. 26

Wr-nww

Davies Gabrâwi I (1902) pls. 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 17-19; Jbj Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) pls. 44, 54, 57, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75

2+

123

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 3: CRITERIA 51–78 (cont.)

Lipped Edge

Double Pedestal

Table surface BELOW TO's knee

Table LEVEL with TO's knee

Row of Funerary Priests

OFFERING TABLE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 47)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 46)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 45)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 44)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 43)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 41)

Funerary Priest (Fig. 42)

PRIESTLY FIGURES

DATE

Funerary Priest (Fig. 40)

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ©aw and ©aw:¥mAj

[114] A

VI.4E

1

Nbt

[51] B

VI.4E-M

1

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

[80] B

VI.4E-M

[109] B

VI.4E-M

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

2+ 2+ 2+ 1

2+

1

2+

2+

2+ 2+

2+

CRITERION NO. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Duell References for Mereruka (Criteria 51–79): Duell I (1938) pls. 8, 9, 23A,C, 26, 39, 46, 48A, 57, 61C, 62, 63, 64, 67, 71A, B, 78, 83, 94, 96; Duell II (1938) pls. 108, 112, 113, 120, 139, 149, 150, 159, 167, 171, 212A. Kanawati References for Mereruka (Criteria 51–79): Kanawati Mereruka III.1 (2010) pls. 64, 66(b), 67, 71, 72c, 74, 77, 81, 88, 90, 93, 94, 97, 100; Kanawati Mereruka III.2 (2011) pls. 65, 74, 78, 81, 82 Numbers in grey and black squares refer to the number of instances a criterion appears in a tomb. Key: '2+' = 2-5 instances; '6+' = 6-10 instances; '11+' = 11 or more instances.

124

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

REFERENCE

TOMB OWNER

Held in upturned palm

Straight stem in clenched fist

Armchair in Banquet scene

Receiving/Holding Lotus

Flywhisk

Banquet Scene

Multiple bangles

BANQUET/LOTUS

Choker and wsx Collar

Choker worn alone

Short Wig plus fillet and streamers

Short Wig without Fillet

Standing Wife much smaller

Female kneels (NOT on skiff)

Wife embraces TO with both arms

Female 'behind' TO at off. table

FEMALE FIGURE

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 1

2+

1

1

1

1

2+

64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

125

Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pls. 6, 7-9, 11-13; Kanawati Gebrawi III (2013) ©aw and ©aw:¥mAj pls. 62, 64, 66, 68, 69, 72-74, 76-78 Kanawati III (1982) fig.27

Nbt

Kanawati II (1981) figs. 4, 13, 18, 23-25

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

Kanawati I (1980) figs. 17, 18

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 4: CRITERIA 79–104

Platform under Chair

Double Socles

Inverted Trapezium

Flat over Low Chairback

Large at Back

Small POINTED cushion

SUPPORTS

Small ROUNDED Cushion

CUSHION All shapes at back of Stool

LEGS

Cushion length of seat

STYLE

No Cushion

CHAIR LEG

4 Lion Legs / Paws

CHAIR

Bull's Leg / Hoof

CHAIR

STOOl: no chair back

CHAIR

Armchair

DATE

Chair / Stool for 2 persons

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 @sjj-Ra

[70] A

III.2

1

Nfr-mAat

[56] B

IV.1

2+ 2+

2+

MTn

[43] B

IV.1-2

1

1

2+

Ra-Htp

[66] B

IV.1L-2E

2+ 2+

2+

Wp-m-nfrt

[19] B

IV.2

1

1

[105] B

IV.2

%SAt-sxntjw

[89] B

IV.2

1

Nfr-mAat

[55] B

IV.2-4

2+

1

Mrs-anx II

[39] B

IV.2-4

[5] B

IV.2L-4

1

1

Nfr

[52] B

IV.4

#wfw-Dd.f

[75] B

_wa-n-Hr

[112] B

Mnw-Dd.f

[31] B

%nfrw-xa.f

[83] B

IV.4-5

1

#wfw-xa.f I

[73] B

IV.4-6

1

1

Nj-kAw-Ra

[48] B

IV. 4-6

1

2+

Mrs-anx III

[40] B

IV.4-6

2+

1

[102] B

IV.4-6

2+ 2+

[88]B

IV.4L-6

KA.j-nfr

Jwnw

KA.j-nj-nswt I %SAt-Htp:!tj _bHnj

[113] A

1

1

1

1

1 1

IV.4-5

1

1

1

IV.4-5

1

1

1

2+

3+

1

1

1

7

1

1

126

1

1

1

1 1

1

7

1

2+

1

1

1

1

1 2+

IV.5

1

1

2+ 2+

IV.4-5

1

1 1

1

2+

1

1

2+ 2+ 6+ 1

2+ 1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

TOMB OWNER

Female Pointing

Son copies Father's Action

REFERENCE Male with Fillet and Streamers

Deceased in SnDwT

Deceased in Flared Kilt

Thicket in front of Deceased

Deceased Spear Fishing

Deceased Fowling

Pleasure Cruise

Pulling Papyrus - MALE

Pulling Papyrus - FEMALE

MARSH SCENES

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Quibell (1913) pl. 29

@sjj-Ra

Petrie (1892) pls. 20, 24

Nfr-mAat

LD II, 3, 6

MTn

Petrie (1892) pls. 13, 15

Ra-Htp

Reisner (1942) plate 17[a]

Wp-m-nfrt

Reisner (1942) pls. 40[a,b], 39[b]; Manuelian (2003) fig. 23 Reisner (1942) plate 39[a]; Manuelian (2003) fig. 98

1

1

1

KA.j-nfr %SAt-sxntjw

LD II 17a, c

Nfr-mAat

HESPOK (1946) fig. 63

Mrs-anx II

Junker I (1929) pls. 26, 27, fig.31 Ziegler (1990) No. 26, Reisner (1942) fig. 241; Fischer (1976) 32, fig 8 Junker X (1951) pl. 17[a] fig. 25

Jwnw Nfr

LD II, 82a

_wa-n-Hr

LD II, 33[a]

Mnw-Dd.f

LD II, 16

%nfrw-xa.f

Simpson (1978) figs. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

#wfw-xa.f I

LD Erg., 35 (upper)

Nj-kAw-Ra

#wfw-Dd.f

Dunham–Simpson (1974) figs. 4, 7, 9 Mrs-anx III Junker II (1934) figs. 15, 16, 18

KA.j-nj-nswt I

Junker II (1934) figs. 25, 26, 28, 29, 30; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 44- %SAt-Htp:!tj 47 LD II, 36c

127

_bHnj

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 4: CRITERIA 79–104 (cont.)

Platform under Chair

Double Socles

Inverted Trapezium

Flat over Low Chairback

Large at Back

Small POINTED cushion

SUPPORTS

Small ROUNDED Cushion

CUSHION All shapes at back of Stool

LEGS

Cushion length of seat

STYLE

No Cushion

CHAIR LEG

4 Lion Legs / Paws

CHAIR

Bull's Leg / Hoof

CHAIR

STOOl: no chair back

CHAIR

Armchair

DATE

Chair / Stool for 2 persons

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Nb.j-m-Axtj

[49] B

IV.5-6

Nswt-nfr

[60] B

IV.5-V.1

#mt-nw

[77] B

IV.6-V.1

KA.j-nfr

[106] B

IV.6-V.2

Mr-jb.j

[34] B

IV.6-V.2

2+ 2+

Pr-sn

[24] B

V.2

2+ 2+

2+

Nj-anx-%xmt

[45] A

V.2

2+ 2+

2+

%xm-kA-Ra

[86] A

V.2

2+

Wxm-kA.j

[21] B

V.2-3

2+

Pr-sn

[24[ B

Nn-sDr-kA.j %Sm-nfr I

1

6+ 6+

1

1

2+ 2+ 2+

2+

2+

1

2+ 2+

1

2+ 2+

1

2+

2+

1

2+

V. 2-3

1

2+

2+

[59] B

V.2-3

6+ 6+

[90] B

V.2-3

2+ 2+

2+ 2+

KA.j-nj-nswt II

[103] B

V.2-3

2+ 2+

2+

KA.j-swDA

[107] B

V.2-3

WAS-PtH:Jsj

[17] A

V.3

2+

1

2+

Ra-wr

[64] A

V.3

1

1

1

^pss-kA.f-anx

[95] B

V.3-5

1

KA-pw-nswt:KA.j

[110] B

V.3-5

2+

KA.j-nj-nswt III

[104] B

V4-6E

1

2+ 2+

1

1

2+

6+

1

1

2+ 2+ 6+ 6+

2+

2+

?

1

6+

1 2+

2+ 2+

1

1

2+ 2+

1

7+

2+

1

1

V.6

2+ 2+ 2+

2+

1

Jtjj

[13] B

V.6

2+

2+

2+

Nfr and KA-HA.j

]53] B

V.6

6+ 11+

6+

6+

128

2+

1

[4] B

Jj-mrjj

2+

2+ 1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

TOMB OWNER

Female Pointing

Son copies Father's Action

REFERENCE Male with Fillet and Streamers

Deceased in SnDwT

Deceased in Flared Kilt

Thicket in front of Deceased

Deceased Spear Fishing

Deceased Fowling

Pleasure Cruise

Pulling Papyrus - MALE

Pulling Papyrus - FEMALE

MARSH SCENES

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 LD II, 12

1

Nb.j-m-Axtj

Junker III (1938) pl. 11, figs. 9b, 27, 30; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls. 51, Nswt-nfr 53, 56, 57 LD II, 26d, e

#mt-nw

Reisner (1942) figs. 257, 259, 261, 262

KA.j-nfr

LD II, 19, 20a,c

Mr-jb.j

Petrie–Murray (1952) pl. 10

Pr-sn

Mariette (1889) 203

Nj-anx-%xmt

Hassan IV (1943) 117, fig. 62; LD II, 42

%xm-kA-Ra

Kayser (1964) p. 24-5

Wxm-kA.j

LD II, 83b; LD Erg., 8

Pr-sn

Junker II (1934) figs. 7, 9, 10

Nn-sDr-kA.j

LD II, 27, 29; Kanawati Giza I (2001) 47, 50

%Sm-nfr I

Junker III (1938) figs. 20-22

KA.j-nj-nswt II

Junker VII (1944) figs. 70, 71; LD II, 85b

KA.j-swDA

Mariette (1889) 268, 270

WAS-PtH:Jsj

Hassan I (1932) fig. 5

Ra-wr

Weeks (1994) figs. 54, 56, 57

^pss-kA.f-anx

Junker III (1938) pl. 7b, figs. 24 - 17 KA-pw-nswt:KA.j Junker VIII (1947) fig. 93 1

1

KA.j-nj-nswt III

LD II, 53; LD Erg., pl. 5; Jj-mrjj Weeks (1994) figs. 33, 36, 39, 43, 44 Weeks (1994) figs. 51, 52; LD II, Jtjj 59a Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) pls. 24a, Nfr and KA-HA.j 26, 29, 32; Lashien (2013) pls. 84-86

129

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 4: CRITERIA 79–104 (cont.)

Platform under Chair

Double Socles

Inverted Trapezium

Flat over Low Chairback

Large at Back

Small POINTED cushion

SUPPORTS

Small ROUNDED Cushion

CUSHION All shapes at back of Stool

LEGS

Cushion length of seat

STYLE

No Cushion

CHAIR LEG

4 Lion Legs / Paws

CHAIR

Bull's Leg / Hoof

CHAIR

STOOl: no chair back

CHAIR

Armchair

DATE

Chair / Stool for 2 persons

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 #wfw-xa.f II

[74] B

V.6

%Sm-nfr II

[91] B

V.6

PtH-Spss

[29] A

V.6L

[9] B

V.6E-8L

%xntjw

[87] B

Nfr-sSm-PtH

2+

1

1

2+ 2+

2+ 2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

V.6-8E

1

1

[57] B

V.6-8E

1

1

Mr-sw-anx

[41] B

V.6-8

Nfr-bAw-PtH

[54] B

V.6L

PtH-Spss

[29] A

V.6L

Nj-anx- $nmw and $nmw-Htp

[44] A

V.6L-8E

NTr-wsr

[61] B

V.7-8

PtH-Htp I

[26] B

V.8

Ra-Spss

[67] A

V.8

%Sm-nfr III

[92] B

V.8

#ww-wr

[71] B

Ra-wr II Pr-nb

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

1

2+

2+

1

1

2+ 2+ 2+ 6+ 2+ 1

2+ 2+

2+ 6+ 6+ 2+

2+

2+

1

1 2+

1

1

1

1

2+

2+

1

2+

2+

2+

6+ 2+ 2+

1

6+

2+

2+

2+

1

1 1

2+

1

2+ 2+

2+

2+

V.8

1

2+

1

2+

2+

[65] B

V.8-9

1

2+ 2+

2+

2+

[23] A

V.8-9

Ax.t-Htp

[1] B

V.8L-9E

JAsn

[3] B

V.8L-9

%nDm-jb:Jntj

[84] A

V.9E

%nDm-jb:MHj

[85[ A

V.9M

1

1

2+

2+ 2+ 1

1

2+ 2+

1 3

1

1

130

2+

1

2+

2+ 2+

2

2+ 1

1

1 2+

1

2+

2+

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

TOMB OWNER

Female Pointing

Son copies Father's Action

REFERENCE Male with Fillet and Streamers

Deceased in SnDwT

Deceased in Flared Kilt

Thicket in front of Deceased

Deceased Spear Fishing

Deceased Fowling

Pleasure Cruise

Pulling Papyrus - MALE

Pulling Papyrus - FEMALE

MARSH SCENES

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 1

Simpson (1978) fig 42a, b, 47, 49

1

#wfw-xa.f II

HESPOK (1946) fig. 141 (right), p. 291; Kanawati Giza II (2002) pls.63, %Sm-nfr II 64 James (1961) No. 682 1

1

1

1

1

2+

2 Moussa–Junge (1975) pl. 12 1

2+ 2+ 2+ 2+

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

Moussa-Junge (1975) Illus. 1, pl. 6

%xntjw

Moussa–Junge (1975) Illus. 2

Nfr-sSm-PtH

Hassan I (1932) figs. 182, 183, 185

Mr-sw-anx

Weeks (1994) figs. 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22

Nfr-bAw-PtH

Verner (1977) pls. 16, 22, 49

PtH-Spss

Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5, 6, 11, 20, 25, 26, pls. 74, 80a

Nj-anx- $nmw and $nmw-Htp

Murray (1905) pls. 21, 23, 24, 25

NTr-wsr

Murray (1905) pls. 8, 9

PtH-Htp I

LD II, 60, 61a, 64

Ra-Spss

LD II, 84; LD Erg., 26a Williams (1932) pl.17; Hayes I (1990) fig. 52; Lythgoe–Ransom Williams (1918) fig. 35 Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) pls. 13, 14, 24, 34 Simpson (1980) figs. 29, 30, 32, 33, 35

1 1

1

1

2+

1

1

2+

1

Jrj-n-kA-PtH

Brunner-Traut (1977) pls. 5, 6, Front %Sm-nfr III cover Hassan V (1944) figs. 102, 104, 106, #ww-wr 108; LD II, pl. 43a

1

1

PtH-Spss

2+

Ra-wr II Pr-nb Ax.t-Htp JAsn

LD II, 77; LD Erg., 17; 18

%nDm-jb:Jntj

LD II, 74, 75; LD Erg., 11, 12, 15, 16

%nDm-jb:MHj

131

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 4: CRITERIA 79–104 (cont.)

Platform under Chair

Double Socles

Inverted Trapezium

Flat over Low Chairback

Large at Back

Small POINTED cushion

SUPPORTS

Small ROUNDED Cushion

CUSHION All shapes at back of Stool

LEGS

Cushion length of seat

STYLE

No Cushion

CHAIR LEG

4 Lion Legs / Paws

CHAIR

Bull's Leg / Hoof

CHAIR

STOOl: no chair back

CHAIR

Armchair

DATE

Chair / Stool for 2 persons

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 PtH-Htp II: *fj

[27] B

V.9

Nbt

[50] B

V.9

#nwt

[78] B

V.9

Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj

[58] A

VI.1E-M

KA-gmnj:Mmj

[111] A

VI.1E-M

%anx-w(j)-PtH: @tp-n(j)-PtH

[82] A

VI.1

%SsSt:Jdwt

[93] B

VI.1

2+

2+

%Abw:Jbbj

[81] A

VI.1

1

2+

1

Nj-kAw-Jssj

[47] A

VI.1M

1

1

1

Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj

[38] A

VI.1L

1

6+

6+ 2+

NDt-m-pt:&jt

[62] A

VI.1L

1

@sj

[69] A

VI.1L

2+

PtH-Spss II

[30] B

VI.1-2E

Mrrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj

[37] B

VI.1-2E

anx-m-a-¡r

[15] A

VI.1M-2E

2+

2+

2+

WDA-HA-&tj: ^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH

[22] A

VI.1M-2E

2+

2+

2+

Mrw:&tj-snb

[35] B

VI.1L-2E

1

2+

Jn.w-Mn.w

[7] A

VI.1L-2E

Rmnj:Mrwi

[68] B

VI.1L-2E

KA(.j)-apr(w)

[99] B

VI.1L-2E

Mrrj

[36] B

VI.1L-2

2+

2+

2+

1

2+

2+

1

2+

2+

1

2+

2+ 2+

1

2+

2+

2+

2+

1

2+ 1

2+

1

2+

1

2+

2+

2+

1

1

1

132

1

1

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

TOMB OWNER

Female Pointing

Son copies Father's Action

REFERENCE Male with Fillet and Streamers

Deceased in SnDwT

Deceased in Flared Kilt

Thicket in front of Deceased

Deceased Spear Fishing

Deceased Fowling

Pleasure Cruise

Pulling Papyrus - MALE

Pulling Papyrus - FEMALE

MARSH SCENES

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

1

1

1

1

2+

Paget et al. (1898) pls. 35, 38, 39

PtH-Htp II: *fj

Munro (1993) pls. 10, 11

Nbt

Munro (1993) pls. 9. 98, 110b

#nwt

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) pl. 58 Nfr-sSm-Ra:^Sj 1 1

1

1

1

2+

1

1

Bissing (1905) pls. 15, 16, 20-21, 34; 1 LD II, 97; Harpur–Scremin (2006) figs.30, 32, 33. Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) 1 pls. 67, 68 Macramallah (1935) pls. 7, 15, 17, 20; Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) pls. 54, 67, 68, 70, 71 Mariette (1889) 384, 412, 413; Borchardt (1937) pl. 21 Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) pls. 48, 50 Duell and Kanawati References: 1 see below Table

2+

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2+

1

2+

1

%SsSt:Jdwt %Abw:Jbbj Nj-kAw-Jssj Mrrw-kA.j:Mrj NDt-m-pt:&jt

Kanawati-Abder-Raziq (1999) pls. 53, 54, 63, 64

@sj

Murray (1905) pls. 28-30

PtH-Spss II

Lloyd et al (1990) pls. 6, 8, 9

1

%anx-w(j)-PtH: @tp-n(j)-PtH

Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pl. 40

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2001) TC VII, pl. 45 Kanawati–Hassan (1997) figs. 34, 35, 58, 68 Capart (1907) pls. 90, 91, 93, 99, 101; Lloyd et al (2008) pls. 17, 18, 19, 21, 22

2+

KA-gmnj:Mmj

Mrrj r/u Mrjj-Nbtj anx-m-a-¡r WDA-HA-&tj: ^Sj:Nfr-sSm-PtH Mrw:&tj-snb

Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) pls. 40, Jn.w-Mn.w 41, 44, 46, 50 Kanawati Teti IX (2009) Rmnj:Mrwi pls. 45-47, 48-51 Kanawati–Hassan (1996) pls. 49a,b, KA(.j)-apr(w) 51 Davies et al (1984) pls. 5, 7, 12

133

Mrrj

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM CRITERIA TABLE 4: CRITERIA 79–104 (cont.)

Platform under Chair

Double Socles

Inverted Trapezium

Flat over Low Chairback

Large at Back

Small POINTED cushion

SUPPORTS

Small ROUNDED Cushion

CUSHION All shapes at back of Stool

LEGS

Cushion length of seat

STYLE

No Cushion

CHAIR LEG

4 Lion Legs / Paws

CHAIR

Bull's Leg / Hoof

CHAIR

STOOl: no chair back

CHAIR

Armchair

DATE

Chair / Stool for 2 persons

NO.

Prosopography/Group

TOMB OWNER

CRITERION NO. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx: Nxbw

[32] A

VI.1L-2

MHj-mH-n.s

[42] B

VI.2E

Jsj

[11] A

VI.2

1

1

Ra-wr

[63] B

VI.2L-3

2+

1

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

[79] A

VI.2

11+

6+

Qrrj

[98] A

VI.2

1

1

Jdw I:Nfr

[14] B

VI.2

2+

2+ 2+

Mrjj-&tj:Mrj

[33] B

VI.2M

2+

2+

QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr

[97] B

VI.2L-3

anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II

[16] A

VI.2-4E

Wr-nww

[20] B

VI.2L-4E

[6] A

VI.3-4E

Jbj

©aw and ©aw:¥mAj

1 1

6+ 1 1

1

2+

2+

2+

2+ 2+

1

2+

1 1

2+

[114] A

VI.4E

Nbt

[51] B

VI.4E-M

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

[80] B

VI.4E-M

2+

2+

1

[109] B

VI.4E-M

1

1

1

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

2+

1 2+ 2+

CRITERION NO. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Duell References for Mereruka (Criteria 79–104): Duell I (1938) pls. 9, 15, 17, 62, 64, 7, 88, 94, 96, 113, 117, 120, 128, 139, 171, 214B Kanawati References for Mereruka (Criteria 79–104): Kanawati Mereruka III.1 (2010) pls. 67, 69, 87, 88, 90, 96, 97, 100; Kanawati Mereruka III.2 (2011) pls. 81, 86 Numbers in grey and black squares refer to the number of instances a criterion appears in a tomb. Key: '2+' = 2-5 instances; '6+' = 6-10 instances; '11+' = 11 or more instances.

134

CHAPTER3:ESTABLISHINGDATINGCRITERIA

TOMB OWNER

Female Pointing

Son copies Father's Action

REFERENCE Male with Fillet and Streamers

Deceased in SnDwT

Deceased in Flared Kilt

Thicket in front of Deceased

Deceased Spear Fishing

Deceased Fowling

Pleasure Cruise

Pulling Papyrus - MALE

Pulling Papyrus - FEMALE

MARSH SCENES

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Smith (1958) 59, fig. 2; Dunham (1938) pl. 3

Mrjj-Ra-mrj-PtH-anx: Nxbw

El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) pl. 8

MHj-mH-n.s

Ziegler (1990) pp. 78, 81, No. 9

Jsj

El Fikey (1980) pls. 5, 6, 7

Ra-wr

James (1953) pls. 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, 21, 29, 31

#ntj-kA.j:Jxxj

Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 22a

Qrrj

Simpson (1976b) figs. 39, 40, 41

Jdw I:Nfr

Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) Mrjj-&tj:Mrj pls.49-51 Simpson (1976b) figs. 16, 18a,b, 19a, QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30-32 Leclant–Minault-Gout (2000) pl. 18 anx.ns-Mrjj-Ra II (8).

1

1

Davies et al (1984) pl. 26 1

1

2+

2+ 2+

1

1

1

1

1

Wr-nww

Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) pls. 3-7, 1 12, 15, 17-19; Kanawati Gebrawi II Jbj (2007) pls. 45-7, 59, 51, 53-4, 56-58

2+

Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) pls. 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 13; Kanawati Gebrawi III ©aw and ©aw:¥mAj (2011) pls. 57, 58, 63, 64, 68, Kanawati III (1982) figs. 26, 27

Nbt

1

1

1

1

Kanawati II (1981) figs. 4, 7, 18, 19, 23, 24

$nj:^psj-pw-Mnw

1

1

1

1

Kanawati I (1980) figs. 8, 17,

KA.j-hp:*tj-jqr

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

135

DATINGTHETOMBSOFTHEEGYPTIANOLDKINGDOM

3.14.1

Explanatory notes to the tables

Each Criterion occupies a column and is headed by a brief description and the number assigned to the criterion. The Tables identify the criteria found in each tomb by number: • These occurrences are numbered: “1” or “2+” or “6+” or “11+”. An explanation of the numbers appears beneath each Table. Not every single occurrence of a criterion has been recorded, as this would have made the tables unacceptably long without adding information of value. The aim has been to record sufficient occurrences of criteria to provide an adequate picture of their frequency in each tomb and distribution from tomb to tomb. • Black squares with white numbers indicate first and last occurrences of a criterion. • Grey highlights without numbers indicate that the criterion continues down the page. • The criterion entries are chronological according to the date of each tomb. Columns labelled TOMB OWNER N O. DATE REFERENCE

supplies the tomb owner’s name in transliteration. supplies the number [ ] assigned to the tomb in the Prosopography and indicates whether the tomb appears in Group A or Group B. See page 45. supplies the date assigned to each tomb in the Prosopography. See page 14ff. provides the figure/plate references for the criterion entries in each Table.

136

Chapter 4  Testing the Criteria  A selection of tombs has been used to test the reliability of criteria and the validity of the proposed system. Monuments have been selected from Giza, Saqqara and some of the Upper Egyptian provinces, and from Dynasties 4, 5 and 6. Some of the chosen tombs are controversially dated, occasionally as widely apart as Dynasty 4 to late Dynasty 6, while others are only very broadly dated, such as ‘Neuserre or later’. Tombs of close relations, father and son, and one tomb, that of *jj which has an unusual combination of old and new features, have been selected to judge the sensitivity of the system. Finally, a number of tombs were chosen because they have been very recently dated with the aid of the latest scholarship and dating methods. The following discussion of these selected tombs relates to CHARTS A TO G-G (pages 147–167). 4.1 

Giza tombs  CHART A – CHART Q  

@m.t-Ra PM 243 CHART A The tomb of @m.t-Ra was excavated by Selim Hassan in the 1934 to 1935 season and published in 1950. It is broadly dated in the Topographical Bibliography from mid Dynasty 4 to Dynasty 5 but the tendency has been to assign it to late Dynasty 4 or early Dynasty 5.646 If this early dating is correct, the first historical mention of the god, Osiris, has to be given a late Dynasty 4 or early Dynasty 5 date, as Osiris is invoked in this tomb.647 In 1992 Bolshakov addressed this question asserting that it was ‘axiomatic’ that Osiris did not appear in private tombs until the second half of Dynasty 5, probably later than Neuserre,648 citing Griffiths as his reference.649 In arguing that the tomb of @m.t-Ra should be dated to the second half of Dynasty 5 Bolshakov appealed to relative dating criteria based on the offering formula inscribed on the entrance lintel, on the occurrence of certain scenes on the thicknesses of the tomb entrance and epigraphic features. However, he did not explain how he arrived at the dates for these criteria except to cite, in certain instances, Hassan, Barta, Harpur, Fischer and 646

647 648 649

Begelsbacher-Fischer (1981), 121 and Harpur (1987) 315, for example. Hassan VI (1950) fig. 36, p. 48. Bolshakov (1992), 203. Griffiths (1980) 113-14. Griffiths does not seem to have made much of a study of when Osiris is first mentioned. His statements are very general and the evidence he cites is selective and drawn mainly from Dynasty 6. One of the tombs cited by Griffiths (%xmkA.j PM 596) is likely to date to Neuserre. See CHART T, %xm-kA.j.

himself.650 Bolshakov’s arguments and authorities may be correct but as the dating of this tomb is contentious, the method by which these criteria are established needs to be shown. A dating chart based on the system proposed here is only able to cite eight criteria. These criteria suggest a period from the reign of Neferirkare to that of Neuserre as the most likely date for the decoration of @m.t-Ra’s tomb, although a date as early as the end of Dynasty 4 is possible. CRITERIA 1 and 70 make a date as late as the reign of Djedkare unlikely. The final dates for both CRITERIA 1 and 70 are only based on the tomb of Nj-anx$nmw and $nmw-Htp, dated from late Neuserre to early Djedkare. It is probable that if this tomb were still being decorated in the reign of Djedkare, only final touches, after the death of Nj-anx-$nmw, were applied in this later reign.651 Although CRITERION 90, the low chair back over which a flat cushion is draped, becomes more usual in the second half of Dynasty 5, they are seen in the tombs of %Sm-nfr I [86] and #wfw-xa.f II [70]. However, the basic shape and the back of @m.t-Ra’s chair suggests a comparison with the ‘lion’ chair on which Mrs-anx III [38] sits in the offering table scene on the panel of her false door.652 The latest dates for CRITERIA 70, 71 and 72, the jewellery worn by @m.t-Ra, are supported by Cherpion’s dates for the same criteria.653 It is, therefore, unlikely that this tomb was decorated later than the reign of Neuserre, while the work may have been carried out as early as Shepseskaf or Userkaf. Although the supporting evidence is slim, it suggests that the earliest mention of Osiris in private tombs does, in fact, date to the first half of Dynasty 5. Jttj PM 193 and Ra-xa.f-anx PM 207 CHARTS B AND C These two tombs, probably of brothers, have been variously dated, Jttj to late Dynasty 4, early Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 and Ra-xa.f-anx from early to late Dynasty 5. Badawy, who excavated the tomb of Jttj, assigned it to late Dynasty 4 or early Dynasty 5 on his assessment of its archaeological and stylistic features and the association with Khafre through the names of two of Jttj’s sons.654 Badawy also accepted that Ra-xa.f-anx was Jttj’s brother. 650 651 652 653 654

137 

Bolshakov (1992), 207 Notes (1) to (11), 208 Notes (1) to (6). See the discussion on this tomb p. 26. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 7. Cherpion (1989) 191-194 (Critères 45, 46 and 47). Badawy (1976) 10.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Harpur has no objection to the relationship between the two men and judges Ra-xa.f-anx to be the older, as Jttj was sn Dt of Ra-xa.f-anx,655 However, if Badawy’s earlier date for Jttj were accepted, this chronology would place Raxa.f-anx close in time to the reign of Khafre.

supposition of Jttj being the younger brother of Ra-xa.fanx.

The two tombs are situated in the prestigious East Field but beyond the limits of the cemetery laid out for members of the royal family. This suggests a date for both tombs to a time when the strict protocol of assigning East Field tombs had broken down. Thus, the brothers were able to construct their tombs on the outskirts of the East Field. Harpur accepts that this would have entailed a date in the second half of Dynasty 5 for Jttj and the reign of Neuserre for Ra-xa.f-anx. She therefore dates Jttj to V.7-8 and Ra-xa.f-anx to V.6.656

Junker’s dating of the tomb of the dwarf, %nb, to late Dynasty 6658 has been accepted by some scholars659 but has been disputed by others.660 Junker judged the tomb of %nb and its neighbours to be ‘archaizing’, that is, to have been deliberately copied from the styles found in earlier tombs. This explanation is able to account for an unusual combination of features:  the location of the cluster of tombs, which includes %nb’s tomb, to the far west of the Western Field of the Giza necropolis;  the structure of these tombs, which is unusual in comparison with the mastabas of the nucleus cemeteries of the Western Field;  their early (Dynasty 4) iconographic features.

Ra-xa.f-anx’s chart places him in the first half of Dynasty 5 (V.1-V.6). Two criteria (14 and 87) prevent him from being dated later than the reign of Neuserre/early Djedkare. CRITERION 14 is based on the earlier style of the animal skin probably worn by the sm priest. CRITERION 87, the small rounded cushion seen only at the back of the chair, should probably date to Neuserre rather than to Djedkare. Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] provide the final date for this criterion and it is likely that most of the decoration of their tomb would have been carried out before Djedkare came to the throne. The only criterion to limit the earlier date for the tomb to Dynasty 5 is CRITERION 64 based on the depiction of the wife sharing the tomb owner’s chair. But it allows a date as early as V.2. Apart from these criteria, the remaining criteria do not date Ra-xa.f-anx more precisely than from late Dynasty 4 to early Dynasty 6. Nevertheless, CRITERIA 14, 64 and 87 are reliably supported by evidence making the probable date for the tomb of Ra-xa.f-anx from Neferirkare to Neuserre. Indeed the chart makes a date as early as Khafre most unlikely. Jttj’s dating chart presents a number of problems. Only 11 criteria apply. CRITERION 9, the narrower version of the wsx collar, is strongly supported by a quantity of well-sourced evidence and is unlikely to have lasted beyond Dynasty 5. CRITERION 12 (long wig exposing the ear, worn by the male) indicates the earliest date for the tomb to be the reign of Teti, while another criterion (No.87) the smaller rounded cushion at the back of the chair) supports a Dynasty 5 date. Logically, these two criteria, 12 and 87, cannot exist in the same tomb with their present life-span dates. Although the earliest date for CRITERION 12 is strongly supported by Cherpion’s Critère 31,657 it must be accepted that data needed to establish the complete life-spans for both criteria are probably missing. The weight of criteria indicates the reign of Teti as a possible date for the decoration of the tomb although the criteria allow for a date in the reign of Djedkare, which is more likely as it would match the

%nb PM 101 CHART D

The chart for %nb, however, tends to support an earlier dating rather than Junker’s late Dynasty 6 date. Eight criteria limit %nb’s date to no later than early Dynasty 6, four of which make a date later than mid Dynasty 5 most unlikely. Some of these criteria, Nos. 6, (the Ra-Htp kilt), 13 (the long animal skin robe) and 39 (the linen list) are all characteristic of Dynasties 3 and 4 and early Dynasty 5. CRITERION 95 is the male figure pulling papyrus. There is no existing scene of this theme in Groups A and B prior to Nb.j-m-Axtj [49]661 who dates to the end of Dynasty 4. CRITERION 99 (papyrus thicket in front of the tomb owner) does not usually occur in a papyrus pulling scene. Elsewhere it is reserved for the theme of the tomb owner fishing and fowling. The only other exception known to the author is that of Mrs-anx III [40].662 Harpur suggests that %nb was given the female posture of papyrus pulling because he was a dwarf.663 Perhaps he was given the same scenic background for a similar reason. Picturing him against a backdrop of papyrus might have reduced his commanding presence in the scene. Proponents of the late Dynasty 6 date for %nb’s tomb may argue that an archaizing tomb inevitably shows early stylistic features and that dating based on these criteria should therefore be discounted. This would be logical except that in the context of the Egyptian Old Kingdom a tomb with archaizing decoration raises conceptual difficulties. ‘Archaizing’ material in other periods of Egyptian history such as the Saitic period, exhibit the inaccuracies and mistakes to be expected at a time when there were no systematic historical studies. If, indeed, the tombs of %nb and neighbours were truly ‘archaizing’, it would have to be accepted that the craftsmen who decorated these tombs had a remarkable capacity to get 658 659

660 655 656 657

Harpur (1987) 37. Harpur (1987) 37. Cherpion (1989) 180.

661 662 663

138 

Junker V (1941) 3-6. Inter alia, Vandier (1958) 137, Porter–Moss (1974) 101 and more recently, Harpur (1984) 269. Cherpion (1989) 89. LD II, 12b. Dunham–Simpson (1974) fig. 4, plate 5 (lower). Harpur (1987) 57.

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  every stylistic detail historically accurate. Not a single criterion challenges the earlier dating. This includes ‘reversions’ to the symbolism of a period earlier than Dynasty 6, such as the depiction of half loaves of bread instead of reeds and papyrus pulling. By Dynasty 6, tombs portrayed reeds on the offering table, and the male tomb owner is depicted fishing and fowling rather than papyrus pulling. To have portrayed %nb in late Dynasty 6 seated before a table of half loaves and pulling papyrus664 would have involved a shift back in time to the earlier deeply held afterlife beliefs that were associated with the symbolism. Of all scholars Cherpion proposes the earliest date for %nb. She argues that the tomb and its neighbours are not ‘archaizing’ but were indeed constructed in Dynasty 4 and accordingly dates %nb to the reign of Djedefre, whose name appears in his tomb in four separate circumstances.665 Cherpion supports her judgement by reference to the group of tombs which have a significant number of features in common and contain only the names of kings of Dynasty 4, none later than Khafre. Assigning %nb to a date between Shepseskaf and Sahure, as the present dating chart does, overcomes some of the difficulties posed by Cherpion’s early to mid Dynasty 4 dating for this cluster of tombs. A date as late as Sahure, who came to the throne perhaps seventy years after the death of Khufu, allows for the objection666 that the tombs in this cluster were not part of the original plan of the necropolis.667 This date, which is supported by Woods’ study of the tomb,668 would also allow time for the development of ateliers catering to lesser officials669 and yet it makes acceptable the fact that all these tombs had decoration engraved in Tura limestone.670 KA.j-m-anx PM 131 CHART E The tomb of KA.j-m-anx (G4561) is located in Cemetery G4000 and blocks the street between G4560 and G4660. It is dated in the Topographical Bibliography to ‘Dynasty 6’.671 Harpur accepts this date.672 By implication Bolshakov assigns the tomb to late Dynasty 6. Arguing that there was a ‘logic of development’ for the decoration 664

665

666 667

668 669

670 671 672

Harpur justifies the papyrus pulling scene in %nb on the grounds that he was a dwarf and therefore would have been depicted in a context reserved for females and dwarfs. This surmise does not account for the depiction of loaves rather than reeds on the offering table. Harpur (1987). %nb was Hm-nTr of Djedefre and named three of his children after that king. Cherpion (1989) 89. Malek (1991) 97. By the reign of Neferirkare clusters of tombs such as Cemetery G6000 were being constructed beyond the original necropolis plan. Woods (2010). The cluster of tombs with similar features identified by Cherpion includes Nj-Htp-$nmw (PM 50), Nfrj (PM 50), %nnw (PM 52), KA.jtp (PM 52) and Nfrt-nswt (PM 64) all dated in Porter–Moss (1974) to mid Dynasty 5 or later, Jrtj (PM 100), anx (PM 100), %nb (PM 101), JTw (PM 103) Mnj I and II (PM 107-8) all dated in PorterMoss (1974) to Dynasty 6. Cherpion (1989) 86-7. Porter–Moss (1974) 131. Harpur (1987) 270.

of the burial chamber, he identifies stages in this development and places the burial chamber of KA.j-m-anx in his last stage (the burial chamber decorated like a tomb chapel) which he attributes to the end of Dynasty 6.673 The criteria profile for KA.j-m-anx consistently suggests a date from Djedkare to Teti. CRITERION 87 (the small rounded cushion seen only at the back of the stool) narrows the dating further, from late Neuserre to Djedkare. Eight criteria (Nos 2, 9, 76, 81, 87, 88, 91 and 95) make a date as late as Teti unlikely. This dating challenges the ‘logic of development’, which Bolshakov sees in burial chamber decoration. A late Dynasty 6 date for the tomb also raises the question of the appearance of KA.j-m-anx in a papyrus-pulling scene in his burial chamber. While three different presentations of chair and cushions (CRITERIA 81, 87 and 89) in one tomb, although unusual, may occur, the male ‘papyrus pulling’ scene in late Dynasty 6 seems anachronistic in view of the development of after-life beliefs and associations. In Groups A and B, the last instance of this feature is in JAsn [3] towards the end of Dynasty 5. Of course, the location of this scene in the burial chamber may account for a late date. In general, however, to maintain the tomb of KA.j-manx belongs to late Dynasty 6, as Bolshakov implies, it would be necessary to argue that the decoration was stylistically ‘archaizing’. According to the dating chart, the tomb of KA.j-m-anx is dated to the reign of Djedkare with a possible extension to that of Unis as only one criterion, No. 87 (the small rounded cushion) denies this extension. KA-Hj.f PM 76 CHART F The mastaba of KA-Hj.f was originally dated to mid Dynasty 6 by Junker on account of the poor quality of its material and reliefs.674 This dating has been accepted in the Topographical Bibliography675 and by Harpur,676 but challenged by Cherpion who dates the tomb to the reign of Neuserre.677 Although KA-Hj.f was a priest of Khufu and his mastaba is situated in Cemetery G2100, neither cartouche nor location assigns a secure date to the tomb. The priesthood of Khufu lasted well into Dynasty 6 and the mastaba is intrusive in the street between the larger mastabas, G2135 and G2140. While the dating chart clearly suggests a date between Djedkare and Unis, with a possibility of a date late in the reign of Neuserre, the concurrence of certain individual criteria presents an unusual situation. The depiction of three different styles of flared kilt (STYLES 2, 3 and 4) in one tomb is rare, although it does occasionally occur.678 It 673 674 675 676 677 678

139 

Bolshakov (1994) 17. Junker VI (1943) 94-95. Porter–Moss (1974) 76. Harpur (1987) 271. Cherpion (1989) 137-8. This feature occurs in a number of tombs of the second half of Dynasty 5 (late Neuserre to Djedkare), when there appears to have been a comparatively rapid change of styles.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  is most unusual to see the narrow collar (CRITERION 9) teamed with Style 4 of the flared kilt (CRITERION 4).679 A further unusual feature is the different style of the legs of the two chairs on the panel of the northern false door. KAHj.f’s (CRITERION 83) chair has four lion’s legs while his wife’s chair has two bull’s legs (CRITERION 82). This distinction between chairs for the deceased and his wife is maintained throughout the decoration. In the offering table scene on the south wall where KA-Hj.f shares the seat with his wife?, the chair legs are in the style of bull’s hooves. Unless the tomb is judged to be ‘archaizing’ it cannot be dated to mid Dynasty 6. Three criteria (Nos 2, 62 and 91) are not seen at all in Dynasty 6 and a further criterion (No. 9) has little evidence supporting a Teti date. The chart suggests late Neuserre to Unis as the most likely date for the decoration of the tomb. This time-span could be further narrowed to the reign of Neuserre except that KA-Hj.f is pictured as both a young man and a grandfather. This may account for the range of kilt styles, a feature of other late Dynasty 5 tombs such as that of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] and also suggests a Unis rather than Neuserre date, at least for the completion of the decoration. Nfr I680 PM 137 CHART G Nfr I has been dated from the second half of Dynasty 5 to Pepy II.681 His mastaba, G4761, is intrusive into the street between G4760 and G4860 and the cartouches in his chapel are those of Khufu. Neither location nor cartouche helps to date the chapel. The dating chart for Nfr makes a date in Dynasty 6 unlikely. Eight criteria limit a date range around the end of Dynasty 5. Four of these criteria, Nos 31, 75, 87 and 91, limit the range even further making the reign of Unis unlikely. At the same time CRITERIA 10 and 50 suggest that the earliest date should be confined to Neuserre. No. 10, the broad version of the wsx collar, is strongly supported as there are so many depictions of the collar available to verify its dating. Consequently, the chart provides a date range from Neuserre to Djedkare, although a broader time frame of Neuserre to Unis is not out of the question. Roth’s ‘Tombs of Palace Attendants’ G2086, G2088, G2091, G2092, G2092a, G2097, G2097-1, G2098 and G2240 CHARTS H-Q. The tombs of xntj-S officials in Cemetery G2088 have been given both a relative and a dynastic dating by Roth, with their relative dating based on the orientation of the tomb chapels and changes to their orientation.682 The dynastic dating, however, has had to be based on the typology of chapel decoration, as there is no inscriptional 679 680 681 682

Junker VI (1943) fig. 40. Junker VI (1943) 26-74. For the various dates assigned see Harpur (1987) 37. Roth (1995) 23-33.

or archaeological evidence to anchor any of the tombs precisely and securely in time. For typological inferences, Roth depends heavily on dating suggestions of Harpur683 and to a lesser degree on Cherpion.684 Roth comments that Harpur’s “more synthetic tomb dating” is more “realistic than Cherpion’s mechanical dating to the latest royal name”.685 She notes that results from Cherpion’s dating method are likely to be skewed to give too early a date, although comments that the dates from Cherpion’s method were largely consistent with the relative dates arrived at through analysing the orientation of tombs. While Roth is thus quite critical of Cherpion’s method, she does not question the basis of Harpur’s dating of decorative features, although Harpur frequently fails to explain how she arrived at the dating of relevant tombs. There are problems associated with dating this cluster of tombs by means of the iconography of wall decoration:  The cluster was constructed within two generations, making their iconography very similar, thus making it difficult to establish a relative chronology for the monuments.  Most of these chapels have been subject to at least one change of orientation, while the earlier tombs experienced two such changes. These changes may have affected the iconography. Some tombs seem to reflect the decorative features of the first, second and third phases of construction and orientation. Unless earlier and later features can be clearly distinguished, applying a dating system based on the typology of these features tends to produce dating possibilities that reflect two generations.  Some of the chapels, including later additions, have little or no extant decoration. A comparison of the dates worked out by Roth with those arrived at using the dating system presented here can be seen in CHART Q. There is some general agreement of dating inasmuch as both systems confine all the monuments, except G2097-1 and 2092a, to the second half of Dynasty 5. Other dating discrepancies:  G2086 (CHART H): Only CRITERION 14 (the earlier style of the animal skin) restricts the date for CHART H to the reign of Neuserre. Otherwise, the date could be extended to the reign of Unis.  G2088 (CHART I): CRITERION 29 (the tomb owner at the offering table holding a folded cloth to his breast) is the only feature offering V.6L-8E as the earliest date for the decoration of this tomb. This feature occurs in the tomb of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44], whose decoration is more likely to have been carried out in the reign of Neuserre. One criterion, No. 27 (the tomb owner wearing a flared kilt at the offering table) restricts the date for the tomb provided by Chart I to the reign of Djedkare. 683 684 685

140 

Harpur (1987) passim. Cherpion (1989) passim. Roth (1995) 35.

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA   G2091 (CHART J): Although CRITERION 87 (the small rounded cushion seen only at the back of the chair) tends to limit this tomb to the reign of Neuserre, a date early in the reign of Djedkare is possible.  G2092/3 (CHART K): This chart agrees less closely with Roth’s dating. According to the criteria, the most likely date for the decoration of this monument is late in the reign of Neuserre, while Roth dates it firmly to the reign of Djedkare.  CRITERION 70 (the choker necklace worn alone) restricts the latest date for the decoration to V.6L-8E. As the defining occurrence for the latest date of the feature is in the tomb of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44], the date is more likely to be late in the reign of Neuserre.  G2097 (CHART L): CRITERION 14 (the earlier style of the animal skin) restricts the latest date for this tomb to V.6, while CRITERION 101 (the tomb owner standing on a skiff wearing a SnDwt kilt) restricts the earliest date to Djedkare. Chart L dates the tomb from the end of V.6 to the beginning of V.8. Roth, however, dates this tomb from late in the reign of Djedkare to Unis.  G2097-1 (CHART M): Chart M (G2097-1) decorated in two phases, presents the problem referred to above of dating a tomb by the present method. It only offers five criteria providing a date from late Dynasty 4 to the end of Dynasty 5, which is not particularly useful. Unavoidably, these elements reflect the decorative features of two phases.  G2240 (CHART N): Roth dates this tomb to the reign of Unis but Chart N extends the time-span to include the reign of Djedkare.  G2098 (CHART O): Chart O extends the date for the decoration of this tomb to the reign of Neuserre while Roth dates the tomb to the more limited period, Djedkare to Unis. 4.2 

Saqqara tombs  CHARTS R ‐ V 

*jj686 PM 468-78 CHART R The tomb of *jj was chosen for dating because its precise date is open to question, although the broad date of Neuserre to the end of Dynasty 5 is generally accepted. Its location to the north west of the Step Pyramid does not help in its dating. *jj was ‘jmj-rA’ of sun temples of four consecutive kings, Sahure, Neferirkare, Neferefre and Neuserre, the latest king mentioned in the tomb. *jj was an important official, as the splendour of his tomb

and his official titles687 suggest, but he was not a vizier. Strudwick noted the mixture of new and old elements in the false doors of *jj.688 This is true of the decoration generally. *jj and his male attendants are depicted wearing all four styles of flared kilt with ‘apron’. *jj wears both the narrow and broad collar. Although his tomb was decorated at a time when the theme of the tomb owner fishing and fowling was being introduced, he had himself depicted in the older scene of papyrus pulling. At the same time, the recently introduced depiction of the wife kneeling at her husband’s feet is consistently shown. Such an array of old and new features might be expected to contradict each other in terms of the dating unless the tomb can be dated to the period when these features overlapped. The chart of dating criteria for *jj shows the latter to be the case. CRITERION 4 (flared ‘apron’ kilt style 4) is basically a Dynasty 6 feature but probably began in the reign of Djedkare. CRITERION 18, the animal skin with broadened paws, is a development of the second style of panther skin (CRITERION 15), first seen late in the reign of Neuserre. CRITERIA 10, 15, 33, 66, 67, 89 and 100 narrow the earliest dating to Neuserre but CRITERIA 4, 18, 24 and 38 limit it even later, well into the reign of Djedkare. CRITERIA 1, 71, and 100 limit the latest date to Djedkare, indicating a period of approximately 20 to 30 years in which the decoration of the chapel could have been carried out. Although there are 30 criteria in the chart, there is no problem of chronological synchronization. The tomb is securely dated to the reign of Djedkare. Only CRITERION 24, the animal face on the panther skin above the level of the wearer’s waist, denies a Djedkare date. In Groups A and B this detail first appears in the tomb of KA-gmnj:Mmj [111] but in view of the strong correlation of dates provided by the other 29 criteria, this may not be the first occurrence of the criterion. @tp-@r-Axtj PM 593 CHART S @tp-@r-Axtj’s tomb chapel, now in Leiden Museum, was originally situated west of the Step Pyramid. The deceased was Hm-nTr of the sun temple of Neuserre and his tomb chapel is dated in the Topographical Bibliography to the reign of ‘Neuserre or later’.689 Mohr, who published the tomb chapel, described it as a ‘typical example of the Fifth Dynasty tombs at Saqqara’ and dated it to the second half of that dynasty.690 Harpur has since dated the tomb chapel from Neuserre to early Djedkare, but does not explain her precise dating except to place the chapel in a class of chapels that she dates from late Neuserre to mid Djedkare (V.6L-8M). Harpur’s chapel categories are here based on the development of the marsh activities 687

688 689 686

Épron–Daumas (1939), Wild (1953), Wild (1966).

690

141 

According to Strudwick the two most important administrative titles of &jj were jmj-r zS a nswt and jmj-r kAt nbt nt nswt. Strudwick (1985) 158. Strudwick (1985) 158-9. Porter–Moss (1981) 593. Mohr (1943) 21.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  themes. @tp-@r-Axtj’s chapel, according to Harpur, belongs to a group of chapels which have the fishing and fowling scenes as the focal point of marsh activities.691

As this tomb probably dates to the reign of Djedkare, it does not settle the question of whether Osiris was being invoked as early as Neuserre.

In the planning of the decoration of the Leiden chapel Mohr finds a sufficiently ‘close connection’ with the artists of the tomb of *jj to decide that the two tombs were decorated by craftsmen from the same atelier. As the Leiden reliefs do not match the quality of those of *jj, Mohr does not believe the same craftsmen decorated both tombs.

Nfr-jrt-n.f PM 583 CHART U

The criteria-profile chart of @tp-@r-Axtj bears out Harpur’s dating of the tomb from late Neuserre to early Djedkare, although only one criterion (87) indicates a date of no later than early Djedkare. @tp-@r-Axtj may have been contemporary with Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmwHtp [44] or just a little later. Like them, in the fishing and fowling scenes @tp-@r-Axtj does not wear a proper sporting kilt. Instead for these activities he is depicted wearing a very short kilt that seems to be half way in style between the flared kilt and the SnDwt.692 %xm-kA(.j) PM 596 CHART T The tomb chapel of %xm-kA(.j), where the latest cartouche mentioned is that of Neuserre, was partially excavated and published by Murray,693 who assigned the tomb to Dynasty 5. It is situated in the cemetery west of the Step Pyramid and a little to the north west of D62 (PtH-Htp I [25]), which is securely dated to the reign of Djedkare. Apart from the façade architrave, which is inscribed with an offering text, Murray found the west wall of the chapel to be the only decorated surface. The Topographical Bibliography assigns a date of ‘Neuserre or later’694 to the tomb and Harpur dates it to V.6-8E? without explaining her dating.695 There is no real dispute over the dating of %xm-kA(.j)’s tomb. However, it provides an early invocation of Osiris. If the tomb does date to the reign of Neuserre, it offers further evidence that Osiris was invoked in private tombs at an earlier date than is presently accepted by many scholars.696 The dating chart for %xm-kA(.j), however, merely limits the date of the tomb to the second half of Dynasty 5 with CRITERIA 15, 50 and 80 suggesting an earliest date in the reign of Neuserre and the cartouche of Neuserre putting a clear limit of the earliest possible date. CRITERIA 2 and 15 suggest the reign of Djedkare as the latest date. Apart from CRITERION 27 (the tomb owner wearing a flared kilt at the offering table) the date for the tomb could extend into the reign of Unis.

As Harpur notes, the tomb of Nfr-jrt-n.f is important because it contains a particularly early fishing and fowling scene.697 If the tomb was decorated in the reign of Neferirkare or soon after,698 it would contain the first instance of these scenes in a private tomb and would make invalid the earliest dates for criteria drawn from the fishing and fowling scenes (CRITERIA 97 to 104). Therefore to date for this tomb, CRITERIA 97 to 104 may be considered separately to avoid circular argument. These criteria are shaded on CHART U. Harpur dates the tomb to the second half of Dynasty 5, in particular to the reigns of Djedkare to Unis. She bases her judgement on criteria drawn from decorative features, only one of which coincides with the criteria proposed in this study, the registers of foods and containers (CRITERION 41).699 This feature should be dated from early Dynasty 4,700 while CRITERION 42 (jumbled piles of foods near the offering table) dates from early Dynasty 5. Four criteria (Nos 2, 9, 22, 31 and 71) make a date after Dynasty 5 very unlikely. The latest date for CRITERION 31 (the earliest height for the half loaves on the offering table) is well supported as this is a feature with many instances establishing its duration. Moreover, it is replaced by another feature (half loaves of a greater height). By late Dynasty 5, when the latest instance of CRITERION 31 is seen, the second height of half loaves was well established. CRITERION 89 makes a date before the reign of Neuserre unlikely. It is not well supported but is partly confirmed by Cherpion; all the cartouches occurring with this feature, except for the tomb of Nfr-jrtn.f itself (cartouche of Neferirkare) and that of JAsn [3] (cartouche of Khufu), are of Neuserre with one, Nj-xn-sw (PM 496)701 of Teti and a single instance in QAr [96] providing a final date for the criterion as defined.702 The cartouche of Khufu in JAsn’s [3] tomb does not affect the dating of the tomb to V.8L-9 (see prosopography). While the chart offers a date for the decoration of the tomb of Nfr-jrt-n.f from late Neuserre to Unis, the closest correlation of criteria dating suggests a date from late V.6 to V.8. A hint that the tomb may be contemporary with or just a little later than that of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-@tp [44] is the style of kilt depicted on Nfr-jrt-n.f as a spear fisherman. Nfr-jrt-n.f ‘s kilt appears to be a combination of the shortened flared kilt, also worn by Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-@tp [44] in their marsh scenes, and the true 697

691 692

693 694 695 696

Harpur (1987) 191-93. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 5, 6, pl. 74 and Mohr (1943) 64, fig. 34, pl. 2. Murray (1904) pl. VII. Porter–Moss (1981) 596. Harpur (1987) 276. Griffiths (1980) 113-14.

698 699 700

701 702

142 

Harpur (1987) 39. HESPOK 187-88. van der Walle (1978) pls. 2, 3. There are registers of foods beside the offering table of WHm-kA.j (Kayser [1954] 32-3) and above the table of WAS-PtH:Jsj (Mogensen [1918] plates 10, 11). Quibell (1907) pl. 61. See QAr [91] in Table 4.

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  SnDjt, pictured in later fishing and fowling scenes.703 This ‘combination’ style is also seen on KA.j-m-anx (PM 131).704 The problem of CRITERION 24 is discussed below on p. 146. The dating for this tomb suggested by CRITERIA 1 to 92 is not seriously challenged by the criteria based on the fishing and fowling themes although the latter suggest the reign of Djedkare. Jrw-kA-PtH PM 639 CHART V The tomb of Jrw-kA-PtH has been republished by McFarlane, who dates it between Menkauhor and Djedkare.705 Previously it had been dated from early in Dynasty 5 to the First Intermediate Period.706 In dating this tomb McFarlane considered its location,707 architecture708 and features such as its engaged statues and false door with cavetto cornice and torus moulding. These and other aspects such as the official status and titles of the deceased, scenes and motifs in the wall decoration led McFarlane to judge that the tomb could not have been constructed before the reign of Neuserre or later than early Unis. However, in arriving at a date for the tomb McFarlane had difficulty with certain features of the fowling scene. One of these features, CRITERION 12 (the long male wig which exposes the ear) also presents problems for CHART V, as the feature can be dated no earlier that the reign of Pepy I709 in this system and therefore cannot be reconciled with CRITERIA 2 and 27. This fowling scene is only roughly sketched and the craftmanship is especially clumsy. The anomalous exposure of Jrw-kA-PtH’s ear may be discounted as the result of poor and confused workmanship, for long wigs covering the ear and short wigs exposing the ear are both seen in tombs of similar date (Neuserre to Djedkare). Discounting CRITERION 12 allows other unusual aspects of the fowling scene to be seen in a chronological perspective. These features include the relatively large depiction of the female, probably the wife, standing in front of Jrw-kA-PtH710 and the type of kilt worn by the deceased. This kilt is shorter 703

704 705 706

707

708

709

710

Compare van der Walle (1978) pl. 1 and Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) pls. 4, 5, 74, 75. Junker V (1940) fig. 8. McFarlane (2000) 19. McFarlane cites with references the previous dating of the tomb. McFarlane (2000) 16. McFarlane asserts that the tomb’s position close to the buttress wall supporting the Unis causeway is a very strong reason to date its construction earlier than the reign of Unis. McFarlane (2000) 1617. The tomb has a N-S corridor chapel, as do most of the rock-cut tombs in this location which are dated by their excavators between the reigns of Neuserre and early Unis. McFarlane (2000) 17. A date no earlier than Dynasty 6 for CRITERION 12 is supported by Cherpion (1989, p. 180). In Cherpion’s table all except two of the instances of this feature are associated with the cartouche of Pepy I or later. The two exceptions are found in tombs with the cartouche of Teti. The larger depiction of the wife in the fishing and fowling scenes appears to have preceded the portrayal of the very small figure. Compare the size of the ‘wife’ of Ra-Spss [67] (LD II, 60) with that of the wife of Mrrw-kA.j [38] (Duell II, [1938] pls. 9, 17).

than the flared ‘apron’ kilt, but is not the SnDwt kilt which the deceased wears in later fishing and fowling scenes.711 Both of these features suggest that the scene belongs to the period of early portrayals of the deceased fishing and fowling, which is probably to be dated between Neuserre to Djedkare. With the omission of CRITERION 12, the chart clearly dates the tomb decoration between late Neuserre and early Djedkare, a period of perhaps 20 years, which agrees closely with McFarlane. 4.3 

Provincial tombs 

Jntj and Jttj:^dw Deshasha, PM IV 121-3 CHARTS W AND X Petrie, who first excavated these two tombs, dated Jnti to mid Dynasty 5 and Jttj:^dw to VI.1.712 More recently, following Smith713, both tombs have been assigned to the second half of Dynasty 6. Both tomb owners were provincial governors (sSm-tA and HqA Hwt or HqA Hwt aAt). Whether they both administered nomes 20 and 21 and their relationship to each other are unclear. In 1992 Kanawati re-published these tombs,714 redating the tomb of Jntj to V.8 and that of Jttj:^dw to VI.1. To support his dating of Jntj Kanawati cited architectural features, iconographic data based on Cherpion’s system of dating and the presence of rare scenes such as the siege of a town and the painting of a Hn-box.715 He compared these rare scenes with their appearance in other tombs with contentious dates. In the chart of dating criteria for Jntj one criterion (48) provides a date no later than Neferefre, while CRITERION 14 indicates the reign of Neuserre as the latest date for the tomb, suggesting a date in the first half of Dynasty 5, even late Dynasty 4, rather than the reign of Djedkare for the decoration of the tomb. In assigning a date to Jntj, Kanawati placed considerable weight on the parallel scene of warfare in the Saqqara tomb of KA(.j)-m-Hst. A number of scholars have argued the dating of the tomb of KA(.j)-mHst and its neighbour, that of KA(.j)-m-snw.716 None, however, settles the issue. KA(.j)-m-Hst, in particular, may be dated from early Dynasty 5 to Dynasty 6. It is, then, possible that the two tombs with the unusual scene of warfare date to the first half of Dynasty 5. CHART W implies a date for Jntj in late Dynasty 4 or early Dynasty 5, from Shepseskaf to Neferefre or perhaps Neuserre. CHART X of Jttj:^dw offers a broad dating period, from Teti to early Pepy II. Apart from CRITERION 12 this 711

712 713 714 715 716

143 

This ‘in between’ kilt style is evident in the fishing and fowling scenes in Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44] and @tp-@r-Axtj (Mohr [1943] 64, fig. 34, pl. 2). Petrie (1898) 4. HESPOK 219-20. Kanawati–McFarlane (1993). Kanawati–McFarlane (1993) 17-19, 42-44. Firth–Gunn I (1926) 31; Baer (1960) 143-4; Strudwick (1985) 15051; Cherpion (1989) 112-15; Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) 7-8.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  dating period could extend to the reign of Unis. The reign of Pepy I as the earliest date for CRITERION 12, the long wig for the male exposing the ear, is likely to be accurate. Cherpion only cites two earlier cartouches for this feature, both of Teti,717 probably too early a date for both these tomb owners.718 According to these criteria the tomb could have been decorated in either the reign of Pepy I or Mernere but the date range could extend to late Teti or early Pepy II. KA(.j)-xnt (A2) and KA(.j)-xnt (A3) El-Hammamiya, PM V 7-9 CHARTS Y AND Z. While provincial tombs in the same cemetery may be dated in relation to each other according to such criteria as position, architectural features and family names, they can be more difficult to date precisely than Memphite tombs. Thus, if there are no biographical details nor cartouches to provide at least a terminus post quem date nor archaeological data, only a system of relative dating largely established upon Memphite criteria can date these tombs and place them in relation to each other. This raises the question of whether stylistic changes in tomb decoration occurred at the capital and in the provinces at the same time. It would not be surprising if there were a time lag between Memphis and the provinces but this could only be established if Memphite tombs could be compared with provincial tombs that were securely dated by features independent of a relative dating system. There are very few such tombs dating prior to the second half of Dynasty 6, when dated Memphite tombs become scarce. These considerations may affect the dating of the tombs of KA(.j)-xnt (A2) and KA(.j)-xnt (A3) of El-Hammamiya, which have been very widely dated. Petrie assigned them to the reign of Khufu,719 while Baer suggested the reign of Neuserre for A2 and Menkauhor to Djedkare for A3 arguing that the owner of A2 was the father of A3.720 In 1990 El Khouli and Kanawati re-published the decorated tombs of El-Hammamiya721 dating A3 to the beginning of Dynasty 5 and A2, as the younger KA(.j)-xnt and son of the owner of A3, to a slightly later date, although still in early Dynasty 5. El Khouli and Kanawati based their judgement on the location, size and design of the tombs as well as on decorative features.722 The charts based on dating criteria support the order proposed by Baer for the two KA(.j)-xnt’s. Tomb A2 appears to belong to the end of Dynasty 4 or the very beginning of Dynasty 5. According to CHART Y, CRITERIA 13 and 25 confine the latest date to the first three reigns of Dynasty 5, a period supported by CRITERIA 46, 48 and 85, which limit the latest date for the

tomb decoration to the reign of Neferirkare. However, the chart extends the probable Dynasty 4 period of decoration to Menkaure and even as a possibility to Khafre. A3 (CHART Z) on the other hand, has fewer criteria establishing such an early period, with two criteria (10 and 15) limiting the earliest possible date for the decoration of the tomb to Neuserre. The charts date the decoration of A2 to a period from Shepseskaf to Neferirkare and that of A3 to the reign of Neuserre. 4.3.1 

Three decorated tombs of Nome 8 have been widely dated from mid to late Dynasty 6 to the end of the Old Kingdom (Dynasties 8 to 9). Peck, who originally assigned these tombs to the end of the Old Kingdom, did so cautiously.723 In her dissertation she notes that each tomb offers an array of features from both the Old Kingdom and later. Her final judgement, however, tends to be based on the presence of ‘new’ features and palaeographic criteria rather than on the iconography. Kanawati, who more recently redated these tombs to Dynasty 6, based his conclusions on a comparison of architectural features with the tombs of El Hawawish,724 titles and offices held by the three men,725 as well as on iconographic and palaeographic criteria. As Kanawati points out,726 the dates assigned to these Naga ed-Der tombs are a matter of importance in working out the characteristics and historical dynamic of the period, Dynasty 6 to Dynasty 9. When the present system is applied to the three tombs it should be borne in mind that the criteria are all drawn from the decoration of the tombs. Peck notes for each tomb that decorative features tend to reflect Dynasty 6 styles, even if colour schemes are very different and workmanship and preservation are poor. &wAw (N359) CHART A-A Peck dated &wAw’s tomb to early Dynasty 8, making its decoration the oldest of the three tombs she studied. She commented on the mass of contradictory tendencies within the tomb, noting that a date late in Dynasty 6 or in Dynasty 9 were both possible.727 Kanawati judges &wAw to be a contemporary of Jbj [6] of Deir el-Gebrawi, who is dated in the Prosopography in this volume from Mernere to early Pepy II (VI.3-4E).728 723 724

717 718 719 720 721

722

Cherpion (1989) Critère 31,p. 180. Jrj.s: Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) p. 48. Mackay et al (1929) 36-7. Baer (1960) 294. El-Khouli–Kanawati (1990) 11-19 A2: 26-53 pls. 2(c)-(d), 6-17, 32-51; A3: 54-66 pls. 18-23, 52-75. El-Khouli–Kanawati (1990) 13-14.

The tombs of Naga ed‐Der    CHARTS A‐A, B‐B AND C‐C 

725 726 727 728

144 

Peck (1958) 29, 83-7, 123-27. He compares the tomb of *mrrjj (N248) with that of Nhwt-dSr (G95) of El Hawawish (p.57). See also Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 107, 109. Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 58-61, 108-9. Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 56. Peck (1958) 29. This would depend on Peck’s reading of a fragmentary title, which does not accord with evidence from El Hawawish. Kanawati–

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  The chart for &wAw suggests that even a mid Dynasty 5 date is possible, although this rests on only one criterion (27). The depiction of the tomb owner wearing a flared kilt at the offering table is not seen after Dynasty 5 in Groups A and B, which are totally dominated by Memphite tombs in Dynasty 5. The appearance here of this feature could be the result of a time lag between styles at the capital and in the provinces. This could be true of two other criteria, No 72, the multiple bangles worn by the seated wife and CRITERION 82, chair legs in the shape of bull’s legs and hoofs, which is supported by many instances. In the tombs of Groups A and B CRITERION 82 is not seen after the reign of Pepy I while the final date for CRITERION 72 is the reign of Merenre. In other respects the reigns of Unis, Teti or Pepy I are equally indicated by the chart. Taking Chart A-A into account in the dating of this tomb, makes it necessary to decide whether to consider an even earlier date than that suggested by Kanawati or to opt for a significant time-lag between the styles prevalent in the capital and those prevailing at Naga ed-Der. *mrrjj (N248) CHART B-B. Peck dated the tomb of *mrrjj slightly later than that of &wAw, while Kanawati judged it to be earlier than &wAw, dating *mrrjj to late Teti or early Pepy I.729 CHART B-B assigns only a very broad date from mid Dynasty 5 to the reign of Pepy I. While the chart does not distinguish between the second half of Dynasty 5 and the first half of Dynasty 6, it does suggest that the latest date for the tomb is the reign of Pepy I, which is much closer to Kanawati’s judgement than to that of Peck. Mrw:Jjj (N3737) CHART C-C This tomb is judged to be the latest of the three by both Peck and Kanawati. Peck, however, cautiously dates it to Dynasty 9 while Kanawati assigns it to the period Mernere to early Pepy II.730 Peck asserts that the tomb plan, painting style, iconography and palaeography point to a date after Dynasty 6. At the same time, she notes that the general appearance of the walls is similar to the tombs of Jbj [6] and +aw [114] of Deir el-Gebrawi and that the palaeographic evidence is inconclusive, so that the tomb could be Dynasty 6 or Dynasty 11. It is possible that in her final assessment Peck was swayed by the poor quality of the artistry, which is very evident in this tomb. Kanawati bases his dating partly on the shaft and burial chamber but otherwise does not discuss the architectural features. He mainly relies on iconographic evidence and

judges Mrw: Jjj to be contemporary with Jbj [6] of Deir el-Gebrawi and KA.j-Hp:*tj [108] of El Hawawish.731 Mrw: Jjj’s chart generally agrees with Kanawati’s dating and certainly suggests that he was later than the other two Naga ed-Der officials studied. The large figure of the tomb owner on a skiff wearing a flared kilt presents a problem. In this much damaged fowling scene Mrw: Jjj has his near arm raised backward with his hand above his head in a ‘fowling’ action but is shown wearing a flared kilt of knee length.732 I know of no other Old Kingdom depiction of this nature and can only suggest that it is the work of a provincial craftsman unfamiliar with all the conventions of this theme. Otherwise, the chart confirms the date, VI.1 to VI.4E. It may be said also to support a date as early as Neuserre but this outcome is likely to be a result of only six criteria applying to what remains of the tomb decoration. 4.3.2

The tombs of the administrators of this province, Nome 12, occupy two cemeteries, one situated on what is called the ‘northern cliff’ and the other on the ‘southern cliff’. Davies, who originally copied and published these tombs and their scenes, considered the northern cemetery to be the oldest.733 This chronology was questioned and a reverse order became generally accepted by scholars, making it necessary to date the northern cliff administrators to the end of Dynasty 6 and into the First Intermediate Period. This chronological reversion was challenged by Kanawati who republished the tombs of the northern cliff in 2005. As a result of studying the architecture and decoration of these tombs and comparing them with more securely dated tombs in other provinces of Middle Egypt, Kanawati dated the northern cliff tombs to the period preceding those of the southern cliff, prior to the reign of Merenre. !nqw: #ttj (N39) CHART D-D Kanawati has dated !nqw: #ttj to the reign of Teti,734 while the chart suggests the last reign of Dynasty 5 as an equally probable date. @m-Ra: Jsj N72 CHART E-E Generally, this chart provides the same dating as CHART D-D, Unis to Teti, although it gives greater weight to a date in the reign of Teti. CRITERION 12, which has a time span supported by Cherpion’s findings, rules out a date in the reign of Unis.735 The chart accordingly provides some

731

729 730

McFarlane (1992) 108. Jbj was appointed by Mernere. Davies Gebrâwi I (1902), pls. 18, 23. Peck (1958) 86; Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 59. Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 55-61.

The tombs of the Northern Cliff, Deir el‐Gebrawi  CHARTS D‐D, E‐E AND F‐F. 

732 733 734 735

145 

Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) 108-111. Peck (1958) pl 15. Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) 3. Kanawati Gebrawi I (2005) 19-20. See footnote 709 on page 143.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  support for Kanawati’s dating of the tomb to late Teti to early Pepy I.736

Pepy II’s reign, although a date at the very beginning of this reign or even that of Merenre is more probable.

!nqw: Jj…f N67 CHART F-F

Of the thirty-two tomb charts:

The chart for !nqw: Jj…f is very similar to that of his (probable) brother, @m-Ra: Jsj N72; !nqw: Jj…f records in his autobiography that he administered the province together with his brother @m-Ra.737 Kanawati dates !nqw: Jj…f a little later than @m-Ra: Jsj, to early to mid Pepy I. While CRITERIA 65 and 80 provide support for this dating to early Pepy I, Kanawati seems to have accepted this date in order to establish a chronology for the two governors of the province.738 The two tombs are situated close to each other, were owned by brothers who together governed the province and so may have been constructed and decorated close in time.

 Twenty three charts provide a date spanning no more than two consecutive reigns. Some of these include a third intervening reign of approximately 10 years or less, which has not been taken into account. Seven of these date the monument’s decoration to a time period of approximately 30 years or less.  Eight charts, with 10 or less criteria, merely provide a dating period spanning a period of approximately 70 plus years or five or more reigns.  Certain criteria present particular problems: CRITERIA 1, 70 and 87: the final dates for these criteria depend on the tomb of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp (V.6L-8E). Probably only final touches were applied to the decoration possibly in the old age or after the death of Nj-anx-$nmw.742 Cherpion dates the final occurrence of CRITERIA 70 and 87 to V.6.743 Thus a final V.6L date is acceptable for the three criteria.

Ppjj-anx(.w)-Hrj-jb D2 CHART G-G Ppjj-anx(.w)-Hrj-jb, probably the most powerful provincial administrator of the Old Kingdom, governed the rich middle provinces of Upper Egypt. Although he included an autobiography in his well decorated tomb at Meir, scholars have disputed both his date and his place in his family ever since the tomb was first published by Blackman in 1924.739 Suggested dating has placed him as late as the First Intermediate Period.740 In his recent republication of the tomb Kanawati dated the construction of Ppjj-anx(.w)-Hrj-jb’s tomb to early in the reign of Pepy II.741

CRITERIA 12 and 24 sometimes fail to coincide with other criteria on the same chart. See Charts C and U. CRITERION 12, the shoulder length wig that exposes the male wearer’s ear, has the reign of Teti as its earliest date, which is supported by Cherpion’s findings.744 CRITERION 24, the face on the panther skin depicted above the wearer’s waist, first appears in the reign of Teti in the tombs of Groups A and B. In the case of both criteria it may be assumed that neither Cherpion’s nor the present system has identified the earliest occurrences of these features.

According to CHART G-G, CRITERIA 12, 24 and 102 limit the earliest construction of the tomb to the reign of Teti and more likely to Pepy 1, while CRITERIA 21, 24, 29 and 58 limit the latest dating to the first 20 or 30 years of

736 737 738 739 740

741

Kanawati Gebrawi I (2005) 19-20. Kanawati Gebrawi I (2005) 72-73 pls. 66-67. Kanawati Gebrawi I (2005) 19-20. Blackman Meir IV (1924). See for example Baer (1960) 70, 84, 278; Fischer (1968) passim; Harpur (1987) 280; El-Khouli–Kanawati (1989) 11-26. Kanawati Meir I (2012) 26.

742 743 744

146 

See discussion of this tomb on page 26. Cherpion (1989) 69. 149. Cherpion (1989) 180.

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  4.4 

Testing the Criteria: CHARTS A to G‐G  

CHART A

@mt-Ra PM 243-4 DYNASTY 4

D. 3 1

Reign

2

3

DYNASTY 5

4

5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

1 9 47 51 70 71 72 90 REFERENCE: Hassan VI (1950) pp 43-65, figs. 39-45, pls. 26-29

CHART B

Ra-kA.f-an x PM 207

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

Crit No.

9 14 16 19 22 26 32 43 61 64 73 79 81 82 87 93 REFERENCE: LD II, Bl. 8-11

147 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART C

Jttj PM 193 DYNASTY 4

D. 3 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

9 12 17 26 41 61 65 82 86 87 88 REFERENCE: Badawy (1978) figs. 10, 11, 13, 16.

CHART D

%n b PM 101

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

6 9 13 16 31 35 39 *51 60 62 68 70 72 86 87 95

(M ales)

99 * 51- Not an offering table scene. REFERENCE: Junker Gîza V (1941) 3-124.

148 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART E

KA(.j)-m-anx PM 131

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

Crit No.

2 8 9 10 11 15 16 19 20 21 26 28 33 38 40 41 43 51 58 59 61 73 74 76 79 80 81 82 86 87 88 89 91 95* 96 98 99 101 * This is a miniature scene in the burial chamber. REFERENCE: Kanawati Giza I (2001)

149 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART F

KA-Hj.f PM 76 DYNASTY 4

D. 3 Reign

1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

Crit No.

2 3 4 9 16 17 26 32 35 40 41 43 47 49 61 62 65 66 79 82 83 89 90 91 REFERENCE: Junker, Gîza, VI (1943) Abb. 28, 29, 32-37, 39-41, 48.

150 

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART G

Nfr PM 137

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

2 10 26 31 32 35 41 43 47 49 50 51 61 73 74 75 76 78 79 81 82 86 87 88 90 91 92 REFERENCE: Junker Gîza VI (1943) Abb. 7-15.

151 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART H

Rd j G 2086 (Roth)

D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

2 9 10 14 16 19 41# 47 73 75 78 79 82 91 # Not an offering table scene. REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 69-74, pls. 14c-22b.

CHART I

KA-xnt and PH .n-PtH G2088 (Roth) D. 3

Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

8 10 26 27 29 32 35 41 51 61 82 90 REFERENCE: Roth (2001) 80-90, pls. 25b-35c.

152 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART J

Kapj G 2091 (Roth) DYNASTY 4

D. 3 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

2 3 8 9 10 26 32 35 41 43 51 52 60 71 73 74 75 76 78 80 82 86 87 88 REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 97-104 pls. 40b-61

CHART K

%A-jb G 2092, G 2093 (Roth)

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

2 5 9 10 16 70 82 86 89 97 100 REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 105-112 pls. 62a-75a.

153 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART L

Nj-mAat-Ra G 2097 (Roth) DYNASTY 4

D. 3 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

7 8 9 14 16 19 27 28 31 41 43 47 61 73 74 76 82 86 88 92 99 101 REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 127-133 pls. 84a-100b.

CHART M

*st G 2097-1 (Roth)

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

43 81 82 86 88 REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 135-137 pls. 98b-100c.

154 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART N

Nfr-msDr-#wfw G 2240 (Roth)

D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

2 3 9 15 16 32# 35 44* 47* 49* 51 58 59 73 76 80 # Probable. * A banquet scene rather than an offering table scene. REFERENCE: Roth (2001) 162-166, pls. 201-205.

CHART O

Nfr-xwj G 2098 (Roth)

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 5

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

2 5 8 9 15 16 41* 66 73 90 * Banquet rather than offering table scene. REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 142-148 pls. 102a-109d.

155 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART P

Nj-mAat-Ra:&wt G 2092a (Roth)

DYN 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

4M

4L

Crit No.

10 26 29 32 35 44 47 49 50 90 REFERENCE: Roth (1995) 114, pls. 64-65b.

CHART Q

Tomb

Progressive construction of G2086, G2088, G2091, 2092/3, G2097, 2097-1, G2240, G2098 and 2092a, according to dating charts and Roth Roth's Chart Phase No.

G2086

No 1

H

G2088

No 1

I

G2091

No 1

J

G2092/3

No 1

K

G2097

No 2

L

G2097-1

No 2

M

G2240

No 2

N

G2098

No 3

O

G2092a

No 4

P

DYNASTY 4 2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

One of the tombs with the discrepant dating is G2097. Roth appears to rely on Harpur's list of first occurrences of features to date this chapel, rather than on Cherpion. According to Roth (p. 36) Cherpion's system suggests a date no later than Djedkare for G2097.

REFERENCE: Roth (1995). Date range for each tomb provided by Charts N to P. Possible extension of date provided by Charts I, K and P. Roth's dates for each tomb.

156 

4E

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART R

*jj PM 468 DYNASTY 4

D. 3 Reign

1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

Crit No.

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 15 18 24 26 28 33 38 42 43 51 60 66 67 71 72 82 86 89 95 96 100 REFERENCE: Wild (1953); Wild (1966)

157 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART S

¡tp-¡r-Axtj PM 593

D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

3 8 9 26 28 33 35 40 41 42 43 82 86 87 98 99 REFERENCE: Mohr (1943)

CHART T

%xm-kA(.j) PM 596 DYNASTY 4

D. 3 Reign

1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

Crit No.

2 8 9 15 20 22 27 32 35 40 42 47 50 61 66 80 82 92 REFERENCE: Murray (1904) pl. VII.

158 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART U

Nfr-jrt-n .f PM 583

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

Crit No.

2 9 16 19 22 24 26 28 31 32* 40 41 42 43 47 49 61 65 71 82 89* 90 92 97 98 99 101 * Cited by Cherpion (1989) 130. REFERENCE: van der Walle (1978)

159 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART V

Jrw-kA-PtH PM 639

D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

2 8 9 12 26 27 28 32 41 43 47 49 51* 61 77 81 82 86 89 97 * Not an offering table scene. REFERENCE: McFarlane (2000).

CHART W

Jntj DESHASHA

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

7 9 14 16 17 19 26 31 35 40 48 65 71 72 84 RFEFERENCE: Kanawati–McFarlane (1993) pls. 2–13.

160 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART X

Jttj:^dw DESHASHA DYNASTY 4

D. 3 Reign

1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

3 10 12 15 17 20 26 28 34 38 40 47 49 68 97 98 101 RFEFERENCE: Kanawati–McFarlane (1993) pls. 40–56.

161 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART Y

KA(.j)-xnt (A2) EL-HAMMAMIYA

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

6 9 13 16 19 25 26 31 32 35 41 43 46 48 60 68 70 72 81 82 85 86 87 91 94 96 REFERENCE: El-Khouli−Kanawati (1990) pls. 32 - 51.

162 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART Z

KA(.j)-xnt (A3) EL-HAMMAMIYA D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

2 9 10 15 17 22 31 32 41 44 60 62 65 71 73 79 81 82 85 86 87 REFERENCE: El-Khouli−Kanawati (1990) pls. 56 - 70.

CHART A-A

&wAw (N359) Naga ed-Der

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 5

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

Crit No.

8 10 27 40 42 64 72 82 90 93* * So interpreted by Peck. Peck (1958) pl. I, p. 7. REFERENCE: Peck (1958) pls. I, II.

163 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART B-B

*mrrjj (N248) Naga ed Der

D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

45

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

10 32

i

36 42

ii

44 79 82 i

Plate V. Peck interprets the depiction on the offering table as half loaves.

ii

Plate III. According to Peck there is a jumbled pile of food next to the offering table. Peck (1958) 55.

REFERENCE: Peck (1958) pls. III–VI.

CHART C-C

Mrw (N 3737) Naga ed-Der

D. 3

DYNASTY 4 1

Reign

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

Crit No.

10 47 50 63 69 77 REFERENCE: Peck (1958) pl. VII–15.

CHART D-D

!nqw: #ttj (N39) Deir el-Gebrawi

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

10 15 17 20 26 34 38 40 47 60 64 79 81 REFERENCE: Kanawati (2005) pls. 37–40.

164 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART E-E

¡m-Ra: Jsj N72 Deir el-Gebrawi

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

8 12 15 17 18 20 26 30 34 44 47 50 61 64 65 66 86 90 97 REFERENCE: Kanawati (2005) pls. 14 - 21

165 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  CHART F-F

!n qw: Jj…f N 67 Deir el- Gebrawi

D. 3 Reign

DYNASTY 4 1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

DYNASTY 6 8

Crit No.

3 8 10 12 26 30 34 38 44 47 50 60 63 64 65 68 74 80 86 90 98 REFERENCE: Kanawati (2005) pls. 51 - 57.

166 

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

CHAPTER 4:  TESTING THE CRITERIA  CHART G-G

Pp j j -an x (.w )-H rj -j b    D2 Meir DYNASTY 4

D. 3 Reign

1

2

3

4

DYNASTY 5 5

6 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

Crit No.

4 10 12 15 17 18 20 21 24 26 29 30 34 37 40 42 44 47 50 57 58 90 92 98 101 102 104 REFERENCE: Kanawati (2012)

167 

DYNASTY 6 8

9

1

2

3

4E

4M

4L

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  4.4.1 

Explanatory notes to the charts 

The purpose of CHARTS A to G-G is to provide a criteria profile for the tombs to be dated.

Each chart is divided horizontally into ‘Dynasties’ which are subdivided into ‘Reigns’ to provide a flow of time for each criterion: D.3 (Dynasty 3) – individual reigns are not indicated as only the dating of @sjj-Ra [66] applies. DYNASTY 4 – columns numbered 1–6 indicate the reigns of the following kings 1 Sneferu 2 Khufu 3 Djedefre 4 Khafre 5 Menkaure 6 Shepseskaf DYNASTY 5 – columns numbered 1–9 indicate the reigns of the following kings 1 Userkaf 2 Sahure 3 Neferirkare 4 Shepseskare 5 Neferefre 6 Neuserre 7 Menkauhor 8 Djedkare 9 Unis DYNASTY 6 – columns numbered 1–4L indicate the reigns of the following kings 1 Teti 2 Pepy I 3 Merenre 4E Pepy II early years 4M Pepy II middle years 4L Pepy II late years

On each chart, with the exception of Chart Q: Unbroken line: indicates definite duration of a criterion. Dotted line: indicates possible extension of years for duration of criterion based on the date assigned to the monument supplying the date for the earliest or latest date for each criterion. Chart Q: The horizontal lines on the chart indicate the date range suggested for each tomb.

168 

CHAPTER 5   

CONCLUDING COMMENTS  The dating system presented here has been applied to thirty-two tombs, CHARTS A to G-G. In general, it has been possible to date most precisely tombs depicting the greatest number of criteria. On the other hand, this system rarely provides a clear date for tombs that present only a handful of criteria.745 Where scholars have assigned widely discrepant dates to a tomb, the system tends to favour the earlier date. No archaising elements have been detected; rather, in agreement with Cherpion’s dating system, it indicates an early date for the monument in question.746 As a dating tool the system depends upon the reliability of three factors: the selection of tombs for Groups A and B, the choice of features as criteria and the method used to establish the life-span of each criterion. Elements chosen as criteria fall into two broad categories: iconographic details that change their style over time and features that first appear or disappear during the Old Kingdom. The former category consists of details of items such as dress and furniture. As these criteria essentially record changes of style, a chronological overlap between earlier and succeeding representations of an individual item is to be expected. The second category comprises features of themes that are introduced or dropped from the pictorial repertoire, for example the tomb owner pulling papyrus or fishing or fowling. As criteria and their life-spans are drawn from tombs, an incomplete body of data, the system has to be used with discretion. This applies in particular to criteria whose lifespans date to the earliest or latest years of the Old Kingdom. Very few self-dating tombs from these years can be included in Groups A and B, so they may not provide the earliest or latest occurrence of a criterion. These criteria are only traceable as far as Sneferu (or Dynasty III) and Pepy II. This, however, is not likely to be significant unless the time period where all criteria appearing in a tomb indicate a date (a period of coincidence) that is either very early or very late.

the same tomb are rarely depicted wearing more than one style of flared kilt. When the tomb owner appears wearing two separate styles, they are invariably consecutive styles. In the tombs of Groups A and B the sequence of styles follows the dating of these monuments sequentially. On the few occasions when three consecutive styles appear in the same tomb, as in the cases of #wfw-xa.f II [74], PtH-Spss [29] and Nj-anx$nmw and $nmw-Htp [44]747, these tombs all date within the same narrow margin of time, Neuserre to early Djedkare, a period that easily encompasses the life-time of the tomb owners. These officials may well have worn consecutive styles of kilt at different stages in their life. The tomb of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp further suggests this.748 In almost all scenes the two tomb owners are depicted wearing identical kilt styles (1) and (2), with one exception, the vestibule scene. In Figure 18 $nmwHtp wears a kilt with the double line of the ‘apron’ extending to the rear lower corner of the kilt (Style 3) but in the companion representation on the opposite wall (Figure 19), Nj-anx-$nmw wears an older style of kilt with the double line of the ‘apron’ meeting the hem partly between the legs and partly over the rear leg. Nj-anx$nmw was probably the older of the two men; he is usually presented in the leading position and is depicted with a much older ‘eldest son’ than the son of $nmw-Htp. The retention of STYLE 2 of the flared kilt for Nj-anx$nmw may indicate that as an older person he saw no reason to adopt yet another, later style or perhaps that he died before adopting the later style. The evidence from the criteria is that the change from STYLE 1 to STYLE 2 and then STYLE 3 took place within quite a brief period, probably equivalent to a lifetime.

The proposed system depends on criteria having valid life-spans. As to be expected, earlier styles of features such as apparel or furniture peter out over time giving way to the subsequent style. However, when features are supported by many occurrences (50 or more) they exhibit a remarkable consistency over time. For example, the deceased and other important male figures appearing in

Not all the criteria are as useful as those based on apparel and furniture. Those with the greatest number of supporting occurrences are obviously the most dependable. Yet criteria with only about 10 to 20 occurrences are also valid. Some features occur many times in a tomb, while others, by their nature, appear only once. For example, apart from the tomb of Nj-anx-$nmw and $nmw-Htp, chapels are limited to one scene of the tomb owner fowling and one of him spearing fish, and the number of chapels carrying the scenes is also limited. These scenes are valid criteria yet in Groups A and B they only have, respectively, 15 and 19 occurrences. (CRITERIA 97 and 98: see TABLE 4). Criteria with less than ten supporting occurrences are more open to challenge. Not all the earliest and latest dates for these criteria may be final, but if a distinctive feature is

745

747

5.1  

746

The validity of the criteria 

See CHARTS A, M, B-B AND C-C. Cherpion (1989) Chapter II, 83-110.

748

169 

See TABLE 1 CRITERIA 1 to 4. Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) figs. 18/19.

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  contained within a narrow time span, it may provide supporting rather than definitive weight to a proposed date for a monument. The most valid use of the criteria is as a ‘dating profile’ such as is offered in CHARTS A to GG, thus ensuring that all relevant criteria are taken into account. 5.2  

Reliability of the system 

A system that is constructed on numbers rather than on concepts drawn logically from archaeological evidence needs to be shown to be reliable. This has been attempted by testing the system on a number of tombs that are either disputed in date, very broadly dated or recently dated using up-to-date findings and methods. These tombs (CHARTS A to G-G) have provided dating profiles with only a few significant inconsistencies. Discrepant outcomes appear to result from one of two factors: either the tomb presents insufficient data so that the number of criteria is limited or the tomb presents two or three criteria whose life-spans do not coincide. In the former case this has produced a chart that merely provides a broad band of time in which to date the monument. In the latter case749, the life-spans of affected criteria must be disregarded as unreliable until more data is available. With sufficient criteria, however, the system can make the dating of a tomb quite precise. With 30 criteria from the tomb of *jj, its dating can be narrowed to one generation.750 The method has also been able to place tombs of similar date in chronological order. The charts of KA.j-xnt A2 and KA.j-xnt A3 of El-Hammamiya very clearly distinguish between the two men, although as father and son their tombs would have been decorated quite closely in time.751 A regrettable weakness of the system is its inability to provide precise dates for monuments that probably belong to the second half of the reign of Pepy II. The small number of tombs in Groups A and B dated to this reign are provincial, and there are no securely dated tombs beyond this period of time to provide a final date for criteria, which were probably still in use at the end of the reign. Where the ‘final’ date for a criterion is given as ‘mid Pepy II’ in the charts and tables, it simply means that there is no evidence to establish when the criterion actually disappears from the record. Consequently, the absence of tombs securely dated to the end of Pepy II’s reign or later makes the extension of the present system beyond mid Dynasty 6 impracticable752. This accounts for the ‘final’ appearance of so many criteria seeming to occur in the three el-Hawawish tombs. These, however, are the latest ‘dated’ tombs that can be included in Groups A and B.

749

750 751 752

See the criteria charts of Mrw:Jjj (CRITERIA 35, 108, 110), Jttj (CRITERIA 12, 69b, 94) Nfr-irt-n.f (CRITERIA 31, 77, 109) and KA.jxnt (A3) (CRITERIA 15, 38, 92). See CHART R. See CHARTS Y and Z. Brovarski has attempted to establish a relative dating system based on the typology of stelae, but the validity of his method is doubtful. Brovarski (1989) passim.

A further methodological impediment is the need to apply criteria with final dates that span more than one reign (i.e. tombs in Group B). There is no answer to this problem if Group B tombs, and thus the criteria, are to have acceptable life-spans. All the tombs in Group B have a dating based on location, personal relationships or archaeological evidence and therefore sometimes cannot be precisely dated to a single reign. This has meant that any criteria whose final dates are based on Group B tombs often have an extended possible time span (indicated by a line of dots on the dating charts). These time span extensions in some cases tend to make the system a ‘blunt tool’ that is unable to supply a precise date for the monument in question. Finally, the need to depend very largely on published reports highlights the system’s dependence on the accuracy of copyists and editors. Further checking with photographs is not always satisfactory owing to the quality of the reproduced prints. Nevertheless, it is possible to provide reliable dating when all relevant criteria are applied systematically, as demonstrated in the majority of charts. The difficulties mentioned above will rarely affect the dating of tombs providing enough criteria can be drawn from the decoration and a method is used that will give due weight to all relevant criteria. Establishing a chart based on the life-spans of the criteria found in a tomb provides a ‘criteria-profile’ for the monument to be dated. Logically, and provided that the life-spans are valid, there will appear a period of time when they all coincide. This will be the date indicator for the monument. In general the criteria have been found to be valid and based on reliable data. They may not solve every problem connected with the dating of Old Kingdom tombs, particularly those dating to the earliest and latest limits of the Old Kingdom or beyond, but there are many tombs that the system can reliably date to within one or two reigns. 5.3  

Question of archaizing tombs 

In her review of Cherpion’s dating system Roth refers to a variety of reasons that might lead a tomb owner to adopt certain styles and features for tomb decoration.753 Among these is the consideration that individuals with ties to previous kings might have adopted the artistic features of their (long dead) patrons and thus their tomb decoration may present archaizing features. The validity of this contention, however, may be questioned as there is no conclusive evidence of it taking place. Furthermore, while it is conceivable that a tomb owner might copy an earlier style of apparel or furniture or a theme of ‘daily life’, it is less acceptable that an official would be willing to endanger his eternity by including themes and features representing earlier and discarded beliefs about the afterlife. Thus a tomb owner might be willing to include representations of antique dress styles or furniture, but would he/she forego more recent beliefs and sacrifice a much more desirable ‘life after death’ by depicting 753

170 

Roth (1994b).

CHAPTER 5:  CONCLUDING COMMENTS  middle ranking El Hawawish official, dated by inscription to Pepy I.755 The tomb owner sits before an offering table which holds half loaves of bread, whereas the latest Memphite offering table with half loaves rather than reeds occurs in %SsSt:Jdwt [93], dated to the reign of Teti.756 Perhaps the question depended on whether the individual official could afford to employ a superior craftsman with Memphite training and experience or may have had elements of his tomb engraved at the capital and then transported to his new provincial home. A further indication of a time-lag between capital and provinces is the fact that a number of criteria whose final occurrence is one of the el-Hawawish tombs of mid Dynasty 6 actually show a significant time gap between this date and its previous Memphite appearance. See TABLES 1 to 4 for CRITERIA 24, 30, 38, 45, 51, 74, 67, 77 and 104.

outmoded scenes of funerary ritual? In all Old Kingdom tombs that have been judged to be archaizing there appears to be chronological agreement between the scenes having the deepest significance and styles of clothing and furniture. 5.4   

 Need for more criteria 

A comparison of CHARTS A to G-G suggests that, in general, the more criteria applied, the more precisely a tomb may be dated. KA(.j)-xnt (A2) and KA(.j)-xnt (A3), with 26 and 21 criteria respectively, can be put in chronological order although very close to each other in time.754 *jj (CHART R) has 30 criteria and can be dated to within a generation. *st (CHART M), however, has only five criteria and cannot be dated more precisely than from late Dynasty 4 to the reign of Teti.

While tombs in the same provincial cemetery may be dated in relation to each other according to such criteria as position, architectural features and family names, they can be more difficult than Memphite tombs to date precisely. Provincial cemeteries do not offer helpful features such as proximity to a royal monument, and being much smaller, they rarely offer a long series of tombs spanning more than a dynasty. Thus, if there are no biographical details or cartouches either to provide at least a terminus ante quem or post quem date nor exact architectural similarities or comparisons, only a system of relative dating largely drawn from iconographic Memphite criteria can be used to date these tombs.

While it is possible to establish further criteria from the iconography, a new category of criteria may also be drawn from the epigraphy and palaeography of the tombs in Groups A and B. This may also improve the dating capability of the system for early Dynasty 4 and late Dynasty 6 monuments. 5.5   

A time lag between cemeteries? 

In the depiction of male kilts in Dynasty 4 and early Dynasty 5 a difference in style has emerged between the East Field and the other early Giza cemeteries, which may have been affected by the status of the tomb owners. While it is a matter of conjecture rather than evidence, it is possible that the selection of elements for portrayal and successive changes in style may relate to styles associated with the reigning king. It may be hypothesised that the highest officials or those closest to the ruler were the most privileged and thus the first to copy royal styles in life and in the decoration of their ‘house for eternity’.

A further issue that confounds the question of provincial dating is the practice of Memphite officials who were appointed to a province taking with them decorated and inscribed elements of a tomb they had already constructed in the capital. The effects of this practice may be seen in the Edfu tomb of QAr [96] and the elHawawish tomb of KA.j-Hp:*tj (M8) [108]757. In both tombs the difference between the Memphite and provincial standard of workmanship is marked. This suggests that the appointed officials were aware of the variation in standards and hints at the possibility of a difference, perhaps a time-lag, in beliefs that might have been reflected in the provincial iconography. _________________________________________

It is more difficult to establish whether there was a time lag between the adoption of new iconographic themes and decorative styles in the capital and in the provinces. With few dated Memphite and provincial tombs belonging to the same period, the necessary comparisons are not easily made. Furthermore the question may vary between important and less significant provincial cemeteries, or from time to time. For example, a time lag might be expected to occur in the earlier period of the Old Kingdom, when senior provincial administrators were buried in the capital and there would have been few reasons to take gifted Memphite craftsmen to the provinces. Whether such a situation would continue into Dynasty 6, when important officials were posted to a province and buried where they worked, is a further question. A hint is offered by the tomb of Qrrj [98], a

This study does not examine the reasons for the adoption of successive styles and new features and themes in tomb decoration, which are historical issues. Nevertheless its raison d’être is to support the investigation into the historical dynamic of the Old Kingdom. A credible interpretation of this dynamic requires a secure chronological framework for the evidence on which it is based. It is hoped that the proposed method of dating will contribute to such a framework.

755

756 754

757

See CHARTS Y AND Z.

171

Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 22. Only two titles survive for Qrrj, Xrj-tp nswt pr-aA and sHD Hm-nTr. Kanawati VI (1986) fig. 20c. Macramallah (1935) pl. 15. QAr:Mrjj-Ra-nfr and KA.j-Hp:*tj: Moreno Garcia (2005) 109-117.

172 

Bibliography  A Abu-Bakr (1953) Abu-Bakr, A.M., Excavations at Giza 1949-1950 (Cairo, 1953).

Arnold (1999) Arnold, D. ‘Royal Reliefs’ in: Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (New York, 1999) 83-101.

AJA American Journal of Archaeology.

ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Caire,

Allen (1999) James P. Allen et al., Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, (New York, 1999).

Assmann (1988) Assman, J., ‘Ikonographie der Schönheit im alten Ägypten’ in: T. Stemmler (ed.), Schöne Frauen– Schöne Männer: Literarische Schönheitsbeschreibungen (Mannheim, 1988) 13-32.

Allen (2005) Allen, J.P., ‘The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts’, P. Der Manuelian (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 23, (Atlanta 2005). Alliot (1933) Alliot, M., Rapport sur les fouilles de Tell Edfou 1933, FIFAO 10.2, (Cairo, 1933). Altenmüller (1998) Altenmüller, H., Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 42 (Mainz-am-Rhein, 1998). Altenmüller (2002) Altenmüller, H., ‘Der Himmelsaufstieg des Grabherrn: Zu den Szenen des sSS wAD in: den Gräbern des Alten Reiches’, SAK 30 (2002) 1-42. Altenmüller (2006) Altenmüller, H., ‘Presenting the nDt-Hr-offerings to the tombowner’ in: M. Bárta (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague 2004, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2006). Altenmüller (2008) Altenmüller, H., ‘Family, ancestor cult and some observations on the chronology of the late Fifth Dynasty’ in: H. Vymazalová and M. Bárta (eds), Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The Third Millennium B.C.). Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague (June 11-14, 2007) (Prague, 2008) 144-161. Angegot (2002) Angegot, V. ‘Discordance entre Texte et Image: Deux exemples de l’Ancien et du Nouvel Empires’, GM 187 (2002) 11-22.

Assmann (1996) Assmann, J., ‘Preservation and Presentation of Self in Ancient Egyptian Portraiture’ in: P. der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson I (Boston, 1996) 55-81. el Awady el Awady, T., Abusir XVI - Sahure - The Pyramid Causeway: History and Decoration Program in the Old Kingdom (Prague, 2009). B BACE Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology. Badawy (1976) Badawy, A., The Tombs of Iteti, Sekhemankh-Ptah, and Kaemnofert at Giza, University of California Publications: Occasional Papers No. 9: (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1976). Badawy (1978) Badawy, A., The Tomb of Nyhetep-Ptah at Giza and the Tomb of Ankhmahor at Saqqara, University of California Publications: Occasional Papers No. 11 (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1978). Baer (1960) Baer, K., Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom. The Structure of the Egyptian Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties (Chicago, 1960). Baines (1985) Baines, J., Fecundity Figures: Egyptian Personification and the Iconology of a Genre (Warminster, 1985).

173 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Baines (1990) Baines, J., ‘Restricted knowledge, hierarchy and decorum: modem perceptions and ancient institutions’, JARCE 27 (1990) 1-23.

Bárta–Coppens–Vymazalová (2010) Bárta, M., Coppens, F., Vymazalová, H. et al., Abusir XIX. Tomb of Hetepi (AS 20), Tombs AS 33-35 and AS 50-53 (Prague, 2010).

Baines (1995) Baines, J., ‘Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimisation’, in: D. O’Connor, D. P. Silverman (eds) Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Probleme der Aegyptologie 9 (Leiden, 1995) 3-47.

Baud (1997) M. Baud, ‘À propos des critères iconographiques établis par Nadine Cherpion’ in: Grimal, N. (ed.) Les critères de datation stylistiques à l’Ancien Empire (Le

Baines (1998) Baines, J., ‘Decorum’, in: Turner (ed.), The Grove Dictionary of Art (London, 1998) 796-798.

Baud (1999) Baud, M., Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien, volume 1, IFAO, 2nd edn. (Cairo, 1999).

Baines–Malek (1984) Baines, J. and Malek, J, Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Amsterdam, 1984). Balcz (1931) Balcz, H., ‘Zur Datierung der Mastaba des Snofru-iniistef in Dahšûr’, ZÄS 67 (1931) 19-15. Barocas (1982) Barocas, C., ‘‘La décoration des chapelles funéraires égyptiennes’, in: G. Gnoli, J. P. Vernant (eds), La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes (Cambridge 1982) 429-440. Barta (1963) Barta, W., Die altägyptische Opferliste von der Frühzeit bis zur griechisch-römischen Epoche, MAS, 3 (Berlin, 1963). Bárta (1995) Bárta, M., Archaeology and Iconography: bDA and aprt bread moulds and “Speisetischszene” development in the Old Kingdom, SAK 22 (1995) 21- 35. Bárta (2001) Bárta, M., Abusir V. The Cemeteries of Abusir South I, Excavations of the Czech Institute of Egyptology, Roman Míšek (Prague, 2001). Bárta (2006a) Bárta M. (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology: Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, May 31-June 4 2004 (Prague, 2006). Bárta (2006b) Bárta, M., ‘The Sixth Dynasty tombs in Abusir, Tomb complex of the vizier Qar and his family’ in: M. Bárta, ed., The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague 2004 (Prague, 2006). Bárta (2009) Bárta, M., Abusir XIII. Tomb Complex of the Vizier Qar, His Sons Qar Junior and Senedjemib and Iykai (Abusir South 2) (Prague, 2009).

Caire, 1997) 31-96.

Baud (2005) Baud, M., Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien, volume 2, IFAO, 2nd ed., (Cairo, 2005). Begelsbacher-Fischer (1981) Begelsbacher-Fischer, B.L., Untersuchungen zur Gotterwelt des Alten Reiches im Spiegel der Privatgraber der IV und V Dynastie (Göttingen, 1981). Berman (1999) Berman, L.M., ‘Relief of Nyankhnesut’ in: L.M. Berman, Cleveland Museum of Art: Catalogue (New York, 1999) 135-136. BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Binder (2000) Binder, S., ‘The Tomb Owner Fishing and Fowling’ in: L. Donovan, K. McCorquodale (eds), Egyptian Art: Principles and Themes in Wall Scenes, Prism Archaeological Series 6 (Cairo, 2000) 111-128. Bissing (1905) Bissing, F.W. von, Die Mastaba des Gemnikai, Volume 1 (Berlin, 1905). Bissing (1911) Bissing, F.W. von, Die Mastaba des Gemnikai, Volume 2 (Leipzig, 1911). Blackman (1914-53) Blackman, A.M., et al., The Rock Tombs of Meir. Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Twenty-second to Twenty-eighth Memoirs, Volumes 1-6 (London, 1914-53). Blackman Meir IV (1924) Blackman, A.M., The Rock Tombs of Meir, Volume IV: The Tomb-chapel of Pepionkh (D, No. 2), Egypt Exploration Society (London, 1924).

174 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Blackman–Apted Meir V (1953) Blackman, A.M. and Apted, M.R., The Rock Tombs of Meir, Volume V: The Tomb-chapels A, No. 1 (Niankh-Pepi), A, No. 2 (Pepionkh), A, No. 4, D, No. 1, E, Nos. 1-4, Egypt Exploration Society (London, 1953). BMFA Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. BMSAES British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan. Bolshakov (1991) Bolshakov, A.O., ‘Some Observations on the Early Chronology of Meidum’, GM 123 (1991) 11-20. Bolshakov (1992) Bolshakov, A.O., ‘Princess Hm.t-Rc: The First Mention of Osiris?’, CdÉ LXVII (1992). Bolshakov (1994) Bolshokov, A.O., ‘Hinting as a Method of Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration’, GM, 139 (1994) 9-33.

Brinks (1984) Brinks, J., Dittmar, J., Gomaà, F., Jürgens, P., Schenkel, W., ‘al-Kom al-aḥmar / Ṧaruna 1984, GM 79 (1984) 73-84. Brovarski (1985) Brovarski, E., ‘Akhmim in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period’, in: Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, Volume 1 (Cairo, 1985) 117-153. Brovarski (1989) Brovarski, E., ‘The Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed Der’, Ph.D dissertation, 2 volumes, University of Chicago (1989). Brovarski (1997) Brovarski, E., ‘Old Kingdom Beaded Collars’, in: Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East, Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, Volume 1 (Van Siclen Books, 1997).

Bolshakov (1997) Bolshakov, A.O., Man and his Double in Egyptian Ideology of the Old Kingdom, Ägypten und Altes Testament 37 (Munich, 1997).

Brovarski (2001) Brovarski, E., The Senedjemib Complex, Part I: The Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti (G 2370), Khnumenti (G 2374) and Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378), P. der Manuelian and W.K. Simpson (eds), Giza Mastabas Volume 7, Art of the Ancient World, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston 2001).

Bolshakov (2001) Bolshakov, A.O., ‘Osiris in the Fourth Dynasy Again? The false door of Jntj, MFA 31.781’ in: Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga, Hedvig Györy (ed.). Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts Supplément-2001 (Budapest, 2001).

Brovarski (2006) Brovarski, E., ‘False doors and history: the Sixth Dynasty’ in: M. Bárta, ed., The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference, held in Prague 2004, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2006).

Bolshakov (2006) Bolshakov, A.O., ‘Arrangement of Murals as a Principle of Old Kingdom Tomb Decoration’ in: M. Fitzenreiter, M. Herb (eds), Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, (Studies from the Internet on Egyptology and Sudanarchaeology) (London, 2006).37-60.

Brovarski (2008) Brovarski, E., ‘A Second Style in Egyptian Relief of the Old Kingdom’ in: S.E. Thompson, and P. Der Manuelian (eds), Egypt and Beyond. Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University June 2005 (Brown University, 2008) 49-90.

Borchardt I (1937) Borchardt, L. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den Statuen) im Museum von Kairo., Vol. I, (Berlin, 1937).

Brovarski (2013) ‘Overseers of Upper Egypt in the Old to Middle Kingdoms’ Part 1, ZÄS 140 (2013) 91-113.

Borchardt II (1964) Borchardt, L., Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Denkmäler des Alten Reiches im Museum von Kairo, Nr. 1542-1808, Teil II, Text und Tafeln zu Nr. 1542-1808, Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (Berlin, 1964). Borchardt (1982) Borchardt, L., Das Grabdenkmal des Königs %aaHuRe, II (Lepizig, 1913; repr. Onsabrück, 1981-1982).

Brunner-Traut (1974) Brunner-Traut, E., ‘Aspective’ in: H. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, J.Baines, trans. (Oxford, 1974) 421-446. Brunner-Traut (1977) Brunner-Traut, E., Die altägyptische Grabkammer Seschemnofers III. aus Gîsa, Eine Stiftung des Geheimen Hofrats Dr. h. c. Ernst von Sieglin an die Tübinger Universität (Mainz, 1977). Brunner-Traut LÄ II (1977) Brunner-Traut, E., ‘Gesten’, LÄ II (1977).

175 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Bryan (1996) Bryan, B.M., ‘The Disjunction of Text and Image in Egyptian Art’ in: P. Der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson (Boston, 1996) 161-168. BSEG Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie Genève. C Callender (2006) Callender, V.G., ‘The iconography of the princess in The Old Kingdom’, in: M. Bárta (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague 2004, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2006). Capart (1907) Capart, J., Une Rue de Tombeaux à Saqqarah. 2 vols. (Brussels 1907).

Davies Ptahhetep I (1900) Davies, N.de G., The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh, Volume I: The Chapel of Ptahhetep and the Hieroglyphs, Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Eight Memoir, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1900). Davies Ptahhetep II (1901) Davies, N.de G., The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh, Part II: The Mastaba, The Sculptures of Akhethetep, Archaelogical Survey of Egypt, Ninth Memoir, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1901). Davies Sheikh Saïd (1901) Davies, N.de G., The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd, Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Tenth Memoir, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1901).

Castel et al. (2001) Castel, G., Pantalacci, L., Cherpion N., Le mastaba de Khentika: tombeau d’un gouverneur de l’oasis à la fin de l’ancien empire, IFAO (Cairo, 2001).

Davies Gebrâwi I (1902) Davies, N.de G., The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi, Volume I: Tomb of Aba and Smaller Tombs of the Southern Group, Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Eleventh Memoir, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1902).

Chauvet (2007) Chauvet, V., Book review: Kanawati, N. and M. Abder-Raziq. 2005, Mereruka and his Family, Part I: The Tomb of Meryteti. A.C.E Reports 21, in: PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt /Egyptology (2007).

Davies Gebrâwi II (1902) Davies, N.de G., The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi, Volume II: Tomb of Zau and Tombs of the Northern Group, Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Twelfth Memoir, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1902).

CdÉ Chronique d’Égypte. Cherpion (1984) Cherpion, N., ‘De quand date la tombe du nain Seneb?’, BIFAO 84 (1984) 35-84. Cherpion (1989) Cherpion, N., Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire: le problème de la datation Connaissance de l’Égypte Ancienne, Études 2 (Bruxelles, 1989). Cherpion (1999) Cherpion, N., ‘The Human Image in Old Kingdom Non-Royal Reliefs’ in: Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (New York, 1999) 103-115. D Daoud (1995) Daoud, K.A., ‘The Tomb of Kairer: Preliminary Report of the Field Work Season, 1993’, GM 147 (1995) 35-52. Daoud (2000) Daoud, K.A., ‘The Mastaba of Kairer: Preliminary Report on the Field Work Seasons 1995-1998’, ASAE 75 (2000) 91-106.

Davies et al. (1984) Davies, W.V., El-Khouli, A., Lloyd, A.B., and Spencer, A.J., Saqqâra Tombs Volume I, The Mastabas of Mereri and Wernu, Archaeological Survey of Eygpt, Thirty-sixth Memoir, Egypt Exploration Society (London,1984). DE Discussions in Egyptology. Derchain (1975) Derchain, P., ‘La perruque et le cristal’, SAK 2 (1975) 55-74. Dobrev (2006) Dobrev, V., ‘A new necropolis from the Old Kingdom at South Saqqara in the Old Kingdom’, in: M. Bárta (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague 2004, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2006). Duell I (1938) Duell, P., The Mastaba of Mereruka, University of Chicago Oriental Institute publications 31, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, 1938). Duell II (1938) Duell, P., The Mastaba of Mereruka, University of Chicago Oriental Institute publications 39, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, 1938).

176 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Dunham (1937) Dunham, D., Naga-ed-Dêr Stelae of the First Intermediate Period (London, 1937). Dunham (1938) Dunham, D., ‘The Biographical Inscriptions of Nekhebu in Boston and Cairo’, JEA 24 (1938) 1-8. Dunham (1946) Dunham, D., ‘An Egyptian Diadem of the Old Kingdom’, BMFA 44 (1946) 23-29. Dunham–Simpson (1974) Dunham, D. and Simpson, W. K., The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. G 7530-7540, Giza Mastabas, Volume I. Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1974). E Eaton-Krauss (1984) Eaton-Krauss, M., The Representation of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden, 1984). Edel (1954) Edel, E., ‘Inschriften des Altes Reiches’, ZÄS 79 (1954) 11-17. Edel (1958) Edel, E., ‘Inschriften des Alten Reiches: IX, Inschriften des MTTi’, ZÄS 83 (1958) 3-18. Edel (1981) Edel, E., Hieroglyphische Inschriften des Altes Reiches, Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 67, Opladen (Göttingen, 1981) 88ff. El-Fikey (1980) El-Fikey, S., The tomb of the vizier Re’-wer at Saqqara, Egyptology Today 4 (Warminster, 1980).

El-Khouli–Kanawati (1990) El-Khouli, A. and Kanawati, N., The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 2 (Warminster, 1990). ENiM Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne. Épron–Daumas I (1939) Épron, L. and Daumas, L., Le Tombeau de Ti, Fasc. I, Les approches de la chapelle. Mémoires publiés par les Membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Tome LXV (Cairo, 1939). F Faulkner (1969) Faulkner, R.O. The Ancient Pyramid Texts (Oxford, 1969). Fazzini (1972) Fazzini, R., ‘Some Egyptian Reliefs in Brooklyn’, MW 1, (1972) 33-70. FIFAO: Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire Firth–Gunn (1926) Firth, C.M. and Gunn, B., Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, Volumes 1-II, Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte: Excavations at Saqqara, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1926). Fischer (1956) Fischer, H.G., ‘A Daughter of the Overlords of Upper Egypt in the First Intermediate Period’, JAOS, Vol. 76, (1956) 99-110. Fischer (1959) Fischer, H. G., ‘A scribe of the army in a Saqqara mastaba of the early Fifth Dynasty’, JNES, Vol. 18, No. 4, (1959) 233-72.

El-Khadragy (2002) El-Khadragy, M., ‘The Edfu Offering Niche of Qar in the Cairo Museum’. SAK, Bd. 30 (2002) Helmut Buske Verlag GmbH, pp. 203-228, pls. 1-10.

Fischer (1963) Fischer, H.G., ‘Varia Aegyptiaca’, JARCE, Vol. 2, (1963) 17-51.

El-Khadragy (2005) El-Khadragy, M., ‘The Offering Niche of Sabu/Ibebi in the Cairo Museum’. SAK, Bd. 33 (2005) Helmut Buske Verlag GmbH, pp. 169-199.

Fischer (1968) Fischer, Henry G., Dendera in the Third Millenium B.C., down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt (New York, 1968).

El-Khouli–Kanawati (1988) El-Khouli, A. and Kanawati, N., Excavations at Saqqara: North-West of Teti’s Pyramid, Volume II (Sydney, 1988).

Fischer (1976) Fischer, H.G., Varia, Egyptian Studies I (New York, 1976).

El-Khouli–Kanawati (1989) El-Khouli, A., and Kanawati, N., Quseir El-Amarna: The Tombs of Pepy-ankh and Khewen-Wekh, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 1 (Sydney, 1989).

Fitzenreiter (2001) Fitzenreiter, M., ‘Grabdekoration und die Interpretation funerärer Rituale im Alten Reich’ in: H. Willems (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms: Proceedings

177 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  of the International Symposium held at Leiden University, 6-7 June, 1996 (Leiden, 2001), 67-140. Fitzenreiter–Herb (2006) Fitzenreiter, M. and Herb, M. (eds), Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, Studies from the Internet on Egyptololgy and Sudan Archaeology (London, 2006). Flentye (2006a) Flentye, L.A., The Decorated Elite Mastaba and Rock-cut Tombs in the Eastern and GIS Cemeteries at Giza and their Relationship to the Development of Art during the Fourth Dynasty, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (2006). Flentye (2006b) Flentye, L.A., “The Mastaba of Mersankh III (G7530/7540) in the Eastern Cemetery at Giza: An Archaeological and Art Historical Analysis,” in: Bulletin of the Egyptian Museum 3 (2006): 71-82. Flentye (2007) Flentye, L.A., “The Mastabas of Ankh-haf (G7150) and Akhethetep and Meretites (G7650) in the Eastern Cemetery at Giza: A Reassessment”, in: The Archaeology and Art ofAncient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, Volume I (2007) 291308. G Galvin (1981) Galvin, M., The Priestesses of Hathor in the Old Kingdom and the 1st Intermediate Period, Unpublished Dissertation, Brandeis University (1981). Gardiner (1945) Gardiner, A.H., ‘Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt’, JEA 31, London (1945) 11-28.

Goedicke (1966) Goedicke, H, ‘Die Laufbahn des MTn’, MDAIK 21 (1966) 1- 62. Griffiths (1980) Griffiths, J.G., The Origins of Osiris and his Cult (Leiden, 1980). Grimal (1997) Grimal, N. (ed.) Les critères de datation stylistiques à l’Ancien Empire (Le Caire, 1997). H Hannig (2003) Hannig, R., Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I: Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit, Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 98, Hannig-Lexika 4 (Mainz/Rhein, 2003). Harpur (1980) Harpur, Y.M., ‘zSS wAD scenes of the Old Kingdom’, GM 38 (1980) 53-61. Harpur (1981) Harpur, Y.M., ‘Two Old Kingdom Tombs at Giza’, JEA 67 (1981) 24-35. Harpur (1985) Harpur, Y.M., ‘The Identity and Positions of Relief Fragments in Museums and Private Collections: Miscellaneous Reliefs from Saqqâra and Giza’, JEA 71 (1985) 27-42. Harpur (1987) Harpur, Y. M., Decoration in Egyptian tombs of the Old Kingdom: studies in orientation and scene content, Series: Studies in Egyptology, distributed by Methuen, Routledge and Kegan Paul (London, 1987).

Gardiner (1959) Gardiner, A.H., ( ed.) Royal Canon of Turin. Griffith Institute (1959) (Reprint 1988).

Harpur (2001) Harpur, Y. M., The Tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep at Maidum: Discovery, Destruction and Reconstruction, Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom, Volume One, Oxford Expedition to Egypt (Oxford, 2001).

Gillam (1991) Gillam, R.A., Topographical Prosopographical and Historical Studies in the 14th Upper Egyptian Nome, Unpublished Dissertation, University of Toronto (1991).

Harpur–Scremin (2006) Harpur, Y. M. and Scremin, P., The Chapel of Kagemni: Scene Details, Oxford Expedition to Egypt, (Oxford, 2006).

GM Göttinger Miszellen: Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion.

Harpur–Scremin (2008) Harpur, Y. and Scremin, P., Chapel of Ptahhotep: Scene Details, Oxford Expedition to Egypt, (Oxford, 2008)

Goedicke (1957) Goedicke, H., ‘Das Verhältnis zwischen königlichen und privaten Darstellungen im Alten Reich’, MDAIK 15 (1957) 57-67.

Harpur–Scremin (2010) Harpur, Y. and Scremin, P., The Chapel of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, Oxford Expedition to Egypt, (Oxford, 2010)

178 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Hassan I (1932) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1929-1930, Volume I. The Faculty of Arts of the Egyptian University (Oxford, 1932).

Hassan Saqqara II (1975) Hassan, S., Excavations at Saqqara, 1937-1938, Volume II: Mastabas of Ny-aankh-Pepy and Others, re-edited by Z. Iskander (Cairo, 1975).

Hassan II (1936) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1930-1931, Volume II. The Faculty of Arts of the Egyptian University (Cairo, 1936).

Hassan Saqqara III (1975) Hassan, S., Excavations at Saqqara, 1937-1938, Volume III: Mastabas of Princess Hemet-Ra and Others, re-edited by Z. Iskander (Cairo, 1975).

Hassan III (1941) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1931-1932, Volume III. The Faculty of Arts, Fouad I University (Cairo, 1941).

Hayes (1953) Hayes, W.C., The Scepter of Egypt: Part I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom (New York, 1953).

Hassan IV (1943) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1932-1933, Volume IV. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (Cairo, 1943).

Hayes I (1990) Hayes, W.C., The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol. I: from the earliest times to the end of the Middle Kingdom. Reprinted and revised (New York, 1990).

Hassan V (1944) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1933-1934, Volume V. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (Cairo, 1944). Hassan VI (1948) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1934-1935, Volume VI [2]. The Faculty of Arts, Fouad I University, Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte (Cairo, 1948). Hassan VI (1950) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1934-1935, Volume VI [3]. The Faculty of Arts, Fouad I University, Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte (Cairo, 1948). Hassan VII (1953) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1935-1936, Volume VII. Antiquities Department of Egypt (Cairo, 1953). Hassan VIII (1953) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1936-1937. Volume VIII: The Great Sphinx and its Secrets, Volume VIII. Historical Studies in the Light of Recent Excavations (Cairo, 1953). Hassan IX (1960) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1936-1938, Volume IX. Antiquities Department of Egypt (Cairo, 1960). Hassan X (1960) Hassan, S., Excavations at Gîza 1938-1939, Volume X: The Great Pyramid of Khufu and its Mortuary Chapel, with Names and Titles of Volumes I-X of the Excavations at Gîza 1938-1939. Antiquities Department of Egypt (Cairo, 1960). Hassan Saqqara I (1975) Hassan, S., Excavations at Saqqara, 1937-1938, Volume I: The Mastaba of Neb-Kaw-Her, re-edited by Z. Iskander (Cairo, 1975).

Helck (1954) Helck, H.W., Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des Agyptschen Alten Reiches (Gliickstadt, 1954). Herb (2006) Herb, M., ‘Ikonographie – Schreiben mit Bildern: Ein Essay zur Historizität der Grabdekorationen des Alten Reiches’, in: M. Fitzenreiter, M. Herb (eds), Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, (Studies from the Internet on Egyptology and Sudan archaeology) London (2006) 111-213. HESPOK Smith, W.S., A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Harvard University Press and Oxford University Press (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1946), New York, re-issued (1978). Hornung et al. (2006) Hornung, E., Krauss, R., Warburton, D.A. (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, (Leiden, 2006). J James (1953) James, T.G.H., The mastaba of Khentika, called Ikhekhi, Egyptian Exploration Society (London, 1953). James (1961) James, T.G.H., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae &c. in the British Museum, Volume I [2] (London, 1961). James (1985) James, T.G.H., Egyptian Painting and Drawing in the British Museum (London, 1985).

179 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Jánosi (2004) Jánosi, P., ‘Old Kingdom tombs and dating-problems and priorities’, in: The Old Kingdom Arts and Archaeology (Proceedings of the conference held in Prague, May 31-June 4, 2004) 175-183. Jánosi (2005) Janosi, P., Giza in der 4. Dynastie: Die Baugeschichte und Belegung einer Nekropole des Alten Reiches. Band 1: Die Mastabas der Kernfriedhofe und die Felsgraber, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 30, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien, 2005). JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society. JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Jéquier (1929) Jéquier, G., Tombeaux de particuliers contemporains de Pepi II, Impr. de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Le Caire, 1929).

Junker V (1941) Junker, H., Gîza, Band V, Die Mastaba des Seneb und die umliegenden Gräber, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien und Leipzig, 1941). Junker VI (1943) Junker, H., Gîza, Band VI, Die Mastabas der Nefer, Kedfi, Kahjef und die westlichanschliessenden Gräbanlagen, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien und Leipzig, 1943). Junker VII (1944) Junker, H., Gîza, Band VII, Der Östabschnitt des Westfriedhofs, Erster Teil, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien und Leipzig, 1944). Junker VIII (1947) Junker, H., Gîza, Band VIII, Der Östabschnitt des Westfriedhofs, Zweiter Teil, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien, 1947). Junker IX (1950) Junker, H., Gîza, Band IX, Das Mittelfeld des Westfriedhofs, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien, 1950).

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

Junker X (1951) Junker, H., Gîza, Band X, Der Friedhof südlich der Cheopspyramide, Westteil, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien, 1951).

Jones (2000) Jones, D., An Index of Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom, 2 volumes (Oxford, 2001).

Junker XI (1953) Junker, H., Gîza, Band XI, Der Friedhof südlich der Cheopspyramide, Östteil, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien, 1953).

Junker (1928) Junker, H., ‘Von der ägyptischen Baukunst des Alten Reiches’, ZÄS 63 (1928) 1-14.

Junker XII (1955) Junker, H., Gîza, Band XII, Schlussband mit Zusammenfassungen und Gesamt-Verzeichnissen von Band I-XII, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien, 1955).

Junker I (1929) Junker, H., Gîza, Band I, Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien and Leipzig, 1929). Junker II (1934) Junker, H., Gîza, Band II, Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien und Leipzig, 1934). Junker III (1938) Junker, H., Gîza, Band III, Die Mastabas der vorgeschrittenen V. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien and Leipzig, 1938). Junker IV (1940) Junker, H., Gîza, Band IV, Die Mastaba des Kai-emanch, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Wien und Leipzig, 1940).

K Kaiser et al. (1999) Kaiser, W., et al., ‘Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: 25/.26/.27: Grabungsbericht’, MDAIK 55 (1999) 63-236. Kanawati (1974a) Kanawati, N., ‘The Financial Resources of the Viziers of the Old Kingdom and the Historical Implications’, Archaeological and Historical Studies 5 (1974). Kanawati (1974b) Kanawati, N., ‘Notes on the Genealogy of the Late Sixth Dynasty’, Archaeological and Historical Studies 5 (1974). Kanawati (1976) Kanawati, N., The Provincial Movement in the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt’, Acts of the First International Congress of Egyptology (1979) 353-358.

180 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Kanawati (1977) Kanawati, N., The Egyptian Administration in the Old Kingdom: Evidence on its Economic Decline (Warminster, 1977). Kanawati (1980) Kanawati, N., Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt (Warminster, 1980).

Kanawati VI (1986) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume VI (Sydney, 1986). Kanawati VII (1987) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume VII, The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre (Sydney, 1987).

Kanawati I (1980) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume I, The Macquarie Ancient History Association (Sydney, 1980).

Kanawati VIII (1988) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume VIII (Sydney, 1988).

Kanawati II (1981) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume II, The Macquarie Ancient History Association (Sydney, 1981).

Kanawati GM 111 (1989) Kanawati, N., ‘The Chronology of the Overseers of Priests at El-Qusiya in the Sixth Dynasty’, GM 111 (1989) 75-89.

Kanawati (1981a) Kanawati, N, ‘Deux conspirations contre Pepy ler’, Chronique d’Egypte, 56 (1981) 203-217.

Kanawati IX (1989) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume IX (Sydney, 1989).

Kanawati (1981b) Kanawati, N, ‘The living and the dead in Old Kingdom tomb scenes’, SAK 9, (1981).

Kanawati GM 121 (1991) Kanawati, N., ‘The Governors of the WADt-nome in the Old Kingdom’, GM 121 (1991) 57-67.

Kanawati (1982) Kanawati, N., ‘The Overseer of Commissions in the Nine Provinces’ in: L’Égyptologie en 1979. Axes prioritaires de recherches. Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, no. 595, 2 volumes (1982) 141.

Kanawati X (1992) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume X (Sydney, 1992).

Kanawati III (1982) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume III, The Macquarie Ancient History Association (Sydney, 1982). Kanawati IV (1983) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume IV, The Macquarie Ancient History Association (Sydney, 1983). Kanawati GM 83 (1984) Kanawati, N., ‘New Evidence on the Reign of Userkare’, GM 83 (1984) 31-38. Kanawati Saqqara I (1984) Kanawati, N., El-Khouli, A., McFarlane, A., Maksoud, N.V., Excavations at Saqqara: North West of Teti’s Pyramid, Volume 1, (Sydney, 1984). Kanawati V (1985) Kanawati, N., The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of Akhmim, Volume V, The Macquarie Ancient History Association (Sydney, 1985). Kanawati GM 89 (1986) Kanawati, N., ‘New Biographical Inscriptions from the First Intermediate Period, GM 89 (1986) 43-54.

Kanawati JEA 78 (1992) Kanawati, N., Review of: Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire. Le problem de la datation (Brussels, 1989) in: JEA 78 (1992) 324-326. Kanawati Hagarsa I (1993) Kanawati, N., The Tombs of El-Hagarsa: Volume I, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 4 (Sydney, 1993) Kanawati Hagarsa III (1995) Kanawati, N., The Tombs of El-Hagarsa. Volume III, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 7 (Sydney, 1993). Kanawati (1998) Kanawati, Naguib April 1998, Address, Louvre, Paris. Kanawati (1999) Kanawati, N., ‘Some Iconographic Peculiarities in the Teti Cemetery’ in: C. Ziegler, J.L. Blovot (eds), L’art de l’Ancient Empire égyptien, Actes du colloque, Musée du Louvre (Paris, 1999) 281-310. Kanawati GM 177 (2000) Kanawati, N., ‘A New HAt/rnpt-zp for Teti and its implications for Old Kingdom chronology’, GM 177 (2000) 25-32.

181 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Kanawati (2001) Kanawati, N., The Tomb and Beyond: Burial Customs of Egyptian Officials (Warminster, 2001). Kanawati Giza I (2001) Kanawati, N., Tombs at Giza: Volume 1: Kaiemankh (G4561) and Seshemnefer I (G4940) Volume I, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 16 (Warminster, 2001). Kanawati Giza II (2002) Kanawati, N., Tombs at Giza. Volume II. Seshathetep/Heti (G 5150), Nesutnefer (G 4970) and Seshemnefer II (G 5080), The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 18 (Warminster, 2002). Kanawati (2003) Kanawati, N., Conspiracies in the Egyptian Palace: Unis to Pepi I, Routledge (NewYork, 2003). Kanawati BACE 14 (2003) Kanawati, N., ‘Nepotism in the Egyptian Sixth Dynasty’, BACE 14 (2003) 39-59. Kanawati BACE 15 (2004) Kanawati, N., ‘The Interrelation of the Capital and the Provinces in the Sixth Dynasty’, BACE 15 (2004) 51-62. Kanawati Gebrawi I (2005) Kanawati, N., Deir el-Gebrawi: Volume I: The Northern Cliff, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 23 (Oxford, 2005). Kanawati Teti VIII (2006) Kanawati, N., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume VIII: The Tomb of Inumin, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 24 (Oxford, 2006). Kanawati JAIA 43 (2007) Kanawati, N., ‘The Tomb of Mereruka. A Document on his Life and Character’, Buried History. The Journal of the Australian Institute of Archaeology 43 (2007) 3-10. Kanawati Gebrawi II (2007) Kanawati, N., Deir el-Gebrawi, Volume II: The Southern Cliff, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 25 (Sydney, 2007). Kanawati (2008) Kanawati, N., ‘The Memphite Control of Upper Egypt during the Old Kingdom. The Cases of Edfu, Abydos and Akhmim’, in: L. Evans (ed.) Ancient Memphis. ‘Enduring is the Perfection’. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Macquarie University, Sydney on August 14-15, 2008 (Leuven, 2012). Kanawati Teti IX (2009) Kanawati, N., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume IX: The Tomb of Remni, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 28 (Oxford, 2009).

Kanawati Mereruka III:1 (2010) Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S. and Alexakis, E., Mereruka and his Family Part III:1. The Tomb of Mereruka, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports: 26 (Oxford, 2010). Kanawati (2010) Kanawati, N., Decorated Burial Chambers of the Old Kingdom, The American University in Cairo Press (Cairo, 2010). Kanawati Mereruka III:2 (2011) Kanawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S. and Alexakis, E., Mereruka and his Family Part III:2. The Tomb of Mereruka. The Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports: 30 (Oxford, 2011). Kanawati Meir I (2012) Kanawati, N., The Cemetery of Meir, Volume I: The Tomb of Pepyankh the Middle, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 31 (Oxford, 2011) Kanawati Gebrawi III (2013) Kanawati, N., Deir el-Gebrawi: Volume III: The Southern Cliff, The tomb of Djau/Shemai and Djau, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 32 (Oxford, 2013). Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1998) Kanawati, N. and Abder-Raziq, M. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume III: The Tombs of Neferseshemre and Seanhkuiptah, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 11 (Warminster, 1998). Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (1999) Kanawati N. and Abder-Raziq, M., The Teti Pyramid Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume V: The Tomb of Hesi, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 13 Wiltshire, 1999). Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2000) Kanawati N. and Abder-Raziq, M., The Teti Pyramid Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume VI: The Tomb of Nikauisesi, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 14 (Warminster, 2000). Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2001) Kanawati, N., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume VII: The Tombs of Shepsipuptah, Mereri (Merinebti), Hefi and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 17 (Warminster, 2001). Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2003) Kanawati, N. and Abder-Raziq, M., The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume II: The Tombs of Iynefert and Ihy (reused by Idut), The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 19, (Oxford, 2003). Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2004) Kanawati, N. and Abder-Raziq, M., Mereruka and his Family, Part I: Meryteti, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 21 (Oxford, 2004).

182 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Kanawati–Abder-Raziq (2008) Kanawati, N. and Abder-Raziq, M., Mereruka and his Family, Part II: The Tomb of Waatet-khet-hor, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 26 (Oxford, 2008). Kanawati–Evans (2014) Kanawati, N. and Evans, L,. The Cemetery of Meir, Vol. II, The Tomb of Pepyankh the Black, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 34 (Oxford, 2014) Kanawati–Hassan (1996) Kanawati, N. and Hassan, A., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume I: The Tombs of Nedjet-em-pet, Kaaper and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 8 (Warminster, 1996). Kanawati–Hassan (1997) Kanawati, N. and Hassan, A., The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Volume II: The Tomb of Ankhmahor, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 9 (Warminster, 1997). Kanawati–McFarlane (1992) Kanawati, N. and McFarlane, A., Akhmim in the Old Kingdom, Part I: Chronology and Administration, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 2 (Sydney, 1992). Kanawati–McFarlane (1993) Kanawati, N. and McFarlane, A., Deshasha. The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 5 (Sydney, 1993). Kanawati–Woods (2009) Kanawati, N. and Woods, A., Artists in the Old Kingdom: Techniques and Achievements. The American University in Cairo Press (Cairo, 2009). Kaper–Willems (2002) Kaper, O.E. and Willems, H., ‘Policing the Desert: Old Kingdom Activity around the Dakhleh Oasis’, in: Friedman, R. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the Desert, The British Museum Press (London, 2002). Kaplony (1968) Kaplony, P., ‘Eine neue Weisheitslehre aus dem Alten Reich (die Lehre des Mt-t-j in der altägyptischen Weisheitsliteratur), parts 1, 2. Orientalia, N.S, 37, pp 1-62, 339-45. Kaplony (1970) Kaplony, P., Orientalia N.S., 39 (1970).

Kees (1921) Kees, H., Studien zur ägyptischen Provinzialkunst (Leipzig, 1921). Kees (1932) Kees, H., ‘Beiträge zur altägyptischen Provinzialverwaltung und der Geschichte des Feudalismus,’ in: Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (1932) 85-119, 579-598. Kitchen (1991) Kitchen, K.A., ‘The Chronology of Ancient Egypt’, World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2, Chronologies (Oct., 1991) 201-208. Klebs (1915) Klebs, L., Die Reliefs des alten Reiches (2980-2475 v. Chr.) Material zur ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte (Heidelberg 1915, reprint Hildesheim 1982). Klebs (1922) Klebs, L., Die Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches (VII-XVII. Dynastie ca. 247-1580 v. Chr.) Material zur ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte (Heidelberg, 1922). Kloth (2002) Kloth, N., Die (auto-)biographischen Inschriften des ägyptischen Alten Reiches: Untersuchungen zu Phraseologie und Entwicklung, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 8 (Hamburg, 2002). Krejčí Abusir XI (2008) Krejčí, J., Abusir XI. The Architecture of the Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2008). Krejčí Abusir XII (2008) Krejčí, J., Verner, M. and Callender, V.G., et al., Abusir XII. Minor tombs in the Royal Necropolis I (The Mastabas of Nebtyemneferes and Nakhtsare, Pyramid Complex Lepsius no. 24 and Tomb Complex Lepsius no. 25) (Prague, 2008). Kuraszkiewicz (2005) Kuraszkiewicz, K.O., Remarks on the Development of The Old Kingdom Necropolis, Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean XVII, Reports 2005, Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw (2007). L LÄ Helck, W., Otto, E. and Westendorf, W. (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols. (Wiesbaden, 19751992).

Kaplony (1976) Kaplony, P., Studien zum Grab des Methethi, [Riggisberg] Abegg-Stiftung (Bern, c1976). Kayser (1954) Kayser, H., Die Mastaba des Uhemka. Ein Grab in der Wüste. Reprint of the Zeitschrift des Museums zu Hildesheim, Band 15 (Hannover, 1954).

Lacau (1914) Lacau, P., ‘Suppressions et modifications de signes dans les textes funéraire’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 51 (1914).

183 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Lacau–Lauer (1965) Lacau, P. and Lauer, J.-Ph., La pyramide à degrés. Tome V. Inscriptions à l’encre sur les vases, Institut français d’Archéologie orientale (Le Caire, 1965).

LD Erg. Lepsius, C. R., Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. Ergänzungsband, J. C. Hinrich (Leipzig, 1897-1913, re-printed Osnabruck, 1970)

Lashien (2013) Lashien, M., The Chapel of Kahai and his Family, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports 33, (Oxford, 2013).

Lichtheim (1973) Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley, 1973).

Leclant (1952) Leclant, J., ‘Fouilles et travaux en Egypte’, Orientalia N.S. (1950-1951) 21 (1952) 240-1.

Lichtheim (1988) Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: a study and an anthology (Göttingen, 1988).

Leclant–Minault-Gout (2000) Leclant, J., and Minault-Gout, A., ‘Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan (1998-1999)’, Orientalia N.S., 69 (2000) 245, pl. 17 (8). Lehner (1992) Lehner, M., ‘Excavations at Giza 1988-1991: The Location and Importance of the Pyramid Settlement’, The Oriental Institute News and Notes, No. 135 Fall, University of Chicago (Chicago, 1992). Lehner (2002) Lehner, M., ‘The pyramid age settlement of the Southern Mount at Giza’, JARCE 39 (2002) 27-74 Lehner (2004) Lehner, M., Giza Plateau Mapping Project, 20032004 Annual Report, The Oriental Institute, 64-71. Retrieved from http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/0304_Giza.pdf Lehner (2006) Lehner, M., Giza Plateau Mapping Project, 20052006 Annual Report, The Oriental Institute, 53-54, 55-57, 60. Retrieved from http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/05-06_Giza.pdf Lehner (2007) Lehner M., Giza Plateau Mapping Project, 20062007 Season, Annual Report, The Oriental Institute, 55, 59-61, 64, 66, 71-74. Lehner–Wetterstrom (2007) Lehner M. and Weterstrom, W. (eds), Giza Reports, The Giza Mapping Project, vol. 1, Ancient Egypt Research Associates Inc. (Brighton MA, 2006). Leprohon (1985) Leprohon, R.J., Corpus Antiquatum Aegyptiacarum, (Mainz am Rhein, 1985). LD II Lepsius, C.R., Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Tafelwerke, Abteilung II, (Berlin, 184959, re-printed 1972).

Lichtheim (1992) Lichtheim, M., Maat in Egyptian Autobiographies and Related Studies (Göttingen, 1992). Lloyd et al. (1990) Lloyd, A.B., Spencer, A.J., and El-Khouli, A., Saqqâra Tombs. Volume II. The Mastabas of Meru, Semdenti, Khui and Others, Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Fortieth Memoir, Egypt Exploration Society (London, 1990). Lloyd et al. (2008) Lloyd, A.B., Spencer, A.J., El-Khouli, A., Saqqara Tombs III: The Mastaba of Neferseshemptah (London, 2008). Luft (1992) Luft, U., The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Studies Kákosy, Studia Aegyptiaca (Budapest, 1992). Lythgoe (1916) Lythgoe, M.M., ‘The Tomb of Perneb’, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, XI (New York, 1916). Lythgoe–Ransom Williams (1918) Lythgoe, M.M. and Ransom Williams, C.L, The Tomb of Perneb (New York, 1918). M McFarlane (1987) McFarlane, A., ‘The First Nomarch of Akhmim’, GM 100 (Göttingen, 1987) 63-70. McFarlane (2000) McFarlane, A., The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara. Volume I: The Tomb of Irukaptah, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 15 (Warminster, 2000). McFarlane (2003) McFarlane, A., Mastabas at Saqqara: Kaiemheset, Kaipunesut, Kaiemsenu, Sehetepu and Others, The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 20 (Oxford, 2003).

184 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Mackay et al. (1929) Mackay, E., Harding, L., Petrie, W.M.F., Bahrein and Hemamieh, (London, 1929). Macramallah (1935) Macramallah, R., Le Mastaba d’Idout, Fouilles à Saqqarah. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1935). Malek (1991) Malek, J., review of Cherpion, N., Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire (Bruxelles, 1989) in: Discussions in Egyptology 20 (Oxford, 1991) 93-100. Manuelian (1998) Der Manuelian, P., ‘A Case of Prefabrication at Giza? The False Door of Inti’, JARCE 35 (1998) 115-127. Manuelian (2003) Der Manuelian, P., Slab Stelae of the Giza Necropolis, Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt, Number 7 (New Haven and Philadelphia, 2003). Manuelian (2006) Der Manuelian, P., ‘A re-examination of Reisner’s Nucleus cemetery concept at Giza. Preliminary remarks on Cemetery G 2100’ in: M. Bárta (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague 2004 (Prague, 2006). Markowitz–Haynes–Freed (2002) Markowitz, Y.J., Haynes, J.L., and Freed, R.E. Egypt in the Age of the Pyramids. Highlights from the Harvard University–Museum of Fine Arts Boston Expedition (Boston, 2002). Mariette (1889) Mariette, A., (ed.) Maspero, G.C.C., Les mastabas de l’ancien empire (Paris, 1889). Martin (1979) Martin, G.T.M., The Tomb of Hetepka and Other Reliefs and Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqâra 1964-1973. Texts from Excavations. Fourth Memoir, Egypt Exploration Society (London, 1979). Martin-Pardey (1976) Martin-Pardey, E., Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Provinzialverwaltung bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches, Verlag Gebrüder Gerstenberg (Hildesheim, 1976). Mathieu (2010) Mathieu, B., ‘Mais qui est donc Osiris ? Ou la politique sous le linceul de la religion’ in: ENiM 3 (2010) 77-107. MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, Mainz/Rhein.

Michalowski et al (1950) Michalowski, K., Desroches, C., de Linage, J., Manteuffel, J. and Zejmo-Zejmis, S., Tell-Edfou 1939. Fouilles Franco-polonaises, Rapports III (Le Caire, 1950) Mogensen (1918) Mogensen, M., Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques du Musée national de Copenhague (Copenhague, 1918). Mogensen (1921) Mogensen, M., Le Mastaba égyptien de la Glyptothèque Ny Carlsberg, Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag (Copenhagen, 1921). Mohr (1943) Mohr, H.T., The Mastaba of Hetep-her-akhti. The study of an Egyptian Tomb Chapel in the Museum of Antiquities, Leiden (Leiden, 1943). Montet (1924) Montet, P., Les Scènes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux égyptiens de l’ancien empire, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg, Fasc. 24 (Strasbourg, Paris and Oxford, 1924). Moreno Garcia (1997) Moreno Garcia, J.C., Études sur l’administration, le pouvoir et l’idéologie en Égypte, de l’Ancien au Moyen Empire (Liége, 1997). Moreno Garcia (1999) Moreno Garcia, J.C., ‘Administration territoriale et organisation de l’espace en Égypte au troisième millénaire avant J.-C. (V): gz-pr’, ZÄS 126 (1999) 116131. Moreno Garcia (2005) Moreno Garcia, Juan Carlos, ‘Deux Familles de Potentats Provinciaux et les Assises de leur Pouvoir: ElKab et El-Hawawish sous la VIe Dynastie’ in Revue d’Égyptologie, 56 (2005) 96 - 127. Moreno Garcia (2007) Moreno Garcia, Juan Carlos, “A New Old Kingdom Inscription from Giza (CGC 57163) and the Problems of sn-Dt in Pharaonic Third Millennium Society”, JEA 93 (2007) 117-136. Moussa–Altenmüller (1971) Moussa, A.M. and Altenmüller, H., The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-hay. Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 5, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Philipp von Zabern (Mainz am Rhein, 1971). Moussa–Altenmüller (1977) Moussa, A.M. and Altenmüller, H., Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara.

185 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Archäologisches Veröffentlichungen 21, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Philipp von Zabern (Mainz am Rhein, 1977). Moussa–Junge (1975) Moussa, A.M. and Junge, F., Two Tombs of Craftsmen. Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 9, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Philipp von Zabern (Mainz am Rhein, 1975). Munro (1993) Munro, P., Der Unas-Friedhof Nord-West, Topographisch-historische Einleitung, Volume I: Das Doppelgrab der Königinnen Nebet und Khenut, Philipp von Zabern (Mainz am Rhein, 1993) Murray (1905) Murray, M.A., Saqqara Mastabas, I (London, 1905).

Nims (1938) Nims, Charles, F., ‘Some Notes on the Family of Mereruka’ JAOS 58 (1938) 638-47. O O’Connor (1983) O’Connor, D.J., ‘New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552-664’ in: B.G. Trigger, et al. (eds), Ancient Egypt: a social history (Cambridge, New York, 1983). Onderka (2009) Onderka, P., Tomb of Unisankh at Saqqara and Chicago (Prague, 2009). Oxford Database (2006) Oxford Expedition To Egypt: Scene-details Database, Linacre College, Oxford, (2006).

P

MW Miscellanae Wilbourniana. Myśliwiec (2004) Myśliwiec, K., Saqqara I: The Tomb of Merefnebef (Varsovie, 2004). Myśliwiec (2005) Myśliwiec, K., ‘Fefi and Temi, posthumous neighbours (Sixth Dynasty, Saqqara)’ in: K. Daoud, S. Bedier, S. Abd El-Fatah (eds), Studies in honor of Ali Radwan, CASAE 34, volume II, (Le Caire, 2005) 197-211. Myśliwiec (2010a) Myśliwiec, K., ‘Father and eldest son’s overlapping feet, an iconographic’, in: Z. Hawass, P. der Manuelian, R.B. Hussein (eds), Perspectives on Ancient Egypt. Studies in honor of Edward Brovarski, CASAE 40, (Le Caire, 2010) 305-334.

Paget et al. (1898) Paget, R.F.E., Pirie, A.A. and Griffith, F.L., The Tomb of Ptah-hetep II, Egypt Research Account Volume II (London, 1898). PAM Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean Peck (1958) Peck, C. N., Some Decorated Tombs of the First Intermediate Period at Naga ed-Dêr, PhD Dissertation, University Microfilms, Department of Egyptology, Brown University (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1958). Peet–Loat (1913) Peet, T.E. and Loat, W.L.S., The Cemeteries of Abydos II: 1912-13, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1913).

Myśliwiec (2010b) Myśliwiec K., ‘The Mysterious Mereris, sons of Nyankh-nefertem (Sixth Dynasty, Saqqara), in: A. Woods, A. McFarlane, S. Binder (eds), Egyptian Culture and Society. Studies in honour of Naguib Kanawati, CASAE 38, volume II (Le Caire, 2010) 71-91.

Petrie (1890) Petrie, W.M.F., Kahun, Gurob and Hawara (London, 1890).

Myśliwiec and Kuraszkiewicz (2010) Myśliwiec, K. and Kuraszkiewicz, K. O., Saqqara IV, The Funerary Complex of Nyankhnefertem (Warsaw, 2010).

Petrie (1898) Petrie, W.M.F., Deshasheh 1897, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1898).

N Nicholson–Shaw (2000) Nicholson, P.T. and Shaw, I. (eds), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge University, 2000).

Petrie (1892) Petrie, W.M.F., Medum (London, 1892).

Petrie (1900) Petrie, W.M.F., Dendereh (London, 1900). Petrie–Murray (1952) Petrie, H.F. and Murray, M.A., Seven Memphite Tomb Chapels, British School of Egyptian Archaeology, Volume LXV (London, 1952).

186 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  PM Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B., Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1927-52, 2nd edn. 1960-81). Porter–Moss (1962) Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, Vol V. Upper Egypt: Sites, (Oxford, first published 1937, reissued 1962). Porter–Moss (1974) Porter, B. and Moss, R. L. B., Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, Vol. III, Memphis Part 1: Abu Rawash to Abusir, Second edition revised and augmented by J. Malek, (Oxford, 1974). Porter–Moss (1981) Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B., Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. III. Memphis Part 2: Saqqara to Dahshur, Second edition, revised and augmented by J. Malek (Oxford, 1981). Porter–Moss (1991) Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, Vol. VI. Upper Egypt: Chief Temples (excluding Thebes), (Oxford, first published 1939, re-issued 1970, reprinted 1991). Posener-Krieger (1968) Posener-Krieger, P., Abu Sir Papyri (London, 1968). Posener-Krieger (1976) Posener-Krieger, P., Les archives du Temple funéraire de Neferirkare-Kakai (Les papyrus d’Abousir) Traduction et Commentaire, 2 volumes, Bibliothèque d’étude 65 (Le Caire, 1976). Posener-Krieger et al. (2007) Posener-Krieger, P., Verner, M. and Vymazalova, H., Abusir X - The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef: The Papyrus Archive (Prague, 2007). Q Quibell (1907) Quibell, J.E., Excavations at Saqqara 1905-14, 5 Volumes (Cairo, 1907-13). Quibell (1909) Quibell, J.E., Excavations at Saqqara (1907-1908), Volume 3. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1909). Quibell (1913) Quibell, J.E., Excavations at Saqqara (1911-1912): Volume 5, The Tomb of Hesy. Service des Antiquités

de l’Égypte, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1913). Quibell–Hayter (1927) Quibell, J.E. and Hayter, A.G.K., Excavations at Saqqara. Volume 8, Teti Pyramid, North Side. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1927). R Reisner (1913) Reisner, G.A. ‘A Family of Builders of the Sixth Dynasty, about 2600 B.C.’, BMFA 11, No. 66 (Boston, November 1913) 53-66. Reisner (1927) Reisner, G.A. ‘The Tomb of Meresankh, a greatGranddaughter of Queen Hetep-Heres I and Sneferuw’, BMFA 25 (Boston, 1927) 64-79. Reisner (1929) Reisner, G.A. ‘Nefertkauw, the Eldest Daughter of Sneferuw’ ZÄS 64 (1929) 97-99. Reisner (1936) Reisner, G.A., The Development of the Egyptian Tomb down to the Accession of Cheops (Harvard, 1936). Reisner (1939) Reisner, G.A. ‘A Family of Royal Estate Stewards of Dynasty 5’ BMFA 37 (Boston, 1939) 29-35. Reisner (1942) Reisner, G.A., A History of the Giza Necropolis, Volume I. Harvard University Press (Cambridge Massachusetts, 1942). Reisner–Fisher (1914), Reisner G.A. and Fisher, C.S. ‘Preliminary Report on the Work of the Harvard-Boston Expedidtion in 191113’, ASAE 13 (1914). Riefstahl (1944) Riefstahl, E., Patterned Textiles in Pharaonic Egypt, Brooklyn Museum (New York, 1944). Robins (1994) Robins, G., Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art, University of Texas Press (Austin, 1994). Robins (1998) Robins, G., ‘Piles of Offerings: Paradigms of Limitation and Creativity in Ancient Egyptian Art’, in: C.J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995 (Leiden, 1998) 957-963. Roeder (1901-24) Roeder, G. (ed.), Aegyptische Inschriften aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin, 2 vols (Berlin, 1901-24).

187 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Roth (1993) Roth, A.M., ‘Social Change in the Fourth Dynasty: The Spatial Organization of Pyramids, Tombs and Cemeteries’ JARCE 30 (1993) 33-55. Roth (1994a) Roth, A.M., ‘The practical economics of tombbuilding in the Old Kingdom: a visit to the necropolis in a carrying chair’, in: D.P. Silverman (ed.), For his ka: essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1994). Roth (1994b) Roth, A.M., ‘Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire: Le Problème de la datation by Nadine Cherpion Review’ JNES, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan., 1994) 55-58. Roth (1995) Roth, A.M., A Cemetery of Palace Attendants, Including G 2084-2099, G 2230 + 2231, and G 2240. Giza Mastabas, Volume 6, edited by P. der Manuelian and W.K. Simpson, Department of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1995). Roth (1999) Roth, A.M., ‘The Absent Spouse: Patterns and Taboos in Egyptian Tomb Decoration’, JARCE Volume 36 (1999) 37-53. Roth (2006a) Roth, A. M., ‘Multiple Meanings in Carrying Chair Scenes’ in: M. Fitzenreiter and M. Herb (Hrsg.) Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, IBAES VI (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2006). Roth (2006b) Roth, A.M., ‘Little women: gender and hierarchic proportion in Old Kingdom mastaba chapels’ in: M. Barta (ed), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology. Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, May 31–June 4, 2004, pp. 281–296, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2006). Russmann (1995) Russmann, E. R., ‘A Second Style in Egyptian Art of the Old Kingdom’, MDAIK 51 (1995) 269-279. Ryholt (2004) Ryholt, K., ‘The Turin King-List’, Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004) 135-155. S Saad (1940) Saad, Z.Y., ‘A Preliminary report on the Excavations at Saqqara, 1939-1940’, ASAE, 40 (1940) 675-693. SAK Studien zur Altagyptischen Kultur, Hamburg.

Saleh (1977) Saleh, M., Three Old Kingdom Tombs at Thebes: The Tomb of Unas-Ankh no. 413. II. The Tomb of Khenty no. 405. III. The Tomb of Ihy no. 186, I, trans. M. Bullock (Mainz/Rhein, 1977). Säve-Söderberg (1994) Säve-Söderberg, T., The Old Kingdom Cemetery at Hamra Dom (El-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad) (Stockholm, 1994). Schäfer (1986) Schäfer, H., Principles of Egyptian Art. Trans. and edited by J. Baines (Oxford, 1986). Schürmann (1983) Schürmann, W., Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-nefret. Eine Bilddokumentation des Badischen Landesmuseums Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe, 1983). Schmitz (1976) Schmitz, B., Untersuchungen zum Titel sl-njswt “Konigssohn”, Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Agyptologie Heft 2 (Bonn, 1976). Sethe (1933) Urk. I Sethe, K., Urkunden des alten Reichs, Volume I (Leipzig, 1933). Sharawi–Harpur (1988) Sharawi, G. and Harpur, Y., ‘The identity and positions of relief fragments from museums and private collections. Reliefs from various tombs at Saqqara’, JEA 74 (1988) 57-67. Silverman (1994) Silverman, D.P. (ed.), For his ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1994). Simpson (1976a) Simpson, W.K., The Offering Chapel of Sekhemankh-ptah in the Museum of Fine, Arts, Boston. Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1976). Simpson (1976b) Simpson, W.K., The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. G 7101 and 7102, Giza Mastabas Volume 2. Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1976). Simpson (1978) Simpson, W.K., The Mastabas of Kawab, Khafkhufu I and II. G 7110-20, 7130-40, and 7150 and subsidiary mastabas of Street G 7100, Giza Mastabas Volume 3. Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1978). Simpson (1980) Simpson, W.K., Mastabas of the Western Cemetery. Part I Sekhemka, Tjetu I, Iasen, Penmeru, Hagy,

188 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Nefertjentet and Herunefer, Djaty, Tjetu II and Nemesti. Giza Mastabas, Volume 4. Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art. In collaboration with the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt. Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1980). Simpson (1992) Simpson, W.K., The Offering Chapel of Kayemnofret in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1992). Simpson (2006) Simpson, W.K., The Offering Chapel of Kayemnofret in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, (Boston, 1992). Smith (1942) Smith, W.S., ‘The Origin of Some Unidentified Old Kingdom Reliefs’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1942) 509-531. Smith (1952) Smith, W.S., ‘Inscriptional Evidence for the History of the Fourth Dynasty’, JNES XI (1952) 113-128. Smith (1958) Smith, W.S., ‘The Judge goes Fishing’, BMFA 56 [304] (1958) 56-63. Smith (1963) Smith, W.S., ‘The Stela of Prince Wepemnofret’, Archaeology 16 (1963) 2–13. Smolenski (1907) Smolenski, T., ‘Le Tombeau d’un Prince de la VIe Dynastie à Charouna’, ASAE 8 (1907) 149-153. Sourdive (1984) Sourdive, C., La main dans L’Égypte pharonique: Recherches de morphologie structurale sur les objets égyptiens comportant une main (Bern, 1984). Spalinger (1994) Spalinger, A., ‘Dated Texts of the Old Kingdom’, SAK 21 (1994). Staehelin (1975) Staehelin, E., ‘Arm- und Fußreife’, LÄ I (1975) 441-443. Staehelin (1966) Staehelin, E., Untersuchen zur ägyptischen Tracht im Alten Reich, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 8 (Berlin, 1966). Steindorff (1913) Steindorff, G., Das Grab des Ti. Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Ägypten. Zweiter Band. J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung (Leipzig, 1913). Strudwick (1985) Strudwick, N., The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom (London, 1987).

Strudwick (2005) Strudwick, N., Texts from the Pyramid Age, R. J. Leprohon (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 16 (Atlanta, 2005). Swinton (2001) Swinton, J., The Dating of the Tombs of Officials of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, unpublished Masters of Arts Honours Thesis (Macquarie University, 2001). T Taylor (2001) Taylor, J.H., Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (London, 2001). Tefnin (1984) Tefnin, R., ‘Discours et iconicité dans l’art égyptien’, GM 79 (1984) 55-72. Terrace (1968) Terrace, E.L.B., ‘Masterpieces of the Pyramid Age in Boston’, The Connoisseur, July 1968, Volume 168, No. 677 (London, 1968) 197-204. Trigger (1983) Trigger, B.G., et al. (eds.) Ancient Egypt: a social history, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge New York, 1983). U Urk. Sethe, K., Urkunden des alten Reichs, Volume I (Leipzig, 1933). V Vachala (2004) Vachala, B., Abusir VIII. Die Reliefs aus der Ptahschepses-Mastaba in Abusir. Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2004). Vachala (2004) Vachala, B., Abusir VIII. Die Relieffragmente aus der Mastaba des Ptahshepses in Abusir, Czech National Centre for Egyptology (Prague, 2004). van der Walle (1930) van der Walle, B., The Mastaba de Neferirtenef (Bruxelles, 1930). van de Walle (1978) van de Walle, B., La Chapelle funéraire de Neferirtenef. Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire (Brussels, 1978). Vandier (1950) Vandier, J., Mo’alla. La Tombe d’Ankhtifi et la tombe de Sebekhotep. Bibliothèque d’Étude, Tome XVIII. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1950).

189 

DATING THE TOMBS OF THE EGYPTIAN OLD KINGDOM  Vandier Manuel III (1958) Vandier, J., Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne III: La statuaire (Paris, 1958). Vandier Manuel IV (1964) Vandier, J., Manuel d’Archéologie Égyptienne: Basreliefs et Peintures Scènes de la Vie Quotidienne IV (Paris, 1964). Vandier Manuel V (1969) Vandier, J., Manuel d’Archéologie Égyptienne: Basreliefs et Peintures Scènes de la Vie Quotidienne V (Paris, 1969). Vandier Manuel VI (1978) Vandier, J., Manuel d’Archéologie Égyptienne: Basreliefs et Peintures Scènes de la Vie Quotidienne VI (Paris, 1978). van Walsem (1989) van Walsem, R., ‘The Mastaba Project at Leiden University’ in: S. Schoske (ed.), Akhten des vierten Ägyptologen kongresses, München 1985, II (Hamburg, 1989). van Walsem (1995) van Walsem, R., ‘Iconographic Programmes in Old Kingdom Elite Tombs’ in: Eyre (ed.), Proceedings Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists (1995). van Walsem (1998) van Walsem, R., ‘The Interpretation of Iconographic Programmes in Old Kingdom Elite Tombs of the Memphite Area: Methodological and Theoretical (Re)considerations’, in: C. J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995 (Leiden, 1998) 1205-1213. van Walsem (2005) van Walsem, R., Iconography of Old Kingdom Elite Tombs: Analysis and Interpretation, Theoretical and Methodological Aspects, Mémoires de la Société d’Études Orientales 35, (Leiden, 2005). van Walsem (2006) van Walsem, R., ‘Sense and Sensibility. On the Analysis and Interpretation of the Iconography Programmes of Four Old Kingdom Elite Tombs’ in: M. Fitzenreiter und M. Herb (Hrsg.), Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, IBAES VI, (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2006). van Walsem, (2008) van Walsem, R., Mastabase [electronic resource]: the Leiden Mastaba project (Leiden, 2008). Varille (1938) Varille, A., La Tombe de Ni-Ankh-Pepi à Zâouyet elMayetîn. Mémoires de l’Institut Français du Caire,

Tome LXX, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1938). Verner (1977) Verner, M., The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. The Excavations of the Czechoslovak Institute of Egyptology at Abusir 1 (Prague, 1977). Verner (1979) Verner, M., Czechoslovak Excavations at Abusir, Acts of the First International Congress.of Egyptology, Cairo 2-10.1976 (Berlin, 1979). Verner (1986) Verner, M., Abusir I. The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. I/1 Reliefs. The Excavations of the Czechoslovak Institute of Egyptology, Charles University (Prague, 1986). Verner–Callender (2002) Verner, M. and Callender, V.G., Abusir VI. Djedkare’s Family Cemetery, Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2002). Vischak (2006a) Vischak, D.A., ‘Agency in Old Kingdom Elite Tomb Programs: Traditions, Locations and Variable Meanings’ in: Fitzenreiter, M., and Herb, M. (eds), Dekorierte Grabanlagen imm Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, IBAES VI (London, 2006) 255-276. Vischak (2006b) Vischak, D.A., Locality and Community in Old Kingdom Provincial Tombs: The Cemetery at Qubbet el-Hawa, (Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2006). Vlčková (2005) Vlčková, P., ‘Abusir South at the End of the Old Kingdom’ in: K. Piquette, S. Love, Current Research in Egyptology 2003: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium, Institute of Archaeology, University College, London 18-19 January 2003 (Oxford, 2005) 163-178. von Beckerath (1984) von Beckerath, J., Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (München, 1984). von Beckerath (1997) von Beckerath, J., Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten (Mainz, 1997). von Bissing I (1905) von Bissing, F.W., Die Mastaba das Gem-ni-kai, Band I (Berlin, 1905). von Bissing II (1911) von Bissing, F.W., Die Mastaba das Gem-n-kai, Band II (Leipzig, 1911).

190 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  von Droste zu Hülshoff (1980) von Droste zu Hülshoff, V., Der Igel im alten Ägypten (Hildesheim, 1980). Vymazalová (2011) Vymazalová, H. et al., Abusir XXII. The Tomb of Kaiemtjenenet (AS 38) and the surrounding structures (AS 57-60) (Prague, 2011). Vymazalová–Bárta (2008) Vymazalová, H. and Bárta, M. (eds), Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt (The Third Millennium B.C.). Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague (June 11-14, 2007) Czech Institute of Egyptology (Prague, 2008). W Waddell (1971) Waddell, W.G. (ed.), Manetho. The Loeb Classical Library 350, series ed. George P. Goold, William Heinemann ltd., Harvard University Press (London and Cambridge, 1940). Weeks (1979) Weeks, K.R., ‘Art, Word, and the Egyptian World View: in: Weeks, K.R. (ed.), Egyptology and the Social Sciences: Five Studies. The American University in Cairo Press (Cairo, 1979). Weeks (1994) Weeks, K.R., Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000. Including G 6010 (Neferbauptah); G 6020 (Iymery); G 6030 (Ity); G 6040 (Shepseskafankh), Giza Mastabas, Volume 5 (Boston ,1994). Weeks, N. (1983) Weeks, N., ‘“Care” of Officials in the Egyptian Old Kingdom’, CdÉ LVIII, Nos. 115-116 (1983) 5-22. Wild (1953) Wild, H., Le Tombeau de Ti, Fasc. II [1], La chapelle. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institute Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire (Cairo, 1953). Wild (1966) Wild, H., Le Tombeau de Ti, Fasc. III [2], La chapelle. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire (Cairo, 1966). Williams (1932) Williams, C.R., The Decoration of the Tomb of Perneb (New York, 1932).

Wimmer (1998) Wimmer, S., ‘Hieroglyphs – Writing and Literature’ in: Schulz, R. and Seidel, M. (eds), Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs (Cologne, 1998). Woods (2006) Woods, A., ‘The Composite Fishing and Fowling Scene in the tomb of Remni at Saqqara’, BACE 17 (Sydney, 2006) 137-157. Woods (2008) Woods, A., ‘A day in the marshes’: a study of Old Kingdom marsh scenes in the tombs of the Memphite cemeteries. Unpublished thesis (Macquarie University, 2008). Woods (2009) Woods, A., ‘Contribution to a Controversy: A Date for the Tomb of Kaiemankh at Giza’, JEA 95 (2009) 161-174. Woods (2010) Woods, A., ‘A Date for the Tomb of Seneb at Giza: Revisited’: in Woods, A., McFarlane, A. and S. Binder (eds) Egyptian Culture and Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati. 2 volumes. Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities Press (Cairo, 2010) 301-331. Wreszinski (1923) Wreszinski, W., Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil I. J. C. (Leipzig, 1923). Wreszinski (1936) Wreszinski, W., Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil III. Graber des Alten Reiches. J. C. Hinrichs Verlag (Leipzig, 1936). Z ZÄS Zeitschrift fur Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Berlin. Ziegler (1990) Ziegler, C., Catalogue des stèles, peintures et reliefs égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire et de la Première Période Intermédiaire vers 2686-2040 avant J.-C. Département des Antiquités Égyptiennes, Musée du Louvre. Éditions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux (Paris, 1990). Ziegler (1993) Ziegler, C., Le Mastaba d’Akhethetep. Une chapelle funéraire de l’Ancien Empire. Département des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Louvre. Réunion des Musées Nationaux (Paris, 1993).

Wilson (1954) Wilson, J.A., ‘A Group of Sixth Dynasty Inscriptions’, JNES 13 (1954) 243.

191